If you would like to catch up on some recent posts, here is a place where you can easily access some posts you might have missed. I hope it helps… enjoy.
Continue readingA quick look back
Featured
2
Voices
In the gospel reading for today we heard Jesus tell some bystanders who wanted Jesus to plainly say that he was the Messiah. Jesus replied: “But you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.”
How about us? Are we among his sheep? Granted in other places in the New Testament there are other indicators of membership within the flock, but today’s indicator is whether we hear the voice of the Good Shepherd. But let me nuance that criteria just a shade. What voice are you most familiar with in life? What voice or voices linger in your mind most of the time? Mom? Dad? Your spouse? Your supervisor? An amazing mentor, coach, or teacher? Your favorite podcaster? Denizens of the media, pop culture, Madison Avenue, the lure of fame and recognition, or the siren’s call of riches and wealth? The secular voice of temptation to a different moral compass?
There are many voices we have heard, are hearing and will hear. Some are good and some are not so good. Oftentimes we can talk ourselves into believing that the many “voices” or influences that we encounter on a daily basis do not affect us. Perhaps. Perhaps not. There are powerful influences in the world and, whether we want to believe it or not, some of them do affect us.
Sheep are easily taught and conditioned. They learn the voice of their shepherd because it was common practice for shepherds to regularly speak to their sheep. Once the sheep became used to the shepherd’s voice, they would turn and follow him when he called. So it is with us. We will follow the voice of that which we are most familiar. Whatever it is that we immerse ourselves in each and every day will grow on us and draw us, even unknowingly, to follow.
This begs the question, “What are you most familiar with?” Ideally, we spend sufficient time in God’s Word, learning His language, tone and voice. Ideally, we dedicate some portion of our day, every day, to silent contemplation of God. As we do this, we build a habit of hearing Him speak and we become comfortable with and comforted by His voice.
Once this habit is established in us, it will be much easier to go about our busy day hearing God whenever He chooses to speak. We will immediately recognize it is Him and we will follow.
Reflect, today, upon that which calls to you the loudest. Don’t let the many other voices in our world drown out God’s voice. Instead, prepare yourself for the moments He chooses to speak. And when He does speak, let that voice grab your attention so that you can follow.
Image credit: Pexels CC-0
Do not let your hearts be troubled
This coming Sunday is the 5th Sunday of Easter in Lectionary Cycle A. In yesterday’s post we introduced the idea of a farewell discourse and its biblical legacy. Today, we begin to consider the opening words of the gospel: “Do not let your hearts be troubled” (14:1). These same words will be repeated in v.27 when Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will accompany them after Jesus returns to the Father.
Though deeply troubled by the prospect of his own betrayal and crucifixion, Jesus concerned himself with his disciples’ distress. He said to them, Do not let your hearts be troubled [tarassō]. You have faith in God; have faith also in me. Their faith in God, and in particular their faith in Jesus, would enable them to calm their hearts as they faced what lay ahead. There are some scholars who argue that the expression in the Greek is in the imperative, something we would more naturally translate as “Stop being troubled.” It seems that in either case Jesus is not talking to trouble-free people and telling them not to begin to worry. Jesus knows he is talking to people whose hearts are far from serene.
On a technical note, there is a bit of linguistic confusion surrounding “Do not let your hearts be troubled” because in the Greek “your” is plural, but “heart” is singular. Some translations (NSRV and ours) eliminate the problem and translate the noun as “hearts.” The odd Greek phrasing has led some commentators to speculate if John has in mind a “corporate heart” indicating a strong unity of the believing community.
Yet that advice is not one that Jesus has always taken for himself. In John 11:33 (taraxen); 12:27 (tetarakthē); and 13:21 (eterachthē) we are told that Jesus is troubled (from the same root tarassō; shaken, moved). If at times Jesus had a troubled “soul” or “spirit,” how would we expect not to have troubled hearts? The answer has not been clear to Christians of every age. Perhaps our faith is weaker than we think; or doubts greater – because what we do know is that from time to time our hearts are troubled. Although the language could be more explicit, the context seems to lend itself to an understanding that the issue is that one can focus on the cause and source of what troubles you, or one can focus on the reason for trust that it will all work out. “Sure, you’re troubled, but remain calm.”
If we look at the three instances when Jesus was “troubled,” it has been noted that in each instance Jesus is confronted by the power of death. On our best days, we, who live on this side of the Resurrection, are comforted by the witness of Jesus’ resurrection. We know that ultimately death has no power over the believer. As the poet John Dunne wrote: “Death be not proud, though some have called thee mighty, thou art not so….one short sleep past and we wake eternally. And death, poor death, thou shalt die.” Death may well trouble us on any given day, but on the many other days Jesus’ words remind us that he is with us even when we are shaken, moved or troubled – so remain calm.
Believe into God. The second part of v.1 is actually quite difficult to translate for a number of reasons. The verb root pisteuō can be translated validly as “believe” or “trust” or “have faith” [EDNT 3:91]. But, the tense of the verb form used, pisteuete, is not clear – it could be indicative (present tense) or imperative (command like). Given that the verb is used twice in the verse, one is left to ask, which verb tense did the author intend. Or is there a mixing of the tenses? Opting for the root translation of “trust,” which of the four alternatives makes sense to you?
- “trust in God, trust also in me”, imperative, imperative
- “you trust in God, trust also in me”, indicative, imperative
- “you trust in God, you also trust in me”, or indicative, indicative
- “trust in God, you also trust in me” imperative, indicative
Perhaps interestingly (perhaps not), two Catholic translations (NAB and NJB) opt for alternative (2); while three popular Reformed translations (NSRV, NIV, ESV) opt for alternative (1). In a context where Jesus was urging his disciples not to let their hearts be troubled, any translation [(1) or (2)] which urges them to maintain their trust in Jesus is most appropriate. It does not matter much whether that is prefaced with an exhortation to trust God or with a reminder that they did trust God.
But interestingly, none of the above translations opt to translate eis as “into.” The word eis always carries the sense of movement in or toward, and thus older translations often had the unique Johannine phrase, “believe into me.” Malina and Rohrbaugh (230) note: “John’s peculiar way of phrasing it – believing ‘into’ Jesus – connotes being completely embedded in the group of which he is the central personage.” Earlier, (130, commenting on 6:28-29) they had written more about this concept:
Believing “into” is a characteristic Johannine idiom. Many commentators have pointed out that this construction implies trust rather than simple intellectual assent. Given the collectivist character of the relationships in ancient Mediterranean societies, however, even more is implied. Collectivist persons become embedded in one another. A unity and loyalty is involved that is extremely deep. Since personal identity in collectivist cultures is always the result of the groups in which one is embedded, that too is involved. John’s peculiar idiom (the Greek tense used connotes ongoing or continuous action) suggests exactly this kind of long-term solidarity with Jesus.
There is something to this idea – which is perhaps why the Apostles and Nicene Creeds were written “we believe” as opposed to “I believe.” (At this point some might be thinking, “then why does the current Roman Missal use “I believe.” The short answer is that in the liturgical setting of the Mass, the Creed’s use is an affirmation of one’s baptismal vows and thus is appropriate to change the original text to the first person singular. But when witnessing the original context of the Creed’s formulation, “we believe” remains the appropriate language.)
Image credit: Duccio di Buoninsegna (1255–1319), “Jesus taking leave of his Apostles,” ca. 1310 | Panel 4 of the Maestro, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, Siena | Public Domain
Other Sheep
In today’s Gospel, Jesus says something simple: “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.” Those words would have sounded surprising to His first listeners. Many expected the Messiah to gather and restore Israel. But Jesus reveals that His mission is wider than they imagined. His heart is larger than they expected and the flock bigger than they thought. But isn’t it exactly what we see unfolding in the first reading from the Acts of the Apostles.
Peter returns to Jerusalem and is immediately criticized. He has entered the house of Gentiles. He has eaten with them. For many believers of that time, this crossed an important boundary. It challenged long-held customs and assumptions. The concern was not trivial. They were trying to be faithful to the traditions they had received from their families and rabbis. But while they were trying to protect the boundaries, God was already expanding them. As Peter says: “If God gave them the same gift He gave us, who was I to be able to hinder God?” Indeed who are we to hinder God – a lesson we need to learn in every church age as we are so used to thinking of “inside” or “outside” the Church. While that may or may not be true as regards membership we should not let that limit our imagination of the wideness of God’s mercy. There is no one beyond the reach of God’s mercy. Not the intransigent family member, people with no visible faith, people drifting away from the Faith, or even people who believe they have fallen so far that God’s grace could not possibly be working in them.
The Shepherd seeks people we have given up on, in places that would surprise us, and into hearts we assumed were closed. The Shepherd is not waiting for them to find Him. He seeks the wandering sheep, the hidden sheep, the wounded sheep, the skeptical sheep, the embarrassed sheep, the sheep who think they no longer belong.
He seeks the people who carry quiet shame. They believe that because of what they have done, where they have been, or how long they have been away, they no longer count. The funny thing is that Jesus never says, “I used to have sheep.” He has other sheep – ones He loves before they repent, before they know they are lost, and before they even think to return.
And when they begin to ask questions, slip into the back of Mass, and “test the waters”, our task is not to stand in the doorway and inspect them. Our task is to rejoice.
Image credit: Pexels CC-0
A farewell discourse
This coming Sunday is the 5th Sunday of Easter in Lectionary Cycle A. The gospel text is part of a larger section which includes the Last Supper and all that takes place after Jesus had washed the disciples feet, after Judas had left the table (“he took the morsel and left at once. And it was night” (13:30)), and after Peter’s protestations he would never betray Jesus. The section comes before the disciples see their master led away for trial; then be condemned to death on a cross. Their faith will be sorely tested. Jesus’ teaching, beginning in 14:1, was given to strengthen for the hours, days, months and years to come.
O’Day suggests a broad outline of the context for this larger section of John’s gospel of which our our reading is a part*
- The Farewell Meal (13:1-38)
- The Farewell Discourse (14:1-16:33) *
- The Farewell Prayer (17:1-26)
There are several discourses in the Gospel according to John, however, this one is different. Where the others generally follow an event and serve to explain the event (e.g., John 5,6 or 9), the Farewell Discourse is one given in anticipation of the Passion, Death and Resurrection. It is thus interesting that in its liturgical use, while Jesus is preparing the disciples for the events of the three days of Holy Week (triduum) – in our time it is after the celebration of Holy Week and Easter. Of course, these readings are also given to us to prepare our endeavors and journey in the times following Easter.
One of the great discourses/speeches of the OT is the book of Deuteronomy, especially the farewell discourse by Moses to the people of Israel on the plains of Moab. The book of Deuteronomy reached its final written form during the Babylonian Exile period when Israel was asking itself the deep questions of identity, place and purpose. It is that context that Moses’ farewell speech receives a fresh hearing by new ears, in a new time and place. These words spoken long ago before the event of entering the promised land, are later heard in a new moment by a new people – even centuries after the event. Just as the people of exile were invited to see themselves on the plains of Moab, so too, in our day, we are invited to see ourselves in the Upper Room. We are reminded what is ours to do in proclamation of the Good News of the risen Christ. It is in this vein that the Johannine discourse is offered by the Church for our consideration on the 5th Sunday in Easter.
Image credit: Duccio di Buoninsegna (1255–1319), “Jesus taking leave of his Apostles,” ca. 1310 | Panel 4 of the Maestro, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, Siena | Public Domain
“I came that you may have life…”
“I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly.” So, what do you make of the verse? What generally stands out in the hearing and imagination is “the abundant life.” What does it look like? If we don’t have an idea of what it looks like, how will we know when we have it?
Once upon a time in Kenya, an Englishman visiting the central highlands, discovered a beautiful river. Not too far downstream he came upon the chief of the Kikuyu people enjoying a moment of fishing. The chief had a great spot in the shade, the fishing line was tied around his big toe, and the chief seemed like he was napping more than fishing.
The chief had a beautiful string of trout he had already hooked. The Englishman asked how long he had been fishing; the reply was “maybe an hour. It’s hard to know. The fish keep waking me up.” The visitor was amazed, but was even more amazed when, during the conversation, he heard about the astounding productivity of this river for year-round fishing. He saw such great potential for development. So, with great enthusiasm, he explained to the chief how they could build a fishery on this spot.
“Why would I want to do that?” “So, your people could have jobs and money”
“What would we want with money” “You could buy things to make your life easier; jewelry for your wives. You could get the latest and best fishing equipment.”
“What would we do with all these fish?” “You can start another company to transport the fish to the market in Nakuru and Nairobi – then you would have even more money. And more of the tribe would have jobs. And they could build better homes and schools. Some of your best and brightest children could be educated at Oxford and Cambridge and return home to expand your fishery operations.”
You can imagine how the conversation continued to describe an ever-growing empire of commerce and expanding ideas for the good life for the people of the tribe. The Englishman described to the chief a whole lifetime of this operation.
When the visitor finally took a breath, the chief asked, “And when I have built all this for my people, what will I do?” The Englishman said, “Why you can retire”
“What would I do then?” “You could live the good life….why….you could go fishing whenever you want.”
“I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly.” So, what do you make of the verse? What generally stands out in the hearing and imagination is “the abundant life.” What does it look like? If we don’t have an idea of what it looks like, how will we know when we have it?
Certainly, advertisers and marketing companies supply images for our consideration. Self-help books will describe how to achieve it. Some of the “prosperity gospel” churches proclaim that financial blessing and physical well-being are always the will of God for you – all you need do is believe… and donate to the church… this increases one’s material wealth and leads to abundant life.
“I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly.” So, what do you make of the verse? Clearly, we Catholics do not profess this “name-it-and-claim-it” understanding of the Good News. We have a whole history of people who would tell you they indeed lived an abundant life, poor and persecuted, and in the end, were martyred for their faith. We hear that in the 2nd reading: “Beloved: If you are patient when you suffer for doing what is good, this is a grace before God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you.” A life full of grace before God? I think that would qualify as an abundant life.
How do you understand living an abundant life? The Kikuyu chief knew he was blessed with the gift of that river. Maybe that’s a place to start – what are your blessings in this life. And let me suggest a trajectory for your reflection.
Let’s just start with “life” – especially the newness of life given us in baptism. It is a washing clean with water and the Holy Spirit. It is a life of faith, love, hope, wisdom, understanding, right judgment, courage, knowledge, and reverence. These are the gifts of the Holy Spirit. These are the gifts that God gives in abundance. Are we good stewards of the gifts given us?
What would you want on your tombstone? Here lies the person who built the largest fishery in the central highlands of Kenya – or – here lies a person of love, wisdom, courage, and a life well lived? I think it is the second case in which the person was a good steward of the gifts given by God – the one who lived in the light of those gifts and handed them on to the people of his or her life.
God came that we would be more loving, more hopeful, more, …. more, everything – and would give it all away, knowing there is more where that came from and the Father will richly pour these gifts into the one who asks for more. As the one who asks, your life is fuller. As the one who gives, your life is more abundant.
Abundant life is not about what we have. It’s not about what we get. It’s not about what we claim. Ultimately, abundant life is knowing what we receive as a gift from the Lord and to live knowing we are stewards of those blessings of God.
“I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly.” What does it look like in your life? That understanding is the start of a life lived well, lived abundantly in the blessings of God.
Image credit: Pixabay on Pexels, CC0
Summary and Division
This coming Sunday is the 4th Sunday of Easter in Lectionary Cycle A.
17 This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. This command I have received from my Father.”
Verses 17-18 form the conclusion to the discourse. In these verses, the shepherd metaphor is abandoned completely and Jesus speaks directly about his death and relationship with God. These verses focus on three theological themes that are essential to understanding the death of Jesus in John.
First, these verses place Jesus’ death fully in the context of his relationship with God. Verse 17 contains the first linkage of “love” (agapaō) with Jesus’ death in the Fourth Gospel. God’s love for the world (3:16) and for Jesus (3:35) are already known to the reader, and this verse adds a new dimension to that love. God loves Jesus because Jesus lives out God’s commandment fully (v.18). In the Fourth Gospel, the core commandment that Jesus gives his disciples is that they love one another just as he has loved them (13:34). The sign of Jesus’ love for them is that he is willing to lay down his life for them (cf. 13:1; 15:13). Jesus thus obeys the same commandment from God that he passes on to his disciples, to live fully in love. It is wrong to read these verses as saying that Jesus wins the Father’s love through his death; rather, his death is the ultimate expression of the love relationship that already exists and defines who he is and how he enacts God’s will for the world.
Second, our verses make clear that Jesus’ laying down his life is an act he freely chooses as an expression of his obedience to God. Jesus is not a victim in death nor a martyr against his will, but is in control of his own death (v.18b; see 19:11, 17). The Gospel story has already demonstrated this in the authorities’ inability to arrest Jesus (7:30, 44) and his control of the hour (2:4; 7:30; 8:20).
Third, the summary verses point to the inseparability of Jesus’ death and resurrection in John. Jesus’ enactment of God’s work is incomplete until he returns to the Father through his resurrection and ascension (13:1; 17:1, 4-5). Jesus reveals God’s will for the world not only in his death, but also in his victory over death through his return to God. When Jesus lays down his life, therefore, it is to the end of taking it up again. In this summary, Jesus speaks of himself as the agent of both his death and his resurrection (cf. 2:19-21). That is, whereas elsewhere in the NT God raises Jesus (e.g., Acts 2:24; 10:40; 1 Cor 15:15; Gal 1:1), here Jesus speaks of taking up his own life again. The “power” (exousia) that Jesus has to lay down his life and to take it up again is given to him by God (see 17:2 and Jesus’ statement about Pilate’s “power” at 19:11). These verses point to the complete union of God and Jesus in their work (cf. 4:34), a union that receives explicit expression at 10:30.
19 Again there was a division among the Jews because of these words. 20 Many of them said, “He is possessed and out of his mind; why listen to him?” 21 Others said, “These are not the words of one possessed; surely a demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, can he?”
The schism among the “Jews” in response to Jesus’ words (v.19) recalls the schism among them in response to his healing of the blind man (9:16). In 9:16a, some attempted to discredit Jesus by calling him a sinner; here the charge is demon possession (v.20; cf. 7:20; 8:48). Others are willing to trust the evidence of the miracle itself (9:164 v.21). Verses 19-21 make clear that the Fourth Evangelist intends the healing and the discourse to be assessed in the light of each other. A decision about Jesus’ identity must hold together both his words and his works.
Image credit: Frank Merino, Pexels, image 7360551
The Father and Son
This coming Sunday is the 4th Sunday of Easter in Lectionary Cycle A. 14 I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I will lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.
Jesus’ self-revelation in vv.14-16 weaves back and forth seamlessly between figurative and non-figurative speech. Jesus begins by once again identifying himself with the image of the good shepherd (v.14), but explains that image primarily by making reference to his ministry and relationship to God, rather than by staying within the images of sheep and shepherd as he did in vv.11-13. This move between figurative and non-figurative speech results in some ambiguity in interpreting Jesus’ words. This ambiguity is immediately evident in v.14b. When Jesus speaks of his relationship with his own, he may be speaking within the shepherding figure (cf. vv.3-4), but the expressions “my own” (to ema) and “his own” (hoi idioi) also describe Jesus’ relationship to his followers in John (e.g., 1:11; 13:1; 17:9-10). Verse 14 suggests that the line between metaphorical and direct speech is very thin in this section of the discourse.
This is especially evident in the use of the verb for “know” (ginōskō) in vv.14b-15a. Jesus’ words in v.14 may be read as an elaboration of the shepherd imagery of vv.4-5, but v.15 explicitly moves outside of the shepherd imagery by pointing to Jesus’ relationship to the Father. Verse 15 provides a working definition of knowledge in John: knowledge is not a cognitive category, but is a category of relationship. The true measure and model of knowledge is God’s and Jesus’ mutual knowledge. Jesus is thus the good shepherd not simply because of his relationship to the sheep, but also because of his relationship to God.
Verse 15 makes the connection of Jesus’ death and the shepherd’s death (cf. v.11) explicit. The juxtaposition of first and last parts of v.15 suggests again that Jesus lays down his life not simply because of his relationship to the sheep (as in the image of the shepherd in v.11) but because of his relationship with God. The reference in v.16 to other sheep has particular relevance in the setting of Jesus’ conversation with the Pharisees. Jesus is suggesting here that his flock is not limited to the sheep of Israel and that the community created by his death will include people from outside of Israel (cf. 12:32). The mark of this expanded flock will be that “they will listen to my voice,” a trait that distinguishes the flock from the Jewish leaders who neither listen to nor know Jesus’ voice (cf. 8:43; 10:6). To hear Jesus’ voice is the mark of faithfulness to Jesus and his word (cf. 5:24; 10:27; 12:47).
The final image of v.16 returns fully to the sheep metaphor. The vision of a united flock recalls the final promise of Ezek 34:31: “You, my sheep, you are the sheep of my pasture, and I am your God.” Jesus once again positions himself as the fulfillment of promises traditionally associated with God. Jesus the good shepherd will bring about unity in the flock through his relationship with God and his death (v.15).
Image credit: Frank Merino, Pexels, image 7360551
For the sheep
This coming Sunday is the 4th Sunday of Easter in Lectionary Cycle A. This and the remainder of this week’s post are not part of the Sunday gospel, but are part of the cohesive narrative offered by St. John: 11 I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 A hired man, who is not a shepherd and whose sheep are not his own, sees a wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away, and the wolf catches and scatters them. 13 This is because he works for pay and has no concern for the sheep.
Verse 11 goes beyond the imagery of the good shepherd offered in Ezekiel 34 which does not include a reference to the shepherd’s willingness to lay down his life for the sheep. A possible OT antecedent may lie in the messianic oracle of Zech 13:7-9, in which the death of the shepherd is required so that the flock can be purified. Verse 11 may also have points of contact with Palestinian shepherding practices; a good shepherd may indeed have to give up his life to prevent the decimation of his flock by wild animals. Yet the reference to the shepherd’s laying down his life is cast in a distinctive Johannine idiom so that the reader of the Gospel cannot help hearing in Jesus’ words an allusion to his own death (see 10:15, 17-18; 13:37-38; 15:13; 1 John 3:16). Verses 15 and 17-18 will make those associations with the death of Jesus explicit, but at this point Jesus stays within the metaphor of shepherding. He works to build the interpretive frame of reference before he turns more directly to his own life and death.
The image of the hired hand in vv.12-13 has many echoes of the image of the bad shepherd in Ezekiel 34:5-6, 8-10. It also recalls descriptions of the bad shepherd in Jer 23:1-3 and Zech 11:15, 17. The common denominator in these OT portraits of the bad shepherd and the picture of the hired hand is the shepherd’s primary concern for his own well-being at the expense of the flock’s well-being. In each of these portraits, the flock is scattered and devoured by animals as a result of the shepherd’s neglect. This picture of the hired shepherd’s lack of concern for the sheep (v.13) stands in marked contrast to the picture of the good shepherd, who cares for the sheep to the point of laying down his life for them.
Image credit: Frank Merino, Pexels, image 7360551
Shepherds
This coming Sunday is the 4th Sunday of Easter in Lectionary Cycle A. Israel’s leaders were often regarded as shepherds, and even though God was always their principal shepherd, responsible human agents were necessary so that Israel would not be as “sheep without a shepherd” (Num 27:16, 17); and significantly, a charismatic element is said to have rested on such leaders (Num 27:16–21; cf. Isa 11:1–9; 44:28–45:1). God is said to have led the flock Israel through the wilderness by the hand of Moses and Aaron (Ps 77:21; Isa 63:11). Although no Israelite king is ever directly called by the title “shepherd,” it is implied, since David as prince feeds, or shepherds, Israel (2 Sam 5:2), and when Micah predicted the death of Ahab and Israel’s defeat, he said the scattered army would be “as sheep which have no shepherd” (1 Kgs 22:17; 2 Chr 18:16; cf. Num 27:16, 17).
John the Evangelist has specifically identified the mission and death of Jesus with his role as a shepherd by using ideas which look back to the Davidic shepherd of Ezek 34:11–16, 23–24, and the smitten shepherd of Zech 13:7 was also in view (cf. Mark 14:27). Since Zechariah 9–14 was especially significant for the early disciples and for their interpretation and understanding of Jesus’ eschatological program, the statement, “Strike the shepherd that the sheep may be scattered,” and the entire dying shepherd passage (Zech 11:4–14; cf. Matt 27:9), formed a core around which their savior’s life and death might be interpreted. The context in Zechariah had a pronounced emotional effect on the disciples when they saw their leader arrested and the apostles scattered like helpless sheep. Both Ezekiel 34 and Zechariah 9–13 were especially productive as the source for much reflection on the role of the shepherd in the gospels.
At v.11, the focus shifts to Jesus’ self-revelation as the good shepherd. The identification of Jesus as the shepherd was implicit in the figure of speech in vv.1-5, but it is made explicit for the first time here. As before, the positive image of the good shepherd (vv.11, 14-16) is contrasted with a negative image, that of the hired hand (vv.12-13).
The “I am” saying of v.11a is explained exclusively in metaphorical language in vv.11b-13. That is, after the initial use of a first-person singular pronoun, Jesus never refers to himself directly again. Instead, he draws on images derived from the OT to explain what he means by “good shepherd.” The adjective “good” (kalos) also has the meaning “model” or “true,” and the reference point for what constitutes a model shepherd is set by the image of God as the good shepherd in Ezekiel 34. According to Ezek 34:11-16, God the good shepherd cares for the sheep, rescuing them from the places to which they have been scattered, feeding them, and tending to the weak, the injured, and the lost. By identifying himself as the good shepherd of Ezekiel 34, Jesus thus identifies himself as fulfilling God’s promises and doing God’s work (cf. 4:34; 17:4).
Image credit: Frank Merino, Pexels, image 7360551
Another explanation
This coming Sunday is the 4th Sunday of Easter in Lectionary Cycle A. It is evident to Jesus that the disciples do not understand, so Jesus offers another explanation. Commentaries have long asked how we are to understand the relationship between the two sections marked by “Amen, Amen…” (vv.1-6 and vv.7-18). Are the latter verses making an allegorical explanation to the already presented parable? The problem with such a view is that characters and imagery have changed. In any case, if the latter section is meant to be a clarifying or additional explanation, it likely was not any more effective.
In addition, there seems to be a change of scene/place implied (from “driven out…walks ahead…follow). Whereas the opening verses were within the village: the courtyards and narrow streets on to which they opened. Now the setting is the open country into which the shepherd led the sheep for grazing, and where in the summer months shepherd and sheep might spend the night. Overnight the sheep were placed in roughly constructed round stone-walled enclosures. The top of the dry-stone wall was covered with thorns to keep out wild animals. Inside the enclosure the sheep were safe so long as the entrance was secured by the shepherd. He slept across the entrance as there was no door and no doorkeeper.
While this explanation (possible, but not definitive) gives a good reason for the change of symbols, it seems also clear that the unusual statement “I am the gate” makes clear that now it is only via Jesus that one can enter the “flock” and be considered part of the people of God. It is the intimate relationship with Jesus that defines that association. It is also key that Jesus’ self-identification as the gate is primarily oriented to the life of the sheep – something made clear in vv.9-10 where Jesus explicitly identifies himself as the means for salvation: I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly (v.10b). This restates one of the central affirmation of the Fourth Gospel: Jesus comes to bring life (e.g., 3:16; 5:24; 6:40, 51; 11:25; 20:31)
This is the third of seven ‘I am’ sayings with predicates in the Fourth Gospel (6:35, 48, 51; 8:12; 10:7, 9; 10:11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 5). It is introduced with the solemn formula “Amen, Amen I say to you” (amēn amēn legō hymin) to emphasize the importance of what is said.
It is good to address the phrase “All who came before me.” lest one thinks this includes a sweeping rejection of all OT figures. It does not. Remember that Jesus has already made references to Abraham and Moses as positive witnesses to him (5:45-46; 8:56). This statement is more akin to OT passages like Jeremiah 23:1–8 and Ezekiel 34, in which the prophets pronounced judgment upon the shepherds of Israel for their failure to care for the people. Jesus may have had in mind messianic pretenders (cf. Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22), or more likely ‘the Jews’, who treated the man born blind so badly. Of such leaders, Jesus says, the sheep did not listen to them. The man born blind certainly did not listen to them. Those who belong to Jesus, the true shepherd, do not resonate with voices such as theirs.
Image credit: Frank Merino, Pexels, image 7360551
friarmusings 