John 10:11-21
Jesus isn’t just a good shepherd, but The Good Shepherd. I wonder how the notion of a shepherd who actually lays down his life for the sheep would have been taken. It suspect it would be assumed that a shepherd should not be like the ‘hireling’ who doesn’t really care for the sheep so that they would know his voice and follow him. But lay down your life for the sheep? And if you did lay down your life for any of the sheep, the whole flock would be shepherdless, which, I suspect, would be disastrous. In contrast, Jesus brings life to the human sheep by laying down his life.
It is of utmost concern (“must,” verse 16) to bring sheep who are not of the fold, with the very purpose that they will be one flock. By now the parallels are breaking down, so that by verse 17 Jesus is just talking about “my Father” and his purpose in coming – for the very purpose of laying down his life for the sheep.
There are lambs born into a flock of sheep. But no one is born into Jesus’ human flock. All who are part of Jesus’ flock have been brought. The unity of the flock is entirely in the action of the shepherd who does the bringing. The one thing we have in common is that we have all been brought – something we either forget about very quickly or overlook altogether when we talk about the older and newer people in Jesus’ flock.
Prayer:
Jesus, you alone are the Good Shepherd. You know what is best for all your sheep. Help me and all of us focus on your desire for the sheep to know what is best for us. Help those of us who are fifth-level sub-divisional shepherds to know that we also are sheep and need your care, direction, feeding, and the fellowship of other sheep. Amen.
2 comments:
verse 16: "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."
verse 16 is very curious. first of all, it seems parenthetical, because verse 17 picks up where verse 15 leaves off; and there's nothing else in the passage which seems to relate directly to verse 16's notion of other sheep not of this sheepfold.
who were these sheep that jesus was speaking to, and how would these sheep have understood his reference to the other sheep?
how inclusive can this statement be understood, in the context of palestine in 30 A.D.? in midland 2006?
I think it may help to fast forward a bit. In John 12 Greeks (different fold - Gentiles) come to see Jesus and Jesus suddenly talks about losing life to save it and grains of wheat falling into the ground. Jesus' dying and rising again will bring new life for the whole world that God so loved (John 3). In other words, I think verse 16 is very much tied to the verses after. It will take the death of Jesus to break down the barriers and make possible true unity. All our distinctions fall away in the face of the truth of God's love for all. It is part of God's plan to bring all things together in Christ in a new creation. Bringing, gathering, coming together of people who otherwise would have nothing to do with one another - or would kill each other if they had the chance, is the goal of all this.
As for the sheep Jesus was speaking to, I don't think he was speaking to the sheep but to the thieves and robbers, especially in light of what comes after in the balance of the chapter. They were only interested in the sheep as part of the maintenance of their religion. That's why they were more concerned about the breaking of the Sabbath than that something wonderful, like gaining sight or being able to walk again, happened on the Sabbath.
As for inclusiveness, I think Jesus wants us to "Imagine" a world with no religion - just relationships: with him, and in him, with one another. One flock.
Post a Comment