For the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 7, 2010, two weeks ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

Episcopal and Presbyterian Readings:

Numbers 16:1-19

Revolt of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram

16:1 Now Korah son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, along with Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth–descendants of Reuben--took 2 two hundred fifty Israelite men, leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men, and they confronted Moses. 3 They assembled against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, "You have gone too far! All the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them. So why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?" 4 When Moses heard it, he fell on his face. 5 Then he said to Korah and all his company, "In the morning the LORD will make known who is his, and who is holy, and who will be allowed to approach him; the one whom he will choose he will allow to approach him. 6 Do this: take censers, Korah and all your company, 7 and tomorrow put fire in them, and lay incense on them before the LORD; and the man whom the LORD chooses shall be the holy one. You Levites have gone too far!" 8 Then Moses said to Korah, "Hear now, you Levites! 9 Is it too little for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to allow you to approach him in order to perform the duties of the LORD's tabernacle, and to stand before the congregation and serve them? 10 He has allowed you to approach him, and all your brother Levites with you; yet you seek the priesthood as well! 11 Therefore you and all your company have gathered together against the LORD. What is Aaron that you rail against him?”

12 Moses sent for Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab; but they said, "We will not come! 13 Is it too little that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the wilderness, that you must also lord it over us? 14 It is clear you have not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, or given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Would you put out the eyes of these men? We will not come!"

15 Moses was very angry and said to the LORD, "Pay no attention to their offering. I have not taken one donkey from them, and I have not harmed any one of them." 16 And Moses said to Korah, "As for you and all your company, be present tomorrow before the LORD, you and they and Aaron; 17 and let each one of you take his censer, and put incense on it, and each one of you present his censer before the LORD, two hundred fifty censers; you also, and Aaron, each his censer." 18 So each man took his censer, and they put fire in the censers and laid incense on them, and they stood at the entrance of the tent of meeting with Moses and Aaron. 19 Then Korah assembled the whole congregation against them at the entrance of the tent of meeting. And the glory of the LORD appeared to the whole congregation. (Numbers 16:1-19, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from June 23, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from June 26, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), when comments were repeated from June 21, 2004 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), in an email sent June 21, 2004, for June 21-27.

Four lessons begin today on what Rabbi J. H. Hertz calls “The Great Mutiny” (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 24^th printing, 1981, p. 638, in the Introduction to the Sedrah “Korach,” Num. 16-18). The leaders of this rebellion are identified at the beginning of the account. “Now Korah son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, along with Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth–descendants of Reuben” (Num. 16:1). According to the Rabbi, Korah led the protest of some Levites “who were envious of the higher privileges of the [Aaronic] priesthood” (ibid., on Num. 16:6). According to Bernard W. Anderson, a concurrent “civil revolt” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Num. 16:12-15) was led by Dathan and Abiram, “descendants of Reuben” (Num. 16:1), “the tribe that once possessed but now had lost the ‘birthright’ in Israel,” according to the Rabbi, “and was, it seems, chafing for the recovery of that primacy” (ibid.). “The men of Levi and Reuben came to join hands--the Rabbis say--because they always marched next to each other (ii,16, 17; x, 18, 21), illustrating the old proverb, ‘Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbour’ ” (ibid., p. 639, on Num. 16:1).

The leaders of this rebellion “took two hundred fifty Israelite men, leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men, and they confronted Moses” (v. 2). “They assembled against Moses and against Aaron,” we are told” (v. 3a). And Korah’s challenge to Moses and Aaron is striking: “You have gone too far! All the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them. So why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?” (vv. 3-4). With reference to the words, “all the congregation are holy,” Rabbi Hertz says, “With the instinct of the true demagogue, Korah posed as the champion of the People against the alleged dictatorship of Moses and Aaron, the two brothers who usurped all power and authority in Israel” (ibid., on v. 3). Nili S. Fox sees a connection here with the “fringes” (tciyc9, tsîtsith) which Israelites are directed to wear (15:38, cf. vv. 37-41). The BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia] apparatus suggests the plural form, tOy0cyc, (tseytsyôth), with reference to the Samaritan Pentateuch in verse 39. Fox quotes 16:3, “all the community are holy” (NJPS), and says, “Korah’s group argues against the notion that only the priests are sanctified to perform religious rituals. The fact that Korah and his followers are proven wrong demonstrates that popular holiness attached to the tzitzit (15:40) still renders wearers subordinate to priests. The people’s holiness derives from their obligation to follow the commandments (Lev. 19:2)” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Num. 16:3).

If Korah’s question were sincere, one might see here an early example of the kinds of tension, conflict and power struggles between clergy and laity that have disturbed the peace of Christian churches from time to time. Can any person be led only by God’s spirit? Korah was apparently anything but sincere. “To the Rabbis,” says Rabbi Hertz,

this whole movement [the great Mutiny], of which Korah was the principal spokesman, became typical of all controversies that had their origin in personal motives–‘not in the Name of Heaven’--and that could not therefore lead to any beneficent results (Ethics of the Fathers, v. 20). In Rabbinic legend, Korah was consumed by jealousy of his kinsman Moses. ‘He has passed me by in the appointment of all the high offices’--he is made to exclaim; ‘therefore, I will stir up rebellion against him, and overthrow the institutions founded by him’ ” (op. cit., p. 638, in the Introduction to “Korach,” chaps. 16-18).

When Moses heard Korah’s challenge, “he fell on his face” (Num. 16:4). Then he responds with a challenge of his own.

Then he said to Korah and all his company, ‘In the morning the LORD will make known who is his, and who is holy, and who will be allowed to approach him; the one whom he will choose he will allow to approach him. Do this: take censers, Korah and all your company, and tomorrow put fire in them, and lay incense on them before the LORD; and the man whom the LORD chooses shall be the holy one. You Levites have gone too far!’ (vv. 5-7)

Rabbi Hertz calls the test that Moses proposes “a species of ordeal”: “Moses here addresses Korah and those Levites who were envious of the higher privileges of the priesthood. He challenges them to test their claims to equality with Aaron by undergoing a species of ordeal. They are to assume, for once, the functions of priesthood, and God would show whether or not He approved of such assumption” (op. cit., on v. 6). On the words “ye take too much upon you” (vv. 3, 7 JPS 1917; cf “you have gone too far!” and “You Levites have gone too far!” NRSV, cf. NJPS, vv. 3, 7), the Rabbi says, “indignantly he [Moses] retorts upon the rebels in their own words” (on v. 7).

Moses follows his challenge with a severe rebuke: “Hear now, you Levites!” he says to Korah (v. 8). “Is it too little for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to allow you to approach him in order to perform the duties of the LORD's tabernacle, and to stand before the congregation and serve them? “ (v. 9). Moses refers to the duties that have already been assigned to them (Num. 3:5-10; 4:2-39). He reminds them of these duties, saying God “has allowed you to approach him, and all your brother Levites with you; yet you seek the priesthood as well!” (v. 10). And Moses challenges them with a question for gathering “against the LORD”: “Therefore you and all your company have gathered together against the LORD. What is Aaron that you rail against him?” (v. 11). “Moses upbraids Korah and the Levites,” says Rabbi Hertz, “for their discontent with the position already assigned to them” (on v. 11). “Their sin,” says Fox, “is challenging God’s authority rather than that of Aaron” (on vv. 8-11).

But others are discontented as well, so Moses sends for them, but he is rebuffed. “Moses sent for Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab; but they said, ‘We will not come!’ ” (v. 12). Instead, they voice their complaints. “Is it too little that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the wilderness, that you must also lord it over us? It is clear you have not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, or given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Would you put out the eyes of these men? We will not come!” (vv. 13-14). The Rabbi says, “Dathan and Abiram contemptuously refuse Moses’ summons to attend before him, accuse him of misleading the people, and charge him with playing the prince over the People on the strength of promises he cannot fulfill” (on vv. 12-15). For the words “that you must also lord it over us” (v. 13 NRSV, cf NJPS 1985, 1999), the version that Hertz follows has “but thou must needs make thyself also a prince over us?” (v. 13 JPS 1917, cf. AV/KJV). The verb here, the hitpalel conjugation of rr1W! (śārar; cf. rW1, śar, official, leader, chief, ruler in various contexts), the only occurrence of the verb in this conjugation in the Hebrew Bible, means “lord it over someone” (William L. Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 1971, 10^th corrected impression, 1988, s.v rr1W!, śārar).

Next, Moses addresses the LORD. He “was very angry,” we are told, “and said to the LORD, ‘Pay no attention to their offering. I have not taken one donkey from them, and I have not harmed any one of them’ ” (v. 15). On the words, “respect not Thou their offering” (v. 15 JPS 1917), the Rabbi quote’s Rashi’s translation, “Accept not the offering of incense which they are about to present unto Thee on the morrow” (Hertz, on v. 15). David P. Wright compares Samuel’s clearance of himself: “Here I am; testify against me before the LORD and before his anointed. Whose ox have I taken? Or whose donkey have I taken? Or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed? Or from whose hand have I taken a bribe to blind my eyes with it? Testify against me and I will restore it to you” (1 Sam. 12:3). But in the present context Moses repeats the challenge to Korah (vv. 6-7). “And Moses said to Korah, ‘As for you and all your company, be present tomorrow before the LORD, you and they and Aaron; and let each one of you take his censer, and put incense on it, and each one of you present his censer before the LORD, two hundred fifty censers; you also, and Aaron, each his censer’ ” (vv. 16-17). And we are told that Korah and his people accepted the challenge. “So each man took his censer,” says the narrator, “and they put fire in the censers and laid incense on them, and they stood at the entrance of the tent of meeting with Moses and Aaron” (v. 18). “It is not specified,” says Fox, “that the fire which burnt incense in the Levites’ fire pans was taken from the altar. Thus, their sin may be compounded by the use of unauthorized fire (cf. Nadab and Abihu, Lev. 10:1-2)” (op. cit., p. 317, on vv. 16-18). “Then,” says the narrator, “Korah assembled the whole congregation against them at the entrance of the tent of meeting. And the glory of the LORD appeared to the whole congregation” (v. 19). In reference to the words “assembled all the congregation” (v. 19 JPS 1917; “assembled the whole congregation” NRSV), the Rabbi says, “The rebellion was indeed a serious matter. Korah’s demagogy, in addition to his rallying round him the ambitious leaders, had won over to his banner large sections in all the tribes” (on v. 19). The timely appearance of the LORD (v. 19) brings today’s reading, but not the episode, to a close. In tomorrow’s reading we will learn the fate of the rebels.

Romans 3:21-31

Righteousness through Faith

21 But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24 they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; 26 it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.

27 Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:21-31, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from comments on Romans 3:19-30 of March 14, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from June 23, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), when comments were repeated with some adaptation from March 10, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year One), when comments were repeated with some adaptation from comments of June 26, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), when comments on Romans 3:21-31 were combined and revised from June 21, 2004 in an email sent June 21, 2004, for June 21-27, and from comments on Romans 3:19-31 for February 26, 2005 (Saturday of the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year One).

Paul has announced what many take to be the theme of Romans in 1:16-17: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek [the Gentile]. For in it [the gospel] the righteousness (dikaiosuvnh, dikaiosyne) of God is revealed through faith for faith.” Paul's understanding of that theme (the means of a salvation made available to all) is concisely presented in these two paragraphs from chapter 3. Here, we are given the definitive explication the concept “justification by faith” or “righteousness through trust.” Paul has demonstrated that the world in general is in revolt against such righteousness, and that the chosen people, those blessed with Torah, also fall short of God’s righteousness. Paul uses a series of quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures to demonstrate that “There is no one who is righteous, not even one” (‘Rom. 3:10, citing Ps. 14:1). Since the law (Torah) provides a basis for judgment of sin (Rom. 2:12), “the knowledge of sin,” but not justification (3:20), and since human beings cannot achieve righteousness by their own aspirations and actions, “now, apart from law, the righteousness (dikaiosuvnh, dikaiosyne) of God [the theme] has been disclosed” (v. 21), “the righteousness (dikaiosuvnh, dikaiosyne) of God through faith in Jesus Christ” (v. 22). “Since all [humanity in general, including the Jews] have sinned . . . they are now justified (dikaiouvmenoi, dikaioumenoi, passive participle of dikaiovw, dikaioō, the verb related to dikaiosuvnh, dikaiosyne, righteousness) by his [God’s] grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (vv. 23-24). The verb “justify” (dikaiovw, dikaioō ) refers to the process of “justification” (dikaiw:siV, dikaiōsis, cf. Rom. 4:25). A necessary condition for such justification is the “sacrifice of atonement by his [Christ’s] blood, effective through faith,” which God “did . . . to show his righteousness (dikaiosuvnh, dikaiosyne)” (v. 25). Thus God “prove[s] at the present time that he himself is righteous (divkaioV, dikaios) and that he justifies (dikaiou:nta, dikaiounta, a form of dikaiovw, dikaioō) the one who has faith in Jesus” (v. 26). The same Greek word (dikaiosuvnh, dikaiosyne) is translated as “righteousness” in Romans 1:17; 3:21, 22; 5:17, but “justification” in 5:21 and Galatians 2:21 (NRSV). The principle is summed up in verse 28: “For we hold that a person is justified (dikaiou:sqai, dikaiousthai, passive infinitive of dikaiovw, dikaioō) by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.” This principle does not “overthrow the law by this faith,” but “On the contrary, we uphold the law” (v. 31).

What does Paul mean by being “justified”? Not “vindicated” or “proven to be right or righteous all along.” Elihu “was angry at Job because he justified himself rather than God” (Job 32:2). In form the Greek word for “justify” (dikaiovw, dikaioō) is like English words ending in “fy” (e.g. solidify, beautify, magnify). These usually refer to causing, or perhaps recognizing, what the verb describes (solidness, beauty, greatness). Paul’s term is often explained as a forensic (legal) term. C. K. Barrett, for example, suggested that it means “acquitted” (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Black’s New Testament Commentaries, 1957, repr. 1962, pp. 74-76 on Rom. 3:24). But Paul probably thought more like Gamaliel than Cicero or Seneca, and when he referred to believing the LORD as being “reckoned . . . to him [Abraham] as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6; cited in Rom. 4:3 cf. 2 Sam. 22:21, 25), it probably resonated with the overtones of hq!d!c4 (ts ^edāqâ, Hebrew for “righteousness”). Some have called the result “imputed righteousness,” others “imparted righteousness.” The Hebrew term has a variety of meanings, with, on the whole, less emphasis on courtroom justice or a verdict, than on righteous, blameless, godly character. Consider these definitions, presented by William L. Holladay:

1. righteousness = blameless behavior, honesty Gen. 30:33 . . . 2. righteousness (of the whole being) Prov. 15:9; 3. justice (of a human judge) Gen. 18:19; 4. justice (characteristic of God the divine judge) Isa. 5:16; 5. righteousness as religious attitude =) godliness 2 Sam. 22:21, 25; 6. righteousness (= behavior which God expects man to show to God) Gen. 15:6; 7. (God’s) justice: a) what God expects for man’s conduct with man Deut. 33:21; b)  what is reliable; truth Isa. 45:23; c) what God gives = salvation, deliverance Isa. 46:12; 8. plural: a) legal claims Jer. 51:10; b) God’s acts of justice 1 Sam. 12:7; c) just acts of men Isa. 33:15; godliness Ezek. 18:24; 9. variously: ts ^edāqâ legal claim 2 Sam. 19:29, blamelessness Isa. 5:23.

As a seminary student I was present when several classes combined to visit the Trappist Monastery near Bardstown, Kentucky. We were privileged to visit with Thomas Merton, who was living and working at the monastery at the time. I’ve never forgotten one exchange during that conversation. A student asked, “Thomas Merton, what do you think of John Wesley’s doctrine of justification by faith?” The answer: “I believe it. I have to believe it if I’m going to make it, don’t I?” I suppose that a number of possible interpretations could be put on that exchange. The one I choose to believe is that Martin Luther’s insight (and Wesley's) recognized a doctrine that in some sense is shared by the whole Christian tradition.

Matthew 19:13-22

Jesus Blesses Little Children (Mk 10.13-16; Lk 18.15-17)

13 Then little children were being brought to him in order that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples spoke sternly to those who brought them; 14 but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs." 15 And he laid his hands on them and went on his way.

The Rich Young Man (Mk 10.17-31; Lk 18.18-30)

16 Then someone came to him and said, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" 17 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." 18 He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; 19 Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 20 The young man said to him, "I have kept all these; what do I still lack?" 21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." 22 When the young man heard this word, he went away grieving, for he had many possessions. (Matthew 19:13-22, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from November 24, 2009 (Tuesday in the week of the Last Sunday after Pentecost, References for the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), when comments were repeated with some editing from June 23, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), when comments were repeated from November 27, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), when comments were repeated from June 26, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), when they were combined and revised from February 26, 2005 (Saturday of the week of the Second Sunday of Lent Year One), and from November 22, 2005 (Tuesday of the week of the Twenty-Seventh Sunday after Pentecost, Year One, when the comments were repeated from comments sent by email November 24, 2003 for November 25, 2003.

For parallel texts from Mark and Luke for these two paragraphs from Matthew, see the separate file Blessing the Children-Rich Young Man. For recent comments on Mark’s version of these passages, see the Archives for March 24 and 25, 2010 (Wednesday and Thursday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Lent, Year Two). For recent comments on Luke’s version, see the Archive for June 6, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year One).

When children were brought to Jesus for blessing (‘even infants,’ Lk. 18:15a), the disciples objected, “spoke sternly” (Mt. 19:13; Mk. 10; 13; cf. Lk. 18:15b), but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven [‘kingdom of God,’ Mk. & Lk.] belongs” (Mt. 19:14; Mk. 10:14b; Lk. 18:16b). In Matthew, this statement recalls 18:1-4 with the disciples’ question, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? (Mt. 18:1b; cf. Mk. 9:33b-34; Lk. 9:46), and Jesus’ response, when, as he put a child among them (Mt. 18:2; cf. Mk. 9:36; Lk. 9:47b), and, according to Matthew, he said “Truly, I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 18:3-4; cf. Jn. 3:3-5). Jesus continues saying, “Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me (Mt. 18:5; cf. Mk. 9:37; Lk. 9:48; Jn. 13:20), and warning, “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Mt. 18:6; cf. Mk. 9:42; Lk. 17:1-2). In the present context, Matthew says, “And he [i.e., Jesus] laid his hands on them and went on his way” (Mt. 19:15); compare Mark’s statement, “And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them” (Mk. 10:16), and his continuation, “As he was setting out on a journey” (v. 17a).

We combine the Gospel accounts to name the Rich (“many possessions,” Mt. 19:22; Mk. 10:22; “rich,” Lk. 18:23) Young (Mt. 19:22) Ruler (Lk. 18:18). This fuller description helps us understand, perhaps, but he is initially introduced as “someone” (ei|V, heis, Mt. 19:16, usually “one,” but here equivalent to tiV, tis, indefinite “someone,” compare the English indefinite use of “one”: “One does this, one does not do that”) or “a man” (ei|V, heis, Mk. 10:17, as in Mt.). This man poses a question, in Matthew’s version, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have (scw:, schō) eternal life? (Mt:19:16), but in the other Gospels, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit (klhronomhvsw, klēronomēsō) eternal life?” (Mk. 10:17b = Lk. 18:18b). In Matthew, where the question was about what “good deed” to do, Jesus answers accordingly. “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” (Mt. 19:17). In Mark and Luke, the answer corresponds to the question, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone” (Mk. 10:18 = Lk. 18:19). It appears that Matthew sought to avoid the implication that Jesus himself was not “good.” Even so the thought of “No one is good but God alone” (Mk., Lk.) is retained in Matthew’s phrase, “There is only one who is good.” The transition to the list of commandments also differs. Where Mark and Luke have “You know the commandments” (Mk. 10:19a; Lk 18:20a), which begins to respond directly to the original question, in Matthew Jesus refers to the original question in his response: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” (Mt. 19:17b). When (in Matthew) the man asks, “Which ones?” (Mt. 19:18a), Jesus lists commandments from the Decalogue: the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth (Exod. 20:13-16, cited by Mt. 19:18), and for good measure returns to the fifth (Exod. 20:12) and adds “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mt. 19:19, citing Lev. 19:18). Of these Mark lists the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth commandments, and adds “You shall not defraud” before returning to the fifth commandment (Mk. 10:19). Luke’s list mostly follow Mark’s, but puts the seventh before the sixth and omits “You shall not defraud” (Lk. 18:20).

In the main, Jesus quotes the second part of the Ten Commandments, those focused more on intra-human relationships, whereas the earlier Commandments focus on one’s relation to God. According to Krister Stendahl, by including Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mt. 19:19), Jesus does what is often done in “Jewish catechism” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, 10^th printing, 1972, sec. 689 e, p. 789 on Mt. 19:19). If Matthew is following Mark as his source (as Stendahl would likely agree), perhaps it was Matthew who took his cue in part from “Jewish catechism.” In any case, Jesus must have tailored his instructions to fit the man’s situation and attitudes, but the principle applies to “someone,” that is, “everyone.” “I have kept all these,” says the young man; “what do I still lack?” (Mt. 19:20; cf. ‘I have kept all these since my youth,’ Mk. 10:20; Lk. 18:21). If I had been there, my reply might have been, “What about the other commandments? The ones about having no other gods, or honoring the sabbath, for example. But Jesus seems to have put his finger on the young man's crucial issue, “sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor . . . then come, follow me” (Mt. 19:21; cf. Mk. 10:21; Lk. 18:22). It is not necessarily true that he would demand the same from each of us–“sell your possessions”–but he would point us to God as the center of meaning and value. “But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness . . .” (Mt. 6:33).

The point is not simply that he was rich, but that he needed “treasure in heaven” (Mt. 19:21), which is not necessarily counted in the same coin. According to Elwyn E. Tilden and Bruce M. Metzger,

Jesus consistently turned people’s attention from concern over their own religious standing, calling them to involve themselves in the basic, vital interests of others. Neither wealth, poverty, nor formal piety was so important as sharing in the working out of God’s life-giving design for all people (5:23-24, 43-48; 6:33). Eternal life will be found through utter dependence on God, not through a ritual that wealth makes possible. (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Mt. 19:21)

They add, “Jesus spoke against abuse, not possession, of property” (ibid., on Lk. 12:33).

As noted above, for the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 7, 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