11 [Jesus
said] "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for
the 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. 13 The hired hand
runs away because a hired hand does not care for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd. I know
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. 16 I have other
sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will
listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father
loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I
lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to
take it up again. I have received this command from my Father.” (John 10:11-18)
This Sunday
marks the 4th Sunday of Easter; it's one of the most 'predictable' Sundays of
the year. It's always designated as "Good Shepherd Sunday." Reason
being, the gospel of the day always comes from John chapter 10. Interestingly,
in Year A of the 3-yr series, the passage is John 10:1-10; in Year B it's vss
11-18, and in Year C it's vss 22-30. To my mind, it's one of the best examples
of the 3-yr series working well. The entire passage, from vss 1-30 has 'good
shepherding' themes, but by breaking it down into three chunks, it enables
different nuances to be brought out throughout the three-year cycle.
Another
fascinating thing about this passage has to do with the 'themes' that are
percolating in the background. The first theme is at the textual level. This is
a 'long discourse' in a gospel chocked full of long discourses. In John a long
discourse inevitably follows on the heals of an important event. You might say
it's John's "teaching style." In the case of the Good Shepherd
discourse, the 'event' was the man born blind who was healed by Jesus.... on
the Sabbath. This passage culminates with the following dialog: 26 They
said to him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” 27 He answered them, “I have told
you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you
also want to become his disciples?” 28 Then
they reviled him, saying, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses.
29 We know that God has
spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.” 30 The man answered, “Here is an
astonishing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my
eyes. 31 We know that God
does not listen to sinners, but he does listen to one who worships him and
obeys his will. 32 Never
since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person
born blind. 33 If this man
were not from God, he could do nothing.” 34 They answered him, “You were born entirely in sins, and
are you trying to teach us?” And they drove him out. (9:26-34)
After the healed man has been driven out (of the synagogue), he
encounters Jesus again and worships him
(vs 38). THIS is the back-story to the Good Shepherd discourse. In other words,
part of what makes Jesus the "good shepherd" is that he doesn't
drive people out! He doesn't behave like the Pharisees.
Another
thing....this passage needs to be read through the lens of the first century
back/forth polemic that would've existed between the New Testament church and
emergent Judaism. This is now moving into the 2nd level, the narrative level;
the level of the story as arranged for its reading audience, and as heard by
that audience. It becomes more than just an 'account' of something that
happened between Jesus and the Pharisees a generation ago; it is also a window
into what is happening currently in the life of faith; there is a struggle over
the mantle of WHO represents God's covenant people--the synagogue of Jesus
followers who include both Jews and Gentiles accepting that Jesus is the
Messiah, or the synagogue of the Rabbis who like the Pharisees in the story,
not only reject Jesus but constitute the opposite
of "good shepherds?"
This is the sort of thing that I
think is (a) fascinating, but also (b) un-preachable today. This just is NOT
our milieu. The Church is not locked in polemical debate with Judaism. We're
miles and miles downstream from that first century conflict. The two are now
distinctly separate religions. Historically,
it's good to know that this was not always the case, but that now brings us to
the question of WHAT to do with this passage and HOW to preach it in the 21st
century?
I think
this is where we come to our 3rd thematic level.... and it's something we've
been exploring this year, and that's the theme of "Mystagogy." In
other words, how does this passage fit thematically in the WHOLE series of
Easter passages that use the scriptures and liturgy to teach us something about
living the baptized life? In that sense, it seems to me that the passage has
two important things to say about being baptismally joined to the Good
Shepherd: (1) such joining provides safety and security from the ravages outside the fold (the wolf) and (2) from
incompetence and unhelpfulness within the fold (the hireling). In other words,
these two categories in our day would be the 'wolfish' things that morally and
ethically pull us away from God and devour us; the sin that so easily besets us as the book of Hebrews says, AND
the false-shepherd/bad-shepherd/hireling-shepherd things we turn to in order to
find comfort or give our lives 'meaning'... that in the long run... fail in
their promises. These could be anything from false religion, God-less philosophy,
materialism, careerism, and total pleasure-seeking hedonism.
The point John
is making in this narrative... and the mystagogical thing for us to celebrate
is that Jesus 'wasn't' the good shepherd who gave his life for the sheep....
PAST TENSE... but Jesus IS the good shepherd... still ... present tense.
Cheers,
T.M.