Daily Scripture Readings     

Thursday (September 30, 2010)*

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

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

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

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

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

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

‡ Daily Lectionary, Evangelical Lutheran Worship, ELCA, 2006. In the Evangelical Lutheran Worship book of 2006, the Daily Lectionary (pp. 1121-1153) is revised to correlate with the Sunday Lectionary (the Revised Common Lectionary) on the three year cycle: Year A, Year B, Year C (now current). “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 105:1-22

PM Psalm 105:23-45

Hosea 5:8-6:6

Acts 21:27-36

Luke 6:1-11

Jerome:

Jerome

Psalm 119:97-104

Nehemiah 8:1-3, 5-8; 2 Timothy 3:14-17; Luke 24:44-48

Eucharistic Readings:

Job 19:21-27; Psalm 27:10-18;

Luke 10:1-12

Thursday

Morning: Psalms 116; 147:12-20

Hosea 4:1-10

Acts 21:27-36

Luke 6:1-11

Evening: Psalms 26; 130

Thursday

Morning Pss.: 143, 147:13-21

Job 28:1-28

Acts 16:25-40

John 12:27-36a

Evening Pss.: 81, 116

 

Year C Daily Readings

Psalm 37:1-9

2 Kings 18:1-8, 28-36

Revelation 2:8-11

* Thursday in the week of the Eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two

 

For the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for September 16 2010, two weeks ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

 

Episcopal and Presbyterian Readings:

 

Hosea 5:8-6:6

 

8 Blow the horn in Gibeah,

the trumpet in Ramah.

Sound the alarm at Beth-aven;

look behind you, Benjamin!

9 Ephraim shall become a desolation

in the day of punishment;

among the tribes of Israel

I declare what is sure.

10 The princes of Judah have become

like those who remove the landmark;

on them I will pour out

my wrath like water.

11 Ephraim is oppressed, crushed in judgment,

because he was determined to go after vanity.

12 Therefore I am like maggots to Ephraim,

and like rottenness to the house of Judah.

13 When Ephraim saw his sickness,

and Judah his wound,

then Ephraim went to Assyria,

and sent to the great king.

But he is not able to cure you

or heal your wound.

14 For I will be like a lion to Ephraim,

and like a young lion to the house of Judah.

I myself will tear and go away;

I will carry off, and no one shall rescue.

15 I will return again to my place

until they acknowledge their guilt and seek my face.

In their distress they will beg my favor:

 

A Call to Repentance

 

6:1 “Come, let us return to the LORD;

for it is he who has torn, and he will heal us;

he has struck down, and he will bind us up.

2 After two days he will revive us;

on the third day he will raise us up,

that we may live before him.

3 Let us know, let us press on to know the LORD;

his appearing is as sure as the dawn;

he will come to us like the showers,

like the spring rains that water the earth.”

 

Impenitence of Israel and Judah

 

4 What shall I do with you, O Ephraim?

What shall I do with you, O Judah?

Your love is like a morning cloud,

like the dew that goes away early.

5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets,

I have killed them by the words of my mouth,

and my judgment goes forth as the light.

6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,

the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. (Hosea 5:8-6:6, NRSV)

 

The following comments are repeated here with editing and supplement from October 2, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two), when comments were repeated from October 5, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two):

 

“Blow the horn (rpaOw, šôf~r) in Gibeah,” says Hosea, “the trumpet (hr!c4coHE, chatsÇtser~h) in Ramah. / Sound the alarm at Beth-aven; look behind you, Benjamin!” (Hos. 5:8 NRSV). The same words for instruments and translations occur in the context of worship (Ps. 98:6). In Joshua 6:4-6, the plural tOrp;Ow, šôferôth is translated as “trumpets” and Nr,q,, qeren is translated as the “ram’s horn” (Josh. 6:5 NRSV). Since the rpAOw (šôf~r) is used “for blowing a signal” (William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10th corrected impression 1988, s.v. rp!Ow, šôf~r), it found uses both in worship and in war, perhaps both as Joshua surrounded Jericho. But for this Hosea passage, it signals the LORD’s attack on the northern kingdom (Gibeah, Ramah, Beth-aven [Bethel], Benjamin, Hos. 5:8, and Ephraim, v. 9). “Ephraim shall become a desolation,” says the word of the LORD through the prophet, “in the day of punishment; / among the tribes of Israel / I declare what is sure”(v. 9). According to Gregory Mobley, because “Gibeah [and] Ramah [were] Benjaminite towns just north of Jerusalem, situated on the path an invading army would take approaching from the south (Isa. 10:28-32) . . . this may refer to a Judahite counterattack after the Syro-Ephraimite initiative failed” (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Hos. 5:8). But the continuation threatens Judah as well as Ephraim. “Ephraim shall become a desolation / in the day of punishment; / among the tribes of Israel / I declare what is sure” (v. 9). And as for Judah, “The princes of Judah have become / like those who remove the landmark; / on them I will pour out / my wrath like water” (v. 10). “These verses,” says James Luther Mays, revised by Stephen L. Cook, “presuppose a counterattack by Judah during the Syro-Ephraimite war” (The HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Hos. 5:8-10). And they add, “Judah’s invasion of Ephraim is compared to altering boundaries between farm plots, a crime forbidden in the Sinai covenant (Deut. 19:14; 27:17; Prov. 22:28; Mic. 2:2)” (ibid., on v. 10). But Ephraim’s fate is due to presumption. “Ephraim is oppressed, crushed in judgment, / because he was determined to go after vanity (cf. LXX mavtaia, mataia, for vcA%, tsāw?) “Go after vanity,” say Mays and Cook, refers to “Ephraim’s alliance with Syria” (ibid., on v. 11). The LORD responds with punishment for the infractions of both Ephraim and Judah. “Therefore I am like maggots (wfA, ‘āš) to Ephraim, / and like rottenness (bq!rA, rāqāv) to the house of Judah” (v. 12). William L. Holladay defines the word wfA (‘āš) as “pus” (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10th corrected impression, 1988, s.v. wfA, ‘āš), which, with the dagger symbol (†), is marked as occurring only here in the Hebrew Bible in “undisputed instances” (ibid., p. xx). Holladay so represents the word translated “rottenness” as occurring only in Hab. 3:16, Prov. 12:4; 14:30 (ibid., s.v. bq!rA, rāqāv), but it occurs here without textual variant in BHS, 1970). For wfA (‘āš), the Septuagint has tarachv (tarachē), “trouble, disorder, confusion,” and for bq!rA (rāqāv), kevntron (kentron), “a point, prickle, spike, sting . . . 2. an instrument of torture. 3. metaphor a spur, incentive” (A Lexicon Abridged from Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, rev. 1871, repr. 1977, s.v. tarachv, tarachē, and kevntron, kentron). The Septuagint interprets in a general way.

 

The following reference to illness tends to confirm the NRSV translation of verse 12. “When Ephraim saw his sickness (Oyl;HA, cholîô), / and Judah his wound (Or)zm;, mezōrô, ‘his boil, ulcer,’ Holladay, s.v.), / then Ephraim went to Assyria, / and sent to the great king” (v. 13a, b, c, d). Ephraim chose the wrong doctor, so to speak. Mobley explains, “Hoshea, the final king in Samaria (732-722 BCE), sought to appease Assyria in the wake of Pekah’s failed rebellion (2 Kings 16:3)” (op. cit., on v. 13). However, “he [i.e., the Assyrian] is not able to cure you / or heal your wound (rOz&mA, māzôr)” (v. 13e, f). According to Mays and Cook, “After the Syro-Ephraimite initiative failed and Assyria invaded the land in 733 BCE, Israel surrendered territory and paid tribute to Assyria (cf. 2 Kings 15:19-20; 17:3). Assyria is not able to cure the people, because only the Lord is their suzerain and savior (10:3; 13:4, 9-11; 14:3)” (op. cit., on v. 13). The LORD explains: “For I will be like a lion to Ephraim, / and like a young lionn to the house of Judah. I myself will tear and go away; / I will carry off, and no one shall rescue” (v. 14). According to Mays and Cook, “Hosea takes this metaphorical language from the psalms of Asaph (Ps. 50:22)” (ibid., on v. 14). “I will return again to my place,” says the LORD, until they acknowledge their guilt and seek my face. / In their distress they will beg my favor:” The NRSV punctuates with a colon, anticipating the call to repentance that follows. “Mention of the LORD’s place,” say Mays and Cook, “initially conjures the image of a lion’s den (cf. v. 14; Jer. 4:7), but the reference is to God’s heavenly temple (cf. Mic. 1:3). Until stresses the possibility of repentance . . . Seek my face [means] revive the traditional rites of the Lord (cf. Pss 24:6; 27:8; 105:4)” (ibid., on v. 15).

 

Hosea continues by calling Israel to repentance: “Come, let us return (hbAUwn!v4, wen~šûv~h) to the LORD; / for it is he who has torn, and he will heal us; / he has struck down, and he will bind us up” (6:1). If the nation repents, says the prophet, “After two days he [i.e., the LORD] will revive us; / on the third day he will raise us up, / that we may live before him” (6:2). “Let us know, let us press on to know the LORD,” says the prophet; “his appearing is as sure as the dawn; he will come to us like the showers, / like the spring rains that water the earth” (v. 3). According to Ehud Ben Zvi, “The book quotes a human voice urging repentance, saying that just as God wounded, He will heal. The appearance of God is as assured as the daybreak, as refreshing as rain” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Hos. 6:1-3). But Mays and Cook have a different view. “Hosea presents a parody of the people’s current insufficient gestures at penitence. The song uses some right words but mixes in language from the fertility cult (e.g., v. 3b)” (op. cit., on 6:1-3). In any event, a passage indicating the LORD’s despair, as it were, at failing to win back Israel’s allegiance. “What shall I do with you, O Ephraim? / What shall I do with you, O Judah? Your love (ds,H,, chesed) is like a morning cloud, / like the dew that goes away early” (v. 4). The word translated “love” here often means “faithfulness” (cf. Holladay, op. cit., s.v. ds,H,, chesed), clearly lacking in Israel’s case as Hosea sees it. “Therefore (NKe-lfa, ‘al-kēn),” says the LORD, “I have hewn (yT9b;caHA, chāvtî) them by the prophets, / I have killed them by the words of my mouth, / and my judgment goes forth as the light” (v. 5). The word translated “hewn” does not mean carving as if to put in shape here, as in “dressing stones,” but rather, according to Holladay, “strike down, hew down” (op. cit., s.v. bceHA, chātsēv, meaning no. 5). The reference to “prophets” (plural) shows that Hosea was not the first to warn Israel. “Hosea had predecessors,” say Mays and Cook, “also mediators of the covenant, who announced God’s punishment” (op. cit., on v. 5). The reading closes with what Mobley calls “a persistent theme of the prophets” (op. cit., on v. 6 with ref. to Amos 5:22-24; Micah 6:6-8): “For I desire steadfast love (ds,H,, chesed) and not sacrifice, / the knowledge of God (Myh9lox< tfaDa, da‘ath-’ elōhîm) rather than burnt offerings” (Hos. 6:6). According to Mays and Cook, “God’s statement is not aimed against sacrifices but stresses the relative importance of integrity of life under the covenant over mere rituals and shows of piety (cf. Mic. 6:;6-8; 1 Sam. 15:22; Jer. 7:22-23).

 

Hosea 4:1-10 (Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions–for comments on Hosea 4:1-10, see the comments two days ago, Tuesday, September 28, 2010).

 

Acts 21:27-36

 

Paul Arrested in the Temple

 

            27 When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, who had seen him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd. They seized him, 28 shouting, “Fellow Israelites, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this place; more than that, he has actually brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” 29 For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple. 30 Then all the city was aroused, and the people rushed together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut. 31 While they were trying to kill him, word came to the tribune of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. 32 Immediately he took soldiers and centurions and ran down to them. When they saw the tribune and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. 33 Then the tribune came, arrested him, and ordered him to be bound with two chains; he inquired who he was and what he had done. 34 Some in the crowd shouted one thing, some another; and as he could not learn the facts because of the uproar, he ordered him to be brought into the barracks. 35 When Paul came to the steps, the violence of the mob was so great that he had to be carried by the soldiers. 36 The crowd that followed kept shouting, “Away with him!” (Acts 21:27-36, NRSV)

 

The following comments are repeated here with editing and supplement from August 13, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 10, Year One), when they were repeated from October 2, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two), when comments were repeated from August 16, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 10, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from October 5, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two), when comments were repeated from August 11, 2005 (Thursday of the week of the Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost, Year One).

 

At the close of yesterday’s reading Paul has agreed to join men “under a vow” in the rite of purification (Acts 21:23-24) to prove his faithfulness to the Law of Moses (vv. 20-22). So “Paul took the men, and the next day, having purified himself, he entered the temple with them, making public the completion of the days of purification when the sacrifice would be made for each of them” (v. 26; cf 18:18, where Paul was already “under a vow”). According to Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “The public fulfillment of the vow enacts Paul’s respect for Mosaic traditions, but it also sets the stage for the reaction that follows” (The HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Acts 21:26). So, while Absalom’s declared intention to fulfill a vow (2 Sam. 15:7) was a pretense, Paul enters the Jerusalem temple with every intention of fulfilling his vow. But this attempt at purification was interrupted. “When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, who had seen him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd. They seized him, shouting, ‘Fellow Israelites, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this place; more than that, he has actually brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place’ ” (vv. 27-28). According to Luke, these accusers had jumped to a false conclusion. “For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple” (v. 29). Trophimus was “a Christian from Ephesus who, with Tychicus, joined Paul and others for the apostle’s final visit to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4-5). Asian Jews mistakenly accused Paul of taking Trophimus, a Gentile, into the Temple’s Court of Israel (Acts 21:29), thus provoking mob disturbance that led to Paul’s arrest” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Trophimus). This (unsigned) article also points out that, “According to 2 Tim. 4:20, Trophimus (the same man?) remained at Miletus because of illness. Since Paul did not sail past Miletus en route to Rome, this note, if historical, may imply Paul’s release from Roman imprisonment, further activity in the East, and a second imprisonment” (ibid.). Loveday Alexander explains that Paul’s accusers

 

perceive Paul’s gospel as a direct attack on the Jewish people, the law, and the temple, a general charge which the following chapters will do their best to answer; but they also add the more specific charge (guaranteed to cause a maximum disturbance among the volatile crowds at a festival season) that Paul has brought an uncircumcised Gentile into the holy place (v. 28). This was a serious charge which would have incurred the death penalty; Jewish religious law was in this respect backed up by all the weight of Roman authority. (Loveday Alexander, The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, on Acts 21:27-36).

 

According to Christopher R. Matthews, “It was a capital offense for non-Jews to pass beyond the Court of the Gentiles; an inscription stating this has been discovered (cf. Josephus, War 5.193-194; 6.125-126)” (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Acts 21:28). Alexander also refers to the inscriptions. “Inscriptions surviving from the temple precinct (cf. Fitzmyer 1998: 698; cited Barrett 1994-9: ii. 1020) show that visitors to the temple were clearly warned at the barrier separating the Court of the Gentiles from the inner courts that any non-Jew entering the enclosure did so at his own risk” (loc. cit.).

 

As a result, those “Jews from Asia” (v. 27) who accused Paul, caused a riot. “Then all the city was aroused, and the people rushed together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut” (v. 30). That the inner courts were locked against Paul is, according to Alexander, “a symbolic irony that would not have been lost on Luke’s readers: time and again, in Luke’s presentation, it is not Paul himself but his Jewish audiences who close the doors against him. (ibid.). The crowd intended a lynching. “While they were trying to kill him, word came to the tribune of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in an uproar” (v. 31). However, the arrival of the tribune and his soldiers prevented them, for “Immediately he [i.e., the tribune] took soldiers and centurions and ran down to them. When they saw the tribune and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul” (v. 32). The tribune arrested Paul and had him bound with chains (v. 33a); he [i.e., the tribune] “inquired who he [i.e., Paul] was and what he had done” (v. 33). However, due to the tumult, he failed to get a clear answer. “Some in the crowd shouted one thing, some another; and as he could not learn the facts because of the uproar, he ordered him to be brought into the barracks” (v. 34). The “barracks” refers to the Tower of Antonia (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. barracks), which, according to Charles H. Miller, was “a Hasmonean fortress (known as Baris) in the rocky scarp at the northwest end of the Temple in Jerusalem, luxuriously rebuilt in the late first century B.C. by Herod the Great and named for his friend Mark Antony” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Antonia, Tower of). Luke describes a mob scene, for “when Paul came to the steps, the violence of the mob was so great that he had to be carried by the soldiers” (v. 35). According to Luke, “the crowd that followed kept shouting, ‘Away with him!’ ” (v. 36; cf. 22:22). This reminds us–perhaps as Luke intended– of the crowd’s cry about Jesus, “Away with this fellow! Release Barabbas for us!” (Lk. 23:18).

 

Luke 6:1-11

 

The Question about the Sabbath (Mt 12.1-8; Mk 2.23-28)

 

            6:1 One sabbath while Jesus was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked some heads of grain, rubbed them in their hands, and ate them. 2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?” 3 Jesus answered, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and gave some to his companions?” 5 Then he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.”

 

The Man with a Withered Hand (Mt 12.9-14; Mk 3.1-6)

 

            6 On another sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught, and there was a man there whose right hand was withered. 7 The scribes and the Pharisees watched him to see whether he would cure on the sabbath, so that they might find an accusation against him. 8 Even though he knew what they were thinking, he said to the man who had the withered hand, “Come and stand here.” He got up and stood there. 9 Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to destroy it?” 10 After looking around at all of them, he said to him, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, and his hand was restored. 11 But they were filled with fury and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus. (Luke 6:1-11, NRSV)

 

The following comments are repeated here with editing and supplement from May 4, 2009 (Monday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Easter, Year One), when comments were based on earlier comments of April 30, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Easter, Year One), of October 2, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two), and others as noted there:

 

Today’s Gospel reading presents two stories of sabbath controversy. These two stories are similar, for the most part in the Synoptic Gospels. For comparison of the versions in Matthew, Mark and Luke, see the table in the separate file, Sabbath Controversies.

 

“One sabbath,” says Luke, “while Jesus was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked some heads of grain, rubbed them in their hands, and ate them” (Lk. 6:1; cf. Mk. 2:23; Mt. 12:1). Apparently, they were observed by some Pharisees, who said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?” (Lk. 6:2; cf. Mk. 2:24; Mt. 12:2). In contrast to the Pharisees’ criticism of Jesus’ disciples for plucking grain on the sabbath, here, and in the following account, Jesus is presented as focusing on human need. “Jesus answered, ‘Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and gave some to his companions?’ ” (Lk. 6:3-4; cf. Mk. 2:25-26; Mt. 12:3-4). Jesus thus cites an Old Testament precedent for satisfying hunger, when Ahimelech gave David “holy bread” for his men (1 Sam. 21:1-6). Mark refers to Abiathar (Mk. 2:26) rather than Ahimelech (1 Sam. 21:1-6). Abiathar was priest later under David (2 Sam. 15:35), but according to Mordechai Cogan, he was “the son of Ahimelech, who escaped the slaughter of the priests of Nob and joined David’s outlaw band (1 Sam. 22:2-23)” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985, s.v. Abiathar). He may very well have been present at the incident to which Jesus’ refers. Matthew and Luke, however, apparently both omit Mark’s “incorrect” reference to Abiathar (Mk. 2:26; cf. Mt. 12:4; Lk. 6:4). Luke abbreviates this story, giving the bare essentials. According to J. Andrew Overman, Matthew includes a “denunciation of the priests in the Jerusalem Temple, possibly referring to Num. 28:9-10)” (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 12:;5-6). He quotes Hosea 6:6, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” (quoted here, v. 7, and in 9:13; cf. Overman, on v. 7). This story was likely repeated by early Christian preachers to support their worship on Sunday rather than Saturday, by quoting Jesus: “The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath” (Lk. 6:5; Mk. 2:28; Mt. 12:8). Mark includes the words, “The sabbath was made for humankind, not humankind (oJ a[nqrwpoV, ho anthrÇpos) for the sabbath” (Mk. 2:27 NRSV; other versions have the generic sense of “man” for “humankind”). Dennis C. Duling says, “Mark’s sharp sabbath critique is omitted (cf. Mk. 2:27)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 12:8).

 

For the next sabbath controversy, Luke moves the scene to another sabbath. “On another sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught, and there was a man there whose right hand was withered” (Lk. 6:6). Whereas Matthew continues the story on the same day, “He [i.e., Jesus] left that place and entered their synagogue” (Mt. 12:9a), Mark is ambiguous, “Again (pavlin, palin) he entered the synagogue (Mk. 3:1a). Does “again” point to another sabbath, as Luke infers, or to another incident on the same sabbath? On this occasion, in the synagogue, says Mark, “They watched him [i.e., Jesus] to see whether he would cure him [i.e., the man with the withered hand] on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him” (Mk. 3:2; cf. Mt. 12:2). By “they,” Mark may mean the Pharisees who were critical earlier (Mk. 2:24), but Luke makes that clear, expanding “some of the Pharisees” to “the scribes and the Pharisees,” who “watched him to see whether he would cure on the sabbath, so that they might find an accusation against him” (Lk. 6:7). “Even though he knew what they were thinking,” adds Luke, “he [Jesus] said to the man who had the withered hand, ‘Come and stand here.’ He got up and stood there” (Lk. 6:8; cf. Jn. 2:24-25). Then Luke presents the rhetorical question that underscores the point of the story. “Then Jesus said to them, ‘I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to destroy it?’” (Lk. 6:9; cf. Mk. 3:4). Matthew puts this question on the lips of the opponents (Mt. 12:10b), and makes Jesus affirmative statement, “So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath” (Mt. 12:12b), conclude his brief illustrative parable, as he asks what to do if “one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath” (Mt. 12:11, a point added by Matthew). In reference to the question, Duling refers to “Lk. 14:5. See Ex. 23:5; Deut. 22:4 for helping animals. However, if an animal fell into a pit on the sabbath, the sabbath law took precedence. The animal could be fed or, as later rabbis said, devices could be set up to assist it in climbing out, but one should not lift it out; similarly Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Document (CD) 11:13-14” (op. cit., on Mt. 12:11). On verse 10, Duling says, “Later Israelite law allowed breaking the sabbath law in cases of immediate danger to life, but the specifics were debated.” Some, including Jewish Rabbis, have pointed out that ancient Rabbis would have agreed with Jesus on this point. “Healing on the sabbath is permitted when there is a threat of mortal danger, but when there is no danger in delay, it is absolutely forbidden” (Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, I, 623, on Mt. 12:10). Jesus also put the question as a matter of life or death (Lk. 6:9; cf. Mk. 3:4). It may be that the Pharisees who confronted Jesus were not in accord with the normal Rabbinical teaching on this matter. More likely, however, the Gospels are describing growing hostility, in which this one incident was only a part, but a crucial part, as it turns out.

 

“After looking around at all of them,” says Luke, “he [i.e., Jesus] said to him [i.e., the man with the withered hand], ‘Stretch out your hand.’ He did so, and his hand was restored” (Lk. 6:10; cf. Mk. 3:5; Mt. 12:13). And while the man surely appreciated his healing, all did not share his rejoicing, for “they [the Pharisees] were filled with fury and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus” (Lk. 6:11); compare Mark’s version, “The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him” (Mk. 3:6; cf. Mt. 12:14). The three Gospels each record this decision of Jesus’ opponents. It seems that the “plot” of the Book of Mark is the “plot” (conspiracy) against Jesus (Mk. 3:6; cf. Mt. 12:14; Lk. 6:11), which was anticipated from the beginning of the Sabbath healing account (Mk. 3:2; cf. Mt. 12:10; Lk. 6:7). One might think that it comes very early in Mark (chap. 3) as compared with Matthew and Luke, where major speeches come earlier, but given the pace of action in Mark, the timing of this conspiracy is comparable in Mark to the other two Gospels. In Matthew, of course Herod’s command to kill the innocent children of Bethlehem has a similar function, anticipating the opposition that would put Jesus on the cross.

 

As noted above, for the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for September 16, 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