|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: The Gospel of John, a verse at a time.
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Time to move on to the Good Shepherd? Another discourse follows with no narrative introduction.
Anybody have any idea why?
quote:
"Very truly, I tell you, anyone who does not enter the sheepfold by the gate but climbs in by another way is a thief and a bandit."
[John 10.1]
[ETA Ignore any apparent link. I didn't post one - it's a recurrent virus]
[ 04. September 2012, 15:17: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
From my Jerusalem Bible it looks as though vv1-5 are themselves the introduction to 7-18. In my JB 7-18 is formatted as a poem.
Apart from that, perhaps John wants to move directly from the theme of blindness to being able to see the difference between true and false Shepherds.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
The kick off line in chapter 10 (Truly, truly, I say to you...) is used by John elsewhere, often to preface a cryptic remark, as part of an ongoing conversation and never as an introduction to a new section. Thus far in the book we have encountered it at:-
1:51 God's angels ascending and descending on the son of man
3:3 Being born from above / born again
3:5 Being born of water and spirit
3:11 Testifying to what is known
5:19 Son doing what the father does
5:24 Crossing over from death to life
5:25 Dead hearing the son's voice
6:26 Motivation for seeking Jesus
6:32 The origin of real bread
6:47 Belief means life
6:53 Eating flesh, drinking blood
8:34 Slavery to sin
8:51 Obeying means life
8:58 “I Am” before Abraham
This being the case, it looks as though John did not intend the conversation here to be broken up. Best to ignore the chapter division and read Jesus' interaction with his fellow-religious interpreters in one sweep. Or, as here, a verse at a time...
What we might also have here is another of those times when Jesus cuts across one topic with a metaphor that, on the face of it, bears no resemblance to item on the agenda. We have another one of those “What's he on about?” moments. It will be an interesting test to see how herding sheep might fit with fixing sight.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Let's see, then. quote:
2. "...The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep hear his voice.
[John 10.2-3]
If the story is consistent, the ones who climb over the wall, being burglars, probably do so at night. Who is the gatekeeper? Does he see the shepherd in the dark? The sheep don't - but they hear his voice, and recognize him.
I can't help thinking about the next chapter, where someone, alone and frightened, in the dark, hears Jesus' voice. Is that a mere coincidence?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
If it's who I think you mean, he was first dead (therefore probably not scared) and second alive (but they'd already opened the door so there would have been plenty of light, very thoughtful of Jesus that). ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) But should we wait till we get to that very, very tempting chapter? Because if you get me going on it, I won't shut up. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Better move on then...
quote:
3 "...the gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep hear his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice..."
[John 10.3-4] From this insistence on the pastor's voice, I'm pretty sure this is happening at night. It's a fascinating account of a rural tradition at once familiar and at the same time far removed from our own experience. If the shepherd calls them all by name, it must be a fairly small flock - which is perhaps why they share a fold with someone else's sheep - perhaps its a common pound. The sheep recognize him not by sight but by his voice - important for John's readers/hearer's since they can no longer see the shepherd John is referring to.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
From Life on the Road,Athol Gill, 1992 on the parable of the lost sheep quote:
A peasant family might own 10-15 sheep, at most forty. But when we are told that a person has a hundred sheep, we are awared that the reference is to a flock which belongs to an extended family or perhaps even to the village.
Does anyone think anything is being implied about the other shepherds, or the sheep which do not belong to the shepherd as a spiritual illustration?
The 'other sheep I have which are not of this fold' comes to my mind, but I have yet to decide if it is relevant.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I never thought about it being night--wouldn't that be the time you wanted to lead them home, rather than out? About the voice, I figured you called them because you had to get their attention--like kindergartners. And since all the sheep are probably roughly the same size, they might have trouble seeing over each other's backs?
I'm guessing it probably is a communal pen, since it would probably be built of rock (wood being in short supply in Palestine, and precious) and building rock walls is darn hard work and best done as a community. If everyone knows his/her own sheep and calls them by name, it doesn't matter if they all sleep communally, they'll come crowding up when they hear their shepherd's voice in the morning.
Heck, now you've got me wondering--it would be even easier if the local geography was decently furnished with caves, and all you had to do was built a barrier across the front. I know the Jerusalem/Bethlehem area is like this. But if you used a convenient cave for a sheepfold, there'd be all the more reason to call them by name rather than expecting them to catch on to visual football signals or something.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Good points, both of you. Perhaps we're just meant to get the general picture of a flock that knows its owner/shepherd. And I think John will have something to say ablut the other sheep shortly...
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
The idea of Jesus being he good shepherd is familiar, but reading this made me think more of how we are like sheep. Sheep's vision is OK, but their hearing is better at pinpointing stuff, and (i think) recognition. Mother and lamb find one-another by bleating. Something about the need we have to recognise Jesus voice and the intimacy of that. Relying more on that when we can't see.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
"All we, like sheep, have gone astray, every one in his own way" is another aspect of this.
Shepherds lived with their flocks, and smelt of them. Sheep would know their true shepherd by his smell and his voice. And the shepherd was true to his flock in a multitude of senses, including hid fidelity to them. It's a passage packed with meanings.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Jesus explains:
quote:
5 They will not follow a stranger, but they will run from him because they do not know the voice of strangers." 6 Jesus used this figure of speech with them, but they dis not understand what he was saying to them. 7 So again Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you [see Nigel's post above on the "very truly" sayings], I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who came before me are thieves and bandits, but the sheep did not listen to them..."
[John 10.5-8]
I expect we'll hear who the thieves and bandits were later on. It's a bit comprehensive, that "all who came before me", isn't it?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
It sounds comprehensive in English, but what about the Greek - does the word translated as "all" (Strong's #3956) have the same sense as it does in English? The notes from studylight.org indicate that very rarely does the Greek for "all" mean all persons, taken individually.
As for the text, I take Jesus to be using sheep to refer to the members of the church and the strangers / thieves / bandits to refer to the church leaders who were abusing their positions, but I'm puzzling over the reference to the gatekeeper in verse 3.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The Greek there is "pantes," which is basically your basic "all." I mean, it's not like it's some highly esoteric word. I think we'd do better to look at how Jesus is using it, that is, colloquially rather than with scientific, painstaking exactitude. The "All who came before me" seems to me to be a reference to false Messiahs, Christs, pseudo-saviors, etc. etc. of which there were apparently quite a few. They were indeed "thieves and liars" because they were claiming to be what they were not--the God-appointed Messiah and Savior everybody had been waiting for for yonks. And anybody misled by them wound up in a world of hurt.
But Jesus tells us "the true sheep did not listen to them." I take this to mean that the false messiahs just didn't "smell right" to God's believing people. You know how you can meet someone for the first time and though you can't point to something obviously wrong, they just sort of give you a feeling that something is off? And then you hear a couple years later that they embezzled all the company's money and ran off to Acupulco with the boss's wife, and somehow it just doesn't surprise you. On some level you were picking up signals that he was a wrong 'un even before he proved it to the world. Although I think there's probably a supernatural aspect to this sort of intuition, too, when it comes to telling the difference between the real Christ and the fakes out there. A bit of help from the Holy Spirit?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I don't think the sheep can be identified strictly with church members--there are hypocrites in any given visible mass of Christians, and conversely God has his hidden, faithful "7000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal" even in the worst of times, in places where there is no chance of them being safely connected with a visible church body. So I'm taking the sheep to refer to all God's people wherever they may be--the believers, the ones who belong to Jesus. And ultimately the only one who can be absolutely sure who falls into that category is God himself, though we get pretty good indications sometimes from behavior etc.
As for the gatekeeper, we may be overthinking it if we try to ID this passing reference to a particular single person or institution. I think the point in this extended analogy is that the true Shepherd is recognized both by the sheep and by the lawful authorities, who duly open up the door for him. Being the true shepherd, Jesus has no need to sneak over the wall or come in by night time to avoid being seen. He is about his lawful business. Anybody else who is doing his/her own proper business (like a gatekeeper) will recognize him as a proper authority and let him get on with it.
If we do want to push the gatekeeper thing and pin it down, I'd suggest one or more of the following: a) the judges and prophets (Israel's temporary "keepers" until Messiah came), b) the Scripture written by/through them, or c) any proper pastor, teacher, parent, godparent who is keeping watch over others for their good, and who is therefore happy to see Jesus show up to aid in that task.
[ 11. September 2012, 03:13: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Sitting here as someone trying to put myself in the shoes of one of the first hearers / readers of this work from John, I'm still hanging over the cliff left by him at the end of chapter 9. That daring, audacious, nay, (deliberately?) provocative rhetorical poke at the religious authorities is something of a camel in a bedsit. I'm still rather worried over where the bodily functions will land.
To tell the people in power “...because you say, 'We see', your sin / guilt remains” (9:41) is pretty strong stuff. And then we have this “And now I tell you the truth” phrase (10:1) which implies a move to the supporting evidence for such strong stuff. I wait with baited breath – only to be met with a metaphor: someone climbing over my courtyard wall to get at the sheep. I'd get the idea – only I as house owner can open the door for my hired shepherd to come in to my courtyard and collect the sheep; and a thief would have to climb in because I bar my front door. Fair enough.
So what conclusion am I to draw from this diverting diversion? That the Pharisees are the household owners, supposedly looking after the sheep (God's people of Israel)? That would match references in other literature to the way the religious leaders saw their role. Is Jesus then the shepherd? But if so, why would the Pharisees 'unlock the door' and let him in?
Perhaps then the householder is God. Also sustainable from other literature. Are the Pharisees the shepherds (also a traditional metaphor)? If so, then how does their role fit with Jesus' strong stuff saying about their being sinful / guilty? What's guilty about doing their approved role? And where does Jesus fit into the scenario (if indeed he intended himself to appear in this at all)?
So then, no wonder that by verse 6 they did not understand which side of the lunar cycle Jesus was on. 'Deep sigh' emanates from between the lines. Jesus strikes out with another “And now I tell you the truth so kindly pay attention everybody in the thruppenny seats.” I have to admit that locating Jesus as the courtyard door (v.7) was unexpected; usually the metaphorical link is to something animate. It also leaves the reader / hearer up another illogical alley: then who is the householder? And the sheep? And the shepherd???? And the thief??????????
An extraordinary metaphor to have to wind up, this. I can see why W Hyatt baulks! I take LC's advice – but am hoping that the narrative will close these loopholes before the actors disperse!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I have to admit that locating Jesus as the courtyard door (v.7) was unexpected; usually the metaphorical link is to something animate.
As I understand it, a sheepfold did not have a gate/door; once the sheep were inside, the shepherd lay down at the entrance to prevent thieves or wild animals from getting to the sheep.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I have to admit that locating Jesus as the courtyard door (v.7) was unexpected; usually the metaphorical link is to something animate.
As I understand it, a sheepfold did not have a gate/door; once the sheep were inside, the shepherd lay down at the entrance to prevent thieves or wild animals from getting to the sheep.
Moo
That's my understanding, too. Sleeping and living with the flock is how the shepherd smells of them and they in turn recognise him. He knows the bleats of each, and they know his voice. The shepherd is truly guardian of his flock.
For us, the link to Psalm 23 is clear. Would it have been as clear then?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I suspect that some sheepfolds ( the bigger communal ones) did have standard gates, being intended for use every night by a heckuva lot of sheep belonging to several people, even a small village. But a cave or smaller pen intended for use by a single flock and shepherd, maybe during the months when the flocks roamed farther afield--those might not have been deemed worth putting real gates on (with labor and the cost of upkeep, even hardware of a sort). Much easier to leave the seasonally used ones with a man'sized opening and simply camp in it.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Jesus begins to unravel it:
quote:
"...9 I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will comin and go out and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.
[John10,9-10]
That last sentence is one of my all-time favourite quotes. Like the Golden Rule, it's godly but not exclusively christian. I remember a quote from a Jewish writer (but not the writer's name, alas): God will hold you accountable for every one of his gifts that you refuse on your own account, or denigrate in others.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
As I understand it, a sheepfold did not have a gate/door; once the sheep were inside, the shepherd lay down at the entrance to prevent thieves or wild animals from getting to the sheep.
Yes, the idea of the shepherd as the guard to the sheep pen is one that there is evidence for across the ancient near east; I had been assuming that here in John, but I was intrigued by the terms and associated imagery he uses in this passage and it led me to think a bit differently.
For example: John uses the noun thura (= θυρα) for 'door', which generally speaking could refer to a portal rather than a physical barrier (the English 'door' rather than 'doorway'), but is far more often used to designate the barrier 'door' itself. John has only a few other uses of the term, where the physical barrier is intended (especially the 'locked door' in 20:19, 26). What clinched the idea for me of a physical barrier-style door, though, was the reference to the 'doorkeeper' (thuroros = θυρωρος) in verse 3 who opens the door. This led me to visualise the village-based house-cum-courtyard environment for the sheep, rather than the open countryside style of pen. The image would be of the typical household with a courtyard. The entrance to the house proper would have been into and through the courtyard itself. Presumably this is a household of reasonably well off people in a village; the head could afford to hire a shepherd and a doorkeeper. I was also aware that John separates 'shepherd' from 'door' in the parable, which made it difficult to picture the shepherd being both guard and the one who enters in through the guard.
If that's the correct image for the opening parable, then I suspect it would still have been intended to be in mind when Jesus starts to explain the parable in verse 7. He is the thura ('door'). Hence the idea that he is the physical barrier in the portal, which needs unlocking.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I have just been watching, on "Countryfile", hundreds and hundreds of sheep being brought down a precipitpous Swiss mountainside, in single file, in large groups, a shepherd at the head of each group, calling them on. A living parable. It continues next week for UK watchers, or people with satellite TV, I guess, anywhere.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
The theme develops - and gets more complicated. Don't go away, Nigel, please!
quote:
11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep.12 The hired hand, who is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away - and the wolf snatches them and scatters them..."
[John10.11-12]
So we started off with one shepherd and a load of bandits. Now it seems not all shepherds can be trusted - you can't even call the hired ones shepherds anyway. They are all cowards.
Much stereotyping of wolves and hirelings here.
But no big deal. As a hireling I always knew the christian gospel wasn't for me anyway - it's for the big guys with the crooks, innit? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 19. September 2012, 12:25: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Huh? Unless you're a pseudo church leader only in it for personal gain, I can't see any way it applies to you, dear Pimple.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
What a relief! Getting back to our sheep, I think the term "laying down his life for the sheep" has several meanings here. Shepherds are tough guys and would certainly outface an odd wolf or two, but no shepherd would die deliberately inorder that his sheep might live.
Except for one, of course.
So the metaphor is perhaps a tad strained. The shepherds - good and bad - put their lives on the line but they are taking a calculated risk in the ultimate hope of personal gain. But that typically cynical attitude simply dissolves when I hear Bernstein's setting of the 23rd Psalm - which is juxtaposed with a harsh cry of anguish at the cruelty of one nation warring against another.
[ 19. September 2012, 19:19: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
But look ahead to the last chapter, where Peter is told to be a shepherd for the sheep, and where we are told that he also had to lay down his life. So is that a possibility for any leaders/shepherds in the church?
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It's what you do, every day, unless you have an unusually easy and cushy pastorate. But it's a privilege.
I wonder if, regarding good shepherds laying down their lives--if we ought to take into account the fact that shepherds in that kind of setting (who are small-time owners of their own flock) tend to get personally attached to their sheep. I mean, here you are with a dozen or so sheep (probably not more unless you're rich, and if you were, why would you be hanging about on the cold hills watching sheep?) You are most likely going to keep them for wool and milk--meat can only be taken one time, and so you'd probably not eat any of your animals unless it was at the end of its lifespan anyway, or else due to the temple in sacrifice. So you're spending several hours a day with the same critters year in and year out, caring for all their needs, getting to know their quirks, healing them when they get sick. helping them give birth (and therefore developing a sense of "family" history--"Oh, Daisy? She's out of old Betsey, there, best ewe I ever had.") I can't imagine there's a great deal to do on a lonely hilltop or wilderness pasture, so you spend a lot of time thinking about the creatures. They are your company, not just your bread and butter. But they ARE your bread and butter--without them, your family doesn't eat (or at least not well)--and they are not cheaply replaceable. So if a lion or bear comes after them, you betcha you'll be there in the predator's face--not just for your financial investment, but because you've gotten fond of them.
We know people in Bible times DID make pets of a sort of them, at least occasionally--that's the whole point of Nathan's storytelling to David. So yes, I'm guessing there IS a real difference between the owner-shepherd and the hireling who only signed on for a month or a season. The real shepherd loves his sheep and will go to unreasonable lengths to protect them. The hireling would be just as happy picking tomatoes somewhere, and will protect the sheep, which are noisy smelly things to him, just as eagerly as he would the tomatoes.
Returning to the pastorate for just a mo--you get to know those sheep too, if you stay long enough and make half an effort. And they're just as stinky and pushy and stupid and annoying as regular sheep. But much as you might fantasize about feeding them to the wolves, when push comes to shove, you DO love them, and you do go to the wall for them. And count it a privilege.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Re: LC 2nd para
Isn't that the point of the "I know them and they know me" coming up?
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
All good stuff. And modern sheep farmers, too, have a much closer attachment to their animals than some of my earlier posts may have acknowledged. It's often a matter of staying up all night - even if you've got hundreds of sheep. And the image of the shepherd bringing back the one that was lost across his shoulders is just as valid now as it ever was!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Well. Of all the passages in John thus far, I admit this one is proving the most difficult to determine meaning. Just who exactly are the referents in the metaphor (10:6 – paroimia = a riddle?)?
Some options: [1] John was being deliberately mysterious; [2] his text was corrupted at some point after he wrote it; [3] it made sense to his audience then, but we don't get it today.
On the first option, it's true there is an element of textual mystery in parts of John's gospel; he does shift ground somewhat as he develops a plot or argument, but he does at least signal his direction and meaning in ways that even we can understand. Here, however, he records Jesus feinting the shepherd metaphor from a range of directions without hitting home on one distinct line of attack.
Option two – while there are a couple of textual variants of interest in this section, there's nothing to suggest a large scale mishap in the copying process. If anything, the indications are that the passage caused the same problems to some copyists that it is causing us and as a result a few attempts were made to tidy things up.
So did it make sense to John and his audience? We're only part way through the passage, so I'm trying to figure what might have been in their minds as things develop. The only reasonably obvious thing – somewhat high-level – is that 'sheep' indicates God's people and 'shepherd' is the authentic leader of those people. This comes from OT imagery.
The metaphor-riddle in chapter 10 appears to be dealing with the issue of knowing whether a leader is authentic or not. Two criteria are offered: the doorkeeper recognises him and permits entry, and the sheep recognise him and follow him. An inauthentic leader has to gain entry illegally and the sheep do not recognise him.
A possible setting by way of background could be Isaiah 42 to 49, which deals with God's people as the blind and deaf who need to see and hear correctly (e.g., 42:18-25 ). They need leading out (43:8) and the way to do this is to call them by name, e.g.:
Isa. 43:1 “I have called you by name, you are mine.”
Isa. 45:3 “...you may know that I am the Lord, the God of Israel, who calls you by name.”
Isa. 45:4 “I call you by name and give you a title of respect, even though you do not recognize me.”
Isa. 49:1 “...from birth he has made mention of my name.”
These sets of passages resonate with John 9 and 10. We have the blind man who receives sight and the 'blind' leaders who remain blind even though they claim they can see. We have reference to the authentic shepherd calling by name (10:3). The sheep recognise and follow him.
Perhaps, then, John has used Jesus' sayings here to reignite a memory of the heritage Isaiah was tapping into. Jesus sets up the imagery of shepherd/sheep and the threats and risks associated with that setting. He then taps into parts of the image in turn: he is the gate in the sense that.... he is the shepherd in the sense that....
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
As I understand it, a sheepfold did not have a gate/door; once the sheep were inside, the shepherd lay down at the entrance to prevent thieves or wild animals from getting to the sheep.
Yes, the idea of the shepherd as the guard to the sheep pen is one that there is evidence for across the ancient near east...
That seems plausible, but I'd love to know if we have any contemporary reference to it. Otherwise I'd worry that its another one of those nice sermon-illustration stories that someone made up once to explain away the text. (q.v. camels, eyes of needles, big and little gates, [/i]passim[/i])
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
A possible setting by way of background could be Isaiah 42 to 49, which deals with God's people as the blind and deaf who need to see and hear correctly (e.g., 42:18-25 ). They need leading out (43:8) and the way to do this is to call them by name, e.g.:
Isa. 43:1 “I have called you by name, you are mine.”
Isa. 45:3 “...you may know that I am the Lord, the God of Israel, who calls you by name.”
Isa. 45:4 “I call you by name and give you a title of respect, even though you do not recognize me.”
Isa. 49:1 “...from birth he has made mention of my name.”
These sets of passages resonate with John 9 and 10. We have the blind man who receives sight and the 'blind' leaders who remain blind even though they claim they can see. We have reference to the authentic shepherd calling by name (10:3). The sheep recognise and follow him.
Perhaps, then, John has used Jesus' sayings here to reignite a memory of the heritage Isaiah was tapping into. Jesus sets up the imagery of shepherd/sheep and the threats and risks associated with that setting. He then taps into parts of the image in turn: he is the gate in the sense that.... he is the shepherd in the sense that....
Yes of course. And the other prophets. They habitually use shepherds as metaphors for the rulers of Israel. Read Zechariah, especially chapters 10-13, which is specifically Messianic and has the Lord himself becoming a shepherd. In Jeremiah 23, the LORD will scatter the false shepherds and gather his scattered sheep and lead them home, and raise up a new king like David. And Israel's favourite foreign king, Cyrus or Persia, was called a shepherd as well as a Messiah, in Isaiah 44 & 45.
Ezekiel 34! There are true and false shepherds contrasted (and even some hirelings and wolves and so on) and then:
quote:
For thus says the Lord God: I myself will search for my sheep, and will seek them out. As shepherds seek out their flocks when they are among their scattered sheep, so I will seek out my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places to which they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness. I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and will bring them into their own land; and I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the watercourses, and in all the inhabited parts of the land. I will feed them with good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel shall be their pasture; there they shall lie down in good grazing land, and they shall feed on rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I will make them lie down, says the Lord God. I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak, but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them with justice.
And half a dozen shorter passages in other prophets, or prophets quoted in other books.
And of course shepherds were metaphors for the rulers of Israel, not even metaphors, for the rulers and ancestors of Israel were shepherds. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were shepherds. Leach and Rachel were shepherds, as were their children, the founders of the tribes of Israel. Moses was a shepherd, so was his wife. David was a shepherd, and he sang that God was too: "The LORD's my shepherd I shall not want".
All that would have been known to Jesus and to John and most of their hearers, all part of the web of connotation and reference and subtext and multiple meaning of the parable and its explanation. It has more than one meant meaning, just as the prophets do - look at the Zechariah passage, how could you confine that to a simple univocal allegory? It doesn't only tell one story. There are at least three different kinds of shepherds in it.
And yes the writers of the New Testament were thinking about that prophecy - after all it has the King riding on a donkey, the Messiah as the chief stone of the corner, good and bad shepherds, thirty pieces of silver, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem weeping and wailing for the one they have pierced. All in the same four pages as each other. (The traders don't get expelled from the Temple until the next chapter)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That seems plausible, but I'd love to know if we have any contemporary reference to it. Otherwise I'd worry that its another one of those nice sermon-illustration stories that someone made up once to explain away the text.
Peeling away received incrustations from received wisdom is certainly a worthy task; there is no shortage of reference to the sheep pen motif in shorter commentaries and sermons - and all without reference to evidence.
I think one strand of evidence for this particular setting comes from near contemporary (to us) accounts of life in the near/middle east (pre-modern technology), allied with testimony from those within the social setting to the effect that they have been doing what their ancestors always did, to draw a line back through time. One example of this setting account can be found in an early 20th century book by Abraham Mitrie Rihbany, The Syrian Christ and chapter 6 ("The Shepherd").
It goes without saying, of course, that anecdotal evidence of this type needs to be compared with other independent anecdotal sources to provide a check on likely regional accuracy.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Ken and Nigel M.:
Thank you both for your posts. Psalm 23 is one of the best known Biblical passages these days, one that even the unchurched know. Did it have that degree of fame in Our Lord's time please?
[ 25. September 2012, 22:30: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
You mean, did the Jews read their bible, sing their psalms?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Not that, Pimple, as they clearly did. My question is rather: did Psalm 23 have the same grasp then on the Jewish public mind s it does in modern Western society?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Apologies for the dumb misunderstanding!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Ken noted the plethora of instances where the 'shepherd' metaphor was used to denote a leader. It was a common motif throughout the ancient near east, from Egyptian Pharaohs to Persian emperors. So much so, in fact, that I suspect that by the time Psalm 23 (22 in Septuagint) was composed, the metaphor had become close to dead; it was as much a title as a picture.
I'd like to suggest that the Psalm itself would have been read with a different emphasis to the way we have become accustomed to reading it. I assume most if not all Christians in the west will have read Psalm 23 to enjoy the extended metaphor: a quaint picture showing how God is like a shepherd - and we then love to read up on what shepherding was like 'way back then.' This reading emphasises the metaphor: God is a SHEPHERD.
In actual fact, I think the original author and audience intended the emphasis to lie on the subject: YAHWEH is shepherd. The emphasis is on Yahweh - placed first in the Hebrew sentence and treated along the same lines as other psalms relating to Yahweh in this part of the Psalter.
The aim would have been more polemical. Something like this:
"We all know that we call our leaders 'Shepherds.' Even the gods are called this. I want to make it plain to all that the God of Israel, our Yahweh, is Shepherd/Leader. Not any other god, just Yahweh. He's the one who leads me..."
In other words, the metaphor acts in a secondary manner to the principal focus. The writer is emphasising the primacy of his god over those of the surrounding cultures. This reading helps also to make sense of the bit Christians would much prefer hadn't been included in this lovely Psalm: the uncomfortable mention of enemies! If the focus is on Yahweh over other gods, then here it is the same Yahweh who holds the victory feast with his loyal servants so the other gods can see how less they have become.
This may still have been the understanding at the time of Jesus. If God (Yahweh) is the model shepherd/leader, then he (and by implication Jesus) are so alone. Anyone else was a mere thief or wolf.
Well, that doesn't really answer the question as to whether the Psalm was as popular in Jesus time as now! Still, perhaps it's useful to try and work out how it was understood then.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thank you Nigel M. More aspects to consider in thinking of this Psalm.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Continuing with the text, but not wanting to stop any discussion of the passage as a whole - there's quite a lot of overlap:
quote:
13 The hired hand runs away because* a hired hand does not care for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd. Iknow my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep
[J0hn10.13-15]*Because is one of John's favourite words. In that form and also as "for" or "since". He's especially fond of the Greek word "gar" (phonetically) which lends an air of mystery to the short ending of Mark's gospel.
John doesn't want mystery, but reasons.
I think I'll leave it there, before we get on to the enigmatic "other sheep". I don't know why, but the beginning of a verse in mid-sentence like that is unusual for the discourses. As if "just as..." were either a gloss or an afterthought by the evangelist, or something unintentionally left out and remembered later.
But did the evangelists do their own verse-numbering?
The hints of the crucifixion are getting stronger. Partly, perhaps, to emphasise the fact that Jesus is not just a shepherd who puts his life on the line, but one who deliberately, in tyhe face of apparently impossible odds, actually sacrifices himself.
I think also that it is important for John that Jesus should be seen as pro-active vis-a-vis the crucifixion - not only that, but that he himsielf chooses the time and place.
[I'm pre-empting here, my own temptation to say "So the hireling runs away - as Jesus does - several times. Pot. Kettle. Black?] There - I've said it anyway, but I've given you a handy reply!
[ 02. October 2012, 11:10: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I don't know why, but the beginning of a verse in mid-sentence like that is unusual for the discourses. As if "just as..." were either a gloss or an afterthought by the evangelist, or something unintentionally left out and remembered later.
But did the evangelists do their own verse-numbering?
Not only did they not do their own verse-numbering, they wrote entirely in capital letters with no punctuation. It's not always easy to determine where one sentence ends and another begins. This problem is especially acute when reading Paul's letters.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well, since you bring it up... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
There IS a difference between the times Jesus "ran away" and the case of the hireling. The hireling is in the wrong, not for running away, but for deserting the sheep who need his protection, and who will certainly die without him. Jesus, on the other hand, only "went away and hid himself" when there was no life on the line but his--and he knew very well it was not yet time to die.
Since you've opened the door (hehehe) I'll mention that concern for his disciples and their welfare is a major mark of the arrest in Gethsemane. He allowed it to go forward, but only after making sure they were well out of it.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
I know this is definitely a tangent but since we have been going on about shepherds, I wonder why Jesus never had any shepherds in his band of followers? It might have been because of their odors but then fishermen also smell bad. Should I start a new thread?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
It seems to me it's probably easier to take time off from fishing than from shepherding.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
This is where I think we've got to:
quote:
16 "...I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my vouice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.
[John 10.16]
To whom is Jesus/John referring?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
It seems to me it's probably easier to take time off from fishing than from shepherding.
Though part-time discipleship is not what the Gospels teach, IMO.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Gentiles. IMNSVHO.
I agree with you.
However, this raises a question for me in the types of translation/use of scripture.
In perhaps a universalistic approach, I now apply this to people who are not formally in Christian churches.
I take some comfort in seeing that the New Testament writers in their use of the OT do not have our concerns about being (in)consistent with the original context and the meaning that intended audience would understand.
If anyone is interested in this tangent I could start another thread. I call it a situational or cultural translation. I don't know if there is an agreed name for this type of translation but I have come across very little about it.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I sense at least a partial resolution to the 'shepherd' enigma that John has thrown his readers; the reference to 'sheep of another fold' helps, but before that the bringing in of hired hands as opposed to proper shepherds, and of wolves opposed to the flock, makes we wonder if Jesus is here tapping into the memory of Israel as a nation of people who had been decimated so many times and scattered to the four winds on more than one occasion.
John quite possibly may have been using 'wolf' as a metaphor for the foreign empires from the Assyrians onwards who plundered weaker peoples. That's a metaphor used elsewhere, e.g., in Gen. 49:27 (“Benjamin is a ravenous wolf; in the morning devouring the prey, and in the evening dividing the plunder”).
Jesus' hearers then would probably have recognised what Jesus was on about. They would no doubt have agreed – once he tipped them off about the 'wolf' – that he was now on firmer ground, talking their language at last(!). They could agree that they always needed proper rulers (shepherds) to protect them, not mercenaries (hired hands) who would abandon them at the first sign of trouble. This could be Jesus playing one his dangerous linguistic games, criticising the foreign powers who ruled Israel for gain, not for justice, without actually naming the powers directly.
Then Jesus pushes on further than was perhaps comfortable for his immediate hearers: having argued that he is Israel's proper model leader, ready to die for his people, he also has people outside of Israel's house. Is he hinting at the possibility of bringing the wolf and sheep together along the lines of Isaiah 11:6 and 65:25?
The 'wolf' metaphor was taken up in Byron's poem The Destruction of Sennacherib with its opening line: “The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold...”
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I take some comfort in seeing that the New Testament writers in their use of the OT do not have our concerns about being (in)consistent with the original context and the meaning that intended audience would understand.
It may require another thread indeed; it is a very interesting topic. My take would be that in fact the NT writers were so immersed in their Jewish Scriptures that rather than mangle the text in the absence of context, they actually understood the original context better than perhaps our more modern commentators have done. This section in John could act as an example.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
