Chapter X.1-5.The parable (or rather allegory, see below on verse 1), of the door of the sheepfold.6.The Pharisees understood not the parable.7-10.Christ, therefore, applies it.11-18.The parable of the Good Shepherd.19-21.There was a difference of opinion among the Pharisees regarding Christ.22-30.On another occasion the Pharisees ask Him to tell them plainly if He is the Christ; to whom He replies that He is, and the Son of God, one in nature with His Father.31.Thereupon they took up stones to stone Him.32-38.He defends his language by a quotation from their own Psaltery.39-42.When they sought to take Him prisoner, He escaped from them, and crossed over to the east side of the Jordan, where many believed in him.1. Amen, amen dico vobis: qui non intrat per ostium in ovile ovium, sed ascendit aliunde, ille fur est, et latro.1. Amen, amen, I say to you: he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber.1. This verse and those that follow down to the end of verse 18, are a continuation of the discourse directed to the Pharisees, and begun in ix. 39, with which verse this tenth chapter might more correctly have been commenced. The logical connection of the following parable with the close of the preceding chapter is not clear. Some, as St. Aug., say that Christ is proving that the Pharisees wereblind, else they would recognise Him as thedoorthrough which the true fold must be entered, and as thetrue Shepherd. Others, as St. Chrys., think that He is replying to a tacit objection of the Pharisees, to the effect that they refused to recognise Him, not because they were blind, but because He was an impostor.The parable, taken strictly, is a narrative of a probable but fictitiousevent, like that relating to the Prodigal Son (Luke xv. 11-32). Where, as[pg 177]in the present instance, there is continued or prolonged metaphor, without the description of any event, some would call it an allegory and not a parable; but we prefer not to interfere with a phrase so familiar as“the parable of the good Shepherd.”It will be noted that we speak of parables, and not merely of one parable, for we hold that the parable of Christ asdoorof the fold is distinct from that of Christ as Shepherd. Our reasons for this will appear as we proceed. To understand the grammatical sense of these two parables, we must bear in mind what were the relations of the shepherd to his sheep in eastern countries, and especially in Palestine.In the Spring of the year the Jewish shepherd conducted his sheep to their pasture, and there they remained until the end of the following Autumn. At night they were enclosed in folds, the flocks of several shepherds being sometimes gathered in the same fold. The fold, open overhead, was surrounded by a wall, in which there was but one door, at which the doorkeeper (ostiarius) remained through the night, until the shepherd's return in the morning. A thief, wishing to steal sheep, would, of course, not attempt to enter by the door, but would climb the wall. On the shepherd's return in the morning the door of the fold was thrown open by the doorkeeper, and each shepherd entered and called his own sheep, which, knowing his voice, followed him to their own pasture. Throughout the whole day the shepherd remained with them, guarding them from wild beasts and robbers, and attending to the weak and maimed. Thus his relations with his sheep were very close and constant indeed, and must be carefully borne in mind, in order that we may rightly appreciate the full significance of these beautiful parables.He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold.If we strip this language of its metaphorical character, the sense is: that the teacher who enters not into the Church through Christ as the door, that is to say, by believing in Christ, is a false teacher, as were therefore, the Scribes and Pharisees. Christ, then, is the door (see verse7); the Church is the sheepfold; and the Scribes and Pharisees, with all such, are the thieves and robbers who injure their fellow-men, sometimes secretly like[pg 178]thieves, sometimes with open violence like robbers. That Christ is signified by“the door,”is the view of SS. Aug., Cyril, Bede, Greg., and of A Lap.; and is, indeed, distinctly stated by Himself, in verse 7, after His hearers had failed to understand His words. Hence we unhesitatingly reject the view of Mald. and many others, who take“the door”in verse 1 to be different from that in verse 7; the latter, they say, being the door of thesheep, Christ Himself; the former the door of the shepherds, which Mald. understands oflegitimate authorityto teach. We have no doubt that the door in both verses is the same, because Christ begins to explain, in verse 7:“Jesusthereforesaid to them again”what He had said in verses 1-5.2. Qui autem intrat per ostium, pastor est ovium.2. But he that entereth in by the door, is the shepherd of the sheep.2. The sense is that he who entereth by faith in Christ, and by Christ's authority, isatrue shepherd (ποιμήν, without the article). Such a pastor is contrasted with the Pharisees who blindly refused to enter by the only gate.3. Huic ostiarius aperit, et oves vocem eius audiunt, et proprias oves vocat nominatim, et educit eas.3. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.3.To him the porter openeth.In the higher sense, the porter is not the Scriptures, nor Christ Himself, but the Holy Ghost. To the true pastor of souls the Holy Ghost“openeth,”by giving him grace to teach and govern rightly, and by moving the hearts of the faithful to listen to and profit by his teaching.And leadeth them out.It is an obvious and familiar principle that in explaining metaphorical language, we are not to expect resemblance in all points between the two things which are implicitly compared. If we say Patrick is a lion, we mean that he has courage or strength; but we do not mean that he has four legs. Similarly, though the Church is compared to a sheepfold, it does not follow that because the sheep had to be led outside the fold in order to find pasture, that therefore the faithful must beled outside the Churchbefore they can obtain the spiritual food of their souls. No, the Church is a fold which has its pastures within itself; and what Christ here declares is that a good pastor does for the faithful what the shepherd does for the sheep when he leads them forth; namely, he[pg 179]provides them with proper nourishment.4. Et cum proprias oves emiserit, ante eas vadit: et oves illum sequuntur, quia sciunt vocem eius.4. And when he hath let out his own sheep, he goeth before them: and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice.4. A good pastor not only puts before his people the sound doctrine of faith, and the right line of duty, but he also goes before them, guiding and directing them by his example, and is rewarded by their obedience, for“the sheep follow him,”and tread in his footsteps.5. Alienum autem non sequuntur, sed fugiunt ab eo: quia non noverunt vocem alienorum.5. But a stranger they follow not, but fly from him, because they know not the voice of strangers.5. The true reading is μη ἀκολουθήσουσιν ἀλλὰ φεύξονται, (willnot follow, butwillfly), the sense, however, being the same. As the sheep followed their own shepherd every morning from the fold to their pasture, and would follow no stranger, so faithful Christians take their spiritual nourishment from, and are obedient to, only the true pastor.6. Hoc proverbium dixit eis Iesus. Illi autem non cognoverunt quid loqueretur eis.6. This proverb Jesus spoke to them. But they understood not what he spoke to them.6.Proverb.The Greek word (παροιμίαν) suggests the notion of a saying that is deep and mysterious and not merely metaphorical. See John xvi.25,29.7. Dixit ergo eis iterum Iesus: Amen, amen dico vobis, quia ego sum ostium ovium.7. Jesus therefore said to them again: Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.7.Jesus therefore said to them again;i.e.,becausethey did not understand, He explains. As we have said already, we take the door here to be the same as in verse 1, and the reference in both cases to be to Christ. Here, however, Christ is spoken of as the door through which the sheep, there as the door through which the shepherd, entered. But this need create no difficulty, for as we explained in our preliminary remarks on verse 1, there was only one door on the ordinary sheepfold, and through it both sheep and shepherd entered.8. Omnes quotquot venerunt, fures sunt et latrones, et non audierunt eos oves.8. Allothers, as many as have come, are thieves and robbers: and the sheep heard them not.8.All others, as many as[pg 180]have come(many ancient authorities add“before Me”). The sense is: all others who have come forward before now, pretending to be the door, the Messias,arethieves and robbers. The present“are”is used to denote the essential character of their nature.But(ἀλλ᾽,atnotet)the sheep heard them not;i.e., did not listen to them so as to remain their disciples. Many such impostors pretending to be the Messias had arisen before this time; such were Theodas and Judas of Galilee (Acts v. 36, 37); and, after the time of Christ, Simon Magus, Barchochebas, and others appeared in the same character.9. Ego sum ostium. Per me si quis introierit, salvabitur: et ingredietur, et egredietur, et pascua inveniet.9. I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved: and he shall go in, and go out, and shall find pastures.9. Christ here declares Himself the door absolutely; and therefore, as we have held, the door of both sheep and shepherds. He then proceeds to explain in this verse what this means in reference to the sheep, and in next verse what it means in reference to the shepherds.Shall go in and go outis a Hebraism (1 Kings xxix. 6; 2 Paral. i. 10; Psalm. cxx. 8), meaning he shall deal securely, confidently, and freely.7210. Fur non venit nisi ut furetur, et mactet, et perdat. Ego veni ut vitam habeant, et abundantius habeant.10. The thief cometh not, but for to steal and to kill and to destroy. I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly.10. In reference to the pastor, he who enters not through Christ (and who is therefore a thief, verse 1), cometh not but to steal, &c. This verse effects the transition from Christ as door to Christ as shepherd. He here sets Himself in opposition to the thief, and so passes on naturally to another parable in which He speaks of Himself as shepherd.11. Ego sum pastor bonus. Bonus pastor animam suam dat pro ovibus suis.11. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.11.I am the good shepherd(ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός); that particular shepherd foretold by[pg 181]the prophets (Ezech. xxxiv. 11, 15, 16, 22, 23; Zach. xi. 17; Isai. xl. 11). There is no difficulty in the fact that Christ now calls Himself the shepherd, whereas in the preceding verses He has spoken of Himself as the door of the sheepfold. For we hold that a new parable begins in verse 11, and it is obviously open to Christ to use a new metaphor, in which to express under a new aspect His relations to the faithful. Seexv. 1, where, in the metaphor of the true vine, His relations with the faithful are set forth under yet another aspect.The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.This is to be understood, of Christ, and is the first note of this great Shepherd.12. Mercenarius autem et qui non est pastor, cuius non sunt oves propriae, videt lupum venientem, et dimittit oves, et fugit: et lupus rapit, et dispergit oves:12. But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep.12.The hirelingis most probably a pastor who has a divine mission like the Pharisees (Matt. xxiii. 2) which, however, he abuses for base motives of self-interest. Such an one, and also he who has no true mission, flieth at the approach ofany danger, the particular danger from the wolf being put to represent danger in general.13. Mercenarius autem fugit, quia mercenarius est, et non pertinet ad eum de ovibus.13. And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling; and he hath no care for the sheep.13. The last word of verse 12 and the first three words of verse 13 in the Vulgate:“Oves: Mercenarius autem fugit,”are regarded by many as not genuine; the remaining portion of verse 13 is to be connected with“flieth”of verse 12, in case they are omitted.14. Ego sum pastor bonus: et cognosco meas, et cognoscunt me meae.14. I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me.14. Here we have another note of our great Shepherd, Jesus Christ. He knowsevery memberof His flock; not merely thejust, or theelect(as Aug., Bede, Ypr., Tol.), and watches over each with special solicitude. And they, in turn, know Him with the knowledge of faith accompanied by charity. That there is not question merely of a barren faith, is proved by the comparison in[pg 182]the next verse between this knowledge and Christ's. If it be objected that all Christians do not love Christ, we reply that,as far as in Him lies, they do; and the purpose of the parable is to show Christ's love and solicitude for His sheep, to show forth what He does for them, not what they do for Him. He knows them, gathers them into His one fold, saves them by His grace here, and conducts them to heaven hereafter. What the sheep must do on their part after entering the fold, is outside the scope of the parable.15. Sicut novit me Pater, et ego agnosco Patrem: et animam meam pono pro ovibus meis.15. As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep.15. Connect with 14:I know mine, and mine know me, as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father.The knowledge is similar, but not, of course, equal; just as our perfection can never equal the infinite perfection of God, though Christ says:“Be ye therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”Matt. v. 48.And I lay down my life for my sheep.Perfect knowledge and sympathy bring forth the perfect remedy, and Christ's knowledge and love of His sheep receive their fitting consummation in His sacrifice. The words“I lay down My life”show that Christ gave up His life freely and voluntarily (see verse18); while the closing words of the verse prove the vicarious character of Christ's sacrifice.16. Et alias oves habeo, quae non sunt ex hoc ovili: et illas oportet me adducere, et vocem meam audient, et fiet unum ovile, et unus pastor.16. And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.16. Having referred to His death for men, Christ goes on to speak of the call of the Gentiles, thereby indicating the efficacy of His sacrifice for all, whether Jews or Gentiles.And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold.The other sheep were those Gentiles who were outside the Jewish Church, but were to be brought within the Church of Christ, so that there might be one fold (ratherflock), and one shepherd. Strictly speaking, the Gentiles except very few were not yet His sheep, but those who were to obey the call are spoken of as such by anticipation, and[pg 183]because in the designs of God it was decreed that they should be efficaciously called to the faith.And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.The“one fold,”or rather“one flock”(ποίμνη), distinctly implies the unity of Christ's Church, and the“one shepherd,”is Jesus Christ Himself as invisible head, with the Pope His representative as visible head.73We have therefore three very important declarations in this verse. (1) The faith was to be preached to the Gentiles; (2) Christ was to have but one flock composed alike of Jews and Gentiles; (3) that one flock was to have one supreme visible head. Some, like Mald., think that the expression“thisfold”implies that there was another fold, that is to say, those who were to be called from among the Gentiles. But this does not necessarily follow, as the contrast may be, and we believe is, not between a fold of the Jews and a fold of the Gentiles, but between the fold of the Jewish Church which excluded the Gentiles, and the fold of the Christian Church which was to include them.17. Propterea me diligit Pater: quia ego pono animam meam, ut iterum sumam eam.17. Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life that I may take it again.17. After the parenthetical statement in verse 16, Christ takes up what He had said in the end of verse 15, about laying down His life.Therefore: that is to say, because I lay down My life, and so obey Him, the Father loveth Me.That I may take it again.“Ut”(ἱνα) cannot be taken to express a purpose here, but means eitherso as, as Mald. holds, or,on the condition that, as Patrizzi. The supreme dominion which Christ here claims over His own life and death, is a proof of His Divinity.18. Nemo tollit eam a me: sed ego pono eam a meipso, et potestatem habeo ponendi eam: et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam. Hoc mandatum accepi a Patre meo.18. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down; and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father.18.No man taketh it away from me; but I lay it down of myself.Christ declares that His death would be voluntary, because He would lay down His lifefreely. But a difficulty here presents itself. How was He free in laying down His life, if, as He declares, in the end of this same verse, He had a command from His Father to do so? Surely He was bound not to disobey that command, and thus bound to die, and so not free in dying? The difficulty then is to reconcile Christ's freedom in dying with the Father's command that He should die. Many answers have been given.(1) The command of the Father was not really a command[pg 184]or precept, but only a wish, with which Christ, without sinning, was free not to correspond. But this answer is commonly rejected by commentators and theologians, who hold that there was a strict command. Hence:—(2) Christ was commanded to redeem man, but not to die. He could have redeemed us in many other ways; therefore in choosing death as the way, He died freely. But it is replied to this that St. Paul tells us that Christ wasobedient even unto death(Phil. ii. 8), thereby implying that His death was commanded.(3) Christ was commanded to die, but was left free as to the manner and circumstances of His death, and therefore was free as to the actual death He underwent upon the cross. But it is again replied that St. Paul declares“He was obedient unto death, even thedeath of the cross”(Phil. ii. 8).(4) De Lugo and others hold that Christ's freedom in dying consisted in the fact that He could have asked and obtained a dispensation from His Father. He freely chose not to ask a dispensation; therefore He died freely.(5) Franzelin inclines to the view that the will of the Father was merely a“beneplacitum,”a wish, until Christ freely accepted it, when it became a command: consequent, however, upon Christ's free acceptance. Thus, in virtue of this free acceptance, Christ died freely, though having a command from His Father that He should die.(6) Lastly, there is the opinion of Suarez, who explains thus: Christ's human will had, strictly speaking, thepowerof resisting the will of God, and of sinning, and was therefore free: consequently, His human will was free in accepting the command to die, because, strictly speaking, it had the power to resist. No doubt this power could never be reduced to act in our Divine Lord, for the Second Divine Person, in virtue of its hypostatic union with Christ's humanity, was bound to preserve His human will from sin by the operation of grace.“On account of this perpetual watchfulness on the part of the Second Divine Person,”says A Lap., who adopts this opinion,“the humanity of Christ is said to be extrinsically impeccable; not that the Divinity took away thepower[pg 185]of sinning (non quod Verbum illam (humanitatem) praedeterminaret), but that it always supplied the grace, under the influence of which it was foreseen that Christ's human will would freely fulfil each precept.”This view we prefer; and hence we hold—(1) that Christ had astrict commandfrom His Father to die; (2) that His human will had thepowerto disobey this command, and was consequently free in accepting death; (3) that the Second Divine Person provided that this power to disobey couldnever be reduced to act, and hence Christ was always extrinsically impeccable.19. Dissensio iterum facta est inter Iudaeos propter sermones hos.19. A dissension rose again among the Jews for these words.20. Dicebant autem multi ex ipsis: Daemonium habet, et insanit: quid eum auditis?20. And many of them said: He hath a devil, and is mad: why hear you him?21. Alii dicebant: Haec verba non sunt daemonium habentis; numquid daemonium potest caecorum oculos aperire?21. Others said: These are not the words of one that hath a devil: Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?19-21. Again, as on previous occasions there was a difference of opinion among the leaders of the Jews.22. Facta sunt autem encaenia in Ierosoylmis: et hiems erat.22. And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem; and it was winter.22. A new chapter might well have been begun here. The events and discourses recorded by the Evangelist, from chapter viii., probably followed close upon the Feast of Tabernacles (vii. 2). Now the Evangelist suddenly passes on to the Feast of Purification. During the period of more than two months that intervened (see above on v.1), Christ returned to Galilee (Luke ix. 51; xiii. 22); or, as Patrizzi holds, spent his time in the country parts of Judea, away from Jerusalem. The Feast of the Dedication instituted by Judas Maccabeus, about 165b.c., in memory of the cleansing of the temple and dedication of the altar of holocausts after the defeat of the Syrians, was celebrated annually for eight days. The first day of the feast was the 25th of Casleu, the ninth month of the Jewish sacred year, which corresponded to the latter part of our November and the first part of December. See 1 Mach. iv. 59.[pg 186]23. Et ambulabat Iesus in templo, in porticu Salomonis.23. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.23. And because it was winter, Jesus was walking in Solomon's porch. This was probably a cloister, open on one side, and covered overhead, and stood, according to Beel. (Comm. on Acts iii. 11), on the eastern side of the court of the Gentiles. That the Porch of Solomon referred to in 3 Kings vi. 3; 2 Paral. iii. 4, is not meant here (as Mald. holds), we feel certain; for that being within the court of the priests, Christ would not have been permitted by the Jewish priests to approach, much less walk, there.24. Circumdederunt ergo eum Iudaei, et dicebant ei: Quousque animam nostram tollis? si tu es Christus, dic nobis palam.24. The Jews therefore came round about him, and said to him: How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense? if thou be the Christ tell us plainly.24.How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense?The phrase here used by the Evangelist to record the words of the Jews is a Hebraism (see Exod. xxxv. 21; Deut. xxiv. 15; Prov. xix. 23). They wished Christ to state openly that He was their Messias, their King, probably in order that they might accuse Him before the Roman authorities of treason against Rome.25. Respondit eis Iesus. Loquor vobis, et non creditis: opera quae ego facio in nomine Patris mei, haec testimonium perhibent de me:25. Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me.26. Sed vos non creditis, quia non estis ex ovibus meis.26. But you do not believe: because you are not of my sheep.25, 26. He again appeals to His miracles, and upbraids their incredulity.27. Oves meae vocem meam audiunt: et ego cognosco eas, et sequntur me:27. My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me.27. We prefer to understand thesheephere, as in verse 14, not of the just merely, nor of the elect only, but, with A Lap., of all the faithful. All the faithful hear Christ, so as tobelieve, and in this they are contrasted with those addressed in the preceding verse, who believe not; and all too follow[pg 187]Christ so as to imitate His example,as far as lies in Him.28. Et ego vitam aeternam do eis: et non peribunt in aeternum, et non rapiet eas quisquam de manu mea.28. And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand.28. In the same sense He gives them life eternal, and they shall not perish, and (= for) no one can snatch them from His hand. As far as their salvation depends upon Him, they shall be saved; they may indeed fail to correspond with His grace, but they shall not perish through His fault. They may desert Him themselves, but no one shall snatch them from Him.29. Pater meus quod dedit mihi, maius omnibus est: et nemo potest rapere de manu Patris mei.29. That which my Father hath given me is greater than all: and no one can snatchthemout of the hand of my Father.30. Ego et Pater unum sumus.30. I and the Father are one.29, 30. He proves that no one shall snatch them from Him. No one shall snatch them from the Father (whois greater and more powerful than all). But I and the Father are one in nature and power; therefore no one shall snatch them from Me. This is the argument in the more probable Greek reading, and is more natural than that afforded by the Vulgate. We would read then instead of the present Vulgate text in verse 29:“Pater meusquidedit mihimajoromnibus est,”&c.74Note that the unity with the Father to which Christ here lays claim is not amoralunion, but a unity ofnature and power, else the proof of His statement that no one could snatch His sheep from His hands would not be valid.31. Sustulerunt ergo lapides Iudaei, ut lapidarent eum.31. The Jews then took up stones to stone him.31. See above onviii. 59.[pg 188]32. Respondit eis Iesus: Multa bona opera ostendi vobis ex Patre meo, propter quod eorum opus me lapidatis?32. Jesus answered them: Many good works I have shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me?32.For which of those works do you stone me?i.e., wish to stone Me.7533. Responderunt ei Iudaei: De bono opere non lapidamus te, sed de blasphemia; et quia tu homo cum sis, facis teipsum Deum.33. The Jews answered him: For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God?34. Respondit eis Iesus: Nonne scriptum est in lege vestra quia: Ego dixi, dii estis?34. Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law:I said you are gods?34. To the charge of blasphemy Christ replies, and His reply has been often urged by Arians and Unitarians to show that He did not claim to be the natural Son of God, but merely meant to call Himself God in some improper sense, analogous to that in which the Sacred Scriptures sometimes speak of judges, who were merely men, as gods.The sense of verse 34 is: men are called gods in your own law, the reference being to Psalm lxxxi. 6.35. Si illos dixit deos, ad quos sermo Dei factus est, et non potest solvi scriptura:35. If he called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken;36. Quem Pater sanctificavit, et misit in mundum, vos dicitis: Quia blasphemas, quia dixi, Filius Dei sum.36. Do you say of him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?35, 36. While all Catholic commentators and theologians contend that Christ does not in these two verses withdraw His claim to true Divinity, yet they differ as to the sense of His reply, and hence as to the interpretation of the verses.(1) Some, as Franzelin, hold that Christ here proves both that He is God, and that He has a right to call Himself God. The argument then is according to these: if your judges could be called gods,[pg 189]even in an improper sense, how much morein the strictest sensecan He be called and is He God, whom the Father generatedholy with His own holiness, and sent into the world?(2) Others, as Maran, Jungmann, &c., explain the argument here from the context in the 81st Psalm. Christ, they say, reasons thus. If men could be called gods, as they are in Sacred Scripture (and the Sacred Scripture cannot be gainsaid), how much more, in a strict sense, can He be called God, and is He God, whom the same Scriptures address in the 8th verse of the same 81st Psalm:“Arise,O God, judge Thou the earth, for Thou shalt inherit among the nations”?(3) Others hold that Christ in these two verses does not insist upon thenatureof His Sonship, but contents Himself with showing that He has a right tocallHimself God; then in the following verses He shows that He is God in the strictest sense. In this view Christ prescinds in these verses from the sense in which He is God, and shows thatin some sense, as the legate of the Father, He has a right to be called God. This was sufficient for the moment to shut the mouths of His adversaries. Whether He is God in the truest and strictest sense, or only in an improper sense, He does not here insist, though His language shows that even in these verses He speaks of Himself as truly God. For the argument shows that in concluding, in verse 36, that He has a right to call Himself“Son of God,”He means to justify his original statement:“I and the Father are one”(verse 30); but these statements are synonymous, and the one justifies the other only when there is question of natural Sonship. No merely adopted son of God could say that He is one with the Father.Any of these answers solves the objection drawn from these verses against Christ's Divinity; but we prefer the last, and hold, therefore, that Christ first proves against the Pharisees that He has a right tocallHimself God, and then goes on to show in what sense He is God.37. Si non facio opera Patris mei, nolite credere mihi.37. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.38. Si autem facio, et si mihi non vultis credere, operibus credite, ut cognoscatis et credatis quia Pater in me est, et ego in Patre.38. But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works: that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.37, 38. He appeals to His miracles as a proof that He is God in the strictest sense. See notes oniii. 2.That the Father is in me, and I in the Father.According to the[pg 190]fathers, this is a statement in other words of what He said above:“I and the Father are one.”“The Son,”says St. Augustine on this verse, does not say:“The Father is in Me, and I in Him, in the sense in which men who think and act aright may say the like; meaning that they partake of God's grace, and are enlightened by His Spirit. The Only-begotten Son of God is in the Father, and the Father in Him, as an equal in an equal.”39. Quaerebant ergo eum apprehendere: et exivit de manibus eorum.39. They sought therefore to take him; and he escaped out of their hands.39.They sought therefore to take him.These words prove that His hearers did not understand Christ to retract what He had said.40. Et abiit iterum trans Iordanem, in eum locum ubi erat Ioannes baptizans primum: et mansit illic.40. And he went again beyond the Jordan into that place where John was baptizing first: and there he abode.40. He went again to Bethania beyond the Jordan. See above oni. 28. The name of Bethania must have been dear to our Evangelist, because it was probably in its neighbourhood he had first met his heavenly Master.41. Et multi venerunt ad eum, et dicebant: Quia Ioannes quidem signum fecit nullum.41. And many resorted to him, and they said: John indeed did no sign.41.John indeed did no sign.This remark is of great importance as showing how little tendency there was to invest great and popular teachers with miraculous powers. And yet the Rationalists will have us believe that our Lord's miracles were all a popular delusion!42. Omnia autem quaecumque dixit Ioannes de hoc, vera erant. Et multi crediderunt in eum.42. But all things whatsoever John said of this man were true. And many believed in him.42.And many believed in him.Most authorities add the note of placethere(ἐκεῖ), as if the Evangelist wished to bring out into bolder relief the incredulity of the Jews (verse 39), by contrasting it with the faith of those beyond the Jordan.[pg 191]
Chapter X.1-5.The parable (or rather allegory, see below on verse 1), of the door of the sheepfold.6.The Pharisees understood not the parable.7-10.Christ, therefore, applies it.11-18.The parable of the Good Shepherd.19-21.There was a difference of opinion among the Pharisees regarding Christ.22-30.On another occasion the Pharisees ask Him to tell them plainly if He is the Christ; to whom He replies that He is, and the Son of God, one in nature with His Father.31.Thereupon they took up stones to stone Him.32-38.He defends his language by a quotation from their own Psaltery.39-42.When they sought to take Him prisoner, He escaped from them, and crossed over to the east side of the Jordan, where many believed in him.1. Amen, amen dico vobis: qui non intrat per ostium in ovile ovium, sed ascendit aliunde, ille fur est, et latro.1. Amen, amen, I say to you: he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber.1. This verse and those that follow down to the end of verse 18, are a continuation of the discourse directed to the Pharisees, and begun in ix. 39, with which verse this tenth chapter might more correctly have been commenced. The logical connection of the following parable with the close of the preceding chapter is not clear. Some, as St. Aug., say that Christ is proving that the Pharisees wereblind, else they would recognise Him as thedoorthrough which the true fold must be entered, and as thetrue Shepherd. Others, as St. Chrys., think that He is replying to a tacit objection of the Pharisees, to the effect that they refused to recognise Him, not because they were blind, but because He was an impostor.The parable, taken strictly, is a narrative of a probable but fictitiousevent, like that relating to the Prodigal Son (Luke xv. 11-32). Where, as[pg 177]in the present instance, there is continued or prolonged metaphor, without the description of any event, some would call it an allegory and not a parable; but we prefer not to interfere with a phrase so familiar as“the parable of the good Shepherd.”It will be noted that we speak of parables, and not merely of one parable, for we hold that the parable of Christ asdoorof the fold is distinct from that of Christ as Shepherd. Our reasons for this will appear as we proceed. To understand the grammatical sense of these two parables, we must bear in mind what were the relations of the shepherd to his sheep in eastern countries, and especially in Palestine.In the Spring of the year the Jewish shepherd conducted his sheep to their pasture, and there they remained until the end of the following Autumn. At night they were enclosed in folds, the flocks of several shepherds being sometimes gathered in the same fold. The fold, open overhead, was surrounded by a wall, in which there was but one door, at which the doorkeeper (ostiarius) remained through the night, until the shepherd's return in the morning. A thief, wishing to steal sheep, would, of course, not attempt to enter by the door, but would climb the wall. On the shepherd's return in the morning the door of the fold was thrown open by the doorkeeper, and each shepherd entered and called his own sheep, which, knowing his voice, followed him to their own pasture. Throughout the whole day the shepherd remained with them, guarding them from wild beasts and robbers, and attending to the weak and maimed. Thus his relations with his sheep were very close and constant indeed, and must be carefully borne in mind, in order that we may rightly appreciate the full significance of these beautiful parables.He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold.If we strip this language of its metaphorical character, the sense is: that the teacher who enters not into the Church through Christ as the door, that is to say, by believing in Christ, is a false teacher, as were therefore, the Scribes and Pharisees. Christ, then, is the door (see verse7); the Church is the sheepfold; and the Scribes and Pharisees, with all such, are the thieves and robbers who injure their fellow-men, sometimes secretly like[pg 178]thieves, sometimes with open violence like robbers. That Christ is signified by“the door,”is the view of SS. Aug., Cyril, Bede, Greg., and of A Lap.; and is, indeed, distinctly stated by Himself, in verse 7, after His hearers had failed to understand His words. Hence we unhesitatingly reject the view of Mald. and many others, who take“the door”in verse 1 to be different from that in verse 7; the latter, they say, being the door of thesheep, Christ Himself; the former the door of the shepherds, which Mald. understands oflegitimate authorityto teach. We have no doubt that the door in both verses is the same, because Christ begins to explain, in verse 7:“Jesusthereforesaid to them again”what He had said in verses 1-5.2. Qui autem intrat per ostium, pastor est ovium.2. But he that entereth in by the door, is the shepherd of the sheep.2. The sense is that he who entereth by faith in Christ, and by Christ's authority, isatrue shepherd (ποιμήν, without the article). Such a pastor is contrasted with the Pharisees who blindly refused to enter by the only gate.3. Huic ostiarius aperit, et oves vocem eius audiunt, et proprias oves vocat nominatim, et educit eas.3. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.3.To him the porter openeth.In the higher sense, the porter is not the Scriptures, nor Christ Himself, but the Holy Ghost. To the true pastor of souls the Holy Ghost“openeth,”by giving him grace to teach and govern rightly, and by moving the hearts of the faithful to listen to and profit by his teaching.And leadeth them out.It is an obvious and familiar principle that in explaining metaphorical language, we are not to expect resemblance in all points between the two things which are implicitly compared. If we say Patrick is a lion, we mean that he has courage or strength; but we do not mean that he has four legs. Similarly, though the Church is compared to a sheepfold, it does not follow that because the sheep had to be led outside the fold in order to find pasture, that therefore the faithful must beled outside the Churchbefore they can obtain the spiritual food of their souls. No, the Church is a fold which has its pastures within itself; and what Christ here declares is that a good pastor does for the faithful what the shepherd does for the sheep when he leads them forth; namely, he[pg 179]provides them with proper nourishment.4. Et cum proprias oves emiserit, ante eas vadit: et oves illum sequuntur, quia sciunt vocem eius.4. And when he hath let out his own sheep, he goeth before them: and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice.4. A good pastor not only puts before his people the sound doctrine of faith, and the right line of duty, but he also goes before them, guiding and directing them by his example, and is rewarded by their obedience, for“the sheep follow him,”and tread in his footsteps.5. Alienum autem non sequuntur, sed fugiunt ab eo: quia non noverunt vocem alienorum.5. But a stranger they follow not, but fly from him, because they know not the voice of strangers.5. The true reading is μη ἀκολουθήσουσιν ἀλλὰ φεύξονται, (willnot follow, butwillfly), the sense, however, being the same. As the sheep followed their own shepherd every morning from the fold to their pasture, and would follow no stranger, so faithful Christians take their spiritual nourishment from, and are obedient to, only the true pastor.6. Hoc proverbium dixit eis Iesus. Illi autem non cognoverunt quid loqueretur eis.6. This proverb Jesus spoke to them. But they understood not what he spoke to them.6.Proverb.The Greek word (παροιμίαν) suggests the notion of a saying that is deep and mysterious and not merely metaphorical. See John xvi.25,29.7. Dixit ergo eis iterum Iesus: Amen, amen dico vobis, quia ego sum ostium ovium.7. Jesus therefore said to them again: Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.7.Jesus therefore said to them again;i.e.,becausethey did not understand, He explains. As we have said already, we take the door here to be the same as in verse 1, and the reference in both cases to be to Christ. Here, however, Christ is spoken of as the door through which the sheep, there as the door through which the shepherd, entered. But this need create no difficulty, for as we explained in our preliminary remarks on verse 1, there was only one door on the ordinary sheepfold, and through it both sheep and shepherd entered.8. Omnes quotquot venerunt, fures sunt et latrones, et non audierunt eos oves.8. Allothers, as many as have come, are thieves and robbers: and the sheep heard them not.8.All others, as many as[pg 180]have come(many ancient authorities add“before Me”). The sense is: all others who have come forward before now, pretending to be the door, the Messias,arethieves and robbers. The present“are”is used to denote the essential character of their nature.But(ἀλλ᾽,atnotet)the sheep heard them not;i.e., did not listen to them so as to remain their disciples. Many such impostors pretending to be the Messias had arisen before this time; such were Theodas and Judas of Galilee (Acts v. 36, 37); and, after the time of Christ, Simon Magus, Barchochebas, and others appeared in the same character.9. Ego sum ostium. Per me si quis introierit, salvabitur: et ingredietur, et egredietur, et pascua inveniet.9. I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved: and he shall go in, and go out, and shall find pastures.9. Christ here declares Himself the door absolutely; and therefore, as we have held, the door of both sheep and shepherds. He then proceeds to explain in this verse what this means in reference to the sheep, and in next verse what it means in reference to the shepherds.Shall go in and go outis a Hebraism (1 Kings xxix. 6; 2 Paral. i. 10; Psalm. cxx. 8), meaning he shall deal securely, confidently, and freely.7210. Fur non venit nisi ut furetur, et mactet, et perdat. Ego veni ut vitam habeant, et abundantius habeant.10. The thief cometh not, but for to steal and to kill and to destroy. I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly.10. In reference to the pastor, he who enters not through Christ (and who is therefore a thief, verse 1), cometh not but to steal, &c. This verse effects the transition from Christ as door to Christ as shepherd. He here sets Himself in opposition to the thief, and so passes on naturally to another parable in which He speaks of Himself as shepherd.11. Ego sum pastor bonus. Bonus pastor animam suam dat pro ovibus suis.11. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.11.I am the good shepherd(ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός); that particular shepherd foretold by[pg 181]the prophets (Ezech. xxxiv. 11, 15, 16, 22, 23; Zach. xi. 17; Isai. xl. 11). There is no difficulty in the fact that Christ now calls Himself the shepherd, whereas in the preceding verses He has spoken of Himself as the door of the sheepfold. For we hold that a new parable begins in verse 11, and it is obviously open to Christ to use a new metaphor, in which to express under a new aspect His relations to the faithful. Seexv. 1, where, in the metaphor of the true vine, His relations with the faithful are set forth under yet another aspect.The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.This is to be understood, of Christ, and is the first note of this great Shepherd.12. Mercenarius autem et qui non est pastor, cuius non sunt oves propriae, videt lupum venientem, et dimittit oves, et fugit: et lupus rapit, et dispergit oves:12. But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep.12.The hirelingis most probably a pastor who has a divine mission like the Pharisees (Matt. xxiii. 2) which, however, he abuses for base motives of self-interest. Such an one, and also he who has no true mission, flieth at the approach ofany danger, the particular danger from the wolf being put to represent danger in general.13. Mercenarius autem fugit, quia mercenarius est, et non pertinet ad eum de ovibus.13. And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling; and he hath no care for the sheep.13. The last word of verse 12 and the first three words of verse 13 in the Vulgate:“Oves: Mercenarius autem fugit,”are regarded by many as not genuine; the remaining portion of verse 13 is to be connected with“flieth”of verse 12, in case they are omitted.14. Ego sum pastor bonus: et cognosco meas, et cognoscunt me meae.14. I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me.14. Here we have another note of our great Shepherd, Jesus Christ. He knowsevery memberof His flock; not merely thejust, or theelect(as Aug., Bede, Ypr., Tol.), and watches over each with special solicitude. And they, in turn, know Him with the knowledge of faith accompanied by charity. That there is not question merely of a barren faith, is proved by the comparison in[pg 182]the next verse between this knowledge and Christ's. If it be objected that all Christians do not love Christ, we reply that,as far as in Him lies, they do; and the purpose of the parable is to show Christ's love and solicitude for His sheep, to show forth what He does for them, not what they do for Him. He knows them, gathers them into His one fold, saves them by His grace here, and conducts them to heaven hereafter. What the sheep must do on their part after entering the fold, is outside the scope of the parable.15. Sicut novit me Pater, et ego agnosco Patrem: et animam meam pono pro ovibus meis.15. As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep.15. Connect with 14:I know mine, and mine know me, as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father.The knowledge is similar, but not, of course, equal; just as our perfection can never equal the infinite perfection of God, though Christ says:“Be ye therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”Matt. v. 48.And I lay down my life for my sheep.Perfect knowledge and sympathy bring forth the perfect remedy, and Christ's knowledge and love of His sheep receive their fitting consummation in His sacrifice. The words“I lay down My life”show that Christ gave up His life freely and voluntarily (see verse18); while the closing words of the verse prove the vicarious character of Christ's sacrifice.16. Et alias oves habeo, quae non sunt ex hoc ovili: et illas oportet me adducere, et vocem meam audient, et fiet unum ovile, et unus pastor.16. And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.16. Having referred to His death for men, Christ goes on to speak of the call of the Gentiles, thereby indicating the efficacy of His sacrifice for all, whether Jews or Gentiles.And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold.The other sheep were those Gentiles who were outside the Jewish Church, but were to be brought within the Church of Christ, so that there might be one fold (ratherflock), and one shepherd. Strictly speaking, the Gentiles except very few were not yet His sheep, but those who were to obey the call are spoken of as such by anticipation, and[pg 183]because in the designs of God it was decreed that they should be efficaciously called to the faith.And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.The“one fold,”or rather“one flock”(ποίμνη), distinctly implies the unity of Christ's Church, and the“one shepherd,”is Jesus Christ Himself as invisible head, with the Pope His representative as visible head.73We have therefore three very important declarations in this verse. (1) The faith was to be preached to the Gentiles; (2) Christ was to have but one flock composed alike of Jews and Gentiles; (3) that one flock was to have one supreme visible head. Some, like Mald., think that the expression“thisfold”implies that there was another fold, that is to say, those who were to be called from among the Gentiles. But this does not necessarily follow, as the contrast may be, and we believe is, not between a fold of the Jews and a fold of the Gentiles, but between the fold of the Jewish Church which excluded the Gentiles, and the fold of the Christian Church which was to include them.17. Propterea me diligit Pater: quia ego pono animam meam, ut iterum sumam eam.17. Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life that I may take it again.17. After the parenthetical statement in verse 16, Christ takes up what He had said in the end of verse 15, about laying down His life.Therefore: that is to say, because I lay down My life, and so obey Him, the Father loveth Me.That I may take it again.“Ut”(ἱνα) cannot be taken to express a purpose here, but means eitherso as, as Mald. holds, or,on the condition that, as Patrizzi. The supreme dominion which Christ here claims over His own life and death, is a proof of His Divinity.18. Nemo tollit eam a me: sed ego pono eam a meipso, et potestatem habeo ponendi eam: et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam. Hoc mandatum accepi a Patre meo.18. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down; and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father.18.No man taketh it away from me; but I lay it down of myself.Christ declares that His death would be voluntary, because He would lay down His lifefreely. But a difficulty here presents itself. How was He free in laying down His life, if, as He declares, in the end of this same verse, He had a command from His Father to do so? Surely He was bound not to disobey that command, and thus bound to die, and so not free in dying? The difficulty then is to reconcile Christ's freedom in dying with the Father's command that He should die. Many answers have been given.(1) The command of the Father was not really a command[pg 184]or precept, but only a wish, with which Christ, without sinning, was free not to correspond. But this answer is commonly rejected by commentators and theologians, who hold that there was a strict command. Hence:—(2) Christ was commanded to redeem man, but not to die. He could have redeemed us in many other ways; therefore in choosing death as the way, He died freely. But it is replied to this that St. Paul tells us that Christ wasobedient even unto death(Phil. ii. 8), thereby implying that His death was commanded.(3) Christ was commanded to die, but was left free as to the manner and circumstances of His death, and therefore was free as to the actual death He underwent upon the cross. But it is again replied that St. Paul declares“He was obedient unto death, even thedeath of the cross”(Phil. ii. 8).(4) De Lugo and others hold that Christ's freedom in dying consisted in the fact that He could have asked and obtained a dispensation from His Father. He freely chose not to ask a dispensation; therefore He died freely.(5) Franzelin inclines to the view that the will of the Father was merely a“beneplacitum,”a wish, until Christ freely accepted it, when it became a command: consequent, however, upon Christ's free acceptance. Thus, in virtue of this free acceptance, Christ died freely, though having a command from His Father that He should die.(6) Lastly, there is the opinion of Suarez, who explains thus: Christ's human will had, strictly speaking, thepowerof resisting the will of God, and of sinning, and was therefore free: consequently, His human will was free in accepting the command to die, because, strictly speaking, it had the power to resist. No doubt this power could never be reduced to act in our Divine Lord, for the Second Divine Person, in virtue of its hypostatic union with Christ's humanity, was bound to preserve His human will from sin by the operation of grace.“On account of this perpetual watchfulness on the part of the Second Divine Person,”says A Lap., who adopts this opinion,“the humanity of Christ is said to be extrinsically impeccable; not that the Divinity took away thepower[pg 185]of sinning (non quod Verbum illam (humanitatem) praedeterminaret), but that it always supplied the grace, under the influence of which it was foreseen that Christ's human will would freely fulfil each precept.”This view we prefer; and hence we hold—(1) that Christ had astrict commandfrom His Father to die; (2) that His human will had thepowerto disobey this command, and was consequently free in accepting death; (3) that the Second Divine Person provided that this power to disobey couldnever be reduced to act, and hence Christ was always extrinsically impeccable.19. Dissensio iterum facta est inter Iudaeos propter sermones hos.19. A dissension rose again among the Jews for these words.20. Dicebant autem multi ex ipsis: Daemonium habet, et insanit: quid eum auditis?20. And many of them said: He hath a devil, and is mad: why hear you him?21. Alii dicebant: Haec verba non sunt daemonium habentis; numquid daemonium potest caecorum oculos aperire?21. Others said: These are not the words of one that hath a devil: Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?19-21. Again, as on previous occasions there was a difference of opinion among the leaders of the Jews.22. Facta sunt autem encaenia in Ierosoylmis: et hiems erat.22. And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem; and it was winter.22. A new chapter might well have been begun here. The events and discourses recorded by the Evangelist, from chapter viii., probably followed close upon the Feast of Tabernacles (vii. 2). Now the Evangelist suddenly passes on to the Feast of Purification. During the period of more than two months that intervened (see above on v.1), Christ returned to Galilee (Luke ix. 51; xiii. 22); or, as Patrizzi holds, spent his time in the country parts of Judea, away from Jerusalem. The Feast of the Dedication instituted by Judas Maccabeus, about 165b.c., in memory of the cleansing of the temple and dedication of the altar of holocausts after the defeat of the Syrians, was celebrated annually for eight days. The first day of the feast was the 25th of Casleu, the ninth month of the Jewish sacred year, which corresponded to the latter part of our November and the first part of December. See 1 Mach. iv. 59.[pg 186]23. Et ambulabat Iesus in templo, in porticu Salomonis.23. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.23. And because it was winter, Jesus was walking in Solomon's porch. This was probably a cloister, open on one side, and covered overhead, and stood, according to Beel. (Comm. on Acts iii. 11), on the eastern side of the court of the Gentiles. That the Porch of Solomon referred to in 3 Kings vi. 3; 2 Paral. iii. 4, is not meant here (as Mald. holds), we feel certain; for that being within the court of the priests, Christ would not have been permitted by the Jewish priests to approach, much less walk, there.24. Circumdederunt ergo eum Iudaei, et dicebant ei: Quousque animam nostram tollis? si tu es Christus, dic nobis palam.24. The Jews therefore came round about him, and said to him: How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense? if thou be the Christ tell us plainly.24.How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense?The phrase here used by the Evangelist to record the words of the Jews is a Hebraism (see Exod. xxxv. 21; Deut. xxiv. 15; Prov. xix. 23). They wished Christ to state openly that He was their Messias, their King, probably in order that they might accuse Him before the Roman authorities of treason against Rome.25. Respondit eis Iesus. Loquor vobis, et non creditis: opera quae ego facio in nomine Patris mei, haec testimonium perhibent de me:25. Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me.26. Sed vos non creditis, quia non estis ex ovibus meis.26. But you do not believe: because you are not of my sheep.25, 26. He again appeals to His miracles, and upbraids their incredulity.27. Oves meae vocem meam audiunt: et ego cognosco eas, et sequntur me:27. My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me.27. We prefer to understand thesheephere, as in verse 14, not of the just merely, nor of the elect only, but, with A Lap., of all the faithful. All the faithful hear Christ, so as tobelieve, and in this they are contrasted with those addressed in the preceding verse, who believe not; and all too follow[pg 187]Christ so as to imitate His example,as far as lies in Him.28. Et ego vitam aeternam do eis: et non peribunt in aeternum, et non rapiet eas quisquam de manu mea.28. And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand.28. In the same sense He gives them life eternal, and they shall not perish, and (= for) no one can snatch them from His hand. As far as their salvation depends upon Him, they shall be saved; they may indeed fail to correspond with His grace, but they shall not perish through His fault. They may desert Him themselves, but no one shall snatch them from Him.29. Pater meus quod dedit mihi, maius omnibus est: et nemo potest rapere de manu Patris mei.29. That which my Father hath given me is greater than all: and no one can snatchthemout of the hand of my Father.30. Ego et Pater unum sumus.30. I and the Father are one.29, 30. He proves that no one shall snatch them from Him. No one shall snatch them from the Father (whois greater and more powerful than all). But I and the Father are one in nature and power; therefore no one shall snatch them from Me. This is the argument in the more probable Greek reading, and is more natural than that afforded by the Vulgate. We would read then instead of the present Vulgate text in verse 29:“Pater meusquidedit mihimajoromnibus est,”&c.74Note that the unity with the Father to which Christ here lays claim is not amoralunion, but a unity ofnature and power, else the proof of His statement that no one could snatch His sheep from His hands would not be valid.31. Sustulerunt ergo lapides Iudaei, ut lapidarent eum.31. The Jews then took up stones to stone him.31. See above onviii. 59.[pg 188]32. Respondit eis Iesus: Multa bona opera ostendi vobis ex Patre meo, propter quod eorum opus me lapidatis?32. Jesus answered them: Many good works I have shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me?32.For which of those works do you stone me?i.e., wish to stone Me.7533. Responderunt ei Iudaei: De bono opere non lapidamus te, sed de blasphemia; et quia tu homo cum sis, facis teipsum Deum.33. The Jews answered him: For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God?34. Respondit eis Iesus: Nonne scriptum est in lege vestra quia: Ego dixi, dii estis?34. Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law:I said you are gods?34. To the charge of blasphemy Christ replies, and His reply has been often urged by Arians and Unitarians to show that He did not claim to be the natural Son of God, but merely meant to call Himself God in some improper sense, analogous to that in which the Sacred Scriptures sometimes speak of judges, who were merely men, as gods.The sense of verse 34 is: men are called gods in your own law, the reference being to Psalm lxxxi. 6.35. Si illos dixit deos, ad quos sermo Dei factus est, et non potest solvi scriptura:35. If he called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken;36. Quem Pater sanctificavit, et misit in mundum, vos dicitis: Quia blasphemas, quia dixi, Filius Dei sum.36. Do you say of him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?35, 36. While all Catholic commentators and theologians contend that Christ does not in these two verses withdraw His claim to true Divinity, yet they differ as to the sense of His reply, and hence as to the interpretation of the verses.(1) Some, as Franzelin, hold that Christ here proves both that He is God, and that He has a right to call Himself God. The argument then is according to these: if your judges could be called gods,[pg 189]even in an improper sense, how much morein the strictest sensecan He be called and is He God, whom the Father generatedholy with His own holiness, and sent into the world?(2) Others, as Maran, Jungmann, &c., explain the argument here from the context in the 81st Psalm. Christ, they say, reasons thus. If men could be called gods, as they are in Sacred Scripture (and the Sacred Scripture cannot be gainsaid), how much more, in a strict sense, can He be called God, and is He God, whom the same Scriptures address in the 8th verse of the same 81st Psalm:“Arise,O God, judge Thou the earth, for Thou shalt inherit among the nations”?(3) Others hold that Christ in these two verses does not insist upon thenatureof His Sonship, but contents Himself with showing that He has a right tocallHimself God; then in the following verses He shows that He is God in the strictest sense. In this view Christ prescinds in these verses from the sense in which He is God, and shows thatin some sense, as the legate of the Father, He has a right to be called God. This was sufficient for the moment to shut the mouths of His adversaries. Whether He is God in the truest and strictest sense, or only in an improper sense, He does not here insist, though His language shows that even in these verses He speaks of Himself as truly God. For the argument shows that in concluding, in verse 36, that He has a right to call Himself“Son of God,”He means to justify his original statement:“I and the Father are one”(verse 30); but these statements are synonymous, and the one justifies the other only when there is question of natural Sonship. No merely adopted son of God could say that He is one with the Father.Any of these answers solves the objection drawn from these verses against Christ's Divinity; but we prefer the last, and hold, therefore, that Christ first proves against the Pharisees that He has a right tocallHimself God, and then goes on to show in what sense He is God.37. Si non facio opera Patris mei, nolite credere mihi.37. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.38. Si autem facio, et si mihi non vultis credere, operibus credite, ut cognoscatis et credatis quia Pater in me est, et ego in Patre.38. But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works: that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.37, 38. He appeals to His miracles as a proof that He is God in the strictest sense. See notes oniii. 2.That the Father is in me, and I in the Father.According to the[pg 190]fathers, this is a statement in other words of what He said above:“I and the Father are one.”“The Son,”says St. Augustine on this verse, does not say:“The Father is in Me, and I in Him, in the sense in which men who think and act aright may say the like; meaning that they partake of God's grace, and are enlightened by His Spirit. The Only-begotten Son of God is in the Father, and the Father in Him, as an equal in an equal.”39. Quaerebant ergo eum apprehendere: et exivit de manibus eorum.39. They sought therefore to take him; and he escaped out of their hands.39.They sought therefore to take him.These words prove that His hearers did not understand Christ to retract what He had said.40. Et abiit iterum trans Iordanem, in eum locum ubi erat Ioannes baptizans primum: et mansit illic.40. And he went again beyond the Jordan into that place where John was baptizing first: and there he abode.40. He went again to Bethania beyond the Jordan. See above oni. 28. The name of Bethania must have been dear to our Evangelist, because it was probably in its neighbourhood he had first met his heavenly Master.41. Et multi venerunt ad eum, et dicebant: Quia Ioannes quidem signum fecit nullum.41. And many resorted to him, and they said: John indeed did no sign.41.John indeed did no sign.This remark is of great importance as showing how little tendency there was to invest great and popular teachers with miraculous powers. And yet the Rationalists will have us believe that our Lord's miracles were all a popular delusion!42. Omnia autem quaecumque dixit Ioannes de hoc, vera erant. Et multi crediderunt in eum.42. But all things whatsoever John said of this man were true. And many believed in him.42.And many believed in him.Most authorities add the note of placethere(ἐκεῖ), as if the Evangelist wished to bring out into bolder relief the incredulity of the Jews (verse 39), by contrasting it with the faith of those beyond the Jordan.[pg 191]
Chapter X.1-5.The parable (or rather allegory, see below on verse 1), of the door of the sheepfold.6.The Pharisees understood not the parable.7-10.Christ, therefore, applies it.11-18.The parable of the Good Shepherd.19-21.There was a difference of opinion among the Pharisees regarding Christ.22-30.On another occasion the Pharisees ask Him to tell them plainly if He is the Christ; to whom He replies that He is, and the Son of God, one in nature with His Father.31.Thereupon they took up stones to stone Him.32-38.He defends his language by a quotation from their own Psaltery.39-42.When they sought to take Him prisoner, He escaped from them, and crossed over to the east side of the Jordan, where many believed in him.1. Amen, amen dico vobis: qui non intrat per ostium in ovile ovium, sed ascendit aliunde, ille fur est, et latro.1. Amen, amen, I say to you: he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber.1. This verse and those that follow down to the end of verse 18, are a continuation of the discourse directed to the Pharisees, and begun in ix. 39, with which verse this tenth chapter might more correctly have been commenced. The logical connection of the following parable with the close of the preceding chapter is not clear. Some, as St. Aug., say that Christ is proving that the Pharisees wereblind, else they would recognise Him as thedoorthrough which the true fold must be entered, and as thetrue Shepherd. Others, as St. Chrys., think that He is replying to a tacit objection of the Pharisees, to the effect that they refused to recognise Him, not because they were blind, but because He was an impostor.The parable, taken strictly, is a narrative of a probable but fictitiousevent, like that relating to the Prodigal Son (Luke xv. 11-32). Where, as[pg 177]in the present instance, there is continued or prolonged metaphor, without the description of any event, some would call it an allegory and not a parable; but we prefer not to interfere with a phrase so familiar as“the parable of the good Shepherd.”It will be noted that we speak of parables, and not merely of one parable, for we hold that the parable of Christ asdoorof the fold is distinct from that of Christ as Shepherd. Our reasons for this will appear as we proceed. To understand the grammatical sense of these two parables, we must bear in mind what were the relations of the shepherd to his sheep in eastern countries, and especially in Palestine.In the Spring of the year the Jewish shepherd conducted his sheep to their pasture, and there they remained until the end of the following Autumn. At night they were enclosed in folds, the flocks of several shepherds being sometimes gathered in the same fold. The fold, open overhead, was surrounded by a wall, in which there was but one door, at which the doorkeeper (ostiarius) remained through the night, until the shepherd's return in the morning. A thief, wishing to steal sheep, would, of course, not attempt to enter by the door, but would climb the wall. On the shepherd's return in the morning the door of the fold was thrown open by the doorkeeper, and each shepherd entered and called his own sheep, which, knowing his voice, followed him to their own pasture. Throughout the whole day the shepherd remained with them, guarding them from wild beasts and robbers, and attending to the weak and maimed. Thus his relations with his sheep were very close and constant indeed, and must be carefully borne in mind, in order that we may rightly appreciate the full significance of these beautiful parables.He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold.If we strip this language of its metaphorical character, the sense is: that the teacher who enters not into the Church through Christ as the door, that is to say, by believing in Christ, is a false teacher, as were therefore, the Scribes and Pharisees. Christ, then, is the door (see verse7); the Church is the sheepfold; and the Scribes and Pharisees, with all such, are the thieves and robbers who injure their fellow-men, sometimes secretly like[pg 178]thieves, sometimes with open violence like robbers. That Christ is signified by“the door,”is the view of SS. Aug., Cyril, Bede, Greg., and of A Lap.; and is, indeed, distinctly stated by Himself, in verse 7, after His hearers had failed to understand His words. Hence we unhesitatingly reject the view of Mald. and many others, who take“the door”in verse 1 to be different from that in verse 7; the latter, they say, being the door of thesheep, Christ Himself; the former the door of the shepherds, which Mald. understands oflegitimate authorityto teach. We have no doubt that the door in both verses is the same, because Christ begins to explain, in verse 7:“Jesusthereforesaid to them again”what He had said in verses 1-5.2. Qui autem intrat per ostium, pastor est ovium.2. But he that entereth in by the door, is the shepherd of the sheep.2. The sense is that he who entereth by faith in Christ, and by Christ's authority, isatrue shepherd (ποιμήν, without the article). Such a pastor is contrasted with the Pharisees who blindly refused to enter by the only gate.3. Huic ostiarius aperit, et oves vocem eius audiunt, et proprias oves vocat nominatim, et educit eas.3. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.3.To him the porter openeth.In the higher sense, the porter is not the Scriptures, nor Christ Himself, but the Holy Ghost. To the true pastor of souls the Holy Ghost“openeth,”by giving him grace to teach and govern rightly, and by moving the hearts of the faithful to listen to and profit by his teaching.And leadeth them out.It is an obvious and familiar principle that in explaining metaphorical language, we are not to expect resemblance in all points between the two things which are implicitly compared. If we say Patrick is a lion, we mean that he has courage or strength; but we do not mean that he has four legs. Similarly, though the Church is compared to a sheepfold, it does not follow that because the sheep had to be led outside the fold in order to find pasture, that therefore the faithful must beled outside the Churchbefore they can obtain the spiritual food of their souls. No, the Church is a fold which has its pastures within itself; and what Christ here declares is that a good pastor does for the faithful what the shepherd does for the sheep when he leads them forth; namely, he[pg 179]provides them with proper nourishment.4. Et cum proprias oves emiserit, ante eas vadit: et oves illum sequuntur, quia sciunt vocem eius.4. And when he hath let out his own sheep, he goeth before them: and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice.4. A good pastor not only puts before his people the sound doctrine of faith, and the right line of duty, but he also goes before them, guiding and directing them by his example, and is rewarded by their obedience, for“the sheep follow him,”and tread in his footsteps.5. Alienum autem non sequuntur, sed fugiunt ab eo: quia non noverunt vocem alienorum.5. But a stranger they follow not, but fly from him, because they know not the voice of strangers.5. The true reading is μη ἀκολουθήσουσιν ἀλλὰ φεύξονται, (willnot follow, butwillfly), the sense, however, being the same. As the sheep followed their own shepherd every morning from the fold to their pasture, and would follow no stranger, so faithful Christians take their spiritual nourishment from, and are obedient to, only the true pastor.6. Hoc proverbium dixit eis Iesus. Illi autem non cognoverunt quid loqueretur eis.6. This proverb Jesus spoke to them. But they understood not what he spoke to them.6.Proverb.The Greek word (παροιμίαν) suggests the notion of a saying that is deep and mysterious and not merely metaphorical. See John xvi.25,29.7. Dixit ergo eis iterum Iesus: Amen, amen dico vobis, quia ego sum ostium ovium.7. Jesus therefore said to them again: Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.7.Jesus therefore said to them again;i.e.,becausethey did not understand, He explains. As we have said already, we take the door here to be the same as in verse 1, and the reference in both cases to be to Christ. Here, however, Christ is spoken of as the door through which the sheep, there as the door through which the shepherd, entered. But this need create no difficulty, for as we explained in our preliminary remarks on verse 1, there was only one door on the ordinary sheepfold, and through it both sheep and shepherd entered.8. Omnes quotquot venerunt, fures sunt et latrones, et non audierunt eos oves.8. Allothers, as many as have come, are thieves and robbers: and the sheep heard them not.8.All others, as many as[pg 180]have come(many ancient authorities add“before Me”). The sense is: all others who have come forward before now, pretending to be the door, the Messias,arethieves and robbers. The present“are”is used to denote the essential character of their nature.But(ἀλλ᾽,atnotet)the sheep heard them not;i.e., did not listen to them so as to remain their disciples. Many such impostors pretending to be the Messias had arisen before this time; such were Theodas and Judas of Galilee (Acts v. 36, 37); and, after the time of Christ, Simon Magus, Barchochebas, and others appeared in the same character.9. Ego sum ostium. Per me si quis introierit, salvabitur: et ingredietur, et egredietur, et pascua inveniet.9. I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved: and he shall go in, and go out, and shall find pastures.9. Christ here declares Himself the door absolutely; and therefore, as we have held, the door of both sheep and shepherds. He then proceeds to explain in this verse what this means in reference to the sheep, and in next verse what it means in reference to the shepherds.Shall go in and go outis a Hebraism (1 Kings xxix. 6; 2 Paral. i. 10; Psalm. cxx. 8), meaning he shall deal securely, confidently, and freely.7210. Fur non venit nisi ut furetur, et mactet, et perdat. Ego veni ut vitam habeant, et abundantius habeant.10. The thief cometh not, but for to steal and to kill and to destroy. I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly.10. In reference to the pastor, he who enters not through Christ (and who is therefore a thief, verse 1), cometh not but to steal, &c. This verse effects the transition from Christ as door to Christ as shepherd. He here sets Himself in opposition to the thief, and so passes on naturally to another parable in which He speaks of Himself as shepherd.11. Ego sum pastor bonus. Bonus pastor animam suam dat pro ovibus suis.11. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.11.I am the good shepherd(ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός); that particular shepherd foretold by[pg 181]the prophets (Ezech. xxxiv. 11, 15, 16, 22, 23; Zach. xi. 17; Isai. xl. 11). There is no difficulty in the fact that Christ now calls Himself the shepherd, whereas in the preceding verses He has spoken of Himself as the door of the sheepfold. For we hold that a new parable begins in verse 11, and it is obviously open to Christ to use a new metaphor, in which to express under a new aspect His relations to the faithful. Seexv. 1, where, in the metaphor of the true vine, His relations with the faithful are set forth under yet another aspect.The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.This is to be understood, of Christ, and is the first note of this great Shepherd.12. Mercenarius autem et qui non est pastor, cuius non sunt oves propriae, videt lupum venientem, et dimittit oves, et fugit: et lupus rapit, et dispergit oves:12. But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep.12.The hirelingis most probably a pastor who has a divine mission like the Pharisees (Matt. xxiii. 2) which, however, he abuses for base motives of self-interest. Such an one, and also he who has no true mission, flieth at the approach ofany danger, the particular danger from the wolf being put to represent danger in general.13. Mercenarius autem fugit, quia mercenarius est, et non pertinet ad eum de ovibus.13. And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling; and he hath no care for the sheep.13. The last word of verse 12 and the first three words of verse 13 in the Vulgate:“Oves: Mercenarius autem fugit,”are regarded by many as not genuine; the remaining portion of verse 13 is to be connected with“flieth”of verse 12, in case they are omitted.14. Ego sum pastor bonus: et cognosco meas, et cognoscunt me meae.14. I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me.14. Here we have another note of our great Shepherd, Jesus Christ. He knowsevery memberof His flock; not merely thejust, or theelect(as Aug., Bede, Ypr., Tol.), and watches over each with special solicitude. And they, in turn, know Him with the knowledge of faith accompanied by charity. That there is not question merely of a barren faith, is proved by the comparison in[pg 182]the next verse between this knowledge and Christ's. If it be objected that all Christians do not love Christ, we reply that,as far as in Him lies, they do; and the purpose of the parable is to show Christ's love and solicitude for His sheep, to show forth what He does for them, not what they do for Him. He knows them, gathers them into His one fold, saves them by His grace here, and conducts them to heaven hereafter. What the sheep must do on their part after entering the fold, is outside the scope of the parable.15. Sicut novit me Pater, et ego agnosco Patrem: et animam meam pono pro ovibus meis.15. As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep.15. Connect with 14:I know mine, and mine know me, as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father.The knowledge is similar, but not, of course, equal; just as our perfection can never equal the infinite perfection of God, though Christ says:“Be ye therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”Matt. v. 48.And I lay down my life for my sheep.Perfect knowledge and sympathy bring forth the perfect remedy, and Christ's knowledge and love of His sheep receive their fitting consummation in His sacrifice. The words“I lay down My life”show that Christ gave up His life freely and voluntarily (see verse18); while the closing words of the verse prove the vicarious character of Christ's sacrifice.16. Et alias oves habeo, quae non sunt ex hoc ovili: et illas oportet me adducere, et vocem meam audient, et fiet unum ovile, et unus pastor.16. And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.16. Having referred to His death for men, Christ goes on to speak of the call of the Gentiles, thereby indicating the efficacy of His sacrifice for all, whether Jews or Gentiles.And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold.The other sheep were those Gentiles who were outside the Jewish Church, but were to be brought within the Church of Christ, so that there might be one fold (ratherflock), and one shepherd. Strictly speaking, the Gentiles except very few were not yet His sheep, but those who were to obey the call are spoken of as such by anticipation, and[pg 183]because in the designs of God it was decreed that they should be efficaciously called to the faith.And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.The“one fold,”or rather“one flock”(ποίμνη), distinctly implies the unity of Christ's Church, and the“one shepherd,”is Jesus Christ Himself as invisible head, with the Pope His representative as visible head.73We have therefore three very important declarations in this verse. (1) The faith was to be preached to the Gentiles; (2) Christ was to have but one flock composed alike of Jews and Gentiles; (3) that one flock was to have one supreme visible head. Some, like Mald., think that the expression“thisfold”implies that there was another fold, that is to say, those who were to be called from among the Gentiles. But this does not necessarily follow, as the contrast may be, and we believe is, not between a fold of the Jews and a fold of the Gentiles, but between the fold of the Jewish Church which excluded the Gentiles, and the fold of the Christian Church which was to include them.17. Propterea me diligit Pater: quia ego pono animam meam, ut iterum sumam eam.17. Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life that I may take it again.17. After the parenthetical statement in verse 16, Christ takes up what He had said in the end of verse 15, about laying down His life.Therefore: that is to say, because I lay down My life, and so obey Him, the Father loveth Me.That I may take it again.“Ut”(ἱνα) cannot be taken to express a purpose here, but means eitherso as, as Mald. holds, or,on the condition that, as Patrizzi. The supreme dominion which Christ here claims over His own life and death, is a proof of His Divinity.18. Nemo tollit eam a me: sed ego pono eam a meipso, et potestatem habeo ponendi eam: et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam. Hoc mandatum accepi a Patre meo.18. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down; and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father.18.No man taketh it away from me; but I lay it down of myself.Christ declares that His death would be voluntary, because He would lay down His lifefreely. But a difficulty here presents itself. How was He free in laying down His life, if, as He declares, in the end of this same verse, He had a command from His Father to do so? Surely He was bound not to disobey that command, and thus bound to die, and so not free in dying? The difficulty then is to reconcile Christ's freedom in dying with the Father's command that He should die. Many answers have been given.(1) The command of the Father was not really a command[pg 184]or precept, but only a wish, with which Christ, without sinning, was free not to correspond. But this answer is commonly rejected by commentators and theologians, who hold that there was a strict command. Hence:—(2) Christ was commanded to redeem man, but not to die. He could have redeemed us in many other ways; therefore in choosing death as the way, He died freely. But it is replied to this that St. Paul tells us that Christ wasobedient even unto death(Phil. ii. 8), thereby implying that His death was commanded.(3) Christ was commanded to die, but was left free as to the manner and circumstances of His death, and therefore was free as to the actual death He underwent upon the cross. But it is again replied that St. Paul declares“He was obedient unto death, even thedeath of the cross”(Phil. ii. 8).(4) De Lugo and others hold that Christ's freedom in dying consisted in the fact that He could have asked and obtained a dispensation from His Father. He freely chose not to ask a dispensation; therefore He died freely.(5) Franzelin inclines to the view that the will of the Father was merely a“beneplacitum,”a wish, until Christ freely accepted it, when it became a command: consequent, however, upon Christ's free acceptance. Thus, in virtue of this free acceptance, Christ died freely, though having a command from His Father that He should die.(6) Lastly, there is the opinion of Suarez, who explains thus: Christ's human will had, strictly speaking, thepowerof resisting the will of God, and of sinning, and was therefore free: consequently, His human will was free in accepting the command to die, because, strictly speaking, it had the power to resist. No doubt this power could never be reduced to act in our Divine Lord, for the Second Divine Person, in virtue of its hypostatic union with Christ's humanity, was bound to preserve His human will from sin by the operation of grace.“On account of this perpetual watchfulness on the part of the Second Divine Person,”says A Lap., who adopts this opinion,“the humanity of Christ is said to be extrinsically impeccable; not that the Divinity took away thepower[pg 185]of sinning (non quod Verbum illam (humanitatem) praedeterminaret), but that it always supplied the grace, under the influence of which it was foreseen that Christ's human will would freely fulfil each precept.”This view we prefer; and hence we hold—(1) that Christ had astrict commandfrom His Father to die; (2) that His human will had thepowerto disobey this command, and was consequently free in accepting death; (3) that the Second Divine Person provided that this power to disobey couldnever be reduced to act, and hence Christ was always extrinsically impeccable.19. Dissensio iterum facta est inter Iudaeos propter sermones hos.19. A dissension rose again among the Jews for these words.20. Dicebant autem multi ex ipsis: Daemonium habet, et insanit: quid eum auditis?20. And many of them said: He hath a devil, and is mad: why hear you him?21. Alii dicebant: Haec verba non sunt daemonium habentis; numquid daemonium potest caecorum oculos aperire?21. Others said: These are not the words of one that hath a devil: Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?19-21. Again, as on previous occasions there was a difference of opinion among the leaders of the Jews.22. Facta sunt autem encaenia in Ierosoylmis: et hiems erat.22. And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem; and it was winter.22. A new chapter might well have been begun here. The events and discourses recorded by the Evangelist, from chapter viii., probably followed close upon the Feast of Tabernacles (vii. 2). Now the Evangelist suddenly passes on to the Feast of Purification. During the period of more than two months that intervened (see above on v.1), Christ returned to Galilee (Luke ix. 51; xiii. 22); or, as Patrizzi holds, spent his time in the country parts of Judea, away from Jerusalem. The Feast of the Dedication instituted by Judas Maccabeus, about 165b.c., in memory of the cleansing of the temple and dedication of the altar of holocausts after the defeat of the Syrians, was celebrated annually for eight days. The first day of the feast was the 25th of Casleu, the ninth month of the Jewish sacred year, which corresponded to the latter part of our November and the first part of December. See 1 Mach. iv. 59.[pg 186]23. Et ambulabat Iesus in templo, in porticu Salomonis.23. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.23. And because it was winter, Jesus was walking in Solomon's porch. This was probably a cloister, open on one side, and covered overhead, and stood, according to Beel. (Comm. on Acts iii. 11), on the eastern side of the court of the Gentiles. That the Porch of Solomon referred to in 3 Kings vi. 3; 2 Paral. iii. 4, is not meant here (as Mald. holds), we feel certain; for that being within the court of the priests, Christ would not have been permitted by the Jewish priests to approach, much less walk, there.24. Circumdederunt ergo eum Iudaei, et dicebant ei: Quousque animam nostram tollis? si tu es Christus, dic nobis palam.24. The Jews therefore came round about him, and said to him: How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense? if thou be the Christ tell us plainly.24.How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense?The phrase here used by the Evangelist to record the words of the Jews is a Hebraism (see Exod. xxxv. 21; Deut. xxiv. 15; Prov. xix. 23). They wished Christ to state openly that He was their Messias, their King, probably in order that they might accuse Him before the Roman authorities of treason against Rome.25. Respondit eis Iesus. Loquor vobis, et non creditis: opera quae ego facio in nomine Patris mei, haec testimonium perhibent de me:25. Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me.26. Sed vos non creditis, quia non estis ex ovibus meis.26. But you do not believe: because you are not of my sheep.25, 26. He again appeals to His miracles, and upbraids their incredulity.27. Oves meae vocem meam audiunt: et ego cognosco eas, et sequntur me:27. My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me.27. We prefer to understand thesheephere, as in verse 14, not of the just merely, nor of the elect only, but, with A Lap., of all the faithful. All the faithful hear Christ, so as tobelieve, and in this they are contrasted with those addressed in the preceding verse, who believe not; and all too follow[pg 187]Christ so as to imitate His example,as far as lies in Him.28. Et ego vitam aeternam do eis: et non peribunt in aeternum, et non rapiet eas quisquam de manu mea.28. And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand.28. In the same sense He gives them life eternal, and they shall not perish, and (= for) no one can snatch them from His hand. As far as their salvation depends upon Him, they shall be saved; they may indeed fail to correspond with His grace, but they shall not perish through His fault. They may desert Him themselves, but no one shall snatch them from Him.29. Pater meus quod dedit mihi, maius omnibus est: et nemo potest rapere de manu Patris mei.29. That which my Father hath given me is greater than all: and no one can snatchthemout of the hand of my Father.30. Ego et Pater unum sumus.30. I and the Father are one.29, 30. He proves that no one shall snatch them from Him. No one shall snatch them from the Father (whois greater and more powerful than all). But I and the Father are one in nature and power; therefore no one shall snatch them from Me. This is the argument in the more probable Greek reading, and is more natural than that afforded by the Vulgate. We would read then instead of the present Vulgate text in verse 29:“Pater meusquidedit mihimajoromnibus est,”&c.74Note that the unity with the Father to which Christ here lays claim is not amoralunion, but a unity ofnature and power, else the proof of His statement that no one could snatch His sheep from His hands would not be valid.31. Sustulerunt ergo lapides Iudaei, ut lapidarent eum.31. The Jews then took up stones to stone him.31. See above onviii. 59.[pg 188]32. Respondit eis Iesus: Multa bona opera ostendi vobis ex Patre meo, propter quod eorum opus me lapidatis?32. Jesus answered them: Many good works I have shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me?32.For which of those works do you stone me?i.e., wish to stone Me.7533. Responderunt ei Iudaei: De bono opere non lapidamus te, sed de blasphemia; et quia tu homo cum sis, facis teipsum Deum.33. The Jews answered him: For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God?34. Respondit eis Iesus: Nonne scriptum est in lege vestra quia: Ego dixi, dii estis?34. Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law:I said you are gods?34. To the charge of blasphemy Christ replies, and His reply has been often urged by Arians and Unitarians to show that He did not claim to be the natural Son of God, but merely meant to call Himself God in some improper sense, analogous to that in which the Sacred Scriptures sometimes speak of judges, who were merely men, as gods.The sense of verse 34 is: men are called gods in your own law, the reference being to Psalm lxxxi. 6.35. Si illos dixit deos, ad quos sermo Dei factus est, et non potest solvi scriptura:35. If he called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken;36. Quem Pater sanctificavit, et misit in mundum, vos dicitis: Quia blasphemas, quia dixi, Filius Dei sum.36. Do you say of him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?35, 36. While all Catholic commentators and theologians contend that Christ does not in these two verses withdraw His claim to true Divinity, yet they differ as to the sense of His reply, and hence as to the interpretation of the verses.(1) Some, as Franzelin, hold that Christ here proves both that He is God, and that He has a right to call Himself God. The argument then is according to these: if your judges could be called gods,[pg 189]even in an improper sense, how much morein the strictest sensecan He be called and is He God, whom the Father generatedholy with His own holiness, and sent into the world?(2) Others, as Maran, Jungmann, &c., explain the argument here from the context in the 81st Psalm. Christ, they say, reasons thus. If men could be called gods, as they are in Sacred Scripture (and the Sacred Scripture cannot be gainsaid), how much more, in a strict sense, can He be called God, and is He God, whom the same Scriptures address in the 8th verse of the same 81st Psalm:“Arise,O God, judge Thou the earth, for Thou shalt inherit among the nations”?(3) Others hold that Christ in these two verses does not insist upon thenatureof His Sonship, but contents Himself with showing that He has a right tocallHimself God; then in the following verses He shows that He is God in the strictest sense. In this view Christ prescinds in these verses from the sense in which He is God, and shows thatin some sense, as the legate of the Father, He has a right to be called God. This was sufficient for the moment to shut the mouths of His adversaries. Whether He is God in the truest and strictest sense, or only in an improper sense, He does not here insist, though His language shows that even in these verses He speaks of Himself as truly God. For the argument shows that in concluding, in verse 36, that He has a right to call Himself“Son of God,”He means to justify his original statement:“I and the Father are one”(verse 30); but these statements are synonymous, and the one justifies the other only when there is question of natural Sonship. No merely adopted son of God could say that He is one with the Father.Any of these answers solves the objection drawn from these verses against Christ's Divinity; but we prefer the last, and hold, therefore, that Christ first proves against the Pharisees that He has a right tocallHimself God, and then goes on to show in what sense He is God.37. Si non facio opera Patris mei, nolite credere mihi.37. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.38. Si autem facio, et si mihi non vultis credere, operibus credite, ut cognoscatis et credatis quia Pater in me est, et ego in Patre.38. But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works: that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.37, 38. He appeals to His miracles as a proof that He is God in the strictest sense. See notes oniii. 2.That the Father is in me, and I in the Father.According to the[pg 190]fathers, this is a statement in other words of what He said above:“I and the Father are one.”“The Son,”says St. Augustine on this verse, does not say:“The Father is in Me, and I in Him, in the sense in which men who think and act aright may say the like; meaning that they partake of God's grace, and are enlightened by His Spirit. The Only-begotten Son of God is in the Father, and the Father in Him, as an equal in an equal.”39. Quaerebant ergo eum apprehendere: et exivit de manibus eorum.39. They sought therefore to take him; and he escaped out of their hands.39.They sought therefore to take him.These words prove that His hearers did not understand Christ to retract what He had said.40. Et abiit iterum trans Iordanem, in eum locum ubi erat Ioannes baptizans primum: et mansit illic.40. And he went again beyond the Jordan into that place where John was baptizing first: and there he abode.40. He went again to Bethania beyond the Jordan. See above oni. 28. The name of Bethania must have been dear to our Evangelist, because it was probably in its neighbourhood he had first met his heavenly Master.41. Et multi venerunt ad eum, et dicebant: Quia Ioannes quidem signum fecit nullum.41. And many resorted to him, and they said: John indeed did no sign.41.John indeed did no sign.This remark is of great importance as showing how little tendency there was to invest great and popular teachers with miraculous powers. And yet the Rationalists will have us believe that our Lord's miracles were all a popular delusion!42. Omnia autem quaecumque dixit Ioannes de hoc, vera erant. Et multi crediderunt in eum.42. But all things whatsoever John said of this man were true. And many believed in him.42.And many believed in him.Most authorities add the note of placethere(ἐκεῖ), as if the Evangelist wished to bring out into bolder relief the incredulity of the Jews (verse 39), by contrasting it with the faith of those beyond the Jordan.
1-5.The parable (or rather allegory, see below on verse 1), of the door of the sheepfold.6.The Pharisees understood not the parable.7-10.Christ, therefore, applies it.11-18.The parable of the Good Shepherd.19-21.There was a difference of opinion among the Pharisees regarding Christ.22-30.On another occasion the Pharisees ask Him to tell them plainly if He is the Christ; to whom He replies that He is, and the Son of God, one in nature with His Father.31.Thereupon they took up stones to stone Him.32-38.He defends his language by a quotation from their own Psaltery.39-42.When they sought to take Him prisoner, He escaped from them, and crossed over to the east side of the Jordan, where many believed in him.
1-5.The parable (or rather allegory, see below on verse 1), of the door of the sheepfold.
6.The Pharisees understood not the parable.
7-10.Christ, therefore, applies it.
11-18.The parable of the Good Shepherd.
19-21.There was a difference of opinion among the Pharisees regarding Christ.
22-30.On another occasion the Pharisees ask Him to tell them plainly if He is the Christ; to whom He replies that He is, and the Son of God, one in nature with His Father.
31.Thereupon they took up stones to stone Him.
32-38.He defends his language by a quotation from their own Psaltery.
39-42.When they sought to take Him prisoner, He escaped from them, and crossed over to the east side of the Jordan, where many believed in him.
1. This verse and those that follow down to the end of verse 18, are a continuation of the discourse directed to the Pharisees, and begun in ix. 39, with which verse this tenth chapter might more correctly have been commenced. The logical connection of the following parable with the close of the preceding chapter is not clear. Some, as St. Aug., say that Christ is proving that the Pharisees wereblind, else they would recognise Him as thedoorthrough which the true fold must be entered, and as thetrue Shepherd. Others, as St. Chrys., think that He is replying to a tacit objection of the Pharisees, to the effect that they refused to recognise Him, not because they were blind, but because He was an impostor.
The parable, taken strictly, is a narrative of a probable but fictitiousevent, like that relating to the Prodigal Son (Luke xv. 11-32). Where, as[pg 177]in the present instance, there is continued or prolonged metaphor, without the description of any event, some would call it an allegory and not a parable; but we prefer not to interfere with a phrase so familiar as“the parable of the good Shepherd.”It will be noted that we speak of parables, and not merely of one parable, for we hold that the parable of Christ asdoorof the fold is distinct from that of Christ as Shepherd. Our reasons for this will appear as we proceed. To understand the grammatical sense of these two parables, we must bear in mind what were the relations of the shepherd to his sheep in eastern countries, and especially in Palestine.
In the Spring of the year the Jewish shepherd conducted his sheep to their pasture, and there they remained until the end of the following Autumn. At night they were enclosed in folds, the flocks of several shepherds being sometimes gathered in the same fold. The fold, open overhead, was surrounded by a wall, in which there was but one door, at which the doorkeeper (ostiarius) remained through the night, until the shepherd's return in the morning. A thief, wishing to steal sheep, would, of course, not attempt to enter by the door, but would climb the wall. On the shepherd's return in the morning the door of the fold was thrown open by the doorkeeper, and each shepherd entered and called his own sheep, which, knowing his voice, followed him to their own pasture. Throughout the whole day the shepherd remained with them, guarding them from wild beasts and robbers, and attending to the weak and maimed. Thus his relations with his sheep were very close and constant indeed, and must be carefully borne in mind, in order that we may rightly appreciate the full significance of these beautiful parables.
He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold.If we strip this language of its metaphorical character, the sense is: that the teacher who enters not into the Church through Christ as the door, that is to say, by believing in Christ, is a false teacher, as were therefore, the Scribes and Pharisees. Christ, then, is the door (see verse7); the Church is the sheepfold; and the Scribes and Pharisees, with all such, are the thieves and robbers who injure their fellow-men, sometimes secretly like[pg 178]thieves, sometimes with open violence like robbers. That Christ is signified by“the door,”is the view of SS. Aug., Cyril, Bede, Greg., and of A Lap.; and is, indeed, distinctly stated by Himself, in verse 7, after His hearers had failed to understand His words. Hence we unhesitatingly reject the view of Mald. and many others, who take“the door”in verse 1 to be different from that in verse 7; the latter, they say, being the door of thesheep, Christ Himself; the former the door of the shepherds, which Mald. understands oflegitimate authorityto teach. We have no doubt that the door in both verses is the same, because Christ begins to explain, in verse 7:“Jesusthereforesaid to them again”what He had said in verses 1-5.
2. The sense is that he who entereth by faith in Christ, and by Christ's authority, isatrue shepherd (ποιμήν, without the article). Such a pastor is contrasted with the Pharisees who blindly refused to enter by the only gate.
3.To him the porter openeth.In the higher sense, the porter is not the Scriptures, nor Christ Himself, but the Holy Ghost. To the true pastor of souls the Holy Ghost“openeth,”by giving him grace to teach and govern rightly, and by moving the hearts of the faithful to listen to and profit by his teaching.
And leadeth them out.It is an obvious and familiar principle that in explaining metaphorical language, we are not to expect resemblance in all points between the two things which are implicitly compared. If we say Patrick is a lion, we mean that he has courage or strength; but we do not mean that he has four legs. Similarly, though the Church is compared to a sheepfold, it does not follow that because the sheep had to be led outside the fold in order to find pasture, that therefore the faithful must beled outside the Churchbefore they can obtain the spiritual food of their souls. No, the Church is a fold which has its pastures within itself; and what Christ here declares is that a good pastor does for the faithful what the shepherd does for the sheep when he leads them forth; namely, he[pg 179]provides them with proper nourishment.
4. A good pastor not only puts before his people the sound doctrine of faith, and the right line of duty, but he also goes before them, guiding and directing them by his example, and is rewarded by their obedience, for“the sheep follow him,”and tread in his footsteps.
5. The true reading is μη ἀκολουθήσουσιν ἀλλὰ φεύξονται, (willnot follow, butwillfly), the sense, however, being the same. As the sheep followed their own shepherd every morning from the fold to their pasture, and would follow no stranger, so faithful Christians take their spiritual nourishment from, and are obedient to, only the true pastor.
6.Proverb.The Greek word (παροιμίαν) suggests the notion of a saying that is deep and mysterious and not merely metaphorical. See John xvi.25,29.
7.Jesus therefore said to them again;i.e.,becausethey did not understand, He explains. As we have said already, we take the door here to be the same as in verse 1, and the reference in both cases to be to Christ. Here, however, Christ is spoken of as the door through which the sheep, there as the door through which the shepherd, entered. But this need create no difficulty, for as we explained in our preliminary remarks on verse 1, there was only one door on the ordinary sheepfold, and through it both sheep and shepherd entered.
8.All others, as many as[pg 180]have come(many ancient authorities add“before Me”). The sense is: all others who have come forward before now, pretending to be the door, the Messias,arethieves and robbers. The present“are”is used to denote the essential character of their nature.But(ἀλλ᾽,atnotet)the sheep heard them not;i.e., did not listen to them so as to remain their disciples. Many such impostors pretending to be the Messias had arisen before this time; such were Theodas and Judas of Galilee (Acts v. 36, 37); and, after the time of Christ, Simon Magus, Barchochebas, and others appeared in the same character.
9. Christ here declares Himself the door absolutely; and therefore, as we have held, the door of both sheep and shepherds. He then proceeds to explain in this verse what this means in reference to the sheep, and in next verse what it means in reference to the shepherds.Shall go in and go outis a Hebraism (1 Kings xxix. 6; 2 Paral. i. 10; Psalm. cxx. 8), meaning he shall deal securely, confidently, and freely.72
10. In reference to the pastor, he who enters not through Christ (and who is therefore a thief, verse 1), cometh not but to steal, &c. This verse effects the transition from Christ as door to Christ as shepherd. He here sets Himself in opposition to the thief, and so passes on naturally to another parable in which He speaks of Himself as shepherd.
11.I am the good shepherd(ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός); that particular shepherd foretold by[pg 181]the prophets (Ezech. xxxiv. 11, 15, 16, 22, 23; Zach. xi. 17; Isai. xl. 11). There is no difficulty in the fact that Christ now calls Himself the shepherd, whereas in the preceding verses He has spoken of Himself as the door of the sheepfold. For we hold that a new parable begins in verse 11, and it is obviously open to Christ to use a new metaphor, in which to express under a new aspect His relations to the faithful. Seexv. 1, where, in the metaphor of the true vine, His relations with the faithful are set forth under yet another aspect.The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.This is to be understood, of Christ, and is the first note of this great Shepherd.
12.The hirelingis most probably a pastor who has a divine mission like the Pharisees (Matt. xxiii. 2) which, however, he abuses for base motives of self-interest. Such an one, and also he who has no true mission, flieth at the approach ofany danger, the particular danger from the wolf being put to represent danger in general.
13. The last word of verse 12 and the first three words of verse 13 in the Vulgate:“Oves: Mercenarius autem fugit,”are regarded by many as not genuine; the remaining portion of verse 13 is to be connected with“flieth”of verse 12, in case they are omitted.
14. Here we have another note of our great Shepherd, Jesus Christ. He knowsevery memberof His flock; not merely thejust, or theelect(as Aug., Bede, Ypr., Tol.), and watches over each with special solicitude. And they, in turn, know Him with the knowledge of faith accompanied by charity. That there is not question merely of a barren faith, is proved by the comparison in[pg 182]the next verse between this knowledge and Christ's. If it be objected that all Christians do not love Christ, we reply that,as far as in Him lies, they do; and the purpose of the parable is to show Christ's love and solicitude for His sheep, to show forth what He does for them, not what they do for Him. He knows them, gathers them into His one fold, saves them by His grace here, and conducts them to heaven hereafter. What the sheep must do on their part after entering the fold, is outside the scope of the parable.
15. Connect with 14:I know mine, and mine know me, as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father.The knowledge is similar, but not, of course, equal; just as our perfection can never equal the infinite perfection of God, though Christ says:“Be ye therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”Matt. v. 48.
And I lay down my life for my sheep.Perfect knowledge and sympathy bring forth the perfect remedy, and Christ's knowledge and love of His sheep receive their fitting consummation in His sacrifice. The words“I lay down My life”show that Christ gave up His life freely and voluntarily (see verse18); while the closing words of the verse prove the vicarious character of Christ's sacrifice.
16. Having referred to His death for men, Christ goes on to speak of the call of the Gentiles, thereby indicating the efficacy of His sacrifice for all, whether Jews or Gentiles.And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold.The other sheep were those Gentiles who were outside the Jewish Church, but were to be brought within the Church of Christ, so that there might be one fold (ratherflock), and one shepherd. Strictly speaking, the Gentiles except very few were not yet His sheep, but those who were to obey the call are spoken of as such by anticipation, and[pg 183]because in the designs of God it was decreed that they should be efficaciously called to the faith.And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.The“one fold,”or rather“one flock”(ποίμνη), distinctly implies the unity of Christ's Church, and the“one shepherd,”is Jesus Christ Himself as invisible head, with the Pope His representative as visible head.73We have therefore three very important declarations in this verse. (1) The faith was to be preached to the Gentiles; (2) Christ was to have but one flock composed alike of Jews and Gentiles; (3) that one flock was to have one supreme visible head. Some, like Mald., think that the expression“thisfold”implies that there was another fold, that is to say, those who were to be called from among the Gentiles. But this does not necessarily follow, as the contrast may be, and we believe is, not between a fold of the Jews and a fold of the Gentiles, but between the fold of the Jewish Church which excluded the Gentiles, and the fold of the Christian Church which was to include them.
17. After the parenthetical statement in verse 16, Christ takes up what He had said in the end of verse 15, about laying down His life.Therefore: that is to say, because I lay down My life, and so obey Him, the Father loveth Me.That I may take it again.“Ut”(ἱνα) cannot be taken to express a purpose here, but means eitherso as, as Mald. holds, or,on the condition that, as Patrizzi. The supreme dominion which Christ here claims over His own life and death, is a proof of His Divinity.
18.No man taketh it away from me; but I lay it down of myself.Christ declares that His death would be voluntary, because He would lay down His lifefreely. But a difficulty here presents itself. How was He free in laying down His life, if, as He declares, in the end of this same verse, He had a command from His Father to do so? Surely He was bound not to disobey that command, and thus bound to die, and so not free in dying? The difficulty then is to reconcile Christ's freedom in dying with the Father's command that He should die. Many answers have been given.
(1) The command of the Father was not really a command[pg 184]or precept, but only a wish, with which Christ, without sinning, was free not to correspond. But this answer is commonly rejected by commentators and theologians, who hold that there was a strict command. Hence:—
(2) Christ was commanded to redeem man, but not to die. He could have redeemed us in many other ways; therefore in choosing death as the way, He died freely. But it is replied to this that St. Paul tells us that Christ wasobedient even unto death(Phil. ii. 8), thereby implying that His death was commanded.
(3) Christ was commanded to die, but was left free as to the manner and circumstances of His death, and therefore was free as to the actual death He underwent upon the cross. But it is again replied that St. Paul declares“He was obedient unto death, even thedeath of the cross”(Phil. ii. 8).
(4) De Lugo and others hold that Christ's freedom in dying consisted in the fact that He could have asked and obtained a dispensation from His Father. He freely chose not to ask a dispensation; therefore He died freely.
(5) Franzelin inclines to the view that the will of the Father was merely a“beneplacitum,”a wish, until Christ freely accepted it, when it became a command: consequent, however, upon Christ's free acceptance. Thus, in virtue of this free acceptance, Christ died freely, though having a command from His Father that He should die.
(6) Lastly, there is the opinion of Suarez, who explains thus: Christ's human will had, strictly speaking, thepowerof resisting the will of God, and of sinning, and was therefore free: consequently, His human will was free in accepting the command to die, because, strictly speaking, it had the power to resist. No doubt this power could never be reduced to act in our Divine Lord, for the Second Divine Person, in virtue of its hypostatic union with Christ's humanity, was bound to preserve His human will from sin by the operation of grace.
“On account of this perpetual watchfulness on the part of the Second Divine Person,”says A Lap., who adopts this opinion,“the humanity of Christ is said to be extrinsically impeccable; not that the Divinity took away thepower[pg 185]of sinning (non quod Verbum illam (humanitatem) praedeterminaret), but that it always supplied the grace, under the influence of which it was foreseen that Christ's human will would freely fulfil each precept.”This view we prefer; and hence we hold—(1) that Christ had astrict commandfrom His Father to die; (2) that His human will had thepowerto disobey this command, and was consequently free in accepting death; (3) that the Second Divine Person provided that this power to disobey couldnever be reduced to act, and hence Christ was always extrinsically impeccable.
19-21. Again, as on previous occasions there was a difference of opinion among the leaders of the Jews.
22. A new chapter might well have been begun here. The events and discourses recorded by the Evangelist, from chapter viii., probably followed close upon the Feast of Tabernacles (vii. 2). Now the Evangelist suddenly passes on to the Feast of Purification. During the period of more than two months that intervened (see above on v.1), Christ returned to Galilee (Luke ix. 51; xiii. 22); or, as Patrizzi holds, spent his time in the country parts of Judea, away from Jerusalem. The Feast of the Dedication instituted by Judas Maccabeus, about 165b.c., in memory of the cleansing of the temple and dedication of the altar of holocausts after the defeat of the Syrians, was celebrated annually for eight days. The first day of the feast was the 25th of Casleu, the ninth month of the Jewish sacred year, which corresponded to the latter part of our November and the first part of December. See 1 Mach. iv. 59.
23. And because it was winter, Jesus was walking in Solomon's porch. This was probably a cloister, open on one side, and covered overhead, and stood, according to Beel. (Comm. on Acts iii. 11), on the eastern side of the court of the Gentiles. That the Porch of Solomon referred to in 3 Kings vi. 3; 2 Paral. iii. 4, is not meant here (as Mald. holds), we feel certain; for that being within the court of the priests, Christ would not have been permitted by the Jewish priests to approach, much less walk, there.
24.How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense?The phrase here used by the Evangelist to record the words of the Jews is a Hebraism (see Exod. xxxv. 21; Deut. xxiv. 15; Prov. xix. 23). They wished Christ to state openly that He was their Messias, their King, probably in order that they might accuse Him before the Roman authorities of treason against Rome.
25, 26. He again appeals to His miracles, and upbraids their incredulity.
27. We prefer to understand thesheephere, as in verse 14, not of the just merely, nor of the elect only, but, with A Lap., of all the faithful. All the faithful hear Christ, so as tobelieve, and in this they are contrasted with those addressed in the preceding verse, who believe not; and all too follow[pg 187]Christ so as to imitate His example,as far as lies in Him.
28. In the same sense He gives them life eternal, and they shall not perish, and (= for) no one can snatch them from His hand. As far as their salvation depends upon Him, they shall be saved; they may indeed fail to correspond with His grace, but they shall not perish through His fault. They may desert Him themselves, but no one shall snatch them from Him.
29, 30. He proves that no one shall snatch them from Him. No one shall snatch them from the Father (whois greater and more powerful than all). But I and the Father are one in nature and power; therefore no one shall snatch them from Me. This is the argument in the more probable Greek reading, and is more natural than that afforded by the Vulgate. We would read then instead of the present Vulgate text in verse 29:“Pater meusquidedit mihimajoromnibus est,”&c.74Note that the unity with the Father to which Christ here lays claim is not amoralunion, but a unity ofnature and power, else the proof of His statement that no one could snatch His sheep from His hands would not be valid.
31. See above onviii. 59.
32.For which of those works do you stone me?i.e., wish to stone Me.75
34. To the charge of blasphemy Christ replies, and His reply has been often urged by Arians and Unitarians to show that He did not claim to be the natural Son of God, but merely meant to call Himself God in some improper sense, analogous to that in which the Sacred Scriptures sometimes speak of judges, who were merely men, as gods.
The sense of verse 34 is: men are called gods in your own law, the reference being to Psalm lxxxi. 6.
35, 36. While all Catholic commentators and theologians contend that Christ does not in these two verses withdraw His claim to true Divinity, yet they differ as to the sense of His reply, and hence as to the interpretation of the verses.
(1) Some, as Franzelin, hold that Christ here proves both that He is God, and that He has a right to call Himself God. The argument then is according to these: if your judges could be called gods,[pg 189]even in an improper sense, how much morein the strictest sensecan He be called and is He God, whom the Father generatedholy with His own holiness, and sent into the world?
(2) Others, as Maran, Jungmann, &c., explain the argument here from the context in the 81st Psalm. Christ, they say, reasons thus. If men could be called gods, as they are in Sacred Scripture (and the Sacred Scripture cannot be gainsaid), how much more, in a strict sense, can He be called God, and is He God, whom the same Scriptures address in the 8th verse of the same 81st Psalm:“Arise,O God, judge Thou the earth, for Thou shalt inherit among the nations”?
(3) Others hold that Christ in these two verses does not insist upon thenatureof His Sonship, but contents Himself with showing that He has a right tocallHimself God; then in the following verses He shows that He is God in the strictest sense. In this view Christ prescinds in these verses from the sense in which He is God, and shows thatin some sense, as the legate of the Father, He has a right to be called God. This was sufficient for the moment to shut the mouths of His adversaries. Whether He is God in the truest and strictest sense, or only in an improper sense, He does not here insist, though His language shows that even in these verses He speaks of Himself as truly God. For the argument shows that in concluding, in verse 36, that He has a right to call Himself“Son of God,”He means to justify his original statement:“I and the Father are one”(verse 30); but these statements are synonymous, and the one justifies the other only when there is question of natural Sonship. No merely adopted son of God could say that He is one with the Father.
Any of these answers solves the objection drawn from these verses against Christ's Divinity; but we prefer the last, and hold, therefore, that Christ first proves against the Pharisees that He has a right tocallHimself God, and then goes on to show in what sense He is God.
37, 38. He appeals to His miracles as a proof that He is God in the strictest sense. See notes oniii. 2.That the Father is in me, and I in the Father.According to the[pg 190]fathers, this is a statement in other words of what He said above:“I and the Father are one.”“The Son,”says St. Augustine on this verse, does not say:“The Father is in Me, and I in Him, in the sense in which men who think and act aright may say the like; meaning that they partake of God's grace, and are enlightened by His Spirit. The Only-begotten Son of God is in the Father, and the Father in Him, as an equal in an equal.”
39.They sought therefore to take him.These words prove that His hearers did not understand Christ to retract what He had said.
40. He went again to Bethania beyond the Jordan. See above oni. 28. The name of Bethania must have been dear to our Evangelist, because it was probably in its neighbourhood he had first met his heavenly Master.
41.John indeed did no sign.This remark is of great importance as showing how little tendency there was to invest great and popular teachers with miraculous powers. And yet the Rationalists will have us believe that our Lord's miracles were all a popular delusion!
42.And many believed in him.Most authorities add the note of placethere(ἐκεῖ), as if the Evangelist wished to bring out into bolder relief the incredulity of the Jews (verse 39), by contrasting it with the faith of those beyond the Jordan.