Written by E.V. Powers |
Tuesday, May 31, 2022
Jesus’ sheep refuse to renounce Him under even intense persecution from the world system. Jesus’ sheep refuse to listen to the voice of the world system.

The Morning Scene (vv. 1-6)
The symbolic picture began with the ministry of the first advent of Christ and the earliest period of the Apostolic Age where the sheepfold is meant to mean the nation of Israel. This is the sheepfold that Jesus initially purposed to enter by the door. It was the Messiah’s mission during His first advent to call out His own sheep from this ethnic sheep pen. This harmonizes with Matthew’s Gospel as he recorded the Lord announcing the same mission when Jesus said, “I was sent only to those being lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 15:24; cf. Matt 10:6; Rom 15:8).
The Door into the Fold
Jesus introduced the setting of His symbolic picture in Jn 10:1 with the words, “Amen, amen, I say to you the[1] not entering in through the door to the fold of the sheep but climbing up another way, he is thief and robber”[2] The first feature of Jesus’ symbolic picture is the door into the fold. The natural features of the main entrance into the ANE sheep pen have already been established above. Later in the symbolic picture Jesus will refer to Himself as the door of the sheep (cf. v. 7). Concerning the morning scene, the emphasis on the door concerns the one who was authorized to enter by the door as well as the one who was authorized to guard the door.
The door into the fold has meaning backdrop that extends from the OT prefiguring of the Messianic office as early as the Protoevangelium (i.e. Gen 3:15). The OT is about the history of the Nation of Israel – the nation from which the Messiah would come. In the NT, the Gospels record that the Messiah has come. The OT prophesied of the Messiah and revealed that He would have distinct qualifications inseparably constrained to signs that He would perform that would authenticate His offices – namely, raise the dead, heal the deaf, open the eyes of the blind, heal the lame, heal the mute, cleanse the lepers, heal the sick, and preach good news to the poor (cf: Isa 26:19; 29:18; 35:5-6; 42:7; 61:1). Jesus fulfilled these features when He came during His first advent to the glory of God the Father. God the Father authenticated that Jesus was the Messiah by identifying these features prophesied from the OT (cf. Jn 6:27 e.g. “the Father’s seal”). In this sense, Jesus is the door, that is, the door representing the Messianic office. As the only Messiah, Jesus is the only Shepherd who has authority to enter the door and have authority over the sheep. It is undeniable that in the first century A.D. Jesus came as the Messiah and because He fulfilled the OT credentials and qualifications for that office He became the only door. In conclusion, the standard according to the OT is that the only lawful authority over the sheep is through the Messianic office which is represented by the office of shepherd and the office of door.  In other words, the “door” and the “shepherd” from Jesus’ shepherding symbolic picture are synonymous terms to the OT Messianic office.
The Fold of the Sheep
As mentioned above the fold of the sheep in the morning scene represented the nation of Israel (Jn 10:1-10). During the First Advent of Christ, the Self-Existent Second Person of the Triune Godhead took human flesh to Himself permanently forever in the incarnation (cf. Phil 2:5-11). In His humanity when the fulness of time came Jesus was born of a virgin woman and born under the Law (cf. Matt 1:18-25; Gal 4:4). The ministry of Christ during His First Advent was involved in fulfilling the Law and the Prophets (cf. Matt 5:17). The Gospel period, namely, the First Advent of Christ recorded in the Apostles’ memoirs of His ministry (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were written to show that Jesus is the Messiah – the fulfillment of OT prophecy. To this effect, the Gospels serve as a bridge between the OT and the NT because they record a period still under Law during Jesus’ First Advent that He had to fulfill concerning His active obedience. There were lost sheep from the house of Israel (i.e. the ethnic sheep pen) that Jesus came to call unto salvation because Jesus said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 15:24). During His First Advent, Jesus was not initially sent to the Gentiles (cf. Matt 10:6). The initial purpose of His First Advent was to minister to and save the elect from the nation of Israel (cf. Rom 15:8). There was an initial sheep pen full of ethnic Israelites and from out of that sheep pen Jesus called ethnic Israelites who were the elect out of the nation of Israel (cf. Rom 9:6). Indeed, when Greeks sought after Jesus during His First Advent He did not disavow Gentiles (cf. Jn 12:20-26). However, His initial purpose for His First Advent was to disclose Himself to the lost sheep of Israel (e.g. Jn 7:4-7; 14:22). It would be through the ministry of His Apostles that the Gospel would go to the Gentile nations because Israel’s salvation was intended to be extended also to the Gentile nations as their salvation (cf. Isa 49:6; Acts 14:47). In conclusion, the fold of the sheep in the morning scene symbolically represented the nation of Israel. From that national sheep pen it is quite clear in the shepherding scene that Jesus called His sheep out of this larger fold which had become corrupt.
Thief & Robber
The first character mentioned in Jesus’ symbolic picture that was negatively involved with the fold of the sheep is the thief and robber because the text reads, “Amen, amen I say to you the not entering in through the door to the fold of the sheep but climbing up another way, he is thief and robber” (v. 1). It is unmistakably clear that Jesus intended the religious leaders of the nation of Israel, namely the Pharisees, to be identified as the thief and robber.[3] Emphatically, Jesus’ initial point in the symbolic picture was to reveal the contrast between the Pharisees versus Jesus in how they led God’s people (cf. v. 10). In the case of the Pharisees they are surreptitious in obtaining a place inside the sheepfold – that is, they secretively access the sheepfold in a way that attempts to avoid notice or bring attention to their destructive philosophy of ministry just as a literal thief or robber would enter a sheepfold secretively to steal sheep. The Greek term “εἰσερχομαι” translated in English “entering in” from the phrase “the not entering in through the door to the fold of the sheep” is a present middle/passive participle and has the sense to mean “I go in; I enter in.”[4] Because “εἰσερχομαι” is middle/passive in the context it has the sense that those who would enter through the door are called by God – that is, grammatically and contextually the action is performed by God upon the subject who would have entered through the door. However, in the case of the Pharisees, the negative adverb “not” is used before the participle in reference to those who do not enter through the door because they have not been authorized by God to shepherd the sheep, let alone even be identified as sheep. If they had been authorized to enter the door then there would have been no need to try and enter the sheepfold surreptitiously for the goal to steal from God.[5] On the other hand, the Greek term “αναβαίνω” translated into English “climbing up” from the phrase “but climbing up another way” is a present active participle.[6] Therefore, the grammatical active voice from “αναβαίνω” shows that the thief and robber actively on his own gained access into the sheepfold by an opposite or different way than the way God has authorized to enter the sheep pen.[7] The One God has authorized and called to be Shepherd of the sheep to enter the sheepfold is the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. vv. 14; 18). What is more, the only others that have been called by God to enter into the sheepfold are the “doorkeeper or porter” v. 3 and the “sheep” v. 9. On the other hand, after the thief/robber has gained access to the sheep he imitates a shepherd in disguise for the purpose of intimidation toward the sheep – namely, fleecing the flock for his own financial gain. This is implied by Jesus referring to the Pharisees and their philosophy of ministry collectively as “thief and robber” v. 1 and “thieves and robbers” v. 7 because a thief or robber is only interested in taking what does not belong to him for the purpose of obtaining a profit from stolen goods, as well as actively plotting casualties by malice aforethought if anyone should try to expose them and prevent them from achieving their goal.[8] Thievery and malice aforethought are certainly not the criteria that the NT identifies as qualifications that one must fulfill to occupy the office of “the Good Shepherd.”
The Shepherd of the Sheep
On the other hand, the Lord Jesus Christ introduced in v. 2 the authenticity and honesty of the protagonist in the scene –  namely, the shepherd, when Jesus said, “the however entering in through the door is shepherd of the sheep.”[9] The shepherd is portrayed in Jesus’ symbolic picture by entering in through the door to access the sheep pen. John contrasted the entrance of the thief and robber with the entrance of the shepherd by using the Greek disjunctive δὲ translated in English “however” (cf. v. 5, 6). Literally the text is translated into English as follows – that is, “the however entering in through the door is shepherd of the sheep.”[10] The contrast between the thief and robber versus the shepherd is not merely the literal nature of the different ways they enter the sheep pen but the moral implications concerning their different entrances because of the symbolic nature of the scene. The shepherd’s entrance, because he entered through the door, is honest, non-secretive, life-giving, selfless and interested in protecting the sheep from harm (cf. v. 3, 9, 10, 11, 15). On the other hand, the entrance of the thief and robber is disingenuous, surreptitious and with malice aforethought to harm the sheep (cf. v. 10). The identity of the shepherd in Jesus’ symbolic picture is without doubt the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. v. 11). The identity of the sheep in the morning scene vv. 1-6 are undoubtedly Israelite believers and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ as their Messiah (cf. v. 16). The singularity both grammatically and contextually of the shepherd in Jesus’ symbolic picture revealed there is no one else who can qualify to fit His description. To this effect, there is continuity throughout the Word of God concerning the exclusivity of Christ as occupying the office of shepherd. The exclusivity of Christ as shepherd in the sense of an office was prefigured in Ezekiel 34:23 when God spoke through the prophet Ezekiel the following – “Then I will set over them one shepherd . . .” The same sense is found from Jesus’ shepherding scene concerning the exclusivity of one shepherd who is qualified to occupy the role as an office and its synonymous association with the Messianic office.
The Doorkeeper
In v. 3 the Lord Jesus Christ introduced another character called the doorkeeper[11] when Jesus said, “to Him the doorkeeper opens . . .”[12] It has already been established above with hermeneutic clarity that the overall sheep pen in the morning scene of the symbolic picture is Israelite. What is more, the same clarity has been established above concerning the synonymous relationship between the shepherd and the OT Messianic office. Therefore, the identity of the doorkeeper to the sheep pen who best fits within the context is John the Baptist. John the Baptist is the best answer to the identity of the doorkeeper because of the authority he was given by God over the entrance into the sheep pen to only let the Messiah enter among the sheep. The OT prophesied that the Messiah would be preceded by a forerunner – namely, a messenger who would prepare the way for the Lord (cf. Isa 40:3-4; Mal 3:1).
There are two major reasons why the doorkeeper is John the Baptist. First, the doorkeeper does not allow thieves and robbers access through the door to the sheep pen. It has been thoroughly established above that the thieves and robbers represent the Pharisees. John the Baptist severely rebuked the Pharisees and would not allow them to be baptized (cf. Matt 3:7-12).[13] It was John the Baptist’s ministry to be the forerunner for the Messiah and prepare people for the Messiah’s First Advent (cf. Matt 3:1-3, 7-10; Lk 3:1-18; Jn 1:6-8, 19-34; 3:22-36). Due to the shepherding scene serving as a symbolic picture – the phrase, “to Him the doorkeeper opens” harmonizes with the Gospel narratives record of John the Baptist’s ministry testifying to Israel the Lord Jesus as the Messiah.
Read More
Related Posts:

The work of keeping our heart is not an easy work, but it is an attainable work, and we can be assured that it is an attainable work because God has promised that it is a work that He Himself is working in us by His Spirit. If we stand firm, it is because we stand firm in the Lord (Philippians 4:1), knowing that “it is God who works in [us], both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13).

As the armies of Saruman marched against Rohan in J.R.R. Tolkien’s masterful The Lord of the Rings, the citizens of Rohan make their stand in the Hornburg, a fortress of last defense at the mouth of Helm’s Deep. The Hornburg was the heart of Rohan’s defense, so that if the Hornburg fell, Rohan would be finished. Similarly, the heart of a man might be compared to that fortress of last defense. The heart is the battleground of your soul, which is why the Proverbs warn us to “keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life” (Prov. 4:23). If the heart ultimately falls in the spiritual battle, a man is finished. He will become “like a city broken into and left without walls” (Prov. 25:28).
Proverbs 4:23 uses two different Hebrew words that might both be translated “to keep,” so that one might even translate this verse “keep your heart with all keeping.” The first word has to do with “keeping watch,” while the second has the sense of “keeping guard.” Given this emphasis on “keeping,” it goes without saying that we ignore this scriptural warning to our own peril. But what does it mean to “keep our hearts,” and what practical steps might we take to actually go about it? There are basically three things involved in keeping our hearts; we might call them surveilling our hearts, maintaining our hearts, and defending our hearts.
Surveillance is an absolutely necessary component in the work of keeping our hearts. To do surveillance is to keep a close watch on something—think of the police on a stakeout or a sentry watching on a city wall. Simply being aware and paying close attention to our hearts is of first importance. The word translated “keep” in this verse has the sense of “keeping watch over.” If we are to keep our hearts, we must do that first work of spiritual surveillance, so that we know our hearts. When we think of surveillance in an ancient city, we probably think first of a lookout or sentry standing guard, ready to sound an alarm. And that is an absolutely necessary part of our surveillance. We must be on the lookout for the schemes of our enemy “so that we would not be outwitted by Satan” or “ignorant of his designs” (2 Cor. 2:11). Yet we must recognize that when it comes to surveillance, we must not only look outward. We must also look inward. We must be aware of the places where the fortress of our heart may be weak and vulnerable to attack. That is why the work of keeping our hearts must involve not only spiritual surveillance but also the constant work of spiritual maintenance.
Read More
Related Posts:

Do we indwell a therapeutic culture? In one sense, unfortunately, yes: Rieff, Jones, and Trueman rightly lament the self-centered psychologizing of our society. In another sense, sadly, no: Nearly every aspect of our culture militates against true therapy. The pervasive noise of distractions hinders the gospel’s healing touch.

Talking about the gospel as therapeutic is dangerous. Not wrong, just dangerous. I used to think it was wrong, since Philip Rieff famously inveighed against the psychologizing of the self in The Triumph of the Therapeutic, his prophetic 1966 book. His critique fueled my suspicion of all things therapeutic.
Noted theologians have taken up Rieff’s mantle. Gregory Jones warns in Embodying Forgiveness (1995) that in our therapeutic culture, we are in danger of manipulating forgiveness by turning it into a self-help process: We are told to forgive others not for their sake but for ours, since it gives us psychological relief. The result, Jones rightly insists, is that we no longer “discern whether there are tragic misunderstandings or culpable wrongdoing and brokenness that need to be dealt with through practices of forgiveness and repentance.” Rather than work through the mess to make things right, we turn forgiveness into a tool for restoring our own inner peace.
More recently, Carl Trueman has turned to Rieff to trace the genealogy of contemporary culture. The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self (2020) follows Rieff’s claim that our therapeutic culture has two baleful effects. First, it treats the community as oppressive and therapy as a means to counter this. This leads to the second effect: It subverts the proper relationship between individual and society. Whereas the individual once learned to take his proper place within the broader community, the community now serves the psychological wellbeing of the individual.
Rieff, Jones, and Trueman all warn against a therapeutic culture’s dangers. In their august company, one might think twice before putting up a defense of a therapeutic culture.
Let me nonetheless give it a try. It’s not that I disagree with the famous troika. Their critique of contemporary culture is truthful, incisive, and indispensable. Still, a caveat is equally indispensable, for the gospel’s very aim is therapeutic.
The Greek verb therapeuein means “to heal” or “to cure.” The purpose of the gospel is arguably that we be healed. Metropolitan Hierotheos discusses theology as a therapeutic science and speaks in detail about how to heal the soul. His book Orthodox Psychotherapy: The Science of the Fathers argues that priests are in the therapy business: They “not only celebrate the Sacraments but they cure people. They have a sound knowledge of the path of healing from passions and they make it known to their spiritual children.”
Read More