Daily Scripture Readings
Sunday (June 27, 2010)*
Daily Office Lectionary, The Book of Common Prayer, the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A., 1979; cf. The Revised Common Lectionary (RCL), Abingdon Press, 1992	Daily Lectionary, Book of Common Worship, the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., 1993	Daily Lectionary, Book of Worship Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship, c. 1978 (2002 printing) ‡
http://www.satucket.com/lectionary/index.htm http://www.pcusa.org/cgi-bin/lectiond.cgi YOU MAY NEED TO COPY AND PASTE THESE URLs IN YOUR BROWSER
‡ Daily Lectionary, Evangelical Lutheran Worship, ELCA, 2006. In the Evangelical Lutheran Worship book of 2006, the Daily Lectionary (pp. 1121-1153) is revised to correlate with the Sunday Lectionary (the Revised Common Lectionary) on the three year cycle: Year A, Year B, Year C (now current). “The readings are chosen so that the days leading up to Sunday (Thursday through Saturday) prepare for the Sunday readings. The days flowing out from Sunday (Monday through Wednesday) reflect upon the Sunday readings” (p. 1121).
Unless otherwise indicated, the scripture texts quoted are from The New Revised Standard Version (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers), 1989.
Sunday AM Psalm 118 PM Psalm 145 Num. 21:4-9, 21-35 Acts 17:(12-21) 22-34 Luke 13:10-17 From the Sunday Lectionary: (Cf. the RCL) 2 Kings 2:1-2, 6-14 & Psalm 77:1-2, 11-20 or 1 Kings 19:15-16, 19-21 & Psalm 16; Galatians 5:1, 13-25; Luke 9:51-62 (Cf. BCP) Psalm 16 or 16:5-11 1 Kings 19:15-16, 19-21 Galatians 5:1, 13-25 Luke 9:51-62	Sunday Morning: Psalms 67; 150 Num. 21:4-9, 21-35 Acts 17:(12-21) 22-34 Luke 13:10-17 Evening: Psalms 46; 93	Sunday Morning Pss.: 19, 150 Numbers 6:22-27 Acts 13:1-12 Luke 12:41-48 Evening Pss.: 81, 113
	12^th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year C 2 Kings 2:1-2, 6-14 Psalm 77:1-2, 11-20 Galatians 5:1, 13-25 Luke 9:51-62	Sunday, June 19-25, Year C Kings 19:15-16, 19-21 Psalm 16 (8) Galatians 5:1, 13-25 Luke 9:51-62 Semicontinuous reading and psalm 2 Kings 2:1-2, 6-14 Psalm 77:1-2, 11-20 (15)
* The Fifth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two

Sermon, Hillcrest United Methodist Church, June 27, 2010

For the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 13, 2010, two weeks ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

Episcopal and Presbyterian Readings:

Numbers 21:4-9, 21-35

Poisonous Serpents and the Serpent of Bronze

4 From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom; but the people became impatient on the way. 5 The people spoke against God and against Moses, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we detest this miserable food." 6 Then the LORD sent poisonous serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many Israelites died. 7 The people came to Moses and said, "We have sinned by speaking against the LORD and against you; pray to the LORD to take away the serpents from us." So Moses prayed for the people. 8 And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live." 9 So Moses made a serpent of bronze, and put it upon a pole; and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live. (Numbers 21:4-9, NRSV)

King Sihon Defeated (Deut 2.26-37)

21 Then Israel sent messengers to King Sihon of the Amorites, saying, 22 "Let me pass through your land; we will not turn aside into field or vineyard; we will not drink the water of any well; we will go by the King's Highway until we have passed through your territory." 23 But Sihon would not allow Israel to pass through his territory. Sihon gathered all his people together, and went out against Israel to the wilderness; he came to Jahaz, and fought against Israel. 24 Israel put him to the sword, and took possession of his land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, as far as to the Ammonites; for the boundary of the Ammonites was strong. 25 Israel took all these towns, and Israel settled in all the towns of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and in all its villages. 26 For Heshbon was the city of King Sihon of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab and captured all his land as far as the Arnon. 27 Therefore the ballad singers say,

"Come to Heshbon, let it be built;

let the city of Sihon be established.

28 For fire came out from Heshbon,

flame from the city of Sihon.

It devoured Ar of Moab,

and swallowed up the heights of the Arnon.

29 Woe to you, O Moab!

You are undone, O people of Chemosh!

He has made his sons fugitives,

and his daughters captives,

to an Amorite king, Sihon.

30 So their posterity perished

from Heshbon to Dibon,

and we laid waste until fire spread to Medeba."

31 Thus Israel settled in the land of the Amorites. 32 Moses sent to spy out Jazer; and they captured its villages, and dispossessed the Amorites who were there.

King Og Defeated (Deut 3:1-22)

33 Then they turned and went up the road to Bashan; and King Og of Bashan came out against them, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei. 34 But the LORD said to Moses, "Do not be afraid of him; for I have given him into your hand, with all his people, and all his land. You shall do to him as you did to King Sihon of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon." 35 So they killed him, his sons, and all his people, until there was no survivor left; and they took possession of his land. (Numbers 21:21-35, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of June 29, 2008 (the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost, refs. for the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two)’ when they were repeated from July 2, 2006 (The Seventh Sunday after Pentecost, refs. for the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two), when comments on Numbers 21:4-9 were repeated from June 27, 2004, in an email sent June 25, 2004 for June 26-27.

On the journey from Mount Hor to the Red Sea (the Gulf of Aqaba), "the people became impatient" (Num. 21:4). Rabbi J. H. Hertz notes that they were "impatient" (v. 4) "because of the unspeakable hardships," and "because of the way" (v. 4, Heb., j`r,D,Ba, badderek, literally "in" or "on the way," cf. NRSV), "the rugged, sandy, and exceptionally dreary plain through which they were passing; and the fact that they were marching, for the time being, away from Canaan and knew not how they were ever to reach it” (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 24^th printing, 1981, p. 659 on Num. 21:4). Have you ever felt that God was leading you backwards, in precisely the wrong direction? Does it sometimes take two steps backwards in order to go three steps forward? We might call this the road around Edom. But this impatience leads to complaining with a familiar tone. “The people spoke against God and against Moses, Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we detest this miserable food’ ” (v. 5; cf. 11:4-6). Jo Ann Hackett calls this “the last of the complaint stories . . . and the most serious since the people complain directly against God as well as Moses" (HarperCollins Study Bible, 1993, on Num. 21:4-9).

But this impatience and complaining lead to judgment: "Then the LORD sent poisonous [‘fiery' NRSV text note b] serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many Israelites died" (v. 6). According to Hackett, “Poisonous serpents, lit. ‘fiery snakes,’ [were] so-called perhaps because of the burning of their bites. Poisonous snakes do exist in the Sinai and the Negeb” (ibid., on v. 7). This judgment leads to repentance on the part of the people. “The people came to Moses and said, ‘We have sinned by speaking against the LORD and against you; pray to the LORD to take away the serpents from us.’ So Moses prayed for the people” (v. 7). In response, “the LORD said to Moses, ‘Make a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live’ ” (v. 8). And Moses obeyed. “So Moses made a serpent of bronze (tw,Hon4 wH18n4, n^echaš n^echōšeth), and put it upon a pole; and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live (v. 9). John's Gospel interprets this event in reference to Christ. "And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life" (Jn. 3:14-15); "and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself (Jn. 12:32). Rabbi Hertz asks, "Did then the brazen serpent possess the power of slaying or of bringing to life? No, but so long as the Israelites looked upwards and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, were they healed." And he adds, "This brazen serpent made by Moses was naturally preserved as an object of veneration by the Israelites. But when in the course of centuries it tended to become, and eventually became, an object of idolatrous worship, it was destroyed by King Hezekiah (II Kings xviii, 4)" (op. cit., p. 660 on Num. 21:9).

The reading passes over verses 10 to 20, which David P. Wright calls “a short itinerary of travels in Transjordan; cf. 33:41-49. It comes from different sources, and many of the places cannot be identified” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Num. 21:10-20). Nili S. Fox points out that, “the conquest narrative actually begins here with Israel’s triumph over two Amorite kinglets in Transjordan. Accounts of victories in Transjordan provide the backdrop for settlement in that region by the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 326, on Num. 21:21-22:1).

As the reading resumes, we are told, “Then Israel sent messengers to King Sihon of the Amorites, saying, ‘Let me pass through your land; we will not turn aside into field or vineyard; we will not drink the water of any well; we will go by the King's Highway until we have passed through your territory’ ” (vv. 21-22; cf. 20:17, 19). And the Amorite king’s response is similar to that of the Edomite king earlier. “But Sihon would not allow Israel to pass through his territory. Sihon gathered all his people together, and went out against Israel to the wilderness; he came to Jahaz, and fought against Israel (21:23; cf. 20:18, 20-21). According to Wright, “in contrast to Edom, the Israelites engage Sihon in battle and win (cf. 20:14-21). Sihon’s land was north of Moab between the Arnon and Jabbok rivers” (op. cit., on vv. 21-31). The Rabbi observes, citing Moulton, “In contrast to former pictures of murmuring and mutiny, we now get events which bring out the glad surprise of the new people as their strength is tried against the gigantic Sihon and Og, and the foes are utterly exterminated (Moulton)” (op. cit.,, p. 662 on Num. 21:21-32). King Sihon made an unwise choice, for “Israel put him to the sword, and took possession of his land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, as far as to the Ammonites; for the boundary of the Ammonites was strong” (v. 24). The result of the battle was that “Israel took all these towns, and Israel settled in all the towns of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and in all its villages” (v. 25). It is explained that “Heshbon was the city of King Sihon of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab and captured all his land as far as the Arnon” (v. 26).

According to the Rabbi, citing Graetz,

‘The victory over Sihon was of incalculable importance to the Israelites; it strengthened their position and inspired them with self-reliance. They at once took possession of the conquered district and abandoned their nomadic life. The Israelites could now move about freely, being no longer incommoded by the narrow belt of the desert nor by the suspicions of unfriendly tribes’ (Graetz). (ibid., p. 662, on v. 25)

The narrator introduces a celebration, saying, “Therefore the ballad singers (Myl9w4m0oha, hammôš ^elîm) say” (v. 27a NRSV). The introductory phrase is translated, “Wherefore they that speak in parables say” (JPS 1917, cf AV/KJV with ‘proverbs’ for ‘parables’); or “Therefore the bards would recite” (NJPS 1985, 1999). The participle form Myl9w4m0oha (hammôš ^elîm), from the verb lwamA (māšal), is related to the noun lwAmA (māšāl), which has a range of meanings, from (1) a “saying of any of various categories,” to (2) a “proverb,” to (3) “wisdom saying,” to (4) “mocking song” (William L. Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 1971, 10^th corrected impression, 1988, s.v. lwAmA, māšāl). The plural form of this noun is the title of the book of Proverbs: hmolow4 ylew4mi (mišlê š ^elōmōh), the Proverbs of Solomon. The song celebrates the victory over Sihon and his people, and provides an interlude, as it were, before the narrator’s report of the next confrontation.

Come to Heshbon, let it be built; / let the city of Sihon be established.

For fire came out from Heshbon, / flame from the city of Sihon.

It devoured Ar of Moab, / and swallowed up the heights of the Arnon.

Woe to you, O Moab! / You are undone, O people of Chemosh!

He has made his sons fugitives, / and his daughters captives, / to an Amorite king, Sihon.

So their posterity perished / from Heshbon to Dibon, / and we laid waste until fire spread to Medeba.

(vv. 27-30)

The word “wherefore” (v. 27 JPS 1917; NKe-lfa , ‘al-kēn = ‘therefore’ NRSV), says the Rabbi, “Explains that this song is quoted because of its association with the remark in v. 26 concerning the conquest of Moab by Sihon.” On the phrase “come ye to Heshbon” (JPS 1917, ‘come to Heshbon’ NRSV), he says, “This and the next two verses are the victory song of the Amorites when they in their day had wrested that land from the rulers of Moab. The poet invites the victorious Amorites to lose no time in entering upon and enjoying the greatest trophy in their victory, namely, the captured capital, Heshbon” (op. cit., on v. 27). Fox agrees, saying, “The ballad of Heshbon celebrates Sihon’s conquest of Moabite territory. Various theories have been proposed as to why it is preserved in the Bible. According to the Rabbis, it justifies Israel’s defeat of Sihon (Num. Rab. 19:30). Israel was prohibited from provoking the Moabites to battle (Deut. 2:9)” (op. cit., p. 327, on vv. 27-30).

“Thus,” we are reminded, “Israel settled in the land of the Amorites.” (v. 31). Next, apparently in a kind of mop-up operation, “Moses sent to spy out Jazer; and they captured its villages, and dispossessed the Amorites who were there” (v. 32). “In Isaiah xvi 8, 9, says the Rabbi, “it [i.e., Jazer] is mentioned together with Heshbon. According to 1 Maccabees, v, 8, it was near the Ammonite border” (op. cit., on v. 32).

But the next major opponent is Og, King of Bashan (Num. 21:33-35; Deut. 3:1-13). This time there is no peaceful overture as was given to the Amorites (v. 22). “Then,” says the narrator, “they turned and went up the road to Bashan; and King Og of Bashan came out against them, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei” (v. 33; cf. Deut. 3:1). In the Deuteronomy account, while as here the Israelites’ defeat of Og, he is described as a giant. “Now only King Og of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. In fact his bed, an iron bed, can still be seen in Rabbah of the Ammonites. By the common cubit it is nine cubits long and four cubits wide” (Deut. 3:11). At the rate of 17.49 inches per cubit, the bed would be more than thirteen feet long and nearly six feet wide. The tallest of our current NBA players would “get lost,” as they say, in such a bed. Two of me (6'2” tall) could sleep end to end in it. Bernard M. Levinson says, “The oversized bed of Og, one of the legendary Rephaim (2:10-11), was a ‘museum piece’ in Rabbah, a city on the Ammonite border. The emphasis that this bed can still be seen there places the historical perspective of the narrator, and thus of Deuteronomy’s composition, long after the events here recounted” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Deut. 3:11). According to Rabbi Hertz, “in Hebrew folklore, Og is the last of the giants, an antediluvian of superhuman strength, who had survived the Flood many centuries before” (ibid., on v. 33). And he adds, “Og was formidable, not only on account of his giant stature (cf. Deut. iii, 11) but also on account of the walled cities in his dominions” (op. cit., on v.34 [cf. Deut. 3:5]). Og’s size and fortified cities, not mentioned in the Numbers account, may have been a factor in Moses’ fear that the LORD seeks to calm. “But the LORD said to Moses, ‘Do not be afraid of him; for I have given him into your hand, with all his people, and all his land. You shall do to him as you did to King Sihon of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon’ ” (Num. 21:34; cf. Deut. 3:2). But the Numbers report quickly moves to an Israelite victory. “So they killed him [i.e., Og], his sons, and all his people, until there was no survivor left; and they took possession of his land” (Num. 21:35; cf. Deut. 3:3-4, 6).

Acts 17:(12-21) 22-34

Paul Leaves Beroea for his Safety

12 Many of them therefore believed, including not a few Greek women and men of high standing. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica learned that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Beroea as well, they came there too, to stir up and incite the crowds. 14 Then the believers immediately sent Paul away to the coast, but Silas and Timothy remained behind. 15 Those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and after receiving instructions to have Silas and Timothy join him as soon as possible, they left him.

Paul in Athens

16 While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was deeply distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17 So he argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and also in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. 18 Also some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers debated with him. Some said, "What does this babbler want to say?" Others said, "He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign divinities." (This was because he was telling the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.) 19 So they took him and brought him to the Areopagus and asked him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 It sounds rather strange to us, so we would like to know what it means." 21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners living there would spend their time in nothing but telling or hearing something new.

22 Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, "Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. 23 For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, 'To an unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. 26 From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, 27 so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him-though indeed he is not far from each one of us. 28 For 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said,

'For we too are his offspring.'

29 Since we are God's offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals. 30 While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

32 When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed; but others said, "We will hear you again about this." 33 At that point Paul left them. 34 But some of them joined him and became believers, including Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them. (Acts 17:[12-21], 22-34, NRSV)

The following comments are based on relevant comments from those on Acts 17:1-15 and 16-33 of July 31 and August 1, 2009 (Friday and Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 27, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from September 19, 2008 (in the week of the Sunday closest to September 14, Year Two), when comments were repeated from August 3, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 27, Year One), when comments were repeated from September 22, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 14, Year Two).

The reference for today’s reading includes Acts 17:12-21 in parentheses, suggesting that Paul’s necessary departure from Beroea (eluding the Jews from Thessalonica who had come to stir up trouble, Acts 17:13), his arrival in Athens (vv. 14-15), his distress because “the city was full of idols (v. 16), and his initial encounters with Jews in the synagogue, persons in the marketplace (v. 17), and especially the philosophers (vv. 18-20), are a prelude to his speech at the Areopagus (vv. 22-31). But beginning with the parenthetical section, we find Paul having made a successful beginning in Beroea. “Many of them [i.e. the Beroeans] therefore believed, including not a few Greek women and men of high standing” (Acts 17:12). Christopher R. Matthews observes that “Christianity is attracting people with status” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Acts 17:11-12). But the trouble for Paul that began in Thessalonica catches up with him. “But when the Jews of Thessalonica learned that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Beroea as well, they came there too, to stir up and incite the crowds” (v. 13, cf. vv. 5-6). The Beroean believers act quickly to protect Paul. They “immediately sent Paul away to the coast, but Silas and Timothy remained behind” (v. 14). And unnamed persons “conducted Paul [and] brought him as far as Athens; and after receiving instructions to have Silas and Timothy join him as soon as possible, they left him” (v. 15). In looking ahead, we note that Silas and Timothy do eventually catch up with Paul and rejoin him, not at Athens, but at Corinth (Acts 18:5).

So Paul finds himself alone in a city with a storied past, the city of Plato and Aristotle, which in Paul’s time was in something of a decline, but which would–in the fourth century days of the Christian Cappadocian Fathers, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyssa, of whom two studied at Athens–return to its position as the leading intellectual center of the world. While waiting for Silas and Timothy in Athens, Paul makes some disturbing observations. He “was deeply distressed to see that the city was full of idols” (v. 16). We next find him arguing “in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons” (v. 17a). There, if anywhere, we might suppose, he would find sympathy for his opposition to idolatry. But he argued “also in the marketplace (ajgorav, agora; cf. ‘Or civic center’ NRSV text note b) every day with those who happened to be there” (v. 17b). We’re not told that he practiced his tent-making trade in the marketplace, as he would later at Corinth with Aquila and Priscilla (18:2-3), and apparently did so for some time at Thessalonica (cf. 1 Thess. 2:9), but that would be a reason for him to be found “in the marketplace.” In any event, whether in the “marketplace” or the “civic center,” he finds himself in debate with “some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers” (v. 18a). According to Matthews, “recognizable tenets from both groups [i.e., the Epicureans and Stoics] are incorporated into Paul’s speech in vv. 22-31” (ibid., on v. 16). Paul was not well received by these “philosophers.” “Some said, ‘What does this babbler (spermolovgoV, spermologos) want to say?’ ” (Acts. 18a). The word spermolovgoV (spermologos), which occurs only here in the New Testament and not at all in the Septuagint, is a compound of spevrma (sperma), “seed,” and levgw (legō), in the sense of “gather, pick up” (Liddell-Scott-Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9^th ed., 1940, reprinted 1966, s.v. levgw, legō). From this derivation, “literally ‘picking up seeds’; of birds . . . [the word is used] in pejorative imagery of persons whose communication lacks sophistication and seems to pick up scraps of information here and there scrapmonger, scavenger” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. spermolovgoV, spermologos). “English synonyms,” adds the Lexicon, “include ‘gossip’, ‘babbler’, ‘chatterer’; but these terms miss the imagery of unsystematic gathering.”

According to Pheme Perkins,

Stoics [were] members of a philosophical school founded in Athens by Zeno (335-263 B.C.). Although the scholars of the school developed theories of physics, cosmology, and logic, it was best known for its emphasis on moral conduct. . . . The Stoics held that the entire universe was a living creature animated by the divine Logos (reason ore mind). This Logos was identified with Zeus. Every person was a slave of the ruling Logos.

Since the Logos pervaded everything, whatever happened in the universe was governed by this universal law of nature or providence. All human beings were brothers and sisters in this universal, living body. . . . Since everything that happens to people was determined, the only way in which individuals could control their lives was to control the passions governing how external events affected them. Control of oneself was the avenue by which humans showed their freedom and superiority to fortune. (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Stoics)

Of the Epicureans, Perkins says, they were

followers of the philosopher Epicurus (342-270 B.C.). . . . [They] were often attacked as atheists, since they held that sense perception was the only basis for knowledge. Everything had come into being out of atoms and the void. A random ‘swerve’ in the path of the atoms caused the world to come into being and provided the material basis for free will, since no god had created or ruled over human beings, according to the Epicureans.

Epicureans argued against fear of death, since in their view death was merely the dissolution of the atoms entangled to make up the human, and against fear of the gods, who would enjoy their own blessedness without troublesome concern for human affairs. Free from these fears, they counseled, one should seek to live a peaceful life in which the body is free from pain and the mind peaceful and undisturbed. Consequently, one should choose a private life, pursuing this ideal in the pleasant company of friends. (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Epicureans)

F. F. Bruce says,

Stoicism and Epicureanism represented alternative attempts in pre-Christian paganism to come to terms with life, especially in times of uncertainty and hardship; post-Christian paganism has never been able to devise anything appreciably better. But Stoics and Epicureans alike, much as they might differ from each other, agreed at least on this: that the new-fangled message brought by this Jew of Tarsus was not one that could appeal to reasonable people. They looked on him as a retailer of secondhand scraps of philosophy, ‘a picker-up of learning’s crumbs’ (like Browning’s Karshish), a type of itinerant peddler of religion not unknown in the Agora, and they used a term of disparaging Athenian slang to describe him [cf. the discussion of spermolovgoV (spermologos) above]. (The Book of Acts, NICNT, rev. ed., 1988, p. 331, on Acts 17:18)

Some of the Athenians attempt to guess what Paul is talking about. “Others said, ‘He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign divinities’ ” (v. 18b). Luke explains parenthetically: “This was because he was telling the good news about Jesus and the resurrection” (v. 18c). According to Matthews, “Jesus and Anastasis (the Gk. Word for resurrection) are mistaken for two foreign divinities” (op. cit., on v. 18). The implied charge of ignorance is turned on Paul’s critics, as it were. But they decide to give Paul a hearing. “So they took him and brought him to the Areopagus and asked him, ‘May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? It sounds rather strange to us, so we would like to know what it means’ ” (vv. 19-20). And Luke explains again. “Now all the Athenians and the foreigners living there would spend their time in nothing but telling or hearing something new” (v. 21).

Paul makes a good beginning by establishing rapport. He comments on “how extremely religious you are in every way” (v. 22), because he has seen evidence of that. “For as I went through the city,” he says, “and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you” (v. 23). This he relates to his God, “the God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth” (v. 24a). Paul’s God “does not live in shrines made by human hands” (v. 24b), and does not need the continuing stream of sacrifices of pagan cults, “as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things” (v. 25). This critique of pagan idolatry and the corresponding emphasis on the one God as creator ;and sustainer of the world echoes typical Jewish propaganda within the Greco-Roman world. As other Jews, Paul would abhor idolatry, but he has long lived in Gentile territory where it was commonplace. He will later condemn the pagan world, saying, “they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles” (Rom. 1:23). To a hypothetical hypercritical Jew he says, “You that abhor idols, do you rob temples?” (Rom. 2:22b). And his modus operandi (way of working) includes a certain tolerance, up to a point. “I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:22c).

But Paul’s tone at Athens, as presented by Luke, is less polemic. According to Matthews, “God as the creator ([Acts] 14:15) is an idea common to Jews (Gen. 1:1) and Greeks (e.g. Plato, Timaeus)” (op. cit., on Acts 17:24-25). Plato said,

Now the whole Heaven, or Cosmos, or if there is any other name which it specially prefers, by that let us call it,–so, be its name what it may, we must first investigate concerning it that primary question which has to be investigated at the outset in every case,–namely, whether it has existed always, having no beginning of generation, or whether it has come into existence, having begun from some beginning. It has come into existence; for it is visible and tangible and possessed of a body . . . And that which has come into existence must necessarily, as we say, have come into existence by reason of some Cause (ai[tioV, aitios [cf. Heb. 5:9]). Now to discover the Maker and Father of this Universe were a task indeed; and having discovered Him, to declare Him unto all men were a thing impossible. (Plato, Timaeus 28.b, c; trans. R. G. Bury, Loeb Classical Library, pp. 50-51; also on the Internet, Perseus Digital Library, at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0180%3Atext%3DTim.%3Asection%3D28b, and http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0180%3Atext%3DTim.%3Asection%3D28c, accessed June 25, 2010; copy and paste the URLs in your browser)

Paul elaborates this theme, God’s starting “from one ancestor [Adam, from whom] he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth” which he sustains in their times and places (v. 26), with a view toward their searching for him, perhaps groping and finding him, “though indeed he is not far from each one of us” (v. 27). This last point is supported by two quotations, “In him we live and move and have our being” (v. 28a) and “For we too are his offspring” (v. 28b). According to Matthews, “Although the first quotation is sometimes attributed to Epimenides, its language is probably to be associated with Posidonius (based on Plato); the second quotation is from Aratus (Phanomena 5), a Greek poet of Cilicia educated as a Stoic. In Paul’s usage the original pantheistic sense of both ‘quotations’ is reinterpreted” (ibid., on v. 28). This is the clearest example of Paul’s quotation from non-Judeo-Christian literature in the New Testament; but compare his citation of a Cretan proverb (Titus 1:12). Paul points out that God should not be understood as any form of material object. “Since we are God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals” (v. 29). Paul explains that in the past “God has overlooked the times of human ignorance” (v. 30a), but “now,” says Paul, “he [i.e., God] commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead” (vv. 30b, 31).

In his reference to resurrection, God’s raising Christ from the dead (v. 31), Paul comes to a significant difference between the conception of life after death in Hebrew thought, resurrection of the body, and that of the Greeks, who tended to think of a separation of the soul from the body. Plato, for example, has Socrates say:

Let us consider in another way also how good reason there is to hope that it is a good thing. For the state of death is one of two things: either it is virtually nothingness, so that the dead has no consciousness of anything, or it is, as people say, a change and migration of the soul from this to another place. (Apology, 40c, on the Internet, the Perseus web site, at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plat.+Apol.+40c, accessed again June 25, 2010; copy and paste the URL in your browser.)

And so, at Paul’s mention of resurrection, he is interrupted. “When they [i.e., his ‘audience’ at the Areopagus] heard of the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed; but others said, ‘We will hear you again about this’ ” (v. 32). So, “at that point Paul left them” (v. 33). And Luke sums up the results, which, in comparison with Paul’s success in other cities, seem rather meagre. “But some of them [the Athenians] joined him and became believers, including Dionysius -the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them” (v. 34).

Luke 13:10-17

10 Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. 11 And just then there appeared a woman with a spirit that had crippled her for eighteen years. She was bent over and was quite unable to stand up straight. 12 When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said, "Woman, you are set free from your ailment." 13 When he laid his hands on her, immediately she stood up straight and began praising God. 14 But the leader of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had cured on the sabbath, kept saying to the crowd, "There are six days on which work ought to be done; come on those days and be cured, and not on the sabbath day." 15 But the Lord answered him and said, "You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger, and lead it away to give it water? 16 And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen long years, be set free from this bondage on the sabbath day?" 17 When he said this, all his opponents were put to shame; and the entire crowd was rejoicing at all the wonderful things that he was doing. (Luke 13:10-17, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of November 5, 2008 ( Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 2, Year Two), when comments were repeated from June 29, 2008 (the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two), when comments were repeated from November 8, 2006 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 2, Year Two), when comments were repeated from earlier as follows: For the comments of November 3, 2004,(Wednesday of the week of the Sunday closest to November 2, Year Two), on Luke’s description of Jesus’ healing of a crippled woman who "was bent over and was unable to stand up straight" (Lk. 13:11), I simply quoted parts of a sermon delivered earlier that fall by my wife, Dr. Barbara Worden. To that I have added comments of my own, repeated here from July 2, 2006 (the Fourth Sunday after Pentecost, Year Two), when comments were combined and revised from June 27, 2004, in an email sent June 25, 2004 for June 26-27, and from May 17, 2005 (Tuesday of the week of Pentecost Sunday [using Proper 2], Year One).

This account of Jesus’ healing of a crippled woman, “the woman bent over,” is found only in Luke, though certain details resemble other healing stories, for example, the immediacy of the healing itself (Lk. 13:13; cf. Mt. 12:13; Mk. 3:5; Lk. 6:10), and criticism for healing on the sabbath (Lk. 13:14; cf. Mt. 12:10; Mk. 3:2; Lk. 6:7). “Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath,” says Luke (Lk.13:10). The indefinite time reference reminds us that Luke’s so-called “travel narrative,” about Jesus journey from Galilee to Jerusalem (Lk. 9:51-to chap. 18), combines a variety of parables and teachings of Jesus. “And just then,” says Luke, “there appeared a woman with a spirit that had crippled her for eighteen years” (Lk. 13:11a). This, according to David L. Tiede, revised by Christopher R. Matthews, is “the third Sabbath controversy (see also 6:1-5; 6:6-11; 14:1-6), here with Jesus teaching in the synagogue (see also 4:14-30, 31-38, 44)” (The HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lk. 13:10-17). The woman “was bent over and was quite unable to stand up straight” (Lk. 13:11b). Tiede and Matthews say, “For the perceived link between illness and an evil spirit, see [their] note on 8:2-3; see also 9:42” (ibid., on v. 11). Earlier they have pointed out that evil spirits and infirmities [are] afflictions to be healed, not sins to be forgiven” (ibid., on 8:2-3).

“When Jesus saw her [i.e., the bent-over woman], he called her over and said, ‘Woman, you are set free from your ailment.’ When he laid his hands on her, immediately she stood up straight and began praising God” (13:12-13). The healing is clearly instantaneous, and—one would think—a cause for rejoicing. But for this compassionate action Jesus is immediately criticized. “But the leader of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had cured on the sabbath, kept saying to the crowd, ‘There are six days on which work ought to be done; come on those days and be cured, and not on the sabbath day’ ” (v. 14). But Jesus responds to the criticism; he “answered him and said, ‘You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger, and lead it away to give it water? And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen long years, be set free from this bondage on the sabbath day?’ ” (vv. 15-16). Tiede and Matthews say, “Jesus argues from a lesser issue of care for the needs of animals (a point granted by the rabbis . . .) to the greater issue of care for an afflicted woman” (ibid., on vv. 15-16). According to Luke, “When he [i.e., Jesus] said this, all his opponents were put to shame; and the entire crowd was rejoicing at all the wonderful things that he was doing” (v. 17). G. W. H. Lampe understands Jesus to be calling here for “Israel's repentance in face of the crisis of the Kingdom” which “will be shown chiefly in respect of the treatment of those in bondage and the outcasts” (Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 729g, p. 835 on Lk. 13:10-17). He notes that the woman “is bound (cf. 12: ‘freed’; 15: ‘untie’; 16: ‘bound', ‘loosed'), and the implication of 16 is that a daughter of Abraham is being treated as an outcast (cf. 19:9)” (on v. 16). In a paraphrase of Jesus’ words at the tomb of Lazarus (Jn. 11:44, Unbind her and let her go!

As noted above, my wife, Dr. Barbara Worden, has a sermon on “the Bent-Over Woman,” which includes the following:

The woman bent over made herself intentionally or not, less conspicuous. Being bent over is a way we sometimes cope with our bad feelings about ourselves. She hoped she could go through life, both unseeing, and unseen. Linda was a girl who lived on my street when I was young. Ironically, her bent over body made her more not less conspicuous. Our woman bent over was compelled to look forever at her feet, certainly not the most attractive part of herself and occasionally at other people's feet. Linda was so focused on her own self-defined ugliness, she hardly ever looked at anyone else to really see them.

Another thing that tends to make our spirits bend over is carrying loads too heavy for us without asking for help. In Guatemala City I saw a Maya woman picking up her little store of snacks for sale at the end of the day, her already tiny body made shorter, and shoulders rounded by years of carrying a burden with no help. How many of us are spiritually burdened because we persist in not asking for help?

Jesus addresses the woman by the honorable name daughter of Abraham; he honors someone most people would prefer not to look at. She is honored by the name of her great ancestor; the quibblers of the law get no such honor. Part of lifting this woman from her bent over state is recognizing who she is, a daughter of Abraham, not a walking disease. Fortunately the bent over woman in Luke was able to see where healing was to come from with her spiritual eyes, and was present to worship God when Jesus saw her. (From Dr. Barbara Worden’s sermon)

As noted above, this is one of several times when Gospel narratives report that Jesus’ healing activity was resisted by Jewish leaders because it occurred on the Sabbath. Another follows in Luke 14:1-6. Here, Marion Lloyd Soards notes that “Jesus relates the physical disorder of the woman to the work of Satan (cf. 11:14)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Lk. 13:16). Catherine Clark Kroeger calls this episode “a monument to the rights and dignity of women” (The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, 2002, 577 on Lk. 13:10-17). She adds, “Marginalized women are objects of consistent concern to Jesus. With no request made of him, Jesus undertakes her healing. Its instant effect is contrasted with the long years that she has spent with her affliction. ‘Woman, you are set free from your ailment’.” After further comment, Kroeger adds, “As a liberated member of the covenant community, she may now stand erect and look people in the face. Those who must hide their faces in shame are they who would deny her this right.”

As noted above, for the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 13, 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