The Good Shepherd

It's easy for us to miss how remarkable the Lord's claim in John 10:11ff is. We find the imagery of the Good Shepherd striking: I suspect Sunday School artwork has something to do with that. But the Lord was addressing people who knew the Old Testament very well indeed, and His claim would be astonishing – even offensive – to them in light of the book of Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 34 is a treatise on the worthless shepherds of Israel. They fed themselves, and not the flock (Ezekiel 34:2–3). They didn't care for the sick or the injured, but they ruled harshly over them (Ezekiel 34:4). The sheep were scattered, and they didn't go looking for them (Ezekiel 34:5). 

And so God presents His solution: He would tend the flock (Ezekiel 34:11). He would go and find them, and gather them (Ezekiel 34:11–13). He would pasture them on the mountains, He would feed them, He would make them lie down (Ezekiel 34:14–15). 

He would put a shepherd over them (Ezekiel 34:25).

If we read John 10:11–18 with Ezekiel 34 in the back of our mind, it takes on different depth. The Lord's claims aren't as whimsical as we might think. His use of the shepherd imagery isn't something new He came up with: He's picking up the thread of the prophets, and making a remarkable claim.

First, Ezekiel 34:25 makes the claim that God would put a shepherd over Israel. Ezekiel identifies that shepherd as David, the Lord takes the title for Himself. He is effectively saying, "I'm the David God has appointed to rule over you."

But if we contemplate Ezekiel a little more carefully, we might recognize that the Lord's claims go beyond the title of the coming David. The coming David will feed them, but the Lord claims not merely to feed, but to gather them (John 10:16). It's not David who gathers in Ezekiel 34, but God Himself.

The Good Shepherd in Ezekiel 34, is God Himself.

 

 

Deep waters

Psalm 69 is the first Messianic Psalm I remember noticing. I think an older brother quoted it in prayer during the Lord's Supper one morning when I was in high school. At any rate, I think of Psalm 69 and Psalm 102 as the iconic Messianic Psalms. To be fair, I tend to see almost all the Psalms as Messianic in at least some sense, but that's a whole different topic.

The Psalm is addressed to the Chief Musician, which is generally a good indication that it's Messianic. I haven't found an exception to that rule yet. 

The opening plea is for God to save, because "the waters have come in unto my soul" (Psalm 69:1–3).

At the risk of sounding glib, it seems to me that there is a commentary on these verses in Song of Solomon:

Many waters cannot quench love, Neither do the floods drown it: Even if a man gave all the substance of his house for love, It would utterly be contemned. (Song of Solomon 8:7)

There is something profound in the statement that everything a man has is worthless in exchange for love. It took me a long time to realize what that verse is actually saying is, "give everything you own for love, it's still not enough."  

So when the Son of God gave Himself for us (Galatians 2:19–21), we understand that He measured up to this statement. It was Himself He gave, as opposed to anything He possessed.

But of course the connection between Psalm 69:1ff and Song of Solomon 8:7 lies in the "many waters." In Psalm 69, they are a threat that overwhelms, destroys, and eventually kills. But in Song of Solomon, we're assured they're not enough to quench love.

 The Lord loved us and gave Himself for us. That's an astonishing thing to remember. And it bears remembering that He thinks it was a good deal. Imagine that! Isaiah 53:11 tells us that God will look at the result of His giving Himself for us and "be satisfied."

Unconvinced

Yesterday I heard someone make an argument for Amillennialism that started with John 5:28–29. I admit my first thought was, "here we go..." I've heard this argument from Amillennialists more than once.

The argument goes something like this:  Revelation 20:1–10 is the only passage in Scripture that specifies a 1,000 year reign of Christ. Revelation 20:4–6 describes the 1,000 years beginning with "the first resurrection," and tells us "the rest of the dead" aren't raised until the 1,000 years are finished.

But in John 5:28–29, the Lord says there is "an hour" coming in which there is a resurrection to life, and a resurrection to judgment.

Thus, we conclude that the 1,000 year reign in Revelation 20 isn't to be understood literally, as the Lord specifies those two resurrections happen in the same hour – not necessarily 60 minutes, but at least closely in time.

This isn't a terrible argument, but I don't find it very convincing.

First, the context (John 5:24–30) makes it difficult to argue that "hour" precludes a literal 1,000 years. Consider John 5:25, "an hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that have heard shall live." 

The Lord is describing His ministry of regeneration – calling the [spiritually] dead to life.  The "hour" in John 5:25 was already underway at that time ("and now is"), and has been going on for almost 2,000 years now.

So given the Lord described the last two millennia as an "hour" just three verses earlier, there's no reason to believe the "hour" in John 5:28–29 can't encompass all the events of Revelation 20:1–10.

Second, it's a strange hermeneutic that insists a detailed passage (Revelation 20:1–10) must be understood symbolically because of a much less detailed description in an earlier passage (John 5:28–29). By that logic, we should insist the Gospel accounts are purely symbolic, because the prophets didn't describe the entire three-year span of the Lord's earthly ministry.

Of course that's ridiculous. We understand that the prophets gave terse summaries of events to come. The Gospel writers, describing the actual events, give significantly more detail.

Similarly, the Lord's one-sentence description of the "hour" of two resurrections is a terse summary of coming events that Revelation 20:1–10 describes in more detail and precision. Yes, the Lord combines two events into a single "hour" in His summary, just like the Old Testament prophets combined several events into a short summary in their writings.

Finally,  Scripture is consistent in its use of time spans like "hour" and "day" to indicate longer periods of time. Genesis 2:4–5 describes the seven days of creation as the "day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens," and everything in them. We don't then interpret Genesis 2:4–5 as contradicting the entire first chapter of Genesis, but we understand it uses the word "day" to describe a period of time that's characterized by a single thing.

The Lord uses the word "hour" to describe whole eras: the era of worship "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23), and the era of persecution of the Apostles after His ascension (John 16:2ff). Again, He is using the term "hour" to describe a period of time characteristically.

The Lord describes His death as an "hour" (Mark 14:35, Luke 22:53, John 7:30, John 12:27). We don't thus conclude that the Gospel descriptions of the Crucifixion lasting several hours are to be understood symbolically. Rather, we understand that He is using the term "hour" to describe a period of time characterized by that single awful event.

Insisting the Lord's use of the term "hour" in John 5:28–29 must mean the first and second resurrection cannot be spaced 1.000 years apart ignores His own repeated use of the word "hour" to describe very long periods of time.

Now, I'm not making the claim that Amillennialism cannot be argued from Scripture. I am pointing out that John 5:28–29 provides no meaningful evidence against a literal 1,000 year reign in Revelation 20. To read John 5:28–29 that way is to ignore how the Lord uses the same word just three verses earlier (John 5:25), how He uses the term "hour" throughout John's gospel, and how Scripture as a whole uses terms like "hour" and "day."

 

There is a less-obvious lesson here for our Dispensationalist friends, and we need to be careful not to miss it. I have sat in many a Bible reading where Christians spent a great deal of effort to differentiate between the Lord's "coming" and His "appearing."  I've heard Christians go through the epistles with a fine-toothed comb to separate and distinguish between coming events.

That's not necessarily sin, but I have to ask the question: why didn't the Lord Jesus do that? Why did He sum up a 1,000 year period as an "hour"?

The Son of God saw value in discussing two events that are separated by 1,000 years in a single sentence. So yes, the epistles distinguish between these events. But the Son of God did not. We should ask ourselves why.

I would suggest that if the Holy Spirit sees value in discussing these events distinctly in Revelation 20:1–10 and indistinctly in John 5:28–29, then there is wisdom in us not seeing them only in one light or the other. There is wisdom in meditating on them in both lights.

Paul's epistles consistently point us to the Lord's imminent return for us (Philippians 3:20–21). Peter's epistles point us beyond that, to new heavens and a new earth (2 Peter 3:13). I've actually heard "brethren" use that as some sort of argument that "Paul's ministry" is greater than Peter's.

To be clear, that is sin.

When the Spirit of God gives us two different perspectives, that's not so we can choose between them. That's so we can subject ourselves to God's word, and meditate on both of them.

So when Paul's epistles draw distinctions between coming events, and Peter's discuss them all as a single large event, that's so we can see the mind of God in both the big picture and the fine details. That is not so we can think of ourselves as wiser than the Spirit of God who inspired both.

When Revelation 20:1–10 gives in much greater detail the expanded view of the two resurrections in John 5:28–29, that's not license to sin by discounting the words that the Son of God spoke. That's so we can learn both the "big picture" lessons of John 5 and the "fine detail" lessons of Revelation 20.

(Yes, I am aware that the Lord's crucifixion is a rejection of Him as King, so that the millennial kingdom in Revelation 20:1–10 could not, in a sense, be discussed in John 5. Peter's offer of "the times of refreshing" (Acts 3:19–21) would seem odd if the Lord had already publicly discussed the details that Revelation 20:1–10 give. But I still maintain that the Lord's willingness to view the "big picture" and view that entire chapter as a single "hour" must mean it's a worthwhile perspective for us to consider.)

Bible search update

I've been keeping an eye out for a new Bible for a while now.  My main "carrying Bible" is a little Darby Translation I bought in 1992 from Kingston Bible Trust. So it's just a shade over thirty years now that I've been carrying that Darby.

I picked up an ESV sometime around 2006 and read it through, but it wasn't quite what I was looking for. I enjoyed reading that translation, but there were just a few quirks that made me decide to keep looking. I posted a review on my blog: "ESV Review". When I first picked up that Bible, I didn't know anyone who used ESV. Now it's hard to find a group of Christians where there's not at least one ESV. 

And honestly, the ESV is a solid translation. I'm delighted to see more and more ESVs, and fewer and fewer NIVs.

Not long after that someone gave me a hand-me-down NASB (1995). NASB was a lot closer to Darby's translation than ESV, so I felt a little bit like I had come home. My wife uses an NASB as her main Bible, and I commented once that if you took an NASB, looked at every place there's a footnote that contains a literal reading, and put that literal reading into the text, you'd pretty much have a Darby Translation. There are a few differences, but the NASB is pretty close to a less literal Darby Translation.

My NASB is a hand-me-down, and it has a lot of notes written in it. And I find them annoying. I felt for a long time like NASB is the closest thing to what I was looking for, but I couldn't quite pull the trigger and buy one.

So I had carried my little Darby for about 14 or 15 years, then I carried that ESV for about a year, then I carried that NASB for about a year, then I switched back to my Darby Translation.

I should mention I have about four Darby Translations at this point: the oldest is a 1973 Stow Hill edition, which is actually quite a nice printing. My original KBT edition is by far my most well-worn, and pages are falling out of it. Then I have two of those KJV-Darby Parallel Bibles that Bible Truth Publishers sells. I carried one to meeting for a couple years, and it's a useful edition, but it's not very well made. The older one has begun to split at the spine, and I have taken good care of it.

Earlier this year a friend of mine showed me his new Legacy Standard Bible, and I decided this is the Bible I've been waiting for. I liked his so much, I went ahead and ordered one myself: I got one of the goatskin editions printed in Korea.

I've made a point of not rushing to judgment on a Bible until I've read it cover-to-cover, so I've been trying not to jump to conclusions until I finished it. But now that I've read it cover-to-cover,  I can say I like it.

LSB is essentially an attempt to make the NASB 1995 a little more literal. If you brought the NASB 1995 to a boil and stirred in a Darby Translation, then baked for an hour in a glass dish at 350°F, you'd get the LSB. 

And I have to say I like it a lot. It's not exactly the Darby Translation I've used as my main Bible for 30 years, but it's really very similar.

So that's just a personal update: I've been looking for a nice Bible for the last 15 years or more, and I've been willing to spend some money, but I haven't quite found what I wanted. Well, I finally bought a nice Bible in a translation that was promising, and I'm very pleased.

A final note: I bought the Korean goatskin LSB. The Dutch goatskin LSB costs about $50 (US) more. My buddy has the Dutch one, and it's noticeably higher quality. I'm pleased as punch with my LSB, so I'm not saying it's not worth what I paid, but now that I've seen both, I think I'd pay a little bit more and get the Dutch printing. 

Just my opinion, and probably worth exactly what you're paying for it.