Daily Scripture Readings     

Thursday (July22, 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.

Thursday

AM Psalm 50

PM Psalm [59, 60] or 66, 67

Joshua 9:3-21

Rom. 15:1-13

Matt. 26:69-75

St. Mary Magdalene:

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

AM Psalm 116; Zephaniah 3:14-20; Mark 15:14-20

PM Psalm 30, 149; Exodus 15:19-21; 2 Corinthians 1:3-7

From the Sunday Lectionary:

Psalm 42:1-7;

Judith 9:1,11-14; 2 Corinthians 5:14-18; John 20:11-18

Eucharistic Readings:

Jeremiah 2:1-3, 7-13; Psalm 36:5-10;

Matt. 13:10-17

Thursday

Morning: Psalms 36; 147:12-20

Joshua 9:3-21

Rom. 15:1-13

Matt. 26:69-75

Evening: Psalms 80; 27

Thursday

Morning Pss.: 97; 147:13-21

Deuteronomy 3:18-28

Romans 9:19-33

Matthew 24:1-14

Evening Pss.: 16, 62

 

Year C Daily Readings

Psalm 138

Esther 2:19-3:6

Acts 1:15-20

Mary Magdalene, Apostle, July 22

Ruth 1:6-18 or Exodus 2:1-10

Psalm 73:23-28 (28)

Acts 13:26-33a

John 20:1-2, 11-18

* Thursday 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 8, 2010, two weeks ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

 

Episcopal and Presbyterian Readings:

 

Joshua 9:3-21

 

The Gibeonites Save Themselves by Trickery

 

     3 But when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and to Ai, 4 they on their part acted with cunning: they went and prepared provisions, and took worn-out sacks for their donkeys, and wineskins, worn-out and torn and mended, 5 with worn-out, patched sandals on their feet, and worn-out clothes; and all their provisions were dry and moldy. 6 They went to Joshua in the camp at Gilgal, and said to him and to the Israelites, “We have come from a far country; so now make a treaty with us.” 7 But the Israelites said to the Hivites, “Perhaps you live among us; then how can we make a treaty with you?” 8 They said to Joshua, “We are your servants.” And Joshua said to them, “Who are you? And where do you come from?” 9 They said to him, “Your servants have come from a very far country, because of the name of the LORD your God; for we have heard a report of him, of all that he did in Egypt, 10 and of all that he did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, King Sihon of Heshbon, and King Og of Bashan who lived in Ashtaroth. 11 So our elders and all the inhabitants of our country said to us, ‘Take provisions in your hand for the journey; go to meet them, and say to them, “We are your servants; come now, make a treaty with us.” ’ 12 Here is our bread; it was still warm when we took it from our houses as our food for the journey, on the day we set out to come to you, but now, see, it is dry and moldy; 13 these wineskins were new when we filled them, and see, they are burst; and these garments and sandals of ours are worn out from the very long journey.” 14 So the leaders partook of their provisions, and did not ask direction from the LORD. 15 And Joshua made peace with them, guaranteeing their lives by a treaty; and the leaders of the congregation swore an oath to them.

     16 But when three days had passed after they had made a treaty with them, they heard that they were their neighbors and were living among them. 17 So the Israelites set out and reached their cities on the third day. Now their cities were Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath-jearim. 18 But the Israelites did not attack them, because the leaders of the congregation had sworn to them by the LORD, the God of Israel. Then all the congregation murmured against the leaders. 19 But all the leaders said to all the congregation, “We have sworn to them by the LORD, the God of Israel, and now we must not touch them. 20 This is what we will do to them: We will let them live, so that wrath may not come upon us, because of the oath that we swore to them.” 21 The leaders said to them, “Let them live.” So they became hewers of wood and drawers of water for all the congregation, as the leaders had decided concerning them. (Joshua 9:3-21, NRSV)

 

The following comments are repeated here from July 24, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two), when comments were repeated from July 27, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two):

 

Carol Meyers summarizes and brings us up to date: “Having conquered Ai through a ruse, the Israelites themselves are now tricked by the clever strategy of the Gibeonites” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 479 on Joshua 9:1-27). K. Lawson Younger notes this irony as well, and adds, “The Israelites do not turn to God to discern the Gibeonite strategy. As in the case of the first battle of Ai, the Israelites’ overconfidence in their ability to discern the situation leads to a lack of dependence on the LORD” (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Josh. 9:3-27).

 

This reading has three acts, (1) the deception of the Gibeonites who pretend to be from a far country (Josh. 9:6), leading to (2) an agreement, “peace (MOlwA, šālôm),” with Joshua (v. 15), and (3) the outrage of the Israelite people when they learn the truth, when “they heard that they were their neighbors and were living among them” (v. 16). “The inhabitants of Gibeon had heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and to Ai” (v. 3), so they made preparations to appear as if they were depleted and exhausted from a long journey, including “worn-out sacks for their donkeys, and wineskins, worn-out and torn and mended” (v. 4), and clothing to match: “with worn-out, patched sandals on their feet, and worn-out clothes” (v. 5a); “and all their provisions were dry and moldy” (v. 5b). They claim to have come from a far country, and ask Joshua “to make a treaty (tyr9B4, berîth, ‘pact’ JPS 1985, 1999 trans.) with us” (v. 6).

 

The narrator refers to these “inhabitants of Gibeon” as “Hivites” (v. 7, cf. v. 1), to whom the Israelites said, “Perhaps you live among us; then how can we make a treaty with you?” (v. 7). According to Meyers, the Hivites were “a group probably originating in Asia Minor” (op. cit., on v. 7). They present themselves humbly, saying “to Joshua, ‘We are your servants (j~yd,bAf3, ‘ av~deyk~)’ ” (v. 8a). The term they use, “servant” (db,f,, ‘eved) has a range of meanings, “1. slave (i.e., held in bondage) . . . 2. servant (for a period of time, not in bondage) . . . subordinate . . . political: subject . . . servant, i.e. a dependent in a position of trust, = minister, advisor . . . formula of polite self-abasement, ‘abd ek~ [‘your servant’] = ‘I’ . . . 5. indicating man’s position before God, i.e. either ‘slave’ or ‘trusted servant’ ” (William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10th corrected impression 1988, s.v. db,f,, ‘eved). Although the Gibeonites clearly acted as they did out of fear, knowing the Israelite’s reputation and conquests, they apparently told Joshua they were “your servants” (meaning no. 4), whether they fully expected to become bond-servants (vv. 21, 27) or not.

 

Joshua responds to the Hivites (Gibeonites) with questions, “Who are you (MT,xa, ’attem, ‘you’ plural [‘ye’ AV/KJV])? And where do you come from? (v. 8b NRSV). In their answer, presented here as deceptive, they claim to be “from a very far country”: “They said to him, ‘Your servants have come from a very far country, because of the name of the LORD your God; for we have heard a report of him, of all that he did in Egypt, and of all that he did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, King Sihon of Heshbon, and King Og of Bashan who lived in Ashtaroth” (vv. 9-10). Meyers explains: “The Gibeonites claim to be from a distant country [NJPS 1985, 1999; ‘far country’ NRSV], which would mean they would not be subject to the required annihilation of those living in territory promised to Israel (cf. 8:27; Deut. 20:14 [cf. v. 15]).” And on the words “fame of the LORD” [NJPS 1985, 1999; for “name of the LORD” NRSV] she adds “meaning that the victories of a people are attributed to their god” (op. cit., on v. 9). They recount Israel’s victories much as did Rahab (9:10; cf. 2:10). The Gibeonites give a creative and detailed description of the journey they claim to have made. Having heard of Israel’s victories–even “from a very far country”–they made a decision. “So our elders and all the inhabitants of our country said to us, ‘Take provisions in your hand for the journey; go to meet them, and say to them, “We are your servants; come now, make a treaty with us” ’ ” (v. 11). They present “evidence” of the time and distance required for their claimed journey. “Here is our bread; it was still warm when we took it from our houses as our food for the journey, on the day we set out to come to you, but now, see, it is dry and moldy; these wineskins were new when we filled them, and see, they are burst; and these garments and sandals of ours are worn out from the very long journey” (vv. 12:13).

 

According to the narrator, at this point Israel’s leaders failed. “So the leaders [cf. oiJ a[rconteV, archontes, LXX = Myx9yW9n04ha, hanneśî’îm, for Myw9nAx3h!&, hā’anāšîm; cf. BHS apparatus and NRSV text note b) partook of their provisions”–moldy bread?–“and did not ask direction from the LORD” (v. 14). According to Younger, “Although the leaders (lit. ‘the men’) of Israel are specifically blamed for not consulting the LORD, Joshua is apparently included. None of Israel’s leadership was exempt from blame” (op. cit., on v 14). And it is Joshua, we are told, that made the treaty with the Gibeonites. “And Joshua made peace (MOlwA, š~lôm) with them, guaranteeing (trok4y09va, wayyikrÇth) their lives (MtAOy0Hal4, lechayyôth~m) by a treaty (tyr9B4, berîth); and the leaders of the congregation swore an oath to them” (v. 15). This statement uses the idiom for “making”(literally “cutting”) a treaty, using the verb trk (k-r-t).

 

But, as they say, You can’t fool all the people all the time. Three days after the treaty, the Israelite people “heard that they [i.e., the Gibeonites] were their neighbors and were living among them” (v. 16). So, in another three days, the Israelites “reached their cities” (v. 17a). The Gibeonite cities, are named, “Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath-jearim” (v. 17b), the nearest about twenty miles to the west of the camp at Gilgal, in the “hill country” (cf. v. 1). Truth will out, as they say. “The Gibeonite deception is discovered,” says Meyers, “and the Israelites reluctantly honor their pact (tyr9B4, berîth), which had been sworn, presumably, in the name of the LORD” (op. cit., p. 480, on vv. 16-27).

 

Upon arrival, “the Israelites did not attack them [i.e., the Gibeonites], because the leaders of the congregation (hdAfeh!& yx26yW9n4, neśî’ê hā‘ēdāh) had sworn to them by the LORD, the God of Israel” (v. 18a). But this apparently did not set well with the ordinary Israelite people, who “murmured against the leaders (Myx9&yW9n04ha, hanneś’îm)” (v. 18b), learning, apparently for the first time about the treaty the leaders had made with the Gibeonites for “all the leaders said to all the congregation, ‘We have sworn (Unf4Baw4n9, nišba‘û) to them by the LORD, the God of Israel, and now we must not touch them’ ” (v. 19). The leaders describe the alternative: “This is what we will do to them: We will let them live, so that wrath may not come upon us, because of the oath (hfAUbw04ha, haššvû‘~h) that we swore (Unf4Baw4n9, nišba‘û) to them” (v. 20). According to Meyers, “The Bible takes such vows very seriously (see Exod. 20:7; Deut. 5:11). Thus, a main theme of this chapter is the conflict between the obligation to obliterate the inhabitants of the land, and the oath promising to allow these people to live. According to 2 Sam. ch. 21, Saul violated this promise and put some Gibeonites to death” (op. cit., on vv. 16-27).

 

So the leaders give the order, “Let them live.” And the Gibeonites, we are told, “became hewers of wood and drawers of water for all the congregation, as the leaders had decided concerning them” (v. 21). On the words, “hewers of wood and drawers of water,” says Younger, “according to Deut. 29:10-13, the covenant was to erase distinctions between such lower class occupations and others. This designation thus suggests that the Gibeonites are outside the covenantal community” (op. cit., on v. 21). He also says, “The subservience of the Gibeonites is narrated twice in parallel: The leaders of the people save them and conclude their slave status, and so does Joshua (vv. 18-21 and vv. 22-27)” (ibid., on vv. 16-27). The latter is presented in tomorrow’s reading, where it is reported that Joshua intervenes to modify the leaders’ decision. E. John Hamlin credits the resolution of the conflict to “the wise counsel of the leaders” (vv. 19-21) and “the intervention of Joshua” (vv. 23, 27). Joshua changed the position of the Gibeonites from the status of menial slaves imposed by the leaders (v. 21) “to the honorable status of attendants in the worship of Yahweh, providing wood and water for the sacrifices” (Inheriting the Land; A Commentary on the Book of Joshua, 1983, p. 83). Sometimes the right leadership can make all the difference.

 

Romans 15:1-13

 

Please Others, Not Yourselves

 

            15:1 We who are strong ought to put up with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Each of us must please our neighbor for the good purpose of building up the neighbor. 3 For Christ did not please himself; but, as it is written, “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.” 4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope. 5 May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in harmony with one another, in accordance with Christ Jesus, 6 so that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

The Gospel for Jews and Gentiles Alike

 

            7 Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. 8 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truth of God in order that he might confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, 9 and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written,

“Therefore I will confess you among the Gentiles,

and sing praises to your name”;

10 and again he says,

“Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people”;

11 and again,

“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,

and let all the peoples praise him”;

12 and again Isaiah says,

“The root of Jesse shall come,

the one who rises to rule the Gentiles;

in him the Gentiles shall hope.”

13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. (Romans 15:1-13, NRSV)

 

The following comments are based on relevant comments from those on Romans 15:5-13 of November 22, 2009 (the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), when comments were based on those of August 9, 2009 (the Sunday closest to August 9, Year One). When comments on Romans 15:1-13 were based on earlier comments, May 16, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Easter, Year One), when comments were repeated from November 28, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year Two), when the reading was Romans 15:7-13, and comments were repeated with some editing and supplement from July 24, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two), when the reading was Romans 15:1-13, and comments were repeated with editing and supplement from August 12, 2007 (the Sunday closest to August 10, Year One), when comments were repeated with minor editing and supplement from July 27, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two).

 

Paul has been addressing issues which separate the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in the church at Rome. At the beginning of the book he presents a thesis—his abiding conviction—that the gospel “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek [i.e. Gentile]” (Rom. 1:16). Recently it has been suggested that the more comprehensive theme of Romans is the universal significance of the gospel “implied by reference to elements of Jewish history and to Paul’s call to preach to gentiles [1:2-5], [which] is then in fact made thematic beginning with vv. 14-16” (Paul J. Achtemeier, Joel B. Green, and Marianne Meye Thompson, Introducing the New Testament; Its Literature and Theology, 2001, p. 307). Chapter 14 calls for toleration of “the weak,” who “eat only vegetables” (14:2), not because the Jewish Christians were vegetarian on general principles, but because, as a minority in a Gentile world, they could not be sure that the meat was kosher. The principle of tolerance and mutual respect which he advocates in Romans 14 is similar to his instructions in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, but the issue of meat offered to idols there differs from the issue in Romans. There is no need in Romans for such an admonition as is found in 1 Corinthians 10:21, “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons.” But there is reference to observance of Jewish holy days (Rom. 14:5). “Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God” (v. 6). But the principle of not judging others in such matters transcends the issues Paul may have had in mind.

 

Early in the present chapter, the strong are told “to put up with the failings of the weak, and not please ourselves” (Rom. 15:1). On the contrary, “Each of us must please our neighbor for the good purpose of building up the neighbor” (v. 2). In this way, we are to follow the example of Christ, who “did not please himself; but, as it is written, ‘The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me’ ” (v. 3, citing Ps. 69:9b). John S. Kselman calls the Psalm cited here “a prayer for deliverance from enemies” (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Ps. 69). According to Neil Elliott, the line from the Psalm cited here “is read in terms of Christ’s humbling himself (Phil. 2:5-8; 2 Cor. 8:9)” (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Rom. 15:3). Paul explains his use of the Hebrew Bible in Christian teaching. “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope” (v. 4). Elliott compares two other Pauline texts to show how Paul applies the Hebrew Bible to his own situation (and ours) (ibid., on Rom. 15:4):

 

Now the words, ‘it was reckoned to him [citing Gen. 15:6]’ were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was handed over to death four our trespasses and was raised for our justification. (Rom. 4:23-25, NRSV)

 

and

 

Or does he [Moses] not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake, for whoever plows should plow in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop. (1 Cor. 9:10, NRSV, following the citation of Deut. 25:4 in 1 Cor. 9:9)

 

Paul’s prayer for harmony, “May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in harmony with one another, in accordance with Christ Jesus” (Rom. 15:5), has in mind not merely peaceful coexistence, but two groups coming together, “so that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 6). This clearly refers to harmony of Jews and Gentiles coming together in Christian worship. Paul has instructed these groups not to judge one another, and now exhorts them to “welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God” (v. 7). In support of this instruction, Paul reminds the Roman Christians of the salvation that is available to all. “For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truth of God in order that he might confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy” (vv. 8, 9a). This point is repeated, cf. 11:30, and is supported again with a series of quotations from the Hebrew Bible: “and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. as it is written”:

 

“Therefore I will confess you among the Gentiles,

And sing praises to your name” (cited from Ps. 18:49; cf. 2 Sam. 22:50);

 

and again he says,

“Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people” (cited from Deut. 32:43);

 

and again,

“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,

And let all the peoples praise him” (cited from Ps. 117:1);

 

and again Isaiah says,

“The root of Jesse shall come,

the one who rises to rule the Gentiles;

in him the Gentiles shall hope” (cited from Isa. 11:10). (Rom. 15:9-12 NRSV)

 

The last of these quotations follows the Septuagint, “And there shall be . . . the root of Jesse, / And he that ariseth to rule over the Gentiles; / On him shall the Gentiles hope” (Isa. 11:10, trans., Robert G. Bratcher, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament, rev. ed., 1961, p. 44, “in the language and style of the ERV,” p. viii). The Hebrew text is translated as “And it shall come to pass . . . that the root of Jesse, which standeth for an ensign of the peoples, unto him shall the nations seek; and his resting place shall be glorious” (ERV as used by Bratcher, loc. cit., with underlining to show the difference between the OT text and the NT translation). So Paul reminds the readers again that “the promised salvation is also for the Gentiles, as Paul emphasizes with [these] quotations” (John Knox and John Reumann, NOAB, 2nd ed., 1994, on Rom. 15:8-12). The word “Gentiles” ( e[qnh, ethn‘) which occurs repeatedly in these quotations (Rom. 15:9 twice, 10, 11, 12 twice) can also mean “nations,” as for example, in Matthew 28:19, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations (pavnta ta; e[qnh, panta ta ethn‘).”

 

In a certain sense, Paul’s general exhortation of the Romans ends here with the words, “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (v. 13), for what follows reflects on what he has written (v. 15), and presents a summary of his previous missionary work (vv. 16-21), his personal plans (vv. 22-33) and final greetings (ch. 16).

 

Matthew 26:69-75

 

Peter’s Denial of Jesus (Mk 14.66-72; Lk 22.54-62; Jn 18.15-18, 25-27)

 

            69 Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. A servant-girl came to him and said, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean.” 70 But he denied it before all of them, saying, “I do not know what you are talking about.” 71 When he went out to the porch, another servant-girl saw him, and she said to the bystanders, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” 72 Again he denied it with an oath, “I do not know the man.” 73 After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you.” 74 Then he began to curse, and he swore an oath, “I do not know the man!” At that moment the cock crowed. 75 Then Peter remembered what Jesus had said: “Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly. (Matthew 26:69-75, NRSV)

 

The following comments are repeated here from July 24, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from July 27, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two). For recent comments on Mark’s version of the account of Peter’s Denial, see the Archive for September 1, 2009 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One). For recent comments on Luke’s version, see the Archive for December 16, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year One). And for recent comments on John’s version, see the Archive for February 15, 2010 (Monday in the week of the Last Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two).

 

In yesterday’s comments on Jesus before Caiaphas, and in the separate file, Jesus’ Trial before Caiaphas, we see that part of John’s account of Peter’s betrayal (Jn. 18:15-18) is inserted within the account of the trial. Today we see that the conclusion of the trial before Annas (Jn. 18:19-24; John’s equivalent of the trial before Caiaphas) is inserted within the account of Peter’s Denial, as in the separate file, Peter’s Denial. But in the Synoptic Gospels, this trial and the denials are presented separately. Raymond E. Brown says of the accounts of Peter’s denials, “ironically this episode of the PN [Passion Narrative] exhibits contrasting aspects. On the one hand it is the episode on which the four Gospels agree most; on the other there are infuriatingly different minor details in the narrative of the setting and of the three denials” (The death of the Messiah : from Gethsemane to the grave : a commentary on the Passion narratives in the four Gospels, vol. 1, 1994, p. 589). He presents these differences in a table comparing the four accounts (pp. 590-591). Brown notes a difference in sequence. “In Luke and John, after Jesus has been arrested on the Mount of Olives across the Kidron and has been brought to the high priest or his house, we are immediately told how Peter, who was following, began to be confronted and thus was led to deny Jesus,” but “in Mark/Matt, however, there is a separation, for the Sanhedrin trial comes between the description of Peter’s whereabouts and the account of the denials” (p. 589). Brown says that the arrangements in Matthew and Mark “underline the simultaneity of Peter’s denials and the Sanhedrin trial which has been described in the verses that separate the preparation from the denials” (p. 592). Later in his analysis, Brown returns to this simultaneity:

 

For Mark these denials took place at the moment Jesus stood before the Sanhedrin. There a Jesus who in his ministry had been very reticent about his identity says, ‘I am’ (Mark), in response to the high priest’s question ‘Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?’ In the denials, a Peter who previously had confessed Jesus as the Messiah (Mark 8:29) now denies under oath that he knows him. (In Matt the contrasted wording is even more precise: Jesus gives a qualified affirmation to the high priest’s question, ‘Are [you] the Messiah, the Son of God?’ whereas Peter had once confessed Jesus as ‘the Messiah, the Son of the living God’ [16:16]). (p. 622)

 

Dale C. Allison, Jr., comments in a similar vein:

 

Our story also balances the trial, where Jesus, like Peter, who is not far away, faces three sets of accusers (false witnesses, v. 60, the two true witnesses, vv. 61-2, Caiaphas, vv. 63-6). There Jesus is asked whether he is the Messiah, the Son of God. He, although heretofore reticent about his identity, fearlessly confesses that he is. But Peter, who earlier confessed Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God, no longer acknowledges his Lord: when confronted he becomes a coward. Jesus illustrates the good confession of 10:32, Peter the damning denial of 10:33. (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 882 on Mt. 26:69-75)

 

Another difference in the accounts of the betrayal is about the questioners/accusers of Peter. In Mark the first two challenges to Peter come from “one of the servant-girls” (Mk. 14:66), who challenges him again, “the servant-girl” (v. 69), after the first crowing of the cock (v. 68). The third challenge, the one that led to Peter’s oath of denial (v. 71), is by “the bystanders” (v. 70). Matthew’s presentation is similar except that the second challenge comes from “another servant-girl” (Mt. 26:71, cf. vv. 69, 73). Luke’s three challengers are “a servant-girl” (Lk. 22:56), “someone else” (v. 58) and “still another” (v. 59). In John, Peter is first challenged by “the woman who guarded the gate” (Jn. 18:16), for he apparently stayed back after following Jesus with “another disciple,” the one who “was known to the high priest [and] went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest” (v. 15). John’s account combines the second and third challenges into a single scene as they were warming themselves at the charcoal fire (vv. 25, 26, cf. v. 18).

Allison notes that “Earlier in this chapter [Mt. 26] Judas defects. Later the other disciples flee. Now Peter, retreating from his promise (v. 35), denies his Lord. This is the climax of the disciples’ failure. The first to be called is not the last to fall away” (ibid., p. 882 on Mt. 26:69-75). Allison also points out some irony here.

 

In its present context this passage supplies irony by balancing v. 74, where Jesus’ prophetic powers are mocked. Although Jesus makes no appearance in our story, it shows that, so far from being a false prophet, he has predicted the events of the evening in detail. ‘Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times’ (v. 34) comes to literal fulfilment precisely while Jesus is being reviled with ‘Prophesy to us, you Messiah!’ (v. 68). (ibid.)

 

Most of us can probably sympathize with Peter, but regret his weakness in this situation. It’s often noted that the Gospels show a very human side of Peter, but we can also rejoice in his strong leadership of the church in the Book of Acts. Notable too is the vast difference between actions of Judas, who deliberately planned the betrayal, and of Peter, who was taken by surprise at the critical moment; and also the difference between Judas’ remorse and suicide and Peter’s repentance and restoration.

 

As noted above, for the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for July 8, 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