Zechariah 13:1-9

13:1 On that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity.

Idolatry Cut Off

2 On that day, says the LORD of hosts, I will cut off the names of the idols from the land, so that they shall be remembered no more; and also I will remove from the land the prophets and the unclean spirit. 3 And if any prophets appear again, their fathers and mothers who bore them will say to them, “You shall not live, for you speak lies in the name of the LORD”; and their fathers and their mothers who bore them shall pierce them through when they prophesy. 4 On that day the prophets will be ashamed, every one, of their visions when they prophesy; they will not put on a hairy mantle in order to deceive, 5 but each of them will say, “I am no prophet, I am a tiller of the soil; for the land has been my possession since my youth.” 6 And if anyone asks them, “What are these wounds on your chest?” the answer will be “The wounds I received in the house of my friends.”

The Shepherd Struck, the Flock Scattered

7 “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd,

against the man who is my associate,”

says the LORD of hosts.

Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered;

I will turn my hand against the little ones.

8 In the whole land, says the LORD,

two-thirds shall be cut off and perish,

and one-third shall be left alive.

9 And I will put this third into the fire,

refine them as one refines silver,

and test them as gold is tested.

They will call on my name,

and I will answer them.

I will say, “They are my people”;

and they will say, “The LORD is our God.” (Zechariah 13:1-9, NRSV)

On November 30, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year Two), comments were repeated with revision and supplement from November 25, 2004, (Thursday of the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year Two); the revised comments are repeated here:

Today’s reading continues what, based on the title “An Oracle” in the text (at Zech. 12:1) has been called “the Second Burden” (Gregory Mobley, NOAB, 3^rd ed., on Zech. 12:1-14:21; cf. comments yesterday). References continue to what will happen “on that day,” that is, when the LORD takes decisive action (cf. 12:3, 4, 6). After struggles and conflict, apparently both within Judah and Jerusalem (cf. Vv. 2, 4-5, 7) and with foreign enemies (vv. 2, 3, 6, 9), followed by mourning and weeping (vv. 10-13), chapter 13 begins with a fountain for the cleansing of the people. Now we learn that “On that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity” (Zech. 13:1). The fountain has been compared to the river of Psalm 46:4 or of Ezekiel chapter 47 and Revelation 21:6; 22:1-2, the water of life that Jesus promises to the Samaritan woman (Jn. 4:10-14) and to all Israel (Jn. 7:38).

This cleansing of the LORD’s people will include dealing with idolatry and the false prophets who promote it. “On that day, says the LORD of hosts, I will cut off the names of the idols from the land, so that they shall be remembered no more; and also I will remove from the land the prophets (Myx9yb9n04h1, hann^evî’îm) and the unclean spirit” (Zech. 13:2). These prophets are charged with speaking lies. “And if any prophets appear again, their fathers and mothers who bore them will say to them, “You shall not live, for you speak lies in the name of the LORD”; and their fathers and their mothers who bore them shall pierce them through when they prophesy” (v. 3). “Prophecy,” says Mobley, “is placed beside idolatry [v. 2] among the impurities that must be removed” (ibid., on vv. 2-6). “Although the removal of the idols is mentioned,” says Ehud Ben Zvi, “the obvious emphasis is on the removal of the prophets. It is likely that a particular group or type of prophets is meant” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Zech. 13:2-6). Although these prophets have “put on a hairy mantle in order to deceive,” (v. 4b), this will cease because “on that day the prophets will be ashamed, every one, of their visions when they prophesy” (v. 4a). Mobley explains “hairy mantle [as] an animal skin (Gen. 27:15-27) often worn by prophets (1 Kings 19:13; 2 Kings 1:8; 2:8, 13; Mk. 1:6)” (op. cit., on v. 4). Ben Zvi simply says, “the hairy mantle is an allusion to Elijah (see 2 Kings 1:8). When “accused” of being a prophet, “each of them will say, ‘I am no prophet, I am a tiller of the soil; for the land has been my possession since my youth” (v. 5). Of the words, “I am no prophet,” W. Sibley Towner says, “Here, near the end of the prophetic period, the words of Amos, the very first writing prophet, are echoed (Am. 7:14). Evidently false prophets were a destructive element in Israel from start to finish of the prophetic era (see also 10:2)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Zech. 13:5). “For a negative glimpse of postexilic prophecy,” says Mobley, “see Neh. 6:;12-14. Though generally respected, prophets sometimes were mocked as ‘madmen’ who ‘babble’ (2 Kings 9:11)” (op. cit., on vv. 2-6). If the false prophets described by Zechariah here are challenged with the question, “What are these wounds on your chest?” (v. 6a) they will deny that they are “self-laceration as part of prophetic activity” (Mobley, op. cit., on v. 6, with ref. to 1 Kings 18:28). Their “answer will be ‘The wounds I received in the house of my friends’ ” (v. 6b).

At this point we turn from prose to poetry in what Mobley calls “a cryptic oracle that concerns an assault on a community leader which initiates a larger trial for the entire group, followed by restoration” (op. cit., on vv. 7-9). Towner sees it as “a resumption of the theme of 11:15-17” (op. cit., on vv. 7-9). The earlier passage concludes with a description of a “worthless shepherd, / who deserts the flock” (v 17a, b). The present passage describes a person whom God calls “my associate”: “ ‘Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, / against the man who is my associate,’ / says the LORD of hosts” (v. 7a, b, c). This person, says Towner,

might be the prophet who serves at God’s behest (Dan. 8:16-17), an angel (Dan. 9:21), or even the messianic leader of the remnant of Judah in the time of God’s act of judgment (Dan. 7:13). In any case, the suffering of this ‘man’ opens the way for the purification and final salvation of the people (see Mt. 26:31; Mk. 14:27)” (op. cit., 1^st ed., 1993, on vv. 7-9.).

Before renewal, the sheep (people) are scattered. “Strike the shepherd,” says the LORD (through the prophet), “that the sheep may be scattered; / I will turn my hand against the little ones” (v. 7c, d). A form of punishment or purging, perhaps representing the earlier captivity of Judah, is described. “In the whole land, says the LORD, / two-thirds shall be cut off and perish, / and one-third shall be left alive” (v. 8). Even this remaining third will be refined with fire and tested “as gold is tested,” for the LORD says, “I will put this third into the fire, / refine them as one refines silver, / and test them as gold is tested” (v. 9a, b, c). But there is grace in the end. “They will call on my name, / and I will answer them. / I will say, ‘They are my people’; / and they will say, ‘The LORD is our God’ ” (v. 9d, e, f, g). R. Lansing Hicks and Walter Brueggemann call this “a separate messianic oracle,” with reference to Mt. 26:31; Mk. 14:27” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., on Zech. 13:7-9). According to Towner, “Jesus perceives the same process of refining at work when he uses this text to predict that his disciples will abandon him during his Passion (Mk. 14:27).

Ephesians 1:15-23

Paul’s Prayer

15 I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, and for this reason 16 I do not cease to give thanks for you as I remember you in my prayers. 17 I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation as you come to know him, 18 so that, with the eyes of your heart enlightened, you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance among the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power for us who believe, according to the working of his great power. 20 God put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come. 22 And he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. (Ephesians 1:15-23, NRSV)

On January 9, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the First Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), comments were repeated from November 30, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year Two) when they were combined with revision and supplement from November 25, 2004 (Thursday of the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year Two), and from January 11, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the First Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One). The comments are repeated again here with editing and supplement:

Paul usually follows the salutation in his letters with a thanksgiving or, as in 2 Corinthians, a blessing (2 Cor. 1:3-7). As noted yesterday, in Ephesians, the thanksgiving (Eph. 1:15-23) follows the blessing (vv. 3-15). This thanksgiving is rather general, we might say, suitable for a general letter sent to several churches, as some have characterized Ephesians (cf. comments yesterday). “I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus,” he says, “and your love toward all the saints” (Eph. 1:15a). The words “your love” (th;n ajgavphn, tēn agapēn) are lacking in the older manuscripts p⁴⁶ (about A.D. 200) x* A B P and others (K. Aland et al., The Greek New Testament, 3^rd ed., 1975, apparatus to Eph. 1:15; cf. NRSV text note a “Other ancient authorities lack and your love). Aland and other include the words in the text, indicating “the relative degree of certainty” with the letter B, indicating “that there is some degree of doubt” (ibid., pp. xii-xiii). Bruce M. Metzger explains:

The shorter reading . . . appears to be the result of an accident in transcription, occasioned by homoeoarcton [‘similar beginning’] (th;n . . . th;n; [tēn . . . tēn] ). If, as some scholars have suggested, the shorter reading is original and the addition is derived from Col 1:4, h}n e[cete [hēn echete, ‘which you have’] would have been inserted instead of the second thvn [tēn]. The rearrangement of the sequence of the words so as to dispense with the second thvn [tēn] (81 104 326 al) is clearly a secondary modification, as is also the expansion in [ms.] 181. (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1971, on Eph. 1:15)

Even so, as noted, the shorter reading is the reading of the older manuscripts, including the fourth century manuscript x* (Siniaticus, original scribe as indicated by the asterisk [*] ), which has the shorter reading, but a “corrector” of Siniaticus (x^c) adds the words th;n ajgavphn (tēn agapēn). According to the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 26^th ed., 1979/80, 4^th revised printing, 1981, this addition to Sinaiticus is by the second corrector (x²). Possibly, the word ajgavph (agapē) in Colossians 1:4 refers to love in action, specific acts of kindness, appropriate in a letter to a specific congregation, at Colossae, but less relevant in a general letter to several congregations. “Since the term denotes concern for another, the sense alms, charity Ism [Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans] 6:2 is readily apparent (cp. aj. lambavnein [agapē lambanein, ‘to receive love’] P Gen [Les Papyrus de Genève] 14, 7)” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. ajgavph [agapē ], meaning (1) (a) a. which is related to Eph. 1:15 and Col. 1:4; cf meaning (1) (a) b. object ‘expressly mentioned’ b. ‘human beings’). The text cited here from Ignatius warns against the lack of love in action:

But mark those who have strange opinions concerning the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary they are to the mind of God. For love [peri; ajgavphV, peri agapè] they have no care, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the distressed, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, or for him released from prison, none for the hungry or thirsty. (Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2, trans. Kirsopp Lake, 1912, reprinted 1959)

According to F. F. Bruce,

The parallelism of [Paul’s] thanksgiving [in Eph.] with that in Col. 1:3-4 in particular is unmistakable. In both places the readers’ faith and love are tokens of the grace of God which they have received–unless indeed ‘your love’ should be omitted here as an editorial addition to the text made under the influence of Col. 1:4 . . . If ‘your love’ is indeed to be omitted, then their ‘faith’ (including the sense of fidelity) is exercised within the Christian fellowship (‘in the Lord Jesus’) and thus shown toward all their fellow-believers. (The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT, 1984, p. 268, on Eph. 1:15-16)

Either way, because Paul’s thanks is not for specific help, as in Philippians 1:5, “because of your sharing in the gospel from the first day until now” (cf. Phil. 4:10-20), but for basic Christian values, it would apply to many Christian congregations. “I do not cease to give thanks for you,” he says, “as I remember you in my prayers” (Eph. 1:16). He prays for their wisdom and revelation, that God may give them “a spirit of wisdom and revelation as you come to know him” (v. 17)., and for their enlightenment and knowledge of the Christian hope and inheritance, “that the eyes of your heart [may be] enlightened, [so that] you may know the hope to which he has called you . . . the riches of his glorious inheritance (klhronomiva, klèronomia; cf.) among the saints” (v. 18). Their coming to know God better would be a deepening of their spiritual experience. Further, Paul wants them to know “what is the immeasurable greatness of his power for us who believe, according to the working of his great power ( ijscuvV, ischys)” (v. 19).

The inheritance (klhronomiva, klèronomia; cf. “In Christ [NRSV, for ‘in whom’ (ejn w:/, en hō(i) )] we have also obtained an inheritance [ejklhrwvqhmen, eklērōthēmen, verb ‘to inherit’]” v. 11) has its basis in God’s power which raised Christ from the dead and placed him above “all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come” (v. 21). Their coming to know God better would be a deepening of their spiritual experience. Paul’s encomium, or lofty doxology, continues: “God (NRSV, for ‘he’ = the 3^rd pers. sing. verb ending] ) put this power ( h{n, hēn, relative pronoun referring to the just mentioned ‘power’ ijscuvV, ischys, v. 19) to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places” (v. 20). “And he [i.e., God] has put all things under his [i.e., Christ’s] feet, and has made him the head over all things, for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all” (vv. 22-23). Paul’s language overflows, waxing eloquent as he seeks to express his understanding of Christ. And so, the chapter concludes with a view of Christ similar to that of the so-called “Christ hymn” in Philippians: whom, that is, Christ, “God also highly exalted . . . and gave him the name / that is above every name, / so that at the name of Jesus / every knee should bend, / in heaven and on earth and under the earth, / and every tongue should confess / that Jesus Christ is Lord, / to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:9-11).

Luke 19:11-27

The Parable of the Ten Pounds (Mt 25.14-30)

11 As they were listening to this, he went on to tell a parable, because he was near Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. 12 So he said, “A nobleman went to a distant country to get royal power for himself and then return. 13 He summoned ten of his slaves, and gave them ten pounds, and said to them, ‘Do business with these until I come back.’ 14 But the citizens of his country hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to rule over us.’ 15 When he returned, having received royal power, he ordered these slaves, to whom he had given the money, to be summoned so that he might find out what they had gained by trading. 16 The first came forward and said, ‘Lord, your pound has made ten more pounds.’ 17 He said to him, ‘Well done, good slave! Because you have been trustworthy in a very small thing, take charge of ten cities.’ 18 Then the second came, saying, ‘Lord, your pound has made five pounds.’ 19 He said to him, ‘And you, rule over five cities.’ 20 Then the other came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your pound. I wrapped it up in a piece of cloth, 21 for I was afraid of you, because you are a harsh man; you take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 He said to him, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked slave! You knew, did you, that I was a harsh man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then did you not put my money into the bank? Then when I returned, I could have collected it with interest.’ 24 He said to the bystanders, ‘Take the pound from him and give it to the one who has ten pounds.’ 25 (And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten pounds!’) 26 ‘I tell you, to all those who have, more will be given; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.’” (Luke 19:11-27, NRSV)

On November 25, 2007 (the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), comments were repeated from November 30, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 25, Year Two), when they were repeated from June 8, 2005 (Wednesday of the week of the Sunday closest to June 8, Year One), and from November 20, 2005 (the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), and are repeated again here with minor editing. For recent comments on Matthew’s version of this parable, see the Archive for July 15, 2008 (the Sunday closest to July 13, Year Two). For comparison of the versions in Matthew and Luke, see the separate file Talents-Pounds.

As compared with Matthew’s Parable of the Talents (Mt. 25:14-30), Luke’s Parable of the Ten Pounds might seem to deal in “chump change.” The man who received “five talents” (Mt. 25:15) received the equivalent of a laborer’s wages for seventy-five years (NRSV, text note f on Mt. 25:14), but each of the slaves in Luke’s parable receive one pound (Lk. 19:13, cf. vv. 16, 18, 20–ten pounds, one for each of ten slaves). The pound represented about three month’s wages for a laborer (NRSV, text note a on Lk. 19:13). Perhaps the intended audience was a consideration. Luke’s Gospel often makes a special place for marginalized people. Another difference is the setting of the parables; the Parable of the Talents is one of three parables which conclude Matthew’s version of the eschatological speech (Mt. chaps. 24, 25), but Luke sets this parable on the approach to Jerusalem as a “corrective” “because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately” (Lk. 19:11). Again, the “man going on a journey” in Matthew’s version (Mt. 25:14; cf. Mk. 13:34), is “a nobleman [who] went to a distant country to get royal power for himself and then return” in Luke’s version (Lk. 19:12), a feature which leads many commentaries see the parable as based in part on a historical event. The parable adds that he came back “having received royal power” (v. 15) over the protests of the citizens. “But the citizens of his country hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to rule over us’” (v. 14). In the end this king orders the protesters to be slaughtered “in my presence” (v. 27).

William Barclay explains as follows:

[The parable] tells about a king who went away to receive a kingdom and whose subjects did their best to stop him receiving it. When Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. he left his kingdom divided between Herod Antipas, Herod Philip and Archelaus. That division had to be ratified by the Romans, who were the overlords of Palestine, before it became effective. Archelaus, to whom Judaea had been left, went to Rome to persuade Augustus to allow him to enter into his inheritance, whereupon the Jews sent an embassy of fifty men to Rome to inform August that they did not wish to have him as king. In point of fact, Augustus confirmed him in his inheritance, though without the actual title of king. (William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke, Daily Study Bible, rev. ed., 1975, pp. 236-237)

Barclay adds that “Anyone in Judaea, on hearing the parable, would immediately remember the historical circumstances on which it was based” (Ibid.). Scholars differ on whether the Parables of the Talents and the Pounds are two versions of one parable told by Jesus, or different parables from different occasions (cf. I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke, NIGTC, 1978, p. 701). They also differ on the significance. A Jülicher “claimed that the original form of the parable was meant simply to teach a moral lesson about using the gifts which God has given to man” (cited by Marshall, 702). Barclay follows a line similar to that: “The parable of the king and his servants illustrates certain great facts of the Christian life,” he says, and lists (1) “the king’s trust” (2) “the king’s test” (3) “the king’s reward” (Barclay, 237). Barclay adds that “the parable concludes with one of the inexorable laws of life. To him who has, more will be given; from him who has not, what he has will be taken away” (Barclay, 238). Eric Franklin, however, has trouble with such an interpretation:

That the nobleman-become-king stands for Jesus [or for God, presumably] is made more unlikely by the third servant’s wholly unflattering description of him (v. 21) as rapacious and a fraudster, an assessment that the king does not deny (v. 22). If his reply were to be taken as an accommodation to the servant’s assessment of him, that in itself would seem to confirm the judgement. It is more likely, however, that he is described as acknowledging the truth of the servant’s description. The king is not a pleasant character.

The parable therefore is unlikely to be an allegory, but is rather, in the words of Evans (1990),k ‘another of the risqué parables . . . in which the central figure is a reprehensible character’. In pointing to the demands made by the manner of the Kingdom’s appearing in Jesus, Luke has used this device, not only in the parable of the dishonest steward (16:1-9), but also, and with a close parallel, in that of the importunate widow (18:1-8), where one is encouraged to pray for its coming, and the friend at midnight (11:5-8) where one is told to ask to live out of its power. (Eric Franklin, The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, pp. 951-952, on Lk. 19:11-27 )

Franklin says that the third servant is “not to be admired as someone who refuses to play by the lord’s corrupt rules,” a view that he attributes to Herzog (1994).

His lord required of him a commitment and a willingness to venture all which he was not able to meet. Fear and self-protection held him back. For him there might be some excuse. There is none, says the parable, for those who have willingly committed themselves to discipleship in the service of him who is not to be feared but loved and whose treasures do not consist of unrighteous mammon but of the life of the Kingdom itself. Disciples must risk all for the Kingdom and not let its gifts come to nothing either by acquiescing in the present or by despairing of its future ([Lk.] 17:22-18:8). (Franklin, p. 952)

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net