Daily Scripture Readings     

Saturday (July17, 2010)*

Daily Office Lectionary, The Book of Common Prayer, the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A., 1979; cf. The Revised Common Lectionary (RCL), Abingdon Press, 1992

Daily Lectionary, Book of Common Worship, the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., 1993

Daily Lectionary, Book of Worship Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship, c. 1978 (2002 printing) ‡

http://www.satucket.com/lectionary/index.htm

http://www.pcusa.org/cgi-bin/lectiond.cgi

YOU MAY NEED TO COPY AND PASTE THESE URLs IN YOUR BROWSER

 

‡ Daily Lectionary, Evangelical Lutheran Worship, ELCA, 2006. In the Evangelical Lutheran Worship book of 2006, the Daily Lectionary (pp. 1121-1153) is revised to correlate with the Sunday Lectionary (the Revised Common Lectionary) on the three year cycle: Year A, Year B (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.

 

Saturday

AM Psalm 30, 32

PM Psalm 42, 43

Joshua 6:1‑14

Rom. 13:1‑7

Matt. 26:26‑35

William White

http://www.satucket.com/lectionary/William_White.htm

Psalm 92:1‑4,11‑14

Jeremiah 3:15‑19; 1 Timothy 3:1‑10; John 21:15‑17

Eucharistic Readings:

Micah 2:1‑5 ; Psalm 10:1‑9, 18‑19;

Matthew 12:14‑21

 

Saturday

Morning: Psalms 104; 149

Joshua 6:1‑14

Rom. 13:1‑7

Matt. 26:26‑35

Evening Psalms 138; 98

 

Saturday

Morning Pss.: 63, 149

Num. 24:12‑25

Rom. 8:18‑25

Matt. 22:23‑40

Evening Pss.: 125, 90

 

 

 

Year C Daily Readings

Psalm 15

Genesis 14:1-16

Luke 8:4-10

* Saturday in the week of the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year Two

 

For the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for July 3, 2010, two weeks ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

 

Episcopal and Presbyterian Readings:

 

Joshua 6:1‑14

 

Jericho Taken and Destroyed

 

6:1 Now Jericho was shut up inside and out because of the Israelites; no one came out and no one went in. 2 The LORD said to Joshua, ASee, I have handed Jericho over to you, along with its king and soldiers. 3 You shall march around the city, all the warriors circling the city once. Thus you shall do for six days, 4 with seven priests bearing seven trumpets of rams= horns before the ark. On the seventh day you shall march around the city seven times, the priests blowing the trumpets. 5 When they make a long blast with the ram=s horn, as soon as you hear the sound of the trumpet, then all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city will fall down flat, and all the people shall charge straight ahead.@ 6 So Joshua son of Nun summoned the priests and said to them, ATake up the ark of the covenant, and have seven priests carry seven trumpets of rams= horns in front of the ark of the LORD.@ 7 To the people he said, AGo forward and march around the city; have the armed men pass on before the ark of the LORD.@

8 As Joshua had commanded the people, the seven priests carrying the seven trumpets of rams= horns before the LORD went forward, blowing the trumpets, with the ark of the covenant of the LORD following them. 9 And the armed men went before the priests who blew the trumpets; the rear guard came after the ark, while the trumpets blew continually. 10 To the people Joshua gave this command: AYou shall not shout or let your voice be heard, nor shall you utter a word, until the day I tell you to shout. Then you shall shout.@ 11 So the ark of the LORD went around the city, circling it once; and they came into the camp, and spent the night in the camp.

12 Then Joshua rose early in the morning, and the priests took up the ark of the LORD. 13 The seven priests carrying the seven trumpets of rams= horns before the ark of the LORD passed on, blowing the trumpets continually. The armed men went before them, and the rear guard came after the ark of the LORD, while the trumpets blew continually. 14 On the second day they marched around the city once and then returned to the camp. They did this for six days. (Joshua 6:1-14, NRSV)

 

The following comments are repeated here from July 19, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from July 22, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year Two), when some comments were repeated from July 17, 2004, in an email sent July 17, 2004, for July 17 and 18.

 

The readings for today and tomorrow, Joshua chapter 6, report the Israelite capture of Jericho. Carol Meyers briefly summarizes the chapter: “The LORD gives specific instructions to Joshua in language combining ritual with warfare. Joshua then carries out the commands, vanquishing Jericho and instituting the ‘cherem,’ the complete annihilation of the enemy, but, following the promise of ch. 2, sparing Rahab and her family” (The Jewish Study Bible, p. 473 on Josh. 6:1-27).

 

“Now Jericho was shut up inside and out because of the Israelites,” we are told; “no one came out and no one went in” (Josh. 6:1). This describes a city under siege, but not by siege-mounds; rather, the inhabitants were trapped by fear of the Israelites (cf. 2:10-11). According to Herbert G. May, “Jericho was shut up not because it was as yet under siege, but in anticipation of attack by Israel. ‘From within and from without’ [‘inside and out’ NRSV] was interpreted to mean that both exit and entrance were barred” (Peake=s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprint 1972, sec. 253 k, p. 294, on Josh. 6:1-7).

 

In essence, the LORD claims victory for the Israelites from the outset. “The LORD said to Joshua, ‘See, I have handed Jericho over to you, along with its king and soldiers’ ” (6:2). The LORD continues with instructions that sound less like a plan for battle, and more like a religious processional. “You shall march around the city, all the warriors circling the city once. Thus you shall do for six days, with seven priests bearing seven trumpets of rams= horns before the ark” (vv. 3, 4a). “On the seventh day,” Joshua is told, “you shall march around the city seven times, the priests blowing the trumpets” (v. 4b). Meyers comments on the number “seven,” which “appears 14 times (2 x 7) in ch. 6Bto indicate days, priests, ram=s horns, and circuits of the city. As a biblical idiom for completeness, seven might function as a magical number, but also denotes the totality of the ensuing territorial possession” (op. cit., on v. 4). According to K. Lawson Younger, “the preponderance of ‘sevens’ recalls the seven days of creation (Gen. 1), implying the creation of a new order in the land and continuing the ritual land claim of 3:1-5:12” (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 6:6-27). And Meyers comments on “ram’s horns, or shofars, [which] are battle trumpets here (cf. Judg. 6:34) but are more often used to signal worship in the Bible. In Num. 10:9, trumpets play an analogous role” (loc. cit.). Here, says the LORD, “When they make a long blast with the ram=s horn, as soon as you hear the sound of the trumpet, then all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city will fall down flat, and all the people shall charge straight ahead” (Josh. 6:5).

 

Much later another battle is described as won by praise and worship, or rather by the LORD (AThis battle is not for you to fight,@ 2 Chron. 20:17) as the people look on while “the Levites of the Kohathites and the Korahites stood up to praise the LORD, the God of Israel, with a very loud voice” (2 Chron. 20:19) and “those who were to sing [as appointed by Jehoshaphat] to the LORD and praise him in holy splendor” sang “Give thanks to the LORD, / for his steadfast love endures forever” (2 Chron. 20:21). (I turned to 2 Chron. 20 after a reference given by Rev. Cheryl Ivory.)

 

From the human point of view, this all sounds like a very strange battle plan, but God was on Israel=s side from the encounter of Joshua with “the commander of the army of the LORD” (Josh. 5:13‑15). As directed by the LORD, Joshua instructs the priests and the people. He “summoned the priests and said to them, ‘Take up the ark of the covenant, and have seven priests carry seven trumpets of rams= horns’ ” (v. 6). And he addresses the people: “Go forward and march around the city; have the armed men pass on before the ark of the LORD” (v. 7).

 

 The people and priests carry out Joshua=s instructions. “As Joshua had commanded the people, the seven priests carrying the seven trumpets of rams= horns before the LORD went forward, blowing the trumpets, with the ark of the covenant of the LORD following them” (v. 8). If it sounds like a religious processional, it also has aspects of a military advance. “And the armed men went before the priests who blew the trumpets; the rear guard came after the ark, while the trumpets blew continually” (v. 9). A further command to the people calls for silence until the signal to shout. “To the people Joshua gave this command: ‘You shall not shout or let your voice be heard, nor shall you utter a word, until the day I tell you to shout. Then you shall shout’ ” (v. 10). And the first circuit of the city is reported. “So the ark of the LORD went around the city, circling it once; and they came into the camp, and spent the night in the camp” (v. 11)

 

As the story continues, “Joshua rose early in the morning, and the priests took up the ark of the LORD” (v. 12). They follow the LORD=s instructions, for “the seven priests carrying the seven trumpets of rams= horns before the ark of the LORD passed on, blowing the trumpets continually. The armed men went before them, and the rear guard came after the ark of the LORD, while the trumpets blew continually” (v. 13). This was apparently the second circuit of the city, counted in verse 14 (unless the circuit in v. 11 was preliminary). “On the second day,” says the narrator, “they marched around the city once and then returned to the camp. They did this for six days” (v. 14).

 

Robert G. Boling refers to this “highly polished story” and adds, “The first victory of the Yahweh army west of the Jordan had symbolic importance out of all proportion to the size of the actual enterprise” (Joshua, Anchor Bible, vol. 6, 1982, pp. 204-205 on Josh. 6:1-27). In our own lives we want to be sure we are to be found having made the right choice according to Joshua=s later challenge. “Choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served . . . but as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD” (Josh. 24:15).

 

Romans 13:1‑7

 

Being Subject to Authorities

 

13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4 for it is God=s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God=s servants, busy with this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is due them‑taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. (Romans 13:1-7, NRSV)

 

The following comments are repeated here from February 12, 2010 (Friday in the week of the Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two), when relevant comments were repeated from July 19, and 21, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, and Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two), when comments were based on earlier comments, as noted there.

 

We are directed to “be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God” (Rom. 13:1). Paul gives a reason for this advice: “Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment” (v. 2). And he explains: “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad” (v. 3a). As a practical matter, then, we are advised: “Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God=s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer” (vv. 3b, 4).

 

But Paul advises obedience to the government not only as a matter of expedience, a way to avoid punishmentBto stay out of jail, so to speak--but as a matter of conscience. “Therefore,” he says, “one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience” (v. 5). And Paul lists a series of duties in this regard. “For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God=s servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due themBtaxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due” (vv. 6-7).

 

Most of us probably think that means, “Submit to the government,” meaning the present, existing government, where you are. We are familiar with a history of admonitions to obey the government, and also a history of civil disobedience on the part of those who appeal to a “higher power,” which, in the best sense would mean that they disobey the government as a matter of conscience. Early Quakers, including George Fox, refused to participate in war, as a matter of conscience, or to pay “tithes” (i.e. taxes) for the support of the state-sponsored Anglican Church. More recently, many European persons defied the Nazi conquerors or governments by protecting Jews from genocide.

 

T. W. Manson says, “It is a debated question whether ‘the governing authorities’ refers to the State alone or ‘to the State and to the angel powers which stand behind it’ ” (Peake=s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 825 f, p. 950, citing Oscar Cullmann). Manson adds, “In counseling obedience to the Imperial Government he may be held to imply obedience to the spiritual powers behind it; butBand this is the vital pointBsuch obedience can be given by Christians to these authorities, of whatever kind they may be, only in so far as their commands are consistent with the rule of Christ. God is the supreme Power. . . . All other power or authority is derivative, either authorized or permitted by him. Hence resistance to legitimate authority legitimately exercised is wrong.” Manson says further, “It is assumed in these verses that the State is doing its appointed task of maintaining order and administering justice; and when Romans was written a case could be made that the Roman Empire was doing its duty by its subjects.”

 

 It is helpful to consider the circumstances within which Paul gave the advice presented in this paragraph (Rom. 13:1-7). For various reasons we should date the writing in the spring of A.D. 57, near the end of his third missionary journey as reported by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. Paul writes to a Christian community in Rome, the capital city of the empire, that he had not previously visited, let alone founded. But it is evident from the list of persons in Romans 16, that he knew several people there. Earlier, the emperor Claudius had expelled the Jews from the city of Rome (Acts 18:2), an action that, according to Christopher R. Matthews, “can probably be dated to 49 CE [i.e., AD 49]” (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Acts 18:12). When Claudius died in AD 54Bwhen he was murdered, to be precise, by his wife Agrippina, “who wanted to advance her son Nero to the throne” (Ben Witherington III, with Darlene Hyatt, Paul=s Letter to the Romans; A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 2004, p. 305, in an excursus related to Romans, chapter 3)Bthe Jews were permitted to return. Whether the expulsion edict applied to all ethnic Jews, or to prominent Jews, and whether, or to what extent Christian Jews such as Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2) were involved, are questions still debated. But the point here is that the return of Jews permitted in AD 54 was only three years before Paul=s writing of Romans. The position of Paul=s Jewish Christian friends in Rome, for example, Prisca [Priscilla] and Aquila (Rom. 16:3), Mary (v. 6), Andronicus and Junia (v. 7) and others, may have still been rather tenuous at best. So one reason for the advice Paul gives may be to avoid calling the attention of the society at large, and the government in particular, to the Christian community.

 

But more than expediency is involved here. The question faced by many early Christians was this: Who is Lord, Caesar, or Christ? In another context, says Paul, “no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3b). Later Christians would face the question on the pain of martyrdom. N. T. Wright suggests that to understand Romans 13:1-7 in the way we have often understood it is to be misled. “Romans 13:1‑7 has of course long been regarded as the one point at which Paul nods in the direction of Caesar, and the nod appears quite respectful. This, obviously, I consider radically misleading” (“Paul and Caesar: A New Reading of Romans,” originally published in A Royal Priesthood: The Use of the Bible Ethically and Politically, ed. C. Bartholemew, 2002, Carlisle: Paternoster, 173B193; now on the internet, ntwrightpage, “reproduced with permission by the author,” at http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Paul_Caesar_Romans.htm, accessed again, July 17, 2010).

 

Wright makes several points in support of his position. Quoting one or two may suffice for the present purpose.

 

Second, to say that the ruler is answerable to God is itself a Jewish point over against pagan ruler‑cult. Caesar did not, normally, owe allegiance to anyone except himself, and perhaps, though at a surface level, the traditional Roman gods. Paul declares, with massive Jewish tradition behind him, that Caesar is in fact responsible to the true God, whether or not he knows it. This is an undermining of pagan totalitarianism, not a reinforcement of it.

 

Third, the power and duty of the ruler qua [as] ruler is emphasized in the context of the prohibition against personal vengeance at the end of the previous chapter (12:19‑21). What Paul says at this point belongs on the map of one of the regular theories as to why magistracy matters: without it, everyone will take the law into their own hands. (ibid.)

 

Nero became emperor at the age of sixteen, “and so,” according to Witherington, “required advisors and those who would serve in a sense as his guardians. His military advisor was A. Burrus, and Seneca, the Stoic philosopher, served as a spiritual and moral advisor” (loc. cit.). He ruled from AD 54 to 68. Due largely to his advisors, his early years were relatively calm. While hardly a model of virtue and justice, he had not yet made Christians scapegoats for the burning of Rome and turned them into torches to light his garden. Even so, Nero himself would likely have rejected out of hand that his authority came from the Judeo-Christian God. Under another oppressive emperor, Domitian (81‑96), John describes a situation in which the government is demonic. “They worshiped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshiped the beast, saying, ‘Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?’ ” (Rev. 13:4). “The beast . . . opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God” (Rev. 13:5‑6). Under such a government, one may not have much choice, but submission is surely not required. The Nazi government of Germany in World War II is certainly a case in point. And what can we say about more recent cases of Genocide?

 

Matthew 26:26‑35

 

The Institution of the Lord=s Supper (Mk 14.22‑26; Lk 22.14‑23; 1 Cor 11.23‑26)

 

26 While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, ATake, eat; this is my body.@ 27 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, ADrink from it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father=s kingdom.@

30 When they had sung the hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

 

Peter=s Denial Foretold (Mk 14.27‑31; Lk 22.31‑34; Jn 13.36‑38)

 

31 Then Jesus said to them, AYou will all become deserters because of me this night; for it is written,

>I will strike the shepherd,

and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.=

32 But after I am raised up, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.@ 33 Peter said to him, AThough all become deserters because of you, I will never desert you.@ 34 Jesus said to him, ATruly I tell you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.@ 35 Peter said to him, AEven though I must die with you, I will not deny you.@ And so said all the disciples. (Matthew 26:26-35, NRSV)

 

The following comments are repeated here from July 19, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year Two), when comments were repeated from July 22, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year Two). The Gospel texts for today are included with yesterday=s texts and parallel passages from Mark and Luke in a table in the separate file, Passover-Lord's Supper.

 

 As noted yesterday, the occasion which began with preparations for the Passover meal takes on new significance. It becomes the Institution of the Lord=s Supper (Mt. 26:26‑29: Mk. 14:22-25; Lk. 22:15-20). One can perhaps assume that elements of the Seder service such as the bitter herbs were a part of the meal, but what is dipped in the bowl (Mt. 26:23) is identified by Mark as Abread@ (Mk. 14:20). It is clearly stated that the preparations were for eating the Passover (Mt. 26:17, 19; Mk. 12:14-16; Lk. 22:8-9, 11-13), but the only indication that they ate the meal as such is Jesus= statement, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer” (Lk. 22:15), which apparently represents a special Lukan emphasis on the continuity between the Passover and the Lord=s Supper. By including Jesus= words, “for I tell you, I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Lk. 22:16), According to Marion Lloyd Soards, Luke underscores the connection forward as well as backward. “Jesus thinks of the meal as pointing forward to the meal celebrating the fulfilling of God=s kingdom (12:37n; 13:28-29; 14:15; 22:28-30)” (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Lk. 22:16). Luke includes reference to eating and drinking “at my table in my kingdom” (Lk. 22:30; cf. vv. 28-30) in this context, along with the discussion of who is the greatest and the need rather to serve (vv. 24-27; cf. Jn. 13:4-5, 12-17), which Matthew and Mark include elsewhere (Mt. 20:24-28; 19:28; Mk. 10:41-45). Luke perhaps reveals here his interest in mealtime protocol, a feature of Jesus= teaching on humility illustrated by instructions about whether to take the “place of honor” when invited “to a wedding banquet” (Lk. 14:8; cf. vv. 7-14, only in Luke).

 

In the account of the Lord=s Supper, Matthew and Mark proceed immediately to the Words of Institution. Jesus first breaks the bread, saying “Take, eat; this is my body” (Mt. 26:26b; Mk. 14:22b; cf Lk. 22:19). Luke first has Jesus taking a “cup, and after giving thanks [saying] ‘Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes’ ” (Lk. 22:17-18), before the reference to the bread (v. 19), which is followed by another reference to the cup (v. 20). Matthew and Mark use the reference to drinking “of the fruit of the vine” (Mk. 14:25; cf. Mt. 26:29; Lk. 22:18) in the future “kingdom of God” in connection with their reference to the cup (Mk. 14:24; cf. Mt. 26:28) as does Luke (22:17), but the sequence is different. For Matthew and Mark it is the bread first, then the cup; for Luke it is the cup, the bread, then the cup again. The sequence with the bread first, then the cup, appears in Paul=s account of the Last Supper (1 Cor. 11:23-26). Luke=s special interest in the future aspect (see above) may have led him to begin with a reference to the cup, but then to return to the cup in the order attested by the other witnesses. Soards has a somewhat different explanation.

 

Some Jewish meals included prayers over the cup of wine, and several such prayers might be offered during the meal (see v. 20). Luke=s order of events may be related to this practice, or to a variation among early Christians in the way they remembered and observed the ‘Lord=s supper.’ Jesus transformed a Jewish devotional meal into a continuing expression of association with himself in death and victory. (op. cit., on Lk. 22:17)

 

We should note that the early manuscripts vary in the order of elements in Luke 22:17-20, some omitting all or part of verses 19b, 20 (cf. NRSV text note c) with a two-part sequence of the cup followed by the bread. Krister Stendahl comments on the Words of Institution of the Lord=s Supper, noting the similarities between the words of institution in Matthew and Mark, but also that in Matthew they

 

are somewhat more symmetrical and transform the descriptive phrase in Mk. 14:23b into a command, i.e. [they have] a more developed liturgical formula, with the addition ‘for the remission of sins,’ an element which was conspicuously missing in [Mt.] 3:2 where Mk. and Lk. mention it in relation to John=s baptism. To Mt. the forgiveness of sins was apparently tied to the ‘new covenant’ through Jesus Christ. (Peake=s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 693 h, p. 795 on Mt. 26:26-30)

 

During the meal, a most intimate form of fellowship, “dipping bread into the bowl” together, becomes a sign of Judas= impending betrayal (vv. 18, 20). But for many, the primary focus in this reading is on the “words of institution” of the Lord=s Supper. Mark=s version (Mk. 14:22-25) seems rather brief, but it is quite close to Matthew=s version (Mt. 26:26-29). Minor variations in wording hardly change the sense, for example: “after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said” (eujloghvsaV e[klasen kai; e[dwken aujtoi:V kai; ei\pen, eulog‘sas eklasen kai edÇken autois kai eipen, Mk. 14;22); “after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said” (eujloghvsaV e[klasen kai; dou;V toi:V mathtai:V ei\pen, eulog‘sas eklasen kai dous tois math‘tais eipen, Mt. 26:26). Matthew=s participle douvV (dous) gets the same English translation as Mark=s finite verb and conjunction e[dwken . . . kaiv (edÇken. . . kai). Matthew uses the noun, “the disciples” where Mark uses the pronoun “them.” There are other minor differences, but the one difference of significance is Matthew=s inclusion of the words “for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt. 26:28; cf. Mk. 14:24). Neither uses the word “new” with the word “covenant” (Mk. 14:24; Mt. 26:28); compare “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Lk. 22:20). “For Matthew,” says J. Andrew Overman, “it is not a new covenant the Supper initiates: Jesus= death and resurrection is the clear fulfillment of God=s historic and ancient covenant with the people of Israel” (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 26:28).

 

 A Jewish author, C. G. Montefiore, offers a remarkableBif somewhat predictableBinterpretation of this occasion:

 

In his narrative of the Last Supper Matthew follows Mark very closely. The only important addition is the words >for the forgiveness of sins= at the end of [v.] 28. The object of his death is the forgiveness of the sins of many. His death is a sin offering. The covenant is ratified by the shed blood . Cp. Exodus xxiv. 8. ‘Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said, Behold the blood of the covenant which Yahweh has made with you.’ Blood, according to ancient ideas, had in itself an atoning efficacy. Cp. Lev. xvii. ‘The life of the flesh is in the blood: I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life.’ (The Synoptic Gospels, Library of Biblical Studies, 2nd ed., 1968, vol. II, p. 331 on Mt. 26:26-29)

 

Montefiore thus zeroes in on what is the main significance for most Christians. But he continues with a criticism of the implied old “priestly” superstition.

 

It is odd that round Jesus, who was so ‘prophetic’ a teacher, so superior to ‘priestly’ superstitions, these old superstitions should so quickly have clustered. The ‘atoning efficacy of the blood of Jesus’ has been believed in by millions for centuries. ‘Without shedding of blood,’ says the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ‘there is no remission.’ One feels that Jesus would have repudiated such a doctrine with scorn, and that he never said anything about his death which contained, or was meant to contain, any reference to, or belief in, such a doctrine. (ibid.)

 

Montefiore thus apparently follows a “modernist” approach to biblical interpretation which has some affinity with the more radical aspects of modern liberal Protestant interpretation. I should point out that his quotation from Hebrews (9:22) is really a comment on the system of sacrifices described in the Pentateuch, especially in Leviticus. There is implied connection with the understanding of Jesus= death, but “blood” as such is a symbol for Jesus= offering of himself, his “body” (Heb. 10:5, 10). Putting it that way still probably does not remove the sting from what Montefiore calls a “superstition,” but a proper understanding of the matter is on the moral and spiritual, not the physical, level. “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). “Moral defilement cannot be removed by material means,” says F. F. Bruce (The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT, rev. ed., 1990, p. 238 on Heb. 10:4). It is probably fair to say that Montefiore is criticizing a rather literalistic understanding of Hebrews at this point. “Judaism,” says Montefiore, “after the fall of the temple had no need or use for any doctrine about atonement or forgiveness being secured by blood” (Montefiore, pp. 331-332) He adds:

 

All God needs is repentance and amendment. Those who show repentance and amendment will be forgiven; modern Jews would add, whether they ‘believe in’ Jesus or do not believe in Jesus. That is pure prophetic teaching: nothing less, and above all, nothing more. (Montefiore, p. 332)

 

But the Epistle to the Hebrews interprets Christ=s giving of his “body” as an act of obedience. “See, I have come to do your will” (Heb. 10:9, repeated from v. 7, where it is cited from Ps. 40:8 [LXX 39:9]). We Christians look “to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb. 12:2).

 

After the meal, as they begin to move toward the Mount of Olives and Gethsemane, Jesus= prediction that “you will all become deserters because of me” (Mt. 26:31; Mk. 14:27; cf. the ref. to sifting ‘all of you,’ Lk. 22:31) is followed by Peter=s assertion, “Though all become deserters . . . I will never desert you” (Mt. 26:33; cf. Mk. 14:29; Lk. 22:33) and Jesus= prediction of his denial (Mt. 26:34; Mk. 14:30; Lk. 22:34). As the prediction of Judas= betrayal was earlier connected with prophecy and the divine plan (Mt. 26:24; Mk. 14:21; Lk 22:22), so is the prediction of Peter=s denial (Mt. 26:31, citing Zech. 13:7). We know that Peter=s brash promise didn=t stand the test, but he later found a place of repentance and proved to be a courageous leader in the church.

 

As noted above, for the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for July 3, 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