Jeremiah 31:27-34

Individual Retribution

27 The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of humans and the seed of animals. 28 And just as I have watched over them to pluck up and break down, to overthrow, destroy, and bring evil, so I will watch over them to build and to plant, says the LORD. 29 In those days they shall no longer say:

"The parents have eaten sour grapes,

and the children's teeth are set on edge."

30 But all shall die for their own sins; the teeth of everyone who eats sour grapes shall be set on edge.

A New Covenant

31 The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt-a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 No longer shall they 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, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:27-34, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from April 4, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Lent, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from May 9, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year Two), when comments were repeated from March 31, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Lent, Year One), when comments were repeated from June 2, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year Two), which were repeated from earlier, from March 19, 2005 (Saturday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Lent, Year One).

Today’s reading includes three promises of Israel’s restoration and return from exile. In the first, an oracle, the LORD’s message says, “The days are surely coming, says the LORD (hvhy-Mxun4, n ^e’um YHWH), when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of humans and the seed of animals” (Jer. 31:27). The return of humans and animals to the lands of Israel and Judah will reverse the earlier devastation. According to Jack R. Lundbom, “Yahweh’s judgment in Jeremiah is promised for both humans and beasts (7:20; 21:6), and it came upon both (32:43; 33:10, 12; 36:29). Now both will enjoy an increase in the new creation” (Jeremiah 21-36, Anchor Bible, vol. 21B, 2004, p. 460, on Jer. 31:27). Leo G. Perdue, revised by Robert R. Wilson, puts it this way: “The land of Israel and Judah will be repopulated with people and herds (Ezek. 36:9-11)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Jer. 31:27).

The LORD’s message continues in another oracle. “And just as I have watched (yT9d4qawA, šāqadtî) over them to pluck up (wOtn4li, lintôš) and break down (COtn4l9v4, w ^elintôts), to overthrow (sOr7h3lav4, w ^elah ^arôs), destroy (dyb96x3hal4U, ûl ^eha’ ^avîd), and bring evil (f1r2hA5l4U, ûl ^ehārē ^a’), so I will watch (dqow4x@, ’ešqōd) over them to build (tOnb4l9, livnôth) and to plant (f1OFn4l9v4), says the LORD” (v. 28). This repeats language from Jeremiah’s call:

“Now I have put my words in your mouth.

See, today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms,

to pluck up (wOtn4li, lintôš) and to pull down (COtn4l9v4, w ^elintôts),

to destroy (dyb96x3hal4U, ûl ^eha’ ^avîd) and to overthrow (sOr7h3lav4, w ^elah ^arôs),

to build (tOnb4l9, livnôth) and to plant (f1OFn4l9v4, w ^elintô ^a‘ ).” (Jer. 1:9b, 10 NRSV)

Font-xbg-abg-Hold

 and to plant.” (Jer. 1:9b, 10 NRSV)

Dr. Charles A. Pitts of Houston Graduate School of Theology, who notes the connection here with the wording of Jeremiah’s commission, says, “the term, ‘bring disaster’ [NIV, for NRSV ‘bring evil’], is added . . . This extra word is related to the favorite word of Jeremiah, rā‘āh (hfArA)” (“Lecture Notes on Jeremiah and Ezekiel,” 2005, on his Internet web site at http://hgst.edu/facultysites/pitts/. On this site click on the link to the left to “Jeremiah Ezekiel,” then “Lecture Notes,” then “Jeremiah 31-33,” and find the notes on 31:28. This was accessed May 20, 2010). Pitts adds:

Second, the wordplay on the Hebrew term shāqad (dqawA, ‘to watch’) returns. In the call narrative, the wordplay involved the words for almond tree and ‘watch,’ with the LORD promising to ‘watch’ His people in order to bring judgment upon them for their sins. Here, the LORD promises that, just as He ‘watched’ over them for judgment, He will now ‘watch’ over them for deliverance. The judgment oracle is reversed. Unfortunately, as in the previous oracle, the reversal comes only after exile! (ibid.)

In other words, by pronouncing judgment on Judah, as directed by the LORD, Jeremiah was fulfilling his calling “to pluck up and to pull, / to destroy and to overthrow.” And, as here (chap. 31), when he promises reconciliation with God and restoration of the nation by bringing the exiles home, he is fulfilling his calling “to build and to plant” (cf. 18:7, 9; 24:6-7; 31:28 [i.e., here], 40; 42:10 [attempting to dissuade Johanan and his commanders from fleeing to Egypt]; 45:4 [about Jeremiah’s mission, in a word to Baruch]).

On Individual Retribution

The next promise reverses a proverb of complaint used in objecting to the prophets’ indictments of the nation, presented as the cause of the disastrous defeat and deportation by the Babylonians. According to Lundbom, “the ‘latter day’ promise of vv. 29-30 may also be a divine oracle; however, it lacks a messenger formula” (op. cit., p. 459, on Jer. 31-27-30 = LXX 38:27-30). At any rate, the LORD’s message continues:

In those days they shall no longer say:

‘The parents (tObxA, ’āvôth) have eaten sour grapes,

and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’

But all shall die for their own sins; the teeth of everyone who eats sour grapes shall be set on edge. (Jer. 31:29-30 NRSV)

It was our parents (tObxA, ’āvôth), that is, earlier generations, who “have eaten sour grapes,” that is, who forsook the LORD and turned to idolatry, but it is we, the “children” (Myn9BA, bānîm), whose “teeth are set on edge,” who are punished for their sins (Jer. 31:29; cf. Deut. 24:16; Ezek., chap. 18). No, says the prophet; rather, as a matter of individual responsibility, each person will bear the responsibility for his own sins. Ezekiel, in refuting the same proverb (Ezek. 18:3), puts it this way. “Know that all lives are mine; the life of the parent as well as the life of the child is mine: it is only the person who sins that shall die” (v. 4, cf. vv. 1-32). “The source of the proverb is unknown,” says Dr. Pitts,

but since both Jeremiah and Ezekiel quote it, the reader should presume that it was a known proverb in the 7th-6th century BC. The emphasis here is on the responsibility of the individual before God. This verse is an excellent precursor to the New Covenant, which will be both communal and individual. Individual hearts will change, allowing the community to remain faithful. (loc. cit.)

According to Lundbom, “Jeremiah’s prophecy on retribution is future oriented; the comparable prophecy in Ezekiel 18 has immediate application” (op. cit., p. 461, citing May 1961: 114-16).

On A New Covenant

This brings us to the well-known “new covenant” passage in which the LORD promises to restore Israel. “The days are surely coming, says the LORD (hvhy-Mxun4, n ^e’um YHWH), when I will make a new covenant (hwAdAH3 tyr9B4, b^erîth ch^adāšāh; diaqhvkh kainhv, diathēkē kainē LXX) with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Jer. 31:31 = LXX 38:31). A new covenant was needed because the covenant made with their ancestors had been broken. “It [i.e., the new covenant] will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt–a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD (hvhy-Mxun4, n ^e’um YHWH)” (v. 32). There will be a significant difference in the new covenant as compared with the old. “But this is the covenant (tyr9B4ha, habb^erîth; hJ diaqhvkh, hē diathēkē, LXX) that I will make (trok4x@, ’ekrōth; diaqhvsomai, diathēsomai, LXX) with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law (hrAOT, tôrāh; novmoi, nomoi [‘laws’ plural, sic], LXX) within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jer. 31:33 = LXX 38:33). Dr. Pitts says, “The law here refers not only to the Torah of the Pentateuch, but to the much broader ‘will of God.’ Knowing God has to do with knowing his ways and His will for His people” (op. cit., on Jer. 31:31-34, citing T. Frethiem, 2002, and others). Pitts has said,

The reader should note that there are no stipulations in the “New Covenant.” Does that mean that the members of that covenant have no obligations? No, it means that the burden of keeping the covenant is laid upon Yahweh. He will give Israel a new heart and a new spirit. This covenant is not dependent upon what Israel does or does not do, but upon what Yahweh does [Note 4 cites an unpublished paper by Phillip J. Swanson]. Its existence does not depend upon the success of the people. (ibid.)

According to Perdue and Wilson, “In this prose oracle of salvation, Jeremiah promises a new covenant, not a new law. The old (Mosaic) covenant had been broken, but the new covenant will continue because of the inward transformation of the human heart that will allow the people to know God intimately and to be obedient to the commandments” (op. cit., on vv. 31-34). An explanatory prediction concludes this promise of a new covenant. “No longer shall they 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, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more” (v. 34).

Isaiah presents similar ideas of restoration through “my covenant with them . . . my spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth” (Isa. 59:21), that is, through prophetic guidance, since the LORD’s spirit will be upon the prophet (cf. Joseph Blenkinsopp, NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Isa. 59:21). Paul combines this text with the preceding verse (59:20) and Isaiah 27:9 (“Therefore by this the guilt of Jacob will be expiated, / and this will be the full fruit of the removal of his sin”) to form the quotation in Romans 11:26-27 (see below). Paul sees “the gifts and the calling of God” as “irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29), and so looks forward to a time when “all Israel will be saved” (v. 26). Paul attempts to correlate his understanding of justification and salvation through faith, by the grace of God, with what amounts to an “irrevocable” covenant with Israel (cf. Rom. 11:29). But the Epistle to the Hebrews cites the new covenant passage from Jeremiah (Heb. 8:8-12 [cf. vv. 7-13], citing Jer. 31:31-34). Dr. Pitts discusses “The New Covenant and the New Testament” at some length, concluding with this quotation from John Skinner:

[Jeremiah’s] peculiar contribution to the prophetic hope is that thought of a direct action of God on the heart of each Israelite, bringing it into harmony with His own character and will. He may not have seen that this thought must burst the bond of nationality, and be fulfilled in an invisible fellowship of spirits based on that knowledge of God which he knew to be the ultimate reality of religion. But in projecting his own personal experience into the future as the form which true religion must assume universally, he threw a bright beam of light across the ages; and it falls at last on One who is the Yea and the Amen to all the promises of God—on Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant, and the Author of eternal salvation. (op. cit., citing John Skinner, Prophecy and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah, 1963, p. 334)

Ephesians 5:1-32

5:1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children, 2 and live in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Renounce Pagan Ways

3 But fornication and impurity of any kind, or greed, must not even be mentioned among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Entirely out of place is obscene, silly, and vulgar talk; but instead, let there be thanksgiving. 5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure person, or one who is greedy (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be associated with them. 8 For once you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light. Live as children of light- 9 for the fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and true. 10 Try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to mention what such people do secretly; 13 but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, 14 for everything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says,

"Sleeper, awake!

Rise from the dead,

and Christ will shine on you."

15 Be careful then how you live, not as unwise people but as wise, 16 making the most of the time, because the days are evil. 17 So do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit, 19 as you sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves, singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts, 20 giving thanks to God the Father at all times and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 5:1-20, NRSV)

The Christian Household (Cp Col 3.18-19)

21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. 24 Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind-yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:21-32, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from January 4, 2010 (Monday in the week of the Second Sunday after Christmas, ref. for Jan. 4, Year Two), when the reading was Ephesians 5:1-20, and the comments were based on relevant comments from January 21 and 22, 2009 (Wednesday and Thursday in the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when the readings were Ephesians 5:1-14 and 15-33, and on earlier comments. On May 9, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year Two), comments were based on those of January 17 and 18, 2007 (Wednesday and Thursday in the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), and those on Ephesians 5:1-10 of January 4, 2008 (Friday in the week of the First Sunday after Christmas, refs. for Jan. 4, Year Two). Those comments were based on earlier comments, as noted there.

Note that the Episcopal reading is Ephesians 5:1-20, but the Presbyterian and Lutheran Readings include that and also verses 21-32).

Paul’s ethical admonitions continue (cf. Eph. 4-6). Ephesians 5:1-2 is printed as the conclusion of the paragraph 4:25-5:2 (NRSV, TNIV, cf. the UBS Greek New Testament, 4^th rev. ed., 1993). Paul addresses his readers advising them (and us) to imitate “God, as beloved children.” “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Eph. 5:1-2). According to J. Paul Sampley, “The readers are to be imitators of God in forgiveness (4:32) and in love (5:2); this is a pivotal exhortation. Whereas calls to imitate Christ are widespread in the NT (see 5:25; see also Rom. 15:7; 1 Cor. 11:1), imitation of God is rare (see Mt. 5:44-45, 48 [and, we might add, the parallels in Lk. 6:27, 28, 36] )” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Eph. 5:1).

            Renounce Pagan Ways

As Paul continues, he lists sins that are forbidden. “But fornication and impurity of any kind, or greed, must not even be mentioned among you, as is proper among saints” (v. 3). This, of course, reflects a common theme throughout the New Testament. “On things that must not even be mentioned, much less done,” says Sampley, “see v. 12)” (ibid., on v. 3). The list continues. “Entirely out of place,” says Paul, “is obscene, silly, and vulgar talk; but instead, let there be thanksgiving” (v. 4). According to Victor Paul Furnish, “The vices listed in vs. 4 (cf. Col. 3:8) were also condemned by non-Christian moralists in the ancient world, but the alternative, instead let there be thanksgiving [Furnish’s emphasis, highlighting words quoted], is specifically Christian and conforms to a view of the new life as one lived in the continuous praise of God (cf. e.g. 1:6, 12)” (The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 1971, p. 842, on Eph. 5:3-14). “Be sure of this,” says Paul, “that no fornicator or impure person, or one who is greedy (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God” (v. 5). These are clearly excluded from the “kingdom,” and apparently from the Christian community as well. Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean says, “Sexual sins are the primary focus in these verses” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Eph. 5:3-5). According to Sampley, “Lists of vices that imperil inheritance in the kingdom are also found in 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Rev. 22:14-15. On the connection between the greedy and the idolater,” he adds, “see Mt. 6:24” (op. cit., on vv. 4-5).

The readers are warned against being deceived: “Let no one deceive you with empty words,” says Paul, “for because of these things the wrath of God comes on those who are disobedient” (v. 6). “Wrath of God,” says Sampley, is “a reference to God’s final judgment. See Rom. 1:18 (where God’s wrath is also understood as present); Col. 3:6; Rev. 19:15” (op. cit., on v. 6). “Therefore,” says Paul, “do not be associated with them [i.e., the deceivers just mentioned]” (v. 7). According to Sampley, “Being associated with unbelievers is also prohibited in 2 Cor. 6:14; cf. 1 Cor. 5:9-13; 7:12-16” (ibid., on v. 7). Paul explains: “For once you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light. Live as children of light” (v. 8). In other words, as some would have it, “Be what you are!” According to Maclean, “Darlness/light [is] apocalyptic imagery for the domains of the hostile spiritual powers and of God and Christ” (op. cit., on v. 8). According to Sampley, “Children of light [is] a metaphor not found in Israel’s scriptures, but common in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the NT. See Mt. 5:16; Lk. 16:8; Jn. 12:36; 1 Thess. 5:5” (op. cit., on v. 8). Paul calls on us to “live as children of light–for the fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and true” (vv. 8b, 9).

“Try to find out (dokimavzonteV, dokimazontes, present participle) what is pleasing to the Lord,” says Paul. “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (vv. 10-11). A Greek imperative verb such as peripatei:te (peripateite, “walk, live [as children of light],” v. 8) can be followed in series by participles in series in the sense of imperative verbs (cf. Blass-Debrunner-Funk [BDF], A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 1961, 3^rd impression, 1967, sec 468 (2) ), as here, with dokimavzonteV (dokimazontes), translated as “try to find out” (NRSV), “and find out” (TNIV), but “proving” (AV/KJV). Daniel B. Wallace, citing A. T. Robertson, cautions, “In general it may be said that no participle should be explained in this way that can properly be connected with a finite verb” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 1995, p. 650, citing Robertson, Grammar, 1134). The point is a matter of interpretation, in which recent translators (e.g. NRSV, TNIV) differ from the Authorized (King James) Version as indicated above. Sampley says, “Try to find out, lit. ‘find out,’ ‘discern.’ See Rom. 12:2; Phil. 1:10; see also v. 17” (op. cit., on v. 10). The NRSV, in taking the present participle as the equivalent of the present imperative, has apparently understood it as a “conative present,” defined by Blass-Debrunner-Funk: “Inasmuch as the description of the occurrence in the durative present is bound up with the notion of incompleteness, the present itself can denote an attempted but incomplete action (universal in Greek)” (BDF, sec. 319). We are reminded that learning “what is pleasing to the Lord” must be a continuous process.

As for “the unfruitful works of darkness” (v. 11), Paul says, “it is shameful even to mention what such people do secretly; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible (vv. 12-13). Paul is appalled at what the children of darkness do in the darkness, but he notes the exposure that comes with light, “for everything that becomes visible is light” (v. 14a). And he explains with a quotation: “Therefore it says: ‘Sleeper, awake! / Rise from the dead, / and Christ will shine on you’ ” (v. 14b). “On exposure by the light,” says Sampley, “see Jn. 3:20-21)” (op. cit., on vv. 13-14). As for the quotation, he adds, “the source of this quotation is uncertain. It may be a fragment of a Christian hymn; see also Isa. 26:19” (ibid., on v. 14). Maclean says it is “perhaps a fragment of a baptismal hymn” (op. cit., on v. 14).

“Be careful then how you live (peripatei:te, peripateite, lit. ‘walk’),” says Paul, not as unwise people but as wise” (v. 15). The word peripatevw (peripateō, ‘walk,’ v. 15, cf. v. 8) often means “to conduct one’s life, comport oneself, behave, live as habit of conduct; figurative extension of 1 ‘walk’ ” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. peripatevw, peripateō , meaning no. (2) ). Compare the Hebrew word j`lahA (hālak, ‘go, walk’) in the metaphorical sense “walk = conduct oneself” (William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10<sup>th</sup> corrected impression 1988, s.v. j`lahA, hālak, meaning no. 6), as in Isaiah 33:15, “walk righteously” (tOqdAc4 j`leho, hōlēk ts <sup>e</sup>dāqôth, LXX poreuovmenoV ejn dikaiosuvnh, poreuomenos en dikaiosynē ) and 2 Kings 20:3, “I have walked (yT9k4l0ahat4h9, hithhallaktî, LXX periepavthsa, periepatēsa before you in faithfulness (tm,x$B,%, be’ <sup>e</sup>meth) with a whole heart, and have done what is good in your sight.” Also compare the rabbinic term halakhah, derived from the verb j`lahA (hālak, “go, walk”), defined by Marcus Jastrow as “a traditional law or a traditional interpretation of a written law” (A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, 2 vols., 1950, s.v. hkAlAh3, h ^alākāh).

The admonition to “be careful then (Blevpete ou\n ajkribw:V, Blepete oun akribōs) how you live,” is an imperative followed by a participle, “making the most ( ejxagorazovmenoi, exagorazomenoi) of the time, because the days are evil” (vv. 15a, 16). But the participle here is adverbial, defining the manner of being careful; compare references above to Wallace (loc. cit.). “Making the most of the time,” says Sampley, is “lit. ‘buying up the time,’ but the meaning is uncertain. Cf. Col. 4:5, where the same phrase bears on how believers related to outsiders” (op. cit., on v. 16). “The days are evil,” he adds, is “a common apocalyptic perspective. See Mt. 24:22; Acts 2:40; Gal. 1:4” (ibid.). According to F. F. Bruce,

The injunction to ‘buy up the present opportunity’ is repeated from Col. 4:5; in both places it has special reference to Christian witness in the world. The statement that ‘the days are evil’ may imply that, whatever difficulties lie in the way of Christian witness now, they will increase as time goes on. It must be borne in mind not only that the present time remains an ‘evil age’ (Gal. 1:4) even if it has been invaded by the powers of the age to comme but also that, as the Corinthians were warned, ‘the appointed time has grown very short’ (1 Cor. 7:29), so that opportunities must be exploited while they last. The perspective on the end-time has not changed radically since Paul’s earlier letters; moreover, from Rome to Judaea there were signs that the relative freedom from molestation currently enjoyed by Christians was liable shortly to be curtailed. (The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT, 1984, pp. 378-379, on Eph. 5:16).

“So do not be foolish,” says Paul, “but understand what the will (to; qevlhma, to Thelma) of the Lord is” (v. 17, cf. v. 10). “The contrast,” here, says Sampley, “is with following sinful human wills (see 2:3 where the plural form of the Greek term here translated will is translated desires)” (op. cit., on v. 17). “Do not get drunk (mh; mequvskesqe oi[nw/, mē methyskesthe oinō(i) ), imperative) with wine,” says Paul, “for that is debauchery; but be filled (plhrou:sqe, plērousthe, imperative) with the Spirit” (v. 18, quoting Prov. 23:31 LXX). The first line of the proverb says, “Do not look at wine when it is red (MDAxat4y9 yK9 Ny9ya xr,Te-lxa, ’al-tēre’ yayin kî yith’addām)” (Prov. 23:31a). For this the Septuagint has mh; mequvskesqe oi[nw/ (mē methyskesthe oinō(i) ), exactly as quoted by Paul. According to Bruce, the quotation “is introduced here not so much for its own sake (although such a warning is never untimely) as for the sake of its antithesis: ‘be filled with the Spirit.’ Overindulgence in wine leads to dissipation, which is good neither for the winebibber nor for others; the fullness of the Spirit is helpful both for those who are filled with him and for those with whom they associate” (op. cit., p. 379, on v. 18).

The two imperative verbs of verse 18 are followed by a series of five participles, the first four of which Wallace says are adverbial (op. cit., p. 651). These four are so translated in the NRSV: “as you sing (lalou:nteV, lalountes, present participle) psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves, singing (a[/donteV, a(i)dontes, present participle) and making melody (yavllonteV, psallontes, present participle) to the Lord in your hearts, giving thanks (eujcaristou:nteV, eucharistountes, present participle) to God the Father at all times and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (vv. 19-20 NRSV, cf. AV/KJV). Today’s New International version translates the second and third of these participles as imperatives: “speaking to one another with psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit. Sing (a[/donteV, a(i)dontes) and make music (yavllonteV, psallontes) from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (vv.19-20 TNIV). To translate lalou:nteV (lalountes, lit. ‘speaking’) as “speaking” (TNIV, AV/KJV; cf “sing” NRSV) is over literal in a context where all of what is sounded forth is musical. According to Bruce,

If the Spirit is the source of their fullness, then, instead of songs which celebrate the joys of Bacchus [the Roman equivalent of Dionysus, the Greek god of wine and intoxication], their mouths will be filled with words which build up the lives of others and bring glory to the living and true God. . . . The meetings of those early Christians must have been musical occasions, as they not only sang and made melody to the Lord, in their hearts as well as with their tongues, but addressed one another for mutual help and blessing in compositions already known to the community or in songs improvised under immediate inspiration. (op. cit., pp. 380-381, on Eph. 5:19)

            The Christian Household

To modern (21^st c.) people, we might say, If you plan to get “high,” get “high” on the Spirit. Another participle follows the imperatives of verse 18. “Be subject (uJpotassovmenoi, hypotassomenoi, present participle) to one another out of reverence for Christ” (v. 21). As indicated here, the NRSV translates it as an imperative verb (cf. TNIV; contrast “submitting” AV/KJV). The pattern of participles dependent on preceding imperatives continues through the “Household Rules” section.

Being subject (uJpotassovmenoi, hypotassomenoi) to one another (v. 21)

wives (verb understood) to your own husbands . . . (v. 22)

Because / for the husband is the head . . . (v. 23)

but as the church is subject (uJpotavssetai, hypotassetai) to Christ,

so also the wives to their husbands in everything (v. 24)

Husbands, love (ajgapa:te, agapate, imperative) your wives

just as Christ loved . . . and gave . . .(v. 25)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In the same way, husbands should love their wives . . . (v. 28)

The instruction about equal and reciprocal submission in verse 21 is a participle, but, given the paragraph break in most modern translations–after verse 20 in NRSV, and again after verse 21–verse 21 functions as a key imperative to which the following instructions are subordinate. “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:21). In that respect, it is remarkable that the Greek text of verse 22 has no verb at all! A literal translation would read as follows: “Wives to your own husbands as to the Lord, because . . .” Verse 22 clearly depends on verse 21 for its meaning, and the English translations supply a verb:

Wives, [be subject] to your husbands as [you are] to the Lord. (v. 23 NRSV, square brackets added)

The Authorized (King James) Version, following later manuscripts, includes the verb without italics. The instruction for husbands which follows (vv. 25, 28) is in balance with the instruction for wives, and the controlling principle is mutual submission, as expressed in verse 21. Compare the following analysis by Alice P. Matthews:

Ephesians 5:22 is widely used to support a doctrine of hierarchy in Christian marriage, and the paragraphing in many Bibles enhances that interpretation by splitting verse 22 from its immediate context. Textually, this is indefensible because verse 22 does not contain a verb but infers it from Ephesians 5:21, in which submission is enjoined on all believers. Verse 21, in turn, contains the fourth (submitting) of four present participles that describe the visible evidences of being filled with the Spirit of God. This hinge verse sets down the principle of submission, which Paul then explores in 5:22-6:9, describing what it looks like for wives, for husbands, for children, for fathers, for slaves and for masters. In particular, a wife’s submission to her husband is to be of the same quality as her devotion to God. A husband shows his love for his wife by following Christ’s example of humility and self-sacrifice (clearly forms of submission). There is no hint in this passage that a husband exercises power or authority over his wife. (“Hierarchicalism & Equality in the Home,” in The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, p. 703)

Paul continues saying, “For the husband is the head (kefalhv, kephalē) of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior” (Eph. 5:23). This statement should not be understood as establishing the husband as an authority figure over his wife in a hierarchical chain of command. “It is unfortunate,” says Rebecca Merrill Groothuis,

that the head-body metaphor, as applied to Christ and his church, and to a husband and his wife, has provoked an inordinate preoccupation with a ‘chain of ‘command’ concept of headship, when the emphasis would more constructively and biblically be placed on an understanding of ‘body-ship’–that is, our unity and interdependence as one body, whether in marriage or in the larger family of God. . . . This passage depicts marriage not as a hierarchical organization, but as a living, unified (head + body) organism. (Good News for Women; A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality, 1996, p. 153; cf. Catherine Clark Kroeger, “The Classical Concept of Head as ‘Source’,” Appendix III in Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Equal to Serve; Women and Men in the Church and Home, 1987)

According to Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean, “Husbands are to imitate Christ’s self-sacrifice on behalf of the church (but cf. v. 28)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Eph. 5:23). “Just as the church is subject to Christ,” says Paul, “so also wives out to be, in everything, to their husbands” (v. 24). This “subjection,” we are reminded, is mutual and reciprocal (v. 21). “The wife’s submission, however, is not unilateral,” says Groothuis; “for the husband also practices submission as he gives himself up for her sake” (op. cit., p. 154). “The biblical ideal,” she adds, “is that as a woman submits to her husband she receives from him the love that leads to life, growth, and health, even as Christ’s self-giving love serves to nurture the life, health, and growth of the church, which is his body” (ibid.).

Paul’s instructions for husbands equal–even exceed–those to wives. “Husbands, love your wives,” he says, “just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind–yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish” (vv. 25-27). “In the same way,” adds Paul, “husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, because we are members of his body” (vv. 28-30). “Biblically,” says Groothuis, “a man is to use his greater social power and male status for the good of his wife, thereby serving as a ‘head’ who provides life rather than commands obedience. The husband is to give up the full exercise of his social privileges and cultural authority in order to love, serve, and honor his wife, even as Christ gave up (temporarily) some of the prerogatives of divinity (Phil. 2:6-8) in order to save and serve the church” (ibid., p. 155).

At this point, Paul quotes the words of the LORD at the first marriage–Adam and Eve: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” (Eph. 5:31, citing Gen. 2:24). After marveling at this “great mystery,” which Paul applies “to Christ and the church” (v. 32), he reminds the readers, “Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband” (v. 33).

Matthew 9:9-17

The Call of Matthew (Mk 2.13-17; Lk 5.27-32)

9 As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, "Follow me." And he got up and followed him.

10 And as he sat at dinner in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" 12 But when he heard this, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners." (Matthew 9:9-13, NRSV)

The Question about Fasting (Mk 2.18-22; Lk 5.33-39)

14 Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?" 15 And Jesus said to them, "The wedding guests cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. 16 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak, for the patch pulls away from the cloak, and a worse tear is made. 17 Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; otherwise, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved." (Matthew 9:14-17, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from October 7, 2009 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from May 9, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year Two), when comments were repeated from October 10, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year One), when comments were repeated from June 2, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year Two).

The account of the healing of the paralytic (yesterday’s Gospel reading) and the two parts of today’s reading, the call of Matthew and the question about fasting, form a series of three events in which both Matthew and Luke follow Mark’s sequence. The separate file, Matthew 8-9 and Parallels (also used yesterday) shows this relationship. Today’s readings from Matthew are shown with the parallel texts from Mark and Luke in the separate file Call of Matthew. Compare also the file Editing Mark on Levi’s Call.

The Call of Matthew

The setting for the healing of the paralytic (Mt. 9:2-8; Mk 2.1-12; Lk 5.17-26) is in Capernaum (Mt. 9:1; Mk. 2:1); for Luke it is in a house (Lk. 5:19), but the city (cf. 5:12) is unspecified. For the call of Matthew (or Levi), Matthew’s setting is not much different: “As Jesus was walking along” (Mt. 9:9a), but according to Mark, “Jesus went out again beside the sea” (Mk. 2:13). Since Capernaum is by the Sea of Galilee, that need not represent a significant difference. Luke notes the departure from the house where Jesus healed the paralytic: “After this he went out” (Lk. 5:27). According to Matthew, Jesus “saw a man called Matthew [coincidence?] sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, ‘Follow me.’ And he got up and followed him” (Mt. 9:9b). The same is reported by Mark, but the man called appears to have a different name. “As he was walking along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, ‘Follow me.’ And he got up and followed him” (Mk. 2:14; cf. Lk. 5:27-28). So we note that Matthew’s version calls the man who was sitting at the tax booth Matthew (Mt. 9:9), but Mark and Luke call him Levi (Mk. 2:14; Lk. 5:27). Ben Witherington III says, “Much ink has been spilled by commentators trying to determine whether Levi is in fact the same person as Matthew” (The Gospel of Mark, 2001, p. 119 on Mk. 2:13-17). He notes that “the name Levi for a disciple occurs only here [Mk. 2:13-17] and in Luke 5:27-32.” The lists of the Twelve (Mt. 10:1-4; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk. 6:14-16) do not include the name Levi, but do include Matthew and “James son of Alphaeus” (Mt. 10:3; Mk. 3:18; Lk. 6:15). In Matthew’s list, they are together, “Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus.” Witherington says that “Matt. 9:9-13 presents the story of Levi as the story of the call of Matthew,” and adds “It is certainly possible that Levi and Matthew are two names for the same person,” but he notes that “Mark himself does not make clear that this is the case, for he lists Matthew among the Twelve in 3:15-19 and does not place his name adjacent to James the son of Alphaeus in the list, nor does he ever clearly associate the name Levi with the name Matthew” (ibid.). He concludes, “Thus it cannot be proved beyond a shadow of doubt that Matthew and Levi are one and the same person, though several clues suggest that this is the case” (ibid.).

In any case, the point of the story at hand is not the naming of the Twelve (cf. Mt. 10:1-4; Mk. 6:7; 3:16-19; Lk. 9:1; 6:13-16; Acts 1:13), but rather Jesus’ fellowship with marginal people in Jewish society, “tax collectors and sinners.” “And as he sat at dinner in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting with him and his disciples” (Mt. 9:10). This dinner, according to Mark was in Levi’s house (Mk. 2:15), and according to Luke it was “a great banquet for him [i.e., Jesus] in his [i.e., Levi’s house]” (Lk. 5:29). Although the participants surely enjoyed this occasion, there were those who took offense and criticized Jesus. Matthew says, “When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?’ ” (Mt. 9:11). J. Andrew Overman explains the reference to tax collectors:

The Roman system, known as ‘tax farming,’ leased out the right to collect taxes (including customs fees) in a given area for a flat fee. The entrepreneur, usually a local aristocrat, who obtained this right would then try to collect more than the fee in order to profit by the arrangement, with obvious potential for abuse (Philo, Leg. Gai. 199). Actual collections were carried out by underlings, who would be under pressure to bring in as much as possible, and were despised by the populace; most of the references to tax collectors probably are to this class. (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 9:10)

Mark and Luke report the same criticism as Matthew, but with differences in identifying the source. “When the scribes of the Pharisees (oiJ grammatei:V tw:n Farisaivwn, hoi grammateis tōn Pharisaiōn) saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples, ‘Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?’ ” (Mk. 2:16). The phrase, “the scribes of the Pharisees,” is unusual, and was apparently corrected in many manuscripts to the phrase, “the scribes and the Pharisees,” or something similar. Compare Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1971, p. 78, on Mk. 2:15-16. The UBS committee adopted this reading with a probability level of C, “a considerable degree of doubt,” but the likelihood is that “the scribes and the Pharisees,” a common phrase in the Gospels, would not be changed to “the scribes of the Pharisees.” Luke adjusts the phrase to “the Pharisees and their scribes” and has the question directed to Jesus, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” (Lk. 5:30).

Jesus responds directly to this criticism with a telling analogy. “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come ( h\lqon, ēlthon) to call not the righteous but sinners” (Mk. 2:17). For Mark’s aorist tense verb h\lqon (ēlthon), Luke has the perfect tense, ejlhvluqa (elēlutha), but both are translated “I have come,” and Luke add two words at the end, “I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance (eijV metavnoian, eis metanoian)” (Lk. 5:32, cf. vv. 31-32). Matthew’s version of Jesus’ response is the same as that of Mark, in Greek and in English, except that he inserts a quotation from Hosea 6:6 in the middle. “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For (gavr, gar) I have come to call not the righteous but sinners” (Mt. 99:12b, 13). One sees here hints of Matthew’s interest in how Jesus fulfills the prophesies and concerns of the Hebrew scriptures, and of Luke’s interest in personal piety. Overman notes that this text, that is, Hosea 6:6, “is used twice by Matthew [cf. 12:7] and by no other Gospel writer. The same passage is used by the rabbinic document Avot Rabbi Nathan to explain how sacrifice will be made after the destruction of the Temple” (op. cit., on Mt. 9:13). Matthew’s use of “your teacher” where Mark says “he” (Mt. 9:11; cf. Mk. 2:16) is also of interest,.

The Question about Fasting

The differences among the accounts of the question about fasting are also minor, for the most part. (For differences, see the separate file, Call of Matthew, named above.) In Matthew the initial question is asked by “the disciples of John”: “Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, ‘Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?’ ” (Mt. 9:14). In Mark we are told, “now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting,” but it is “the people [who] came and said to him, ‘Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?’ ” (Mk. 2:18). The wording is adjusted according to the ones who ask the question. For “the people” (Mk.), Luke has “they,” and adds a pious indication. “John’s disciples, like the disciples of the Pharisees,” they say, according to Luke, “frequently fast and pray, but your disciples eat and drink” (Lk. 5:33). But apart from minor differences in wording, for each evangelist, the question is about the fasting of John’s disciples and of the Pharisees. Jesus responds with an analogy. “The wedding guests cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast” (Mt. 9:15). In Matthew’s version, the word “mourn” replaces the first reference to “fast” in Mark’s version. “The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day” (Mk. 2:19-20; cf. Lk. 5:34-35). William Barclay says:

A Jewish wedding was a time of special festivity. . . . For a week after the wedding open house was kept; the bride and bridegroom were treated as, and even addressed as, king and queen. And during that week their closest friends shared all the joy and all the festivities with them; these closest friends were called the children of the bridechamber. On such an occasion there came into the lives of poor and simple people a joy, a rejoicing, a festivity, a plenty, that might come only once in a lifetime. (The Gospel of Matthew, rev. ed., 1975, vol. 1, pp. 335-336 on Mt. 9:14-15).

“So Jesus compares himself to the bridegroom,” says Barclay, “and his disciples to his closes friends. . . . This was no time for fasting, but for the rejoicing of a lifetime” (ibid., p. 336).Overman notes that “the wedding feast is a frequent metaphor for the end time; see (22:2-14; 15:1-13; Isa. 62:5; Rev. 21:2)” (op. cit., on Mt. 9:14-17).

Jesus adds two further analogies, which Luke calls–one or both?–“a parable” (Lk. 5:36). “No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak; otherwise, the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made” (Mk.2:21; cf. Mt. 9:16). Luke’s version is rather different. “No one tears a piece from a new garment and sews it on an old garment; otherwise the new will be torn, and the piece from the new will not match the old” (Lk. 5:36). It’s tempting to ask which is more disturbing, clothes that are torn or clothes that do not match. (Is there a hint of Luke’s social background here?) But the main point, of course, is the newness of the kingdom of God, Jesus’ message, as is evident in the next analogy. “Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; otherwise, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved” (Mt. 9:17; cf. Mk. 2:22; Lk. 5:37-38). Here again Luke adds a distinctive point. “And no one after drinking old wine desires new wine, but says, ‘The old is good’ ” (Lk. 5:39). Is Luke’s background showing through again? According to David L. Tiede, revised by Christopher R. Matthews, the earlier sayings (Lk. 5:36-38) “emphasize the contrast between the old, or traditional, ways and the new time inaugurated by Jesus,” but verse 39 “may have been added later (see [NRSV] text note a). If original, it may concede that those who valued old ways were not attracted to Jesus’ fellowship and practices (see also Sir. 9:10)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lk. 5:36-39, and on v. 39).

Overman notes that “the two sayings in [Mt. 9:]16-17, presented separately from the issue of fasting in Luke, stress the newness of the teaching of Jesus” (loc. cit.). He implies that the words, “He also told them a parable” (Lk. 5:36), represent a transition. Barclay discusses these verses under the subtitle, “The Problem of the New Idea.” He says, “The Jews were passionately attached to things as they were. The Law was to them God’s last and final word; to add one word to it, or subtract one word from it, was a deadly sin” (op. cit., p. 337 on Mt. 9:16, 17). He cites examples of a similar resistance to new ideas within the Christian Church.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net