Verses 1-42
Chapter 10
10:1-6 Jesus said:
"This is the truth I tell you; he who does not enter the sheepfold
through the door, but climbs in some other way, is a thief and a robber.
But he who comes in through the door is the shepherd of the sheep. The
keeper of the door opens the door to him; and the sheep hear his voice;
and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. Whenever he puts
his own sheep out, he walks in front of them; and the sheep follow him,
because they know his voice. But they will not follow a stranger, but
they will run away from him, because they do not know the voice of
strangers." Jesus spoke this parable to them, but they did not know what
he was saying to them.
There is no better loved picture of Jesus than the Good
Shepherd. The picture of the shepherd is woven into the language and
imagery of the Bible. It could not be otherwise. The main part of Judaea
was a central plateau, stretching from Bethel to Hebron for a distance
of about 35 miles and varying from 14 to 17 miles across. The ground,
for most part, was rough and stony. Judaea was, much more a pastoral
than an agricultural country and was, therefore, inevitable that the
most familiar figure of the Judaean uplands was the shepherd.
His life was very hard. No flock ever grazed without a shepherd,
and he was never off duty. There being little grass, the sheep were
bound to wander, and since there were no protecting walls, the sheep had
constantly to be watched. On either side of the narrow plateau the
ground dipped sharply down to the craggy deserts and the sheep were
always liable to stray away and get lost. The shepherd's task was not
only constant but dangerous, for, in addition, he had to guard the flock
against wild animals. especially against wolves, and there were always
thieves and robbers ready to steal the sheep. Sir George Adam Smith, who
travelled in Palestine, writes: "On some high moor, across which at
night the hyaenas howl, when you meet him, sleepless, far-sighted,
weather-beaten, leaning on his staff, and looking out over his scattered
sheep, every one of them on his heart, you understand why the shepherd
of Judaea sprang to the front in his people's history; why they gave his
name to their king, and made him the symbol of providence; why Christ
took him as the type of self-sacrifice." Constant vigilance, fearless
courage, patient love for his flock, were the necessary characteristics
of the shepherd.
In the Old Testament God is often pictured as the shepherd, and
the people as his flock. "The Lord is my shepherd: I shall not want" (Psalms 23:1). "Thou didst lead thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron" (Psalms 77:20). "We thy people, the flock of thy pasture, will give thanks to thee for ever" (Psalms 79:13). "Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou who leadest Joseph like a flock" (Psalms 80:1). "He is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand" (Psalms 95:7). "We are his people, and the sheep of his pasture" (Psalms 100:3).
God's Anointed One, the Messiah, is also pictured as the shepherd of
the sheep. "He will feed his flock like a shepherd: he will gather the
lambs in his arms, and will carry them in his bosom, and gently lead
those that are with young" (Isaiah 40:11).
"He will be shepherding the flock of the Lord faithfully and
righteously, and will suffer none of them to stumble in their pasture.
He will lead them all aright" (SS 17:45). The leaders of the people are
described as the shepherds of God's people and nation. "Woe to the
shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!" (Jeremiah 23:1-4).
Ezekiel has a tremendous indictment of the false leaders who seek their
own good rather than the good of the flock. "Woe be to the shepherds of
Israel who have been themselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?"
This picture passes over into the New Testament. Jesus is the
Good Shepherd. He is the shepherd who will risk his life to seek and to
save the one straying sheep (Matthew 18:12; Luke 15:4). He has pity upon the people because they are as sheep without a shepherd (Matthew 9:36; Mark 6:34). His disciples are his little flock (Luke 12:32). When he, the shepherd, is smitten the sheep are scattered (Mark 14:27; Matthew 26:31). He is the shepherd of the souls of men (1 Peter 2:25), and the great shepherd of the sheep (Hebrews 13:20).
Just as in the Old Testament picture, the leaders of the Church
are the shepherds and the people are the flock. It is the duty of the
leader to feed the flock of God, to accept the oversight willingly and
not by constraint, to do it eagerly and not for love of money, not to
use the position for the exercise of power and to be an example to the
flock (1 Peter 5:2-3). Paul urges the elders of Ephesus to take heed to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit had made them overseers (Acts 20:28). It is Jesus' last command to Peter that he should feed his lambs and his sheep (John 21:15-19). The very word pastor (Ephesians 4:11) is the Latin word for shepherd.
The Jews had a lovely legend to explain why God chose Moses to
be the leader of his people. "When Moses was feeding the sheep of his
father-in-law in the wilderness, a young kid ran away. Moses followed it
until it reached a ravine, where it found a well to drink from. When
Moses got up to it he said: 'I did not know that you ran away because
you were thirsty. Now you must be weary.' He took the kid on his
shoulders and carried it back. Then God said: 'Because you have shown
pity in leading back one of a flock belonging to a man, you shall lead
my flock Israel.'"
The word shepherd should paint a picture to us of the unceasing
vigilance and patience of the love of God; and it should remind us of
our duty towards our fellow-men, especially if we hold any kind of
office in the church of Christ.
The Palestinian shepherd had different ways of doing things from the
shepherds of our country; and, to get the full meaning of this picture,
we must look at the shepherd and the way in which he worked.
His equipment was very simple. He had his scrip, a bag made of
the skin of an animal, in which he carried his food. In it he would have
no more than bread, dried fruit, some olives and cheese. He had his
sting. The skill of many of the men of Palestine was such that they
"could sling a stone at a hair and not miss" ( 20:16).
The shepherd used his sling as a weapon of offence and defence; but he
made one curious use of it. There were no sheep dogs in Palestine, and,
when the shepherd wished to call back a sheep which was straying away,
he fitted a stone into his sling and landed it just in front of the
straying sheep's nose as a warning to turn back. He had his staff, a
short wooden club which had a lump of wood at the end often studded with
nails. It usually had a slit in the handle at the top, through which a
thong passed; and by the thong the staff swung at the shepherd's belt.
His staff was the weapon with which he defended himself and his flock
against marauding beasts and robbers. He had his rod, which was like the
shepherd's crook. With it he could catch and pull back any sheep which
was moving to stray away. At the end of the day, when the sheep were
going into the fold, the shepherd held his rod across the entrance,
quite close to the ground; and every sheep had to pass under it (Ezekiel 20:37; Leviticus 27:32);
and, as each sheep passed under, the shepherd quickly examined it to
see if it had received any kind of injury throughout the day.
The relationship between sheep and shepherd is quite different
in Palestine. In Britain the sheep are largely kept for killing; but in
Palestine largely for their wool. It thus happens that in Palestine the
sheep are often with the shepherd for years and often they have names by
which the shepherd calls them. Usually these names are descriptive, for
instance, "Brown-leg," "Black-ear." In Palestine the shepherd went in
front and the sheep followed. The shepherd went first to see that the
path was safe, and sometimes the sheep had to be encouraged to follow. A
traveller tells how he saw a shepherd leading his flock come to a ford
across a stream. The sheep were unwilling to cross. The shepherd finally
solved the problem by carrying one of the lambs across. When its mother
saw her lamb on the other side she crossed too, and soon all the rest
of the flock had followed her.
It is strictly true that the sheep know and understand the
eastern shepherd's voice; and that they will never answer to the voice
of a stranger. H. V. Morton has a wonderful description of the way in
which the shepherd talks to the sheep. "Sometimes he talks to them in a
loud sing-song voice, using a weird language unlike anything I have ever
heard in my life. The first time I heard this sheep and goat language I
was on the hills at the back of Jericho. A goat-herd had descended into
a valley and was mounting the slope of an opposite hill, when turning
round, he saw his goats had remained behind to devour a rich patch of
scrub. Lifting his voice, he spoke to the goats in a language that Pan
must have spoken on the mountains of Greece. It was uncanny because
there was nothing human about it. The words were animal sounds arranged
in a kind of order. No sooner had he spoken than an answering bleat
shivered over the herd, and one or two of the animals turned their heads
in his direction. But they did not obey him. The goat-herd then called
out one word, and gave a laughing kind of whinny. Immediately a goat
with a bell round his neck stopped eating, and, leaving the herd,
trotted down the hill, across the valley, and up the opposite slopes.
The man, accompanied by this animal, walked on and disappeared round a
ledge of rock. Very soon a panic spread among the herd. They forgot to
eat. They looked up for the shepherd. He was not to be seen. They became
conscious that the leader with the bell at his neck was no longer with
them. From the distance came the strange laughing call of the shepherd,
and at the sound of it the entire herd stampeded into the hollow and
leapt up the hill after him" (H. V. Morton, In the Steps of the Master,
pp. 154, 155). W. M. Thomson in The Land and the Book has the same story
to tell. "The shepherd calls sharply from time to time, to remind them
of his presence. They know his voice, and follow on; but, if a stranger
call, they stop short, lift up their heads in alarm, and if it is
repeated, they turn and flee, because they know not the voice of a
stranger. I have made the experiment repeatedly." That is exactly John's
picture.
H. V. Morton tells of a scene that he saw in a cave near
Bethlehem. Two shepherds had sheltered their flocks in the cave during
the night. How were the flocks to be sorted out? One of the shepherds
stood some distance away and gave his peculiar call which only his own
sheep knew, and soon his whole flock had run to him, because they knew
his voice. They would have come for no one else, but they knew the call
of their own shepherd. An eighteenth century traveller actually tells
how Palestinian sheep could be made to dance, quick or slow, to the
peculiar whistle or the peculiar tune on the flute of their own
shepherd.
Every detail of the shepherd's life lights up the picture of the
Good Shepherd whose sheep hear his voice and whose constant care is for
his flock.
10:7-10 So Jesus said
to them again: "This is the truth I tell you--I am the door of the
sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did
not listen to them. I am the door. If any man enter in through me, he
will be saved, and he will go in and out, and he will find pasture. The
thief comes only to kill and to steal and to destroy; I am come that
they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."
The Jews did not understand the meaning of the story of the
Good Shepherd. So Jesus, plainly and without concealment, applied it to
himself.
He began by saying: "I am the door." In this parable Jesus spoke
about two kinds of sheep-folds. In the villages and towns themselves
there were communal sheep-folds where all the village flocks were
sheltered when they returned home at night. These folds were protected
by a strong door of which only the guardian of the door held the key. It
was to that kind of fold Jesus referred in John 10:2-3.
But when the sheep were out on the hills in the warm season and did not
return at night to the village at all, they were collected into
sheep-folds on the hillside. These hillside sheep-folds were just open
spaces enclosed by a wall. In them there was an opening by which the
sheep came in and went out; but there was no door of any kind. What
happened was that at night the shepherd himself lay down across the
opening and no sheep could get out or in except over his body. In the
most literal sense the shepherd was the door.
That is what Jesus was thinking of when he said: "I am the
door." Through him, and through him alone, men find access to God.
"Through him," said Paul, "we have access to the Father" (Ephesians 2:18). "He," said the writer to the Hebrews, "is the new and living way" (Hebrews 10:20).
Jesus opens the way to God. Until Jesus came men could think of God
only as, at best, a stranger and as, at worst, an enemy. But Jesus came
to show men what God is like, and to open the way to him. He is the door
through whom alone entrance to God becomes possible for men.
To describe something of what that entrance to God means, Jesus
uses a well-known Hebrew phrase. He says that through him we can go in
and come out. To be able to come and go unmolested was the Jewish way of
describing a life that is absolutely secure and safe. When a man can go
in and out without fear, it means that his country is at peace, that
the forces of law and order are supreme, and that he enjoys perfect
security. The leader of the nation is to be one who can bring them out
and lead them in (Numbers 27:17). Of the man who is obedient to God it is said that he is blessed when he comes in and blessed when he goes out (Deuteronomy 28:6). A child is one who is not yet able by himself to go out and to come in (1 Kings 3:7). The Psalmist is certain that God will keep him in his going out and in his coming in (Psalms 121:8).
Once a man discovers, through Jesus Christ, what God is like, a new
sense of safety and of security enters into life. If life is known to be
in the hands of a God like that, the worries and the fears are gone.
Jesus said that those who came before him were thieves and
robbers. He was of course not referring to the great succession of the
prophets and the heroes, but to these adventurers who were continually
arising in Palestine and promising that, if people would follow them,
they would bring in the golden age. All these claimants were
insurrectionists. They believed that men would have to wade through
blood to the golden age. At this very time Josephus speaks of there
being ten thousand disorders in Judaea, tumults caused by men of war. He
speaks of men like the Zealots who did not mind dying themselves and
who did not mind slaughtering their own loved ones, if their hopes of
conquest could be achieved. Jesus is saying: "There have been men who
claimed that they were leaders sent to you from God. They believed in
war, murder, assassination. Their way only leads for ever farther and
farther away from God. My way is the way of peace and love and life; and
if you will only take it, it leads ever closer and closer to God."
There have been, and still are, those who believe that the golden age
must be brought in with violence, class warfare, bitterness,
destruction. It is the message of Jesus that the only way that leads to
God in heaven and to the golden age on earth is the way of love.
Jesus claims that he came that men might have life and might
have it more abundantly. The Greek phrase used for having it more
abundantly means to have a superabundance of a thing. To be a follower
of Jesus, to know who he is and what he means, is to have a
superabundance of life. A Roman soldier came to Julius Caesar with a
request for permission to commit suicide. He was a wretched dispirited
creature with no vitality. Caesar looked at him. "Man," he said, "were
you ever really alive?" When we try to live our own lives, life is a
dull, dispirited thing. When we walk with Jesus, there comes a new
vitality, a superabundance of life. It is only when we live with Christ
that life becomes really worth living and we begin to live in the real
sense of the word.
10:11-15 "I am the
good shepherd; the good shepherd gives his life for the sheep. The
hireling, who is not a real shepherd, and to whom the sheep do not
really belong, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and runs
away; and the wolf seizes them and scatters them. He abandons the sheep
because he is a hireling, and the sheep are nothing to him. I am the
good shepherd, and I know my own sheep, and my own sheep know me, just
as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for
the sheep."
This passage draws the contrast between the good and the bad,
the faithful and the unfaithful shepherd. The shepherd was absolutely
responsible for the sheep. If anything happened to a sheep, he had to
produce some kind of proof that it was not his fault. Amos speaks about
the shepherd rescuing two legs or a piece of an ear out of a lion's
mouth (Amos 3:12). The law laid it down: "If it is torn by beasts, let him bring it as evidence" (Exodus 22:13).
The idea is that the shepherd must bring home proof that the sheep had
died, and that he had been unable to prevent the death. David tells Saul
how when he was keeping his father's sheep, he had the battle with the
lion and the bear (1 Samuel 17:34-36). Isaiah speaks of the crowd of shepherds being called out to deal with the lion (Isaiah 31:4).
To the shepherd it was the most natural thing to risk his life in
defence of his flock. Sometimes the shepherd had to do more than risk
his life: sometimes he had to lay it down, perhaps when thieves and
robbers came to despoil the flock. Dr W. M. Thomson in The Land and the
Book writes: "I have listened with intense interest to their graphic
descriptions of downright and desperate fights with these savage beasts.
And when the thief and the robber come (and come they do), the faithful
shepherd has often to put his life in his hand to defend his flock. I
have known more than one case where he had literally to lay it down in
the contest. A poor faithful fellow last spring, between Tiberias and
Tabor, instead of fleeing, actually fought three Bedouin robbers until
he was hacked to pieces with their khanjars, and died among the sheep he
was defending." The true shepherd never hesitated to risk, and even to
lay down, his life for his sheep.
But, on the other hand, there was the unfaithful shepherd. The
difference was this. A real shepherd was born to his task. He was sent
out with the flock as soon as he was old enough to go; the sheep became
his friends and his companions; and it became second nature to think of
them before he thought of himself. But the false shepherd came into the
job, not as a calling, but as a means of making money. He was in it
simply and solely for the pay he could get. He might even be a man who
had taken to the hills because the town was too hot to hold him. He had
no sense of the height and the responsibility of his task; he was only a
hireling.
Wolves were a threat to a flock. Jesus said of his disciples that he was sending them out as sheep in the midst of wolves (Matthew 10:16); Paul warned the elders of Ephesus that grievous wolves would come, not sparing the flock (Acts 20:29).
If these wolves attacked, the hireling shepherd forgot everything but
the saving of his own life and ran away. Zechariah marks it as the
characteristic of a false shepherd that he made no attempt to gather
together the scattered sheep (Zechariah 11:16).
Carlyle's father once took this imagery caustically to his speech. In
Ecclefechan they were having trouble with their minister; and it was the
worst of all kinds of such trouble--it was about money. Carlyle's
father rose and said bitingly: "Give the hireling his wages and let him
go."
Jesus' point is that the man who works only for reward thinks
chiefly of the money; the man who works for love thinks chiefly of the
people he is trying to serve. Jesus was the good shepherd who so loved
his sheep that for their safety he would risk, and one day give, his
life.
We may note two further points before we leave this passage.
Jesus describes himself as the good shepherd. Now in Greek, there are
two words for good. There is agathos (Greek #18) which simply describes the moral quality of a thing; there is kalos (Greek #2570)
which means that in the goodness there is a quality of winsomeness
which makes it lovely. When Jesus is described as the good shepherd, the
word is kalos (Greek #2570).
In him there is more than efficiency and more than fidelity; there is
loveliness. Sometimes in a village or town people speak about the good
doctor. They are not thinking only of the doctor's efficiency and skill
as a physician; they are thinking of the sympathy and the kindness and
the graciousness which he brought with him and which made him the friend
of all. In the picture of Jesus as the Good Shepherd there is
loveliness as well as strength and power.
The second point is this. In the parable the flock is the Church
of Christ; and it suffers from a double danger. It is always liable to
attack from outside, from the wolves and the robbers and the marauders.
It is always liable to trouble from the inside, from the false shepherd.
The Church runs a double danger. It is always under attack from outside
and often suffers from the tragedy of bad leadership, from the disaster
of shepherds who see their calling as a career and not as a means of
service. The second danger is by far the worse; because, if the shepherd
is faithful and good, there is a strong defence from the attack from
outside; but if the shepherd is faithless and a hireling, the foes from
outside can penetrate into and destroy the flock. The Church's first
essential is a leadership based on the example of Jesus Christ.
10:16 "But I have
other sheep which are not of this fold. These too I must bring in, and
they will hear my voice; and they will become one flock, and there will
be one shepherd."
One of the hardest things in the world to unlearn is
exclusiveness. Once a people, or a section of a people, gets the idea
that they are specially privileged, it is very difficult for them to
accept that the privileges which they believed belonged to them and to
them only are in fact open to all men. That is what the Jews never
learned. They believed that they were God's chosen people and that God
had no use for any other nation. They believed that, at the best, other
nations were designed to be their slaves, and, at the worst, that they
were destined for elimination from the scheme of things. But here Jesus
is saying that there will come a day when all men will know him as their
shepherd.
Even the Old Testament is not without its glimpses of that day.
Isaiah had that very dream. It was his conviction that God had given
Israel for a light to the nations (Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 49:6; Isaiah 56:8)
and always there had been some lonely voices which insisted that God
was not the exclusive property of Israel, but that her destiny was to
make him known to all men.
At first sight it might seem that the New Testament speaks with
two voices on this subject; and some passages of the New Testament may
well trouble and perplex us a little. As Matthew tells the story, when
Jesus sent out his disciples, he said to them: "Go nowhere among the
Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6).
When the Syro-Phoenician woman appealed to Jesus for help, his first
answer was that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel (Matthew 15:24). But there is much to be set on the other side. Jesus himself stayed and taught in Samaria (John 4:40); he declared that descent from Abraham was no guarantee of entry into the kingdom (John 8:39). It was of a Roman centurion that Jesus said that he had never seen such faith in Israel (Matthew 8:10); it was a Samaritan leper who alone returned to give thanks (Luke 17:18-19); it was the Samaritan traveller who showed the kindness that all men must copy (Luke 10:37); many would come from the east and the west and the north and the south to sit down in the Kingdom of God (Matthew 8:11; Luke 13:29); the command in the end was to go out and to preach the gospel to all nations (Mark 16:15; Matthew 28:19); Jesus was, not the light of the Jews, but the light of the world (John 8:12).
What is the explanation of the sayings which seem to limit the
work of Jesus to the Jews? The explanation is in reality very simple.
The ultimate aim of Jesus was the world for God. But any great commander
knows that he must in the first instance limit his objectives. If he
tries to attack on too wide a front, he only scatters his forces,
diffuses his strength, and gains success nowhere. In order to win an
ultimately complete victory he must begin by concentrating his forces at
certain limited objectives. That is what Jesus did. Had he gone here,
there and everywhere, had he sent his disciples out with no limitation
to their sphere of work, nothing would have been achieved. At the moment
he deliberately concentrated on the Jewish nation, but his ultimate aim
was the gathering of the whole world into his love.
There are three great truths in this passage.
(i) It is only in Jesus Christ that the world can become one.
Egerton Young was the first missionary to the Red Indians. In
Saskatchewan he went out and told them of the love of God. To the
Indians it was like a new revelation. When the missionary had told his
message, an old chief said: "When you spoke of the great Spirit just
now, did I hear you say, 'Our Father'?" "Yes," said Egerton Young. "That
is very new and sweet to me," said the chief. "We never thought of the
great Spirit as Father. We heard him in the thunder; we saw him in the
lightning, the tempest and the blizzard, and we were afraid. So when you
tell us that the great Spirit is our Father, that is very beautiful to
us." The old man paused, and then he went on, as a glimpse of glory
suddenly shone on him. "Missionary, did you say that the great Spirit is
your Father?" "Yes," said the missionary. "And," said the chief, "did
you say that he is the Indians' Father?" "I did," said the missionary.
"Then," said the old chief, like a man on whom a dawn of joy had burst,
"you and I are brothers!"
The only possible unity for men is in their common sonship with
God. In the world there is division between nation and nation; in the
nation there is division between class and class. There can never be one
nation; and there can never be one class. The only thing which can
cross the barriers and wipe out the distinctions is the gospel of Jesus
Christ telling men of the universal fatherhood of God.
(ii) In the King James Version there is a mistranslation. It
has: "There shall be one fold and one shepherd." That mistranslation
goes back to Jerome and the Vulgate. And on that mistranslation the
Roman Catholic Church has based the teaching that, since there is only
one fold, there can only be one Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and
that, outside it there is no salvation. But the real translation beyond
all possible doubt as given in the Revised Standard Version, is: "There
shall be one flock, one shepherd," or, even better, "They shall become
one flock and there shall be one shepherd." The unity comes from the
fact, not that all the sheep are forced into one fold, but they all
hear, answer and obey one shepherd. It is not an ecclesiastical unity;
it is a unity of loyalty to Jesus Christ. The fact that there is one
flock does not mean that there can be only one Church, one method of
worship, one form of ecclesiastical administration. But it does mean
that all the different churches are united by a common loyalty to Jesus
Christ.
(ii) But this saying of Jesus becomes very personal; for it is a
dream which every one of us can help Jesus to realize. Men cannot hear
without a preacher; the other sheep cannot be gathered in unless someone
goes out to bring them in. Here is set before us the tremendous
missionary task of the Church. And we must not think of that only in
terms of what we used to call foreign missions. If we know someone here
and now who is outside his love, we can find him for Christ. The dream
of Christ depends on us; it is we who can help him make the world one
flock with him as its shepherd.
10:17-18 "The reason
why my Father loves me is that I lay down my life that I may take it
again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I
have full authority to lay it down, and I have full authority to take
it again. I have received this injunction from my Father."
Few passages in the New Testament tell us so much about Jesus in so short a compass.
(i) It tells us that Jesus saw his whole life as an act of
obedience to God. God had given him a task to do, and he was prepared to
carry it out to the end, even if it meant death. He was in a unique
relationship to God which we can describe only by saying that he was the
Son of God. But that relationship did not give him the right to do what
he liked; it depended on his doing always, cost what it may, what God
liked. Sonship for him, and sonship for us, could never be based on
anything except obedience.
(ii) It tells us that Jesus always saw the Cross and the glory
together. He never doubted that he must die; and equally he never
doubted that he would rise again. The reason was his confidence in God;
he was sure that God would never abandon him. All life is based on the
fact that anything worth getting is hard to get. There is always a price
to be paid. Scholarship can be bought only at the price of study; skill
in any craft or technique can be bought only at the price of practice;
eminence in any sport can be bought only at the price of training and
discipline. The world is full of people who have missed their destiny
because they would not pay the price. No one can take the easy way and
enter into glory or greatness; no one can take the hard way and fail to
find these things.
(iii) It tells us in a way that we cannot possibly mistake that
Jesus' death was entirely voluntary. Jesus stresses this again and
again. In the garden he bade his would-be defender put up his sword. If
he had wished, he could have called in the hosts of heaven to his
defence (Matthew 26:53). He made it quite clear that Pilate was not condemning him, but that he was accepting death (John 19:10-11).
He was not the victim of circumstance. He was not like some animal,
dragged unwillingly and without understanding to the sacrifice. Jesus
laid down his life because he chose to do so.
It is told that in the First World War there was a young French
soldier who was seriously wounded. His arm was so badly smashed that it
had to be amputated. He was a magnificent specimen of young manhood, and
the surgeon was grieved that he must go through life maimed. So he
waited beside his bedside to tell him the bad news when he recovered
consciousness. When the lad's eyes opened, the surgeon said to him: "I
am sorry to tell you that you have lost your arm." "Sir," said the lad,
"I did not lose it; I gave it--for France."
Jesus was not helplessly caught up in a mesh of circumstances
from which he could not break free. Apart from any divine power he might
have called in, it is quite clear that to the end he could have turned
back and saved his life. He did not lose his life: he gave it. The Cross
was not thrust upon him: he willingly accepted it-for us.
10:19-21 There was
again a division among the Jews because of these words. Many of them
said: "He has an evil spirit, and he is mad. Why do you listen to him?"
Others said: "These are not the words of a man possessed by an evil
spirit. Can a man with an evil spirit open the eyes of the blind?"
The people who listened to Jesus on this occasion were
confronted with a dilemma which is for ever confronting men. Either
Jesus was a megalomaniac madman, or he was the Son of God. There is no
escape from that choice. If a man speaks about God and about himself in
the way in which Jesus spoke, either he is completely deluded, or else
he is profoundly right. The claims which Jesus made signify either
insanity or divinity. How can we assure ourselves that they were indeed
justified and not the world's greatest delusion?
(i) The words of Jesus are not the words of a madman. We could
cite witness after witness to prove that the teaching of Jesus is the
supreme sanity. Thinking men and women in every generation have judged
the teaching of Jesus the one hope of sanity for a mad world. His is the
one voice which speaks God's sense in the midst of man's delusions.
(ii) The deeds of Jesus are not the deeds of a madman. He healed
the sick and fed the hungry and comforted the sorrowing. The madness of
megalomania is essentially selfish. It seeks for nothing but its own
glory and prestige. But Jesus' life was spent in doing things for
others. As the Jews themselves said, a man who was mad would not be able
to open the eyes of the blind.
(iii) The effect of Jesus is not the effect of a madman. The
undeniable fact is that millions upon millions of lives have been
changed by the power of Jesus Christ. The weak have become strong, the
selfish have become selfless, the defeated have become victorious, the
worried have become serene, the bad have become good. It is not madness
which produces such a change, but wisdom and sanity.
The choice remains--Jesus was either mad or divine. No honest
person can review the evidence and come to any other conclusion than
that Jesus brought into the world, not a deluded madness, but the
perfect sanity of God.
10:22-28 It was the
Festival of the Dedication in Jerusalem. It was wintry weather, and
Jesus was walking in the Temple precincts in Solomon's Porch. So the
Jews surrounded him. "How long," they said to him, "are you going to
keep us hanging in suspense? If you really are God's Anointed One, tell
us plainly." Jesus answered them: "I did tell you and you did not
believe me. The works that I do in the name of my Father, these are
evidence about me. But you do not believe because you are not among the
number of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
follow me. And I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and
no one will snatch them from my hand."
John begins by giving us both the date and the place of this
discussion. The date was the Festival of the Dedication. This was the
latest of the great Jewish festivals to be founded. It was sometimes
called The Festival of Lights; and its Jewish name was Hanukkah. Its
date is the 25th of the Jewish month called Chislew which corresponds
with our December. This Festival therefore falls very near our Christmas
time and is still universally observed by the Jews.
The origin of the Festival of the Dedication lies in one of the
greatest times of ordeal and heroism in Jewish history. There was a king
of Syria called Antiochus Epiphanes who reigned from 175 to 164 B.C. He
was a lover of all things Greek. He decided that he would eliminate the
Jewish religion once and for all, and introduce Greek ways and
thoughts, Greek religion and gods into Palestine. At first he tried to
do so by peaceful penetration of ideas. Some of the Jews welcomed the
new ways, but most were stubbornly loyal to their ancestral faith.
It was in 170 B.C. that the deluge really came. In that year
Antiochus attacked Jerusalem. It was said that 80,000 Jews perished, and
as many were sold into slavery. 1,800 talents--a talent is equal to 240
British pounds--were stolen from the Temple treasury. It became a
capital offence to possess a copy of the law, or to circumcise a child;
and mothers who did circumcise their children were crucified with their
children hanging round their necks. The Temple courts were profaned; the
Temple chambers were turned into brothels; and finally Antiochus took
the dreadful step of turning the great altar of the burnt-offering into
an altar to Olympian Zeus, and on it proceeded to offer swine's flesh to
the pagan gods.
It was then that Judas Maccabaeus and his brother arose to fight
their epic fight for freedom. In 164 B.C. the struggle was finally won;
and in that year the Temple was cleansed and purified. The altar was
rebuilt and the robes and the utensils were replaced, after three years
of pollution. It was to commemorate that purification of the Temple that
the Feast of the Dedication was instituted. Judas Maccabaeus enacted
that "the days of the dedication of the altar should be kept in their
season from year to year, by the space of eight days, from the five and
twentieth day of the month of Chislew, with gladness and joy" (1 Maccabees 4:59).
For that reason the festival was sometimes called the Festival of the
Dedication of the Altar, and sometimes the Memorial of the Purification
of the Temple.
But as we have already seen, it had still another name. It was
often called the Festival of Lights. There were great illuminations in
the Temple; and there were also illuminations in every Jewish home. In
the window of every Jewish house there were set lights. According to
Shammai, eight lights were set in the window, and they were reduced each
day by one until on the last day only one was left burning. According
to Hillel, one light was kindled on the first day, and one was added
each day until on the last day eight were burning. We can see these
lights in the windows of every devout Jewish home to this day.
These lights had two significances. First, they were a reminder
that at the first celebrating of the festival the light of freedom had
come back to Israel. Second, they were traced back to a very old legend.
It was told that when the Temple had been purified and the great seven
branched candlestick re-lit, only one little cruse of unpolluted oil
could be found. This cruse was still intact, and still sealed with the
impress of the ring of the High Priest. By all normal measures, there
was only oil enough in that cruse to light the lamps for one single day.
But by a miracle it lasted for eight days, until new oil had been
prepared according to the correct formula and had been consecrated for
its sacred use. So for eight days the lights burned in the Temple and in
the homes of the people in memory of the cruse which God had made to
last for eight days instead of one.
It is not without significance that it must have been very close
to this time of illumination that Jesus said: "I am the Light of the
world." When all the lights were being kindled in memory of the freedom
won to worship God in the true way, Jesus said: "I am the Light of the
world; I alone can light men into the knowledge and the presence of
God."
John also gives us the place of this discussion, Solomon's
Porch. The first court in the Temple precincts was the Court of the
Gentiles. Along two sides of it ran two magnificent colonnades called
the Royal Porch and Solomon's Porch. They were rows of magnificent
pillars, almost forty feet high and roofed over. People walked there to
pray and meditate; and Rabbis strolled there as they talked to their
students and expounded the doctrines of the faith. It was there that
Jesus was walking, because, as John says with a pictorial touch, "it was
wintry weather."
As Jesus walked in Solomon's Porch the Jews came to him. "How long,"
they said to him, "are you going to keep us in suspense? Tell us
plainly, are you or are you not God's promised Anointed One?" There is
no doubt that behind that question were two attitudes of mind. There
were those who genuinely wished to know. They were on an eager tip-toe
of expectation. But there were others who beyond a doubt asked the
question as a trap. They wished to inveigle Jesus into making a
statement which could be twisted either into a charge of blasphemy with
which their own courts could deal or a charge of insurrection with which
the Roman governor would deal.
Jesus' answer was that he had already told them who he was.
True, he had not done so in so many words; for, as John tells the story,
Jesus' two great claims had been made in private. To the Samaritan
woman he had revealed himself as the Messiah (John 4:26) and to the man born blind he had claimed to be the Son of God (John 9:37).
But there are some claims which do not need to be made in words,
especially to an audience well-qualified to perceive them. There were
two things about Jesus which placed his claim beyond all doubt whether
he stated it in words or not. First, there were his deeds. It was
Isaiah's dream of the golden age: "Then the eyes of the blind shall be
opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap
like a hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing for joy" (Isaiah 35:5-6).
Every one of Jesus' miracles was a claim that the Messiah had come.
Second, there were his words. Moses had forecast that God would raise up
the Prophet who must be listened to (Deuteronomy 18:15).
The very accent of authority with which Jesus spoke, the way in which
he regally abrogated the old law and put his own teaching in its place,
was a claim that God was speaking in him. The words and deeds of Jesus
were a continuous claim to be the Anointed One of God.
But the great majority of the Jews had not accepted that claim.
As we have seen in Palestine the sheep knew their own shepherd's special
call and answered it; these were not of Jesus' flock. In the fourth
gospel there is behind it all a doctrine of predestination, things were
happening all the time as God meant them to happen. John is really
saying that these Jews were predestined not to follow Jesus. Somehow or
other the whole New Testament keeps two opposite ideas in balance--the
fact that everything happens within the purpose of God and yet in such a
way that man's free-will is responsible. These had made themselves such
that they were predestined not to accept Jesus; and yet, as John sees
it, that does not make them any the less to be condemned.
But though most did not accept Jesus, some did; and to them Jesus promised three things.
(i) He promised eternal life. He promised that if they accepted
him as Master and Lord, if they became members of his flock, all the
littleness of earthly life would be gone and they would know the
splendour and the magnificence of the life of God.
(ii) He promised a life that would know no end. Death would not
be the end but the beginning; they would know the glory of
indestructible life.
(iii) He promised a life that was secure. Nothing could snatch
them from his hand. This would not mean that they would be saved from
sorrow, from suffering and from death; but that in the sorest moment and
the darkest hour they would still be conscious of the everlasting arms
underneath and about them. Even in a world crashing to disaster they
would know the serenity of God.
10:29-30 My Father,
who gave them to me, is greater than all; and no one can snatch them
from the hand of the Father. I and the Father are one.
This passage show's at one and the same time the tremendous trust and the tremendous claim of Jesus.
His trust was something which traced everything back to God. He
has just been speaking about his sheep and his flock; he has just been
saying that no one will ever snatch his own from his hand, that he is
the shepherd who will keep the sheep for ever safe. At first sight, and
if he had stopped there, it would have seemed that Jesus put his trust
in his own keeping power. But now we see the other side of it. It is his
Father who gave him his sheep; that both he and his sheep are in his
Father's hand. Jesus was so sure of himself because he was so sure of
God. His attitude to life was not self-confidence, but God-confidence.
He was secure, not in his own power, but in God's. He was so certain of
ultimate safety and ultimate victory, not because he arrogated all power
to himself, but because he assigned all power to God.
Now we come to the supreme claim. "I and the Father are one,"
said Jesus. What did he mean? Is it absolute mystery, or can we
understand at least a little of it? Are we driven to interpret it in
terms of essence and hypostasis and all the rest of the metaphysical and
philosophic notions about which the makers of the creeds fought and
argued? Has one to be a theologian and a philosopher to grasp even a
fragment of the meaning of this tremendous statement?
If we go to the Bible itself for the interpretation, we find
that it is in fact so simple that the simplest mind can grasp it. Let us
turn to the seventeenth chapter of John's gospel, which tells of the
prayer of Jesus for his followers before he went to his death: "Holy
Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may
be one, even as we are one" (John 17:11).
Jesus conceived of the unity of Christian with Christian as the same as
his unity with God. In the same passage he goes on: "I do not pray for
these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,
that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in
thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that
thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to
them, that they may be one even as we are one" (John 17:20-22).
Jesus is saying with simplicity and a clarity none can mistake that the
end of the Christian life is that Christians should be one as he and
his Father are one.
What is the unity which should exist between Christian and
Christian? Its secret is love. "A new commandment I give to you, That
you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one
another" (John 13:34).
Christians are one because they love one another; even so, Jesus is one
with God because of his love of God. But we can go further. What is the
only test of love? Let us go again to the words of Jesus. "If you keep
my commandments, you will abide in my love; just as I have kept my
Father's commandments and abide in his love" (John 15:10). "If a man loves me, he will keep my word" (John 14:23-24). "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). "He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me" (John 14:21).
Here is the essence of the matter. The bond of unity is love;
the proof of love is obedience. Christians are one with each other when
they are bound by love, and obey the words of Christ. Jesus is one with
God, because as no other ever did, he obeyed and loved him. His unity
with God is a unity of perfect love, issuing in perfect obedience.
When Jesus said: "I and the Father are one," he was not moving
in the world of philosophy and metaphysics and abstractions; he was
moving in the world of personal relationships. No one can really
understand what a phrase like "a unity of essence" means; but any one
can understand what a unity of heart means. Jesus' unity with God came
from the twin facts of perfect love and perfect obedience. He was one
with God because he loved and obeyed him perfectly; and he came to this
world to make us what he is.
10:31-39 The Jews
again lifted up stones to stone him. Jesus said to them: "I have showed
you many lovely deeds, which came from my Father. For which of these
deeds are you trying to stone me?" The Jews answered him: "It is not for
any lovely deed that we propose to stone you; it is for insulting God,
and because you, being a man, make yourself God." "Does it not stand
written in your law," Jesus answered them, "'I said you are gods'? If he
called those to whom the word came gods--and the scripture cannot be
destroyed--are you going to say about me, whom the Father consecrated
and despatched into the world: 'You insult God,' because I said: 'I am
the Son of God'? If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe
me. But if I do, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, that
you may know and recognize that the Father is in me, and I am in the
Father." They again tried to lay violent hands on him, but he evaded
their grasp.
To the Jews Jesus' statement that he and the Father were one
was blasphemy. It was the invasion by a man of the place which belonged
to God alone. The Jewish law laid down the penalty of stoning for
blasphemy. "He who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to
death; all the congregation shall stone him" (Leviticus 24:16).
So they made their preparations to stone Jesus. The Greek really means
that they went and fetched stones to fling at him. Jesus met their
hostility with three arguments.
(i) He told them that he had spent all his days doing lovely
things, healing the sick feeding the hungry, and comforting the
sorrowing, deeds so full of help and power and beauty that they
obviously came from God. For which of these deeds did they wish to stone
him? Their answer was that it was not for anything he had done that
they wished to stone him, but for the claim he was making.
(ii) This claim was that he was the Son of God. To meet their
attack Jesus used two arguments. The first is a purely Jewish argument
which is difficult for us to understand. He quoted Psalms 82:6.
That psalm is a warning to unjust judges to cease from unjust ways and
defend the poor and the innocent. The appeal concludes: "I say, 'You are
gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.'" The judge is commissioned by
God to be god to men. This idea comes out very clearly in certain of
the regulations in Exodus. Exodus 21:1-6 tells how the Hebrew servant may go free in the seventh year. As the King James Version has it, Exodus 21:6
says "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges." But in the
Hebrew, the word which is translated judges is actually 'Elohiym (Hebrew #430), which means gods. The same form of expression is used in Exodus 22:9; Exodus 22:28.
Even scripture said of men who were specially commissioned to some task
by God that they were gods. So Jesus said: "If scripture can speak like
that about men, why should I not speak so about myself?"
Jesus claimed two things for himself. (a) He was consecrated by
God to a special task. The word for to consecrate is hagiazein (Greek #37), the verb from which comes the adjective hagios (Greek #40),
holy. This word always has the idea of rendering a person or a place or
a thing different from other persons and places and things, because it
is set aside for a special purpose or task. So, for instance, the
Sabbath is holy (Exodus 20:11). The altar is holy (Leviticus 16:19). The priests are holy (2 Chronicles 26:18). The prophet is holy (Jeremiah 1:5).
When Jesus said that God had consecrated him, made him holy, he meant
that he had set him apart from other men, because he had given him a
special task to do. The very fact that Jesus used this word shows how
conscious he was of his special task. (b) He said that God had
despatched him into the world. The word used is the one which would be
used for sending a messenger or an ambassador or an army. Jesus did not
so much think of himself as coming into the world, as being sent into
the world His coming was an act of God; and he came to do the task which
God had given him to do.
So Jesus said: "In the old days it was possible for scripture to
speak of judges as gods, because they were commissioned by God to bring
his truth and justice into the world. Now I have been set apart for a
special task; I have been despatched into the world by God; how can you
then object if I call myself the Son of God? I am only doing what
scripture does." This is one of those biblical arguments the force of
which it is difficult for us to feel; but which to a Jewish Rabbi would
have been entirely convincing.
(iii) Jesus went on to invite the acid test. "I do not ask you,
he said in effect," to accept my words. But I do ask you to accept my
deeds." A word is something about which a man can argue; but a deed is
something beyond argument. Jesus is the perfect teacher in that he does
not base his claims on what he says, but on what he is and does. His
invitation to the Jews was to base their verdict on him, not on what he
said, but on what he did; and that is a test which all his followers
ought to be able and willing to meet. The tragedy is that so few can
meet it, still less invite it.
10:40-41 And he went
away again to the other side of Jordan, to the place where John first
used to baptize; and he stayed there. And many came to him, and they
kept saying: "John did no sign; but everything John said about this man
is true." And then many believed in him.
For Jesus the time was running out; but he knew his hour. He
would not recklessly court danger and throw his life away; nor would he
in cowardice avoid danger to preserve his life. But he desired quietness
before the final struggle. He always armed himself to meet men by first
meeting God. That is why he retired to the other side of Jordan. He was
not running away: he was preparing himself for the final contest.
The place to which Jesus went is most significant. He went to
the place where John had been accustomed to baptize, the place where he
himself had been baptized. It was there that the voice of God had come
to him and assured him that he had taken the right decision and was on
the right way. There is everything to be said for a man returning every
now and then to the place where he had the supreme experience of his
life. When Jacob was up against it, when things had gone wrong and badly
wrong, he went back to Bethel (Genesis 35:1-5).
When he needed God, he went back to the place where he had first found
him. Jesus, before the end, went back to the place where the beginning
had happened. It would often do our souls a world of good to make a
pilgrimage to the place where we first found God.
Even on the far side of Jordan the Jews came to Jesus, and they
too thought of John. They remembered that he had spoken with the words
of a prophet; but had done no mighty deeds. They saw that there was a
difference between Jesus and John. To John's proclamation Jesus added
God's power. John could diagnose the situation; Jesus brought the power
to deal with the situation. These Jews had looked on John as a prophet;
now they saw that what John had foretold of Jesus was true, and many of
them believed.
It often happens that a man for whom a great future is painted,
and who sets out with the hopes of men upon him, disappoints that future
and belies these hopes. But Jesus was even greater than John had said
he would be. Jesus is the one person who never disappoints those who set
their hopes upon him. In him the dream always comes true.
-Barclay's Daily Study Bible (NT)