Previously the Lord had said that the Israelites would not occupy the Promised Land because they had disobeyed the Mosaic Covenant. This disobedience was clear from the behavior of the people still in the land (33:25-26) and the Jews in exile (33:31-32). In this message He laid the burden of responsibility for the Israelites' failure at the feet of their leaders (cf. 13:1-14:11; 22).
34:1-2 The Lord gave Ezekiel a message for the shepherds (leaders, rulers, cf. Ps. 23) of Israel. Ancient Near Easterners often referred to kings and leaders as "shepherds"(e.g. 2 Sam. 5:2; Isa. 44:28; Jer. 2:8; 10:21; 23:1-6; 25:34-38; Mic. 5:4-5; Zech. 11:4-17).438God pronounced judgment on them for three reasons. First, they fed themselves rather than the people; they were selfish. They were more interested in providing for themselves than for the people whom God had placed in their care (cf. John 10:11; 21:15-17). They exploited their followers.
A review of the history of the Northern Kingdom of Israel's rulers reveals a consistent string of corrupt leaders, and Ezekiel pointed out earlier that Judah was worse than her sister Israel (ch. 23).
34:3-4 Specifically, these unfaithful shepherds ate the best parts of the sacrifices rather than offering them to God. They used the wool of sheep to make clothing for themselves rather than offering these animals as sacrifices to God.
Second, rather than feeding God's sheep they slaughtered them; they were oppressive. They had not restored those that needed restoring nor sought those that had wandered away and needed finding. They had dominated God's flock rather than providing loving, self-sacrificial leadership. The primary responsibility of a leader is to care for the needs of those he leads, even if this requires sacrificing his own desires.
34:5-6 Third, the rulers allowed the people to scatter over the earth instead of keeping them safely together; they were negligent. The Israelites scattered because they lacked leadership and became prey for the enemies of God's flock. They wandered everywhere, but there was no one to seek them out (cf. Matt. 9:36).
The Lord repeated His accusation against Israel's leaders (vv. 7-8) and then announced what He planned to do about the situation (vv. 9-31).
34:7-8 These false shepherds needed to listen to God's word to them because they had let the Israelites become prey for their enemies, and rather than seeking the lost they had fed themselves.
34:9-10 The Lord swore to oppose these shepherds, to hold them accountable for His sheep, to stop them from leading them further, and to rescue His sheep from their influence (cf. Matt. 20:25-28).
34:11-12 The Lord further promised to search for His wandering sheep Himself, to care for them, and to deliver them from the places where they had scattered in the gloomy days of their national distress (cf. Jer. 30:4-7; Luke 15:4-7). There are several references to God as Israel's Shepherd in the Old Testament (e.g. v. 6; Gen. 49:24; Ps. 23:1; 80:1; Isa. 40:11; Jer. 31:10; cf. John 10:1, 16).
34:13-14 He would lead them out from among the peoples where they had gone and bring them back to their own land (cf. vv. 4-6). He would nourish them on the mountains, beside the streams, and in the best (inhabited) places of the land (cf. Ps. 23:1; John 4; 6:31-35). They would enjoy good pasture and would experience rest in good grazing ground, the richest pasture in the land.
"If the scattering were literal, and no one is foolhardy as to deny this, then the regathering must be equally so."439
34:15-16 God Himself would feed His flock and lead the sheep to rest (cf. v. 3). He would seek the lost, return the scattered, heal the broken, and strengthen the sick (cf. vv. 4, 6; Isa. 61:1-2; Luke 4:16-21). He would also destroy the fat, strong shepherds who had failed Him by feeding these leaders judgment.
34:17-19 The Lord announced too that He would distinguish among the members of His flock judging them individually (cf. Matt. 25:31-46). Here the Lord viewed the leaders as sheep among His sheep rather than as shepherds. They were, after all, also His sheep. Some of these leaders had not only eaten good pasture and drunk clear water but had made it impossible for the other sheep to eat good food and drink good water. The ordinary sheep had to get by with trampled grass and muddy water.
34:20 God would judge between the fat and the lean sheep, between those who fed themselves and kept others from eating and those who had to exist on poor food and drink.
34:21-22 Because some of God's sheep suffered at the hands of their fellow sheep who pushed and shoved them around, the Lord would deliver even the weak, but He would distinguish the two types of His sheep. He would deliver His people from poor leaders as well as predatory nations.
34:23-24 The Lord promised to set over His sheep one shepherd, His servant David, who would personally feed them (cf. John 10:9; 14:6; Acts 4:12). Yahweh would be their God, and His servant David would be prince (Heb. nasi', namely, king) among them.440This the Lord assuredly promised (cf. 37:22-26).
In view of the promises that God Himself would shepherd His sheep and the promises that His servant David would shepherd them, it seems clear that a god-man is in view (cf. 37:24-25; Jer. 23:5-6; 30:9; Hos. 3:5; John 10:30; 1 Tim. 2:5). Did God mean that He would raise David from the dead to lead the Israelites again? No, He probably meant that someone from David's descendants would lead them (cf. 2 Sam. 7:12-16; Isa. 55:3-4; Jer. 30:9; Hos. 3:5).441David was the model shepherd of sheep and the model king of Israel (cf. 1 Sam. 13:14).
". . . David was the man whom God chose and in whom He delighted; the king who triumphed against all his foes and who extended his kingdom in all directions; the man of Judah under whose genius the whole nation was for a time united."442
Though the identity of this "David"may have been obscure to Ezekiel's audience, history demonstrated that it was one of David's descendants who proved to be the Good Shepherd, even Jesus Christ (John 10:11, 14).
"In a sense Jesus, the Good Shepherd and the Son of David, is in view here, but the eschatological orientation of the whole passage removes the setting from the period of His earthly ministry in the first century to that of His second advent when He will come to sit on the throne of David."443
"The themes of regathering as sheep and of covenant merge in Ezekiel 34:25-31. The Lord promises to make a covenant of peace with His regathered sheep."444
34:25 The Lord also promised to make a covenant of peace (i.e., resulting in peace) with Israel (cf. 16:60; 37:26-28; 38:11-13; 39:25-29; Isa. 54:10). This is probably a reference to the New Covenant that God promised to make with Israel in the future (Jer. 31:31-34).445
"The word peace[Heb. shalom] is used to describe the harmony that exists when covenant obligations are being fulfilled and the relationship is sound. It is not a negative concept, implying absence of conflict or worry or noise, as we use it, but a thoroughly positive state in which all is functioning well."446
The provisions of this covenant that Ezekiel mentioned here included, first, removing threats to the Israelites' safety from the land so they could even live at peace in its formerly dangerous parts, the wilderness and woods (cf. John 10:27-29).
34:26-27a Second, God would make His people and the places around His hill (Mount Zion, Jerusalem) a blessing to others (Gen. 12:3). God's seasonal blessings on Israel, both people and land, would be like the rain, and He would send His blessings down in showers (cf. Acts 3:19-20).447Fruit trees would bear abundantly, and fruits and vegetables and flowers would proliferate in the land (cf. Hos. 2:22; Joel 3:18; Amos 9:13-14; Zech. 8:12). Even the plants would be secure.
34:27b-29 Third, when God broke the yoke that held His people in captivity and freed them from their oppressors they would know that He is Yahweh (v. 27b).
Fourth, the Israelites would live in complete security. They would no longer be a prey to the nations or to the beasts of the earth that previously devoured them (cf. Isa. 11:6-9).448They would live without fear of molestation. God would provide for them a place where they could put down roots, a place that would become famous. Famines and the insults of the other nations would cease forever.449
34:30 Fifth, Yahweh would be their God and they would be His special people in the fullest sense that the nation had ever experienced (cf. Rom. 11:25-27). Everyone would know that He was with them and that they were His Chosen People.
"This covenant anticipates events and promises never realized in the first return of Israel from captivity. When the people came back to the land after 535 B.C., they were under the control of every world-dominating power including Medo-Persia, Greece, and finally Rome until A.D. 70 when the nation was destroyed by Rome."450
34:31 The sheep in view, God clarified, were people, not real sheep. He was describing His relationship to them as people in the figure of a shepherd and sheep.
"Each of the next four speeches elaborates an aspect of the peace covenant. Ezekiel 35:1-36:15 describes how the foreign plundering nations would be removed and judged in preparation for Israel's return to her own land. The message in 36:16-37:14 provides a beautiful and descriptive account of God's restoration of Israel to her land. Ezekiel 37:15-28 stresses the full reunion of the nation and the fulfillment of her covenants when this peace covenant is established. Finally, Ezekiel 38-39 develops the concept of Israel's permanent and complete security in the Lord, for he would thwart the final attempt by a foreign power (Gog) to possess Israel's land and to plunder God's people."451
There are basically three views concerning the meaning of literal interpretation that may be helpful to clarify as we get into the eschatological portions of Ezekiel (chs. 34-48). First, some who claim to interpret the text literally do so but deny the existence of many figures of speech. In Ezekiel 34, for example, they might not recognize "shepherd"as a figure of speech but might conclude that God was speaking of the literal shepherds of literal sheep in Israel. Obviously there are few who deny all figures of speech, but interpreters of this type do not recognize as figures of speech many that other interpreters do. This is "wooden literalism,""letterism,"or "literalistic"interpretation that seeks "a straightforward reading of the text."Most interpreters of this type are premillennial in their understanding of the future.
A second group of interpreters who consider themselves literal try to recognize figures of speech where they occur in the text, the understanding of the original readers, historical perspective, contextual clues, the progress of revelation, the analogy of faith, etc. They seek to discover what the original readers understood when they read the text as a basis for understanding how we should understand it. The interpretations that I have suggested above in my comments on Ezekiel 34 and elsewhere in these notes illustrate this approach. Many interpreters in this group like to use the term "normal"to describe their hermeneutics (principles of interpretation). Most of these interpreters are also premillennial.
A third group interprets most portions of the text literally but believes prophetic material is mainly symbolic and figurative, not to be interpreted in a normal, straightforward manner. They depend heavily on the New Testament to understand the meaning of the Old Testament and read New Testament revelation back into the Old Testament as the Old Testament meaning. They understand, for example, some of the references to God blessing Israel in the future in Ezekiel 34 as fulfilled in His blessing the church. They do not look for an eschatological fulfillment of these promises in the Jews. For example, the promises of God regathering Israel to her land are not taken to mean that God will eventually regather the Jews to the Promised Land. Rather He will gather His people (i.e., all the redeemed) to heaven, the land that He has prepared for us. Thus they "spiritualize"the Old Testament prophecies while taking the rest of the Old Testament more or less literally. Most interpreters of this type end up with an amillennial or postmillennial understanding of the future.
Most interpreters who hold the first and third hermeneutical positions also claim to hold the second one and argue that those who hold the other positions do not.
"Various facets of chapters 33-48 may be used as analogies, illustrations, and object lessons in the NT; but such does not demand that the NT is necessarily giving a fulfillment' of these chapters."452
