The Commentary by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jul 1, 1886

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 12, No. 25.

The Commentary.

By Editor

NOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.

Jesus the Good Shepherd.

IT was in accordance with the character of the discourse presently under consideration, that Jesus spake it, not, indeed, in parables in the strict sense (for none such are recorded in the fourth gospel), but in an allegory in the parabolic form, hiding the higher truths from those who, having eyes, had not seen, but revealing them to such whose eyes had been opened. If the scenes of the last few days had made anything plain, it was the utter unfitness of the teachers of Israel for their professed work of feeding the flock of God. The rabbinists also called their spiritual leaders "feeders," Parnasin—a term by which the Targum renders some of the references to "the shepherds" in Ezek. 34 and Zech. 11. The term comprised the two ideas of "leading" and "feeding," which are separately insisted on in the Lord's allegory. As we think of it, no better illustration, nor more apt, could be found for those to whom "the flock of God" was entrusted.

THEY were, surely, not shepherds, who had cast out the healed blind man, or who so judged of the Christ, and would cast out all his disciples. They had entered into God's sheepfold, but not by the door by which the owner, God, had brought his flock into the fold. To it the entrance had been his free love, his gracious provision, his thoughts of pardoning, his purpose of saving mercy. That was God's Old Testament door into his sheepfold. Not by that door, as had so lately fully appeared, had Israel's rulers come in. They had climbed up to their place in the fold some other way—with the same right, or by the same wrong, as a thief or a robber. They had wrongfully taken what did not belong to them—cunningly and undetected, like a thief; they had allotted it to themselves, and usurped it by violence, like a robber. What more accurate description could be given of the means by which the Pharisees and Sadducees had attained the rule over God's flock, and claimed it for themselves? And what was true of them holds equally so of all who, like them, enter by "some other way."

HOW DIFFERENT he who comes in and leads us through God's door of covenant mercy and gospel promise—the door by which God had brought, and ever brings, his flock into his fold! This was the true Shepherd. The allegory must, of course, not be too closely pressed; but, as we remember how in the East the flocks are at night driven into a large fold, and charge of them is given to an under shepherd, we can understand how, when the shepherd comes in the morning, "the doorkeeper," or "guardian," opens to him. In interpreting the allegory, stress must be laid not so much on any single phrase, be it the "porter," the "door," or the "opening," as on their combination. If the shepherd comes to the door, the porter hastens to open it to him from within, that he may obtain access to the flock; and when a true spiritual shepherd comes to the true spiritual Door, it is opened to him by the guardian from within, that is, he finds ready and immediate access.

CHRIST was the Door. The entrance into God's fold and to God's flock was only through that of which Christ was the reality. And it had ever been so. All the Old Testament institutions, prophecies, and promises, so far as they referred to access into God's fold, meant Christ. All of those who went before him, pretending to be the door—whether Pharisees, Sadducees, or Nationalists—were only thieves and robbers; that was not the door into the kingdom of God. And the sheep, God's flock, did not hear them; for, although they might pretend to lead the flock, the voice was that of strangers. The transition now to another application of the allegorical idea of the "door" was natural and almost necessary, though it appears somewhat abrupt. Even in this it is peculiarly Jewish. We must understand this transition as follows: I am the Door; those who professed otherwise to gain access to the fold have climbed in some other way. But if I am the only, I am also truly the Door.

CHRIST the good Shepherd, in contrast to others who falsely claimed to be the shepherds. Their object had been self, and they had pursued it even at the cost of the sheep, of their life and safety. He "came" for them, to give, not to take, "that they may have life and have abundance." "Life,"—nay, that they may have it, I "lay down" mine; so does it appear that "I am the good Shepherd." What a contrast to a mere hireling, whose are not the sheep, and who fleeth at sight of the wolf (danger), "and the wolf seizeth them, and scattereth (viz., the flock); (he fleeth) because he is a hireling, and careth not for the sheep."

TRULY he is—is seen to be—"the fair Shepherd," whose are the sheep, and as such, "I know mine, and mine know me, even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep." But those sheep, they are not only "of this fold," nor all of the Jewish "fold," but also scattered sheep of the Gentiles. They have all the characteristics of the flock; they are his; and they hear his voice; but as yet they are outside the fold. Them also the good Shepherd "must lead," and, in evidence that they are his, as he calls them and goes before them, they shall hear his voice, and so, O most glorious consummation, "they shall become one flock and one shepherd."

AND thus is the great goal of the Old Testament reached, and "the good tidings of great joy," which issue from Israel, "are unto all people." . . . . Whence did Jesus of Nazareth obtain these thoughts and views, towering so far aloft of all around? The sublime words of Jesus are only compatible with one supposition—that he was indeed the Christ of God. Nay, although men have studied or caviled at these words for eighteen and a half centuries, they have not yet reached unto this: "They shall become one flock, and one Shepherd."

YES—by laying down his life, but also by taking it up again. Both are necessary for the work of the good Shepherd—nay, the life is laid down in the surrender of sacrifice, in order that it may be taken up again, and much more fully, in the resurrection power. And, therefore, his Father loveth him as the Messiah-Shepherd, who so fully does the work committed to him, and so entirely surrenders himself to it. And this, all this, in order to be the Shepherd-Saviour—to die, and rise for his sheep, and thus to gather them all, Jews and Gentiles, into one flock, and to be their Shepherd. This, neither more nor less, was the mission which God had given him; this, "the commandment" which he had received of his Father—that which God had given him to do.

—Edersheim's Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.