'There was one Judas a Gaulonite, . . . who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw (the people) to a
nation to assert their liberty ; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honour and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. . . . All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree : one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends, who used to alleviate our pains; there were also very (treat robberies and murders of our principal men. This was done in pretence of the public welfare, hut in reality from the hopes of gain to themselves' (,]oa. Ant. xviii. i. 1).
If Barabbas was one of these robbers (cf. Jn 18** with 10*), the fact that the Jews chose Barabbas in preference to the Good Shepherd shows the be- wilderment of the popular mind, which led Jesus to compare the house of Israel to lost sheep. Jesus further describes Himself as the Good Shepherd in contrast to the hirelings, who care nothing for the sheep (Jn 10"- '=). If the thieves and robbers be- token ijolitical agitators like r.:u;tbbas and Judas, 'the hirelings' are pr(jl.al.ly the Pharisees and Sadducees, the shepherds who, in the words of Ezekiel, 'fed themselves and did not feed the sheep. '
The interpretation here suggested is not usually adopted. Godet, for example, understands the thieves and robbers to be the Pharisees. The M'olf (v.'=) he takes as a further symbol of the same party, the hirelings being the scribes and priests, whoni cowardice kept from opposing Pharisaic
ANIMALS
domination. This latter interpretation fits in well ■nith the context, i.e. with ch. 9 (see Godet, St. John, vol. ii. pp. 375-397).
But without attempting to decide questions of exposition, it is sutficientfor us to point out that the imagery of the parable is true to life. ■ * A sheep-fold in the East is not a covered buUdinjr like our stables, but a mere enclosure surrounded by a wall or palisade. The .sheep are brought into it in the evening, several flocks being generally assembled within it. The shepherds, after rom- mittuig them to the care of a common keeper, a porter, who is charged with their safe keeping during the night, retire to their homes. In the morning they return, and knock at the closely barred door of the enclosure, which the porter opens. They then separate each his own sheep, by calling them : and after having thus collected their flocks, lead them to the pastures. As to robbers, it is bv scaling the wall that they penetrate into the fold' (Godet, l.c.'\>. 378).
The details are confirmed by all Eastern travel- lers. Thus, speaking of the jjower of the sheep in distinguishing between the voice of the shepherd and that of a stranger, Thomson tells us that, if a stranger calls, they stop, lift up their heads in alarm ; and if the call is repeated, they turn and flee from him. 'This is not the fanciful costume of a parable, but a simple fact. I have made the experiment often ' (' Central Palestine,' p. 594).
Godet cites 'the well-known anecdote of a Scotch traveller, who, meeting under the walls of Jerusalem a shepherd bringing home his flock, changed garments with him, and thus disguised proceeded to call the sheep. They, however, remained motion- less. The true shepherd then raised his voice, when they all hastened towards him, in spite of his strange garments ' (I.e. p. 3S2).
All the sheep distinguish the voice of a shepherd from that of a stranger : a shepherd's own sheep distinguish his voice from that of any other shep- herd (v.=). The practice of naming sheep {(paveT kolt' BvofM, v.') is common in the East. The picture of the shepherd thrusting his sheep out of the en- closure (^KjSdXa v.-*, implies the use of a certain amount of force) and then placing himself at the head of the flock, is likewise a simjile fact, and not fanciful imagery.
Though the historical application of the parable in Jn 10 is not easy to determine, yet it is clear that the chapter deals with the relation of Christ to the Church and to the individual Christian, and it is unnecessary to draw out in detail the lessons that follow from the fact that Christ is for us the door of the sheep and the Good Shepherd. It is, however, important to notice that in Jn 10 our Lord speaks of the Jewish nation as a whole and of His disciples alike as sheep (' his own sheep,' i.e. the disciples, are distinguished from the otlier flocks in the fold, i.e. the Jewish people), and that He compares His mission towards both to the work of a shepherd. These ideas are common to St. John and tlie Synoptists, and the pastoral imagery we are considering links the Fourth Gospel to the other three.
(i) We have seen that in the S3'noptics our Lord spoke of the people as lost sheep. But though the Matthaean phrase ' the lost sheep of the house of Israel ' applies to the nation as a whole, the parable of the Lost .Sheep in Mt 18'-'- is a defence of Christ's view of diiklren, and in Lk IS^"" (where alone in Luke the word irpSiiaTot' is used) a similar