Daily Scripture Readings     

Tuesday (July 6, 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://gamc.pcusa.org/gamc/

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.

Tuesday

AM Psalm 5, 6

PM Psalm 10, 11

Num. 35:1-3, 9-15, 30-34

Rom. 8:31-39

Matt. 23:13-26

[Jan Hus]:

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

Psalm 119:113-120

Job 22:21-30; Revelation 3:1-6; Matthew 23:34-39

Eucharistic Readings:

Psalm 115:1-10

Hosea 8:4-7, 11-13; Matthew 9:32-38

Tuesday

Morning: Psalms 12; 146

Num. 35:1-3, 9-15, 30-34

Rom. 8:31-39

Matt. 23:13-26

Evening: Psalms 36; 7

Tuesday

Morning Pss.: 54, 146

Num. 16:20-35

Rom. 4:1-12

Matt. 19:23-30

Evening Pss.: 28, 99

 

Year C Daily Readings

Psalm 119:73-80

Jeremiah 8:4-13

Acts 19:28-41

* Tuesday in the week of the Sixth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to July 6, Year Two

 

For the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 22, 2010, two weeks ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

 

Episcopal and Presbyterian Readings:

 

Numbers 35:1-3, 9-15, 30-34

 

35:1 In the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 2 Command the Israelites to give, from the inheritance that they possess, towns for the Levites to live in; you shall also give to the Levites pasture lands surrounding the towns. 3 The towns shall be theirs to live in, and their pasture lands shall be for their cattle, for their livestock, and for all their animals.

 

Cities of Refuge (Deut 19.1-13; Josh 20.1-9)

 

9 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 10 Speak to the Israelites, and say to them: When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, 11 then you shall select cities to be cities of refuge for you, so that a slayer who kills a person without intent may flee there. 12 The cities shall be for you a refuge from the avenger, so that the slayer may not die until there is a trial before the congregation.

13 The cities that you designate shall be six cities of refuge for you: 14 you shall designate three cities beyond the Jordan, and three cities in the land of Canaan, to be cities of refuge. 15 These six cities shall serve as refuge for the Israelites, for the resident or transient alien among them, so that anyone who kills a person without intent may flee there.

 

30 If anyone kills another, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses; but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of a single witness. 31 Moreover you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer who is subject to the death penalty; a murderer must be put to death. 32 Nor shall you accept ransom for one who has fled to a city of refuge, enabling the fugitive to return to live in the land before the death of the high priest. 33 You shall not pollute the land in which you live; for blood pollutes the land, and no expiation can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it. 34 You shall not defile the land in which you live, in which I also dwell; for I the LORD dwell among the Israelites.  (Numbers 35:1-3, 9-15, 30-34, NRSV)

 

The following comments are repeated here from July 8, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 6, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from July 11, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 6, Year Two), when some comments were repeated from July 6, 2004 in an email sent July 5, 2004, for July 5-11.

 

Yesterday’s reading reported the request of the tribes of Reuben and Gad to settle east of the Jordan River, and their agreement to lead the Israelites into battle in their war of conquest of Canaan west of the Jordan (Num. 32:1-42). In the chapters between that reading and today’s, we find a summary of the wilderness travels (chap. 33), and a summary of the boundaries of the promised land (chap. 34), probably representing, according to David P. Wright, “the extent of the land (actual or perceived) thought to obtain at the time of David (2 Sam. 8:3-14; 1 Kings 8:65)” (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented 2007, on Num. 34:1-12). The chapter includes directions about the eventual apportionment of land among the tribes. “Moses commanded the Israelites, saying: This is the land that you shall inherit by lot, which the LORD has commanded to give to the nine tribes and to the half-tribe” (v. 13), and Moses continues by referring to the previous arrangement for two tribes “and also the half-tribe of Manasseh” to inherit land east of the Jordan (vv. 14-15).

 

Chapter 35 begins with the LORD’s instructions about towns for the Levites. “In the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: Command the Israelites to give, from the inheritance that they possess, towns for the Levites to live in; you shall also give to the Levites pasture lands surrounding the towns” (Num. 35:1-2). There are instructions about the towns. “The towns shall be theirs to live in, and their pasture lands shall be for their cattle, for their livestock, and for all their animals” (v. 3). The reading passes over instructions about the pasture lands given to the Levites (vv. 4-5), about the six cities of refuge and forty-two other cities given to the Levites (vv. 6-7), and a proportional selection of the cities based on tribal sizes (v. 8). Nili S. Fox notes that “Each tribe must allocate land from its holdings for the Levites. The towns and pastureland apportioned to the Levites by each tribe is proportional to the size of its tribal territory. These instructions diverge from the division of the 48 Levitical towns among the tribes in Joshua (21:1-40), where nine of the tribes allocate four towns each, Judah gives eight, Simeon one, and Naphtali three” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 352 on Num. 35:1-8). Rabbi J. H. Hertz says, “According to Rabbinic tradition, the institution of Levitical cities ceased with the destruction of the first Temple" (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2nd ed., 24th printing, 1981, p. 719 on Num. 35:1-8).

 

As the reading resumes we are told about the LORD’s instructions regarding the cities of refuge. “The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelites, and say to them: When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall select cities to be cities of refuge for you, so that a slayer who kills a person without intent may flee there” (vv. 9-11). The purpose is to provide “a refuge from the avenger”: “The cities shall be for you a refuge from the avenger, so that the slayer may not die until there is a trial before the congregation” (v. 12). According to the Rabbi, the cities were to be “set aside as places of asylum for accidental homicides” (op. cit., p. 720 on Num. 35:9-15). Instructions continue about the location of the cities of refuge. There must be six cities of refuge in all (v. 13), three “beyond the Jordan” and three “in the land of Canaan” (v. 14). The cities are to “serve as refuge for the Israelites, for the resident or transient alien among them, so that anyone who kills a person without intent may flee there” (v. 15).

 

“In the ancient Near East,” says Wright, “the prosecution of homicide was often left to the victim’s family. The law in ch. 35 tempers the immediacy and severity of the family’s vengeance by providing for judicial review (vv. 24-25) and designating cities to which one who has accidentally killed a person may flee and reside for protection against the victim’s family. (Cf. Gen. 4:14-15; 9:5-6; Ex. 21:12-14; Deut. 4:411-43; 19:1-13; Josh 20” (op. cit., on Num. 35:9-34).

 

According to Fox, the following verses list “concrete examples that distinguish intentional from unintentional homicide; as is typical of the Bible and ancient Near Eastern law; specific cases rather than general principles are adduced” (op. cit., on vv. 16-23). Intentional murder includes striking someone “with an iron object” (v. 16), “with a stone in hand” (v. 17), or “with a weapon of wood in his hand that could cause death” (v. 18). Other examples of intentional murder are included (vv. 20, 21a), and in all these cases, “the avenger of blood is the one who shall put the murderer to death” (v. 19a, cf. v. 21b). On the other hand, examples of unintentional killing are listed, pushing “another suddenly without enmity, or [hurling] any object without lying in wait” (v. 22), or unintentionally dropping a stone on another when there was no enmity (v. 23). The conditions for dealing with such cases are described (vv. 24-28), in which the “congregation” plays a major role (vv. 24, 25). When “the congregation [rescues] the slayer from the avenger of blood” and sends him back “to the original city of refuge” (v. 25), where he must remain until “the death of the high priest” (v. 25, cf. v. 28).

 

The final paragraph of today’s reading (Num. 35:30-34) deals with murder.  “If anyone kills another, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses; but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of a single witness” (v. 30). “On witnesses,” says Wright, “cf. Deut. 19:15)” (op. cit., on v. 30). “It was stated in v. 16-18,” says the Rabbi, “that a man guilty of wilful murder should be put to death. The present v. [v. 30] and the one following tell us that the tribunal may only carry out the death-sentence if the murder is attested by two witnesses” (op. cit., on v. 30). “Moreover,” says the Numbers legislation, “you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer who is subject to the death penalty; a murderer must be put to death” (v.31). The Rabbi says, “The wilful murderer cannot have his death-sentence commuted by a money payment. The rabbis rightly deduced from this wording, that other injuries could be thus compounded for” (ibid., on v. 31). By way of contrast, Rabbi Hertz refers to his discussion of “Eye for eye” in Mosaic Law, where he says, “In the Mosaic Law, however, monetary commutation had already begun.” After reference to Numbers 35:31, he adds, “The literal application of ‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth’ was excluded in Rabbinic Law; and there is no instance in Jewish history of its literal application ever having been carried out” (ibid., p. 405, in the additional notes on Exodus).

 

Nor does the legislation permit the unintentional murderer to gain early release from the city of refuge by payment of money. “Nor shall you accept ransom for one who has fled to a city of refuge, enabling the fugitive to return to live in the land before the death of the high priest” (v. 32). Murder, the shedding of blood, is considered to pollute the land. “You shall not pollute the land in which you live; for blood pollutes the land, and no expiation can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it. You shall not defile the land in which you live, in which I also dwell; for I the LORD dwell among the Israelites” (vv. 33-34). The Rabbi describes wilful murder as “such a heinous crime that it cannot be atoned for by the payment of a money-fine; and not even the man who has unintentionally killed another shall purchase his release from the City of Refuge before the death of the High Priest” (ibid., p. 722 on Num. 35:30-34). Fox notes that “murder in the Bible was seen as a crime beyond an offense against the family of the deceased” (on v. 31), and he adds: “The notion that bloodshed and other transgressions pollute the land, thereby endangering its inhabitants with divine wrath, is common in the Bible (see Gen. 4:10-12; Lev. 18:28; 2 Sam. 21:1-14; Ezek. 36:17-19; Hos. 4:2-3)” (on vv. 33-34).

 

Romans 8:31-39

 

God’s Love in Christ Jesus

 

31 What then are we to say about these things?  If God is for us, who is against us?  32 He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else?  33 Who will bring any charge against God’s elect?  It is God who justifies.  34 Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us.  35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ?  Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?  36 As it is written,

“For your sake we are being killed all day long;

we are accounted as sheep to be slaughtered.”

37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.  (Romans 8:31-39, NRSV)

 

In the closing paragraph of Romans, chapter 8, we are assured that “God is for us”: “What then are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who is against us?” (Rom. 8:31). According to Neil Elliott, “Previous assurances of God’s love (5:1-11) are reaffirmed; despite all present adversities, God’s purpose will prevail” (op. cit., on Rom. 8:31-39). Paul’s assurance that “God is for us” assumes, I believe, that we have chosen to be on his side (vv. 29-30). Wilbur T. Dayton says, “No one can turn the trusting soul away from victory. Or to put it another way, we have the strongest possible guarantee of sufficient grace to make it through” (Wesleyan Bible Commentary, V, 1965, 2nd printing 1971, on Rom. 8:31). The promises here are magnificent. “He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else?” (v. 32). “Certainly,” says Dayton, “He will supply all needed grace” (ibid., on v. 32). “Who,” asks Paul, “will bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies” (v. 33). “Our sins have been confessed and forgiven,” says Dayton. “As long as we continue in humble, obedient trust, the accuser cannot touch us. We simply refer him to God. He is handling our case. Imagine such personal and effective attention on the part of the Sovereign of the universe!” (ibid., on v. 33).

 

This passage has provided encouragement for many people over the years, over the centuries. But have you noted two little words that keep popping up: “these things” (Rom. 8:31, 37, cf. “all things” in v. 28 [some versions]). What are we to do about “these things”? Name your own “these things.” Everyone probably has their own list. Paul provides a list, and a serious one at that, of those who are “against us” (v. 31), those who would bring charges against us (v. 33, where he may have more in mind than just people–Satan, for example), the condemner (v. 34), “hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness or peril, or sword” (v. 35)–the list expands even more in the last two verses, “neither death nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (vv. 38-39).

 

At this point, many who comment on scripture follow Paul in waxing eloquent, John Wesley, for example:

 

I am persuaded - This is inferred from the thirty - fourth verse, in an admirable order: - Neither death" shall hurt us; For "Christ is dead:" "Nor life;" 'is risen" Nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers; nor things pre - sent, nor things to come;" "is at the right hand of God:" "Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature;" "maketh intercession for us." Neither death - Terrible as it is to natural men; a violent death in particular, Rom 8:36. Nor life - With all the affliction and distress it can bring, Rom 8:35; or a long, easy life; or all living men. Nor angels - Whether good (if it were possible they should attempt it) or bad, with all their wisdom and strength. Nor principalities, nor powers - Not even those of the highest rank, or the most eminent power. Nor things present - Which may befall us during our pilgrimage; or the whole world, till it passeth away. Nor things to come - Which may occur either when our time on earth is past, or when time itself is at an end, as the final judgment, the general conflagration, the everlasting fire. Nor height, nor depth - The former sentence respected the differences of times; this, the differences of places. How many great and various things are contained in these words, we do not, need not, cannot know yet. The height - In St. Paul's sublime style, is put for heaven. The depth - For the great abyss: that is, neither the heights, I will not say of walls, mountains, seas, but, of heaven itself, can move us; nor the abyss itself, the very thought of which might astonish the boldest creature. Nor any creature - Nothing beneath the Almighty; visible enemies he does not even deign to name. Shall be able - Either by force, Rom 8:35; or by any legal claim, Rom 8:33, &c. To separate us from the love of God in Christ - Which will surely save, protect, deliver us who believe in, and through, and from, them all. (Explanatory Notes on Romans 8:38, on the Internet web site Wesley Center Online, on the Internet at http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/romans.htm#Chapter+VIII, accessed again July 4, 2010.)

 

We are perhaps reminded of the gospel song chorus:

 

http://www.my.homewithgod.com/heavenlymidis2/seechrist.html

It will be worth it all when we see Jesus,

Life’s trials will seem so small when we see Christ;

One glimpse of His dear face all sorrow will erase,

So bravely run the race till we see Christ.

(“When We See Christ” by Esther Kerr Rusthoi, cited in full on the Internet web site, Jesus is Savior.com, at http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/sounds/Hymns/when_we_see_christ.htm, accessed July 4, 2010.)

 

Matthew 23:13-26

 

13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them. 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.

16 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the sanctuary is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the sanctuary is bound by the oath.’ 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, ‘Whoever swears by the altar is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gift that is on the altar is bound by the oath.’ 19 How blind you are! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; 21 and whoever swears by the sanctuary, swears by it and by the one who dwells in it; 22 and whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it.

23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!

25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may become clean.  (Matthew 23:13-26, NRSV)

 

The following comments are repeated here from December 10, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Second Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when comments were based on those on Matthew 23:13-24 of November 16, 2008 (the Sunday closest to November 16, Year Two) and earlier comments, including those of December 13, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Second Sunday of Advent, Year Two), and of July 8, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 6, Year Two).

 

In the readings from Matthew for yesterday, today and tomorrow (July 5, 6, 7, 2010), Jesus presents a severe denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees. Yesterday’s reading (Mt. 23:1-12) introduced this criticism by faulting them for not practicing what they teach (v. 3), laying oppressive burdens on others (v. 4). and an inordinate “craving for honor” (vv. 5-7; cf. Richard A. Horsley, NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mk. 12:38-40). The latter becomes a lesson on servant leadership for Christian leaders (Mt. 23:8-12). Within the second and third lessons from Matthew, Jesus presents a severe denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus pronounces seven woes (Oujai; de; uJmi:n or Oujai; uJmi:n, Ouai de hymin or Ouai hymin, “Woe to you [plural]”) against the scribes and Pharisees. Each woe is introduced with these words: “But woe to you, scribes (grammatei:V, grammateis) and Pharisees, hypocrites (uJpokritaiv, hypocritai)!” (Mt. 23:13, 15, 16 [to “blind guides” = “scribes and Pharisees], 23, 25, 27, 29). Elwyn E. Tilden and Bruce M. Metzger remind us that “the denunciations are an indictment of some, not all, Pharisees” (NOAB, 2nd ed., 1991, 1994, on Mt. 23:13). I emphasize the words, “not all.” For parallel passages to today’s reading, see the separate file, Woes to the Scribes and Pharisees, Part 2. The complete list of woes will be found in the separate file, Woes List.

 

In Luke’s parallel passages to these readings from Matthew (Lk. 20:45-47; 11:37-54), we find six woes and other comparable denunciations. But the context is different. Whereas Jesus’ discourse, including the seven woes, comes after a series of controversy debates with the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, from the Pharisees’ question about Paying Tribute to the Emperor (Mt. 22:15-22) through Jesus question about whether the Messiah is David’s son or David’s Lord (Mt. 22:41-46), in Luke the six woes are spoken by Jesus along with other criticisms, when he is an invited dinner guest in the home of a Pharisee (Lk. 11:37). And, whereas the seven woes of Jesus in Matthew are directed at the “scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,” the first three woes in Luke are directed at the Pharisees–in the home of a Pharisee, no less! But the remaining three, responding to a lawyer’s complaint (Lk. 11:45), are directed at “you lawyers (nomikoiv, nomikoi)” (vv. 46, 52, cf. 47). In Luke 20:45-47, Jesus warns about the scribes (v. 45), in a context parallel to Mark (Mk. 12:37b-40).

 

Five woes from the series of seven in Matthew are included in today’s reading (six of eight if verse 14 were to be included). Of these seven woes, four have parallel woes in Luke’s version, two have parallel statements in Luke not in the form of “woes,” and one, about making converts–a particularly Jewish concern (Mt. 23:15)–has no parallel in content in the Gospels. Parallel relationships between Matthew’s woes and other denunciations are indicated in the table in the separate file, Woes List, as noted above.  The woes and other denunciations are listed in the order of their appearance in the respective Gospels (columns 1 and 4), with cross-references by woe number (1-6 or -7) and by letter characters (A to D) for selected denunciations.

 

In the first woe, Jesus addresses the key issue. Those who “sit on Moses’ seat” and whose teaching should be followed (Mt. 23:2) are in fact preventing their people from realizing the desired effect of this teaching. “But woe to you, scribes (grammatei:V, grammateis) and Pharisees, hypocrites (uJpokritaiv, hypocritai)! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them” (Mt. 23:13). In Luke’s version of this saying, Jesus says, “Woe to you lawyers (nomikoiv, nomikoi)! For you have taken away the key (kleivV. kleis) of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering” (Lk. 11:52). As one might expect, the term “lawyer” (oJ nomikovV, ho nomikos), a substantive (noun) use of the adjective which “pertains to being well informed about law, learned in the law [and so refers to a] legal expert, jurist, lawyer (Strabo . . . Epictetus . . . ).” The term is used in Titus 3:13 of “a certain Zenas the nomikovV (nomikos), but it is not clear whether he was expert in Mosaic or non-Mosaic (in the latter case most probably Roman) law.–Elsewhere in the NT only once in Mt. and several times in Lk., always of those expert in Mosaic law” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., 2000, s.v. (nomikovV, nomikos, meaning no. (2) ). Although Matthew’s term “scribe” (grammateuvV, grammateus) has a somewhat different range of meanings, in this context it can be considered a synonym of Luke’s term “lawyer” (nomikovV, nomikos). The former can refer to the “chief executive officer of a governmental agency, secretary (of state), clerk” (BDAG, s.v. grammatei:V, grammateis, meaning no. (1) ), as in Acts 19:35, “the town clerk” who “quieted the crowd” stirred up by the silversmiths who protested Paul’s stand against idolatry, and “dismissed the assembly” (v. 41). But it usually refers to “an expert in matters related to divine revelation,” that is, “specialists in the law of Moses: experts in the law, scholars versed in the law, scribes” (ibid., meaning no. (2) ). The Lexicon adds that the scribes are “mentioned together with high priests . . . with whom and the elders (often referred to in the same context) their representatives formed the Sanhedrin).” If there is a difference in connotation here, Matthew’s context, Jesus denouncing the religious leadership in Jerusalem as compared with Jesus being a Pharisee’s dinner guest (cf. Lk. 11:37), fits the connotations of “scribe” ( grammatei:V, grammateis) indicated above. We also note that in the Pharisee’s home, according to Luke, Jesus denounces the Pharisees and the lawyers, but in the context of the final confrontations in Jerusalem, according to Luke, Jesus denounces the scribes.

 

Luke’s word “key” (kleivV. kleis) in this saying (Lk. 11:52), occurs four times in Revelation, but elsewhere in the New Testament only once in Matthew, where Jesus says to Peter, “I will give you the keys (klei:daV, kleidas) of the kingdom of heaven . . .” (Mt. 16:19). It is defined in a literal sense, as one might expect, as “something used for locking, key,” but in a figurative sense, as “a means of acquiring access to something, key, for this passage in Luke. Matthew uses a verbal equivalent, “for you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven” (kleivete th;n basileian tw:n oujranw:n e[mprosqen tw:n ajnqrwvpwn, kleiete tēn basileian tōn ouranōn emprosthen tōn anthrōpōn) (Mt. 23:13), literally, “you close up the kingdom of heaven in front of human beings,” or as we might put it, “you slam the door in their faces!” “In Lk. (11:52),” says Krister Stendahl, “this logion gives the climax to the criticism of the Pharisees, and that in good grounds. In Mt. it is the first of seven ‘woes’ ” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 691 d, p. 792, on Mt. 23:13-14). According to C. G. Montefiore,

 

This [Mt. 23:13] probably means that the Rabbis, by their ritualistic, outward, casuistic, perverse interpretation of the Law had made it impossible for those who followed, or sought to follow, their teaching to ‘enter the Kingdom,’ i.e. to be ‘saved.’ Another view is that the Rabbis prevented Jews from becoming Christians. In this case the ‘Kingdom’ is the Christian community. A third view is that the Rabbis did all they could to hinder the preaching of Jesus: they refused to listen themselves, and they tried to prevent others from listening. (The Synoptic Gospels, Edited with an Introduction and a Commentary, vol. 2, Library of Biblical Studies, 1927, reprinted 1968, p. 300, on Mt. 23:13)

 

The next verse (Mt. 23:14), would, if it were original within Matthew’s text, bring the total of “woes” from seven to eight, as noted above. But given its absence from many early witnesses, it is likely a later copyist’s insertion based on the parallels in Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47. Bruce M. Metzger sums up the thinking of the Committee that edited the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, 3rd ed., 1975, as follows:

 

That ver. 14 [i.e., Mt. 23:14] is an interpolation derived from the parallel in Mk. 12:40 or Lk. 20:47 is clear (a) from its absence in the earliest and best authorities of the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Caesarean types of text, and (b) from the fact that the witnesses which include the passage have it in different places, either after ver. 13 (so the Textus Receptus) or before ver. 13. (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament; A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, [third edition]), 1971, p. 60, on Mt. 23:13)

 

Mark 12:40, worded the same in Luke 20:47, except that the finite verb “say [long] prayers,” proseuvcontai, proseuchontai, replaces the participle“saying [long] prayers,” proseucovmenoi, proseuchomenoi (a difference not reflected in the NRSV, nor in TNIV), is used by a later copyist of Matthew, who uses Matthew’s formula, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” to construct an added woe.

 

As noted above, Matthew’s woe about going to extreme lengths to make converts has no parallel in Luke. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert (proshvlutoV, prosēlytos), and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves” (Mt. 23:15). According to Stendahl, “Judaism was a missionary religion in the time of Jesus, but only in areas where there was already a Jewish synagogue. A proselyte [convert] has taken a step beyond the so-called ‘men who feared God’ (e.g., Ac. 10:2; 13:16) and become circumcised. The verse may have the same problem in mind which Paul encounters among the ‘Judaisers’ (e.g. Gal. 5:2ff.)” (loc. cit.). According to Montefiore, this is “a famous verse. The charge is probably exaggerated and inaccurate. The Palestinian Rabbis were, on the whole, not particularly favourable to proselytes. The idea is that the convert out-Herods Herod. He is more ‘outward,’ more intent on ceremonies and more lax in morals, than the Rabbis themselves” (op. cit., p. 300, on Mt. 23:15).

 

The paragraph that contains Matthew’s next woe (Mt. 23:16-22) is the longest, except for the introductory paragraph (vv. 1-12, yesterday’s reading, with no woes), and the paragraph that presents the last woe (vv. 29-36, in tomorrow’s reading). “Woe to you, blind guides,” says Jesus, “who say, ‘Whoever swears by the sanctuary is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the sanctuary is bound by the oath’ ” (Mt. 23:16). This woe departs from the structure of Matthew’s other six woes, “Woe [or ‘But woe, v. 13] to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! (vv. 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29)” But the words, “Woe to you, blind guides,” clearly imply what the other woes make explicit,” and they, with the extended paragraph (vv. 16-22), break the monotony, somewhat, of the repeated formula. The “blind guides” epithet, but not the phrase “woe to you, blind guides,” is repeated in conjunction with the next woe (Mt. 23:24). The blind guides metaphor also occurs in other contexts, for example, “Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind” (Mt. 15:14, in a Markan context on the “tradition[s] of the elders,” Mk. 7:3, cf. vv. 1-23), where it is directed against the Pharisees (cf. Mt. 15:12). Luke also uses the “blind guide” idea in a context of teaching for Jesus’ followers, the Sermon on the Plain (Lk. 6:20-49). It comes as a parable within a section on judging others, vv. 37-42, “Can a blind person guide a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit?” (Lk. 6:39).

 

“You blind fools (mwroi; kai tufloiv, mōroi kai typhloi, lit. ‘fools and blind’)!” says Jesus, according to Matthew, and continues with a series of things by which one should, or should not, swear” (v. 17a, cf. vv.22). On the issue of swearing “by the sanctuary,” or “by the gold of the sanctuary” (Mt. 23:16), we may compare Jesus admonition, “Do not swear at all (Mt. 5:34; cf. Jas. 5:12; cf. also Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21). We may keep in mind Jesus’ injunction not to swear at all as a way to avoid the dilemmas about what to swear by and what not to swear by, the altar or the gift (Mt. 23:18-19), by the sanctuary, or by “the one who dwells in it” (vv. 20-21), that is, by God? But compare what follows: “by heaven . . . by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it” (v. 22). According to Stendahl, “The intention behind the rulings of the scribes here under criticism was a good one: they were against insincere oaths and this led them to discourage oaths by the most holy things, allowing such by what appeared more removed from the centre of holiness. Such rulings are ridiculed here by the hermeneutic rule ‘if the lesser then also the greater’ ” (op. cit., sec. 691, p. 792, on vv. 16-22). If Stendahl suggests good intentions behind the distinctions criticized here, Montefiore apparently sees outrageous criticism of Judaism here.

 

Jesus calls his opponents ‘fools,’ in spite of his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (v, 22). Can the inconsistency be got over by the ingenious remark, ‘It shews that not the word but the spirit in which it is uttered is what matters’ (McNeile). If R. Akiba had said what we find in [Mt. 5:]22, and if he had called his Christian contemporaries ‘fools,’ I wonder if a similar excuse for him would have been suggested by the same commentator! (op. cit., on Mt. 23:17)

 

In Jesus’ next woe, he accuses the scribes and Pharisees of focusing on trivial matters to the neglect of major religious concerns, for they “tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith” (v. 23b, cf. Lk. 11:42, with “mint and rue and every herb”). These they “ought to have practiced without neglecting the others” (v. 23c). J. Andrew Overman sums this up as follows: “The point of the denunciation seems to be that in trying to carry out the law requiring tithes of produce even for such tiny herbs, the Pharisees miss the important requirements of the Law (see Mic. 6:8)” (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 23:23). Jesus repeats his reference to blind guides. “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!” (Mt. 23:24, cf. v. 16). According to Stendahl, “The Talmud’s ‘he that kills a flea on the Sabbath is as guilty as if he killed a camel’ (Shab. 12a) gives the background to this saying, which is more natural in Aramaic where ‘camel’ and ‘gnat’ are similar in pronunciation” (op. cit., sec. 691 f, pp. 792-793, on v. 24). Who among us, we might ask, has not, at times, been confused about values and priorities?

 

Another woe about priorities follows, in which Jesus says the scribes and Pharisees “clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence” (v. 25). And, replacing the metaphor, “blind guides,” Jesus here says, “You blind Pharisee (cf. Jn. 9:40-41)! First clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may become clean” (v. 26; to vv. 25-26, cf. Lk. 11:39-41; also cf. Mk. 7:1-8, 14-23). According to Montefiore, the words “inward” ( e[swqen, esōthen) and “outward” ( e[xwqen, exōthen)

 

may mean that they clean dish and cup outwardly, but fill them unrighteously through rapine and avarice. The word ajkrasiva [akrasia] would signify insatiable appetite, the object of which is here the goods or property of others. Or the cup and platter may be a mere metaphor for men. They are outwardly clean, i.e. ritually punctilious, but inwardly, in their hearts, they are full of vice. Or, thirdly, the original meaning of 25 may have been, ‘you clean what is outward,’ namely such things as cups and platters, ‘but within ye are full of extortion.’ This would be a sort of combination of part of the first and second meanings. If the cups had been meant as a metaphor for men, the dishes would not have been added; and 26, which actually does so interpret the cups, omits the dishes. But 26 probably implies an old misunderstanding of 25. (op. cit., p. 302, on v. 25)

 

Anticipating the next woe, that comes in tomorrow’s reading, Stendahl comments on two together: “The theme from ch. 15 [i.e. conflict over tradition and authority, with reference to defilement] comes here in more apodictic form, but both examples are highly rhetorical since certainly the cleansing of the inside of the vessels was more important to the opponents and since the point in chalking the tombs was to mark them so that nobody contracted defilement unwittingly by walking over them” (op. cit., on vv. 25-28).

 

So more woes follow, but today’s reading selects these for our consideration. We need to remind ourselves that Jesus, though his criticism is harsh and severe, was indicting a few leaders, not all Jews then–and certainly not all Jews since then. One can quote criticism of Pharisees by Pharisees from the Rabbinic writings. It may be that Matthew records these denunciations of hypocrisy pronounced by Jesus against Pharisees as warnings against similar attitudes within his own Christian, probably Jewish-Christian, community.

 

As noted above, for the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 22, 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