Ezekiel 34 commentary

EZEKIEL 34 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
The Lord Will Be Israel’s Shepherd
1 The word of the Lord came to me:
BARNES, "The prophet has yet to pronounce a judgment upon unfaithful rulers,
whose punishment will further the good of those whom they have misguided. He shows
what the rulers should have been, what they have been, and what in the coming times
they shall be when the True King shall reign in the true kingdom. Hence, follows a
description of Messiah’s reign.
GILL, "The word of the Lord came unto me,.... The date of this prophecy is not
given; however, it seems to have been delivered after the destruction of Jerusalem; the
causes of which are mentioned, the sins of the people and their governors, which the
prophet is directed to expose:
HENRY 1-6, “The prophecy of this chapter is not dated, nor any of those that follow
it, till ch. 40. It is most probable that it was delivered after the completing of Jerusalem's
destruction, when it would be very seasonable to enquire into the causes of it.
I. The prophet is ordered to prophesy against the shepherds of Israel - the princes
and magistrates, the priests and Levites, the great Sanhedrim or council of state, or
whoever they were that had the direction of public affairs in a higher or lower sphere,
the kings especially, for there were two of them now captives in Babylon, who, as well as
the people, must have their transgressions shown them, that they might repent, as
Manasseh in his captivity. God has something to say to the shepherds, for they are but
under-shepherds, accountable to him who is the great Shepherd of Israel, Psa_80:1.
And that which he says is, Woe to the shepherds of Israel! Though they are shepherds,
and shepherds of Israel, yet he must not spare them, must not flatter them. Note, If
men's dignity and power do not, as they ought, keep them from sin, they will not serve to
1

exempt them from reproof, to excuse their repentance, or to secure them from the
judgments of God if they do not repent. We had a woe to the pastors, Jer_23:1. God will
in a particular manner reckon with them if they be false to their trust.
II. He is here directed what to charge the shepherds with, in God's name, as the
ground of God's controversy with them; for it is not a causeless quarrel. Two things they
are charged with: - 1. That all their care was to advance and enrich themselves and to
make themselves great. Their business was to take care of those that were committed to
their charge: Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? No doubt they should; they
betray their trust if they do not. Not that they are to put the meat into their mouths, but
to provide it for them and bring them to it. But these shepherds made this the least of
their care; they fed themselves, contrived every thing to gratify and indulge their own
appetite, and to make themselves rich and great, fat and easy. They made sure of the
profits of their places; they did eat the fat, the cream (so some), for he that feeds a flock
eats of the milk of it (1Co_9:7), and they made sure of the best of the milk. They made
sure of the fleece, and clothed themselves with the wool, getting into their hands as
much as they could of the estates of their subjects, yea, and killed those that were well
fed, that what they had might be fed upon, as Naboth was put to death for his vineyard.
Note, There is a woe to those who are in public trusts, but consult only their own private
interest, and are more inquisitive about the benefice than about the office, what money
is to be got than what good to be done. It is an old complaint, All seek their own, and too
many more than their own. 2. That they took no care for the benefit and welfare of those
that were committed to their charge: You feed not the flock. They neither knew how to
do it, so ignorant were they, nor would they take any pains to do it, so lazy and slothful
were they; nay, they never desired nor designed it, so treacherous and unfaithful were
they. (1.) They did not do their duty to those of the flock that were distempered, did not
strengthen them, nor heal them, nor bind them up, Eze_34:4. When any of the flock
were sick or hurt, worried or wounded, it was all one to them whether they lived or died;
they never looked after them. The princes and judges took no care to right those that
suffered wrong or to shelter injured innocency. They took no care of the poor to see them
provided for; they might starve, for them. The priests took no care to instruct the
ignorant, to rectify the mistakes of those that were in error, to warn the unruly, or to
comfort the feeble-minded. The ministers of state took no care to check the growing
distempers of the kingdom, which threatened the vitals of it. Things were amiss, and out
of course, every where, and nothing was done to rectify them. (2.) They did not do their
duty to those of the flock that were dispersed, that were driven away by the enemies that
invaded the country, and were forced to seek for shelter where they could find a place, or
that wandered of choice upon the mountains and hills (Eze_34:6), where they were
exposed to the beasts of prey and became meat to them, Eze_34:5. Every one is ready to
seize a waif and stray. Some went abroad and begged, some went abroad and traded, and
thus the country became thin of inhabitants, and was weakened and impoverished, and
wanted hands both in the fields of corn and in the fields of battle, both in harvest and in
war: My flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, Eze_34:6. And they were
never enquired after, were never encouraged to return to their own country: None did
search or seek after them. Nay, with force and cruelty they ruled them, which drove
more away, and discouraged those that were driven away from all thoughts of returning.
Their case is bad who have reason to expect better treatment among strangers than in
their own country. It may be meant of those of the flock that went astray from God and
their duty; and the priests, that should have taught the good knowledge of the Lord, used
no means to convince and reclaim them, so that they became an easy prey to seducers.
2

Thus were they scattered because there was no shepherd, Eze_34:5. There were those
that called themselves shepherds, but really they were not. Note, Those that do not do
the work of shepherds are unworthy of the name. And if those that undertake to be
shepherds are foolish shepherds (Zec_11:15), if they are proud and above their business,
idle and do not love their business, or faithless and unconcerned about it, the case of the
flock is as bad as if it were without a shepherd. Better no shepherd than such shepherds.
Christ complains that his flock were as sheep having no shepherd, when yet the scribes
and Pharisees sat in Moses' seat, Mat_9:36. It is ill with the patient when his physician
is his worst disease, ill with the flock when the shepherds drive them away and disperse
them, by ruling them with force.
JAMISON, "Eze_34:1-31. Reproof of the false shepherds; Promise of the True and
Good Shepherd.
Having in the thirty-third chapter laid down repentance as the necessary preliminary
to happier times for the people, He now promises the removal of the false shepherds as
preparatory to the raising up of the Good Shepherd.
K&D 1-10, "Woe to the Bad Shepherds
Eze_34:1. And the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, Eze_34:2. Son of man,
prophesy concerning the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, to the
shepherds, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Woe to the shepherds of Israel, who fed
themselves; should not the shepherds feed the flock? Eze_34:3. Ye eat the fat, and clothe
yourselves whit the wool; ye slay the fattened; the flock ye do not feed. Eze_34:4. The
weak ones ye do not strengthen, and that which is sick ye do not cure, the wounded one
ye bind not up, the scattered ye bring not back, and the lost one ye do not seek; and ye
rule over them with violence and with severity. Eze_34:5. Therefore they were
scattered, because without shepherd, and became food to all the beasts of the field, and
were scattered. Eze_34:6. My sheep wander about on all the mountains, and on every
high hill; and over all the land have my sheep been scattered, and there is no one who
asks for them, and no one who seeks them. Eze_34:7. Therefore, ye shepherds, hear ye
the word of Jehovah: Eze_34:8. As I live, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah, because my
sheep become a prey, and my sheep become food to all the beasts of the field, because
there is no shepherd, and my shepherds do not inquire after my sheep, and the
shepherds feed themselves, but do not feed the sheep, Eze_34:9. Therefore, ye
shepherds, hear ye the word of Jehovah, Eze_34:10. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah,
Behold, I will deal with the shepherds, and will demand my sheep from their hand, and
cause them to cease to feed my flock, that they may feed themselves no more; and I will
deliver my sheep from their mouth, that they may be food to them no more. - In Eze_
34:2 ‫ים‬ ִ‫ֹע‬‫ר‬ָ‫ל‬ is an explanatory apposition to ‫ם‬ ֶ‫יה‬ֵ‫ֲל‬‫א‬, and is not to be taken in connection
with ‫ֹה‬‫כּ‬ ‫ר‬ ַ‫מ‬ ָ‫א‬ ‫,יי‬ in opposition to the constant use of this formula, as Kliefoth maintains.
The reason for the woe pronounced is given in the apposition, who fed themselves,
whereas they ought to have fed the flock; and the charge that they only care for
3

themselves is still further explained by a description of their conduct (Eze_34:3 and
Eze_34:4), and of the dispersion of the flock occasioned thereby (Eze_34:5 and Eze_
34:6). Observe the periphrastic preterite ‫יוּ‬ ָ‫ה‬ ‫ים‬ ִ‫,רֹע‬ they were feeding, which shows that
the woe had relation chiefly to the former shepherds or rulers of the nation. ‫ם‬ ָ‫ת‬ ‫א‬ is
reflective, se ipsos (cf. Gesen. §124. 1b). The disgracefulness of their feeding themselves
is brought out by the question, “Ought not the shepherds to feed the flock?” Eze_34:3
shows how they fed themselves, and Eze_34:4 how they neglected the flock. ‫ב‬ֶ‫ל‬ ֵ‫,ח‬ the
fat, which Bochart and Hitzig propose to alter into ‫ב‬ָ‫ל‬ ָ‫ח‬ ֶ‫,ה‬ the milk, after the Septuagint
and Vulgate, is not open to any objection. The fat, as the best portion of the flesh, which
was laid upon the altar, for example, in the case of the sacrifices, as being the flower of
all the flesh, is mentioned here as pars melior pro toto. Hävernick has very properly
pointed, in vindication of the reading in the text, to Zec_11:16, where the two clauses, ye
eat the fat, and slay the fattened, are joined together in the one clause, “the flesh of the
fattened one will he eat.” There is no force in the objection raised by Hitzig, that “the
slaughtering of the fat beasts, which ought to be mentioned first, is not introduced till
afterwards;” for this clause contains a heightening of the thought that they use the flock
to feed themselves: they do not even kill the leaner beasts, but those that are well
fattened; and it follows very suitably after the general statement, that they make use of
both the flesh and the wool of the sheep for their own advantage. They care nothing for
the wellbeing of the flock: this is stated in the last clause of Eze_34:3, which is explained
in detail in Eze_34:4. ‫ת‬ ‫ל‬ ְ‫ַה‬‫נ‬ is the Niphal participle of ‫ה‬ָ‫ל‬ ָ‫,ח‬ and is a contracted form of
‫ת‬ ‫ֲל‬‫ח‬ַ‫נ‬, like ‫ה‬ָ‫ל‬ ְ‫ַח‬‫נ‬ in Isa_17:11. The distinction between ‫ת‬ ‫ל‬ ְ‫ַה‬‫נ‬ and ‫ה‬ָ‫ל‬ ‫ח‬ is determined by
the respective predicates ‫זּק‬ ִ‫ח‬ and ‫א‬ָ‫פ‬ ָ‫.ר‬ According to these, ‫ה‬ָ‫ל‬ ְ‫ַח‬‫נ‬ signifies that which is
weak in consequence of sickness, and ‫ה‬ָ‫חֹל‬ that which is weak in itself. ‫ת‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫בּ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ִ‫,נ‬ literally,
that which is broken, an animal with a leg or some other member injured. ‫ח‬ ָ‫דּ‬ִ‫,נ‬
scattered, as in Deu_22:1.
In the last clause of Eze_34:4, the neglect of the flock is summed up in the positive
expression, to rule over them with violence and severity. ‫ה‬ ָ‫ד‬ ָ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ר‬ָ‫פ‬ ְ‫ב‬ is taken from Lev_
25:43, Lev_25:46; but there as well as here it points back to Exo_1:13-14, where ֶ‫ר‬ָ‫פ‬ ְ‫ב‬ is
applied to the tyrannical measures adopted by Pharaoh for the oppression of the
Israelites. The result of this (Eze_34:5, Eze_34:6) was, that the sheep were scattered,
and became food to the beasts of prey. ‫י‬ ִ‫ל‬ ְ‫בּ‬ ִ‫,מ‬ on account of there not being a shepherd,
i.e., because there was no shepherd worthy of the name. This took place when Israel was
carried away into exile, where it became a prey to the heathen nations. When we find
this mournful fate of the people described as brought about by the bad shepherds, and
attributable to faults of theirs, we must not regard the words as applying merely to the
mistaken policy of the kings with regard to external affairs (Hitzig); for this was in itself
simply a consequence of their neglect of their theocratic calling, and of their falling away
from the Lord into idolatry. It is true that the people had also made themselves guilty of
this sin, so that it was obliged to atone not only for the sins of its shepherds, but for its
own sin also; but this is passed by here, in accordance with the design of this prophecy.
And it could very properly be kept out of sight, inasmuch as the rulers had also
occasioned the idolatry of the people, partly by their neglect of their duty, and partly by
their bad example. ‫ָה‬‫נ‬‫י‬ֶ‫פוּצ‬ ְ‫ַתּ‬‫ו‬ is repeated with emphasis at the close of Eze_34:5; and the
thought is still further expanded in Eze_34:6. The wandering upon all the mountains
4

and hills must not be understood as signifying the straying of the people to the worship
on high places, as Theodoret and Kliefoth suppose. The fallacy of this explanation is
clearly shown by the passage on which this figurative description rests (1Ki_22:17),
where the people are represented as scattered upon the mountains in consequence of the
fall of the king in battle, like a flock that had no shepherd. The words in the next clause,
corresponding to the mountains and hills, are ‫ֵי‬‫נ‬ ְ‫ל־פּ‬ַ‫כּ‬ ‫ץ‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ָ‫א‬ ָ‫,ה‬ the whole face of the land,
not “of the earth” (Kliefoth). For although the dispersion of the flock actually consisted
in the carrying away of the people into heathen lands, the actual meaning of the figure is
kept in the background here, as is evident from the fact that Ezekiel constantly uses the
expression ‫ת‬ ‫צ‬ ָ‫ֲר‬‫א‬ ָ‫ה‬ (plural) when speaking of the dispersion among the heathen (cf.
Ezekiel 13). The distinction between ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫ר‬ ָ‫דּ‬ and ‫שׁ‬ ֵ‫קּ‬ ִ‫בּ‬ is, that ‫דרשׁ‬ taht , signifies rather to
ask, inquire for a thing, to trouble oneself about it, whereas ‫בקשׁ‬ means to seek for that
which has strayed or is lost. In Eze_34:7-10, the punishment for their unfaithfulness is
announced to the shepherds themselves; but at the same time, as is constantly the case
with Ezekiel, their guilt is once more recapitulated as an explanation of the threatening
of punishment, and the earnest appeal to listen is repeated in Eze_34:9. The Lord will
demand His sheep of them; and because sheep have been lost through their fault, He will
dispose them from the office of shepherd, and so deliver the poor flock from their
violence. If we compare with this Jer_23:2 : “Behold, I will visit upon you the
wickedness of your doings,” the threat in Ezekiel has a much milder sound. There is
nothing said about the punishment of the shepherd, but simply that the task of keeping
the sheep shall be taken from them, so that they shall feed themselves no more. This
distinction is to be explained from the design of our prophecy, which is not so much to
foretell the punishment of the shepherds, as the deliverance from destruction of the
sheep that have been plunged into misery. The repetition of ‫י‬ִ‫ֹאנ‬ ‫,צ‬ my flock (Eze_34:8
and Eze_34:10, as before in Eze_34:6), is also connected with this. The rescue of the
sheep out of the hand of the bad shepherds had already commenced with the overthrow
of the monarchy on the destruction of Jerusalem. If, then it is here described as only to
take place in the future, justice is not done to these words by explaining them, as Hitzig
does, as signifying that what has already actually taken place is now to be made final,
and not to be reversed. For although this is implied, the words clearly affirm that the
deliverance of the sheep out of the hand of the shepherds has not yet taken place, but
still remains to be effected, so that the people are regarded as being at the time in the
power of bad shepherds, and their rescue is predicted as still in the future. How and
when it will be accomplished, by the removal of the bad shepherds, is shown in the
announcement, commencing with Eze_34:11, of what the Lord will do for His flock.
COFFMAN, “Verse 1
THE SHEPHERD OF ISRAEL; THE MESSIANIC KINGDOM
5

(Note: The headings for this chapter were suggested by F. F. Bruce and John
Skinner respectively.
In view of what Our Lord Jesus Christ and his inspired apostles and writers have
stated in the New Testament, little other comment is needed. The identity of this
Good Shepherd who will destroy the evil shepherds and rule over the united Israel
(the Northern and Southern Israels, as well as all the Israelites and Gentiles
combined in God's New Israel) are fully and dogmatically answered in the sacred
New Testament. All of the doubts and quibbles, and all of the picayune allegations
and criticisms that one finds in the writings of commentators who apparently have
no extensive knowledge whatever of the New Testament are gloriously solved and
explained in the New Testament.
"What we have to do with in this chapter is a Messianic prediction in the fullest
sense of the term."[1]
The quibble regarding whether a single individual is meant, or if the restoration of
the old Davidic dynasty of successive rulers is intended, is forever decided by the
Apostle Peter who applied all intimations of some descendent of David "sitting upon
his throne," to "the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his elevation to the right hand
of God" (Acts 2:30-32), who was universally known by all the Jews of that
generation as "The Son of David." Furthermore, the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ,
was the total fulfillment; he would never be succeeded by any other. It was not a
"line of Davidic kings," but the one Great and Only King Jesus who is foretold here.
Ezekiel himself was also aware of this and said so, although it seems that many have
overlooked his message. "David my servant shall be my prince forever." (Ezekiel
37:25). As Paul put it, "He must reign till he has put all enemies under his feet; and
the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" (1 Corinthians 15:25,26).
It is impossible to escape the implications of this chapter that the one prophesied
here is "the Personal Messiah," even the Son of God Himself.
GOD HIMSELF TO BE THE GOOD SHEPHERD
6

As Bunn noted, "We find here a unique emphasis upon the personal pronoun. The
word `I' is used no less than fifteen times as Jehovah speaks in the first person. Also
`my' and `myself' are used three times, all within the space of six verses."[2]
Therefore when God Himself said. "I myself will be the shepherd of the sheep"
(Ezekiel 34:15), it means, undeniably, that, in some sense the Coming Messiah will
not be a mere human being. These words cannot be applied to any mortal
descendent of David who ever lived, except Jesus Christ our Lord.
We have noted that two or three commentators have found what they called "a
contradiction" in some of Ezekiel's statements that this coming "Servant David"
would be a man. Every Christian knows that Christ was indeed both God and Man.
"He was the Son of David and at the same time The Lord of David" (Matthew
22:42-45). The scholars who do not see this today are still working in the same
ignorance that blinded those ancient Pharisees who stood speechless before Christ
when he probed their minds with this same dilemma of how Jesus Christ is both
God and man.
Other alleged objections to the obvious interpretation here will be noted in the text
below.
The historical background against which this chapter appears was pitiful indeed.
Israel's ancient request for God to allow them to have a king was illegal and sinful
to begin with; and Samuel warned them of the kind of kings they would get; and the
complete and utter failure of the monarchical system had finally worked its total
ruin and destruction upon the Chosen People; and, at this stage, God would begin
all over again to teach them the spiritual nature of his kingdom. Not a small part of
this chapter rehearses the unprincipled wickedness of Israel's kings. As their history
revealed, "The native kings were no better than the heathen despots."[3] All of them
were heartless, cruel, greedy, selfish monsters of tyranny and oppression who cared
nothing at all for their subjects. They exploited, robbed, murdered, enslaved and
abused their subjects in every conceivable manner.
The mystery still exists as to why Israel, even as late as the times of the apostles,
7

desired nothing either in heaven or upon earth as passionately as they desired the
restoration to them of their scandalous old monarchy which God finally and
irrevocably destroyed in the events of Ezekiel's generation. There would yet be
required to pass nearly half a millennium before God would be able to change the
hearts of enough of them to allow the Advent of that Glorious Messiah prophesied
in this chapter; and even at that late date, there were only a small handful, in the
relative sense, who "waited for the kingdom of God," who were "true Israelites,"
who were entitled to be called "the seed of Abraham," and who would form the
nucleus of that higher and better Israel of God.
DENUNCIATION OF THE FALSE SHEPHERDS
Ezekiel 34:1-6
"And the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Son of man, prophesy against the
shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, even to the shepherds, Thus saith
the Lord Jehovah: Woe unto the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should
not the shepherds feed the sheep? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye
kill the fatlings, but ye feed not the sheep. The diseased have ye not strengthened,
neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which
was broken, neither have ye brought back that which was driven away, neither have
ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with rigor have ye ruled over
them. And they were scattered, because there was no shepherd; and they became
food for all the beasts of the field, and were scattered. My sheep wandered through
all the mountains, and upon every high hill; yea, my sheep were scattered upon all
the face of the earth; and there was none that did search or seek after them."
This is a graphic picture of an utterly worthless shepherd who had no concern
whatever for the flock, except as he might have been able to feed himself and clothe
himself from what they provided. No better composite of the whole list of Israel's
kings, northern and southern alike, could be written than this.
Some attention should be given to the term "shepherd." This comparison of the evil
8

rulers of God's people is also found in Jeremiah 23ff, and in Zechariah 11:1-11.
Also, Jesus' words in John 10 carry the same message.
"The word `shepherd' in the Old Testament, as in Homer's Iliad is always a
reference to kings and rulers."[4] Cook stated that, "The first king upon earth wore
this title; his name was Aloms. The title was adopted into the Assyrian language as
RIU (shepherd) and persisted to the latest times of the Assyrian monarchy."[5] The
evil shepherds which had mined Israel were nothing else except the kings who
disgraced it, from the first of them to the last. This appears in the truth that even the
best of them, namely, "a man after God's own heart," was an adulterer, a murderer,
and an innovator who tried to move the ark of the covenant with a new cart!
"On every high hill ..." (Ezekiel 34:6). Despite the fact of Keil's disagreement, we
believe that Jamieson was correct in seeing in this statement, "A reference to the
sinful idolatrous worship practiced upon 'every high hill' at those shrines and `high
places' set up and sponsored by those evil shepherds."[6] Jesus spoke of the
`scattering' mentioned here in Mark 6:34.
COKE, “Verse 1
Ezekiel 34:1. Came unto me— "It is probable that this prophesy immediately
followed the preceding. At or before the arrival of the news that Jerusalem was
conquered, the prophet was to speak of the tyranny and carelessness of the
governors, and to promise the return of the people." Michaelis. Ezekiel still
continues his prophetic cares and foresight toward those who survived the
desolation of Jerusalem, both those who continued in Jerusalem and also the
captives elsewhere. Of the former some false hopes seem to have been formed by the
captive Jews, that this remnant would be still able to preserve the existence of the
Jewish state in Palestine. C. Ezekiel 33:24.
The negligence of the governors being pointed out as a cause of the incredulity of the
people, the transition here is natural, and the connexion close between this prophesy
and the foregoing one; as also between the beginning of this prophesy and its
9

conclusion. For, considering that in part the people suffered for the faults of their
shepherds, mercy now urged the prophet to declare from God that he would judge
between them—save the flock, and—set up one shepherd over them, who should
feed them, even his servant David.
PETT, “Introduction
Chapter 34 The False Shepherds and the True Shepherd.
In this chapter God likens His people to sheep and describes and condemns those
who have been false shepherds to His people. He then goes on to promise the
restoration of His people, under Himself, and One from the house of David who will
be a true shepherd to them.
Verse 1-2
‘And the word of Yahweh came to me saying, “Son of man, prophesy against the
shepherds of Israel, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord
Yahweh, Woe to the shepherds of Israel who feed themselves. Should the shepherds
not feed the sheep?” ’
We need not doubt that this has a backward reference to the shepherds of the past,
the kings, priests and prophets who had failed His people, but it also very much
included the present shepherds who now had responsibility for the people’s spiritual
life and teaching in exile, as the later warnings make clear. And the charge was
serious. They were guilty of looking after themselves, whereas a true shepherd
would be looking after the sheep.
The idea of kings and leaders as shepherds to their people is a common one (1 Kings
22:17; Isaiah 44:28; Isaiah 63:11; Jeremiah 2:8, linked with the priests and the
prophets; Jeremiah 10:21; Jeremiah 23:1-6; Jeremiah 25:34-38 - more general;
10

Micah 5:4-5 see also Psalms 78:70-71). Also see more generally Isaiah 56:10-11;
Jeremiah 50:6; Nahum 3:18; Zechariah 10:2-3; Zechariah 11:8.
EBC, “THE MESSIANIC KINGDOM
Ezekiel 34:1-31
The term "Messianic" as commonly applied to Old Testament prophecy bears two
different senses, a wider and a narrower. In its wider use it is almost equivalent to
the modern word "eschatological." It denotes that unquenchable hope of a glorious
future for Israel and the world which is an all but omnipresent feature of the
prophetic writings, and includes all predictions of the kingdom of God in its final
and perfect manifestation. In its stricter sense it is applied only to the promise of the
ideal king of the house of David, which, although a very conspicuous element of
prophecy, is by no means universal, and perhaps does not bulk quite so largely in
the Old Testament as is generally supposed. The later Jews were guided by a true
instinct when they seized on this figure of the ideal ruler as the centre of the nation’s
hope; and to them we owe this special application of the name "Messiah," the
"Anointed," which is never used of the Son of David in the Old Testament itself. To
a certain extent we follow in their steps when we enlarge the meaning of the word
"Messianic" so as to embrace the whole prophetic delineation of the future glories
of the kingdom of God.
This distinction may be illustrated from the prophecies of Ezekiel. If we take the
word in its more general sense we may say that all the chapters from the thirty-
fourth to the end of the book are Messianic in character. That is to say, they
describe under various aspects the final condition of things which is introduced by
the restoration of Israel to its own land. Let us glance for a moment at the elements
which enter into this general conception of the last things as they are set forth in the
section of the book with which we are now dealing. We exclude from view for the
present the last nine chapters, because there the prophet’s point of view is somewhat
different, and it is better to reserve them for separate treatment.
11

The chapters from the thirty-fourth to the thirty-seventh are the necessary
complement of the call to repentance in the first part of chapter 33. Ezekiel has
enunciated the conditions of entrance to the new kingdom of God, and has urged his
hearers to prepare for its appearing. He now proceeds to unfold the nature of that
kingdom, and the process by which Jehovah is to bring it to pass. As has been said,
the central fact is the restoration of Israel to the land of Canaan. Here the prophet
found a point of contact with the natural aspirations of his fellow exiles. There was
no prospect to which they had clung with more eager longing than that of a return
to national independence in their own land; and the feeling that this was no longer
possible was the source of the abject despair from which the prophet sought to rouse
them. How was this to be done? Not simply by asserting in the face of all human
probability that the restoration would take place, but by presenting it to their minds
in its religious aspects as an object worthy of the exercise of almighty power, and an
object in which Jehovah was interested for the glory of His great name. Only by
being brought round to Ezekiel’s faith in God could the exiles recover their lost
hope in the future of the nation. Thus the return to which Ezekiel looks forward has
a Messianic significance; it is the establishment of the kingdom of God, a symbol of
the final and perfect union between Jehovah and Israel.
Now in the chapters before us this general conception is exhibited in three separate
pictures of the Restoration, the leading ideas being the Monarchy (chapter 34), the
Land (chapter 35, 36), and the Nation (chapter 37). The order in which they are
arranged is not that which might seem most natural. We should have expected the
prophet to deal first with the revival of the nation, then with its settlement on the
soil of Palestine, and last of all with its political organisation under a Davidic king.
Ezekiel follows the reverse order. He begins with the kingdom, as the most complete
embodiment of the Messianic salvation, and then falls back on its two
presuppositions-the recovery and purification of the land on the one hand, and the
restitution of the nation on the other. It is doubtful, indeed, whether any logical
connection between the three pictures is intended. It is perhaps better to regard
them as expressing three distinct and collateral aspects of the idea of redemption, to
each of which a certain permanent religious significance is attached. They are at all
events the outstanding elements of Ezekiel’s eschatology so far as it is expounded in
this section of his prophecies.
We thus see that the promise of the perfect king-the Messianic idea in its more
restricted signification-holds a distinct but not a supreme place in Ezekiel’s vision of
12

the future. It appears for the first time in chapter 17 at the end of an oracle
denouncing the perfidy of Zedekiah and foretelling the overthrow of his kingdom;
and again, in a similar connection, in an obscure verse of chapter 21. [Ezekiel
17:22-24;, Ezekiel 21:26; Ezekiel 21:27] Both these prophecies belong to the time
before the fall of the state, when the prophet’s thoughts were not continuously
occupied with the hope of the future. The former is remarkable, nevertheless, for
the glowing terms in which the greatness of the future kingdom is depicted. From
the top of the lofty cedar which the great eagle had carried away to Babylon
Jehovah will take a tender shoot and plant it in the mountain height of Israel. There
it will strike root and grow up into a lordly cedar, under whose branches all the
birds of the air find refuge. The terms of the allegory have been explained in the
proper place. {See Ezekiel 20:24-25 ff.} The great cedar is the house of David; the
topmost bough which was taken to Babylon is the family of Jehoiachin, the direct
heirs to the throne. The planting of the tender shoot in the land of Israel represents
the founding of the Messiah’s kingdom, which is thus proclaimed to be of
transcendent earthly magnificence, overshadowing all the other kingdoms of the
world, and convincing the nations that its foundation is the work of Jehovah
Himself. In this short passage we have the Messianic idea in its simplest and most
characteristic expression. The hope of the future is bound up with the destiny of the
house of David; and the re-establishment of the kingdom in more than its ancient
splendour is the great divine act to which all the blessings of the final dispensation
are attached.
But it is in the thirty-fourth chapter that we find the most comprehensive exposition
of Ezekiel’s teaching on the subject of the monarchy and the Messianic kingdom. It
is perhaps the most political of all his prophecies. It is pervaded by a spirit of
genuine sympathy with the sufferings of the common people, and indignation
against the tyranny practised and tolerated by the ruling classes. The disasters that
have befallen the nation down to its final dispersion among the heathen are all
traced to the misgovernment and anarchy for which the monarchy was primarily
responsible. In like manner the blessings of the coming age are summed up in the
promise of a perfect king, ruling in the name of Jehovah and maintaining order and
righteousness throughout his realm. Nowhere else does Ezekiel approach so nearly
to the political ideal foreshadowed by the statesman-prophet Isaiah of a "king
reigning in righteousness and princes ruling in judgment" [Isaiah 32:1] securing the
enjoyment of universal prosperity and peace to the redeemed people of God. It must
be remembered of course that this is only a partial expression of Ezekiel’s
conception both of the past condition of the nation and of its future salvation. We
13

have had abundant Evidence(cf. especially chapter 22) to show that he considered
all classes of the community to be corrupt, and the people as a whole implicated in
the guilt of rebellion against Jehovah. The statement that the kings have brought
about the dispersion of the nation must not therefore be pressed to the conclusion
that civic injustice was the sole cause of Israel’s calamities. Similarly we shall find
that the redemption of the people depends on other and more fundamental
conditions than the establishment of good government under a righteous king. But
that is no reason for minimising the significance of the passage before us as an
utterance of Ezekiel’s profound interest in social order and the welfare of the poor.
It shows moreover that the prophet at this time attached real importance to the
promise of the Messiah as the organ of Jehovah’s rule over His people. If civil
wrongs and legalised tyranny were not the only sins which had brought about the
destruction of the state, they were at least serious evils, which could not be tolerated
in the new Israel; and the chief safeguard against their recurrence is found in the
character of the ideal ruler whom Jehovah will raise up from the seed of David.
How far this high conception of the functions of the monarchy was modified in
Ezekiel’s subsequent teaching we shall see when we come to consider the position
assigned to the prince in the great vision at the end of the book.
In the meantime let us examine somewhat more closely the contents of chapter 34.
Its leading ideas seem to have been suggested by a Messianic prophecy of Jeremiah’s
with which Ezekiel was no doubt acquainted: "Woe to the shepherds that destroy
and scatter the flock of My pasture! saith Jehovah. Therefore thus saith Jehovah,
the God of Israel, against the shepherds that tend My people, Ye have scattered My
flock, and dispersed them, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you
the evil of your doings, saith Jehovah. And I will gather the remnant of My flock
from all the lands whither I have dispersed them, and will restore them to their
folds; and they shall be fruitful and multiply. And I will set shepherds over them
who shall feed them: and they shall not fear any more, nor be frightened, nor be
lacking, saith Jehovah". [Jeremiah 23:1-4] Here we have the simple image of the
flock and its shepherds, which Ezekiel, as his manner is, expands into an allegory of
the past history and future prospects of the nation. How closely he follows the
guidance of his predecessor will be seen from the analysis of the chapter. It may be
divided into four parts.
1. The first ten verses are a strongly worded denunciation of the misgovernment to
which the people of Jehovah had been subjected in the past. The prophet goes
14

straight to the root of the evil when he indignantly asks, "Should not the shepherds
feed the flock?" (Ezekiel 34:2). The first principle of all true government is that it
must be in the interest of the governed. But the universal vice of Oriental despotism,
as we see in the case of the Turkish empire at the present day, or Egypt before the
English occupation, is that the rulers rule for their own advantage, and treat the
people as their lawful spoil. So it had been in Israel: the shepherds had fed
themselves, and not the flock. Instead of carefully tending the sick and the maimed,
and searching out the strayed and the lost, they had been concerned only to eat the
milk and clothe themselves with the wool and slaughter the fat; they had ruled with
"violence and rigour." That is to say, instead of healing the sores of the body politic,
they had sought to enrich themselves at the expense of the people. Such misconduct
in the name of government always brings its own penalty; it kills the goose that lays
the golden eggs. The flock which is spoiled by its own shepherds is scattered on the
mountain and becomes the prey of wild beasts; and so the nation that is weakened
by internal misrule loses its powers of defence and succumbs to the attacks of some
foreign invader. But the shepherds of Israel have to reckon with Him who is the
owner of the flock, whose affection still watches over them, and whose compassion is
stirred by the hapless condition of His people. "Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the
word of Jehovah; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require My flock at
their hand; and I will make them to cease from feeding [My] flock, that they who
feed themselves may no longer shepherd them; and I will deliver My flock from
their mouth that they be not food for them" (Ezekiel 34:9-10).
2. But Jehovah not only removes the unworthy shepherds; He Himself takes on Him
the office of shepherd to the flock that has been so mishandled (Ezekiel 34:11-16).
As the shepherd goes out after the thunderstorm to call in his frightened sheep, so
will Jehovah after the storm of judgment is over go forth to "gather together the
outcasts of Israel". [Psalms 147:2] He will seek them out and deliver them from all
places whither they were scattered in the day of clouds and darkness; then He will
lead them back to the mountain height of Israel, where they shall enjoy abundant
prosperity and security under His just and beneficent rule. By what agencies this
deliverance is to be accomplished is nowhere indicated. It is the unanimous teaching
of the prophets that the final salvation of Israel will be effected in a "day of
Jehovah"-i.e., a day in which Jehovah’s own power will be specially manifested.
Hence there is no need to describe the process by which the Almighty works out His
purpose of salvation; it is indescribable: the results are certain, but the intermediate
agencies are supernatural, and the precise method of Jehovah’s intervention is, as a
rule, left indefinite. It is particularly to be noted that the Messiah plays no part in
15

the actual work of deliverance. He is not the hero of a national struggle for
independence, but comes on the scene and assumes the reins of government after
Jehovah has gotten the victory and restored peace to Israel.
3. The next six verses (Ezekiel 34:17-22) add a feature to the allegory which is not
found in the corresponding passage in Jeremiah. Jehovah will judge between one
sheep and another, especially between the rams and he-goats on the one hand and
the weaker animals on the other. The strong cattle had monopolised the fat
meadows and clear settled waters, and as if this were not enough, they had trampled
down the residue of the pastures and fouled the waters with their feet. Those
addressed are the wealthy and powerful upper class, whose luxury and wanton
extravagance had consumed the resources of the country, and left no sustenance for
the poorer members of the community. Allusions to this kind of selfish tyranny are
frequent in the older prophets. Amos speaks of the nobles as panting after the dust
on the head of the poor, and of the luxurious dames of Samaria as oppressing the
poor and crushing the needy, and saying to their lords, "Bring us to drink." [Amos
2:7; Amos 4:1] Micah says of the same class in the southern kingdom that they cast
out the women of Jehovah’s people from their pleasant houses, and robbed their
children of His glory for ever. [Micah 2:9] And Isaiah, to take one other example,
denounces those who "take away the right from the poor of My people, that widows
may be their prey, and that they may rob the orphans". [Isaiah 10:2] Under the
corrupt administration of justice which the kings had tolerated for their own
convenience litigation had been a farce; the rich man had always the ear of the
judge, and the poor found no redress. But in Israel the true fountain of justice could
not be polluted; it was only its channels that were obstructed. For Jehovah Himself
was the supreme judge of His people; and in the restored commonwealth to which
Ezekiel looks forward all civil relations will be regulated by a regard to His
righteous will. He will "save His flock that they be no more a prey, and will judge
between cattle and cattle."
4. Then follows in the last section (Ezekiel 34:23-31) the promise of the Messianic
king, and a description of the blessings that accompany his reign: "I will set up one
shepherd over them, and he shall feed them-My servant David: he shall feed them,
and he shall be their shepherd. And I Jehovah will be their God, and My servant
David shall be a prince in their midst: I Jehovah have spoken it." There are one or
two difficulties connected with the interpretation of this passage, the consideration
of which may be postponed till we have finished our analysis of the chapter. It is
16

sufficient in the meantime to notice that a Davidic kingdom in some sense is to be
the foundation of social order in the new Israel. A prince will arise, endowed with
the spirit of his exalted office, to discharge perfectly the royal functions in which the
former kings had so lamentably failed. Through him the divine government of Israel
will become a reality in the national life. The Godhead of Jehovah and the kingship
of the Messiah will be inseparably associated in the faith of the people: "Jehovah
their God, and David their king" [Hosea 3:5] is the expression of the ground of
Israel’s confidence in the latter days. And this kingdom is the pledge of the fulness
of divine blessing descending on the land and the people. The people shall dwell in
safety, none making them afraid, because of the covenant of peace which Jehovah
will make for them, securing them against the assaults of other nations. The heavens
shall pour forth fertilising "showers of blessing"; and the land shall be clothed with
a luxuriant vegetation which shall be the admiration of the whole earth. Thus
happily situated Israel shall shake off the reproach of the heathen, which they had
formerly to endure because of the poverty of their land and their unfortunate
history. In the plenitude of material prosperity they shall recognise that Jehovah
their God is with them, and they shall know what it is to be His people and the flock
of His pasture.
We have now before us the salient features of the Messianic hope, as it is presented
in the pages of Ezekiel. We see that the idea is developed in contrast with the abuses
that had characterised the historic monarchy in Israel. It represents the ideal of the
kingdom as it exists in the mind of Jehovah, an ideal which no actual king had fully
realised, and which most of them had shamefully violated. The Messiah is the vice-
regent of Jehovah on earth, and the representative of His kingly authority and
righteous government over Israel. We see further that the promise is based on the
"sure mercies of David," the covenant which secured the throne to David’s
descendants for ever. Messianic prophecy is legitimist, the ideal king being regarded
as standing in the direct line of succession to the crown. And to these features we
may add another which is explicitly developed in Ezekiel 37:22-26, although it is
implied in the expression "one shepherd" in the passage with which we have been
dealing. The Messianic kingdom represents the unity of all Israel, and particularly
the reunion of the two kingdoms under one sceptre. The prophets attach great
importance to this idea. (Cf. Amos 9:11 f.; Hosea 2:2; Hosea 3:5, Isaiah 11:13, Micah
2:12 f., Micah 5:3) The existence of two rival monarchies, divided in interest and
often at war with each other, although it had never effaced the consciousness of the
original unity of the nation, was felt by the prophets to be an anomalous state of
things, and seriously detrimental to the national religion. The ideal relation of
17

Jehovah to Israel was as incompatible with two kingdoms as the ideal of marriage is
incompatible with two wives to one husband. Hence in the glorious future of the
Messianic age the schism must be healed, and the Davidic dynasty restored to its
original position at the head of an undivided empire. The prominence given to this
thought in the teaching of Hosea shows that even in the northern kingdom devout
Israelites cherished the hope of reunion with their brethren under the house of
David as the only form in which the redemption of the nation could be achieved.
And although, long before Ezekiel’s day, the kingdom of Samaria had disappeared
from history, he too looks forward to a restoration of the ten tribes as an essential
element of the Messianic salvation.
In these respects the teaching of Ezekiel reflects the general tenor of the Messianic
prophecy of the Old Testament. There are just two questions on which some
obscurity and uncertainty must be felt to rest. In the first place, what is the precise
meaning of the expression "My servant David"? It will not be supposed that the
prophet expected David, the founder of the Hebrew monarchy, to reappear in
person and inaugurate the new dispensation. Such an interpretation would be
utterly false to Eastern modes of thought and expression, besides being opposed to
every indication we have of the prophetic conception of the Messiah. Even in
popular language the name of David was current, after he had been long dead, as
the name of the dynasty which he had founded. When the ten tribes revolted from
Rehoboam they said, exactly as they had said in David’s lifetime, "What portion
have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O
Israel; now see to thine own house, David." If the name of David could thus be
invoked in popular speech at a time of great political excitement, we need not be
surprised to find it used in a similar sense in the figurative style of the prophets. All
that the word means is that the Messiah will be one who comes in the spirit and
power of David, a representative of the ancient family who carries to completion the
work so nobly begun by his great ancestor.
The real difficulty is whether the title "David" denotes a unique individual or a line
of Davidic kings. To that question it is hardly possible to return a decided answer.
That the idea of a succession of sovereigns is a possible form of the Messianic hope is
shown by a passage in the thirty-third chapter of Jeremiah. There the promise of
the righteous sprout of the house of David is supplemented by the assurance that
David shall never want a man to sit on the throne of Israel: [Jeremiah 33:15-17] the
allusion therefore appears to be to the dynasty, and not to a single person. And this
18

view finds some support in the case of Ezekiel from the fact that in the later vision of
chapters 40-48, the prophet undoubtedly anticipates a perpetuation of the dynasty
through successive generations. {Cf Ezekiel 43:7;, Ezekiel 45:8;, Ezekiel 46:16 ff.}
On the other hand it is difficult to reconcile this view with the expressions used in
this. and the thirty-seventh chapters. When we read that "My servant David shall
be their prince for ever," [Ezekiel 37:25] we can scarcely escape the impression that
the prophet is thinking of a personal Messiah reigning eternally. If it were necessary
to decide between these two alternatives, it might be safest to adhere to the idea of a
personal Messiah, as conveying the fullest rendering of the prophet’s thought. There
is reason to think that in the interval between this prophecy and his final vision
Ezekiel’s conception of the Messiah underwent a certain modification, and therefore
the teaching of the later passage cannot be used to control the explanation of this.
But the obscurity is of such a nature that we cannot hope to remove it. In the
prophet’s delineations of the future there are many points on which the light of
revelation had not been fully cast; for they, like the Christian apostle, "knew in part
and prophesied in part." And the question of the way in which the Messiah’s office
is to be prolonged is precisely one of those which did not greatly occupy the mind of
the prophets. There is no perspective in Messianic prophecy: the future kingdom of
God is seen, as it were, in one plane, and how it is to be transmitted from one age to
another is never thought of. Thus it may become difficult to say whether a
particular prophet, in speaking of the Messiah, has a single individual in view or
whether he is thinking of a dynasty or a succession. To Ezekiel the Messiah was a
divinely revealed ideal, which was to be fulfilled in a person; whether the prophet
himself distinctly understood this is a matter of inferior importance.
The second question is one that perhaps would not readily occur to a plain man. It
relates to the meaning of the word "prince" as applied to the Messiah. It has been
thought by some critics that Ezekiel had a special reason for avoiding the title
"king"; and from this supposed reason a somewhat sweeping conclusion has been
deduced. We are asked to believe that Ezekiel had in principle abandoned the
Messianic hope of his earlier prophecies-i.e., the hope of a restoration of the Davidic
kingdom in its ancient splendour. What he really contemplates is the abolition of the
Hebrew monarchy, and the institution of a new political system entirely different
from anything that had existed in the past. Although the Davidic prince will hold
the first place in the restored community, his dignity will be less than royal; he will
only be a titular monarch, his power being overshadowed by the presence of
Jehovah, the true king of Israel. Now so far as this view is suggested by the use of
the word "prince" (literally "leader" or "president") in preference to "king," it is
19

sufficiently answered by pointing to the Messianic passage in chapter 37, where the
name "king" is used three times and in a peculiarly emphatic manner of the
Messianic prince. [Ezekiel 37:22-24] There is no reason to suppose that Ezekiel drew
a distinction between "princely" and "kingly" rank, and deliberately withheld the
higher dignity from the Messiah. Whatever may be the exact relation of the Messiah
to Jehovah, there is no doubt that he is conceived as a king in the full sense of the
term, possessed of all regal qualities, and shepherding his people with the authority
which belonged to a true son of David.
But there is another consideration which weighs more seriously with the writers
referred to. There is reason to believe that Ezekiel’s conception of the final kingdom
of God underwent a change which might not unfairly be described as an
abandonment of the Messianic expectation in its more restricted sense. In his latest
vision the functions of the prince are defined in such a way that his position is shorn
of the ideal significance which properly invests the office of the Messiah. The change
does not indeed affect his merely political status. He is still the son of David and the
king of Israel, and all that is here said about his duty towards his subjects is there
presupposed. But his character seems to be no longer regarded as thoroughly
reliable, or equal to all the temptations that arise wherever absolute power is lodged
in human hands. The possibility that the king may abuse his authority for his
private advantage is distinctly contemplated, and provision is made against it in the
statutory constitution to which the king himself is subject. Such precautions are
obviously inconsistent with the ideal of the Messianic kingdom which we find, for
example, in the prophecy of Isaiah. The important question therefore comes to be,
whether this lower view of the monarchy is anticipated in the thirty-fourth and
thirty-seventh chapters. This does not appear to be the case. The prophet still
occupies the same standpoint as in chapter 17, regarding the Davidic monarchy as
the central religious institution of the restored state. The Messiah of these chapters
is a perfect king, endowed with the spirit of God for the discharge of his great office,
one whose personal character affords an absolute security for the maintenance of
public righteousness, and who is the medium of communication between God and
the nation. In other words, what we have to do with is a Messianic prediction in the
fullest sense of the term.
In concluding our study of Ezekiel’s Messianic teaching, we may make one remark
bearing on its typological interpretation. The attempt is sometimes made to trace a
gradual development and enrichment of the Messianic idea in the hands of
20

successive prophets. From that point of view Ezekiel’s contribution to the doctrine
of the Messiah must be felt to be disappointing. No one can imagine that his portrait
of the coming king possesses anything like the suggestiveness and religious meaning
conveyed by the ideal which stands out so clearly from the pages of Isaiah. And,
indeed, no subsequent prophet excels or even equals Isaiah in the clearness and
profundity of his directly Messianic conceptions. This fact shows us that the
endeavour to find in the Old Testament a regular progress along one particular line
proceeds on too narrow a view of the scope of prophecy. The truth is that the figure
of the king is only one of many types of the Christian dispensation which the
religious institutions of Israel supplied to the prophets. It is the most perfect of all
types, partly because it is personal, and partly because the idea of kingship is the
most comprehensive of the offices which Christ executes as our Redeemer. But, after
all, it expresses only one aspect of the glorious future of the kingdom of God
towards which prophecy steadily points. We must remember also that the order in
which these types emerge is determined not altogether by their intrinsic importance,
but partly by their adaptation to the needs of the age in which the prophet lived.
The main function of prophecy was to furnish present and practical direction to the
people of God; and the form under which the ideal was presented to any particular
generation was always that best fitted to help it onwards, one stage nearer to the
great consummation. Thus while Isaiah idealises the figure of the king, Jeremiah
grasps the conception of a new religion under the form of a covenant, the second
Isaiah unfolds the idea of the prophetic servant of Jehovah, Zechariah and the
writer of the 110th Psalm idealise the priesthood. All these are Messianic
prophecies, if we take the word in its widest acceptations; but they are not all cast in
one mould, and the attempt to arrange them in a single series is obviously
misleading. So with regard to Ezekiel we may say that his chief Messianic ideal (still
using the expression in a general sense) is the sanctuary, the symbol of Jehovah’s
presence in the midst of His people. At the end of chapter 37, the kingdom and the
sanctuary are mentioned together as pledges of the glory of the latter days. But
while the idea of the Messianic monarchy was a legacy inherited from his prophetic
precursors, the Temple was an institution whose typical significance Ezekiel was the
first to unfold. It was moreover the one that met the religious requirements of the
age in which Ezekiel lived. Ultimately the hope of the personal Messiah loses the
importance which it still has in the present section of the book; and the prophet’s
vision of the future concentrates itself on the sanctuary as the centre of the restored
theocracy, and the source from which the regenerating influences of the divine grace
flow forth to Israel and the world.
21

PARKER, “ Rulers Reproved
Ezekiel 34
This chapter contains a divine reproof of "the shepherds." It will be necessary first
of all to understand the meaning of that word as it occurs in this connection. We
think of pastors, bishops, Christian overseers, and the like. There is no reference to
them whatsoever in this tremendous indictment In this case the meaning of
"shepherd" is ruler. It may be king, or magistrate, or prince; but the idea is
magisterial, governmental, and not of necessity priestly or pastoral. Here is God, if
we may so say without irreverence, standing up for the people. When did he ever do
otherwise? Verily this is a People"s Bible. The Lord has never been kindly to kings
and rulers and merely nominal and official magistrates; they have done their utmost
to disestablish the theocracy. Every king is by so much an enemy of Heaven. He
cannot be otherwise. From the beginning the history is a history of protest on the
part of God. We forget the introductory arrangement; we have obliterated from our
minds the practically atheistic prayer which said, Give us a king, that we may be
like the other nations of the earth. God often answers prayers that he may plague
people with the effect of their own supplication. God knows how to conduct the
school; we are in a place of education and of discipline; he knows that it is better to
answer some prayers than to neglect them, and he knows that every answer means
disappointment, humiliation, chagrin, and possibly ultimate confession, penitence,
and restoration. The Lord is condemning shepherds who feed themselves and
neglect the flocks. Is not God the God of classes, aristocracies, west-ends, and
official personages generally? Is he not for the popes and kaisers and czars and men
who head and lead the armies? Never. They are conducting as far as they can a
process of disestablishment of the Church; they are trying to disestablish the
theocracy, the rule of God. The whole tendency of their personality and government
is towards materialism, force, spectacular display, military pomp and grandeur.
Give them guns, and they want no other church or altar; multiply their horses, and
they ask not for your missionaries, teachers, and instructors in moral sentiments:
whereas God is all on the side of the invisible, the moral, the spiritual, the
metaphysical. His kingdom cometh not with observation: the sun never rises noisily,
when he wakes the whole heaven knows it, but not by any noise or tumult he has
made—knows it by the quiet ministry of all-blessing light.
22

Here then is the Lord God of heaven and earth leading the cause of the "flock"—the
mean, the weak, the neglected, the despised. What is God"s policy towards the
peoples of the world? By these words let us stand as Christian Churches for ever.
Here is our charter; this we learn from a negative point of view is what God would
have the nations be and do:—
"The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick,
neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again
that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost" ( Ezekiel
34:4).
What! is God interested in the sick, the broken, the outcast, the lost? Why do we not
then one and all fall down and worship him, and say, The Lord he is God? He
would defend us, espouse our cause, break in upon our solitude with heaven"s own
companionship. Why should there be any atheist? Even ideally this is the grandest
conception in the whole universe with which we are acquainted; as an ideal
representation of shepherdliness there is nothing in all poetry to compare with this
domestic, tender music. He does not complain that no battles have been fought, no
victories won, no renown acquired. His list is worth reading again—"sick,"
"broken," "driven away," "lost" That is God"s record. He wants vouchers on all
these points. What about the sick? he says. What is our answer? Lord, we had a
theory about the sick and the broken—we thought the weak ought to go to the wall;
we assembled and discussed the matter, and we all voted for the survival of the
fittest Is that an answer to Eternal Righteousness? You left the sick man behind
because he was sick. Will that do in any day of judgment that is governed by the
spirit of right? What then did the shepherds or rulers do to the people? What they
are doing today: "with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them." There is nothing
modern in coercion, there is nothing startlingly original in cruelty. God will not
have it so; he will have a ministry of light, intelligence, persuasion, reason. Is God
then opposed to law and judgment and penalty? By no means: but he prefers to
administer them himself—"Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." He will
balance all things; he himself will make all things right in the end. It is a dangerous
thing for any man to ascend the judgment seat; it is an infinite peril for any man to
say, This is right, and that is wrong, in relation to disputed or controverted
questions. All such exercise of right or office leads to the accession of vanity and
self-trust on the part of the administrators and judges. We are all men—poor, frail,
fallible men. "To err is human; to forgive, divine." "Blessed are the merciful: for
23

they shall obtain mercy."
Can rulers misbehave themselves without the people feeling their misbehaviour
either directly or indirectly? It would appear not: the indictment reads, "And they
were scattered, because there is no shepherd." It is the place of the ruler to be a
pastor, a father, a pater in Deo. Beautiful even up to the point of sweetest music is
the title "father in God"—the great broad-hearted father, skilled in excusing things
that other people would turn into grounds of accusation and condemnation and
expulsion; that fatherliness which keeps all doors open, so that if there be any
return on the part of the wanderer there shall be no difficulty in getting into the
house softly, stealthily, and to be found there next morning as if the place had never
been vacated. There is a music of love; there is a skill of affection; there is a
masterliness in redemption. We cannot amend the ways of God. What will the Lord
do to the shepherds? He says: "Behold, I am against the shepherds." What a
challenge is that! Omnipotence speaks, Almightiness marks the battlefield and
sounds the battle bugle. But will he not visit the flock with tremendous indignation?
A beautiful answer is given to this inquiry in pronouns: "My sheep," "my flock";
and again, in Ezekiel 34:11, "my sheep," and in Ezekiel 34:12, "my sheep,"—"my,"
"mine," though so neglected, bruised, desolated, orphaned; still mine. His mercy
endureth for ever: when my father and my mother forsake me, then the Lord will
take me up; never so much the Lord as when my poor heart needs him most. He
comes for you to the public-house, to the den of iniquity, to the place consecrated to
blasphemy, and he says, You are still mine: I want you, I have come for you: let us
go home together, as if our companionship had never been interrupted. Oh skilled
love, masterly pity!
When God gathers all the sheep together again what will he do with them?
"I will feed them in a good pasture, and upon the high mountains of Israel shall
their fold be: there shall they lie in a good fold, and in a fat pasture shall they feed
upon the mountains of Israel. I will feed my flock, and I will cause them to lie down,
saith the Lord God" ( Ezekiel 34:14-15).
There is joy in the shepherd"s heart when he brings back that which was lost. The
24

parable says the shepherd has more joy over the sheep found than over the ninety-
and-nine that went not astray, and likewise there is joy in the presence of the angels
of God over one sinner that repenteth, more than over the ninety-and-nine just
persons which need no repentance. We are to look upon this people not so much in
the light of moral aliens from God as of people who have been unjustly treated or
basely neglected; we make all the distinction between the one class and the other
when we speak of outcast Israel and outcast nations, and people who have
voluntarily and shamelessly left the kingdom of heaven. Yet it is wondrous to
observe how even in the latter case mercy prevails against judgment, softens
judgment by the sheer force of tears.
There is one class described which is most noteworthy. It is described repeatedly,
notably in Ezekiel 34:16 : "That which was driven away." Some people go away,
some people are driven away; we must make a distinction between the two. Are we
driving away men from churches? That is quite a possible mischief. We may be so
hard, so unreasonable, so pharisaic, so wanting in all the tenderness of practical
sympathy, that people will be simply driven away. I would not present myself before
any harsh ministry; I would never sit to listen to any man who simply and
exclusively denounced the judgment of God against my life; I can do that myself: I
want a great shepherd-brother, a great pastor-king, who will assure me over and
over again—for such repetition will never be tedious—that God really does love and
wants me to go home again at once. Some may condemn this as sentimental, but I do
not take the cue of my life from such foolish persons. I am so weak, frail, self-
helpless that I want a thousand ministers to tell me at the rising of every sun that
today I may be a better man than I was yesterday. We need ministries of comfort,
encouragement; and in such ministries we shall often find skilfully introduced the
element of fear; but when it is introduced by men who talk thus the music of life, it
will be introduced with a thousandfold force: it will come upon us with such
unexpectedness, and it will be associated with such an atmosphere of pathos, that we
shall no longer rebel, but rather say, "The judgments of the Lord are true, and
righteous altogether." Are we driving people away? Are we driving people away
from the family? I have known children driven away because their fathers were
fools in discipline. When children have to go out from the fireside to seek their
innocent recreations and amusements; when they have to steal away to these, and
come back in the guise of hypocrites and liars, I do not expect them to turn out
Christian men. The home should be the brightest place on earth; then the Church:
the Church should be the larger home.
25

How one evil leads to another, and how iniquity gathers as it rolls, is strikingly
illustrated in this chapter:—
"Seemeth it a small thing unto you to have eaten up the good pasture, but ye must
tread down with your feet the residue of your pastures? and to have drunk of the
deep waters, but ye must foul the residue with your feet? And as for my flock, they
eat that which ye have trodden with your feet; and they drink that which ye have
fouled with your feet" ( Ezekiel 34:18-19).
To live at such a table, who can do it? We do get some little things, but they are all
bespattered, they are all fouled; they do not come to us like virgin snow from
heaven: we get them at secondhand, after they have been mauled and crushed, after
the bloom has been rubbed off them; or if they be streams they have been fouled by
other feet. What do many of us ever get but something that has been thrown to us,
or something that other people else could not themselves devour? If they could have
devoured it we should have never seen it. I owe all I have in the world to the people.
I owe nothing to the upper classes; in so far as they are the upper classes in mere
name, I hate them. I take up the indictment of history against them. What then? Are
they all personally bad? Nothing of the kind: some of the choicest souls the Lord
ever made have been found amongst them. I am not speaking of all persons, I am
speaking of official designations, functions, appointments; and I am speaking not of
them only, but of them as they are misconceived, abused, and administered, in
malfeasance or in selfishness. There are good men in all classes; there may have
been good kings. We must take care how we drive people away from law. The
driving away policy is always a bad policy, if it be possible to substitute for it the
policy of reason, persuasion, sympathy, and love. Let us be just to all men.
The Lord is against all monopoly and tyranny, against all heedlessness of the flock,
against every form of neglect; he will never sympathise with the few against the
many, with the strong against the weak, with the mighty against the frail. I know a
family at this time who have been a hundred years on the land, and they dare not
ask my lord god the duke to put a little annexe to their house that they might be able
by some arrangements to mitigate the pressure of their rent. Is God with the duke or
with the tenant? If he is with the duke he has belied the revelation of his providence.
26

We must live quietly, without rebelliousness or revolutionariness, merely for their
own sake. "God"s mills grind slow." The ages are to us a long time in coming, and a
long time in going; but God must not be judged by today, yesterday, or tomorrow,
but by the whole scope and purpose of his throne. So judged, my faith is that one
day we shall say, "God is love," and we shall hail one another in the language of
true companionship and brotherhood, saying, After all, we are the stronger and the
tenderer for our conflicts and sufferings below.
Then God says he will make all his flock and the places round about his hill a
blessing; he will cause the shower to come down in his season; there shall be showers
of blessing: and God will raise up for his flock "a plant of renown,"—rather, a
plantation renowned for plentifulness: the fruit of it shall be heard of; the fruit of it
shall be free; the fruit of it shall satisfy the hunger of the world.
The concluding words are very sweet, "And ye my flock, the flock of my pasture"
( Ezekiel 34:31). This seems to be an individual and direct address; princes and
rulers are no longer within the purview of God; but turning to the flock itself he
says, "And ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men." The meaning Isaiah ,
You are only men, made yesterday, and very frail. "And I am your God": here is a
great and necessary contrast. God"s condescensions are never any abdications of his
majesty. When he stoops it is with the stoop of a King; he is never less than King,
never less than God. He knoweth our frame, he remembereth that we are dust; he
knoweth that we are of yesterday and know nothing; he describes us as "a wind that
cometh for a little time, and then passeth away," but he pledges his Godhead that
manhood is precious and shall not be lost if love can save it. Here is the gospel
before the incoming of the historical Christ. But Christ was always in the world.
Christ is the God of the Old Testament, according to Christian interpretation. He
was in the world, and the world knew him not. Abraham, he says, rejoiced to see his
day; he said, "Abraham saw my day, and was glad," and beginning at Moses and all
the prophets he expounded to two auditors in all the Scriptures the things
concerning himself. When therefore we preach an Old Testament gospel, we are in
reality preaching a New Testament gospel. There is only one Testament—old as
God, new as the present day.
PULPIT, “And the word of the Lord, etc. As no date is given, we may infer that
what follows came as an almost immediate sequel to that which precedes it. The
27

kernel of the chapter is found in the Messianic prophecies of Ezekiel 34:23, Ezekiel
34:24, as the first stage in the restoration of Israel which is beginning to open to the
prophet's gaze. We can hardly avoid seeing in it the deliberate expression of words
that had been spoken by Ezekiel's master (Jeremiah 23:1-4), and which in his case
also were followed by a directly Messianic announcement. In Matthew 9:36, still
more in John 10:1-16, we can scarcely avoid recognizing the distinct appropriation
of the words to himself by him of whom they both had spoken. So far as we may
venture to speculate on the influence, so to speak, of the words of the prophets of the
Old Testament on our Lord's human soul, we may think of these as having marked
out for him the work which he was to do, just as we may think of Psalms 22:1-31.
and Isaiah 53:1-12. as having pointed out to him the path of suffering which he was
to tread.
BI 1-10, "Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the
shepherds feed the flocks?
The unfaithful shepherds
I. Human rulers stand in the same relation to the people whom they rule as shepherds to
their flocks. Therefore the qualifications required are similar.
1. A special knowledge (Gen_46:34). So to rule men successfully requires a
knowledge of men. Christ is the preeminent Ruler of men, because He knows them—
because He needs not that any should “testify of any man” whom He is shepherding
for eternity (Joh_2:25).
2. A willingness to endure hardship for those whom they shepherd (Gen_31:40).
Shepherds of men must likewise be willing to deny themselves for their flock, even as
Christ was willing to spend His nights upon the mountains (Luk_6:12) and to be
consumed with labour during the day, in order to be “the Good Shepherd.”
3. Affection for the flock (1Sa_17:34). It cannot be dispensed with in ruling men. To
love men is to understand them. To love them is to be willing to suffer for them, and
must beget a correspondent feeling. The Great Shepherd had as much love for His
flock as He had knowledge of them (Joh_10:11).
II. The rulers of Israel had lacked these qualifications.
1. Their self-indulgence had led them to neglect to feed the flock.
2. They had gone from neglect to positive acts of crime. They had taken the lives of
their subjects in order to enjoy their possessions. Sins of omission lead to sins of
commission.
III. The effect of the negative and positive transgressions of Israel’s rulers. “My sheep
were scattered.” They were so widely sundered as to be beyond the recall of any but the
Omniscient One, who alone knew the mountains upon which they were wandering.
IV. God Himself would raise up a Shepherd who would combine all the qualities needed
28

to gather in the scattered flock.
1. The name given to this divinely appointed shepherd—David. The Messiah is called
by this name in Isa_55:3-4; Jer_30:9; Hos_3:5.
2. His two-fold office. His Father’s servant and His people’s king (verse 24).
V. That which is intended to be a great blessing to ourselves and others, namely, power,
may become the greatest curse to both. (A London Minister.)
Gospel ministers shepherds
I. Christian ministers as shepherds have devolving upon them the care of Christ’s flock.
Believers are exposed to many evils, surrounded by numerous enemies, liable to many
wants and diseases. To promote their comfort and safety, God sends His servants to take
the oversight, and care for them as shepherd for flock.
II. Christian ministers as shepherds must feed their flocks.
1. They must do this by leading them into green pastures, etc.
(1) The pastures of the Divine word. Where there is an exhaustless fulness and
variety of refreshing promises.
(2) The pastures of Divine ordinances.
2. The shepherd is to render the word instructive and consolatory, and the
ordinances refreshing and edifying.
III. Christian ministers as shepherds are to watch over their flocks. To warn them
against danger,—to admonish, to counsel, and to direct them into safe and plain paths.
Their dangers are numerous. From the world, from Satan, from false professors, from
their own weakness, etc. How necessary, then, is a spirit of holy energy, vigilance, etc.
IV. Christian ministers as shepherds are to regard especially the weak and afflicted of
the flock. “Who can understand his errors?” How often is spiritual disease evident in the
mind, in the heart, in the spirit, in the conversation, in the walk and conduct! Now it is
for the shepherd to labour for the healing of these maladies.
V. Christian ministers as shepherds must give an account of their flocks. They are
responsible to God. Application—
1. How truly solemn is the office of the Christian shepherd—the charge of souls.
2. How necessary for its right discharge are Divine qualifications and help.
3. Faithful shepherds should have the kind sympathy and aid of all the members of
the Church.
4. How glorious the meeting when all the flock of God, with each shepherd, shall
appear before Christ to receive His blessing, even life for evermore. (J. Burns.)
Neither have ye healed that which was sick.
Hospital Sunday
29

The obligation of rulers and Christians generally to care for the sick poor. The
government of a great empire embraces many responsibilities—the protection of
property and of life, the encouragement of art and science and every form of learning
and of commerce, the maintenance of justice, the punishment of crime. We are
concerned now with only one aspect of the obligation of rulers—the obligation to
consider and to care for the diseased and the bruised poor. Most of the poverty and
distress, most of the diseased and broken frames which are to be found amongst us are
the results of vice and sin. Intemperance and immorality are fertile soils, producing
plentiful harvests of mangled and agonised and loathsome bodies. Hence the necessity
for adopting a policy of prevention—for establishing such legislative measures as shall
check and, if possible, effectually prevent, the ravages of intemperance and vice.
Prevention is better than regulation when a nation’s strength and a nation’s morals and a
nation’s life are at stake. Much may be done, and much must be done, in this direction;
but meanwhile, our rulers have to regard and to deal with existing miseries which have
resulted, for the most part, from transgressions and sins. At this present moment there
are in the great metropolis thousands upon thousands of wretched creatures, their
bodies consumed by disease, or mangled and broken through accident or self-inflicted
suffering. And they are poor and helpless! Unless someone aid them they must wrestle
with their agony alone, they must languish and die. But the obligation to care for the sick
lies not with the rulers alone. In a special manner does it rest upon the Christian Church
generally. Ministers of religion should be the first to welcome a Hospital Sunday. Ah!
giving for the sick, caring for the diseased and the bruised, brings its own sweet reward.
To spare one pang, to bring one ray of light into a heart environed with darkness—this is
worth living for. And now what we have to do is to enlarge our sympathies. Think of the
multitudes of agonised mortals in the London hospitals today. Without money, those
necessary institutions cannot be supported. Without money, the poor must pine away
and perish. In our relation to the afflicted poor we must think of the example and
precepts of our Lord. Jesus was not a philosophical theologian. He was a practical
Saviour. The blind came to Him, and He gave them sight. The sick were brought to Him,
and He healed them. We cannot heal the sick with a word as Christ did. But we can
follow Christ in doing good ill the way open to us. What we want is the spirit of Christ—
the thoughts of Christ—the purpose of Christ. In this lies the glory of Christianity. (A. G.
Maitland.)
2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of
Israel; prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what
the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to you shepherds of
Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should
30

not shepherds take care of the flock?
BARNES, "Shepherds - Not priests or prophets, but rulers and kings (see the Jer_
2:8 note). The most ancient title for “ruler” is a monogram which occurs on the oldest
monuments discovered in the cuneiform character. In the Assyrian language it became
riu (compare Hebrew ‫רעה‬ râ‛âh =shepherd). In the traditions of Berosus we find that
Alorus, the first king in the world, received from the Divinity the title of Shepherd. The
title, as well as the monogram, was preserved to the latest times of the Assyrian
monarchy. While the distress and misery of the people daily in creased, the last kings of
Judah exacted more and more from their subjects and lavished more and more on
personal luxury and show.
CLARKE, "Prophesy against the shepherds of Israel - The shepherds include,
first, the priests and Levites; secondly, the kings, princes, and magistrates. The flock
means the whole of the people. The fat and the wool, the tithes and offerings, the taxes
and imposts. The reprehensible feeding and clothing with these, as to the priests and
Levites, the using these tithes and offerings, not to enable them the better to fulfill the
work of the ministry, but to pamper their own bodies, and support them in an idle
voluptuous life; and in reference to the state, the employing the taxes and imposts, not
for the support and administration of justice and good government, but to subsidize
heathen powers, and maintain their own luxury and idolatrous prodigality.
GILL, "Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel,.... Or,
"concerning" (p) them; the governors of them, as the Targum and Jarchi; their political
governors, their kings, princes, and civil magistrates of every order and degree; so
Kimchi interprets it of kings; and it was common with the eastern nations, and with the
Greeks, to call kings shepherds; and one and the same word; in the Greek language,
signifies to feed sheep, and to govern people; see Psa_78:72, also their ecclesiastical
governors are intended, prophets, priests, Levites, scribes, and Pharisees; these were
bad shepherds, or they would not have been prophesied against; and though they were
shepherds of Israel, this must be done:
prophesy, and say unto them, thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds:
that the message to them might be the more regarded, it is ordered to be delivered in the
name of the Lord; otherwise they would have been apt to have despised it, and charged
the prophet with impertinence and rudeness:
31

woe be to the shepherds of Israel, that do feed themselves! that is, themselves
only, and not the flock: had they fed the flock, as well as themselves, they would not have
been blamed; but they took no care of the people over whom they were set only minded
their own affairs, to get riches and honour, but neglected the good of the people, yea,
cruelly oppressed them:
should not the shepherds feed the flocks? undoubtedly they should; it is their
duty, the business of their office, so to do; kings to rule over their subjects, defend their
persons and property, and secure their privileges and liberties to them; and ecclesiastical
rulers, ministers of the word, should feed the flock or church of God committed to them
with knowledge and understanding; see Jer_3:15.
JAMISON, "Jer_23:1 and Zec_11:17 similarly make the removal of the false
shepherds the preliminary to the interposition of Messiah the Good Shepherd in behalf
of His people Israel. The “shepherds” are not prophets or priests, but rulers who sought
in their government their own selfish ends, not the good of the people ruled. The term
was appropriate, as David, the first king and the type of the true David (Eze_34:23, Eze_
34:24), was taken from being a shepherd (2Sa_5:2; Psa_78:70, Psa_78:71); and the
office, like that of a shepherd for his flock, is to guard and provide for his people. The
choice of a shepherd for the first king was therefore designed to suggest this thought,
just as Jesus’ selection of fishermen for apostles was designed to remind them of their
spiritual office of catching men (compare Isa_44:28; Jer_2:8; Jer_3:15; Jer_10:21; Jer_
23:1, Jer_23:2).
COKE, “Verse 2
Ezekiel 34:2. Against the shepherds of Israel— Hereby are meant the priests, the
Levites, and teachers of the law; the kings, princes, magistrates, and judges; the
prophet gives them here excellent instructions; shewing them, under the parable of
the shepherds, what was their duty, and wherein they had fallen short. The
metaphorical expressions are all plain, and easily applicable to the shepherds of the
people above-mentioned.
TRAPP, “Ezekiel 34:2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel,
prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe
[be] to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds
feed the flocks?
Ver. 2. Prophesy against the shepherds.] Good shepherds they should have been, but
they were naught, [Jeremiah 23:1-4] and naught would come of them, for their
maladministration.
32

Woe be to the shepherds of Israel.] Both to princes and priests, by whose evil
government the people were so bad, as in the former chapter is fully set forth.
Qualis rex, talis grex; the sheep will follow the shepherd; the common people are
like a flock of cranes - as the first fly, all follow.
Should not the shepherds feed the flocks?] Such flocks especially as have golden
fleeces, precious souls. Oh feed, feed, feed, saith our Saviour to Peter! [John 21:15]
feed them for my sake, as the Syriac there hath it, rule them well, teach them well,
go before them in good example, do all the offices of a faithful shepherd to them,
and be instant, or stand close to the work; [2 Timothy 4:2] Dominus prope, the
Arch-shepherd is at hand.
POOLE, “ The shepherds; the rulers of the people, both political, as kings,
magicians, and princes, and also ecclesiastical, priests and prophets.
Israel; the two tribes, and the few that out of the ten did adhere to the house of
David.
Prophesy; the command is repeated to encourage and engage the prophet to his
work.
Thus saith the Lord God: Ezekiel speaks, but these rulers must know it is God that
speaks by him.
Woe be to the shepherds! they have been principal causes of many sins, and
exemplary actors in other sins, for which many woes were threatened; many already
are come, and the rest will come, in which woes these rulers shall have more than
ordinary share.
33

Feed themselves; contrive their own ease, advantage, honour, and ambitious
projects. Let the consciences of these rulers, ecclesiastical and political, speak, ought
they not, as shepherds, to take care of the sheep committed to their care?
The flocks; the sheep, both whole flocks and the single sheep, whole societies and
particular members of them.
PULPIT, “Prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, etc. Our modern associations
with the words, our use of terms like" the pastoral office," "the pastoral Epistles,"
lead us to think of the priests and prophets, the spiritual guides of the people, as
being those whom the prophet has in view. In the language of the Old Testament,
however, as in that of Homer, the shepherds of the people are always its kings and
other civil rulers (1 Kings 22:17; Psalms 77:20; Psalms 78:71; Jeremiah 23:1-6), and
those whom Ezekiel had in his thoughts were the tyrannous rulers of the house of
David, like Jehoiakim and Zedekiah and their satellites. Our Christian thoughts of
the word are the outcome of the leading of John 10:1-16; John 21:15-17; 1 Peter
5:2-4; Acts 20:28; but it is probably true that even there the original thought is still
dominant. Christ is the "good Shepherd," because he is the true King. His ministers
are shepherds as being officers in his kingdom. Should not the shepherds feed the
flocks? The question is an appeal to the universal conscience of Israel and of
mankind. No shepherd was worthy of his name who did not do that which the very
name implied. He that neglects that duty is simply as a hireling or a robber (John
10:10, John 10:12).
3 You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the
wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do
not take care of the flock.
34

CLARKE, "Ye eat the fat - I think ‫החלב‬ hacheleb should be translated the milk,
and so most of the Versions understand it. Or they lived on the fat sheep, and took the
wool of all.
“The priests,” says Calmet, “ate the tithes, the first-fruits, and the offerings of the
people; the princes received the tributes and imposts and instead of instructing and
protecting them, the latter took away their lives by the cruelties they practiced against
them: the former destroyed their souls by the poison of their doctrine, and by their bad
example. The fat sheep point out the rich to whom these pastors often disguised the
truth, by a cruel condescension and complaisance.”
GILL, "Ye eat the fat,.... The Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, and Arabic versions, render
it, "the milk"; the words for fat and milk differ only in the points; and this was not
unlawful, for
who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 1Co_9:7, provided
it was done with moderation, that they ate some, but not all; but these rulers milked
their subjects too much, oppressed them with heavy taxes, and got their substance into
their own hands. The Targum is,
"ye eat the good;''
they got possessed of the best of their substance; as did also their ecclesiastical rulers,
who were greedy shepherds, that could never have enough; they looked for their gain
from their quarter, and even devoured widows' houses, Isa_56:11,
ye clothe you with the wool: the pure wool, as the Targum, the finest of it; they
fleeced the flock, and stripped the people of their riches; and minded nothing but their
own backs and bellies:
ye kill them that are fed; or, that "are fat" (q); the richest of the people they brought
accusations and charges against for capital crimes; and so put them to death under a
colour of justice, that they, might get their estates into their hands:
but ye feed not the flock; did not govern the people well, by doing justice and
judgment among men, as became civil magistrates; did not deliver out words of faith and
sound doctrine, to feed the souls of men with, which is the duty of those that preside in
the church of God.
JAMISON, "fat — or, by differently pointing the Hebrew, “milk” [Septuagint]. Thus
the repetition “fat” and “fed” is avoided: also the eating of “fat” would not probably be
put before the “killing” of the sheep. The eating of sheep’s or goats’ milk as food (Deu_
35

32:14; Pro_27:27) was unobjectionable, had not these shepherds milked them too often,
and that without duly “feeding” them [Bochart], (Isa_56:11). The rulers levied exorbitant
tributes.
kill ... fed — kill the rich by false accusation so as to get possession of their property.
feed not ... flock — take no care of the people (Joh_10:12).
TRAPP, “Ezekiel 34:3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them
that are fed: [but] ye feed not the flock.
Ver. 3. Ye eat the fat.] Ecce, lac et lanam recipitis. This ye might do, if in measure,
for the workman is worthy of his wages, {see 1 Corinthians 9:7} but ye gorge
yourselves with the best of the best. Et si ventri bene, si lateri, as Epicurus in
Horace, If the belly may be filled, the back fitted, that is all you take care for. In
parabola ovis capras quaeritis, et vestrum maxime compendium spectatis; ye are all
for your own ends, nourishing your hearts as in a day of slaughter, or of good cheer.
[James 5:5]
Ye kill them that are fed.] Heb., Ye sacrifice them; so ye pretend, but mind your
own fat paunches. See Proverbs 7:14.
But ye feed not the flock.] As being falsi et ficti imo picti pastores, mock shepherds.
POOLE, “ The fat; rather the milk, which insatiably and without measure you
devour; you exhaust their purses and weaken their estates by tributes, exacted by
extortions: so the temporal rulers and the spiritual rulers had their methods and
arts to milk them dry, these lived on the sins of the people.
With the wool; with best and finest, as best suiting with your pride and luxury, on
which you force the people to bestow so much that they have not to clothe
themselves and theirs; this was mighty oppression.
Ye kill them; contrive methods for a seeming legal course to forfeit first the life, and
36

next the estate, of the well-fed, the rich, and wealthy, and then make merry and
feast, as voluptuous, unfaithful shepherds feast on the fattest of the sheep in their
masters’ fold. Ye feed not the flock; take no care to lead, protect, provide for, and
watch over them, but, as idle shepherds feasted with the fattest, let the rest starve
for any thing they care.
PETT, “Verse 3-4
“You eat the fat and you clothe yourselves with the wool. You kill the fatlings. But
you do not feed the sheep. You have not strengthened the diseased, nor have you
healed those who are sick, nor have you bound up what is broken, nor have you
restored the ones who were driven away, nor have you sought that which was lost.
But you have lorded it over them with force and with rigour.”
The charge is expanded on, a failure to look after the sheep in their many needs,
while themselves obtaining as much advantage from them as they could. They were
squeezing the flock dry but they gave them little in return. The general approach
demonstrates that more than just past kings were in mind.
Thus they overlooked the basic necessities of those under their care. They did not
help the weak, they did not restore those who were failing, they did not go after any
who strayed or were snatched away. They left them to themselves except for when
they wanted to benefit from them. And then they pursued their object diligently and
with vigour.
It is a sad thing when pastors and preachers have a high opinion of themselves, and
even sadder when their main aim is their own good and their own advancement
rather than genuine concern for their people.
37

4 You have not strengthened the weak or healed
the sick or bound up the injured. You have not
brought back the strays or searched for the lost.
You have ruled them harshly and brutally.
CLARKE, "The diseased have ye not strengthened - No person is fit for the
office of a shepherd, who does not well understand the diseases to which sheep are
incident, and the mode of cure. And is any man fit for the pastoral office, or to be a
shepherd of souls, who is not well acquainted with the disease of sin in all its varieties,
and the remedy for this disease, and the proper mode of administering it, in those
various cases? He who does not know Jesus Christ as his own Savior, never can
recommend him to others. He who is not saved, will not save.
Neither have ye healed that which was sick - The prophet first speaks of the
general disease; next, of the different kinds of spiritual infirmity.
Neither have ye bound up that which was broken - If a sheep have broken a
leg, a proper shepherd knows how to set the bones, and splint and bind it till the bones
knit and become strong. And the skillful spiritual pastor knows, if one of the flock be
overtaken in a fault, how to restore such. Those sudden falls, where there was not a
strong propensity to sin, are, to the soul, as a broken bone to the body.
Neither have ye brought again - A proper shepherd loves his sheep: he feels
interested for their welfare; he acquaints himself with them all, so that he knows and can
distinguish each. He knows also their number, and frequently counts to see that none is
missing; if one be lost or strayed, he goes immediately and seeks it; and as he is
constantly on the watch, it cannot have strayed far before he is apprised of its absence
from the flock; and the less it has strayed, the sooner it is found and brought back to the
fold.
The shepherds of Israel knew nothing about their flock; they might have been
diseased, infirm, bruised, maimed, their limbs broken, strayed, and lost; for they
watched not over them. When they got fat sheep and wool for their table and their
clothing, they regarded nothing else; as they considered the flock given them for their
own use, and scarcely ever supposed that they were to give any thing in return for the
milk and the wool.
But with force and with cruelty - Exacting tithes and dues by the strong arm of
the law, with the most ungodly feeling; and with a cruelty of disposition that proved it
was the fat and the wool they sought, and not the safety or comfort of the flock.
GILL, "The diseased have ye not strengthened,.... Such, in the civil polity, who
were poor, and in necessitous circumstances, were not relieved; such who were injured
38

Ezekiel 34 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Ezekiel 34 commentary

Similar to Ezekiel 34 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ezekiel 34 commentary