Namnlös Sermon
Herde
SHEPHERD One who took complete care of a flock of sheep. His task was to find grass and water for the sheep, to protect them from wild animals (Am 3:12), to look for and restore those that strayed (Ez 34:8; Mt 18:12), to lead the flock out of the fold each day, and to return the flock to the fold at the close of the day (Jn 10:2–4).
The figure of the shepherd and his sheep is important in the NT. Jesus is the Good Shepherd who gives his life for the sheep (Mt 18:10–14; Mk 6:34; Jn 10; Heb 13:20). The analogy of the shepherd and the flock finds rich expression in Psalm 23, Ezekiel 34, and John 10. God was the Shepherd of Israel (Gn 49:24; Pss 23:1; 80:1; Is 40:11). When unfaithful shepherds failed Israel, God intervened and appointed his servant David as a faithful shepherd over them (Ez 34:11–16, 23–24).
The NT imagery comes from an OT and Palestinian background. In the Jewish economy, the shepherd who tended a flock of sheep or goats held a responsible position. Great flocks had to be moved from place to place, and it was necessary that they be guarded from wild animals and robbers. Because of the fundamental role of shepherding in the ancient world, the word “shepherd” became a common term for a ruler. The kings of Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt were often referred to as shepherds who protected their people. This imagery formed the background for the OT, where the same usage is found. God is pictured as the shepherd of Israel, concerned for every aspect of his people’s welfare. Rulers and leaders of the people are often referred to as shepherds (Nm 27:17; 1 Kgs 22:17; Jer 10:21; 12:10; 22:22; 23:1–2).
By the time of Jeremiah, “shepherd” began to be used as a title for the coming Messiah. God himself would provide for his flock (Jer 23:3; 31:10; Ez 34:11–22) and promised to provide faithful shepherds who showed concern for his people (Jer 3:15; 23:4). He explicitly promised that he would be their God and would set the messianic Son of David as shepherd over them (Ez 34:23–24). In the NT Jesus referred to himself as the promised messianic Shepherd (Mt 10:16; 25:32; Mk 14:27; Jn 10:1–30; cf. Heb 13:20; 1 Pt 2:25). Ephesians 4:11 speaks of leaders of the church as shepherds or pastors, and this usage continued in the early church and down until the present day. Paul said they are special people given to the church by God to care for God’s people as a shepherd does his sheep, leading and teaching them in the ways of God. Peter also spoke of the leaders as shepherds; he encouraged them to remain faithful shepherds until the time that the Chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ, appeared (1 Pt 5:1–4).
SHEPHERD. Biblical shepherds may be literal or metaphorical: those in charge of sheep; those also, divine or mortal, in charge of men. Similar praise or censure may be applied to both types. The Heb. term for shepherd is the participial rō‘eh, the Gk. poimēn. Care exercised over fellow-mortals may be political or spiritual. Homer and other secular writers frequently called kings and governors shepherds (Iliad 1. 263; 2. 243, etc.), a usage reflected, in deeper metaphors, in Ezk. 34.
The literal shepherd pursued, and still pursues, an exacting calling, one as old as Abel (Gn. 4:2). He must find grass and water in a dry and stony land (Ps. 23:2), protect his charges from weather and from fiercer creatures (cf. Am. 3:12), and retrieve any strayed animal (Ezk. 34:8; Mt. 18:12, etc.). When his duties carried him far from human haunts, a bag held his immediate necessities (1 Sa. 17:40, 49), and a tent might be his dwelling (Ct. 1:8). He might use dogs to assist him, like his modern counterpart (Jb. 30:1). When shepherds and flocks take up their more permanent abode in any city, this is a mark of depopulation and disaster through divine judgment (Je. 6:3; 33:12; Zp. 2:13–15). The shepherd on duty was liable to make restitution for any sheep lost (Gn. 31:39), unless he could effectively plead circumstances beyond his foresight or control (Ex. 22:10–13). Ideally the shepherd should be strong, devoted and selfless, as many of them were. But ruffians were sometimes found in an honourable profession (Ex. 2:17, 19), and some shepherds inevitably failed in their duty (Zc. 11, passim; Na. 3:18; Is. 56:11, etc.).
Such is the honour of the calling that the OT frequently delineates God as the Shepherd of Israel (Gn. 49:24; Pss. 23:1; 80:1), tender in his solicitude (Is. 40:11), yet able to scatter the flock in wrath, or gather it again in forgiveness (Je. 31:10). Sometimes the note is predominantly one of judgment, when human shepherd and sheep alike stand condemned and punished (Je. 50:6; 51:23; Zc. 13:7; and Gospel applications). These unfaithful shepherds may well tremble to stand before the Lord (Je. 49:19; 50:44). Sometimes there is a note of compassion when the sheep are deserted by those responsible for them (Nu. 27:17; 1 Ki. 22:17; Mk. 6:34, etc.). Two shepherds mentioned with special approval are Moses (Is. 63:11) and, surprisingly enough, that heathen executor of God’s purposes, Cyrus (Is. 44:28). Scripture earnestly stresses the serious responsibility of human leaders to those who follow them. One of the most solemn chapters in the OT is the denunciation of the faithless shepherds in Ezk. 34 (cf. Je. 23:1–4, and even more sternly Je. 25:32–38). These, for their belly’s sake, have fed themselves and not their sheep; they have killed and scattered their charges for their own profit; they have grievously neglected their proper pastoral care; therefore God will re-gather the sheep and judge the shepherds. He will in fact appoint one shepherd (Ezk. 34:23). This is critically interpreted as signifying the union of the N and S kingdoms, but it portrays much better the expected Christ.
In the NT it is Christ’s mission to be Shepherd, even Chief Shepherd (Heb. 13:20 and 1 Pet. 2:25; also 1 Pet. 5:4). This is worked out in detail in Jn. 10, which merits detailed comparison with Ezk. 34. John’s main points are: the iniquity of those who ‘creep, and intrude and climb into the fold’; the using of the door as a mark of the true shepherd; the familiarity of the sheep with the voice of their appointed leader (modern shepherds in the E use precisely the same methods); the teachings regarding the Person of Christ, who is likened to the door (E shepherds frequently slept right across the ‘door’ or opening in the fold wall); likened to the good shepherd, but contrasted with the worthless hireling. John stresses also the relationship of Christ, his followers and God; the bringing into the ‘one flock’ of the ‘other sheep’ (v. 16); and the rejection of those who are not the true sheep of Christ. (Cf. Milton, Lycidas, esp. lines 113–131.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY. E. Beyreuther, in NIDNTT 3, pp. 564–569; F. F. Bruce, ‘The Shepherd King’, in This is That, 1968, pp. 100–114; J. Jeremias, in TDNT 6, pp. 485–502.
SHEPHERD, SHEEP
The pastoral setting of a large portion of Ancient Near Eastern culture made motifs of sheep and shepherding apt descriptions of human and divine roles and relationships. The primary background for the Gospel references to shepherd and sheep lies in the OT where Israel* is the lost sheep and the king or promised future ruler is the shepherd. The Gospels also develop the notion of the apostles as shepherds, again reflecting the OT context wherein Israel’s leaders were sometimes referred to as shepherds. The motif of sheep and goats is also used in the Gospels to illustrate eschatological judgment.*
1. The Lost Sheep
2. Jesus the Shepherd
3. The Apostles As Shepherds
4. The Sheep and the Goats
5. Miscellaneous Occurrences
1. The Lost Sheep
The lost sheep of Israel represent people who have been abandoned by their leaders and/or have wandered away from God* (for a similar use of the motif of Israel as sheep see 1 Enoch 89–90). A number of OT passages form the background for this imagery, especially Ezekiel 34.
Matthew and Mark describe the multitude for whom Jesus felt compassion as sheep without a shepherd. Mark tells us that as a result of his compassion Jesus began to teach them many things (Mk 6:34). Matthew says Jesus’ compassion motivated him to challenge his disciples to pray (see Prayer) for more workers to go into the harvest (Mt 9:36). The OT language behind the saying about sheep without a shepherd is clear (Num 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17 par. 2 Chron 18:16; Ezek 34:5). Mark follows the saying with the story of the feeding of five thousand in the wilderness (see Mountain and Wilderness), thereby possibly alluding to Psalm 23, “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.”
Jesus also gives instructions to the Twelve not to go to Gentiles* or Samaritans* but only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 10:6). This may be an allusion to Ezekiel 34:6 which describes Israel as God’s sheep scattered over the face of the earth with no one to look for them. As the disciples* carry out their mission they will fulfill Jeremiah 23:4, “ ‘I will appoint shepherds over them and they will shepherd them and they will no longer fear nor be terrified nor missing’ says the Lord.” Thus their mission “heralds the messianic age of salvation” (Gundry, 185).
In response to the petition of a Canaanite woman to exorcise a demon* from her daughter, Jesus remains silent (Mt 15:21–28). When his disciples urge him to send her away, he responds, “I have been sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt 15:24). The combination of the woman’s address of Jesus as “Son of David”* and Jesus’ response again recalls Ezekiel 34 (vv. 23–24). If Ezekiel 34 is rightly considered as background for this imagery, the lostness of Israel referred to in these passages is a result of both God’s judgment and the unwillingness of her leaders to fulfill their role as the shepherds of Israel.
A lost sheep also plays a part in a parable* found in both Matthew 18:12–14 and Luke 15:3–7. Although the basic plot of both accounts is the same, the discrepancy in wording has led interpreters to debate whether they were derived from a common source. It is possible that Jesus could have told such a short parable more than once using different words or that the single parable could have been translated from an Aramaic tradition in different ways. In Matthew the parable is addressed to believers (cf. Mt 18:6) and points out the Father’s pastoral concern as motivation for not causing sheep to stumble. The parable in Luke is addressed to Pharisees* and scribes* (Lk 15:1–3) and points to their lack of compassion for “sinners.”* The faithful shepherd stands in contrast to the wicked shepherds of Ezekiel 34:7–8 who refused to go into the wilderness to look for the lost sheep of Israel. Luke also includes the detail that the shepherd, when he found the lost sheep, placed it on his shoulders to take it home (Lk 15:5). This emphasizes the price paid by the shepherd to restore lost sheep to the fold (Bailey, 144–56). The future tense in Luke 15:7 gives the parable eschatological force (Jeremias, 135–36).
2. Jesus the Shepherd
Since the people of God were like sheep without a shepherd, God provided a shepherd in the person of his Son. There are a number of OT passages in which a Davidic ruler is referred to as a shepherd. One which plays a significant role in the Gospel tradition is Micah 5:2–4 [MT 5:1–3]: “… from you [Bethlehem] will come a ruler in Israel … who will shepherd in the strength of Yahweh.” In the First Gospel the Jewish leaders refer to this passage when asked about the birthplace of the king of the Jews (Mt 2:1–6; see Birth of Jesus).
In the OT shepherding the people was a common metaphor for leadership (2 Sam 7:7), but in 2 Samuel 5:2 the shepherding metaphor was used specifically in an oracle concerning David (cf. 1 Chron 11:2). This oracle also stands behind the prophecy of Micah 5:2–4. In fact, since Matthew 2:6 is not a verbatim citation, it may have resulted from a procedure common in early Judaism whereby 2 Samuel 5:2b would have been attached to the Micah oracle in order to interpret it. Micah 5:2 predicts a leader who is later called a shepherd (v. 4; see Old Testament in the Gospels). By adding 2 Samuel 5:2b “you (David) will shepherd my people Israel,” the Jews in Matthew are represented as having interpreted Micah’s prophecy as referring specifically to the Davidic Messiah (see Christ; Son of David). Similarly, the targum explicitly identifies the promised ruler as the Messiah, though it drops this metaphorical use of “shepherding” in favor of a reference to “ruling in strength” (Tg. Neb. Mic 5:1–3). Jeremiah (23:1–6) and Ezekiel (34:23–24; 37:22–24) both promised a Davidic ruler who would shepherd God’s people (cf. also Pss. Sol. 17:40; CD 19:5–9).
The motif of the Messiah as shepherd also stands behind the citation of Zechariah 13:7 in both Matthew 26:31 and Mark 14:27 (cf. Jn 16:32): “Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.” The citation is a variation of the MT and may be from a different textual tradition found in certain manuscripts of the LXX (although these mss may have been copied by Christian scribes to bring them in line with the Gospels). It is also possible that the variation is an interpretation by Jesus or the tradition, which has taken over the first person singular later in the verse and changed the imperative accordingly. Thus Matthew and Mark read, “I will strike the shepherd and the sheep (‘of the flock’ in Mt) will be scattered.”
The tradition history (see Tradition Criticism) behind this citation continues to be debated, but it should be noted that it is of a piece with the widely attested identification of Jesus as a shepherd in the Gospels, and with the otherwise frequent use of Zechariah 9–14 in the passion material (see France, 107–110; see Passion Narrative). In Zechariah 13:7 the shepherd is God’s agent, a royal figure, whose death provides a decisive turning point in redemptive history. In the Markan and Matthean contexts similar overtones are transparent. “Striking the shepherd” clearly finds its fulfillment in Jesus’ arrest (and the fleeing of the disciples; cf. Mk 14:50; Mt 26:56) and execution. Although Zechariah 13:8–9 is not explicitly quoted in either Gospel context, it should not be overlooked that the covenant promise to the remnant of God’s people contained therein has its obvious parallel in Jesus’ subsequent prediction: “After I have arisen I will go before you to Galilee.”
The idea of Messiah as shepherd is most fully developed in John 10:1–18. This passage follows a section dealing with the spiritual blindness (see Blindness and Deafness) of the Jewish leaders (Jn 9:35–41). Immediately Jesus tells a “parable” comparing a good shepherd to a thief, robber or stranger (Jn 10:1–6). The thief does not enter the sheepfold through the gate (Jn 10:1). The good shepherd enters through the gate, and when he calls each of his sheep by name they follow him because they recognize his voice (Jn 10:2–4). But when the stranger calls, the sheep flee because they do not recognize his voice (Jn 10:5). In its present context the sheepfold is the nation of Israel (Ps 95:7; 100:3). The thief represents the Jewish leadership of Jesus’ day. The explanation of this parable is found in John 10:7–18. Tragan divides this exposition into three parts: verses 7–10; verses 11–13 and verses 14–18. His outline seems correct although his hypothesis that each part represents a different redactional layer is not a necessary conclusion. In John 10:7–10 Jesus presents himself as the door to the sheepfold. (Tragan follows P75 in v. 7 and thinks thura, “door” should actually read poimēn “shepherd.” The papyri disagree with one another here, but the internal evidence for poimēn, “shepherd,” as set forth by Tragan, is not as decisive as he thinks. Cf. most of the major commentaries.) He is the door in many respects. The Law* came through Moses, grace and truth* came through Jesus Christ (Jn 1:17). Thus Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and the replacement of Moses* who wrote of him (Jn 1:45; 5:46). He replaces the Temple* as the place of worship* (Jn 2:19–22). He is the light* of the world (Jn 8:12). He is the way to the Father, and no one can enter God’s presence except through him (Jn 14:6).
In the second exposition of the parable (Jn 10:11–13), Jesus presents himself as the good shepherd. The main thrust of this exposition is soteriological and ecclesiastical, highlighting the sacrifice of Jesus for his sheep. Again there is a contrast between the good shepherd and the one who watches the sheep only in exchange for wages. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep, but when danger comes the hireling runs away. There is a lesson in this exposition, not only about the sacrifice of the Savior but also the true nature of ministry. Adversity tests the true motivation of the shepherds of the church* (cf. 1 Tim 6:5; 1 Pet 5:2).
The third exposition (Jn 10:14–18) adds a christological theme to what has already been said. The antithesis between true and false shepherds disappears. The sacrifice of the good shepherd is repeated (Jn 10:15). And an ecclesiastical concern about sheep from another fold belonging to the good shepherd is noted. This is probably a reference to the Gentile mission of the early church. The christological theme comes out in John 10:17–18. The sacrifice of the shepherd is his sovereign choice based on his relationship with the Father.
The good shepherd is mentioned later in the chapter (Jn 10:26–30) with specific reference to the sheep recognizing his voice. The image painted is that of a shepherd entering a fold containing more than his own sheep. He calls to his sheep and those who recognize his voice follow him. Thus Jesus came to the Jewish nation and those who recognized him followed him and received eternal life,* and no one could snatch them from him. They became his little flock to whom the Father would give the kingdom (cf. Lk 12:32; see Kingdom of God).
Derrett is probably correct in seeing the metaphor of the good shepherd and its explications as a midrash on the OT, but the particular OT background he cites (Ex 21:1; Num 27; Is 56–57; Mic 2:12–13) should include Ezekiel 34. Ezekiel castigates the shepherds of Israel because they do not care for the flock of God. He threatens to remove them from their role as shepherds. Then he promises to raise up one shepherd to shepherd them, “namely, my servant David” (Ezek 34:23). This shepherd will be the means by which God blesses his people (Jn 10:10) and protects them from the wild beasts (Jn 10:12).
3. The Apostles As Shepherds
The notion of Jesus as the shepherd over the people of God shifts to his disciples as shepherds. This idea is already present in the commissioning of the disciples in Matthew 10:6: “Go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But the theme comes out most clearly in the epilog to the Fourth Gospel (Jn 21:15–17). Peter is three times asked by Jesus, “Peter do you love me?” Each time Peter responds positively. After each of Peter’s responses Jesus gives a command related to apostolic duty: “Feed my lambs”; “Shepherd my sheep”; “Feed my sheep” (Jn 21:15, 16, 17). The role of the good shepherd in the church is carried out through his appointed under-shepherds (see Apostle).
The question of the nature of this ministry entrusted to Peter in John 21 has divided the church for centuries. Is this ministry a ruling one, limited to Peter, and making him the first in a line of prime ministers of the church? Or is this pericope more general and a type-scene for the designation of shepherds (pastors) of God’s flock wherever they might be? G. R. Beasley-Murray points out that those who hold to the primacy of Peter are surprisingly neglectful of the relevance of other NT pastoral passages for interpreting this passage (e.g., Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:3; Beasley-Murray, 406–407). These pastoral passages are addressed to the elders of individual churches and seem to bear no thought of one person presiding over the whole church.
Matthew 7:15 also uses shepherd/sheep terminology to discuss leadership. “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inside are ravenous wolves.” The identity of these false prophets has engendered much discussion regarding Matthew’s audience—without yielding any firm conclusions. Some have thought that Matthew created the statement with reference to false prophets* in the church and anachronistically put it on the lips of Jesus. But this seems to assume that Jesus gave no thought to a community of followers that would perpetuate his teachings and face deceivers (cf. Mk 13:22; see Church). The notion of false prophets was a common theme in Jesus’ Bible (Jer 6:13–15; 8:8–12; Ezek 13; 22:27; 34; Mic 3; Zech 11:16). There is no reason to doubt that he appropriated this theme and borrowed the imagery with the intent of warning his present and future followers about wolves in sheep’s clothing who would claim to follow Jesus but in the end devour the people of God.
4. The Sheep and the Goats
In Matthew 25:31–46 the shepherd/sheep imagery is used in describing eschatological judgment. The Son of man (see Son of Man) sits on his throne before the gathering of the nations and separates them from one another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats (cf. Ezek 34:17). The sheep on his right hand represent those who serve him in this life. The goats on his left are those who refuse to serve him. But their destinies are not directly determined by their works. Rather, their works are determined by their nature as sheep or goats. The key to the interpretation of the passage lies in the interpretation of Jesus’ brothers as his disciples (Mt 25:40; see Gray). The judgment is thus based on one’s reception and identification with Christian missionaries and their message (Carson, 520). Acceptance brings inclusion in the flock of the good shepherd. Rejection brings banishment to the eternal fire (Mt 25:41; see Heaven and Hell).
5. Miscellaneous Occurrences
Luke highlights the role of shepherds at the coming of the Savior (Lk 2:8–20). It was to them that the angel* of the Lord* announced the good news of the birth of the Messiah. The literary significance of the shepherds may lie in their humble estate. Although rejected by the world, the Savior (see Salvation) is revealed to the lowly. This theme continues throughout the Third Gospel.
Jesus, in justifying his own healing of a man on the Sabbath*, used the example of saving a sheep from a pit on the Sabbath. The value of a man is greater than that of a sheep (Mt 12:11–12; cf. CD 11.13–14). And in Luke 17:7 he describes the work of a servant as possibly encompassing that of a shepherd.
In Matthew 10:16 Jesus sends his disciples out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Here the imagery pictures the dangers of the world into which Jesus sends his followers (Lk 10:3 renders Jesus’ saying as “lambs in the midst of wolves”—thus heightening the danger). Wolves here are not false prophets within the church but members of the world. The saying in Matthew may have been a common figure of speech and thus would have had very general referents.
See also APOSTLE; ISRAEL*; LAMB OF GOD.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. K. Bailey, Poet and Peasant (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976); G. R. Beasley-Murray, John (WBC; Waco: Word, 1987); F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968); D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. F. Gaebelein (vol. 8; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979); J. D. M. Derrett, “The Good Shepherd: St John’s Use of Jewish Halak ah and Haggadah,” in Studies in the New Testament (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 2.121–47; R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1972); S. W. Gray, The Least of My Brothers. Matthew 25:31–46: A History of Interpretation (Atlanta: Scholars, 1989); R. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982); J. Jeremias, “ποιμήν κτλ,” TDNT VI.485–502; idem, The Parables of Jesus (New York: Scribners, 1975); P.-R. Tragan, La Parabole du “Pasteur” et ses Explications: Jean, 10, 1–18 (Rome: Anselmiana, 1980).