For the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 5, 2010, two weeks ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

Episcopal and Presbyterian Readings:

Numbers 13:31-14:25

31 Then the men who had gone up with him said, "We are not able to go up against this people, for they are stronger than we." 32 So they brought to the Israelites an unfavorable report of the land that they had spied out, saying, "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. 33 There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim); and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them."

The People Rebel

14:1 Then all the congregation raised a loud cry, and the people wept that night. 2 And all the Israelites complained against Moses and Aaron; the whole congregation said to them, "Would that we had died in the land of Egypt! Or would that we had died in this wilderness! 3 Why is the LORD bringing us into this land to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become booty; would it not be better for us to go back to Egypt?" 4 So they said to one another, "Let us choose a captain, and go back to Egypt."

5 Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the Israelites. 6 And Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh, who were among those who had spied out the land, tore their clothes 7 and said to all the congregation of the Israelites, "The land that we went through as spies is an exceedingly good land. 8 If the LORD is pleased with us, he will bring us into this land and give it to us, a land that flows with milk and honey. 9 Only, do not rebel against the LORD; and do not fear the people of the land, for they are no more than bread for us; their protection is removed from them, and the LORD is with us; do not fear them." 10 But the whole congregation threatened to stone them.

Then the glory of the LORD appeared at the tent of meeting to all the Israelites. 11 And the LORD said to Moses, "How long will this people despise me? And how long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them? 12 I will strike them with pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they."

Moses Intercedes for the People

13 But Moses said to the LORD, "Then the Egyptians will hear of it, for in your might you brought up this people from among them, 14 and they will tell the inhabitants of this land. They have heard that you, O LORD, are in the midst of this people; for you, O LORD, are seen face to face, and your cloud stands over them and you go in front of them, in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night. 15 Now if you kill this people all at one time, then the nations who have heard about you will say, 16 'It is because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land he swore to give them that he has slaughtered them in the wilderness.' 17 And now, therefore, let the power of the LORD be great in the way that you promised when you spoke, saying,

18 'The LORD is slow to anger, / and abounding in steadfast love, / forgiving iniquity and transgression, / but by no means clearing the guilty, / visiting the iniquity of the parents / upon the children / to the third and the fourth generation.'

19 Forgive the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of your steadfast love, just as you have pardoned this people, from Egypt even until now."

20 Then the LORD said, "I do forgive, just as you have asked; 21 nevertheless--as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD-- 22 none of the people who have seen my glory and the signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have tested me these ten times and have not obeyed my voice, 23 shall see the land that I swore to give to their ancestors; none of those who despised me shall see it. 24 But my servant Caleb, because he has a different spirit and has followed me wholeheartedly, I will bring into the land into which he went, and his descendants shall possess it. 25 Now, since the Amalekites and the Canaanites live in the valleys, turn tomorrow and set out for the wilderness by the way to the Red Sea." (Numbers 13:31-14:25, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from June 21, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year Two), when comments were repeated with some editing and supplement from June 24, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year Two):

In the latter part of yesterday’s reading, the ten scouts report that, in spite of the abundance of Canaan (Num. 13:23-24, 26-27), the strength and size of the inhabitants, and the fortification of their towns, would be too much for the Israelites to conquer (vv. 28-29). The reading ended with Caleb’s confident minority report on the scouting mission. “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” (Num. 13:30). But as today’s reading begins, he is immediately contradicted. “We are not able to go up against this people, for they are stronger than we,” say the others (v. 31). Their report is “unfavorable,” we are told, for they say, “The land that we have gone through as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants” (v. 32a). According to Nili S. Fox, this “may refer to the lands’ infertility. More likely, however, the metaphor alludes to the results of frequent warfare (cf. Ezek. 36:13-14)” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 311, on Exod. 13:32). The scouts again emphasize the great size of the inhabitants, saying “all the people that we saw in it are of great size” (v. 32b). “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).

At this the people are aghast: “Then all the congregation raised a loud cry, and the people wept that night” (14:1). Rabbi J. H. Hertz cites the Talmud in reference to the words, “wept that night”: “When the sound of their weeping reached heaven, God said: ‘Ye weep now without cause; the time will come when ye shall have good cause to weep on this day.’ It was then decreed that the Temple be destroyed on this same day, the ninth day of Ab; so that it became forever a day of tears” (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 24^th printing, 1981, on Num. 14:1). Another, even more serious, complaint follows. “And all the Israelites complained against Moses and Aaron; the whole congregation said to them, ‘Would that we had died in the land of Egypt! Or would that we had died in this wilderness!” (v. 2). “Why,” they ask, “is the LORD bringing us into this land to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become booty; would it not be better for us to go back to Egypt?” “Let us choose a captain (rō’š), and go back to Egypt,” they say (v. 4). Rabbi Hertz notes that of the words, “let us make a captain . . . Ehrlich is inclined to see in this phrase an idiomatic expression like nātan qôl, and he translates, ‘let us set our mind to return to Egypt’ ” (on v. 4). But the rebellion is stronger than that. The words “Let us choose a captain, and go back” (nitt ^enāh rō’š w ^enāshûvāh) are translated as “Let us head back” (NJPS trans., 1985, 1999). Fox says of the latter, “This phrase can also be translated, ‘Let us appoint a leader’ [cf. ‘captain’ NRSV], indicating that the Israelites were ready to replace Moses and return to Egypt under new leadership” (Fox on 14:4). Moses and Aaron fall “on their faces before all the assembly” (v. 5), and Joshua joins Caleb in opposing the report of the ten scouts. They “tore their clothes (v. 6), “a sign of mourning that has survived in modern times, albeit a ribbon sometimes substitutes for an article of clothing.” says Fox, adding,

Joshua and Caleb are not only frustrated by the negative report of the other scouts but they fear God’s harsh punishment as evidenced by their plea to the people not to rebel against God. The imminence of Israel’s rebellion is apparent by the people’s intent to stone Moses and Aaron, and probably also Joshua and Caleb (cf. Exod. 17:4). (op. cit., on v. 6)

Joshua and Caleb plead with “all the congregation of the Israelites,” saying, “The land that we went through as spies is an exceedingly good land. If the LORD is pleased with us, he will bring us into this land and give it to us, a land that flows with milk and honey. Only, do not rebel against the LORD; and do not fear the people of the land, for they are no more than bread for us; their protection is removed from them, and the LORD is with us; do not fear them” (vv. 7-9). This plea did not succeed, for “the whole congregation threatened to stone them” (v. 10a).

“In the continuous cycle of rebellions,” says Fox,

this one constitutes the most serious. The ten scouts who incite the populace advocate abandoning Israel’s ultimate goal, to settle the promised land. The fear they instill in the Israelites supersedes the memory of Egyptian oppression. This extreme display of faithlessness before God exacts the ultimate punishment, forty years of wandering in the desert and the death of the exodus generation. (ibid., on 14:1-45)

But the people were interrupted. “Then the glory of the LORD appeared at the tent of meeting to all the Israelites” (v. 10b). This “was the visible manifestation of the divine presence” (David P. Wright, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Num. 14:10). The LORD’s first words indicate that he has had it with Israel. “How long will this people despise me? And how long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them? I will strike them with pestilence and disinherit them (w^e’ôrišennû)” (vv. 11-12a) and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they” (vv. 11-12). For “disinherit” (NRSV), the NJPS translation (1985, 1999) has “disown,” but the older JPS translation (1917) has “destroy.” Rabbi Hertz explains: “The Heb. root has this meaning in Exod. xv, 9" (op. cit., on v. 12). In Exodus 15:9, the JPS translation (1917) and the NRSV have “destroy” (cf. AV/KJV with “repossess” as a marginal reading), but the New JPS translation (NJPS 1985, 1999) has “subdue.” The LORD continues, saying “I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they” (v. 2b). Of this, the Rabbi says, “Moses would be a second Abraham, and thus the oath sworn to the Patriarchs that their seed should inherit the land would be fulfilled” (ibid.).

But Moses objects. He reminds the LORD of his powerful deliverance of the people from Egypt and guidance up to the present through the cloud and the pillar of fire: “Then the Egyptians will hear of it, for in your might you brought up this people from among them, and they will tell the inhabitants of this land. They have heard that you, O LORD, are in the midst of this people; for you, O LORD, are seen face to face, and your cloud stands over them and you go in front of them, in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night (vv. 13-14). Moses also reminds the LORD of the international repercussions, his loss of face, so to speak, if he destroys his people. “Now if you kill this people all at one time, then the nations who have heard about you will say, ‘It is because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land he swore to give them that he has slaughtered them in the wilderness’ ” (vv. 15-16). Rabbi Hertz comments, again praising Moses: “Moses, the faithful shepherd leaves an unsurpassed example of self-denial to the children of men. He refuses a glorious future for himself and his descendants, solely because Israel would have no share in it. He begs God to spare His people out of regard for His own honour. The nations would misunderstand the destruction of Israel, and attribute it to His want of power to lead them into the land He promised them” (op. cit., on v. 13). Moses pleads for the LORD to fulfill his promise to Israel (v. 17), by quoting the LORD’s own words back to him, abbreviated (v. 18; cf. Ex. 34:6-7). “The LORD is slow to anger, / and abounding in steadfast love (chesed), / forgiving iniquity and transgression, / but by no means clearing the guilty, / visiting the iniquity of the parents / upon the children / to the third and the fourth generation” (v. 18). “Forgive the iniquity of this people,” pleads Moses, “according to the greatness of your steadfast love, just as you have pardoned this people, from Egypt even until now” (v. 19). “The thought that God has always forgiven,” says Rabbi Hertz, “gives Moses courage to ask Him still to do so” (ibid., on v. 19). According to Fox, “The long prayer of Moses after the entire nation sins grievously stands in marked contrast to his short prayer on behalf of his sister in 12:13)” (op. cit., p. 312, on Num. 14:11-19).

The LORD does respond to Moses' request not to bring Israel to an end; however, the rebellious generation will not enter the promised land. “Then the LORD said, 'I do forgive, just as you have asked; nevertheless--as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD--none of the people who have seen my glory and the signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have tested me these ten times and have not obeyed my voice, shall see the land that I swore to give to their ancestors; none of those who despised me shall see it” (vv. 20-23). “As I live,” says Jo Ann Hackett, is “a typical oath formula. Although people usually swear on the life of the Lord or a ruler (e.g., Gen. 42:15-16; Ruth 3:13; 1 Sam. 14:29, 45; 25:26, 34; 28:10; 2 Sam. 15:21), the Lord must swear 'on my life' (e.g., Gen. 22:16; Num. 14:28; Isa. 49:18)” (The HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Num. 14:21). Of “these ten times,” Rabbi Hertz explains: “A large number of times; cf. Gen. xxxi, 7. They had now filled up the measure of their iniquities, and punishment must inevitably come upon them” (op. cit., on v. 22). An exception is made for Caleb. “But my servant Caleb, because he has a different spirit and has followed me wholeheartedly, I will bring into the land into which he went, and his descendants shall possess it” (v. 24). According to the Rabbi, Caleb “alone is mentioned here, because it was he who 'stilled' the agitated people (xiii, 30)” (ibid., on v. 24). However, Joshua is also to be spared; with Caleb, he gave a good report (vv. 6-10). Hackett separates source traditions. Commenting earlier, she says, “In this old epic passage . . . Caleb is the only spy who dissents from the majority opinion voiced in [13:] 28-29. Joshua is included only in verses that stem from the Priestly tradition (vv. 8, 16; 14:6, 38)” (op. cit., on 13:30-31). She refers to the Introduction to Numbers for her reasons; the Rabbi clearly differs with another explanation (as above). Both Joshua and Caleb are included in v. 30 (part of tomorrow's reading).

It seems the Israelites are brought “back to square one,” as we say. “Now, since the Amalekites and the Canaanites live in the valleys, turn tomorrow and set out for the wilderness by the way to the Red Sea” (v. 25). The first stanza of George Herbert’s poem, cited yesterday, echoes this return to “the Red Sea”:

I did towards Canaan draw; but now I am

Brought back to the Red sea, the sea of shame. (“The bunch of grapes,” lines 6-7, from The Temple, 1663, on the Internet, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, at http://www.ccel.org/h/herbert/temple/BunchGrapes.html, accessed again June 16, 2010).

The lesson for us is to follow our spiritual leadings, to be clear about our calling and vision–to be sure–but when that is clear, to move forward with determination and courage.

Romans 3:9-20

None Is Righteous (Ps 14.1-3; 53.1-4)

9 What then? Are we any better off? No, not at all; for we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, 10 as it is written:

"There is no one who is righteous, not even one; [Ps. 14:1]
11 there is no one who has understanding,
there is no one who seeks God. [Ps. 14:2]

12 All have turned aside, together they have become worthless;
there is no one who shows kindness,
there is not even one." [Ps. 14:3]

13 "Their throats are opened graves; [Ps. 5:9]
they use their tongues to deceive."

"The venom of vipers is under their lips." [Ps. 140:3]
14 "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness." [Ps. 10:7]

15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood; [Isa 59:7-8]
16 ruin and misery are in their paths,

17 and the way of peace they have not known."
18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes." [Ps. 36:1]

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For "no human being will be justified in his sight" by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:9-12, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from relevant comments of March 13, 2009 (Friday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year One); consider also the comments of June 21, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year Two), when comments were repeated from June 24, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year Two), with some editing and supplement, and comparison with relevant comments from those on Romans 2:25-3:18 of March 9, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year One).

Earlier Paul has concluded his indictment of humanity in general for gross immorality and failure to recognize God in his created world (Rom. 1:18-32) with a long list of sins (vv. 28-32), and turned to the self-righteous critic who supposed that he might be free of God’s judgment for such things (2:1-11). Paul challenges this critic, who judges “those who do such things and yet do[es] them [himself]” (v. 3a); they will not “escape the judgment of God” (v. 3b). Then Paul turns specifically to the Jew–a hypothetical Jew–with the challenge that he, or they, depend on the law (vv. 17-18), and teach the law to others (vv. 19-20), but fail to live up to what they teach, or preach (vv. 19-24). Paul insists on true spirituality, using the example of circumcision, the mark of Jewish heritage and commitment to the law (the Torah of Moses; cf. vv. 25-29). True circumcision is internal (v. 28), “a matter of the heart-- . . . spiritual and not literal” (v. 29).

After considering the “advantage” of being a Jew, which his previous discussion might seem to have called into question (3:1-2), and insisting on the faithfulness of God whether human beings are faithful or not, and on God’s right to judge the world (vv. 3:3-8), Paul asks a question: “What then? Are we any better off? (Rom. 3:9a). And his initial answer sums up the first section of the book “We have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin” (Rom. 3:9b). This is supported by a chain (catena)–series–of Old Testament quotations from Psalms and Isaiah, as indicated by the references given above in square brackets and boldface type. “There is no one who is righteous” or “has understanding” or “seeks God” (Rom. 3:10b, 11, citing Ps. 14:1-2). “All have turned aside . . . [and] become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness” (v. 12, citing Ps. 14:3). The list continues, with deception and speech with the “venom of vipers” (v. 13), “cursing and bitterness” (v. 14), murder, that is, shedding blood (v. 15), ruin and misery (v. 16), with no knowledge of “the way of peace” (v. 17) or the “fear of God” (v. 18). The series builds from not being “righteous,” “understanding,” or seeking God, through the rottenness of opened graves and deception to murderous intentions, the very opposite of peace and fearing God. This chain of quotations forms a kind of peroration bringing Paul’s description of the universal human problem of sin to a climax and demonstrating the need for a universal gospel for “Greeks and . . . barbarians,” “the wise and . . . the foolish” (Rom. 1:14), for “the Jew first and also . . . the Greek” (v. 16). “These quotations from the Hebrew Bible,” says Neil Elliott, “insist that no one may claim to satisfy God’s standards” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Rom. 3:10-20). The law applies “to those who are under the law,” says Paul, but he apparently includes Gentiles as well as Jews: the law “speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God” (v. 19). For Paul, it turns out that “no human being will be justified in his sight” by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin” (v. 20). T. W. Manson says:

We come back to the original question in v. 9. Several translations of the Greek are possible. The most likely seems to be: ‘What then? Are we Jews (in fact) worse off than the Gentiles? No, not entirely.’ The Jews still have the covenant, even if they and Gentiles are all ‘under the power of sin.’ But they, no less than the Gentiles, are in that state.

This is shown by a catena of OT texts. . . . These OT texts (‘law’ in v. 19 = OT) can refer only to Israel. It follows that no-one can defend himself; all are exposed to God’s judgment. Why? 20. Because no man can make himself acceptable to God by obedience to law, natural or revealed. For the law which demands righteousness cannot create it. What it does create is a sense of guilt. (T. W. Manson, Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprint 1972, secs. 818e, f, p. 943 on Rom. 3:1-9 and 10-20).

Having established the need of all humanity for salvation from sin, Paul turns to his description of the remedy. But that comes in Monday’s reading.

Matthew 19:1-12

Teaching about Divorce (Mk 10.1-12)

19:1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he cured them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" 4 He answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." 7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?" 8 He said to them, "It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery."

10 His disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." 11 But he said to them, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can." (Matthew 19:1-12, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from November 23, 2009 (the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), when they were repeated from June 21, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year Two), when comments were repeated from November 26, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), when combined comments were repeated with editing and supplement from June 24, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year Two), when comments were combined with minor revision from June 19, 2004 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year Two) in an email sent June 14, 2004, for June 14-20, and from November 21, 2005 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 15, Year One). The following comments are based on these earlier comments. For recent comments on Mark 10:1-16, see the Archive for March 24, 2010 (Wednesday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Lent, Year Two. For comments on Luke 9:51 and the beginning of Luke's “Travel Narrative,” see the archive for May 25, 2009 (Monday in the Seventh Week of Easter, Year One). A brief comment on Luke 16:18 is included in the Archive for November15, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two). Parallel passages for today’s reading are presented in the separate file, Departure for Judea; On Divorce and Celibacy.

The brief account of Jesus’ departure to Judea marks a significant turning point in the story of his ministry. According to the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus’ early ministry took place in Galilee. Although John reports several occasions when Jesus was present in Jerusalem and/or Judea, his primary interest was not in exact chronology. In his later years, John “the beloved disciple” probably reflected more and more on the closing events of Jesus earthly ministry, and spoke mainly about them within what we call the Johannine community. At any rate, Mark tells us that Jesus “left that place [i.e., Capernaum, Mk. 9:33] and went into the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan” (Mk. 10:1a). In Matthew’s account, with Jesus also at Capernaum (Mt. 9:24), Jesus’ fourth major discourse teaches about true greatness and about matters of relationship and order within the church (chap. 10), and the concluding formula, “When Jesus had finished saying these things” (11:1a), leads to the same report of departure: “he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan” (v. 1b). Luke, who tells us at this point that Jesus “set his face to go to Jerusalem” (Lk. 9:51), begins his report of an extensive “travel narrative” (9:51-18:27 [30?]), in which he includes much of the teaching of Jesus that Matthew groups topically into major discourses, and most of the parables that are found only in Luke’s Gospel. We may also note that in John’s Gospel, Jesus goes to Jerusalem from Galilee in chapter 7, and is not found in Galilee again until chapter 21 after the resurrection.

In all of the Gospels, Jesus continues to teach the disciples at this time. According to Matthew and Mark, he is presented with a test question by some Pharisees. “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” they ask (Mt. 19:3). Mark reports the same question, but omits the words “for any cause,” which anticipates the categorical prohibition of Jesus as reported by Mark (Mk. 10:9, 11, 12; cf. Lk. 16:18). As the discussion continues, in Mark, before Jesus cites Genesis, he puts the question to the Pharisees, “What did Moses command you?” (Mk. 10:3). They answer, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal (biblion apostasiou; so LXX for Heb. sēfer k^erîthuth) and to divorce (apolysai) her (Mk. 10:4, citing Deut. 24:1-3). For “divorce her,” the Hebrew text has šill ^echāh mibbêthô, Deut. 24:1, cf. v. 3; cf. LXX exapostelei autēn ek tēs oikias autou, lit. ‘send her out of his house’). In response in Mark, Jesus explains his later decision–the “halakah,” so to speak–by citing Genesis. “But Jesus said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female’ [citing Gen. 1:27; 5:2]. ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ [citing Gen. 2:24]. So they are no longer two, but one flesh” (Mk. 10:5-8, citing Gen. as noted in brackets).

In Matthew, Jesus uses the Genesis quotations in response to the Pharisees’ initial question (Mt. 19:3). “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female’ [citing Gen. 1:27; 5:2],’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Mt. 19:4-5). At this point in Matthew, Jesus says, “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Mt. 19:6; cf. Mk. 10:8b, 9). The Pharisees’ question that came earlier in Mark now comes in Matthew. “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of Dismissal and to divorce her (Mt. 19:7; cf. Mk. 10:4). And in Matthew, Jesus gives the same explanation as in Mark. “He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Mt. 19:8; cf. Mk. 10:5, 6). And in Matthew Jesus presents his ruling–the “halakah,” so to speak: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity (porneia), and marries another commits adultery” (Mt. 19:9). For this text, the term translated “unchastity” has been defined as “participation in prohibited degrees of marriage, fornication (s. Lev. 18:16-18; cp. Acts 15:20-29, s. Bruce, comm. Acts 21:25) Mt. 5:32; 19:9” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. porneia, meaning no. (2) ). The Lexicon continues by citing R. Gundry, “no need to adopt obscure definitions of porneia, such as marriage within the forbidden degrees. . . . The specific word for adultery does not appear in the exceptive phrase simply because a general expression occurs in Deuteronomy [24:1]” (ibid.).

In Mark, the scene changes before Jesus gives this decision. “Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter” (Mk. 10:10). But in the decision, the so-called “exception clause” is missing. “He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery’ ” (Mk. 10:11-12; cf. Lk. 16:18).

Even with the exception clause, in Matthew’s account the disciples find this decision to be a hard saying. “His disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry’ ” (Mt:19:10). Although Jesus responds in their terms, this is not what Jesus said. Perhaps the disciples, or later members of Matthew’s community, were confused. According to J. Andrew Overman, “Better not to marry [would be] an unusual position in the Judaism of the time, which regarded marriage and procreation as an obligation (Gen. 1:28).” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 19:10). To this, Jesus responds “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can” (Mt. 19:11-12). According to Overman, “Eunuchs, castrated males [were] abhorred by Jews (Josephus, Apion2/270-71). Jesus accepts the possibility of voluntary celibacy, as did other pious Jews (Josephus, Ant. 18:21; cf. 1 Cor. 7)” (ibid., on vv. 11-12). According to Dennis C. Duling, “in early Israel they [i.e., eunuchs] were excluded from the community (see Deut. 23:1),” but he adds that “have made themselves eunuchs [is] probably hyperbole for practicing celibacy (see also 22:30; 1 Cor. 7:8, 25-40)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 19:12).

When one observes that Mark and Luke give accounts of this teaching of Jesus which make no exceptions from the prohibition of divorce (see above), the exception stated here, “except for unchastity” (Mt. 19:9) raises a question. William Barclay, who says, “We think there is little doubt that the version of Mark and Luke is right,” is quick to add:

There is little doubt that here we have Jesus laying down the principle—mark again, not, the law—that the ideal of marriage is a union which cannot be broken. There is much more to be said—but here the ideal, as God meant it, is laid down, and Matthew’s saving clause is a later interpretation inserted in the light of the practice of the Church when he wrote. (The Gospel of Matthew, The Daily Study Bible, vol. II, rev. ed., 1978, p. 202 on Mt. 19:1-9)

In a later comparison with the law of the Sabbath, Barclay explains what he means by “principle” and “law.”

A principle can never be quoted as a final law; a principle must always be applied to the individual situation. We cannot therefore settle the question of divorce simply by quoting the words of Jesus. That would be legalism; we must take the words of Jesus as a principle to apply to the individual cases as they meet us. (ibid., pp. 208-209)

Barclay goes on to describe imperfect marriage relationships in which one person dominates or two persons compete “in a kind of armed neutrality,” but he adds, “The ideal is that in the marriage state two people find the completing of their personalities” (p. 203). He has more to add, but sums it up as follows:

The true basis of marriage is not complicated and recondite—it is simply the love which thinks more of the happiness of others than it thinks of its own, the love which is proud to serve, which is able to understand, and therefore always able to forgive. That is to say, it is the Christlike love, which knows that in forgetting self it will find self, and that in losing itself it will complete itself” (p. 203).

Barclay’s full treatment of this passage (Mt. 19:1-12) runs to fifteen pages; I have only quoted a few pointers for those who may be interested. Sincere Christians differ on how to apply this teaching. We would do well to consider the best interests of the persons involved.

As noted above, for the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 5, 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