THE PARABLE OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD:

JN. 10:1-21

{Continued)

JOHN QUASTEN

WEAKNESS OF THE ALLEGORICAL EXPLANATION

But we must confess that we entertain serious misgivings about the allegorical explanation in general. It is unquestionably erroneous to measure biblical parables by classical standards, as has been attempted by Jülicher.65 Even the synoptic parables contain allegorical features, i.e., features chosen deliberately and purely for the sake of the interpretation. Hence, we shall have to modify our formulation of the problem so as to inquire: Is the basic character of Jn. 10:1-5 allegorical or parabolic? If the basic character is allegorical, the main features at least must be used in a metaphorical sense. Now even the protagonists of the allegorical theory grant that our discourse contains details having no other purpose but that of ornamentation.66 Moreover, there even is a series of essential elements which cannot be explained in a transferred sense. Let us take, first of all, the case of the gatekeeper. The uncertainty in which the endeavors to find a solution of his significance are involved shows sufficiently that a transferred meaning was not originally contemplated. Thus Moses, an angel, Christ Himself, the Holy Spirit, Grace or God are mentioned as possibilities. It is evident, therefore, that the uncertainty is considerable. Again, a fundamental feature of the whole parable is obviously the sheep-fold, which is thought to be the Church. "But what, then, is the meaning of the statement in v. 3: 'Ήβ leads forth the sheep." It is surely absurd to assume that God or Christ or any other assignable agent leads the faithful forth from the Church. Furthermore, how are we to understand the declaration that in this one fold—the Church—there are other üocks?

On the other hand, we may deny that the passage is an allegory for the . Simple reason that not a single detail has been invented purely for the sake of the interpretation, which is usually typical of a genuine allegory. On the contrary, the episode from life chosen as an illustration is narrated just as it occurs. Allegory arranges the details of an occurrence in accordance with its requirements; a parable, however, permits an event to follow its natural course. Otherwise, the sense and purpose of the parable would be

u Cf. Meinertz, op. cit., p. 20ff. M Thus Knabenbauer, op. cit., p. 326; Zahn, op. cit., p. 443; Loisy, op cit , p. 608.

151

152 PARABLE OP Goon SHEPHERD: JN. 10:1-21

rendered futile. Nobody can deny that the picture in w . 1-5 is delineated in harmony with actual life and that it is adequate in itself. Hence, in this respect, there is nothing which militates against the assumption of a parable.

Buzy67 has expressed the idea which, from the standpoint of scientific method, is certainly correct: the solution of the question relating to parable or allegory must proceed from the interpretation of the figurative discourse added by our Savior. If Jesus gives an allegorical exposition we must suppose allegory; if, on the other hand, he intends merely to illustrate a higher truth, if he only cites some points of comparison as the meaning, we have a parable before us. Buzy emphasizes the fact that the repeated assurances of Jesus, "I am the door" and "I am the Good Shepherd" form the foundations of the exposition. In addition, our Savior reveals that the sheep are the faithful and that the evil shepherds are the official leaders of Judaism. In accordance with these presuppositions, Buzy concludes quite logically that the commentary postulates w . 1-5 to be an allegory.

Although Buzy's method is correct in itself, it is unable to solve the real difficulty. For the question at issue is whether w . 7-18 constitute an interpretation of the figurative discourse in the formal, scholastic sense. As parallels to the interpretation of w . 1-5 given in our discourse, we may cite, for purposes of comparison, the explanation found in the Synoptics of the Parable of the Sower (Mt. 13:18-23, par.) and of the Parable of the Weeds (Mt. 1336-43). Of course, we must transmit the question con­cerning the genuinity of these explanations; it is disputed by Jülicher and J. Weiss.68 The verses we are treating have been uniformly taken to be a similar interpretation. But a comparison with the two parallels just men­tioned shows that their interpretation of individual elements is much more detailed. Almost every detail is taken in a transferred sense, in contrast with the interpretation in our discourse. Consequently, some maintain that these parallels are pure allegory. This is the view not only of Jülicher6* but even of Buzy.70 Nevertheless, even in these instances a rigorous allegory is not to be affirmed, for in both parables the picture retains its self-sufficiency.71 The same is true of our pictorial discourse. Hence a proof for the hypothesis cannot be built on this basis. But even among the representatives of this opinion we perceive that they are aware of the difficulty of this conception. Hence they speak of an "infelicitous" exposi­tion not in harmony with the meaning of the picture. Actually, the

•70p.ctf.,p.431ff. ·· Julicber, op. cit., II, p. 537; J. Weiss, Die Schriften des NT (Gottingen: 1917),

I, p. 113. « Op. etf., I l l , p. 554ff. 70 Op. cit., p. 224, footnote. 7» Cf. Meinertz, op. cit., p. 30ff.

PARABLE OF GOOD SHEPHERD: JN. 10:1-21 153

difficulty arises from the fact that the allegorical conception demands two contrary interpretations. How can Jesus be at once the door and the Good Shepherd? Lagrange72 is certainly right when he says: "The basic prin­ciple of allegory is this : one object represents another. If one and the same person is represented by two different objects, the whole sense of the alle­gory is subverted." The whole allegory is reduced to nonsense if Jesus is to be both the door and the shepherd. "If Jesus is the Good Shepherd, he cannot simultaneously be the door affording Him entrance. In the assump­tion of an allegory, this argument is irrefutable."

.. Consequently, we deem ourselves justified in concluding that Jn. 10:1-5 is a genuine parable. It is understandable that certain lineaments of the picture should exhibit a greater or lesser parallel to the attitude of Jesus towards the Pharisees. Such allegorical allusions do not exceed the limits of what is customary in the Synoptics.73 We could here also adopt an expression from Buzy and speak of a "parabole allégorisante.,,

THE MEANING OF THE PARABLE

Let us now consider the meaning of the parable. In our opinion, we have already proven above74 that the parable contains two essential character­istics: first, the entrance by the door, secondly, the confidential relation subsisting between shepherd and flock. Both these points serve to set up a contrast between shepherd and non-shepherd, the thief or robber. In this contrast the real basic significance of the parable must be sought. The "tertium comparationis," or point of comparison, must be considered to be the "following" or "non-following" of the sheep. The second object to which the comparison refers must be deduced from the context. We have established above76 that our discourse is connected with the healing of the man born blind and thus is clearly characterized as the conclusion of a speech rebuking the Pharisees. In 9:39ff our Savior declares that He has come "that those who do not see may see and that those who see may be­come blind." The religious leaders of the people who consider themselves to be the men endowed with knowledge and sight are the really blind be­cause of their rejection of the Savior, although their blindness is of their own free volition, as is stated in 9:41ff. The lowly and the poor, they who belong to the people, despised and ignorant of the Law, as well as the man born blind, those whom the Pharisees call blind—f hey are the men who really see. By joining the Savior and believing in Him, they act rightly and naturally. Thus the Pharisees, who regard themselves as the real leaders of the people, are branded as false leaders and as guides to error.

72 Op. cit., p. 274ff. " Cf. Meinertz, op. cit., p. 20ff. M Cf. p. 15ff. 7* Cf. p. 8ff.

154 PARABLE OF GOOD SHEPHERD: JN. 10:1-21

The interpretation must be inferred from the context. O. Holtzmaun7· completely disregards this relationship when he proposes the following ex­planation: "There are many authorized preachers of the Gospel but each one achieves success only with the men assigned to him by God." And in a footnote he adds: "Jesus perhaps used the parable to justify the fact that He sent out the disciples in pairs" (Mk. 6:7). Spitta's77 observation is correct: "The description of the sheep following their legitimate shepherd and not the robber who broke in unlawfully, with its application to the episode recounted in Chap. 9—this is the whole."

We may perchance formulate the comparison thus: Just as the sheep, with an unfailing instinct, recognize and follow their shepherd but do not follow a robber and an interloper, so it is quite in accord with nature that the man born blind and others of this kind do not obey the false leaders of the people, in whom, with the sure vision of the unspoilt popular mind, they recognize their corrupters, whilst in Jesus they see their rightful shepherd and join Him.

Above we rejected the notion that w . 7ff embody a rigorous methodical interpretation78 of the parable. Hence we must ask ourselves what they represent and in what relation they stand to the parable. That these verses are intimately connected with the first five and that they are, so to speak, inseparable from them is apparent at the first glance; for the entire discourse is developed with the same expressions and images. The real difficulty resides in the fact that the two contrasting ideas of the door and the shepherd are applied to Jesus. This contradiction, in the eyes of some, is so great that they believe a critical sifting to be requisite here.

One group of critics79 attempts to solve the difficulty by adopting the reading of the Sahidic version, which replaces kyù άμι ή θύρα των προβάτων by kyá) άμι ò ττοιμήν των προβάτων and at the same time deletes the repetition in v. 9. Wellhausen80 proposes the following reason for this reading: "Vv. 1-5 are tacitly dependent upon it. The genetive των προβάτων fits τοι/φ only. What the genetive after θύρα signifies is not clear to the simple eye. The door originates from v. 9 ; this verse has been interpolated ; it stands lost between w . 8 and 10 and does not harmonize with v. 5, according to which the shepherd enters by the door and is not the door itself."

These reasons are unconvincing. Even if we prescind from the fact 7e Das Leben Jesu (Tübingen: 1901), p. 28. " Op. cit., p. G5ff. » Cf. p. 27ff. 7» Thus Wellhausen, op. cit., p. 48; Schwartz, Aporten, p. 163; Heitmüller, op. cit.,

p. 122. 80 Wellhausen, op. cit., p. 48ff.

PARABLE OP GOOD SHEPHERD: JN. 10:1-21 155

that the Sahidic version does not legitimize the conjecture in any way, it gtill remains true that τοιμήν does not fit into the interpretation. For in the parable several shepherds are alluded to. Precisely because the notion of the door is unexpected, the unanimous tradition supporting it must seem peculiar in the supposition that it is spurious. But regardless of all this, the reading θύρα is very appropriate since this notion plays an important role in the first part of the parable.81

This intimate nexus is also stressed by Spitta,82 although the difficulties which it involves also seem insuperable to him. He thinks that he can solve them by excising w . 7-1 la (a procedure also followed by B. Weiss83) and thus producing a pure parable consisting of w. 1-5, llb-16a, 18c. B. Weiss, on the other hand, believes that there are two parables: 10:1-5 and 10:11-18. Both critics proceed upon the assumption that w . 7-10 are concerned with an attempt to interpret the first parable. They dis­cover quite correctly that the real point of the parable is represented by the contrast between shepherd and robber; this contrast consists in the fact that the flock knows the shepherd and follows him but does not know the robber and turns aside from him. But they fail to reflect that the idea of the door is an essential co-determinant of this contrast and reckon it among the decorative additions. Thus they find that the interpretation misses the genuine sense of the parable. "It is worthy of note," declares Spitta,84

"that of the pictorial representation of the main idea... not the least .element has passed over to the interpretation." Both critics set down too schematically what does and does not pertain to the interpretation. More­over, they fail to observe that the notion of the door is represented as a fundamental feature of the parable because of its position at the head of the entire parable, because of its relation both to the shepherd and the robber,, and finally because of the idea of the doorkeeper. It would, on the con­trary, be amazing if, with so much emphasis, no element of the notion of the door had passed over to the interpretation. Moreover, the charge that the interpretation thoroughly misses the sense of the parable can only

' be right under the supposition that it is a commentary in the strict sense of the word.

It is true, however, that these verses must in some fashion be an explana-- tion or exposition of the parable. For this is fashioned in such a way that it demands an interpretation.85 This does not mean that Jesus purposely made the parable obscure, as the adherents of an extreme occlusion

•l Cf. Clemen, Die Entstehung des Johannesevangeliums (Halle: 1912), p. 197. M Op. cit., p. 69ff. M B. Weiss, Das Johannesevangelium als einheitliches Werk (Berlin: 1912), p. 191. •4 Op. cit., p. 70. i § Cf. Meinertz, op. cit., p. 46.

156 PARABLE OF GOOD SHEPHERD: JN. 10:1-21

theory would have us believe.86 For every detailed pictorial discourse is more obscure than a corresponding non-figurative one would be. This is true even of the Aristotelian parables.87 As a matter of fact, the auditors do not understand the discourse, as the Evangelist expressly notes in v. 6. This becomes more intelligible if we remember that the entire discourse contains reproaches against, and attacks upon, the Pharisees. Such re­proaches must have seemed strange to them, with their peculiar sense of self-righteousness. They, also, must have been reluctant to make the comparison, "since in that case, they must acknowledged themselves to be the men whom the sheep did not follow naturally."88 How little the Pharisees referred such reproaches, in the form of comparisons, to themselves is shown by the Parables of the Two Sons and the Wicked Tenants (Mt. 21-28ÏÏ). On that occasion, our Savior was forced to indicate this reference to them explicitly before they could understand it.

It is true, therefore, that w . 7-18 ought in some sense to offer an ex­planation of the parable. This is actually the case. The argumentation in both parts is linked up with those principal elements of the parable which we have set forth. But this argumentation does not remain within the bounds of the parable but develops these elements -independently, going beyond the course of its thought. The first part (w. 7-10) takes up the notion of the door, which distinguishes the shepherd from the robber. The second part (w. 11-18) develops the remaining chief idea which pic­tures the intimate relation subsisting between shepherd and flock and confers upon this idea a note of special importance. light, therefore, is thrown upon the parable from two sides by two, different, and independent explanations. The discourse, which, by referring the notions of the door and the shepherd to Jesus, passes from a simple comparison to an allegory, tells the Pharisees in direct language what the parable merely expressed by

86 Protestant interpreters, like Jülicher (op. cit., I, p. 44ff), who sponsor this view by referring to Mt. 13:10ff; Mk. 4:llff; Lk. 8:10ff see precisely in the Johannean parables a support for this hypothesis. They, appeal, in addition to our passage, especially to Jn. 16:25, where παρρησία, the open, unveiled discourse, is opposed to the ιταροιμία. We may ask, first, to what the χαροιμία (16 -J25) refers, whether it designates the entire teaching of Jesus or the farewell discourses of the immediate context. But what Jesus declares in the antithesis of 16:25ff is this: the disciples up to that time were not sufficiently mature to penetrate into the deepest mysteries of the Son of Man, i.e., into His suffering and death, his Resurrection and Ascension. For this reason our Savior was obliged to impose upon Himself a certain reserve and prudent mode of expression; he could only give them indications in language full of imagery-A real intention to screen the truth is not to be found here at all. Such an intention would be in full conflict with the entire mission of our Savior. Of. Buzy, op. cit., p. 411ff and Meinertz, op. cit., p. 79ff.

87 Cf. Lagrange, op. cit., p. 276. M B. Weiss, Das Johannesevangelium als einheit. Werk, p. 193.

PARABLE OP GOOD SHEPHERD: JN. 10:1-21 157

way of comparison. At the same time, the relation of the parts is such that they mutually supplement and clarify one another, without, how­ever, losing their independence. In the course of the development, the individual allusions and references of the parable, which are not under­stood despite its inner clarity, are cleared up, whilst the ideas of the later parts presuppose the parable to some extent. The third figurative discourse recedes more and more from its polemical starting point. It p̂ictures our Lord as a good shepherd in a predominantly didactic exposi­

tion. That it is a polemic against the Pharisees is evident from the exclu--siveness of the idea.

The discourse also retains its pictorial character in the last two parts, but this, in contrast with the first part, now becomes essentially allegorical. Hence the appellation of Buzy, "allégorie parabolisante," might here be found appropriate. But in view of the independence of the exposition, it is almost more fitting to speak here of three parables or pictorial discourses. However, we must stress the intimate connection between these three parables.89 In the last part (w. 11-18) the parabolic elements again come into the foreground more prominenti}7. Consequently, it is quite possible to consider w . llb-13 to be a small, independent parable. But the topical sentence, wrhich is premised, "I am the Good Shepherd," emphasizes its allegorical aspect from the very beginning. In v. 14 this reference is again emphasized, and the image is further developed by the use of allegory. Beginning with v. 17, our Savior abandons the allegorical style, in order to express profound dogmatic thoughts about His death and His relation to the Father in direct language.

If we regard the middle section in this way, we have no reason to excise it from the framework of the whole, in imitation of Spitta and B. Weiss. A logical continuation of thought can easily be established, and the speaker, at the same time, is seen to be explaining the parable.

Î DETAILED EXPOSITION or Vv. 7-18

Let us now attempt to determine the sense of w . 7-18 in detail. In doing so, we must bear in mind firmly that these verses must be considered in their connection with the preceding parable as well as in the general context.

In v. 7 our Savior emphatically resumes the discourse with the twofold αμήν, αμήν. This, as in v. 1, introduces a new turn of thought. In the parable He designated the entrance by the door as the mark distinguishing the rightful shepherd from the unlawful intruder; now he explains in alle­gorical terms that He Himself is this door to the sheep.90 In these words,

*e Cf. Meinertz, op. cit., p. 46. 90 Των -προβάτων is to be taken as an objective genetive. Aug., Maid., Loisy would

158 PARABLE OF GOOD SHEPHERD: JN. 10:1-21

therefore, Jesus, with divine power and divine self-consciousness, defines Himself as the only person through whom the pastoral office is legitimately bestowed in the kingdom of God. From Him every true vocation takes its origin. If Jesus is actually the door, it follows logically that all who pre­ceded Him were robbers and thieves, unlawful shepherds.

This statement, couched in general terms, has ever been a source of difficulties for €xegetes, and for this reason the textual tradition concerning it is less certain. At times πάντβ* CD) or προ ¿μου is omitted to eliminate the acerbity of the idea. On the genuinity of πάντ€% there can scarcely be any doubt, because of the textual testimony. The situation with regard to -προ e μου is different. It is lacking in N, several other uncials, a series of cursives, almost entirely in the Latin, Syriac, and Sahidic tradition. More­over, its position is uncertain. Lagrange91 pronounces it spurious for the following reasons: (1) The authority of tradition is against it; (2) The reason advanced for its deletion in some MSS, namely, that the Gnostics appealed to it in defense of their rejection of the Old Testament, is not valid. For this deletion would have failed of its purpose, since, even without προ kpov, ήλβον would have permitted this reference to the Old Testament. It is difficult in itself to reconcile the aorist ήλθον with daiv. This difficulty grows with the addition of προ ίμου. Zahn92 and Bauer93

appeal to Gnostic misuse of the text which we are discussing in support of its genuinity. In fact, this misuse can be proven from the writings of the Fathers, as Bludau has shown.94 But Bludau also believes that a deletion has but little probability, since we do not see "that the Fathers attribute any importance to the presence or absence of the words." Accordingly, we may consider προ Ιμου to be a later insertion on the part of the Gnostics, especially since the sense is scarcely appreciably altered owing to the aorist -ηλθον. The Fathers uniformly took ήλθον in a pregnant sense (προ Ιμου = χωρι$ Ιμου), so that self-authorized leaders are repudiated.

To what, then, is the passage to be referred? It is clear, despite the

take it as a subjective one. According to Loisy, the subjective genetive is better in the context, for there is question, not of a mission to be executed by Jesus, but of the salvation to be obtained through Him. In reply to this, we must emphasize the fact that such a connection can, at the most, be deduced only from v. 9. A real objective genetive is indicated by the back-reference to w . 1-3; moreover, the verses show clearly that they are directed against the Pharisees. For this reason, we take the genetive to be objective here.

91 Op. cit., p. 277. 92 Op. cit., p. 444, note. ·» Op. cit., p. 134. •4 Bludau, Die Schrifljalschungen der Häretiker (NT Abhandlungen, XL,5),p. 73;

cf. Haiieberg-Schegg, Evangelium nach Johannes (München: 1880), p. 9.

PARABLE OP GOOD SHEPHERD: JN. 10:1-21 159

contrary opinion of Spitta,96 Delafosse,96 and Windisch,57 that a rejection of the Old Testament prophets is not contemplated; for a series of passages from St. John may be adduced to the contrary.98 Moreover, the present άσίν inexorably* points to contemporaries. A reference to v. 1 is un­deniable here; hence Zahn and Schwartz99 think that the Herodian dynasty must be meant, in accordance with their interpretation of v. Iff. The Fathers, for the most part, referred the passage to the false prophets of the Old Testament. 0. Holtzmann,100 Wellhausen,101 and. Bernard102 think of pseudo-messiahs, as in the case of the parable. The most recent advocate of this opinion is Lagrange.103 Finally, there is a group of exegetes which believes that the Pharisees are denoted, e.g.; Knabenbauer,104 Belser,105 and Tillmann.106

We have shown that the restriction of the meaning of ποιμήν to rulers and princes is inadmissible. Hence the interpretation based on this re­striction falls to the ground. Furthermore, we cannot assume that false prophets of the Old Testament are meant, since these do not fit the trend of thought in this section at all. If we accept the alleged reference to pseudo-messiahs, we are compelled sto suppose that they are meant in the parable also. But we have proven that this supposition is untenable.

If we keep the context before our eyes, only the official religious leaders of Judaism can be meant. Zahn's107 objection that Jesus could not have blamed the Pharisees, who had risen to leadership at an undefinable period before His coming, for not being called by Himself need not be considered too formidable. Jesus is speaking here in His capacity as eternally pre­destined Messias, who knows that He is one with the Father. To be called by Himself is equivalent to being called by God. In v. 10 the robbers are defined more accurately as men who come only to steal and slay; they come, therefore, only for their own advantage not for that of the sheep. Trans­ferred to the Pharisees, this means that they exercise their dominance, not

' in virtue of a divine mission or an inner call, but only to promote their own

**Op.cit.,7Q. ••Delafosse, Le quatrième èvangue (Paris: 1925), p . 18ff. 97 H. Windisch, Johannes und die Synoptiker (Leipzig: 1926), p . 173. M E.g , 452; 5:45ff ; 6:45; 7:19; 10:34; 1258, etc. · · Zahn, op. cit., p . 446; Schwartz, "Osterbetrachtungen," p. 5, note. 100 Dos. Johannesevang., p. 247. 101 Op. cit., p. 48. 1W Op. cit., I I , p . 353. m Op. cit., p. 278. w* Op. cit., p . 327. 10* Op. cit., p. 321. 106 Op. cit., p . 159. 107 Op. cit., p . 146, note.

160 PARABLE OF GOOD SHEPHERD: JN. 10:1-21

interests. If we consider with what pride and great contempt they looked down upon the "people," how little they showed themselves to be faithful and diligent shepherds, then the expression "robbers and thieves" does not seem to be extraordinary, especially in connection with the other appella­tions which Jesus bestows upon them. In Mt. 9:36 it is expressly stated of the people: "They were harassed and scattered like sheep without a shepherd."

That our Savior gave a correct estimate of the Pharisees is revealed by the thought which follows: "The sheep did not listen to them." Our Savior may be thinking of the man born blind; but His gaze undoubtedly extends further to the multitudes of the people who turned to Him despite the hostility of the Pharisees. V.9 repeats with strong emphasis, "I am the door." Nevertheless, the thought here acquires a new turn. Taken by itself, v.9 would not only admit but even demand the conception that Christ is the door for the sheep, i.e., the flock of the Christian community who reach salvation through Him. Belser,108 in fact, together with some of the Fathers, does defend this view. But considered within the frame­work of the whole and in relation to v. 10, in which the contrast between thief and shepherd reappears, v.9 can only be dealing with the leaders of the flock who seek pasture for their sheep and are themselves saved.109

Christ appears here as the mediator of all true spiritual direction. He who receives his mission from Christ will be able to transmit to his sheep the necessary teachings of salvation; he will find good pasture. Even if the thoughts just given do not follow necessarily from what precedes, there is no reason to pronounce the verse spurious with Wellhausen. The possibility of doing so would be greater if we interpreted it of the sheep.

V. 10 characterizes the thief more definitely: he comes only to kill and to slay. In this respect he presents a sharp contrast to our Savior in the second half of the verse. Thus the progress of thought takes a new direc­tion. Jesus is no longer the door but once more the antithesis of the thief and the robber—the shepherd. The speaker already has the other main idea which follows before His eye, "I am the Good Shepherd," and the turn of thought just mentioned constitutes the transition to this idea. Thus the characterization of the robber seems to serve merely the purpose of stressing the antithetical attitude of the Savior. He gives life super­abundantly to the sheep, life in that deeper sense in which John speaks of it.110

108 Op. cit., p. 321. 109 Thus Bauer, Handbuch, p. 134. The meaning of σωθησ*ται is not quite certain.

Tillmann and Belser think of eternal salvation; B. Weiss and Knabenbauer explain it as referring to a deliverance from robbers. Lagrange speaks of a Semitic idiom meaning no more than to be healthy and active. To me the idea of eternal salvation seems to be the most fitting.

110 Cf. Tillmann, op. cit., p. 99ff.

PARABLE OF GOOD SHEPHERD: JN. 10:1-21 161

V. 11 inaugurates a new section which is united to the thought dominant in the latter half of the parable. We found that in this the main stress is upon the intimate relationship between shepherd and flock. This final part of the pictorial discourse is clearly divided into two portions by the repetition of the topical sentence, "I am the Good Shepherd." In the first portion, w . 11-13, the self-sacrificing devotion of the owner to the welfare of his flock, ready to give up life itself, is illustrated by the contrast which he forms to the hired servant. In the second portion (w. 14-16),

,on the other hand, the quality requisite of a shepherd is declared to be an acquaintance and intimacy with the flock. These are to resemble the communion of life and love subsisting between the Father and the Son. From v. 17 onward the discourse loses its figurative character and adds some reflections about the death of Jesus.

Jesus, therefore, in v. 11 claims to be the Good Shepherd because He possesses the mark of the Good Shepherd, as v. 12 states corroboratively. For a characteristic quality of a good shepherd consists in this that he is not afraid to give his life for his sheep.m The object of this statement is to underscore heavily the freedom of will with which life is sacrificed. The hireling, on the contrary, on seeing the wolf approaching, thinks first of himself and Ais own safety and not of the deliverance of the sheep en­trusted to his care. He provides for his own security first by fleeing. The flock which is now helplessly delivered to the rapacity of its enemy is left to its fate. Any sheep that are not slain or carried off as prey run away

.irom another in mortal dread and are scattered. The reason for the hireling's conduct is to be sought in the fact that he is a hireling, devoid of personal interest, of heart and love for his flock. For it is not his personal property which is endangered. The description of the hireling and his behavior, which is the logical consequence of his character as a hireling, is of no independent significance in this connection; it merely serves to delineate the Good Shepherd more effectively. Jesus is not thinking either of the Pharisees112 or of negligent pastors of souls or of founders of

111 Instead of ψυχήν ainov Tíftjw ìnckp των προβάτων Κ* D read Βίδωσιν, in accordance with the usage of the Synoptics, Mt. 2028; Mk. 10:45. The latter reading is preferred by Zahn (p. 451, note in his Evang. d. Johannes). But this is opposed to a well established usage of John, cf. 10:15fT; 13:37ff; 15:13ff; 1 Jn 3:16. If Zahn thinks that an editor retained this Johannean expression, he supposes that the editor was acquainted with it. Ύίθησιν is mostly translated : he gives up his life. Accordingly, the author is frequently blamed for failing to notice that the flock is not saved by the death of the shepherd but is now actually delivered over to ravening beasts. But rtßipai means primarily, not to give up, but to lay down. A courageous stand in the hour of danger is implied, an exposing of one's life to death. In v. 15ff, however, the

. thought concerns the actual surrender of life. 212 Cf. Schans, op. cit., p. 326.

162 PARABLE OP GOOD SHEPHERD: JN. 10:1-21

Christian heresies113. Hence it is useless to interpret the wolf who snatches add scatters as denoting the devil114 or heretics115 or mighty persecutors116

or even with Schwartz117 such remote persons as the Romans. With strong emphasis Jesus contrasts Himself as the Good Shepherd

with the hireling by repeating the introductory topical sentence, "I am the Good Shepherd." What the hireling lacks, he possesses: personal knowledge of each individual member of His flock. Between the sheep and Jesus there is such a deep mutual understanding, a communion so intimate that it may be compared with the deepest and highest communion consisting in the mutual knowledge and love of the Father and the Son in the divine Trinity.118 This introduces a new feature into the picture which resumes the thought expressed in v. 3ff. It is the ultimate and the most sublime that can be said. This knowledge is not a mere theoretical apprehension, perchance, of the Father's splendor, power, love, and fidelity ; the most prof ound communion of love is in question. It resembles the mutual knowledge of shepherd and flock which is founded on the solicitous love of the shepherd. From this reciprocal knowledge which fashions a communion of love the readiness for sacrifice of the most precious springs forth naturally. Therefore, Jesus once more adds a characteristic which He had already mentioned in v. 11 to the new distinguishing mark of the shepherd, "I give my life for my sheep." With these words our Savior directs His gaze to the future. This preview of the death of the cross which is to be suffered for all and is to bring deliverance to all is a transition to the universal idea expressed in v. 16. To the fold of Christ belong not only sheep from the chosen people to whom Jesus had hitherto devoted his preaching and pastoral toil. There are also other sheep, i.e., lovers of truth and seekers of God in the heathen world for whom his comprehensive pastoral care is equally destined. Just as He now acts towards the sheep "of this fold," i.e., Israel,119 so will He also discharge

M» Cf. H. T. Holtzmann, op. cit., ρ . 201. 114 Thus Augustine and Chrysostom. 1 U Schanz, op. cit., p. 387. 116 Loisy (op. cit., p. 614) speaks of "pouvoirs persécuteurs." »7 "Osterbetrachtungen," p. 5, note. 118 Bernard's remark that the point of comparison (v. 15b) consists solely in the

reciprocity scarcely does justice to the depth of thought (op. cit., II, p. 360), although there is no other text in John which could be interpreted as expressing a similar reciprocal knowledge of such profundity, between Christ and the faithful, at least as far as the latter are concerned.—According to the division of the Vulgate it might appear that καθώ%. . . τον τατέρα is to be connected with what follows. In fact, Thomas and Beda do connect in this way. The Greek construction permits both possibilities, cf. Bernard, op. cit., II, p. 360. If the Vulgate construction is adopted, there is no connection with the preceding.—There is no adequate reason for declaring v. 15 to be of later origin, as Spitta does.

" · 'Εκ Trjs aù\r)s ταίτη^ must be referred to the people of Israel, which, from the standpoint of Jesus* mission, formed a contrast to the Gentile nations. Spitta under-

PARABLE OP GOOD SHEPHERD: JN. 10:1-21 163

His pastoral office towards these in a way consonant with His duty and His vocation. The same thought is enunciated as in Jn. ll:51ff, which reads: "Jesus was to die for the nation; and not for the nation alone, but also that He might gather together the scattered children of God." That is the meaning of the words: "These also must I lead," i.e., also before them must I walk as a shepherd to lead them to pasture, without which they cannot have life. Jesus, therefore, continues, "I must lead them into the fold;" in addition, "I must bring them together." Also these sheep of the heathen world will hear His voice and follow him. Then the restrictions which still separate the chosen people and the good outside of it will disappear. They will form a single flock, one great people of God which is united through the same leader, through the one faith in the good shepherd, Christ. 'To deduce from this passage that God's Church will embrace all mankind before the end of the world is an ancient mis­conception of it. Pessimo interprete vulgo, declares Maldonat."120

+ In connection with the view into the future of the community, v. 17 naturally now resumes the thought of Jesus' death, upon which every future pastoral toil will build. The voluntary sacrifice of life is the reason why the Path«: loves the Son.m Of course, the pastoral care of the Savior does not cease with death. He gives up His life that He may take it up again. Ίνα here denotes not so much the goal contemplated by the Lord as the accompanying circumstance."2 With strong emphasis, the speaker proclaims the voluntary character of His death. No one can rob Him of life.123 This is true also of the Pharisees who listen to his

stands, referring to Lk. 4:43, he TT)S αυλή* ταύτης to be the citizens of Jerusalem and άλλα πρόβατα to be Jews outside the holy city. This opinion misinterprets the con­nection of thought. The idea that Jesus must preach the Gospel to other Jews be­sides those of Jerusalem does not accord with the context. The same holds true of K. Bornhauser's opinion, who proposed that the antithesis is between Juda and Is­rael. With Ezech. 37:22ff and the rots Ίου&αίοπ of v. 15 in mind, he believes that the discourse is addressed to Judeans; this would imply that Israelites are the other sheep. This interpretation springe from his hypothesis that John's Gospel is a missionary document for Israel against Juda. We cannot deal with this supposition at any greater length; suffice it to say that this interpretation does not satisfy the eontext. Cf. Κ. Bornhaüser, Dew Johannesevangelium als Missionsschrift für Israel (Gütersloh: 1928), p. 58ff. It is, likewise, impossible to interpret the text as re­ferring to a direction of heavenly beings, the angels, in contrast to the labors of Christ on earth. This is the view of O. Holtzmann, Das Johannesevangelium, p. 248.

110 Thus Tillmann, op. cit., p. 161. 121 hia τούτο does not refer to the preceding, as Knabenbauer thinks, cf. op. cit.

p. 333ff. It must be joined with the following, as is usual in John, cf. Lagrange, op. cit., p. 283.

1 M Cf. Lagrange, op. ciL, p. 283. m Instead of aZpet Aleph and Β have %p**. Exegetes are divided in their choice of

either reading, $pw would refer to the futile exertions of the Jews in the past, alpa would refer more generally to the future, cf. Lagrange, op. cit., p. 283.

164 PARABLE OP GOOD SHEPHERD: JN. 10:1-21

discourse with hostile thoughts in their hearts. All the attacks which they have made upon Him have been futile and remain futile until He Himself deems the time to have come. Of course, this will not occur in the manner which His opponents perhaps image to be possible, that he will give up His life by suicide. He has the right and the power—Ιξουσία may mean both—to sacrifice His life. But He also has the power to recall Himself to life; He is the Lord of death and life. However, there are two considerations which motivate the offering of His life: first, the self-sacrificing love for the sheep, secondly, the precept of the Father. Therein lies the most profound reason for the love of the Father, because He fulfills the command of the Father in childlike obedience together with the oblation of His life.

The thoughts of the two final verses of the discourse (w. 17, 18) lead us into the deepest mysteries of the divine mission and task of Jesus. They are thoughts such as St. John loves to develop. With Zahn,124 we may sum up the most important features as follows: "He looked upon His death not as mere suffering which he allows to come upon Himself with resignation but as a free act, upon which He is determined; (2) as an act of obedience to the precept of His Father laid upon Him personally; therefore as a fulfillment of a duty arising from His vocation, as a substan­tial part of the work of His vocation; (3) as an exercise of His self-sacrificing love towards those who believe in Him, whom he saves from ruin thereby; (4) not as a cessation of his being alive but as a transition to a new mani­festation of His life, superior to death, in His resurrection; (5) as a pre­supposed condition for the extension of His activity beyond the limits of his work hitherto to the pagan world."

Vv. 19-21 contain the conclusion of the parable and again restore the connection with the healing of the blind man. The discourse causes dis­sension among the hearers. Πάλι? points back to 9:16. The healing of the blind man did not produce the effect expected upon the majority of the hearers; it merely aroused more opposition. Since the title of shepherd is frequently applied to God and the future Messias in the O.T.,125 the designation of the Good Shepherd in the manner in which Jesus refers it to Himself must have contained a clear reference to His messianic dignity. Precisely this claim together with the thought of the death of Jesus and the call of the heathen world could only provoke repudiation and hate if we consider the attitude of official Jewish circles. To them such discourses sound like the speech of a madman. For this reason they pronounce Jesus to be a man who is raving and in whom no sensible person takes any inter­est. Nevertheless, there is a small minority who cannot shut their minds

™ Op. cit., p. 454. «* 1 Sam. 13:14; Ps. 78:70ff.

PARABLE OF GOOD SHEPHERD: JN. 10:1-21 165

to the logic of facts, to the miracle and the discourse following upon it. His words, proposed with so much earnestness and pregnant with such deep thought, really do sound different than the ravings of a demoniac. The decisive factor, however, is the miracle of healing. It is not proper to an evil spirit to benefit men. That is sound logic.

Although this conclusion shows itself to be quite natural, critics have thought that they must also apply their dissecting knives here. Schwartz1* judges thus: "The present conclusion of the entire speech-complex about the shepherd, 10:19-21, restores the connection with the story of the man born blind only in an imperfect way; it operates with the schematic device of the σχίσμα, which is also used in secondary parts in 7:43; 9:16.** Soltau,127 on the contrary, considers the verses to be the conclusion of the-

' healing of the blind man, which is supposed to have been broken in two recklessly by the insertion of the shepherd discourse. Bauer128 has the feeling that v. 21b could disappear, without the loss of anything important» But this is and remains nothing but a feeling. As for the other two voices, we believe that we have shown how close the nexus is between Chaps. 9 and 10, so that there can be no question of an artificial separation. The progress is so natural that the σχίσμα need not be a schematic device, but may well give evidence of the peculiar situation.129

THE GENUINÜT OF THE FIGURATIVE DISCOURSE

In the course of the exposition, we have already rejected a series of objections sgainst the unity of the text. It remains incumbent upon us to add a summary discussion of the genuinity of the figurative discourse« In view of the difficulties encountered in the exegesis of the passage, it is not surprising that the critics have found it to be a favorable field for the exercise of their activity. They do, indeed, acknowledge the beauty and depth of thought found in the discourse, but they do not believe that it can be referred to Jesus in its present form. The most extreme attitude is taken by Jülicher180 and Loisy.131 On the one hand Jülicher finds the allegorical character of the passage so intense that he thinks himself com­pelled to conclude that it is inauthentic; for, in his opinion, allegory in the mouth of Jesus is unthinkable. On the other hand, certain individual statements of the text seem to be not immune to objection: one doorkeeper

m Aporten, p. 163. m "Die Enstelrang des vierten Evangeliums," in Theol. Stud, und Kritiken,

Vol. 81 (1908, p. 180. 1M Op. cit., p. 136. "· Cf. Sputa, op. cit., p. 103. "° Op. cit., p. 115.

* m Op. cit., p. 89ff.

166 PARABLE OF GOOD SHEPHERD: JN. 10:1-21

for so large a flock; the shepherd calls the sheep by name; the interpretation is involved and varicolored. "A firm and clear image is, at any rate, not delineated; the figurative and non-figurative, the interpretation and the subject to be interpreted he in one heap." Thus he finally reaches the judgment: "I cannot consider this παροιμία, which is not supported by anything of a kindred nature in the Synoptics, to be genuine. "£*

Jülicher's assertion that no form of allegory is present in the original parables of Jesus is in direct conflict with the facts.133 His method of pronouncing everything inauthentic which does not harmonize with his theory regarding the exegesis of parables is altogether too cheap. Ac­cordingly, An objection against the genuinity cannot be based on this procedure. As for the incongruities which Jülicher thinks that he can establish, he has failed completely to consider the conditions of the Holy Land. As our exposition has shown, the image painted is in the highest degree true to nature and is confirmed even today down to its last detail by Palestinian conditions. Finally, our exposition must have demon­strated that a uniform development is discernible in the whole passage and that the gay mixture alleged to be present by Jülicher is out of the question.

Among most of the critics the difficulties arising from structure or literary character are not the real reason for declaring the passage spurious but peculiar philosophical principles. Thus Wellhausen134 opines that the verses must presuppose the existence of the later Christian community, that they are uttered from the standpoint of an era which could look back upon quite a number of frustrated pretenders and fake messiahs. Loisy13* finds that the notion of the Church is even farther removed from the Jewish spirit, if this were possible, than in St. Paul. Bauer136 discovers that v. 16 presupposes the activity of the Apostle Paul. H. Thoma137 goes so far as to maintain that the parable is a portrait of Paul: "The picture of the good shepherd in Chap. 10 is a delineation of the activity of the Apostle Paul. When the Apostle of the Gentiles is describing his call, the pagan governor cries out: Ύοη are raving.' The Evangelist, also, recounts that Jesus* speech made the same impression. They said: Ήβ has a demon and is raving. Why do you listen to 1™!?' " Thoma traces the image of the Good Shepherd back to the parting speech of Paul to the assembled shepherds (Acts 20:17ff). Most of the elements of this speech are alleged to be found in the shepherd discourse of Jesus. Finally,

1 M Op. cit., p. 115. 1 M Cf. Meinertz, op. cti., p. 20ff. IU Op. cit., p. 49. »** Op. cit., p. 615ff. »« Op. cit., p. 136. 1 , 7 Die Genesis des Johannesevangeliums (Berlin: 1882), p. 570.

PARABLE OF GOOD SHEPHERD: JN. 10:1-21 167

Heitmûller138 and Holtzmann139 believe that the picture of the good shep­herd who gives his life for his own could only have been drawn after the cross was erected on Golgotha.

' All these arguments are of significance only in the realm of rationalism,, which denies that Jesus foresaw and predicted His death and the spread ¿f His kingdom. Moreover, Wellhausen's objection rests on a false inter­pretation of the parable. The "logion" in v. 16 does not exclude the prior rights of Israel. What does Αλλα πρόβατα denote but that the Jews are the genuinely original sheep? The expression becomes impossible only in the supposition that Jesus never thought of a Church or a mission to the

..Gentiles. But this clearly contradicts the teaching of the Gospel else­where.140

On the positive side, we may affirm that a comparison with the synoptic parables does reveal resemblances which refute the assertion of Jülicher that παροιμίαι of this kind are not supported by anything of a kindred nature in the Synoptics. As far as the parable in w. 1-5 is concerned, there is no element in which it is surpassed by the most perfect in the Synoptics- We also find a series of parables in the Synoptics, which, like

. the one under consideration, do not relate a single incident but a progressive occurrence of natural life serving to illustrate a higher truth. As examples we may cite: the Parable of the Leaven, of the Pearl, of the Net, etc. It is true that the last two parts of the discourse have an allegorical character. But parallels to this also occur in the Synoptics.141 In connection with

„ this, we may mention metaphors like Mt. 5:13ff, "You are the salt of the ;earth" and "You are the light of the world" as well as the strongly alle­gorical coloring of the interpretation of the Parable of the Sower (Mt. 13:18ff). "At most, one may discern a difference in degree in the strength of the allegory. But this does not indicate an essential difference which would require a declaration against its genuinity."142

On the other hand, it is true that the structure of our three parabolic - discourses diverges in form from the synoptic mode of presentation. This ^also contains parables in pairs which illustrate the same truth under

different aspects. But in these cases, they are distinct from one another and independent. Instances in which each of the figurative discourses which follow one another represents a different interpretation of the parable are not found in the Synoptics. But it is possible to cite cases which

» exhibit a two fold application of the fundamental idea. Thus the con­cluding verse (9) in the Parable of the Unjust Steward is frequently looked

l n Op. cit., p. 124ff. m H. J. Holtzmann, op. cit., p. 201. 140 Cf. Meinertz, Jesus und die Heidenmission (Münster: 1925). 141 Cf. Meinertz, Gleichnisse, p. 47. I4a Ibid.

168 PARABLE OP GOOD ÖHEPHBRD: JN. 10:1-21

upon as a second application, which our Savior makes, in allegorical form, to expand the original idea. "In the Parable of the Wicked Vintners (Mt. 21:33ff) the interpretation is also given in enlarged form (v. 42ff), and the Parable of the Royal Nuptial Feast (Mt. 22: Iff) has a second part (v. Uff) not necessarily connected with the first."143 We are not justified in pronouncing such divergences from a firm, rigid concept of a parable to be not genuine. We are guilty of one-sided schematization if we affirm that a parable must necessarily conform to a fixed scheme, so that a slight deviation of thought is unthinkable. As Buzy144 points out, the question at issue is whether biblical parables must be judged by our standards or by their own, those of the Oriental. Buzy sets forth this question clearly and supplies a correct answer when he says: "The problem at issue is whether every commentary must be literally exact and-rectilinear or whether the attempt cannot be made to explain the whole by illustrating but one aspect; and to set forth the salient point once more, the question is whether the Oriental genius is to be appreciated according to its own or according to our rules. This is the entire problem. Let the reader decide on which side the esteem for historical truth and truth in general is to be found."

No cogent argument, therefore, can be discovered against the genuinity of the parable. On the other hand, the image finds its complete explana­tion in the ideology of the Old and New Testament, as is self-evident from the character of a pastoral people like the Jewish. Yahweh is the shepherd of His people: Is. 40:11; Jer. 31:10; Ezech. 34:llff; Ps. 23:lff; 74:1; 78:52; 100:3. David, also, is depicted figuratively as a shepherd in 1 Sam. 13:14; Ps. 78:70-72. Ezechiel (34:Iff) recounts the divine ar­raignment of the undutiful shepherds of the people. In the New Testa­ment our Savior pictures Himself as seeking the lost sheep and carrying it back upon His shoulders (Mt. 18:12). Texts of this tenor could easily be multiplied. Hence it seems odd that critics like Bauer145 and Clemen146

think that our passage is dependent upon pagan sources. Bauer cites Anubis among the Egyptians, Attis among the Phrygians, Yime among the Persians as parallels to the Good Shepherd. Bauer grants that the images used by Jesus could well be explained from the O.T. "But since we may elsewhere perceive a kinship between John and certain contemporaneous currents of thought, it is permissible to point to these."147 Lagrange148

l4»/6id.,p.48. 144 Op. cit., p. 454ff ; ibid.t for the quotation which followaj l4f Op. cu., p. 137ff. . 144 Op. cit., p. 200. 147 Op. cit., p. 137. "· Op. cit., p. 284.

PARABLE OF GOOD SHEPHERD: JN. 10:1-21 169^

judges correctly when he pronounces the reference to Anubis, Attis, and Yime to be "childish bragging with erudition;" for the cultural cycle of the O.T. was much more familiar to Jesus as well as to the Evangelist than these heathen mythologies. More intelligible would be a reference to Philo and Mandeism. Philo compares the Logos with a shepherd and king of the mind. He also makes a distinction between the good shepherd and the hireling. Manda, also, is depicted in the Mandean literature as a shepherd and bears the title, "good shepherd." But we must note that the image in this source does not approach the profundity of our passage. Furthermore, we must emphasize that a use of the shepherd symbol is not unintelligible, in fact, rather probable, in view of the importance assigned to this avocation in that epoch. In addition, we can establish a more profound dependence of both Philo and Mandeism upon the Old Testa­ment. With regard to the latter, Lagrange149 believes that he can prove such a dependence of the passages in question especially upon Isaías. Prom another standpoint, the truly characteristic quality of the parable of Jesus is lacking both in Philo and Mandean sources. Hence we cannot assume a dependence.

RETROSPECT

In retrospect, we may say that our discourse remains intact, despite all the attacks of criticism. As Heitmüller declares emphatically and right­fully, it belongs to the gems of the Gospel.x Vv. 11-18 especially present a picture "of incomparable tenderness and delicacy coupled with a quicken­ing earnestness."150 Consequently, the image of Jesus, the Shepherd, has ever been especially familiar to the world of Christian ideas from its very beginning. This is shown by the frequency of its use in literature, and especially by the frequency of its representation in the Christian art of the Catacombs.151 The latter often is inspired by Lk. 15, but there are also re­productions which were made with our parable in mind. Even today the Good Shepherd is a favorite theme of Christian art as well as of Christian

¿thought in general.

*« Cf. Revue Biblique, Vol. 37(1928), p. 15ff. »· Op. cit., p. 124. U1 Cf. Tillmann, op. cit., p. 164 and the literature there cited.

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.