For the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 3, 2010, two weeks ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

Episcopal and Presbyterian Readings:

Numbers 12:1-16

Aaron and Miriam Jealous of Moses

12:1 While they were at Hazeroth, Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married (for he had indeed married a Cushite woman); 2 and they said, "Has the LORD spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?" And the LORD heard it. 3 Now the man Moses was very humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth. 4 Suddenly the LORD said to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, "Come out, you three, to the tent of meeting." So the three of them came out. 5 Then the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the entrance of the tent, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forward. 6 And he said, "Hear my words:

When there are prophets among you,
I the LORD make myself known to them in visions;
I speak to them in dreams.

7 Not so with my servant Moses;
he is entrusted with all my house.

8 With him I speak face to face-clearly, not in riddles;
and he beholds the form of the LORD.

Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" 9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed.

10 When the cloud went away from over the tent, Miriam had become leprous, as white as snow. And Aaron turned towards Miriam and saw that she was leprous. 11 Then Aaron said to Moses, "Oh, my lord, do not punish us for a sin that we have so foolishly committed. 12 Do not let her be like one stillborn, whose flesh is half consumed when it comes out of its mother's womb." 13 And Moses cried to the LORD, "O God, please heal her." 14 But the LORD said to Moses, "If her father had but spit in her face, would she not bear her shame for seven days? Let her be shut out of the camp for seven days, and after that she may be brought in again." 15 So Miriam was shut out of the camp for seven days; and the people did not set out on the march until Miriam had been brought in again. 16 After that the people set out from Hazeroth, and camped in the wilderness of Paran. (Numbers 12:1-16, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of June 19, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year Two), when they were repeated with editing and supplement from June 22, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year Two), when comments were repeated from June 17, 2004 (Thursday of the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year Two) in an email sent June 14, 2004, for June 14-20.

The last two readings from Numbers (chap. 11) dealt with complaints from the people; today’s reading moves on to complaints from Miriam and Aaron, the sister and brother of Moses. “While they were at Hazeroth,” we are told, “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married (for he had indeed married a Cushite woman)” (Num. 12:1). Although Cush usually means Ethiopia, here it is taken as a synonym of Midian (cf. Hab. 3:7 with Cushan and Midian in synonymous parallelism), and so the reference is to Zipporah. According to Nili S. Fox, “Two explanations are possible: (1) This reference is to Zipporah, 'Cushan' being part of Midian (Hab. 3:7); (2) Moses married a second woman in Egypt, a Nubian (= Cush). The latter is more plausible since Nubia was part of the Egyptian empire and dark-skinned women were considered beautiful, as reflected in the Targum's rendition of Chushite as 'beautiful' ” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Num. 12:1). While recognizing both possibilities, Rabbi J. H. Hertz prefers the former. “The Cushite woman,” he says, is “probably Zipporah, a native of Midian, which is a synonym of Cushan (Hab. Iii, 7, the home of the North Arabian people called 'Kusi' ” (The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 1981, on Num. 12:1). Others support the Rabbi's preference for reference to Zipporah, for example, Jo Ann Hackett, though she notes that “the Septuagint translates 'Ethiopian' here” (The HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed. 2006, on Num. 12:1). According to David P. Wright, “The complaint about Moses' wife comes very soon after Zipporah joins the Israelites in Ex. 18:5-6, if the intervening legislative chapters (most of Ex. 19-Num. 10) are bracketed out” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3^rd. ed., augmented, 2007, on Num. 12:1).

But the reference to Zipporah may be a pretext, for the real issue is apparently Moses’ position of leadership. Miriam and Aaron ask, “Has the LORD spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also? And,” we are told, “the LORD heard it” (v. 2). All three are spiritual leaders of Israel (Micah 6:4), but the question of verse 2 “is directed against Moses’ position as covenant mediator and leader of the people (Ex. 19:9; 33:11)” (Bernard W. Anderson, NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Num. 12:2). We are next told, “ Now the man Moses was very humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth” (v. 3). “This verse,” says Hackett, “because of its laudatory third-person reference to Moses, was a stumbling block to earlier readers who understood the entire Pentateuch to have been written by Moses himself” (op. cit., on Num. 12:3). According to Rabbi Hertz, the words “now the man Moses was very meek . . . explain how it was that Moses took no steps to vindicate himself” (op. cit., on Num. 12:3). And the Rabbi quotes an interpretation of the kind to which Hackett refers:

There is about these words, as also about the passages in which Moses no less unequivocally records his own faults (xx, 12 f; Exod. iv, 24 f; Deut. i, 37), that simplicity which is witness at once to their genuineness and inspiration. The Hebrew word for meek [‘ānāw] occurs frequently in the Psalms, and as here is applied by the writers to themselves; cf. Psalm x, 17, and Psalm xxii, 27.’ (Speaker’s Bible, cited by ibid.)

Fox simply says, “Moses’ attribute of humility is underscored as praiseworthy. It stands in stark contrast to Miriam’s and Aaron’s arrogance” (op. cit., on Num. 12:3).

At this point, God calls a meeting. “Suddenly the LORD said to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, ‘Come out, you three, to the tent of meeting.’ So the three of them came out” (v. 4; cf. 11:16). “Then the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud,” we are told, “and [he] stood at the entrance of the tent, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forward” (v. 5). Earlier, as noted yesterday, “the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him [Moses], and took some of the spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy; and when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied. But they did not do so again” (11:25). In that instance the LORD’s coming was in response to Moses’ complaint about his burden of leadership (cf. vv. 11-15, 17). Here, the LORD comes down to deal with the issues raised by the complaints of Miriam and Aaron. The LORD begins with a poetic stanza that sets Moses’ prophetic role apart from that of any others, saying: “When there are prophets among you, / I the LORD make myself known to them in visions; / I speak to them in dreams. / Not so with my servant Moses; / he is entrusted with all my house. / With him I speak face to face–clearly, not in riddles; / and he beholds the form of the LORD” (12:6b-8a). This draws a contrast, as Wright says, not only between Moses, on the one hand, and his sister and brother on the other, but between Moses as “the preeminent prophet . . . the only one to whom God speaks plainly and visibly (Ex. 33:11; Deut. 18:15; 34:10)” (op. cit., on Num. 12:6-8), and all other prophets. Anderson put it this way: “Normally the LORD communicates with prophets indirectly through dreams or visions . . . , but to Moses God speaks directly . . . ; he even beholds the form of the LORD (compare Ex. 33:17-23)” (op. cit. [NOAB, 2^nd ed.], on vv. 6-8). In a perhaps ironic comparison that echoes this one, the writer to the Hebrews in the New Testament, who has said, “Now Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant, to testify to the things that would be spoken later” (Heb. 3:5, citing Num. 12:7), points to the greater role of Christ, who “was faithful over God’s house as a son, and we are his house if we hold firm the confidence and the pride that belong to hope” (Heb. 3:6).

But this tribute to Moses should not be overlooked. Rabbi Hertz comments on the words “trusted in all My house” (Num. 12:7 JPS 1917 trans.; cf. ‘entrusted with all my house’ NRSV): Moses is

found worthy of God’s confidence in everything appertaining to the guidance of the House of Israel. Moses is pre-eminent among the Prophets. While other Prophets chiefly warned their own generation and comforted them with blessings in the remote future, Moses addresses all times, communicating to them everlasting statutes and laws for all generations. (op. cit., on v. 7)

Of the phrase “mouth to mouth” (peh ’el-peh, v. 8 JPS and NJPS; “face to face” NRSV), the Rabbi says it is

The same as ‘face to face’ [pānîm ’el pānîm] (Deut. xxxiv, 10). These phrases denote figuratively ‘the clearest, most direct, and most simple communication, the figure being taken from the way in which men communicate to each other things which they desire to be clearly understood and to leave no doubt as to their truth or meaning’ (Friedlander). (Rabbi Hertz, op. cit., on v. 8, citing Friedlander)

But, back to the matter at hand, we are told that the LORD directs his question to Miriam and Aaron: “Why then were you not afraid (y ^erē’ them) to speak against my servant Moses?” (v. 8b). Note the second person plural verb ending (“you” plural, not singular, cf. “ye” AV/KJV). We are reminded of the LORD’s anger against Miriam and Aaron: “And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed” (v. 9).

But in his wake, the LORD left severe punishment, of which Miriam bears the brunt. “When the cloud went away from over the tent, Miriam had become leprous (m ^etsōra‘at), as white as snow” (v. 10a). When Aaron sees that Miriam is leprous (v. 10b), he voices repentance and a plea: “Oh, my lord, do not punish us for a sin that we have so foolishly committed” (v. 11), “ironically acknowledging Moses’ superiority,” says Hackett (op. cit., on v. 11). Rabbi Hertz says that with the words, “Oh my lord [’ ^adōnî], Aaron now feels humbled and speaks to Moses as his superior” (op. cit., on v. 11). Aaron’s plea continues: “Do not let her be like one stillborn, whose flesh is half consumed when it comes out of its mother's womb” (v. 12). Moses joins Aaron’s intercession, as he cries “to the LORD, ‘O God, please heal her’ ” (v. 13). “But the LORD said to Moses, ‘If her father had but spit in her face, would she not bear her shame for seven days? Let her be shut out of the camp for seven days, and after that she may be brought in again’ ” (v. 14). “This,” says Wright, “may refer to an otherwise unknown custom, applied analogically to Miriam, where a father could shame a child for seven days by spitting in his or her face (cf. Deut. 25:9). Miriam’s exclusion from the camp is similar to rules in Lev. 13:46 and Num. 5:1-4 concerning the skin disease as surface affliction (see textual note b and Lev. 13:1-14:57n)” (op. cit., on vv. 14-15). Wright refers to his earlier comments:

These chapters [Lev. 13-14] deal with afflictions of human skin, fabrics, and walls of houses. Because . . . actual leprosy, Hansen’s disease, is not clearly attested in the Near East when this text was written, the translation of the Heb. term ‘tsar‘at’ as leprous is incorrect. Instead, it should be rendered ‘surface affliction.’ These conditions, especially in humans, may have been considered impure because they were unsightly and connected with death (cf. Num 12:9-12). (Wright, on Lev. 13:1-14:47)

Rabbi Hertz observes: “Would not a father’s putting his daughter to shame before all the world entail her retirement for seven days at least? How much more, when her Heavenly Father has seen fit to inflict a public punishment upon Miriam, should she be shut away for at least a similar period!” (op. cit., p. 619, on v. 14). The result is that “Miriam was shut out of the camp for seven days; and the people did not set out on the march until Miriam had been brought in again” (v. 15). “This was done,” says the Rabbi, in reference to their bringing her in again, “out of deference to Miriam. ‘Miriam waited for her brother Moses one hour, as it is said, “And his sister stood afar off, to know what would be done to him” (Exod. ii, 4). In return for this sisterly act, the people of Israel waited for Miriam seven days in the desert’ (Talmud)” (on v. 15). And so, the journey resumes: “After that [i.e. Miriam’s return] the people set out from Hazeroth, and camped in the wilderness of Paran” (v. 16).

With her “leprosy,” or rather “skin afflictions,” Miriam bears the brunt of the punishment (the skin disease, v. 10; shut out of the camp seven days, v. 15), which we may understand as indirect, ironic testimony to her significance as a spiritual leader. Rabbi Hertz says, “Miriam seems to have been the instigator of the evil speaking against Moses. . . . It is a spiritual tragedy that such a prophetic soul should have been guilty of an offence deserving the dire punishment recorded in this chapter” (op. cit., on Num. 12:1). It’s no discredit to her that she was overshadowed by her brother, “my servant Moses . . . With him I speak face to face–clearly, not in riddles” (vv. 7-8). We all should learn to fulfill our own calling, and not let it be colored by an inappropriate veneration or depreciation of another’s calling.

Dorothy Irvin finds this “story about Aaron and Miriam . . . difficult to understand.” After recounting the events of this chapter, she says, “The lesson is clear that Moses had God’s approval and was to be respected personally and as a prophet above all others. But Aaron, equally guilty [as Miriam] in the text, received no punishment. We could conclude that this story teaches that it is much more offensive for women to question authority than for men. However, it could be that Miriam was the stronger character and took the punishment because she had been the prime mover. Yet in Numbers 12:11 Aaron speaks of having been punished like Miriam” (The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, edd. Catherine Clark Kroeger & Mary J. Evans, 2002, p. 83, on Num. 12).

Romans 2:12-24

12 All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.

The Jews and the Law

17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of your relation to God 18 and know his will and determine what is best because you are instructed in the law, 19 and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth, 21 you, then, that teach others, will you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You that forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You that abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You that boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." (Romans 2:12-24, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from March 12, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from June 19, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year Two), when comments were repeated from March 8, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year One), when comments were repeated with some editing from June 22, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year Two), when comments were combined and revised from June 17, 2004 (Thursday of the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year Two) in an email sent June 14, 2004 for June 14-20, and from February 24, 2005 (Thursday of the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year One).

On Romans 2:12-16

The principle of God’s impartiality is explained as Paul describes the grounds for God’s judgment on sin. “All who have sinned apart from the law,” says Paul, “will also perish apart from the law,” and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law” (Rom. 2:12). Where the law is clear, in particular, the Torah for Jews, judgment is based on law. “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight,” says Paul, “but the doers of the law who will be justified” (v. 13). This applies as well to the Gentile as to the Jew, for “when Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively (physei, lit. ‘by nature,’ cf. AV/KJV) what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves” (v. 14 NRSV). What counts is not having or hearing the law, but doing the law, so the Gentiles who “do instinctively what the law requires” (v. 14), “show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness” (v. 15a). Paul explains that “their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all” (v. 15b, 16). According to Neil Elliott, “Ancient Judaism acknowledged righteous Gentiles who did ‘by nature [physei]’ what the law requires, lit. ‘the work of the law. For Paul, those who walk according to the Spirit fulfill the law’s just requirement (8:4)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Rom. 2:14-15). Elliott explains the statement “their own conscience also bears witness,” to mean, “thus they acknowledge the validity of God’s law. A similar argument appears in 7:14-22” (ibid., on v. 15). For Gentiles, Paul would clearly not apply this keeping of the law “by nature” to what we call the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic law, for example, circumcision, which he adamantly insists is not necessary for his Gentile converts (cf. Gal. 2:3-9). In principle, then, the Gentile could follow his conscience and keep the law, but with or without the law, all have sinned (v. 12; cf. 3:23). What counts is not hearing the law, but doing the law (v. 13). Where sin amounts to revolting against one’s conscience (v. 15), that becomes the basis for judgment.

On Romans 2:17-24

Paul then hones in on the hypothetical Jew whom he is addressing, not anyone in particular, but the Jew as such. He lists both advantages and a presumed ability to teach morality. “But if (ei) you call yourself a Jew,” he says, “and rely on the law and boast of your relation to God, and know his will and determine what is best because you are instructed in the law, and if (te) you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth” (vv. 17-20)–so much for the condition, the “if” clause in a conditional statement. The first “if” (ei) covers five verbs, “call yourself,” “rely,” “boast,” “know,” and “determine”; and the conjunction, te (“and if”) continues the condition in the participial phrase, “if you are sure” (pepoithas, lit. “having been persuaded [that]”) with its list of titles that this hypothetical Jew considers himself to be, “a guide,” “a light” (v. 19), “a corrector,” “a teacher,” and one “having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth” (v. 20). This extended condition, the “if” clause (the protasis in technical terms), is the kind that assumes the truth of the condition for the sake of the argument (as in a first-class conditional sentence, cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 1995, pp. 690-694). The condition is often followed by a “then” clause, a statement of the consequence if the condition is met (the apodosis in technical terms), but this consequence can be expressed in various ways. In the present passage the assumption of truth–that the hypothetical Jew is all of these things–is ironic, and the real consequence (from Paul’s perspective) is expressed in a series of rhetorical questions: “you, then, that teach others, will you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You that forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You that abhor idols, do you rob temples? You that boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?” (vv. 21-23). If all of the conditions (vv. 17-20) were in fact met, then this hypothetical Jew would not be in violation of the laws suggested by these questions, or so Paul would expect. Stealing, adultery, and idolatry are, of course, forbidden in the fundamental core of the Mosaic law, the Ten Commandments. The question, “do you rob temples (hierosyleis)?” may seem out of place. The precise meaning of “rob temples” has eluded many; according to T. W. Manson, “no really convincing explanation of this has so far been offered” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 818 c, p. 943, on Rom. 2:21-23), but it strikes one as hyperbole in Paul’s diatribe style. C. K. Barrett translates the question, “do you commit sacrilege” (The Epistle to the Romans, Harper’s New Testament Commentaries, 1957, p. 54), and explains: “(RV: Dost thou rob temples?–but the word is conclusively proved by inscriptions and papyri to have a wider meaning.)” (ibid, p. 57 on Rom. 2:22). Both meanings of the verb, “to take objects from a temple by force or stealth, rob temples,” and “to commit irreverent acts, commit sacrilege” are now documented (cf. Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. hierosyleō; in Rom. 2:22 the verb is “probably to be taken literally of temple plundering,” says the Lexicon). Ben Witherington III agrees with the literal meaning:

There were small votive ‘dolls’ of sorts, small statues of a god or a goddess that a visitor to a temple might well buy and take home. These were not mere souvenirs but were often thought to bring the favor of the deity with them . . . But would a religious Jew actually visit a pagan temple? The truth of the matter is that Jews carried on such syncretistic practices in several major cities of the empire. An especially high-status cultured Jew might well have socialized with pagans, perhaps even in temples on occasion. Grave inscriptions reflect these syncretistic tendencies on the part of both Jews and Christians. (Paul’s Letter to the Romans, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 2004, p. 90, on Rom. 2:22)

Many ancient temples acquired gold and other valuable objects. It is said that ancient kings had a habit of treating temples as banks, and raiding them when pressed by necessity. Here it amounts to pressing the argument to its absurdity. Manson says, “Paul is not asserting that all Jews commit all the sins he mentions; he does claim that too many of them fall too far short of the standards they set up” (loc. cit.). By the same token, we Christians, including some of our leaders, have proven again and again that we too often fail to live up to our standards. Paul certainly closes this paragraph by assuming the sort of lawbreaking he implies on the part of the hypothetical Jew–his “straw man” dialogue partner, if you will. “For,” he concludes, “as it is written, ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you’ ” (v. 24, citing Isa. 52:5; cf. Ezek. 36:20).

Matthew 18:10-20

The Parable of the Lost Sheep (Lk 15.1-7)

10 "Take care that you do not despise one of these little ones; for, I tell you, in heaven their angels continually see the face of my Father in heaven. 12 What do you think? If a shepherd has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? 13 And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. 14 So it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should be lost.

Reproving Another Who Sins

15 "If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. 16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them." (Matthew 18:10-20, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from November 20, 2009 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 16, Year One), when relevant comments were repeated with editing and adjustment from June 14, 2009 (the Sunday closest to June 15, Year One) and October 26, 2008 (the Sunday closest to October 26, 2008, Year Two), when comments on Matthew 18:1-14 and 15-20 were repeated from June 18 and 19, 2008 (Wednesday and Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year Two), when comments were repeated from earlier dates as noted there, including some adaptation from an email message sent November 20, 2003, for November 21, 2003.

The parable of the Lost Sheep is found in Matthew (Mt. 18:10-14) and in Luke (Lk. 15:1-7). While the parable itself is similar in both Gospels, more succinct in Matthew, the contexts are different. In Matthew the shepherd leaves “the ninety-nine on the mountains” to search for the lost sheep (Mt. 18:12), but in Luke he leaves them “in the wilderness” (Lk. 15:4), which, given the topography of Israel, might not be very different. In Luke’s version, the shepherd calls his friends and neighbors together to share in the rejoicing (v. 6), and “there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents” (v. 7), but in Matthew’s version, it is only the shepherd whose rejoicing is singled out (Mt. 18:13). For texts of the parallel versions see the separate file, theParable of the Lost Sheep.

In Matthew the parable begins with an admonition: “Take care that you do not despise one of these little ones (mikroi),” says Jesus; for, I tell you, in heaven their angels continually see the face of my Father in heaven” (Mt. 18:10). The reference to “little ones” recalls the same term in v. 6, where Dennis C. Duling said, “Little ones who believe in me [is] no longer the literal children of vv. 1-4, but believers. It is not clear whether they are missionaries (see 10:42), disciples, recent converts, those of low social or economic status . . . or those weak in faith” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 18:6). J. Andrew Overman sees the “little ones” as “socially inferior or more vulnerable members of the church.” And in reference to “their angels,” he says, “it was believed that one’s guardian represented one in heaven (Acts. 12:15). In Acts, the believers at the home of Mary, John Mark’s mother, do not believe Rhoda when she tells them Peter, released from prison, was “standing at the gate” (Acts 12:14). “They said, ‘You are out of your mind!’ But she insisted that it was so. They said, ‘It is his angel’ ” (v. 15). In Luke, Jesus tells the parable of the Lost Sheep on an occasion when “all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him” (Lk. 15:1). On that occasion, “the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, ‘This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them’ ” (Lk. 15:1-2). David L. Tiede, revised by Christopher R. Matthews, notes that in Luke, chapter 15, there are “three parables on the lost and found. Only the first has a parallel in Matthew” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lk. 15:1-32). They describe verses 1 and 2 as “the audience for the parables and a definition of the ‘lost’ ” (ibid., on vv. 1-2).

The NRSV text note b on Matthew 18:10 says, “Other ancient authorities add verse 11, For the Son of Man came to save the lost.” Many of the oldest and best manuscripts omit this verse. Bruce M. Metzger puts it this way:

There can be little doubt that the words ēlthen gar ho huios tou anthrōpou (zētēsai kai) sōsai to apolōlos, cf the text note cited above are spurious here, being omitted by the earliest witnesses representing several textual types (Alexandrian, pre-Caesarean, Egyptian, Antiochian), and manifestly borrowed by copyists from Lk. 19:10. The reason for the interpolation was apparently to provide a connection between ver. 10 and verses 12-14. (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1971, p. 44, on Mt. 18:11)

The “definition of the ‘lost’ ” seen by Tiede and Matthew in Luke’s present context may also have been a factor.

So we continue with the parable. In Matthew, Jesus says, “What do you (hymin, ‘you’ plural, dative case due to the idiom, Ti hymin dokei, lit. ‘What does it seem to you?’) think?” (Mt. 18:12a). The question is directed to the disciples (18:1). In Luke, Jesus says, “So he told them [i.e., the Pharisees and scribes who were grumbling about his welcoming and eating with sinners, v. 2] this parable” (Lk. 15:3a). In Matthew’s version of the parable, Jesus says, “If a shepherd has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray” (Mt. 18:12b, 13). While Luke’s version begins with a situation quite similar to that of Matthew’s version, Luke elaborates the shepherd’s rejoicing with friends and neighbors. “Which one of you,” says Jesus in Luke, “having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it? When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders and rejoices. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost’ ” (Lk. 15:4-6).

And the lessons drawn in the two versions differ. “So,” says Jesus in Matthew, “it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should be lost” (Mt. 18:14). “A shepherd,” says Overman, “a common image for a community leader (Num. 27:17; Jer. 3:15), must seek out even the lowliest person” (op. cit., on Mt. 18:12). In Luke, Jesus says, “Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (Lk. 15:7). According to Marion Lloyd Soards, “The mention of joy anticipates the declarations of joy in the following two parables, which share the theme of lost and found” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Lk. 15:6-7).

In Matthew, the Parable of the Lost Sheep emphasizes care for “one of these little ones” (v. 10). It is the third of six paragraphs that make up the fourth major speech of Jesus in Matthew. In Luke, the parable is one of a series of parables and related teachings on discipleship: “Parable on Humility” (Lk. 14:7-14), “Parable of the great dinner” (vv. 15-24; cf. Mt. 22:1-14), “the costs of discipleship” (vv. 25-33; cf. Mt. 10:37-38), “sayings about salt” (14:34-35; cf. Mt. 5:13; Mk. 9:49-50); the “Parable of the Lost Sheep” (15:1-9; cf. Mt. 18:12-14), the “Parable of the Lost Coin” (15:8-10), the “Parable of the Lost Prodigal Son” (15:11-32), and the “Parable of the Dishonest Manager” (16:1-9; titles from Marion Lloyd Soards, NOAB, 3^rd ed., on these respective units [mostly traditional titles, in any case]). These arrangements reflect the editing and topical arrangement of both evangelists, each in his own way. Parables continue in Luke’s “Travel Narrative,” for example, the “Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus” (16:9-31) and the “Parable of the Unjust Judge and the Persistent Widow” (18:1-8, also both titles from Soards). But the set of three parables on lost people or things in Luke 15 stands out, emphasizing the Father’s (God’s) concern to redeem the lost. “Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (Lk. 15:7). The reference to needing no repentance is ironic for, in Luke, the parable is a response to the grumbling of the Pharisees and the scribes who were criticizing Jesus for welcoming sinners and eating with them” (15:2). In Matthew as well, the parable underscores God’s concern for every individual person. “It is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should be lost” (v. 14). A Gospel song, “The Ninety and Nine,” is on the Internet at http://www.scriptureandmusic.com/Music/Text_Files/The_Ninety_And_Nine.html (accessed again June 14, 2010; you may need to copy and paste the URL). The words are by Elizabeth C. Clephane, in 1868; the hymn tune (his first) by Ira Sankey (who worked with Dwight L. Moody), in 1874.

As we continue, Jesus gives advice about how a Christian believer should deal with a fellow Christian who has sinned against him or her. Duling, with reference to Matthew’s version, says “the author [i.e., the evangelist Matthew] expands Q [the hypothetical source used by Matthew and Luke] into a formal procedure for settling disputes within the church” (op. cit., on Mt. 18:15-20). I would agree that Matthew’s reports this teaching of Jesus in a way that reflects his experience within his own Christian community, but I would maintain that Matthew’s report remains true to the substance and intent of Jesus’ teaching–that he does not falsify it. “If another member of the church sins against you,” says Jesus, “go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one” (Mt. 18:15). Luke also reports this saying of Jesus (Lk. 17:3) in the context of sayings about not causing temptation (Lk. 17:1-2; cf. Mk. 9:42; Mt. 18:6-7), a saying about repeated forgiveness of another disciple (Lk. 17:4; cf. Mt. 18:21-22), and on faith (Lk. 17:5-6; cf. Mk. 9:28-29; Mt. 17:19-21). But Luke does not include the saying about what to do if the offender does not accept the reproof. “But if you are not listened to,” says Jesus, “take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses” (Mt. 18:16). Further advice is given if this fails. “If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (v. 17). We remember that Matthew himself was a tax collector before he became a disciple of Jesus (9:9). In the present context, being “to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” means that the offender is to be excluded from the community. But, one hopes, the process will have the happier result of restoring the offender, not excluding him. The description of this procedure for dealing with an offender follows Matthew’s version of the parable of the lost sheep (Mt. 18:10-14). “Truly I tell you (hymin, ‘you’ plural), whatever you bind (dēsēte, 2^nd person plural verb form) on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose (lusēte, 2^nd person plural verb form) on earth will be loosed in heaven" (v. 18). Note that this pronoun “you” is plural in Greek (“ye” AV/KJV, “Y'all” in Texas). Two chapters earlier, Jesus says the same thing to Peter, ". . .  whatever you bind (dēsē(i)s, 2^nd person singular verb form) on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose (lysē(i)s, 2^nd person singular verb form) on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Mt. 16:19). Jesus addresses Peter with a singular "you" ("thou" AV/KJV). But, as the repetition in chapter 18 shows, this power of binding and loosing, or better, this mission of binding and loosing, is not limited to Peter. There are times when we represent Christ to those who otherwise would not know him. We do what we can to help rescue his lost sheep.

According to J. Andrew Overman, this “process of disciplining a member of the church” is “similar [to a] process [that] was used by the Essenes (cf. 1QS 6 [i.e., the Qumran Manual of Discipline, col. 6] and CD 9 [i.e., the Damascus Document, col. 9]” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 18:15-17). Duling has an extensive list of comparisons with this passage from Matthew:

Reproof was based on interpretations of Lev. 19:17-18: one should not allow anger to simmer inside, but confront one’s ‘brother,’ friend, or neighbor openly. See, e.g., Sir 18:13-14; 19:13-17; Testament of Gad 4:1-4; 6:1-6; 4 Ezra 14:13-22; rabbinic texts (Sifra Lev. 9:17; Babylonian Talmud Bava Mezi‘a 31a, emphasizing unending forgiveness, as in Mt. 18:21-22; Targum Ps-Jonathan Lev. 19:17); Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule (1QS [= Manual of Discipline, above]) 9:2-8; 5:24-6:1; 7:2-3, which stipulates that reproof is required on the same day; Damascus Document (CD) 9:6; 9:16b-22. Cf. also Heb. 3:113. (loc. cit.)

In closing, we should note the Lord's assurance, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them” (Mt. 18:20).

As noted above, for the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 3, 2010, two weeks ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.
rdworden@hgst.edu
deanworden@comcast.net