Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 15:12:58 GMT -5
John recorded the next passage, often referred to as the Good Shepherd discourse, in a
manner suggesting that it was a continuation of Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees.
Some have argued that this discourse actually belongs with the Feast of Dedication context beginning at verse 22. There is no way to be certain which view is correct, but the evidence seems to favor the first view:
- First and foremost, John provided no transition between 9:41 and 10:1. (There were no chapter and verse partitions in the original text.) Instead, he recorded this as a continuation of Jesus’ word to the Pharisees (cf. 9:40-41, 10:6-7). If the Good
Shepherd discourse took place at a later time, John certainly obscured that fact.
- Secondly, the content of 10:1-21 fits very neatly with the circumstances recounted in chapter 9 (note especially 10:19-21). In particular, Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees (9:40-41) perfectly dovetails with His indictment of false shepherds and
the contrast He drew between them and Himself (cf. also 10:1 and Mark 11:17f).
- The Jews and the calendar closely related the Feasts of Booths and Dedication, which suits John’s transitional statement in 10:22. So also it seems he intended this discourse to serve as the transition binding the two festal contexts together.
- Though Jesus continued the shepherd/sheep theme in 10:22ff, this doesn’t absolutely dictate that both discourses occurred at the Feast of Dedication. The shepherd/sheep imagery is a central messianic theme and is woven into the gospel accounts; doubtless it was a common feature of Jesus’ teaching and selfinterpretation (cf. Matthew 2:1-6, 9:35-36, 25:31-32, 26:31; Mark 6:32-34; John
21:16; cf. also Hebrews 13:20). More compelling, however, is John’s transition in verse 22 and the absence of any such transition at the beginning of chapter 10.
Assuming, then, that this discourse continues Jesus’ indictment in 9:40-41, it should be viewed as specifically directed toward the Pharisees who challenged Him as He spoke with the healed man (cf. 10:6). This is an important first observation, because some want
to treat Jesus’ statements as general insight into the shepherding role. The result is that Jesus’ description of Himself as the Good Shepherd is treated as a practical paradigm: a model for pastors and other church leaders to emulate in their own shepherding work and a template for identifying unfaithful or false shepherds. But when this passage is treated in context, it’s clear that Jesus was speaking about Himself in contradistinction from the “shepherds” of Israel who’d led them throughout their history up to the present time.
Thus the passage should not be read as a treatise on pastoral theology, but in the light of such passages as Isaiah 40, Jeremiah 10-12, 23, Ezekiel 34, 37 and Zechariah 11.
A second thing to note before engaging the discourse itself is the fact that it is constructed as an allegory. An allegory is effectively an extended metaphor in which a series of symbols (persons, settings, circumstances, etc.) are correlated in such a way that together they convey certain truths. (Pilgrim’s Progress is an elaborate allegory comprised of numerous symbols and symbolic ideas woven together in story form to powerfully communicate fundamental and critical truths about the Christian faith and life.)
214
Allegories and parables are often confused or treated as identical, but they’re different literary structures. (Note that John refers to Jesus’ words as a “figure of speech” (paroimia) and not a parable (parabolē); cf. 16:25, 29.) Parables tend to be narrowly focused and convey their point by a simple illustration drawn from common real life situations. Also, the correlation in parables between story and signification often takes the
form of a simile, as in Jesus’ formulaic expression, “the kingdom of God is like…”
Allegories can also take story form, but typically in more elaborate fashion involving numerous symbols and symbolic ideas and images. And, whereas parables are generally concerned with a concise philosophical, moral or ethical idea, allegories tend to have a
more extended and complex signification, even telling a story within the story.
In the case of the present allegory, Jesus was drawing upon scriptural metaphors familiar to His hearers in order to convey truths regarding Himself, His mission and His relation to the people of Israel and their rulers. More specifically, He was taking up a key narrative in Israel’s story (identified by the shepherd/sheep metaphors) and connecting it with Himself as the focal point of its fulfillment and meaning:
- Israel was Yahweh’s flock, but a flock whose existence had been marked by affliction, oppression and slaughter because of its waywardness encouraged and exacerbated by unfaithful shepherds. But Yahweh, the True Shepherd, had promised to arise and regather His flock under His own care, delivering them from those who destroyed them – their shepherds as well as their enemies.
- By this allegory, Jesus was identifying Himself as that True Shepherd and Israel’s rulers as the false shepherds whose care actually worked against their well-being.
At bottom, this allegory was one more instance of Jesus substantiating His claim that all of the Scriptures speak of Him and that He’d come to fulfill all that Yahweh had revealed and promised in them. In Him, all of God’s promises are indeed “yes and amen.”
a. The first step toward understanding Jesus’ allegory is to identify and interpret His metaphors. Three of them He interpreted directly: the shepherd, the door and the sheep. The others can be interpreted in relation to these three and by their role in the allegory. Clearly the central metaphor is the shepherd, which Jesus identified as signifying Himself. (Specifically, He is the epitomizing shepherd: the Good Shepherd). This is a pregnant image which played a significant role in Israel’s life and covenant relationship with God and so must be examined in some detail.
First of all, there are three general ideas bound up in the shepherd image: care and nurture, protection and governance. Israel was an agrarian nation and the people were well familiar with the shepherding task, even if they weren’t personally involved in it. They recognized that shepherds are charged with the well-being of their flock; their skill and success are measured by the flourishing of their sheep.
In a word, shepherds are caregivers who devote themselves to feeding, nurturing
and protecting the sheep in their charge. They lead them, but for their sake.
These qualities of the shepherding task are fundamental to the use of the shepherd image to characterize Israel’s leaders: In God’s system of governance, leadership is servanthood; the leader submits himself to those under his charge in the sense that he devotes his authority, power and resource to the service of their good.
- This leadership pattern in Israel had its first exemplar in Yahweh Himself.
He was Israel’s “good shepherd” and it was as this sort of devoted caregiver that He executed His lordship as King, Judge and Law-Giver (cf.
Isaiah 33:20-24 with Psalm 23, 28:6-9; Isaiah 40:1-11; Ezekiel 34:1-15).
- As their covenant King, Yahweh was a true shepherd to the flock of Israel and He required that the men who ruled His people in His name execute
their authority and oversight in the same way. They were to devote themselves in loving sacrifice to the well-being of His sheep; only in this
way would their rule actually be His rule and not their own. Yahweh was King in Israel and His appointed leaders were charged with administering
His rule; they were undershepherds serving the Chief Shepherd.
- So it was to be preeminently with the human king God ordained for His covenant kingdom (cf. Genesis 49:8-10; Numbers 24:1-7; Deuteronomy
17:14-20). Israel was Yahweh’s son, and the status of sonship was uniquely true of Yahweh’s king who ruled in His name and power. Just as
with human kings who administer their rule through their son, so it was with Israel’s King. Yahweh was Israel’s Shepherd and He chose David to
execute His shepherding role (cf. Psalm 78:51-55, 70-72; 2 Samuel 5:1-2).
- But all of Israel’s rulers failed in their calling and responsibility as shepherds; this was true of Moses and even David himself, the man after
God’s own heart. By design and by calling, David was the paradigmatic king of Israel: Yahweh’s regal human surrogate, anointed with His Spirit,
exercising His lordship over His covenant house and kingdom as His unique son. Thus David was also Israel’s paradigmatic shepherd: a man in
whom Yahweh carried out His own role as the Shepherd of His flock.
David embodied Yahweh’s rule in Israel, so that his failure as king meant more than the failure of his dynasty; it meant the failure of the covenant kingdom itself since both were bound together by covenant oath (2 Samuel 7). And because God’s covenant with David was set within and
advanced His covenant with Israel, Israel’s relationship with Him was henceforth bound up in David and His rule as son-king; David’s failure as
Yahweh’s shepherd would bring the demise of His flock. And Israel’s demise, in turn, would mean the failure of God’s covenant with Abraham
and so the thwarting of His purpose for the world. Thus David served two purposes as the Lord’s shepherd: By calling and administration, he
embodied the paradigmatic shepherd; by his failure, he fulfilled his role as prototype. David, the shepherd of Yahweh’s flock, anticipated another.
That man would come from David as his Branch and the Scripture revealed him to be Yahweh’s messianic-deliverer (cf. Psalm 132; Isaiah
9:1-7, 11:1-13; Jeremiah 23:1-6, 33:14-26; Zechariah 3:1-10, 6:9-15; etc.).
And, by assigning David’s name to this offspring, the Scripture punctuated the truth that David was to find in Him the fulfillment of his own identity and calling as Israel’s shepherd. Just as this One would embody Israel as Yahweh’s true flock, He would embody David in truth as Yahweh’s faithful shepherd (ref. Ezekiel 34, 36; cf. Hosea 1-3). So this Branch was to be the antitype of Israel’s other great shepherd: Moses, Yahweh’s chosen servant who led His flock to His sanctuary land, even while bearing Israel’s sin and suffering as mediator (cf. Psalm 77:20; Exodus 32; Deuteronomy 1; Psalm 106:32-33; cf. also Numbers 27:16-19; Deuteronomy 18:15-19).
All of these ideas are bound up in Jesus’ allegory and especially His identification of Himself as the Good Shepherd. Jesus initiated His allegory in general terms, speaking broadly of the relationship which exists between a shepherd and his sheep and how that relationship allows for identifying an enemy or imposter (10:1-5). But observing that His hearers missed His point, Jesus elaborated in more specific terms, explaining to them who He had in mind with His shepherd, sheep and stranger metaphors and what He was intending to convey (10:6-18).
- He is the authentic shepherd He was depicting – the one in whom there is no guile, malice or deceit. He is the one who enters the sheepfold through the door after being identified and admitted by the doorkeeper; He is the one whom the sheep recognize and trustingly follow; the one who lovingly leads His flock, going ahead of them as their provider and protector. Jesus is that sort of shepherd, but He is more because of the nature of His flock and His shepherding task: He is the Good Shepherd described in vv. 11ff.
- Jesus identified Himself as the shepherd, and thus the sheep – those who know, trust, hear and follow only their shepherd (note 9:24ff) – are Jesus’ own, gathered by Him from Israel (vv. 3-4) and the nations (v. 16).
- The metaphor of the sheepfold refers to Yahweh’s household, but this
results in a double meaning, which itself is a critical component of the overall truth Jesus was conveying. In the allegory itself, the sheepfold
refers to the covenant house of Israel. This is obvious from Jesus’ assertion that the shepherds who had preceded Him were thieves and bandits (Jeremiah 23:1-2; Ezekiel 34; Zechariah 11:1-4; etc.). But in His interpretation of the allegory, the sheepfold consists of all those who
belong to the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for them. While Jesus wasn’t explicit in this discourse, it’s clear He understood that Israel
– Yahweh’s covenant household – was to be reconstituted around Himself. He had entered the sheepfold that is Israel openly and sincerely, free of all guile and self-serving motivation. And He had done so to lead out His sheep, which sheep He would gather from that fold as well as another.
There are three other human metaphors in Jesus’ allegory, and those are the intruders into the sheepfold (10:1), the doorkeeper (10:3) and the stranger (10:5).
Jesus didn’t define these metaphors and so their signification must be determined from the previous symbols and the allegory itself.
- With respect to the intruders, three contextual features are most helpful.
The first is that Jesus contrasted these individuals with the authentic shepherd, suggesting that they are false shepherds – impostors posing as
shepherds.
Second, He characterized these men as thieves and robbers. Both Greek nouns denote persons who steal from their victims, but the latter has a strong connotation of violence, as in the case of a looter or armed bandit. Hence the thievery Jesus had in mind includes murder and destruction as well as theft (v. 10). Finally, these individuals are evil and wily deceivers, sneaking into the sheepfold at night. Taken together, and
recognizing that the sheepfold here signifies the house of Israel, it seems Jesus was referring to Israel’s leaders: men who, through deception and
fraud, took to themselves the role of shepherd, but for the sake of their own gain; men who are thieves and violent looters of Yahweh’s flock.
- The second symbolic individual is the doorkeeper – the person who guards the entry into the sheepfold during the night. Determining the
referent of this symbol is more difficult, especially for modern urban Christians. But once again Jesus provided contextual clues: First, He
presented this individual as distinct from the shepherd, yet a man of integrity and discernment who is sincerely concerned for the well-being of
the sheep in his charge. He knows the true shepherd and opens the gate (door) into the fold when he arrives (vv. 2-3). So he refuses entrance to all others, evident in the fact that the false shepherds must sneak into the fold through another way. It seems, then, that this doorkeeper symbolizes Israel’s prophets and, more immediately, the faithful of Jesus’ generation who were waiting for the arrival of the Messiah – the true Shepherd – and recognized and welcomed Him into the sheepfold when He arrived.
- The last symbolic individual is the stranger. This person calls out to the sheep with the intent of drawing them to follow after him as their shepherd (v. 5). It’s quite possible that Jesus was here speaking of the same intruders as in verse
1. For false shepherds seek to draw the sheep away, but they are strangers whose voice the sheep don’t recognize. Once inside the sheepfold, they can steal, kill and destroy the flock (v. 10), but they cannot get the sheep to follow them out of the fold. But it’s also possible
that Jesus had another kind of individual in mind, namely the false messiah. For He presented this person as seeking to confuse the sheep and
deceive them into believing that he is their shepherd. This description suits the false messiah, whether the sincere zealot or the grandiose opportunist; Israel had known such men and would continue to encounter them after
Jesus’ ascension (cf. Matthew 24:15-27; Mark 13:1-22; Luke 21:1-8)
manner suggesting that it was a continuation of Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees.
Some have argued that this discourse actually belongs with the Feast of Dedication context beginning at verse 22. There is no way to be certain which view is correct, but the evidence seems to favor the first view:
- First and foremost, John provided no transition between 9:41 and 10:1. (There were no chapter and verse partitions in the original text.) Instead, he recorded this as a continuation of Jesus’ word to the Pharisees (cf. 9:40-41, 10:6-7). If the Good
Shepherd discourse took place at a later time, John certainly obscured that fact.
- Secondly, the content of 10:1-21 fits very neatly with the circumstances recounted in chapter 9 (note especially 10:19-21). In particular, Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees (9:40-41) perfectly dovetails with His indictment of false shepherds and
the contrast He drew between them and Himself (cf. also 10:1 and Mark 11:17f).
- The Jews and the calendar closely related the Feasts of Booths and Dedication, which suits John’s transitional statement in 10:22. So also it seems he intended this discourse to serve as the transition binding the two festal contexts together.
- Though Jesus continued the shepherd/sheep theme in 10:22ff, this doesn’t absolutely dictate that both discourses occurred at the Feast of Dedication. The shepherd/sheep imagery is a central messianic theme and is woven into the gospel accounts; doubtless it was a common feature of Jesus’ teaching and selfinterpretation (cf. Matthew 2:1-6, 9:35-36, 25:31-32, 26:31; Mark 6:32-34; John
21:16; cf. also Hebrews 13:20). More compelling, however, is John’s transition in verse 22 and the absence of any such transition at the beginning of chapter 10.
Assuming, then, that this discourse continues Jesus’ indictment in 9:40-41, it should be viewed as specifically directed toward the Pharisees who challenged Him as He spoke with the healed man (cf. 10:6). This is an important first observation, because some want
to treat Jesus’ statements as general insight into the shepherding role. The result is that Jesus’ description of Himself as the Good Shepherd is treated as a practical paradigm: a model for pastors and other church leaders to emulate in their own shepherding work and a template for identifying unfaithful or false shepherds. But when this passage is treated in context, it’s clear that Jesus was speaking about Himself in contradistinction from the “shepherds” of Israel who’d led them throughout their history up to the present time.
Thus the passage should not be read as a treatise on pastoral theology, but in the light of such passages as Isaiah 40, Jeremiah 10-12, 23, Ezekiel 34, 37 and Zechariah 11.
A second thing to note before engaging the discourse itself is the fact that it is constructed as an allegory. An allegory is effectively an extended metaphor in which a series of symbols (persons, settings, circumstances, etc.) are correlated in such a way that together they convey certain truths. (Pilgrim’s Progress is an elaborate allegory comprised of numerous symbols and symbolic ideas woven together in story form to powerfully communicate fundamental and critical truths about the Christian faith and life.)
214
Allegories and parables are often confused or treated as identical, but they’re different literary structures. (Note that John refers to Jesus’ words as a “figure of speech” (paroimia) and not a parable (parabolē); cf. 16:25, 29.) Parables tend to be narrowly focused and convey their point by a simple illustration drawn from common real life situations. Also, the correlation in parables between story and signification often takes the
form of a simile, as in Jesus’ formulaic expression, “the kingdom of God is like…”
Allegories can also take story form, but typically in more elaborate fashion involving numerous symbols and symbolic ideas and images. And, whereas parables are generally concerned with a concise philosophical, moral or ethical idea, allegories tend to have a
more extended and complex signification, even telling a story within the story.
In the case of the present allegory, Jesus was drawing upon scriptural metaphors familiar to His hearers in order to convey truths regarding Himself, His mission and His relation to the people of Israel and their rulers. More specifically, He was taking up a key narrative in Israel’s story (identified by the shepherd/sheep metaphors) and connecting it with Himself as the focal point of its fulfillment and meaning:
- Israel was Yahweh’s flock, but a flock whose existence had been marked by affliction, oppression and slaughter because of its waywardness encouraged and exacerbated by unfaithful shepherds. But Yahweh, the True Shepherd, had promised to arise and regather His flock under His own care, delivering them from those who destroyed them – their shepherds as well as their enemies.
- By this allegory, Jesus was identifying Himself as that True Shepherd and Israel’s rulers as the false shepherds whose care actually worked against their well-being.
At bottom, this allegory was one more instance of Jesus substantiating His claim that all of the Scriptures speak of Him and that He’d come to fulfill all that Yahweh had revealed and promised in them. In Him, all of God’s promises are indeed “yes and amen.”
a. The first step toward understanding Jesus’ allegory is to identify and interpret His metaphors. Three of them He interpreted directly: the shepherd, the door and the sheep. The others can be interpreted in relation to these three and by their role in the allegory. Clearly the central metaphor is the shepherd, which Jesus identified as signifying Himself. (Specifically, He is the epitomizing shepherd: the Good Shepherd). This is a pregnant image which played a significant role in Israel’s life and covenant relationship with God and so must be examined in some detail.
First of all, there are three general ideas bound up in the shepherd image: care and nurture, protection and governance. Israel was an agrarian nation and the people were well familiar with the shepherding task, even if they weren’t personally involved in it. They recognized that shepherds are charged with the well-being of their flock; their skill and success are measured by the flourishing of their sheep.
In a word, shepherds are caregivers who devote themselves to feeding, nurturing
and protecting the sheep in their charge. They lead them, but for their sake.
These qualities of the shepherding task are fundamental to the use of the shepherd image to characterize Israel’s leaders: In God’s system of governance, leadership is servanthood; the leader submits himself to those under his charge in the sense that he devotes his authority, power and resource to the service of their good.
- This leadership pattern in Israel had its first exemplar in Yahweh Himself.
He was Israel’s “good shepherd” and it was as this sort of devoted caregiver that He executed His lordship as King, Judge and Law-Giver (cf.
Isaiah 33:20-24 with Psalm 23, 28:6-9; Isaiah 40:1-11; Ezekiel 34:1-15).
- As their covenant King, Yahweh was a true shepherd to the flock of Israel and He required that the men who ruled His people in His name execute
their authority and oversight in the same way. They were to devote themselves in loving sacrifice to the well-being of His sheep; only in this
way would their rule actually be His rule and not their own. Yahweh was King in Israel and His appointed leaders were charged with administering
His rule; they were undershepherds serving the Chief Shepherd.
- So it was to be preeminently with the human king God ordained for His covenant kingdom (cf. Genesis 49:8-10; Numbers 24:1-7; Deuteronomy
17:14-20). Israel was Yahweh’s son, and the status of sonship was uniquely true of Yahweh’s king who ruled in His name and power. Just as
with human kings who administer their rule through their son, so it was with Israel’s King. Yahweh was Israel’s Shepherd and He chose David to
execute His shepherding role (cf. Psalm 78:51-55, 70-72; 2 Samuel 5:1-2).
- But all of Israel’s rulers failed in their calling and responsibility as shepherds; this was true of Moses and even David himself, the man after
God’s own heart. By design and by calling, David was the paradigmatic king of Israel: Yahweh’s regal human surrogate, anointed with His Spirit,
exercising His lordship over His covenant house and kingdom as His unique son. Thus David was also Israel’s paradigmatic shepherd: a man in
whom Yahweh carried out His own role as the Shepherd of His flock.
David embodied Yahweh’s rule in Israel, so that his failure as king meant more than the failure of his dynasty; it meant the failure of the covenant kingdom itself since both were bound together by covenant oath (2 Samuel 7). And because God’s covenant with David was set within and
advanced His covenant with Israel, Israel’s relationship with Him was henceforth bound up in David and His rule as son-king; David’s failure as
Yahweh’s shepherd would bring the demise of His flock. And Israel’s demise, in turn, would mean the failure of God’s covenant with Abraham
and so the thwarting of His purpose for the world. Thus David served two purposes as the Lord’s shepherd: By calling and administration, he
embodied the paradigmatic shepherd; by his failure, he fulfilled his role as prototype. David, the shepherd of Yahweh’s flock, anticipated another.
That man would come from David as his Branch and the Scripture revealed him to be Yahweh’s messianic-deliverer (cf. Psalm 132; Isaiah
9:1-7, 11:1-13; Jeremiah 23:1-6, 33:14-26; Zechariah 3:1-10, 6:9-15; etc.).
And, by assigning David’s name to this offspring, the Scripture punctuated the truth that David was to find in Him the fulfillment of his own identity and calling as Israel’s shepherd. Just as this One would embody Israel as Yahweh’s true flock, He would embody David in truth as Yahweh’s faithful shepherd (ref. Ezekiel 34, 36; cf. Hosea 1-3). So this Branch was to be the antitype of Israel’s other great shepherd: Moses, Yahweh’s chosen servant who led His flock to His sanctuary land, even while bearing Israel’s sin and suffering as mediator (cf. Psalm 77:20; Exodus 32; Deuteronomy 1; Psalm 106:32-33; cf. also Numbers 27:16-19; Deuteronomy 18:15-19).
All of these ideas are bound up in Jesus’ allegory and especially His identification of Himself as the Good Shepherd. Jesus initiated His allegory in general terms, speaking broadly of the relationship which exists between a shepherd and his sheep and how that relationship allows for identifying an enemy or imposter (10:1-5). But observing that His hearers missed His point, Jesus elaborated in more specific terms, explaining to them who He had in mind with His shepherd, sheep and stranger metaphors and what He was intending to convey (10:6-18).
- He is the authentic shepherd He was depicting – the one in whom there is no guile, malice or deceit. He is the one who enters the sheepfold through the door after being identified and admitted by the doorkeeper; He is the one whom the sheep recognize and trustingly follow; the one who lovingly leads His flock, going ahead of them as their provider and protector. Jesus is that sort of shepherd, but He is more because of the nature of His flock and His shepherding task: He is the Good Shepherd described in vv. 11ff.
- Jesus identified Himself as the shepherd, and thus the sheep – those who know, trust, hear and follow only their shepherd (note 9:24ff) – are Jesus’ own, gathered by Him from Israel (vv. 3-4) and the nations (v. 16).
- The metaphor of the sheepfold refers to Yahweh’s household, but this
results in a double meaning, which itself is a critical component of the overall truth Jesus was conveying. In the allegory itself, the sheepfold
refers to the covenant house of Israel. This is obvious from Jesus’ assertion that the shepherds who had preceded Him were thieves and bandits (Jeremiah 23:1-2; Ezekiel 34; Zechariah 11:1-4; etc.). But in His interpretation of the allegory, the sheepfold consists of all those who
belong to the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for them. While Jesus wasn’t explicit in this discourse, it’s clear He understood that Israel
– Yahweh’s covenant household – was to be reconstituted around Himself. He had entered the sheepfold that is Israel openly and sincerely, free of all guile and self-serving motivation. And He had done so to lead out His sheep, which sheep He would gather from that fold as well as another.
There are three other human metaphors in Jesus’ allegory, and those are the intruders into the sheepfold (10:1), the doorkeeper (10:3) and the stranger (10:5).
Jesus didn’t define these metaphors and so their signification must be determined from the previous symbols and the allegory itself.
- With respect to the intruders, three contextual features are most helpful.
The first is that Jesus contrasted these individuals with the authentic shepherd, suggesting that they are false shepherds – impostors posing as
shepherds.
Second, He characterized these men as thieves and robbers. Both Greek nouns denote persons who steal from their victims, but the latter has a strong connotation of violence, as in the case of a looter or armed bandit. Hence the thievery Jesus had in mind includes murder and destruction as well as theft (v. 10). Finally, these individuals are evil and wily deceivers, sneaking into the sheepfold at night. Taken together, and
recognizing that the sheepfold here signifies the house of Israel, it seems Jesus was referring to Israel’s leaders: men who, through deception and
fraud, took to themselves the role of shepherd, but for the sake of their own gain; men who are thieves and violent looters of Yahweh’s flock.
- The second symbolic individual is the doorkeeper – the person who guards the entry into the sheepfold during the night. Determining the
referent of this symbol is more difficult, especially for modern urban Christians. But once again Jesus provided contextual clues: First, He
presented this individual as distinct from the shepherd, yet a man of integrity and discernment who is sincerely concerned for the well-being of
the sheep in his charge. He knows the true shepherd and opens the gate (door) into the fold when he arrives (vv. 2-3). So he refuses entrance to all others, evident in the fact that the false shepherds must sneak into the fold through another way. It seems, then, that this doorkeeper symbolizes Israel’s prophets and, more immediately, the faithful of Jesus’ generation who were waiting for the arrival of the Messiah – the true Shepherd – and recognized and welcomed Him into the sheepfold when He arrived.
- The last symbolic individual is the stranger. This person calls out to the sheep with the intent of drawing them to follow after him as their shepherd (v. 5). It’s quite possible that Jesus was here speaking of the same intruders as in verse
1. For false shepherds seek to draw the sheep away, but they are strangers whose voice the sheep don’t recognize. Once inside the sheepfold, they can steal, kill and destroy the flock (v. 10), but they cannot get the sheep to follow them out of the fold. But it’s also possible
that Jesus had another kind of individual in mind, namely the false messiah. For He presented this person as seeking to confuse the sheep and
deceive them into believing that he is their shepherd. This description suits the false messiah, whether the sincere zealot or the grandiose opportunist; Israel had known such men and would continue to encounter them after
Jesus’ ascension (cf. Matthew 24:15-27; Mark 13:1-22; Luke 21:1-8)