Fourth Sunday of Easter
John 10:1-10
Exegetical Notes by Brian Stoffregen
f
4 Easter A -- Exegetical notes on John 10:1-10
This is "Good Shepherd" Sunday. Each year on the 4th Sunday of Easter,
we celebrate Christ as the Good Shepherd. The gospel lesson for each
of the three years comes from John 10: Year A = 10:1-10; Year B =
10:11-18; Year C = 10:22-30.
While all of these texts relate to shepherding, there is a change in
Jewish festivals. Jesus is at Tabernacles in 7:1-10:21; but in 10:22
he is at Dedication (10:22-39).
There is a connection between the Shepherd discourse with its emphasis
on proper hearing and John 9 where there is a miracle that leads to
proper seeing. It is clear in 9:40-41 that Jesus is speaking to (or
against) Pharisees and it seems that his speech in ch. 10 continues to
be against them.
There are also some outline discrepancies within this section. Does
vv. 1-5 contain two parables or one? Are vv. 7-18 an explanation of
the parable(s) or a continuation of the discourse spurred on by images
in the parables? These are questions scholars will debate, but not
necessarily useful for preaching.
Vv. 1-5 talk about a shepherd's relationship to the sheep by creating
two contrasts. The shepherd enters through the gate, but thieves and
robbers sneak in another way. The sheep hear and know and follow the
voice of the shepherd, but they don't know the voice of a stranger so
they flee rather than follow.
It is clear in vv. 11 & 14 that Jesus is the good shepherd, but is
he
the "shepherd" in verse 2 or is he the doorkeeper or both? Could the
shepherd refer to all church leaders? Peter is told "to shepherd" the
sheep in Jn 21:16 -- the image carried on in the title "pastor" (see
Ep 4:11 -- where the Greek _poimen_ = "shepherd" is translated
"pastor"). In addition, there are numerous OT references to leaders as
shepherds (usually as bad leaders) Jer 23:1-2; Ezek 34; Nu 27:16-17.
THIEVES AND BANDITS
Who are the thieves and bandits? Does the phrase in v. 1 refer to the
same group as the phrase in v. 8 (or "thieves" in v. 10) or not? First
of all, I think that they may refer to different groups. Whoever they
are in v. 8, they came before Jesus. The ones in v. 1 are
contemporaries with the shepherd. They also seem similar to the
"thief" in v. 10, who also has malevolent intentions against the
sheep.
Secondly, in typically Johanine fashion, there are different layers of
meaning to this phrase. One answer is Jesus is continuing his attack
against the blind Pharisees from 9:41. So the "thieves and bandits"
could refer to them.
Another answer might be that they are disruptive, sneaky people within
the community. In the parable, they are people who have entered the
flock -- but not through the proper entrance -- not through Jesus, who
is later pictured as the gate. In addition, Judas Iscariot, one of the
"insiders," is called a "thief" in 12:6. Acts 20:28-29 uses some of
the same language: "Keep watch over yourselves and over all the
*flock*, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, *to
shepherd* the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own
son. I know that after I have gone, savage wolves will come in among
you, not sparing the *flock*. Some even from your own group will come
distorting the truth in order to entice the disciples to follow them."
It also may be a polemic against the more zealot leaders in John's
church. Barabbas is called a "bandit" in 18:40.
In a general sense the phrase may refer to any deceptive leaders or
people -- people with hidden agendas. A number of years ago, the
"moonies" were going through towns in Nebraska soliciting funds.
However, they never identified themselves as "moonies" or members of
the Unification Church. They had a list of registered names such as
the "Fellowship of the Holy Spirit." They were not honest about who
they were and what they were about. Sometimes clergy or councils may
not always be upfront and open about their plans or problems. A friend
became very distrustful of his congregation when he discovered that
they had a lot of money in saving accounts that they weren't reporting
when they were requesting extra giving because they didn't have enough
money.
What about "hidden agendas" of members at council or congregational
meetings? That is, greater concern for themselves than for the group.
Thieves and bandits are people who take for themselves without much
thought about what others are losing.
In another general sense the phrase may refer to people who "pretend"
to be part of the flock, but who haven't entered through the proper
"door". Some of you may remember a few years ago when federal agents
"joined" churches and Bible study groups who were supporting sanctuary
for Central Americans. I wonder if a similar problem faced John's
church. Were anti-Christian people sneaking into Christian
communities? Christianity was an illegal religion in the Roman
Empire -- because Christians were considered "atheists"! They didn't
worship the Roman gods.
What about members who join a church because of the social status it
gives them? or because of family pressure?
Bill Easum, in a talk I heard, wondered why we think church membership
should bring with it privileges rather than obligations. The example
he used was parochial schools. Why do we give church members a
discount? Why don't we charge them more, so that children who are
unchurched and poor might be able to attend for free or at a reduced
rate?
Who are the "thieves and bandits" who sneak into the flock today?
THE SHEEP AND SHEPHERD
V. 3b: "The sheep are hearing (present tense) his sound."
The ambiguity of _phone_ as "sound" or "voice" may be intentional.
Somewhere I remember hearing that each shepherd had a special whistle
or sound that called his own sheep. While the sheep were grazing on
the hillside, different flocks would mingle together. When it was time
to return to the fold, the shepherds made their sounds and their own
sheep knew that sound and went to it. Unfortunately, I haven't found
any references to verify this practice. However, I know (from watching
National Geographic specials) that there is often a sound (and smell?)
connection between young animals and their mothers. The offspring
recognize their mother's call and follow it, but not that of another.
That image, as well as the shepherd calling his own sheep by name,
denotes a close intimate relationship between shepherd and sheep.
The shepherd in these verses leads the sheep *out* rather than
provides a way for them to come into the safety of the enclosure.
Where does the shepherd lead the sheep out to? Where does Jesus lead
the church out to?
Who are the strangers' voices we might hear? Like with "thieves and
bandits" we might find a number of possible references from John's
time; but we also need to name those strangers in our time. Could the
call of greed and materialism and self-pleasure and success be some of
the strangers' voices we should flee?
This verses also raises the question, "If we can't distinguish the
voice of the stranger and flee from it, does that indicate that we
don't know the voice of the shepherd?"
I've heard the illustration of parents who can recognize their young
child's voice in the midst of a crowd, and vice versa. How can they do
this? They are quite familiar with the sound of each other's voices.
Their ears are "tuned in" to mother or father or child. They can sort
out those specific sounds from all the others that are bouncing off
their ears.
A few years ago, I attended a lecture by Ed Friedman on leadership. He
reported from a friend of his who had gone to Palestine to see what
shepherds actually did with the sheep. His observation was that
shepherds seldom coddle the sheep. Usually "they are hitting them in
the ass with their rod." Friedman added his own observation: "We've
made empathy [coddling leading to immaturity] more important than
responsibility -- 'kick ass'." I'll let each of you make your own
application to the pastoral (shepherding) ministry.
KNOWING AND NOT KNOWING
I find a lot of irony in v. 6. Jesus has just been talking about the
sheep knowing (_oida_) and hearing and following their shepherd's
voice; but Jesus uses "figures of speech" (_paroimia_), so that his
hearers won't know (_ginosko_) what he is saying.
To whom is Jesus speaking these _paroimia_? In this text, we can
assume that it is the Pharisees of 9:41. Jesus accuses them of being
blind in that verse. Now we also know that they can't hear too well
either. However, Jesus says that he has spoken in _paroimia_ to his
disciples in 16:25. Here and in 16:29 _paroimia_ is contrasted with
_parresia_ = plainly or openly. This indicates that _paroimia_ is not
plain or clear speech, that the meaning is purposely hidden, perhaps
behind a parable or proverb, a simile or metaphor. So if we don't
completely understand what Jesus is talking about, maybe we're not
supposed to! <g>
The irony is that as Jesus' sheep we are to hear and recognize and
follow his voice, but that voice speaks in figures of speech that we
may not fully understand. If this is true, then perhaps the voice of
the stranger (or thief or bandit) speaks in words that are clear and
easily understood and not the ambiguity of parables or metaphors or
paradoxes or other figures of speech that Jesus uses.
THE GATE
I don't believe that vv. 7-10 are an explanation of the preceding
parable(s). In the preceding, Jesus seems to be the shepherd or the
gatekeeper. In this section Jesus is the gate (_thyra_). The fact that
_thyra_ was used in vv. 1 & 2 (but not in reference to Jesus), may
have led Jesus to use this metaphor now for himself. "I am the gate."
The only proper way into the fellowship of the flock is through Jesus.
Those who enter by some other way are thieves and bandits. The image
of the gate also brings to mind Ps 118:19-20:
Open to me the *gates* of righteousness,
that I may enter through them
and give thanks to the LORD.
This is the *gate* of the LORD;
the righteous shall enter through it.
Who are thieves and bandits who came before Jesus? I don't think that
they can be all the people who came before him. That would include
John the Baptist and the prophets, Moses and Abraham -- people who
were servants of God and who pointed to Jesus (see Jn 5:45-46; 8:56).
Some ancient manuscripts omit the phrase "before me," perhaps to
soften the rejection of all OT figures.
What if we interpret pro- rather than "before" in the sense of time =
"earlier than", but "before" in the sense of space = "in front of".
With that sense it could refer to those who opposed Jesus to his face.
Thus these thieves and bandits would be contemporaries with Jesus as
they were in v. 1. They are the ones who "refuse to come to me [Jesus]
to have life" (5:40). They are the ones who are blind to see where
Jesus has come from (9:29, 41). By refusing to see Jesus as the
revelation from God, they are trying to enter the sheepfold by some
other means.
I also think we need to see these thieves and bandits as
contemporaries of Jesus because he tells us, "the sheep did not listen
to them." If "sheep" refers to the believers in Christ, they would
have had to "not listen to" the thieves and bandits -- during the
ministry of Jesus. The people they did not listen to were those who
denied Jesus as the revelation of God. The "sheep" believed that he
was. They entered the sheepfold through Jesus. The promise is given to
them: They will be saved. They will come in. They will go out. They
will find pasture. When does this happen? Is it our heavenly existence
or is it part of our living the abundant life now? Whenever it
happens, Jesus is both the way in and the way out. Note also that
finding pasture (Ps 23) happens after going out! Could this imply that
coming in and being huddled together in church is not finding pasture?
An interesting image can be provided by translating _sothesetai_ in v.
9 with "they shall be kept safe" rather than "they will be saved."
There is safety in coming into the sheepfold. We are also promised
safety in our going out. Even though the thief comes to steal, kill,
and destroy, Jesus promises to keep us safe.
There are also interesting contrasts in the verb tenses of v. 10. The
thief's "coming" is present -- a continuous action. We might say that
"thieves" will always be with us coming. Their actions of stealing,
killing and destroying are aorist verbs. They happen once (or at a
particular time in history). Once the thief has stolen all you have or
killed you or destroyed you, that's it. There is no point to keep on
killing a dead person.
"I have come" -- an aorist. Jesus' coming happened at a particular
point in history. For John, Jesus is not continually present, but he
leaves and sends the Spirit to be the ongoing presence of God. The
purpose of Jesus' coming is in the present tense -- that we might
*continue to have* life and might *continue to have* it in abundance.
What does it mean to have life in abundance? The basic meaning of the
word _perissos_ is "more of something". It may pertaining to that
which is exceptional in the sense of being more than what is
expected -- "exceptional," "outstanding," "remarkable," "unusual"
[Louw & Nida]. Those are all interesting adjectives to define the
life
Jesus offers us.
TDNT says the following about the related verb.
The idea that the time of salvation, as a counterpart of Paradise,
will bring super-abundance in many different ways is already to be
found in the OT, though _perisseuein_ is not used for this in the
LXX, cf. Am 9:13; Is 65:17-25; Ez 47; Jl 3:18 etc.
In the NT _perisseuein_ is almost always used in contexts which
speak of a fullness present and proclaimed in the age of salvation
as compared with the old aeon, or of a new standard which is
required in this age. To this extent _perisseuein_ is an
eschatological catchword.
The present tense of the verb would imply that we have the abundant
life now. How is our life something more than what other people have?
How do we participate in the eschatological paradise now?
When I first created these notes, I had received a sermon by Rich
Mayfield, pastor of Lord of the Mountains Lutheran, Dillon, CO. He
shares the thought that "Jesus was a teller of stories rather than an
issuer of edicts. Jesus invited us to use our imagination as we
ventured forth on our spiritual journey." He makes a contrast between
the factual accuracy of fundamentalism and "hyperbole of the heart,"
which he finds in scriptures. An example:
A husband looks deeply into the big blue eyes of his wife of many
years. He sees the accumulating wrinkles, the sprinkling of gray,
the passage of time. And yet still he boldly and truthfully
proclaims, "You are the most beautiful woman in the world." It is
the truth. Now, it may not be factually verifiable. She might not
actually win the Miss America contest that year. But there is no
question in his mind that what he is saying is the truth. What he is
doing is offering up a "hyperbole of the heart." He is sharing what
really matters to him. He is confessing his love.
What I find fascinating about this sermon in relationship to our text
is its title: "Hyperbole of the Heart." A hyperbole is a figure a
speech. It is an exaggeration, but even more so, it is something that
is not meant to be taken literally. That is true of our text. Jesus is
not a literal shepherd. We are not literal sheep. He isn't talking
about literal thieves and bandits. At the same time, Jesus is speaking
the truth. Jesus speaks in _paroimia_ -- in figures of speech. His
truth is so big that it can only be communicated figuratively. Some
who hear it will be captured by and share in the truth of the
figurative speech. Others who hear it will be lost -- blind and deaf
to his truths.
Brian Stoffregen
Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Ave., Yuma, AZ 85364
e-mail: brian.stoffregen@gmail.com
rom GOSPEL NOTES FOR NEXT SUNDAY: