Daily Scripture Readings

Daily Scripture Readings
Tuesday (June 29, 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/lectionary 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 (now current), Year C. “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.
Tuesday AM Psalm [120], 121, 122, 123 PM Psalm 124, 125, 126, [127] Num. 22:21-38 Rom. 7:1-12 Matt. 21:23-32 St. Peter & St. Paul: http://www.satucket.com/lectionary/Peter&Paul.htm AM Psalm 66; Ezekiel 2:1-7; Acts 11:1-18 PM Psalm 97, 138; Isaiah 49:1-6; Galatians 2:1-9 From the Sunday Lectionary: Psalm 87; Ezekiel 34:11-16; 2 Timothy 4:1-8; John 21:15-19 Eucharistic Readings: Psalm 5 Amos 3:1-8, 4:11-12; Matthew 8:23-27	Tuesday Morning: Psalms 54; 146 Num. 22:21-38 Rom. 7:1-12 Matt. 21:23-32 Evening: Psalms 28; 99	Tuesday Morning Pss.: 123, 146 Num. 11:1-23 Rom. 1:16-25 Matt. 17:22-27 Evening Pss.: 30, 86 Peter and Paul, Apostles, June 29 Acts 12:1-11 Psalm 87:1-3, 5-7 (3) 2 Timothy 4:6-8, 17-18 John 21:15-19
		Year C Daily Readings Psalm 140 Jeremiah 3:15-18 Ephesians 5:6-20
* Tuesday in the week of the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two

For the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 15, 2010, two weeks ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

Episcopal and Presbyterian Readings:

Numbers 22:21-38

21 So Balaam got up in the morning, saddled his donkey, and went with the officials of Moab.

Balaam, the Donkey, and the Angel

22 God's anger was kindled because he was going, and the angel of the LORD took his stand in the road as his adversary. Now he was riding on the donkey, and his two servants were with him. 23 The donkey saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand; so the donkey turned off the road, and went into the field; and Balaam struck the donkey, to turn it back onto the road. 24 Then the angel of the LORD stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on either side. 25 When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, it scraped against the wall, and scraped Balaam's foot against the wall; so he struck it again. 26 Then the angel of the LORD went ahead, and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to the right or to the left. 27 When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, it lay down under Balaam; and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he struck the donkey with his staff. 28 Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and it said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?" 29 Balaam said to the donkey, "Because you have made a fool of me! I wish I had a sword in my hand! I would kill you right now!" 30 But the donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey, which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I been in the habit of treating you this way?" And he said, "No."

31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road, with his drawn sword in his hand; and he bowed down, falling on his face. 32 The angel of the LORD said to him, "Why have you struck your donkey these three times? I have come out as an adversary, because your way is perverse before me. 33 The donkey saw me, and turned away from me these three times. If it had not turned away from me, surely just now I would have killed you and let it live." 34 Then Balaam said to the angel of the LORD, "I have sinned, for I did not know that you were standing in the road to oppose me. Now therefore, if it is displeasing to you, I will return home." 35 The angel of the LORD said to Balaam, "Go with the men; but speak only what I tell you to speak." So Balaam went on with the officials of Balak.

36 When Balak heard that Balaam had come, he went out to meet him at Ir-moab, on the boundary formed by the Arnon, at the farthest point of the boundary. 37 Balak said to Balaam, "Did I not send to summon you? Why did you not come to me? Am I not able to honor you?" 38 Balaam said to Balak, "I have come to you now, but do I have power to say just anything? The word God puts in my mouth, that is what I must say." (Numbers 22:21-38, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here with some editing from July 1, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing from July 4, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two), when comments were repeated with considerable supplement from June 29, 2004 in an email sent June 28, 2004, for June 28-July 4.

This is the second of six readings on Balak and Balaam. In the first (yesterday’s reading), Balak, the King of Moab, sent messengers to Mesopotamia–to “Pethor, which is on the Euphrates” (Num. 22:5)–to get Balaam, a prophet of the LORD (YHWH, cf. v. 8), to come and curse the Israelites, whom the Moabite king feared (v. 11). Twice Balaam waits through the night for a message from the LORD (vv. 8, 20). In the first instance, God’s answer is an emphatic “No!”: “You shall not go with them; you shall not curse the people, for they are blessed” (v. 12). The second embassy, “more numerous and more distinguished” (v. 15) seems to soften Balaam up a bit, but he still waits on God’s reply (vv. 18-19, which varies some from the “you shall not go” of the first reply (v 12). “If the men have come to summon you ,” says the LORD to Balak, “get up and go with them, but do only what I tell you to do” (v. 20). And yesterday’s reading concluded by reporting Balaam’s departure: “So Balaam got up in the morning, saddled his donkey, and went with the officials of Moab” (Num. 22:21, repeated today).

Now we are told of God’s displeasure with Balaam for going at all. In spite of God’s permission (v. 20), as Balaam leaves with the officials of Moab (v. 21), “God's anger was kindled because he was going, and the angel of the LORD (hvhy j`xal4ma, mal’ak YHWH) took his stand in the road as his adversary (Ol NFAWAl4, l^eśātān lô)” (v. 22a). Balaam’s mode of transportation was riding a donkey, for “now he was riding on the donkey, and his two servants were with him” (v. 22b), and the donkey, who sees what Balaam apparently cannot, in the first of three instances, attempts to prevent Balaam’s going to Balak. “The donkey saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand; so the donkey turned off the road, and went into the field; and Balaam struck the donkey, to turn it back onto the road” (v. 23). Nili S. Fox sees this part of the Balaam Story, “this episode of Balaam and the she-ass,” as “from a different tradition that contradicts the favorable view of Balaam expressed by the main story (contrast esp. v. 20)” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 329, on Num. 22:22-35). He adds,

In this version God is angry with the prophet (v. 22) and in turn depicts the donkey as the actual visionary. Balaam becomes the object of mockery. He is portrayed as being blind to divine will; it is the ass that sees what the seer cannot. (ibid.)

As Balaam attempts to proceed, “the angel of the LORD [stands] in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on either side” (v. 24). This time, we are told, that “when the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, it scraped against the wall, and scraped Balaam's foot against the wall; so he struck it again” (v. 25). A third time, the angel blocks the way and the donkey attempts to prevent Balaam’s journey. “Then the angel of the LORD went ahead, and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to the right or to the left. When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, it lay down under Balaam; and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he struck the donkey with his staff” (vv. 26-27).

At that point, the LORD intervenes, he “opened the mouth of the donkey, and it said to Balaam, ‘What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?’ ” (v. 28). From Balaam’s response, one might suppose that he was in the habit of conversing with donkeys. Showing no surprise, he rather attempts to explain his answer. He says “to the donkey, ‘Because you have made a fool of me! I wish I had a sword in my hand! I would kill you right now!’ ” (v. 29). Rabbi J. H. Hertz comments on the words, “I had killed thee” (v. 29, JPS 1917, for NRSV “I would kill you”): “At this, the ass laughed. He is intent on destroying a whole people by word of mouth; and to slay a poor ass he requires a sword” (Midrash, cited by Rabbi Hertz, Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 24^th printing, 1981, p. 672, on Num. 22:29). And the donkey responds with a protest. “Am I not your donkey, which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I been in the habit of treating you this way?” (v. 30a). And Balaam’s response is a simple “No” (v. 30b).

After this conversation, "the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel standing in the road, with his drawn sword in his hand" (31a). And Balaam’s immediate response is to bow down, “falling on his face” (v. 31b). The opening of his eyes may not have seemed the blessing it was. Sometimes having the painful truth about the real situation is better that remaining blind to it. The angel rebukes Balaam. “Why have you struck your donkey these three times? I have come out as an adversary, because your way is perverse before me. The donkey saw me, and turned away from me these three times. If it had not turned away from me, surely just now I would have killed you and let it live” (vv. 32-33). “This v[erse, i.e., v. 32],” says Rabbi Hertz, “is a classical text for the preaching of humane treatment of animals. ‘There is a rule laid down by our Sages, that it is directly prohibited in the Torah to cause pain to an animal, and that rule is based on the words Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass?’ (Maimonides)” (op. cit., p. 673, on v. 22). Balaam’s response is to repent and offer to return home. He says, “I have sinned, for I did not know that you were standing in the road to oppose me. Now therefore, if it is displeasing to you, I will return home” (v. 34). But the angel’s response is, “Go with the men, but speak only what I tell you to speak” (v. 35a, cf. v. 20). And it is reported that “Balaam went on with the officials of Balak” (v. 35b). According to the Rabbi, Balaam was “resolved strictly to adhere to the Divine communications that were to be made to him. Having thus changed his disposition, he received God’s revelation and was endowed with the Divine Spirit” (op. cit., citing Ewald, on v. 35).

The Rabbi also comments on the believability of the story of Balaam and the Ass. “Many expositors, both in ancient and modern times, take the account of the miracle in these verses literally. Nothing is impossible to Omnipotence, they hold; and a speaking ass is no more marvellous than a speaking serpent or any of the other miracles” (op. cit., p. 671, in introduction to Num. 22:21-35). But “for over a thousand years,” he adds:

the literal has largely given place to other interpretations of this incident. One of these explanations–that of Saadyah and Maimonides–considers v. 22-34 as enacted in a dream, or vision of the night. This would account for the many incongruous things in these verses. Thus, Balaam appears with but two attendants, and travelling alone, without the brilliant accompaniment of princes and ‘honourable’ ambassadors. Again he does not show the least astonishment at the startling fact of the ass speaking. In the light of this interpretation, v. 22-34 depict the continuance on the subconscious plane of the mental and moral conflict in Balaam’s soul; and the dream-apparition of the angel and the speaking ass is but a further warning to Balaam against being misled through avarice to violate God’s command. (ibid.)

“Another explanation,” says Rabbi Hertz, “holds that the Text nowhere states that the ass gave utterance to human sounds. Its weird behaviour in the presence of the angel, and its wild cries at the cruel beatings, were understood by Balaam to mean the words given in the Text (Luzzatio)” (ibid.). The Rabbi quotes Josephus, “in regard to its narrative, readers are free to think what they please,” and adds, “Therefore, those who do not deem any of the above interpretations acceptable, should feel too deeply the essential veracity of the story to be troubled overmuch with minute questions about its details. In whatever way we conceive of the narrative, its representation of the strivings of conscience is of permanent human and spiritual value” (bid.).

Balak’s continued anxiety is indicated by the way he, upon hearing of Balaam’s arrival, goes “out to meet him at Ir-moab, on the boundary formed by the Arnon, at the farthest point of the boundary” (v. 36). His initial greeting shows his impatience. “Did I not send to summon you? Why did you not come to me? Am I not able to honor you?” (v. 37). Balaam says, "I have come to you now," but adds "The word God puts in my mouth, that is what I must say" (v. 38, cf. God’s command, vv. 20, 35).

Two verses concluding this paragraph separate today’s and tomorrow’s readings. “Then Balaam went with Balak, and they came to Kiriath-huzzoth” (v. 39) According to Jo Ann Hackett, the place name means “the town of streets,” but its location is unknown (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Numbers 22:39). And though Balaam will begin with altars and sacrifices (23:1), at this point, Balak provides sacrifices of his own. “Balak sacrificed oxen and sheep, and sent them to Balaam and to the officials who were with him” (22:40). “The sacrifices,” says Hackett, “could be part of Balaam’s divining; see v. 7; 23:2, 14; cf. 24:1). According to Fox, “Balak offers a sacrifice of well-being, which is eaten by Balaam and his entourage” (op. cit., on 22:36-40). In any event, the stage is set for Balaam’s first oracle (22:41-23:11), but that is tomorrow’s reading.

Romans 7:1-12

An Analogy from Marriage

7:1 Do you not know, brothers and sisters-for I am speaking to those who know the law-that the law is binding on a person only during that person's lifetime? 2 Thus a married woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man, she is not an adulteress.

4 In the same way, my friends, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.

The Law and Sin

7 What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived 10 and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good. (Romans 7:1-12, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of March 23, 2009 (Monday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Lent, Year One), when comments were repeated from July 1, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two), when comments were repeated from March 19, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Lent, Year One), when they were repeated from July 4, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two), when comments were combined with revision from June 29, 2004 in an email sent June 28, 2004, for June 28-July 4, and from March 7, 2005 (Monday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Lent, Year One).

Paul has expounded his theme, justification by grace through faith apart from works of the law in terms of the need for it–the sinfulness of humanity–in chapters 1-3, its operation through Christ’s “sacrifice of atonement” (Rom. 3:25 NRSV; “expiation” RSV, “propitiation” KJV), Abraham as the example and prototype in chapter 4 and the benefits in chapter 5. Chapter 6 follows with the strong assertion that the power of sin is now broken for the believer who “no longer present[s] [his/her] members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present[s] [his/her] members to God as instruments of righteousness” (6:13). But key issues remain to be treated. What is the value or status of the law? (7:7). What about the inner struggle of someone who knows the good and wants to do it, but does not find the power within himself or herself to do the good? (7:14-20). To whom does Paul refer in this chapter when he uses the pronoun “I”?

Paul presents an example with a question: “Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding (kurieuvei, kyrieuei) on a person only during that person’s lifetime?” (Rom. 7:1). As the continuation shows, he refers to the law—presumably, Roman civil law, or common law practice—concerning marriage. Leander E. Keck says “Is binding [is] lit. ‘lords it over,’ as do death (6:9) and sin (6:14), where the same verb is used” (The HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Rom. 7:1-2). “Thus,” says Paul, “a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law concerning the husband” (7:2). “Accordingly,” says Keck, “a married woman, lit. ‘one under a man’ (used also in the Greek of Prov. 6:24; Sir. 9:9, and in non-biblical texts) is subject to her husband while he lives. Concerned with the effect of death, Paul ignores divorce; cf. 1 Cor. 7:10-15” (ibid. “Accordingly,” says Paul, “she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man, she is not an adulteress” (Rom. 7:3).

Then Paul presents the analogy. “In the same way, my friends (ajdelfoiv mou, adelphoi mou, lit. ‘my brothers’), you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God” (v. 4; cf. 6:10, 14). “While we were living in the flesh,” he explains, “our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death” (7:5). Keck says, “Like sin, law, and death, flesh is a controlling domain in which one lives (see v. 14; 8:4, 12); the term emphasizes weakness and corruptibility. How passions are aroused by the law is shown in vv. 7-25” (ibid., on v. 5). “But now,” says Paul, “we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit” (v. 6). The law provides knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20). “Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said,’ You shall not covet’” (Rom. 7:7). But the law does not produce sin; rather sin has a power of its own and “sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness” (v. 8). It gets worse, when we find ourselves unable to do what we recognize as right–but that is in tomorrow’s lesson (7:13-35) Take heart, the cure follows in further lessons.

According to John Wesley, Paul “continues the comparison between the former and the present state of a believer” (Explanatory Notes on Romans, on the Internet web site, Wesley Center Online, at http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/romans.htm#Chapter+VII, accessed again June 28, 2010). “The law is here spoken of, by a common figure, as a person, to which, as to an husband, life and death are ascribed. But he speaks indifferently of the law being dead to us, or we to it, the sense being the same.” The point is made that “death pays all debts (cf. C. K. Barrett, Romans, 1957, p. 135), a point that might be disputed by modern estate lawyers. On the analogy that a woman is no longer bound to her husband (= the law) when he dies, the Christian believer is freed from the law by the death of Christ (vv. 3-4). According to Barrett:

The analogy is imperfect. In marriage, the husband dies and the wife is free. In Christian life, the law does not die (as analogy would require); Christ dies, and by faith Christians die with him. All Paul needs for his purpose is a death; but his argument would of course make no sense if he could not assume both that Christ’s death on the cross was followed by the resurrection, and that our death by faith in baptism was followed by a new life. Because this is so, Paul can continue: Our relation of bondage to the law has been broken off by a death, that you might give yourselves to an Other–namely, to him who was raised from the dead–in order that we might bear offspring to God. (ibid., pp. 136-137)

Wesley comments on verse 5: “When ye were in the flesh—Carnally minded, in a state of nature; before we believed in Christ. Our sins which were by the law–Accidentally occasioned, or irritated thereby. Wrought in our members–Spread themselves all over the whole man” (loc. cit.). “It is implied,” says Barrett,

that we are no longer ‘in the flesh’. The same implication is found at viii. 9; Gal. iii. 3; v. 24; but Paul and other Christians are still ‘in the flesh’ at 2 Cor. iv. 1 I; x. 3; Gal. ii. 20; Phil. I. 22, 24. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that Paul uses the word ‘flesh’ (sarx) in at least two senses. Here it is used to denote the state in which men are dominated by law, sin, and death. In the terms of this paragraph, it might be described as the state of marriage with the law. The effect of this union was that passions bound up with (due to, or leading to–perhaps both) sins were at work in the organs of our human nature. . . . The passions were themselves due to the law (cf. v. 9), and in the ‘marriage’ of man and law (outside the sphere of grace) they resulted in death. ‘Death’, even if taken to be personified, is not a good parallel to ‘God’ in v. 4; compare, however, vi. 21, ‘their end is death’. This is Paul’s meaning here. (op cit., p. 137)

But now,” says Paul, “we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit” (v. 6). The law provides knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20). “Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said,’ You shall not covet’ ” (Rom. 7:7). But the law does not produce sin; rather sin has a power of its own and “sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness” (v. 8). It gets worse, when we find ourselves unable to do what we recognize as right–but that is in tomorrow’s lesson (7:13-35) Take heart, the cure follows in further lessons.

Later in the chapter, Paul says, “I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate” (v. 15b). That personal reference–or is it?–is anticipated in verse 7, “What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet’.” Tomorrow’s lesson will consider the question about whom Paul means by “I”; but it’s worth quoting John Wesley again at this point:

What shall we say then–This is a kind of a digression, to the beginning of the next chapter, wherein the apostle, in order to show in the most lively manner the weakness and inefficacy of the law, changes the person and speaks as of himself, concerning the misery of one under the law. This St. Paul frequently does, when he is not speaking of his own person, but only assuming another character, Rom 3:5, 1Cor 10:30, 1Cor 4:6. The character here assumed is that of a man, first ignorant of the law, then under it and sincerely, but ineffectually, striving to serve God. To have spoken this of himself, or any true believer, would have been foreign to the whole scope of his discourse; nay, utterly contrary thereto, as well as to what is expressly asserted, Rom 8:2. Is the law sin–Sinful in itself, or a promoter of sin. I had not known lust–That is, evil desire. I had not known it to be a sin; nay, perhaps I should not have known that any such desire was in me: it did not appear, till it was stirred up by the prohibition. (loc. cit.)

Paul follows his reference to coveting (v. 7) by a personification, so to speak, of sin itself. “But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment [i.e., the commandment not to covet], produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead” (v. 8). According to Neil Elliott, “Covetousness, or ‘desire,’ was regarded by Paul’s contemporaries as the root of all evil (see Jas. 1:15; 4 Macc. 2:4-6; Philo, De spec. leg. 4.84-94), even the source of Adam’s sin (Philo, Leg. all. 3.115)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Rom. 7:8). In this analogy, sin (personified) is helpless without the law. “I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me” (vv. 9-10). Here, according to Elliott, the words “promised life” are “possibly an allusion to Lev. 18:5 or to Deut. 30:6-20; Paul juxtaposes those passages in 10:5-7 (Gal. 3:21)” (ibid., on v. 10). But the law gives sin an opening, says Paul. “For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me” (v. 11). Elliott sees in the words, “sin . . . deceived me,” an echo of Genesis 3:13 (ibid., on v. 11). But one cannot blame God’s law for his or her own sin, though the law provides a certain awareness. Paul insists that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (v. 12).

Matthew 21:23-32

The Authority of Jesus Questioned (Mk 11.27-33; Lk 20.1-8)

23 When he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, and said, "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?" 24 Jesus said to them, "I will also ask you one question; if you tell me the answer, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?" And they argued with one another, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?' 26 But if we say, 'Of human origin,' we are afraid of the crowd; for all regard John as a prophet." 27 So they answered Jesus, "We do not know." And he said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.

The Parable of the Two Sons

28 "What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work in the vineyard today.' 29 He answered, 'I will not'; but later he changed his mind and went. 30 The father went to the second and said the same; and he answered, 'I go, sir'; but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him. (Matthew 21:23-32, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from July 1, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two):

On December 5, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two), comments were repeated from July 1, 2007 (the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), when they were combined, revised and supplemented from comments of June 29, 2004 in an email sent June 28, 2004, for June 28-July 4, from comments of June 26, 2005, two years ago (the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), from November 30, 2005 (Wednesday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two), and from July 4, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two). The combined comments are repeated here. For recent comments on Mark’s version of the question about authority, see the Archive for March 18, 2008 (Monday of Holy Week, Year Two). For recent comments on Luke’s version of the question about authority, see the Archive for June 16, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 8, Year One).

For a table showing the parallel texts for the questioning of Jesus’ authority, see the separate file, Question about Authority. For Matthew’s version of Jesus’ Parable of the Two Sons, there is no parallel text, though Luke uses similar material about the response of the tax collectors as opposed to the lack of response from the Pharisees and lawyers in the context of Jesus’ witness concerning John (Mt. 11:7-19; Lk. 7:24-35; cf. Mk. 1:2); see the separate file, the Parable of the Two Sons.

Jesus' authority is questioned by the chief priests and elders (Mt. 21:23; cf. Mk. 11:27-28; Lk. 20:1-2), and he responds with a question which leaves his challengers on the horns of a dilemma. According to Krister Stendahl, in this first of a series of controversies during Holy Week, Jesus and officials of Judaism exchange questions and answers in typical Rabbinic fashion, “similar to such material in the Talmud” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 690f, p. 791, on Mt. 21:23-27). He asks about the authority of John the Baptist. “Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?” (Mt. 21:25; cf. Mk. 11:30; Lk. 20:4). Their dilemma: “If we say, 'From heaven,' he will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?' But if we say, “Of human origin,' we are afraid of the crowd, for all regard John as a prophet” (Mt.21:25-26; cf. Mk. 11:31-33; Lk. 20:5-6). So they exchange “No comment” answers, but there is a difference. They said “We do not know,” but he said “Neither will [not can] I tell you by what authority I do these things” (Mt. 21:27, emphasis added; cf. Mk. 11:33; Lk. 20:7)

In Jesus’ dialogue with officials of Judaism about his authority, the reports of Matthew, Mark and Luke are in essential agreement. The transitions to this episode vary a little. Luke puts it “one day as he was teaching in the temple” (Lk. 20:1; cf. “Every day he was teaching in the temple,” 19:47). In Matthew and Mark the return to the temple (Mt. 21:23; Mk. 11:27b) follows the return to Jerusalem (Mt. 21:18; Mk. 11:27a), which in turn follows the incident of the fig tree (Mt. 21:18-22; Mk. 11:12-14, 20-25). Luke omits Jesus’ statement, “If you tell me the answer [to the question about John’s authority], then I will tell you by what authority I do these things” (Mt. 21:24; cf. Mk. 11:29), but this seems implicit in Luke’s version, and the challengers are presented with the same dilemma, to agree that John was from God, or not to agree and incur the wrath of the people. According to Dale C. Allison, Jr., “These verses (Mt. 21:23-27) both add to the dramatic tension between Jesus and his opponents and demonstrate the character of the latter. And trailing upon the protest in the temple and the cursing of the fig tree they illustrate why the temple is doomed: the leaders have become deaf to God’s messengers” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 872, on Mt. 21:23-27).

Given all that has transpired, one would expect not only the people themselves but certainly also their leaders to recognize the work of John, and of Jesus, as from God. “This section,” says Allison, “is less about Jesus–it is certainly not about his debating skills–or the Baptist than it is about the chief priests and elders” (Ibid.). Their question to Jesus is presented “without reason or respect, a thing that was plain to all” (Calvin, cited by Allison). “Further,” says Allison,

out of cowardly expediency, they respond to his questions with a lie (‘we do not know’). As if that were not enough, they show themselves to be spiritually less perceptive than those over whom they preside, for the multitudes recognize John’s prophetic status. The effect of all this is to set the passion of Jesus within a moral context. Jesus’ death is not the upshot of an unfortunate misunderstanding by uninformed authorities; instead it is brought about by the plotting of self-serving men of ill will. The passion narrative depicts a struggle between good and evil. (Allison, loc. cit.)

In the parable that follows, only in Matthew, Jesus continues with a hypothetical case, The Parable of the Two Sons is a transparent criticism of the Jewish leaders, which addresses “the subject of why those who are lax in observing the Mosaic law receive the kingdom of God” (J. Andrew Overman, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Mt. 21:28-32). A father told his two sons to work in the vineyard; one said he would not go, but later did, and the other said he would go, but later he “changed his mind and went” (v, 29). The other son is all talk, for he said “I go, sir,” but he did not go” (v. 30). Jesus’ question, “Which of the two did the will of his father?” draws out the obvious answer, “The first” (v. 31). But Jesus turns this answer against his opponents. He implies that “the chief priests and the elders of the people” who questioned his authority (v. 23) are represented by the son who said he would go but didn’t. The other son who said he wouldn't go to work in the vineyard, but did (v. 29) represents “the tax collectors and the prostitutes [who] are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you” (v. 31). Jesus explains the contrast. “For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him” (v. 32).

In an earlier context in Luke in which Jesus talks about John the Baptist (Lk. 7:18-35; cf. Mt. 11:2-19), Jesus draws the same contrast: “And all the people who heard this, including the tax collectors, acknowledged the justice of God, because they had been baptized with John’s baptism. But by refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves” (Lk. 7:29-30). It is likely that Luke here, as often, retains the sequence of material from the source (“Q,” as many suppose), and that Matthew has grouped material topically.

For Matthew, this leads into the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mt. 21:33-46; Mk. 12:1-12; Lk. 20:9-19), which comes down hard on his opponents and predicts the destruction of the temple and the passing of authority to “the church or perhaps church leaders” (J. Andrew Overman, NOAB, 3^rd ed., on Mt. 21:41). This, of course is Matthew’s Christian perspective, and should be understood to apply to a small group of Jewish leaders at that time, not to all Jews then or now.

The following comments are based on those of December 2, 2009 (Wednesday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from June 28, 2009 (the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One),when, comments were repeated from July 1, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two), when comments were repeated from December 5, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when comments were repeated from July 1, 2007 (the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), when they were combined, revised and supplemented from comments of June 29, 2004 in an email sent June 28, 2004, for June 28-July 4, from comments of June 26, 2005, (the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), from November 30, 2005 (Wednesday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two), and from July 4, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two).

For recent comments on Mark’s version of the question about authority, see the Archive for March 30, 2010 (Tuesday of Holy Week, Year Two). For recent comments on Luke’s version of the question about authority, see the Archive for June 13, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 8, Year One). For comments on Luke 7:29-30 about the Pharisees refusal to be baptized by John (cf. Matthew 21:28-32), see the Archive for December 7, 2008 (the Second Sunday of Advent, Year One).

On the Question about Authority

Upon Jesus’ return to Jerusalem, after the cursing of the fig tree (Mt. 21:18-22), he enters the temple and is confronted with a question. “When he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, and said, ‘By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority’ ” (Mt. 21:23; cf. Mk. 11:27-28; Lk. 20:1-2). Jesus responds with a question which leaves his challengers on the horns of a dilemma. He “said to them, ‘I will also ask you one question; if you tell me the answer, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things” (Mt. 21:24; cf. Mk. 11:29; Lk. 20:3). And he asks, “Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?” (Mt. 21:25a; Mk. 11:30a; Lk. 20:4). The nature of the dilemma posed by this question causes the challengers to discuss (Lk.)—that is, argue (Mt., Mk.)—their response. “And they argued with one another, ‘If we say, “From heaven,” he will say to us, “why then did you not believe him.” But if we say, “of human origin,” we are afraid of the crowd; for all regard John as a prophet’ ” (Mt. 21:25b-26; cf. Mk. 11:31-32; Lk. 20:5-6). According to Krister Stendahl, in this first of a series of controversies during Holy Week, Jesus and officials of Judaism exchange questions and answers in typical Rabbinic fashion, “similar to such material in the Talmud” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 690 f, p. 791, on Mt. 21:23-27). So the parties exchange “no comment” answers, but with a difference. They claim not to know, but Jesus simply refuses then to answer. “So they answered Jesus, ‘We do not know.’ And he said to them, ‘Neither will [not can] I tell you by what authority I am doing these things’ ” (Mt. 21:27, emphasis added; cf. Mk. 11:33; Lk. 20:7).

Given all that has transpired, one would expect not only the people themselves but certainly also their leaders to recognize the work of John, and of Jesus, as from God. “This section,” says Allison, “is less about Jesus–it is certainly not about his debating skills–or the Baptist than it is about the chief priests and elders” (ibid.). Their question to Jesus is presented “without reason or respect, a thing that was plain to all” (ibid., citing Calvin). “Further,” says Allison,

On the Parable of the Two Sons

In the parable that follows, only in Matthew, Jesus continues with a hypothetical case. The Parable of the Two Sons is a transparent criticism of the Jewish leaders, which, accord to J. Andrew Overman, addresses “the subject of why those who are lax in observing the Mosaic law receive the kingdom of God” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 21:28-32). According to Dennis C. Duling, this is the first of “four allegorical parables [that] illustrate the rejection of Israel’s leaders and warn God’s new people against self-righteous arrogance” (The HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 21:28-22:14). “What do you think?” asks Jesus. A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ He answered, ‘I will not’; but later he changed his mind and went” (Mt. 21:28-29). The other son both answered and did precisely the opposite as compared to the first son. “The father went to the second,” says Jesus, “and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir’; but he did not go” (v. 30). The first son, upon reflection realized his duty and did it, but the other was all talk; though he said he would go, he didn’t go. Jesus’ question, “Which of the two did the will of his father?” draws out the obvious answer, “The first” (v. 31a). And Jesus turns this answer against his opponents with a comparison that puts marginal people in the role of the first son, and the religious leaders in the role of the second. “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you’ ” (v. 31b). And He explains: “For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him” (v. 32).

In an earlier context in Luke in which Jesus talks about John the Baptist (Lk. 7:18-35; cf. Mt. 11:2-19), Jesus comments on the response to John’s ministry, and Luke adds parenthetically, “And all the people who heard this, including the tax collectors, acknowledged the justice of God, because they had been baptized with John’s baptism. But by refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves” (Lk. 7:29-30). For Matthew, the Parable of the two Sons leads into the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mt. 21:33-46; Mk. 12:1-12; Lk. 20:9-19), tomorrow’s reading, which comes down hard on his opponents and predicts the destruction of the temple and the passing of authority, says Overman, to “the church or perhaps church leaders” (op. cit., on v. 41). This, of course is Matthew’s Christian perspective, and should be understood to apply to a small group of Jewish leaders at that time, not to all Jews then or now.

As noted above, for the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 15, 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