Good Friday, April 18
Zechariah 13: Maintaining his emphasis on the Lord’s Passion and Death, the prophet goes on to speak of the striking of the Shepherd and the consequent dispersal of His disciples (verse 7), a text interpreted for us in Matthew 26:31 (cf. Mark 14:27; John 16:31).
This is the event by which the false gods are defeated (verse 1). These are the demonic forces brought to naught by the death of the First Born. Questioned about the marks of the wounds in His flesh, the Lord responds, “These wounds I received in the house of My friends” (verse 6).
Cyril of Alexandria wrote in the fifth century:
When the Only Begotten Word of God ascended into the heavens in the flesh to which He was united, there was something new to be seen in the heavens. The multitude of holy angels was astounded, seeing the King of glory and the Lord of hosts being made in a form like ourselves. . . . Then the angels asked this, ‘What are these wounds in your hands?” And he said to them, “These wounds I received in the house of my friends.”
These are the wounds that he will show to his disciples after his resurrection. He bears these wounds in his glorified flesh forever, as he stands before the Father, “as though slain,” being the one Mediator between God and Man (Revelation 5:6).
Psalms 22 (Greek & Latin 21): figures significantly in Matthew’s account of the death of Jesus. It is quoted, in fact, three times: once by the Evangelist, once by Jesus’ tormentors, and once by Jesus himself.
The first quotation comes in the way Matthew describes the distribution of Jesus’ garments: “Then they crucified Him, and divided His garments, casting lots, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: ‘They divided My garments among them and for My clothing they cast lots.’” Matthew indicates his theological perspective on the crucifixion by this citation from Psalm 22. He identifies Jesus as the suffering Just Man in the Psalter.
By citing this psalm at the beginning of the crucifixion scene, Matthew invites his readers to consider the psalm as a whole. The immediate context of the cited verse, for example, includes the Psalmist’s words, “They pierced My hands and My feet.” Matthew feels no compulsion to quote this line from the same psalm; he presumed its relevance to be obvious.
Matthew’s second quotation from this same psalm is found on the lips of Jesus’ tormentors: “And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads and saying, ‘You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.’ ?Likewise the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders, said, “He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, “I am the Son of God.”’”
Once again, the significance of Psalm 22 in Matthew’s description is not exhausted by his direct quotation from that psalm. He expects his readers to be familiar with the surrounding verses of the psalm: “I am a worm, and no man, a reproach unto men, and despised by the people. All those who see Me ridicule Me; They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, ‘He trusted in the Lord, let Him rescue Him; Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!’”
Finally, in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus himself quotes Psalm 22: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”
Like Mark, Matthew gives a Greek translation of these words after citing them in the original language heard from the Cross. The language of this quotation—a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic—indicates that we are hearing the very words spoken by Jesus.
When, therefore, Matthew views the crucifixion through the lens of Psalm 22, he follows the lead of Jesus, who took this psalm on His own lips as a dying prayer. Jesus knew himself to be the authentic voice of the persecuted Just Man of the Psalter.
Holy Saturday, April 19
Zechariah 14: A nun from Gaul, named Egeria, who visited the Christians at Jerusalem in the late fourth century, left us a description of the various liturgical practices of that ancient church. In the course of it, she described how, on Ascension Thursday, the believers gathered on the Mount of Olives, from which Jesus had ascended into heaven. And what did they do? They read the entire account, from the Gospel according to John, of the Lord’s suffering and death.
This remarkable detail reveals how closely related the Christians of old thought the various actions of the Lord by which we were redeemed. They did not think of redemption as taking place solely on the Cross, where the price of our sins was paid by our Lord’s blood (1 Peter 1:19), but as involving also the other events integral to the mystery of the Cross. The accomplishing of our redemption included also the event we celebrate today, Holy Saturday, when Jesus descended into the nether world to free the bondsmen whom Satan held there (3:19).
It included likewise his rising from the dead on Easter, inasmuch as Jesus “was delivered up for our offenses, and was raised because of our justification” (Romans 4:25). As was suggested by Egeria’s account of the celebration of Ascension Thursday, the mystery of our redemption included also our Lord’s ascent into heaven and his assumption of the throne at the right hand of the Father, having been made for ever a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. This latter theme, of course, provides the major images of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
With this in mind, we should not be surprised that the Book of Zechariah, in the final chapter of its section dealing more explicitly with the sufferings of our Lord, prophesies also his standing on the Mount of Olives (verse 4); this mountain is symbolically divided, much as, in the Old Testament, the Red Sea and the River Jordan were divided. His ascent from the Mount of Olives will cause to flow the living waters of redemption (verses 8-9) and the reunion of all God’s people in the Holy City (verses 14-21).
Psalms 16 (Greek & Latin 15): This psalm, which the Apostle Peter explained in the first sermon of the Christian Church (Acts 2.22-32), speaks of the Lord’s Resurrection in terms of a future hope, rather than of an accomplished fact. Hence, there is a special propriety in praying this psalm on Holy Saturday, the very day that the Lord’s body lay in the grave and his soul was in Hades. It may thus serve to prepare for the celebration of the Lord’s Resurrection on Sunday, when the Lamb begins to open the seals.
And as David prayed Psalm 16 in persona Christi, looking forward to the one who was to come, so do Christians, when they pray this psalm, identify themselves in hope with the risen Christ, for we too will rise with Him: “And God both raised up the Lord and will also raise us up by His power” (1 Cor. 6:14); “He who raised up the Lord Jesus will also raise us up with Jesus” (2 Cor. 4:14); “He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies” (Rom. 8:11).
Easter Sunday, April 20
The Book of Exodus: This second book of Holy Scripture continues the narrative of salvation begun in Genesis. It commences with the story of the Chosen People, now in Egypt where Genesis had left them, and ends with them receiving the Law at Mount Sinai. The book’s defining event, the deliverance from slavery, also provides its (Greek) title, which means “going out” or “departure.”
It is in Exodus that the Chosen People is formally constituted and given its proper structure, as Martin Luther observed. In Exodus, he wrote,
when the world was now full and sunk in blindness so that men scarcely knew any longer where sin was or where death came from, God brings Moses forward with the Law and selects a special people, in order to enlighten the world again through them, and by the Law to reveal sin anew. He therefore organizes this people with all kinds of laws and separates it from all other peoples. He has them build a tent, and begins a form of worship. He appoints princes and officials, and provides his people splendidly with both laws and men, to rule them both in the body before the world and in the spirit before God.
Just as the deliverance from slavery was the setting for the Law, it provided also much of the context for the prophets. Thus, in the 9th century, the prophet Elijah, who likewise was miraculously fed with bread and meat in the wilderness, was careful to return to the very mountain where Moses had received the Law, and at the end of his life, he went back eastward over the Jordan, to where Moses had died, in order to hand over the prophetic ministry to Elisha, who thereby became a sort of new Joshua. Similarly, in the 8th century, the prophet Hosea constantly appealed to motifs from Exodus to recall a sinful people to repentance and renewal. Likewise, the second part of the Book of Isaiah repeatedly appeals to the Exodus as a promise of a greater salvation yet to come.
It is no surprise, therefore, that the early Christians, as reflected in the New Testament, were forever going to the Book of Exodus for the appropriate symbols of redemption purchased by Jesus: the covenant blood, the paschal lamb, the darkening of the earth just prior to the slaying of the firstborn, freedom from slavery, baptism in the Red Sea, water from the rock, manna in the desert, and so forth.
Monday, April 21
Exodus 2: The newborn Moses is placed into what most English translations call a “basket,” which his mother “daubed with asphalt and pitch,” in order to waterproof it. In the Hebrew text the noun translated as “basket” is tevah, an Egyptian loan-word. It is used here and in only one other setting in the Bible, where it designates the “ark” of Noah. That vessel, too, we recall, Noah was commanded to “calque with pitch, inside and outside” (Gen. 6:14). The word tevah is otherwise not found in the Bible.
This exclusive use of an Egyptian word is very significant, because it prompts us to read the stories of Noah and Moses together. The author has in mind to tie these two accounts together in a very explicit way, so that the correspondence between them would be unmistakable. The geographical setting of the Moses story may have suggested the use of this Egyptian noun, tevah.
There stands out, in short, a clear literary parallel between the stories of old Noah near the beginning of Genesis and young Moses near the beginning of Exodus. This correspondence will be evident to Hebrew readers of Holy Scripture. For example, the medieval rabbinic scholar Rashi called attention to it in his commentary on Genesis.
Unfortunately, the important literary and theological relationship between Genesis 6—9 and Exodus 2 is all but obliterated in many translations, starting even with the Septuagint and the Vulgate. On the other hand, it is one of the merits of the King James Bible that it employs the word “ark” (from the Latin arca, meaning box or chest) in both places, thus explicitly tying the two passages together.
And they certainly should be studied together, joining Moses with Noah, and the Exodus account with the narrative of the Flood. As Noah in his tevah saved the human race and the animals from utter destruction, so the baby Moses, preserved in a tiny tevah of his own, became the deliverer of the Hebrews.
Indeed, Moses’ very name, which means “drawn from the water,” is a foreshadowing of Israel’s deliverance from Pharaoh’s army at the Red Sea. Moses is a kind of new Noah. In his tevah at the beginning of this story, he makes his own personal exodus, as it were, a promise of the one to come. The themes in both stories, finally, symbolize Baptism, in which God’s people, even today, are “drawn from the water.”
Tuesday, April 22
Exodus 3: In Holy Scripture, this same mountain is called both Sinai and Horeb, the former name more favored in the traditions of Judah, the latter name more common among the northern tribes.
The story of the Burning Bush here requires two chapters, being the longest “call story” in the Bible. The medieval Jewish commentator Rashi speculated that the event took an entire week! As the story begins, Moses is curious. As usual, he takes the initiative. He will attempt to approach the divine presence on his own!
Moses covers his face but bares his feet, such being the proper response to the presence of holiness, particularly a “holy place.” Holiness is not abstract; it is revealed in concrete physical experiences. The removal of the sandals in this context is found with regard to Joshua (Joshua 5:13-16) and the veiling of the face with regard to Elijah (1 Kings 19:13).
St. Paul explains the deeper significance of the veiling of the face in 2 Corinthians 3:18—4:6. God identifies Himself here as the same God who spoke of old to the patriarchs, and this description of God’s meeting with Moses bears comparison to some similar patriarchal narratives (cf. Genesis 17:1-3; 28:16-19; 32:31.
The divine commission distinguishes Moses from all that went before. From time to time the patriarchs had been told to do certain things (cf. Genesis 12 and 22, for instance), but they were never, strictly speaking, given some task to which they were to devote their entire lives. Moses is the first and prototype of the man called to the exclusive service of God and ministry to God’s people. After him the Bible will describe many such calls.
Beginning at verse 11 we observe Moses’ reluctance to accept his arduous prophetic call. Indeed, this will become a normal response of several of the prophets and other leaders at the time of their call. For example, Gideon:
Then the Lord turned to him and said, “Go in this might of yours, and you shall save Israel from the hand of the Midianites. Have I not sent you?” So he said to Him, “O my Lord, how can I save Israel? Indeed my clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house.” And the Lord said to him, “Surely I will be with you, and you shall defeat the Midianites as one man.”
Then he said to Him, “If now I have found favor in Your sight, then show me a sign that it is You who talk with me (cf. Judges 6:14-18)
Jeremiah:
Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Then said I: “Ah, Lord God! Behold, I cannot speak, for I am a youth.”
But the Lord said to me: “Do not say, ‘I am a youth,’ For you shall go to all to whom I send you, And whatever I command you, you shall speak. Do not be afraid of their faces, For I am with you to deliver you,” says the Lord (Jeremiah 1:4-8).
Jonah:
Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before Me.” But Jonah arose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord. He went down to Joppa, and found a ship going to Tarshish; so he paid the fare, and went down into it, to go with them to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord (Jonah 1:1-3).
Wednesday, April 23
Exodus 4: All through this chapter Moses anticipates resistance from the chosen people, as had been the case back in 2:14. Popular resistance to the prophetic word was to remain a common biblical theme (cf. Amos 7:10-13; Hosea 9:7; Acts 26:24, etc.).
In the case of Moses the disposition to disbelieve him was to continue to the very end of his ministry. Even in the New Testament, in fact, one observes the sustained complaint that the Israelites were still not taking Moses seriously:
Don’t think that I will accuse you to the Father; your accuser is Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings (grammasin), how will you believe My words (rhemasin)? (cf. John 5:45-47)
Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you observes the law? Why do you seek to kill Me? (John 7:19)
Moses it was who said to the children of Israel, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear.” It was he that was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai—and to our fathers—the very one who received the living oracles to give to us, the one our fathers would not obey, but rejected (Acts 7:37-39).
In the first part of this chapter (vv. 1-17) the discussion between God and Moses goes through two stages. First, Moses is given three “signs” by which to convince the elders of Israel of the truth of his message. He complains that they will never believe him. It appears, however, that the first unbelief to be overcome is that of Moses himself. Only then will be able to convince the Israelites, and finally, he Egyptians must be convinced.
In the second stage Moses objects that he has never had “a way with words.” Truly so; although at this point in the story he is 80 years old, the Bible records only one sentence from him prior to this time, and that one sentence had been totally ineffective (Exodus 2:13). God reminds Moses that he won’t be speaking for himself (cf. Mark 13:11). We recall that Jeremiah also used an alleged speech deficiency in attempting to escape the prophetic call (cf. Jeremiah 1:4-8).
Time has run out for Moses, but in response to his pleading, God makes the concession that the new prophet is to receive some help. For the first time we learn that Moses has an older brother. Aaron will do the talking, but Moses is not relieved of his own responsibility. Aaron will be his spokesman, but he himself will continue to be God’s spokesman.
This extended dialogue between Moses and God reveals the prophet’s ability at haggling, which is a normal part of business transactions in that part of the world. In fact, one is reminded of Abraham as someone who “drove a hard bargain” with God (cf. Genesis 18:24-32).
Later on in the Exodus account, much will be said about Moses’ ability as an intercessor with God; on one occasion the people will be saved from swift destruction solely by reason of Moses’ ability to “haggle” with the Almighty.
Thursday, April 24
1 Corinthians 15.12-19: It was in refuting the skeptics at Corinth that the Apostle Paul came to understand the Resurrection of Christ as God’s historical act for the purpose of rectifying the evils inflicted on the created order by Adam’s Fall. The Resurrection had to be physical, because death and corruption were physical.
Although it was a single event in history, the “logic” of the Resurrection implied that the whole physical world, starting with the bodies of Christians, was destined for restoration and transformation through the risen and glorified flesh of Christ. This meant that the true and ultimate afterlife anticipated by Christians was not based on the immortality of the soul, but on the resurrection of the body.
In answering the Corinthian skepticism, Paul established the “logic” of the Resurrection in a chain of short hypothetical syllogisms. Within 1 Corinthians 15:12-19, the word “if” appears nine times, leading to the final inference, “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.”
Exodus 5: The declaration, “Thus says the Lord” (cf. also Exodus 32:27), places Moses squarely in the prophetic tradition.
This is, in fact, the Bible’s first clear encounter of a prophet with a king, an encounter that will be repeated with the likes of Samuel and Saul, Nathan and David, Elijah and Ahab, Isaiah and Ahaz, Amos and Jeroboam II, Jeremiah and Zedekiah, Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, John the Baptist and Antipas, Paul and Agrippa. It is instructive to remember that, on the sole occasion when Abraham was called a prophet, it was in connection with a local ruler in the Negev (cf. Genesis 20:1-7 Psalms 105 [104]:13-15).
The source of Pharaoh’s problem is that he does not “know the Lord” (verse 2). Before much longer, nonetheless, he will have ample opportunity to make the Lord’s acquaintance (Exodus 8:22; 9:29). Moses’ encounter with such a man may be compared to David’s confrontation with Goliath, who also did not “know the Lord (cf. 1 Samuel 17:45-47).
Pharaoh reacts “that same day,” taking the initiative away from Moses and Aaron, thereby making them look inept in the eyes of the Israelites (verses 4-9). “Thus says the Lord” is met by “thus says Pharaoh” (verses 10-14). Here there is a series of complaints: the overseers to the foremen, the foremen to Pharaoh, Pharaoh to the foremen, the foremen to Moses, Moses to God.
Pharaoh’s tactic is to divide the people that he wants to oppress. He does not discredit Moses directly; he acts, rather, in such a way that the people themselves will turn on Moses.
The scene in verses 15-21 will be repeated many times in the next 40 years. On each occasion when things do not go well, the people will blame Moses. And when the people blame Moses, Moses will often enough blame God, as he proceeds to do right now.
Friday, April 25
Exodus 6: There are two distinct parts to the material in this chapter: the first (vv. 1-13) continues the dialogue between God and Moses from the precious chapter, and the second (vv. 14-27) provides a genealogy of the family of Levi, the tribe of Moses and Aaron.
Stephen Langton and other medieval scholars showed a considerable measure of literary discernment, when they decided to place both these parts into a single chapter, even separating, thereby, the first section (the dialogue between God and Moses) from its “natural” connection with the material in chapter five.
Those Bible-readers, chiefly at the University of Paris in the late 12th century, discerned that all the material they placed in chapter 6 somehow belonged together; it had the feel of a unified text, notwithstanding the obvious disparity between the two sections. Since, in most cases, those Scholastics read Holy Scripture only in a Latin translation, their sensitivity to the peculiarities of the text was remarkable and, perhaps, unexpected.
Studies by modern literary critics of Holy Scripture, however, throw further light on that discernment during the Middle Ages. In fact, the material in Exodus 6 shows signs (much clearer in Hebrew than in translation) of coming from a pre-canonical source commonly identified by historians as “priestly.” That ancient priestly source is generally recognized by specific theological concerns and certain distinct patterns of vocabulary. On these I will comment in the observations that follow.
The first section (vv. 1-13) continues the narrative from chapter 5; God responds to Moses’s complaint: ““Lord, why have You brought trouble on this people? Why is it You have sent me? For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in Your name, he has done evil to this people; You done not a thing to deliver Your people.”
In the Lord’s response that follows, the reader recognizes a repetition of the revelation in the Burning Bush. Thus, commanding Moses to take a message to Pharaoh, God identifies Himself, once again, as IHWH, “He Who Is.”
In this instance, however, we perceive an important difference. This second disclosure of the Divine Name is placed within a gradual revelation; God reveals Himself in stages. Here the Lord says, “I am IHWH. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as El Shaddai [God Almighty], but by My name IHWH I was not known to them.”
In fact, the divine name El Shaddai is found those patriarchal stories commonly thought to be from the priestly source mentioned above. Thus, in His covenant with Abraham God declares, “I am El Shaddai. Walk in My presence and be perfect” (Genesis 17:1). Similarly, Isaac blesses Jacob with the words, “May El Shaddai bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you.” Likewise, when God changes Jacob’s name to “Israel,” He says,
I am El Shaddai. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and am assembly of nations shall come forth from you, and kings will come from your body. The land I gave Abraham and Isaac I give to you; and to your seed after you I give this land (35:11-12; cf. 48:3; 49:25).
In the scene in Exodus 6, the God revealed to Moses identifies Himself as this very El Shaddai known to the Patriarchs. The stages in the revelation serve to make continuity clearer.