Matthew 25, Ezekiel 34, and the Shepherds of Israel

 ^“For some time, while Saul was king over us, it was you [David] who led out Israel and brought it in. The Lord said to you, ‘It is you who shall be shepherd of my people Israel, you who shall be ruler over Israel.’” 2 Samuel 5.2

“And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah, for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel.” Matthew 2.6

The Prophets

“This book is about some of the most disturbing people who have ever lived,” writes Abraham Joshua Heschel, opening his tome, The Prophets (1962, xxi). Did this description strike you, as it struck me? “Disturbing.” Indeed, Heschel discusses “Prophecy and Psychosis,” in his chapter of this same title (498ff.), where he shares the opinion of other scholars that Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, the prophets, not necessarily the books that carry their names, may be diagnosed post hoc with certain pathologies.

Ezekiel, the prophet with whom we’ll be most interested in today’s post, exhibits such ecstatic episodes that later scholars, quoted by Heschel, wondered if he, in fact, lived with schizophrenia (505ff.)–noting, with some caveat, that Heschel is writing in the mid-20th century, citing authors from a couple decades before.

In particular, Heschel cites a paper from 1946, and we should bear in mind that the first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, “the main book for the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders in the United States and is considered one of the principal guides of psychiatry” (Wikipedia), was not published until 1952. The present edition was published in 2022. Even if we get on board with the general idea that such a post hoc diagnosis is even possible, here Heschel is citing this diagnosis some 70 years before our present, and most refined, classification of mental disorders.1

This, by itself, is no condemnation of such an evaluation of Ezekiel, but it’s worth noting that we should be careful not to anachronistically apply terms and concepts from 20th and 21st century psychiatry onto 6th century BCE figures. Besides, it assumes quite a lot to say the Ezekiel of the text corresponds to an Ezekiel of history. Claims of biblical historicity, by rule, should be treated with skepticism. That’s sort of my whole project, right?

At any rate, the point of my reporting here is to remind us that, like Heschel suggests to readers right away, these prophetic figures are not merely distant from us in time and geography, but they are also distant from us, with respect to their psychological states. This is not to make the claim that people today are not living with neurodivergent states, I only mean to remind us, as I always do, that we cannot imagine ourselves into the ancient context, without a significant exercise of moral imagination, and even then, the embodiment is tenuous.

This caution notwithstanding, let’s continue to hear from Heschel about these “disturbing” men.2

Returning to his Introduction, Heschel explains:

The prophet is not only a prophet. He is also poet, preacher, patriot, statesman, social critic, moralist. There has been a tendency to see the essence and chief significance of prophecy in the display of one or another of these aspects. Yet this is a misapprehension of the intrinsic nature of prophecy (ibid. xxii – xxiii).

On this point, I think we can make hay, as the expression goes. So much modern religious doctrine rests on the idea of prophecy as an ancient pointer to a future state. This simply is not the function of prophecy, or at least, the future state is not one to come generations later; rather, the prophet warns of imminent circumstances. As New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, explained on his blog in January 2022:

The prophets do make predictions, but they are not predicting events that will transpire hundreds or thousands of years after their day. They are speaking to their own situations and must be rooted in their own historical contexts. Their predictions are about what Gd will do to the people if they do not return to him [sic.] and behave as he [sic.] requires, or about what he [sic.] will do now that he [sic.] has punished them for their disobedience.

In short, these ecstatic statespeople, social critics, and moralists addressed their present circumstances and warned of imminent consequences for their people who, by the prophet’s assessment, have turned away from Gd.

Marrying the Modern to the Ancient

We must be careful when treating prophets and prophecy: They are not speaking to us 2,500 years into the future, and, here’s the take home message, they are not even speaking to each other, 300-500 years later. Germane to our discussions in this newsletter, we cannot read Christian doctrine back into the Hebrew Bible context. At the risk of blunt overstatement: Some prophets desired a messiah; they did not predict Jesus. Rather, as I’ve repeated ad nauseam, the gospel writers are repurposing ancient prophecies to proclaim, after the fact, that Jesus did, in fact, fulfill these ancient writings.

Whatever the gospel writers’ relationship to the early-first century Jesus movement and their self-awareness toward their own rhetorical projects, the gospels are composed well after the events they describe. The ancient scriptures are then rhetorically fit, in a later context, to these proclamations, and/or predictions are retrojected “back” into the text to construct a compelling case that a prophecy was fulfilled. For example, when Mark’s author attributed a prophecy of the Temple’s destruction to Jesus, the author is writing in a post-Temple context. Did Jesus predict the Temple’s destruction? We simply cannot say, but we can reasonably say that the gospel writer putting this prediction into Jesus’ mouth, whether by construction or by preservation of an earlier source, the evangelist is aware that the Temple has been destroyed. In support of this point of later retrojection, we may consider the Pauline epistles, authored, ostensibly, while the Temple stood, and Paul makes no mention of such a prophecy of destruction. Paul, the Pharisee, would surely have mentioned such a prediction, we’d think anyway. I always worry that I rehearse the entire program, with each new post, so I’ll move forward.

With these assertions that threaten to criticize a confessional stance, I’ll append my usual qualifier that if you personally are persuaded by the proclamations of the gospel accounts that Jesus is, in fact, the messiah, the one anointed by Gd and prophesied by the scriptures, nothing that I say here need undermine that stance. Peeking inside the black box of gospel construction only reveals insights about the text, and I embrace the idea that theology is downstream from text criticism. That is, I do hold that we ought not manipulate the text to match our theological notions, but say that we acknowledge the gospel writers were drawing from the scriptures of Israel to proclaim things about Jesus, I haven’t said anything here that precludes your conviction, for example, that such repurposing of texts was somehow guided by a divine hand. While not my position, I have offered no argument against that view, and that view is one of a host of interpretations that may be deployed toward apologetic ends. Again, my view is only that theology is downstream from the text, and where we seek malleability, it should be with our interpretations and beliefs and not with the text on the page; importantly, the text on the page, as treated through our interpretive principles and presuppositions.

For some of the reasons I’ve already gestured toward in this post, accountability to the text is not an appeal to a “plain reading” of the text. Accountability to the text, for me, means accountability to the consensus of academic scholarship, as they instruct us how the text is to be read, not necessarily interpreted, but read. Now, does that mean I’m simply trading one dogma for another: favoring a scholarly construction against a plain reading? Sure. But all that I mean to say is that I prioritize a certain translation, dating schema, and theory of authorship, and other textual, anthropological, and historical dimensions, which are more empirical than they are purely theoretical or theological. Still, placing limits on my own preference toward text and source critical scholarship, the idea of a pure or neutral objectivity in any academic field is a myth. I am clearly not without bias.

Toward additional articulation of my perspective and multicultural, ecumenical, and interfaith respect, I don’t mean to pick on the gospels here, for two reasons that I’ll take the time to spell out. First, my view of the Torah similarly prioritizes such accountability to what we know of the text. For example, I reject the notion of Mosaic authorship of the Torah, favoring what I take to be the compelling evidence in favor of the Documentary (well neo-Documentary) hypothesis. Denying Mosaic authorship, also questioning such things as the existence of an historical figure Abraham, or treating the historicity of the Exodus with great skepticism are denials toward certain commitments of historical Jewish theology on par with the skepticism with which I treat claims to Jesus’s messianic status. I’m an equal opportunity heretic!

And second, having been raised in a progressive mainline Protestant denomination, the idea of Jesus as possessing a divine nature was not a prerequisite to membership, and while instructive, neither do we find a “plain reading” biblical basis for adherence to the call from the Indiana-Kentucky Conference of the United Church of Christ, the organizational body within which I serve in justice work, to “love and serve like Jesus.” Note how that theological slogan, “Love and serve like Jesus,” is itself a downstream extrapolation from the text. Nowhere does a gospel writer state such a command; rather, it is a distillation of ideas read from the text. I do not think this is a mis-reading, and neither do I suggest that we do not pursue such an aim. I mean only to say that when we take away such claims from the text, we should be clear eyed about doing so.

Whether it’s denying Mosaic authorship or denying Jesus’s messianic status, I am comfortable doing both, while concurrently embracing the instruction and values from these traditions. The idea that the Torah is only justified if it was handed down from Gd to Moses at Sinai or that Jesus is only worth following if he was truly divine are, in my opinion, mistakes that assume a rigid, dogmatic appeal to the final authority of the text and what interpretive communities have demanded. I explained in a recent video for social media that my ultimate authority is found in care for each other and care for creation, regardless of what the text says. What I mean by this is to say that when the text in front of me could be read in a way that harms others, I’ll favor the person in front of me every time. And I think my relationship to the Holy One demands this of me. Where do I find that authority? Within my own interpretive work.

Anyway, let me stitch together what I’m driving at, which will set up today’s discussion of the assigned gospel reading. All of this exposition is to make salient a couple of key points: First, that the prophets were social reformers and moralists addressing their present setting. And second, the gospel writers repurposed the scriptures of Israel, including making generous use of the prophetic tradition. From this falls out a question that is relevant to us. It is this: If the prophets are writing to their historical moment, were the gospel writers correct to use them hundreds of years later? This question is poignant because we must ask ourselves the same thing! Whether moving from Torah or the prophets to present halakhic (Jewish law) practice or from the Greek scriptures to following Jesus, are we licensed to do so? This is really the question put to our faith leaders and spiritual directors: Can we make use of the ancient literature in a modern context, and if we can, how should we? This is where we now turn to today’s assigned gospel reading.

The Text: Matthew 25

I often wonder if it is useful to have the text inline in my posts, or if it is better to link out and provide a summary. In today’s assigned reading, Matthew 25.31-46, we are in the thick of eschatological discussion. The chapter before, Matthew 24, the author signals that the general resurrection of the dead has begun, initiating the end times. The “realized eschatology” that we’ve addressed in this newsletter in past posts, is the theological innovation of the gospel writers. Jesus died on a cross. How does the messiah die? Placing the kin-dom of Gd “at hand” is a way to address the “delayed endtime.” As we open the assigned reading today, we encounter that loaded eschatological term, Son of Man, that shares Jewish apocalyptic ideas with the canonical book of Daniel and other Jewish apocalyptic texts as well, including 2 Esdras, 2 Baruch, Enoch, and others. These have all been texts that I’ve featured in this newsletter that I judge to be paramount to understanding the rhetorical development of the gospel accounts. Concurrently with the composition of the gospels, the Son of Man idea began taking on messianic overtones, and those messianic overtones themselves developed closer alignment with divinization and/or the status as Son of Gd. The Son of Man both comes in glory (book of Daniel) and sits on the throne of glory. I need to move a little quickly here, but I’ll gloss the theology of the Davidic messiah.

The book of Deuteronomy offered a clear articulation of a model of retributive justice: Do good, get rewarded; do bad, receive punishment. The author of Deuteronomy was happy to uphold this model, until the Babylonian exile. Wait a minute, we’re being punished, did we do wrong? And by the way, wasn’t the covenant between David and Gd eternal? Now we’re booted from the land and the covenant that protected us appears to be dashed. What gives?

The author of Deuteronomy (scholars lift up at least three phases of development for Deuteronomy before reaching its final form), began editing the book to account for this national tragedy and exile. To explain the loss of an eternal covenant, the author shifted the goal posts. The covenant wasn’t necessarily with David, but with the throne of David. The covenant stands, regardless of who is in the throne, or no one at all for historical periods. This is a gross oversimplification of many moving parts, but the core is there. Matthew, who proclaims Jesus as the Davidic messiah, even asserting this as early as the author’s genealogy of Jesus, combines the messianic Son of Man with the Davidic throne. This sets us up to position Jesus as the judge over the righteous and wicked. Or does it? Hold that thought!

To understand Matthew 25, we must also appeal to the prophetic account that stands behind it. We need to stitch together Matthew 25 with Ezekiel 34, from the prophetic tradition, composed during the Babylonian exile. Check this out!

Ezekiel 17

As for you, my flock, thus says the Lord God: I shall judge between sheep and sheep, between rams and goats

Matthew 32-33

All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left.

Ezekiel 18-19

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? And must my sheep eat what you have trodden with your feet and drink what you have fouled with your feet?

Matthew 34-35

Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink

Ezekiel 20-23

Therefore, thus says the Lord God to them: I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. 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.

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

Matthew 45-46

Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment but the righteous into eternal life.”

Here we have an opportunity to compare and contrast Matthew’s first century use of Ezekiel, from the 6th century BCE. At least 500 years stand between these texts, what is the Matthean author doing, and how might that help us to think about tapping into these texts? What we see Matthew’s author doing is repurposing Ezekiel to change the role of the judge and the subjects of that judgment. In Matthew, it is Jesus who sorts the sheep from the goats. All nations come before the Son of Man, and he, the Son of Man, separates them, like a shepherd, evoking the Davidic imagery from Ezekiel.

Now turn to Ezekiel 34.7-10:

Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: As I live, says the Lord God, because my sheep have become a prey and my sheep have become food for all the wild animals, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves and have not fed my sheep, therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: Thus says the Lord God: I am against the shepherds, and I will hold them accountable for my sheep and put a stop to their feeding the sheep; no longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, so that they may not be food for them.

Matthew places Jesus in the role of shepherd who sorts the sheep, but consider Ezekiel, there it is Gd who judges, and who does Gd judge? The shepherds! The Ezekiel critique is of the political rulers who have allowed the sheep to become scattered. Ezekiel warns the political leaders of Israel that it is they who have scattered the flock and failed to provide safety.

Gd decrees, Ezekiel 34.25-29:

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Now the discussion throughout this post becomes salient. Can we apply the prophetic critique to modern leaders? Let us consider what the prophet Ezekiel relays to the people what Gd demands of their political leaders? That they provide safety, food security, the weak are not bullied, and showers of blessing, lush vegetation.

Snap into real time, this article from The Hill:

It will also take some study to determine how Israeli intelligence failed so catastrophically. Likewise, a complete analysis of the Israel Defense Forces’ misunderstanding of Hamas’s intentions and capabilities requires a full investigation.There is one judgment, however, that requires no further inquiry: Benjamin Netanyahu must not remain Israel’s prime minister. This failure is on his hands, and he cannot serve the people of Israel beyond the immediate moment.

Here a political leader of Israel has failed the prophetic test. A failure of safety and security. And of vegetation, consider this from the Yale Review of International Studies:

The destruction and restriction of Palestinian olive trees acts as a method of economic control leveled by Israel. By clearing out groves of trees, Israel has access to more acres of land for further expansion of occupation.

This critique demands that we separate the people of Israel from the state and government of Israel, my effort of last Sunday’s post. Whether we can make use of ancient texts taken so far from their context that we apply them today, that is a question that all faith leaders must answer for themselves, but when I read today’s assigned gospel reading and its accordant prophetic precedent, what I see is a history of prophetic critique that the people of Israel have license to critique their political leaders who fail to offer safety and security.

I join my voice with contemporaries calling for continued ceasefire and exchange of hostages for Palestinian prisoners in Israel. And to this end, I join my voice with thousands of years of the people of israel indicting political rulers who cannot ensure safety, security, a care for all members of the flock, and a commitment to Gd’s creation.

I said recently that biblical claims cannot justify rights to the land, am I hypocritically making an appeal to the biblical texts here? No, because I appeal to the Jewish texts to critique the behavior of those who wish to see a Jewish state. I find the behavior of the present administration to be worthy of critique.3