Bound to Be Friends: Slavery and Friendship in the Lives and Thoughts of James P. Boyce and John A. Broadus

The years 1861-1865 were times of intense division. They saw not only the disunity of the United States, as the South broke from the North, but these years saw divisions between religious denominations as well. Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists all divided over the issues surrounding the War Between the States. Among Baptists the division affected everything from seminary education to mission work. The split between Northern and Southern Baptists was not the only dividing line over the issue of slavery, for there were distinct positions held within Southern Baptists as well, even among the faculty of their leading seminary. Yet it is significant that the differing views held by the faculty did not spell disaster for the fledgling seminary. John Albert Broadus and James Petigru Boyce disagreed on the virtue of slavery, and yet their friendship remained firm to the end of their lives.

In 1858 a nomination committee of The Southern Baptist Convention had appointed Boyce and Broadus, along with Basil Manly Jr. and E.T. Winkler, to serve as professors for the new seminary. Both Winkler and Manly declined, however, and Boyce and Broadus stood alone to serve the Seminary. Their affections for one another could have only increased upon this event. They had much in common to solidify their friendship. Both were scholars and theologians, as well as preachers.[1] Both were Southerners through and through, and even when the tensions increased between the states both Boyce and Broadus remained loyal to the South. Neither was either man in favor of the cessation. Writing to is brother-in-law Boyce said:

I have been all along in favor of resistance, by demanding first new guarantees, and if these were not granted, then forming a Southern Confederacy…I know I am cautious about taking any step without arranging for the consequences.[2]

Likewise Broadus writes to Miss Cornelia Taliaferro saying:

Very many people here are as much opposed to a dissolution of the Union as you or I, but there can be little doubt that a majority of the voters in the State would be in favor of seceding with any other state.[3]

Both men were concerned about rash moves from their fellow Southerners. Yet the nature of their resistance was quite distinct. Without any qualms Boyce declared to his sister, “It is as a pro-slavery man that I would preserve the Union.”[4] Broadus on the other hand expresses no sympathies for slavery; rather he joins the secession because he believes it is his duty as a citizen of Virginia.[5] He writes:

I may be believed, perhaps, when it is understood that I was most earnestly opposed to the action of the state in seceding, and deeply regret it now. I have at this hour no sympathy with secession, though of course it would be worse than idle to speak against it now, and though, equally of course, I mean to do my duty as a citizen here.[6]

Boyce’s advocacy for slavery can be seen not only in his expressed sentiment that he was an “ultra pro-slavery man,”[7] but also in his identification with the faults of the institution itself. Writing to His brother-in-law and friend H.A. Tupper, Boyce states:

I believe I see in all this the end of slavery. I believe we are cutting its throat, curtailing its domain. And I have been, and am, an ultra pro-slavery man. Yet I bow to what God will do. I feel that our sins as to this institution have cursed us, - that the Negroes have not been cared for in their marital and religious relations as they should be; and I fear God is going to sweep it away, after having left it thus long to show us how great we might be, were we to act as we ought in this matter.[8]

Boyce had been a long time advocate of Christian love and charity towards slaves. Tom Nettles points out, “When J.P. Boyce served as pastor at Columbia, South Carolina, he faithfully instructed the slaves of the community in Christian truth and ‘fundamental duties of a Christian life’.”[9] In his biography of the man Broadus recalls, “A wealthy and highly educated young minister was fitly employed in such labor for the benefit of the slaves.”[10] Many Southerners had raised concerns for the slaves. P.H. Mell, J.L. Dagg, and E.T. Winkler had a vision for ministry among Southern slaves, including both evangelism and social needs. The “sins” which Boyce identified in the institution, however, appear so minuscule in the larger picture that they mar his genuine care. That care for their marriages, and encouragement in spiritual matters was sufficient ministry among the slaves only affirms the “ultra pro-slavery” character of the theologian. Broadus did not always do a better job of affirming the full humanity of Negroes. He had, on one occasion, referred to them as “lesser human beings.” His post-war sentiments, however, bear the fullest description of his position. In a funeral sermon preached for the Confederate dead Broadus said:

I verily believe that it is worth all our dreadful financial losses, all the sufferings of the long and frightful conflict, yea, and the blood of our precious dead, to have [the questions concerning slavery] behind us forever.[11]

To preach to a Confederate crowd about the loss of their sons, husbands, and brothers saying that their deaths were worth the price to see the end of slavery convinces one of the convictions of the preacher.

Both men were true Southerners, but while Dr. Boyce tended to romanticize the institution, his colleague bore no sentimentality toward it. Broadus was, in this respect, much like that great Southern General Robert E. Lee, who though he had slaves longed for the day when he did not. The letter of Broadus’ own servant to him bears some of the marks of the relationship they shared. We read:

My Dear Master:
As I feel like writing a few lines, and to show you that I think of you very often, I take the present opportunity of doing so. I am quite well now, thank the Lord, and we are all so far as I know, and I hope when these lines reach you that you and yours may be quite well. I heard from Mr. Saint Clair’s yesterday- all well. My dear master, I hear much of the coming election. I hope that Mr. Lincoln or no such man may ever take his seat in the presidential chair. I do most sincerely hope that the Union may be preserved.[12]

The end of the letter records that the servant, “Uncle Dick” as he was known, was “wanting to go up to see” his wife but was unable, but hoped “to go soon to visit her”, and even to “live nearer her.” These lines lead us to consider the amount of freedom Broadus permitted his slaves. The ability to freely[13] choose to go visit and even live nearer his wife was unique to Uncle Dick.

The distinction between the men’s views on slavery is often hard to pick out. Both men served the Confederacy with preaching throughout the war. Boyce was a chaplain for the 16th South Carolina Infantry, and Broadus preached for various Generals, including General Lee and General Jackson, and rode along with several infantries for an extended period of time.[14] Boyce was a former student of the great Northern Baptist statesman Francis Wayland, who was strongly opposed to the institution of slavery.[15] Boyce had, always, a great affection for his mentor and he must have been influenced some by the man’s opinions on the incompatibility of Christianity and slavery. Boyce’s concerns about the “sins” of slavery may suggest the influence of his mentor in the face of such a prejudiced culture. But it is difficult for a 21st century observer to comprehend just how much pressure Southern culture applied to a man to convince him that God had ordained slavery.[16]

Broadus too was influenced by the Southern slave-owner culture. His comments that Negroes were “a lesser degree of human being” reveal as much. But a post-war article in the Louisville Courier Journal evidence one of the most insightful remarks about Africans (though still somewhat tarnished with prejudice). Broadus writes:

We must not forget that the Negroes differ widely among themselves, having come from different races in Africa, and having had very different relations to the white people while held in slavery, many of them are greatly superior to others in character, but the great mass of them belong to a very low grade of humanity. We have to deal with them as best we can, while a large number of other white people stand off at a distance and scold us. Not a few of our fellow-citizens at the north feel and act very nobly about the matter; but the number is sadly great who do nothing and seem to care nothing but to find fault.[17]

In Broadus’ mind the Negroes were not to be treated simply as a race, a collection of people, but as individuals with distinct personalities and from distinct backgrounds.

Determining Broadus’ precise opinion on the institution of slavery is not simple,[18] and becomes complicated when one recognizes the general context of Broadus’ writings. He writes as a Christian among a highly polite and refined Southern culture. Southern Christian thought on slavery was often critical of the violence and torture done by Southern slave-owners, while at the same time being fully in favor of the institution (Boyce being evidence). But it is particularly in his post-war comments and writings that one finds support for Broadus as an anti-slavery Southerner. In both the funeral sermon for the Confederate dead and the Courier Journal article from1893 we find such clues. More support is uncovered in the biography of James Petigru Boyce that Broadus penned in that same year. Speaking of Dr. Boyce’s, and other Christian’s, involvement in evangelizing the slaves Broadus states:

While events were rapidly moving towards the great and awful conflict of ten years later, numerous ministers throughout the South, chiefly Baptist and Methodist, were faithfully laboring to convert and instruct the vast multitude of colored people among whom they found themselves called to the work of the ministry. By no means all was done that ought to have been done; when and where has this been the case about anything? But thousands and ten thousands of Christian men and women did feel the burden of these lowly souls laid upon themselves, did toil faithfully and often with great sacrifice to bring them to the Saviour, and lovingly to guide their weak and ignorant steps in the paths of Christian life.[19]

And now that the long conflict is long past, and we are facing the most remarkable problem that any civilized nation was ever called to attempt, - the problem of slowly and patiently lifting these people up to all they can reach, - it were well if mutual misjudgments could be laid aside, if the faithful work of many Christians in those trying years could be on all sides appreciated, and the whole undertaking before us could be estimated in part by its best results, and not simply by its worst difficulties.[20]

Recognizing the obvious condescension of the author and setting that temporarily aside readers can also identify a complete submission to the dissolution of slavery and a desire to move on freely to the new relationships resulting from it. Broadus willingly confessed that these were not “black demons, as some who hated them then and now would have us believe.” No these “were and are simply black men.”[21]

The support only builds as one reads Broadus’ reflections on the then popular book Uncle Tom’s Cabin; a book which the preacher says was “deeply impressed with the real and supposed evils of slavery,”[22] and a book that was “exceedingly well written, having some passages of rarely equaled power, and being altogether, as a far as I can judge, a very remarkable book.”[23]

The differences are evident in their writings and personal thoughts if not clearly stated by both parties. Boyce’s clear vocalization of ultra pro-slavery and the complete absence of favorable comments on the institution by Broadus are significant when accompanied with the weight of the latter’s other comments. The most amazing thing about this exploration in Southern Baptist studies, however, is that their differences did not dissolve their friendship. Speaking of the legacy that Broadus left behind as a friend, historian Tom Nettles writes:
Broadus also gained great admiration for the sincere attention he gave to friendships. Throughout his life, even from childhood, he believed friendship to be the most cherished human gift to be given or received. Broadus loved and appreciated all sorts of people.[24]

As best that this author can tell the correspondence between Boyce and Broadus never touched on the issue of slavery. Perhaps this was out of consideration for their friendship, or perhaps their focus was entirely devoted to the “life work” which they were doing in the establishment of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In either case they remained friends until death. Upon deciding to join the faculty of the Seminary Broadus wrote to his friend:

Do not fear that I shall change my mind and, my dear Boyce, suffer me to say, that few personal considerations about the matter are so attractive to me as the prospect of being associated in a great work with you. I rejoice in a warm and mutual friendship now, and I trust we shall ere long learn to love each other as brothers. Pardon me for just saying what I feel…[25]
Their friendship was left untainted by the slavery issue, while the world around them, so it seemed, was marred by it. If John Broadus felt that he was both “prayed for” and “cursed”[26] by Northerners after the war, then he must have delighted to know that in the heart of his friend he was a “dear.” At the closing of his memorial for Boyce Broadus writes:

O brother beloved, true yokefellow through years of toil, best and dearest friend, sweet shall be thy memory till we meet again.[27]

The Battle Between the States rent the nation in twain, divided Baptists in two, and yet, by the grace of God, never did such for the faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. So that even after the war they could jointly affirm that they were committed to die themselves before the seminary did. Though James P. Boyce and John A. Broadus viewed slavery through different lenses, they were, in the end, bound to be friends.


[1]Though history tells us that Broadus far exceeded his friend in preaching.

[2]John A. Broadus, “Memoirs of James Pettigru Boyce.” Selected Works of John A. Broadus. 4. (Cape Coral: Founders, 2001). 184-185.

[3]A.T. Robertson, Life and Letters of John A. Broadus. (Philadelphia: American Baptist Society, 1901). 177.

[4]Broadus, 185.

[5]For further reading on Broadus’ devotion and loyalty to the South see Tom Nettles, Baptists: Beginnings in America. (Ross-Shire: Christian Focus, 2005). 299.

[6]Robertson, 181.
[7]Quoted in John Wesley Brinsfield Jr., The Spirit Divided: Memoirs of Civil War Chaplains. (Macon: Mercer UP, 2005). 13.

[8]Broadus, 185.

[9]Nettles, 345.

[10]Quoted in Nettles, 345.

[11]Ibid. 299-300.
[12]Robertson, 177.

[13]Many slaves were permitted only to visit their wives on special occasions, as long as they were not too far apart. The freedom of Uncle Dick to simply go when he had time, and even greater to move nearer her, is almost unheard of, even among those slaves who belonged to good men.

[14]Many men urged Broadus to become a full chaplain in the Confederacy, but the preacher’s health did not permit him to make such a commitment. “Stonewall” Jackson wrote to a friend of Broadus’ saying, “Write to him by all means and beg him to come. Tell him that he never had a better opportunity of preaching the gospel than he would have right now in these camps.” Upon hearing that Broadus was to come Jackson is quoted as saying, “That is good; very good. I am so glad of that. And when Doctor Broadus comes you must bring him to see me. I want him to preach at my headquarters, and I wish to help him in his work all I can.” Quoted in Robertson, 199.

[15]See Francis Wayland, Elements of Moral Science.

[16]See John L. Dagg, The Elements of Moral Science. (Charleston: Southern Baptist Publication Society, 1859); and P.H. Mell, Slavery: A Treatise, Showing that Slavery is Neither a Moral, Political, nor Social Evil. (Penfield: Printed by Benj. Brantley, 1844).
[17]Quoted from “A Sermon on Lynch, Law, and Raping: Preached by Rev. E.K. Love, D.D. at1st. African Baptist Church, Savannah, Ga., of which he is pastor, November 5th, 1893.” (Augusta: Georgia Baptist Print, 1894). 11.

[18]Some would suggest entirely impossible. To such critics I acquiesce that complete certainty is impossible, but, I argue, that a historian may, with humility, infer that Broadus was anti-slavery from his post-war statements about both the War and former slaves.

[19]Broadus, 91.

[20]Ibid. 92. Tome Nettles speaking of this quote from Broadus says, “With all of its errors (and even with the continuing paternalism and implicit condescension of Broadus’ statement), the relationship [between slaves and masters] nevertheless did produce some positive results for eternal good.” (Nettles, 348).
[21]Quoted in Nettles, 349. The full quote, like many others, does carry the tint of prejudice, but it is important to let the egalitarianism of it be as equally evident, so I have here only quoted those parts which point to Broadus’ affirmation of the humanity of the slaves.

[22]Broadus, 91.

[23]Clyde E. Fant, and William Pinson. 20 Centuries of Great Preaching. 5. (Waco: Word Books, 1976). 47.

[24]Nettles, 317.

[25]Robertson, 159.

[26]Paul Harvey, “Yankee Faith and Southern Redemption: White Southern Baptist Ministers, 1850-90” in Religion and the American Civil War. eds. Randall Miller, Harry Stout, Charles Reagan Wilson. (New York: Oxford, 1998). 176.

[27]Quoted in Nettles, 319.

Ezekiel 34 In Light of the Three Horizons of Scripture

Ezekiel chapter 34 stands in stark contrast to the all too often painted picture of God as harsh and unloving in the Old Testament. This divinely inspired chapter serves as a gracious warming cloak for the cold judgment of God that permeates the preceding chapters. D.L. Moody saw this same comfort evident in the chapter. He writes:

Notice the “I wills” of the Lord God on behalf of His sheep. The shepherd and the sheep:-
v. 11 I will search them and seek them out.
v. 12 I will deliver them.
v. 13 I will bring them out.
v. 13 I will gather them together.
v. 13 I will bring them in.
v. 14 I will feed them.
v. 15 I will cause them to lie down.
v. 16 I will bind up the broken.
v. 16 I will strengthen the sick.
There are a good many lean sheep in God’s fold, but none in His pasture.[1]

Ezekiel 34 must have been a breath of fresh air to its immediate recipients, but it should call us to praise as well. By studying this text in light of the three horizons of Scripture we will be able to discern just how it plays such a significant role in the lives of so many from such distinct periods in history.

When I speak of the three horizons of Scripture I am using a technical term that identifies the different levels at which we read and interpret the Bible. The textual horizon is the first level. At this horizon we are seeking to understand what the author intended to convey in the immediate context of that passage and to his original audience. This means we must pay attention to the background, the setting, and the situation of those whom he is addressing. The second level seeks to place a specific text within the larger context of the testament or covenant which it falls under. Passages in the Old Testament fall under the old covenant and those in the New under the new covenant. This distinction helps to determine at what point in God’s redemptive plan the events of the passage are taking place. The final horizon is labeled the canonical. This horizon takes into account a passages place in the whole canon of Scripture. While there is some overlap here between the epochal and canonical the significant distinction is that in the Canonical horizon we are identifying a passages relation to the cross specifically. All of scripture is pointing us to the cross and so it is through the lens of the New Testament that we must read the Old. That being said let us begin looking at Ezekiel 34 on all three of these horizons.

We begin with the textual horizon, that is the immediate context of the passage. Here we are seeking to discern what the author intended to convey, and thus what God intended to convey through that author, to his original audience. In this passage Ezekiel is declaring a prophesy of judgment against the rulers of Israel. They are the careless and self-indulgent shepherds of verses 1-10.

The prophet is speaking out against the wickedness of Judah, and warning them of the coming destruction of Jerusalem. The northern kingdom of Israel had been exiled to Babylon in 597 B.C., and Judah would soon join them in being exiled from the land. It is part of God’s punishment on Judah. So in verses 21-33 of chapter 33 we read of Jerusalem’s destruction, even the desolation of the temple. But chapter 34 is the silver lining in the black sky. It is hope for those who had lost what they saw as the center of God’s covenant with His people: the temple. It was the promise of future restoration, the promise of God’s communion with His sheep, and the deliverance from captivity. The intent of the author was to offer hope and encouragement to a people who had been swept away into exile. It was to quell the fear that God had abandoned them, and to re-assure them of the promise of a king from the Davidic line who would rescue them from their captors.

As we move into the epochal horizon we can note that there is a fair amount of overlap (both with the textual and the canonical horizon). Before delineating the obvious overlaps, however, let’s set up the larger epochal horizon. Patrick Fairbairn gives a good help here when he writes:

This passage evidently points, both as to its subject, and the language it employs, to a quite similar and earlier prophecy of Jeremiah (chap. xxiii. 1-6), where, in like manner, the false shepherds are denounced and judged, that the way might be opened up for the appearance of the Lord’s true shepherd. In both prophecies alike, what is meant by the shepherd is manifestly not priests or prophets, but kings and rulers…[2]

Here is one of the great foci of the passage: the promise of a King. Fairbairn rightly connects this passage with that of Jeremiah 23:1-6. In both passages there is the promise of a future “shepherd,” that is a King, who will rescue God’s people and usher in a time of peace and of security. Both passages are set in the larger context of the prophecies concerning the coming Messiah: God’s anointed one.

Dr. Daniel I. Block notes the larger context of the messianic prophecies in his commentary on Ezekiel. He writes:

The shepherd will be David. Although this ruler is explicitly identified as David only twice outside this book, Ezekiel’s identification of the divinely installed king as David is based on a long-standing prophetic tradition. On the one hand, the 8th-century prophet Hosea had looked forward to the day when the children of Israel would “return and seek Yahweh their God and David their King.” On the other hand, Ezekiel’s diction is closer to Jer. 30:8-10, which also combines the appointment of David with the anticipated restoration of the nation. There is no thought in these prophecies of the resurrection of the historical king, as some kind of David [revived]. Ezekiel’s use of the singular “shepherd,” and his emphasis on … “one,” also preclude the restoration of the dynasty in the abstract, that is, simply a series of kings. He envisions a single person, who may embody the dynasty but who occupies the throne himself.[3]

Dr. Block has noted that the messiah, or the “divinely installed King,” as David had a long-standing tradition in Israel’s prophetic history. He gives evidence in the examples of Hosea and Jeremiah. His comments stress, as well, the centrality of David in this passage.
In their sins the people of Judah had broken the Davidic Covenant, and as a result God had abandoned His dwelling place among them, in the temple on Mt. Zion.[4] At stake in their disobedience was the fulfillment of God’s promise to David: that one of his descendants would reign on his throne forever. Such a danger must have undoubtedly been in the back of the minds of the people of Judah as they foresaw Jerusalem laid waste and as they were shuttled off to a foreign land.

With such a background, then, it becomes evident why God revealed to the people that this “true shepherd” would be David. The prophecy was to be a boost to their confidence in God’s trustworthiness. He had not forgotten, nor abandoned, His covenant with David. This true shepherd was to be of the Davidic line, he was to be the anointed of God, the Messiah, just as 2 Samuel 7:1-17 says. For our purposes in this discussion we could simply look to verses 12-13:
When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

The immediate context of that passage is referring to David’s son Solomon. But as one reads the history of Solomon you find a man far short of God’s standard, a man who divides the kingdom in half, and who eventually dies, leaving the nation wondering who is this anointed son of David that was to come and establish an eternal throne? They continued to wait for his appearing.

The image of the king as a shepherd of the sheep of Israel has two underlying notions to it. This is where we will see some of that overlap I mentioned a moment ago. The connection between David and this “true shepherd” who is the future king of Israel is all the more relevant when we grasp that David himself was at one time a shepherd. By calling this new king a shepherd the prophet is immediately connecting him with the Davidic dynasty, without saying so specifically.

The second connection is between this “true shepherd” and God Himself. There are several other places in Scripture where God refers to Himself as a shepherd. Genesis 49:24 is one example, but Lamar Cooper is probably right when he identifies Psalm 23 as the best known example. Cooper writes:

David provided insight not only into God’s role as “Shepherd” but also into the responsibility of kings to be rightly related to God. The king was to be the undershepherd and God the true King and Shepherd. Psalm 23 was David’s personal commitment to this principle. “The Lord is my Shepherd” (Ps. 23:1) was a personal declaration that he, David the king, had a King/Shepherd, who was Yahweh.[5]

The whole of Ezekiel chapter 34 re-enforces this connection with the powerful and comforting “I will” statements of God. Verse 11 reads, “For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out.” God is the shepherd of Ezekiel 34, it He who will seek out His sheep. He will rescue, gather, feed, bind up, strengthen, seek, and cause to lie down. Yahweh, God, is the shepherd and none other.

Through the “Redemptive-Historical” lens we can see that Ezekiel 34 is a prophecy concerning the coming Messiah. The promise to David of a descendant who would possess a special favor with God was apprehended by the whole nation and they waited anxiously for the appearing of this Davidic king. The exile, however, dashed their hopes and left them not only without a king, but without a land for a king to rule over. It is from this point on that the messianic promise takes on the form of the prophetic. The prediction of the coming king assures the people that God has not forgotten and will still keep His promise to David. Ezekiel 34 is right in line with these prophecies as the true shepherd of Israel will bring the people back into their own land, put them at rest, and rule over them as God’s appointed representative.

As we move into the final horizon of Scripture, the canonical, we find ourselves wrestling with the connection between the “true Shepherd” and the Lord God Himself. How are these two connected? How can God say, “I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and will bring them into their own land. And I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the ravines, and in all the inhabited places of the country” (34:13), and still also say, “And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd” (34:23)? Who is going to feed God’s lambs, David or the Lord Himself? The answer to this mild dilemma is resolved in the person of Christ Jesus. For the answer is “both.”

If the chapter as a whole falls in line with the long-standing prophetic traditions pointing to the Messiah, then it points to the man whom we know to be that Messiah. Not David himself, not Solomon, not Hezekiah, but Jesus Christ. In Jesus we find both the descendant of David and the divine being perfectly present. It is, through Christ, both God and David who feed the sheep. Hear the words that our savior uses to describe His own ministry to God’s sheep, the resemblance to Ezekiel 34 is unparalleled:

I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father. (John 10:14-18)

Note that Jesus calls Himself the “good shepherd,” in obvious contrast to the evil shepherds. Those evil shepherds of Ezekiel 34 who fatten themselves up while the sheep starve. This “good shepherd” is in stark contrast to the hired hands who “sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep” (John 10:12-13).

Viewing scripture along this third and final horizon allows us to go back and read Ezekiel 34 from this side of the cross. What Ezekiel and those of his time saw only in shadow we see in more full light: that Jesus is the Messiah, the true shepherd of God’s sheep. With the words “I am the good shepherd” Jesus resolves the dilemma of how both God and David can tend the lambs. There is only “one shepherd,” and that is Christ, the individual in whom reside both divinity and humanity. He is the God-man, and that is why He is the true shepherd.
In the canonical horizon of scripture we see the beautiful picture of God’s redemptive plan revealed. The true shepherd was not meant to redeem Israel from physical captivity and enslavement, but from spiritual bondage to sin and death. This the shepherd does by laying down His life for the sheep. Ezekiel 34 with its description of restoration, redemption, security, and the covenant of peace points us to the cross of Christ where all these promises find fulfillment. The prophet Ezekiel declares that God will “make with [the sheep] a covenant of peace and banish wild beasts from the land, so that they may dwell securely in the wilderness and sleep in the woods.” The question we must ask is how, how will God make this covenant of peace with them?

Covenants were made with the shedding of blood and in them God binds Himself to do something for man. What more beautiful picture do we have of God binding Himself to man, and a covenant being made with the shedding of blood than at the cross? It is at the cross, where the true shepherd laid down His life for the sheep, that we see a covenant of peace established. Here is the fulfillment of what Ezekiel says, “They shall no more be a prey to the nations, nor shall the beasts of the land devour them. They shall dwell securely, and none shall make them afraid” (v. 28). And it is echoed in Jesus’ own sentiments in John 10. There He says:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one. (vv. 27-30)

As Ezekiel predicted so Jesus promises: security for the sheep within the folds of God. No wild beast, foreign nation, or scheme of man and Satan can snatch them from the Father’s hand.
Does Ezekiel 34 make you rejoice friends? Do you see in the text the future promise of our restoration, our salvation, our peace and security? This is a text that was intended to give great comfort to a people in physical slavery, to remind them of the hope to come in the messiah. It was a text that pointed toward the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies that had been declared throughout Israel’s history at different times. But God, in His infinite wisdom and sovereignty, included this text in our Bibles so that we would see His plan to redeem us from of old.

God has had a plan to bring sheep who are not of Israel into His folds for a long time, indeed before the foundations of the world even. And all throughout history He has been revealing that plan. As we read Ezekiel 34 we see that nothing would deter God from seeing His plan to full fruition. Let us pause for a moment, then, and consider what astounding grace is displayed here. God inspired chapter 34 of Ezekiel to emphasize the surety of His plan to redeem a sinful, wretched, and offensive people like us. How amazing that we should be called the sheep of God at all, let alone that God should give us this chapter to show how throughout history He was bringing all this to completion in the death of His Son. Let Ezekiel 34 take root in your heart and compel you to rejoice friends.



[1]D.L. Moody, Notes from My Bible. Quoted in William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985). 1061.
[2]Patrick Fairbairn, Ezekiel and the Book of His Prophecy. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863).
[3]Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25-48. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). 297-298.
[4]See I.M. Duguid, “Ezekiel.” In New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. ed. Graeme Goldsworthy and D.A. Carson. (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000). 230.
[5]Lamar Eugene Cooper, The New American Commentary. Vol. 17. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994). 301.