Daily Scripture Readings

Saturday (July 3, 2010)*

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

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

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

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

http://www.pcusa.org/lectionary

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

‡ Daily Lectionary, Evangelical Lutheran Worship, ELCA, 2006. In the Evangelical Lutheran Worship book of 2006, the Daily Lectionary (pp. 1121-1153) is revised to correlate with the Sunday Lectionary (the Revised Common Lectionary) on the three year cycle: Year A, Year B (now current), Year C.  “The readings are chosen so that the days leading up to Sunday (Thursday through Saturday) prepare for the Sunday readings. The days flowing out from Sunday (Monday through Wednesday) reflect upon the Sunday readings” (p. 1121).

Unless otherwise indicated, the scripture texts quoted are from The New Revised Standard Version (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers), 1989.

Saturday

AM Psalm 137:1-6(7-9), 144

PM Psalm 104

Num. 24:12-25

Rom. 8:18-25

Matt. 22:23-40

Eucharistic Readings:

Psalm 85:7-13

Amos 9:11-15; Matthew 9:14-17

Saturday

Morning: Psalms 122; 149

Num. 24:12-25

Rom. 8:18-25

Matt. 22:23-40

Evening Psalms 100; 63

Saturday

Morning Pss.: 56, 149

Num. 13:31-14:25

Rom. 3:9-20

Matt. 19:1-12

Evening Pss.: 118, 111

 

Year C Daily Readings

Psalm 66:1-9

Zechariah 14:10-21

Luke 9:1-6

Thomas, Apostle, July 3

Judges 6:36-40

Psalm 136:1-4, 23-26 (1)

Ephesians 4:11-16

John 14:1-7

* Saturday in the week of the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two

 

For the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 19, 2010, two weeks ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

 

Episcopal and Presbyterian Readings:

 

Numbers 24:12-25

 

12 And Balaam said to Balak, "Did I not tell your messengers whom you sent to me, 13 'If Balak should give me his house full of silver and gold, I would not be able to go beyond the word of the LORD, to do either good or bad of my own will; what the LORD says, that is what I will say'? 14 So now, I am going to my people; let me advise you what this people will do to your people in days to come."

 

Balaam's Fourth Oracle

 

15 So he uttered his oracle, saying:

"The oracle of Balaam son of Beor,

the oracle of the man whose eye is clear,

16 the oracle of one who hears the words of God,

and knows the knowledge of the Most High,

who sees the vision of the Almighty,

who falls down, but with his eyes uncovered:

17 I see him, but not now;

I behold him, but not near–

a star shall come out of Jacob,

and a scepter shall rise out of Israel;

it shall crush the borderlands of Moab,

and the territory of all the Shethites.

18 Edom will become a possession,

Seir a possession of its enemies,

while Israel does valiantly.

19 One out of Jacob shall rule,

and destroy the survivors of Ir."

20 Then he looked on Amalek, and uttered his oracle, saying:

"First among the nations was Amalek,

but its end is to perish forever."

21 Then he looked on the Kenite, and uttered his oracle, saying:

"Enduring is your dwelling place,

and your nest is set in the rock;

22 yet Kain is destined for burning.

How long shall Asshur take you away captive?"

23 Again he uttered his oracle, saying:

"Alas, who shall live when God does this?

24        But ships shall come from Kittim

and shall afflict Asshur and Eber;

and he also shall perish forever."

25 Then Balaam got up and went back to his place, and Balak also went his way.  (Numbers 24:12-25, NRSV)

 

The following comments are repeated here from July 5, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two), when they were repeated with editing and supplement from July 8, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two), comments were repeated with revision and supplement here from July 3, 2004 in an email sent July 1, 2004, for July 2-4.

 

For the sake of continuity, today’s reading begins with the last two verses of yesterday’s reading. As noted yesterday, in each of three oracles, Balaam has failed to satisfy Balak by cursing Israel. So Balak, in anger, calls the deal off. “I summoned you to curse my enemies, but instead you have blessed them these three times. Now be off with you! Go home! I said, ‘I will reward you richly,’ but the LORD has denied you any reward” (Num. 24:10-11). But Balaam as much as says, “I told you so, didn’t I?” “Did I not tell your messengers whom you sent to me, ‘If Balak should give me his house full of silver and gold, I would not be able to go beyond the word of the LORD, to do either good or bad of my own will; what the LORD says, that is what I will say’?” (vv. 12-13).

 

Balaam’s parting shot is a gratuitous oracle–certainly not wanted by Balak–which threatens Balak’s country of Moab. No further sacrifices are made, but Balaam says, “So now, I am going to my people; let me advise you what this people will do to your people in days to come” (v. 14). As before, this oracle begins with a statement “authenticating him [Balaam] as a prophet” (cf. David P. Wright, NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Num. 24:3-4). Balaam calls his oracle “the oracle (Mxun4, ne’um) of the man whose eye is clear . . . of one who hears the words of God (lx25-yrem4x9, ’imrê ’ēl), / and knows the knowledge of the Most High (xxx ) / who sees the vision of the Almighty (yDawa hzeH3ma, machazē šadday), / who falls down, but with eyes uncovered” (vv. 15-16, cf. vv. 3b, 4). Rabbi J. H. Hertz explains the words, who “knoweth the knowledge of the Most High” (v. 16 JPS 1917), as meaning “to whom God reveals His secret (Amos iii, 7)” (The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second ed., 1981, on Num. 24:16). In reference to the series of four oracles, Nili S. Fox says, “a very common pattern in biblical literature, followed here is the 3-4 pattern, where the fourth element is climactic” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Num. 24:15-25).

 

Once introduced, the oracle moves on to its main statement: “I see him, but not now; / I behold him, but not near– / a star (bkAOK, kôkāv) shall come out of Jacob, / and a scepter (Fb,we, šēvet) shall rise out of Israel” (v. 17, a-d). “Star . . . scepter [are] royal symbols,” says David P. Wright, with reference to Genesis 49:10, where “scepter” translates (Fb,we, šēvet), but “ruler’s staff” translates qq2Hom4 (m echōqēq), the poal participle of qqH (ch-q-q) that can mean “director, leader” (e.g. Judg. 5:14; Isa. 33:2, where the ‘leader’ is YHWH), but in Genesis 49:10 means “scepter” (William L. Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 1971, 4th impression, 1978, s.v. qqH, ch-q-q). According to the Rabbi,

 

the reference is probably to King David, the first monarch to reduce Moab to subjection; ii Sam. viii, 2. In the reign of the Emperor Hadrian, this verse was applied to Bar Cozeba, the leader of the last Jewish War of Independence, whose name was consequently changed to Bar Cocheba, ‘the Son of a Star.’ His most noted follower was Rabbi Akiba, and the entire Jewish Diaspora seems to have supported the movement. Julius Severus was sent from Britain to quell the Jewish forces. Judea was brought to the lowest ebb; Jerusalem became a heathen city, even its name being changed to Aelia Capitolina; and a Jew was prohibited from entering it on pain of death. Bar Cocheba was slain in 135 A.C.E. (op. cit., on v. 17)

 

As Balaam’s oracle continues, it says that this “star . . . out of Jacob,” this “scepter . . . out of Israel . . . shall crush the borderlands of Moab, / and the territory of all the Shethites (twe-yn2B4-lKA, kol-benê-šēth, lit. ‘sons of Sheth’)” (v. 17 e, f). The “scepter” is a figure of speech, metonymy, for, as the Rabbi says, “the holder of a scepter, a ruler of men” (ibid.). According to Dennis R. Bratcher, the word “Sheth” is a

 

word usually taken as a proper noun, a group of people (‘sons of Sheth’) associated with the Moabites (Num. 24:17). However, it is likely that the word is a (deliberately?) corrupted form of the word ‘tumult’ (Heb. sha’ōn [cf.NOxwA, šā’ôn, Holladay, Lexicon, s.v. NOxwA, šā’ôn, no. II, din, uproar]) used to describe the warlike nature of the Moabites (‘Sons of [battle] tumult’; cf. Jer. 48:45). Since Sheth is a form of Seth [the third son of Adam], this may be a wordplay that identifies the Moabites as distant kinsmen of the Israelites but at the same time condemns their aggression against the Israelites (see Num. 22:1-4). (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985, s.v. Sheth, no. 2)

 

In terms of Bratcher’s suggested “corruption,” why not consider txwe (šē’th), “desolation” (Holladay, Lexicon, s.v. txwe, šē’th), which is closer in pronunciation to twe (šē th)? The latter occurs in the Hebrew Bible only in Lamentations 3:47, “panic and pitfall have come upon us, / devastation (txw0eha2, haššē’th) and destruction.” In the Lamentations text, the term twe (šē th) is passive, describing the effect on the victims, whereas Bratcher suggests that the phrase NOxwA-yn2B4-lK! (kol-benê-šā’ôn, lit. ‘sons of tumult,’ as he would have it) relates to the warlike nature of the attackers, that is, the Moabites.

 

The oracle now turns against other nations. As Wright puts it, “the fourth oracle [is] actually a collection of short oracles [which] supplements the first three directed at Israel. It emphasizes the blessing of Israel by cursing Moab as well as other nations and groups” (op. cit., on 24:10-25). “Edom,” says Balaam, “will become a possession, / Seir a possession of its enemies, / while Israel does valiantly” (v. 18). According to David A. Dorsey, “Seir is “the mountainous region southeast of the land of Canaan inhabited by the Edomites. Also called Mt. Seir, the region may have encompassed not only the mountains east of the Arabah (the Rift Valley), but those on the west side as well” The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., 1996, s.v. Seir). Here, according to Wright, “Seir [is] a synonym for Edom” (op. cit., on v. 18). The oracle continues to foresee monarchy, saying, “One out of Jacob shall rule” (v. 19a), and, probably, to foresee destruction of Edom, with the words, “and destroy the survivors of Ir (ryf9me dyr!WA, śārîd mē‘îr)” (v. 19b NRSV). The apparatus in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia [BHS], 1972), says to read ryf9We0m9 (miśśē‘îr), “from Seir,” for ryf9me (mē‘îr), “from the city” (cf. AV/KJV, TNIV, JPS 1917). The NRSV and the NJPS (1985, 1999) translate ryf9 (‘ îr), “city,” as a place name, “Ir.” The correction assumed by Dorsey (cited above) assumes the loss of one letter; thus it is likely that verse 19, as well as 18, refers to Edom/Seir.

 

The oracle against Amalek is short and to the point. “Then he [Balaam] looked on Amalek, and uttered his oracle, saying: ‘First among the nations was Amalek, / but its end is to perish forever’ (v. 20). According to Rabbi Hertz, “The country of the Amalekites and that of the Kenites (v. 21) might just be visible from the Moabite hills, lying far to the south and the south-west’ (McNeile)” (op. cit., citing McNeile, on v. 20). On the words “first of the nations” (v. 20 JPS 1917), the Rabbi cites the Onkelos Targum, “[first] to attack Israel” (ibid.).

 

The next oracle is against “the Kenite”: “Then he looked on the Kenite (yn9yQ02ha, haqqênî ), and uttered his oracle, saying: ‘Enduring is your dwelling place, / and your nest (j~n0!q9, qinnekā = your Nq2 , qēn, your nest) is set in the rock; / yet Kain (Ny9q!, qāyin) is destined for burning. / How long shall Asshur take you away captive?’ ” (vv. 21-22). As indicated here, there is word-play on “Kenite,” “nest,” and “Kain.” According to Wright, “Kenite [means] literally, ‘descendant of Kain (or Cain; v. 22; cf. Gen. 4). The Kenites were a group associated with the Midianites; see 22:4; compare 10:29 with Judg. 1:16" (op. cit., on v. 21). Rabbi Hertz calls “Kain the poetical name of the tribe,” and also notes the connection with the Midianites. “According to Judges I, 16, Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, belonged to the Kenites, who must originally have formed part of the Midianites.” On the phrase, “though firm be thy dwelling-place” (v. 21 JPS 1917), the Rabbi says, “Or, ‘ever-enduring is thy habitation’ (Gray) [which is] a reference to the wellnigh inaccessible rock-dwellings of the Kenites” (op. cit., on v. 21).  According to Wright, “Asshur may mean Assyria” (op. cit., on v. 22), but Rabbi Hertz suggests another possibility. Of the question, “how long?” he says, “Before your final doom comes? Assyria will enslave and crush you, and carry you away into captivity. It is, however, possible that (as in Gen. xxv, 18) the reference here is not to Assyria, but to the Ashurim (Gen. xxv, 3)” (op. cit., on v. 22).

 

Another brief oracle, the last here, follows. “Again he uttered his oracle, saying: ‘Alas, who shall live when God does this? / But ships shall come from Kittim / and shall afflict Asshur and Eber; / and he also shall perish forever’ ” (vv. 23-24). Rabbi Hertz calls verse 23 “an obscure verse,” for which the “probable meaning is, Who will be able to survive the terrible catastrophes wrought in Israel by Assyria (Isa. x, 5), appointed by God to be the ‘rod’ of His anger?” (on v. 23). He defines “Kittim” as “from Kition, a town of Cyprus” and adds that the term Kittim “was a name also used for Greece. There is here a possible reference to those Mediterranean lands from which later were to come the conquerors of the empires of the East” (on v. 23). Fox, who also derives the “Kittim” from Cyprus, says they “are mentioned as invaders into the region of Syria and Mesopotamia; the historical setting for this is unclear.  In the Dead Sea Scrolls, ‘Kittim’ represents the Romans” (op. cit., on vv. 18-24). With this last brief oracle delivered, Balaam and Balak part company (v. 25), “the latter’s mission having failed” (Fox, on v. 25). The Rabbi notes that, “as Balaam was slain among the Midianites shortly after (xxxi, 8), he must have set off homewards but tarried at the headquarters of the Midianites, where he met his end” (on v. 25).

 

Romans 8:18-25

 

Future Glory

 

18 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.  (Romans 8:18-25, NRSV)

 

Wilbur T. Dayton has entitled the subsection Romans 8:18-23 “Complete Redemption,” and the following two verses, 8:24-25, “Stabilizing Hope” (The Wesleyan Bible Commentary, V, 1965, 2nd printing, 1971, on Rom. 8:18-23, 24-25). “Much has been said thus far in Romans,” he says, “about the benefits of redemption that are already enjoyed. In these verses the emphasis is on the wonderful fulfillment that is yet future” (ibid., on vv. 18-23). Paul discusses “the sufferings of this present time” in the light of the Christians’ hope for the future. “I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us” (Rom. 8:18). Our present suffering (v. 18) is ameliorated by the Christian hope (vv. 19-25), including “the revealing of the children of God” (v. 19), the setting free of “the creation itself” (v. 21-22), and “the redemption of our bodies” (v. 23). Paul begins by saying, “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God” (v. 19). John Wesley comments here:

 

For the earnest expectation–The word denotes a lively hope of something drawing near, and a vehement longing after it. Of the creation–Of all visible creatures, believers excepted, who are spoken of apart; each kind, according as it is capable. All these have been sufferers through sin; and to all these (the finally impenitent excepted) shall refreshment redound from the glory of the children of God. Upright heathens are by no means to be excluded from this earnest expectation: nay, perhaps something of it may at some times be found even in the vainest of men; who (although in the hurry of life they mistake vanity for liberty, and partly stifle, partly dissemble, their groans, yet) in their sober, quiet, sleepless, afflicted hours, pour forth many sighs in the ear of God. (Explanatory Notes on Romans, chapter VIII, v. 19, on the Internet Wesley Center Online at http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/romans.htm#Chapter+VIII, accessed again, July 2, 2010; you may have to copy and paste the URL in your browser.)

 

The natural world—the created order—has been “subjected to futility . . . by the will of [God,] the one who subjected it” (v. 20). But it too “will be set free from its bondage to decay,” a part of the consequences of Adam’s fall, “and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (v. 21). “We know,” says Paul, “that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now” (v. 22). According to Dayton, “Though redemption is already completed on a spiritual level, it is obviously not yet so on the physical and environmental level. For from the act of subjecting nature to vanity right up to the present time the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain” (op. cit., on 8:18-23, citing v. 22 AV/KJV). Wesley essentially agrees, putting it this way: “For the whole creation groaneth together - With joint groans, as it were with one voice. And travaileth - Literally, is in the pains of childbirth, to be delivered of the burden of the curse. Until now - To this very hour; and so on till the time of deliverance” (op. cit., on v. 22). As Christian believers, living according to the Spirit, we eagerly anticipate not only the restoration of God’s created world, but “the redemption of our bodies,” as well: Paul says, “and not only the creation [has been ‘groaning in labor pains until now’], “but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies” (v. 23, with ref. to v. 2). Neil Elliott says, “The inner testimony of the Spirit (vv. 16, 26-27 ) is experienced as intense yearning and hope (5:1-5)” (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Rom. 8:23). Wesley says,

 

And even we, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit - That is, the Spirit, who is the first-fruits of our inheritance. The adoption - Persons who had been privately adopted among the Romans were often brought forth into the forum, and there publicly owned as their sons by those who adopted them. So at the general resurrection, when the body itself is redeemed from death, the sons of God shall be publicly owned by him in the great assembly of men and angels. The redemption of our body - From corruption to glory and immortality. (op. cit., on v. 23)

 

“For in hope we were saved,” says Paul. “Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen?” (v. 24). With that we come to what Dayton calls “Stabilizing Hope” (op. cit., on vv. 24-25). “Of the matter of hope and future good in salvation,” he says, “there can be no doubt. We were saved (aorist tense, past action). But in hope were we saved” (ibid.). Citing Denney (note 64), Dayton adds, “Our salvation was qualified from the beginning by reference to a good yet to be” (ibid.). And Paul concludes the reading with a definition of hope, distinguishing hope, as it were, from realized reality. “But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience” (v. 25). Dayton reflects on the role of hope in Christian living:

 

In addition to its original contribution to salvation hope also furnishes motivation and discipline–the very factors that strengthen and stabilize Christian character and devotion. Full accomplishment tends to laxity. Anticipation spurs to maximum effort and concern. Hence hope is, along with faith and love, one of the three primary Christian characteristics (1 Cor. 13:13). Where hope is strong, patience (steadfast endurance) is found. (ibid.)

 

As we look ahead to the beginning of Monday’s reading, it is important to note one further benefit, the intercession of the Spirit for us. “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words. And God, who searches the heart, knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God” (vv. 26-27). According to Elliott, “If we ‘groan inwardly’ (v. 23), it is because of the Spirit at work in our prayers, interceding for the saints. This dramatic language is resumed in 9:1-3” (op. cit., on vv. 26-27).

 

Matthew 22:23-40

 

The Question about the Resurrection (Mk 12.18-27; Lk 20.27-40)

23 The same day some Sadducees came to him, saying there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question, saying, 24 "Teacher, Moses said, 'If a man dies childless, his brother shall marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.' 25 Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died childless, leaving the widow to his brother. 26 The second did the same, so also the third, down to the seventh. 27 Last of all, the woman herself died. 28 In the resurrection, then, whose wife of the seven will she be? For all of them had married her."

29 Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, 32 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is God not of the dead, but of the living." 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astounded at his teaching.

 

The Greatest Commandment (Mk 12.28-34; Lk 10.25-28)

 

34 When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35 and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" 37 He said to him, " 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."  (Matthew 22:23-40, NRSV)

 

The following comments are based on relevant comments on Matthew 22:23-33 and 34-46 of December 7 and 8, 2009 (Monday and Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when comments were based on the comments on the first part of the reading from July 5, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two), when comments were based on comments on Matthew 22:23-33 from December 10, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Second Sunday of Advent, Year Two), and on relevant comments, on Matthew 22:34-40, selected from comments on Matthew 22:34-46 from December 11, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday of Advent, Year Two). Those comments were based on earlier comments as noted there.

 

Parallel passages for this reading are presented in the separate files, the Question on the Resurrection and Shema in the Gospels. For recent comments on Mark’s version of the Question on the Resurrection (Mk. 12:18-27), see the Archive for April 10, 2010 (Saturday of Easter week, Year Two). For recent comments on Luke’s version (Lk. 20:17-40), see the Archive for June 16, 2009 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year One). For recent comments on Mark’s version of the Greatest Commandment—the Shema in the Gospels—(Mk. 12:29-31), see the Archive for August 20, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year One). For recent comments on Luke’s version (Lk. 10:25-28. followed by the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Lk. 10:29-37), see the Archive for October 25, 2009 (the Sunday closest to October 26, Year One).

 

The challenges to Jesus’ authority continue. “The same day,” says Matthew, “some Sadducees came to him, saying there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question” (Mt. 22:23; cf. Mk. 12:18; Lk. 20:27, 28a). We might call the Sadducees “strict constructionists,” comparing them to those who have been called that with respect to the American Constitution. According to J. Andrew Overman, the Sadducees “did not accept the resurrection, since it is not mentioned in the Torah [i.e. Genesis through Deuteronomy]” (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 22:23). Their question for Jesus was posed as a hypothetical case. On the surface, they address Jesus respectfully (if not ironically). “Teacher,” they say, “Moses said, ‘If a man dies childless, his brother shall marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother [citing Deut. 25:5].’ Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died childless, leaving the widow to his brother. The second did the same, so also the third, down to the seventh. Last of all, the woman herself died. 28 In the resurrection, then, whose wife of the seven will she be? For all of them had married her” (Mt. 22:24-28; cf. Mk. 12:19-23; Lk. 20:28b-33). According to Overman, the Sadducees quote what is called “the law of levirate marriage (from Latin ‘levir,’ brother-in-law)” (ibid., on v. 24). “Moses,” says Dennis C. Duling, was “the presumed author of the Pentateuch . . . The purpose of this legislation (levirate law) was to preserve the deceased male’s family line and name (see Gen. 38:8; Ruth 4:10)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 22:24). “Down to the seventh,” says Overman, “echoes Tob. 3:7-10” (op. cit., on v. 26). So the Sadducees present Jesus with a kind of reductio ad absurdum–though they wouldn’t have called it that. Assuming that there is or will be resurrection of the dead, there would be seven brothers to claim the same wife.

 

Jesus responds to the Sadducees in two ways, in their understanding of scripture, and in their concept of life in the resurrection. “Jesus answered them,” says Matthew, “ ‘You are wrong because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven’ ” (Mt. 22:29-30; cf. Mk. 12:24-25). On this, Luke elaborates a little. “Jesus said to them, ‘Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. Indeed they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection” (Lk. 20:34-36).

 

Having explained life in the resurrection, Jesus returns to the point about the Sadducees understanding of scripture. In Matthew, he says, “And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, ‘I am ( =Egwv eijmi, Egō eimi) the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is God not of the dead, but of the living” (Mt. 22:31-32, citing Exod. 3:6, 15, 16; cf. 4 Macc. 7:19). Although the verb “am” is understood in the Hebrew of Exodus 3:6, the Septuagint has “I am” ( =Egwv eijmi, Egō eimi); compare “I AM WHO I AM” (hy,h4x, rw,x3 hy,h4x,, ’ehyeh ’ašer ’ehyeh; LXX =Egwv eijmi oJ w[n, Egō eimi ho ōn, lit. ‘I am the one who is, v. 14), a play on the divine name hvhy (YHWH, which modern scholars understand as “Yahweh”). According to Duling, in the quotation from Exodus 3:6, “The present tense (I am) is here taken to imply that the deceased patriarchs were still living, i.e., resurrected. Evidence for the doctrine of resurrection is thus found in the Pentateuch” (op. cit., on v. 32). In Mark and Luke, Jesus cites the Exodus passage as “the story about the bush.” “And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush [i.e. the burning bush, Exod. 3:1-4:17], how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is God not of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong” (Mk. 12:26-27; cf. Lk. 20:37-38. which adds, “for to him [i.e., to God] all of them are alive”). So Jesus counters their belief that there is no resurrection because, in their view, it is not mentioned in the Pentateuch (i.e., the Torah), “the Book of Moses,” by reference to their authority, in the account in which God calls Moses to lead his people out of Egypt. J. Andrew Overman says, “For Ex. 3:6 as proof that the patriarchs were still living, see Philo, Abraham 50-55” (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 22:31-32).

 

The challenge of the Pharisees (Matthew 22:15-22, was a plot to “entrap” Jesus (Mt. 22:15), and though the Sadducees’ question is not characterized as entrapment, it is clear that by their denial of resurrection (cf. Acts 4:1-2; 23:6-10), they differ both from Jesus and from the Pharisees as well. And, given their association with the chief priests and upper classes of Jerusalem, we may assume that they, too, were hostile to Jesus. According to Dale C. Allison, Jr., “If the Pharisees raise a political issue, the Sadducees (who presumably believe only in the OT’s shadowy Sheol) now pose a theological riddle which combines the teaching of the levirate law in Deut. 25:5 with the concrete example in Gen. 38:8. Although the two parties disagree regarding resurrection, they are one in opposing Jesus” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 873, on Mt. 22:15-22). According to Elwyn E. Tilden and Bruce M. Metzger, “The idea here is that those who are related to God in faith have life even though physically dead; resurrection is the divine act by which they will achieve the fullness of life intended in creation and lost through sin and death” (NOAB, 2nd ed., 1994, on Mt. 22:29).

 

On the First (Great) Commandment

 

After the Sadducees’ question for Jesus about the Resurrection, the Pharisees return, and “one of them, a lawyer,” asks, “Which commandment in the law is the greatest?” (Mt. 22:36; cf. Mk. 12:28). In Luke, the question is not about the greatest (Mt.) or first (Mk.) commandment, but rather, a lawyer asks, “Teacher . . . what must I do to inherit eternal life” (Lk. 10:25).In Luke, Jesus responds with leading questions, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” (Lk. 10:26). But Jesus’ answer in Matthew and Mark cites the Shema (Deut. 6:5) and Leviticus 19:18. In Luke, the lawyer gives the same answer in response to Jesus. Mark cites the initial summons, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Mk. 12:29); compare “Hear O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone” (Deut. 6:4). Each of the Synoptic Gospels cites the next verse from Deuteronomy: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Mt. 22:37; cf. Mk. 12:29-30; Lk. 10:27a). But there are some subtle variations in the key terms as indicated in the following table:

 

Key Terms in the Shema and the Gospels’ Citations

Hebrew Text

Septuagint

Mark

Matthew

Luke

Deuteronomy 6:5

Deuteronomy 6:5

Mark 12:30

Matthew 22:37

Luke 10:27

You shall love

(T!b4haxAv4, we’āhavtā)

[and you shall love]

kai; ajgaphvseiV

you shall love

ajgaphvseiV

You shall love

jAgaphvseiV

You shall love

jAgaphvseiV

heart

(bbAle, lēvāv) †

[heart]

(kardiva, kardia)

heart

(kardiva, kardia)

heart

(kardiva, kardia)

heart

(kardiva, kardia)

soul

(wp,n,, nefeš)

[soul]

(yuchv, psychē)

soul

(yuchv, psychē)

soul

(yuchv, psychē)

soul

(yuchv, psychē)

might

(dxom4, me’ ōd)

[power, might, strength, force . . .‡]

( duvnamiV, dynamis)

[See below]

 

strength

( ijscuvV, ischys)

strength, power, might ‡

 

 

mind

( diavnoia, dianoia)

(1) understanding, intelligence, mind, (2) mind = disposition, thought, mind, (3) mind = purpose, plan ‡

mind

( diavnoia, dianoia)

(1) understanding, intelligence, mind, (2) mind = disposition, thought, mind, (3) mind = purpose, plan ‡

mind

( diavnoia, dianoia)

(1) understanding, intelligence, mind, (2) mind = disposition, thought, mind, (3) mind = purpose, plan ‡

 

 

strength

( ijscuvV, ischys)

strength, power, might ‡

 

 

† The Hebrew word for “heart” (bbAle, lēvāv) has a range of meanings including heart as (1) “physical organ,” (2) “seat of vitality,” (3) “inner self, seat of feelings,” (4) “mind, character, disposition, inclination, loyalty, concern,” (5) determination, courage, (high) morale,” (6) “intention, purpose,” (7) “mind, attention, consideration, understanding, (8) “mind and mood in its totality, the self,” (9) “conscience,” (10) as a metaphor for “interior, middle,” (11) “organizing power of the nefeš (wp,n,),” that is, “life” or “person,” (12) “God’s heart,” and (13) a few other meanings (William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10th corrected impression 1988, s.v. bbAle (lēvāv) and the cross-reference to ble (lēv).

 

‡ Definitions of Greek words are from Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., 2000.

 

Where the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 6:5 has three key terms, “heart” (bbAle, lēvāv), “soul”(wp,n,, nefeš), and “might” (dxom4, me’ ōd), the Septuagint (LXX) translates with approximately equivalent Greek terms. Mark and Luke have equivalent terms, but with “strength” ( ijscuvV, ischys) for “might” (dxom4, me’ ōd), which, though nearly synonymous, differs from  duvnamiV (dynamis) in the LXX. Apparently, based on the complex set of meanings for “heart” (bb!l2, lēvāv) in Hebrew (see the table, above), of which the Evangelists, and/or their sources in tradition, were aware, each Gospel includes “mind” ( diavnoia, dianoia) as well as “heart” (kardiva, kardia). This apparently double translation of “heart,” means that Mark and Luke have four terms, with the order of the last two reversed in Luke from Mark’s order; Matthew, however, has no equivalent of “might” ( ijscuvV, ischys); the inclusion of this phrase in a few manuscripts (q f and others, perhaps Old Latin (e), in parentheses as shown, and the Syriac Peshito, cf. the apparatus in Novum Testamentum Graece, Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle, and Kurt Aland, edd., 25th ed., 1964), is clearly an assimilation to the text of the other Gospels.

 

Regardless of the subtle differences implied by the various terminology, the main point is the call for the whole human person, personality and all, for love of God and commitment to him and his righteousness. In Matthew’s version, Jesus follows the quotation of Deuteronomy 6:5 by saying, “This is the greatest and first commandment (Mt. 22:38). Jesus follows, in Matthew with an evaluation, which echoes the lawyer’s introductory question (v. 36), “This is the greatest and first commandment” (Mt. 22:38). But, though not asked about a “second” ( deutevra. deutera) commandment, Jesus adds one, “second,” that is, in position or importance, not in time or mere numerical sequence (cf. BDAG, s.v. deuvteroV, deuteros): “And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ ” (Mt. 22:39, citing Lev. 19:18). Mark presents the “second” commandment in connection with an evaluation of both. “The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these” (Mk. 12:31, also based on Lev. 19:18). Luke condenses the two commandments into one statement (Lk. 10:27).  Perhaps this discussion is so brief in Luke because he is leading up to the Parable of the Good Samaritan (as indicated in the table in the separate file, the Shema in the Gospels, mentioned above).

 

In Matthew, Jesus emphasizes the importance of these two commandments as the epitome of the Hebrew Bible, or at least its two main sections: “On these two commandments hang all the law (novmoV, nomos = Tôrāh) and the prophets (profh:tai, prophētai = N e vî ’ îm)” (Mt. 22:40). According to E. E. Tilden and B.M. Metzger, “The Law contains many ways of applying to life the principle of Love” (NOAB, 2nd ed., 1994, on Mt. 22:40). Dale C. Allison, Jr., points out that Akiba, a leading rabbi and martyr in the time of the second Jewish revolt against Rome (early 2nd century A.D.), called Leviticus 19:18 “the greatest principle in the law” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 874, on Mt. 22:34-40, citing Sipre Lev. 19:18). Allison adds: “Together [these two commandments] summarizes the Decalogue (cf. Philo, Dec. 19-20, 50-1, 106-10, 121, 154). Jesus, although asked for the greatest commandment, answers with two which are inextricable” (ibid.).

 

In Mark, the scribe who raised the question about the “first” commandment (Mk. 12:28) responds to Jesus’ answer by agreeing and commending it. “You are right, Teacher,” says the scribe, “you have truly said that ‘he is one and besides him there is no other’; and ‘to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding and with all the strength,’ and ‘to love one’s neighbor as oneself,’–this is much more important that all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices” (Mk. 12:32-34). And Jesus responds in kind: “When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’ ” (Mk. 12:34a). And “after that,” Mark tells us, “No one dared to ask him any question” (v. 34b). So we note that Jesus himself initiates the following discussion on whether the Messiah is David’s son or David’s Lord (Mk. 12:35-37; Mt. 22:41-45). But in the present series of daily readings we conclude the series on Matthew at this point. (Matthew 22:41-46, on Jesus’ Question about whether the Messiah is David’s Son or David’s Lord was recently discussed in the comments in the Archive for May 12, 2010, Wednesday in the Sixth Week of Easter, Year Two.

 

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net