Episcopal and Presbyterian Traditions. The Lutheran readings and comments follow below.

Ecclesiastes 6:1-12

The Frustration of Desires

6:1 There is an evil that I have seen under the sun, and it lies heavy upon humankind: 2 those to whom God gives wealth, possessions, and honor, so that they lack nothing of all that they desire, yet God does not enable them to enjoy these things, but a stranger enjoys them. This is vanity; it is a grievous ill. 3 A man may beget a hundred children, and live many years; but however many are the days of his years, if he does not enjoy life's good things, or has no burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he. 4 For it comes into vanity and goes into darkness, and in darkness its name is covered; 5 moreover it has not seen the sun or known anything; yet it finds rest rather than he. 6 Even though he should live a thousand years twice over, yet enjoy no good–do not all go to one place?

7 All human toil is for the mouth, yet the appetite is not satisfied. 8 For what advantage have the wise over fools? And what do the poor have who know how to conduct themselves before the living? 9 Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of desire; this also is vanity and a chasing after wind.

10 Whatever has come to be has already been named, and it is known what human beings are, and that they are not able to dispute with those who are stronger. 11 The more words, the more vanity, so how is one the better? 12 For who knows what is good for mortals while they live the few days of their vain life, which they pass like a shadow? For who can tell them what will be after them under the sun? (Ecclesiastes 6:1-12, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from June 8, 2008 (The Fourth Sunday after Pentecost, refs. for the Sunday closest to June 8, Year Two)

According to the chiastic pattern suggested by Leong Seow (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Eccl. 5:8-6:9, and noted yesterday, the theme of riches and their benefit–or rather, lack of benefit–(Eccl. 5:10, 11, 13), continues in today’s reading. “There is an evil that I have seen under the sun, and it lies heavy upon humankind: those to whom God gives wealth, possessions, and honor, so that they lack nothing of all that they desire, yet God does not enable them to enjoy these things, but a stranger enjoys them” (Eccl. 6:1-2a). Seow suggests that the chiastic pattern focuses the emphasis on “its center in 5:20, with its call for enjoyment” (Ibid.). One should include verse 19 with 20: “Likewise all to whom God gives wealth and possessions and whom he enables to enjoy them, and to accept their lot and find enjoyment in their toil–this is the gift of God. For they will scarcely brood over the days of their lives, because God keeps them occupied with the joy of their hearts” (5:19-20). Qoheleth calls the failure to enjoy wealth (6:1-2a, noted above), “vanity (lb@h@, hevel) . . . a grievous ill (fr! yl9HI, ch^elî rā’ ). But Seow reads it as an “exception”: “There are exceptions,” he says, “to the divinely given right to enjoy (5:18-19)–cases where people are, for whatever reasons, unable to do so” (on 6:1-2).

Peter Machinist also sees here a continuation of “the focus on the futility of accumulating wealth (5:12-16; 2:18-19), [noting that] some of its language echoes that in 5:17-20” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 1613, on Eccl. 6:1-6). But Qoheleth continues with what Machinist calls “a sharper and more negative twist to these earlier occurrences”: “A man may beget a hundred children, and live many years; but however many are the days of his years, if he does not enjoy life's good things, or has no burial, I say that a stillborn child (lp,n0!h1, hannāfel [in pause]) is better off than he” (6:3). Seow comments on translation difficulty here due to “syntactical problems”:

“But however many are the days of his years, this translation glosses over a number of syntactical problems in the Hebrew. With a slight change of one word in the Hebrew, one may read, ‘and yet he complains that the days of his years will come to pass.’ Even though this person has everything that anyone might desire, including abundant wealth, progeny, and long life, he complains about the days ahead of him, dissatisfied with all that he has and worried about proper burial when he dies. In that case, he is no better off than a stillborn child (cf. Job 3:16-18)” (op. cit., on v. 3).

The experience–or rather, the lack of experience–of this stillborn child is better that the experience of the wealthy. Qoheleth says, “It [i.e., the ‘stillborn child’] comes into vanity and goes into darkness, and in darkness its name is covered; moreover it has not seen the sun or known anything; yet it [i.e., the ‘stillborn child’] finds rest rather than he [i.e., the wealthy, the ‘man’ of v. 3]” (vv. 4-5). Machinist explains his reference to “a sharper and more negative twist” (see above): “Recalling the image of the unborn in 4:3, Koheleth here substitutes for it the uglier image of the stillborn, who is said to be more fortunate in his briefly earned rest than the living possessor of wealth who long accumulates it but is not allowed to enjoy it. The pessimism that all of this manifests is deepened in the remaining two units of the ch.” (loc. cit.). Qoheleth rounds off this description of the futility of having riches with a hyperbole. “Even though he [i.e., the wealthy person] should live a thousand years twice over, yet enjoy no good–do not all go to one place?” (v. 6).

Qoheleth turns to another, but related, topic. “All human toil is for the mouth, yet the appetite (wp,n0@h1, hannefeš) is not satisfied. For what advantage have the wise over fools? And what do the poor have who know how to conduct themselves before the living? Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of desire; this also is vanity and a chasing after wind.” (vv. 7-9). “The second unit,” says Machinist (the second of three in 6:1-12), “questions whether a human being can ever find satisfaction in toil, and so whether it makes any difference to be wise, foolish, or poor” (ibid., on 6:7-9). In the words “the appetite [wp,n0@h1, hannefeš] is not satisfied,” says Leow, “the language alludes to the insatiability of Death in Canaanite mythology (in the Hebrew Bible, Sheol, the realm of the dead, is portrayed in this way; cf. Isa. 5:14; Hab. 2:5; Prov. 27:20; 30:16). As Death swallows all that come its way, so greed endangers the world (cf. Ps. 73:8)” (on v. 7). “If even the wise have no advantage over fools,” asks Seow, “why should the poor learn how to cope with life? The answer lies in the enjoyment of what one has, i.e., in contentment” (op. cit., on vv. 8-9).

“Whatever has come to be has already been named,” says Qoheleth, sounding what is, by now, a familiar refrain, and he adds, “it is known what human beings are, and that they are not able to dispute with those who are stronger” (v. 10; cf. 1:10; 2:12; 3:14-15). “The more words, the more vanity (lb@h@, hevel),” says Qoheleth, and he asks, “so how is one the better?” (v. 11 NRSV). The NJPS translation (1985, 1999) uses different words, but is similar in meaning. “Often, much talk means much futility (lb@h@, hevel). How does it benefit a man?” (v. 11 NJPS). Both are fairly literal, as a rather literal translation shows, “If there are more words (Myr9b!D4, d ^evārîm), [there is] more vanity/futility; what advantage (rt2yo [rt2Oy], yōthēr) [is there] for a man” (v. 11, Heb., my transl.). And the reading closes with another familiar refrain. “For who knows what is good for mortals while they live the few days of their vain life, which they pass like a shadow? For who can tell them what will be after them under the sun?” (v. 12; cf. 2:3; 5:18). These verses are the beginning of another longer unit according to Seow: “The passage [6:10-7:14] begins (6:10-12) and ends (7:13-14) with the author’s insistence that no one knows what is good for humanity. The introduction and conclusion emphasize human ignorance and impotence, over against divine determination and the deity’s incomprehensible activity” (ibid., on 6:10-7:14). In reference to part of tomorrow’s reading, he adds, “The ‘better . . . than’ sayings in between (7:1-12) are, therefore, quoted in mockery: They illustrate the sort of sayings proffered by those who believe that mortals know what is really good” (ibid.). Machinist’s interpretation of 6:10-12 is similar to Seow’s, though he sees these verses as the third and last unit in a separate section.

The third unit [i.e., of chap. 6], going further, returns to the earlier theme of time’s circularity and the lack of anything new (e.g., 1:9-10). It draws out of this circularity the conclusion, also found earlier (5:2, 6; 2:11-13), that human efforts are futile, in the light of God’s strength in power and argument, to determine what sense life has or will lead to. Later interpreters (e.g., the Targum) sought to alleviate this section’s pessimism by supposing that the vv. teach that human meaning can come by devotion not to material pursuits, but to spiritual, such as study of Torah, and by understanding that the final reward is to be sought in the afterlife. (op. cit., pp. 1613-1614, on 6:10-12)

Machinist here refers to his comments on 3:9, where he says Qoheleth’s questions “suggest life is an endless circle of such actions [constructive and destructive] canceling or balancing each other out, and thus, once more, leading toward no goal, no ‘advantage’ ” (op. cit., on Eccl. 3:9; cf. further quotations from Machinist in my comments for June 2, 2010 (Wednesday of last week).

Reading Ecclesiastes carefully, and taking his thoughts seriously, can seem to be a discouraging process. One is reminded that the Bible is honest about the many facets of the human condition. One might consider Ecclesiastes as a forthright statement of the human condition in terms of the remedy provided through faith in God and salvation through Christ (as we Christians would put it). From one perspective–challenged by Seow, as noted above–things may brighten up a bit in tomorrow’s reading.

Acts 10:9-23

Peter in the Home of Simon the Tanner (cf. Acts 9:43)

9 About noon the next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 Then he heard a voice saying, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat." 14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean." 15 The voice said to him again, a second time, "What God has made clean, you must not call profane." 16 This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven. (Acts 10:9-16, NRSV)

Peter Goes to the Home of Cornelius

17 Now while Peter was greatly puzzled about what to make of the vision that he had seen, suddenly the men sent by Cornelius appeared. They were asking for Simon's house and were standing by the gate. 18 They called out to ask whether Simon, who was called Peter, was staying there. 19 While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Look, three men are searching for you. 20 Now get up, go down, and go with them without hesitation; for I have sent them." 21 So Peter went down to the men and said, "I am the one you are looking for; what is the reason for your coming?" 22 They answered, "Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and to hear what you have to say." 23 So Peter invited them in and gave them lodging.

The next day he got up and went with them, and some of the believers from Joppa accompanied him. (Acts 10:17-23, NRSV)

The following comments are based on relevant comments from those on Acts 10:1-16 and 17 of July 8 and 9, 2009 (Wednesday and Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 6, Year One), when comments were based on comments of June 8, 2008 (the Sunday closest to June 8, Year Two), when comments for Acts 10:9-23 were combined from the relevant portions of July 11 and 12, 2007 (Wednesday and Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 6, Year One), when the readings were, respectively, Acts 10:1-16, and vv. 17-33. Compare earlier comments, as noted there.

Acts, chapter 10, presents the second of what Loveday Alexander calls the stories “of two visions, each confirming the other” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1041, on Acts 10:1-8). “In Caesarea,,” says Luke, “there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion ( eJkatontavrchV, hekatontarchēs) of the Italian Cohort ( ejk speivrhV th:V kaloumevnhV =Italikh:V, ek speirēs tēs kaloumenēs Italikēs), as it was called” (Acts 10:1). The word translated “centurion” (cf. “century”) means “A roman officer commanding about a hundred men (subordinate to a tribune), centurion, captain” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. ( eJkatontavrchV, hekatontarchēs). A “cohort” (spei:ra, speira) means “in our literature probably always cohort, the tenth part of a legion (the [cohort] thus normally had 600 men, but the number varied; s. Jos. Bell. 3, 67)” (BDAG, s.v. spei:ra, speira). According to Mary K. Milne, Caesarea was

a seaport on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean . . . originally a small fortified Phoenician anchorage named Strabo’s Tower. In the year 63 B.C., Pompey added the area, together with other towns on the seashore, to the Roman province of Syria. Mark Antony gave it to Cleopatra VII, but when Octavian (Augustus) won the battle of Actium, he gave the small town to Herod the Great (30 B.C.). Herod built a magnificent new city and port on the site and named it Caesarea Maritima in honor of Octavian, now Caesar Augustus. . . . [It] was the capital of Roman government in Palestine for over six hundred years.” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Caesarea)

According to Luke, Cornelius “was a devout (eujsebhvV, eusebēs) man who feared God with all his household; he gave alms generously to the people and prayed constantly to God” (v. 2). Alexander elaborates:

Here we are introduced to a man with the good Roman name of Cornelius, belonging to the noncommissioned officer class who were the backbone of the Roman army (10:1). The ‘Italian Cohort’ is known from inscriptional evidence to have been in Syria before 69, though we do not have precise details about its stationing. Cornelius is characterized as a pious man with a godfearing household (vv. 2, 7), and his piety is borne out by actions both charitable and religious (10:2). The term ‘devout’ ([eujsebhvV, eusebēs) is one of a group of words Luke uses rather loosely, apparently to characterize Gentiles who were attracted to the religious practice of Judaism but shrank from the rigours of full conversion (generally called Godfearers to distinguish them from Gentile proselytes who had converted fully to Judaism). (loc. cit.)

According to Christopher R. Matthews, “The similar profile of the centurion in Luke 7:1-10 shows that Luke is particularly interested in Gentiles who practice Jewish piety ([Acts 10:] 35)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on v. 2).

Luke reports Cornelius’s vision in some detail. “One afternoon at about three o'clock he had a vision in which he clearly saw an angel of God coming in and saying to him, ‘Cornelius.’ He stared at him in terror and said, ‘What is it, Lord (kuvrie, kyrie)?” (v. 4a). “Like the preceding stories of the Ethiopian and Saul,” says Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “this one also features a divine agent, an angel of God ” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Acts 10:3). Translations capitalize “Lord” (AV/KJV, NRSV, TNIV; though not NEB), apparently recognizing the angel as a divine agent. While kuvrioV (kyrios) often refers to God or to Christ as “Lord,” it can also serve as a term of respect for human beings, or, in this case, an angel (cf. BDAG, s.v. kuvrioV, kyrios, meaning (2) (b) e. x.). He answered, ‘Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. Now send men to Joppa for a certain Simon who is called Peter; he is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the seaside’ ” (vv. 3b-6). “About three o’clock,” says Beverly Roberts Gaventa, was “a traditional time for prayer; see 3:1” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Acts 10:3). She adds, “Like the preceding stories of the Ethiopian and Saul, this one also features a divine agent, an angel of God” (ibid.).

Cornelius responds to the angel’s instructions: “When the angel who spoke to him had left, he called two of his slaves and a devout (eujsebhvV, eusebēs, cf. v. 2, above) soldier from the ranks of those who served him, and after telling them everything, he sent them to Joppa” (vv. 7-8). Matthews says, “A devout soldier suggests that those with Cornelius shared his piety (see 16:15n, 33)” (op. cit., on v. 7). The note to which Matthews refers says, “She [i.e., Lydia, 16:14] and her household were baptized [indicates that] dependents followed the head of the household in religious matters ([16:] 31; 10:2; 1 Cor. 1:16)” (ibid., on 16:15).

As we come to today’s reading proper, we note that Luke correlates the two visions. As the messengers were sent out, in the meantime (as we might say), “about noon the next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray” (v. 9). We’re not told what season of the year it is, but we might wonder why Peter would go to the roof for prayer in the noonday sun. It’s not the heat but the hunger that Luke emphasizes. “He became hungry and wanted something to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance” (v. 10). At that point, “He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners” (v. 11). Gaventa says, “The heaven opened, suggesting God’s presence or some revelation from God (Ps. 78:23; Isa. 24:18; 64:1; Ezek. 1:1; Mt. 3:16; Lk. 3:21; Rev. 19:11)” (op. cit., on v. 11). “In it [i.e., in the large sheet coming down] were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air” (v. 12). This, says Gaventa, is “a conventional classification of animals; see Gen. 1:24; ;6:20; Lev. 11:46-47; Rom. 1:23. A variety of animals is present; some but not all would be prohibited under Jewish dietary laws” (ibid., on v. 12). As the vision continues, Peter hears “a voice saying, ‘Get up, Peter; kill and eat’ ” (v. 13). We might wonder how such a large sheet could settle on the roof where Peter was, or how he was prepared to “kill and eat”; but this, of course, is a vision, where all that would be possible. But Peter objects. “By no means, Lord,” he says, “for I have never eaten anything that is profane (koinovV, koinos, ‘common’ AV/KJV) or unclean” (v. 14). This response recognizes that the creatures belong to categories forbidden by the Levitical “kosher” food laws. As an observant Jew, he would not eat them. The word koinovV (koinos), which in some contexts “pertains to being of mutual interest or shared collectively, communal, common,” can also “pertain to being of little value because of being common, common, ordinary, profane,” and more “specifically, of that which is ceremonially impure” (BDAG, s.v. koinovV, koinos, meanings no. (1), (2) (a) and (b) ). But the command is repeated with emphasis. “The voice said to him again, a second time, ‘What God has made clean you must not call profane (koinovV, koinos)’ ” (v. 15). “This happened three times,” says Luke, “and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven” (v. 16). According to Matthews, “In Mk. 7:14-19 Jesus declared all foods clean, but this statement is not included in Luke’s Gospel and Peter seems unaware of it. Some conditions regarding food will still apply at 15:20, 29” (op. cit., on v. 15). But the vision is about more than clean and unclean foods. Gaventa refers to a similar objection by Ezekiel (Ezek. 4:14) and says, “The dialogue concerns not Peter’s practice, but his assumption that he knows what is profane or unclean” (op. cit., on vv. 14-15). The vision applies to more than food, of course, as will become clear in the continuation of the narrative in tomorrow’s reading. Alexander explains:

The list of ‘fourfooted creatures and reptiles and birds of the air’ (v. 12) echoes the creation narrative of Gen. 1, and is deliberately inclusive; the heavenly voice prohibits the classification of foods into ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ that was fundamental to the Jewish food laws (cf. e.g. Lev. 11:47). . . . Interestingly, however, the heavenly voice in Peter’s vision does not make Paul’s rather general philosophical point that ‘nothing is unclean in itself’ but assigns a more active role to God: the whole range of created food is clean not simply because God made it but because God has ‘cleansed’ it (v. 15). (op. cit., p. 1041 on Acts 10:9-16)

The point within the larger narrative of Acts is God’s acceptance of Gentiles like Cornelius into the Christian Community. Later, Peter will emphasize the “cleansing aspect”:

And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them [the Gentiles in Cornelius’ house] the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. (Acts 15:8-9, NRSV)

Cornelius acts on his vision, responding to the angel’s instructions. “When the angel who spoke to him had left, he called two of his slaves and a devout soldier from the ranks of those who served him, and after telling them everything, he sent them to Joppa” (Acts 10:7-8). Peter, on the other hand, comes out of his trance uncertain for the moment about the meaning, “greatly puzzled about what to make of the vision that he had seen” (v. 17a). But he soon learns more, for “suddenly the men sent by Cornelius appeared. They were asking for Simon’s house and were standing by the gate” (v. 17b). These messengers “called out to ask whether Simon, who was called Peter, was staying there” (v. 18). Peter does not respond to this call, but rather to a word from the Spirit. “While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, ‘Look, three men are searching for you. Now get up, go down, and go with them without hesitation; for I have sent them’ ” (vv. 19-20). According to Christopher R. Matthews, “the Spirit’s message obliquely refers to Cornelius’s vision and is reminiscent of the coordinated visions of Ananias and Paul in ch. 9” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Acts 10:19-20).

“So Peter went down to the men,” says Luke, “and said, ‘I am the one you are looking for; what is the reason for your coming?’ ” (v. 21). The messengers’ answer explains that Cornelius was directed to send for him. “Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and to hear what you have to say” (v. 22). According to Gaventa, the words “the whole Jewish nation” provide an additional testimony to Cornelius’s righteousness, see v. 2” (op. cit., on Acts 10:22). At that, Peter welcomes the visitors. “So Peter invited them in,” we are told, “and gave them lodging” (v. 23a). We note that the guest in Simon the Tanner’s house welcomes other guests!–surely with the Tanner’s permission. “Peter,” says Matthews, “is prepared to associate with Gentiles” (op. cit., on v. 23).

“The next day,” we are told, Peter “got up and went with them [i.e., Cornelius’s messengers], and some of the believers from Joppa accompanied him” (v. 23b). The story will continue with Peter accompanying the messengers (vv. 23-24), Cornelius’ welcome (v. 15), the discussion of the visions that have brought them together (vv. 27-33), Peter’s preaching to those gathered at Cornelius’s house (vv. 34-43) and the Gentile Pentecost, so to speak (vv. 44-48). This will become significant, not only for the participants who were there, but for Peter’s report to Jerusalem (chap. 11) and witness at the Jerusalem Council (chap. 15), and so for the acceptance of Gentiles within the Christian community.

Luke 12:32-40

32 “Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. 33 Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Watchful Slaves

35 “Be dressed for action and have your lamps lit; 36 be like those who are waiting for their master to return from the wedding banquet, so that they may open the door for him as soon as he comes and knocks. 37 Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes; truly I tell you, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will come and serve them. 38 If he comes during the middle of the night, or near dawn, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves.

39 “But know this: if the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. 40 You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour.” (Luke 12:32-40, NRSV)

In the following, relevant comments are repeated here with minor editing from November 1, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 26, Year Two), when comments were repeated from June 8, 2008 (the Sunday closest to June 8, Year Two), when the were repeated from November 4, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 26, Year Two), when comments were repeated with revision and supplement from comments of October 30, 2004, two years earlier (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 26, Year Two).

In the reading from Luke’s Gospel, Jesus concludes his reassurance for anxious disciples. “Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Lk. 12:32; cf. vv. 22-31 and Mt. 6:25-34, 19-21). For such a long set of nearly verbatim parallel passages, the difference is striking between the concluding verses (Lk. 12:32; Mt. 6:34), but the explanation is the difference in contexts. For parallel passages from Matthew and Mark for today’s reading from Luke, see the separate file, Reassurance, True Treasures, Watchfulness and Faithfulness.

Jesus’ advice about treasure in heaven follows immediately in Luke (Lk. 12:33-34), but in Matthew, it comes earlier (Mt. 6:19-21) and is separated by the sayings about the lamp (Mt. 6:22-23; Lk. 11:34-36) and on not serving two masters (Mt. 6:24) from the paragraph on not being anxious (vv. 25-33 [34]; Lk. 12:22-32 {32]). Matthew offers parallel sentence structure, a typical feature of Hebrew poetry (cf. George W. Anderson, “Characteristics of Hebrew Poetry,” NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, pp. 393-395 NT, and Bruce M. Metzger, “Literary Forms in the Gospels,” NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, p.398 NT):

Do not store up for yourselves / treasures on earth, / where moth and rust consume / and where thieves break in and steal;

but store up for yourselves / treasures in heaven, / where neither most nor rust consumes / and where thieves do not break in and steal. (Mt. 6:19-20, NRSV)

Luke’s simpler structure begins with an interpretation, “Sell your possessions and give alms” (Lk. 12:33a), and continues by varying the metaphors, “Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys” (v. 33b). Both versions lead to the same conclusion, “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be ( e[stai, estai) also” (Lk. 12:34 = Mt. 6:21). In Greek this conclusion is the same as well, except for the word order position of the verb e[stai (estai). If there is a shade of difference, we may say that Luke’s version emphasis “your heart” (hJ kardiva uJmw:n, hē kardia hymōn).

The advice that follows in Luke, “Be dressed for action and have your lamps lit; be like those who are waiting for their master to return from the wedding banquet, so that they may open the door for him as soon as he comes and knocks” (Lk. 12:35-36), echoes the earlier saying on the lamp (11:33, 34, 36; cf. 8:16; Mt. 5:15; Mk. 4:21), but especially reminds us of the Parable of the Ten Virgins (Mt. 25:1-13). Luke does not present the full-length parable as such, but follows with descriptions of similar situations when watchfulness is essential. Slaves should be alert and ready for the return of their master. “Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes” (Lk. 12:37a; cf. Mt. 24:42). The focus here is on the needed expectancy, whereas similar sayings in Matthew and Mark focus on the slaves’ need to be found busy at their work (Mt. 24:46; Mk. 13:34). If the master comes and finds the slaves alert, according to Luke, “truly I tell you, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will co e and serve them” (Lk. 12:37b). David L. Tiede, revised by Christopher R. Matthews, says, “On the image of a master who serves, see 22:24-27 (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lk. 12:37). “The language,” says Marion Lloyd Soards, “suggests the messianic banquet (13:29; 14:15; 22:16), to which a marriage feast served as an analogy. For the action of this master in serving the servants, see 17:7-8; cf. Jn. 13:3-16; Lk. 22:27” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Lk. 12:37). “If he comes during the middle of the night, or near dawn, and finds them so,” says Jesus in Luke, “blessed are those slaves” (Lk. 12:38). So far, in Luke, the expected return is of the slave-owner (Lk. 12:37; cf. Mt. 24:46; Mk. 13:34-36). But the metaphor changes from the coming of the slave-owner to the coming of the thief in the night, which surprises the owner of the house. “But know this: if the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief (oJ klevpthV, ho kleptēs) was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into” (Lk. 12:39; cf. Mt. 24:43). The coming of the “thief” represents the coming of the Son of Man–only in respect to the unexpectedness, of course, not in respect to the character of a thief, which would be the opposite of that of the Son of Man. “Therefore” (dia; tou:to, dia touto), says Jesus in Matthew, “you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour” (Mt. 24:44 = Lk. 12:40, without the “therefore” phrase, but with a minor word order difference. Matthew continues to describe a situation in which the slave who is in charge mistreats the other slaves and faces terrible punishment upon the return of his master (Mt. 14:45-51). Luke, however, as noted, moves quickly from the blessing of slaves being found awake (Lk. 12:37-38), to the situation of the “owner of the house” who fails to anticipate the coming of thieves. This advice to be alert and watchful is directed to being ready for the coming of the Son of Man (Lk. 12:40; Mt. 24:44; cf. Mk. 13:32).

Lutheran Readings

Proverbs 9:1-12

Wisdom's Feast

9 Wisdom has built her house,

she has hewn her seven pillars.

2 She has slaughtered her animals, she has mixed her wine,

she has also set her table.

3 She has sent out her servant-girls, she calls

from the highest places in the town,

4 "You that are simple, turn in here!"

To those without sense she says,

5 "Come, eat of my bread

and drink of the wine I have mixed.

6 Lay aside immaturity, and live,

and walk in the way of insight."

General Maxims

7 Whoever corrects a scoffer wins abuse;

whoever rebukes the wicked gets hurt.

8 A scoffer who is rebuked will only hate you;

the wise, when rebuked, will love you.

9 Give instruction to the wise, and they will become wiser still;

teach the righteous and they will gain in learning.

10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,

and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.

11 For by me your days will be multiplied,

and years will be added to your life.

12 If you are wise, you are wise for yourself;

if you scoff, you alone will bear it. (Proverbs 9:1-12, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from May 25, 2008 (the Sunday closest to May 25, Year Two):

Although readings from Proverbs will continue in the present series through the current week, today’s reading is the last selection from the extensive introduction (chaps. 1-9), to which attention was called earlier. As noted, much of the Book of Proverbs consists of proverbial sayings, each of which stands more or less on its own. This is especially true of Proverbs 10:1-22:16 and 25:1-29:27, where the topics vary almost from verse to verse. But the first nine chapters function as a kind of extended introduction to this “educational manual,” while composed in poetic lines, as is most of the remainder of the book.

Today’s reading from Proverbs presents our last scenario in which Lady Wisdom extends the invitation (Prov. 9:1-6). The contrasting picture of the foolish woman’s invitation (vv. 13-18) is passed over, as the reading stops with verse 12. Preparation for Lady Wisdom’s banquet starts with building a house in which to provide the feast. “Wisdom has built her house, / she has hewn her seven pillars” (Prov. 9:1). According to Harold C. Washington, “the seven pillars of hier house may allude to the pillars on which the earth was founded (Job 9:6; 26:11; Ps. 75:3; cf. 8:28-30)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Prov. 9:1). J. C. Rylaarsdam elaborates:

She has built her house: some (e.g. Toy . . .) feel that this has no cosmic implications; the metaphor applies to an everyday house. Others, notably Boström . . . hold that the house of Wisdom is the cosmos whose creation she attended as model . . . The Pseudo-Clementine Homilies (XIII, XVII, XVIII) report that the cosmos rests on seven pillars, while in rabbinic tradition the number was either twelve or seven . . . Only palatial homes and temples had pillars. A temple or palace was a structure of cosmic significance and its pillars may sometimes have had a symbolic meaning. . . . But wisdom, as hostess, offers the gift of life to men (cf. Isa. 55:1-3; Jn. 6:35). (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 394 p, p. 450)

Wisdom has prepared her feast. “She has slaughtered her animals, she has mixed her wine, / she has also set her table” (Prov. 9:2). According to Washington, “Wine was sometimes mixed with spices” (on v. 2). As further preparation, Wisdom “has sent out her servant-girls” (v. 3a), and broadcast, as it were, her invitation, “she calls / from the highest places in the town” (v. 3b). The invitation to the feast, as it were, remains the call to gain wisdom. The “simple” are invited to “turn in here!” (v. 4a). “Those without sense” are invited to “come, eat of my bread / and drink of the wine I have mixed” (vv. 4b, 5). But the metaphor aside, the invitation remains: “O simple ones, learn prudence; / acquire intelligence, you who lack it” (8:5). Or as the father said earlier, “Let your heart hold fast my words; / keep my commandments, and live. / Get wisdom; get insight: do not forget, nor turn away / from the words of my mouth” (4:4-5). In the present context, the stanza ends with a straightforward invitation to wisdom: “Lay aside immaturity, and live, / and walk in the way of insight” (9:6).

Separating this stanza of invitation (9:1-6) from that of the foolish woman (vv. 13-18), we find a couple aphorisms that seem to reflect some frustration with attempts to correct the foolish. “Whoever corrects a scoffer wins abuse,” says the sage; “whoever rebukes the wicked gets hurt” (9:7). On the one hand, “A scoffer who is rebuked will only hate you” (v. 8a); but on the other hand, the wise, when rebuked, will love you” (v. 8b). But the stanza continues, emphasizing the positive. The sage believes that education does have some benefit, for those who are ready. “Give instruction to the wise, and they will become wiser still; / teach the righteous and they will gain in learning” (v. 9). Washington suggests that verse 10 echoes 1:7 (op. cit., on 9:10). “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, / and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight” (9:10); compare “the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; / fools despise wisdom and instruction” (1:7). These verses serve as bookends, we might say, that frame the introductory section. And today’s reading closes with the voice of Wisdom. “For by me your days will be multiplied, / and years will be added to your life. / If you are wise, you are wise for yourself; / if you scoff, you alone will bear it” (vv. 11-12).

Acts 8:14-25

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15 The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit 16 (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). 17 Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. 18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, "Give me also this power so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit." 20 But Peter said to him, "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God's gift with money! 21 You have no part or share in this, for your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and the chains of wickedness." 24 Simon answered, "Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may happen to me."

25 Now after Peter and John had testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they returned to Jerusalem, proclaiming the good news to many villages of the Samaritans. (Acts 8:14-25, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from July 1, 2009 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), when comments were repeated from August 20, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year Two), when comments were repeated from July 4, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from August 23, 2006 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year Two), when comments were repeated from June 29, 2005 (Wednesday of the week of the Sixth Sunday after Pentecost, Year One).

The apostles at Jerusalem have “ heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God” and they send “Peter and John to them” (Acts 8:14), which puts the blessing of the apostles on Philip’s work, the first significant development noted by Luke in the expansion of the new Christian movement beyond Jerusalem into “all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (1:8). When Peter and John arrive in Samaria, they pray for the Samaritan believers who have accepted Philip’s preaching “that they might receive the Holy Spirit” (8:15), for, as Luke explains, “as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (v. 16). So “Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit” (v. 17). If you are looking for a “proof text” for two works of grace, there it is! But why stop with two? Among American Friends with contacts in the “holiness tradition” of the Methodists, there was much agreement. But the Friend was likely to ask not, “What experiences have you had? but rather to ask, “How is it with you now, friend?” F. F. Bruce considers, but rejects the view “that what Peter and John did was to perform the rite of confirmation.” “If confirmation by an apostle were necessary for the reception of the Spirit,” he adds, “one might have expected this to be stated more explicitly in one or more of the relevant New Testament passages” (The Book of Acts, NICNT, rev. ed., 1988, p. 169, on Acts 8:15-17). After reference to Paul’s dealing with the Corinthians, Bruce continues,

The only near parallel to the present occasion is the exceptional case of the Ephesian disciples in 19:1-7. In general, it seems to be assumed throughout the New Testament that those who believe and are baptized have also the Spirit of God.

In the present instance, some special evidence may have been necessary to assure the Samaritans, so accustomed to being despised as outsiders by the people of Jerusalem, that they were fully incorporated into the new community of the people of God. . . . ‘The imposition of hands is then,’ in the words of G. W. H. Lampe, ‘primarily a token of fellowship and solidarity; it is only secondarily an effective symbol of the gift of the Spirit; it becomes such a symbol solely in virtue of being a sign of incorporation into the Church of the Spirit. (ibid., citing Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit, p. 70)

In Samaria, Simon recognized value in the experiences of the believers, but he sought the apostles’ gift for the wrong reasons: “Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give me also this power so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit” (vv. 18-19). Peter’s response is immediate and sharp. “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God’s gift with money!” (v. 20). Peter offers Simon a spiritual diagnosis, “You have no part or share in this, for your heart is not right before God” (v. 21), and directs him to repent: “Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you” (v. 22). Peter further describes Simon’s condition. “For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and the chains of wickedness” (v. 23). It was enough to cause Simon deep concern. “Pray for me to the Lord,” he asks of Peter, “that nothing of what you have said may happen to me” (v. 24). “Ironically,” says Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “the one earlier called the power of God (v. 10) now must seek Peter’s intercession” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Acts 8:24).

Whether Simon truly repented, we are not told. Ancient Christians associated Simon with some of the later heresies. According to Loveday Alexander,

The enigmatic character of Simon Magus fascinated later Christians. Irenaeus identifies him as the founder of the ‘Simonian’ Gnostics (Adv. haer. 1.23). For Luke, however, the issue is not heresy but the illegitimate appropriation of divine power, and money (as so often) is a symptom of a deeper corruption. (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 1038, on Acts 8:14-25)

In later centuries the practice of paying money for holy orders or church offices or positions was called “simony,” based on the request here of Simon Magus (Encyclopaedia Britannica, s.v. simony, online reference at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9067868/simony, accessed again June 5, 2010). But the use of the term has broadened.

Simony is usually defined [as] ‘a deliberate intention of buying or selling for a temporal price such things as are spiritual of [or?] annexed unto spirituals.’ While this definition only speaks of purchase and sale, any exchange of spiritual for temporal things is simoniacal. Nor is the giving of the temporal as the price of the spiritual required for the existence of simony; according to a proposition condemned by Innocent XI (Denzinger-Bannwart, no. 1195) it suffices that the determining motive of the action of one party be the obtaining of compensation from the other. (The Catholic Encyclopedia online, s.v. simony, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14001a.htm (accessed again June 5, 2010)

The reading closes with the information that, “after Peter and John had testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they returned to Jerusalem, proclaiming the good news to many villages of the Samaritans” (v. 25).

Luke 10:25-28, 38-42

The Question that Led to the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Mt 22.34-40; Mk 12.28-34)

25 Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he said, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” 27 He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.” (Luke 10:25-28, NRSV)

Jesus Visits Martha and Mary

38 Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home. 39 She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to what he was saying. 40 But Martha was distracted by her many tasks; so she came to him and asked, "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me.” 41 But the Lord answered her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; 42 there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her. (Luke 10:38-42, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from occasions when these two paragraphs and/or the Parable of the Good Samaritan–passed over in this reading–have been discussed. These would include October 25, 2009 (the Sunday closest to October 26, Year One, May 28 and 29, 2009 (Thursday and Friday in the Seventh Week of Easter, Year One), October 23, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year Two), and earlier comments as noted there.

On the Context of the Parable of the Good Samaritan

During Jesus’ final ministry in Jerusalem, Mark describes a series of seven episodes, mostly debates or parables, which Matthew includes in Mark’s order, but with a couple additions. Luke includes six of these in Mark’s order, but he moves the question about the Great Commandment and Jesus’ response to a different context, where it serves to introduce the Parable of the Good Samaritan. This arrangement is outlined in the following table

You may be asking, What does this table have to do with the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Bear with me a little, and let me explain. A close reading of the passages listed in the above table will, of course, discover interesting differences as well as similarities in the presentations of Jesus’ teaching by the three evangelists (Matthew, Mark and Luke). In the section on the Woes to the Scribes and Pharisees, for example, Mark has four verses (3 ½ really) as compared to thirty-six verses in Matthew (Mt. 23:1-36; cf. Mk. 12:37b-40). Luke has much of the same material that Matthew presents, but in a simpler style, without ringing the changes, so to speak, on the repetition of “hypocrites.” And Luke presents it in a different context (chap. 11, not chap. 20).

Biblical scholars don’t all agree on the best way to explain the similarities and differences among the Gospels such as those illustrated by the above table. A few would not try, but simply ascribe the differences to independent sources and/or accounts. But it makes sense to me to see it this way for the passages in the above table: Matthew has used Mark as a source and maintained the sequence of Mark’s seven episodes, but has added two parables, the Two Sons and the Wicked Husbandmen, which Luke includes elsewhere in other contexts. Luke has maintained Mark’s sequence for six of these episodes, but he has broken Mark’s sequence for one; for reasons of his own he has transposed the discussion of the Great Commandment to the context where he presents the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:25-37). In Luke this comes near the beginning of his (“Travel Narrative,” Lk. 9:51-18:14, in effect an extended narrative of Jesus’ journey from Galilee to Jerusalem within which Luke includes much of Jesus’ teaching). This teaching on the Great Commandment come in answer to a Lawyer’s question (Lk. 10:25), and when the lawyer follows with another question, “And who is my neighbor?” (v. 29), Jesus responds with the Parable of the Good Samaritan. I note that this comes not long after the account found only in Luke of rejection of Jesus by a Samaritan village (Lk. 9:52-56), and the Mission of the Seventy (Lk. 10:1-12, 17-20).

For the question and answer regarding The Great Commandment, which in Luke is the context of the Parable of the Good Samaritan, see the following table:

In each account someone asks Jesus a question, a lawyer (Mt. 22:35; Lk. 10:25a)or, what is practically the same thing, one of the scribes (Mk. 12:28a). Matthew’s lawyer asks, “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” (Mt. 22:36), similar to the question of Mark’s scribe, “Which commandment is the first of all?” (Mk. 12:28b). In Luke, the lawyer’s question is, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Lk. 10:25b). In Matthew and Mark Jesus responds by quoting from the Jewish Shema. “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” (Mk. 12:29, citing Deut. 6:4-5). In Matthew, Jesus omits the quotation of Deut. 6:4, quoting only verse 5, omitting Mark’s “and with all your strength,” which brings it closer to Deut. 6:5. In Luke, the lawyer quotes from the Shema in response to Jesus’ question. “What is written in the law?” asks Jesus; “What do you read there?” (Lk. 10:26). The lawyer responds, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind” (Lk. 10:27a), reversing the last two phrases as quoted by Mark. In Luke, the Leviticus 19:18 quotation is very brief. Whereas in Matthew and Mark, Jesus refers to it as “a second” (Mt. 22:39) or “the second” (Mk. 12:31), Luke briefly adds, “and your neighbor as your self” to the lawyer’s response (Lk. 20:27b). Where Matthew adds an explanatory statement, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Mt. 22:40), and Mark adds a somewhat extensive discussion of the matter between the scribe and Jesus (Mk. 12:32-34), Luke concludes with Jesus’ brief response, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live” (Lk. 10:28).

In its Old Testament context, Leviticus 19:18 refers to love of one’s fellow countryman, another Israelite:

You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbor, or you will incur guilt yourself. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. (Lev. 19:17-18, NRSV)

In the Old Testament context, later in Leviticus, chapter 19, love of neighbor is expanded to include “the alien who resides with you”:

The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD. (Lev. 19:34, NRSV)

On Jesus’ Visit with Mary and Martha

The present reading passes over the Parable of the Good Samaritan itself, to Luke’s report about the visit of Jesus to the home of Martha and Mary (Lk. 10:38-42). We learn more about Martha and Mary from two accounts in John, about the death of their brother Lazarus, whom Jesus raises from the dead (Jn. 11:1-44), and about the anointing of Jesus’ feet by Mary (Jn. 12:1-8; cf. similar episodes in Mt. 26:6-13; Mk. 14:3-9; Lk. 7:36-50). This account of Jesus at the home of Martha and Mary has no parallel in Matthew or Mark, and comes between other passages found only in Luke (the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Lk. 10:29-37; the Importunate Friend at Midnight, Lk. 11:58), or passages from a different context in other Gospels (e.g. the Lawyer’s question, which in Luke introduces the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Lk. 10:25; cf. Mk. 12:28-34; Mt. 22:34-40; and the Lord’s Prayer, Lk. 11:1-4; cf. Mt. 6:9-13). We may conclude that the Martha and Mary episode comes from Luke’s “special material,” as they say, perhaps from some of his investigating (Lk. 1:3), and is included early in his “travel narrative” (9::51-19:27).

“Now as they went on their way,” says Luke, “he [Jesus] entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home.” (Lk. 10:38). “She had a sister named Mary,” we are told, “who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to what he was saying” (v. 39). In the meantime, “Martha was distracted by her many tasks” (v. 40a), details of hospitality, no doubt, perhaps including the preparation of a meal. She appeals to their guest, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me” (v. 40b). This brief account is just long enough to set up the point of the story, which comes in Jesus’ response to Martha. “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her” (vv. 41-42). The story thus serves to emphasize the need for Christian disciples to listen to Jesus and learn from him. According to Marion Lloyd Soards, it also demonstrates “Jesus’ openness to and acceptance of women among his followers” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Lk. 10:38-42).

One should not read Jesus’ words to Martha as a judgmental rebuke. Her dutiful efforts are good, but “Mary has chosen the better part” (v. 42). Catherine Clark Kroeger says:

The Third Evangelist’s story is about fundamental priorities. A woman may find great satisfaction and much appreciation for her skill in the culinary arts. Nevertheless she is not ultimately defined by the excellence of the table she spreads but on spreading her heart open to God’s Word (cf. 2 Cor. 6:11). The perfect housekeeper may not be the one most receptive to the voice of God. Jesus supports Mary in her role as disciple and invites Martha also to hear his teaching. How often narrowly prescribed roles have obstructed the calling of women! Neither social custom nor rabbinic tradition can be allowed to deprive them of their divinely ordained and courageously chosen right to learn. (The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, 2002, p. 575 on Lk. 10:38-42)

Vera M. Sinton, writing in the same commentary, reminds us that “learning to respect each other’s differences can be hard,” but “Each of these women, in her own way, is an evangelist. Both their gifts are needed if the death and resurrection of Jesus is to be made known.” Martha’s gift is in “taking the lead where action is required” (The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, 2002, p. 575-576, in a separate section on Mary and Martha). Sinton has in mind Martha’s going to meet Jesus after Lazarus’ death, as well as her “culinary arts” that are demonstrated in Luke’s story.

Kroeger also notes that “Mary has seated herself at the feet of Jesus in the position of a learner (cf. Acts 22:3),” adding

In Jewish tradition, this was ordinarily not an option for women. A much quoted proverb declared that it was better to give the Torah to be burned than to teach it to a woman. Martha’s demand may be based as much on her discomfort at her sister’s unconventional behavior as on her need for assistance. We may suppose that there may also have been an element of jealousy. While she fulfilled the appropriate role of a traditional woman, her sister was seated with the male disciples. Mary was afforded an opportunity to learn that was denied to Martha. Luke will later demonstrate the importance of instructing women in order to make them faithful witnesses. (loc. cit.)

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net