There is Nothing More EVIL Than This - John MacArthur

The Two Paths of Life – Dr. Charles Stanley

Pagan Worship In Jerusalem?

By Thomas A. Golding

[Thomas A. Golding is Principal, Adelaide College of Ministry, Adelaide, Australia.]

Certain thematic and verbal parallels in the two riot passages in the book of Acts, 19:23-40 and 21:27-22:29, suggest a possible narrative strategy.[1] This article surveys the temple as a theme in Luke-Acts and then examines parallels between the two riot passages. The goal is to see if Luke was making a subtle comparison between the perspective of the Ephesians toward the worship of Artemis and the perspective of the Jews toward the temple in Jerusalem. Did the Jews at the time of the apostles exhibit a view toward the temple that was similar to how Gentiles viewed their temples and was therefore essentially idolatrous? And if so, is this theme consistent with the overall theme of the temple in Luke-Acts?

The Temple In Luke-Acts

According to Hamm, the temple in Jerusalem is a greater theme in Luke-Acts than in the rest of the New Testament combined.[2] Fay calls “the geographic location of the temple” “a narrative focal point” for Luke-Acts.[3] In fact the geographical setting of the temple and Jerusalem effectively frames Luke’s Gospel. Luke opens with Zacharias serving in the temple in Jerusalem (1:8-9) and ends with Jesus’ followers “continually in the temple praising God” (24:53). The same is also true of Acts. The book opens with the apostles in Jerusalem (though not in the temple; 1:4), and it concludes (28:26-27) with a quotation from Isaiah 6:9-10, which was originally spoken in the temple in Isaiah’s day.[4] Both Luke and Acts mention the temple frequently at the beginning of the book, then the temple is not mentioned for a few chapters, and then mention returns to the temple later on.

Luke

The temple features prominently in the first two chapters of Luke, suggesting it is an important location in Luke’s narrative.[5] In addition to the opening narrative, chapter 2 relates several other incidents located at the temple in Jerusalem, all of which are unique to Luke: Jesus’ presentation at the temple when He was eight days old (2:22-24), the blessing of Simeon (vv. 25-35), the thanksgiving of Anna (vv. 36-38), and the later visit to Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve years old (vv. 41-50). This last narrative is especially significant, since Jesus referred to the temple as “My Father’s house” (v. 49).[6] The last mention of the temple until chapter 19 occurs in the context of Jesus’ temptation by Satan, which in Luke’s version ends at the temple (4:9-13).

Luke does include a “series of four texts . . . which speak of Jerusalem, its rejection of Jesus, and its coming destruction.”[7] This theme occurs for the first time in 13:33-35 and reoccurs in 19:41-44; 21:5-24; and 23:27-31. Even though the temple is not specifically mentioned in every passage, its destiny would be linked implicitly with that of Jerusalem.

The temple was the physical setting for the narrative once again when Jesus entered Jerusalem (Luke 19). As He drew near the city, He stopped and wept over it because He recognized that in the future Jerusalem’s enemies would “not leave . . . one stone upon another” (v. 44). Though not mentioning the temple directly, this statement clearly foreshadows its future destruction. Jesus did refer specifically to the temple in 21:6 when He predicted, “Days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down.”

Luke 19:45-20:38 is marked off as a unit by an inclusio with ἦν διδάσκων, with ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, and with a form of ἡμέρα in 19:47 and 21:37.[8] Jesus entered the temple and threw out those who were selling there (19:45). The reference to “My house”[9] in verse 46 recalls Jesus’ words to His parents in 2:49. Zealous for His Father’s reputation and the reputation of His “house,” Jesus moved in and put things in order. Chance argues that “Jesus is portrayed in this pericope [Luke 19:45-21:38] as the one who is the true, authoritative teacher of Israel. The temple is now his place where he is free to teach the people.” Chance adds that since verse 38 refers to Jesus as the King, “it is as Messiah that Jesus takes possession of the temple. The temple, therefore, is the Messiah’s place.”[10]

The next mention of the temple in Luke occurs in the crucifixion scene. Just before Jesus died, the curtain in the temple was torn in two (23:45). Taylor asserts that this revealed the emptiness of the ναός. Thus “it had already ceased to be a place where the divine presence was localised and concealed. . . . the emptiness of the sanctuary reveals that the temple had already completed its purpose, and the divine presence was already manifested elsewhere, in the person of Jesus.”[11] Green’s argument regarding the torn veil is probably a little more convincing. He argues “that the rending of the temple veil in Luke is of a piece with the larger Lukan emphasis on the obliteration of the barriers between those people previously divided by status and ethnicity.”[12] He also links it with Simeon’s prophecy in 2:30-32 that “God’s salvation would embrace all peoples, Gentile and Jew.”[13] Thus, as Luke-Acts progresses, an ever-widening access to God for all people is seen. As indicated previously, Luke’s Gospel concludes with the disciples “continually in the temple praising God” (24:53).

Acts

Just as Jerusalem and the temple feature prominently in the early chapters of Luke, so they provide a prominent physical setting in the first seven chapters of Acts. The apostles were doing the same kinds of things Jesus did in the temple, notably teaching and healing.[14] However, the most important contribution to the temple theme in Luke-Acts is made by Stephen’s speech in Acts 7.

The narrative begins with Stephen being dragged (συνήρπασαν, 6:12) before the Sanhedrin.[15] The accusation was, “This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law; for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs that Moses handed down to us” (6:13-14).[16]

Stephen’s speech is not just a random history lesson; it makes several significant points. Its main body (vv. 2-50) may be diagramed as a chiasm.

A. Change: Abraham to Canaan, Circumcision (vv. 2-8)

B. Rejection of God’s Appointed Leader: Joseph (vv. 9-16)

B.´ Rejection of God’s Appointed Leader: Moses (vv. 17-43)

A.´ Change: Israel to Canaan, Tabernacle to Temple (vv. 44-50)

Thus two primary themes emerge within Stephen’s message: (1) Israel’s historical rejection of God’s leader and (2) transitions in place and style of worship. As Stephen indicated in his conclusion, these things were happening again (vv. 51-53).[17]

Stephen used τόπος significantly in 7:33. He had been accused of speaking against “this holy place” in 6:13-14. He then referred to a different “holy place,” the place where God appeared to Moses in the burning bush (7:33). This demonstrates change and development regarding holy places. As Dunn writes, “The presence of God in Israel’s history had not been restricted to one land or building.”[18] There was also no temple when Moses gave the people the Law in the wilderness. In fact God instructed them to build a σκηνὴ, a “tent” (v. 44). Only later did Solomon build an οἶκον, “house” (v. 47).

Stephen added, “But the Most High does not dwell in what is made by hands” (v. 48, author’s translation).[19] He then quotes Isaiah 66:1-2—“ ‘Heaven is My throne, and earth is the footstool of My feet; what kind of house will you build for Me,’ says the Lord, ‘or what place is there for My repose? Was it not My hand which made all these things?’ ” One might have expected Stephen to have quoted Solomon in 1 Kings 8:27—“But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built?” Instead he chose the passage in Isaiah, perhaps because of its context. What Stephen did not quote from that context is Isaiah’s statement about God regarding the humble person who trembles at His word (Isa. 66:2b). Verse 3 compares Judah’s hypocritical worship to various forms of idolatry. And verse 5 promises that the “brothers who hate you, who exclude you for My name’s sake . . . will be put to shame.” All this is compatible with the setting and message of Acts.[20]

Stephen also highlighted Israel’s idolatry in the wilderness. Israel first made a golden calf at Sinai (Acts 7:39-41). Then they continued to worship other deities throughout their time in the wilderness (vv. 42-43; cf. Amos 5:25-26). Stephen’s point was that Israel had been idolatrous in their worship of God in the past and was again idolatrous in the present.

As in Luke, the temple is not referred to in Acts for a while. Dunn highlights how easily contributions to the theme can be missed, however.[21] The material in 6:8-12:25 focuses on the “bridge builders” of Acts, the Hellenistic Jews (especially Stephen, Philip, and Paul), who took the gospel beyond the borders of Judea. A steady movement away from Jerusalem and the temple continues, even though the temple is not overtly mentioned. Dunn points out that Philip’s mission to Samaria in 8:5-25 furthered the widening rift between Christianity and mainline Judaism, since the major issue dividing Jews and Samaritans was the temple.[22] Luke subsequently included narratives about two individuals formerly excluded from the temple (the Ethiopian eunuch and the Roman soldier Cornelius). The beginning of a church in Gentile Antioch is seen in Acts 10-11.

The physical setting of the narrative returns to Jerusalem in 11:1-18 and in chapters 12 and 15. Nothing significant took place at the temple until Paul returned there, as recorded in chapter 21. But again in the intervening material there is further movement away from Jerusalem and the temple as a result of Paul’s missionary endeavors. Especially significant is his speech in Athens in Acts 17:22-31. Provoked by the local idolatry, he asserted, “The God who made the world and all things in it . . . does not dwell in temples made by hands” (17:24; cf. 7:48). Perhaps most strikingly, he added, “though He is not far from each one of us” (17:27). Though the God of the Jews had a temple in Jerusalem, it did not “house” Him, and no person anywhere in the world was excluded from His presence.

The quotation of Isaiah 6:9-10 in Acts 28:25-27 concludes the book. It too is important to the discussion, even though the temple is never mentioned. Beale observes, “The cumulative evidence of this study points to the plausibility that the sensory-organ-malfunction language, ‘having ears but not hearing’, in conjunction with similar terminology in Isa. vi 9-13 and elsewhere indicates not mere spiritual incapacity, but a linkage of Israel’s judgement with its idolatry.”[23] Beale demonstrates that part of the judgment of idolatry is becoming like what one worships.[24] By citing Isaiah 6:9-10 in Acts 28:26-27, Luke was labeling the unbelieving Jews of Paul’s day as idolaters!

Several writers see Jesus and the church taking over the role of an “eschatological temple.” Taylor, who views Acts as written after the destruction of the temple in AD 70, writes, “We should assume that Luke-Acts was written against a background in which the majority of the Jewish people hoped for and expected the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple in the foreseeable, even if distant, future.”[25] Christians, as well as mainstream Judaism, needed to provide a theological justification for a movement away from the temple in Jerusalem. Along this line Baltzer writes, “For Judaism, there remained the hope that the Temple would be rebuilt. Luke solved the problem by means of his Christology. For him, Christ is the presence of God, because Christ, kābôd/δόξα, and spirit are related.”[26] And Taylor writes, “The shekinah had ceased to be located exclusively in the temple with the beginning of the Gospel, and the Jewish sanctuary had accordingly ceased to fulfil its function long before its destruction; it had been exposed as an empty shell at the death of Jesus. In Acts, divine presence has come to be manifested in and through the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church.”[27]

Beale relates the Holy Spirit’s “filling the house” in Acts 2:2 to similar fillings of the tabernacle or temple in the Old Testament when they were being inaugurated (Exod. 40:34-38; 1 Kings. 8:10-11; 2 Chron. 7:1-2).[28] Thus “Luke’s rhetorical goal for readers would be for them to realize that they are a part of the end-time temple and that their evangelistic efforts are crucial in the further building and expansion of that temple.”[29]

While the concept of the church as a temple is certainly found in the New Testament,[30] it is less clear that this is an intentional theme in Luke-Acts. With the coming of the Messiah and His final sacrifice for sin, the temple had lost its primary function. With the religious authorities’ rejection of Jesus, the focus had turned to the Gentiles. Acts seems to be arguing that the continued veneration of the temple after the death of Christ was empty and even idolatrous. As Stephen argued, the people of Israel were always slow to catch up with what God was doing. This survey of the temple leads to a comparison of the two riot scenes in Acts.

Parallels Between Acts 19:23-40 And Acts 21:27-22:29

Luke included two major riot narratives in the book of Acts.[31] The underlying cause of both was Paul and his teaching. The first riot took place in Gentile Ephesus and is recorded in Acts 19:23-40. The second riot took place in Jerusalem and is narrated in Acts 21:27-22:29.

The Riot In Ephesus

Acts 19:23-40 seems to be structured in a tightly symmetrical fashion as follows.

A. Introduction: A Great Disturbance (v. 23)

B. Demetrius’s Speech (vv. 24-27)

C. Townspeople’s Cry (v. 28) [μεγάλη ἡ ςΑρτεμις ∆Εφεσίων]

D. Confusion (v. 29) [σύγχυσις]

E. Paul Kept Away (vv. 30-31)

D.´ Confusion (v. 32) [συγχέω]

C.´ Townspeople’s Cry (vv. 33-34) [μεγάλη ἡ ςΑρτεμις ∆Εφεσίων]

B.´ The Town Clerk’s Speech (vv. 35-40a)

A.´ Conclusion: The Crowd Dismissed (v. 40b)[32]

The disturbance arose when a silversmith named Demetrius expressed concern over a potential loss of income as a result of Paul’s teaching. “Men, you know that our prosperity depends upon this business. You see and hear that not only in Ephesus, but in almost all of Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away a considerable number of people, saying that gods made with hands are no gods at all.[33] Not only is there danger that this trade of ours fall into disrepute, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis be regarded as worthless and that she whom all of Asia and the world worship will even be dethroned from her magnificence” (19:25-27).

The speech is relatively long and therefore seems significant. Two concerns stand out. The first was that the silversmiths’ trade might be discredited, which would in turn affect their income. Being expressed first, this was probably Demetrius’s primary concern. The second concern was that the temple of Artemis, of which the Ephesians were guardians, would be disregarded and the honor of Artemis would be diminished.[34] “Paul’s preaching struck directly at the most cherished values of the Ephesians, the power of the goddess and the economics of pagan worship.”[35]

A riot ensued as a result of this speech. When Paul intended to go to the public meeting, his friends were able to convince him to stay away.[36] The riot ended when the town clerk calmed the crowd and pronounced Paul innocent of any wrongdoing (vv. 35-40).

The Riot In Jerusalem

The second riot in Acts is recorded in 21:27-22:29. The fact that all the action took place at the temple on the same day probably marks these verses as a complete narrative unit. It may be subdivided into five scenes: (1) the beginning of the riot at the temple (21:27-31); (2) the arrival of the Romans (21:32-36); (3) Paul and the Roman commander (21:37-39); (4) Paul’s defense on the temple steps (21:40-22:23); and (5) Paul in the barracks (22:24-29). Judging by the law of proportion, Paul’s speech is quite significant. However, when the structures of the two riot accounts are compared, this speech becomes less important, since Paul, unlike Demetrius, had no parallel speech.

A possible preferable structure for the unit would be to exclude 22:24-29, in which the scene shifted to the barracks. A thematic inclusio can be seen in 21:28 and 22:21. In 21:28 the Jews reacted to Paul supposedly having “brought Greeks into the temple.” Their reaction to Paul’s statement that Jesus was sending him “far away to the Gentiles” (22:21) serves as a suitable “bookend.” The main issues in this narrative then are the sanctity of the temple and the Gentile ministry. These two thoughts are linked by the perceived threat of a diminishing status for the temple in Jerusalem. This concern is not dissimilar to the corresponding concern for Artemis and her temple in Ephesus.

The speech of the Jews from Asia in 21:28 is significant. They accused Paul of teaching “all men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place.” Even more seriously, they accused him of defiling the “holy place” by bringing Greeks into it. Their accusation recalls the earlier accusation against Stephen, who had been accused of “incessantly [speaking] against this holy place and the Law” (6:13-14). As in Ephesus, a riot resulted.[37]

Parallels

Numerous thematic and verbal parallels link these two narratives.

Thematic parallels. The storyline of each narrative follows a similar contour. Of course there are differences because the two incidents were not identical. But in both concern was expressed over the local temple being diminished (19:26-27 and 21:28), Paul and his teaching were to blame (19:26 and 21:28), and a rousing speech incited a riot (19:28-29 and 21:30).

The descriptions of the riots are also similar. In 19:29 “they rushed with one accord into the theatre” (ὥρμησάν τε ὁμοθυμαδὸν εἰς τὸ θέατρον). Similarly in 21:30 “there was a rushing together of the people” (literal translation; καὶ ἐγένετο συνδρομὴ τοῦ λαοῦ). In Ephesus Paul’s companions Gaius and Aristarchus were dragged (συναρπάζω) into the theater (19:29). In Jerusalem Paul was seized (ἐπιλαμβάνομαι) and dragged (ἕλκω) from the temple, his life very much in danger (21:30).[38] In Ephesus a Jew named Alexander was put forward. But rather than calming the crowd, he incited it further (19:33-34). Paul, also a Jew, was able to calm the crowd at the temple when they heard him speaking in Hebrew (21:39-22:2). However, he subsequently re-incited the crowd (22:21ff.). In each case a Gentile authority figure intervened to stop the riot from getting out of hand (19:35-41 and 21:31-38; 22:24).

Verbal parallels. A “temple” (ἱερός) figures prominently in both narratives (19:27 and 21:27-30). The stories are linked by the mention of “Asia” (19:26-27 and 21:27; cf. 6:9) and by people who are “Ephesian(s)” (19:28, 34-35, and 21:29). Both refer to Christianity as the “Way” (19:23 and 22:4).

Two speeches in each narrative begin with the term “Men.” In the first narrative Demetrius began his address with ἄνδρες (19:25) and the town clerk began his with ἄνδρες ᾿Εφέσιοι (19:35). Similarly in the second narrative the Jews from Asia began their address with ἄνδρες ᾿Ισραηλῖται (21:35) and Paul began his with ἄνδρες ἀδελφοὶ καὶ πατέρες (22:1). In each narrative a speech is reported using a form of ἀκούω followed by λέγοντες.[39] In Ephesus the silversmiths “listened” to Demetrius, became angry, and then cried out, “saying, ‘Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!’ ” (19:28). In Jerusalem the Jews “listened” to Paul until he spoke of being sent to the Gentiles, then lifted up their voices, “saying, ‘Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he should not be allowed to live!” (22:22).

The far-reaching impact of Paul’s teaching is also emphasized in the speeches of the two antagonists. In 19:26 Demetrius said that “not only in Ephesus, but in almost all Asia” many people had been persuaded. In 21:28 the Jews from Asia claimed Paul was teaching “all men everywhere.”

A “crowd” is present in both stories (19:33, 35, and 21:27, 34-35). In both someone “motioned with the hand”[40] before making a defense to the people. In 19:33 Alexander motioned (κατασείσας τὴν χεῖρα) in order “to make a defense” (ἀπολογεῖσθαι) “to the people” (τῷ δήμῳ). In 21:40 Paul motioned (κατέσεισεν τῇ χειρὶ) “to the people” (τῷ λαῷ) and in 22:1 began his “defense” (ἀπολογίας).

The theme of the city becoming a place of confusion is present in both narratives. The “city was filled with the confusion” (καὶ ἐπλήσθη ἡ πόλις τῆς συγχυσεως) in 19:29, and in 19:32 “the assembly was in confusion” (ἡ ἐκκλησία συγκεχυμένη). Similarly 21:27 says the Jews “began to stir up all the crowd” (συνέχεον πάντα τὸν ὄχλον), and 21:30 says that “all the city was provoked” (ἐκινήθη τε ἡ πόλις ὅλη). The Ephesian antagonists were “crying out” (ἔκράζον) in 19:28 and 32, and those in Jerusalem were “crying out” (21:28) and “shouting” (v. 36; cf. 7:57). In 20:1 and 21:34, each riot is termed an “uproar” (θόρυβος). A final verbal parallel is the similar use of φωνή (“outcry” in 19:34 and “voices” in 22:22).

Some of these words and phrases are admittedly common; others, however, are less common and catch the reader’s attention. Taken together, the numerous parallels, both verbal and thematic, have the cumulative effect of strongly suggesting an underlying narrative strategy on the part of the writer. This is as though Luke were setting the two narratives side by side so that the reader would compare and note similarities between these two groups of people—the pagan worshipers of Artemis in Ephesus and the Jewish worshipers at the temple in Jerusalem.

The overarching structure of Acts is probably also significant. The third major section of Acts ends at 19:20 with the statement, “So the word of the Lord was growing mightily and prevailing.”[41] Thus even though the narrative of 19:23-40 is set in Ephesus, which Paul came to in the third major unit of Acts, the overall structure of the book suggests that the material beginning in 19:21 has a closer relationship with the material of the fourth and final major unit, 19:21-28:31.[42]

Conclusions

In Acts 19:23-40 Luke continued to show the supremacy of the Christian gospel over the deities of the pagan world. He also gave a picture of what idolatry looks like. Then he held it up to the nation Israel, and the resemblances were amazing.

Stephen indicated that the people of Israel had been idolaters in the past. And judged by their rejection of what God was doing through Jesus, they had once again corrupted their worship. In a comparison of their attitudes and behaviors with those of the worshipers of Artemis in Ephesus, very little difference is evident. The perspective of the Jews toward the temple was strikingly similar to that of Gentile worshipers of gods and goddesses like Artemis.

The idolatry at the Jerusalem temple in Acts is nowhere near as graphic as in a passage like Ezekiel 8. The temple itself was not idolatrous or filled with idolatrous articles.[43] Rather, the (stereotypical) perspective of the Jews concerning the temple was. Continuing to worship at the temple and venerate the temple while rejecting God’s work through Jesus dishonored God.

Notes

1. C. L. Brinks notes Fitzmyer’s comment “that Christianity is reacting against the idolatry of the Artemis cult the way it responded to the ‘cult of Yahweh’ in Jerusalem” (“ ‘Great is Artemis of the Ephesians’: Acts 19:23-41 in Light of Goddess Worship in Ephesus,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71 [October 2009]: 785-86). Fitzmyer’s comment relates to Stephen’s speech in Acts 7. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 656. Darrell L. Bock makes passing comments about the similarities between the two passages in Acts (Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 608, 653). And Luke Timothy Johnson notes a similarity between the resistance of the idolatrous Ephesians in Acts 19 and that of the Jewish leaders in Acts 21-22 (The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical], 353).
2. Dennis Hamm, “The Tamid Service in Luke-Acts: The Cultic Background behind Luke’s Theology of Worship (Luke 1:5-25; 18:9-14; 24:50-53; Acts 3:1; 10:3, 30),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 65 (April 2003): 220. For detailed statistics see J. Bradley Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke-Acts (Macon, GA: Mercer, 1988), 1-2. For a survey of the temple theme in Luke-Acts see Klaus Baltzer, “The Meaning of the Temple in the Lucan Writings,” Harvard Theological Review 58 (July 1965): 271-77. A less exhaustive survey is given by Ron C. Fay, “The Narrative Function of the Temple in Luke-Acts,” Trinity Journal 27 (Autumn 2009): 256-61. Terms used for the temple in Luke-Acts include ἱερόν (“temple”), referring to the entire temple complex (thirty-nine times), ναός (“temple”), referring specifically to the inner sanctuary (six times), and οἶκος (“house”; either five or six times in reference to the temple), and (ἅγιος) τόπος “(holy) place” (three times). See also Nicholas H. Taylor, “The Jerusalem Temple in Luke-Acts,” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 60 (2004): 462-70.
3. Fay, “The Narrative Function of the Temple in Luke-Acts,” 259.
4. Baltzer, “The Meaning of the Temple in the Lucan Writings,” 277.
5. Fay, “The Narrative Function of the Temple in Luke-Acts,” 256. See also Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age, 47-48. Chance notes a geographical inclusio framing chapters 1-2 (1:8-11 and 2:41-43).
6. Verse 49 actually reads “in the things of My Father” (ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου). English versions usually translate with “My Father’s house,” but “the things of My Father” is an option. Joel B. Green combines the two thoughts as “God’s temple and the affairs of God’s temple” (“The Demise of the Temple as Culture Center in Luke-Acts: An Exploration of the Rending of the Temple Veil [Luke 23.44-49],” Revue Biblique 101 [1994]: 508-9).
7. Robert C. Tannehill, “Israel in Luke-Acts: A Tragic Story,” Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (March 1985): 75. Baltzer suggests the possibility that οἶκὀς refers to the temple in 13:35. Thus “the meaning of the threat, ‘your house will be left vacant’ would be that God will withdraw his presence from the Temple and from Jerusalem” (“The Meaning of the Temple in the Lucan Writings,” 272-73). In favor of this are other passages where the temple (or tabernacle) is called a “house” (Luke 6:4; 11:51; 19:46; Acts 7:47, 49). However, “house” is also used as a reference to Israel or Jacob as a nation in Luke 1:33; Acts 2:36; and 7:42, 46.
8. The cognates διδάσκω and διδάσκαλος also occur nine times in this unit (19:47; 20:1, 21 [three times], 28, 39; 21:7, 37).
9. Here Jesus brought together thoughts from Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11.
10. Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age, 58. Luke is the only Gospel writer to use “king” in this quotation from Psalm 118:26. Unlike Matthew and John, Luke did not cite Zechariah 9:9. But apparently from that verse he got the idea of “the King,” for “the king” occurs there but not in Psalm 118:26.
11. Taylor, “The Jerusalem Temple in Luke-Acts,” 477. Against viewing Jesus and the church as the “eschatological temple,” see Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age, 45.
12. Green, “The Demise of the Temple as Culture Center in Luke-Acts,” 496.
13. Ibid., 505.
14. Ibid., 511.
15. See the similar use of συναρπάζω in 19:29.
16. A similar accusation is recorded in Acts 21:28, where the Jews from Asia said Paul preached κατὰ . . . τοῦ τόπου τούτου (cf. 6:14) and that he had defiled τὸν ἅγιον τόπον τοῦτον (cf. 6:13).
17. See also James D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM, 1991), 65.
18. Ibid.
19. For a similar combination of χειροποίητος and κατοικέω see 17:24. According to David W. Pao, every use of χειροποίητος in the Septuagint refers to an idol (Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000], 195).
20. James P. Sweeney argues along this line as well (“Stephen’s Speech [Acts 7:2-53]: Is It as ‘Anti-Temple’ as Is Frequently Alleged?” Trinity Journal 23 [Fall 2002]: 200).
21. See his discussion in Dunn, The Partings of the Ways, 71-73.
22. John 4:20-21 refers to the Jerusalem versus Mount Gerazim question.
23. G. K. Beale, “Isaiah vi 9-13: A Retributive Taunt against Idolatry,” Vetus Testamentum 41 (1991), 277. See also Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, 106. Pao argues that anti-idol polemic is an important part of Luke’s narrative strategy in Acts. See especially Pao’s chapter 6, “The Lord of the Nations: The Anti-Idol Polemic.”
24. See Psalms 115:4-8 and 135:15-18 (Beale, “Isaiah vi 9-13,” 258).
25. Taylor, “The Jerusalem Temple in Luke-Acts,” 461. Chance writes similarly in Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age, 16.
26. Baltzer, “The Meaning of the Temple in the Lucan Writings,” 277.
27. Taylor, “The Jerusalem Temple in Luke-Acts,” 481.
28. G. K. Beale, “The Descent of the Eschatological Temple in the Form of the Spirit at Pentecost: Part 2, Corroborating Evidence,” Tyndale Bulletin 56 (July 2005): 64-65. The Greek verb used in these passages in the Septuagint is πίμπλημι, rather than πληρόω as in Acts 2:2. However, the two words are roughly equivalent translations of the Hebrew מָלֵא. The same wording is used in Isaiah 6:4; Ezekiel 10:3-4; and Haggai 2:7.
29. Ibid., 85. See also G. K. Beale, “The Descent of the Eschatological Temple in the Form of the Spirit at Pentecost: Part 1, The Clearest Evidence,” Tyndale Bulletin 56 (January 2005): 99. Beale incorporates James’s use of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-18 into his understanding as well (“Christ and the Church as the Emerging New Eschatological Temple: James’ Testimony in Acts 15,” in Christ, Salvation, and the Eschaton: Essays in Honor of Hans K. LaRondelle [Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University, 2009], 352).
30. John’s Gospel seems to use this imagery in places like 2:19-22 and 14:2-3. Other passages clearly describing the church as God’s temple include 1 Corinthians 3:8-17; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:19-22; and 1 Peter 2:4-10. Dunn discusses how Paul in his writings assumed the imagery of the temple sacrifices and priesthood and themes such as purity and Jerusalem (The Partings of the Ways, 75-86).
31. Perhaps the stoning of Stephen could also be classed as a “riot.” There are several clear parallels between Acts 6:8-7:60 and 21:27-22:29.
32. The last sentence in Acts 19:40 is verse 41 in many translations.
33. Cf. Stephen’s comments in 7:41 and 48.
34. For fuller discussions of Artemis and her worship at Ephesus see Brinks, “Great Is Artemis,” 778-83; and Scott Shauf, Theology as History, History as Theology: Paul in Ephesus in Acts 19 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 243-46. Bock says this temple was “the largest building in the Greek world” (Acts, 608), four times the size of the Parthenon and larger than a football field (ibid., 607). For the connection between Artemis and magic see Clinton E. Arnold, Ephesians: Power and Magic; The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of Its Historical Setting (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 20-28.
35. Maxwell E. Johnson, “The Apostle Paul and the Riot at Ephesus,” Lexington Theological Quarterly 14 (October 1979): 86.
36. Of interest is the fact that verses 30-31 form the center of the chiasm.
37. The verb βοηθέω, “to render aid, assist,” occurs in Acts only in 16:9 and 21:28, where it is spoken by the man of Macedonia. This is perhaps a subtle way of highlighting the fact that the Jews were working against the Spirit of God, who was reaching out to the Gentiles.
38. F. F. Bruce views this as the point at which “the temple ceased to fill the honorable role hitherto allotted to it in his [Luke’s] twofold history.” By excluding Paul and his God-given message the Jews were sealing the temple’s fate (The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 3rd ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 450). See also Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 697; and Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, 382.
39. This is a fairly common construction in Acts. See 2:37; 4:24; 6:14; 8:30; 9:4, 21; 11:7, 18; 17:32; 19:28; 21:20; 22:7, 22, 26; and 26:14. What is striking is the similar angry response from the audience to what they heard in only these two passages.
40. This motioning with the hand is also mentioned in 12:17 and 13:16.
41. Most commentators divide the book of Acts into four main units based on the threefold repetition of phrases using ὁ λόγος and αὐξάνω, which occur in 6:7; 12:24; and 19:20. For a discussion of the word as the central “character” in Acts see Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, 150-67, 176-80.
42. Scott Shauf argues against this. He rejects a reason usually given for the break proposed here: that Acts 19:21-22 parallels Luke 9:51-53, providing Paul with a plan to go to Jerusalem that parallels Jesus’ plan, and he cites a difference in content (Theology as History, History as Theology, 235-37).
43. Numerous writers say Luke-Acts does not denigrate the temple (e.g., Francis D. Weinert, “The Meaning of the Temple in Luke-Acts,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 11 [1981]: 89; and Fay, “The Narrative Function of the Temple in Luke-Acts,” 258). Dunn lands on both sides, claiming that Luke-Acts is positive about the temple but that Stephen’s speech is critical. In his view Stephen’s speech labels the temple an “idol.” Dunn correlates the use of χειροποίητοις (“made by hands”) in Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:48, with the use of θυσίαν τῷ/ ἔδώλῳ καὶ εὐφραίνοντο ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν in 7:41 (The Partings of the Ways, 65-67). The current author agrees with Beale’s statement that “for Jews to continue to believe that God’s unique revelatory presence was in their physical temple and not in Christ was idolatry.” But the present author disagrees with Beale that “the temple had become an idol” (We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity], 186).

The Imagery of Shepherding in the Bible, Part 2

By Thomas A. Golding

[Thomas A. Golding is Principal, Adelaide College of Ministries, Adelaide, Australia.]

The first article in this two-part series discussed the biblical use of comparison and in particular the imagery of shepherding.[1] The Bible uses many figures of comparison (i.e., metaphorical language) because of the need of human beings to learn unfamiliar truths by means of what is familiar. Another important reason for the use of figures of comparison is their inherent emotive power.

As noted, many biblical figures are unfamiliar to modern readers or they are wrongly interpreted because the modern reader’s perceptions of the figure differ from those of the author and original readers. This is especially true of the shepherd image in the Bible. In Australia, for example, sheep are turned loose to graze in large tracts of land where a grazier has only minimal contact with them. Instead of leading sheep, as shepherds did in Bible times, he may round them up using dogs or a motorcycle. Sheep in the outback also face few natural predators, certainly not the ones common in biblical times.

Because of the potential of misinterpreting such figures and of missing their emotional impact, Ryken encourages readers “to identify and experience the literal level of a metaphor.”[2] The present article seeks to take this next step of experiencing the literal level of the shepherd and sheep metaphor. For the sake of clarity it is helpful to distinguish between a “core” image and “subordinate” images.[3] Designating the shepherd and his sheep as the core image, several subordinate images stem from it, including fold, water, pasture, predators, rod, staff, sling, and gate.[4]

Other related motifs sometimes overlap with the shepherd image. For example the New Exodus motif and wilderness imagery of Isaiah 40–55 have strong connections to the shepherd image. This is not surprising, since several passages describe the original Exodus by using shepherd and sheep imagery (e.g., Pss. 77:20; 78:52; Isa. 63:11).[5]

Terminology

The shepherd image often connotes a nomadic way of life. Barfield provides a helpful clarification of terms. “Although the terms ‘nomad’ and ‘pastoralist’ are generally used interchangeably, they are analytically distinct: the former referring to movement and the latter to a type of subsistence. Not all pastoralists are nomadic (dairy farmers and cattle ranchers), nor are all nomads pastoralists (hunter-gatherers, Gypsies, migrant farm workers).”[6]

Knauf specifies additional terms.[7] “Nomad,” he says, is a broad term covering “every aspect of nonsedentary life.” “Nonsedentary agriculturalists” are people who move about herding sheep and goats but who also grow grain crops.[8] “Transhumance” refers to the lifestyle of peoples who practice part-time nomadism. Such groups have a village base but also live in camps away from the village at various times of the year. “Pastoralists” specialize in raising livestock, though they are not necessarily nomads. Often they are nomadic or semi-nomadic because of the conditions of the area in which they live. “Exploiting agriculturally marginal areas of the Near East which provide only scant nourishment for their flocks, pastoralists are forced to move frequently and therefore lead a non-sedentary or part-time sedentary life.”[9] Bedouin peoples are “pastoralists specialized in camel breeding.”[10] According to de Vaux the name Bedouin means “man of the desert.” He lives in the desert (areas receiving less than four inches of annual rainfall), travels great distances looking for grazing, and has limited contact with people in cities or villages.[11]

It is difficult to place Israel into any one of these categories exclusively. Technically speaking, the Israelites were never Bedouins.[12] The precise category probably depends on when and where in the land they lived. For instance in Genesis 26 Isaac seems to fit the category of a “nonsedentary agriculturalist.” He sojourned in the land of the Philistines for some time, living in Gerar (vv. 1, 6). However, Gerar was not his permanent home. While there he raised both crops (v. 12) and livestock (vv. 13–14). From Gerar he moved to Beersheba, where he “pitched his tent” (v. 25). Jacob too lived in a tent but built himself a “house” at Succoth (33:17). The kind of construction of this “house” is unclear. Later on he purchased a piece of land from the locals at Shechem and “pitched his tent” there.

As time progressed, Israel became more sedentary. The rallying cry “a man to his tents” may indicate that some still lived in tents in the days of David and Solomon. But perhaps this was merely an idiom left over from earlier days when Israel did in fact live in tents (2 Sam. 20:1; 1 Kings 12:16; 2 Chron. 10:16).13 A nomadic group called the Rechabites still lived in tents at the time of Jeremiah the prophet (Jer. 35:6–11). Their nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle contrasted with the more settled way of life of the majority living in Judah.

The Value of Flocks

Proverbs 27:23–27 stresses the importance of taking good care of one’s animals.14 “Know well the condition of your flocks, and pay attention to your herds; for riches are not forever, nor does a crown endure to all generations. When the grass disappears, the new growth is seen, and the herbs of the mountains are gathered in, the lambs will be for your clothing, and the goats will bring the price of a field, and there will be goats’ milk enough for your food, for the food of your household, and sustenance for your maidens.”

The first verse (v. 23) is an admonition to take care of one’s flocks, or in a general sense, one’s source of income. The next verse (v. 24) gives the reason: wealth or an inherited position can be lost. In contrast the next three verses (vv. 25–27) indicate that well-tended flocks constantly renew themselves, thus providing a continual source of income. The proverb highlights lamb’s wool, goat’s milk, and salable male goats. So a person’s flocks were an extremely valuable commodity.

Normally sheep and goats were kept together, making up a single flock.[15] Both animals had several important uses. “Seldom eaten except on rare festive occasions, these animals were prized for their secondary products: milk, cheese, wool, and hair.”[16] Naturally sheep’s wool was used for clothing and other products. Also goat hair was turned into various fabrics[17] and was often used as stuffing for pillows. Sometimes sheep were milked, but since they produce substantially less milk than goats, the latter were the primary source of milk.[18] Goat’s milk could be used for drinking as well as for making yogurt and cheese.[19]

The meat of both animals was eaten, with lambs and kids generally considered tastier than older animals. The skins of both had important uses. Goatskins were highly prized for tentmaking,[20] a purpose for which ram skins were also used.[21] Various leather goods, including clothing, sandals, shields, and in later times, vellum, came from the skins of either animal. Goatskins especially made good containers when sewed up and sealed. Milk, wine, and water were stored in these skin containers.[22] The Assyrians even inflated goatskins and used them as flotation devices for crossing rivers.[23]

Ram horns were used as containers (e.g., for oil, as in 1 Sam. 16:1, 13). It is sometimes said that horns were used as musical instruments (i.e., like the modern trumpet). But the horn was an instrument for sounding warnings and summoning the people rather than a musical instrument.[24] The bones of sheep and goats could also be fashioned into tools such as needles and scrapers or into weapons such as harpoon and lance heads. These animals were important to Israel’s sacrificial system as well.

Other animals “shepherded” in Old Testament times were cattle and camels. Both animals were highly valued. Cows were important draft animals, as well as being used for their milk, meat, hides, and as sacrifices. Camels were primarily used for transport, although they too could be milked. Their hair could be used in making textiles (e.g., John the Baptist’s outfit in Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6), and their dung was used as fuel.[25]

Shepherding Practices

Shepherding practices in the Near East were and continue to be influenced by weather patterns.[26] “The erratic winter rains in the south of Palestine made the grass grow in patches and shepherds, with local knowledge and long experience, led their flocks to take advantage of this.”[27] As the moisture content of the vegetation eaten by livestock increases, the need for watering decreases, and vice versa. In a good spring, flocks need not drink at all. On the other hand, when feeding on drier summer vegetation, sheep must drink every one or two days, with goats requiring water up to every four days.[28] This had implications for the grazing patterns followed by shepherds. The maximum grazing distance from watering points during dry summer months is about five to eight kilometers for sheep and twenty kilometers for goats.[29] A significant development in the history of pastoralism in the ancient Near East was the invention of cisterns.[30] These allowed shepherds to penetrate farther into arid pasturelands that would otherwise have been accessible only in springtime.

According to Levy the grazing routes followed by shepherds are determined by three factors and their spatial relationship to one another: the night camp, the water source, and the pasture type.31 Successful shepherds needed to understand the needs and characteristics of their animals as well as have an intimate knowledge of the area in which they lived (cf. Ps. 23:1–3; Isa. 49:9–10). Otherwise the flock would not survive. “Nomadic pastoralists never ‘wander,’. .. they always know where they are going and why.”[32]

Besides requiring more frequent watering than goats, sheep are less physically adapted to difficult terrains. Goats are hardy and nimble animals, thriving in hilly areas, whereas sheep prefer valleys and more gentle landscapes.[33] Goats also have a broader diet and can reach higher vegetation than sheep, sometimes even climbing into trees. Despite the similarities between sheep and goats, sheep are more delicate animals, requiring greater human care.[34] This truth is implicit in the ancient idiom “like sheep without a shepherd” (e.g., Num. 27:17). “In fact, sheep would not survive long without a shepherd. Sheep are not only dependent creatures; they are also singularly unintelligent, prone to wandering and unable to find their way to a sheepfold even when it is within sight.”[35]

First Samuel 25 provides a small window from which to view some of the shepherding practices at the time of David. In the narrative David and his men relocated to the wilderness of Paran in the tribal allotment of Judah. There they encountered a surly individual named Nabal who lived at the town of Maon and did business at Carmel. He had three thousand sheep and a thousand goats. During their stay in the countryside David’s men treated Nabal’s shepherds well, neither stealing from them nor harassing them and in fact protected them (vv. 7, 15–16). Hearing that Nabal was shearing, David sent messengers to request a gift. But Nabal rebuffed them and sent them away empty-handed.

Several observations may be made about this incident. First, Nabal was a wealthy pastoralist whose lifestyle most likely fits into the category of “transhumance.” He was settled at a permanent location but evidently had shepherds living out in the field for a part of the year. This part of the country would be marginal for growing crops but good for grazing. It is unclear whether Nabal raised crops in addition to his livestock, but it seems likely that he did. The gift Abigail brought to David consisted of two hundred loaves of bread, two jugs of wine, five prepared sheep, five measures of roasted grain, and various amounts of raisins and figs (v. 18). The grain and vineyard products are goods Nabal could have raised himself. However, given the large number of animals attributed to him, he may have been active in trading. This, along with the reference to numerous servants, indicates that he was running a fairly sizeable operation.

A second observation is that shearing was an occasion for gladness and celebration (v. 8). The two most important times of the pastoral year were lambing and shearing. The following chart shows Israel’s pastoral year.[36]

Lambing	Winter Grazing	Shearing	Summer Grazing
Dec.– Early Jan.	Mid-Jan.– Feb.	Mid–late May	June–Aug.

Winter Rains	Late Rains	Dry Season	Early Rains
Dec.–Feb.Dry Season	March–April	May–Aug.	Sept.–Nov.

Postgate indicates that Old Babylonian herding contracts usually ran for a year.37 Contracts were drawn up in the spring after shearing. At this time the livestock passed from the hands of the owner to the shepherd. Then at the end of the year when the sheep returned for shearing, the animals were counted. Shepherds were remunerated on the basis of the growth and production of the flock. “Under such an arrangement the shepherd has as strong an incentive as the owner to promote the welfare of the animals.”[38]

A third observation is the flocks’ need for protection. Pastoral work had inherent dangers associated with it. Marauding bands roaming the countryside might attack shepherds and try to make off with their livestock. That this danger was real is illustrated in the burning of Ziklag by raiding Amalekites (1 Sam. 30) and the stealing of Job’s three thousand camels by Chaldeans (Job 1:17).

A Shepherd’s Equipment

First Samuel 17 is another window that sheds light on shepherd life in Old Testament times. Several pieces of a shepherd’s equipment are mentioned in verse 40. “He [David] took his stick [מָל] in his hand and chose for himself five smooth stones from the brook, and put them in the shepherd’s bag [כְּלִי הָוֹרעִים] which he had, even in his pouch [יַלְקוּט], and his sling [קֶלַע] was in his hand; and he approached the Philistine.”

Rod and Staff

The first item listed in this verse is a staff (מָל). The shepherd typically had two similar implements, a rod and a staff. Several different Hebrew words are used for these implements, primarily בֶט, מַטֶּה, מִשְׁעֶנֶת, and מָל. As synonyms, there is some overlap in meaning. The word בֶט is translated “rod, staff, club, scepter,” with the alternate meaning of “tribe.”[39] As a shepherd’s implement it was used for counting sheep, as in the phrase “pass under the rod” (Lev. 27:32; Ezek. 20:37).[40] Presumably it also functioned as an effective weapon of protection (Ps. 23:4; Mic. 7:14).[41] In 2 Samuel 23:21 Benaiah, armed only with a בֶט, attacked and overpowered an imposing, spear-wielding Egyptian.

Several passages use the term to refer to a king’s “rod” or “scepter” (e.g., Gen. 49:10; Pss. 45:6 [Heb., 7]; 125:3). It is frequently mentioned as an instrument or figure of discipline (e.g., 2 Sam. 7:14), primarily in Proverbs (e.g., 10:13; 13:24; 22:15). Of special interest is its use in Psalm 2:9. The reading ποιμανεῖς αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ (“shepherd them with a rod of iron”) in the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic text, תְּוֹרם בְּבֶט בַּרְזֶל (“break them with a rod of iron”). The Book of Revelation uses ποιμαίνω in allusions to this text (2:27; 12:5; 19:15). This is significant because of the linking of the king and shepherd roles in the ancient Near East.[42] The basic meaning of בֶט then seems to be a clublike implement, wielded by a shepherd or king, implying either protection or discipline.

The next word, מַטֶּה, is a close synonym.[43] Unlike בֶט, it rarely if ever means “scepter.” They do sometimes occur in synonymous parallelism, however (e.g., Isa. 10:5, 15, 24; 14:5).[44] Judah (a shepherd) had a מַטֶּה that he gave to Tamar as a pledge (Gen. 38:18, 25). The מַטֶּה of Moses (another shepherd) figured prominently in the Exodus. Jonathan also used a מַטֶּה when he was a soldier in the field (1 Sam. 14:27, 43). Its most literal sense of “branch” is seen in Ezekiel 19:11, 12, 14. In Leviticus 26:26; Psalm 105:16; Ezekiel 4:16; and 5:16 the phrase “staff of bread” refers possibly to a staff or pole from which ring-shaped loaves of bread were hung to keep them from vermin.[45] The מַטֶּה was a longer and thinner piece of wood or stick that a shepherd used primarily to aid him in walking. In the context of shepherding, “staff” is probably the best translation.

The next synonym, מִשְׁעֶנֶת “staff, support,” is probably the most clearly defined of the synonyms. Its verbal root is שָׁעַן, “to lean on, trust in.”[46] Egypt was called a מִשְׁעֶנֶת הַקָּנֶה (“support of reed”) in 2 Kings 18:21; Isaiah 36:6; and Ezekiel 29:6–7. In other words Egypt was unreliable and would fail Israel when Israel relied heavily on Egypt (cf. Isa. 31:1). This would suggest that what is in view is some kind of cane, crutch, or walking stick (e.g., Exod. 21:19; Zech. 8:4). When David pictured Yahweh as his shepherd, he wrote that God had a staff along with a rod, בֶט (Ps. 23:4). The word מִשְׁעֶנֶת occurs only eleven times in the Old Testament and never in the same verse with מַטֶּה. Apparently it is a lesser-used synonym having roughly the same meaning.

Another word, מַל, occurs eighteen times. This is the word used in 1 Samuel 17:40 of the item David carried in battle against Goliath. Goliath also used the term, but in a derogatory sense, asking David, “Am I a dog that you come to me with sticks?” (v. 43). It is usually rendered “rod” or “stick” (e.g., Gen. 30:37–39, 41; Jer. 1:11) or “staff” (e.g., Gen. 32:11) and is a close synonym of מַטֶּה and מִשְׁעֶנֶת.47

Shepherd’s Bag

First Samuel 17:40 refers to two items, כְּלִי הָוֹרעִים and יַלְקוּט. The first is rendered “shepherd’s bag or wallet.”[48] Garber describes it as “a large leather container made of goatskin” in which “the shepherd carried all the food he would need while away.”[49] David took five smooth stones from a nearby wadi and placed them in this receptacle in preparation for doing battle with Goliath.

The second item, יַלְקוּט, occurs only here in the Old Testament, and thus its meaning is somewhat uncertain. The suggested meaning is “receptacle, wallet,” and the word seems to be related to the verb לָקַט (“to pick, gather up, glean”) and the noun לֶקֶט (“gleaning”).[50] If this is so, it was perhaps a bag slung over the shoulder used to carry grain or fruit.

Sling

The sling was evidently invented by shepherds as a way to scare off predatory animals.51 It consisted of two leather or hair cords with a leather or cloth pad in the middle.[52] A stone was placed in the pad and the sling swung several times over the head. When the sling gained the necessary momentum, one cord was released and the stone was launched at its target.

As a shepherd’s implement, the sling was extremely practical. It was light and took up virtually no space. This was important for someone on the move and on foot. It was simple and inexpensive to make. Another advantage was that a person could use it at a distance. Yadin notes, “Its principal disadvantage was that considerable training and experience were required to operate it with effective accuracy.”[53] However, a shepherd had time to master its use during the long hours spent alone with his sheep. And no matter where he went in the land he could always find an unlimited supply of free and ready “ammunition.” Manufactured sling stones were also used, but most likely for warfare (2 Chron. 26:14). Archaeologists have discovered round, finely shaped flint balls measuring two to three inches in diameter designed for this purpose.[54]

Abigail wisely used shepherd terms when she appealed to David (1 Sam. 25:29) as Nathan also did later (2 Sam. 12:1–4). “Should anyone rise up to pursue you and to seek your life, then the life of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of the living with the Lord your God; but the lives of your enemies He will sling out as from the hollow of a sling” (1 Sam. 25:29, italics added).[55] This is one of many passages where Yahweh is pictured as a shepherd. As Yahweh had protected David against Goliath, so He would ultimately deliver him from Saul in shepherdlike fashion.

Dogs

Dogs are almost always depicted negatively in the Bible. Modern sheepdogs round up and drive sheep, but their function in biblical times is less clear. Job 30:1 indicates that they were used somehow in shepherding. Perhaps their primary role was to warn the shepherd of dangerous predators. This is suggested by Isaiah 56:9–12. Dogs were domesticated fairly early and were used in hunting animals, even lions, at least in Mesopotamia.[56]

Sheepfolds

Sheepfolds were of several varieties. A shallow cave functioned nicely. If the cave had a wide opening, the shepherd built a wall partway across the entrance. First Samuel 24:3 refers to the “sheepfolds” near the “Rocks of the Wild Goats” in the vicinity of Engedi. Since there are many caves in the area, it may be that shepherds used them as sheepfolds.

Archaeologists have also found numerous circular and rectangular stone pens in the Negev and Sinai.[57] Such pens were built of boulders or stones and were sometimes topped with thorny branches. It is unclear what type of pens Jacob built for his flocks at Succoth (Gen. 33:17). But the narrator of Genesis explained that Succoth got its name from those pens.[58] The picture Jesus gave in John 10 is possibly that of a shepherd lying across the entrance to the pen—“I am the door” (vv. 7, 9). Thus it pictured protection and exclusiveness. No one got in or out except through the shepherd.

Carson’s description of the ancient Near Eastern background of Jesus’ teaching in John 10 is helpful. “The watchman or ‘porter,’ probably a hired undershepherd. .. recognizes the shepherd and opens the gate for him. The sheep listen to the shepherd’s voice. That he calls his own sheep presupposes that several flocks are in the fold; the shepherd calls out his own. Near-Eastern shepherds have been known to stand at different spots outside the enclosure and sound out their own peculiar calls, their own sheep responding and gathering around their shepherd. This shepherd goes further: he calls his own sheep by name, which at the least means that he calls them individually. .. and thus leads them out.”[59]

Predators of the Flock

David claimed to have encountered and killed both a lion and a bear in his role as a shepherd (1 Sam. 17:34–37). In addition to their present habitat of Africa, lions originally ranged from Greece through Asia Minor all the way to India. They seem to have disappeared from Egypt much earlier, probably because of the inhospitality of the area and contact with man. They disappeared from Greece sometime around the first century a.d. and from Palestine during the Crusades of the thirteenth century. Lions were reported in Syria as late as 1951 and had disappeared from Persia sometime before 1930.[60]

The prophet Amos used lion imagery, which he probably gained from personal experience as a shepherd (Amos 1:1).[61] “Does a lion roar in the forest when he has no prey? Does a young lion growl from his den unless he has captured something?” (3:4). Amos described Assyria’s coming attack on Israel in terms of a shepherd’s vain attempt to rescue a sheep from a lion: “Thus says the Lord, ‘Just as the shepherd snatches from the lion’s mouth a couple of legs or a piece of an ear, so will the sons of Israel dwelling in Samaria be snatched away” (v. 12).[62]

Isaiah 11:6 (cf. 65:25) and Jeremiah 5:6 refer to the wolf (זְב),[63] leopard (נָר), and lion (either אַרְיֵה or כְּפִיר, “young lion”). Other predators inhabiting areas of the ancient Near East during Old Testament times were cheetahs, hyenas, wild dogs, jackals, and foxes.[64] Several passages speak of livestock being “torn to pieces” (e.g., Exod. 22:10–13). Jacob assumed that had happened to Joseph (Gen. 37:33). Laban made Jacob responsible to bear the cost of any animals “torn” by predators (31:39).[65]

Responsibilities of Shepherds

Garber summarizes the role of shepherds by stating simply that “shepherds were responsible for the physical survival and welfare of their own or their master’s flocks.”66 Several essential shepherding functions have emerged from the foregoing study, including guiding, feeding and watering, protecting and delivering, gathering and returning the scattered or lost, bringing healing, providing security and rest, and culling and promoting productivity.[67]

For the most part the qualities desired in a good shepherd involve things that sheep lack. For instance it is essential that a shepherd be wise because sheep are not. Guidance of the flock is reflected in the verbs יָצָא, “to lead out,” בּוֹא, “to bring in,” and הָלַךְ, “to go (before).” At one end of the shepherd’s leadership is the verb נָסָע, “to depart, journey,” and at the other is חָנָה, “to camp.” The synonyms נָהַג, נָהַל, and נָחָה mean “to guide, lead.”

Guidance is closely related to the functions of feeding and watering, since shepherds never “wander.” The shepherd knows where these essentials of life can be found, whereas the flock does not. The synonyms שָׁקָה and דָּלָה are used of the shepherd’s activity in providing water for the flock. The most general term is רָעָה, “to shepherd,” but it often means “to graze.” Another somewhat similar general term is כּוּל, “to nourish, provide.”

Because of the flock’s inherent vulnerability, protection is another of the key shepherding roles. The ideal shepherd is wise but also strong and brave. The verbs נָצַל, “to deliver,” and שָׁמַר, “to guard, keep,” most often express this function. Though the synonym יָשַׁע, “to save,” occurs only rarely and always of God’s shepherding, it too conveys this important aspect of the shepherd’s activity. A final synonym is פָּקַד, “to visit, muster, attend to.” This can have either a positive or a negative sense (e.g., Zech. 10:3).

It is conceivable that a shepherd might be wise, strong, and brave, and yet not care about his flock. Thus the ideal shepherd is also one who demonstrates concern. The idea of seeking the lost and gathering up the scattered is reflected in several verbs. These include בָּקַר, בָּקַשׁ, and דַָּרַשׁ (for “seeking”) and אָסַ and קבחּ (for “gathering”). The verb שׁוּב, “to return,” is used most often in the hiphil stem and in the context of Israel’s return from exile. The verb שָׁרַק, “to whistle,” occurs in this context as well. The fact that the shepherd counts (מָנָה) the sheep by making them “pass under [עָבַר] the rod” indicates his concern for individual sheep that might be missing.

The seemingly contradictory traits of strength and tenderness are seen in several shepherding actions. Wounded and sick sheep required special care. The good shepherd would “bind up” (חָבַשׁ) and “heal” (רָפָה) those who needed it. His tenderness is seen most movingly in the image of lifting up (נָשָׂא) the small or weak lamb and carrying it in his bosom. He demonstrated compassion, “giving rest” (נוּחַ) to the animals in his care and “causing them to lie down” (קבחּ) in safe, lush pastures.

Occasionally the owner or shepherd of the sheep would also act negatively. For instance shearing (גָּזַז) might be construed negatively. But it was done for the good of the sheep as well as for the income it generated. A certain percentage of yearling rams and male goats were typically slaughtered (זָבַח, טָבַח) for their meat and skins. However, even such a negative action was for the ultimate benefit and productivity of the flock as a whole, as only a certain percentage of males were needed to impregnate the females of the flock.[68] The verb בָּרַר, used in Ezekiel 20:38, suggests the purging of animals from within the flock that were detrimental to its health (cf. 34:16b–22). One of the shepherd’s goals, and one for which he was rewarded,[69] was to see the flock grow in size (רָבָה) under his care.

Conclusion

Recalling Ryken’s words, this article has attempted to “identify and experience the literal level of the shepherd metaphor.”[70] Clearly the shepherd-sheep relationship was an important one in Israelite society, especially earlier in their history. By immersing oneself in the culture of the writers and original audience of the Scriptures, readers can gain a clearer understanding not only of individual biblical texts but also of God’s leadership of His people and the character He desires of leaders in the church today.

Notes

1. Thomas A. Golding, “The Imagery of Shepherding in the Bible, Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra 163 (January–March 2006): 18–28.
2. Leland Ryken, “‘I Have Used Similitudes’: The Poetry of the Bible,” Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (July–September 1990): 263.
3. R. Alan Culpepper discusses this concept and illustrates it with the core symbol of light from John’s Gospel (Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983], 189).
4. These “subordinate” images are intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. Actually the shepherd image is itself often a “submetaphor” of the broader metaphor of kingship (Mark Zvi Brettler, “Incompatible Metaphors for YHWH in Isaiah 40–66, ” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 78 [June 1998]: 108–10).
5. For the most part this study of literal shepherding practices is restricted to the Old Testament data. Information related to shepherding practices of more recent times can be found in William M. Thomson, The Land and the Book: Or Biblical Illustrations Drawn from the Manners and Customs, the Scenes and Scenery of the Holy Land (New York: Harper, 1880); G. M. Mackie, Bible Manners and Customs (New York: Revell, 1898); G. Robinson Lees, Village Life in Palestine: A Description of the Religion, Home Life, Manners, Customs, Characteristics and Superstitions of the Peasants of the Holy Land, with Reference to the Bible, 2nd ed. (London: Longmans, Green, 1905); C. T. Wilson, Peasant Life in the Holy Land (London: Murray, 1906); Archibald Forder, Daily Life in Palestine: Sites, Scenes and Doings in the Holy Land (London: Marshall, 1912); Abraham Mitrie Rihbany, The Syrian Christ (New York: Mifflin, 1916); John D. Whiting, “Among the Bethlehem Shepherds: A Visit to the Valley Which David Probably Recalled When He Wrote the Twenty-third Psalm,” National Geographic 50 (December 1926): 729–53; and Edwin Wilbur Rice, Orientalisms in Bible Lands: Giving Light from Customs, Habits, Manners, Imagery, Thought and Life in the East for Bible Students, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1929). See also Gustaf Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, vol. 6 (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1939; reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1964), 146–287.
6. Thomas Barfield, “Pastoral Nomads or Nomadic Pastoralists,” in Dictionary of Anthropology, ed. Thomas Barfield (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), 349.
7. Ernst Axel Knauf, “Bedouin and Bedouin States,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1:634–45. L. L. Walker distinguishes three types of nomads: (1) hunter/collectors; (2) pastoralists, who follow “a consistent pattern of grazing, which is regulated by the seasons and nature of the herd or flock”; and (3) agriculturalists, who stay in one place until the crop is exhausted and then move on to new land (“Nomads,” in Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975], 4:450).
8. See also Thomas E. Levy, “Transhumance, Subsistence, and Social Evolution in the Northern Negev Desert,” in Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Ofer Bar-Yosef (Madison, WI: Prehistory, 1992), 68–69.
9. Knauf, “Bedouin and Bedouin States,” 635.
10. Knauf says Bedouin life began in the first millennium B.C. (ibid.). Groups such as the Midianites and Amalekites would be classed as “proto-Bedouin.” By connecting ancient urban trading centers by the use of camels, Bedouin groups were able to gain enormous power and wealth for themselves.
11. Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, trans. John McHugh (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961), 3.
12. Ibid., 4.
13. De Vaux takes this view. He also notes that a few generations later the phrase had changed to refer to a man returning “to his house” (1 Kings 22:17) or “to his land” (v. 36) (ibid., 13).
14. The proverb certainly has a wider general application as well. Roland E. Murphy cites Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, who says, “ ‘Strike while the iron is hot’ makes sense in the smithy. But this latter saying is commonly used metaphorically to refer to situations outside the smithy.. .. That observation should be kept in mind when interpreting all the proverbs in the book” (Proverbs, Word Biblical Commentary [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998], 211). Van Leeuwen makes a good case for the poem being “a metaphor for kingship” (Context and Meaning in Proverbs 25–27, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series [Atlanta: Scholars, 1988], 136).
15. The word translated “flocks” in Proverbs 27:23 is the more common וֹצאן, which is defined generally as “small cattle, sheep and goats, flock, flocks.” It usually refers to “sheep and goats in one flock” (Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [Oxford: Clarendon, 1907], 838). The synonym דֶר, “flock, herd,” in the second half of the verse is used less often (ibid., 727).
16. Thomas Brisco, Holman Bible Atlas: A Complete Guide to the Expansive Geography of Biblical History (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998), 29.
17. Exodus 25:4; 26:7; 35:6, 23, 26; 36:14 describe the materials used in the construction of the tabernacle.
18. See for example M. W. Green, “Animal Husbandry at Uruk in the Archaic Period,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 39 (October 1980): 14.
19. Ilse Köhler-Rollefson indicates that “the prime focus of their animal utilization is milk and not meat.. .. Exploiting goats only for meat is an extremely inefficient endeavor and the return is very low.. .. Nomadic pastoralism might not have been possible, if herders had not known how to exploit their animals for milk” (“A Model for the Development of Nomadic Pastoralism on the Transjordanian Plateau,” in Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives, 16). Claudia Chang writes, “In early Neolithic economies, dairy products could have been converted to cheese, yoghurt, and other soured milk products and thus more effectively stored and more easily transported than meat, which would have been consumed immediately or dried” (“On the Origins of Milk and Wool Products in the Old World,” Current Anthropology 29 [December 1988]: 744).
20. Song of Solomon 1:5 refers to the dark goatskin tents of Kedar. “Kedar was a territory southeast of Damascus where the Bedouin roamed. Their tents were made of the skins of black goats” (Dennis F. Kinlaw, “Song of Songs,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 5 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991], 1217). See also Roland E. Murphy, The Song of Songs: A Commentary on the Book of Canticles or The Song of Songs, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 126
21. Ram skins were used in the construction of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:5; 26:14; 35:7; 36:19; 39:34).
22. The word וֹנאד, “skin, water bottle,” occurs in Joshua 9:4, 13; Judges 4:19; 1 Samuel 16:20; and Psalms 56:9; 119:83. Job 32:19 uses a different word, אוֹב. In this passage Elihu said his insides were like new wine about to burst its wineskin. Jesus spoke of putting new wine into old wineskins (Matt. 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37–38). He pointed out that old wineskins would burst when the wine expanded, ruining both the wine and the skin container.
23. An image of this practice can be seen in Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Discovery, trans. M. Pearlman (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963), 304. “The troops cross by swimming, aided by inflated goat-skins prepared in advance. A relief from Sennacherib’s reign shows infantry blowing up their goat-skins on the bank and then crossing” (ibid.)
24. Two words are used: שׁוֹפָר and יוֹל. Old Testament occasions where the horn was used include sounding a general summons (Exod. 19:16, 19; 20:18), proclaiming the year of Jubilee (Lev. 25:9), causing confusion in battle (Josh. 6; Judg. 7:8, 16, 18–20, 22), gathering the people and summoning them to battle (Judg. 3:27; 6:34; 1 Sam. 13:3; 2 Sam. 20:1; Neh. 4:18, 20; Jer. 51:27), giving instructions in the midst of battle (Amos 2:2; Zeph. 1:16; Zech. 9:14), sounding a warning (Jer. 4:5, 19, 21; 6:1, 17; 42:14; Ezek. 33:3–6; Hos. 5:8; 8:1; Joel 2:1; Amos 3:6), summoning from battle (2 Sam. 2:28; 18:16; 20:22; Job 39:24–25), giving celebration and praise (2 Sam. 6:15; 1 Chron. 15:28; 2 Chron. 15:14; Pss. 47:5; 81:3; 98:6; 150:3), assembling for times of fasting and mourning (Joel 2:15), summoning the people to praise (Isa. 27:13), sounding an announcement or signal (2 Sam. 15:10; Isa. 18:3; 58:1), and coronating a king (1 Kings 1:34, 39, 41; 2 Kings 9:13).
25. Knauf, “Bedouin and Bedouin States,” 635.
26. Itzhaq Beit-Arieh asserts that “the climate of the Sinai desert has undergone no essential change since the third millennium b.c.” (“Two Cultures in Southern Sinai in the Third Millennium b.c.,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 263 [August 1986]: 45). In light of the harsh physical conditions it is also possible that shepherding practices have not changed significantly over the past five thousand years. Early on, pastoralists discovered the best and possibly only ways of surviving in the region. If so, certain current Bedouin practices may still reflect ancient ones.
27. Cansdale, Animals of Bible Lands, 50.
28. Much of this information has been gleaned from Levy, “Transhumance, Subsistence, and Social Evolution,” 69–70.
29. Ibid., 69.
30. Levy indicates that the earliest archaeological evidence of wells in Palestine comes from the Chalcolithic period (ca. 4300–3300 b.c.). The earliest examples of cisterns in the Negev region date from the Iron Age (ca. 1200–586 b.c.) (ibid., 68–69). Early biblical references to cisterns include the Joseph story (Gen. 37:20, 22, 24, 28–29) and two references in the Mosaic Law (Lev. 11:36; Deut. 6:11). See also 2 Chronicles 26:10; Nehemiah 9:25; Proverbs 5:15; Isaiah 36:16; and Jeremiah 38:6–7, 9–11, 13.
31. Ibid.
32. Barfield, “Pastoral Nomads or Nomadic Pastoralists,” 349. Jacob’s sons moved their father’s flocks in search of pasture (Gen. 37:12–17), and Moses was doing the same when he came to Mount Sinai and the burning bush (Exod. 3:1).
33. The author has personally seen feral goats thriving on their own in semi-arid parts of outback Australia (cf. Lev. 16:21–22). An interesting study of the black dwarf desert goat is described in Beit-Arieh, “Two Cultures in Southern Sinai in the Third Millennium B.C.,” 45.
34. P. L. Garber, “Sheep; Shepherd,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffery W. Bromiley, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 463.
35. Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 782.
36. From the standpoint of livestock care, shearing before summer removed what would become a very hot covering for the sheep. By the cooler winter months the sheep’s wool would again be thicker, providing warmth. This chart has been adapted from the information in Brisco, Holman Bible Atlas, 28. A “calendar” of the agricultural (but not pastoral) year has been preserved in the Gezer Calendar. This limestone inscription, dated around 925 B.C., lists the months devoted to various agricultural activities throughout the year. See William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr., eds., Monumental Compositions from the Biblical World, vol. 2 of The Context of Scripture (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 222; James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Easten Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 320; and the discussion in Oded Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 32–38.
37. J. N. Postgate, “Some Old Babylonian Shepherds and Their Flocks,” Journal of Semitic Studies 20 (spring 1975): 2. He gives details of twenty such contracts, which he admits is not a full listing. The text of one of these contracts is included in J. J. Finkelstein, “An Old Babylonian Herding Contract and Genesis 31:38f, ” Journal of the American Oriental Society 88 (1968): 31. Translated, it reads, “92 ewes, 20 rams, 22 breeding lambs, 24 [spring (?)] lambs, 33 she-goats, 4 male goats, 27 kids—total: 158 sheep; total: 64 goats, which Sins̆amuḥ has entrusted to Dadā the shepherd. He (i.e. Dadā) assumes liability (therefore) and will replace any lost (animals). Should Nidnatum, his (i.e. Dadāʾs) shepherd boy, absent himself, he (i.e., Nidnatum) will bear responsibility for any (consequent) loss, (and) Dadā will measure out 5 kōr of barley.” The contract is also dated and witnessed. It is interesting to note the relationship between the owner (Sins̆amuḥ), the shepherd (Dadā), and the under-shepherd (Nidnatum). Finkelstein cites other contracts in Yale Oriental Series, Texts 13:34 (no. 346), 36 (no. 378), 38 (no. 426), 39 (no. 434), 40 (no. 460). See also the helpful discussion of the keeping of royal flocks in Daniel C. Snell, Life in the Ancient Near East: 3100–332 b.c.e. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997), 22, 38–39, 56–57, 72, 126. Doeg the Edomite is called “the chief of Saul’s shepherds,” reflecting the practice in Israel (1 Sam. 21:7; cf. 1 Chron. 27:29–31).
38. Postgate, “Some Old Babylonian Shepherds,” 2–4.
39. Brown, Driver, and Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 986–87. Bruce K. Waltke suggests that it may be related to an Akkadian word meaning “to smite, slay” (“בֶט,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke [Chicago: Moody, 1980], 897).
40. Cf. Ralph Gower, The New Manners and Customs of Bible Times (Chicago: Moody, 1987), 138.
41. Waltke, “בֶט,” 897.
42. For a more in-depth discussion of this passage see Thomas A. Golding, “Jewish Expectations of the Shepherd Image at the Time of Christ” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2004), 191–94; and G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Text Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 267.
43. Most scholars relate it to the verb נָטַע, “to stretch out, spread out, extend, incline, bend.” Brown, Driver, and Briggs give three meanings for מַטֶּה: (1) “staff, rod, shaft,” (2) “branch,” and (3) “tribe” (A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 641).
44. Waltke says it never means scepter (“בֶט,” 897). However, it seems to have developed into a symbol of authority (e.g., the leaders of the twelve tribes each had one [Num. 17], as did David’s “lord” [Ps. 110:2]).
45. H.-J. Fabry, “בֶט,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. Douglas W. Stott, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 242.
46. A related noun, מִשְׁעָן, occurs in 2 Samuel 22:19 and Psalm 18:18 (Heb., 19).
47. See also L. G. Herr, “Staff,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4:608.
48. Normally כְּלִי means “article, utensil, vessel.” Brown, Driver, and Briggs classify its use here under “vessel, receptacle, of various materials and for various purposes” (A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 480).
49. Garber, “Sheep; Shepherd,” 464.
50. Brown, Driver, and Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 544–45. Klein sees an explanatory gloss here and translates the phrase “and put them in the pouch (that is, his shepherd’s bag)” (Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, Word Biblical Commentary [Waco, TX: Word, 1983], 170, 172, 179).
51. Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, 9.
52. Yadin includes a clear orthostat from Tell Halaf depicting a slingman pulling the thongs of his sling taut (ibid., 364). See also Ovid R. Sellers, “Sling Stones in Biblical Times,” Biblical Archaeologist 2 (December 1939): 42.
53. Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, 10.
54. Sling stones found at numerous archaeological sites in Palestine date back to the Early Bronze period (3300–2100 b.c.) (Sellers, “Sling Stones in Biblical Times,” 41–42). Sellers displays photographs of three types of sling stones: a manufactured flint ball (found at Tell Beit Mirsim), a natural piece of limestone (found in the Valley of Elah), and a cast lead stone from the Maccabean period, found at Beth-zur (ibid., 45). See also Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 3 (1992), 700.
55. The use of both קָלַע, “to sling,” and קֶלַע, “sling,” recalls 1 Samuel 17 (esp. vv. 40, 49–50), and the narrator may possibly have intended such an allusion.
56. According to Edward Firmage the earliest evidence of the domestication of dogs comes from Iraq around 10, 000 B.C. (“Zoology [Fauna],” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6:1143). Leon Legrain describes various seals from Mesopotamia depicting the use of dogs in hunting (The Culture of the Babylonians: From Their Seals in the Collections of the Museum, Publications of the Babylonian Section, vol. 14 [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1925], 165, 173–75, 284, 354).
57. Mordechai Haiman refers to “hundreds of [temporary desert] sites from the Early Bronze Age” (3300–2100 b.c.), many of which are “characterized by large animal pens, whose construction is simple.” He also includes helpful diagrams and photos of archaeological remains (“Sedentarism and Pastoralism in the Negev Highlands in the Early Bronze Age: Results of the Western Negev Highlands Emergency Survey,” in Pastoralism in the Levant, 95, 97, 98). Rudolph Cohen refers to similar temporary camps in the Central Negev dating from the Middle Bronze Age I (2100–1550 b.c.) (“The Nomadic or Semi-Nomadic Middle Bronze Age I Settlements in the Central Negev,” in Pastoralism in the Levant, 118).
58. The name סֻכּוֹת, “Succoth,” is the plural of the word סֻכָּה, “hut, booth.”
59. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 382. See the similar description in John Quasten, “The Parable of the Good Shepherd: Jn. 10:1–21, ” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 10 (1948): 6. A very clear graffito from Amman, Jordan (sixth century b.c.), depicting a sheepfold, can be seen in Elena Bosetti, Yahweh: Shepherd of the People: Pastoral Symbolism in the Old Testament, trans. Gina La Spina (Guildford, UK: St. Paul’s, 1993), 11.
60. Cansdale, Animals of Bible Lands, 106.
61. The word used here for shepherd, נֹד, is rare. It occurs only here and in 2 Kings 3:4 concerning King Mesha of Moab.
62. Other interesting Old Testament uses involving shepherds and lions together include Isaiah 31:4; Jeremiah 49:19; and 50:44. See also Jeremiah 50:17, which likens Assyria and Babylon to “lions” that attacked Yahweh’s “flock.”
63. Other significant occurrences of “wolf” (either זְב or λύκος) include Genesis 49:27; Isaiah 11:6; Habakkuk 1:8; Zephaniah 3:3; Matthew 7:15; 10:16; Mark 10:16; Luke 10:3; John 10:12; and Acts 20:29.
64. For descriptions of all these animals, see ibid., chapters 7 and 8; and K. E. Jordt Jørgensen, Fauna and Flora of the Bible, 2nd ed. (London: United Bible Societies, 1980), 8–9 (bear), 21–22 (dog), 31–32 (fox, jackal), 45–46 (hyena), 48–51 (leopard, lion), 85–86 (wolf).
65. This is an interesting use of the root טר. Laban had not treated Jacob justly according to the later Mosaic Law (Exod. 22:13). Finkelstein explores the ancient background of this text in “An Old Babylonian Herding Contract,” 30–36. See also laws 261–267 (esp. law 266) of the Code of Hammurabi for laws related to shepherds (Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 177).
66. Garber, “Sheep; Shepherd,” 463.
67. Such functions as breeding, lambing, and milking do not occur often in biblical texts. An exception to this is Jacob’s obscure breeding activities in Genesis 30:37–43, a passage that suggests that breeding may have been a major shepherding function.
68. Green refers to an ancient text calling for a ten-to-one female-to-male ratio for breeding purposes. However, he also interprets tablets from Uruk that indicate that this was not standard procedure for all flocks. From his study he argues that some flocks were maintained for wool production, which would make the sex of the animal irrelevant (Green, “Animal Husbandry at Uruk in the Archaic Period,” 11). Green also suggests that the “herding reports” he studied were probably animals kept for cultic purposes (ibid., 15).
69. See Postgate, “Some Old Babylonian Shepherds and Their Flocks,” 2.
70. Ryken, “ ‘I Have Used Similitudes’: The Poetry of the Bible,” 263.

The Imagery of Shepherding in the Bible, Part 1

By Thomas A. Golding

[Thomas A. Golding is Principal, Adelaide College of Ministries, Adelaide, Australia.]

Shepherding is one of the most frequent and powerful images in the Bible. “One thing is certain: the shepherd and flock symbol is constantly in evidence and retains its vitality to the end.. .. It is perhaps the most enduring symbol which man has created.”[1] Yet many people today overlook the rich shepherd imagery intended in the word “pastor” and phrases like “pulling up stakes” or “moving on to greener pastures.” In addition modern shepherding practices, when known to readers, may differ from those of the ancient Near East.[2]

Concerning the process of how meaning is lost over time, Caird writes, “Through constant use it [a metaphor] then becomes a faded or worn metaphor, and finally a dead one. This last stage has arrived when speaker and hearer are unaware of the duality of vehicle and tenor, and treat the word as a new literalism.”[3] Macky prefers the description “retired metaphor” rather than “dead metaphor.”[4] By this he means that it can be called back into service at any time. Either way, the speaker or reader of the figure is no longer aware that a figure is being used, and thus its vividness, not to mention its inherent meaning, is lost. A substantial hermeneutical challenge is posed by this gap of language, history, geography, and culture that separates the text from the reader.[5]

Although its rich imagery is often not fully appreciated, the shepherd image can and must be pressed back into service. Ryken’s advice about what to do when encountering a figure of speech in the Scriptures is especially apt here. “The first [step] is to identify and experience the literal level of a metaphor. Metaphors are images or pictures first of all. Their impact depends on letting the literal level sink into one’s consciousness before carrying over the meaning to a figurative or second level. If this is not done, the whole point of speaking in metaphor evaporates.”[6] Once the interpreter has explored the literal level of the image, the challenge is then to identify the specific points of comparison intended by the figure of speech.[7]

Ironically figures of speech offer interpreters of the Bible some of their greatest opportunities, while at the same time presenting them with some of their most frustrating challenges. This is true of the shepherd-sheep imagery, a common figure of comparison. Figures of comparison include similes (e.g., Isa. 40:11), metaphors (e.g., John 10:11), hypocatastases[8] (e.g., Isa. 49:10), idioms (e.g., Mic. 5:5 [Heb., 4]), personifications (e.g., Ps. 49:14 [Heb., 15]), and anthropomorphisms (e.g., Ps. 23:1).[9]

Why Figures of Comparison?

Why are figures of comparison (and especially the imagery of shepherding) used so freely in Scripture? The fundamental and perhaps obvious reason is to aid in communication.[10] The effective communication of new concepts calls for moving from the known to the unknown, from the familiar to the unfamiliar.[11]

How does God, who is infinitely beyond human experience and comprehension, explain Himself and His relationship to people in ways they can understand? The answer is through figurative or metaphorical language. As Lakoff and Johnson state, “The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.”[12] And Lewis wrote, “When we are trying to explain, to someone younger or less instructed than ourselves, a matter which is already perfectly clear in our own minds, we may deliberately, and even painfully, pitch about for the metaphor that is likely to help him.”[13] Lewis says a metaphor is a tool among various “other tools in our box.”[14] The human authors of Scripture employed such “tools” in the form of figures and motifs from human life in communicating aspects of God’s nature to finite human beings.[15] Caird rightly contends that “all, or almost, all of the language used by the Bible to refer to God is metaphor.”[16]

Figures of speech used to describe God (e.g., king, warrior, rock, father, shield, bird, farmer, vinedresser) may be thought of as “lenses” through which people are better able to “see” the unseeable God. No one figure is intended to give an exhaustive and all-encompassing understanding, but each adds its piece to the Bible’s composite picture of God. Taken together, they make up a mosaic, however incomplete, of the otherwise unknowable God.[17]

The same is true of the presentation of Jesus in the New Testament. The Gospel of John especially employs several striking pictures of Jesus. Among other things He is a lamb, the light of the world, the bread of life, and a shepherd.[18] In fact, in John, Jesus Himself has become the supreme picture of God (1:18)!

Caird wrote, “Metaphor is a lens; it is as though the speaker were saying, ‘Look through this and see what I have seen, something you would never have noticed without the lens!’ ”[19]

This is a helpful statement. At the same time, it assumes that the reader is able to “see” through the “lens.” The original audience would have understood a particular image clearly and intuitively, which is why the author used it. But for subsequent readers that image may be unfamiliar, or worse, its connotation may have changed.

The Affective Aspect of Figures of Comparison

One of the greatest values of figurative language is its ability to make an impact on an emotional as well as an intellectual level.[20] The image of a shepherd and his sheep was originally a highly emotive figure, though today it has lost much of its emotional force.

Ross argues that figures such as similes and metaphors draw “a comparison between two things of unlike nature that yet have something in common and creates a psychological response.. .. The exegete will also try to articulate the mood evoked by the figure.”[21] When a figure of comparison is familiar, an emotional response will occur spontaneously. But for later readers many biblical images need to be “unpacked” in order for the meaning to be grasped on the intellectual and emotional levels.

The primary roles of a shepherd with his sheep were guiding, providing food and water, protecting and delivering, gathering scattered or lost sheep, and giving health and security. The needs of sheep are primarily physical. Not being abundantly endowed with intelligence and lacking the capacity to find food and water for themselves in marginal environments, they require a benevolent and capable human leader who will guide them to places where these essentials can be found. Since sheep tend to wander,[22] a concerned shepherd must search for them and bring them back when they become lost or when for some reason the flock has become scattered. A sheep’s lack of natural defenses leaves it susceptible to the attacks of predators.

The primary emotions associated with the shepherd and sheep images are, negatively, fear, and positively, a sense of peace or well-being. Jeremiah 23:4 is illustrative. “ ‘I will also raise up shepherds over them and they will tend them; and they will not be afraid any longer, nor be terrified, nor will any be missing,’ declares the Lord.” Because of the incompetence of her shepherd-leaders, the people of Israel and Judah were described as “afraid,” “terrified,” and “missing.”[23] Being lost is a fearful thing. Living under the likelihood that one’s basic physical needs may go unmet and experiencing continual harassment from powerful and hostile forces is quite distressing. Particularly disturbing is the prospect of becoming a scattered flock, resulting from being without a good shepherd.[24]

By contrast, in the days of the righteous Davidic “branch,”[25] “Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely” (Jer. 23:6). Significantly what will bring about these wonderful conditions is the righteous character of the shepherd-king’s reign (23:5–6; cf. Isa. 9:7; 11:1–5). Among the most important functions of the king as shepherd in the ancient Near East was the provision of justice and the resulting condition of peace and well-being.[26]

Hammurabi (1792–1750 b.c.) is the Babylonian king well known for his law code. One Babylonian historical document tells how Hammurabi dug a canal that came to be known as “Hammurabi-[provides]-abundance-for-the-people, the Beloved-of-Anu-and-Enlil.”[27] The canal provided a permanent and plentiful water supply for several cities.[28] The same document tells how he “reorganized Sumer and Akkad from [its] confusion [lit., scattering].” Significantly the document begins with the statement “Hammurabi [became] king. He established justice in the country.”[29] While not specifically termed a shepherd here, Hammurabi is clearly portrayed as doing the work of a shepherd. The link between well-being and justice is clear. Peace and well-being descend on the flock as a direct result of the righteousness of the king.

The top of the stela of Hammurabi shows the king standing before the sun-god Shamash, who is seated on his throne. Shamash is commissioning Hammurabi to prepare his law code.[30] This is appropriate, since Shamash was the god who the Babylonians believed oversaw life on earth and brought justice to all. Two sections of the prologue to the Code of Hammurabi appear below. The themes of establishing justice and promoting well-being are observable, along with the explicit use of the title “shepherd.”

At that time Anum and Enlil named me to promote the welfare of the people, me, Hammurabi, the devout, god-fearing prince, to cause justice to prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil, that the strong might not oppress the weak, to rise like the sun over the black-headed [people], and to light up the land. Hammurabi, the shepherd, called by Enlil, am I; the one who makes affluence and plenty abound; who provides in abundance all sorts of things for Nippur-Duranki.. . .

[I am] the devout prince, who brightens up the face of Tishpak; the provider of splendid banquets for Ninazu; the savior of his people from distress, who establishes in security their portion in the midst of Babylon; the shepherd of the people, whose deeds are pleasing to Ishtar. .. who makes law prevail; who guides the people aright.[31]

The code’s epilogue repeats the same themes.

I, Hammurabi, the perfect king, was not careless [or] neglectful of the black-headed [people], whom Enlil had presented to me, [and] whose shepherding Marduk had committed to me; I sought out peaceful regions for them; I overcame grievous difficulties; I caused light to rise on them. With the mighty weapon which Zababa and Inanna entrusted to me, with the insight that Enki allotted to me, with the ability that Marduk gave me, I rooted out the enemy above and below; I made an end of war; I promoted the welfare of the land; I made the peoples rest in friendly habitations; I did not let them have anyone to terrorize them. The great gods called me, so I became the beneficent shepherd whose scepter is righteous; my benign shadow is spread over my city. In my bosom I carried the peoples of the land of Sumer and Akkad; they prospered under my protection; I always governed them in peace; I sheltered them in my wisdom. In order that the strong might not oppress the weak, that justice might be dealt the orphan (and) the widow, in Babylon.[32]

In ancient Near Eastern literature the ideal king was the shepherd of his god’s people. He promoted justice within the flock while at the same protecting it from predators without. The fact that the shepherd image occurs so widely throughout the ancient world suggests that it reflects innate longing in the human heart. Through the image of the shepherd-sheep relationship people were able to articulate their basic fears as well as their longing for provision and protection by God and their human leaders.[33]

Closely related to the image of a shepherd and his sheep is the image of predatory beasts. In Isaiah 11:6–9 and 65:25 the prophet’s vision of the future is cast in pastoral terms. Israel could anticipate a peaceful, idyllic future, in contrast to the then current Assyrian crisis and the inevitability of exile to Babylon. The wolf, leopard, young lion, lion, and bear are all natural predators of the flock, which includes the lamb, the kid, the calf, the fatling, the cow, and the ox. Primary emotions being evoked by this scene are hope, anticipation, relief, joy, and peace.

Several writers have noted the major periods in Israel’s history in which the shepherd motif was used. For the most part these were times of intense crisis and turmoil. Occurrences of the figure in the Old Testament tend to cluster around the Exodus or descriptions of the Exodus (Exodus, Psalms), the Assyrian crisis of the late eighth century b.c. (Isaiah, Micah), the exile (Jeremiah, Ezekiel), and the postexilic era (Zechariah). Regarding Ezekiel 34, a passage written from exile in Babylon, Fikes writes, “The imagery of Yahweh as shepherd served to give hope to an exiled people. The implicit imagery of Yahweh as the shepherd-king of His people during the Exodus and wilderness experience becomes the explicit promise for a fragmented people in need of a new exodus.”[34]

It is also important to observe that the shepherd-sheep image is a highly relational one. Whereas other relational metaphors used of God are of a “human to human” type,[35] the shepherd-sheep image is “human to animal.”

The words of the psalmist in Psalm 23 beautifully reflect both the relational and emotional aspects implicit in the image.[36] Because Yahweh was his shepherd, the psalmist would not lack (v. 1). Even in the valley of the shadow of death he would fear no harm (v. 4a), because the divine Shepherd was with him. His implements (a rod and a staff) brought him comfort (v. 4b). The psalmist testified to feeling provided for, secure, and comforted in the presence of his divine Shepherd. He had no fear, which again is the primary negative emotion implicit in the shepherd-sheep image. The use of the relational word חֶסֶד, “loyal love, covenant faithfulness,” in verse 6 is significant.[37] The Shepherd, the stronger party in the relationship, is fully capable of performing His responsibilities.

However, in several places the divine Shepherd does the opposite of what is expected.[38] When this happens, very intense emotions are communicated. Psalm 44 is graphic and shocking. The psalmist complained, “You give us as sheep to be eaten and have scattered us among the nations. You sell Your people cheaply, and have not profited by their sale” (vv. 11–12). And, “But for Your sake we are killed all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered” (v. 22). The worst of it is that Yahweh, the normally vigilant Shepherd, seemed to be sleeping (v. 23)!

Nielsen points out that God acted in a strange way in the Book of Hosea.[39] Yahweh went against His flock like a lion, tearing them to pieces and carrying them away, “with none to deliver” (Hos. 5:14). God portrayed Himself as a lion, a leopard, a bear, and a lioness, again tearing and devouring (13:7). The hope, however, was that if Israel repented, Yahweh would revert to performing His shepherding roles again (6:1). Rather than “tearing” and “striking” (the acts of a predator), He would “heal” and “bandage” (the acts of a shepherd). A similar picture is also seen in Amos 3:12.[40]

In Jeremiah 9:15–16 Yahweh acted like a bad shepherd. He declared, “Behold, I will feed them, this people, with wormwood and give them poisoned water to drink. I will scatter them among the nations, whom neither they nor their fathers have known; and I will send the sword after them until I have annihilated them.”[41] These unexpected descriptions of God scattering His people rather than gathering them cause the reader to note what is being said.

This same unexpected negative use of the shepherd image is also applied to human shepherds who were supposed to be caring for Israel, God’s flock.[42] Several times they are depicted as miserably failing to fulfill their charge (esp. Isa. 56:9–12; Ezek. 34:3–4; Mic. 3:1–4; Zech. 11:16). At other times they too are ironically and shockingly portrayed as predators of the flock. Zephaniah, who prophesied during the days of Josiah (Zeph. 1:1), indicated that judgment was coming against “the princes, the king’s sons and all who clothe themselves with foreign garments” (v. 8). Jerusalem’s princes are depicted as “roaring lions” and her judges as “wolves” (3:3–4). This is a highly ironic use of the shepherd image. Those who should have been protecting and caring for the flock had turned into its savage attackers! Such imagery is intended to evoke responses of shock and outrage in a way that mere propositional statements could not. The behavior of Judah’s leaders was a betrayal of the fundamental relationship expressed by the shepherding imagery.

Summary

New concepts, especially about God, can be learned by means of analogies that move from what is already known to what is unknown. Figures of comparison are like lenses through which concepts can be viewed in fresh ways, so that a reader’s understanding of a particular concept can be expanded and enriched. The shepherd-sheep figure is one important “lens” through which to view God and human leaders.

A hermeneutical problem with figures of comparison results when a figure, which was intended to improve understanding, becomes obscure or even changes over time. When this happens, it must either be replaced with a suitable substitute or, more preferably in the case of the shepherd-sheep image, be revived.

Figures of comparison and the shepherd image in particular are emotionally powerful. Primary emotions evoked by the shepherd-sheep relationship include fear and its opposite, a sense of peace and well-being. When shepherd-leaders fail to perform their expected functions, there is shock, outrage, and a sense of betrayal. On rare occasions God Himself seems not to be a good shepherd. The second article in this two-part series examines (a) the value of flocks in the ancient Near East, (b) the practices of shepherds in the Old Testament, and (c) the equipment used by shepherds, all in an effort to understand the significance of the shepherding imagery in the Scriptures.

Notes

1. Jack W. Vancil, “The Symbolism of the Shepherd in Biblical, Intertestamental and New Testament Material” (Ph.D. diss., Dropsie University, 1975), 346.
2. This is certainly the case in a country like Australia, where a sheep grazier spends minimal time in direct contact with his sheep.
3. G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London: Duckworth, 1980; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 152.
4. Peter W. Macky, The Centrality of Metaphors to Biblical Thought (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1990), 27, 80.
5. “Upon first hearing, a metaphor is novel to the hearer. Given time it can become familiar, then standard, then hidden (forgotten, unrecognized). Of course some become retired (‘dead’), no longer usually metaphorical for those who know how to use them literally” (ibid., 58). Macky accurately classifies the shepherd-sheep image as a “standard metaphor.” “Many metaphors that were once novel became used over and over again in the biblical tradition until they were established, standard metaphorical ways of speaking” (ibid., 77).
6. Leland Ryken, “ ‘I Have Used Similitudes’: The Poetry of the Bible,” Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (July–September 1990): 263.
7. See Mark Zvi Brettler, “Incompatible Metaphors for YHWH in Isaiah 40–66, ” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 78 (June 1998): 101.
8. Bullinger defines this figure as “a declaration that implies the resemblance or representation; or comparison by implication.” He further states, “As a figure, it differs from Metaphor, because in a metaphor the two nouns are both named and given; while, in Hypocatastasis, only one is named and the other is implied, or as it were, is put down underneath out of sight. Hence Hypocatastasis is implied resemblance or representation” (E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible Explained and Illustrated [London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1898; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968], 744 [italics his]).
9. Many writers use the word “metaphor” for figures of comparison in general.
10. Jan G. van der Watt, Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel according to John (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 5. Roy B. Zuck states that figures of speech serve six purposes. They add color or vividness, attract attention, make abstract or intellectual ideas more concrete, aid in retention, abbreviate an idea, and encourage reflection (Basic Bible Interpretation [Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1991; reprint, Colorado Springs, CO: Cook, 1996), 144–45.
11. John Milton Gregory, The Seven Laws of Teaching, rev ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954), 54; John Painter, “Johannine Symbols: A Case Study in Epistemology,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27 (June 1979): 33; and Sallie McFague, Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 15.
12. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 5 (italics theirs).
13. C. S. Lewis, “Bluspels and Flalansferes: A Semantic Nightmare,” in Selected Literary Essays, ed. Walter Hooper (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 253.
14. Ibid. John Painter writes similarly, “The variety of symbols used by the evangelist [John] suggests that the world is a store-house of symbols which can become vehicles of the revelation” (“Johannine Symbols: A Case Study in Epistemology,” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 27 [June 1979]: 32 [italics his]).
15. See for example Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), 99–101; and Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Old Testament Library, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 1:69.
16. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, 18. Jonathon Huntzinger remarks, “The biblical writers did not engage in clumsy anthropomorphism when they wrote about God. Rather, they engaged in an imaginative exercise by which they drew upon their experience and an intuitive awareness of separation from God in their attempt to make the unfamiliar familiar” (“The End of Exile: A Short Commentary on the Shepherd/Sheep Metaphor in Exilic and Post-Exilic Prophetic and Synoptic Gospel Literature” [Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1999], 25). See also Gary V. Smith, “The Concept of God/the Gods as King in the Ancient Near East and the Bible,” Trinity Journal 3 (spring 1982): 18.
17. Macky makes this point in a discussion of the two figures Paul used in 1 Corinthians 13. “Knowing the subject indirectly, via a symbol, does not provide the same clarity of vision that comes from knowing the subject directly. Metaphorically clothed knowledge is an approximation, not the precise truth.. .. We can go beyond the limitations of a single symbol, and so not be bound by its imperfection, for we can combine it with others and let each correct the others” (The Centrality of Metaphors to Biblical Thought, 94–95). He adds, “Multiple metaphors on the same subject enable us to overcome the distortions of each, to some extent” (ibid., 96). See also Huntzinger, “The End of Exile,” 44.
18. “Jesus brought together many different themes and motifs that were originally separate in the Old Testament and incorporated them into his person ‘as part of his consciousness of being God’s Anointed and Chosen’ ” (Barry Alan Fikes, “A Theological Analysis of the Shepherd-King Motif in Ezekiel 34” [Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1995], 101). The last part of this quotation is from William Sanford LaSor, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush, Old Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 402.
19. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, 152. Ryken uses a similar illustration. “Metaphors are bifocal utterances that require looking at two levels of meaning” (Ryken, “ ‘I Have Used Similitudes’: The Poetry of the Bible,” 263).
20. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 189.
21. Allen P. Ross, “Principles of Exegesis” (unpublished class notes, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX, 1984), 57.
22. The Hebrew verb תָּעָה, “err, go astray, wander,” occurs several times in pastoral contexts (see Exod. 23:4 [referring to donkeys]; Ps. 119:176; Isa. 53:6; Jer. 50:6). The use of this verb in the hiphil stem with Manasseh as subject in 2 Kings 21:9 (= 2 Chron. 33:9) is significant in understanding the king’s role as Yahweh’s “shepherd,” though the passage is not explicitly a shepherd-sheep one. Jeremiah 23:13 and 32 are more explicit, given the use of the shepherd image in the context. See also Psalm 95:10; Ezekiel 44:10, 15; and 48:11. The Greek equivalent planavw is used in the shepherding contexts of Matthew 18:12–13 and 1 Peter 2:25.
23. The emotion of fear is also evident in Israel’s Exodus from Egypt, in which God like a shepherd led His people through the Red Sea by the hand of His human undershepherds Moses and Aaron (e.g., Pss. 77:16–20; 78:52–53; Isa. 63:11–14). The Israelites were terrified when they saw Pharaoh’s advance (Exod. 14:10–12). Also David compared his terrifying situation to being “torn” and “dragged away” by a lion (Ps. 7:2).
24. This thought is developed in Numbers 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17 (= 2 Chron. 18:16); Jeremiah 10:21; 23:1–4; 50:6; Ezekiel 34:5; Nahum 3:18; Zechariah 10:2; Matthew 9:36; 26:31; Mark 6:34; 14:27; and John 10:12.
25. The word צֶמַח, “branch,” is used of the Messiah in Jeremiah 23:5 and 33:15 (cf. Zech. 3:8; 6:12), and of Israel in Isaiah 4:2. A synonym נֵצֶר, occurs in Isaiah 11:1.
26. Richard S. Tomback discusses Psalm 23:2, as well as Ezekiel 34:10, 14, and Isaiah 11:6–7, in relation to the ancient Near Eastern use of the shepherd image (“Psalm 23:2 Reconsidered,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 10 [1982]: 93–96). For more on the use of shepherd imagery in ancient Near Eastern literature see Thomas Alan Golding, “Jewish Expectations of the Shepherd Image at the Time of Christ” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2004), 93–115.
27. James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 270.
28. Similarly Sennacherib spoke of “digging canals, opening wells, and running irrigation to Assyria’s meadows” (Daniel David Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926–1927], 2:184).
29. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 269.
30. See James B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 77; and George E. Mendenhall, “Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law,” Biblical Archaeologist 17 (May 1954): 31.
31. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 165.
32. Ibid., 177–78. “Both Lugalzaggesi and Hammurapi viewed themselves as making their subjects lie down in green pastures. Nebuchadnezzar takes over this metaphor in the Wadi Brissa inscription” (Paul Ferguson, “Nebuchadnezzar, Gilgamesh, and the Babylonian Job,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37 [September 1994]: 328 n. 61). A similar claim was made by Kurigalzu, a Kassite king of Babylon. “Judge who finds out the truth like Shamash, who restores well-being to the oppressed among all peoples. .. who made the joyful people of Babylon lie down in green pastures of his land, who gathered in the scattered peoples” (Benjamin R. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature [Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1993], 280–81). Tomback argues that the language of Psalm 23:2 “is the equivalent and in no way different in meaning than the Akkadian. .. ‘to lie down in green pastures’ and its related phrase. .. ‘to make. .. dwell in security.’ ” He also refers to Isaiah 11:6–7 as “the ideal picture of security” (“Psalm 23:2 Reconsidered,” 94).
33. Humankind has “the intrinsic desire. .. to experience a kind and compassionate deity, one that cares for them intimately. Additionally, they desired their rulers to function in the same manner” (Barry Alan Fikes, “A Theological Analysis of the Shepherd-King Motif in Ezekiel 34, ” 1).
34. Ibid., 2. Also Philippe de Robert observes that the pastoral theme appears at “the essential stages of salvation history” (Le Berger d’Israël: Essai sur le thme pastoral dans l’Ancien Testament (Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1968), 95. Vancil writes similarly, “There seems to have been more fondness for the image immediately preceding, and during the exile. This would indicate that the theme became most significant to the people at a time of distress and crisis” (“The Symbolism of the Shepherd in Biblical, Intertestamental and New Testament Material,” 343). See also Ronald Edward Bracewell, “Shepherd Imagery in the Synoptic Gospels” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1983), 85. Ferris Lee McDaniel suggests that “deliverance from distress” is the theme that links the images of shepherd and banquet in Psalm 23. Like Fikes, he too observes a clustering of uses of the shepherd image around the two great events in Israel’s history, both of which were times of great need—the Exodus from Egypt and the restoration from Babylon (“The Relationship between the Shepherd and Banquet Motifs of Psalm 23” [Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1983], 68).
35. McFague identifies the five most common metaphors of God in the Old Testament as king/subject, judge/litigant, husband/wife, father/child, master/servant, each of which is highly relational as well as “hierarchical” and “patriarchal” (Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language, 43; cf. 194).
36. McFague discusses this psalm in terms of “theological models” (ibid., 135–36).
37. See Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 1:232–39.
38. Eichrodt describes the use of “such comfortable-sounding divine names as Rock of Israel, Redeemer, Mighty One, Shepherd” as “nothing more than a huge misconception of the real nature of God” when He comes in judgment of His people (ibid., 347).
39. Kirsten Nielsen, “Old Testament Metaphors in the New Testament,” in New Directions in Biblical Theology: Papers of the Aarhus Conference, 16–19 September 1992, ed. Sigfred Pederson (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 136.
40. “Both in the book of Hosea and in the book of Amos the double role of Yahweh is expressed through the metaphor of the flock that is attacked by a wild beast and only to some extent is defended by its shepherd” (ibid., 137).
41. Often the prophets used the verb פּוּ, “to scatter,” with Yahweh as the subject (Jer. 9:16; 13:24; 18:17; 30:11; Ezek. 11:16–17; 12:15; 20:23; 22:15; 36:19; see also Deut. 4:27; 28:64; 30:3; Neh. 1:8). The synonym זָרָה often connotes the idea of winnowing (e.g., Lev. 26:33; 1 Kings 14:15; Ps. 106:27), but in Psalm 44:11 (Heb., 12) and Jeremiah 31:10זָרָה is used of shepherding.
42. John Ashton highlights this danger relative to the use of shepherd imagery in the Gospel of John. “Yet behind the reassuring presence of the good shepherd hovers the threatening shadow of other, less benign figures, people in authority whose concern is to exploit rather than to cherish” (Studying John: Approaches to the Fourth Gospel [Oxford: Clarendon, 1994], 123).