Daily Scripture Readings     

Wednesday (July21, 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

‡ 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.

Wednesday

AM Psalm 119:49-72

PM Psalm 49, [53]

Joshua 8:30-35

Rom. 14:13-23

Matt. 26:57-68

[Albert Luthuli]

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

Psalm 122

Numbers 20:9-11; Ephesians 2:12-17; John 16:25-33

Eucharistic Readings:

Jeremiah 1:1, 4-10; Psalm 7:1-6, 15-17;

Matt. 13:1-9

Wednesday

Morning: Psalms 15; 147:1-11

Joshua 8:30-35

Rom. 14:13-23

Matt. 26:57-68

Evening: Psalms 48; 4

Wednesday

Morning Pss.: 89:1-18; 147:1-12

Deuteronomy 1:1-18

Romans 9:1-18

Matthew 23:27-39

Evening Pss.: 1,33

 

Year C Daily Readings

Psalm 119:97-104

Deuteronomy 12:1-12

John 6:41-51

* Wednesday in the week of the Eighth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for July 7, 2010, two weeks ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

 

Episcopal and Presbyterian Readings:

 

Joshua 8:30 -35

 

Joshua Renews the Covenant (Cp Deut 27.4 -5)

 

            30 Then Joshua built on Mount Ebal an altar to the LORD, the God of Israel, 31 just as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded the Israelites, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, “an altar of unhewn stones, on which no iron tool has been used”; and they offered on it burnt offerings to the LORD, and sacrificed offerings of well -being. 32 And there, in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua wrote on the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he had written. 33 All Israel, alien as well as citizen, with their elders and officers and their judges, stood on opposite sides of the ark in front of the levitical priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, half of them in front of Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded at the first, that they should bless the people of Israel. 34 And afterward he read all the words of the law, blessings and curses, according to all that is written in the book of the law. 35 There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the aliens who resided among them. (Joshua 8:30-35, NRSV)

 

The following comments are repeated here from July 23, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from July 26, 2006 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two):

 

After the victory over Ai, Joshua takes the tribes some twenty miles to Mount Ebal where he builds an altar. “Then,” we are told, “Joshua built on Mount Ebal an altar to the LORD, the God of Israel, just as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded the Israelites, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, ‘an altar of unhewn stones, on which no iron tool has been used’; and they offered on it burnt offerings to the LORD and sacrificed offerings of well-being” (Josh. 8:30-31). Earlier, Moses had given instructions: “On the day that you cross over the Jordan into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall set up large stones and cover them with plaster. You shall write on them all the words of this law when you have crossed over, to enter the land that the LORD your God is giving you, a land flowing with milk and honey as the LORD, the God of your ancestors, promised you” (Deut. 27:2-3). Moses added instructions about the construction and location of the altar. “So when you have crossed over the Jordan, you shall set up these stones, about which I am commanding you today, on Mount Ebal, and you shall cover them with plaster. And you shall build an altar there to the LORD your God, an altar of stones on which you have not used an iron tool” (vv. 4-5). And Moses gave further instructions about the stones for the altar, and for the sacrifices. “You must build the altar of the LORD your God of unhewn stones. Then offer up burnt offerings on it to the LORD your God, make sacrifices of well-being, and eat them there, rejoicing before the LORD your God” (vv. 6-7). And a final instruction in this Deuteronomy context says, “You shall write on the stones all the words of this law very clearly.

 

According to Carol Meyers, “The altar of unhewn stones fits the guidelines of Exod. 20:22 and fulfills the directive of Moses in Deut. 27:5” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 478 on Josh. 8:31). Meyers adds that the specified sacrifices, “burnt offerings . . . and . . . offerings of well-being” (v. 31b) “replicate the sacrifices ordered by Moses after he wrote all the words of the covenant at Mt. Sinai (Exod. 24:3-5)” (ibid.). So the sacrifices are offered, and Joshua follows Moses’ final instruction. “And there, in the presence of the Israelites [he] wrote on the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he had written” (Josh. 8:32). According to Meyers, “the stones” upon which Joshua wrote were

 

not the altar stones but rather those intended for the copy of the Teaching to be inscribed on stone when the Israelites cross the Jordan according to Moses’ instructions (Deut. 27:2-3). Since these stones could not hold a complete copy of the Torah or even all of Deuteronomy, it is unclear exactly what was written on them. This topic is the subject of much debate and discussion in rabbinic and medieval Jewish commentary. (op. cit., pp. 478-479 on Josh. 8:32)

 

There is, perhaps, a connection between this event and the placement of tablets of stone bearing the Ten Commandments in front of modern synagogues.

 

For the covenant renewal, says the narrator, “all Israel, alien as well as citizen, with their elders and officers and their judges, stood on opposite sides of the ark in front of the levitical priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, half of them in front of Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded at the first, that they should bless the people of Israel” (v. 33). According to Robert G. Boling, revised by Richard D. Nelson, the words, “alien as well as citizen,” that is, “the inclusive assembly (see also v. 35; Deut. 31:12) reflects Deuteronomy’s concern for an egalitarian public policy” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Josh. 8:33). After the sacrifices and the gathering of the people, Joshua “read all the words of the law, blessings and curses, according to all that is written in the book of the law” (v. 34). K. Lawson Younger says, for the “blessings and curses, see Deut 27:11-13; 28; cf. Lev. 26:3-39” (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Josh. 8:34). “There was not a word,” says the narrator, “of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the aliens who resided among them” (v. 35). This scene, says Younger, is “patterned after the ritual of Deut. 31:9-13” (ibid., on v. 35).

 

According to J. Gordon Harris, “The most important aspect of building an altar and the renewal ceremony in Joshua 8 is that the people fulfilled the commands of Moses. Joshua follows Moses’ instructions by building an altar of uncut stones on which no iron tool had been used (Josh. 8:31 [citing the NIV]; Deut. 27). Copying the law on stone makes everyone responsible for covenant requirements (Deut. 27-31)” (“Joshua,” in Joshua, Judges, Ruth, by J. Harris, C. Brown, and M. Moore, New International Biblical Commentary, 2000, p. 59, on Josh. 8:30-35).

 

Joshua’s obedience stands out in bold relief when compared with Achan’s disobedience. The fact that such a journey, twenty miles, was possible demonstrates that Canaan was not a unified kingdom but a collection of separate city-states. As we look ahead, we see Joshua’s battle with the five kings of the south (chap. 10) and his victories in the north (chap. 11), but no battles in central Canaan near Mounts Ebal and Gerizim. Perhaps some memory of Jacob’s stay near Shechem (Gen. 33:18 -34:31) served to prevent military hostilities in that area, where Joshua would again later gather all the tribes for a renewal of the covenant (Josh. 24:1).

 

Romans 14:13 -23

 

Do Not Make Another Stumble

 

            13 Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let your good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 The one who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and has human approval. 19 Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. 20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for you to make others fall by what you eat; 21 it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother or sister stumble. 22 The faith that you have, have as your own conviction before God. Blessed are those who have no reason to condemn themselves because of what they approve. 23 But those who have doubts are condemned if they eat, because they do not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:13-23, NRSV)

 

In the following, relevant comments are repeated from those on Romans 14:1-23 of February 13, 2010 (Saturday in the week of the Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two), when comments were repeated from May 14 and 15, 2009 (Thursday and Friday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Easter, Year One), when comments were repeated from July 22 and 23, 2008 (Tuesday and Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two), and from earlier, as noted there. (Compare yesterday’s comments based on the earlier part of the February 13, 2010 comments.)

 

In yesterday’s reading the readers were urged not to pass judgment on other Christians for not eating meat or for observance of special days. The advice continues today. “Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another” (Rom. 14:13). With the advice about not judging people for eating meat or eating only vegetables in mind (vv. 2-3), Paul presents an added consideration. “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean” (v. 14). While similar advice is given to the Corinthian church about the eating of meat offered to idols (1 Cor. 8:1-13; cf. 10:14-22), the issues are different–rules about kosher food for Jews in Romans, the appearance of participating in idolatry in 1 Corinthians–but an underlying principle is the same. One should live according to his or her conscience, and one should not encourage, even by example, others–called “the weak” in both contexts–to act in ways contrary to their own conscience. “If your brother or sister is being injured by what you eat,” says Paul, “you are no longer walking in love” (v. 15a). And he adds, “Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died” (v. 15b). It has been suggested (by Krister Stendahl in various lectures) that the issue of whether to eat certain foods discussed in this chapter relates to Kosher food laws, whereas the similar issue in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 was about whether to eat meat from animals sacrificed in the pagan temples. Someone might consider himself or herself as enlightened in thinking that eating the food in question is a matter of indifference, morally and ethically speaking. But Paul says, “do not let your good be spoken of as evil” (v. 16). According to Barrett, “To insist upon one’s freedom without regard to the scruples of others is not only to fail in the primary Christian virtue of love but to misunderstand the real basis of the Christian faith . . . Faith is not ‘faith to eat all things’ (v. 2); Christian privilege is not the privilege of being able to eat and drink what one likes” (op. cit., on Rom. 14:16-17).

 

“For the kingdom of God,” says Paul–a phrase he uses infrequently as compared with the Gospels (only here in Rom.; cf. 1 Cor. 4:20; 6:9, 10; 15:50; Gal. 5:21; Col. 4:11; 2 Thess. 1:5; and cf. similar phrases, 1 Cor. 15:24; Eph. 5:5; Col. 1:13;1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Tim. 4:1, 18), “is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 4:17). Barrett, who also notes the distribution of this phrase in Paul’s writings, says “it [i.e., ‘the kingdom of God’] often refers to the future, occasionally (as here) to the present.” He adds:

 

The infrequent usage is against the view (Denney) that the phrase could here almost be translated ‘the Christian religion’. (i) Reference to the kingdom emphasizes that the life of faith, though it is truly a life of freedom, is nevertheless life under the rule of God. Christian freedom is gained by presenting one’s members as slaves to God (vi. 13). (ii) It was recognized by at least some Jews (e.g. in Berakoth, 17a) that ‘in the Age to Come there is neither eating nor drinking . . .’. If this was true of the Age to Come, conditions in the kingdom of God as anticipated in the present age could not be radically different. (ibid., on v. 17)

 

Too much emphasis on the privilege of eating what one likes “without religious scruple,” concludes Barrett, “is to fall into error as serious as that of reverting to Jewish food laws.” He refers to Gal. 6:15, “which also throws light on the reference to the Holy Spirit, by whom the anticipation of the kingdom of God in the present is effected ([Rom.] viii. 23)” (ibid.). “The one who thus serves Christ,” says Paul, “is acceptable to God and has human approval” (v. 18).

 

As Paul’s exhortations continue, he reiterates: “Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (v. 19). “Do not,” he says, “for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for you to make others fall by what you eat; it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother or sister fall” (vv. 20-21). Witherington quotes N.T. Wright here: “Wright,” he says, “calls vv. 19-21 a second coat of paint on the same argument [n. 56: ‘Wright, “Romans,” p. 741], and he is correct [says Witherington] that Paul is reiterating some things here. Every effort must be made to behave in a way that makes for peace and leads to the upbuilding of one’s fellow Christians” (op. cit., on Rom. 14:19-21).

 

As he concludes this section, Paul commends having faith and a clear conscience. “The faith that you have, have as your own conviction before God. Blessed are those who have no reason to condemn themselves because of what they approve” (v. 22). One should have clear convictions, and live by them. But Paul recognizes the issues related to doubt. “But those who have doubts are condemned if they eat, because they do not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (v. 23). Acting contrary to one’s convictions amounts to disobeying God, it seems. Some may not see the relevance of needing to respect the commitment of others to observance of kosher food laws, or perhaps to a vegetarian life style. But from Paul’s treatment of this specific concern, in all likelihood based on his experience in other churches, if not yet in Rome, we can derive a general principle. When we find ourselves in a situation where honest convictions and scruples differ within the group, love, peace and mutual upbuilding should guide our actions.

 

Matthew 26:57 -68

 

Jesus before the High Priest (Mk 14.53 -65; Lk 22.66 -71; Jn 18.12 -14, 19 -24)

 

57 Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, in whose house the scribes and the elders had gathered. 58 But Peter was following him at a distance, as far as the courtyard of the high priest; and going inside, he sat with the guards in order to see how this would end. 59 Now the chief priests and the whole council were looking for false testimony against Jesus so that they might put him to death, 60 but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward 61 and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’ “ 62 The high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?” 63 But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you,

From now on you will see the Son of Man

seated at the right hand of Power

and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your verdict?” They answered, “He deserves death.” 67 Then they spat in his face and struck him; and some slapped him, 68 saying, “Prophesy to us, you Messiah! Who is it that struck you?” Matthew 26:57-68, NRSV)

 

The following comments are repeated here from July 23, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two), when comments were repeated some editing and supplement from July 26, 2006 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two). For recent comments on Mark’s version of this trial, see the Archive for August 31, 2009 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One). For recent comments on Luke’s version, see the Archive for June 30, 2009 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One). For a table of parallel texts of the trial before Caiaphas (or before Annas and then Caiaphas), see the separate file, Jesus’ Trial before Caiaphas.

 

According to Matthew, after his arrest Jesus was taken “to Caiaphas the high priest, in whose house the scribes and the elders had gathered” (Mt. 26:57). Mark’s version is similar, but though he refers to “the high priest” six times in this chapter (Mk. 14:53 here, and vv. 43, 60, 61, 63, 66), he never uses the name “Caiaphas.” Luke’s wording refers in general to “chief priests and scribes” who were “gathered together, and . . . brought him to their council” (Lk. 22:66). But John not only names Caiaphas (Jn. 18:13, 14, 24, 28), but also his “father-in-law,” Annas (v. 13). And this initial hearing takes place before Annas, who then sends Jesus to Caiaphas (v. 24). But John has previously told us how Caiaphas unwittingly pointed to the significance of Jesus’ death. “Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was better to have one person die for the people” (Jn.18:14; cf. 11:49-50). While the ensuing dialogue in John (18:19-23) differs from that of Matthew (26:63-68) and Mark (14:60-65), and also from the abbreviated version in Luke (22:67-71), some have, nevertheless, tried to reconcile the accounts by some form of rearrangement. “A number have proposed translating the aorist [Jn.] 18:24 as a pluperfect: ‘Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest,’ namely, before anything narrated in 18:15ff.,” says Raymond E. Brown (The Death of the Messiah, vol. 1, 1994, p. 407). Another, A. Mahoney, resorts to textual emendation. In 18:24, in place of dedemenon (‘bound’), he would read de menÇn: ‘But Annas, remaining (after the departure of Caiaphas) sent him to Caiaphas. Caiaphas was with Annas when Jesus was interrogated, but after the interrogation he went on to where the Sanhedrin was assembling (Mahoney, cited by Brown, ibid.). Brown himself objects:

 

I agree with those scholars who distrust all such rearrangement and rewriting and accept the text as it now stands. Indeed, in Johannine logic there is no insurmountable problem about the prominent role attributed to Annas in [Jn.] 18:13-23 and the mention (without detailed narrative) of Caiaphas in 18:24, 28a. Throughout John we hear of dramatis personae who have no (or no significant) role in the Synoptics. The references to Annas alongside Caiaphas in Luke 3:2 and Acts 4:6 may well mean that Christian tradition considered both those high priests significant in the Jesus story, and John may have developed in his own way the significance of Annas. Indeed, if, as I have suggested above, there was no formal Sanhedrin trial of Jesus on the night before he died but only an interrogation, historically Annas might have been the interrogator. (ibid, pp. 407-408)

 

As the story continues in Matthew and Mark, we are told that “Peter was following him at a distance, as far as the courtyard of the high priest; and going inside, he sat with the guards in order to see how this would end” (Mt. 26:58; cf. Mk. 14:54). This anticipates his denials (Mt. 26:69-75; Mk. 14:66-72). In the scene before Caiaphas, “the chief priests and the whole council were looking for false testimony against Jesus so that they might put him to death” (Mt. 26:59; cf. Mk. 14:55a). They were not able to produce convincing false testimony “though many false witnesses came forward” (Mt 26:60a), “For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony did not agree” (Mk. 14:56). It appears for a while that the council will succeed. “At last two [false witnesses] came forward and said, ‘This fellow said, “I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days”’” (Mt. 26:60b, 61; cf. Mk. 14:57-58, where a qualifier is used, “another [temple], not made with hands”; cf. Jn. 2:19, 21). But according to Mark, “even on this point their testimony did not agree” (Mk. 14:59). Caiaphas exhibits certain frustration at this point. He “stood up and said, ‘Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?’ ” (Mt. 26:62; cf. Mk. 14:60). But Jesus’ silence (Mt. 16:63a; Mk. 14:61a) leads to a new tactic on the part of the High Priest.

 

Luke passes over many of these details, and in John’s account, Jesus’ teaching, but not “false testimony” about it as such is an issue (Jn. 18:19-21). At this point the other three Gospels come together on the issue of Jesus’ identity. Or rather, the “interrogation,” to use Brown’s term, turns to Jesus’ identity, apparently the central issue. Caiaphas questions Jesus, “I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mt. 26:63b; cf Mk. 14:61b, without specific reference to an “oath,” but clearly under trial conditions). In Luke’s version, the council says, “If you are the Messiah, tell us” (Lk 22:67a). Although Luke’s version offers an oblique response, “If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I question you, you will not answer” (Lk 22:67b, 68), it implies the straightforward answer in Mark, “I am” (Mk. 14:62a), and in Matthew, “You have said so” (Mt. 26:64a). When asked point-blank, Jesus did not evade the truth, but affirmed his identity. According to Matthew, Jesus continued with a statement which combines Daniel 7:13 with Psalm 110:1. The words “one like a human being” (Dan. 7:13 NRSV), represent an interpretation of what is literally “like a son of man” (wn!x$ rbaK4. kebar ’ en~sh) in the Aramaic (wJV uiJo;V ajnqrwvpou, hos huios anthrÇpou LXX) and are rendered as “the Son of Man” (to;n uiJo;n tou: ajnqrwvpou, ton huion tou anthrÇpou) in Matthew), a phrase consistently applied to Jesus in the Gospels. Being “seated at the right hand of Power” refers to being seated at God’s right hand, based on Psalm 110:1, where “the LORD [God] says to my lord [understood as the Messiah], ‘Sit at my right hand’.” The phrase “coming on the clouds” corresponds to the Septuagint (LXX) version of Daniel 7:13; the Aramaic text has “Mf9 (‘im, with) the clouds,” which the Septuagint translates as “ejpi; (epi, on) tw:n nefelw:n (tÇn nephelÇn). “on the clouds.” Theodotion’s more literal translation of Daniel (later than the LXX), corrects “on” (ejpiv, epi) to “with” (metav, meta [followed by the genitive case])

 

Mt. 26:64, NRSV)

From now on you will see the Son of Man

seated at the right hand of Power

 

 

and coming on the clouds of heaven. (Mt. 26:64)

            Daniel 7:13 and Psalm 110:1 (NRSV except as noted)

          I saw one like a human being (lit. like a son of man) (Dan. 7:13)

                                                       The LORD says to my lord,

                                                                   ‘Sit at my right hand

                   until I make your enemies your footstool’ (Ps. 110:1)

           coming with the clouds of heaven. (Dan. 7:13 Aramaic)

                  coming on the clouds of heaven. (Dan. 7:13 LXX)

 

With the phrase “on the clouds,” and the words leading into the quotation, “from now on you will see” (Mt. 26:64),

Matthew’s version clearly refers to Christ’s coming at the Parousia. Mark lacks “from now on,” and his preposition matches the Aramaic preposition “‘im (with)” of Daniel 7:13, but otherwise his version of the saying is the same as Matthew’s. Luke’s abbreviated version lacks any reference to the Daniel passage (Lk. 22:69), but Mark and Luke also anticipate the Lord’s coming at the Parousia. John’s version takes a different line, in discussing Jesus” teaching, which he asserts was “spoken openly” (Jn. 18:20) and which they should have know or could have learned by asking “those who heard what I said” (v. 21). Following the response from Jesus, in John “one of the police standing nearby struck Jesus on the face,” adding, “Is that how you treat the high priest?” (Jn. 20:22). At this point in Paul’s hearing before the council, he apologizes (Acts 23:3-6), but here Jesus says, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?” (Jn. 18:23). Seemingly silenced in John’s account, “then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest” (v. 24). At this point in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is condemned to death for blasphemy (Mt. 26:65-66; Mk. 14:63-64; cf. Lk. 22:71), before being spat on and slapped (Mt. 26:67) or blindfolded and struck (Mk. 14:65a; cf. Jn. 18:22). The account ends with insult added to injury; those who slapped him added, “Prophesy to us, you Messiah! Who is it that struck you?” (Mt. 26:68; cf. Mk. 14:65b).

 

In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus is mostly silent throughout except when, according to Matthew, Caiaphas put him under oath (Mt. 26:63).

 

Dale C. Allison, Jr. calls attention to several ironies in Matthew’s version of this account:

 

The authorities pass judgment on the one who will someday pass judgment on them. They, by seeking false witnesses, and the high priest, by rending his robe, disobey Moses (cf. Lev. 21:10) whereas Jesus, by refusing an oath, lives by his messianic Torah. The authorities mock Jesus’ claim to be the Davidic Messiah, the fulfillment of OT hopes, while their very actions bring to pass in Jesus OT prophecies. They accuse Jesus of blasphemy and yet it is they who blaspheme the Son of God. Lastly, those who accuse Jesus of saying that he will destroy the temple of God and in three days build another themselves help fulfil that prophecy; for by sentencing him to death they are creating the circumstance that makes it possible for the temple of his body to be raised in three days. So the Sanhedrin has everything backwards and it ironically acts against its own true interests. This is crystal clear to the reader; it will not, however, be evident to Jesus’ persecutors until the parousia. (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 881 on Mt. 26:57-68)

 

As noted above, for the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for July 7, 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