Ezekiel 34:17-31

17 As for you, my flock, thus says the Lord GOD: I shall judge between sheep and sheep, between rams and goats: 18 Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture, but you must tread down with your feet the rest of your pasture? When you drink of clear water, must you foul the rest with your feet? 19 And must my sheep eat what you have trodden with your feet, and drink what you have fouled with your feet?

20 Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD to them: I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. 21 Because you pushed with flank and shoulder, and butted at all the weak animals with your horns until you scattered them far and wide, 22 I will save my flock, and they shall no longer be ravaged; and I will judge between sheep and sheep.

23 I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. 24 And I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them; I, the LORD, have spoken.

25 I will make with them a covenant of peace and banish wild animals from the land, so that they may live in the wild and sleep in the woods securely. 26 I will make them and the region around my hill a blessing; and I will send down the showers in their season; they shall be showers of blessing. 27 The trees of the field shall yield their fruit, and the earth shall yield its increase. They shall be secure on their soil; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I break the bars of their yoke, and save them from the hands of those who enslaved them. 28 They shall no more be plunder for the nations, nor shall the animals of the land devour them; they shall live in safety, and no one shall make them afraid. 29 I will provide for them a splendid vegetation so that they shall no more be consumed with hunger in the land, and no longer suffer the insults of the nations. 30 They shall know that I, the LORD their God, am with them, and that they, the house of Israel, are my people, says the Lord GOD. 31 You are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture and I am your God, says the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 34:17-31, NRSV)

On May 25, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year One), comments were repeated with revision and supplement from May 13, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year One); they are repeated again here:

In chapters 33-39, Ezekiel presents several “images of restoration and return” (J. Galambush, The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 555, on Ezek. 33:1-39:29). We all remember the valley of dry bones (chap. 37). Chapter 34 speaks of the “shepherds” (leaders of Israel) in judgment. They have failed in their task: “Ah, you shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fatlings; but you do not feed the sheep” (Ezek. 34:2b-3). So God will “rescue my sheep from their [the leaders’] mouths” (v. 10) and will seek out and care for his own sheep (vv. 11-16).

But he will also judge the sheep. “As for you, my flock, thus says the Lord GOD. I shall judge between sheep and sheep, between rams and goats” (v. 17). Some of the sheep are rebuked with rhetorical questions. “Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture, but you must tread down with your feet the rest of your pasture? When you drink of clear water, must you foul the rest with your feet?” (v. 18). Others are left to graze on grass trodden in the mud and drink the resulting water. “And must my sheep eat what you have trodden with your feet, and drink what you have fouled with your feet?” (v. 19). “God questions the flock,” says David L. Petersen, “over feeding and drinking in ways that make it difficult for them all to eat and drink” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Ezek. 34:18-19). So the LORD will pass judgment on the rude sheep. “Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD to them: I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep” (v. 20). The strong sheep have crowded out the weaker sheep, but God will bring a stop to such activity. “Because you pushed with flank and shoulder, and butted at all the weak animals with your horns until you scattered them far and wide, I will save my flock, and they shall no longer be ravaged; and I will judge between sheep and sheep” (vv. 21-22). According to Marvin A. Sweeney, “Ezekiel portrays the leaders as strong sheep who trample the pasture and dirty the water that others must use, and who push the weaker aside. Thus, some of the flock must be destroyed” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Ezek. 34:17-22). Stephen L. Cook says, “the bad [sheep] must be separated out” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Ezek 34:17-24). We are reminded of the separation of the sheep and goats–for different reasons (neglecting the needs of the poor?)–in Jesus’ description of the Judgment of the Nations (Mt. 25:31-44), where the contrast is between sheep and goats.

In place of the false shepherds (vv. 1-16), the LORD will provide a good shepherd, a Davidic king. “I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd” (v. 23). Earlier, it seems, God himself is the shepherd. “For thus says the Lord GOD: I myself will search for my sheep, and will seek them out” (v. 11). But now, the Davidic king, or prince, is the shepherd. “And I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince (xyW96n!, nāś î’ ) among them; I, the LORD, have spoken” (v. 24). Sweeney says, “It is possible that the title ruler [so NJPS 1985, 1999, for ‘prince’] (‘nasi’ ’ rather than ‘melekh’) given here and in chs. 40-438 to the king represents a diminution of royal power: He is a ruler, but not a full-fledged king” (ibid., on v. 24). On the large passage, Sweeney offers a somewhat odd slant–or perhaps, just new to me: “God’s rule will be manifested in the establishment of a David as ruler (‘nasi’ rather than ‘melekh’ [ j`l@m@, melekh]). Though other biblical passages imagine a descendant of David as the ideal, future king (e.g., Isa. 11:1-10), this passage seems to envisage a return of David himself, the earlier, ideal king” (ibid., on vv. 23-31).

Under the “one shepherd,” the turmoil is to be replaced by peace. “I will make with them a covenant of peace,” says the LORD, “and banish wild animals from the land, so that they may live in the wild and sleep in the woods securely” (v. 25). The natural world will be transformed to bring the blessings of peace. “I will make them and the region around my hill a blessing; and I will send down the showers in their season; they shall be showers of blessing” (v. 26). The fruit of trees and crops of the field will be available for sustenance of the people. “The trees of the field shall yield their fruit, and the earth shall yield its increase” (v. 27a). And the people’s situation of captivity will be changed. “They shall be secure on their soil; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I break the bars of their yoke, and save them from the hands of those who enslaved them” (v. 27b). The LORD’s people will “no more be plunder for the nations,” nor “shall the animals of the land devour them” (v. 28a), but rather, “they shall live in safety, and no one shall make them afraid” (v. 28b). God will provide vegetation and banish hunger; they “will no longer suffer the insults of the nations” (v. 29). The LORD will be their God (v. 30), and he says to them, “You are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture and I am your God” (v. 31). According to Cook, this “announcement of future blessedness” is “dependent on the ‘Holiness Collection’: God will banish wild animals (Lev. 26:6), bless the people from Mount Zion (my hill), and break the bars of their yoke (Lev. 26:13. Thus, the people will live in safety (Lev. 26:5-6).”

Hebrews 8:1-13

Mediator of a Better Covenant (Jer 31.31-34)

8:1 Now the main point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent that the Lord, and not any mortal, has set up. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They offer worship in a sanctuary that is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly one; for Moses, when he was about to erect the tent, was warned, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” 6 But Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry, and to that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted through better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one.

8 God finds fault with them when he says:

"The days are surely coming, says the Lord,

when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel

and with the house of Judah;

9 not like the covenant that I made with their ancestors,

on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt;

for they did not continue in my covenant,

and so I had no concern for them, says the Lord.

10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel

after those days, says the Lord:

I will put my laws in their minds,

and write them on their hearts,

and I will be their God,

and they shall be my people.

11 And they shall not teach one another

or say to each other, 'Know the Lord,'

for they shall all know me,

from the least of them to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,

and I will remember their sins no more."

13 In speaking of "a new covenant," he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear.

On January 28, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two), comments were repeated from May 25, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year One), when comments were repeated with some supplement from comments from May 13, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year One), comments that were also repeated from January 23, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two). The supplemented comments are repeated again here:

Hebrews continues the direct comparison of Christ’s priesthood with the Levitical priesthood (cf. Heb. 7:20-28). The “main point” is that Christ is “a high priest . . . seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens” (8:1), a minister in the true heavenly sanctuary, “the true tent that the Lord, and not any mortal has set up” (v. 2). Earthly priests “offer gifts according to the law” (v. 4), “worship in a sanctuary that is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly one” (v. 5, citing Ex. 25:40: “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain”). Though not a priest on earth (v. 4), “Jesus has obtained a better ministry” as “the mediator of a better covenant” (v. 6). Since the first covenant was not “faultless” (v. 7), it has been replaced by the “new covenant” of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 31:31-34, cited at length in Heb. 8:8-12). This new covenant will not be “like the covenant that I made with their ancestors” (Heb. 8:9a, cf. Jer. 31:32a). Jeremiah says it was “a covenant that they broke” (Jer. 31:32b), reflected in Hebrews’ statement, “for they did not continue in my covenant” (Heb. 8:9c). The new covenant is defined. The Lord says “I will put my laws in their minds, / and write them on their hearts, / and I will be their God, / and they shall be my people” (Heb. 8:10c, d, e, f; cf. Jer. 31:33b). The people need not “teach one another” (Heb. 8:11a; cf. Jer. 31:34a), for “they shall all know me” (Heb. 8:11c; cf. Jer. 31:34b). Both texts emphasize the forgiveness of sins (Heb. 8:12; Jer. 31:34c). The comparison of covenants will continue, but the point is made that Jeremiah’s reference to “a new covenant” renders the first “obsolete” (v. 13).

I call attention here to Dr. Charles Pitts’ (HGST) discussion of the “new covenant” in Jeremiah in its Old Testament context, followed by further comment on the “new covenant” in the New Testament. It is found within his lecture notes on Jeremiah 31-33 at his web site:

http://www.hgst.edu/Faculty_Staff_Pictures/Pitts/website/Lecture%20Notes--Jer%20Ez%20Jer%2031-33.htm (accessed again May 26, 2009). Or go to http://www.hgst.edu and select in this order Faculty, Charles A. Pitts, (and scroll down to) Dr. Pitts’ personal web page, Jeremiah & Ezekiel, Lecture Notes, Jeremiah 31-33.

For some comments on the story of Melchizedek, see the comments of Wednesday, May 27, 2009 (two days ago), and of January 28, 2009 (Monday in the week of the Third Sunday of Epiphany, Year Two), when the Old Testament and Epistle readings were, respectively, Gen. 14:(1-7) 8-24 and Heb. 8:1-13:

On his return from the victory, Abram was met by two kings, the king of Sodom (v. 17), who was one of those under attack by Chedorlaomer and his allies (v. 2), and “King Melchizedek of Salem, “priest of God Most High” who brought out bread and wine (v. 18). A major point of the whole story is apparently the blessing of Abram by “God Most High” (v. 19), by a priest from what would later become David’s capital (Salem = Jerusalem) and Israel’s worship center. Gerhard von Rad reports confirmation of details from this account by recent discoveries:

The supposition of a pre-Israelite city-king of Jerusalem does not cause the least difficulty since the discovery of the correspondence between the Syro-Palestinian city-kings and the letters from a prince of Jerusalem. The name Melchizedek is certainly old-Canaanite (cf. Adonizedek, Josh. 10:1). The combination of both offices, priest and king, in one person was not unusual in the ancient Near East (e.g., in Phoenicia). The report of a cult of the “highest God” (’el ‘elyōn) has been surprisingly confirmed from extra-biblical testimony. Indeed, there is some support for the view that the cult of this ’el ‘elyōn was practiced in ancient Canaanite Jerusalem, before Israelite times. (Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, The Old Testament Library, 2^nd. ed., pp. 179-180 on Gen. 14:17-20).

Rabbi J. H. Hertz puts it this way: “In the light of recent excavations, every reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the account of Melchizedek is removed. Among the Tell-el-Amarna tablets are letters to the Egyptian government, written in the fifteenth pre-Christian century by the vassal king of Jerusalem, or ‘Urusalim’. Like Melchizedek, he was a priest-king” (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 24^th printing, 1981, on Gen. 14:18). Abram gives “one-tenth of everything” to Melchizedek. “Abram acknowledges Melchizedek as priest of the Most High, and gives him tithe of the spoil as a thanksgiving offering” (ibid.). But Abram refuses gifts from the king of Sodom. According to the Rabbi, Abram “felt . . . that he had no right to penalize those who had shared the dangers of the campaign with him. His followers should receive their rations, and an equitable share of the spoil should go to his confederates” (ibid., on vv. [23-]24).

Luke 10:38-42

Jesus Visits Martha and Mary

38 Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home. 39 She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to what he was saying. 40 But Martha was distracted by her many tasks; so she came to him and asked, "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me.” 41 But the Lord answered her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; 42 there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her. (Luke 10:38-42, NRSV)

On October 24, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year Two), comments were repeated from May 25, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year One), when comments were repeated from October 27, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year Two), when comments were combined with some revision and supplement from October 22, 2004 (Friday of the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year Two), and from May 13, 2005 (Friday of the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year One). The combined comments are repeated again here:

Luke reports the visit of Jesus to the home of Martha and Mary (Lk. 10:38:42). We learn more about Martha and Mary from two accounts in John, about the death of their brother Lazarus, whom Jesus raises from the dead (Jn. 11:1-44), and about the anointing of Jesus’ feet by Mary (Jn. 12:1-8; cf. similar episodes in Mt. 26:6-13; Mk. 14:3-9; Lk. 7:36-50). This account of Jesus at the home of Martha and Mary has no parallel in Matthew or Mark, and comes between other passages found only in Luke (the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Lk. 10:29-37; the Importunate Friend at Midnight, Lk. 11:58), or passages from a different context in other Gospels (e.g. the Lawyer’s question, which in Luke introduces the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Lk. 10:25; cf. Mk. 12:28-34; Mt. 22:34-40; and the Lord’s Prayer, Lk. 11:1-4; cf. Mt. 6:9-13). We may conclude that the Martha and Mary episode comes from Luke’s “special material,” as they say, perhaps from some of his investigating (Lk. 1:3), and is included early in his “travel narrative” (9::51-19:27).

“Now as they went on their way,” says Luke, “he [Jesus] entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home.” (Lk. 10:38). “She had a sister named Mary,” we are told, “who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to what he was saying” (v. 39). In the meantime, “Martha was distracted by her many tasks” (v. 40a), details of hospitality, no doubt, perhaps including the preparation of a meal. She appeals to their guest, ““Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me” (v. 40b). This brief account is just long enough to set up the point of the story, which comes in Jesus’ response to Martha. “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her” (vv. 41-42). The story thus serves to emphasize the need for Christian disciples to listen to Jesus and learn from him. It also demonstrates “Jesus’ openness to and acceptance of women among his followers” (Marion Lloyd Soards, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Lk. 10:38-42).

One should not read Jesus’ words to Martha as a judgmental rebuke. Her dutiful efforts are good, but “Mary has chosen the better part” (v. 42). Catherine Clark Kroeger says:

The Third Evangelist’s story is about fundamental priorities. A woman may find great satisfaction and much appreciation for her skill in the culinary arts. Nevertheless she is not ultimately defined by the excellence of the table she spreads but on spreading her heart open to God’s Word (cf. 2 Cor. 6:11). The perfect housekeeper may not be the one most receptive to the voice of God. Jesus supports Mary in her role as disciple and invites Martha also to hear his teaching. How often narrowly prescribed roles have obstructed the calling of women! Neither social custom nor rabbinic tradition can be allowed to deprive them of their divinely ordained and courageously chosen right to learn. (The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, 2002, p. 575 on Lk. 10:38-42)

Vera M. Sinton, writing in the same commentary, reminds us that “learning to respect each other’s differences can be hard,” but “Each of these women, in her own way, is an evangelist. Both their gifts are needed if the death and resurrection of Jesus is to be made known.” Martha’s gift is in “taking the lead where action is required” (The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, 2002, p. 575-576, in a separate section on Mary and Martha). Ms. Sinton has in mind Martha’s going to meet Jesus after Lazarus’ death, as well as her “culinary arts” that are demonstrated in Luke’s story.

Kroeger also notes that “Mary has seated herself at the feet of Jesus in the position of a learner (cf. Acts 22:3),” adding

In Jewish tradition, this was ordinarily not an option for women. A much quoted proverb declared that it was better to give the Torah to be burned than to teach it to a woman. Martha’s demand may be based as much on her discomfort at her sister’s unconventional behavior as on her need for assistance. We may suppose that there may also have been an element of jealousy. While she fulfilled the appropriate role of a traditional woman, her sister was seated with the male disciples. Mary was afforded an opportunity to learn that was denied to Martha. Luke will later demonstrate the importance of instructing women in order to make them faithful witnesses. (loc. cit.)

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net