Shepherding the sheep ‘marked for slaughter’ (Zech 11:4-6)

While commenting on Zech. 11, in the year 1906, S. R. Driver said “this prophecy is the most enigmatic in the Old Testament.” In some sense Driver’s evaluation is correct. It is not just the date and the historical context of this second part of Zechariah that is in question but the content, language, symbols and images used here are also perplexing. Verses 4 to 17 of Chapter 11 are the prime example of such enigma.

Zech 11:4-17, as a unit, is a commissioning narrative. Yahweh commands the prophet to assume the role of the shepherd in v 4’.

It is also called an autobiographical narrative, the prophet is charged with the task of being a shepherd over a doomed flock. According to verses 7-8, the prophet being a shepherd tried to execute his role diligently, but because the flock rejected the appointed shepherd, the prophet could not continue his job.

It is a woe oracle. The tone of this chapter is unquestionably negative Chapter 11 itself goes against the overall message of the book of Zechariah. Zechariah being the late sixth-century prophet prophesied about restoration of the people of Israel in the land of Yehud (Judah) and pictured God as the one who has compassion for his people. God also promises to appoint good leaders over Israel in the first 8 chapters of this book. But chapter 11 shows the same wickedness of people and their leaders that they have shown before they were exiled in Babylon. Prophet Jeremiah criticized the disobedience and evils of the people and the religious and political leaders of Judah. Here, Zechariah is addressing a different generation than the prophet Jeremiah. But interestingly, the attitude of the people and their leaders, the evils they do, and the punishment God declares are the same.

There are various interpretations given for this passage. Some considered it as a pre-exilic prophecy may be by Jeremiah, but placed it here in the second part of Zechariah. Others consider prophet Zechariah envisioning the same punishment that Israel received during their exile in Babylon but now the agency is different, now the Greek from Macedonia are coming to overpower Judah. Most Christian interpretations and, interestingly, Messianic Jewish interpretation take this text in a futuristic sense, prophesying about the Romans overpowering the land and destruction of the Jewish rule and the temple in AD 70. This messianic interpretation prefigures the shepherd in the text as Jesus – the Good Shepherd, who was rejected by Jewish people and authority and sold out for thirty pieces of silver (Zech 11:12-13).

Instead of going into the debate of right interpretation, I would like to concentrate on the read text. Mark Boda in his commentary on Zachariah considers Chapter 11 as a Prophetic Sign-act. Such Sign-acts are common in prophetic writings. Each Sign-act has three sections: exhortation (God commands an action), execution (the prophet describes his obedience), explanation (God interprets the significance of the Sign-act). Although the exhortation is always the first element, the order and presence of the other two can vary. The read text has two sections of the Sign-act: first, an exhortation in vv. 4-5 – God commands the prophet to be a shepherd, then in verse 6 – an explanation by God or significance of the Sign-act. The prophet’s execution of the Sign-act and the result are given in verse 7–14.

I am concentrating only on the first two sections of the Sing-act. Here in verse 4, the prophet is claiming an intimate relationship with Yahweh, “Yahweh my God.” Through this close relationship, like Moses and any of his predecessors, the prophet is claiming legitimacy of his prophecy, which is important as we have to notice that this prophecy is against the overall tone of the book.

The prophet has given a task of being a ‘Shepherd’ to the flock. It is interesting to note that prophets are seldom called ‘shepherd.’ In the Ancient Near East texts, especially in the Hebrew Bible, as well as in the New Testament the task of shepherding is given to the religious and political leaders. We, the Christian leaders, are also called to be the shepherds of God’s church. 1 Peter 5:1-4 echoes the language of Zechariah 11 and asks us to be ‘overseers’ and to be ‘examples’ to the flock.

Here, in verse 4-6, the shepherding task of the prophet is a challenging one. Those masters under whom he is appointed are cruel and their sole focus is their economic gain. The prophet uses the language of business transactions, ‘buyers’ and ‘seller’ and becoming ‘rich’. This shows the flaw of the leaders of Judah. There is an economic oppression and injustice happening in that society. Instead of giving ‘care’ and ‘protection’ the shepherds are using the flock for their own economic gains.

Another challenge was his flock. The flock is ‘marked for slaughter.’ A reason is not clearly given why God has already allotted the people to be slaughtered. We get the glimpse of this flock when the prophet executes his Sign-act from verse 7 onwards. The translation in NIV which is close to the Masoretic Text (MT) shows that this people had two groups, one is mentioned as ‘the oppressed/afflicted of the flock’ in verses 7 and 11. Particularly this group the prophet pastured during his execution of the Sign-act. Among this flock those who are of higher status and oppressing the others ‘detested’ the prophet and his activities. This prophetic text gives a picture that oppression, injustice, and disobedience are also prevalent among the flock.

In verse 6 God gives an explanation of such Sign-act. Both their leaders and the flock are under God’s punishment. The inhabitants and the land will suffer because of this punishment. God is pictured as the one who is against unjust economic gain, the one who counters injustice and oppression. He is hostile to any marginalizing activities either by the leader or even among the people. Though God has passed judgment to all those who are doing such activities, he has not totally abandoned them. God appointing the prophet to tend the sheep which are disobedient and divided shows God’s ongoing work of grace. The shepherds or the leaders who are already appointed are not doing their religious or political duties faithfully. The prophet is called to be an exemplary shepherd in such a situation.

As I mentioned earlier, we Christian leaders are also called to be shepherds, our task is also the same as the prophet is asked to perform in this Sign-act. In verse 8, the prophet, who is called by Yahweh to pasture the sheep in this Prophetic Sign-act, “goes weary” and became ‘impatient,’ because of the people’s rejection and he decided not to serve as their shepherd. We have to remember that this text is a prophetic Sign-act. The function of the Prophetic Sign-act is to pass a message in a specific historical context to a specific group. But the task of shepherding given to us is to be ‘overseers’ and ‘example’ to the flock. Though the people we serve are also divided on the basis of color, caste, class, religious or traditional backgrounds. Many moral and societal evils are prevailing in the church. We as shepherds are called to tend such sheep without being impatient or going weary. We have to remember that we are accountable to ‘the chief Shepherd’ (1 Peter 5:4).

The prophet in Zech 11 was called to do his job of shepherding under the unjust and cruel masters. They were acting like merchants doing business for their personal gain. Our context is not much different. The church I belong to, and in that case most of the churches in India, many of the church leaders are only after their personal economic gain. They sell the church properties; they close down the schools and hospitals or convert it to money making businesses for them and their generations to come; they unjustly use the money given for the growth of the church. They create or use the existing divisions of the church for their personal power-gain mission.

We as shepherds have two options: we can join the existing leadership and focus on our personal economic and power gain and for our generations to come. Or we can be a shepherd of those who are oppressed and afflicted among the flock. The first option is easy, we can escape the struggles from the unjust leadership and we can also control the people under us. Thus we can maintain the status quo. The second option is a challenging one; we have to have the inner transformation and conviction to be on the side of the marginalized. Though they are doomed for punishment because of their disobedience, this is the group that receives the message of liberation readily. Jesus our Good Shepherd was on the side of such people. His life and teaching had liberative aspects, both spiritual liberation from the bondage of sin and liberation from structural oppressions framed by religious, social or political institutions. Lord Jesus is the good example for us to follow.

Our task of shepherding does not end here (because the world does not end with the Church). We are not just called for the flock those who are in the church. We have to remind ourselves that our mission is to reach to the ends of the earth, it includes the people of every nation, tribe, gender and language. Jesus said “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also…” (Jn 10:16). Our solidarity with the ‘Others’ in the society matters in the task of shepherding: those who are marginalized socially and economically in India and outside, those who experience brutality on the basis of gender, race and religion in our society as well as society at large. We the shepherds are called to be the voice of the victims of sexual abuse; the voice of the victims of the power struggle between Israel and Palestine; the voice of the minority who are unjustly suffering under the so-called majority.

The question remains to us, as shepherds: Are we going to maintain the status quo within the church and outside in the society, focusing only on personal gain and power, giving a deaf ear to the injustice and suffering of those who are in the margins. Or: Are we, the shepherds, boldly standing on the side of those who are considered ‘destined for slaughter’ and ready to work from the margin for the transformation of the church and the society?

May God help us to discern our role as shepherd in the church and society at large, and make us a channel of transformation, justice and peace in this world.

Ankit Harry

MTh II

Mothers of ‘Other’ Faiths: Encountering their Faith in a Pluralistic Context

Introduction

I had an opportunity to visit a NGO called ‘Society for Peoples’ Education and Economical Change’ (SPEECH) at Tamil Nadu, Virudhu Nagar district, in my first year BD during intensive field education. It works for the empowerment of Dalit women and the development of the community. I visited the ‘Arunthathiar’ people who are the so called ‘Dalits among Dalits’. The women of this community have really challenged me by their faith even in their vulnerable status in caste, gender and oppression by the dominant structures of the society. Their faith in God made me to locate the same in a pluralistic context. Women in those villages are basically struggling against caste, patriarchal domination and economic exploitation. These experiences include aspects of the divine, of oneself, of the relationship to society and to the world, in an interacting tension. Many times we fail to connect colonialism, women’s life and faith pluralism. This is my attempt to see the connectivity of these aspects which is essential to understand our context and to act on it.

            Kamala Bhasin says, the “Other half of God’s creation”, in which the wholeness of humankind has to be celebrated, is totally ignored, neglected and made vulnerable – that is, women. And they are labeled as the ‘other’ not only based on gender but also caste, ethnic, religion and so on. In my opinion the theologies from the vulnerable communities have more richness and a deep cutting edge since they involve experience. Vulnerable women’s experience can be used as a model for divine-human relationships when it reaches for a new style of relationship neither a ranked model that weakens the potential of the ‘other’ nor an ‘equality’ defined by dominant groups but rather a mutuality that allows us to affirm different ways of being. From the read texts, let us grapple with how the mothers of the ‘other’ faiths are articulating their faith in God and in Christ.

1. The Wilderness Theology of Hagar (Gen 16:10-14)

Hagar was an Egyptian slave girl or maid of Sarah. The maids are given as part of their dowry in ancient days, are treated as the property of the owners and were exploited in all possible manners. Sarah would have brought Hagar from Egypt as her maid or slave girl. Hagar is a Semitic name and in Arabic ‘hegira’ means ‘flight’ or ‘driving out’, which shows the narrator’s intention to expose her action rather than giving her a name. The text is narrated from the vantage point of the dominant, patriarchal societal pattern. But our task is to liberate the Word of God and to view it from the vulnerable ‘other’ vantage point. Anthony G. Reddie says, “Societal and global ills such as racism, exclusivism, sexism, classism, world poverty and economic exploitation must be addressed through a liberation reading of the Bible”. Liberation reading is discerning the explicit patriarchal bias and the andro-centrism in the worldview of the biblical author.

In Genesis 16:10-14, Hagar encounters an angel like many of the Israelite men and women. She is an Egyptian but not out of the reach of God’s revelation. The entire 16^th chapter is one narrative and chapter 21:8-21 also speaks about Hagar and her son Ismael. In 16:10 Hagar is receiving the promise regarding her future generations. In v.11 “The Lord has given heed to your affliction” is as when God intervened in the sufferings of the Israelites to liberate them. In v.13 she is naming God the One who spoke to her; based on her life experience; she is making a faith statement here, “You are El-Roi”. This is a common Semitic name meaning, “El (God) has heard the parents” or “May El (God) hear the boy and help him”. Some other English translations say it as “You the God who sees”.

The naming of God was done according to the understanding of Hagar, but the narrator is explaining from the view point of the Israelites, equating the EL with YAHWEH. The dominant theology, faith in God and exclusive claims are seriously challenged by Hagar’s faith and theology. Liberation reading places Hagar as an example to learn how to live with human dignity, self-esteem, transformative experiences, convictions, individuality and capability even in the midst of constant struggles of life in the wilderness. She aspired for freedom and one day it was achieved by her and owned by her future generations. The individual autonomy and a capacity for free will shows that women should be viewed as “ends” not as mere “means”. She gave life and hope for her son and future generations through her faith articulation in a lonely, dry life, which proves she is a mother of faith. In chapter 21:14-21 we see her life and how she finally got a wife for Ismael from the land of Egypt, which shows her identity as an Egyptian. But she lived her faith in a God of all and practiced her theology in wilderness. Hagar gives a theology born out of her life experience. In Sally McFague’s words, Hagar sees God as lover or companion, friend and liberator, which can be a model for all vulnerable ‘other’ women and communities.

2. The Widening Christology of the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mk 7:24-30)

The Gospel of Mark sounds many postcolonial concerns as it was molded under the socio-political milieu of Roman colonialism. Kwok Pui-lan promotes a new way of doing theology by placing the Bible in the larger context of the religious plurality of Asia. The geo-political setting of the text and the marginalized position of the women are the two key factors in the context of the passage. We can place this pericope in the larger section of Mark 7:1-23 where the discussion is about ‘purity’ and ‘pollution’ which can easily be connected with our Indian religious thought pattern, the so called low caste and gender ‘impurity’ notions. In a Greco-Roman social context the very appearance of the Syro-Phoenician woman before Jesus is a shameful act. She was a woman and she had a daughter with ‘unclean spirit’ and she was a non-Jew. All these and her geo-political status project her as vulnerable ‘other’ from Jesus. But she crossed the boundary of religion and gender to approach Jesus, a Jewish man, for her daughter’s healing. And also Jesus crossed the geographical boundary from Jewish to non-Jewish territory. In Greek ‘de’ denotes the topographical shift in the narrative.

Her encounter with Jesus is widening her Christological idea, which she had when she heard about Jesus. She crossed her religious boundary and reached Jesus not for herself but for her daughter and future generations. Historical, cultural experience of discrimination and oppression, socio-political, cultural construct of gender identities are challenged by her Christology. She saw Jesus as the Christ, the representative of liberated humanity and the liberating Word of God: kenosis of patriarchy and disregard of hierarchical privileges – the liberator speaks on behalf of the lowly. Domesticating the gospel to one’s exclusive view point and to protect the Christ, who is familiar and safe, from the Christ, who upsets us, is challenged here. Her Christology comes out of painful human interactions and gives life and freedom. The ones who consider themselves as privileged people in social or religious terms are many times struggling to comprehend the Christ who offends them, but the “poor”- the economically poor and socially outcast, the sick, the oppressed, the rejected respond joyfully to the good news of God’s reign.

We can conclude her Christology is Relational Christology, Christ as incarnate Logos: his experience is to be affirmed and the concept of incarnation has to be broadened. Heyward calls this Christic experience in terms of a passionate, liberating, Christian humanism. This woman moved the foundations of Christology to the praxis of relational particularity and co-operation in the process of justice making. She relates her experience with Christ’s experience of vulnerable ‘other’. The widening Christology of this mother of faith can be applicable to the rural, Dalit, Tribal and Adivasi women of our country. She struggled to give hope and life with dignity to her daughter and future generations. She put a check to the triumphalist, exclusive Christology of the colonizers and oppressors which used to subjugate the colonized and the powerless. The vulnerable woman, who stood as mother of faith in this text, spoke and she continues to speak.

Conclusion

            As followers of Jesus Christ, what is our responsible reaction in locating the faith of the vulnerable ‘other’ in a pluralistic society? We need to be open and sensitive to the theologies and Christologies, so that we can provide space for those who are on the underside of history. We can ask them orally, write those faith statements and have informal dialogues to know and learn their aspirations for justice and equality. The challenge before us is from three arenas of our public witness, as David Tracy says, “They are church, society and academia”. In the Indian context, we cannot deny the reality of pluralism by saying this is not our concern. Exclusivism and suppressing the voices of faith of the weak and marginalized is to be challenged. Our desire should be to learn from and live with the vulnerable ‘other’. Let the God of Hagar and the Syro-Phoenician woman help us in this endeavour. Amen 

P. Archana

B.D. IV

Be not silent in such a time as this!

Esther 8: 3-8

As I was reflecting on the read text, I was reminded of a story which I heard from one of my friends. There was a man in a village who was notorious for his evil deeds. He used to enjoy giving trouble to the villagers. The villagers had to face so many problems and they began to hate him. One day the villagers were fed up with all his activities and decided not to interact or to make any deal with the trouble maker. In a way the whole village separated and alienated the man from the village. Then the man felt bored as the people did not talk to him and he could not give any trouble to them. Finally he decided and went to every door step asking pardon from the villagers for what he had done for so many days. After this he also said to them that he has a last wish and that after his death he does not want to have a decent burial but wanted them to cut his body into pieces and scatter it all over the burial ground. However the people did not know the conspiracy behind the trouble maker’s last will. One day he died and the people did as he instructed them. Later they found that the trouble maker had framed them. In another letter to the police he mentioned that the villagers may kill him some day...

            The read text Esther 8:3-8, also implicates such a situation in the life of the scattered Jews who lived in Susa. The plot made by Hamman to kill the Jews was revealed by Esther to the King and he was hanged in his house itself. However the decree that was written by Hamman and sealed by the king’s ring was still in force. According to the archaeological evidence of the Persian Gulf, especially in the Persian Court, the  practice was that the decree of the King could not be revoked. Therefore even though Hamman was no more, the decree made by him was in force. Esther and Mordecai received favour in the eyes of the King and their lives were elevated in the land. However the life of the Jewish community was in peril.

            In such a time there is no other way to revoke the decree of the king; instead another decree was to be written in order to save the lives of the Jews. The scene in chapter 8 clearly records the presence of Mordecai and Esther in front of the King. Esther had to risk her life in chapter 5 to visit the king. But here it is not so. She was already there in the presence of the king but still she makes her petition on behalf of her people. She intercedes for her kindred. She falls and weeps on the feet of the king not as an act of obeisance but as a suppliant. The golden sceptre of the king gives Esther the courage to stand in front of the king and to intercede for her people.

Esther rests her case wholly upon herself, by saying, in verse 6, How can I bear to see the calamity that is coming on my people? Or how can I bear to see the destruction of my kindred?  It is nothing but Esther’s strong commitment to save the Jews. It may sound more personal and even racial and also exclusive in its claim. However her personal commitment was to save the people who were in trouble in the land of Susa. This commitment made her to risk her life for the sake of others and to strip the royal identity which she held and made her to mourn and weep publically for her people. It is not an easy task for a queen to fall on the king’s feet and weep in the court yard of that time.

Who is my people and who is my kindred? This has been already redefined by Jesus in his ministry. This recalls us to renew our commitment and to redefine our relationship with others and to accept all as Jesus has exemplified through his life and ministry.

The contemporary time is not better than the time which Esther had witnessed. The world that we are living in is filled with people who have different identities. Only because of the Jewish identity of Mordecai, Hamman wanted to kill the entire Jewish community in Susa. Same way people are in trouble because of the identity they hold. People’s lives are in threat because of caste, class, status, region, race, gender and sexual orientation. Every day news papers carry the news of violence and discrimination based on this.

 In such a time as this, where are we? For such a time as this, what is our role? To such a time as this, what is our response? We may think what could be my role in this context. We cannot remain silent. We cannot shut our eyes and ears to the contemporary realities. Rather we are called to risk our lives and to intercede for the lives of others. What does it mean to witness Christ and his love in this context? If we claim ourselves as ministers of Christ, our basic need is to witness Christ in our lives, that is not discriminate anyone as ‘others’ rather to relate all as our people, and to intercede and intervene for the rights of the minorities, whose lives are in peril. Esther calls us to move from our comfort zones and to strip and fall from our comfortable identity, and to weep, to mourn and to intercede for the people. In such a time as this, if we do not listen and respond to this call, God will bring liberation and relief to the people from another quarter.

May God give us the courage to respond to this call. Amen.

Andrews Christopher, BD IV. 

(Preached in the UTC Ziegenbalg chapel on Friday, June 13, 2014 during the morning worship.)