We have a religion and a church. Said religion is similar in background and style to Abrahamic religions, but originating from people who prioritise farming over breeding livestock. Hence, all of our metaphors are different now: the lord isn't your shepherd but a gardener and the believers aren't his (I'm assuming this religion to remain patriarchal unless there's reasons why this would change) flock but his seed. He tends to his garden with mercy and justice (I know you can't have both at once, but if real religions can contradict themselves, so can fictional ones) by weeding out the sinners and watering the pious, he is the sun, the soil and the seasons and we're all awaiting the final harvest (now the iconography suddenly lines up again).

As this religion is purposefully designed to be an analogue for Judaism/Christianity, only with a different metaphorical language, you can assume that where information is missing, the gaps can be filled with what that actual religion has to say on the subject. However, I assume that prophets from a crop farming background would develop slightly different traditions and cultures, value slightly different traits and abilities etc. than more nomadic shepherds would, thus changing the direction of the religion at its point of origin.

Now I'm aware that human culture is determined by myriad factors and cannot be accurately predicted, but I'd like to ask if there are any particularly obvious or significant changes besides metaphorical language that can be expected or would make sense to occur in the instance that an otherwise pseudochristian church centred its outlook on farming and plants from the beginning. I'm particularly interested in societal structure, mores, structure of the church as institution and the like.

Note: this doesn't have to go beyond the late medieval.

We have a religion and a church. Said religion is similar in background and style to Abrahamic religions, but originating from people who prioritise farming over breeding livestock. Hence, all of our metaphors are different now: the lord isn't your shepherd but a gardener and the believers aren't his (I'm assuming this religion to remain patriarchal unless there's reasons why this would change) flock but his seed. He tends to his garden with mercy and justice (I know you can't have both at once, but if real religions can contradict themselves, so can fictional ones) by weeding out the sinners and watering the pious, he is the sun, the soil and the seasons and we're all awaiting the final harvest (now the iconography suddenly lines up again).

As this religion is purposefully designed to be an analogue for Judaism/Christianity, only with a different metaphorical language, you can assume that where information is missing, the gaps can be filled with what that actual religion has to say on the subject. However, I assume that prophets from a crop farming background would develop slightly different traditions and cultures, value slightly different traits and abilities etc. than more nomadic shepherds would, thus changing the direction of the religion at its point of origin.

Now I'm aware that human culture is determined by myriad factors and cannot be accurately predicted, but I'd like to ask if there are any particularly obvious or significant changes besides metaphorical language that can be expected or would make sense to occur in the instance that an otherwise pseudochristian church centred its outlook on farming and plants from the beginning. I'm particularly interested in societal structure, mores, structure of the church as institution and the like.

Note: this doesn't have to go beyond the late medieval.

EDIT: As this seems to require clarification, I am asking about the perspective of the authors of scripture. Farming was known and practiced when Judaism developed, it just wasn't the lens through which the prophets viewed it.