gregoryjenks

Tag: RCL

  • Eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost (12 October 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Exodus 32:1-14 & Psalm 106:1-6, 19-23 (Isaiah 25:1-9 & Psalm 23)
    • Philippians 4:1-9
    • Matthew 22:1-14

    Kissing calves

    The episode of the “golden calf” is an archetypal symbol for apostasy, and it has an interesting history within the biblical texts.

    As the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary entry indicates, there are 4 major biblical references to this topic as well as several minor references:

    • Exodus 32:1-35 (the basic story and the OT reading for this Sunday)
    • Deut 9:13-21 (Moses berates the people for their apostasy but the calf is not central to the passage)
    • 1 Kings 11-12 (Jeroboam sets up a golden calf in the royal sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan)
    • Hosea condemns Israel for its worship of gold and silver calves (Hos 8:4-5; 10:5–6; 13:2)

    Since the Hosea passages may be less known, and yet also present fewer historical problems, they may be worth citing in full here:

    They made kings, but not through me;
    they set up princes, but without my knowledge.
    With their silver and gold they made idols
    for their own destruction.
    Your calf is rejected, O Samaria.
    My anger burns against them.
    How long will they be incapable of innocence?
    (Hosea 8:4-5 NRSV)

    The inhabitants of Samaria tremble
    for the calf of Beth-aven.
    Its people shall mourn for it,
    and its idolatrous priests shall wail over it,
    over its glory that has departed from it.
    The thing itself shall be carried to Assyria
    as tribute to the great king.
    Ephraim shall be put to shame,
    and Israel shall be ashamed of his idol.
    (Hosea 10:5-6 NRSV)

    And now they keep on sinning
    and make a cast image for themselves,
    idols of silver made according to their understanding,
    all of them the work of artisans.
    “Sacrifice to these,” they say.
    People are kissing calves!”
    (Hosea 13:2 NRSV)

    The minor references to the golden calves can be listed as follows:

    • 2 Kings 10:29-31 refers to the sin of Jeroboam and condemns Jehu (king of Israel, 842-815 BCE) for not eradicating the calf cult
    • 2 Kings 17:16 explicitly names the maming of the two golden calves as one factor leading to the fall of the northern kingdom
    • 2 Chronicles 11:13 & 13:8 refer to calf cult in negative terms
    • Nehemiah 9:18 includes the golden calf in the time of Moses among the sins to be confessed
    • Psalm 106:19 refers to the making of a calf at Horeb

    It seems clear that there was a well-established place for an image of a young bull in the cult of Yahweh in ancient Israel. This was apparently popular in the northern community but not adopted in the temple cult of Jerusalem. They, of course, had their own favourite cult images, including the large bronze serpent, known as Nehustan (cf 2 Kings 18:4).

    See the Healing Serpent tradition in ancient Judah for more details on the southern religious traditions.

    In ANE iconography the bull, and especially the bull-calf, was a symbol for Baal and related deities. Its occurence in the worship traditions of the Israelite tribes associated with the northern kingdom would be entirely consistent with the cultural continuity they shared with their neighbours and what the OT tells us in other passages about the survival of non-Yahwistic worship practices in both Israel and Judah.

    The famous stela from the Iron Age IIB stratum at Bethsaida is graphic evidence for the bull-god tradition in this region:
    BethsaidaStele.jpg
    Whatever the historical origins of this golden calf which Hosea—a northern prophet active in the middle of the 8C BCE—roundly condemns, it has clearly been picked up by the southern writers as the defining sin of their northern cousins. Whether or not the northern traditions projected the origins of its calf symbol back to the time of Moses, just as the southern tradition projected its bronze serpent back to Moses, the authors of the Pentateuch and of the great National History found in Joshua-Kings, as well as the post-exilic authors of the Chronicles & Ezra-Nehemiah all viewed such a practice as a very serious error.

    While the OT does not have the concept of “original sin,” this theme takes us close to that idea as the southern composers of the Jewish Scriptures saw the primary sin of the northern kingdom to have been grounded in an even earlier occasion of apostasy in the time of Moses.

    These stories do not tell us how the calf cult developed, but they do tell us how the monotheistic and aniconic traditions of Second Temple Judaism viewed such practices and those (such as the northerners) who were thought to observe them.

    Gospel: The Feast

    We have three versions of this basic story. Two of them (Thomas and Luke) are quite similar, while the third (Matthew) has been developed in some distinctive ways:

    Thomas 64

    64 Jesus said, Someone was receiving guests. When he had prepared the dinner, he sent his slave to invite the guests. 2The slave went to the first and said, “My master invites you.” The first replied, 3″Some merchants owe me money; they are coming to me tonight. I have to go and give them instructions. Please excuse me from dinner.” 4 The slave went to another and said, “My master has invited you.” 5The second said to the slave, “I have bought a house, and I have been called away for a day. I shall have no time.” 6 The slave went to another and said, “My master invites you.” 7The third said to the slave, “My friend is to be married, and I am to arrange the banquet. I shall not be able to come. Please excuse me from dinner.” 8The slave went to another and said, “My master invites you.” 9The fourth said to the slave, “I have bought an estate, and I am going to collect the rent. I shall not be able to come. Please excuse me.” 10The slave returned and said to his master, “Those whom you invited to dinner have asked to be excused.” 11The master said to his slave, “Go out on the streets and bring back whomever you find to have dinner.” 12Buyers and merchants [will] not enter the places of my Father. [Complete Gospels]

    Luke 14:15-24

    One of the dinner guests, on hearing this, said to him, “Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!” 16Then Jesus said to him, “Someone gave a great dinner and invited many. 17At the time for the dinner he sent his slave to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come; for everything is ready now.’ 18But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I have bought a piece of land, and I must go out and see it; please accept my regrets.’ 19Another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to try them out; please accept my regrets.’ 20Another said, ‘I have just been married, and therefore I cannot come.’ 21So the slave returned and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and said to his slave, ‘Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.’ 22And the slave said, ‘Sir, what you ordered has been done, and there is still room.” 23Then the master said to the slave, ‘Go out into the roads and lanes, and compel people to come in, so that my house may be filled. 24For I tell you, none of those who were invited will taste my dinner.’”

    Matthew 22:1-13

    Once more Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying: 2″The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. 3He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. 4Again he sent other slaves, saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited: Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet.’ 5But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, 6while the rest seized his slaves, mistreated them, and killed them. 7The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. 8Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.’ 10Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both good and bad; so the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11″But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, 12and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?’ And he was speechless. 13Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14For many are called, but few are chosen.”

    The International Q Project reconstructs the original Q saying as follows:

    A certain person prepared a [large] dinner, [and invited many]. And he sent his slave [at the time of the dinner] to say to the invited: Come, for it is ready.
    He came to the first (and) said to him: My master invites you. he said: I have bills for some merchants. They are coming to me this evening. I will go (and) give instructions to them. Excuse me for the dinner. he came to another (and) said to him: My master has invited you. He said to him: I have bought a house, and I have been called (away) for a day. I will not have time.
    He came to another (and) said to him: My master invites you. he said to him: I have bought a village. Since I am going to collect the rent, I will not be able to come. Excuse me.
    He went to another (and) said to him: My master invites you. He said to him: My friend is going to marry, and I am the one who is going to prepare the meal. I will not be able to come. Excuse me for the dinner.
    The slave went away. He said to his master: Those whom you invited to the dinner have asked to be excused. The master said to the slave: Go out on the roads, and whomever you find, invite, so that my house may be filled.

    The Jesus Seminar assessment of this tradition is as follows:

    • Thom 64:1-12
    • Luke 14:16b-23
    • Matt 22:2-13

    The commentary in The Five Gospels (p. 352) concludes that, on balance, Luke’s version of this story is closer to the original than Matthew’s version. Overall, the GThom version was preferred although it also has signs of editorial adaptation to fit its current context (p. 510). While Luke perhaps tells the story to illustrate some of the points about table fellowship made in the previous verses, Matthew has modified the story to serve as an allegory of salvation history, including a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem by armies acting at the command of the angry king (God).
    Bernard Brandon Scott [Re-Imagine the World, 111f] comments on the distinctive features of Matthew’s version:

    Matthew clearly has the same parable, but its deviations have led to some debate as to whether Matthew has reworked a Q parable similar to the one found in Luke, or has received the parable already changed in his oral tradition. I incline towards the former view. The themes of the parable are too clearly Matthean not to be from the hand of the author of that gospel.
    In this case, the man giving a banquet is a king giving a wedding feast for his son. In the Matthean allegory those first invited are the Jews and when they reject the invitation to the wedding feast, the king destroys their city — clearly a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. In the second invitation “the good and the bad alike” is a clear reference to the church, which Matthew consistently views as mixed, as for example, in his interpretation of the parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Matt 13:37-43).
    The guest without the wedding garment refers to those who do not produce proper fruit. The parable ends with the man being thrown out into the darkness where “they’ll weep and grind their teeth,” another favorite phrase of Matthew (Matt 8:12; 12:42,50; 24:13; 24:51; 25:30).
    In Matthew’s hands the parable becomes an allegory of Jewish rejection, Christian acceptance, and final judgment.

    The rabbinic tradition has several parables around the theme of a ruler hosting a feast for his son but, as Samuel T. Lachs observes [Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, 356f], none of these provide a parallel to this parable apart from the following (and then only to the wedding garment motif found in Matthew):

    R. Johanan b. Zakkai said: “A parable of a king who invited his servants to a banquet but did not specify to them the time. The clever ones among them adorned themselves and sat at the entrance of the king’s house. They said: ‘Does the king lack anything?’ The foolish among them went to their work, for they said: ‘Can there be a banquet without preparation?’ Suddenly the king asked for his servants. The clever among them entered before him as they were adorned, but the foolish among them entered before him dirty as they were. The king rejoiced to greet the clever ones but was angry with the foolish ones. He said: ‘These who have adorned themselves for the banquet, let them and eat and drink, but these who have not adorned themselves for the banquet, let them stand and merely observe.’” The son-in-law of R. Meir said in the name of R. Meir: “But the foolish would appear like attendants, let both sit down, but let the clean servants eat and drink, while the dirty ones shall go hungry and thirst.” [B. Shab. 153a and Koh. R. 9.8, 3.8]

    John Dominic Crossan [Historical Jesus, 261f] suggests:

    All three extant versions have interpreted and applied the parable to their own situations by contextual connections and intratextual developments. I think, however, that a common structural plot is discernible behind them all. … It is the random and open commensality of the parable’s meal that is its most startling element. The social challenge of such egalitarian commensality is the radical threat of the parable’s vision. It is only a story, of course, but it is one that focuses its egalitarian challenge on society’s mesocosmic mirror, the table as the place where bodies meet to eat. And the almost predictable counteraccusation to such open commensality is immediate: Jesus is a glutton, a drunkard, and a friend of tax collectors and sinners. He makes, in other words, no appropriate distinctions and discriminations. He has no honor. He has no shame.

    For a more detailed discussion of this parable by Crossan, see Four Other Gospels (1985: 39-52).
    More recently, Bernard Brandon Scott [Re-Imagine the World, 110-17] comments on the significance of the invitation — and the lack of acceptances — within the honor/shame system of ancient Mediterranean societies:

    Banquets of the rich followed a set form; they were not spur of the moment activities. One of their primary functions was to bring honor to a host. If honor is to be maintained, guests must show up. Thus part of the set form of a banquet was an invitation issued days before the banquet. Normally this was delivered by a slave who either read it, if he were literate, or recited it. A number of papyrus invitations have survived. … After the formal invitation, a slave would return at the appropriate time to escort the guests to the banquet. At this point the parable begins.
    But something is wrong with this banquet. Every one of those who was invited had an excuse and refuses to come. It cannot be a coincidence that all those invited guests have excuses, every single one of them. The man is being snubbed. Instead of redounding to his honor, this banquet will create great shame.
    … Whatever the man’s strategy [of gathering people randomly from the street], the banquet he ends up with is very different from the one he planned. It is now a banquet of the dishonorable, and he is shamed.
    The messianic banquet lurks around the edges of this parable … The parable of the Banquet burlesques the messianic banquet just as the Mustard Seed burlesques the great cedar of Lebanon. The banquet proposed by the man might be a fitting model for the messianic banquet but the actual banquet is something else. It also points to the here and now as the place of the banquet, and to life on the streets among the peasants as the appropriate model for the banquet, not the world of the elites. Just as the parable of the Unforgiving Slave rejects the imperial model of the messiah, so this parable rejects the banquets of the elites as the model for the messianic banquet. God’s banquet is something else.

    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:

  • Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost (5 October 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Exodus 20:1-4, 7-9, 12-20 & Psalm 19 (or Isaiah 5:1-7 & Psalm 80:7-15)
    • Philippians 3:4b-14
    • Matthew 21:33-46

    First Reading: The Decalogue

    Those communities using the Revised Common Lectionary will be reading the story of Sinai, where the divine Torah is given to the covenant community and especially encapsulated in the Ten Words, or Decalogue.

    The commentary by Nahum Sarna in the JPS edition of the Torah, offers the following observations:

    The arrival at Sinai inaugurates the culminating stage in the process of forging Israel’s national identity and spiritual destiny. The shared experiences of bondage and liberation are to be supplemented and given ultimate meaning by a great communal encounter with God. Henceforth, Israel is to be a people inextricably bound to God by a covenantal relationship. The Hebrew term for a covenant is the seminal biblical word berit. The Christian designation of sacred Scripture as “testament” reflects this understanding of the covenant concept as the controlling idea of biblical faith; “testament” is a now largely obsolete word for the written record of a compact.
    In the ancient world, relationships between individuals as well as between states were ordered and regulated by means of covenants, or treaties. Numerous examples of such instruments of international diplomacy have survived, deriving from various parts of the ancient Near East. These divide into two basic categories: (1) a parity treaty, where the contracting parties negotiate as equals; (2) a suzerain-vassal treaty, where one party transparently imposes its will on the other.
    A study of these documents, particularly those of the latter type, leaves no doubt as to the influence of the ancient Near Eastern treaty patterns on the external, formal, literary aspects of the biblical berit. The affinities are to be expected. In order for the berit to be intelligible to the Israelites, it made sense to structure it according to the accepted patterns of the then universally recognized legal instruments.
    The Decalogue and its contents are, however, in a class by themselves. The idea of a covenantal relationship between God and an entire people is unparalleled. Similarly unique is the setting of the covenant in a narrative context. It is the latter that imparts to the covenant its meaning and significance; the covenant would be devalued were the link between them to be severed. Another major and original feature is the manner in which the content of the berit embraces the internal life of the “vassal” by regulating individual behavior and human relationships. Such a preoccupation with social affairs is beyond the scope and intent of all other ancient treaties, whose sole concern is with the external affairs of the vassal.
    The uniqueness of the Decalogue notwithstanding, it is undeniable that many of its provisions are closely paralleled in the wisdom and ethical literature of the ancient world. Several other ancient law collections rest upon foundations of ethical and moral principles of justice and morality. Sins of a moral and ethical nature, such as bearing false witness, disrespect of parents, theft, adultery, and murder, are all listed in the magic texts from Mesopotamia known as the Shurpu series. The “Declaration of Innocence,” located in chapter 125 of the Egyptian “Book of the Dead,” is formulated in negative terms and clearly testifies to the reality of positive moral ideals. It is obvious that the great civilizations of the Nile and Mesopotamian valleys could not have functioned without a commitment to a set of ethical ideals and principles of morality.
    What is revolutionary about the Decalogue in Israel is not so much its content as the way in which these norms of conduct are regarded as being expressions of divine will, eternally binding on the individual and on society as a whole. Both are equally answerable to the deity, which was not the case in pagan cultures.
    Another extraordinary Israelite innovation is the amalgamation of what in modern times would be classified separately as “religious” and “secular,” or social, obligations. This distinction is meaningless in a biblical context, where both categories alike are accepted as emanating from God. Social concern, therefore, is rooted in the religious conscience.
    Still another outstanding feature of the Decalogue is the apodictic nature of its stipulations—the simple, absolute, positive and negative imperatives are devoid of qualification and mostly presented without accompanying penalties or threats of punishment. The idea is that the covenant is a self-enforcing document. The motivation for fulfilling its stipulations is not to be fear of retribution but the desire to conform to divine will, reinforced by the spiritual discipline and moral fiber of the individual.

    Five + Five

    The two sets of five “sayings” that captured the essence of the covenant obligations were perhaps related to the ten fingers on the two hands of a person: five for God, five for others. In their primitive form, the demands of the Decalogue may literally have been 10 curt sayings: No-idols, No_Murder, No_Adultery, etc.

    The traditional number ten, like the well-attested preference for twelve in both Jewish and Christian texts, seems to have survived despite the presence of at least eleven (and by some medieval Jewish accounts, thirteen) commandments in these verses. (In a similar fashion, “The Twelve” survived as a special apostolic term in early Christianity despite the significance of additional apostles, including Paul and Barnabas.) The tension between the desire to identify ten specific commands and the presence of a greater number of commands, is seen in the different ways that various communities have divided the Decalogue:

    [1] 20:3 you shall have no other gods before me.
    [2] 20:4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
    [3] 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 20:6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
    [4] 20:7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
    [5] 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 20:10 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; you shall not do any work–you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.
    [6] 20:12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.
    [7] 20:13 You shall not murder.
    [8] 20:14 You shall not commit adultery.
    [9] 20:15 You shall not steal.
    [10] 20:16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
    [11] 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

    The numbers in square brackets identify the eleven commandments that are found in this text, as well as in its parallel in Deuteronomy 5. There is also an entirely different version of the “Ten Commandments” to be found in Exodus 34 although they are said to be a replica of the first set of stone tablets destroyed by Moses in a fit of rage.

    Different religious communities combine two of the first few commandments in various ways to achieve the desired number of ten:

    In the JEWISH tradition, vs. 2 is considered to be the first commandment, while vss. 3-6 are combined to form a single commandment prohibiting false gods, including idols (both their manufacture and their use). In the ROMAN CATHOLIC AND LUTHERAN traditions, following St Augustine in the ancient church, vss. 2-6 are combined into a single commandment, while splitting vs. 17 to form two separate commandments:

    9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; and
    10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, …

    ANCIENT PATRISTIC sources, as well as most PROTESTANT CHURCHES, typically combined vss. 2-3 to form a commandment demanding exclusive loyalty to YHVH, while vss. 4-6 are also combined to form a single prohibition on idolatry.

    Some CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARS have suggested that the series did not originally include the commandment concerning honor of father and mother, and at one stage may have been as follows:

    1. No god/s but YHVH
    2. Make no images
    3. No worshipping of idols
    4. No false swearing …
    5. Keep the Sabbath holy …

    6. No murder …
    7. No adultery …
    8. No stealing …
    9. No false witness …
    10. No coveting

    If this is correct, then the original tradition had five duties to God and fives duties to the community, with respect for parents being a later addition and requiring some compression of the preceding injunctions.

    The heart of torah

    In subsequent Jewish tradition the 613 commandments revealed to Moses were reduced to smaller sets and ultimately (according to the Talmud) to a single command: Seek me and live:

    Six hundred and thirteen commandments were given to Moses, three hundred and sixty-five negative ones, corresponding to the days of the solar year, and two hundred forty-eight positive commandments, corresponding to the parts of man’s body…
    David came and reduced them to eleven: A Psalm of David [Psalm 15] Lord, who shall sojourn in thy tabernacle, and who shall dwell in thy holy mountain? (i) He who walks uprightly and (ii) works righteousness and (iii) speaks truth in his heart and (iv) has no slander on his tongue and (v) does no evil to his fellow and (vi) does not take up a reproach against his neighbour, (vii) in whose eyes a vile person is despised but (viii) honors those who fear the Lord. (ix) He swears to his own hurt and changes not. (x) He does not lend on interest. (xi) He does not take a bribe against the innocent,…
     Isaiah came and reduced them to six [Isaiah 33:25–26]: (i) He who walks righteously and (ii) speaks uprightly, (iii) he who despises the gain of oppressions, (iv) shakes his hand from holding bribes, (v) stops his ear from hearing of blood (vi) and shuts his eyes from looking on evil, he shall dwell on high.
    Micah came and reduced them to three [Micah 6:8]: It has been told you, man, what is good and what the Lord demands from you, (i) only to do justly, and (ii) to love mercy, and (iii) to walk humbly before God…
    Isaiah came again and reduced them to two [Isaiah 56:1]: Thus says the Lord, (i) keep justice and (ii) do righteousness.
    Amos came and reduced them to a single one, as it is said, For thus says the Lord to the house of Israel, Seek Me and live.
    Habakkuk further came and based them on one, as it is said [Habakkuk 2:4], But the righteous shall live by his faith.
    — Talmud, b. Makkot, 24(a) [cited in Jacob Neusner, The Way of Torah, 22]

    Gospel: The Tenants & the Rejected Stone

    The Tenants

    The Jesus Seminar considered this parable on more than one occasion, with some movement in the voting outcomes between sessions:

    Thom 65-66
    Thom 65
    Thom 66
    Mark 12:1-11
    Mark 12:1-8
    Mark 12:9-11
    Matt 21:33-43
    Matt 21:33-39
    Matt 21:40-43
    Luke 20:9-18
    Luke 20:9-15a
    Luke 9:15b-18
    Barn 6:4a

    The commentary in The Five Gospels (p. 101) describes this parable as “the classic example of the predilection of the early Christian community to recast Jesus’ parables as allegorical stories.” The Seminar votes reflect a view that Thomas preserves a version of this parable closer to the original form.

    John Dominic Crossan [Historical Jesus, p. 351] proposes that this saying, along with its related saying 47 The Rejected Stone [1/3], originated as a story featuring a vineyard owner’s son but told with no self-reference to Jesus. In the subsequent tradition the story was allegorized, with the story then developing in either of two directions. In the Similitudes we see the story transformed in a positive way, with the tenants and the son jointly inheriting the vineyard. Alternatively, if the death of the son was taken as an allegory for the death of Jesus then there needed to be some reference to the resurrection. Crossan suggests this was achieved by combining the story of the tenants with the saying about the rejected stone.

    He then asks what the original form of this parable may have meant when spoken by Jesus:

    It is not impossible, first of all, that Jesus could have told the parable about his own fate, as a metaphorical vision of his own possible death. After the execution of John, and in the context of what he himself was doing, such a prophecy required no transcendental information. Indeed, if the idea never crossed Jesus’ mind, he was being very naive indeed. I find that explanation less plausible, however, because I cannot see how its narrative logic coincides with the situation of Jesus himself. How, in terms of Jesus’ own life, would the tenants acquire the vineyard by his murder? The story, on the other hand, is absolutely understandable as spoken to peasants who know all about absentee landlords and what they themselves have thought, wished, and maybe even planned. I am inclined, then, but somewhat tentatively, to read it as one of those places where the political situation breaks most obviously on the surface of the text. Presuming that the original parable ended with the son’s death, how would a Galilean peasant audience have responded? May like this. Some: they did right. Others: but they will not get away with it. Some: he got what he deserved. Others: but what will the father do now? Some: that is the way to handle landlord. Others: but what about the soldiers?

    Gerd Lüdemann [Jesus, pp. 81f] discounts the parable as an allegory based on Isaiah 5:1-7 and rejects attempts (such as Crossan above) to identify an original version that could be traced to Jesus:

    As the tradition can be derived from the community, its degree of authenticity is nil. But it is often argued in favor of the historical authenticity of the passage that the imagery (e.g. the rebellious mood of tenants against the owner) is well-attested for the world of Jesus. However, this plausibility must not seduce us into historical conclusions.

    The Rejected Stone

    In the Testament of Solomon, a Christian text dated somewhere in the first three centuries of the Common Era, we find the Legend of the Immovable Cornerstone:

    /22:1/ The king of Arabia, Adarkes, sent a letter containing the following: “King of Arabia, Adarkes, to King Solomon, greetings. I have heard about the wisdom which has been granted to you and that, being a man from the Lord, there has been given to you understanding about all the spirits of the air, the earth, and beneath the earth. /2/ There still exists a spirit in Arabia. Early in the morning a fresh gust of wind blows until the third hour. Its terrible blast even kills man and beast and no (counter-)blast is ever able to withstand the demon. /3/ I beg you, therefore, since this spirit is like a wind, do something wise according to the wisdom which has been given to you by the Lord your God and decide to send out a man who is able to bring it under control. /4/ Then we shall belong to you, King Solomon, I and all my people and all my land; and all Arabia will be at peace if you carry out this act of vengeance for us. /5/ Consequently, we implore you, do not ignore our prayer and do become our lord for all time. farewell my lord, as ever.”
    /6/ After I, Solomon, read this letter, I folded it, gave it to my servant, and said to him, “After seven days, remind me of this letter.” /7/ So Jerusalem was being built and the Temple was moving towards completion. Now there was a gigantic cornerstone which I wished to place at the head of the corner to complete the Temple of God. /8/ All the artisans and all the demons who were helping came to the same (location) to bring the stone and mount it at the end of the Temple, but they were not strong enough to budge it.
    /9/ When seven days had passed and I remembered the letter of the king of Arabia, I summoned my servant boy and said to him, “Load up your camel, take a leather flask and this seal, /10/ and go off to Arabia to the place where the spirit is blowing. Then take hold of the wineskin and (place) the ring in front of the neck of the flask (against the wind). /11/ As the flask is being filled with air, you will discover that it is the demon who is filling it up. Carefully, then, tie up the flask tightly and when you have sealed (it) with the ring, load up the camel and come back here. Be off, now, with blessings.”
    /12/ Then the boy obeyed the orders and went to Arabia. Now the men from the region doubted whether it was possible to bring the evil spirit under control. /13/ Nonetheless, before dawn the house servant got up and confronted the spirit of the wind. He put the flask on the ground and placed the ring on (its mouth). (The demon) entered the flask and inflated it. /14/ Yet the boy stood firm. He bound up the mouth of the flask in the name of the Lord Sabaoth and the demon stayed inside the flask./15/ To prove that the demon had been overcome, the boy remained three days and, (when) the spirit did not blow any longer, the Arabs concluded that he had really trapped the spirit.
    /16/ Then he loaded the flask on the camel. The Arabs sent the boy on his way with gifts and honors, shouting praises to God, for they were left in peace. Then the boy brought in the spirit and put it in the foremost part of the Temple. /17/ The following day I, Solomon, went into the Temple (for) I was very worried about the cornerstone. (Suddenly,) the flask got up, walked for seven steps, and fell down on its mouth before me. /18/ I was amazed that (even though the demon was entrapped in) the flask, he had the power to walk around, and I ordered him to get up. Panting, the flask arose and stood up. /19/ Then I asked him, saying, “Who are you?” From inside the spirit said, “I am a demon called Ephippas (and I live) in Arabia.”
    /20/ I said to him, “By what angel are you thwarted?” He said, “By the one who is going to be born of a virgin and be crucified by the Jews.”
    /23:1/ Then I said to him, “What can you do for me?” he responded, “I am able to move mountains, to carry houses from one place to another, and to overthrow kings.” /2/ I said to him, “If you have the power, lift this stone into the beginning of the corner of the Temple.” But he responded, “I will raise not only this stone, King; but, with (the aid of) the demon who lives in the Red Sea, (I will) also (lift up) the pillar of air (which is) in the Red Sea and you shall set it up where you wish.”
    /3/ When he had said these things, he went in underneath the stone, lifted it up, went up the flight of steps carrying the stone, and inserted it into the end of the entrance of the Temple. /4/ I, Solomon, being excited, exclaimed, “Truly the Scripture which says, It was the stone rejected by the builders that became the keystone, has now been fulfilled,” and so forth. [Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1, 984-85]

    Jesus Database

    • 046 The Tenants -(1) GThom. 65; (2) Mark 12:1-9,12 = Matt 21:33-41,43-46 = Luke 20:9-16,19; (3) Herm. Sim. 5.2:4-7.
    • 047 The Rejected Stone – (1) GThom. 66; (2) Mark 12:10-11 = Matt 21:42 = Luke 20: 17-18; (?3a) Eph 2:20*; (3b) Acts 4:11*; (3c) 1Pet 2:7*; (4a) Barn 6:4; (?4b) Justin Martyr, Dial, 100*; (4c) Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.5*; (4d) Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV.33.1*; (4e) Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV.36*; (4f) Tertullian, Against Marcion, IV.35*; (4g) Tertullian, Against Marcion, V.17*; (4h) Hippolytus, Refutation, V.2*; (4i) Cyprian, Treatises, IV.35*; (4j) Cyprian, Treatises, XII.2.16*; (4k) ApostConst, VII.17*; (4l) Origen, Against Celsus, VIII.19*; (4m) Origen, CommJohn, 23*. [* indicates the item is not in Crossan’s 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:

  • 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

    Soc logo.gif

    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: