Israel is often compared to a grape vine in the Old Testament, but another popular image was that of sheep with their shepherds. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery counts 400 references in the Bible to sheep and 100 to shepherds. We think first and foremost of Jesus as the Good Shepherd (Luke 15:3-7; Hebrews 13:20; I Peter 2:26, and Revelation 7:17), but the symbolism started back in the OT,. Perhaps the earliest example of sheep and shepherd being used this way is the simple simile used by Moses in Numbers 27:15-18 where he prays to God for someone to take his place in the future “so that the congregation of the LORD may not be like a sheep without a shepherd.” And God has him appoint Joshua to help him out. Then the image begins to change further in David's writings where he pictures God himself as the shepherd in the famous 23rd Psalm which is a sort of expanded metaphor beginning “The LORD is my shepherd.” But when we get to the writing prophets we advance from similes to metaphors to extended prophecies and finally parables.
This process starts with Jeremiah, who pronounces God's denunciation of the wicked leaders of Israel in 23:1-4. This passage begins with “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture” and ends up with the prophecy “I will raise up shepherds over them who will shepherd them, and they shall not fear any longer...says the LORD.” In the next few verses, God actually promises the coming of a Branch for David (the Messiah) who will save the people. So we have one of the first identifications in the Bible of Jesus as the Good Shepherd.
Evil Shepherds (Ezekiel 34:1-16)
And an even stronger indictment of the evil shepherds is found in Jeremiah 25:32-38 in terms that
could refer to their final judgment by God. Next we come to an actual parable by a later prophet, which
is actually an expansion of Jeremiah 23:1-4.
The accusations against them include both sins of commission: (ate the milk/cheese, fleeced the sheep,
and slaughtered them) and omission (didn't tend them or round up the strays). They didn't mind ruling
over the flock, but couldn't be bothered to take care of them. Once a church I was attending was going
through a difficult interim period between pastors and someone at a business meeting said that we were
suffering from a power vacuum. I corrected that comment by stating that actually we were suffering
from a servant vacuum. There were plenty of candidates for those who wanted to take charge, but no
one who wanted to truly serve the flock. The main sin of the false shepherds in this story, however, was
in not recognizing God as the true owner of the flock (“my flock” in v. 6) and their boss (“my
shepherds” in v. 8).
This extended parable has an elaborate literary structure in which the accusations against the false shepherds in vv. 1-6 are countered by God in the opposite order in vv. 11-16 (slight expansion of the structures in Greenberg and Block). The verses in between are arranged in such a way as to compare the shepherds with wild animals:
a. “Therefore you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD” (v. 7)
b. Sheep were food for wild animals (v. 8a)
c. Shepherds cared for themselves, not the sheep. (v. 8b)
a'. “Therefore you shepherd, hear the word of the LORD (v. 9)
c'. Shepherds will no longer care for the sheep (v. 10a)
b'. Sheep will not be food for the shepherds (v. 10b)
The reversal in this parable demonstrates that although the emphasis appears to be on the worthless
shepherds, it is really on the appearance of God, the Good Shepherd. (Block)
Verses 1-16 deal with the actual rulers of Judah, the previous kings. In the remainder of the chapter, the
ruling class is next addressed and accused to taking the best pasturage and water and fouling the rest
for the others. I attended one church where the elders made it a practice of disrupting Sunday school
classes by arbitrarily taking over the best classrooms and making the previous class move to whatever
room was left over. And then they would suddenly disband their new class without warning, leaving
the members with no teachers.
Lastly, the people as a whole are addressed. It is in this later portion of the passage that the promise is
given of “one” shepherd to lead them. This may refer to an earthly king over the reunited tribes or,
more likely, the Messiah.
Worthless Shepherds (Zechariah 11:4-17)
Commentators feel that an even later prophet, Zechariah, based this second parable on that of Ezekiel.
Echoes of Ezekiel 34 are seen in this parable by David Ellis, who notes that some of the greatest
leaders in the OT were shepherds by profession earlier in their careers (Abraham, Moses, David).
In 10:3, Zechariah introduces the metaphor of Israel's leaders as worthless shepherds. Then in 11:4-17
he expands this into what has been variously called a sign-act (enacted parable), parable or allegory.
Commentators are practically unanimous in labeling Chapter 11 as “one of the more elusive in the
OT,” “among the most cryptic in the Bible,” and “an obscure symbolic description.” For example, back
in 1912 one commentator counted 40 different interpretations of the three worthless shepherds
mentioned in v. 8. (Meyers and Meyers) They may actually represent in general terms the kings, priests
and prophets of Israel. (Higginson)
Rather than trying to treat this as an extended allegory with each detail matching an historical event. It
is best to look at the general plot and imagery in the story. Thus, the prophet portrays himself as a
shepherd who denounces the false leaders of the land, only to be rejected by the people themselves. He
then quits his job and demands pay, which he returns to the temple treasury, meanwhile breaking two
symbolically labeled wooden staffs. Finally, he dresses up as a future worthless shepherd who will
suffer God's judgment for his misdeeds.
One comment on the two shepherd staffs is in order. They are labeled as Favor (or Pleasant) and Unity
(or Allotment) and represent, respectively, God's covenant with all of Israel and the unity of the
Northern and Southern Kingdoms (Brooke). Both of these will be destroyed. It is, in effect, a reversal
of an earlier sign act of binding together two sticks in Ezekiel 37:15-20 (Block).
This parable may symbolize the rejection of previous prophets from God and their replacement by
worthless leaders. This trend has its ultimate climax in the rejection of God's Son himself and the
destruction of Jerusalem that followed as a consequence. An obvious application of this parable to the
Christian church today is that we are to respect godly leadership and be on our guard against bad
leaders.
Finally, details from this chapter were combined loosely with Jeremiah 19 in Matthew's Passion
account (27:1-10) as presaging the actions of Judas, although not as a strict prophecy. Thus, it is
important to note that the pay given to the prophet when he resigns his office is 30 pieces of silver.
Zechariah sarcastically calls this “a lordly price.” In fact, it is the same price required to recompense a
slave owner if someone's ox injures a slave (Exodus 21:32) and approximately the price Hosea paid to
get back his adulterous wife (Hosea 3:2).
The other detail needing some explanation regards what the prophet did with the money he was given.
The Hebrew text says he gave it to the yaser, generally translated as potter, but also used to denote a
craftsman or metalworker (Boda). The Septuagint translates it with the Greek word meaning smelter or
foundry. The Aramaic version translates it as “treasury.” A rough consensus combining these
translations arrives at the idea that the temple employed a metalworker who received all offerings made
out of precious metals. He would melt them down and fill them in earthen pots until a later time when
the pots were broken and the metal remelted for fashioning into temple vessels.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments