Matt Hudak’s blog

Introductory Matters

            2 Thess 2.1-5 is one of the most enigmatic passages in the New Testament.  Many scholars have wrestled with it unsuccessfully, attempting to read material from the passage that simply is not present.  Understanding the critical importance of the historical and literary contexts, it is necessary to discover the way in which 2 Thess 2.1-5 interacts with its surroundings.

2 Thess 2.1-5;

Greek text:

eJρωτw:μεν de; ujμa:ς ajδελφοί uJπe;ρ τh:ς παρουσίας τοu: κυρίου hJμw:ν IJησοu: Χριστοu: καὶ hJμw:ν ejπισυναγωγh:ς ejπ' αujτo;ν ² εἰς to; μh; ταχevως σαλευθh:ναι uJμa:ς aJπo; τοu: νοo;ς μηδe; θροεi:σθαι μτε διa; πνεuvματος μhvτε διa; λovγου μhvτε δι ἐπιστολw:ς wJς δι hJμw:ν wJς ὅτι ejνevστηκεν hJ hJμέρα τοu: κυρίου ³ μhv τις uJμa:ς ejξαπατhvσh κατa; μηδevνα τρovπον o{τι eja;ν μh; e[λθh/ hJ ajποστασία πρw:τον καi; ajποκαλυφθh: oJ a[νθρωπος τh:ς ajνομivας oJ υiJo;ς τhJς ajπωλεivας ⁴ oJ ajντικεivμενος καi; uJπεραιρovμενος ejπi; πavντα λεγovμενον θεo;ν h{ σevβασμα w{στε αujτo;ν εijς τo;ν ναo;ν τοu: θεοu: καθivσαι ajποδεικνuvντα eJαυτo;ν o{τι e[στιν θεovς ⁵ οuj μνημονεuvετε o{τι e[τι w[ν πρo;ς uJμa:ς ταu:τα e[λεγον uJμi:ν

 

Translation:

We implore you, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, that you are neither shaken from your mind, nor alarmed through a spirit, a spoken word, or a letter as from us [saying] that the Day of the Lord has come.  Do not let anyone deceive you in any manner because it will not come [unless] the apostasy [comes] first and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.  Who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, in order that he might take his seat in the temple of God proving that he is god.  Do you not remember when I was with you and told you these things?

 

            While 2 Thess 2.1-5 has been passed down with relative accuracy, there is one textual variant in v. 3 that warrants brief mention.  The word in question is aJnomivaV, the variant listed in UBS4, aJmartivaV, finds more extensive support.  Its support, however, dated further from the original and is primarily of the Byzantine family.[1]  It would also be more difficult for a redactor to justify a change from aJmatrivaV to aJnomivaV than it would the other way around as Paul’s more common word choice was aJmatrivaV.  Furthermore, aJnomivaV occurs in v. 7 describing the works of the “man of lawlessness.”

Historical Context[2]

            The city of Thessalonica was a Hellenistic city under the rule of the Roman Empire, but unlike many cities, it had attained status as a free entity.  The citizens played the game of politics well, engaging fully in the imperial cult and practicing strict obedience to the Roman authorities.[3]  After sending a complaint to Tiberius Caesar about the heavy tax burden, their free status was revoked, only to be restored by Caligula 29 years later in A.D. 44.[4]  Caligula’s involvement in Thessalonica is key to understanding Paul’s reference to the temple in v. 2.4 as Caligula had once planned to desecrate the temple by erecting a statue of himself in the holy of holies.[5]  It is also significant to note that the ruling society in Thessalonica sought to make all monotheists either syncretistic or pluralistic in order that they might participate in the imperial cult and swear oaths of loyalty to the Roman Emperor.  It is even possible that the climate was hostile to Paul and his contemporaries for refusing to take such oaths and preaching Christian doctrine.[6]

Literary Context:

            The relationship between 2.1-5 and its surrounding context is of significant consequence.  Witherington is right to point out that the thanksgiving discourse in the first chapter serves a rhetorical purpose, highlighting the prominent themes of the later discourse.  Eschatological themes can be found in v. 1.5, 6-8, and 9-10.  The development of these themes occurs in such a way as to predispose the reader to Paul’s later argumentation.  The first chapter of 2 Thessalonians brings out strong images of judgment and retribution, a bringing of relief to the faithful in Thessalonica.  This relief is in and of itself evidence that the return of the Lord was yet to transpire.  Chapter 1 also deals with the current trials of the Thessalonians, further emphasizing this deliverance and preparing the reader for the argument in the second chapter. [7]  After this introductory discourse, Paul is able to be direct in the remainder of his argument.

            That which follows v. 2.5 is also quite important.  In the development of the paragraph, Paul begins with an exhortation not to be deceived, and supplies a basic reminder of why.  At v. 5, Paul transitions from this exhortation and reminder to an elaboration of his instruction.  The nature of the transition leaves slight ambiguity to the remainder of the paragraph.  When Paul asks the Thessalonians if they remember him teaching them the expressed doctrines, it signifies that some content within the paragraph is not new to them.  This either applies to the whole paragraph, in which case Paul is able to be brief, using key words and concepts in the remainder of the paragraph, or to the material found in v. 1-4, causing the remainder of the paragraph to clarify and/or expound on previous teaching.

            2 Thessalonians 2.1-5 carries heavy apocalyptic overtones, and thus warrants a brief discussion of the genre and the way in which it impacts the interpretation of the passage.  In 1979, the Society of Biblical Literature published a definition for apocalyptic literature:

A genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an other-worldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another supernatural world.[8]

 

It is clear from this definition that Paul’s writing in 2 Thess 2.1-5 does not fit into the category of apocalyptic literature, a fact that is further demonstrated by Koch’s designation of typical features, “discourse cycles, spiritual turmoils, paraenetic discourses, pseudonymity, mythical imagery, and composite character.”  The passage, though it is not an apocalyptic narrative, is consistently classified within the genre because of its similar language and symbolism.  In addition, John Collins argues that all apocalypses are hortatory in nature, a description that fits 2 Thess 2.[9]  Richard Horsley has most effectively assessed the analysis of apocalyptic literature:

Scholarly study has often fundamentally misunderstood apocalyptic texts and motivations because (a) out of a certain literalism and doctrinalism, it has failed to appreciate the distinctive apocalyptic mode of revelation and symbolization; and (b) it has failed to investigate the social context comprehensively so as to appreciate the actual structure of historical conflicts.[10]

 

Horsley provides what is perhaps the best framework for interpreting apocalyptic literature.   Describing his process of symbolic analysis, he states, “We must work by extrapolation from critical analysis of earlier Palestinian Jewish apocalyptic literature in order to reach some general sense of how Palestinian Jews may have been understanding their situation and symbolizing their hopes for deliverance.”[11]

            There are five principles by which all apocalyptic imagery and literature, in this context 2 Thess 2.1-5, must be understood.[12]

1. Apocalyptic texts did not make a new “symbolic universe,” but adapted the old “symbolic universe” to fit the present crisis. It is important, then, for the reader to avoid the projection of imagery foreign to the original audience.  It would have made plain sense to the reader at the time of its composition, and thus, the symbolism both existed and was present in their theological vocabulary.

2. Texts do not manifest an alienation from history, but an intensified concern for “Israel” and the realization of God’s purposes in history.

3. The literature, along with its authors and users did not stand “opposed to the dominant Society,” but rather to dominant Jewish ruling group and the alien imperial regime.

4. Just as each of the Old Testament’s literary traditions arose from a life situation, a very common one being the relationship to human ruling authorities, so apocalyptic literature arose from a need for divine deliverance.

5. The literature’s response to the historical situation, the oppression/persecution of God’s people, gives the literature a strong focus on the manner of their deliverance and the mode of the divine revelation.

6. Regardless of how the idea/symbol of Satan or demonic forces, their constant struggle against God is used to represent the people’s desperation.

Textual Analysis

Exhortation (v. 1-2)

            Following a preparatory discussion concerning suffering and judgment, Paul finally states his intent in v. 2.1-2.  The use of ejrwtw:men is less typical in Pauline diction than parakalevw, and most likely signifies an added strength to Paul’s plea.  Paul’s use of verbs also lend strength to his statements.  V. 1 contains the finite, ejrwtw:men, while v. 2 completes the statement with two infinitives, one aorist (σαλευθh:ναι) and the other present (θροεi:σθαι).  These infinitives cause the strength of the statement to progressively grow.[13]

            Within v. 1-2 there are several noteworthy allusions, two of which would have directed the Thessalonians’ minds back to the content of his first letter to them.  Sequentially, the first allusion is to 1 Thess 5.23 in Paul’s statement “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  This mention serves both as a specific allusion to Paul’s ending statements in 1 Thessalonians, especially his “ethical criteria” for joining Christ at the parousia,[14] as well as a general reminder of the eschatology contained within the whole letter.  The second allusion most certainly brings to mind the eschatology in 1 Thessalonians with the mention of the gathering of the Christians to Christ.  The use of these allusions is significant, and one can readily assume that, for the original audience, it called to mind the remainder of the 1 Thessalonians passage along with its theology.  In 1 Thess 4.13-17, the discussion focuses upon the return of Christ and those have died before its occurrence.[15]  Ultimately Paul’s message can be boiled down to this: that Christ is returning soon, that neither living nor dead will miss it, and that those who are in Christ will go out to meet their conquering king.  This allusion draws on the Old Testament idea of the gathering of the remnant flock of Israel in both passages.^[16]  The use of ejpisunavgwgeV further demonstrating the allusion to the eschatological discourse recorded in Mark 13, Matt 24.32, as well as the gathering of God’s people from the Babylonian exile as told in 2 Macc 2.7, 18 (see also Isa 52.12).[17] This reference is even more complex.  E. J. Richard argues that it also resembles the language of coming before a judge, in which case, the gathering to him would also mean judgment for the Christians as well.[18]

             The final feature of significant importance in v. 1-2 is the reference to the “Day of the Lord.”  Beale and Carson describe the roots of the concept, “the ‘Day of the Lord’ concept has its roots in the Old Testament, where it refers to a future time when God will come to punish the wicked and vindicate his people, though the notion of judgment is more commonly stressed than that of deliverance.” [19] Paul probably used this term in order to focus on the judgment.[20]

The Day Will Not Come (v. 3-4)

            This Judgment, however, has not yet been fulfilled.  Instead, Paul places his readers in the midst of an apocalyptic struggle with the a[νθρωπος τh:ς ajνομivας. Before Christ chooses to redeem his people, there will be one who will oppose Christ by “attempting to prove himself to be God.”  This section is confusing and enigmatic, especially since the sentence appears to be incomplete.  Here, Paul supplies his reader with a conditional statement, but leaves out the apodosis.[21]  The present reader must assume that the Thessalonians understood the apodosis either from Paul’s teachings or from the many parallels.  Ultimately, the essence of this section is a reminder to the Thessalonians that Christ has not yet come because history has yet to play out and people are still going to rebel against God.  Furthermore, their suffering serves as proof of this rebellion.[22]

Recollection (v. 5)

            This deals with an important issue for the church in Thessalonica and they are already familiar with what Paul is saying.  Paul’s question is purely rhetorical, as Paul’s grammar dictated his expectation of a positive answer.  The Goal was to remind his readers of all of his teachings and lead them to interpret the passage in light of them.  This presents a tremendous problem for the modern reader, as Paul’s teachings in Thessalonica are unknown.  A further complication is the seeming contradiction in the eschatological message of the Thessalonian letters.  1 Thessalonians seems to proclaim the nearness of Christ’s coming, while the second portrays it as chronologically distant.  It is critical to note the description from the Jesus Tradition quoted by Paul in 1 Thess 4 that his coming will be as a “thief in the night.”  Not even Paul knew the time or the means.  However, Paul was not making guesses as to the time, but was writing in a truly apocalyptic fashion, giving the passage a hortatory focus.

The Man of Lawlessness

            Understanding the primary thrust of the passage, the discussion must shift to the topic of symbolism, in this case, asking primarily about the man of Lawlessness.  Paul gives his readers a number of descriptions of this man in the form of allusions to Old Testament passages and recent history.  The most important qualifier, however, follows directly after in the genitive, he is a man of “ajnomivaV.”  In Classical Greek, ajnomiva was used in Classical Greek to mean lawlessness or lawless conduct as an antonym of dikaiosuvnh.[23]  Herodotus used ajnomiva in this sort of contrast.  In his work, Histories, He speaks of a man who sought to rule, and practices justice despite rampant lawlessness (...προθυμovτερον δικαιοσuvνην ejπιθevμενος h]σκεε: καὶ ταu:τα μevντοι ejοuvσης ajνομίης πολλh:ς...).[24]  In the LXX ajvnomiva is used usually in the plural to refer to individual acts, its most common Hebrew equivalents are עול - injustice, unrighteousness; to act wrongly (60x), און trouble, wickedness; idolatry (25x), פשׁע transgression (20x), and תועבה abomination (25x).[25] It occurs most frequently in the Psalter.[26]  The church fathers used ajvnomiva in some of their texts. In his lexicon, Lampe defines ajnomiva as a “Lawless act” or “transgression.”[27] This meaning presents itself clearly in the Shepherd of Hermas, “ejk tou: ajmpelw:noV ajnomiva eijsi; tw:n douvlwn.”[28]  Lampe also gives it the meaning “unlawful opinion,” which can be seen in Const.ap.Gel.Cyz.h.e.3.19.12. [29]  Writers outside the New Testament used the word with a similar connotation.  Philo uses it to mean “tyrant” in Leg. All., III, 79.  This meaning is slightly different than a lawless one, but it does include the idea of being an embodiment of evil. Despite the contrast of Philo’s aforementioned meaning, he does use ajvnomiva to refer to a state of lawlessness in Spec. Leg., 1, 188.

       Ajvnomiva is used 15 times in the New Testament, only in the Pauline epistles, Hebrews, and the Gospel of Matthew.[30]  It can apply to either the deed or the disposition.  BDAG cites 2 Thess 2.3 in both.[31]  The author of Matthew uses the word similarly in terms of deeds as well as a generally lawless disposition (cf. Mt 7.23; 13.41; 23.28; 24.12).  Heb 1.9; 10.17 contains similar utilization of the word.  Paul employs the term in both connotations as well (cf. Rom 4.7; 6.19; 2 Cor 6.14; Tit 2.14; 1Jn 3.4).  In light of the consistent use of the term, Paul almost certainly uses ajnomivaV to signify either a man of a lawless disposition or a man of lawless deeds.  It is impossible to differentiate between the two in the case of 2 Thess 2.3 except on the basis of the description in the immediate context.  The description of the man of lawlessness is made up of several allusions to the Old Testament, some pertaining to people who were generally wicked, while others were considered wicked for particular reasons, typically self-deification.[32]  Under the circumstances, it is not only prudent, but is correct to assume that the man of lawlessness is considered such because of his actions as well as his disposition.

            Understanding the linguistic limitations of ajnovmiaV, it is important to then consider the historical and literary allusions of the passage. Paul’s apocalyptic discourse in 2 Thessalonians relies heavily upon the apocalypse in Daniel 8-12.  Dan 8.9-14 portrays a figure who is a powerful evil force who desecrates the sanctuary and even pulls stars from the heavens with his horns.  This figure is a powerful human who prospers through deceit and oppression.  He opposes the Prince of princes and destroys the saints.  Daniel 11 speaks of a king who will have incredible power and who will do as he pleases.  This king will desecrate the temple, exalting himself above every God and seducing those who do not care for the covenant.  Tradition has associated this figure with Antiochus epiphanies, who desecrated the temple sparking the Maccabean revolt.  This parallel is extremely significant in the interpretation of 2 Thess 2 as other leaders had recently desecrated the temple, and depending on the date of authorship, this was still occurring. Gaius Caligula formulates plans in A.D. 40 to erect a statue of himself in the Jewish temple, and General Pompey planned to desecrate the temple in 63 A.D.  If one assumes, as some scholars have, that the date of authorship falls around the time of the destruction of the temple (70 A.D.), then the destruction of the Jewish temple may develop the reference even further. [33] 

            John 17.12.  In Jesus’ well known “High Priestly Prayer,” he prays for his disciples and states that he has kept all except the son of destruction.  This could be one of the most enigmatic uses of the phrase that one encounters.  It is clearly a reference to all those sons of destruction in the historical-literary tradition, however, it may be making specific reference to the one who betrays Jesus. 

            Paul refers back to Isa 14.13 in order to describe the futility of the Lawless one’s actions.  In Isa 14 the remnant of Israel is told that they will “take up a mocking song” (וְנָשָׂאתָ הַמָשָׁל) against the king of Babylon, telling of Yahweh’s victory.  In v. 13 -14a the remnant sings of how the king will sit on his throne above the stars and be as the Most High, but in 14b he is brought down to Sheol.  The term stars can be interpreted merely as a locative description for the place where gods were thought to dwell, or it can be interpreted through the lens of the apocalyptic symbolic universe which will establish the stars as angels.[34]  In this case, the king of Babylon has set up his throne above the angels of God.  Ezek 28, a similar reference, prophecies against the prince of Tyre, who in v. 2 claims that he is divine.  The prophecy reassures the prince of Tyre that his is not a god, but a man, who will ultimately be slain as a humbling reminder of his humanity.

            Paul also supplies his readers with several internal clues as to the identity of the man of lawlessness.  (1)  It is his intention to take up his seat in the temple of God.  This is the purpose of his self exaltation marked out by w[ste.  (2) His self exaltation in the temple is clearly an attempt to prove his deity.  In the phrase καθivσαι ajποδεικνuvντα eJαυτo;ν o{τι e[στιν θεovς, Paul presents a play on words.  In the first chapter the noun e[ndeigma appears  in the phrase, “this is proof in God’s righteous justice.”  Paul uses the related word, ajpodeivknumi, as a telic participle to explain that this act of proving is the man of lawlessness’ goal.  He reminds the readers that God’s righteous justice has already been proven and that the lawless man’s is striving for a ridiculous goal.[35]  (3) Ultimately, the ajnqhropovV oJ ajnovmiaV will perform false signs and deceive those who are not faithful to the covenant (9-10), but (4) will eventually be killed by Christ’s words (v. 8).

            The final question which may provide the most certain guide for understanding the “man of lawlessness” reference is the passage’s relationship to its historical/literary context.  This is partially due to the strategy of Apocalyptic literature, but is also due simply to reason.  For example, it is often said that the one restraining the man of lawlessness, who stands as a direct symbolic contrast to the lawless one, is the “Roman Government as personified by the emperor.”[36]  This type of solution is problematic, and does well to represent the issues with many other interpretive strategies.  The problem is twofold: (1) it is ignorant of the present “symbolic universe” in that it contradicts the apocalyptic theme of resistance against an “alien imperial regime, and (2) it confuses history in that it places the idea of a Christian-friendly Rome, which does not exist until the fourth century, into the mind of a first century author.  Though it is impossible to specify precisely, the identity of the Lawless one must fit into the acknowledged symbolic universe and into the framework of history known at the time of its writing.

Application

            2 Thessalonians 2 is undoubtedly hortatory in its nature, and contains an extremely practical message for today’s interpreter.  Discerning the meaning, however, has proven to be exceedingly challenging.  In order to accomplish the task, we, as Christians, must read the text as the original readers did, which means that we must become familiar with the apocalyptic genre.  An appropriate system of questions can be derived from the assumptions previously asserted about apocalyptic literature in order to aid in the interpretive process.

            1) How does the text help us to understand our historical situation?  The Christians in Thessalonica found themselves suffering under oppressive rule.  We too are in an age where the governing institutions are in rebellion against God.  We are in exile from our own land, ruled by humans who do not care for God or for his principles.  Our rulers deceive us, proclaiming that, through their systems and wise governance, we have freedom.  But what is freedom outside of Christ, our liberator and king? 

            Furthermore, many of those “rule” in the church, pastors, evangelists, theologians, and the like, do so for their own glory rather than for God’s glory and obedience to his will.  Two of the more popular and obvious ways these problems manifest are in “health and wealth” movements and much of televangelism.  But such oppressive rule is not limited to obvious exploitation or blatant heresy.  It manifests itself most often when a pastor decides, sometimes without realizing, that the church does not center around Christ, but around himself.  In this type of situation, the ones in need of pastoral care become neglected and oppressed.

            2) How does the text represent a concern for “Israel” and the realization of God’s purposes in history?  As God’s covenant people we come to understand God’s concern for our historical situation and live in light of Christ’s continuing redemptive work.  God has neither been detached from, nor ignorant of, human history and our present suffering.  God has been acting throughout our history to deliver his people from their oppressors.  First with slavery in Egypt, and then with the Babylonian exile, God has defeated those who rule over his people attempting to usurp his dominion.  As Christians, we must live our lives understanding God’s faithfulness in delivering his people.

            3 ) How does the text enlighten our interaction with our rebellious Christian ruling group and alien imperial regime?  As Christians, we must realize that we are a part of God’s kingdom and we must stand loyally, in opposition to the ruling entities in rebellion.  This does not mean anarchy; it does mean that we are to live under God’s established precepts, and that we should not declare our loyalty to the oppressor, but to God.  We are never to exchange the any part of the Gospel for political reason, be it persecution or state sanction.  In the case of the Christian oppressors, we must stand firmly against them by defending orthodoxy and taking upon ourselves the shepherding role they have recklessly held.  In essence we must pastor their sheep rightly, leading them to Christ, their true shepherd.

            4) How does the text speak to those in desperation?  For those who suffer, God has sent his son to secure their place in his future kingdom.  It is important to take note of Paul’s statements leading up to chapter 2, that those who suffer for Christ will be counted worthy of such an end.  Paul mentions the gathering to Christ, and alludes to the eschatology of 1 Thessalonians solely in order to demonstrate this point.  Just as the Thessalonians were called to hope for the future return of Christ and their vindication, we have been taught that our hope lies in Christ’s return and the reversal of oppression (cf. 2 Thess 1).

            5) How does the text symbolize our hopes for the future?  We will be gathered before Christ after the rebellion for judgment and ultimate restoration.  At this time, Christ will come and slay the lawless man with his word achieving victory for all who belong to him.  On that day, all who belong to Christ will be welcomed into the fullness of God’s new kingdom.  But that day has not come to pass, and we should not be worried that we have missed it.  We know this because we still face oppressive forces and lawless leaders who rebel against God.

            6) What does the passage say about our divine deliverance?  Just like the typologies of the man of lawlessness in the Old Testament, Christ will slay the man of lawlessness with the breath of his mouth.  This is a statement of ultimate victory.  Those who oppress God’s people will no longer be able to do so, and so we, as God’s people, will enjoy the true freedom of being subjects of Christ without human interference.

Conclusion: How Paul Could Have Said It

            Brothers and sisters, we beg you not to be confused or scared senseless by anything that claims that Jesus has already com to judge and vindicate his people, not by a spirit, a spoken word or a letter that falsely claims to be from us.  Do not let any one cause you to think otherwise through any method of argument, because Christ will not return before history has run its course.  This means that the rebellion must come first, a time of apostasy, and the man of lawlessness will be fully revealed who, like the kings of Tyre and Babylon, is a son of destruction, both destroying and inheriting destruction.  This man stands up against God, like the emperor who demands your sole allegiance, and lifts himself up to be worshiped before every other deity or thing that has been venerated for the purpose of taking his “rightful” place in the temple of the true God, desperately attempting to prove his status as God.  But his efforts are futile.  You should remember when I taught you these things in the first place, and meditate on them as you interpret my letter.

---

The next article I'll be posting is on 2 Thessalonians 2 and how it works within the genre of apocalyptc literature.  This will be really helpful for those of you who have had trouble interpreting apocalyptic passages in the Bible.  You might also learn something cool from the application section.

Matt

I. Introduction and Background

A.    Purpose and Plan of the Paper: to investigate the shepherd-God metaphor in light of recent developments in the study of metaphor.

B.     Key Terms of the Donor Field

            There are a number of terms that contribute to the biblical shepherd-God metaphor.  The term that deals with shepherding is רָעַה. Occurring 250 times in the Old Testament, the verbרָעָה  can be literally rendered as "graze.”  It can refer to herds and flocks, usually as a metaphor of life in the coming kingdom where Israel will be the flock of God in a state of peace with creation.[1]  Most often it is used in reference to a shepherd, but can also refer to a pasture.  Over time, the participle of רָעָה, רֺעֶה, became the term used to refer to the person of the shepherd.[2] נֺקֵד/נַגִד can also be rendered as “shepherd,” “herdsman,” or “sheep-dealer.”  נֺקֵד is used several times in the Old Testament, twice describing Amos’ profession.[3]  The objects of this verb include צאֺן, עֶדֶר, כֶּבֶשׂ, and כֶּשֶׂב.  All of these terms can be rendered as “sheep.”  כֶּבֶשׂ and כֶּשֶׂב are related words, both referring specifically to sheep or lambs. [4]  שֶׂה relates to כֶּבֶשׂ and כֶּשֶׂב, but refers to a broad range of livestock.  צאֺן and עֶדֶר can refer to a flock of sheep, herd goats, or a combination thereof.  They are often used to describe Israel. [5]

            There are a number of Hebrew words to describe the shepherd’s rod and staff.  שֵׁבֶת can be translated “rod,” “staff,” “scepter,” or “tribe.”  The most common meaning for שֶׁבֶת is “tribe,” however it is used later in terms of the “rod of discipline” and the “scepter of the messiah.”[6]  מִשׁעֶנֶת refers to a “support,” “staff,” or “stick.”  This word occurs in a mixture of literal uses and figurative uses.  The מִשׁעֶנֶת is always in the hand of an authoritative figure.  Its only positive occurrence is God’s Rod and Staff in Psalm 23.[7]  מַקקֶל refers to an ordinary person’s staff.  This can signify anything from a common walking stick, to a magic wand, to a shepherd’s staff.  מַקקֶל  carries no sense of authority.[8]  מַטֶּה translates as “staff,” “rod,” “scepter,” or “tribe,”  and is synonymous with שֵׁבֶת; however, מַטֶּה is generally used for an authority figure lower than God or a king.[9]  The sling, קֵלַה, is also mentioned as a shepherding tool in the Old Testament.

            Two final terms discuss the guidance of the sheep.  נָהַג can be rendered as “drive,” “lead,” “guide,”  or “lead forth.”  This implies an active, hands-on leading.  It is quite literally a term used in the qal or piel to lead people and animals, sometimes in the context of a march to war.  Not following this guidance could lead to death.  This leads to a later metaphorical use which carries extreme power.[10]  נָחַל means to “lead,” “guide,” or “help along.”  It is extremely significant, as its only object is God’s flock, Israel, and is compassionate and intimate.[11]

C.     Historical background

            Shepherding was a basic element of the economy in Palestine.[12] Sheep were so valuable that the size of a person’s flock often described his wealth.[13]  Their value made them a very costly sacrifice.  Sheep were often used for food, but were usually raised for their wool and were typical household pets.[14] Sheep shearing time was important to the shepherd.  It was a rejoicing at the fruitfulness of their labor.[15]

            Sheep were dependent on their shepherds for their survival, and it was the shepherd's duty to provide for them.[16]  Shepherds provided pasture, water, shelter, medication, birthing, provision for lameness and weariness, and protection.  Good shepherds would not eat their sheep no matter how desperate they were for food, nor would they slaughter them for clothing.[17] 

            Shepherds needed to move their sheep.[18] To pasture their sheep, shepherds left their homes for extended periods of time.[19] Shepherding required the shepherds to have the necessary skills to care for their sheep.  They would need to be able to protect them, find or make a drinkable water source, and care for any infirmities along the way.[20] At night the shepherd would gather his sheep into the fold.  This could be a cave, a building, or as little as an enclosure made by thorn bushes.  In any case, the shepherd spent the night in the entrance, between his flock and the dangers of the night.[21]  The shepherd would generally direct his/her sheep by leading them rather than driving them from behind.[22]  "The faithful shepherd was thought to have a disposition that was altogether admirable: thoughtful, tender, gentle, strong, resourceful in times of danger, but not hot-tempered."[23]

D.    Shepherding metaphors in the ANE[24]

            The Egyptians viewed both Gods and pharaohs as shepherds.  Amon-Ra waged war through the Pharaoh, his son and prophet, who carried the shepherd's staff.[25]  The Egyptians also viewed Amon- Ra as ruler over all creation.  This assignment of authority bears similarities to Israel's use of "shepherd" as a kingly title.[26]  Pharaoh was seen as the shepherd of Egypt.  Egyptian iconography placed the shepherd’s staff can in a pharaoh’s hand.   The shepherd metaphor is also apparent verbally.  A text about Amen-hotep III names him “the good shepherd, vigilant for all people.”[27]  Likewise, Sen-Usert I said “[Amon] appointed me shepherd of this land.”[28]  Connected to the shepherd-god metaphor is the idea of the pharaoh as a source of life.  This does not form a direct relationship, as the life is expressed in terms of “breath” rather than shepherding.  However, the act of providence is the same.  The “breath of life” that comes from the pharaoh is as the food and water that comes from the shepherd.  The Egyptians surely would have seen a connection as they already understood themselves as the Pharaoh’s flock.

            The Sumerians used the Shepherd metaphor similarly to the Egyptians.  A poem from the 4^th millennium BCE tells of a god named Dumzi and his becoming shepherd over all earthly kings.

Grant him a royal throne, firm in its foundations;
Grant him a scepter righting the land
From sunrise to sunset
From South to North
From the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea
Grant him all shepherds’ crooks,
And may he perform the shepherdship
Over their darkheaded people.[29]

 

Sumerian monarchs were also viewed as shepherds appointed by the gods.  In one text, the Sumerian king Gudea of Girsu claims to be “the shepherd called by Ningursu.”

In order to guide aright the hand of the righteous man, but to put the evildoer in the neck-stock, to make the house just, to make the house pleasant, to issue ordinances for his city, the manor Gisuru, to set up the throne of verdicts, to place in hand a long-term Sceptre [sic], to make to make the shepherd called by Ningursu lift up the head as the yellow turban, and to assign positions in the courtyard of Eninnu to the head covered, he let Igalima, high constable of Girsu, his beloved son, go about his duties for the lord Ningirsu in Ulnun, as great doorleaf.[30]

 

The Sumerian use of the metaphor provided the system upon which other shepherding metaphors of the Ancient Near East were constructed.

            The Babylonians viewed their gods as shepherd kings.  Marduk, Šamaš, and Enlil were referred to as kings.  Iahdun-Līm, king of Mari, exalts, “the god Šamaš, king of heaven and earth, judge of gods and mankind, whose concern is justice, to whom truth has been given as a gift, shepherd of the black-headed people… who is lord of Mari.”[31]  Kings were also shepherds in Babylon.[32]

            The Assyrians maintained the idea of gods and kings being shepherds, but gods could also defeat predators.[33]  Tiglath-pileser I exclaimed, “I killed on foot 120 lions with my wildly vigorous assault.”[34] Protection is critically important to the shepherd metaphors of both Assyria and Israel.  In the Assyrian model, the gods could protect the people, who were unable to protect themselves.

E.     the shepherding metaphor in Israel

            The Old Testament applies the shepherd metaphor to both people and God.  According to Cornelius, the shepherd-king metaphor is present but not explicit in the Old Testament.  There is no instance in the traditions of Israel in which a king or leader is either deified or given the title shepherd.[35]  It must be noted, however, that David is explicitly called a shepherd (נַגִד) in 2 Sam 5.2, but this only occurs here.  The shepherd metaphor also applies to priests.  The priest was responsible for religious direction and ensuring the purity of Israel.  They were also seen as mediators for the people.  Priests were often associated with shepherds as a part of the general leadership of the nation (cf. Ezek 34). When the people were misled by the priests, the prophets were called upon to act as shepherds.  The prophet’s role was to lead the sheep that had gone astray back to the safety of God’s covenant.  Gan aptly describes the relationship between Yahweh’s shepherdship and that of his prophets, “Yahweh’s word is the directive power and the prophet is the instrument for a directive purpose.”[36]

            Yahweh is the shepherd of Israel.  The ultimate shepherding metaphor Israel used described their God.  They pictured God as a shepherd leading his people out from Egypt and back from the Babylonian exile.  His shepherdship is perfect and totally faithful.  Further investigation of the biblical text demonstrates God’s role as a shepherd.[37]

II. Textual Analysis

A.     The Shepherd Metaphor is Present in the Exodus Narrative

            Jonathan Gan argues that the shepherding-God metaphor rarely presents itself within the Exodus narrative.[38]  Though he admits that it is present both in Moses’ shepherd-hood, he is ignorant of the implicit presence of the metaphor in later texts.  Moses’ profession as a shepherd provides the reader with the idea that God’s people are to be rescued by a shepherd; however, Yahweh’s actions provide the evidence that he is the real shepherd.  The first literary element in the narrative is Moses’ profession.  God specifically chose a shepherd to represent himself to the people and act for him in the process of their deliverance; he is God’s representative as God’s shepherding manifests itself indirectly.  The Exodus narrative uses symbolism in connection with God’s action. For example, the use of the staff in deliverance, protection and provision for the people bears significance. Also, in light of the Shepherd-god metaphor in the Egyptian cult, the plagues can be interpreted as a claim to superior shepherdhood.  In this case Yahweh is the one who defeated the shepherds of Egypt, who were indeed false gods, because he is the real shepherd. Yahweh wages war against Pharaoh and the Egyptian pantheon through Moses, retrieving his flock from the dangers of slavery, and afterward leading them to pasture. 

            The portrayal of God as shepherd who deals directly with his people is also present within the Exodus narrative.  God is depicted as guiding his people out of Egypt.  The Verb נָחַה occurs twice in this narrative.  In the first instance, Ex 13.17 and 21, God chooses to lead his people around the land of the Philistines.  He does so by manifesting his presence as a pillar of fire and a cloud.  The second instance is in 15. 13, as a part of Moses and Miriam’s victory hymn.  Here Moses and Miriam look back and praise Yahweh for his loving guidance to the place where his holiness dwells.[39]  Following shortly after, God provides water for his people (Ex 15.22-27).  God’s provision is also present when he miraculously supplies his people with food.  He provides protection from predators and deliverance from oppressors.  This element of the model is implicit, manifesting in God’s deliverance from pharaoh.  This is both during the enslavement and at the Red Sea.  Furthermore, many texts look back on the Exodus narrative and describe God as Israel’s shepherd, providing the final and most solid ground upon which to claim God’s shepherding activity within the Exodus Narrative (cf. Ps 78.52-55 [נָהַג] and Ps 77.20[נָהַל]).

B.     Psalm 23

            Psalm 23 paints a portrait of a typical day for a Hebrew shepherd. In the morning, the shepherd led the flock from shelter to a good pasture land where the sheep could eat and drink from calm water.  During the heat of the day, the sheep would lie in the shade after which they would return to their safe resting place for the evening.  Throughout all of this, the shepherd would need to vigilantly protect them.[40] “At its heart, Psalm 23 is an expression of confidence in the protective care of Yahweh, upon whom the psalmist expresses absolute dependence.”[41]  This Psalm is almost comprehensive in its expression of God’s role as a shepherd.

            Structurally, The Psalm breaks into five different sections: intro and statement of trust (v. 1), God leads his sheep (v. 2-3), God protects his sheep (v. 4), God provides for his sheep (v.5), and the psalmist is confident in God and his shepherding (v. 6).  Verse 1 boasts of the effectiveness of God’s shepherding.  Because it is Yahweh who is the shepherd, the sheep has no need of anything.  He can trust that Yahweh will provide for all of his needs.  The psalm will demonstrate this specifically.  In the second and third verses God leads his sheep. He causes his people to rest in green pastures and provides them with drinkable water.  This would have been the goal of a shepherd in the ANE.  God’s leading is significant because sheep were unable to locate good pasture land on their own, and must drink from calm water.[42]  So the psalmist found himself in need of God’s care.

            God protects his sheep.  The phrase in v. 4, often rendered as “the valley of the shadow of death,” can literally be rendered as “very deep shadow,” and is likely idiomatic in its use.  It is, however, probable that the psalmist intended to suggest the idea of death’s shadow.  In this case even a predator as cunning as death cannot overcome the psalmist, a member of Yahweh's flock.  Furthermore, the phrase bears a reminder of God’s provision within the exodus, a walk through the desert which would have brought death were it not for God.[43]  God provides for his sheep, even in the presence of deadly enemies.  Preparing the table in a dangerous region is obviously representative of the provision of food for the sheep.  The anointing with oil relates to a medical practice shepherds would employ to heal wounded sheep.[44]  The psalmist is confident in God and his shepherding at the conclusion of the Psalm.  Verse 6a is a clear statement of confidence in God’s steadfast mercy and love, while in 6b God provides shelter to the psalmist as a shepherd would do at the close of the day.

C.     Psalm 78

The shepherding metaphor within psalm 78 appears in response to an account of people not trusting God’s providential deliverance.  The metaphor is in the form of a reflection on God’s activity within the wilderness wanderings.  This description is in terms of wonders.

he split the sea and brought them through it
and caused the water to stand up like a wall

and he led (וַיַּנְהֵם) them with a cloud by day
and all night by a fiery light

and he split rocks in the wilderness
and let them drink as from a great deep
and he caused streams to flow from a crag
water ran down like rivers[45]

 

The psalm then recounts the ways in which Israel did not trust their shepherd in the wilderness, specifically by asking for manna and meat.  God’s wrath came upon those who did not trust in his shepherding, as demonstrated through his wonders.  Verses 52-55 speak again of God’s shepherding in the wilderness.  His shepherding actions include guiding, leading, protecting and delivering, provision of pasture land, and settling Israel in a sheltered place.  The psalm ends with God giving David the authority to shepherd the people of Israel.

D.    Ezek 34

            Ezekiel 34 is one of the most important passages in which the shepherding metaphor appears explicitly.  In this passage, God acts in four main ways.  (1)  God criticizes the human leaders of Israel, saying, “should not shepherds feed the sheep?  You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones but you do not feed the sheep.”[46]  The leaders of Israel have exploited the people and Yahweh expresses his anger.  (2) God enacts judgment on the false shepherds.  Being a righteous and compassionate shepherd, Yahweh judges the work of those he appointed to shepherd his people and determines that they are unfit to govern.  (3) Reacting to his judgment and criticism, God acts in behalf of his flock.  God is fed up with the work of the false under-shepherds, and decides that he must do the work himself.[47] (4) Ultimately, God judges between sheep.  God knows which sheep are dependent upon him.  As a result he provides nourishment for his flock, cares for the week sheep more than those who exploit, and judges those who oppress by casting them out of their position in his flock.[48]

E.     Within the book of Micah

            Written to a people guilty of intense religious ritualism and social injustice, the Book of Micah declares Yahweh’s coming and the results of his appearance.  Within the book, the metaphor appears both in the context to judgment and deliverance.  The first instance, 2.12-13, speaks of the gathering of the remnant of Israel.  This use is repeated in 4.6-7 where Yahweh explains his intent to make a strong nation of the lame.  In terms of Judgment, the metaphor first describes the rulers of Israel as ones

Who tear the skin from off of my people

And their flesh from off their bones

Who eat the flesh of my people

And flay their skin from off of them

And break their bones in pieces

And chop them up like meat in a pot

Like flesh in a cauldron.[49] 

 

Yahweh will soon come to restore an older rule, a “former dominion” in which Yahweh will care for his people.

III. Metaphorical Analysis

A.     Form (key terms of the metaphor)

            In Israel’s shepherd-God metaphor God exemplifies the positive aspects of a shepherd.  The primary function of the metaphor is deliverance from predators.  This is most clear as Yahweh leads his people out of Egypt and back from the Babylonian exile.  God also protects his flock in the shepherd-God metaphor.  Found explicitly in numerous places, as in Psalm 23, protection is also present in literary elements.  An instance of this is when David defeats Goliath with a sling, a common shepherding tool.  God’s providence is also key to the metaphor.  Like sheep under a good shepherd, Israel is given food, shelter, and rest.  God cares for his sheep and gives them even more than is necessary for survival, but for abundant life.[50]  The strength of God’s providence is further evidences in that sheep will not lie down until their other needs of the sheep have been met.[51]  There are also other terms under which the biblical shepherd-God metaphor operates: God is explicitly labeled a shepherd (Psalm 23.1), Israel is labeled as God's flock, general shepherding language is used, and the text creates an image of shepherd-like activity in relationship to God.

B.     Range (of the metaphor’s meaning)[52]

            The shepherding metaphor is introduced in Genesis, but the book is somewhat vague in terms of God’s role as a shepherd.  It is seen in two instances.  First that the godly lineage descending from Adam and Eve were shepherds, and second is the explicit statement in Gen. 49.24 where God is called “the shepherd, the rock of Israel.” After the patriarchal period, Israel becomes exposed to the Egyptian religion and the idea of a shepherd-deity becomes more palatable and thus more present in their texts.  The Exodus narrative, along with the wilderness wanderings, is completely saturated with the shepherd metaphor, though the metaphor is seldom explicit.  Deuteronomy also neglects to express this metaphor except implicitly as it recounts the history of Israel’s relationship to its God and foretells the impending destruction if the covenant is broken.[53]  Throughout the period of the judges, where judges were viewed as shepherds but the shepherd metaphor is not explicitly used, the metaphor was reasonably consistent with the time of the exodus.  Significant change, however, was just around the corner. While Israel was under the rule of David and its other kings the first significant change appeared in the metaphor.  Not only did much of the intricate metaphorical use come together within the Psalms, but the concept of a Davidic messiah was introduced into the text.

            The Babylonian exile catalyzed even further change in the metaphor as God’s people were reminded of their need to be shepherded.  The concept of God’s shepherdship was then applied to the return from Babylon in the same ways the metaphor was applied to the first exodus of Israel.  The shepherd-God metaphor is most explicitly used in this time period.[54]  During the second temple period the shepherding metaphor began to look even more expectantly upon the coming of time when Yahweh would provide a true shepherd for his people, that they would no longer be shepherdless.

            The New Testament uses the Shepherd-God Metaphor most intricately and beautifully of all the Scriptures.  In it Christ is pictured as a different kind of shepherd.  Just as sheep would have ideally been shepherded by the owner of the flock or his sons, Jesus comes to shepherd his father’s flock.  In doing this, he is not a shepherd who has no interest in the sheep but the one to whom the sheep belong.  Christ is Yahweh incarnate who has come to shepherd his sheep as was prophesied in the OT (cf. Ezek 34).  Christ brings together the remnant flock of Israel,

I will surely assemble all of you, Jacob,

I will surely gather the remnant of Israel.
I will put them together like sheep in the fold;
Like a flock in the midst of its pasture
They will be noisy with men.
The breaker goes up before them;
They break out, pass through the gate and go out by it.
So their king goes on before them,
And the LORD at their head.[55]

 

Micah 2.12-13 provides a glimpse of God’s intentional shepherding task. 

              Christ is the good shepherd who is able to fulfill the work of the shepherd-leaders of Israel.  Matthew picks up the shepherding metaphor and makes it a central theme to his Gospel.  Matthew 2.6 quotes Micah 5.2 to establish this theme,  “But you Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people.” Young S. Chae makes a curious observation concerning Mathian Shepherd Christology.  Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus follows the pattern set forth in Ezekiel 34.16, “I will seek the lost, bring back the scattered, bind up the broken and strengthen the sick; but the fat and the strong I will destroy I will feed them with judgment.” [56]  This shepherd symbolism penetrates the Mathian text at nearly every level.[57]

C.     Distribution (thru various kinds of texts)

            Depending on the genre in which it appears, the Shepherd-God metaphor manifests itself differently.  The use of the metaphor within the narrative genre is often implicit, though it manifests itself frequently in specific verb uses (see discussion on the use of נָהַג) or in symbols like Moses’ staff.  In law, the shepherding metaphor is hardly present with the most significant reference found in Deuteronomic curses. Poetry uses the shepherd metaphor most extensively and involves an almost comprehensive employment of its meaning.  In poetry, Yahweh is always being praised for his actions as a shepherd, though Israel may or may not be in agreement with the psalmist (cf. Ps 78).

            Wisdom literature contains no explicit reference to the shepherd metaphor.[58]  God, however, is found protecting in Proverbs 2.6-8:

            ⁶For the LORD gives wisdom;
                    From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.
                ⁷He stores up sound wisdom for the upright;
                     He is a shield to those who walk in integrity,
                  ⁸Guarding the paths of justice,
                       And He preserves the way of His godly ones.

 

Proverbs 3.5 explains that trusting in the Lord will lead to straight paths. 

            The prophets, along with the psalmists used the Shepherd-God metaphor most extensively.  Most significant mentions are found in Ezekiel 34, Isaiah 40, and Jeremiah 23.1-4.  Though these passages are used in similar ways, there are three important uses of the metaphor within the prophetic literature: Yahweh is the true shepherd who cares for his flock, the leaders of Israel have failed to shepherd their people, and for this they will lose their position and Israel will be scattered, and that Yahweh will one day shepherd his own flock, coming to call them back to himself.

D.    Analogies (positive, negative, neutral)

            God is like the human shepherd six primary ways.  (1) God delivers his people.  Deliverance is one of the main themes in the shepherd-God metaphor, as Israel frequently reflected upon their deliverance from Egypt into the promised land.  Most importantly, Christ delivers God’s flock from the oppression of sin. (2) God protects his people from that which can destroy them.  (3) God provides for his people. God shelters his people from the death and destruction of captivity and sin while also providing his flock with “living water” and green pasture land.[59] (4) God knows his people.  God has known each of his sheep from before their existence.  This enables him to search out their paths.[60] (5) God judges his people. As a true shepherd God confronts the under-shepherds in order to protect his sheep, punishes them for their mishandling by removing them from office, rescues the sheep from the false shepherds.[61] (6) God gathers his sheep.  After the judgment, God calls his sheep to him and settles them in the eschatological pasture.

            God is unlike a human shepherd in at least four primary ways.  (1) God is not like the bad shepherds of Israel, he is a true shepherd who preserves and feeds the flock, strengthens the weak, heals the sick, binds the crippled, brings back the stray, seeks the lost, leads the flock gently and keeps it together.[62]  (2) God is better that the best Shepherds.  (3) When God brings people to pasture, it is sufficient for every need, and there is no need to move on to new pastures. (4) In Gods care, there is complete safety, where with a human shepherd protection is limited to the shepherd’s strength and ability.  The sheep who graze under Yahweh have no predator that is capable of devouring them (cf. Ps 23.4).

            The Shepherd-God Metaphor introduces several interesting analogies.  (1) Sheep seem to be unaware of their surroundings, and therefore must trust their shepherd’s providence.  Those who follow Yahweh must do likewise.  (4) Christ as the good shepherd is able to provide his flock with drinkable water, therefore, Christians should not search for satisfaction anywhere else, be it money, recognition or any other vice of the flesh. (5) When Christians refuse to trust God’s shepherdship, and that he is truly a good shepherd, they are led into sin (Ps 78.17).

IV. Conclusion

             The shepherd-God metaphor in the Hebrew Scriptures is one of ultimate compassion as God is always seen as a deliver, provider, or protector when the shepherd metaphor is present.  God exemplifies the positive associations of the shepherd image to the degree of super-perfection.  Yahweh’s shepherding is the standard by which all other metaphorical shepherding must be judged.  Just as God defines the perfection of all his attributes, so he acts in accordance with the positive associations of the shepherding metaphor. 

            In John 10.1-21 Jesus is the good shepherd- ejgwv eijmi oj poimh;n oj kalovV (v. 11).  Though the Greek article does not always necessitate definitiveness, in its most concentrated force, it must.[63]  Here the article fits Wallace’s monadic use for the article, setting Jesus apart as the good shepherd.[64] The presence of the article, in this case, necessitates definitiveness.  The resulting implication is that God is the supreme shepherd.  This usage equates to the use of a superlative adjective rendering a paraphrase, “I am the best of shepherds.”  The force carried by the grammar, however cannot be limited to that expressed in the term “best,” as Jesus is also the true shepherd.

            Within the practice of the church, all pastoral duties should follow God’s example in caring and tending for the flock and reflect the nature of Christ as the true shepherd.  God has done away with the false shepherds and has come in Christ to personally gather and shepherd his people.  God no longer relies on human shepherds, but instead personally guides each member of his flock.  The immanent presence of the Holy Spirit enables the pastor to be the hired-hand of God as He guides his people.

 

---