For the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for May 24, 2010, two weeks ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

Episcopal and Presbyterian Readings:

Ecclesiastes 7:1-14

A Disillusioned View of Life

7:1 A good name is better than precious ointment,

and the day of death, than the day of birth.

2 It is better to go to the house of mourning

than to go to the house of feasting;

for this is the end of everyone,

and the living will lay it to heart.

3 Sorrow is better than laughter,

for by sadness of countenance the heart is made glad.

4 The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning;

but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.

5 It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise

than to hear the song of fools.

6 For like the crackling of thorns under a pot,

so is the laughter of fools;

this also is vanity.

7 Surely oppression makes the wise foolish,

and a bribe corrupts the heart.

8 Better is the end of a thing than its beginning;

the patient in spirit are better than the proud in spirit.

9 Do not be quick to anger,

for anger lodges in the bosom of fools.

10 Do not say, "Why were the former days better than these?"

For it is not from wisdom that you ask this.

11 Wisdom is as good as an inheritance,

an advantage to those who see the sun.

12 For the protection of wisdom is like the protection of money,

and the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom gives life to the one who possesses it.

13 Consider the work of God;

who can make straight what he has made crooked?

14 In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity consider; God has made the one as well as the other, so that mortals may not find out anything that will come after them. (Ecclesiastes 7:1-14, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of June 9, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 8, Year Two), when comments were repeated from June 12, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 8, Year Two, and the week of Trinity Sunday, 2006), when comments were based upon those of June 7, 2004 (Monday of the week of Trinity Sunday, Year Two) from an email sent June 7, 2004 for June 7-13.

Today’s reading seems to be a collection of poetic proverbs, like those in the Book of Proverbs. Most of these lift up one thing as “better” than another. “A good name (Mwe bOF, tôv šēm) is better than precious ointment (bOF Nm,w0,6m9, miššemen tôv), / and the day of death, than the day MOy0m9 (miyyôm) of birth” (Eccl. 7:1). To this compare the proverb, “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, / and favor is better than silver or gold” (Prov. 22:1). The positive tone of the saying in Proverbs is tempered by the reference to “death” in Ecclesiastes’ version. Peter Machinist says, “Wisdom here, in line with 4:2 (cf. 4:3, 6:3-6), is what recognizes that the only certain thing in life is its end, death; fools, on the contrary, focus on life and its illusory pleasures of laughter and feasting” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 1614 on Eccles. 7:1-10. Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, revised by Kent Harold Richards, says, “Good name [is] a traditional judgment (Prov. 22:1), with a pun on the Hebrew terms shem (‘name’) and shemen (‘ointment’), followed by a paradox; see v. 8; Sir. 11:21-28” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Eccl. 7:1).

The idiom Nm9 bOF (tôv min, “good from”) is used for comparison, “better than.” Using bOF (tôv) also for “precious,” that is, “precious ointment” (NRSV, AV/KJV, cf. “fine perfume” TNIV), serves as a play on words. The word bOF (tôv), including the plural form MybOF (tôvîm, “good days,” v. 10) and the feminine form hbAOF (tôvāh, “good wisdom,” v. 11, and “good day,” v. 14), occurs eleven times in this reading (Eccl. 7:1-14; cf. the verb bFayy9 (yîtav, “[the heart] is made glad,” v. 3), seven times in the “[this] is better than [that]” idiom described above. Note that the idiom carries over from the first line of verse 1 to the second, “and the day of death, than the day of birth” (v. 1b). The theme of the stanza is clearly relative values, often of opposites.

The “day of death” theme (v. 1) continues. “It is better,” says Qoheleth, “to go to the house of mourning / than to go to the house of feasting; / for this is the end of everyone, / and the living will lay it to heart” (v. 2). According to Leong Seow, this contrasts a funeral and a wedding, and the former is “better” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Eccl. 7:1-12). “Sorrow (sfaKa, ka‘as),” continues Qoheleth, “is better than laughter, / for by sadness of countenance the heart is made glad (bFayy9, yîtav)” (v. 3). “Sorrow,” say Van Leeuwen and Richards, is “trhe same Hebrew word (ka‘as) translated as vexation in 1:18, anger in 7:9, and anxiety in 11:10, creating verbal contradictions in Hebrew concerning contrary aspects of the term” (op. cit., on v. 3). “Countenance . . . heart,” they say, is “a contrast between inner and outer: a sad face may conceal a joyful heart or vice versa (Prov. 14:13). Qoheleth implies that the latter characterizes the wise. “The heart (ble, lēv) of the wise (Mym9kAH3, ch ^akāmîm) is in the house of mourning; / but the heart (ble, lēv) of fools (Myl9ys9K4, k ^esîlîm) is in the house of mirth” (Eccl. 7:4).

As for another comparison with Proverbs, note the following: “It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise (Mk!7HA, chākām) / than to hear the song of fools (Myl9ys9K4, k ^esîlîm)” (Eccl. 7:5); compare “A scoffer who is rebuked will only hate you; / the wise, when rebuked, will love you” (Prov. 9:8). In Ecclesiastes, the rebuke is given by the wise; in Proverbs, it is the wise who receives the rebuke. The wise, who “will love you” for rebuking him–and presumably for making him “better”–is set in contrast with the scoffer, who “will only hate you.” Compare also “Better is open rebuke / than hidden love” (Prov. 27:5). The form, or sentence pattern, is similar in both books–e.g. comparisons with the word “better”–but the tone continues in Ecclesiastes to consider the “vanity” of life in this world. Qoheleth explains: “for like the crackling of thorns under a pot, / so is the laughter of fools (lys97K4ha, hakk ^esîl); this also is vanity (lb,h!&, hāvel [pausal form])” (Eccl. 7:6). Qoheleth continues: “Surely oppression (qw,fohA, hā‘ōšeq) makes the wise (MkA5HA, chākām) foolish (lleOhy4, y ^ehôlēl), / and a bribe corrupts the heart” (v. 7). “Yet even wisdom is not always reliable,” says Machinist, “because of the capacity of wise men to be corrupted” (ibid., on v. 7). “Oppression,” say Van Leeuwen and Richards, is “in the sense of extortion” (ibid., on v. 7, where they refer to Deut. 16:19).

“Better is the end of a thing than its beginning,” says Qoheleth; “the patient in spirit are better than the proud in spirit” (Eccl. 7:8). To the first line, Van Leeuwen and Richards, compare Ahab’s challenge to Ben-hadad, “One who puts on armor should not brag like one who takes it off” (1 Kgs. 20:11). “Do not be quick to anger (sOf7k4l9, lik‘ôs),” says Qoheleth, “for anger (sfaKa, ka‘as) lodges in the bosom of fools (Myl9ys9K4, k ^esîlîm)” (Eccl. 7:9). To this prohibition, Qoheleth adds another. “Do not say, ‘Why were the former days better than these?’ / For it is not from wisdom (hmAk4HAme, mēchokmāh) that you ask this (v. 10). Machinist explains: “It is also unwise to spend time longing for the better days that are now past, if indeed they were better” (op. cit., on v. 10).

 The pessimistic mood appears to begin to shift. “Wisdom is as good (hbAOF, tôvāh) as an inheritance,” says Qoheleth, “an advantage to those who see the sun” (v. 11). Wisdom, like money, has a certain value. “For the protection of wisdom is like the protection of money, / and the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom gives life to the one who possesses it” (v. 12). This, say Van Leeuwen and Richards, is “an answer to 6:8 [‘For what advantage have the wise over fools? And what do the poor have who know how to conduct themselves before the living?’]. Wisdom is as good as or better than wealth (Prov. 16:16), but each has its limits (9:15-16; Prov 19:21; 21:30-31)” (op. cit., on Eccl. 7:11-12). “Consider the work of God,” says Qoheleth; “who can make straight what he has made crooked?” (v. 13). Again we see Qoheleth advising that we accept what God has ordained. And he summarizes. “In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity consider; God has made the one as well as the other, so that mortals may not find out anything that will come after them” (v. 14). On the whole passage, Harvey H. Guthrie, Jr., says, “The author may very well here be employing proverbs from wisdom circles, not of his own composition [but] in a new framework [which makes] it clear that the good to which traditional wisdom directs men is really only relative good. Thus the author is rooted in his background, but is critical of it” (Interpreter’s One Volume Commentary, 1971, p. 322 on Eccles. 7:1-14). Seow sees here,

A series of ‘better . . . than” sayings that imitate the style of traditional proverbs . . . with their tendency to present issues in dialectical pairs: fame and luxury (v. 1a), birth and death (v. 1b) . . . The sayings are all subverted and relativized, however. The effect of the overall presentation is to show that no one knows what is universally good. Each saying may contain an element of truth, but the sum total of these many words is vanity–just so much empty talk (v. 6; cf. 6:11). (op. cit., on 7:1-12)

On the concluding verses Seow explains: “People should accept good when it is accessible and face adversity when that is a reality; see 1:5; 3:14 (ibid., on vv. 13-14).

Galatians 4:12-20

12 Friends, I beg you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You have done me no wrong. 13 You know that it was because of a physical infirmity that I first announced the gospel to you; 14 though my condition put you to the test, you did not scorn or despise me, but welcomed me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. 15 What has become of the goodwill you felt? For I testify that, had it been possible, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me. 16 Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? 17 They make much of you, but for no good purpose; they want to exclude you, so that you may make much of them. 18 It is good to be made much of for a good purpose at all times, and not only when I am present with you. 19 My little children, for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, 20 I wish I were present with you now and could change my tone, for I am perplexed about you. (Galatians 4:12-20, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from February 3, 2009 (Tuesday in the week of the Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when comments were repeated from June 9, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 8, Year Two), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from January 30, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Epiphany, Year One), when comments were repeated from June 12, 2006 (Monday of the week of Trinity Sunday, Year Two), when they were combined with revision from June 7, 2004 (Monday of the week of Trinity Sunday, Year Two) from an email sent June 7, 2004 for June 7-13, and from February 1, 2005 (Tuesday of the week of the Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One). The combined comments are repeated again here:

Paul continues a series of arguments in support of his thesis, “we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal. 2:16). One argument focused on the Galatian people’s experience when Paul first preached to them (3:1-5), and others appealed to Abraham’s faith (3:6-7), the covenant with Abraham (3:15-18), and so on. In this passage he appeals to his friendship with them and their considerate treatment of him when he first brought his mission to them, in spite of his illness on his first visit to Galatia (4:12-20). “Friends, I beg of you,” he says, “become as I am, for I also have become as you are” (Gal. 4:12). As has been evident from the beginning of Galatians, there has been a serious challenge to Paul’s apostleship and ministry in Galatia by outsiders. Paul here appeals to the Galatians. He “reminds the Galatians of his past relationship with them,” says Richard B. Hays, “and appeals for its restoration. The passage employs motifs common in Hellenistic discussions of friendship” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Gal. 4:12-20). “You know,” Paul says, “that it was because of a physical infirmity that I first announced the gospel to you; though my condition put you to the test, you did not scorn or despise me, but welcomed me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus” (Gal. 4:13-14). Paul wonders “what has become of [their] goodwill” (v. 15a). He reminds them that “had it been possible, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me” (v. 15b). According to Bruce M. Metzger and John Reumann, “On his first visit through the region of Galatia (Acts 16:6) an illness (was it eye trouble? See v. 15) detained Paul; though he was a care to the Galatians, they treated him with special consideration” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Gal. 4:13-14). They clearly indicate uncertainty about the nature of the illness, as do Shiela Briggs (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Gal. 4:13) and Hays (op. cit., on v. 13). The words, “torn out your eyes,” says Hays, “probably [represent] a proverbial expression for solidarity in friendship” (ibid., on v. 15). Hays (op. cit., on Gal. 4:13), refers to Gal. 6:17, “I carry the marks of Jesus branded on my body,” 2 Cor. 11:23-27, which refers to floggings, lashings, beatings, a stoning and the like, and 2 Cor 12: 7-10, which mentions his “thorn . . . given to me in the flesh” (v. 7). In any case, Paul overcame the difficulties and preached and ministered among the Galatians.

Paul challenges his opponents indirectly. “Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?” he asks (v. 16). “They [i.e., the opponents, cf. 1:8, 9] make much of you (zhlou:sin uJma:V, zēlousin hymas), but for no good purpose; they want to exclude you, so that you may make much of them (i{na aujtou;V zhlou:te, hina autous zēloute). It is good to be made much of (zhlou:sqai, zēlousthai) for a good purpose at all times, and not only when I am present with you” (vv. 17-18). The verb zhlovw (zēloō) is defined for these verses as to “be positively and intensely interested in something, strive, desire, exert oneself earnestly, be dedicated,” and more particularly, “with a personal object . . . be deeply interested in someone, court someone’s favor, make much of, with implication of desiring the other to be on one’s own side” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [= BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. zhlovw, zēloō). Paul clearly believes he is in a life or death struggle for the heart and soul of his Galatian churches.

The new metaphor suggests a new beginning, giving birth again, as it were. “ My little children,” says Paul, “for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, I wish I were present with you now and could change my tone, for I am perplexed about you” (vv. 19-20). “Elsewhere,” says Briggs, “Paul calls the members of the churches he founded his ‘children’ (1 Cor 4:14; 2 Cor. 6:13; 1 Thess. 2:11). Hays says “pain of childbirth [is] a common image in Jewish apocalyptic texts for the suffering that accompanies the new age (I Enoch 62:4; 2 Apocalypse of Baruch 56:6; Mk. 13:8; Rev. 12:2). Apostolic suffering is one of the birth pangs of the new creation (see Rom. 8:22-23; 1 Thess. 5:3)” (op. cit., on v. 19).

Matthew 15:21-28 (Mk. 7:24-30)

Today’s Gospel reading is included in the following table.

The following comments are based on those of November 10, 2009 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from October 12, 2008 (the Sunday closest to October 12, Year Two), when comments were repeated from June 9, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 9, Year Two), when comments were repeated from November 13, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, 2007), when comments were repeated from October 15, 2006 (the Sunday closest to October 12, Year Two), from June 12, 2006 (Monday of the week of Trinity Sunday, Year Two) and earlier. The combined and revised comments are repeated again here with editing and supplement. For recent comments from the perspective of Mark’s version, see the Archive for March 15, 2010 (Monday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Lent, Year Two).

The story of the Gentile woman’s faith is one from that part of Mark which Luke lacks (his so-called “gap” in the use of Mark’s sequence of events), Mark 6:45-8:26. Matthew and Mark have accounts that are close parallels, but with significant differences as well. “Jesus left that place,” says Matthew, “and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon” (Mt. 15:21). Similarly, Mark says, “From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre” (Mk. 7:24a). In both Gospels the last previous arrival was at Gennesaret (Mt. 14:34; Mk. 6:53). Gennesaret was about two or three miles southwest of Capernaum along the shore of the Sea of Galilee (cf. the scale of Map 13, NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007), and thus close to Jesus’ home and headquarters, so to speak (cf. Mt. 4:13). After the public discussion of the tradition of the elders and of defilement (Mt. 15:1-11; Mk. 7:1-16), Mark says Jesus “entered the house” (Mk. 7:17) for the conclusion of the discussion with his disciples (Mk. 7:17-23; cf. Mt. 15:12-20). “The house” would apparently be Jesus’ home in nearby Capernaum (cf. C. Clifton Black, revised by Adela Yarbro Collins, HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mk. 7:17 and on 3:19b, “then he went home”).

Tyre and Sidon, were both ancient Phoenician cities. According to Thomas L. McClellan “Sidon is located twenty-two miles north of Tyre on the Mediterranean coast of modern Lebanon” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Sidon). For Mark’s “region of Tyre” (Mk. 7:24), Matthew has “the district of Tyre and Sidon” (Mt. 15:21). Both are imprecise, suggesting somewhat large areas, so the designations are not really in conflict. But for Matthew Dennis C. Duling emphasizes the symbolic sense. “District of Tyre and Sidon,” he says, means “gentile territory (see 11:21)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 15:21). Mark reports Jesus’ purpose in this northern trip as something of a “retreat.” “He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice” (Mk. 7:24b). Black and Collins say, “On the recurring tension between Jesus’ seclusion and disclosure, see also 1:44-45; 2:1-2; 3:19b-20; 6:31-33; 7:36” (op. cit., on Mk. 7:24). Upon Jesus’ arrival in this region, Matthew says, “Just then a Canaanite woman (Cananaiva, Chananaia) from that region came out and started shouting” (Mt. 15:22a). Mark identifies the woman as “a Gentile ( +EllhnivV, Hellēnis), of Syrophoenician (Surofoinivkissa, Syrophoinikissa) origin (Mk. 7:26a). Again, the differing designations can be essentially synonymous, while Matthew’s term has symbolic connotations. According to Philip L. Shuler,

The term ‘Syrophoenician’ indicates that this woman was from Phoenicia, located in the Roman province of Syria, or, more specifically, from the area of the old cities of Tyre and Sidon. In the parallel passage (Matt. 15:22), the woman is called a ‘Canaanite,’ an ancient geographical designation that would have included this area. (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Syrophoenician)

Dennis C. Duling says that “Canaanite [is] a scriptural term for ancient Israel’s pagan enemies (see, e.g., Deut 7:1; cf. Mk. 7:26) here used to designate a Gentile” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 15:22). The term translated “Gentile” in Mark 7:26 is literally “a Greek woman” (  JEllhnivV, Hellēnis, fem.), but the point, of course, is that she is not a Jew. “The issue about clean and unclean is closely related to the attitude towards the Gentiles,” notes Krister Stendahl (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprint 1972, sec. 686 j, p. 787 on Mt. 15:21-31). According to Stendahl, Matthew “has either rewritten what he found in Mk at this point (7:24-30) or had a source with quite distinctive features. His use of ‘Tyre and Sidon’, ‘Canaanite’, ‘Son of David’ (cf. 9:27; and ‘the God of Israel’) gives an archaic tone to the pericope, compared with Mk’s more geographical and ‘contemporary’ terminology” (ibid.).

Where Mark says, “a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet. . . . She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter” (Mk. 7:25, 26b), Matthew quotes her directly, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon’ ” (Mt. 15:22b). Matthew adds, “But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, ‘Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us’ ” (Mt. 15:23). This is, perhaps, as close as Matthew comes to indicating Mark’s reference to a desire for seclusion (Mk. 7:24b). According to Matthew, Jesus answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt. 15:24). This emphasizes what is implicit in Jesus’ contrast between children and dogs, according to Mark, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs” (Mk. 7:27). In Matthew, after the woman repeats her request, kneeling before him, saying “Lord, help me” (Mt. 15:25), Jesus also contrasts the children and the dogs, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs” (Mt. 15:26). I believe–one would certainly hope–that Jesus is using humor, perhaps to test her faith and determination. One would like to think that Jesus speaks of throwing the children’s food to the dogs (Gentiles) with a twinkle in his eye. His last words in Matthew’s Gospel call for the disciples to “make disciples of all nations” (pavnta ta; e[qnh, panta ta ethnē, a term often translated “Gentiles”), and in Matthew’s Gospel the first persons to recognize the newborn Jesus and “pay him homage” (Mt. 2:11) are “wise men (mavgoi, magoi) from the East” (2:1), that is, Gentiles. The Gentiles are clearly not forgotten in this most Jewish of Gospels. By children, of course, Jesus means the Jewish people, as reflected in Matthew’s pointed statement, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt. 15:24; cf. 10:5-6, in the instructions for the mission of the Twelve).

As I remember, Tom Mullen’s book on The Humor of Jesus included this remark about the dogs along with the saying about the camel and the eye of the needle (Mt. 19:24//Mk. 10:25//Lk. 18:26) and others. (Tom Mullen is a former Dean of Earlham School of Religion.) Jesus certainly “makes it up to her” in the end. “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish” (Mt. 15:28). The word “dogs” is an insult, of course, But Richard A. Horsley says, “to Jesus’ insistence that the manifestation of the kingdom (food) is primarily for Israelites (children), she gives a reply that wins the debate” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mk. 7:27-28 cf. Mt. 15:26-27). I believe that since Jesus commended her faith, “great is your faith!” (Mt. 15:28, cf. “For saying that . . .” Mk. 7:29), and healed the daughter, that must have been his intention all along, and the “debate” was intended to bring out the woman’s expression of faith. William Barclay points to her love for her child, and her faith, a “faith which worshipped,” for “she began with a request; she ended in prayer” (The Gospel of Matthew, Daily Study Bible, 2^nd ed., 1975, vol. 2, pp. 122-123). She also had “indomitable persistence” (ibid., p. 123) and “the gift of cheerfulness” (ibid., p. 124):

This woman brought to Christ a gallant and an audacious love, a faith which grew until it worshipped at the feet of the divine, an indomitable persistence springing from an unconquerable hope, a cheerfulness which would not be dismayed. That is the approach which cannot help finding an answer to its prayers. (ibid., p. 123)

There is further irony in the saying of Jesus, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (v. 24, noted above; lacking in Mark), after which he proceeds to heal the daughter of a Gentile woman. But joking aside, there are serious issues here, the place of Gentiles in Jesus’ kingdom and the mission of the church. In both Gospels this account follows the speech about the “tradition of the elders,” which criticizes Pharisees for focusing on external piety and neglecting defilements that proceed from the heart. Jesus has moved into Gentile territory, “the district of Tyre and Sidon (v. 21, cf. Mk. 7:24). Stendahl says,

The interplay between Jesus and his disciples gives the impression that the text was used as a guide to the proper handling of similar matters in the church. In keeping with 10:5, Jesus insists on his call to the children of Israel, but the point of the story is apparently the significance of the exception or the extension granted on the basis of the woman’s strong and humble faith. The healing is quite incidental; what counts is the attitude to the Canaanites, the chief enemies in the time of the Judges, as the epitome of the heathen. There was nothing offensive to Mt., who lived and worked in a church which happily accepted Gentile Christians, in the harsh words to the woman. On the contrary, hereby the faith of the Gentiles was glorified and Jesus’ words just witnessed to the great fact that Gentiles could now share in the riches at the table of God’s children, cf. 8:5-13. (op. cit., secs. 686 j, k)

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net