INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Year B - Fourth Sunday of Easter
ACTS 4:5-12. This is another of the sermons preached by Peter and other apostles during the early days of the church. This time he declares the fact and the power of Christ's resurrection before the same supreme council of religious leaders, the Sanhedrin, who had condemned Jesus and brought about his death. The healing of the man at the gate of temple had a wider meaning than giving strength to crippled legs. As in Jesus' own healing miracles, to be fully healed meant to be brought into a right relationship with God through faith. Thus healing and salvation were one and the same.
PSALM 23. No psalm is better known or more loved as a prayer of trust in God who cares for us now and forever. It cannot be correctly attributed to David as ancient tradition supposed, a tradition generations have followed.
1 JOHN 3:16-24. John writes of God's love for us and God's command that we love one another. This love enables us to live courageously as God requires. Note that John also says that we receive whatever we ask of God because we obey and do what God requires of us. Yet this is not justification for a 'name it and claim it' attitude which mistakenly dreams of God meeting our every demand. As Jesus himself made clear, obedience to God sometimes involves great suffering.
JOHN 10:11-18. It may be helpful to read this passage and then to read Ezekiel 34 immediately after. There seems little doubt that Jesus (or his apostolic interpreters, if these were not his own words) made that Old Testament passage the basis for his own ministry as Messiah.
One of the enduring images of Jesus is that of the good shepherd. The startlingly different aspect of this passage is the willingness of the shepherd to lay down his life for the sheep.
There are numerous other Old Testament references to the way God, like the shepherds of biblical times, guided, cared for and rescued Israel, "the sheep of his flock." For some of these, read also Isaiah 40:11; 49:9-10; 63:14; Psalms 80:1; 95:7; 100:3.
A MORE COMPLETE ANLAYSIS.
ACTS 4:5-12. This is another of the sermons intended to show how Peter and the other apostles preached during the early days of the church. The kerygmatic proclamation sought to show how the Christian tradition grew out of the Jewish tradition and yet also clearly defined the distinction between them. While this passage appears to present a keen eyewitness account, as did the synoptic Gospels, it represents the views of the Apostolic Church in its continuing conflict with Jewish authorities. Most probably this conflict was particularly severe in Jerusalem in the
years immediately after the resurrection. It outlasted the destruction of Jerusalem in 69-70 CE and reached its height in the early 80s, when Jewish Christians were banned from all synagogues. By that time, the Apostolic Church had become predominantly a Gentile community. In many respects, this passage reflects the Gentile hostility toward Jewish authorities and clearly defines the discontinuity of the two traditions.
In this sermon Peter declared the fact and the power of Christ's resurrection before the same supreme council of religious leaders, the Sanhedrin, who had condemned Jesus and brought about his death. If we assume the scholarly consensus that Luke-Acts was written for the Christians in Rome circa 80 CE, the courage of the apostles would have had a very positive influence of the Christian community still reeling from Nero's persecution in the 60s when Peter, Paul and James had been martyred. The histories of Josephus, favourite of the emperor Vespasian (69-79 CE), may have influenced the author of Luke-Acts. One of the characteristics of Josephus' The Jewish War was to describe the superior tactics of the Romans while also depicting the exceptional courage and heroism of the Jews.
The healing of the man at the gate of temple had a wider meaning than giving strength to crippled legs. As in Jesus' own healing miracles, to be fully healed meant to be brought into a right relationship with God through faith. Thus healing and salvation were one and the same spiritual experience. Luke underlines this emphasis by quoting a favourite NT reinterpretation of Psalm 118:22 and reiterating the unique salvation found in Jesus alone (vss. 11-12).
Nothing could have angered the Jewish tribunal more. They would have interpreted this claim as both anti-Semitic (although the term did not appear until the late 19th century) and religiously invalid. When Christians today make the same claim, the possibility of constructive dialogue is diminished.
The claim of unique salvation also appears to deny the openness of Jesus toward non-Jews despite his controversial challenges to the Jewish authorities represented by the Sanhedrin. Luke's Gospel makes special note of Jesus' many interactions with non-Jews, particularly Samaritans. Jewish authorities despised Samaritans because they had intermarried with non-Jews after the fall of Samaria to the Assyrians in 721 BCE. They also rejected the centralized sacrificial system of the Jerusalem temple imposed by Josiah, king of Judah about a century later.
It is interesting to note in passing that as the story is told, no reference whatsoever is made to the Roman authorities. For his own purposes, Luke set this incident in a totally religious context. This contrasts with the trial of Jesus where Pilate played a significant role, but took the easy way out of his dilemma by releasing Barabbas instead of Jesus whom he had found innocent (Luke 23:1-25). Luke's intention in Acts, however, was to show that Romans authorities did not share the Jewish animosity toward the Christian community.
PSALM 23. No psalm is better known or more loved as a prayer of trust in God who cares for us now and forever. Only the first four verses depict the pastoral scene of the shepherd caring for his flock in several different circumstances from pleasant pasturage to grave danger.
Another image in vs. 4 refers to a banquet, or at least a meal provided for a refugee from pursuing enemies. Tribal custom among pastoral Semites dictated that anyone fleeing from enemies bent on the rough justice of the wilderness could appeal for refuge from any encampment he might happen upon. Pursuing enemies could not take the refugee while he was guest at supper in the sheltering encampment. The additional imagery of the guest being anointed with pungent oil and served an overflowing cup suggests an elaborate banquet provided by an exceptionally hospitable host.
Generations of interpreters have incorrectly attributed the psalm to David, the shepherd boy who became Israel's legendary great hero-king. However satisfying religiously, this is more of a romantic than a realistic interpretation. In the closing verse 6 the picture of the tent melds into that of the temple. While it is not inconceivable that David did serve as a priest-king in some instances, his desire to build a temple in new capital city of Jerusalem went unfulfilled. The biblical record
tells of him bringing the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem, but it was his son, Solomon, born to David and Bathsheba, who is credited with the construction of the temple.
Perhaps no scripture is more often read or hymn more frequently sung at funeral services than the metrical version of this psalm. The psalm could well have been one of Jesus' favourites too. The image of the shepherd had a special place in his teaching as reported in all four Gospels. The intimate relationship of shepherd and sheep had special meaning for Jewish people long before Jesus' time too. In numerous OT passages speak of Yahweh as the shepherd of Israel. Raising sheep for the annual sacrifice of the Passover played an important part in the nation's economy. The sacrifice of an unblemished lamb and the sprinkling of its blood on the altar symbolized the exodus from Egypt under Yahweh's protection and renewal of the Sinai covenant.
Only the religious symbolism of the relationship of sheep and shepherd carried over into the Apostolic Church. The church's developing theology of the person and work of Christ blended the images of the shepherd and the sacrificial lamb. John 15:11-18 and Hebrews 13:20-21 express this blending most clearly. Today's Christians do not respond to the sacrificial images. The image of the shepherd caring for the sheep, however, is as strong as ever.
A elderly Scottish farmer and elder of a rural congregation suffered a stroke which robbed him of his voice, his freedom to walk and his ability to feed himself. This forced him to spend the last years of his life confined to a bed and a wheelchair in a nursing home. Although he was fully alert to all that went on around him, he could only respond by nodding and shaking his head. One day his pastor received word that the elder was dying and went to the nursing home to see him. The elder's eyes were closed and he seemed unaware of his visitor. As the pastor held the man's feeble hand, he wondered how to give him some special gift that might bring comfort to his last hours. Quietly he repeated the 23rd Psalm. Instantly, the man's eyes opened wide. Tears flowed down his cheeks as his eyes expressed the gratitude his voice could not utter. The pastor offered the Hebrew benediction, "The Lord bless you and keep you ...." and left. Just a few days later, the Shepherd Psalm was sung at the elder's funeral service.
1 JOHN 3:16-24. Scholars have had difficulty with this passage, not so much because it appears to jump from subject to subject, but because the Greek text can be variously read. Throughout the letter, the author's purpose is to establish his audience in very practical Christian living, not to engage them in theological controversy. In doing so, he appears to have both Jesus' commands about agapé‚ love, in John 15 and also Paul's view of justification in Romans 5:1-5 very much in mind. This relationship to the Johannine and Pauline texts forms a strong basis for the argument that the letter is of late date when both Paul's letters and John's Gospel had a fairly wide circulation.
All ancient manuscripts were written in capital letters without punctuation. Accordingly, it is difficult to know where the appropriate divisions should be placed. Versification was introduced about the 12th century CE as one means of doing this. Modern scholarship has tried to make these texts more readable in sentences and paragraphs. This reading appears to be taken from part of one paragraph and the whole of another two in most modern versions. One analysis regards the whole section as beginning at 2:29 and deals with the issue of the inner conflict between good and
evil which every believer experiences.
In this passage John does not name Christ until the very end, but when he writes of how we know God's love for us, he cites the sacrifice of Christ (vs. 16a). Immediately he repeats Christ's command from John 15:12-13 that we love one another in a similar manner (vs. 16b). From this thought he jumps to a rhetorical question about the discrepancy between those who have worldly wealth and those who are in need (vs. 17). This may well have been a problem within the Christian community to which John wrote. It certainly is in our day and constantly – even critically - confronts us as governments reduce distribution of wealth by means of taxation and social safety net programs.
Love, John goes on to say, must be expressed in concrete actions, not just pious words (vs. 18). Again, the internal conflict of this community may well have been clearly evident in how they "talked the talk, but did not walk the walk." That kind of hypocrisy leads to guilty consciences and divine condemnation. Those who do not feel such guilt, John then says, can be reassured that they are living as God requires (vs. 19-21). One has to ask whether this is a valid insight. Could John have been speaking exclusively to a particular audience with special moral sensitivity? The real world is not always like that. One thinks of all the contemporary political propaganda which tries to put a positive spin on every policy or action which may cause public controversy threatening to those in power. John's caveat is that "God knows everything," so ultimately every
hypocrisy will be found out and condemned (vs. 20).
Note that John also says that we receive whatever we ask of God because we do what God requires of us. This is not justification for a 'name it and claim it' attitude which mistakenly dreams of God meeting our every demand. Many people pray in just such a frame of mind, especially when in some personal crisis. As Jesus himself made clear, obedience to God sometimes involves great suffering. Rather, this statement expresses John's conviction that Christian faith is best fulfilled by loving deeds in obedience to Christ's command that we love one another as he loved us. This is what "abiding in love" means, as Jesus spoke of it in John 15:9-10. This assured sense of Christ abiding in us comes as the gift of the Spirit.
JOHN 10:11-18. It may be helpful to read this passage from the beginning at vs. 1 and then to read Ezekiel 34 immediately after. There seems little doubt that Jesus made that Old Testament passage the basis for his own ministry as Messiah. Another possibility is that the Apostolic Church, and especially the author of John's Gospel, reinterpreted the Jewish tradition in terms of their own experience of living in the presence of the pre-crucifixion and post-resurrection Christ. They thus saw him as the living expression of the Shepherd of Israel.
There are numerous other Old Testament references to the way Yahweh, like the shepherds of biblical times, guided, cared for and rescued Israel, "the sheep of his flock." For some of these, read also Isaiah 40:11; 49:9-10; 63:14; Psalms 80:1; 95:7; 100:3.
One of the enduring images of Jesus is that of the good shepherd. Romantic art and poetry, however, may well have robbed us of the truth about this passage. Its startlingly different view of how the shepherd performed his duties is the willingness of the shepherd to lay down his life for the sheep. It also challenges the traditional rabbinic attitude toward shepherds. In his Jerusalem In The Time Of Jesus, Joachim Jeremias gives four rabbinic lists of despised trades. Only shopkeepers, physicians, butchers, thieves and tax collectors ranked below shepherds on the social scale. They were regarded as completely untrustworthy, more likely to steal from their master
than faithfully perform their task of caring for the sheep. Frequently shepherds were ostracized from their community.
Yet this reading reflects exactly how the Apostolic Church regarded Jesus as they had known him. They also recognized that he had not been the victim, as the lamb without blemish was the victim used for the Passover sacrifice. He fulfilled the role of sacrifice, however, by taking charge of his own life and death in the way he gave himself into the hands of his enemies (vss. 17-18). This is far from the sentimental pictures of the shepherd with his flock of sheep and lambs we see in church art and stained glass windows. Rather, it is a brutally honest discernment of who Jesus is and what he had done for us.
Nonetheless, there are some elements of this image which do reflect the actual shepherd's life in ancient times. It was far from easy. When the shepherd had taken his flock far from home to feed in a good pasture, it was not possible to return home every night. So a rough sheepfold of stone or perhaps a thicket of thorn bushes was built in a safe location near the good pasture. There the shepherd gathered the flock for the night and then lay down at the gate so that no wild beasts or thieves could enter. As gatekeeper, the shepherd provided the necessary security. In the morning,
he would lead the flock back to pasture calling each one by name. The walls of the sheepfold were not so high that a hungry wolf could not leap over them. In so doing, however, the intruder would cause panic among the sheep as they ran from danger. The danger to the shepherd was equally great. A shepherd who had been hired, but did not own the sheep would have greater interest in assuring his own safety than the safety of the flock (vss 12-13).
In John's rendition of this metaphor, Jesus goes on to interpret it almost allegorically. He likens his predecessors (presumably the priests and prophets of Israel) as "thieves and robbers." This is in keeping with John's penchant for describing the opposition of the Jewish authorities in thoroughly negative terms, thus giving rise to much subsequent Christian anti-Semitism (although the term did not originated until the late 19th century).
At the same time, John put into this allegory three sayings that have been common preaching texts for generations as well as theological statements of profound significance: "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly" (vs. 10b); "the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (vs. 11b); and the thoroughly universalist, "I have other sheep which are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So that there will be one flock, one shepherd." In the latter instance, did this refer to the beginnings of the Gnostic heresy that may have been causing trouble in the Christian community at the time the Gospel was written? If so, this was a plea for unity at a time when diversity was becoming more and more evident in the increasingly complex institution developing at the end of the 1st century CE.
-30-