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).