gregoryjenks

Author: Gregory C. Jenks

  • Sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost (28 September 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Exodus 17:1-7 & Psalm 78:1-4, 12-16 [Ezekiel 18:1-4, 25-32 & Psalm 25:1-9]
    • Philippians 2:1-13
    • Matthew 21:23-32

    Gospel: The two sons

    This week all three major lectionaries will focus on the parable of The Two Sons, although the RCL will also include the preceding verses where there is a dispute over the authority of Jesus.

    Textual questions

    The material shared by all the major lectionaries is only attested in Matthew. In addition, the manuscript tradition reveals considerable uncertainty about this passage, with the surviving texts being so confused that we cannot make a firm decision on the original version of the story. Bruce Metzger devotes almost two pages to a discussion of the textual confusion in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.

    In short, Matthew 21:28-32 does not make a strong claim on us for acceptance as an authentic Jesus tradition, although the orphan saying found in vs 31 may prove to be of historical value.
    The Jesus Seminar commentary in The Five Gospels notes:

    (1) the significant textual variations as copyists have tried to make sense of this difficult parable.

    (2) 58% of Fellows votes red or pink, seemingly because (a) the contrast between prostitutes and tax collectors on the one hand, and self-righteous audience on the other seems authentic Jesus; (b) the “genuine dilemma” posed for any Galilean family by the dishonorable response of both sons to their father’s request.

    (3) Sufficient Fellows voted gray (11%) and black (32%) to bring about a weighted average of just 0.46 for the core parable. The reasons for these negative votes include (a) some doubts as to whether the story is actually a parable (given the lack of metaphor, exaggeration or reversal of anticipated outcomes); (b) the typical Matthean contrast of saying and doing; (c) the lack of attestation outside Matthew; (d) the poor fit of conclusion and story; and (e) the way that the conclusion links this story back to the previous unit By Whose Authority?

    Similarly, Gerd Lüdemann tends to dismiss the parable while affirming the saying about tax collectors and prostitutes entering the kingdom ahead of the observant practitioners of religion. Lüdemann notes that Matthew has added to the material taken over from Mark (vss 23-27), two further items:

    (a) an otherwise unattested parable about two sons that puts the emphasis on obedience to the divine will;
    (b) an apparently authentic saying (vs. 31c) that affirms the righteousness of the disobedient, namely tax collectors and prostitutes.

    Concerning this latter saying (Matt 21:31c), Lüdemann comments:

    The saying is authentic (without the addition ‘before you’), since it is offensive, rare in the world of Jesus, cannot be derived from the community and fits the main thrust of the preaching of Jesus (cf. on 11.18-19a; Luke 7.36-50). In content it corresponds with the authentic beatitudes on the poor, the hungry and those who weep (cf. on Luke 6.20-26). [Jesus, 219]

    Traditional Jewish wisdom or distinctive Jesus traditions

    The mostly conventional wisdom presented in the parable is also seen in this partial rabbinic parallel cited by Samuel Lachs:

    … a parable of a king who had a field and he desired to hand it over to a tenant farmer. He called to the first and said to him, “Will you take this field?” He said to him,”I don’t have the strength, it is too hard for me.” So it was with the second, the third, and the fourth, they too did not accept it from him. He called to the fifth and said to him, “Will you take this field?” He said to him, “Yes!” The owner said, “On condition that you work it according to the Law?” He said, “Yes.” When the tenant farmer entered the field, he left it unworked. With whom should the king be angry? On those who said they were unable to accept it or on the one who took it upon himself and having taken it upon himself left it unworked? Should he not be angry with the latter? Exodus R. 27 [cited in Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 353]

    On the other hand, the Jewish NT scholar, David Flusser, has noted that the attitude implicit in the saying about prostitutes and tax collectors is widely-attested in the Jesus traditions, and comes from the core values of Jesus himself:

    That which Jesus recognized and desired is fulfilled in the message of the kingdom. There God’s unconditional love for all becomes visible, and the barriers between sinner and righteous are shattered. Human dignity becomes null and void, the last becomes first, and the first becomes last. The poor, the hungry, the meek, the mourner, and the persecuted inherit the kingdom of heaven. In Jesus’ message of the kingdom, the strictly social factor does not, however, seem to be the decisive thing. His revolution has to do chiefly with the transvaluation of all the usual moral values, and hence his promise is especially for sinners. “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you” (Matt. 21:31-32). Jesus found resonance among the social outcasts and the despised, just as John the Baptist had done before him. [Jesus, 111f]

    An orphan saying?

    Finally, for this week’s reflections on this seemingly marginal and not very authoritative text, we can note the glimpse into the dynamics of the related but different missions of John the Baptist and Jesus which this passage may preserve.

    John P. Meier discusses Matt 21:31-32 as one of what he calls “stray traditions” relating to Jesus and John the Baptist. He sets it over against Luke 7:29-30, which reads as follows:

    29 (And all the people who heard this,
    including the tax collectors,
    acknowledged the justice of God,
    because they had been baptized with John’s baptism.
    30 But by refusing to be baptized by him,
    the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves.)

    In both Matt 21:31-32 and Luke 7:29-30 we have texts that appear as additions to other traditions with which they had no original connection:

    • Matt 21:31-32 is appended to the Parable of the Two Sons (vss. 28-30)
    • Luke 7:29-30 is appended to Jesus’ words about John the Baptist

    Both these passages contrast a group of Jewish people who responded to John’s message, including “tax collectors” in each case.

    There are, however, a great many significant differences between these traditions, and this leads Meier to agree with Fitzmyer against these being from Q, and in favor of them being independent stray traditions “which mention the important detail that John’s message and baptism were well received by at least some religiously and socially marginal groups like tax collectors and prostitutes, while they were largely rejected by Jewish leaders.” (p. 169)

    Meier adds:

    That this tidbit of information may indeed have a historical basis is made likely by its echo in Luke 3:10-14 (the crowds, the tax collectors and the soldiers all seek moral guidance from John) and in the Jewish Antiquities, where Josephus seems to distinguish a first wave of adherents to John, made up of morally zealous Jews, and a second wave, made up of ordinary Jews (Ant. 18.5.2 §116–19).

    Meier builds on this insight to suggest that historical reconstructions which portray John as a recluse and “super puritan” — while Jesus is seen as a party animal eating and drinking his way around Galilee — are exaggerated. Rather, Meier suggests that Jesus may have built upon and then shifted the emphasis upon a prophetic word to the social and religious outcasts which he inherited from his mentor, rather than creating it entirely by himself.

    He suggests:

    [John’s] tie to the “desert” (however widely that designation be interpreted), his need to have abundant water at hand for numerous baptisms, his own ascetic diet of locusts and wild honey, and perhaps his jaundiced view of what was going on in the Jerusalem temple, all kept him within a restricted area, and thus kept him from a wide-ranging, all-inclusive mission. On the whole, sinful and therefore marginal Jews came to the ascetic and therefore marginal John, not vice versa.
    In contrast, Jesus undertook an itinerant mission throughout Galilee, parts of Judea, parts of Perea, parts of the Decapolis, and perhaps even areas north of Galilee reaching as far as Tyre and Sidon — as well as engaging in numerous journeys to Jerusalem. All this cannot be put down to small-town wanderlust. Jesus was consciously reaching out to all Israel in its last hour, especially to marginal groups like tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners in general, as well as to the not-especially-sinful but not-especially-well-shepherded poor. Thus, we see again the familiar pattern of nexus-yet-shift. Jesus picked up on John’s contact with the morally marginal, but shifted to a more expansive approach, an aggressive program of outreach through a peripatetic mission throughout Israel and its environs. (p. 169f)

    Meier then identities a shift in message that went with the new method:

    Corresponding to this geographical and psychological shift was a shift in the basic message. Moving from the Baptist’s fierce stress on repentance in the face of imminent doom, Jesus, while entirely abandoning John’s call and eschatology, shifted the emphasis to the joy of salvation that the repentant could experience even now as they accepted Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God, somehow present and yet to come. (p. 170)

    Meier’s reference to Jesus “entirely abandoning” the distinctive message of John the Baptist (“repent and be baptised”) along with its underlying eschatology (of an imminent apocalyptic event) is intriguing. Such a view would tend to align Meier with the approach adopted by the Jesus Seminar when it controversially argued for Jesus as rejecting the apocalypticism that was typical of his mentor (John the Baptist) and his followers (such as Paul). The Seminar has been strongly criticised for taking such a view, so it is interesting to see Meier coming to a similar conclusion.

    Jesus Database

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre:

  • Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost (21 September 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Exodus 16:2-15 & Psalm 105:1-6, 37-45 [Jonah 3:10-4:11 & Psalm 145:1-8]
    • Philippians 1:21-30
    • Matthew 20:1-16

    Gospel: Pay them all the same!

    The parable of the laborers in the vineyard is known only from Matthew. That single attestation would tend to count against the historical value of this story, but the nature of the story is such that most critics accept it as authentic.
    Samuel T. Lachs [Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament] offers some partial rabbinic parallels to this parable:

    There are three passages in rabbinic sources which are of note here; but not one combines both the form and the message of this parable. First, one could point to the well-known statement “Some obtain and enter the Kingdom in an hour, while others reach it only after a lifetime.” The idea here is parallel to that of the parable but not its form.

    When R. Bun bar R. Hiyya died, R. Ze’ira came in and delivered a eulogy over him: “Sweet is the sleep of the labourer whether he has eaten little or much. It is not written here ‘sleep,’ but whether he has eaten little or much. To what can R. Bun bar R. Hiyya be compared? To a king who hired many laborers and there was one who was more skilled in his work, more [than others]. What did the king do? He walked up and down with him. At evening the laborers came to get their wages and he gave him the same wages as he gave to them. Whereupon they murmured and said, “We labored the whole day long and this one worked but two hours and he gave him the same as he gave us.’ The king said to them, ‘This one did in two hours more than you did in the entire day.’ Similarly, R. Bun labored in the study of Torah for twenty-eight years and learned what a diligent scholar could learn in a hundred years.” [TJ Ber 2.8, 5c]

    … to what can this be compared? To a king who hired two laborers, one of them worked a whole day and received a dinar, and one worked one hour and received a dinar. Which one was more beloved to him [the king]? The one who worked one hour and received a dinar. Similarly, Moses our teacher served Israel for one hundred and twenty years, and Samuel served for fifty-two years, and the two of them were equal before the Omnipresent, as it is said, Then the Lord said to me, “Though Moses and Samuel stood before Me …” [Jer. 15.1], and likewise it is written, Moses and Aaron were among His priests, Samuel also was among those who called upon His name [Ps. 99.6], and similar to these verses it is said, sweet is the sleep of the laborer whether he has eaten little or much [Koh. 5.11]. [M. Semahot, ed. Higger, chap. 3, pp. 222-221]

    The parable was voted red by the Jesus Seminar, with the commentary in The Five Gospels as follows:

    This parable exaggerates the actions of the vineyard owner: he goes into the marketplace repeatedly to hire workers for the harvest. He begins at daybreak and continues the process until the eleventh hour of a twelve-hour day. The repetition of the owner’s activity and the play on words and themes are evidence of oral transmission.
    When the time to pay the laborers comes, those hired at the end of the day are paid a full day’s wage (v. 9). Those hired at the outset of the day now expect to be paid something more than they had bargained for (v. 10). But they are paid the same wage, which, in the context of the story, is surprising (the story evokes responses and expectations that run counter to daily routine and to the policy of hardened employers). The conclusion of the parable is upsetting and disturbing for those who worked under the boiling sun the whole day; but it was also surprising for those who were paid a full day’s wage for only a few minutes of labor. The behavior of the vineyard owner cuts against the social grain.
    In this parable, both groups of participants get what they did not expect: the first get less than they expected, in spite of their agreement with the owner (v. 2); the last get more than they expected, since as idlers they could not have expected much. This reversal of expectations comports with Jesus’ proclivity to reverse the expectations of the poor: “God’s domain belongs to you” (Luke 6:20) and the rich: “It’s easier for a camel to squeeze through a needle’s eye than for a wealthy person to get into God’s domain” (Mark 10:25 // Matt 19:24 // Luke 18:25). As a consequence, the Fellows awarded this parable a red designation, although it is attested only by Matthew. (p. 225)

    Gerd Lüdemann [Jesus] puts aside his usual historical skepticism and affirms the historicity of this parable:

    This piece, which has been handed down only by the First Evangelist, is stamped with Matthean language … But we can rule out the possibility that the whole pericope is a Matthean construction, since v. 16 has been put here by Matthew taking up 19.30, and picks up only one detail of the pericope: the order of payment in v, 8b. Here Matthew understands the parable wrongly, since it in fact stresses the equality of the recompense and the reason for it (v. 15). (p. 212)

    The parable inculcates one notion. God is gracious without discrimination to all who are active in his vineyard, Israel. It is free from ideas which could have come from the community, and also corresponds to Jesus’ message that God seeks the lost (cf. Luke 15.11-32; 18.9-14). The parable certainly goes back to Jesus. (p. 213)

    B. Brandon Scott [Reimagine the World] comments on the social significance of the parable:

    In the Vineyard Laborers, the first hired complain that by paying the last hired the same amount they have received, the master has made them equal. Their essential complaint is that the master has destroyed the order of the world. The entire Roman empire was organized as a patron-client system. The ultimate patron was the emperor, and power worked its way downward, with his clients in turn becoming patrons for yet other clients. And their fleas have fleas, too. Such a system ensures a hierarchically arranged social order in which no one is equal and every social engagement is a contest to determine one’s place in the hierarchy. (p. 132)

    David Flusser [Jesus] observes:

    The paradox of Jesus’ break with the customary old morality was marvelously expressed in the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16). … Here as elsewhere the principle of reward is accepted by Jesus, but all the norms of the usual concepts of God’s righteousness are abrogated. One might think that this comes about because God, in His all-embracing love and mercy, makes no distinctions between men. With Jesus, however, the transvaluation of all values is not idyllic. Even misfortune does not distinguish between the sinner and the just man. … Jesus’ concept of the righteousness of God, therefore, is incommensurable with reason. Man cannot measure it, but he can grasp it. It leads to the preaching of the kingdom in which the last will be first, and the first last. It leads also from the Sermon on the Mount to Golgotha where the just man dies a criminal’s death. It is at once profoundly moral, and yet beyond good and evil. In this paradoxical scheme, all the “important,” customary virtues, and the well-knit personality, worldly dignity, and the proud insistence upon the formal fulfillment of the law, are fragmentary and empty. Socrates questioned the intellectual side of man. Jesus questioned the moral. Both were executed. Can this be mere chance? (p. 101f)

    Jeremias Jeremias [The Parables of Jesus, 34-38]offers this insightful interpretation of the parable:

    [Matthew] has inserted into a Marcan context the parable about the ‘first’ (Matt. 20.8,10) and the ‘last’ (Matt. 20.8,12,14), in order to illustrate the saying in Mark 10.31 (par. Matt. 19.30), “But many that are first will be last, and the last first,” with which Mark ends the previous address to Peter. … for Matthew our parable represented the reversal of rank which would take place on the last day. He will have drawn this conclusion from the instruction given to the steward, v. 8b:

    “Call the laborers and pay them their wages,
    beginning with the last, up to the first.”

    … But [the order of payment] is clearly an unimportant detail in the course of the parable. There can be no great significance in the order of payment; a couple of minutes earlier or later can hardly be said to assign precedence to anyone or deprive him of it. In fact, no complaint is made later on about the order of payment which, taken in context, should merely emphasize the equality of the last with the first. Perhaps it is simply intended to indicate how ‘the first were made to witness the payment of their companions.’ But it may be simpler to take arxamenos apo to mean, as it often does, ‘not omitting,’ ‘including,’ so that v. 8 was not originally concerned with the order of payment at all, but meant, rather — ‘Pay them all their wages, including the last.’ In any case the parable certainly conveys no lesson about the reversal of rank at the end of time since all receive exactly the same wage.

    … each hearer must have been compelled to ask himself the question, ‘Why does the master of the house give the unusual order that all are to receive the same pay? Why especially does he allow the last to receive a full day’s pay for only an hour’s work? Is this a piece of purely arbitrary injustice? a caprice? a generous whim?’ Far from it! There is no question here of a limitless generosity, since all receive only an amount sufficient to sustain life, a bare subsistence wage. No one receives more. Even if, in the case of the last laborers to be hired, it is their own fault that, in a time when the vineyard needs workers, they sit about in the marketplace gossiping till late afternoon; even if their excuse that no one has hired them (v. 7) is an idle evasion … yet they touch the master’s heart. He sees that they will have practically nothing to take home; the pay for an hour’s work will not keep a family; their children will go hungry if the father comes home empty-handed. It is because of his pity for their poverty that the owner allows them to be paid a full day’s wages. In this case the parable does not depict an arbitrary action, but the behaviour of a large-hearted man who is compassionate and full of sympathy for the poor. This, says Jesus, is how God deals with men. This is what God is like, merciful. Even to tax-farmers and sinners he grants an unmerited place in his Kingdom, such is the measure of his goodness. The whole emphasis lies on the final words: oti ego agathos eimi [because I am good] (v. 15)!

    Why did Jesus tell the parable? Was it his object to extol God’s mercy to the poor? If that were so he might have omitted the second part of the parable (vv. 11ff). But it is precisely upon the second part that the main stress lies, for our parable is one of the double-edged parables. It describes two episodes: (1) the hiring of the laborers and the liberal instructions about their payment (vv. 1-8), (2) the indignation of the injured recipients (vv. 9-15). Now, in all the double-edged parables the emphasis falls on the second point. What, then, is the purpose of the second part, the episode in which the other laborers are indignant, rebel, and protest, and receive the humiliating reply: ‘Are you jealous because I am good?’ The parable is clearly addressed to those who resembled the murmurers, those who criticized and opposed the good news, Pharisees for example. Jesus was minded to show them how unjustified, hateful, loveless and unmerciful was their criticism. Such, he said, is God’s goodness, and since God is so good, so too am I. He vindicates the gospel against its critics. Here, clearly, we have recovered the original historical setting. We are suddenly transported into a concrete situation in the life of Jesus such as the Gospels frequently depict. Over and over again we hear the charge brought against Jesus that he is a companion of the despised and the outcast, and are told of men to whom the gospel is an offence. Repeatedly is Jesus compelled to justify his conduct and to vindicate the good news. So too here he is saying, This is what God is like, so good, so full of compassion for the poor, how dare you revile him?

    Jesus Database

    • 031 First and Last – (1) GThom. 4:2 & P. Oxy. 654.4:2; (2) 2Q: Luke 13:30 = Matt 20:16;(3) Mark 10:31 = Matt 19:30; (4) Barn 6:13a [this last attestation is not included in Crossan’s version of this inventory]

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre:

  • Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost (14 September 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Exodus 14:19-31 & Psalm 114 (or Exodus 15:1b-11, 20-21) or [Genesis 50:15-21 & Psalm 103:(1-7), 8-13]
    • Romans 14:1-12
    • Matthew 18:21-35

    Exodus Paradigm of salvation (for some)

    The first reading and (optional) canticle from the RCL propers celebrate the great story of redemption known as “the exodus.”

    This story poses many challenges for the thoughtful reader:

    • its historicity is radically questioned by critical scholars
    • its humanitarian value is qualified by the “collateral damage” caused to the Egyptians
    • its spiritual influence is cast in a new light with findings from other traditions

    My own personal encounter with these ambiguities came one morning in Egypt with a group of students on a course from St George’s College in Jerusalem. We had stayed overnight in a hotel by the Suez Canal and would soon take the bus under the water (courtesy of a tunnel not available to Moses and his friends) so that we could travel to Mt Sinai. As was our custom, we began the day with a celebration of Eucharist — this time in a corner of the hotel dining room. We were joined by a local Coptic Christian woman who worked as a waitress in the dining room. It may have been her presence (or it may have the presence of a great many more Egyptians around us as we worshipped), but suddenly I was struck by the incongruity of reading (as we were doing) the story of the victory at the Sea. Apart from the insensitivity of rehearsing the ancient tale of God slaying the Egyptians and their horses, the experience made me ask where an Egyptian Christian might find “good news” in such a text.

    History and miracle

    The divide between “faithful believer” and “critic/doubter” is always placed under pressure when biblical stories employ magic and miracle to convey their message. Naturalistic explanations were once the favored tool of the rationalist, but these days are often found pressed into service by fundamentalists and “maximalists” who wish to preserve the essential historicity of the biblical narrative even if they reduce the supernatural element to a scale unworthy of divine intervention.

    So, for example, believers who cite historical reports of unusually low tides in the Suez region, such that a person might pick their way carefully through the mud, have hardly validated the biblical account in which the Israelites cross over on dry land with the waters piled up on either side! Similar explanations of the miraculous manna (as insect droppings or dried dew), or reports of the Jordan River being temporarily dammed by mud slides, hardly do God much of a favor. One is tempted to ask why God would need critics with friends such as that?

    In his book, The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel (1999), Thomas L. Thompson has a chapter headed “Confusing stories with historical evidence.” That is a timely warning for us to appreciate the symbolic nature of the biblical narratives, and especially so when the details of the story are incompatible with known historical and natural realities.

    Miracle is a great genre for communicating profound human meaning, including religious wisdom. It is never a good basis for historical reconstruction.

    W.G. Plaut comments as follows:

    But when all is said and done, no examination of presumed natural causes should overshadow the central fact (sic): Israel experienced the event as divinely determined, a miracle in the true sense. It was God who brought about the Egyptians’ downfall; He may have used wind and water, cloud and darkness as His agents, but it was His will that Israel be saved, and saved it was. According to Buber, a discussion of the possibility of miracles, which has so long divided the faithful believer from critic and doubter, is therefore beside the point when one comes to assess the manner in which the rescue affected Israel’s conception of God. “It is irrelevant whether ‘much’ or ‘little,’ unusual things or usual, tremendous or trifling events happened; what is vital is only that what happened was experienced, while it happened, as the act of God. The people saw in whatever it was they saw ‘the wondrous power which the Lord had wielded’ and ‘they had faith in the Lord.’ From the biblical viewpoint history always contains the element of wonder.’” [The Torah, 483]

    Exodus and history

    Plaut’s comments, including the excerpt from Martin Buber, still presume that something actually happened, even if they prefer to focus on what the story means for the person of faith. But it is precisely that historical assumption that is increasingly challenged by more radical critics.

    Thompson notes that there are several variants to the exodus tradition even within the Hebrew Bible:

    • divine defeat of the Sea (Dragon) — Exodus 15
    • carried on eagles wings — Deut 32:10-18
    • carried by the angels to avoid even stumbling over a stone — Psalm 91:11-12
    • angel of Yahweh encamps around the faithful — Psalm 34:7

    To these we could add the analogous stories from Bible and the wider culture where prose accounts of victories are elaborated with poetic freedom to express the perceived inner meaning of the tradition.

    In chapter two of The Bible Unearthed (2001), Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman consider the Exodus traditions, as they pose the question: “Did the Exodus happen?” After a review of the archaeological data, they conclude:

    … independent archaeological and historical sources tell of migrations of Semites from Canaan to Egypt, and of Egyptians forcibly expelling them. This basic outline of immigration and violent return to Canaan is parallel to the biblical account of Exodus. Two key questions remain: First, who were these Semitic immigrants? And second, how does the date of their sojourn in Egypt square with biblical chronology? (p. 56)

    As is well known, the chronology of the Hyksos rulers in Egypt cannot be “squared” with the biblical narrative, even though it illustrates an historical pattern of penetration and expulsion that is more ancient and more common than the Bible suggests. In addition the mention of “Israel” in the Merneptah Stele (dated to around 1,200 BCE) attests to the existence of a group with that name in Canaan around that time, but tells us nothing about their character or their historical origins. Not a single text from either Canaan or Egypt mentions “Israel” until around 1200 BCE.

    More importantly, the consolidation of native Egyptian power following the expulsion of the Hyksos led to a system of fortifications along the eastern border of the delta region to control precisely the kind of entry and exit portrayed in the Bible. We have written reports from border officials about the movement of Edomite nomads at this time, but not a single reference to Israelites. Further, despite extensive archaeological surveys in the Sinai peninsula that have produced clear data of pastoral activity in the third millennium BCE as well as during the Hellenistic and Byzantine eras, there is not a shred of evidence of Israel’s presence in this area:

    The conclusion — that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible — seems irrefutable when we examine the evidence at specific sites where the children of Israel were said to have camped for extended periods … repeated excavations and surveys throughout the entire area have not provided even the slightest evidence for activity in the Late Bronze Age, not even a single sherd left by a tiny fleeing band of frightened refugees. (Bible Unearthed, 63)

    As it happens, Finkelstein and Silberman suggest that the Exodus story reflects its real composition in the very different circumstances of late seventh century Jerusalem:

    … Egyptologist Donald Redford has suggested [the Bible reflects later conditions in the Iron Age]. The most evocative and consistent geographical details of the Exodus story come from the seventh century BCE, during the great era of prosperity of the kingdom of Judah — six centuries after the events of the Exodus were supposed to have taken place. Redford has shown just how many details in the Exodus narrative can be explained in this setting, which was also Egypt’s last period of imperial power … (p. 65f)

    … Redford has argued that the echoes of the great events of the Hyksos occupation of Egypt and their violent expulsion from the delta resounded for centuries, to become a central, shared memory of the people of Canaan. These stories of the Canaanite colonists establishing in Egypt, reaching dominance in the delta and then being forced to return to their homeland, could have served as a focus of solidarity and resistance as the Egyptian control over Canaan grew tighter in the course of the Late Bronze Age. As we will see, with the eventual assimilation of many Canaanite communities into the crystallizing nation of Israel, that powerful image of freedom may have grown relevant for an ever-widening community.(p. 68f)

    Finkelstein and Silberman offer this assessment of the theological meaning of this ancient but newly minted myth of origins:

    New layers would be added to the Exodus story in subsequent centuries — during exile in Babylonia and beyond. But we can now see how the astonishing composition came together under the pressure of a conflict with Egypt in the seventh century BCE. The saga of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt is neither historical truth nor literary fiction. It is a powerful expression of memory and hope born in a world in the midst of change. The confrontation between Moses and pharaoh mirrored the momentous confrontation between the young King Josiah and the newly crowned Pharaoh Necho. To pin this biblical image down to a single date is to betray the story’s deepest meaning. Passover proves to be not a single event but a continuing experience of national resistance against the powers that be. (p. 70f)

    Such an interpretation of the Exodus tradition relieves both God and Israel from accusations of crimes against humanity. More importantly, perhaps, it connects the development of the paradigmatic story with the lived experience of many people over several centuries. Believer and pagan have a stake in this story. It is our story. An Egyptian could discover good news in a story that celebrates resistance to the powers that be for the sake of the human desire for freedom. Even a Palestinian might celebrate Passover when the tradition is understood in this way. Exodus could be their story also.

    Gospel: Love does not keep score

    The Gospel passage for this week reflects a theme that we also find in that most popular of all reading for wedding services — the Hymn to Love in 1 Corinthians 13. The core section of that passage reads:

    Love is patient, love is kind.
    It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
    It is not rude, it is not self-seeking,
    it is not easily angered,
    it keeps no record of wrongs.
    Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
    It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
    Love never fails. (1Cor 13:4-8a NIV)

    In particular, the statement in v 5b seems especially related to the concerns in this week’s Gospel: “(love) keeps no record of wrongs” (Greek: ou logizetai to kakon).

    The Gospel falls naturally into two sections:

    • Vss 21-22: Peter’s question (seven times?) and Jesus’ reply (seventy-seven times!!!)
    • Vss 23-35: Parable of the Unforgiving Slave

    Don’t do the math

    The point of the memorable exchange between Peter and Jesus is simply that keeping score is not the way of love.

    At the heart of the exchange we find the deliberate exaggeration of numbers. Peter’s question already provides an extreme case. Unlike the contemporary saying, “One bitten, twice shy”, Peter is suggesting that forgiving a fellow Christian seven times over is surely more than sufficient. Jesus’ reply extrapolates the numerical value, with the clear intention that the truly loving response to such unwelcome mistreatment can never include keeping tally of how often the other party has sinned – nor (conversely) keeping a tally of how generous our own forebearance has been!

    In the Greek original Jesus reply is hebdomeœkontakis hepta — which mostly likely means “seventy-seven” (77) but can mean “seven thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven” (7,777). While the scale of the hyperbole is uncertain, the intention is clear: Don’t keep score!

    The unmerciful slave

    The parable that follows in vss 23-35 is unqiue to Matthew, and for that reason alone its authenticity can be questioned.

    Robert Fortna (Scholars Bible, Matthew) comments:

    [This parable is] no doubt placed here for its lesson of forgiveness. Possibly authentic to Jesus, in some form (as the exaggeration in vs 24—ten million dollars—suggests), but certainly not as an allegory of God’s forgiveness. And Jesus’ parables did not usually have an obvious ethical moral.

    Fortna later comments on the relative sizes of the debts owed by and to the slave:

    ten million dollars: Greek: 20,000 talents. No factor can realistically translate this amount into contemporary terms, but it was obviously vast; in fact unimaginably so. The exaggeration for effect, no doubt, to contrast outlandishly with the amount in vs 28. … a hundred dollars: In Greek, “100 denarii.” Whatever the precise modern equivalent, an infinitesimal fraction of the 10,000 talents he owed the master.

    BADG provides the following information on the meaning of a talent in the Hellenistic world:

    … a measure of weight varying in size fr. about 26 to 36 kg.; then a unit of coinage talent (lit., ins, pap, LXX, TestSol; TestJud 9:5; TestJos 18:3; EpArist; Jos., Bell. 5, 571, C. Ap. 2, 266), whose value differed considerably in various times and places, but was always comparatively high; it varied also with the metal involved, which might be gold, silver, or copper. In our lit. only in Mt 18:24; 25:15–28. In 18:24, at 6,000 drachmas or denarii to the Tyrian talent, a day laborer would need to work 60,000,000 days to pay off the debt. Even assuming an extraordinary payback rate of 10 talents per year, the staggering amount would ensure imprisonment for at least 1,000 years.

    Jesus Database

    • 418 The Unmerciful Servant – (1) Matt 18:23-34(35). [Crossan does not include v. 35 in his database, while the Jesus Seminar counts it as a separate saying (#1159) forming part of the same item (46 Unmerciful Slave) and gave it a 100% Black assessment at the meeting held in Cincinnati in 1990.]

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre:

  • Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost (7 September 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Exodus 12:1-14 & Psalm 149 (or Ezekiel 33:7-11 & Psalm 119:33-40)
    • Romans 13:8-14
    • Matthew 18:15-20

    Season of Creation

    In the seasons of Advent, Epiphany, Lent and Easter we celebrate the life of Christ. In the season of Pentecost we celebrate the Holy Spirit. Now, in the season of Creation, congregations and other Christian faith communities have an opportunity to celebrate God, the Creator.

    For four Sundays in September, prior to St Francis of Assisi Day, some communities of faith observe a “Season of Creation” that celebrates the wonders of the natural order with which we are integrally connected. The Season of Creation web site offers a rich set of resources, including an amazing photo archive you may well wish to visit at other times as well:

    • Liturgical resources that follow the lead of the psalm writers and celebrate with creation — with the forests, the rivers and the fields, which praise the Creator in their own way.
    • Alternative Bible readings that focus especially on the story of Earth, which complements the story of God and the story of humanity in the Scriptures.
    • Opportunities to commit ourselves to a ministry of healing Earth, with Christ and creation as our partners.

    Gospel: Jesus and the Rabbinic tradition

    The few verses that comprise this week’s Gospel in all the major western lectionaries present Jesus imagined through the lens of traditional religious leadership within the Jewish community. There is little of the idiosyncratic sage of Galilee in this characterization. Matthew’s Jesus can easily be imagined wrapped in a prayer shawl as he intones the Torah for the gathered community.

    Rabbinic parallels

    The authentic Jewish roots of this depiction are affirmed by Samuel Lachs [Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament] as he notes how the traditions applied to Jesus here are well-attested in rabbinic sources.

    • 15 … go and tell him his fault. – Gr. elegxein is the Heb. hokhi’ah, “to rebuke.” This passage goes back to Lev. 19.17, You shall surely rebuke your brother.
    • 16 two or three witnesses – Following the principle that any trial involving evidence must be attested to by at least two witnesses whose testimony agrees.
    • 17 Gentiles and a tax collector – On Gentile, Gr. ethnikoi. The term occurs only five times in the NT, three in Matt. (5.47, 6.7, 18.17), once in Gal. (2.14), and once in 3 John (7). It has been variously translated as “gentiles,” “pagans,” and “heathens.” This is strange, since Matthew, when referring to the non-Jewish world, would always employ ethnos. It is likewise significant that Jerome, when translating the Matthean passages where ethnikoi appears, renders it by gentibus. Presumably Jerome realized that ethnikoi was not employed by Matthew as a general term for the non-Jew, rather it designated a specific group within the Jewish people. … in Matt. 5.47 and 18.17 ethnikoi are coupled with the tax collector or the tax farmer, who represent the antithesis of correct behavior. Matthew also emphasizes that the faithful should do more than the Scribes and Pharisees, whom he calls the hypocrites, a favorite epithet for this group. Presumably all these are Jews, i.e., the tax collectors, the Scribes, the Pharisees, and the ethnikoi. Furthermore the adelphoi of Matt 5.47 means “one’s fellow disciples”; those who act properly and in conformity with religious principles, while the ethnikoi are those who do not observe the religious traditions of the people. We suggest that the term ethnikoi refers to the am ha-arez, lit. “the people of the land.” Originally it meant only the farming population. Subsequently it came to connote those who were lax in taking the tithe from the produce of the field, thus causing the unsuspecting purchaser to eat untithed food and thereby to violate a biblical law. Finally, am ha-arez became a term for the ignoramus, the unlettered and the boor. It is of interest and perhaps of significance that there is a parallel development in the word “pagan.” Originally he was one who came from the pagus, a rustic, but later it came to mean the superstitious and from that the idolator. The same is true of the word “heathen,” one from the heath, hence a countryman, a peasant, a rustic, which took on the meaning of an illiterate. In support of our identification of the ethnikoi with the am ha-arez, note that Justinian employed ethnikos to designate the “provincial.” The am ha-arez was looked down upon by all members of the Pharisaic community and was charged with many counts of reprehensible behaviour. [page 109f]
    • the church – Matthew is the only gospel writer who uses this term, here and in 16.18. The Gr. ekklesia is the Heb. qahal, kenesset; Aram. kenisha.
    • 18 bind … loose – These are undoubtedly translations of either the Aram. asar and share or the Heb asar and hitir. They mean to forbid and/or to permit some act which is determined by the application of the halakah. [page 256f]
    • 19 if two of you agree, etc – This must have reference to the decision of the petit court of three judges where the decision is arrived at by the agreement of at least two of the judges. There is a tradition that when a court renders a just decision God Himself (the Shekhinah) abides with them:

    R. Hananya the son of Teradyon said: “If two sit together and interchange no words of Torah, they are a meeting of scoffers, concerning whom it is said, The godly man sits not in the seat of the scoffers; but if two sit together and interchange the words of the Torah, the Shekhinah abides between them, as it is said, Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with the other, and the Lord hearkened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon His name. [M. Avot 3.3]

    R. Halafta the son of Dosa of the village of Hananya said: “When ten people sit together and occupy themselves with the Torah, the Shekhinah abides among them … And whence can it be shown that the same applies to three? because it is said, He judgeth among the judges [the minimum number of judges being three], hence can it be shown that the same applies to two? Because it is said, Then they that feared the Lord, etc.” [M. Avot 3.8]

    Jesus Seminar

    The Jesus Seminar commentary on these verses in The Five Gospels [page 216f] reads as follows:

    Matthew has taken a Q passage as the basis for this segment of sayings (the parallels are found in Luke 17:3-4). He has used it in vv. 15 and 21-22 to frame materials of his own devising.

    Scold & forgive. This verse and vv. 21-22 are derived from Q, which is better preserved in Luke 17:3-4:

    If your companion does wrong, scold that person; if there is a change of heart, forgive the person. If someone wrongs you seven times a day, and seven times turns around and says to you, “I’m sorry,” you should forgive that person.

    In Q the advice for dealing with wrongdoing is simpler and briefer than Matthew’s version. In either case, the regulations are relevant to a time when the Christian community had to develop procedures for dealing with deviant behavior.

    Binding & releasing. Verse 16 is based on Deut 19:15: “A single witness is not sufficient to convict a person of any crime or wrongdoing … Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses can a charge be sustained.” Matthew has here introduced precedent from Hebrew Law, in accordance with the Christian practice of citing scripture as a way of buttressing its incipient bureaucracy.

    Matthew then further elaborates the procedures: take the unrepentant before the congregation; if that fails, treat the person as “a pagan nor toll-collector.” Not only do these suggestions reflect later social practice, they also appear inimical to Jesus’ regard for toll-collectors and sinners (note especially Matt 9:10-13; 10:3; 11:19, and Luke 18:10-140). Later on, in Matt 21:31b, Jesus is even reported to have said, “I swear to you, the toll-collectors and prostitutes will get into God’s domain, but you [the Pharisees] will not.” Fifty-three percent of the Fellows voted red or pink on Matt 21:31b, although the weighted average came out gray; gray and black votes were occasioned by doubt that there were Pharisees in Galilee during Jesus’ public ministry there. The Fellows agreed that Jesus was entirely sympathetic with toll-collectors and sinners; they also agreed that procedures such as those described in v. 17 could not have originated with Jesus.

    Verse 18 expands on the authority assigned to Peter in Matt 16:19. It obviously reflects the position of Peter in Matthew’s branch of the emerging institution, but it would not have been accepted by Paul (in this connection, note Gal 2:7-9, 11-14). This is Matthew’s language, not that of Jesus, inasmuch as it reflects the organization and rivalries in the infant church.

    Two or three. Verse 19 again reflects Deut 19:15 (cited in v, 1t6 above). It is an addition of Matthew to bolster the church’s claim to the authority to bind and release.

    “Wherever two or three are gathered in my name” has rabbinic parallels and was probably a standard feature of Judean piety. Since it was a part of common lore, Jesus cannot be designated as its author.

    Seventy-seven times. In vv. 21-22, Matthew appears to be correcting a literal misunderstanding of Q’s advice to forgive seven times (see the Q version cited at the beginning of this section): according to Matthew, after being wronged, one is to forgive not seven times, but seventy-seven times, possibly reflecting the influence of Gen 4:24. Here one can observe the early Christian community reflecting on and modifying its regulations for dealing with backsliders and errant behaviour.

    Nothing in this relatively long complex can be attributed to Jesus. The Q community’s rules of order are being reported and modified by Matthew.

    Word Biblical Commentary

    While leaving open the theoretical possibility that these instructions derive in some sense from the historical Jesus, the conservative Evangelical scholar, Donald Hagner, acknowledges that this passage is most likely the creative work of Matthew and is driven by the post-Easter experience of conflict within the Matthean community:

    There is without question a certain anachronism about this pericope, which views the church as a distinct entity and, indeed, one with considerable organization. The present form of the discourse speaks obviously to the church of Matthew’s day. If, however, Jesus was able to conceive of and plan for a community to carry on the work of the kingdom after his death (see Comment on 16:18), then he could also have made provision for the future existence of that community through the type of teaching found in this pericope. Matthew has probably taken sayings from the tradition and molded them into this pericope (as he has for the discourse as a whole) and thus given them somewhat more immediate relevance for his church.
    Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28 (WBC 33B; Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed. Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 531.

    Hermeneia commentary

    Ulrich Luz, one of the leading Matthean specialists of our time, identifies the probable process by which Matthew created this pericope:

    Matthew uses the same method in this discourse that he uses in chapters 10, 13, 23, 24–25. To a foundation from the Gospel of Mark (Mark 9:33–37, 42–47 = vv. 1–9) he adds Q material and his own special material. From the sayings source he takes Q 17:1–4 = vv. 6–7, 15, 22. The parable of the unmerciful steward (vv. 23–35) and possibly the parable of the lost sheep as well (vv. 12–13) come from his own material. In my judgment he had them only in oral form.
    Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20: A Commentary on Matthew 8–20 (Hermeneia 61B; ed. Helmut Koester; trans. James E. Crouch; Accordance electronic ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 423.

    New Interpreter’s Bible

    Eugene Boring notes both the lack of fit with other actions, attitudes and sayings attributed to Jesus, and the underlying Christocentric character of these instructions:

    18:17. The language used seems strangely harsh, since Jesus (and his community) is accused of befriending tax collectors and sinners, as well as Gentiles (9:11; 11:19). The practice of excommunication also seems strange, from the perspective expressed in 7:1–5 and 13:37–43. These tensions may be due to the incorporation of conflicting traditions in the history of the community’s development, or to applying them to different cases. It is clear, however, that if Matthew’s church does not already have a procedure for disciplining dangerously errant members, one is here provided, spoken in the name of Jesus. While this procedure involves the judgment of “the congregation,” it is not clear whether this presupposes the presence of church [Vol. 8, p. 379] leaders, through whom the congregation acts, or whether the assembly functions as a committee of the whole (see Introduction). In any case, the Christian community as a whole is concerned with the ethics of its individual members, and it intervenes in the spirit of love and forgiveness to take pastoral action that is more than mere advice. The goal is not only to maintain the holiness of the insiders, but to bring straying members to an awareness of their sins, to repentance, and eventual restoration as well (cf. 18:15, “gain”).
    18:18–20. With a pair of solemn amen sayings (see on 5:18), the Matthean Jesus assures the church of the divine ratification of its decisions.420 The authority given Peter to make legal decisions for the church as a whole (16:19) is here given the congregation in matters of its own discipline. By placing v. 19 in this context, Matthew applies an originally independent saying, encouraging group prayer, to the matter of church discipline. Likewise, in v. 20, an originally independent saying assuring the church of the continuing presence of Christ during the time of its mission—a major theme of Matthean theology (cf. on 1:23; 28:20)—is here applied to the particular case of the church’s making its disciplinary decisions. Just as contemporary Judaism handed on sayings to the effect that wherever two or three discuss words of Torah they are attended by the divine presence,421 so also Matthew’s church proclaims that when it gathers in Jesus’ name, Christ himself is present. The church is Christocentric rather than Torah-centric.
    M. Eugene Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew,” in General Articles on the New Testament; Matthew-Mark (vol. 8 of NIB, Accordance electronic ed. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 378-379.

    Boring then offers this reflection on the gap between the underlying view of Christian life presupposed by Matthew 18 and our contemporary individualistic perspective:

    1. The instructions in this passage concern a matter not only of personal relations but also of preserving and reconciling a straying member of the community, while preserving the community’s integrity as the holy covenant people of God. Matthew’s community orientation and our individualistic one come into sharp conflict. Matthew offers a solution to something we hardly perceive as a problem, since we are inclined to see our sin as a matter between ourselves and God, or, at most, between ourselves and the person who has wronged us. That it is a matter of the Christian congregation to which we belong, and may damage its life, comes as a surprise to both us and them, if they are as individualistic as we are. Whatever we think of the solution Matthew offers, we might first ponder the nature of the Christian life it presupposes. A doctrine of the church as the people of God is here presupposed. To be Christian is to be bound together in community; to pray is to say “our Father,” even in the privacy of our own room (Matt 6:6, 9).
    M. Eugene Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew,” 379.

    Jesus Database

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre:

  • Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost (31 August 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Exodus 3:1-15 & Psalm 105:1-6, 23-26, 45b (or Jeremiah 15:15-21 & Psalm 26:1-8)
    • Romans 12:9-21
    • Matthew 16:21-28

    First Reading: Theophany at Sinai

    The story of Moses and the burning bush is one of the great religious classics of humanity. This quintessential “I-thou” story of encounter with the Sacred Other captures themes that lie at the heart of the religious experience.

    Within the traditional Hebrew narrative structures that run through this part of the Pentateuch, this episode is a key part of the Moses narrative. The encounter with God in the burning bush epiphany is a revelation of the identity of the One who will redeem the Hebrew slaves and also the divine call for Moses to play his part in the drama of salvation. Both the prophetic character of Moses and also the special nature of his relationship with God are established in this episode.

    While there is no historical value to this tradition as an account of ancient Israel’s historical origins, this is a powerful story about the origins of the religious quest that became Israel’s great contribution to human culture and which is today expressed in all three biblical religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

    At the heart of this story lies the mysterious dialogue in which God reveals the divine name, using a formula that evades precise translation.

    Martin Buber

    For one especially famous exposition of the religious significance of the Sinai theophany the writings of the Jewish philosopher, Martin Buber (1878-1965): extract

    Nahum Sarna

    The following commentary comes from the JPS Torah Commentary edited by Nahum Sarna:

    Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh This phrase has variously been translated, “I Am That I Am,” “I Am Who I Am,” and “I Will Be What I Will Be.” It clearly evokes YHVH, the specific proper name of Israel’s God, known in English as the Tetragrammaton, that is, “the four consonants.” The phrase also indicates that the earliest recorded understanding of the divine name was as a verb derived from the stem h-v-h, taken as an earlier form of h-y-h, “to be.” Either it expresses the quality of absolute Being, the eternal, unchanging, dynamic presence, or it means, “He causes to be.” YHVH is the third person masculine singular; ehyeh is the corresponding first person singular. This latter is used here because name-giving in the ancient world implied the wielding of power over the one named; hence, the divine name can only proceed from God Himself.
    In the course of the Second Temple period the Tetragrammaton came to be regarded as charged with metaphysical potency and therefore ceased to be pronounced. It was replaced in speech by ’adonai, “Lord,” rendered into Greek Kyrios. Often the vowels of ’adonai would later accompany YHVH in written texts. This gave rise to the mistaken form Jehovah. The original pronunciation was eventually lost; modern attempts at recovery are conjectural.
    God’s response to Moses’ query cannot be the disclosure of a hitherto unknown name, for that would be unintelligible to the people and would not resolve Moses’ dilemma. However, taken together with the statement in 6:3, the implication is that the name YHVH only came into prominence as the characteristic personal name of the God of Israel in the time of Moses. This tradition accords with the facts that the various divine names found in Genesis are no longer used, except occasionally in poetic texts; that of all the personal names listed hitherto, none is constructed of the prefixed yeho-/yo- or the suffixed -yahu/yah contractions of YHVH; that the first name of this type is yokheved (Jochebed), that of Moses’ mother. Ibn Ezra points out that Moses, in his direct speech, invariably uses the name YHVH, not ’elohim, “God.” Without doubt, the revelation of the divine name YHVH to Moses registers a new stage in the history of Israelite monotheism.

    W. G. Plaut

    The following extracts from W.G. Plaut, The Torah. A Modern Commentary provide some further examples of Jewish interpretation of this tradition:

    In this first theophany, the divine Presence is called by three names: “God” (Elohim), “Lord” (YHVH), and a name not translated in our English text, “Ehyeh.” Of these, only the last name is new to Moses, the other two are familiar to him and are not explained: Elohim is the basic generic name for any god and hence also for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (verse 6); and “Lord” or YHVH is God’s own, personal name, known to him, but — as chapter 6 will show — not yet understood in its full meaning. Here it is merely restated that, whatever the additional and newly revealed name Ehyeh betokens, God’s own name YHVH will not be affected, it will remain the same (verse 15).
    The name Elohim is known to the reader from the story of Creation on. It is an expansion or variant of the name El, which generally describes the godhead in Semitic languages (Ugaritic El; Babylonian Ilu; Arabic Allah). Prevailing scholarly opinion connects it with a root meaning “to be strong.” In the Hebrew Bible, Elohim is used both for the God of Israel and generically for the gods of the nations, and, in the Torah, Elohim is the name preferred by the tradition called Elohist (or E; in contrast to J which prefers YHVH).
    YHVH (“Lord”) is the distinguishing name by which Israelites called their God. After the theophany related here, in chapter 3, Moses will bring the message of salvation to Israel as well as to Egypt, and the result of this mission will necessitate a further revelation of God, who (in chapter 6) will give to the old name YHVH a new dimension. …
    In the first meeting with God, Moses is satisfied that his knowledge of the divine Name, that is, his knowledge of God’s nature, will be sufficient to arm him for the mission ahead, though we are not told how a knowledge of the Name, if it were unknown to the people, would validate Moses’ claim. But, in any case, upon his inquiry he is not given the clear answer he seeks; instead he is told that the Lord may, in addition to being and continuing to be YHVH, also be known as Ehyeh or Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh. This revelation only deepens the mystery, for the new name is not further explained. Still, Moses makes no additional inquiry, and we may therefore assume that the name was meaningful to him, or at least that he believed he understood its import. What then was it? Over the centuries a number of answers have been attempted, though none has won universal acceptance.
    Ehyeh is quite evidently the first person singular of the word “to be.” One problem is that the tense is not clear; it could mean “I am” or “I will be” (or “I shall be”). This uncertainty is multiplied in the name Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, for the first Ehyeh might be of one tense (for instance, “I am”) and the second another (for instance, “I will be”), or they might both be the same tense (“I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be”). To add to the difficulty, Asher could mean either “who” or “what.”
    The majority of the commentators have understood both occurrences of Ehyeh to convey the future tense and to mean: “I will be what tomorrow demands,” that is, God emphasizes that He is capable of responding to human need. This was the message, they say, Moses was to take back to the enslaved people and thereby assure them that the God whom they called YHVH was also “Ehyeh,” who would be ready in the near future to redeem them. A variant interpretation was offered by S.R. Hirsch who saw a philosophical meaning in Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh: “I will be what I want to be,” that is, God stresses His own freedom to act as He wills, in contrast to earthly creatures who are never totally free. But is it likely that Moses could take such an opaque message to the people and satisfy their thirst for the knowledge that God was still their God?
    It appears therefore that the impact of this story lies elsewhere. The most important factor to be taken into consideration is that, though Moses is given the new name to take back to Israel, not a single instance is reported in the Torah where he is shown to have actually used it. From this we can conclude that the revelation was never meant for the people at all, nor did Moses really inquire for the sake of the people: Moses had asked for himself, and the answer he receives is also meant for him — for God understands what Moses wants, and the very vagueness of His answer is purposeful. When Moses asks, “What shall I say to them” he is asking to satisfy his own needs and does so by pretending to ask for the sake of others. This view alone makes it possible to arrive at a satisfactory interpretation of God’s mysterious self-revelation. Moses wants to know the nature of God by inquiring about the inner meaning of His name, but God will not be fully known and therefore evades a clear answer. His response is intentionally vague, for it is a response to Moses only, and not a name suitable for communication. “You ask to know My name,” God says, “and I will tell you: I am what I am, I will be what I will be. And when you tell your people of this experience, tell them it is the same YHVH they know about.” God reveals Himself to Moses as He does to no other human being (Deut. 34:10), but even to Moses He shows himself wrapped in mystery. It is an aspect of God’s freedom to conceal his essence, and hence Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh must remain elusive. Therefore it is well to keep the divine response in its original form and, as our English translation does, convey it, untranslated and inexplicable, as Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh. The Midrash conveys a similar interpretation: while God is called by many names, He is what he is by virtue of His deeds. That is to say, you cannot really know Him until you experience Him in your own life. (pp. 404-406)

    The Gospel: Intimations of suffering and glory

    The Gospel passage follows on from last week’s confession of faith by Peter, located by Mark in Caesarea Philippi in the far north of the Jordan catchment area. Matthew has drawn together material from Mark:

    Predictions of death and resurrection

    Matt 16:21 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.” 23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”

    Matthew has adopted, with minimal adjustment, the series of three prophecies in which Jesus predicts his own demise in Jerusalem as well as his resurrection. The series of predictions can be found at:

    • Mark 8:31-33 = Matt 16:21-23 = Luke 9:22
    • Mark 9:30-32= Matt 17:22-23 = Luke 9:43b-45
    • Mark 10:32-34 = Matt 20:17-19 = Luke 18:31-34

    Robert Fortna [The Gospel of Matthew, 145f] observes:

    I believe it is most unlikely that Jesus foresaw this early his eventual arrest and execution, still less his resurrection, or that he solemnly predicted them to this disciples. Rather, the three episdoes were introduced later in the story, perhaps not until the writing of Mark, to justify Jesus’ fate: If he had predicted it, it was acceptable, much as the Old Testament prophecy made an event inevitable (see … 27:27-66).

    The way of the cross

    At the heart of this week’s Gospel is the theme of the cross: a fate embraced by Jesus (as the gospel writers tell the story) and the benchmark for Christian discipleship.

    We have an ancient Greek reference crucifixion as the test of integrity [cited in Crossan, Historical Jesus (353)]:

    If you want to be crucified, just wait.
    The cross will come.
    If it seems reasonable to comply, and the circumstances are right,
    then it’s to be carried through, and your integrity maintained.
    (Epictetus, Discourses 2.2.20; Oldfather, 1.228-231)

    Lachs [Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, 187] notes that there are no rabbinic parallels to this saying but that there are many rabbinic passages that share the idea that the faithful should be willing to face martyrdom for their beliefs, for instance:

    The words of the Law are only established in a man who would die for them. [B.Ber. 63b]

    John Dominic Crossan, [Historical Jesus 353] observes:

    The complex Carrying Ones Cross [1/3] could be dismissed almost immediately as a retrojection of Jesus’ death back onto his own prophetic lips. This would be especially persuasive if it were found only in Mark 8:34, but it is found in both Gospel of Thomas 55:2b and the Sayings Gospel Q at Luke 14:27 = Matthew 10:38, neither of which show any great interest in the historical crucifixion of Jesus.

    After citing the passage from Epictetus (see above), Crossan continues:

    There is, therefore, no need to take Jesus’ saying as either retrojected or projected prophecy. Jesus “was discussing,” as Leif Vaage put it about Epictetus, “the (possible) consequences of following a certain philosophy … The cost of adopting a particular way of life is … graphically imagined … The fate portrayed … certainly seems a conceivable outcome of the kind of social challenge and outrageous behavior” (1989:173) seen so often throughout this chapter.

    Note: The Vaage reference is to “Q1 and the Historical Jesus: Some Peculiar Sayings (7:33-34; 9:57-58,59-60; 14:26-27)” Forum 5/2, 1989, 159-76.

    Unlike its co-chair, the Jesus Seminar was more sceptical of this saying’s authenticity. This saying is deeply embedded in the early traditions appearing in three independent sources and in two different forms: as a negative saying in Q/Thom and as a positive saying in Mark. In the end, and only after a second consideration of the question, the Fellows rejected the saying from the database of authentic Jesus sayings on the grounds that its post-Easter understanding of the cross as the defining symbol for Jesus.

    Gerd Lüdemann [Jesus, 57], agrees with the final view of the Jesus Seminar and considers Mark 8:34b “a saying of post-Easter prophet.”

    John P. Meier [Marginal Jew, III, 64-66], discusses this saying as part of his treatment of the disciples. He considers that the “shocking imagery” and the multiple attestation both support the case that Jesus created this saying. Meier suggests that the saying would not have spoken of carrying one’s own cross (rather than Jesus’ cross) had it been a post-Easter creation, and he also cites the parallel from Epictetus (c. 55-135 CE) in support of a wide dissemination of the crucifixion metaphor in the early Roman period.

    Some standing here

    Matt 16:27 “For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. 28 Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

    Belief in Jesus’ return (parousia) is one of the most strongly attested items in the historical Jesus tradition, and continues to be a core belief in some modern Christian communities. In every generation there have been Christians who expected to see the end of the world before they died, but in the Synoptic tradition such a statement perhaps indicates this saying is circulating within the range of living memory deriving from the late 20s of the first century; not later than 90 CE or thereabouts.

    Jesus Database

    • 240 Passion Resurrection Prophecy – (1a) Mark 8:31-33 = Matt 16:2l-23 = Luke 9:22; (1b) Mark 9:9b = Matt 17:9b; (1c) Mark 9:12b = Matt 17:12b; (1d) Mark 9:30-32= Matt 17:22-23 = Luke 9:43b-45; (1e) Luke 17:25; (1f) Mark 10:32-34 = Matt 20:17-19 = Luke 18:31-34; (1g) Matt 26:1-2; (1h) Mark 14:21 = Matt 26:24 = Luke 22:22; (1i) Mark 14:41= Matt 26:45b; (1j) Luke 24:7.
    • 044 Carrying Ones Cross – (1) GThom. 55:2b; (2) 1Q: Luke 14:27 = Matt 10:38; (3) Mark 8:34 = Matt 16:24 = Luke 9:23.
    • 063 Saving Ones Life – (1) 1Q: Luke 17:33 = Matt 10:39; (2) Mark 8:35 = Matt 16:25 = Luke 9:24; (3) John 12:25-26.
    • 241 What Profit – (1a) Mark 8:36 = Matt 16:26a = Luke 9:25; (1b) 2 Clem. 6:2.
    • 028 Before the Angels – (1a) 2Q: Luke 12:8-9 = Matt 10:32-33; (1b) 2 Clem. 3:2 [from Matt 10:32]; (2) Mark 8:38 = Matt 16:27 = Luke 9:26; (3) Rev 3:5; (4) 2 Tim 2:12b.

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre:

  • Eleventh Sunday after Pentecost (24 August 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Exodus 1:8-2:10 & Psalm 124 (or, Isaiah 51:1-6 & Psalm 138)
    • Romans 12:1-8
    • Matthew 16:13-20

    First Reading: The birth of a saviour, Moses

    While the sacred traditions of ancient Israel and Judah celebrate Abraham and Jacob as the ancestors of the nation, or even David as the archetypal dynastic founder, it is Moses who is honoured with a classic birth story as befits the founder of a new religious tradition.

    For an introduction to some of the ancient birth stories now known to us, and as an aid to reflection on the significance of the Moses story, the following pages are especially relevant:

    Gospel: Who is Jesus

    This week’s Gospel passage is one of the classic scenes in the Synoptic Gospels.

    Jesus travels to the far north of the Holy Land, to the area around Caesarea Philippi. This was a city created by Philip, a son of Herod the Great, who had was given authority over a portion of his father’s kingdom by Augustus, emperor of Rome. Best known as Philip the Tetrarch, this “Herod” appears in the NT record and this extract from the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (vol. 5, p. 311) outlines what we know of him:

    Philip is known primarily as a builder. He refounded the city of Panias and named it Caesarea—the Caesarea Philippi (literally, “Philip’s Caesarea”) of the New Testament (Matt 16:13; Mark 5:27). He also refounded the town of Bethsaida: he supplemented its population, strengthened its fortifications, and named it Julias after Julia, Augustus’ daughter. The refoundation will therefore have taken place early, presumably before Julia’s exile in 2 B.C. (Ant 18.27–8). The foundation and refoundation of cities named after the emperor and his family was characteristic of client rulers under the Principate (Suet. Aug. 60 with Braund 1984: 107–11). Such cities tended to be centers of imperial cult: Herod the Great had already built a splendid temple near Panias for Augustus (Ant 15.363–64; JW 1.404–6). Philip’s subjects were predominantly non-Jewish. Thus Philip’s coinage bears images, most notably the heads of Augustus and Tiberius respectively. They also depict a temple, probably the temple which Herod had built near Panias. These coins indicate that Philip called himself simply “Philip, tetrarch” (HJP2 1: 340 n. 9).
    Philip reigned as tetrarch from 4 B.C. until his death in A.D. 33/4. According to Josephus, he was a good ruler. His reign was mild and he avoided external entanglements. He traveled about his territories with only a small, select entourage, which would not be a burden upon his subjects. He dispensed justice promptly and fairly from a throne which he took with him in his travels around his tetrarchy. He died at Julias, where, after a costly funeral, his body was consigned to a tomb which he had built in preparation for his death (Ant 18.106–8).
    Philip had married Salome, daughter of Antipas and Herodias, whose dancing had cost the head of John the Baptist (Mark 6:22) and who survived Philip to marry again (Ant 18.137). But Philip had no children: Tiberius annexed his territories upon his death (Ant 18.108).

    For a more detailed discussion of the coins issued by the successors of Herod, including Philip, see:

    The imperial politics in which Herod and his sons were immersed clearly impacted on Jesus in various ways, and not least in his crucifixion. While the reference to John the Baptist may strike the modern reader as a religious reference, in the ancient world it was perhaps a more directly political note.

    Within that world, and within the confused network of competing claims to authority and loyalty, Mark tells a story of Jesus travelling to a region closely associated with both the Herodian succession and the continuation of that dynasty before, during and after the great war with Rome in 66-73 CE. Caesarea Philippi was the seat of government for Agrippa II, who sided with Rome at the time of the Jewish rebellion and was later a confidant of Flavius Josephus, on whose writings we rely for much of our knowledge of Jewish history at this time.

    Whether Jesus actually was in the region of Caesarea Philippi during the reign of Philip the Tetrarch, or whether Mark is creating that location because of its significance as the centre of Jewish authority after 70 CE, this scene is of great significance in Mark’s narrative. Indeed, given Mark’s own understanding of Jesus as “son of God” (cf. 1:1; 1:11; 3:11; 15:39), the answers he puts on the lips of the disciples are quite restrained:

    • John the Baptist
    • Elijah
    • one of the prophets
    • the Messiah

    These issues are teased out in a longer discussion in Gregory C. Jenks, Jesus Then and Jesus Now: Looking for Jesus, Finding Ourselves (Melbourne: Morning Star, 2014). See, “One of the prophets” ch 4 (pp. 45–57).

    While “Messiah” is clearly the answer Mark wants the readers to embrace, this is a term that has not appeared in his Gospel until now (except for the opening line of the narrative, best understood as a superscription or title for the work as a whole:

    • “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (Mark 1:1)

    However, after this point the Greek word christos (anointed, messiah, Christ) is found a number of times:

    • “For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.” (Mark 9:41)
    • “While Jesus was teaching in the temple, he said, ‘How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David?’” (Mark 12:35)
    • “And if anyone says to you at that time, ‘Look! Here is the Messiah!’ or ‘Look! There he is!’—do not believe it.” (Mark 13:21)
    • “But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?’” (Mark 14:61)
    • “‘Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe.’ Those who were crucified with him also taunted him.” (Mark 15:32)

    It is possible that Mark is deliberately restrained with his narrative here. While “son of God”—with all its political overtones in an empire whose rulers claimed to be sons of the divine ruler who had preceded them, and in which local rulers dedicated temples such as we find at Bethsaida and Caesarea Philippi to the imperial cult—was important for his view of Jesus, he chooses to speak of Jesus in traditional Jewish terms, as the anointed one, the messiah.

    Matthew will change Mark’s narrative to make Peter profess the faith held by Matthew’s early Christian community:

    • “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God …” (Matt 16:16)

    And Luke will also assert the special relationship between this Messiah and Israel’s God:

    • “the Messiah of God”

    Almost 2,000 years later we still find ourselves reflecting on the question: Who is Jesus? We may answer it differently from earlier generations, but the question persists and the way we answer it shapes the way we live.

    Jesus Database

    • 073 Who is Jesus – (1) GThom. 13; (2a) Mark 8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) GNaz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre:

Exit mobile version