For the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 11, 2010, two weeks ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

Episcopal and Presbyterian Readings:

Numbers 20:1-13

The Waters of Meribah (Ex 17.1-7)

20:1 The Israelites, the whole congregation, came into the wilderness of Zin in the first month, and the people stayed in Kadesh. Miriam died there, and was buried there.

2 Now there was no water for the congregation; so they gathered together against Moses and against Aaron. 3 The people quarreled with Moses and said, "Would that we had died when our kindred died before the LORD! 4 Why have you brought the assembly of the LORD into this wilderness for us and our livestock to die here? 5 Why have you brought us up out of Egypt, to bring us to this wretched place? It is no place for grain, or figs, or vines, or pomegranates; and there is no water to drink." 6 Then Moses and Aaron went away from the assembly to the entrance of the tent of meeting; they fell on their faces, and the glory of the LORD appeared to them. 7 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 8 Take the staff, and assemble the congregation, you and your brother Aaron, and command the rock before their eyes to yield its water. Thus you shall bring water out of the rock for them; thus you shall provide drink for the congregation and their livestock.

9 So Moses took the staff from before the LORD, as he had commanded him. 10 Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, "Listen, you rebels, shall we bring water for you out of this rock?" 11 Then Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock twice with his staff; water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their livestock drank. 12 But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust in me, to show my holiness before the eyes of the Israelites, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them." 13 These are the waters of Meribah, where the people of Israel quarreled with the LORD, and by which he showed his holiness. (Numbers 20:1-13, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of June 27, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from June 30, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), when some comments were repeated from June 25, 2004, in an email sent June 24, 2004, for June 24 and June 25.

It is reported that, “The Israelites, the whole congregation, came into the wilderness of Zin in the first month, and the people stayed in Kadesh” (Num. 20:1a). Apparently, many years have passed since the Law was given at Sinai. The reference to "the first month" (Num. 20:1) doesn't mention the year, but, according to Jo Ann Hackett, “Most commentators propose the fortieth year because of the date of Aaron's death [‘in the fortieth year'] given in 33:38” (HarperCollins Study Bible, 1993, on Num. 20:1). The “Wilderness of Zin” refers to “an area on the southern border of Palestine, including also a place called Zin (Num. 34:3-4; Josh. 15:1-3), within the area of Paran. It included Kadesh-barnea as well as Massah and Meribah (Num. 27:14; Deut. 32:51) and must therefore have been south of the present Israeli border, more or less in the center on an east-west axis” (The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Zin, Wilderness of). Because “Moses sent spies from [there] to explore the the future homeland (Num. 13:25)” (ibid.), it appears that in forty years the Israelites have come full circle back to where they started. According to Rabbi J. H. Hertz,

The events narrated in the present chapter belong to the last, the fortieth, year of the wanderings. As Ibn Ezra correctly points out, the history of the preceding thirty-eight years is a blank page in the Book of Numbers. And the reason is not far to seek. The men of that generation had been found wanting and condemned to a dying life in the wilderness. Their story was, therefore, of no further spiritual value to the Israel of the Future. (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 24^th printing, 1981, p. 655, on Num. 20).

However, the Rabbi adds, quoting Foakes-Jackson,

the ages of silence in the history of the Hebrews were generally ages of growth. These thirty-eight almost uneventful years are one of those numerous gaps in the nation's history, during which real progress was made. From them Israel emerged transformed from a fugitive body of slaves into a nation; and it is an evidence of the greatness of the character of Moses, that he knew how to wait in silence, till his people were ready to advance to conquest in obedience to God's command. (ibid.)

We learn of the death of Miriam, who “died there,” that is, in the Wilderness of Zin (Num. 20:1b). According to the Rabbi, “She died towards the end of the desert wanderings, and like her brothers did not reach the Promised Land. She is spoken of as one of the three good leaders of Israel ( MybvF Mysnrp [parnāsîm tôvîm]); and to her merit was due the Well, which, according to the legend, accompanied the children of Israel as long as she lived" (ibid., on Num. 20:1.

But a new problem arises and in today's reading we see Moses in what Rabbi Hertz characterizes as his one weak moment:

Over and over again Scripture brings out, on the one hand, the fickleness of the people–their murmurings, mutinies, vehement repentance, and woeful self-assertion; and, on the other hand, the marvelous constancy of Moses–his humility, faithfulness, generosity, and his sublime patience. Once only was his mighty spirit unable to stand the strain. The meaning of ‘ye believed not in Me' (v. 12) does not make it quite clear whether the sin was a momentary presumptuousness, or disobedience to a Divine command. It is but a single blot in his career, and in any other man would have been unnoticed. ‘Judaism teaches that the greater the man, the stricter the standard by which he is judged and the greater the consequent guilt and punishment, if there is a falling away from that standard' (S. R. Hirsch). For this sin, recorded in this chapter, Moses forfeits his right to enter the Promised Land. (Hertz, pp. 655-656 on Num. 20:2-23)

It is also true, of course, that the people were continuing to complain. “Now there was no water for the congregation,” we are told, “so they gathered together against Moses and against Aaron” (v. 2). Due to this shortage, “The people quarreled with Moses and said, ‘Would that we had died when our kindred died before the Lord!” (Num. 20:3), referring, according to Bernhard W. Anderson, to Dathan and Abiram in chapter 16 (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Num. 20:3). But the complaint is familiar, similar to others, as far back as Exodus 14:10-12, “Was it because there were no graves in Egypt that you have taken us away to die in the wilderness? What have you done to us, bringing us out of Egypt? Is this not the very thing we told you in Egypt, ‘Let us alone and let us serve the Egyptians’? For it would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness.” In the present context, the complaint is about the lack of food and drink. “Why have you brought the assembly of the LORD into this wilderness for us and our livestock to die here? Why have you brought us up out of Egypt, to bring us to this wretched place? It is no place for grain, or figs, or vines, or pomegranates; and there is no water to drink” (Num. 20:4-5). Rabbi Hertz quotes the Midrash on the inclusion of “and our cattle” (v. 4; ‘livestock’ NRSV) in this complaint:

‘A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast’; and the fact that these people, so near death, still considered the sufferings of their beasts, shows that they were, notwithstanding their attitude towards Moses and Aaron, really pious men. And in truth God did not take amiss their words against Moses and Aaron, for God holds no one responsible for words uttered in distress’ (Midrash). (op. cit., p. 656, on v. 4)

Even so, the complaint sound familiar (cf. the complaint about not having the meat, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic of Egypt, 11:4-5). “Then Moses and Aaron went away from the assembly,” we are told, “to the entrance of the tent of meeting; they fell on their faces, and the glory of the LORD appeared to them” (20:6). This too sounds familiar (cf. 16:42), but according to Rabbi Hertz, “Abarbanel and other commentators understand this in the sense of fleeing from before the assembly, and see in this action the lack of faith for which Moses and Aaron were condemned” (ibid., on Num. 20:6). The LORD has a response for Moses and Aaron. He “spoke to Moses, saying” (v. 7): “Take the staff (hF0,m0aha, hammateh, ‘rod’ AV/KJV, JPS 1917, NJPS 1985, 1999), and assemble the congregation, you and your brother Aaron, and command the rock before their eyes to yield its water. Thus you shall bring water out of the rock for them; thus you shall provide drink for the congregation and their livestock” (v. 8). This, says the Rabbi, is the rod “with which the miracles had been wrought in Egypt and the rock at Rephidim had been smitten, when likewise the people strove with Moses; Exod. xvii, 4 (‘what shall I do unto this people? they are almost ready to stone me’)” (ibid., on v. 8). Moses does as the LORD directed him. He “took the staff from before the LORD,” the staff that had been put in the tabernacle (17:10 NRSV), “as he had commanded him” (v. 9), and “Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, ‘Listen, you rebels (Myr9m0oha, hammōrîm), shall we bring water for you out of this rock?’ ” (v. 10). The Rabbi comments on the word Myr9mo (mōrîm): “The Midrash connects it with the Greek word for ‘fools,’ and also with the Heb. word for ‘teacher,' and renders it, ‘Hear now, ye who presume to teach your teachers’; i.e. ye who imagine yourselves to be wiser than your leaders! ‘This impatience with the people was considered reprehensible in Divinely appointed leaders’ (Maimonides).” And the Rabbi comments on the words “shall we bring you forth [‘shall we bring water for you’ NRSV], i.e. can we bring forth water out of this rock? In that moment of irritation and gloom, Moses gives expression to doubt in front of the masses as to the fulfillment of God’s promise” (ibid., on v. 10).

If these words appear to express Moses’ frustration, his following action confirm it. “Then Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock twice with his staff; water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their livestock drank” (v. 11). On the words “smote the rock” (JPS 1917, for ‘struck the rock’ NRSV), the Rabbi says, “carried away by anger, Moses still further forgot himself, and instead of speaking to the rock, as he had been commanded [cf. v. 8], he struck it twice. Had he merely spoken to the rock, the miracle would have been undeniable, and God’s Name would then have been sanctified in the eyes of the unbelieving multitude” (on v. 11). The LORD rebukes Moses and Aaron: “Because you did not trust in me, to show my holiness before the eyes of the Israelites, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them” (v. 12). According to David P. Wright, “Moses and Aaron apparently sin by not clearly attributing the miracle to God (v. 12). Deut. 3:26 [cf. 1:37] preserves an alternate tradition for why Moses did not enter the land. On the pair’s punishment, cf. vv. 22-29; Deut. 34” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Num. 20:9-13). Anderson, Wright’s predecessor in the NOAB tradition, says “Although the preceding narrative is silent about Moses’ disbelief, it is implied that he failed to interpret the giving of water as a sign from the LORD (Deut 32:50-52)” (op. cit., on v. 12).

Nili S. Fox explains as follows:

Striking the rock, as in the Exodus version, does not seem to account for the gravity of Moses’ sin, even though according to some interpretations, it constitutes public disobedience of God’s instructions, which in itself is punishable. Another, more plausible, interpretation is found among medieval commentators who focus on the pronoun ‘we’ in ‘shall we get water.’ By attributing the act of drawing water from a rock to himself and Aaron, Moses, standing before Israel, fails to credit the miracle to God; this is particularly significant because in vv. 4-5 the nation seems to attribute the exodus to Moses and Aaron rather than to God. The distinction carries theological implications in light of the Bible’s need to show the superiority of Israel’s God over Pharaoh and the gods of Egypt (Exod. ch. 5-12). Of significance is an Egyptian inscription on a roadside rock temple in the eastern desert dedicated by Pharaoh Seti I (late 14^th century) to his gods: ‘He (god) has made water come forth for me from the mountain.’ (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, pp. 323-324, on Num. 20:10).

Variety of opinions becomes evident here by comparing the explanation of Fox with that of Rabbi Hertz.

In what did the offence really consist for which Moses and Aaron were excluded from the Promised Land? Some commentators hold that Scripture intentionally does not specify the sin of Moses: his sin, like his grave, was to remain unknown to posterity. Such, however, is not the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that this sin is sufficiently indicated in v. 10 and 11. ‘ “Thou hast decreed”–said Moses–“that I die in the desert like the generation of the desert that angered Thee. I implore Thee, write in Thy Torah wherefore I have been thus punished, so that future generations may not say I had been like the generation of the desert.” God granted his wish, and in several passages, Scripture sets forth the offence for which Moses was not to enter the Promised Land’ (Midrash). (op. cit., on v. 12)

The episode closes with an explanation of the place name. “These are the waters of Meribah (hbAyr9m4 yme, mê m ^erîbāh), where the people of Israel quarreled with the LORD, and by which he showed his holiness (MB! wd2Q0!y09v1, wayyiqqādēš bām)” (v. 13 NRSV). Compare the translations, “. . . and he was sanctified in them” (AV/KJV, JPS 1917) and “through which He affirmed His sanctity” (NJPS 1985, 1999). The Rabbi explains the phrase “waters of Meribah. i.e. the waters of strife. There is,” he says, “a similar use of the word for a similar occasion in Exod. xvii, 7. To distinguish the two the later occurrence is frequently known as ‘Meribath-Kadesh’ ” (ibid., on v. 13).

Fox compares this incident to that of Exodus 17:1-7, which he says has been explained as “the JE account of a water shortage at Massah and Meribah,” and the present account as “P’s version” (op. cit., p. 323 on Num. 20:1-13). He adds:

In the Exodus narrative God instructs Moses to hit the rock with his rod to bring forth water. In the Priestly version in Numbers, Moses and Aaron are to speak to the rock in front of the Israelites (v. 8). When Moses strikes the rock instead of speaking to it, God, in an unexpected move, hands down the ultimate punishment to His appointed leaders. Puzzled by the apparent harshness of God’s verdict, biblical scholars past and present as well as students of the Bible have tried to reconcile Moses’ and Aaron’s punishment with their sin (see v. 10). The deaths of Aaron and, especially, Moses in Transjordan overlooking the promised land have become a symbol epitomizing the human condition. (ibid.)

Romans 5:12-21

Adam and Christ (Gen 3.1-19)

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned- 13 sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. 14 Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man's trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. 16 And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. 17 If, because of the one man's trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. 19 For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:12-21, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from March 19, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when comments were repeated from June 27, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), when comments were repeated from March 15, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Third Sunday of Lent, Year One), when they were combined with revision and supplement from March 3, 2005 (Thursday in the week of the Third Sunday of Lent, Year One), and from June 30, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two).

This passage presents an analogy, but also draws a contrast, between Adam and Christ. Paul says that “sin came into the world through one man [i.e. Adam],” with the consequence that “death spread to all because all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12). Paul explains that, though “sin is not reckoned when there is no law” (v. 13), “Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type (tuvpoV, typos) of the one who was to come” (v. 14). According to Frederick William Danker, the word translated “type,” means literally “a mark left by the downward force of a device,” but has various metaphorical meanings, for example, “image, statue,” or “model, pattern,” the latter here “of something serving as a model for understanding something else, usually rendered 'type' ” (The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2009, s.v. tuvpoV, typos). The remedy for sin introduced by Adam is “the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ” which “abounded for the many” (v. 15). A similar analogy and contrast is drawn by Paul another context:

So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being” [Gen. 2:7]; the last Adam [Christ] became a life-giving spirit. . . . The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. . . . Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:44-49 NRSV)

Both passages contrast Adam and Christ (the “last Adam,” 1 Cor. 15:45), “for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ” (1 Cor. 15:22). In both passages, one could lists contrasts: Adam this, Christ that; but in Corinthians the focus becomes the contrast between our present earthly existence, which we have as children of Adam, and our future resurrection life, which we have through Christ. “Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven” (1 Cor. 15:49). In Romans, however, the focus is on salvation through Christ: the “trespass” [Adam's], versus “the free gift” (Rom. 5:15); “the many died” versus “much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many” (v. 15). “The judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift, following many trespasses brings justification (dikaivwma, dikaiōma)” (v. 16). “Death exercised dominion” versus “those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness (dikaiosuvnh, dikaiosynē) exercise dominion in life” (v. 17). In another contrast, Paul summarizes. “Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness (dikaivwma, dikaiōma) leads to justification and life ( dikaivwsin zwh:V, dikaiōsin [accusative case of dikaivwsiV, dikaiōsis] zōēs) for all” (v. 18). He explains: “For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous (divkaioi, dikaioi)” (v. 19). This contrasts the effect of Adam’s disobedience versus Christ’s obedience. Paul further notes that. when “the law came in,” it had “the result that the trespass multiplied; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” (v. 20). Paul concludes with the contrasting result of Christ’s obedience, “so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification (dikaiosynē) leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (v. 21).

The word “Adam” (MdAxA, ’ādām) is a proper name for Adam (Gen. 4:25; 5:1 [first occurrence]), but also a generic term for “humankind” (NRSV: humankind = MdAxA, ’ādām, Gen. 1:26; 5:1 [second occurrence]; 5:2; = hā’ādām, 1:27; 6:5, 6). In the creation story, MdAxAhA (hā’ādām) is frequently translated “the man” [i.e. Adam] (13 times in Gen. chap. 2). With the creation of the first man (Adam), humankind was called into existence. In Christ, the “last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45), humankind is created anew (cf. Eph. 2:15-16).

Matthew 20:29-34

Jesus Heals Two Blind Men (Mk 10.46-52; Lk 18.35-43)

29 As they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed him. 30 There were two blind men sitting by the roadside. When they heard that Jesus was passing by, they shouted, "Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!" 31 The crowd sternly ordered them to be quiet; but they shouted even more loudly, "Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David!" 32 Jesus stood still and called them, saying, "What do you want me to do for you?" 33 They said to him, "Lord, let our eyes be opened." 34 Moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes. Immediately they regained their sight and followed him. (Matthew 20:29-34, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from November 28, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from June 27, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing with editing and supplement from December 1, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), when comments were repeated from June 30, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), when they were combined and revised from June 25, 2004, in an email sent June 24, 2004, for June 24 and June 25, and from November 26, 2005 (Saturday of the week of the Twenty-Seventh Sunday after Pentecost, Year One).

For parallel accounts related to this reading from Matthew, see the separate file, Healing the Blind. For recent comments on the other account in Matthew, Matthew 9:27-31, see the comments on Matthew 19:27-34 in the Archive for October 9, 2009 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year One). For recent comments on Mark 10:46-52, see the Archive for March 27, 2010 (Saturday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Lent, Year Two). For recent comments on Luke 18:35-43, see the comments on Luke 18:31-43 in the Archive for June 8, 2009 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 8, Year One):

Jesus heals two blind men in this passage (Mt. 20:29-34), and does the same in an earlier account (Mt. 9:27-31). The account in Matthew 20 has parallel accounts in Mark (Mk. 10:46-52) and Luke (Lk. 18:35-43). These two parallel accounts occur in sequence with Matthew’s account, but differ in mentioning only one blind man who is healed. Perhaps Bartimaeus was the most memorable case. Mark translates his Aramaic name, Bartimaeus, as “son of Timaeus.” It is remarkable that, though Jesus had “set his face to go to Jerusalem” (Lk. 9:51; cf. Mt. 20:28, “the Son of Man came . . . to give his life a ransom for many”), he would take time for this healing. We have the right to believe that he is not too busy, or too preoccupied, to deal with our lives, our anxieties and concerns, and our hopes and plans. For Luke, the healing occurred as Jesus and his disciples were entering Jericho (Lk. 18:15), but for Matthew and Mark, it happened as they were leaving Jericho (Mt. 20:29; Mk. 10:46). Eric Franklin says, “In order to accommodate the story of Zacchaeus that Luke uses as a climax, he puts this episode [i.e., the healing of the blind man] at the approach to Jericho rather than at its exit as the other evangelists suggest” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 951, on Lk. 18:35-43).

The cry for help is essentially the same in each account, with allowance for the two in Matthew’s accounts. “Have mercy on us, Son of David!” (Mt. 20:30; 9:27), or “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” (Mk. 10:45; Lk. 18:38). The crowd attempts to silence these cries for help (Mt. 20:31; Mk. 10:48; Lk. 18:39), but fails in that attempt. Jesus responds, “What do you want me to do for you?” (The English translations are identical, but the Greek verb ending for “you” (qevlete, thelete) is plural in Mt. 20:32, but singular in Mk. 10:51 and Lk. 18:41 (qevleiV, theleis), which agrees with the accounts respectively.) They said, "Lord, let our eyes be opened" (Mt. 20:33). And when he touched their eyes, "Immediately they regained their sight and followed him" (v. 34; cf. Mt. 9:29). In all the accounts sight was received immediately, eujqevwV (eutheōs), Mt. 20:34); implied, “And their eyes were opened” (9:30); eujquvV (euthys, Mk 10:52; paracrh:ma (parachrēma, Lk. 18:43).

Dale C. Allison, Jr., comments on the relation between the two accounts of healing two blind men in Matthew:

This passage [Mt. 20:29-34] is remarkably reminiscent of 9:27-30. In both Jesus is being followed, two blind men appear, the blind men cry out and say, ‘Have mercy on us, Son of David,’ Jesus touches their eyes, and they see again. There are also striking verbal links (cf. e.g. 20:29, 30 with 9:27). These parallels form a sort of inclusio. The first restoration of sight occurs towards the beginning of the ministry, the second near the end. This gives an artistic unity to the whole gospel. Furthermore, the first takes place before corporate Israel has rejected Jesus, the second after that rejection has become manifest. So despite being rejected, Jesus’ charity remains the same throughout. His difficulties do not cancel his compassion. (Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 871 on Mt. 20:29-34)

Allison also suggest that the sequence of this account and the preceding account has a lesson for us:

In the former [account, Mt. 20:20-28], two privileged insiders, (James and John) make a request through a third party (their mother). The request is prefaced by no title of respect or majesty, it concerns the eschatological future, and it involves personal exaltation (to sit at the right and left of the Messiah). In the latter, two outsiders (the blind men) make a request that a third party (the crowd) tries to stifle. That request is prefaced by titles of respect and majesty, concerns the present, and is for something necessary that is taken for granted by most (sight). One might infer that petitions are more likely to be heard when addressed directly, with respect, and for things truly needful. (ibid.)

This prayer was for physical sight, and Allison makes a good point. It is needful. But we also should remember to pray for spiritual sight, and spiritual insight (cf. Jn. 9:40-41).

As noted above, for the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 11, 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