Note: In the following the three Episcopal readings are listed (OT, Gospel, Epistle), then the three Presbyterian readings, then the Lutheran readings. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

Episcopal Readings:

Proverbs 10:1-12

Wise Sayings of Solomon

10:1 The proverbs of Solomon.

A wise child makes a glad father,

but a foolish child is a mother's grief.

2 Treasures gained by wickedness do not profit,

but righteousness delivers from death.

3 The LORD does not let the righteous go hungry,

but he thwarts the craving of the wicked.

4 A slack hand causes poverty,

but the hand of the diligent makes rich.

5 A child who gathers in summer is prudent,

but a child who sleeps in harvest brings shame.

6 Blessings are on the head of the righteous,

but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence.

7 The memory of the righteous is a blessing,

but the name of the wicked will rot.

8 The wise of heart will heed commandments,

but a babbling fool will come to ruin.

9 Whoever walks in integrity walks securely,

but whoever follows perverse ways will be found out.

10 Whoever winks the eye causes trouble,

but the one who rebukes boldly makes peace.

11 The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life,

but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence.

12 Hatred stirs up strife,

but love covers all offenses. (Proverbs 10:1-12, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here with some editing from May 26, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 25, Year Two).

The Book of Proverbs has an extended introduction (chaps. 1-9). This reading begins with a title, “The Proverbs of Solomon” (Prov. 10:1a), which marks the second section of the book (10:1-22:16). Minor subsections bear titles, “The words of the wise” (22:17), for 22:17-24:22, and “These also are sayings of the wise” (24:23), for 24:23-34. Other titles, or superscriptions, mark other sections: “These are other proverbs of Solomon that the officials of King Hezekiah of Judah copied” (Prov. 25:1), for chapters 25-29; “The words of Augur son of Jakeh. An oracle” (Prov. 30:1), for chapter 30; and “The words of King Lemuel. An oracle that his mother taught him” (Prov. 31:1), for chapter 31. The last two titles do not necessarily apply to the whole chapters. According to Harold C. Washington, in chapter 30 “the extent of Agur’s sayings (perhaps as far as v. 9) is uncertain” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Prov. 30:1-33). It’s rather evident in chapter 31 that the oracle which King Lemuel learned from his mother comprises verses 1-9, and that the remainder of the chapter, the alphabetic acrostic poem about the “capable wife” (v. 10), though not given a title of its own, is a separate section. The same might be said for the numerical sayings of chapter 30, especially verses 18-33 (cf. vv. 7, 15).

In the second and third sections of the Book of Proverbs (chaps. 10-24, and 25-29), the identification with Solomon in the titles does not necessarily mean that the proverbs all come from him. He became known for his wisdom (e.g., 1 Kings, chap. 10), and he probably both spoke and collected a number of proverbs. According to Israel’s prophetic historians, Solomon “composed (rB2d1y4v1, way ^edabbēr, lit. ‘spoke,’ cf. ‘spake’ AV/KJV) three thousand proverbs, and his songs numbered a thousand and five” (1 Kgs. 4:32 NRSV = Heb. 5:12). His spoken proverbs, perhaps recorded by attendants, probably set the pattern for “proverbs of Solomon” (hmolow4 yl2w4m9, mišlê š^elōmōh), and form the nucleus of a collection that would be supplemented later by “the officials of Hezekiah” (Prov. 25:1) and others. Paul E. Koptak refers to the largest collection of proverbs in the Book of Proverbs (chaps. 10-24) as “these anonymous sayings” (Proverbs, The NIV Application Commentary, 2003, p. 24).

As introduction to the second major section of Proverbs, the collection of separate proverbs in 10:1-23:16, Washington says,

The originally separate sayings in this collection are often bound together by catchwords and thematic associations. There is a general equation between wise and righteous on the one hand, fool and wicked on the other. Antithetical parallelism is characteristic of chs. 10-15; chs. 16-22 favor synonymous or synthetic parallelism in which the second line repeats or extends the thought of the first. (op. cit., on Prov. 10:1-22:16)

These characteristics appear already in the proverbs in today’s reading, each using antithetical parallelism between the first line (or ‘half-line’ as some would have it) and the second. One might see “catchword” or “thematic association” in the terms “righteousness” (hq!d!c4, ts ^edāqāh, Prov. 10:2) and “righteous” (qyD9c1, tsaddîq, v. 3; cf. ‘not,’ -xlo, lō’ at the beginning of vv. 2, 3), “righteous” versus “wicked” (Myf9w!r4, r ^ešā‘îm, v. 6, and again in v. 7). According to Koptak, “Beginning with the comparison of wise and foolish sons in 10:1, the collection of proverbs in chapters 10-15 brings together contrast after contrast, challenging readers to look closely at the many variations of opposition between the ‘righteous’ and the wicked’ ” (op. cit., p. 282, on Prov. 10:1-32). He adds that “the righteous and wicked contrasts are clustered in 10:1-11:13, thus placing ethical concerns at the forefront of this larger section of individual sayings (10:1-22:16)” (ibid., pp. 282-283).

But the variety of topics is apparent as well. Of the twelve proverbs in today’s reading, two are about “a son and his parents” (Ronald Worden, A Topical Arrangement of Proverbs, 2^nd ed., 1985, p. 29; this booklet uses categories based on those of R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs; Ecclesiastes; introduction, translation, and notes, 1965, pp. 130-131, 171): “A wise child makes a glad father, / but a foolish child is a mother’s grief” (Prov. 10:1), and “A child who gathers in summer is prudent, / but a child who sleeps in harvest brings shame” (10:5). The “opening proverb [1:1],” says Washington, “takes up the motif of father-son instruction from chs. 1-9 (15:20; Sir. 3:1-16)” (op. cit., on Prov. 10:1). According to Koptak, “The intended contrast . . . is not between joyful fathers and grieving mothers but between the honor or shame that comes to both parents based on their son’s choices” (op. cit., p. 288, on Prov. 10:1). Both parents would feel the shame of the lazy son who fails to help with the harvest (v. 5).

Two proverbs are on “poverty and wealth,” a subcategory under “proverbs on the human condition” (Topical Arrangement., p. 6): “Treasures gained by wickedness do not profit, / but righteousness delivers from death” (10:2), and “A slack hand causes poverty, / but the hand of the diligent makes rich” (10:4). “The truth of 10:2,” says Koptak, “can be attributed to the general order of the world, but in the final analysis it is Yahweh who sees to the care of the righteous (cf. also Ps. 37:19, 25; Prov. 13:21)” (op. cit., on v. 3). Koptak sees a “contrast between industry and idleness in verse 4” which is “enriched” in verse 5 “with a twist”: “The one who gathers is wise, but the one who sleeps is not called a fool as we would expect; instead, he is a shameful son. Substitutions like this are a kind of association, and here it links folly with disgrace” (ibid., on v. 5). “In sum,” adds Koptak,

the individual lines of 10:1-5 are sewn together in pairs and quartets to assemble a complex quilt of values and admonitions. The beauty of the picture that results is diminished when the pieces are only viewed in isolation. In other words, these sayings are meant to be read as individual parts but then integrated into larger wholes. What is gained are the insights into the interaction between pairs, each enriching the meaning of the other ‘as iron sharpens iron.’ (ibid., p. 289, on vv. 1-5)

One might consider the proverb on the topic of “providential rewards and punishments” (Topical Arrangement., p. 3), “The LORD does not let the righteous go hungry, / but he thwarts the craving of the wicked” (10:3), as related to the five on the topic of “good and evil men” (ibid., p. 16): “Blessings (tOkr!!B4, b ^erākôth) are on the head of the righteous (qyD9c1, tsaddîq), / but the mouth of the wicked (Myf9w!r4, r ^ešā‘îm) conceals violence” (10:6), “The memory of the righteous is a blessing (lit., ‘for a blessing’ hk!r!b4l9, livrākāh), / but the name of the wicked (Myf9w!r4, r ^ešā‘îm) will rot” (10:7), “Whoever walks in integrity walks securely, / but whoever follows perverse ways will be found out” (10:9), “Whoever winks the eye causes trouble, / but the one who rebukes boldly makes peace” (10:10), and “The mouth of the righteous(qyD9c1, tsaddîq) is a fountain of life, / but the mouth of the wicked (Myf9w!r4, r ^ešā‘îm) conceals violence” (v. 11). Koptak, following the Hebrew text, translates verse 10, not as a contrasting antithesis, but as two statements about the “fool”: “He who winks maliciously causes grief, / and a chattering fool comes to ruin” (p. 281, translation of Prov. 10:10). The NRSV translation is based on the Septuagint in the second line: “Whoever winks the eye causes trouble, / but the one who rebukes boldly makes peace” (Prov. 10:10 NRSV). The NRSV text note a says, “Gk: Heb. but a babbling fool will come to ruin.” “The second line of the verse,” says Koptak, “is identical with 10:8, and this second repetition of a line (cf. 10:6b, 11b) suggests an intentional arrangement” (on v. 10).

 The tendency of these proverbs to equate wisdom with goodness and folly with evil would suggest that the proverb here on “wise men and fools” (Topical Arrangement, p. 10) is also related, “The wise of heart will heed commandments, / but a babbling fool will come to ruin (10:8). The remaining proverb in this reading has been classified as one about “various vices and virtues” (ibid., p. 35), “Hatred stirs up strife, / but love covers all offenses (10:12).

1 Timothy 1:1-17

1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

2 To Timothy, my loyal child in the faith:

Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

3 I urge you, as I did when I was on my way to Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus so that you may instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine, 4 and not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies that promote speculations rather than the divine training that is known by faith. 5 But the aim of such instruction is love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith. 6 Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions.

8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. 9 This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, 10 fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching 11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

12 I am grateful to Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because he judged me faithful and appointed me to his service, 13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a man of violence. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, 14 and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 15 The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners-of whom I am the foremost. 16 But for that very reason I received mercy, so that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display the utmost patience, making me an example to those who would come to believe in him for eternal life. 17 To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:1-17 NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of February 16, 2009 (Monday in the week of the Sixth Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when comments were repeated with some editing from May 26, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 25, Year Two), when comments were repeated from May 16, 2005 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 18, Year One).

Paul begins his first Letter to Timothy with his characteristic salutation, in which he first identifies himself as the sender. “Paul, an apostle (ajpovstoloV, apostolos) of Christ Jesus by the command ( ejpitaghv, epitagē) of God our Savior (swthvr, sōtēr) and Christ Jesus our hope ( ejlpivV, elpis)” (1 Tim. 1:1). Compare the similar identification in 2 Timothy: “Paul, an apostle (ajpovstoloV, apostolos) of Christ Jesus by the will (qevlhma, thelēma) of God, for the sake of the promise ( ejpaggeliva, epangelia) of life that is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 1:1). “Notably,” says Philip H. Towner, “Paul identifies only himself as the author of this letter and gives no indication of additional co-sponsorship, a situation that may apply otherwise only to Romans and Ephesians” (The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT, 2006, pp. 94-95, on 1 Tim. 1:1-2). In so saying, Towner apparently overlooks the salutations to 2 Timothy and Titus. By calling himself an “apostle” (ajpovstoloV, apostolos), he uses a term familiar to us, defined by Frederick William Danker, as “ ‘one who is sent on a mission./assignment’ . . . especially of persons of extraordinary status in the work of the gospel ambassador, apostle, envoy: the twelve disciples of Jesus Mt. 10:2 [and others]” (The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2009, s.v. ajpovstoloV, apostolos). But, though it strikes us as unusual to apply the term Savior (swthvr, sōtēr) to God, it is not without precedent, both within the Septuagint and in the New Testament. Compare, “They will receive blessing from the LORD, / and vindication from the God of their salvation (Of&w4y9 yhelox$me, mē’ ^elōhê yiš‘ô)” (Ps. 24:5), with the Septuagint version, which ends with para; qeou: swth:roV aujtou: (para theou sōtēros (Ps. 23:5 LXX = Heb. 24:5). Danker lists swthvr (sōtēr, “savior”) as referring to “the God of Israel” in “Lk. 1:4;7; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Tit. 1:3; 2:10; 3:4; Jd. 25,” and as referring to Jesus Christ in “Lk. 2:11; Jn. 4:42” and fourteen other places (ibid., s.v. swthvr, sōtēr). The salutation in 2 Timothy explains “Christ Jesus our hope” (1 Tim. 1:1): “the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 1:1). “What is striking bout the ‘Savior’ title in 1 Timothy,” says Towner, “is its suppression as a christological category. Only God is designated ‘Savior’ (1:1; 2:3; 4:10)” (op. cit., p. 97, on 1 Tim. 1:1-2). This, he adds, reflects “the choice to emphasize other elements of Christology” (ibid.).

In 1 Timothy, Paul identifies the recipient: “To Timothy, my loyal child (tevknon, teknon) in the faith” (1 Tim. 1:2a); compare “To Timothy, my beloved child (tevknon, teknon)” (2 Tim. 1:2a). The word “child” is used here in an “extended sense . . . without focus on genetic kinship” (cf. Danker, The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2009, s.v. tevknon, teknon, meaning no. 3). The next line of the salutations is identical in both Epistles: “Grace, mercy ( e[leoV, eleos), and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Tim. 1:2b = 2 Tim. 1:2b). By including “mercy” in the salutations of 1 and 2 Timothy, these letters are distinguished from all other Pauline Epistles, which use “grace” and “peace,” but not “mercy,” even Titus, though some manuscripts include it there (Titus 1:4 mss. A C ² K 81 88 104 etc.).

The “Pauline Thanksgiving” comes immediately in Second Timothy. “I am grateful to God–whom I worship with a clear conscience, as my ancestors did–when I remember you constantly in my prayers night and day” (2 Tim. 1:3). The paragraph continues with personal references to Timothy’s faith, his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice. If there is a typical “Pauline Thanksgiving” in First Timothy, it is delayed until Paul has warned against the false teachings (1 Tim. 1:3-11), but apparently comes in the next paragraph (vv. 12-17). Paul is grateful that the Lord “judged me faithful and appointed me to his service” (v. 12), that he “received mercy” (v. 13) and grace (v. 14). These two beginnings reflect different circumstances. If Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment in A.D. 62 (when the record in Acts breaks off), there would be time for further activity, urging Timothy “as I did when I was on my way to Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus” (1 Tim 1:3), before being arrested and imprisoned in Rome a second time, when his death (under Nero’s persecution) was certain. “As for me, I am already being poured out as a libation, and the time of my departure has come” (2 Tim. 4:6).

In Second Timothy, Paul urges Timothy not to be ashamed of the gospel or of Paul, the Lord’s “prisoner” (2 Tim. 1:8). Timothy is to “Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:13). In First Timothy Paul warns against false teaching focused on “myths and endless genealogies that promote speculations rather than the divine training that is known by faith” (1 Tim. 1:4). The teachers apparently don’t understand the Mosaic law, “which is good, if one uses it legitimately” (v. 8). Clare Drury characterizes the list of “vices” in verses 9 and 10 as “an odd collection, including specific acts such as murder, matricide, and patricide alongside general characteristics such as sinfulness, unholiness, and profanity. At different levels such behaviour would incur disapproval in almost any society, not just under Jewish law” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 1222). Others have seen a series of “worst case” examples of the second part of the Decalogue in this list. For example, matricide and patricide would be the worst way of dishonoring parents. “Slave traders” (ajndrapodistaiv, andrapodistai), “men stealers” in the Authorized (King James) Version, would be the worst kind of stealing.

Paul turns from the description of false teachers to his own calling and ministry. He is grateful, he says, “to Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because he judged me faithful and appointed me to his service” (v. 12). He, as we all, has been the beneficiary of the Lord’s mercy. The Lord called him, as he says, “even though I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a man of violence” (v. 13a), but he “received mercy,” as he says, “because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief” (v. 13b); for “the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” (v. 14). Paul presents a series of “sure sayings” (pisto;V oJ lovgoV, pistos ho logos) in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11; Titus 3:8). The first is used here, and applied to himself. “The saying is sure (pisto;V oJ lovgoV, pistos ho logos) and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners–of whom I am the foremost” (v. 15). This saying explains the reason for the mercy shown to Paul, and for his calling. “But for that very reason I received mercy, so that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display the utmost patience, making me an example to those who would come to believe in him for eternal life” (v. 16). This “postponed” thanksgiving (vv. 12-17) draws to a close with a doxology. “To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen” (v. 17). The picture of Paul presented here is of “the blasphemer transformed into the faithful proclaimer,” says Margaret M. Mitchell, as she compares “the different portrayals in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 15:8-10; Gal. 1:13-24; Phil 3:5-11), and in Acts 9” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Tim. 1:12-17).

Matthew 12:22-32

Jesus and Beelzebul (Mk 3.19b-30; Lk 11.14-23)

22 Then they brought to him a demoniac who was blind and mute; and he cured him, so that the one who had been mute could speak and see. 23 All the crowds were amazed and said, "Can this be the Son of David?" 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, that this fellow casts out the demons." 25 He knew what they were thinking and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27 If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your own exorcists cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you. 29 Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his property, without first tying up the strong man? Then indeed the house can be plundered. 30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:22-32, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from October 23, 2009 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from May 26, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 25, Year Two) when comments were repeated from October 26, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One), when comments were repeated from October 21, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One). For recent comments on this episode from the perspective of Mark’s account, see the Archive for March 2, 2010 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two). For comments from the perspective of Luke’s account, see the Archive for May 30, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year One).

The occasion when Jesus was accused of casting out demons by Beelzebul appears in three Gospels (Mt. 12:22-30; Mk. 3:22-27; Lk. 11:14-23). In another episode from Matthew we meet the accusation, “By the ruler of the demons he casts out the demons”(Mt. 9:34, cf. vv.3, 32-34). And in John’s Gospel there are occasions when Jesus is accused of having a demon (Jn. 7:20; 10:20; 8:48, 52). These passages are included in a separate file Jesus and Beelzebul. Luke has the story in a different context than Matthew and Mark, as a part of his extended “Travel Narrative” (Lk. 9:51-18:14), which includes many of Jesus’ teachings with parallels in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere, and which includes parables found only in Luke (e.g. the Good Samaritan, Lk. 10:29-37; the Rich Fool, 12:16-21; the Prodigal Son, 15:11-32; and the Rich Man and Lazarus, 16:19-31). As for the parallels between Matthew and Mark, it seems that much of Matthew’s narrative of the early Galilean ministry comes later than the parallels in Mark, but though many of these stories are placed after the Sermon on the Mount, they still generally follow Mark’s sequence. With the Beelzebul story a sequence of close parallels between Matthew and Mark resumes: the Sin against the Holy Spirit (Mt. 12:31-37; Mk. 3:28-30), Jesus’ True Family (Mt. 12:46-50 [after the Sign of Jonah, 12:38-42 and the Return of the Evil Spirit, 12:43-45]), the Parable of the Sower (Mt. 13:1-9; Mk. 4:1-9) and the series of parables in Matthew 13 and Mark 4 (cf. Lk. 8). Even here Matthew brings in related material from other sources.

In spite of the generally parallel sequences in Matthew and Mark, the specific context of the Beelzebul controversy is different. Matthew begins with the healing of a blind and mute demoniac (Mt. 12:22; cf. 9:32–a mute demoniac–and Lk. 11:14), which becomes the occasion of the Pharisees’ accusation. Mark “sandwiches” the story between two parts of an account of Jesus’ relation to his family (Mk. 3:19b-21, 31-35). Some take Mark 3:21 to mean that Jesus’ family thought he was “out of his mind,” as in the New International Version, “When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’” But the two instances of “they” are indefinite–third person verb endings, sometimes the equivalent of an indefinite pronoun–and the NRSV distinguishes the first “they” (the family) from the second: “When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people [NIV’s ‘they’] were saying, ‘He has gone out of his mind’ ” (Mk. 3:21 NRSV). If, as many believe, Mark is one of Matthew’s sources, Matthew chose to pass over this comment in silence. Further down, if Matthew 12:47 (missing in some manuscripts) is an original part of Matthew’s text, their accounts of what Jesus said about his true family (Mt. 12:46-50; Mk. 3:31-35); are very similar. But the words, “ Someone said to him, ‘Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you’ ” (Mt. 12:47), are placed in brackets in the UBS Greek New Testament (4^th rev. ed., 1993), missing in important early witnesses, including x* [i.e., the original scribe of Codex Sinaiticus] B L and others, including some early Latin, Syriac and Coptic manuscripts. It is noteworthy that a later scribe added the verse to Codex Sinaiticus, as indicated by the sigla x¹.

“Then,” says Matthew, “they brought to him a demoniac who was blind and mute; and he cured him, so that the one who had been mute could speak and see” (Mt. 12:22; cf. Mt. 9:32a; Lk. 11:14a). In Mark, the accusation about Jesus casting out demons by Beelzebul (Mk. 3:22) is not within the report of an exorcism, but comes not long after the report of several exorcisms (Mk. 3:11-12). Upon seeing this miracle, the crowds express amazement. “All the crowds were amazed and said, ‘Can this be the Son of David?’ ” (Mt. 12:23). According to Dennis C. Duling, this “title, expanded from Mk. 10:47-48, is usual in the Gospel’s [i.e. Matthew’s] healing miracles; see 12:23; 15:22; 17:15 [?]; 20:30-31; cf. 21:9” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 9:27). But this evidence is a bit misleading. In Matthew 17:15, Jesus is addressed as “Lord,” not as “Son of David.” In Matthew 9:27, it and all the parallels have “Son of David,” and Matthew’s is not expanded. In Matthew 20:30-31, Matthew and all the parallels have “Son of David.” While the title Son of David is found only in Matthew in Matthew 15:22, the only parallel is in Mark, where the context is clearly gentile (“Syrophoenician”), and while only Matthew uses the title in the Triumphal Entry narrative, it is clearly not limited to Matthew’s Gospel. In Matthew’s earlier account of the healing of the deaf mute, “the crowds were amazed and said, ‘Never has anything like this been seen in Israel’ ” (Mt. 9:33b). Luke simply says, “and the crowds were amazed” (Lk. 11:14b). The Pharisees, however, in contrast to the crowds, seem offended by Jesus’ exorcism healing miracle. “But when the Pharisees heard it, they said ‘It is only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, that this fellow casts out the demons’ ” (Mt. 12:24; cf. Mt. 9:34; Mk. 3:22, where scribes from Jerusalem make the accusation; and Lk. 11:15, where “some of them,” not “the Pharisees,” make the accusation).

Jesus has an answer to this charge, a logical analogy showing that their charge is absurd. In Matthew, Jesus “knew what they were thinking and said to them, ‘Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand’ ” (Mt. 12:25; cf. Lk. 11:17). In Mark, a similar statement (Mk. 3:24-25) is prefaced by a rhetorical question: “How can Satan Cast out Satan?” (Mk. 3:23b). Mark is the only one who calls these analogies “parables” (Mk. 3:23a). In Matthew, Jesus follows with a rhetorical question, “If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?” (Mt. 12:26; cf. Lk. 11:18; cf. Mk. 3:23b, question, and v. 26, statement). Jesus challenges the Pharisees: “If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your own exorcists cast them out. Therefore they will be your judges” (Mt. 12:27 = Lk. 11:19, except for the conjunction dev, de, for kaiv, kai [Mt.], and a difference in word order in the last clause). Matthew’s word order puts the plural pronoun uJmw:n (hymōn) last for emphasis, “Therefore they will be judges of you.” After turning their charge against them, Jesus draws a conclusion. “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you” (Mt. 12:28). Compare, “But if it is by the finger (davktuloV, daktylos) of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you” (Lk. 11:20, cf. Exod. 8:19). In Exodus, when Pharaoh’s magicians try to duplicate Moses’ plague of gnats (Exod. 8:16-17), and they cannot (v. 18), they exclaim, “This is the finger (fBac4x,, ’etsba‘ , Heb. Exod. 8:15; davktuloV, daktylos, LXX 8:15) of God!” (Exod. 8:19 NRSV). According to William L. Holladay, the phrase ’etsba‘ ’ ^elōhîm [Myh9lox$ fBac4x,] means “works” in Exod. 8:15 (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. fBac4x,, ’etsba‘). Jesus, alluding to the striking metaphor of doing exorcisms “by the finger [= work] of God,” is cited by Luke, and Matthew interprets the metaphor, “by the Spirit of God.” Jesus continues with another version of the house/kingdom metaphor, asking, “Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his property, without first tying up the strong man? Then indeed the house can be plundered” (Mt:12:29; cf. Mk. 3:27). Luke’s version is more descriptive. “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his castle, his property is safe. But when one stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his plunder” (Lk. 11:21-22).

Dale C. Allison, Jr., comments on Jesus’ response to the charge that he casts out demons by Beelzebul:

Jesus first responds by appeal to common sense (vv. 25-6). But vv. 27-8 are difficult. If v. 27 urges that two similar activities (exorcisms of Jesus, exorcisms of others) should not be assigned to radically dissimilar sources (Beelzebul, God), v. 28 goes on to make a claim whose logic has seemed to many unclear. Why should Jesus’ exorcisms signal the coming of the kingdom? By his own reasoning should not the same be signaled by the exorcisms of others? But the questions miss the implicit Christological claim. Jesus accepts the miracles of others but holds his own to be of different import because of his identity as the Messiah. What matters is not the exorcisms but the exorcist (‘if I cast out demons’). The Messiah has come as victor over evil forces, so the kingdom is already establishing itself. (Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 861, on Mt. 12:22-37).

By continuing in Matthew and Mark with Jesus’ saying about “blasphemy against the (Holy Mk., cf. Lk.) Spirit,” it is implied that the Pharisees (Mt.) and/or the scribes (Mk.) have committed this sin. “Therefore I tell you,” says Jesus, “people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy” (Mt. 12:31a; cf. Mk. 3:28; Lk. 12:10a). Note that Luke uses the saying in a different context; even so “the scribes and the Pharisees began to be very hostile toward him and to cross-examine him about many things, lying in wait for him, to catch him in something he might say” (Lk. 11:53-54). In the speech that follows, Jesus is critical, warning, “Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, that is, their hypocrisy” (12:1b). Although God will forgive sins, Jesus adds, “but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Mt. 12:31b, 32; cf. Mk. 3:29; Lk. 12:10b). According to Duling, “Blaspheming usually involved dishonoring God’s name (see Ex. 20:7; Lev. 24:16; here [Mt. 9:3] Jesus’ implied claim to be able to forgive sins evokes the charge” (op. cit., on Mt. 9:3), and in the present context, he says, “Blasphemy against the Spirit [is] attributing Jesus’ Spirit-derived power to Satan” (ibid., on Mt. 12:31-32).

In the light of other biblical teaching, I believe it is true to say that if a person is concerned about it, he or she has not committed “the unpardonable sin,” because the concern is a part of the Holy Spirit’s dealing with this person.

Presbyterian Readings:

Prov. 3:11-20

11 My child, do not despise the LORD's discipline

or be weary of his reproof,

12 for the LORD reproves the one he loves,

as a father the son in whom he delights.

The True Wealth

13 Happy are those who find wisdom,

and those who get understanding,

14 for her income is better than silver,

and her revenue better than gold.

15 She is more precious than jewels,

and nothing you desire can compare with her.

16 Long life is in her right hand;

in her left hand are riches and honor.

17 Her ways are ways of pleasantness,

and all her paths are peace.

18 She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her;

those who hold her fast are called happy.

God's Wisdom in Creation

19 The LORD by wisdom founded the earth;

by understanding he established the heavens;

20 by his knowledge the deeps broke open,

and the clouds drop down the dew. (Proverbs 3:11-20, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from May 19, 2008 (Monday in the week of Trinity Sunday, refs. for the week of the Sunday closest to May 18, Year Two), when comments were repeated with some editing from February 20, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Seventh Sunday after the Epiphany. Year Two):

Much of the Book of Proverbs consists of proverbial sayings, each of which stands more or less on its own. This is especially true of Proverbs 10:1-22:16 and 25:1-29:27, where the topics vary almost from verse to verse. But the first nine chapters, which function as a kind of extended introduction to this “educational manual,” while composed in poetic lines, as is most of the remainder of the book, presents continuous discourse on the value of “wisdom” (hm!k4H!, chokmāh), which is synonymous with “instruction” (rs!Um, mûsar) and “insight” (hn!yB9, bînāh, 1:2-3, cf. Nyb9hAl4, l ^ehāvîn, vv. 2, 6), “wise dealing” (lKew4ha, haśkîl, v. 3), “shrewdness” (hmAr4fA, ‘ormāh, ‘cunning’ Holladay, Lexicon), “knowledge” (tfaDa, da‘ath) and “prudence” (hm0Az9m4, m ^ezimmāh, v. 4), “learning” (‘insight’ Holladay Lexicon, v. 5) and “the discerning acquire skill” (w ^enāvôn tachbulôth yiqneh; tachbulôth is “shrewdness, prudence,” Holladay, Lexicon). In other contexts, some of these terms imply a less than reverent sort of “wisdom,” such as “shrewdness” or “cunning,” but perhaps the intention is to gain attention and guide the young into more wholesome ways.

Today’s reading refers to “instruction” (rsAUm, mûsar) as “discipline,” synonymous with “reproof” (thakaOT, tôkachath) of which we should not “be weary,” for these are evidence of the LORD’s love (Prov. 3:11-12). Wisdom (hmAk4HA, chokmāh), synonymous with “understanding” (hnAUbT4, t ^evûnāh), is personified and referred to by personal pronouns (h-A, -āh, v. 14 twice, 15; xyh9, hî’,v. 15, etc.).Reasons to seek out Wisdom include “income” that “is better than silver,” and “revenue” that is “better than gold” (v. 14). While comparison is made here to valuable metals (v. 14) and jewels (v. 15), “wisdom” is a religious and spiritual value. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge (tfaDa, da‘ath); / fools despise wisdom (hmAk4HA, chokmāh) and instruction (rs!Um, mûsar)” (1:7). For those who seek out Wisdom, benefits include “long life,” “riches and honor” (3:16), and “pleasantness, and . . . peace” (v. 17). “She [Wisdom] is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her, / those who hold her fast are called happy” (v. 18).

Verses 19 and 20 refer to the role of “Wisdom” in the LORD’s creation of the earth and the heavens (cf. 8:22-31), which may be related to the statement that “All things came into being through him [the Word / Logos = Jesus]” (Jn. 1:3). “The LORD by wisdom (hmAk4HA, chokmāh) founded the earth; / by understanding (hnAUbT4, t ^ebûnāh) he established the heavens; / by his knowledge (OtdaB4, b ^edathô) the deeps broke open, / and the clouds drop down the dew” (3:19-20).

1 John 3:18-4:6

Let us Love in Truth and Action

18 Little children, let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action. 19 And by this we will know that we are from the truth and will reassure our hearts before him 20 whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21 Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have boldness before God; 22 and we receive from him whatever we ask, because we obey his commandments and do what pleases him.

23 And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. 24 All who obey his commandments abide in him, and he abides in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit that he has given us. (1 John 3:18-24, NRSV)

Testing the Spirits

4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming; and now it is already in the world. 4 Little children, you are from God, and have conquered them; for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5 They are from the world; therefore what they say is from the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:1-6 NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from April 27, 2009 (Monday in the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One), when the reading was 1 John 3:19-4:6, and comments were repeated from May 19, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 18, Year Two), when the reading was 1 John 3:18-4:6, and comments were repeated with editing and supplement from April 23, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One), when comments were repeated with some editing from February 20, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Seventh Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two), when they were repeated from April 11, 2005 (Monday of the week of the Third Sunday of the Easter Season, Year One).

On 1 John 3:(18) 19-24

As John exhorts his people (and us), he presents the theme of much of chapter three, the key to our inner confidence, our clear conscience before the living God. “Little children, let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action” (1 Jn. 3:18). “And by this,” he says, “we will know that we are from the truth and will reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us” (vv. 19-20a). The internal witness of the Spirit assures us that we are God’s children (cf. Rom. 8:15-17). “God is greater than our hearts,” says John, “and he knows everything” (v. 20b). John Wesley explains verse twenty from a stern, negative perspective:

For if we have not this testimony, if in anything our heart, our own conscience, condemn us, much more does God, who is greater than our heart – An infinitely holier and a more impartial Judge. And knoweth all things – So that there is no hope of hiding it from him. (http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/1John.htm, accessed again May 21, 2010. One may have to copy and paste the URL)

But there is a positive side. “Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us,” says John, “we have boldness before God” (v. 21). And Wesley recognizes this comforting aspect:

If our heart condemn us not – If our conscience, duly enlightened by the word and Spirit of God, and comparing all our thoughts, words, and works with that word, pronounce that they agree therewith. Then have we confidence toward God – Not only our consciousness of his favour continues and increases, but we have a full persuasion, that whatsoever we ask we shall receive of him. (ibid., on v. 21)

To some extent, Wesley appears to follow “a respectable exegetical tradition going back to the Greek fathers” which “interprets these clauses as a warning: If our own consciences condemn us, much more will the Omniscient, to whom all our faults lie open, condemn us” (C. H. Dodd, Johannine Epistles, The Moffatt Commentary, 1946, p. 91, on 1 Jn. 3:19-24). But Dodd notes that “in spite of the recurrent note of severity, it does not seem to be the intention of the passage as a whole to awaken a sense of sin which would amount almost to self-despair” (ibid., p. 92). Dodd finds the passage’s “main purport . . . in the words We are children of God; we know that we have crossed from death to life because we love the brotherhood” [3:14], and so he understands the passage as follows:

(C1) ‘By what I have said we may be sure that we belong to the truth, and reassure our heart in His presence, whenever our heart condemns us; because God is greater than our heart and knows all’; or, alternatively (C2), ‘By what I have said we may be sure that we belong to the truth; and we may convince ourselves in His presence that, (even) if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all.’ There is little to choose between these two renderings. (ibid.)

We are brought back, according to Dodd, to what John considers “the normal state of the Christian life; the state in which we are not under the condemnation of conscience, and have no sense of sinful alienation from God. In this state we live in the free and happy intercourse of children with their Father: we ask Him for what we need, and do as He bids” (ibid.).

“And this is his [Jesus’] commandment,” says John, “that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us” (v. 23). Wesley comments: “And this is his commandment – All his commandments in one word. That we should believe and love – in the manner and degree which he hath taught. This is the greatest and most important command that ever issued from the throne of glory. If this be neglected, no other can be kept: if this be observed, all others are easy” (op. cit., on v. 23). John continues: “All who obey his commandments abide in him, and he abides in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit that he has given us” (v. 24). Pheme Perkins says, “Belief in the Son and love establish a permanent relationship between believers and God (Jn. 16:26-27)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Jn. 3:23-24).

On 1 John 4:1-6

John now turns to the issue of testing spirits. “Beloved,” he says, “do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (4:1). Dodd says that “this section presupposes that the Church still has experience, as in the time of Paul, of inspired prophetic utterance by its members” (op. cit., p. 97, on 1 Jn. 4:1-6). John provides a criterion for testing spirits. “By this you know the Spirit of God,” he says: “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God” (vv. 2, 3a). This criterion anticipates the docetic heresy that arose within the early church, the denial “that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,” as contrary to the Spirit of God. The docetic heresy, according to Philip Schaff, was

the attempt to accommodate the gospel to Greek culture [that] had gone to the limit of denying the reality of the Lord’s body. The basic Hellenistic idea that matter was evil led inevitably to disbelief in the incarnation. God could not have a direct relation with the sensible world, since this was the province of evil. Accordingly, Christ could not have been genuinely man. He only appeared or seemed to have a body (whence ‘Docetism,’ from the Greek dokeō [dokevw], seem), being as it were a phantom from the heavenly sphere.” (Introduction to the Letter of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, reprint 2001, p. 77)

For John, this understanding of Christ is wrong, for it is “the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming into the world” (v. 3b). “Since false teachers can appear genuine (cf. Mt. 7:15-23),” says Perkins, “Christians must test such claims by their belief in Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 12:1-3). The secessionists have modified the tradition by denying that the Christ has come in the flesh” (op. cit., on 4:1-3). John draws a line between his group and the outsiders. “Little children, you are from God, and have conquered them; for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” (v. 4). The outsiders–“secessionists,” false teachers, opponents–are “from the world,” so “what they say is from the world, and the world listens to them” (v. 5). The phrase, “the world listens,” says Perkins, “may imply that the secessionist gospel enjoys greater success than the truth (cf. Jn. 15:19). But John is firm in his conviction that “we are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (v. 6).

Dodd summarizes the significance of this paragraph:

The writer has no wish to see prophecy suppressed or discredited. On the contrary, he would secure the value of prophecy in the Church by distinguishing true inspiration from false. In a situation of almost desperate gravity it was a matter of life and death to establish the principle that ‘inspiration’ does not in itself provide a guarantee of truth. A man may possess an exalted sense of the freedom and enthusiasm with which he speaks, may persuade his hearers that he is indeed one of those whom ‘God whispers in the ear’; and yet it may all have nothing to do with genuine Christianity. That alone is Christian which coheres, intellectually and morally, with the fundamental facts of the Gospel; and those facts we know, in the last resort, only through the witness of the apostles, transmitted to us by such channels as are available. (op. cit., pp. 105-106)

Dodd notes further:

The history of the Church shows that this appeal to tradition could work in the direction of a sterile institutionalism, robbing the Church of the freedom of the Spirit which is its birthright: it shows also that enthusiasm, mystical experience, assurance of special guidance, and all the marks of inspiration, may be associated with doctrines subversive of the Gospel. The tension between authority and freedom, between tradition and inspiration, cannot safely be resolved either by the repudiation of authority or by the repression of inspiration. The Church fares best when apostle and prophet stand together as the firm foundation of its life. (ibid.)

Matthew 11:1-6

Conclusion of Jesus’ Instructions When Sending Out the Disciples

11:1 Now when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and proclaim his message in their cities.

Messengers from John the Baptist (cf. Lk 7.18-23)

2 When John heard in prison what the Messiah was doing, he sent word by his disciples 3 and said to him, "Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?" 4 Jesus answered them, "Go and tell John what you hear and see: 5 the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them. 6 And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me." (Matthew 11:1-6, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from October 16, 2009 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 12, Year One), when comments were repeated from December 19, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year One), when the reading was Matthew 11:2-15, and comments were repeated from October 19 and 20, 2007 (Friday and Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to Oct. 12, Year One), when comments on Matthew 11:1-6, and on verses 7-15, were repeated respectively with some editing and supplement from October 14, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 12, Year One), and from October 15, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 12, 2007) and from December 22, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year One), when comments were repeated from December 17, 2004 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year One).

This reading from Matthew follows Jesus’ speech instructing the Twelve Disciples as he sent them out on mission (Mt. 10:5-42), and begins with the concluding formula: “Now when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and proclaim his message in their cities” (Mt. 11:1). Compare similar formulas which close the Sermon on the Mount (7:28-29), the series of parables in chapter 13 (13:53), the discourse on various aspects of Christian life in community in chapter 18 (19:1), and the eschatological discourse in chapters 24-25, including the woes against the Pharisees in chapter 23 (26:1). These formulae are indications of Matthew’s methods in bringing together related parts of the Gospel traditions. In saying that “he [i.e., Jesus] went on from there” (11:1), Matthew apparently intends to describe a continuation of the preaching and healing tour described in 9:35-36 which, with the saying about the harvest and the need for laborers (vv. 37-38) leads into the selection of the twelve disciples (10:1-4) and the speech commissioning them to go out and do his form of ministry (10:5-42).

Matthew next tells us that John the Baptist sent messengers to Jesus with a question. In a different context, Luke has a parallel passage (Lk. 7:18-23) to Matthew’s report (Mat. 11:2-6). These passages are presented in the separate file, Baptist’s Question, Jesus’ Answer. According to Matthew, “When John heard in prison what the Messiah [‘Or the Christ,’ NRSV text note a] was doing, he sent word by his disciples and said to him, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another ( e[teroV, heteros)?’ ” (Mt. 11:2-3). Luke’s version calls special attention to the disciples of John, who “reported all these things to him [i.e., to John]” (Lk. 7:18a). In other words, John’s disciples were able to inform him about the character and scope of Jesus’ ministry. “All these things” should not be limited to the two preceding miracles, the healing of the centurion’s servant (Lk. 7:1-10; cf. Mt. 8:5-13; Jn. 4:46b-54) and the raising of the widow’s son at Nain (Lk. 7:11-17). These were followed by the report that “this word about him [i.e., about Jesus] spread throughout Judea and all the surrounding country” (Lk. 7:17); compare “Jesus had just then cured many people of diseases, plagues, and evil spirits, and had given sight to many who were blind” (v. 21; cf. Mt. 4:23; Mk. 3:10). “So John summoned two of his disciples,” says Luke, “and sent them to the Lord to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another (a[lloV, allos)?’ ” (Lk. 7:18b-19). According to Marion Lloyd Soards, “Lord [is] Luke’s own title for Jesus” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Lk. 7:19; cf. “the Messiah,” Mt. 11:2, and “to him, v. 3). Note that the question is the same in both Gospels, in English, and so in Greek except for different words translated “another.” Matthew’s word can mean “other of two, contrasting a definite person or thing with another” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. e{teroV, heteros, meaning no. (1) (a) ), but it can also mean “another,” that is, “of more than two” (ibid., meaning no. (1) (b) a), and even be “used interchangeably with a[lloV [allos], which is felt to be its equivalent” (ibid., meaning no. (1) (b) g).

And Jesus’ answer as reported by Matthew is nearly the same as that reported by Luke. “Jesus [‘and he,’ Lk.] answered them, ‘Go and tell John what you hear and see [‘what you have seen and heard,’ Lk.]: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and [omit ‘and,’ Lk.] the poor have good news brought to them’ ” (Mt. 11:4-5; cf. Lk. 7:22). There is a different distribution of the conjunction kaiv (kai), “and” in the series in Greek. Matthew’s series of six actions in verse 5 uses the conjunction kai (“and”) four times. There are one or two instances of this conjunction in Luke’s series, with variation in the manuscripts. Otherwise, the only significant difference is the present tense of “what you hear and see” in Matthew’s version, where Luke has the aorist (past) tense of “what you have seen and heard.” This difference in Greek is correctly reflected in the translation. In both Gospels John’s question provides the evangelist an opportunity to summarize Jesus’ mighty works. “The deeds of chs. 8-9,” says Dennis C. Duling, “are summarized in language from Isa. 35:5-6; see also Isa. 26:19; 29:18; 42.7, 18; 61:1” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 11:5). David L. Tiede, revised by Christopher R. Matthews, presents a similar view in regard to Luke’s version. “In what John’s disciples have now seen and heard, Jesus’ earlier words are fulfilled (4:18-19); see also Deut. 18:21-22; Isa. 26:19; 35:5-6; 61:1); see also Lk. 14:13, 21).

Jesus’ reply to John closes with a blessing on “anyone who takes no offense at me” (Mt. 11:6; Lk. 7:23), and as the messengers leave, he addresses the crowds about John (Mt. 11:7; Lk. 7:24). But that brings us to tomorrow’s reading. Sometimes, waiting for the fulfillment of God’s promises can be difficult, especially under such circumstances as John was enduring.

Lutheran Readings:

Ezekiel 33:1-11

Ezekiel Israel's Sentry

33:1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 O Mortal, speak to your people and say to them, If I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take one of their number as their sentinel; 3 and if the sentinel sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the trumpet and warns the people; 4 then if any who hear the sound of the trumpet do not take warning, and the sword comes and takes them away, their blood shall be upon their own heads. 5 They heard the sound of the trumpet and did not take warning; their blood shall be upon themselves. But if they had taken warning, they would have saved their lives. 6 But if the sentinel sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any of them, they are taken away in their iniquity, but their blood I will require at the sentinel's hand.

7 So you, mortal, I have made a sentinel for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. 8 If I say to the wicked, "O wicked ones, you shall surely die," and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from their ways, the wicked shall die in their iniquity, but their blood I will require at your hand. 9 But if you warn the wicked to turn from their ways, and they do not turn from their ways, the wicked shall die in their iniquity, but you will have saved your life. (Ezekiel 33:1-11, NRSV)

God's Justice and Mercy

10 Now you, mortal, say to the house of Israel, Thus you have said: "Our transgressions and our sins weigh upon us, and we waste away because of them; how then can we live?" 11 Say to them, As I live, says the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 33:1-11, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from May 12, 2008 (Monday in the week of Pentecost Sunday, refs. for the week of the Sunday closest to May 11, Year Two).

Last Saturday’s reading, for Saturday of the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, was from Ezekiel, chapter 36. But today’s reading is the first of a series of six readings from Ezekiel, for the weekdays of the week of the Sunday closest to May 11, Year Two. Today’s reading and tomorrow’s are from Chapter 33 of Ezekiel.

For many Ezekiel calls to mind the Throne-Chariot Vision that Ezekiel saw (chap. 1) when he was “among the exiles by the river Chebar” (1:1), or the Vision of the Valley of Dry Bones (37:1-14). Some may remember with horror the vision of idolatry within the Jerusalem temple itself (chap. 8) or the graphic portrayal of the departure of the LORD’s glory from the temple riding the throne-chariot away to the east (10:1-22; 11:22-25). It is worth noting the prediction of the return of the LORD’s glory (43:1-12). But Stephen I. Cook provides an outline that, if less graphic, nevertheless clearly defines distinct kinds of material: “Part 1: The call of Ezekiel” (1:1-3:27); “Part 2: Prophecies of doom against Judah and Jerusalem” (4:1-24:27); “Part 3: Oracles against the nations” (25:1-32:32); “Part 4: Prophecies of Israel’s Restoration” (33:1-39:29); “Part 5: Blueprint for the restored Temple and land” (40:1-48:35) (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on each of these sections, respectively).

On Ezekiel as Israel’s Sentry

By Cook’s outline, today’s reading presents the beginning of the “Prophecies of Israel’s Restoration” (33:1-39:29). For Marvin A. Sweeney, 33:1-20 “is a transitional section in the book, bridging the oracles concerning the nations and the end of the book, mostly comprised of prophecies of consolation” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 1106, on Ezek. 33:1-20; cf. his outline of the book, p. 1045, rather different from Cook’s). Sweeney notes that this transitional section “contains many echoes of earlier portions of Ezekiel.”

Ezekiel presents “the word of the LORD (hvhy-rbaD4, d ^evar-YHWH) [that] came to me” (Ezek. 33:1). “O Mortal (MdAxA-NB,, ben-’ādām, lit. ‘son of man,’ cf. AV/KJV, TNIV),” says the LORD, “speak to your people and say to them, If I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take one of their number as their sentinel (hp,co, tsōfeh); and if the sentinel sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the trumpet and warns the people; then if any who hear the sound of the trumpet do not take warning, and the sword comes and takes them away, their blood shall be upon their own heads” (vv. 2-4). When Ezekiel is addressed as “son of ’ādām,” his very humanness is expressed. MdAxA (’ādām), sometimes the personal name of Adam, can also mean “humankind,” and William L. Holladay first translates it as “1. collective people” (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. MdAxA, ’ādām). The sense is well represented by “O Mortal” in the NRSV. The emphasis on Ezekiel’s humanness here is in contrast to the honorific “Son of Man” title used of Jesus in the Gospels, based on Daniel’s vision, “I saw one like a human being (wn!x$ rBa, bar ’ ^enāš, Aramaic for “Son of man,” cf. AV/KJV) coming with the clouds of heaven” (Dan. 7:13). At the very least he is representative man coming before the throne of God (cf. Mk. 14:61-62).

So, addressing Ezekiel as a mere human being, “O mortal,” the LORD begins with a stern warning. Ezekiel is the “sentinel” (cf. 3:16-21), who is responsible to warn the people of the coming “sword,” that is, the approaching enemy. If any ignore his warning, “their blood shall be upon their own heads” (v. 4). The warning here calls to mind the issue of individual responsibility and accountability presented in chapter 18: “it is only the person who sins that shall die” (18:4b). In the present reading, the LORD continues: “They heard the sound of the trumpet and did not take warning; their blood shall be upon themselves. But if they had taken warning, they would have saved their lives” (33:5). Not only is each individual Israelite held accountable for sin or righteous living; the prophet (“sentinel”) is especially held to account. “But if the sentinel (hp,c0oha, hatstsōfeh) sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any of them, they are taken away in their iniquity, but their blood I will require at the sentinel's hand (hp,c0oha-dy01&m9, miyyad-hatstsōfeh)” (v. 6). “God reminds Ezekiel of his commission as a sentinel (3:16-21),” says Cook. “This metaphor had originally assuaged Ezekiel’s personal reluctance about his calling. Here the prophet’s role as sentinel is stressed again to explain how the intention behind Ezekiel’s doom prophecy is not death but life, to call the people to repentance” (op. cit., on vv. 1-9). “So you, mortal, I have made a sentinel (hp,co, tsōfeh) for the house of Israel,” says the LORD; “whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me” (v. 7). If the word of the LORD is warning to the wicked, but the prophet does not deliver it, “to warn the wicked to turn from their ways, the wicked shall die in their iniquity, but their blood I will require at your hand,” says the LORD (v. 8). On the other hand, says the LORD, “but if you warn the wicked to turn from their ways, and they do not turn from their ways, the wicked shall die in their iniquity, but you will have saved your life” (v. 9). Sweeney puts it this way: “The watchman is not responsible for the fate of the people if he warns them, but he is fully responsible if he does not. The passage presupposes that the threat of death for the wicked can be reversed if they change their ways” (on vv. 1-9).

On God’s Justice and Mercy

After this stern warning, we come to a glimmer of hope. “Now you, mortal,” says the LORD, “say to the house of Israel, Thus you have said: ‘Our transgressions and our sins weigh upon us, and we waste away because of them; how then can we live?’ ” (v. 10). In response to this feeling of helplessness and hopelessness on the part of the people, God directs Ezekiel to say to them, “As I live, says the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?” (v. 11). With that, an oracle Cook says is on “repentance as the way to life” (ibid., on vv. 10-20) is introduced that leads through the interval to tomorrow’s reading. “This oracle,” says Cook, “reemphasizes ch. 18 and its stress on the moral autonomy of generations. Earlier this material had aimed to convict the exiles of their personal culpability. Here, Ezekiel’s theme of taking responsibility is used to show that one’s personal sinfulness is forgivable” (ibid.). According to Sweeney, “Ezekiel debates with those who believe that past righteousness can deliver someone who commits wrongdoing later in life and that past wrongdoing will still condemn those who have turned to righteousness” (on vv. 10-20).

1 John 1:1-10

The Word of Life (Jn 1.1-5)

1:1 We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life– 2 this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us– 3 we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 We are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

God Is Light

5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him while we are walking in darkness, we lie and do not do what is true; 7 but if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:1-10, NRSV)

The following comments are based on, mainly repeated from, comments on 1 John 1:1-7 of April 11, 2010 (the Second Sunday of Easter, Year Two), when comments were based on earlier comments as noted there.

John’s first Epistle begins by defining its message. The NRSV begins with “We declare “ (1 Jn. 1:1, cf. TNIV ‘this we proclaim’ at the end of the verse), for clarity’s sake, anticipating the verb that comes later in Greek, “declare” (v. 2b, ‘shew’ AV/KJV), “we declare” (v. 3), in both instances translating ajpaggevlomen (apaggellomen). The Greek text starts with the direct object of this complex sentence, what it is that John declares to his readers/audience, defined by a series of relative clauses, “(that) which . . .” ( o} . . . , ho . . .), four times in verse one (AV/KJV, cf. TNIV): “what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life” (v. 1 NRSV).

With the perfect tense verbs, “have heard” (ajkhkovamen, akēkoamen), “have seen” ( eJwravkamen, heōrakamen), and the aorist [past] tense verbs, “have looked at” ( ejqeasavmeqa, etheasametha), “touched” ( ejyhlavqhsan, epsēlaphēsan), John emphasizes the veracity and reality of his witness to salvation in Christ–“the word of life” (1 Jn. 1). It's about “eternal life,” the life provided through God's giving of his “only son” (Jn. 3:16).

“This life (hJ zwhv, hē zōē) was revealed” (ejfanerwvqh, ephanerōthē aorist [past] tense, passive voice), says John, and, repeating the perfect tense verb, he says, “and we have seen ( eJwravkamen, heōrakamen) it and testify (marturou:men, marturoumen, present tense) to it, and we declare (ajpaggevlomen, apaggellomen) to you the eternal life (th;n zwh;n aijwvnion, tēn zōēn tēn aiōnion, cf. zwh;n aijvwvnion, zōēn aiōnion Jn. 3:16) that was with the Father and was revealed to us” ( ejfanerwvqh, ephanerōthē, aorist [past] tense, passive voice) (v. 2). Verse 2 is an explanatory parenthesis, set off by dashes (The Greek New Testament, UBS, 3^rd. ed., 1975, and NRSV; cf. the parentheses in AV/KJV). And John repeats (v. 3a): “we declare to you what we have seen ( o} eJwravkamen, ho heōrakamen) and heard (ajkhkovamen, akēkoamen–note the reversed order from v. 1). Note that “we have seen” (eJwravkamen, heōrakamen) occurs in each of the first three verses, indicating strong emphasis on the veracity and reality of John’s witness here.

He continues with a statement of his purpose: “in order that ( i{na, hina, ‘so that’ NRSV) you also may have ( e[chte, echēte, subjunctive mood) fellowship (koinwnivan, koinōnian) with us” and an explanation of “us”: “and truly our fellowship (koinwniva, koinōnia) is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (v. 3b). This life of “fellowship” is described in John’s Gospel as abiding in Christ as he abides in the Father (Jn. 15:1-11). The paragraph here concludes with another statement of John’s purpose. “We are writing these things in order that ( i{na, hina, ‘so that’ NRSV) our (inclusive? Cf. “your” NRSV text note a) joy may be complete” (v. 4). Kurt Aland and others put “our” (hJmw:n, hēmōn) in the text, supported by very good early witnesses (x B L Y and others), and indicate with “B” “some degree of doubt” (The Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies [UBS], 3^rd ed., 1975, apparatus to 1 Jn. 1:4 and p. xiii).

The contrast of light and darkness continues an emphasis from the Gospel of John. “This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (v. 5, emphasis added). Either one believes in Jesus, or refuses and is left walking in darkness (v. 6). From the Gospel, compare “And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil” (Jn. 3:19, emphasis added). However, it is possible to “walk in the light” and “have fellowship (koinwnian, koinōnian) with one another,” as “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (v. 7). The words “all sin” (pavshV aJmartivaV, pasēs hamartias, genitive singular after ajpov, apo, ‘from’) might be translated “every sin” (cf. TNIV text note b). In light of the following distinction between “sin” (aJmartivan, hamartian, singular, v. 8) and “sins” (ta;V aJmartivaV, tas hamartias, plural, v. 9), we might understand “all/every sin” (v. 7) in a comprehensive sense of pavshV, pasēs, “including everything belonging, in kind, to the class designated by the noun every kind of, all sorts of, for the words pantodapovV [pantodapos] and pantoi:oV [pantoios], which are lacking in our lit[erature]” (BAGD [= Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker], A Greek-English Lexicon of the NEW TESTAMENT and Other Early Christian Literature, 2^nd ed., 1979, s.v. pas, pasa, pan, 1.a.b).

John deals with two potential objections to his call for repentance (confession) and fellowship. The first refers, as noted above, to “sin” (singular). “If we say ( eja;n ei[pwmen, ean eipōmen, with aorist tense subjunctive mood verb, denoting a hypothetical possibility–3rd class condition) that we have no sin (aJmartivan oujk e[comen, hamartian ouk echomen), we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (v. 8, cf. v. 10). The response to this objection refers to “sins” (plural). “If we confess our sins (ta;V aJmartivaV hJmw:n, tas hamartias hēmōn), he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins (ta;V aJmartivaV, tas hamartias) and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (v. 9). The next potential objection clearly refers to acts of sin. “If we say ( eja;n ei[pwmen, ean eipōmen, as above) that we have not sinned ( o{ti oujc hJmarthvkamen, hoti ouch hēmartēkamen, perfect tense), we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” (v. 10). Note the sequence here, being cleansed from “all/every sin” (v. 7, singular, likely comprehensive), saying “we have no sin” (v. 8, singular, still comprehensive), confessing “our sins,” and having them forgiven (v. 9, plural, instances/acts of sin), and denial of having sinned (v. 10, instances/acts of sin).

John Wesley refers to “sins” as “actual sins” and to “sin” as “original sin”:

But if we walk in the light - In all holiness. As God is (a deeper word than walk, and more worthy of God) in the light, then we may truly say, we have fellowship one with another - We who have seen, and you who have not seen, do alike enjoy that fellowship with God. The imitation of God being the only sure proof of our having fellowship with him. And the blood of Jesus Christ his Son - With the grace purchased thereby. Cleanseth us from all sin - Both original and actual, taking away all the guilt and all the power. (John Wesley, Explanatory note on 1 John 1:7, on the Wesley Center Online, Wesley Center for Applied Theology, maintained by Northwest Nazarene University, at http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/1John.htm, accessed again May 21, 2010).

Wesley adds the following on verse nine:

But if with a penitent and believing heart, we confess our sins, he is faithful - Because he had promised this blessing, by the unanimous voice of all his prophets. Just - Surely then he will punish: no; for this very reason he will pardon. This may seem strange; but upon the evangelical principle of atonement and redemption, it is undoubtedly true; because, when the debt is paid, or the purchase made, it is the part of equity to cancel the bond, and consign over the purchased possession. Both to forgive us our sins - To take away all the guilt of them. And to cleanse us from all unrighteousness - To purify our souls from every kind and every degree of it. (ibid.)

In his sermon on “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection,” Wesley says the following:

Exactly agreeable to this are his words in the first chapter: ‘God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.’ And again: ‘If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.’ Now, it is evident, the Apostle here speaks of a deliverance wrought in this world: For he saith not, The blood of Christ will cleanse, (at the hour of death, or in the day of judgment,) but it ‘cleanseth,’ at the time present, us living Christians ‘from all sin.’ And it is equally evident, that if any sin remain, we are not cleansed from ‘all’ sin. If any unrighteousness remain in the soul, it is not cleansed from all, unrighteousness. Neither let any say that this relates to justification only, or the cleansing us from the guilt of sin: First, because this is confounding together what the Apostle clearly distinguishes, who mentions, first, ‘to forgive us our sins,’ and then ‘to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.’ Secondly, because this is asserting justification by works, in the strongest sense possible; it is making all inward, as well as all outward, holiness, necessarily previous to justification. For if the cleansing here spoken of is no other than the cleansing us from the guilt of sin, then we are not cleansed from guilt, that is, not justified, unless on condition of walking ‘in the light, as he is in the light.’ It remains, then, that Christians are saved in this world from all sin, from all unrighteousness; that they are now in such a sense perfect, as not to commit sin, and to be freed from evil thoughts and evil tempers. (From The Works of John Wesley, 1872 ed. by Thomas Jackson, vol. 11, # 29, pp. 366-446, on the Internet at the Wesley Center for Applied Theology mentioned above, at http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/plain_account/index.htm, accessed again May 21, 2010).

Matthew 9:27-34

Two Blind Men (Mt. 9:27:31; cf. 20:29-34; Mk. 10:46-52; Lk. 18:35-43)

27 As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, crying loudly, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!" 28 When he entered the house, the blind men came to him; and Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They said to him, "Yes, Lord." 29 Then he touched their eyes and said, "According to your faith let it be done to you." 30 And their eyes were opened. Then Jesus sternly ordered them, "See that no one knows of this." 31 But they went away and spread the news about him throughout that district.

A Mute Demoniac (Mt. 9:32-34; cf. 12:22-24; Mk. 3:22; Lk 11:14-15; Jn. 7:20; 10:20; 8:48, 52)

32 After they had gone away, a demoniac who was mute was brought to him. 33 And when the demon had been cast out, the one who had been mute spoke; and the crowds were amazed and said, "Never has anything like this been seen in Israel." 34 But the Pharisees said, "By the ruler of the demons he casts out the demons." (Matthew 9:27-34, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from October 9, 2009 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from May 12, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 11, Year Two), when comments were repeated from earlier as noted there.

Comments on the parallel account in Mark 10:46-52 are available in the Archive for August 14, 2009 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 10, Year One). Comments on the parallel account in Luke 18:31-43 are available in the Archive for June 8, 2009 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 8, Year One). For related parallel accounts, see the separate file Healing the Blind.

“As Jesus went on from there,” we are told, “two blind men followed him” (Mt. 9:27a). “From there,” means from the home of the synagogue leader whose daughter Jesus healed (Mt. 9:18-26), which, by Matthew’s account, took place in Capernaum, “his own town” (9:1). The two blind men who followed him were “crying loudly, ‘Have mercy on us, Son of David!’ ” (v. 27b). In Matthew there are two similar accounts of Jesus healing two blind men, this account (Mt. 9:27-31) and a later account (Mt. 20:29-34). For the later account there are parallel accounts in Mark (Mk. 10:46-52) and Luke (Lk. 18:35-43), though in these accounts, only one man is healed. Matthew’s later account and those of Mark and Luke report healings that take place in Jericho during Jesus’ final approach to Jerusalem. “As they were leaving Jericho,” says Matthew, “a large crowd followed him” (Mt. 20:29). Mark also reports the occasion as they were leaving Jericho, but Mark names the blind man. “They came to Jericho,” says Mark, “As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside” (Mk. 10:46). Mark gives his name, Bartimaeus, “son of Timaeus,” as Mark translates his Aramaic name. Luke puts that briefly, but on the approach to Jericho, not as they were leaving. “As he approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging” (Lk.18:35). It has been suggested that Luke moved the episode from the time when Jesus and the disciples were leaving Jericho to their approach in order to make room for the story of Zacchaeus (Lk. 19:1-10), which for him was a model of salvation and climax of some Lukan themes.

In Matthew’s later account, the two blind men “were sitting by the roadside” (Mt. 20:30b), similar to Bartimaeus sitting by the roadside in Mark’s account. The three parallel account say that the blind man (or men) heard Jesus passing and cried out for help, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” (Mk. 10:47b; Lk. 18:38). The two cries, identical in English are also identical in Greek except for the word order. If there is a difference, it would be that Mark’s version puts “Son of David first, perhaps for emphasis. Matthew’s version puts the verb, “have mercy” first and uses the plural pronoun “us” (uJma:V, hymas), since there are two blind men. Manuscripts vary in Matthew 20:30; some have “Have mercy on us Lord, Son of David”; others, “Have mercy on us, Jesus, Son of David”; others, “Have mercy on us, Lord Jesus Son of David”; others, “Have mercy on us, Son of David” (cf. 9:27); others, “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David.” Amid this variety, it is remarkable that all address Jesus as “Son of David,” clearly recognizing him as the Messiah.

In the later parallel accounts, the crowd attempts to silence these cries for help (not in Mt. 9), but fails in that attempt. Although “many sternly ordered him to be quiet . . . he cried out even more loudly, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’ ” (Mk. 10:48; cf. Mt. 20:31; Lk. 8:39). The blind men in Matthew’s first account don’t face that sort of opposition. “When he entered the house,” says Jesus, “the blind men came to him; and Jesus said to them, ‘Do you believe that I am able to do this?’ ” (Mt. 9:28a). Since it appears that they were in Jesus’ adopted home town, Capernaum (cf. 9:1; see above), it is probable that this was where Jesus lived, or was staying. In Mark’s account, Jesus takes the initiative to call Bartimaeus. “Jesus stood still and said, ‘Call him here.’ And they called the blind man, saying to him, ‘Take heart; get up, he is calling you.’ So throwing off his cloak, he sprang up and came to Jesus” (Mk. 9:49-50). Luke tells us that “Jesus stood still and ordered the man to be brought to him; and when he came near he asked him, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ ” (Lk. 18:40, 41a). In Matthew’s later account, “Jesus stood still and called them [i.e., the two blind men], saying, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ ” (Mt. 20:32). In every case, of course, the blind want their sight restored. In Matthew 9, the two blind men respond to Jesus’ question, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” with a simple “Yes, Lord” (Mt. 9:28b). Bartimaeus says, “My teacher, let me see again” (Mk. 10:51). In Luke’s version, the blind man says, “Lord, let me see again” (Lk. 18:41b). In the parallel version in Matthew the two blind men say, “Lord, let our eyes be opened” (Mt. 20:33). In Matthew’s earlier account, Jesus “touched their eyes and said, ‘According to your faith let it be done to you.’ And their eyes were opened” (Mt. 9:29-30a). In the three later accounts, sight was received immediately (eujqevwV, eutheōs, Mt. 20:34; eujquvV, euthys, Mk. 10:52; paracrh:ma, parachrēma, Lk. 18:43); cf. “And their eyes were opened (hjnew:/cqhsan, ēneō(i)chthēsan, aorist [past] tense)” (Mt. 9:30).

In Mark, Jesus says to Bartimaeus, “Go; your faith has made you well.” And “immediately (eujquvV, euthys) he regained his sight and followed him on the way” (Mk. 10:52). In Luke, we are told, “Jesus said to him [i.e., to the blind man], ‘Receive your sight; your faith has saved you.’ Immediately (paracrh:ma, parachrēma) he regained his sight and followed him, glorifying God; and all the people, when they saw it, praised God” (Lk. 18:42-43). In Matthew’s parallel account, we are told, “Moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes. Immediately (eujqevwV, eutheōs) they regained their sight and followed him” (Mt. 20:34). These were physical eyes, but we may also ask for our spiritual eyes to be opened.

Dale C. Allison, Jr., comments on the relation between the two accounts of healing two blind men in Matthew:

This passage [Mt. 20:29-34] is remarkably reminiscent of 9:27-30. In both Jesus is being followed, two blind men appear, the blind men cry out and say, ‘Have mercy on us, Son of David’, Jesus touches their eyes, and they see again. There are also striking verbal links (cf. e.g. 20:29, 30 with 9:27). These parallels form a sort of inclusio. The first restoration of sight occurs towards the beginning of the ministry, the second near the end. This gives an artistic unity to the whole gospel. Furthermore, the first takes place before corporate Israel has rejected Jesus, the second after that rejection has become manifest. So despite being rejected, Jesus’ charity remains the same throughout. His difficulties do not cancel his compassion. (Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 871 on Mt. 20:29-34)

Allison also suggests that the sequence of Matthew’s later healing account and the preceding account in that context has a lesson for us:

In the former [account, Mt. 20:20-28], two privileged insiders, (James and John) make a request through a third party (their mother). The request is prefaced by no title of respect or majesty, it concerns the eschatological future, and it involves personal exaltation (to sit at the right and left of the Messiah). In the latter, two outsiders (the blind men) make a request that a third party (the crowd) tries to stifle. That request is prefaced by titles of respect and majesty, concerns the present, and is for something necessary that is taken for granted by most (sight). One might infer that petitions are more likely to be heard when addressed directly, with respect, and for things truly needful. (ibid.)

This prayer was for physical sight, and Allison makes a good point. It is needful. But we also should remember to pray for spiritual sight, and spiritual insight (cf. Jn. 9:40-41).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net