|
Daily Scripture Readings |
||
|
Thursday (July 1, 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. |
||
|
Thursday AM Psalm 131, 132, [133] PM Psalm 134, 135 Num. 23:11-26 Rom. 8:1-11 Matt. 22:1-14 [Harriet Beecher Stowe]: http://www.satucket.com/lectionary/harriet_beecher_stowe.htm Psalm 94:16-23 Isaiah 26:7-13; 1 Peter 3:8-12; Matthew 23:1-12 Eucharistic Readings: Psalm 19:7-10 Amos 7:10-17; Matthew 9:1-8 |
Thursday Morning: Psalms 143; 147:12-20 Num. 23:11-26 Rom. 8:1-11 Matt. 22:1-14 Evening: Psalms 81; 116 |
Thursday Morning Pss.: 36, 147:13-21 Num. 12:1-16 Rom. 2:12-24 Matt. 18:10-20 Evening Pss.: 80, 27 |
|
|
Year C Daily Readings Psalm 66:1-9 2 Kings 21:1-15 Romans 7:14-25 |
|
|
* Thursday in the week of the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost, references
for 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 17, 2010, two weeks ago. These traditions differ in
relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.
Episcopal
and Presbyterian Readings:
Numbers
23:11-26
11 Then Balak said to Balaam, "What have
you done to me? I brought you to curse my enemies, but now you have done
nothing but bless them." 12 He answered, "Must I not take care to say
what the LORD puts into my mouth?"
Balaam's Second Oracle
13 So Balak said to him, "Come with me to
another place from which you may see them; you shall see only part of them, and
shall not see them all; then curse them for me from there." 14 So he took
him to the field of Zophim, to the top of Pisgah. He built seven altars, and
offered a bull and a ram on each altar. 15 Balaam said to Balak, "Stand
here beside your burnt offerings, while I meet the LORD over there.' 16 The
LORD met Balaam, put a word into his mouth, and said, "Return to Balak,
and this is what you shall say." 17 When he came to him, he was standing
beside his burnt offerings with the officials of Moab. Balak said to him,
"What has the LORD said?" 18 Then Balaam uttered his oracle, saying:
"Rise, Balak, and hear;
listen to me, O son of Zippor:
19 God is not a human being, that he should lie,
or a mortal, that he should change his mind.
Has he promised, and will he not do it?
Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?
20 See, I received a command to bless;
he has blessed, and I cannot revoke it.
21 He has not beheld misfortune in Jacob;
nor has he seen trouble in Israel.
The LORD their God is with them,
acclaimed as a king among them.
22 God, who brings them out of Egypt,
is like the horns of a wild ox for them.
23 Surely there is no enchantment against Jacob,
no divination against Israel;
now it shall be said of Jacob and Israel,
'See what God has done!'
24 Look, a people rising up like a lioness,
and rousing itself like a lion!
It does not lie down until it has eaten the prey
and drunk the blood of the slain."
25 Then Balak said to Balaam, "Do not curse
them at all, and do not bless them at all." 26 But Balaam answered Balak,
"Did I not tell you, 'Whatever the LORD says, that is what I must
do'?" (Numbers 23:11-26, NRSV)
The
following comments are repeated here with minor editing from July 3, 2008
(Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two), when
comments were repeated with editing and supplement from July 6, 2006 (Thursday
in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two):
For
continuity’s sake, apparently, the last two verses of yesterday’s reading are
repeated at the beginning of today’s reading. As noted yesterday, Balak is
outraged by Balaam’s first oracle, which blesses Israel and does not curse
them. “What have you done to me?” he asks. “I brought you to curse my enemies,
but now you have done nothing but bless them” (v. 11). According to Nili S.
Fox, “Balak’s fear that the Israelite multitude will be triumphant (22:3) is
confirmed already in Balaam’s first oracle” (The Jewish Study Bible,
2004, p. 331, on Num. 23:10). Balaam's answer reminds Balak that he [Balaam]
must obey the LORD’s instructions. He asks, “Must I not take care to say what
the LORD puts into my mouth?” echoing his instructions from the LORD” (v. 12;
cf. 22:20, 35). Fox calls this “a disclaimer to his [i.e. Balaam’s] own words”
(on 23:11-17).
Balak
tells Balaam, “Come with me to another place from which you may see them; you
shall see only part of them, and shall not see them all; then curse them for me
from there” (v. 13). David P. Wright says, “Balak thinks that Balaam will curse
Israel if he views them from another location.” But Wright adds, “in describing
the scene this way, the biblical author is mocking Balak” (NOAB, 3rd
ed., augmented, 2007, on Num. 23:13-25). According to Fox, “Balak then attempts
to elicit a curse from Balaam by having the prophet view the Israelite camp
from a less threatening angle” (on vv. 11-17). According to Rabbi J. H. Hertz,
“What Balaam had seen of the camp of Israel [at the time of the first oracle]
had so impressed him with the numbers, power and unity of Israel that he found
it impossible to curse them. The distracted king changes the seer’s place of
outlook, and to this Balaam consents” (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2nd
ed., 24th printing, 1981, p. 675, on Num. 23:11-17).
So Balak
takes Balaam “to the field of Zophim, to the top of Pisgah,” where he builds
“seven altars, and [offers] a bull and a ram on each altar” (v. 14) According
to the Rabbi, the “field of Zophim” means “the field of watchers.
Probably [it is] a plot of high ground used as a post for sentinels” (ibid., on
v. 14). “Fresh sacrifices need to be offered,” says Fox, “to attain another vision.”
And he adds, “the narrator is mocking Balak, who fails to understand that God’s
desire may not be contravened in this manner” (loc. cit.; cf., the similar
comment of Wright, cited above). We are told that “Balaam said to Balak, ‘Stand
here beside your burnt offerings while I meet the LORD over there’ ” (v.
15). At that, “The LORD met Balaam, put a word into his mouth, and said,
‘Return to Balak, and this is what you shall say’ ” (v. 16). When Balaam
came to Balak, we are told, “he [Balak] was standing beside his burnt offerings
with the officials of Moab. Balak said
to him, ‘What has the LORD said?’ ” (v. 17). “Balak is impatient,” says
the Rabbi, “and asks for the result as son as Balaam returns” (op. cit., on v.
17).
The
second oracle, the poetic lines in the text printed above (Num. 23:18-24), is
longer than the first (vv. 7-10). The first has fourteen lines (or
“half-lines”), and the second twenty-two lines. The third oracle (Num. 24:3-9),
part of tomorrow’s reading is the longest, with twenty-four lines, unless you
count the “fourth oracle,” which Wright says is “actually a collection of short
oracles” (op. cit., on Num. 24:10-25), as one oracle with twenty-seven lines in
all.
In the
second oracle, Balaam addresses Balak directly, saying, “God is not a human
being, that he should lie, / or a mortal, that he should change his mind”
(23:19a, b). God will fulfill his promise, says Balaam with rhetorical
questions (v. 19c, d). The irrevocable “command to bless” that Balaam has
received (v. 20) is, of course, from the LORD, who “has not beheld misfortune
in Jacob; / nor has he seen trouble in Israel” (v. 21a, b). On the contrary,
“The LORD their God is with them, / acclaimed as a king among them” (v. 21c,
d). In the oracle, Balaam stresses the power of Israel’s God, “who brings them
out of Egypt / [and] is like the horns of a wild ox (Mxer4, re’ēm) for them” (v.
22). According to the Rabbi, the reference to the “wild ox” means, “In
consequence of God’s presence, and of what He does for His people, Israel is as
irresistible as the re’em–a species of buffalo, now extinct” (op. cit.,
on v. 22). “Surely,” says Balaam, “there is no enchantment against Jacob, / no
divination against Israel” (v. 23a, b). According to Wright, by “no
enchantment against . . .” Balaam means that “omens (cf.
24:1) do not portend any evil for the people [of Israel]” (op. cit., on v. 23).
Rabbi Hertz comments on verse 23: “In Israel men do not resort to oracles,
enchantments, or magic arts (Rashi). The next half-verse gives the reason. Some
translate: ‘no enchantment prevails against Jacob (Mendelssohn,
Luzzatto, Malbirth), implying that the arts of the magician and all the ways of
divination are powerless against Israel” (op. cit., p. 676 on Num. 23:23).
The
oracle closes by comparing the Israelites to a lioness, and a lion. “Look, a
people rising up like a lioness, / and rousing itself like a lion! / It does
not lie down until it has eaten the prey / and drunk the blood of the slain”
(v. 24). “This,” says Wright, “addresses the military aspect of the people,
anticipating the conquest of the land” (op. cit., on v. 24). The reference to
lions, according to the Rabbi, is “figurative description of an invincible hero
(Gen. XLIX, 9), and general prediction of the strength that would mark Israel’s
progress in coming times” (op. cit., p. 667, on v. 24).
As noted
above (and yesterday) Balak was angered by Balaam’s first oracle, but Balaam
reminds him of his duty to say what the LORD directs. In a similar exchange
after the second oracle (vv. 25-26), Balak tries to cut his losses, saying to
Balaam, “Do not curse them at all, and do not bless them at all” (v. 25).
According to Fox, “Balak, in distress, wants to abandon cursing Israel if that
will nullify the blessing” (op. cit., p. 332 on Num. 23:25-24:2). Fox adds,
“The foolish Moabite king, in contrast to the seer, is not resigned to God’s
will as a fait accompli” (ibid.). According to Rabbi Hertz,
The change of place has all been in vain. Balaam, despite himself,
must confirm and even transcend his former blessing; God is unchangeable in His
purpose to bless His people. There is neither iniquity nor perverseness in
Israel, and no magical arts can avail against him. With God as Defender, Israel
is certain to be victorious. (op. cit., p. 675 on Num. 23:18-24).
According
to Fox, “The poem of the second oracle underscores the message of the first.
Emphasis is placed on God’s constancy in general and specifically in connection
with His devotion to Israel’s welfare. Other gods may be capricious, subject to
human manipulation through magic, but the LORD is not” (op. cit., p., 331, on
vv. 18-24).
Romans
8:1-11
Life in the Spirit
8:1 There
is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the
law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin
and of death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not
do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with
sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law
might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to
the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the
things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds
on the things of the Spirit. 6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to
set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For this reason the mind that
is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law–indeed
it cannot, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit,
since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of
Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, though the body is
dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the
Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised
Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his
Spirit that dwells in you. (Romans
8:1-11, NRSV)
The
following comments are repeated here from April 3, 2010 (Holy Saturday, Year
Two), when they were repeated from March 7, 2010 (the Third Sunday of Lent,
Year Two), when comments were based on those of April 11, 2009 (Holy Saturday,
Year One), when the reading was Romans 8:1-11, from March 22, 2008 (Holy
Saturday, Year Two), and earlier comments as noted there.
Wilbur T.
Dayton calls Romans chapter eight “the great peak of doctrine and experience
toward which the epistle has been building.” He says,
This is the normal Christian life under the full blessing of the
Gospel of Christ. This includes both justifying and sanctifying grace and a
walk in the Spirit. . . . It is the full bloom of spiritual
health–the fulfillment of all the capacities of human personality in the grace
of God. It is not the destruction of any part of human nature, however
troublesome it may have proved to be in its depraved condition. Rather, it is
the purification, adaptation, and direction of all to the achievement of a
moral idealism and a spiritual reality. (“Romans,” The Wesleyan Bible
Commentary, V, 1965, p. 52)
Dayton
says that “three ideas form a clue to the treatment: the human, the carnal, and
the spiritual.” He sees “the human delivered” in Romans 8:1-3, “the carnal
displaced” in verses 4-6, and “the spiritual enthroned in verses 9-11 (ibid., pp.
52-54).
Notwithstanding all the ravages of the Fall [i.e. humanities’ fall
due to the sin of Adam] and of sin, the human is valuable and worth
saving. . . . One must never lose sight of genuine human values
in the conflict between a sovereign God and the realm of evil. Man is not a
mere thing, tossed about by other powers. He is a person, made in the image of
God–for dominion. The rescue of the human from the carnal and its fulfillment
in the spiritual are in marked contrast to the misery of chapter 7. (ibid., p.
52)
For the
Christian believer, the work of Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit
provide the remedy for the power of sin and the sinner's helplessness in
wanting to do the good but finding himself/herself unable to do it. “There is
therefore (a[ra, ara) now no condemnation (katavkrima, katakrima) for
those who are in Christ Jesus,” says Paul (Rom. 8:1). The word a[ra (ara), translated
“therefore,” is defined as a “marker of an inference made on the basis of
what precedes–(a) in declarative statement, and with colloquial flavor so,
then, consequently, you see (B-D-F sec. 451, 2)”
(Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., 2000,
s.v. a[ra, ara). While the shorter word krivma (krima)
can refer to a “judicial verdict . . . mostly in an
unfavorable sense,” it can also refer to a “legal action taken against
someone, dispute, lawsuit,” the “content of a deliberative
process, decision, decree,” or the “action or function of a
judge, judging, judgment” (BDAG, s.v. krivma, krima). But the
compound word used here for “condemnation” (katavkrima, katakrima) refers
specifically to condemnation:
In this [i.e. the definition of katavkrima, katakrima] and the
cognates that follow the use of the term ‘condemnation’ does not denote merely
a pronouncement of guilt . . . but the adjudication of
punishment.) Judicial pronouncement
upon a guilty person, condemnation, punishment, penalty . . .
[and with ref. to Rom. 8:1] “no death-sentence for those who are in Christ
Jesus. (BDAG, s.v. katavkrima, katakrima)
John
Wesley begins his notes on Romans, chapter eight, as follows: “There is
therefore now no condemnation - Either for things present or past. Now he comes
to deliverance and liberty. The apostle here resumes the thread of his
discourse, which was interrupted, Rom 7:7” (Explanatory Notes, on the
Internet web site Wesley Center Online, at http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/romans.htm#Chapter+VIII , accessed again July 1, 2010; you may need to copy and paste the URL in your browser). This treats Romans 7:7-25 as a
parenthetical section, so to speak, an excursus on the question, Is the law
sin? and its ramifications. The discussion was important, of course, but the
implication of Wesley’s term “interrupted” is that Romans 7:6 and 8:1, in a
sense, belong together: “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 (7:6); consequently, “there is therefore now no
condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (8:1).
Paul
continues: “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you
(se, se,
2nd person sing. pronoun) free from the law of sin and of death” (v.
2 NRSV). Some may remember a different pronoun in the older translation of this
verse: “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me (me, me, 1st
person sing. pronoun) free from the law of sin and death” (v. 2 AV/KJV). A few
early witnesses to the text have the 1st person plural pronoun us
(hJma:V, hēmas), and the early Christian theologian Origen
omits the pronoun in citing the verse. In these circumstances Kurt Aland and
the Committee for the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (3rd
ed., 1975) indicate uncertainty with the letter “D,” which “shows a very high
degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text” (p. xiii). As in
chapter 7, where Paul says “I” as a “generic” description of someone still
“under law,” the pronoun here, whether first person or second, and whether
singular or plural, represents anyone whom “the law of the Spirit of life has
set . . . free from the law of sin and of death” (8:2). Paul
explains: “For God has done what the law (novmoV, nomos), weakened
by the flesh (to; savrx, to sarx), could not do: by sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not
according to the flesh (kata; savrka, kata sarka) but according to the Spirit (kata; pneu:ma, kata
pneuma)” (vv. 3-4). The preposition katav (kata), translated
“according to” sets up the contrast between “flesh” (savrx , sarx) and Spirit (or ‘spirit’
[cf. NRSV text notes on vv. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9a, 10; but not on ‘Spirit’ in vv. 9b,
c, 11a, b, 13, 14] pneu:ma, pneuma) through 8:3-16, with one or both terms appearing
in every verse. Two definitions given for pneu:ma, pneuma (‘Spirit’
or ‘spirit’) are
(5) God’s being as controlling influence, with focus on
association with humans, Spirit, spirit as that which differentiates God from everything that is not God,
as the divine power that produces all divine existence, as the divine element
in which all divine life is carried on, as the bearer of every application of
the divine will. All those who belong to God possess or receive this spirit and
hence have a share in God’s life. This spirit also serves to distinguish
Christians from all unbelievers (cp. PGM 4, 1121ff, where the spirit is greeted
as one who enters devotees and, in accordance with God’s will, separates them
from themselves, i.e. from the purely human part of their nature); for this
latter aspect s. esp. 6 below.
(6) the Spirit of God as exhibited in the character or activity of
God’s people or selected agents, Spirit, spirit . . . (b) Unless frustrated by humans in their
natural condition, the Spirit of God produces a spiritual type of conduct Gal.
5:16, 25 and produces the karpo;V tou: pneuvmatoV [karpos
tou pneumatos, ‘fruit of the spirit’] vs. 22. (BDAG, s.v. pneu:ma, pneuma)
The
preposition “according to” (katav, kata) is a “marker
of norm of similarity or homogeneity, according to, in accordance with, in
conformity with, according to” (BDAG, s.v. katav, kata), and it
emphasizes the contrast between walking, that is, living, in conformity with
the flesh, and walking, that is, living, in conformity with the Spirit.
Although “flesh” (savrx, sarx) does not always have the negative implications that
it has here–note, for example, its use in reference to the incarnation of
Christ, “And the Word became flesh (savrx, sarx) and lived
among us” (Jn. 1:14a)–it has been defined in Paul’s usage here as follows:
“The physical body as functioning entity, body, physical
body . . . (c) as instrument of various actions or
expressions.–a. In Paul’s thought esp., all parts of the body constitute
a totality known as savrx [sarx] or flesh, which is dominated by sin to such
a degree that wherever flesh is, all forms of sin are likewise present, and no
good thing can live in the savrx [sarx] Ro 7:18 ”
(BDAG, s.v. savrx, sarx).
But
Dayton, as noted above, clearly distinguishes between “any part of human
nature, however troublesome it may have proved to be in its depraved
condition,” and the flesh as such.
There had indeed to be a death under the condemnation
of God. Sin is no light matter. But upon what is the condemnation now passed?
It is not upon humanity. It is not upon any single capacity or natural appetite
of human nature. It is not even upon “flesh.” It is upon the sin that inhabited
the flesh. It was this sin that law exposed but could not destroy. Law was
frustrated by the weakness of the human and the consequent lack of effective
human cooperation. But what neither the law nor the human could accomplish, God
did. “He, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin,
condemned sin in the flesh” [cited from ASV, the American Standard Version of
1901]. (op. cit., pp. 52-53)
“For
those who live according to the flesh set their minds on (fronou:sivn, phronousin)
the things of the flesh,” says Paul, “but those who live according to the
Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit” (v. 5). The verb translated
“set their minds on” is defined as “to give careful consideration to
something, set one’s mind on, be intent on,” and the phrase, “fronei:n ta tinoV, phronein [infinitive] ta tinos, is defined as to “take
someone’s side, espouse someone’s cause” (BDAG, s.v. fronevw, phroneō).
As noted above, the word “Spirit,” capitalized and representing the Holy
Spirit, might be understood as “spirit” (cf. NRSV text note a). But
according to definitions given above, either way, it means living under God’s
controlling influence, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. According to
Wesley,
They that are after the flesh - Who remain under the guidance of
corrupt nature. Mind the things of the flesh - Have their thoughts and
affections fixed on such things as gratify corrupt nature; namely, on things
visible and temporal; on things of the earth, on pleasure, (of sense or
imagination,) praise, or riches. But they who are after the Spirit - Who are
under his guidance. Mind the things of the Spirit - Think of, relish, love
things invisible, eternal; the things which the Spirit hath revealed, which he
works in us, moves us to, and promises to give us. (op. cit., on v. 5)
“To set
the mind on the flesh is death,” says Paul, “but to set the mind on the Spirit
is life and peace” (v. 6). On this verse, Wesley says, following the older,
AV/KJV, translation:
For to be carnally minded - That is, to mind the things of the
flesh. Is death - The sure mark of spiritual death, and the way to death
everlasting. But to be spiritually minded - That is, to mind the things of the
Spirit. Is life - A sure mark of spiritual life, and the way to life
everlasting. And attended with peace - The peace of God, which is the foretaste
of life everlasting; and peace with God, opposite to the enmity mentioned in
the next verse. (ibid., on v. 6)
Paul now
concludes the negative side of this comparison. “For this reason the mind that
is set on the flesh (to; frovnhma th:V sarkovV, to phronēma tēs sarkos) is hostile to God; it
does not submit to God's law–indeed it cannot, and those who are in the flesh
cannot please God” (vv. 7-8). The noun frovnhma (phronēma),
related–the result, as one might say–to the verb fronevw (phroneō), is
defined as “the faculty of fixing one’s mind on something, way of
thinking, mind(-set), in our lit. (only Rom. 8) with focus on strong
intention aim, aspiration, striving” (BDAG, s.v. frovnhma, phronēma).
So far,
the comparison has defined living according to the flesh by the contrast with
living according to the Spirit. But now Paul turns to the positive side. “But
you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since (ei[per, eiper)
the Spirit of God dwells in you” (v. 9a). The conjunction ei[per (eiper)
is a compound of eij (ei, “if,” sometimes “since”) and per (per), the latter
an “enclitic particle, with intensive and extensive force (B-D-F sec. 107),”
found in the New Testament only in compounds with other particles. The
conjunction ei[per (eiper) means “if indeed, if after all, since”
(BDAG, s.v. ei[per, eiper ; eij, ei; and per, per). Paul assumes
that his readers are in fact “in the Spirit,” not “in the flesh,” that is, the
flesh that had been under the power of sin. But he reminds them of the
alternative. “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to
him” (v. 9b). Of this statement, Wesley says, “If any man have not the Spirit
of Christ - Dwelling and governing in him. He is none of his - He is not a
member of Christ; not a Christian; not in a state of salvation. A plain,
express declaration, which admits of no exception. He that hath ears to hear,
let him hear!” (op. cit., on v. 9). C. K. Barrett translates the phrase, “the
Spirit of Christ” (pneu:ma Cristou:, pneuma Christou) as “the Spirit that comes from Christ,”
thinking, perhaps, of something like the “genitive of origin and relationship”
(cf. Blass-Debrunner-Funk [BDF], A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature, 1961, sec. 162). Barrett adds, “It is
idle to seek a distinction between ‘Spirit of God’ and ‘Spirit of Christ.’ Each
is a correct description of what Paul means. The Spirit is the Spirit of God;
and it is only through Christ that the Spirit is known and received” (A
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Harper’s New Testament
Commentaries, 1957, on Rom. 8:9).
Barrett
says that “a more serious question is raised in the next verse,” that is, verse
10. Paul continues by saying, “But if (eij, ei) Christ is in
you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of
righteousness” (v. 10). Neil Elliott says, “Paul shifts from speaking of being
‘in Christ’ (v. 1) or in the Spirit to having the Spirit or Christ dwell
within oneself (6:22; 7:4)” (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007,
on Rom. 8:9-10). Three consecutive verses in this passage use conditional
particles, ei[per (eiper, v. 9) or eij (ei, vv. 10, 11,
cf. vv. 13, 17). The first, ei[per (eiper), as
discussed above is translated “since” (NRSV, International Standard Version,
cf. “if so be that” AV/KJV, “if indeed” NKJV, NASB, TNIV). But the instances of
eij (ei)
that follow are usually translated as “if,” with a notable exception: “Since
Christ lives within you, even though your body will die because of sin, your
spirit is alive because you have been made right with God” (8:10 New Living
Bible, 1997). William D. Mounce says of Greek “first-class conditional
sentences,” in which class each of these (vv. 9-11) would fall, that they are
called ‘conditions of fact.’ These sentences are saying that if
something is true, and let’s assume for the sake of the argument that it is
true, then such and such will occur.” But he adds, “Sometimes the apodosis
[i.e., the result, often introduced by ‘then’] is clearly true, and you can
translate ‘Since such and such, then such and such.’ At other times the
protasis [i.e., the ‘if’ clause] is not so obvious and you cannot use ‘since.’
(Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 2nd ed., 2003, p. 341)
Cullen I.
K. Story makes a distinction here between “a true condition” and “a possible
condition,” both introduced by eij (ei, “if”) (Greek
to Me, 1979, p. 202). Clearly, whether to translate with “if” or “since” is
a matter of the translator’s judgment within the context, and both are
represented in modern versions in each of these instances. But the point is
Paul’s description of the reality for one who has come to faith in Christ and
lives according to the Spirit. Wesley puts it this way: “Now if Christ be in
you - Where the Spirit of Christ is, there is Christ. The body indeed is dead -
Devoted to death. Because of sin - Heretofore committed. But the Spirit is life
- Already truly alive. Because of righteousness - Now attained. From Rom
8:13, St. Paul, having finished what he had begun, Rom 6:1,
describes purely the state of believers” (op. cit., on v. 10).
The third
conditional sentence here offers the promise of the Christian’s hope for
resurrection. “If (eij, ei) the Spirit of
him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the
dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells
in you. Among other benefits of grace noted here, Dayton adds the following,
with reference especially to verse 11:
The most urgent and wonderful aspect of redemption relates to the
spiritual. But that is not all. The Spirit’s work in the body of Christ brought
resurrection from the dead. The same is guaranteed to us by the Spirit dwelling
in us. Grace must eventually meet physical as well as spiritual needs. (op.
cit., p. 54)
Matthew
22:1-14
The Parable of the Wedding Banquet (Lk 14.15-24)
22:1 Once
more Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying: 2 “The kingdom of heaven may be
compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his slaves
to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not
come. 4 Again he sent other slaves, saying, 'Tell those who have been invited:
Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been
slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet.' 5 But they
made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, 6
while the rest seized his slaves, mistreated them, and killed them. 7 The king
was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their
city. 8 Then he said to his slaves, 'The wedding is ready, but those invited
were not worthy. 9 Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you
find to the wedding banquet.' 10 Those slaves went out into the streets and
gathered all whom they found, both good and bad; so the wedding hall was filled
with guests.
11 “But when the king came in to see the guests,
he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, 12 and he said to
him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?' And he was
speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot,
and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing
of teeth.' 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matthew 22:1-14, NRSV)
The
following comments are repeated here from July 5, 2009 (the Sunday closest to
July 6, Year One), when they were repeated from July 3, 2008 (Thursday in the
week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two), when comments were repeated
from December 7, 2007 (Friday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year
Two), when comments were repeated from July 8, 2007 (the Sunday closest to July
6, Year Two, when they were based on earlier comments that had been combined
with revision on July 6, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to
June 29, Year Two), from an E-mail sent December 4, 2003, for December 5,
2003.), from July 1, 2004 in an email sent June 28, 2004, for June 28-July 4,
and from December 2, 2005 (Friday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent,
Year Two).
For
recent comments on Luke’s version of this parable, see the Archive for November
8, 2009 (Sunday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year One). The
Parable of the Wedding Banquet (Mt. 22:1-14) is similar to Luke’s Parable of
the Great Dinner (Lk. 14:15-24) as the following table demonstrates:
|
The Parable of the Wedding Banquet / Great
Dinner † |
|
|
Matthew 22:1-14 * |
Luke 14:15-24 * |
|
22:1 Once more Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying: 2 “The
kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for
his son. 3 He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the
wedding banquet, but they would not come. 4 Again he sent other slaves, saying,
'Tell those who have been invited: Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen
and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the
wedding banquet.' 5 But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm,
another to his business, 6 while the rest seized his slaves, mistreated them,
and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those
murderers, and burned their city. 8 Then he said to his slaves, 'The wedding
is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you
find to the wedding banquet.' 10 Those slaves went out into the streets and
gathered all whom they found, both good and bad; so the wedding hall was
filled with guests. 11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a
man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, 12 and he said to him, 'Friend,
how did you get in here without a wedding robe?' And he was speechless. 13
Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him
into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
14 For many are called, but few are chosen |
15 One of the dinner guests, on hearing this, said to him,
“Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!” 16 Then Jesus
said to him, “Someone gave a great dinner and invited many. 17 At the time
for the dinner he sent his slave to say to those who had been invited, 'Come;
for everything is ready now.' 18 But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to
him, 'I have bought a piece of land, and I must go out and see it; please
accept my regrets.' 19 Another said, 'I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I
am going to try them out; please accept my regrets.' 20 Another said, 'I have
just been married, and therefore I cannot come.' 21 So the slave returned and
reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and
said to his slave, 'Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the town and
bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.' 22 And the slave
said, 'Sir, what you ordered has been done, and there is still room.' 23 Then
the master said to the slave, 'Go out into the roads and lanes, and compel
people to come in, so that my house may be filled. 24 For I tell you, none of
those who were invited will taste my dinner.' “ |
|
† Kurt Aland, Synopsis
of the Four Gospels, rev. printing, 1985, sec. 216, pp. 192-193 and sec.
279, pp. 244-245. * NRSV |
|
Matthew
includes this parable in his account of Jesus’ final ministry in Jerusalem
between the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mt. 21:33-46; Mk. 12:1-12; Lk.
20:9-19) and the account of the Question about Paying Taxes posed by the
Pharisees and Jesus’ response. Luke includes it as a part of Jesus’ teaching in
the extensive Travel Narrative (Lk. 9:51-18:14), between a section on Humility
and Hospitality (Lk. 14:7-14; cf. Jn. 5:29) and a section on the Cost of
Discipleship (Lk. 14:25-33; cf. Mt. 10:37-38). In Luke the setting is a meal in
“the house of a leader of the Pharisees” (Lk. 14:1), and thus it is implied
that those who refuse the invitation to the dinner (vv. 18-21) are people like
the Pharisees who reject Jesus’ message. But the setting in Matthew, following
the questioning of his authority by the chief priests and elders (Mt. 21:23-27),
the Parables of the Two Sons (vv. 28-32) and of the Wicked Tenants (vv. 33-44),
preceding a further series of hostile questions, about Paying Taxes (22:15-22),
the Resurrection (vv. 23-33), and the Greatest commandment (vv. 34-40), is
clearly directed against the Jewish leaders. The parable is introduced, as it
were, by the closing paragraph of the preceding chapter. “When; the chief
priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was
speaking about them. They wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowds,
because they regarded him as a prophet” (Mt. 21:45-46).
This
parable has two parts. The first (Mt. 22:1-10) emphasizes the king’s desire to
have guests for his son’s wedding, which we may take to represent God’s desire
that people recognize his Son Jesus and come into the Kingdom of God. He has
gone to great lengths to prepare for the banquet. He sends his slaves to invite
the guests (Mt. 22:2-3). But “they would not come” (v. 3). When the invitation
is repeated through other slaves (v. 4), “they made light of it and went away,
one to his farm, another for business, while the rest seized his slaves,
mistreated them, and killed them” (vv. 5-6). The king is profoundly
disappointed when people, for one reason (excuse) or another (v. 5), fail to
respond to his invitation. The behavior of “the rest” reminds us of the tenants
in the Parable of the Vineyard (Mt. 21:35-36). At this point in the story, the
king, “enraged, . . . sent his troops, destroyed those
murderers, and burned their city” (22:7), which apparently anticipates or
symbolizes the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army in A.D. 70.
The
reference to “the rest” who “seized his slaves, mistreated them, and killed
them” (v. 6) refers to the Jewish leaders who turned against him and to the
killing of the prophets (cf. Mt. 5:12). The parable comes after the Parable of
the Wicked Tenants (as noted above) and illustrates Matthew 21:43, “Therefore I
tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people
that produces the fruits of the kingdom.” It may be surprising that the troops
are called God’s troops in the parable, God being represented by the king. in
the parable. But though Nero, the emperor at the time, would surely not have
agreed, in or about A.D. 57 Paul said “those authorities that exist [including
Nero] have been instituted by God [i.e. the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible,
not the gods of Rome]” (Rom. 13:1). In the end, “street people” were gathered
for the feast (Mt. 22:10), but the one without the “wedding robe” was expelled
(vv. 11-14).
In the
second part (Mt. 22:11-14) the parable emphasizes the need for a proper
“wedding robe,” which we may take to represent preparedness for entering the
kingdom. While the invitation is extended to outsiders and marginal people,
“everyone you find” in “the main streets” (v. 9), it turns out that something
is necessary. In another context in Matthew, Jesus says, “For I tell you,
unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will
never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:20). Matthew 5:20 should be balanced,
perhaps, by another saying from Matthew:
Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens,
and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am
gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke
is easy, and my burden is light. (Mt. 11:28-30, NRSV)
Krister
Stendahl sees this “royal wedding feast” as “more eschatological [than] the
story” in Luke 14:16-24, where “a man gives a dinner” (Peake’s Commentary on
the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 690 l, p. 791, on Mt. 22:1-14). But
Luke prefaces the story with reference to the “messianic banquet” (Lk. 14:15),
as Stendahl also notes. “The wedding garment symbolizes the ethical quality
expected in the church (cf. Rev. 19:8) . . . The rational
problem of how they could have such garments, being ushered in from the
highways and by-ways, is irrelevant to Mt.” (ibid.). According to Dennis C.
Duling, HarperCollins Study Bible, 1st ed., 1993, on Mt.
23:11), “A wedding robe would not be expected of someone summoned off
the streets . . . it probably symbolizes a new way of life (see
Rom. 13:14; Gal 3:27-28; Col. 3:11-12). “The final words of the parable [v.
14],” says Duling, “serve as a warning against self-righteous arrogance among
God's new people” (ibid., on v. 14). Taking the wedding robe as symbolizing “a
new purity and a new holiness and a new goodness,” William Barclay says, “This
parable has nothing to do with the clothes in which we go to church; it
has everything to do with the spirit in which we go to God’s house” (The
Gospel of Matthew, The Daily Study Bible, rev. ed., vol. 2, p. 270 on Mt.
22:11-14). Barclay lists “garments of the mind and of the heart and of the
soul–the garment of expectation, the garment of humble penitence, the garment
of faith, the garment of reverence” (ibid., pp. 270-271).
Too often [he says], we go to God’s house with no preparation at
all; if every man and woman in our congregations came to church prepared to
worship, after a little prayer, a little thought, and a little
self-examination, then worship would be worship indeed–the worship in which and
through which things happen in men’s souls and in the life of the Church and in
the affairs of the world. (ibid., p. 271)
As noted
above, for the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the
Episcopal Readings in the file for June 17, 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