Advice to Pastors
shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. 1 Peter 5:2-3 NASB
Shepherd – Aorist, active, imperative, second person, plural. That’s the morphology of the verb poimaino, “to shepherd.” What does this mean? It means that Peter wants his readers to know that this is a past action of real, demonstrable effort, commanded for all (plural) who lead. It is not optional. It is not avoidable. If you have any responsibility for the guidance of others in their walk in the Way, you have been commanded to shepherd. And since Peter is delivering halachah, his words are binding on all who read them.
But what does this command mean? How do you and I shepherd? Obviously Peter employs a verb that describes commonly expected behavior. After all, virtually all of his audience knew what shepherds did. What we must also realize is that in the ancient Near East, the imagery of the shepherd included that expected role of royalty. Even pagan gods were considered shepherds. In the Tanakh, YHVH is considered the prime example as shepherd of Israel, beginning with the action of leading the people out of captivity. While the apostolic writings never use the imagery of shepherd for God, it is certainly applied to the Messiah. Peter combines both in his ruling about the actions of those in charge. A shepherd protects. A shepherd provides. A shepherd directs. A shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
But Peter adds something to this list. A shepherd oversees (episkopeo) the voluntary engagement of the flock, according to the will of God. That phrase, “according to the will of God,” could mean only one thing in the rabbinic circles of the first century, i.e., Torah. God’s will is expressed in Torah. Exercising any other oversight is outside the will of God and therefore not being a shepherd. According to Peter, elders (leaders) should be eager to bring men and women to the truth of Torah living. It is God’s way. And the primary means for accomplishing this objective is invitation by example. Compulsion is not the way of the Master. We follow because we see what we desire to be in the daily life of His servants. “Be like me” is the only altar call the apostles recognized. What matters in the end is how you live, not what you preach, teach or reach. A shepherd shepherds by showing.
It’s not the size of the congregation, the alphabet after the name, the television appearance, the community status or the number of books that matters. It’s living a Torah-obedient life, a life completely dedicated to the will of God expressed in the words of His revelation to the prophets. Without Torah obedience, a leader is just another figurehead of fame. With Torah obedience, an elder is the proxy Messiah. And he went to the cross voluntarily.
Topical Index: shepherd, poimaino, elder, episkopeo, oversee, 1 Peter 5:2
Lyman Coleman, when he was conducting training for the use of his Serendipity material, always appointed a “Shepherd” for each small group. It was an awesome experience to feel the weight of shepherding.
I wonder: If the people were not originally supposed to have had a king (in that they were rejecting God as their King) then why the promise of a ‘Dividic King’ or Messiah to rule over the people? Why not a return to the ‘best-case’ scenario with prophets or judges, but not a king?
Part of the answer might be because the ‘good’ kings were really men who got out of the way and allowed God to be the real king by following Torah and God’s direct instructions. However, this still leads to the question:
What was the difference between Moses and a king?
In numbers 27:15-22 – Joshua is appointed as a shepherd to follow after Moses, what was the difference between Joshua and a king?
As I understand it Gabe, The Torah was given as an undivided living and organically constructed revelation of YHVH’s nature and character in action, for the express purpose of meticulously illustrating what the image bearing citizens of the kingdom should look like and how they should behave as they encountered situations in daily life within the community.
As we obediently submit to image His character rather than our own, we grow in the knowledge and grace of YHVH and become more and more like our shepherd Yeshua thereby putting on display the manifold wisdom of YHVH to the powers and principalities. As Torah communities we become a witness to other communities as well.
At the end of this age He will gather together those of us who’s life is literally Torah and place us in the city that we now weep over. The place where He has chosen to establish His name forever. We will then shine like the sun as a nation of royal priests administering the Torah from Zion.
At that time all the nations will see the manifold wisdom of YHVH in it’s fullness displayed and say, “For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon Him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day?” De.4:7-8 And in that day every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Yeshua Messiah is Lord.
Sorry I hit the button before I was done. In short Moses and Joshua WERE administrators/prophets/judges of YHVH’s Torah to the people according to the order of the royal priesthood of Melchizedek.
The function of the priest is to mediate and explain Torah while standing between God and the people. That is why the mediator had to be squeaky clean himself. His job was to make more squeaky clean priests to carry out the same function among the nations.
Now try to imagine the heaven it will be on earth, to live unmolested by scoffers, in a community of squeaky clean Torah keepers.
WOW
I think you are right on about the central role of Torah, especially as a revelation of God’s character – a character that we are to reflect.
However, Israel continued to have leaders from Moses to Joshua to the Judges -but it seems like the difference between these leaders and the kings was more than just a palace. Was it the full-time office that did not lend itself well to leading the people, or was it the hereditary ascension of the kings, for example?
I know the answer is probably multi-faceted, however, the topic might give some added light to Yeshua’s role and the difference between His Kingdom, and what the disciples expected. Even more than that, what does it mean for leadership within the community now? (As Skip was writing about)
Through a glass dimly my present picture is that we can look at Moses as a type of Yeshua a priest according to the order of Melchizedek who stands between the priesthood and YHVH and ministers the law to them. They in turn train up the ever increasing order of priests. Likewise I see Yeshua standing between the priests (us?) and God ministering the “righteous application” of that law. This is what is happening right now in this age. I also see this order pictured in Adam and Havah.
The king shows up in the millennium at which time the humble servant high priest shows up as the Conquering King who scoops up His spotless prophet/priest Bride and brings her with Him (like Barack the leader of the host of YHVH, took Deborah the prophet of YHVH with him to battle Sisera) to the Holy City where He takes dominion over the animals that have stolen it. Am 1:2 “The LORD will roar from Zion, and utter His voice from Jerusalem; and the habitations of the shepherds shall mourn, and the top of Carmel shall wither.” because judgement begins in the house of YHVH. See Also Zec.14:1-5
He and His bride then rule and reign together for a thousand years Zec. 14:9 and Mic 4:2 And many nations shall come and say, “Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob. And He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.” For the law shall go forth from Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. Zec.14:11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited. Heaven on earth finally! Whew!!!
Or something like that. 😀
A1 question, Gabe! Me too!
Ester, that was beautiful.
I wonder if the genealogy record, which shows us the lineage before David, as well as after, may hold some sort of key.
I wonder, because we in fact DO know, as privileged followers of the Way, which came first; the chicken or the egg, if the kings of other nations were just the best ‘shepherd’ system they could come up with?
Moses made a good shepherd because he was a good follower. Interesting to me that he was in line to the throne of Egypt, but gave up all thought of kingship when it came down to it. He obviously decided that being a shepherd was better. A shepherd does not have to own the land, grow the grass, or manufacture the resources; a shepherd just appropriates and maximizes available resources. He does not concern himself with intrigues of men. He does not even have to answer to or have to try to manipulate cosmic realities; he just lies on his back under the stars and enjoys them. In short, a shepherd is free of everything except the sheep’s best interests; something a king, who, to the extent he is NOT being like a shepherd, is not free to do, even if he would like to.
I bet there have been more than a few kings, who, moved by the impossibilities and difficulties that surround earthly thrones, would have given their eye teeth to have been just a shepherd in Moses’ or Joshua’s shoes, complete with what they, following under divine orders, had to work with. I guess that might put us back to that doorkeeper rather than those tent dweller scenarios…
Come to think of it, David was a sheep herder, too, and Messiah said He came to herd sheep when He got asked about a throne… I wonder if the people hadn’t sinned and asked for a KING, if David would not have been anointed as another Shepherd like Moses. Maybe we have the question all wrong…
Sorry, Pam! I meant you! I just have been reading Ester comments, and had Ester on the brain, I guess. I liked what you wrote.