ZECHARIAH 9- 14 AND ITS RECEPTION
3.1 RECENT PROPOSAL REGARDING THE SHEPHERD IMAGERY OF 1 PETER 2
Those few who have put forth an account of how 1 Peter 2.22-24 and 2.25 relate to one another, broadly speaking, can be placed in one of two lines of interpretation. Goppelt and Michaels represent what I will call the ‘conversion approach’.7The proponents of
this approach contend that the two aorist verbsἰάθητεandἐπεστράφητεpoint us to the
logic that connects 2.24 and 2.25, though there is some discrepancy in explaining how this linking occurs. Goppelt, for example, suggests that the two verbs are brought together through the aid of an early Christian tradition that developed from Isa 6.10
(ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς),which is reflected in Mark 4.12, Matt 13.15, John
12.40, and Acts 28.27.8 Accordingly, we are to suppose that the author of 1 Peter, upon
reading Isa 53.5 (τῷ μώλωπιαὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς ἰάθημεν), was drawn to and appropriated
this early Christian tradition (and not Isa 6.10), which in turn led him to write that the straying sheep (Isa 53.6) ‘have turned’ (ἐπεστράφητε) to the shepherd.9The foundational assumption which allows for such an interplay between Isa 53.5 and the early Christian tradition is the conclusion thatἐπεστράφητεis a deponent verb (‘have turned’, rather than ‘have been returned’) that is to be understood, therefore, as a reference to
conversion, presumably to Jesus. Goppelt, however, fails to justify this assumption, which will be critiqued in due course.10In the end, Goppelt suggests that the title
‘shepherd’ is ancillary to the main point of the passage—an add-on, perhaps, that
provides poetic symmetry with the ‘sheep’ metaphor?11
Michaels, who is hesitant to adopt Goppelt’s proposal regarding the early
Christian tradition based on Isa 6.10, instead nuances the argument by positing that the logic of the passage is explained in light of one of the predominant themes of 1 Pet 2.21-
7Other less developed proponents of this view are Best 1971:123; Brox 1986:139; Kelly 1969:124; Reicke 1964:99; Spicq
1966:113; Achtemeier 1996:204-05.
8Goppelt 1993: 215. Achtemeier (1996:204) agrees that it is possible that Isa 6.10 was the impetus for connecting the
two verses. I would point out that neither Mark 4.12 (μήποτε ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἀφεθῇαὐτοῖς) nor John 12.40 (στραφῶσιν,καὶ ἰάσομαιαὐτούς)contain both coordinating verbsἰάομαιandἐπιστρέφω.
9Goppelt (1993:215)is adamant that it is the early Christian tradition and not Isa 6.10 that has been impetus for this
exegetical move: ‘The connection of the two verbs in v. 24c and v.25 corresponds to a commonly used early Christian tradition…But 1 Peter appropriates not this [Isa 6.10], but the early Christian tradition that developed from it.’
10‘Healing from sinning is interpreted as…a turning…to the shepherd Christ’ (Goppelt 1993: 215).
11He only addresses the shepherd imagery in four sentences, mentioning that shepherd imagery is common in the
OT, that Jesus’ ministry was likened to the shepherd’s work of finding the lost sheep, and that 1 Peter appropriates early Christian developments of this OT imagery, but he does not develop this thought in detail or explain how this fits with the Isa 6.10 tradition (215).
25—conversion.12He notes thatἰάθητεandἐπεστράφητε, along withἐκλήθητε(2.21), refer to the recipients’ conversion, which for him is the point which begins and ends 1 Pet 2.21-25.13 Reading 1 Pet 2.21-25 in this manner, Michaels concludes that 2.25 ‘defines what Peter means (and what he thinks Isaiah means) by healing’: ‘Like Isaiah before him, Peter uses physical healing as a metaphor for religious conversion.’14The sheep
metaphor appears to have wandered incidentally into the passage because ‘we all like sheep have gone astray’, found in Isa 53.6, is a convenient way of describing the readers’ lives before turning (conversion) to Jesus. Like Goppelt, Michaels (in his 1 Peter
commentary anyway) is unable to explain why Peter has referred to Jesus as the shepherd, admitting that ‘[t]he transition between vv 21-25a and this last clause of chapter 2 is rather abrupt. Christ was last mentioned as wounded and carrying sins to the cross after much abuse, while the readers of the epistle were compared to a scattered flock of sheep. Now suddenly the sheep are back together, with Christ (very much alive) as the Shepherd who reunites them.’15
However, in an article written in 2004, Michaels amends his earlier proposal by offering a new way of explaining the reference to shepherd in 1 Pet 2.25, arguing that Mark’s PN has played a role:
At the end of Mark…the disciples, and Peter in particular, were to be told that Jesus would fulfill his promise to lead them into Galilee (Mark 14:28), where Peter and his companions “will see him” (Mark 16.7). That promise had been given in a framework of Jesus as “shepherd” to his disciples, on the basis of Zech 13:7, “I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered” (Mark 14:27), to which Jesus had added, “but after I am raised up I
will lead you into Galilee.” To “lead” them, or “go before” them (proa&gein), was a word
appropriate to a shepherd leading his sheep to new pastures. In 1 Peter, Jesus as
“shepherd” evokes for Peter his resurrection.16
The term ‘shepherd’, then, is intended to point to the resurrected Jesus, to whom the straying sheep have converted. Regardless of whether the scenario that Michaels lays out is historically plausible or not, the point I want to make is that this recent
amendment still does not explain the logic of linking Isa 53 with the shepherd metaphor; it offers an explanation of what ‘shepherd’ refers to (i.e. the resurrected Jesus), but it
12Michaels 1988:150.
13Michaels 1988:137, 142, and especially 149 where he writes, ‘His purpose is to bring the exhortation back to the
point at which it began, the conversion of his Gentile readers, represented by theἐκλήθητεof 2.21a, and in this way to set the stage for v 25’.
14Michaels 1988:149-150. Achtemeier takes a similar line, arguing that the logical connection between 2.24 and 2.25 is
that both verses refer to conversion (Achtemeier 1996: 204-5).
15Michaels 1988: 151. Achtemeier offers no explanation for the shepherd imagery except to state that that the
shepherd refers to Jesus and not God (Achtemeier 1996:204).
does not explain why a healing wound, straying sheep and the shepherd have all been brought together.
Elena Bosetti, John Elliott, Mark Dubis, and Karen Jobes represent a second line of interpretation, which I will call the ‘restoration approach’. The proponents of this
approach argue that the theme of restoration is the link between Isaiah 53 and the shepherd imagery of 2.25, pointing in particular to the shepherd tradition of Ezekiel 34. Bosetti’s monograph,Il Pastore: Cristo e la chiesa nella prima lettera di Pietro, is without question the most comprehensive of the four, entirely dedicated to understanding the use of pastoral imagery in 1 Peter (i.e. 1 Pet 2.25 and 5.1-4).17She regards the ‘conversion approach’ to be an inadequate explanation of the logic of 1 Pet 2.24-25 principally on the grounds that 1 Peter reverses the order of Isa 6.10 (cf. Deut 30.2-3; Isa 19.22; Jer 3.22) and its tradents (i.e. Matt 13.14-15; John 12.40; Acts 28.26-27). In other words, whereas 1 Peter speaks of healing andthenturning, in these precursor texts healing is a consequence or condition of having already turned to the Lord.18She further argues that Isaiah 53 itself contradicts the ‘conversion approach’, since there healing is the end of the salvation process.19Whether this is an adequate critique of the ‘conversion approach’ is debatable. For example, Bosetti has not considered the fact that even though ‘healing’ comes before ‘turning to the shepherd’ at the level of presentation, that is, 2.24 comes before 2.25, it is nevertheless possible to read the passage in such a way that 2.25 happensbefore2.24: the wounds of Jesus bring healing precisely because (γάρ;prior action) ‘you have turned to the shepherd and overseer of your souls.’ Additionally, in Isaiah 53 healing is not the end of the process of salvation, but rather the entry point into the benefits of YHWH’s
restoration. Regardless, her rejection of the ‘conversion approach’ leads Bosetti to propose that the logical connection in 1 Pet 2.24-25 is notἰάομαι/ἐπιστρέφω, but rather
πλανάομαι/ἐπιστρέφω. Drawing upon texts such as Jeremiah 23, Ezekiel 34, and
Zechariah 10, Bosetti traces a tradition within the Prophets (one which I have already highlighted in Chapter Two) in which YHWH’s exiled people are frequently described as ‘straying sheep’ who lack a shepherd, and in which the restoration of YHWH’s exiled people is portrayed in terms of being gathered (συνάγω) and returned (ἐπιστρέφω) to Jerusalem.20In particular, she points to Ezekiel 34 as the point of reference for 1 Pet 2.25,
17Bosetti 1990. Unfortunately her work has been ignored almost completely in the English speaking world of 1 Peter
scholarship. Elliott (2000:539) is a notable exception.
18Bosetti 1990:125-128. 19Bosetti 1990:128. 20Bosetti 1990:128-142.
noting two places within the chapter that explain why the straying sheep of Isaiah 53 (1 Pet 2.24) have been linked with the shepherd and overseer in 1 Pet 2.25. The first link is
found in Ezek 34.16 (τὸ πλανώμενον ἐπιστρέψω),where YHWH is the agent who
promises to return straying sheep. This, in Bosetti’s view, corresponds to the ‘theological passive’ἐπεστράφητε of 1 Pet 2.25: the agent who has returned the recipients to the shepherd is God, who, while he is unmentioned in the passage, is present nonetheless.21 The second link is found in Ezek 34.23-24, a text in which YHWH announces that his restoration will include the appointing of a shepherd, ‘my servant David’ (די ִו ָד י ִדּ ְב ַﬠ/τὸν
δοῦλόν μου Δαυιδ), and which explains why the author of 1 Peter is able to describe
the straying sheep as being returned to a person (namely the shepherd), rather than the more characteristic return to a place (i.e. Jerusalem).22For Bosetti, then, 1 Peter 2.21-25 is a conflation of two prophetic formulations of restoration—the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 and the Davidic shepherd of Ezekiel 34.
Elliott has proposed the same conflation of OT sources in 2.25 (apparently independent of Bosetti), noting a number of verbal parallels:
The verbepestraphēte…and the image of the return of straying sheep do not occur in Isa 53.
It appears to be derived from Ezekiel (34.4-11, 16), where mention is made of sheep (probata, 34.5, 6, 8 10, 11), straying (planōmenon, 34.4), return (apostrephō, 34.4, 6, 10);
epistrephō,34.16 [God’s returning the strayed sheep]; andepiskeptō, 34.11, the verb related
to the nounepiskopos…in 1 Peter).23
Like Bosetti, he notes that ‘[t]he straying, scattering, and return of God’s sheep eventually became one of several metaphors for the final gathering and salvation of God’s scattered people.’24Additionally, he points out that the imagery of Israel as
straying sheep is found not only in the OT, but also in the Gospels (Mark 6.34/Matt 9.36; 10.6; 15.24) and in the mouth of Jesus, who citing Zech 13.7 explains his disciples’ desertion in terms of sheep being scattered.25Unfortunately, Elliott does not develop these observations any further, leaving the reader with two lingering questions: (1) Why has Isaiah 53 been conflated with Ezekiel 34, and (2) What is the significance of this conflation?
21Bosetti 1990:122. 22Bosetti 1990:133.
23Elliott 2000: 537. It is not clear whether Elliott has been influenced by Bosetti, though he does demonstrate an
awareness of her work (Elliott 2000:538).
24Elliott 2000:538. He notes the following texts in support of this comment: Ezek 11.14-21; 20.34; 28.25; 34.11-16, 28-
31; Zech 10.1-2; Mic 2.12; 5.3-4; Sir 36.11; Pss Sol 8.28; 17.28; 2 Mac 1.24-29; 2.18.
Jobes, also working independently of Bosetti, likewise suggests that 2.25 alludes to Ezekiel 34.26She writes, ‘Elements of this passage in Ezekiel [34.11-13] correlate so well with elements of 1 Peter that it is tempting to conclude that Peter deliberately alludes to Ezekiel here [2.25] and elsewhere in his letter.’27She further adds that ‘[t]he motif of scattered Christians (cf.1.1), converted from the Gentiles (cf. 1.2), who were sought after by the Shepherd and who have returned to theepiskoposof their souls (2.25), aptly echoes Ezekiel’s prophecy.’28Unfortunately, like Elliott, she does not develop this line of thought any further in her commentary.
Dubis links the apparent allusion to Ezekiel 34 in 2.25 with the larger motif of restoration from exile found in 1 Peter.29He also provides a rationale for why Peter would be reading Ezekiel alongside Isaiah—they both share the theme of restoration from exile. He writes, ‘[T]he Ezekiel 34 background of 1 Peter 2.25 highlights 1 Peter’s restoration-from-exile motif…God has regathered the flock of Israel, and has established his faithful Davidic shepherd over them. The restoration of the OT prophets is thus underway.’30