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.