April 21, 2002 - FOURTH SUNDAY OF EASTER
John 10:1-10
Color: White
Title: “The real thing in the case of Jesus, his voice, is found in his Word.”
Jesus teaches that he is the gate of the sheepfold; no one can enter eternal life except through him.
Chapters nine and ten, form one literary unit. The final encounter between Jesus and the man born blind in chapter nine verses thirty-five to thirty-eight is paralleled by an encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees in 9:31- 10:21. The background of this teaching is not so much one parable or an allegory of even one image of a shepherd. It is rather more of a scene, a pastoral scene, composed of shepherd, gatekeeper, gate and fold, and sheep on the one hand and false shepherds, thieves and robbers, improper trespass, false representation, and ineffectiveness, on the other hand. Jesus uses a mélange of images rather than simply one in order to make his point. Although certain images stand for other realities- the thieves stand for the Pharisees, the good shepherd and gate both stand for Jesus, etc.- we should allow the fluidity of these applications to maintain their force. This allows for the application of this teaching to be effective in present day contexts as well as in the days of Jesus or the early Church. Verses one to five contain several images; verse seven, expand upon, explain and apply those images to the concrete situation. In verses seven to ten, the gate is explained; in verses eleven to eighteen, the shepherd; and the sheep.
The pastoral images and their application to moral behavior go way back into Israel’s history and her prophetic writings. Throughout the Old Testament God is spoken of as the shepherd of his people. The other leaders, like kings or priests, were really sub-shepherds. The exile raised doubts about God’s shepherding. The monarchy, his sub-shepherds, had disappeared, had he also? Ezekiel, an exilic and post-exilic prophet, wrote in Ezekiel thirty-four, that there would be a future, good shepherd, a descendant of David, David who was first the shepherd of his father’s sheep and then became the shepherd of Israel, a new anointed the Messiah one, who would gather the scattered flock and care for it. Other prophets joined him (Jer3: 15; 23:4-6; 31:10; Is40: 11; 49:9-10; Zech13: 7-9; Zeph3: 19; Mic2: 12; 4:6-7; 5:3). The bad- false shepherds, former “leaders,” would be replaced by, “one shepherd” and “one flock, (Ezek34: 23-24).” So, the point here is that Jesus is not only the descendant of David, but God’s authoritative representative good shepherd.
In verse one, “Very truly, I tell you”: This phrase is tantamount to Jesus’ signature and functions something like quotation marks. When we come across this phrase in the gospels we are very close to the actual wording of Jesus’ authentic teaching.
“Anyone who does not enter the sheepfold by the gate”: There were different types and locations of sheepfold. There were those on a hillside, squares marked off by stone walls and there were those in the front of a house, a yard surrounded by a stone wall and topped with briars, much like our barbed wire fences. There are two ways to enter a sheepfold, depending on whether one wishes to shepherd the sheep or harm them, namely, through the front door or by subterfuge. Jesus takes this well-known scenario and sees deeper meaning in it. He sees the religious-political leaders –the priests, scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees- as thieves and robbers, pretending to be shepherds but really only using the sheep for their own selfish purposes and gain. In 12:6 John will refer to Judas as a thief Greek kleptes, the word used here. Judas represents inauthentic and unauthorized religious leadership, a rogue shepherd in it for himself. In 18:40 John will refer to Barabbas as a robber Greek lestes, at this time this word was used for members of the Zealot movement dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Roman regime in Palestine. Barabbas represents those bogus political leaders who are in it for themselves and will lead the sheep down the wrong path. Such “shepherds,” religious and political operatives, gain their positions through false claims, are dangerous to the sheep, and should not be in those positions in the first place. Here, Jesus is talking to the Pharisees who fancy themselves as leaders of the people and whom Jesus reveals as phonies, dangerous phonies at that. For Synoptic parallels see Matthew 24: 43 and Luke 12: 39.
In verse two, “Anyone who does not enter the sheepfold by the gate:” To enter the sheepfold as one of the sheep one taken care of by the shepherd, belonging to the shepherd, a “kingdom member” to use Synoptic imagery, one must pass muster by Jesus, meet his terms. To enter the sheepfold as a “shepherd,” or sub-shepherd, helping Jesus to lead the flock, one must meet Jesus’ standards.
In verse three, “The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep hear his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out”: In real life this could be the shepherd himself or some sub-shepherd. Doors, doorkeepers, gates and gatekeepers were frequently employed images in the Synoptics. There is the saying about entering through the narrow gate (Mt7: 13f; Lk13: 24). Mt goes on to speak of the false prophets (shepherds) who are like wolves in sheep’s clothing; Luke continues with the householder who refuses entry to those who knock on the door too late. Seen in this light Jesus is warning his hearers that there is such a thing as “too late,” and so they must enter soon and there is such a thing as “false guides,” “blind guides,” who are to be rejected. Doorkeepers are a prominent image in Mark’s 13: 33-37 teaching on watchfulness. The point here is that there is a proper way to approach the sheep, namely, through the gate opened by the keeper. Any other approach is malevolent. Only a bona fide person will be admitted. The Pharisees, knowing they cannot pass scrutiny for authenticity, attempt to break in by other means, especially false representation, a form of hypocrisy.
The sheep hear his voice: The focus shifts from access to the fold to intimacy between the sheep and shepherd. Two originally separate parables may have been merged here, like the twin parables in Luke 15: 3-10, the lost sheep and the lost coin, or in Luke 14: 28-32, the tower builder and the warring king. As part of Jesus’ reaction to the “blind guides,” the Pharisees, in chapter 9, who were not able to get the man born blind to follow them and their teaching, Jesus now answers the question why they could not be effective. Why do the poor, the outcasts, sinners, listen to Jesus instead of the Pharisees? The answer is found in an analogy between sheep and shepherd. They have so intimate a relationship that the sheep recognize the voice of their own, real, true, shepherd. Like domesticated dogs who listen only to their alpha dog, their master, so also sheep as believers, listen only to Jesus. The Pharisees are now revealed as strangers and their voices are strange, to the flock, rather than as thieves and robbers as in the first parable, verses one to three. Let out of the pen, the sheep would scatter, ignoring the voice of a pretend shepherd. False shepherds cannot coax obedience. They can only coerce conformity.
He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out: Jesus uses the practice of shepherds- then and now- of nicknaming each sheep- like “Blacky,” “Whitey,” “Wimpy,” “Sleepy,” “Dopey,” etc.- to describe what he does with people and how he knows his own intimately. Each has a special name to indicate a special relationship with him.
In verse four, he walks ahead of them: This verse parallels and possibly quotes Numbers 27:17: “who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in, so that the congregation of the Lord may not be like sheep without a shepherd.” Jesus is saying that he fulfills that role of God’s authoritative representative to his people, their only true shepherd.
In verse six, although Jesus used this figure of speech, they did not realize what he was trying to tell them: In Mark 4 and Matthew 13, Jesus explained his parables when people failed to understand at first. Not all got the point, however. Such is the case here. Just as he explained the Parable of the Sower in Mark 4:1-9 in Mark 4: 14-20, so here he explains these parables of sheep, gate and shepherd from v.7 on. Even though John gives the impression that the Pharisees do not get it, they really do. They just do not accept it. It is not primarily a matter of intellectual understanding, but a matter of attitude, of the will, an unwillingness to respond to the challenge of Jesus’ parables. In the Synoptics that challenge is centered around the imagery of the “Kingdom of God.” In John it is centered around Jesus himself. The familiar phrase in the Synoptics, “The Kingdom of God is like…,” has been replaced in John by “I am…” The King is the Kingdom, a relationship with him includes everything spoken of regarding the kingdom and its inherited blessings.
In verse seven, I am the gate for the sheep: The Greek here admits of two interpretations and both are meant. Verse eight will apply the meaning “door to the sheep” to the false shepherds, the Pharisees. Verses nine and ten, will apply the meaning “door that is used by the sheep,” to the sheep themselves. In the Near East a practice exists today, and probably existed in Jesus’ day, whereby the shepherd would act as the door to the sheep by sleeping in that space, if he was a lone shepherd, or guarding in that space, if he was taking his turn at watch. Thus, the shepherd is also the gate or door, the means of access and egress. Only Jesus is the door of the sheep, and only through him can one have access to the sheep, and the sheep have exit to good pasture.
In verse eight, all who came before me are thieves and robbers: This certainly would not apply to Abraham, the Patriarchs, Moses or the prophets. It would certainly apply to the religious/[political leaders since the Maccabean revolt, and to the Pharisees. This explanation is closer to the first parable in verses one to three(a).
But the sheep did not listen to them: Since this is part of a literary unit, chapters nine and ten, the immediate reference would be to the man born blind in chapter nine, who refused to be misled by the Pharisees who were questioning him. On a broader scale Jesus would be referring to all those people who saw through false shepherds and refused to be duped by them.
In verse nine, whoever enter through me will be saved: The focus changes from false shepherds to sheep. Still, Jesus is the only gate. This explanation is closer to the second parable in verses three to five.
Find pasture: This is an image for eternal life. The door offers and opens to not only salvation, a one shot declaration of reconciliation or bill of good health, but also continual pasture, nourishment to sustain that reconciled condition, good health, in perpetuity.
In verse ten, a thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy: Most thieves just steal. Jesus here is referring to thieves as representatives of evil of all kinds. This “thief,” is not necessarily the one referred to in verse one, the first parable, but more like the “one who comes in his own name, for his own selfish gain” of chapter five verse forty-three, that is, a general representative of darkness and evil who is a rival to the Son. This illustrates the tendency of the historical enemies of Jesus, e.g., the Pharisees, to become more general figures of evil and to be applied to other instances as the gospel message gets preached further and further away from the actual historical context in which it originally occurred. This is an instance of the sensus plenior, the fuller sense, developing out of the sensus literalis, the sense the sacred author intended to convey.
I came that they might have life…abundantly: It is through Jesus, and only through Jesus, that others, sheep, have life, fullness of life as opposed to slaughter, the expected lot of sheep.
Having explained what he means by “door” or “gate,” Jesus moves on to explain what he means by a “good shepherd.”
Sermon
In our relationship with Jesus we are like sheep. In our relationship with the Church’s shepherds we listen and follow them only in so far as they are authentic representatives of Christ. In our relationship with political “shepherds,” we do the same. But in our relationship with the world, it is we who act as “shepherds,” in the name of Christ. So, all the bad stuff Jesus says about false shepherds applies not only to our Church leadership but to each of us as well.
No one would deny that we have had and continue to have our share of bad shepherds- bishops, pastors. Some are so blatantly obvious that they are easy to spot. Others are quite clever, like the Pharisees. They may sound like Jesus, but their actions give them away. To be a “good sheep,” we have to study the voice of the master shepherd, his Word, Scripture, so that we can recognize when it is he who is speaking through a sub-shepherd and when it is an imposter. Like people in entertainment, who do impressions, we know they are just that, impressions, and not the real thing because we have heard the real thing. The real thing in the case of Jesus, his voice, is found in his Word. If we do not study it, we will likely be duped by holy-sounding imposters, dressed in the finest wool, but wolves underneath. So, we should be able to tell right away, like sheep and dogs who know their master’s voice,.
But, what if we cannot tell right away? What if we have not paid enough attention to the Word? In that case we can tell by results. What is the result of this false leading? Does it end in life, abundance or bankruptcy? Jesus came for life. If we and the community we live in, the sheepfold, is alive, happy, helpful to others, even outside the fold, living in peace, then we are following the right shepherd. If we feel empty of life, bored, bankrupt, even corrupt, then we have been led astray or let ourselves be duped by false and undeliverable promises. Ordained shepherds are no more immune from empty, spiritually bankrupt lives than unordained ones. The problem is the same in both instances- lack of an intimate relationship with Jesus, especially through a daily diet of his Word. The solution is, of course, the same. Sad to say we have just too many of our ordained shepherds who have merely donned the garb and act out their “role,” as shepherds, only to end up as bankrupt as they left those they were supposed to lead. Their words are empty not only of meaning but of the voice of the Lord. They do not have the ring or sound of salvation, but usually of “business as usual.” They turn the affairs of the Church, especially preaching, into human activities, level one activities, guided by human standards, practices, policies and procedures. There is no communication of life, as Jesus said is the reason he came, because there is no life as such, only counterfeit.
What is true of the ordained can also be true of the unordained shepherds. All Christ’s sheep are also shepherds and they do not need an official mandate, other than their own Baptism and Confirmation, to act in the name of Christ. Thus, we all must take care that we communicate life more than plans for living, designs for living, policies and procedures for living. Otherwise, we too, may put these things before real truth and be like the Pharisees who reacted to the man born blind. First, they tried to deny anything happened. Then, when he challenged them to stop misrepresenting Christ as a sinner, they rejected him, even throwing him out bodily. True, he was an irritant to them, a gadfly, but he was telling the truth. We can become so comfortable in our disguises as Christ’s representatives that we can begin to believe that being authentic is less important than being either convincing, as to dupe people, or being compelling, as to force people to obey us. Just because we can point the finger at the ordained does not mean that we are not also guilty of depriving the world of the abundant life, which comes from Jesus, the only door, the only Shepherd.
Jesus is the authentic head shepherd; all others are sub-shepherds.
Sub-shepherds take their orders from Jesus; they do not make them up.
Unless the sheep-followers recognize their voice of Jesus in the voice of the sub-shepherd, they are not to follow or obey, but ignore.
To recognize the voice of Jesus, the “ring of truth,” amidst clamor and clanging of human speech and behavior, one must study his word in its clarity, found in the Scriptures.
Hypocrisy Then: The Synoptics are filled with scenes wherein Jesus clashed with the Pharisees. Although Jesus would not consider all Pharisees as hypocrites, he did use the category of “Pharisee,” to point out the dangers of people who have either finagled their way into positions of authority or have appointed themselves into positions of sanctimony by virtue of their supposed superior moral conduct. More Pharisees were hypocrites than were not. Jesus had no time for hypocrisy, though he loved even the hypocrites. He pointed out their error because he cared about them and also because of the great harm hypocrisy can do to his followers, whom he compares to sheep in John chapter ten. Jesus saw right through hypocrisy and he wants his followers to do the same. He has a very simple rule of thumb to determine authenticity, namely, “by their fruits you shall know them.” However, Jesus was aware that many hypocrites have practiced and entire lifetime duping people by their almost flawless imitation of what would pass for holiness. So, to the external criterion of a person’s behavior in order to test for authenticity, he adds the “ring of truth” requirement. Jesus is saying that if we study his word prayerfully and carefully, the word found in Scripture, we will be able to discern in the very words of others claiming to or presumed to by ordination, be speaking or teaching in his behalf. Simply put, some people who appear to be speaking in Christ’s name sound hollow instead of hallowed. While they might be saying the correct words, they lack the “ring of truth,” because their deeds do not conform to their words. As Jesus says, “Do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow, but do not follow their example. They preach but do not practice according to Matthew 23: 3.” The Pharisees knew Jesus was speaking about them under the image of false shepherds.
Hypocrisy Now: What Jesus says is valid for all time and his teachings have been preserved in the church so that we might apply them to our own present lives. Jesus wants us to be aware that hypocrisy can just as easily find a home among Christians as it did among ancient Pharisees and that the clergy are no exception. Of course, there is always individual hypocrisy, but what Jesus is talking about here is mainly institutional hypocrisy, hypocrisy actually fostered within the institution of the church. Such hypocrisy is worse than individual hypocrisy because it is easier to hide and causes greater harm. When the secular world exposed the widespread practice of the church’s shepherds to hide pederasty within the ranks of the priesthood by simply putting them among a different flock of sheep, a different parish, with no indication or warning that they might be false shepherds who would harm the lambs, the secular world exposed hypocrisy on an institutional level, hypocrisy “blessed” by claiming it was “customary” to do so. This scandal raises questions of how many other practices the official sub-shepherds engage in that are not consistent with the mind of Christ, but are claimed to be so on the basis of “authority” alone. Hypocrisy is simply lying wholesale. When we encounter hypocrisy we lose faith in everything a person or persons might say or do. We can no longer discern the voice of the Lord amidst the conflicting evidence. Sexual abuse of children has received less attention from people who are supposed to represent Christ than has comparatively minor liturgical infractions. A priest is much more likely to be defrocked because of his liturgical behavior than because of his sexual misbehavior. That fact alone speaks volumes about how much the Catholic church needs real reform, not simply a rearranging of policies and procedures, but a thorough cleaning. The “reforms,” of Vatican II did not do it. One must wonder if bishops are still chosen for their integrity or for their conformity to custom. Amen.
