John 15:1-8; Vinedresser, Vine, and Fruitful Branches

Text — John 15:1-8
Broadest Context — Re-capitulation
Broader Context — Johannine “I am” discourses
Narrow Context — Upper Room Discourse … Last teachings before Cross in John

“I am Statements of John”

1. Bread

“I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger.” John 6:35

2. Light

“I am the light of the world; he who fallows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.” John 8:12

3. Gate

“I am the gate; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” John 10:9

4. Good Shepherd

“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for His sheep.” John 10:11

5. Resurrection and Life

“I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies.” John 11:25

6. Way, Truth, Life

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.” John 14:6

7. True vine

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.” John 15:1

The fundamental role of the “I am” statements is to reveal the person of Christ as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and imagery. We should note that when Christ speaks of Himself as “The Vine” He is taking upon Himself the supreme symbol of Israel. This is seen in the great golden vine that trailed over the Temple porch. Further, when Israel would revolt against Rome after Christ’s death it would be the vine that they stamped on their coinage.

Israel itself was often compared in the Old Testament to a vine (Hosea 10:1-2, Isaiah 5:1-7, Jeremiah 2:21, Ezekiel 15:1-5, 17:1-21, 19:10-15, Psalm 80:8-18). The overwhelming preponderance of  the Old Testament passages which use the symbol of the Vine appear to regard Israel as faithless or as the object of severe punishment. So, just as when the Lord Christ speaks of Himself as “the good shepherd,” in contrast to faithless shepherds of Hebrew establishment leadership up till His arrival, so now He speaks of Himself as the “true vine” in contrast to the false vine of failed Israel. Just as the Good Shepherd gives His Life for the sheep so the true vine is the Life for the branches unto the reproduction of Christ in the branches.  Mixing the metaphors of the Good Shepherd and the True Vine we might say that the Good Shepherd gives His life for the Sheep to the end that, as the True Vine, He might reproduce Himself in His people.

All of this reminds us that it is Christ Himself who put Himself as the central reality in the Christian faith. It is Christ as the Good shepherd who takes upon Himself our death and it is Christ as the True Vine who nourishes life within us. Christ is the central truth of Christianity. Note here that it is not the Lord Christ as our great moral example to follow that is emphasized with these metaphors but it is the Lord Christ who gives His life for the Sheep and as the one in whom the nourishment of life is found that is emphasized.  This means that those “Theologies” that focus on our work in following Christ’s moral example, to the neglect of  articulating Christ’s work on our behalf and for us are “Theologies” that are not Biblical.

We would also note that while the Good Shepherd emphasizes the work of the Christ for the Sheep, the True Vine emphasizes the work of Christ in the branches. The Good Shepherd emphasizes the mission of Christ. The True Vine emphasizes the mission of the branches (Fruitfulness) as in the True vine.

These “I am” statements of John’s Gospel as well as other motifs that we find in the Gospels remind us again that there is much in the life of Christ, as given in the Gospels, that communicates recapitulation. Christ, as God’s faithful Son, recapitulates with victory, where God’s faithless Son Israel failed. Christ is the Israel of God and was all  God called faithless Israel to be. OT Israel was to be a Good Shepherd … it was to be a True Vine but it failed of its calling. The Lord Christ is the True Israel of God and in gathering to Himself the Church (Branches) as reconstituted Israel the mission work of God’s people is taken up again in the Church’s call to be a light to the Nations.

And it is this idea of Mission, as we shall see, that is emphasized in this passage. Christ recreates Himself in His people just as the vine recreates itself in the fruit of the Branches. As the Lord Christ is our sustenance what is produced in us, as the fruit of the vine, is the Character of Christ. And that Character of Christ is to the end that God is glorified (John 15:8).  Think about this for just a moment. As the fruit of the branches, drawing its life from the vine, we reproduce the Character of Christ. This is axiomatic. We become that which we draw our life source from.

Now, if the Character of Christ is the incarnation of God’s Grace and God’s Law that means that what is recreated in us, who abide in Christ, is God’s Grace / Law.  As we abide in Christ we become living and breathing instantiations of God’s Grace and God’s Law. It might be bold to say it but we increasingly become embodied Scripture as we, as branches, draw our nourishment from Christ the Vine.

Well having now drawn together some threads of thought from the passage as it is informed by its broader context, let us turn directly to the text.

I.) The Occasion

We should keep before us that this “I am” statement was spoken during the evening of the Passover meal and more precisely either during or shortly after the the institution of the Lord Table.  On that night the company of Christ would have had before them the lamb, the bread, and the fruit of the vine (wine.)

The lamb, the bread, and the fruit of the vine. In John’s Gospel the Lord Christ is spoken of repeatedly as the great embodiment of the Symbology of Israel. John the Baptist spoke of Christ as “the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the World.”  The Lord Christ spoke of Himself saying that “I am the bread that comes down from heaven,” and now here Christ says “I am the true vine.” Perhaps He said this prior to saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

It is interesting to note the association. We understand that  the Wine at the Table is the elixir of eternal life when we drink in faith but at the same time we are to recall that we ourselves find only find life as we abide in Christ as a branch to a Vine.

II.) The Participants

Father — Vine-Dresser
Christ — Vine — Giver of life
Church — Branches — Receiver of Life … bearers of fruit

Note the harmony of interests between the Vine-dresser and the Vine. They are both interested in producing fruit. We might note this harmony of interest between the Father and the Son points us again towards a Trinitarian understanding of the harmony of interests that exists between the members of the Trinity. They always work in concert together.

By this Vine-Dresser / Vine Metaphor the Lord Christ is affirming His equality in essence with the Father.  We affirm this by acknowledging that in this metaphor, both vine and Vine-dresser — Father & Son) are source and sustainer of the life of the Branch.

Yet the Lord Christ is also emphasizing the fundamental difference in His role and that of the Father. The point is that the Father cares for the Son and for those joined to the Son by faith. Thus we see in this passage the Unity of the Father and the Son and the diversity of roles of the Father and the Son. We see then the continued reliance of the Son upon the Father. The Son see’s Himself as the agent of the Father. His concern is for the glory of the Father but as we know the glory of the Father is reflected upon the Son.  We thus see here again the unity of purpose between the Father and the Son.

The Father, as the owner of the Vineyard, does what it takes in order to insure that the vineyard produces fruit. We should remind ourselves that this is really the emphasis of this passage. The passage is concerned with insisting that fruit production and the Father is the one responsible for the care of the vineyard to that end.

Well, what does the Father do? (Read vs. 2)

The text says (vs. 2) “He takes them away.” However, I’m not confident that what is being aimed at here is the same that is aimed at in vs. 6 where the unfruitful branches are gathered up and burned.  The Greek word here can be translated also as “Lifts up” or as “purgeth.”

If it should be translated as “lift up” the idea communicated is seen by what was often done by Vindressers in the ancient world. Often the branches would run along the ground and get diseased by mildew as the dew would not dry soon enough off the branch. In such a case the Vinedresser would take several thin shale rocks and build up a small elevation in order to place the branch upon it so as to expose it more readily to the sun in order to heal it.

If it should be translated “purgeth” (as in the Geneva Bible) the idea would be pruning.  Branches that don’t produce fruit are pruned back to the end that they would produce  fruit. This idea of pruning is painful to think about.  What would a plant say if it could talk during the pruning process? And yet God prunes us as His people to the end that we might better produce fruit for the Kingdom that His Name might be honored.

If and when the pruning seasons come in our lives we must keep in mind during the pruning that,

11  No chastising for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: but afterward, it bringeth the quiet fruit of righteousness, unto them which are thereby exercised.

In either case the idea is that the Vinedresser will do whatever it takes in order for His branches to produce fruit.

The passage also says that the Vindresser cleanses.

Peeling off the old crusty dead bark where disease and damaging insects might hide.

Christ informs the disciples that they are clean because of the Word Christ has spoken. This idea of cleansing reaches back to 13:10 where, in this same “Upper Room Discourse” the Lord Christ says,

10 Jesus said to him, He that is washed, needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

This cleansing doubtless refers to the fact that the Disciples had faith in Christ as the Word.

III.) Branches necessity to Abide and be Fruitful

Both John’s Gospel and 1st Epistle as this theme of “abiding.” We find this idea of abiding 118 times in the NT … 64 of those occurrences are in John. Such frequency and focus supports understanding the word “abide” as an synonym a mutually defining word for “believe.” Together “believing” and “abiding” point both to the reality of “life in Christ” and to the characterization of that life not in some hope of a future reunion in heaven, but to the promise of that abundant life in the here and now. In this passage the verb abide like the phrase bear fruit appears over and over — eight times in four verses here — and will be repeated in part two of the passage next week when we learn that abiding in Jesus means abiding in Jesus’ love.

So, to abide is to believe on Christ and to continue in faith, the same word Jesus used in John 8:31: “If ye continue (abide, remain) in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed”. Paul said to Timothy: “But continue (remain. abide) thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (II Tim. 3:14-15). To abide in Christ is to continue believing and obeying the Word of the Gospel.

Perhaps the reason why it is emphasized that we are to abide is because as Christians we are

Prone to wander, Lord I feel it
Prone to leave the one I love.

As the Branches we are to go from abiding to abiding … from belief unto belief and this abiding and believing is connected to the work of the Word in us (7). Notice, Christ here the Incarnated Word, points to Himself as the Inscripturated Word as the means by which we abide. This is one reason why we attend the Word with each passing Lord’s Day. The intent of our assembling here is that Word might be preached into us that we might go from abiding unto abiding.

So, what is highlighted by the text is the necessity to abide in Christ. Bringing fruit is not a result of personal human effort, but of abiding in Christ.44 The natural, human self can never bring forth the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Believers are called to abide in Christ the same way Christ abides in his heavenly relationship to the Father. They are indeed one single being. Left on their own and by their own power, Christians can do nothing. This is why Jesus says here “for apart from me ye can do nothing” (15:5)

Next we go on to see that the the overwhelming thrust of the passage is fruitfulness. The words bear fruit appear six times in these eight verses. Fruit-bearing is not something that the branches do by force of will. The fruit happens organically because the vine is true and the gardener good. But the branches of this passage do choose to abide.

Now when we speak of Fruit here we needs be careful that we see this text in its largest context. The thrust of this passage is the renewal of the Mission of Israel. Israel was to be God’s light to the Nations. Thus fruitfulness here, in this context,  does not primarily have to do with our inward relationship with the Lord Christ, though that is not entirely absent (see vs. 10, 12, 17). The primary emphasis is the objective missionary impulse of spreading the Gospel to the Nations and extending the Crown Rights of King Christ into every area of life. The disciples would be sent into the world to carry on the task of Christianizing the World (i.e. — Discipling the Nations). This is the fruitfulness in mind.

So when we stand for Christ against opposition we are being fruitful. When we build beautiful community for the world to see we are being fruitful. When we evangelize and and when we give a reason for the hope that lies within us we are being fruitful. When we shut the mouths of God’s enemies with a Spirit inspired apologetic we are being fruitful. When we die to the desires of personal glory and rewards so that the Gospel is not embarrassed we are being fruitful. When the character of Christ is reproduced in us to the end of extending Gospel and His Crown Rights we are being fruitful.

All of this is bearing of much fruit so that the Father is glorified (vs. 8)

IV.) The Branches burned up

So we’ve seen the importance of the Christian’s life, which must bear fruit. Should a life be fruitless, that life will be rewarded with punishment. The New Testament clearly explains that the fruit is a sign of the true Christian.

Think Judas

Not all of Israel is of Israel

Wheat and Tares

Matthew 13 — Seed sown that produces plant but no fruit … it is the fruit that identifies the plant as genuine.

Outward attachment to the covenant vs. Inward attachment to the covenant.

Quoting Rev. Mahan

“Many people today have a religion that is outward, external, and formal. It is possible to join a church, give money, sing hymns, confess the Creeds, pray prayers, listen to sermons, partake of the Sacrament, and speak openly about religion with no grace in your heart or inward work of the Holy Spirit.”

I would add here that it is possible to mount a pulpit every Sunday and not abide. It is possible to go to be considered part of the leadership in a Denomination and not be abiding.

Continuing to quote Lutheran Mahan,

“The Christian faith is the new birth by faith in Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus said to the church at Sardis: “I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent” (Rev. 3:1-3a). You have two choices, either you will abide in Christ by faith in this life or one day you will be separated from true believers and like withered branches, be gathered and cast into everlasting fire.”

Conclusion

Re-cap

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Justifying Sodomite Marriage … McAtee Analyzing Ginsbur

“[Same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.

There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Here we find this the Luciferian Ginsburg (LG), using a mere five sentences to explain, in oral arguments yesterday, her opinion, as to exactly why marriage was long understood to be incompatible with homosexuality.

We should note here,

1.) If we accept her tacit presuppositions the Luciferian Ginsburg (LG) is right. If one posits an egalitarian (vis-a- vis Patriarchal) foundation for Marriage then sodomite “marriage” makes perfect sense. This reminds us that the contest here must be waged at the presuppositional level. This debate is not primarily about sodomite “marriage.” This debate is about what worldview sodomite “marriage” can exist in in order to be seen as rational.

2.) In order to tease #1 above out it is necessary to observe that LG explicitly begins with the premise that marriage is a man made institution dictated by social and political circumstances. She argues that marriage once operated one way but men changed the way it operated and now, because this man controlled institution changed to become egalitarian, it can now change to become non gender specific.

Of course the problem here is that Christians do not agree that marriage is a man made institution. Marriage, because it is God ordained and defined, cannot be changed in its definition, like a wax nose, in order to satisfy the most current wandering lust of modern Luciferians. Unless we challenge sodomite “marriage” thinking at the presuppositional level of “who gets to define ‘marriage’ sodomite “marriage” will become legal.

3.) #1 and #2 together remind us that this decision is all about religion in the public square. It reminds us that it is not possible to separate Church and State. If SCOTUS requires the legality of sodomite “marriage” in all 50 states it will be due to the religious presupposition that man, playing God, can redefine words and create fiat meaning at the bang of a gavel. Such a decision would provide clear linkage proving that Church and State are never segregated. Conversely, if SCOTUS rules that the meaning of marriage is static and unchangeable that also will be due to some a-priori, (even if left un-articulated in the decision) religious presupposition.

4.) Note how clever LG is when she uses the language of “a millennium ago.”   She is trying to make it sound as if 1000 years ago marriage was one way but now, being so much smarter, marriage is another way for us moderns. However, the fact of the matter is that all this change has happened not over the course of a millennium ago but over the course of just a few decades. Indeed, when LG was married in 1956 the marriage laws then were far closer to a millennium ago then to what she envisions marriage transforming into.

5.) LG uses the term “egalitarian”, but imports her leftist meaning into it. She was talking about old “coverture” laws that provided no property rights to women. She thinks the very nature of man/woman is one of *improper* subordination. We can argue about whether the change ditching coverture law was good/bad/indifferent, but that change occurred in the context of man/woman as fundamental foundation of the relationship. What we are dealing with today is altogether different. It is one thing to tinker around the fringes of marriage amending coverture laws. It is quite another to allow the fringe element of society to redefine marriage.

6.) Note LG rightly defines what marriage once was which she is seeking to change. She is entirely accurate when she describe that marriage used to be defined as a dominant-subordinate relationship between the husband and wife. This is exactly how God’s word describes marriage (Eph. 5). However has the words “dominant” and “subordinate” have been so vilified even Christians cringe when they think of marriage like God defines it.

7.) Allow me to say again that as long as the Left’s presuppositions hold sway their conclusion (“sodomite marriage”) will be impossible to stop. LG’s beginning point (Man as the definer of what marriage is and means) her argumentation used to prove that beginning point, and her ending point arrived at (sodomites should be allowed to “marry,”) is all bound up together. 

Watching The Cultural Gatekeepers Go Mad

The defenders of homosexual marriage continue to equate it with interracial marriage.

Here is a blurb from an exchange between Justice Scalia and Ted Olson:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I’m curious, when—when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn’t even raise a substantial Federal question? When — when — when did the law become this?

MR. OLSON: When — may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools.

JUSTICE SCALIA: It’s an easy question, I think, for that one. At — at the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That’s absolutely true. But don’t give me a question to my question. When do you think it became unconstitutional? Has it always been unconstitutional? . . .

MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that -­

JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?

MR. OLSON: There’s no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.

1.) Inasmuch as Scalia agrees concerning the evolution of interracial marriage from illegality to legality I’m not sure how Scalia can disagree that social evolution continues so as to include sodomite marriage. I mean, if the 14th amendment made a illegality a legality why can it not be determined that the 14th amendment also allows for the next step forward in the evolutionary cycle?

2.) Note that Olson’s invoking of the “evolutionary cycle” as a grounds for ever changing law reminds us that, it is the case now in the West, that law has no stable meaning. Law is no longer a transcendent category that is to be only recognized but never invented. This admission by Olson is a explicit embrace of the idea that we are ruled by men and not by laws.

3.) In the area of Law men like Christopher Columbus Langdell, Roscoe Pound, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Benjamin Cardozo moved the discipline of law away from its Biblical moorings evinced in Puritan Commonwealth documents like “Abstract of the Laws of New England,” towards standards that evinced a humanistic, evolutionary, naturalistic and Statist paradigm. In the late 1800’s Langdell did yeoman’s work moving law training away from a century of Lawyers in America concentrating on what the Constitution said to Darwinian inspired notions of where the law was perceived to be moving (case law training). By Langdell’s work the Constitution came to be seen to be evolving under the guidance of an imperial judiciary.

4.) With the law ever moving in a “evolutionary cycle” this means that yesterday’s criminals are tomorrow’s innovators in the law. In this worldview criminals are only those who are now where the rest of society will one day be.  Criminals are the moral and legal harbingers of the next evolutionary cycle in the law.

In another exchange we hear Justice Roberts,

“Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case. I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

To which we would answer,

Your Honor, it is only sexual discrimination if you think the definition of Marriage as between one man and one woman is itself discriminatory.  But, I would add, your Honor, that should we conclude that Marriage is discriminatory because it allows only for one man and one woman, we have needs likewise conclude that the fact that only a man can impregnate a woman is discriminatory against women and the fact that only women can conceive children is discriminatory against men.

 

Hillary’s Call To Change

“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,”

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will, and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.  As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

Hillary Clinton
Speech — Women in the World Summit

1.) Politically speaking this quotes represents Hillary playing to the extreme left base. Hillary almost has to say things like this because there are those who could jump into the Democratic Presidential primary contest (i.e. — Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren) who could sap Hillary’s support from the lunatic fringe Left (lfl). This isn’t to say that Hillary doesn’t really believe this. It is to say that if she did not feel pressure from the lfl she might not say this kind of radical thing in public.

2.) Note here that we have a full admission of a candidate for President of these united States which explicitly tells us that those who are worldview Biblical Christians much surrender their belief system if they are to be Americans. This is the smoking gun admission that a Biblical Christian will not be allowed their convictions in the public square should they remain in this country.

3.) One can’t help but wonder that if these “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed,” how is that to be accomplished? Will we have re-education camps? Will we label Christians who have, what they consider to be desiderata beliefs, psychological unstable so that they have to be treated? Will we disallow them to function in the public square until those dangerous Christians get on board?

4.) Of course this requirement for “full participation  of women and girls in every aspect of their societies” does not include those girls who are tortured and murdered in their Mothers wombs. Those girls must not be allowed any participation.

5.) Notice the totalistic aspect of Hillary’s Worldview Feminism. Her worldveiw must cover the globe.

6.) If Hillary is elected we will have for Feminism the next 8 years what we’ve had for “Civil Rights” the previous six under Obama. Instead of minority rights it will be “women’s rights.” The consequence of both is the advancement of the Cultural Marxist Revolution — a Revolution that seeks to unravel what little is left of Christendom in the West.

7.) One wonders how R2K ministers handle this? Hillary is calling for these changes in beliefs as those beliefs affect the public square. I suppose R2K ministers could challenger Hillary by telling her that their Christian beliefs don’t have anything to do with what Hillary is concerned about and that she can go ahead an change away.

The Good Shepherd

Contextual BackgroundThe context for the text this morning grows out of the sustained and continued conflict of the Lord Christ with His enemies, the Pharisees.  This particular conflict starts in John 9 with Jesus healing the man born blind. Much of what is said in this passage this morning reaches back to that conflict.  That this is intense verbal conflict can be seen by the fact that this incident is sandwiched between attempts to stone the Lord Christ (John 8:59; 10:31).

John 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him, but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the Temple: And he passed through the midst of them, and so went his way.

John 10:31 Then the Jews again took up stones, to stone him.

 It would do well to remember that the Pharisees were the ruling religious and cultural elite at the time. They were what we today would call “the Establishment.”  This Establishment was a ruling order whose goal was to operate in the name of the Law to destroy the law in order to justify and cloak their own twisting and violation of the law.


At this point of the conflict the Lord Christ has just engaged the formerly blind man who He had healed and who had been excommunicated by those who opposed Christ. The Lord Christ receives this outcast “sheep” as His own and talks about the blind who can see and the seeing who are blind (9:38f). This outrages His enemies who see the insult in Christ’s words.


The Lord Christ then illustrates this whole particular conflict with the Pharisees that takes place in John 9, with the words we find in John 10 as He contrasts images of the true, good shepherd (Himself), on the one hand, and the thieves and bandits who oppose him on the other; the false shepherds, who do not enter the sheepfold by the gate but climb in by another way, who do not have the best interests of the sheep at heart; they steal, kill, and destroy, while Jesus, who is metaphorically both the door to the sheepfold and the shepherd of the sheep, offers abundant life.

This is then the context of the text before us.

We should say at the outset that the Lord Christ has put on display for us here a couple realities already. The Lord Christ in this passage is

Judgmental — He has assessed the situation and has determined that those who are opposing Him are false shepherds. Every time the Lord Christ speaks of Himself as “The good Shepherd” the Pharisees would have understood instantly the implication of themselves as being false shepherds. The comparison of this idea of false Shepherds had a long OT History.

In Ezekiel 34 God complained of false shepherds

Woe be unto the shepherds of Israel, that feed themselves: should not the shepherds feed the flocks? 3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool: ye kill them that are fed, but ye feed not the sheep. 4 The weak have ye not strengthened: the sick have ye not healed, neither have ye bound up the broken, nor brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost, but with cruelty, and with rigor have ye ruled them. 5 And they were scattered without a shepherd: and when they were dispersed, they were devoured of all the beasts of the field.

Because of the false shepherds God promises a time when a Good shepherd will come

Ezekiel 34:22 Therefore will I help my sheep, and they shall no more be spoiled, and I will judge between sheep and sheep. 23 And I will set up a shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David, he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.

So,  the Lord Christ, in positing that He is the promised Good shepherd. He is, at the same time, given the immediate context, adjudicating that the Pharisees are false shepherds, or merely Hirelings. I point this judgmental disposition of the Lord Christ out in order to place a counter weight to the constant sniping one will often hear that Christians shouldn’t judge.

This idea of the absolute necessity to judge is all over this passage. It is not only Christ who is judging His false shepherd enemies here but the idea of judging is contained in the truth of vs. 5

5 And they (Christ’s sheep) will not follow a stranger, but they flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

You see. The sheep judges the voices that it hears. It knows the voice of the Good Shepherd and follows. The sheep judges between voices.

Fellow Christians — My fellow Sheep — we have to judge. All through our lives we have to judge. Now our judgments are to be made with charity and are not to be self-righteous. Further, we should gather all the facts so that we do not make “unrighteous judgments,” but we have to judge.

Isn’t our lack of judging rightly a great fault of the Church today? Our problem is not that we are too judgmental but that we aren’t judicious in the slightest. The sheep who comprise the visible Church today seem to have very little discernment at all for they follow almost any voice that is raised.

And yet our Lord Christ says here that sheep will not follow the voice of the stranger.  The Lord Christ says here that the Sheep know His voice and follow Him. This perhaps suggests how vast the necessity is within the Church to do Evangelism and Apologetics. If it is really the case that sheep of Christ will not follow the voice of a stranger and yet so many sheep in the visible Church are following voices of strangers then the only thing we can conclude, it seems, is that those sheep who are following the voices of strangers are not sheep and so need to be evangelized.

As we consider vs. 11-18 we note a clear theme here. The theme here is that the goodness of the Noble Shepherd is demonstrated by the cost that He bears. The “good Shepherd lays down His life.” This phrase is repeated 5 times between vs. 11-18 and suggests that this is the theme of these verses.

Read in light of the cross this emphasis thus has a soteriological emphasis to it. The Good Shepherd demonstrates His love for the Sheep by doing all to keep the flock. Unlike the hireling or false shepherds the Noble Shepherd consistent with His calling (cmp. vs. 18) prioritizes the flock.  When we deal with the accusations of old slewfoot … when we are burdened by our Sin … we need to keep in mind that the Good Shepherd gave His life for the flock. In the giving of His life for the flock there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are resting in the offices of the Good shepherd.

We might also employ here a greater to lesser argument. If the Noble Shepherd will do the greater work of laying down His life for the Sheep will He not also do all the lesser works that a Shepherd does with respect to the Sheep? If the True Shepherd will lay down His life for the Sheep, will He not also provide for, care for, and protect the Sheep?

This is an important point to note because Sheep are notoriously frightful and skittish beasts. And so we are. When we are tempted to be frightful and skittish we must remind ourselves of the Good Shepherd and how He keeps His own. He is the Good Shepherd. He will not abandon us nor leave us defenseless. Because we are His flock He will continue to care for us come what may.

This good Shepherd who lays down His life is more than merely a Shepherd though. This good Shepherd is divine. The divinity of the good Shepherd is already hinted at by the fact that Christ is the Divine Shepherd spoken of in Isaiah 40:11. There we find the promise of the Divine King

10 Behold, the Lord God will come with power, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall guide them with young.

This note of the Divinity of Christ as the Good Shepherd is sounded throughout this passage with the 4 “I am statements in   7, 9, 11, and 14 and made most explicit in 10:30.

30 I and my Father are one.

So this good Shepherd who lays down His life for the Sheep is a Divine Good Shepherd. This is a passage then I would go to in order to set forth the fact that the Lord Christ was very God of very God were I dealing with someone like a JW or a Muslim.

We should note the echoes that we find here of the truth of the particularity of the Atonement. Christ is going out of His way to insist that there are sheep that hear His voice and follow Him and sheep who do not hear His voice and do not follow Him (cmp. 26-27). Further, the Lord Christ says here that He lays down His life for those sheep who know Him (10:15). This pushes us to observe that the death of Christ was particular only to those Sheep that have belonged to the Shepherd from all eternity. Christ did not die for those who were not, nor ever were, nor ever would be His Sheep.

To insist that the Lord Christ died for those who were not His sheep, and never would be His Sheep would be to insist that the death of  Christ failed in its intent, and in its design to protect His sheep. It is to insist that God had an intent and design that failed. But if God had an intent and design that failed then that would require someone or something that caused God to fail in His intent and design. Whatever or whoever caused God’s intent and design to fail then would at that point be greater than God and so God would be no God. The good Shepherd who lays down His life for the Sheep gathers only the Sheep that for whom He died.

What else might we say here concerning Sheep and Shepherd?

Well, He knows his own (and loves them, 13:1). And they know him (10:14) ( see also 10:4). This is a statement that was put on display by the man born blind who at the end embraces Christ  (9:38). This reciprocal knowing is placed in parallel with the knowing intimacy between the Father and the Son (15). What is being communicated is that just as there is this harmony of interpersonal knowing between the Father and the Son so there is a interpersonal harmony of knowing between the Sheep and the Shepherd.

Of course this knowing here, though never less then a mental understanding, is more then that.  This knowing implies a fondness and a relational standing. I might say “I know my accountant.” This is more of a mental understanding. I can also say “I know my Son.” In that knowing there is more then mental understanding. In God’s knowing of us there is a intimate knowing that includes a commitment of Redemption, and the preserving of us on His part.

Now, don’t miss here an important fact. If the sheep know the Shepherd and if the Shepherd knows the Father then by necessity the Sheep know the Father. Here is the great truth that the only way to know the Father is through the Son. There is no knowing God naked. If God is to be known by the believer it is only as mediated by Christ. The knowing of the Father is only done by the knowing of the Shepherd.

Considering the other sheep of 10:16

Not of this fold — This fold doubtless refers to the fold of Israel.

What is being communicated here is the intent of the Gospel to go to the Nations.

They will hear my voice — Irresistible Grace

One Flock …. One Shepherd —

Unity and diversity here.

The diversity is found in the reality that the sheep who are to be gathered in the future are from other folds. There are distinctions between folds. Israel and the Nations are distinct.

The unity is found in the fact that these diverse folds will form one flock with one Shepherd.

The way I read this unity in diversity is that in the flock of Christ (Unity) will be many folds comprised of different nations (Diversity). There will be a Spiritual Unity comprised of Nations that are diverse by God’s creative work. The One and the Many is thus satisfied and we avoid both a Unity that gives a amalgamated Unitarianism and a diversity that would yield the war of all against all.

There is thus a Missionary impulse here. We are to be aware that the Gospel is to go to the Nations. Woe be to the person who suggests that Christ is not available for some people or nation.