For the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 4, 2010, two weeks ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

Episcopal and Presbyterian Readings:

Numbers 13:1-3, 21-30

Spies Sent into Canaan (Deut 1.19-33)

13:1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites; from each of their ancestral tribes you shall send a man, every one a leader among them." 3 So Moses sent them from the wilderness of Paran, according to the command of the LORD, all of them leading men among the Israelites. (Numbers 13:1-3, NRSV)

21 So they went up and spied out the land from the wilderness of Zin to Rehob, near Lebo-hamath. 22 They went up into the Negeb, and came to Hebron; and Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the Anakites, were there. (Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.) 23 And they came to the Wadi Eshcol, and cut down from there a branch with a single cluster of grapes, and they carried it on a pole between two of them. They also brought some pomegranates and figs. 24 That place was called the Wadi Eshcol, because of the cluster that the Israelites cut down from there.

The Report of the Spies

25 At the end of forty days they returned from spying out the land. 26 And they came to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation of the Israelites in the wilderness of Paran, at Kadesh; they brought back word to them and to all the congregation, and showed them the fruit of the land. 27 And they told him, "We came to the land to which you sent us; it flows with milk and honey, and this is its fruit. 28 Yet the people who live in the land are strong, and the towns are fortified and very large; and besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there. 29 The Amalekites live in the land of the Negeb; the Hittites, the Jebusites, and the Amorites live in the hill country; and the Canaanites live by the sea, and along the Jordan."

30 But Caleb quieted the people before Moses, and said, "Let us go up at once and occupy it, for we are well able to overcome it." (Numbers 13:21-30, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from June 20, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from June 23, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year Two):

In the reading for last Monday, the Israelites actually departed from Mt. Sinai (Num. 10:33). In the meantime there have been several complaints, for example, what David P. Wright calls complaint “about the lack of luxurious food” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Num. 11:4-35, with reference to Exod. 16:2-3), and the complaints of Miriam and Aaron (Num. 12:1-9). There are positive developments, of a sort. Elders are appointed to help Moses (Num. 11:16-25), and the elders prophesy, but only once, for “they did not do so again” (v. 25). Two men who prophesy, Eldad and Medad, cause Joshua to be concerned (vv. 26-28), but Moses does not heed his warning to stop them (v. 28). He responds, “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD’s people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit on them!” (v. 29). When the LORD sends quails to satisfy the people’s craving for meat (vv. 31-33), it apparently turns bitter in their mouths, and brings “a very great plague” (v. 33). In the next chapter, Moses deals with the complaint of Miriam and Aaron about his leadership (Num. 12:1-9) and the consequent punishment of Miriam with “leprosy,” that is, “skin afflictions” (vv. 10-16), as noted earlier, following Wright (ibid., on Lev. 13:1-14:47).

So we might anticipate further trouble from today’s reading, which begins the report on the Israelites’ scouting of the land of Canaan (13:1-14:45). Wright calls it “a long complaint narrative” that “exhibits two layers, as may be seen in tension concerning the extent of the trip, and the roles of Caleb and Joshua” (ibid., on Num. 13:1-14:45). “In an earlier (JE) version of the story, says Wright,

scouts are sent only to the southern half of the land, and only Caleb urges its conquest (13:17b-20, 22-24, 26b-31; 14:1b, 4, 11-25, 26-45). This was augmented with elements (some attributed to P, others hard to identify) telling about a larger scouting expedition covering the entire land of Canaan. In this, Joshua adds an affirmative voice (13:1-3, 4-17a, 21, 25-26a, 32-14:1a, 22-3, 5-10, 26-38). The earlier version is reflected in Josh. 14:6-9. The combined account is reflected in Num. 26:64-65; 32:8-13; Deut. 1:19-46 (cf. Also Ps. 95:10-11; 106:24-26; Neh. 9:21). (ibid., on Num. 13:1-14:45)

As for the complexity of sources, Nili S. Fox agrees (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 309 on Num. 13:1-33). But whether this analysis is correct or not, the meaning of the account for us is about whether we will let discouraging circumstances hold us back, or we will accept the challenges and forge ahead under the Lord’s direction. Rabbi J. H. Hertz apparently does not accept this view of the complexity of sources, for he treats the two chapters as continuous narrative. He does report that,

According to some scholars, the victory of the Israelites over the king of Arad in the extreme south of Canaan, recorded in xxi, 1-3, took place at this stage. The Israelites inflicted an annihilating defeat on the enemy, and called his territory Hormah, lit. ‘utter destruction’. So striking had been their success, that Moses deemed the moment ripe for undertaking the conquest of the Holy Land from this advanced station of their march. (The Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 1981, on Num. 13-14)

The LORD directs Moses to choose a leader from each of the tribes to “spy out the land of Canaan”: “The LORD said to Moses, ‘Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites; from each of their ancestral tribes you shall send a man, every one a leader among them’ ” (Num. 13:1-2). And the narrator tells us that Moses did as instructed. “So Moses sent them from the wilderness of Paran, according to the command of the LORD, all of them leading men among the Israelites” (v. 3). In the interval in today’s reading, a list of tribal leaders who served as spies is provided (vv. 4-15). Although Wright says, “Most of the individuals named here do not occur elsewhere” (on vv. 4-15), we note that the list includes no one from Levi, but representatives from Ephraim and Manasseh, for a total of twelve. Caleb represents Judah (v. 6), and Hoshea, renamed Joshua (v. 16), represents Ephraim (v. 8).

These twelve are directed “to spy out the land of Canaan”: “Go up there into the Negeb (‘the southern region of Israel,’ Wright, on v. 17), and go up into the hill country [i.e., central Palestine]” (Num. 13:17), “and see what the land is like, and whether the people who live in it are strong or weak, whether they are few or many, and whether the land they live in is good or bad, and whether the towns that they live in are unwalled or fortified, and whether the land is rich or poor, and whether there are trees in it or not” (vv. 18-20a). “Be bold,” says Moses, “and bring some of the fruit of the land,” an appropriate request, since “it was the season of the first ripe grapes” (v. 20b). According to Wright, “Grapes ripen in late summer” (op. cit., on v. 20).

Following these instructions, the twelve spies “spied out the land from the wilderness of Zin [near the southern end of the Dead Sea] to Rehob, near Lebo-hamath” (v. 21). The latter is apparently some fifty miles north of Damascus, so this statement “expands the scouting expedition over the entire land of Canaan,” says Fox, who derives this view from “the Priestly account,” which also “adds Joshua as a spokesman for undertaking the campaign (14:6-9)” (op. cit., on Num. 13:21). Rabbi Hertz locates Rehob “in the north of the land, at the base of Mount Hermon, near the sources of the Jordan” (op. cit., p. 624 on Num. 13:21). As noted, the sources theory represented by Wright and Fox distinguishes a scouting trip that covered the whole of the land (v. 21), from one that covers the southern half of the country, as described in verse 22: “They went up into the Negeb, and came to Hebron; and Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the Anakites, were there. (Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)” (v. 22). The spies “came to the Wadi Eshcol (nachal ’eškōl), and cut down from there a branch with a single cluster of grapes (’eškôl ‘ ^anāvîm ’echād), and they carried it on a pole between two of them (v. 23a). As Wright observes, in the name of the “Wadi Eshcol,” which he places “near Hebron,” (’eškōl), “means ‘grape cluster’ ” (on v. 23). As we know them, a man could easily hold a cluster of grapes in his hands–or one of them–but the report that “a single cluster of grapes” was “carried . . . on a pole between two” men implies an enormous size. It is pointed out that the Wadi Eshcol was named for this cluster of grapes (v. 24); but we are told that “they also brought some pomegranates and figs” (v. 23b). According to Fox, “This is an etiological account (origin story) for the name of the wadi, ‘Eshcol–in Heb., a cluster of grapes,” (op. cit., on v. 24); he notes that “Grapes, pomegranates, and figs are late summer fruits” (ibid., on v. 23). So the spies are very impressed with the land; “it flows with milk and honey,” they say (v. 27). The promise of a land that “flows with milk and honey” is frequent in the Pentateuch (Exod. 3:8, 17; 13:5, 33:3; Lev. 20:24; Num. 13:27; 14:8; 16:13,14; Deut. 6:3; ll:9; 26:9, 15; 27:3; 31:20). But while the phrase is a figurative expression of the land’s abundance, the direct association with fruits such as grapes, pomegranates and figs (Num. 13:23) is unique to this passage.

“At the end of forty days,” we are told, “they [the 12 spies] returned from spying out the land” (v. 25). They returned “to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation of the Israelites in the wilderness of Paran, at Kadesh” (v. 26a). In the positive side of the report they emphasized the abundance represented by the fruit, for “they brought back word to them and to all the congregation, and showed them the fruit of the land. And they told him, ‘We came to the land to which you sent us; it flows with milk and honey, and this is its fruit’ ” (vv. 26b, 27). According to Wright, the phrase, “flows with milk and honey [is] a description with mythological overtones. The honey was probably a thick syrup made from grapes or dates” (op. cit., on v. 27).

The British poet George Herbert celebrates the abundance represented by this cluster of grapes, but reflects on the Israelite’s hesitation–and ours as well–before the challenge of entering the land to take possession:

Then have we too our guardian fires and clouds;
Our Scripture-dew [i.e., the manna] drops fast:

We have our sands and serpents, tents and shrowds;
Alas! Our murmurings come not last.
But where’s the cluster? where’s the taste

Of mine inheritance? Lord, if I must borrow,

Let me as well take up their joy, as sorrow.

But can he want the grape, who hath the wine?
I have their fruit and more.

Blessed be God who prosper’d Noah's vine,
And made it bring forth grapes good store.
But much more him I must adore,

Who of the Law's sowre juice sweet wine did make,

Ev’n God himself being pressed for my sake. (“The bunch of grapes,” lines 15-28, from The Temple, 1663, on the Internet at Christian Classics Ethereal Library, at http://www.ccel.org/h/herbert/temple/BunchGrapes.html, accessed again, June 16, 2010).

But the positive side of the report is countered by the negative side. “Yet the people who live in the land are strong,” they say, “and the towns are fortified and very large; and besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there” (v. 28). After a further list of peoples inhabiting the land, Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites (v. 29), and Caleb’s minority report (v. 30), the spies give a negative conclusion: “We are not able to go up against this people, for they are stronger than we” (v.31). The narrator summarizes their negative conclusion as “an unfavorable report of the land that they had spied out” (v. 32a), and quotes them further: “The land that we have gone through as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are of great size” (v. 32b). And the narrator returns to the subject of the Anakites (cf. v. 28): “There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim); and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them” (v. 33). Fox comments on “the report of giants in the land [which] makes the Canaanites more intimidating”:

Anakites, or giants, are mentioned in several texts (Deut. 2:11; Josh. 11:21-22). An etiological account for the Nephilim is found in Gen. 6:1-4. The reference to Anakites in Joshua notes that even after the conquest some survived in Philistine cities (11:22). David’s adversary Goliath, a Philistine from Gath, is depicted as a giant (1 Sam. 17:4) descended from a group of giants from Raphah (1 Chron. 20:5-6). The tall headdresses of the Philistines may have contributed to their gigantic image. (op. cit., on vv. 22, 28, 33).

There is a hopeful, positive note in Caleb’s assessment, “Let us go up at once and occupy it, for we are well able to overcome it” (v. 30). But, as we know, the negative report of the other spies (vv. 25-29; 31-33) prevails and leads to more rebellion. And as we also know, Caleb was later rewarded (Josh. 15:13-19). Dr. Delbert Vaughn, founder with wife Carol, of Houston Graduate School of Theology, used to reflect on what it would have meant for the Israelites had they accepted the challenge of Caleb, Joshua (Num. 14:6), and Moses, and entered Canaan directly at that time. He was determined to be faithful to his own vision and follow through with his plans for establishing the seminary. He once said, “Starting a school is like having a baby. Once you have it started, there’s no turning back.” As noted earlier, in a different context, when Moses questions the LORD on the possibility of feeding the people, asking, “Are there enough flocks and herds to slaughter for [the 600,000 of] them? Are there enough fish in the sea to catch for them?” (Num. 11:22), the LORD as much as says, “Your forgetting! This is God talking!” “The LORD said to Moses, ‘Is the LORD’s power limited? Now you shall see whether my word will come true for you or not’” (v. 23).

Romans 2:25-3:8

25 Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So, if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 29 Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart–it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God.

3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written,

“So that you may be justified in your words,
and prevail in your judging.”

5 But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), "Let us do evil so that good may come"? Their condemnation is deserved! (Romans 2:25-3:8, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from relevant comments on Romans 2:25-3:18 of March 13, 2009 (Friday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from June 20 and 21, 2008 (Friday and Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year Two), when comments on Romans 2:25-3:8 and Romans 3:9-20 were repeated from earlier as noted there.

On Romans 2:25-29

Paul has charged the hypothetical Jew with whom he is in “dialogue” with failing to live up to the requirements of Torah, divine law, that he claims to represent (Rom. 2:17-24). He continues today by taking a cue from Moses, and pointing out that “real circumcision is a matter of the heart” (Rom. 2:29; alluding to Deut. 10:16 ; cf. Jer. 4:4; 31:33). “Circumcision indeed is of value,” he says, “but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision” (Rom. 2:25). Circumcision, as a mark of a true Jew, “indeed is of value if you obey the law,” but Paul adds, the mark of a Jew is meaningless if he does not do the fundamental thing, that is, actually keep the law. “So,” he asks, “if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?” (v. 26). And so Paul says, “those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the law” (v. 27). He concludes that circumcision is a spiritual matter, something we may compare to a common definition of Christian baptism, “an outward sign of an inward work of grace.” But the important thing is the spiritual reality. “For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart–it is spiritual and not literal” (vv. 28-29a). This paragraph builds upon the previous emphasis upon conscience (v. 15), and the challenge that those who teach the law actually break it (vv. 19-23).

On Romans 3:1-8

After this rather severe criticism of the hypothetical Jew with whom Paul is in dialogue–Paul being himself a Jew, but a Jew who has come to trust in Christ for salvation (cf. 9:1-3)–Paul raises a question about the value of being a Jew. “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?” he asks (3:1). And he has some answers of value. “Much, in every way,” he says. “For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God” (v. 2). We might think first of the Ten Commandments, sometimes referred to by Jews as the Ten Words (d ^evārîm). But Paul surely has a broader understanding of divine revelation, Torah, through the Hebrew Scriptures. Having previously charged the hypothetical Jew with breaking God’s law, he asks, “What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?” (v. 3). The answer is an emphatic “No!” “By no means!” (v. 4a). The phrase here is mē genoito, a common phrase in Paul’s writings, but one of the relatively few occurrences of the optative mood in the New Testament. According to William D. Mounce, “Whereas the subjunctive is the mood of probability or possibility, the optative is the mood of ‘wish.’ Whereas the subjunctive is one step removed from reality, the optative is two” (Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 2^nd ed., 2003, sec. 35.9, p. 332). Daniel B. Wallace goes further. “The use of the volitive optative [i.e., in an independent clause] in the NT seems to fit into one of three nuances [the second of which is a] stereotyped formula that has lost its optative ‘flavor’: mē genoito usually has the force of abhorrence, and may in some contexts be the equivalent of ou mē + aorist subjunctive (a very strong negative)” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics; An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, 1996, p. 481). In a footnote, Wallace adds, “In 12 of Paul’s 14 uses of mē genoito ‘it expresses the apostle’s abhorrence of an inference which he fears may be (falsely) drawn from his argument’ (Burton, Moods and Tenses, 79 [sec. 177])” (ibid.).

So this abhorrence is of the possibly drawn false conclusion that the faithfulness of God can be nullified (v. 3). “By no means (cf. ‘God forbid’ AV/KJV)! Although everyone is a liar (citing Ps. 116:11), let God be proved true,” says Paul (v. 4a). And he quotes scripture to the contrary: “as it is written, ‘So that you may be justified in your words, / and prevail in your judging’ ” (v. 4b, citing Ps. 51:4). And so Paul emphatically rejects the notion that human unfaithfulness detracts from God’s truthfulness, faithfulness or glory. “But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world?” (v. 6). One may ask, “But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?” (v. 7). The error of this question is left to speak for itself, but it connects to an even more absurd notion for Paul: “And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), ‘Let us do evil so that good may come’?” (v. 8a); to which Paul simply responds: “Their condemnation [self-evident on the face of it] is deserved!” (v. 8b). Good cannot come from evil, says Paul.

Matthew 18:21-35

Forgiveness

21 Then Peter came and said to him, "Lord, if another member of the church sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?" 22 Jesus said to him, "Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times.

The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant

23 "For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. 24 When he began the reckoning, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him; 25 and, as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, and payment to be made. 26 So the slave fell on his knees before him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' 27 And out of pity for him, the lord of that slave released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But that same slave, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat, he said, 'Pay what you owe.' 29 Then his fellow slave fell down and pleaded with him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.' 30 But he refused; then he went and threw him into prison until he would pay the debt. 31 When his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. 32 Then his lord summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?' 34 And in anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt. 35 So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart." (Matthew 18:23-35, NRSV)

The following comments are base on those of November 21, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 16, Year One), when comments were based on those of November 2, 2008 (the Sunday closest to November 2, Year Two), those of June 20, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year Two), and those of November 24, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 16, Year One), when comments were based on those of November 5, 2006 (the Sunday closest to November 2, Year Two), and of November 19, 2005 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 16, Year One), when comments were adapted from an email message sent November 21, 2003.

On Forgiveness

Matthew 18:3-35, which we take to be the fourth major speech of Jesus in Matthew, concluded by the typical formula, “When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan” (19:1), is enclosed in continuous quotation marks (NRSV, cf. TNIV), but with one exception in Peter’s question (v.21). The placement of quotation marks in the Bible is determined by modern editors and translators, since the ancient manuscripts did not use them. But the placement here is clearly fitting. “Then Peter came,” says Matthew, “and said to him, ‘Lord, if another member of the church [NRSV text note m, ‘Gk. if my brother] sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?’ ” (Mt. 18:21). The Lord’s answer is short and to the point, “Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times” (v. 22). Jesus’ number, seventy-seven times, is a multiple (11 x 7) of Peter’s suggested “seven times” (v. 21). Elwyn E. Tilden and Bruce M. Metzger say, “Forgiveness is beyond calculating” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Mt. 18:21-22). According to J. Andrew Overman, the emphasis is placed on forgiveness as “the guiding principle in church relations and resolving conflict” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 18:21). Similar numbers appear in Genesis 4:24 (cf. ibid.), but in that context vengeance, not forgiveness, is the subject. According to Terence E. Fretheim,

Whereas God avenged the death of Abel, Lamech takes vengeance into his own hands; he exacts death only for an injury; he appropriates God’s own measures and intensifies the level of retribution, so much so that only a blood feud could ensue (see Matt. 18:21-22 for Jesus’ reversal of Lamech’s boast). The song shows how Cain’s violence had been intensified through the generations. Progress in sin and its effects matches the progress in civilization. (The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 1, 1994, p. 375, on Gen. 4:17-26).

Luke works the saying about forgiveness into a context on the peril of causing “one of these little ones to stumble” (Lk. 17:2, cf. vv. 1-4). In its own way, Luke’s “multiple” of seven, “seven times a day” (v. 4) also intensifies the emphasis on forgiveness. In reference to Peter’s question in Matthew, William Barclay says,

Peter thought that he was being very generous. . . . [He] was not without warrant for this suggestion. It was Rabbinic teaching that a man must forgive his brother three times. Rabbi Jose ben Hanina said, ‘He who begs forgiveness from his neighbour must not do so more than three times.’ Rabbi Jose ben Jehuda said, ‘If a man commits an offence once, they forgive him; if he commits an offence a time, they forgive him; if he commits an offence a third time, they forgive him; the fourth time they do not forgive.’ The Biblical proof that this was correct was taken from Amos. In the opening chapters of Amos, there is a series of condemnations on the various nations for three transgressions and for four (Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2:1, 4, 6). From this it was deduced that God’s forgiveness extends to three offences and that he visits the sinner with punishment at the fourth. It was not to be thought that a man could be more gracious than God, so forgiveness was limited to three times. (The Gospel of Matthew, The Daily Study Bible Series, rev. ed., 1975, vol. 2, p. 135 on Mt. 18:21-35).

Barclay suggests that Peter thought he was being more than generous, “for he takes the Rabbinic three times, multiplies it by two [and] for good measure adds one, and suggests, with eager self-satisfaction, that it will be enough if he forgives seven times” (ibid.). Jesus responds with a multiple of seven: “seventy-seven times” (v. 22; or seventy times seven NRSV text note n). Whether that amounts to seventy-seven (77) or seventy times seven (490), it’s a very large number for this context. Luke presents a version of this saying (Lk. 17:3) which was compared with the instruction on dealing with “another member of the church [who] sins against you” (Mt. 18:15, cf. vv. 15-20) yesterday: “And if the same person sins against you seven times a day, and turns back to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive” (Lk. 17:4). Compare the previous verse, “Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive” (v. 3). Luke’s version of Jesus’ response, “seven times a day” (Lk 17:4), has no cut-off point. Seven times a day for how long? It wouldn’t take long to exceed four hundred ninety (490) times. In both Gospels, Jesus essentially says, forgiveness should be unlimited when there is repentance. “In other words,” says Barclay, “there is no reckonable limit to forgiveness” (ibid., on Mt. 18:21-35).

The Parable of the Unforgiving Slave

The point of Jesus’ exchange with Peter about how many times one should forgive another church member is illustrated in Matthew by a story, the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Mt. 18:23-35, not reported in the other Gospels). A king "wished to settle accounts with his slaves" (v. 23). The debt of the first slave is reckoned as “ten thousand talents” (10,000 times 15 years of wages for a laborer; “a talent was worth more than fifteen years’ wages of a laborer,” NRSV text note o on Mt. 18:24). “Ten thousand talents,” says Dennis C. Duling, is “an unimaginable amount” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 18:24). When the slave “could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, and payment to be made” (v. 25). But the slave “fell on his knees before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ And out of pity for him, the lord of that slave released him and forgave him the debt” (vv. 26-27).

But the parable continues, for “that same slave, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat, he said, 'Pay what you owe’ ” (v. 28). The denarius was the usual day’s wage for a laborer” (NRSV text note j on v. 28), so the debt of “a hundred denarii” amounted to one hundred days’ wages (as opposed to the amount of 15 years’ wages owed by the first slave). The second slave’s plea for mercy, “Have patience with me, and I will pay you” (v. 29) echoes the first slave’s plea (v. 26). But the first s slave “refused; then he went and threw him into prison until he would pay the debt” (v. 30). When fellow slaves inform the king of “all that had taken place” (v. 31), the first slave is summoned; and the king says to him, “You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?” (vv. 32-33). With that rebuke, the parable comes to the point. At the rates cited above, the larger debt was 150,000 years’ wages! When we are forgiven, are we not to pass it on? It appears that one ought to be more than ready to forgive!

As noted above, for the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 4, 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