Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Ezekiel 34:1 - 34:1

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com

Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Ezekiel 34:1 - 34:1


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

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 לָרֹעִים is an explanatory apposition to אֲלֵיהֶם, and is not to be taken in connection with כֹּה אָמַר 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 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 הָיוּ רֹעִים, they were feeding, which shows that the woe had relation chiefly to the former shepherds or rulers of the nation. אֹותָם 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. חֵלֶב, the fat, which Bochart and Hitzig propose to alter into הֶחָלָב, 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. נַהְלֹות is the Niphal participle of חָלָה, and is a contracted form of נַחֲלֹות, like נַחְלָה in Isa 17:11. The distinction between נַהְלֹות and חֹולָה is determined by the respective predicates חִזּק and רָפָא. According to these, נַחְלָה signifies that which is weak in consequence of sickness, and חֹלָה that which is weak in itself. נִשְׁבֶּרֶת, literally, that which is broken, an animal with a leg or some other member injured. נִדָּח, 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. רָדָה בְפָרֶךְ is taken from Lev 25:43, Lev 25:46; but there as well as here it points back to Exo 1:13-14, where בְפָרֶךְ 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. מִבְּלִי, 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. וַתְּפוּצֶינָה 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 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 כַּל־פְּנֵי הָאָרֶץ, 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 הָאֲרָצֹות (plural) when speaking of the dispersion among the heathen (cf. Ezekiel 13). The distinction between דָּרַשׁ and בִּקֵּשׁ 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 צֹאנִי, 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.