For the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Presbyterian Readings in the file for May 26, 2010, a week ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

Episcopal and Presbyterian Readings:

Ecclesiastes 3:1-15

3:1 For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:

2 a time to be born, and a time to die;

a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;

3 a time to kill, and a time to heal;

a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh;

a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 a time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together;

a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 a time to seek, and a time to lose;

a time to keep, and a time to throw away;

7 a time to tear, and a time to sew;

a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8 a time to love, and a time to hate;

a time for war, and a time for peace.

The God-Given Task

9 What gain have the workers from their toil? 10 I have seen the business that God has given to everyone to be busy with. 11 He has made everything suitable for its time; moreover he has put a sense of past and future into their minds, yet they cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. 12 I know that there is nothing better for them than to be happy and enjoy themselves as long as they live; 13 moreover, it is God's gift that all should eat and drink and take pleasure in all their toil. 14 I know that whatever God does endures forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it; God has done this, so that all should stand in awe before him. 15 That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already is; and God seeks out what has gone by. (Ecclesiastes 3:1-15, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from June 4, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two), when comments were based, with considerable editing and expansion, on comments of June 7, 2006 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two, and the week of Pentecost Sunday in 2006).

Qoheleth (or Koheleth), translated as “Teacher” (NRSV), but often “Preacher,” speaks as “Solomon,” the persona adopted by the writer (Eccl. 2:12). As “Solomon,” he reminds us, “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven” (Eccl. 3:1), times “to be born” and “to die,” “to plant” and “to pluck up” (v. 2), and the list goes on contrasting killing and healing, breaking down and building up (v. 3) weeping and laughing, mourning and dancing (v. 4), throwing away stones and gathering stones together, embracing and refraining from embracing (v. 5), seeking and losing, keeping and throwing away (v. 6) tearing and sewing, keeping silence, and speaking (v. 7), loving and hating, war and peace (v. 8). According to Raymond C. Van Leeuwen and Kent Harold Richards, “Wisdom requires actions that fit their time (Prov 10:5; 26:1; 27:14; Mt. 11:16-19)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Eccl. 3:11).

Leong Seow points out that the poem presents “a rhythmic series of antithetical pairs that together (seven sets, each with two pairs of opposites) represent the totality and variety of the times and seasons encountered by human beings. These events include those that simply happen to people (like being born and dying) and occasions to which they must respond (like planting and plucking up what is planted)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Eccl. 3:1-8). Peter Machinist sees “Koheleth’s interest in life’s polarities . . . most strikingly expressed in this poem” (i.e. Eccl. 3:1-8):

The poem moves across various kinds of human activity, arranged in pairs that are either constructive-destructive or the reverse. Rabbinic commentary often, but not always, tried to go beyond the contextual meaning of the pairs, which refers to universal human activities, to something more specific, concerning biblical history or the proper behavior of Israel as mandated by God. (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 1609 on Eccl. 3:1-8)

Machinist adds,

For example, the contextual meaning of throwing or gathering stones, though debated, would appear to be somewhere among meanings like demolishing or constructing a building, sexual profligacy or restraint, and destroying the fertility of a field by throwing stones on it or promoting its fertility by gathering and removing them. For Eccl. Rab (followed by Rashi), however, the gathering of stones indicates the end of Jewish exile and the ingathering to Israel (on v. 5).

This list is followed by what Machinist calls “reflections on the catalogue” (on vv. 9-22). “What gain,” asks Qoheleth, “have the workers from their toil? (v. 9). According to Seow, “the rhetorical question is essentially the same as in 1:3; 2:22; 6:11, except that human beings are called the workers (lit. ‘the one who acts’), but it becomes clear in the verses that follow that God is the one who acts effectively” (on v. 9). God’s overriding control in human affairs is acknowledged. “ I have seen the business that God has given to everyone to be busy with” (v. 10). And human beings are given a sense of this. “He has made everything suitable for its time; moreover he has put a sense of past and future into their minds, yet they cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end” (v. 11). Seow says, “The same God who made everything suitable for its time is the one who puts a sense of past and future (lit. ‘eternity’) into human consciousness. Human beings must live with this paradox of knowing the reality that transcends the moment (‘eternity’), but being able to cope only with the moment” (on v. 11). According to Qoheleth, people should live for the day. “I know that there is nothing better for them than to be happy and enjoy themselves as long as they live,” he says (v. 12), because “it is God’s gift that all should eat and drink and take pleasure in all their toil” (v. 13). While acknowledging this redeeming feature, Qoheleth also acknowledges God’s sovereignty. “ I know that whatever God does endures forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it; God has done this, so that all should stand in awe before him” (v. 14). But Qoheleth also retains his perception of the repetitive cycle of human affairs under God. “That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already is; and God seeks out what has gone by” (v. 15). Van Leeuwen and Richards remind us that this is “not a form of ‘the myth of the eternal return,’ for humans do not know what will be (6:12; 8:7)” (op. cit., on v. 15). They sum up the paragraph. “In the face of limits, [one should] enjoy the good, both play and work (2:10, 24; 3:22; 5:17-18; but see 2:18) as God’s gift, God’s deeds intend to lead humans to revere him (v. 14 . . .)” (on vv. 12-15).

To repeat a bit: People should live for the day (v. 12). And the redeeming feature comes from God.“It is God’s gift that all should eat and drink and take pleasure in all their toil” (Eccl. 3:13). Could it be that we are called to help God by seeing that those eat who otherwise can’t?

Galatians 2:11-21

Paul Rebukes Peter at Antioch

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12 for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Jews and Gentiles Are Saved by Faith

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. 17 But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. (Galatians 2:11-21, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from January 28, 2009 (Wednesday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when they were repeated with editing and supplement from June 4, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two), when comments were used with editing and supplement from January 24, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when comments were repeated from June 7, 2006 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two, the week of Pentecost Sunday, 2006), when they were combined with minor revision from June 1, 2004 (Wednesday of the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two) in an email sent May 31, 2004 for May 30 through June 6, and from January 26, 2005 (Wednesday of the week of the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One).

In yesterday’s reading Paul tells us about two brief visits to Jerusalem after his conversion and call to be an apostle to the Gentiles. On the first visit he met briefly with James and spent fifteen days with Cephas (Peter) (Gal. 1:18-19). On the second visit, accompanied by Barnabas and Titus, “in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders,” he “laid before them . . . the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain” (2:1-2). As a consequence of this meeting, Titus, one of Paul’s Gentile converts, “was not compelled to be circumcised” (v. 3), and there was a gentlemen’s agreement that Paul “had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised” (v. 7). James and Cephas (Peter) and John “gave to Barnabas and me [Paul] the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go the Gentiles and they to the circumcised” (v. 9). The Jerusalem leaders did ask Paul to “remember the poor,” which, says Paul, “I was eager to do” (v. 10), and we know that he carried out this promise through his “collection for the saints”(1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. chaps. 8-9; Rom. 15:25-28).

Now, in today’s reading, Paul tells us how he rebuked Peter for inconsistency in a matter he regards as a critical issue. “I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat (sunhvsqien, synēsthien, imperfect tense verb indicating past repeated action) with the Gentiles [apparently ignoring the Kosher food laws]. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction” (Gal. 2:11-12). Paul regards this as a betrayal of the principle of justification by faith, which he proceeds to spell out according to his understanding in the following verses. For Peter, it was apparently his respect for the scruples of his friends from Jerusalem.

As noted above, when Paul first returned to Jerusalem after his conversion, it was Cephas (Peter) with whom he spent fifteen days (Gal. 1:18). But Paul’ rebuke of Peter now is in part to show that his gospel “is not of human origin” (1:11), but he “received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (v. 12). “And the other Jews joined him [i.e., Peter] in this hypocrisy,” says Paul, “so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy” (2:13). Paul believes the gospel requires consistency in this matter. “But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel,” says Paul, “I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’ ” (v. 14). Paul sees it as a critical issue. Although he and Peter “are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners” (v. 15), “yet we know,” he says, “that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (v. 16a). Paul spells this out. “And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith (pivstiV, pistis) in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law” (v. 16b). The key phrase, “through faith in Jesus Christ” (v. 16a, NRSV), might be translated “through the faith [or faithfulness] of Jesus Christ” (NRSV text note c). The Greek phrase, dia; pivstewV =Ihsou: Cristou: (dia pisteōs Iēsou Christou) puts “Jesus Christ” in a genitive relationship to “faith/faithfulness” (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. pivstiV, pistis, meanings no. (1) and (2) ). In such phrases the second term, literally “of Jesus Christ” here, can be seen as an objective genitive–the term would be the direct object in a direct statement, and the phrase would be, as in the NRSV, “faith in Jesus Christ.” The alternative would be to see the second term as a subjective genitive–the subject in a direct statement, and the phrase would be, as in the NRSV text note c, “through the faith of Jesus Christ” (cf. “Or but through the faithfulness of . . . justified on the basis of the faithfulness of ” TNIV text note d on Gal. 2:16). Sheila Briggs says, “Faith in Jesus Christ stresses the believer’s trust in Christ. The alternative translation (notes c and d), faith of Jesus Christ, emphasizes the saving effect of Jesus’ obedience, culminating in his death on the cross” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Gal. 2:;16).

Daniel B. Wallace discusses both interpretations. “Older commentaries,” he says, “(probably as a Lutheran reflex) see Cristou: [Christou] as an objective gen., thus ‘faith in Christ.’ However, more and more scholars are embracing these texts as involving a subjective gen. (thus, either ‘Christ’s faith’ or ‘Christ’s faithfulness’). . . . Although the issue is not to be solved via grammar, on balance grammatical considerations seem to be in favor of the subjective gen. view” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 1995, pp. 115-116). Wallace also says, of this and other Pauline texts, “Practically speaking, if the subjective gen. view is correct, these texts (whether pivstiV [pistis] is translated ‘faith’ or ‘faithfulness’) argue against ‘an implicitly docetic Christology’ [citing Hays]. Further, the faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept (for the idea is expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb pisteuvw [pisteuō ]rather than the noun), but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful” (ibid., p. 116).

This way of being justified in Christ does not make Christ a “servant of sin,” says Paul, with emphasis. “But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not!” (v. 17). Although referring to himself in the first person, Paul actually says that Peter, by his actions is building “up again the very things,” that is the Jewish heritage as one’s link to God, “that [he] once tore down. “But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor,” says Paul, referring, as noted, to Peter (v. 18). In elaboration of this point, with reference to the meaning of Christ’s death and resurrection for the believer (cf. Romans, ch. 6), Paul says, “For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (vv. 19-20). In so doing, says Paul, “I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing” (v. 21). Many Christians have found inspiration and guidance in these words.

Matthew 14:1-12

The Death of John the Baptist (Lk 9.7-9; Mk 6.14-29)

14:1 At that time Herod the ruler heard reports about Jesus; 2 and he said to his servants, "This is John the Baptist; he has been raised from the dead, and for this reason these powers are at work in him." 3 For Herod had arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, 4 because John had been telling him, "It is not lawful for you to have her." 5 Though Herod wanted to put him to death, he feared the crowd, because they regarded him as a prophet. 6 But when Herod's birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced before the company, and she pleased Herod 7 so much that he promised on oath to grant her whatever she might ask. 8 Prompted by her mother, she said, "Give me the head of John the Baptist here on a platter." 9 The king was grieved, yet out of regard for his oaths and for the guests, he commanded it to be given; 10 he sent and had John beheaded in the prison. 11 The head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, who brought it to her mother. 12 His disciples came and took the body and buried it; then they went and told Jesus.(Matthew 14:1-12, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from November 5, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 2, Year One), when they were repeated from October 5, 2008 (the Sunday closest to October 5, Year Two), when comments were repeated from June 4, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two), when comments were repeated from November 8, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 2, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from November 3, 2005 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 2, Year One), with some reference to earlier comments on Mark’s version.

For recent comments on Mark’s version of this reading, see the Archive for March 10, 2010 (Wednesday in the week of the Third Sunday of Lent, Year Two). For parallel passages for this reading see the separate file, Opinions about Jesus, Death of John the Baptist.

Consider the sequence of events in the three Gospels as presented in the following table:

In the above table, bold-face references are used for sections that are in sequence within that Gospel. Other references indicate sections repeated from another sequence for comparison with the other Gospels. The reference to Luke 4:16-30, Jesus is Rejected at Nazareth, for example, is out of sequence as compared with the order of events in Mark’s Gospel. So the Luke 4:16-30 reference is not in bold-face type. The table also shows that, apart from two verses in Mark (Mk. 6:30-32, the Return of the Apostles), both Matthew and Mark present the account of the Death of John the Baptist (Mt. 14:3-12; Mk. 6:17-19; cf. Lk. 3:19-20) and the Feeding of the Five thousand (Mt. 14:13-21; Mk. 6:32-44; Lk. 9:10b-17; Jn. 6:1-15) juxtaposed in sequence. Both Matthew and Mark likely did this intentionally, to put the contrast in stark relief between Satan’s banquet–that is, the banquet thrown by Herod Antipas at which John’s severed head was brought in on a platter–and the banquet of the Lord where five thousand were fed.

Luke’s variation from Mark’s order in reporting the death of John the Baptist in chapter 3 has been understood by some, Hans Conzelmann, for instance, as an indication that Luke regarded John as the last of the prophets of the previous dispensation. He seeks to separate the ministries of John and of Jesus into separate historical periods.

The reference to the imprisonment [of John the Baptist] in iii, 19 f. divides the section concerning John from the section concerning Jesus in the sense of drawing a distinction between the epochs of salvation, for which xvi, 16 provides the clue. Now the way is open for the story of Jesus. The fact that the activity of the two still overlaps cannot be entirely eliminated, but Luke deprives it of any real significance. According to iii, 21 f. Jesus is baptized as one of the people, like everyone else [contrast Mk. 1:9-11]. Luke excludes any suggestion that John plays an important part in the incident. This is in keeping with his whole conception of the significance of John. (The Theology of St. Luke, trans., Geoffrey Buswell, 1961, p. 21)

The original title of Conzelmann’s book, Die Mitte der Zeit (i.e. “The Middle of Time”), implied that the period of Jesus’ ministry on earth was the center of time in God’s plan of salvation, preceded by the time of the prophets, and followed by the age of the church (2^nd ed., 1957). The title in English, The Theology of St. Luke, doesn’t so clearly underscore this point. We might have expected such a perspective from Luke the historian, but of course this is at most is only one aspect of Luke’s vision of the beginnings of Christianity in the Roman Empire. All of the Gospels report the death of John as a past event. Herod “had sent men who arrested John” (Mk. 6:17; cf. Mt. 14:3; Lk. 9:9), an event called to mind here in connection with Herod’s guilty conscience.

In Mark and Matthew, the account of Herod’s banquet and the death of John follows notice that King Herod Antipas had heard about Jesus (Mk. 6:14-16; Mt. 14:1-2; cf. Lk. 9:7-9). Herod heard that people were saying “John the baptizer has been raised from the dead” (Mk. 6:14b; cf. Lk. 9:7b). Mark reports the speculation of others that Jesus was Elijah, or one of the prophets (Mk. 6:15; cf. Lk. 9:8). But Matthew cuts to the chase, as it were, and has Herod say, “This is John the Baptist; he has been raised from the dead, and for this reason these powers are at work in him” (Mt. 14:1; cf. Mk. 6:16; Lk. 9:9). Luke, having already reported the arrest of John (Lk. 3:19-20), has Herod say, “John I beheaded” in this context (Lk. 9:9), but this is a past event for him and he does not report the banquet or the beheading here. When Herod assumes that Jesus is John the Baptist raised from the dead, it leads Krister Stendahl to ask, is this “a revealing insight into religious expectations of Israel at the time” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, 10^th reprinting 1972, sec. 686d, p. 786, on Mt. 14:1-12), or the voice of Antipas’ conscience? Perhaps both, but the gruesome tale which follows anticipates Jesus’ own death, and this belief that John could be raised perhaps anticipates the real resurrection of Jesus to come later. This event “also serves as a reason for Jesus to withdraw from the public scene into remote and partly Gentile territory” (ibid.).

Mark, on the other hand, tells the story in considerable detail, and Matthew reduces the story to the essential points, as is evident in the table in the separate file mentioned above, Opinions about Jesus, Death of John the Baptist. Matthew mentions Herodias, Herod’s brother Philip’s wife, early (Mt. 14:3), but Mark elaborates. “And Herodias had a grudge against him [i.e., the Baptist], and wanted to kill him but she could not, for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he protected him” (Mk. 6:19-20). Matthew reduces that to one verse: “Though Herod wanted to put him to death, he feared the crowd, because they regarded him as a prophet” (Mt. 14:5). It is interesting to note that when Antipas “heard reports about Jesus” (Mt. 14:1), he assumed that it was “John the Baptist; he has been raised from the dead, and for this reason these powers are at work in him” (v. 2). Mark describes Herod’s birthday as “an opportunity” (Mk. 6:21), apparently for Herodias, whereas in Matthew, it is said that “Herod wanted to put him to death” (Mt. 14:5), a desire doubtlessly influenced by Herodias. In both accounts Herodias’s daughter, apparently also named Herodias (Mk. 6:22), is “prompted by her mother” to request “the head of John the Baptist here on a platter” (Mt. 14:8). According to Josephus, the daughter was named Salome (Ant. xviii.5.4, cited by Elwyn E. Tilden and Bruce M. Metzger, NOAB, 2^nd ed., on Mt. 14:6), but Tilden and Metzger say “Contrary to Josephus . . . the daughter of Herodias may also have been named Herodias” (on Mk. 6:22). Both accounts report that the girl danced and pleased Herod (Mt. 14:6; Mk. 6:22), but only Mark adds that the guests were also pleased. Mark tells us that the daughter had to leave and ask her mother for instructions (Mk. 6:24). Both mention the oath as Herod’s reason for complying with the request (Mt. 14:9; Mk. 6:26), but Mark has earlier spelled it out in more detail (v. 23). And the gruesome result, when “the head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, who brought it to her mother” (Mt. 14:11; Mk. 6:28), sets in bold relief the stark contrast with the account of the feeding of the five thousand that follows. So one is inclined to see the juxtaposition of the two “banquets” as deliberate. Whose “dinner invitation” shall we accept?

As noted above, for the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Presbyterian Readings in the file for May 26, 2010, a week ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net