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.

“(Hom. lix. 1) The thief cometh not but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy; this was literally fulfilled in the case of those movers of seditiona, whose followers were nearly all destroyed; deprived by the thief even of this present life. But came, He saith, for the salvation of the sheep; That they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly, in the kingdom of heaven. This is the third mark of difference between Himself, and the false prophets.”

“(Tr. xlv. 15) But He Himself explains it more satisfactorily to me in what follows: The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and for to kill: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. By going in they have life; i. e. by faith, which worketh by love; by which faith they go into the fold. The just liveth1 by faith. And by going out they will have it more abundantly: (Heb. 10:38) i. e. when true believers die, they have life more abundantly, even a life which never ends. Though in this fold there is not wanting pasture, then they will find pasture, such as will satisfy them. To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise. (Luke 23:43)”

“The thief cometh not but for to steal, and to kill. As if He said, And well may the sheep not hear the voice of the thief; for he cometh not but for to steal: he usurpeth another’s office, forming his followers not on Christ’s precepts, but on his own. And therefore it follows, and to kill, i. e. by drawing them from the faith; and to destroy, i. e. by their eternal damnation.”

“Here he expounds the second clause of the aforementioned parable, namely, he who enters through the door is the shepherd of the sheep, and first he sets forth the exposition; second he makes it clear, at the place I am the good shepherd, and so on. He expounds that particular point by saying that he himself is the good shepherd: second, he subjoins the office of the good shepherd, at the place the good shepherd gives his life for his sheep; third, he shows the contrary concerning the bad shepherd, at the place but the hireling ... sees the wolf coming, and flees. He says therefore, as to the first point, I am the good shepherd. That Christ is a shepherd manifestly belongs to him: for just as through a shepherd the flock is governed and fed, so the faithful are refreshed by Christ with spiritual food, and also with his own body and blood; 1 Peter 2:25: "You were once like sheep having no shepherd, but you have now been converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls"; Isaiah 40:11: "as a shepherd he will feed his flock." But to distinguish him from the bad shepherd and the thief, he adds good. Good, I say, because he fulfills the office of shepherd, just as a good soldier is called one who fulfills the office of a soldier. But since Christ had said above that the shepherd enters through the door, and again that he himself is the door, and here he says that he is the shepherd, it must be that he himself enters through himself. And indeed he enters through himself, because he manifests himself, and through himself he knows the Father. But we enter through him, because through him we are made blessed. But note that no one else is the door except him, because no one else is the true light, but only by participation; above, John 1:8: "he was not the light," namely John the Baptist, "but that he might bear witness to the light." But of Christ it is said, "he was the true light which enlightens every man." And therefore no one calls himself the door: this Christ himself kept properly for himself; but being a shepherd he communicated to others, and gave to his members: for Peter too was a shepherd, and the rest of the apostles were shepherds, and all good bishops; Jeremiah 3:15: "I will give you shepherds according to my own heart." But although the prelates of the Church, who are sons, are all shepherds, as Augustine says; nevertheless he says in the singular I am the good shepherd, in order to insinuate the power of charity. For no one is a good shepherd unless through charity he is made one with Christ, and becomes a member of the true shepherd. The office of the good shepherd is charity; hence he says, the good shepherd gives his life for his sheep. For it must be known that there is a difference between the good shepherd and the bad: for the good shepherd intends the advantage of the flock; but the bad one intends his own advantage: and this difference is touched on at Ezekiel 34:2: "Woe to the shepherds who feed themselves. Should not the flocks be fed by the shepherds?" He therefore who uses the flock only to feed himself is not a good shepherd. From which it follows that the bad shepherd, even a bodily one, wishes to sustain no loss for the flock, since he does not intend their advantage, but his own. But the good shepherd, even a bodily one, sustains many things for the flock, whose good he intends; hence Jacob said, Genesis 31:40: "by night and day I was burned with frost and heat." But in the case of bodily shepherds, it is not required of the good shepherd that he expose himself to death for the safety of the flock. But because the safety of the spiritual flock outweighs the bodily life of the shepherd, therefore when danger threatens the safety of the flock, every spiritual shepherd ought to sustain the loss of his bodily life for the safety of the flock. And this is what the Lord means when he says the good shepherd his life, that is, his bodily life, lays down for his sheep, that is, by authority and by charity. For both are required: both that they pertain to him, and that he loves them: for the first without the second does not suffice. Of this teaching Christ furnished us an example; 1 John 3:16: "if Christ laid down his life for us, we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." Here he treats of the bad shepherd, showing that conditions contrary to the conditions of the good shepherd are present in him; and first he sets forth the conditions of the bad shepherd; second he shows how these conditions follow one from another, at the place but the hireling ... flees. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the conditions of the bad shepherd; second he insinuates the danger threatening the flock from the bad shepherd, at the place and the wolf snatches, and so on. It should be noted that from what has been said about the good shepherd and what is said about the bad one, a threefold difference of their conditions, namely of the good and the bad shepherd, can be gathered. The first distinction indeed is taken as to intention; the second as to affection; the third as to solicitude. They differ therefore first in intention, and this from the name of each: for the first is called shepherd, from which it is given to be understood that he intends to feed the flock; Ezekiel 34:2: "should not the flocks be fed by the shepherds?" But the other, namely the bad one, is called a hireling, as it were seeking wages. So that they differ in this: that the good shepherd seeks the benefit of the flock; but the hireling more principally his own advantage. This is also the difference between a king and a tyrant, as the Philosopher says, because a king in his rule intends the benefit of his subjects; but a tyrant his own benefit; hence he is like a hireling: Zechariah 11:12: "if it is good in your eyes, bring me my wages." But can even good shepherds seek wages? It seems that they can; Ecclesiasticus 36:18: "give a reward, Lord, to those who wait for you"; Isaiah 40:10: "behold his reward is with him"; and Luke 15:17: "how many hired servants in my father's house have abundance of bread." I respond. It must be said that "wages" can be taken in two ways: namely, commonly and properly. Commonly indeed, everything that is rendered for merits is called wages, and because eternal life, which is God — 1 John, last chapter, 20: "this is the true God, and eternal life" — is rendered for merits, therefore eternal life itself is called wages. And this wage every good shepherd can and ought to seek. But properly, wages is said of something separated from an inheritance; and he who is a true son, to whom the inheritance belongs, ought not to have regard to this; but servants and hirelings have regard to it. Hence, since eternal life is our inheritance, whoever works having regard to it works as a son; but whoever intends something apart from it (for instance, gapes after earthly advantages, rejoices in the honor of prelacy) is a hireling. Second, they are distinguished as to solicitude: because of the good shepherd it is said that the sheep are his own, not only by commission, but also by love and solicitude; Philippians 1:7: "because I have you in my heart," etc.; but of the hireling it is said whose own the sheep are not, that is, he has no solicitude for them; Ezekiel 34:8: "neither have the shepherds sought my flock, but they fed themselves." Third, they differ as to affection: for the good shepherd, who loves the flock, gives his life for it, that is, exposes himself to the danger of bodily life. But the bad one, because he has no affection for the flock, flees when he sees the wolf. Hence he says he sees the wolf coming, and abandons the sheep. This wolf is understood in three ways. First indeed, the devil tempting; Ecclesiasticus 13:21: "but if ever the wolf had fellowship with the lamb, so the sinner with the just man." Second, the heretic slaughtering; Matthew 7:15: "beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep"; Acts 20:29: "I know that after my departure ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock." Third, the raging tyrant: Ezekiel 22:27: "her princes in the midst of her are like wolves." The good shepherd, therefore, ought to protect his subject flock against this threefold wolf: namely, when, seeing the wolf — that is, diabolical temptation, heretical deception, and tyrannical savagery — he opposes himself: against which it is said, Ezekiel 13:5: "you have not gone up to face the enemy, nor have you set up a wall for the house of Israel." And therefore it is said of the bad shepherd that he flees and abandons the sheep; Zechariah 11:17: "O shepherd, and idol, forsaking the flock"; as if to say: you are not a shepherd, but you bear the likeness and idol of a shepherd; Jeremiah 46:21: "her hirelings also in the midst of her are like fatted calves, and they too are turned back, and are fled away together, and they stood not." But against this is what is said at Matthew 5:11: "if they persecute you in one city, flee into another." Therefore it seems that it is lawful for a shepherd to flee. I respond. It must be said that there is a twofold solution to this. One is Augustine's, on John. For there is a twofold flight: namely, of the mind and of the body. But what is said here, he abandons the sheep and flees, is understood of the flight of the mind: for while the bad shepherd fears danger to himself from the wolf, he does not presume to resist its injustice; but he flees not by changing place, but by withdrawing comfort, shrinking, that is, from solicitude for the flock. But this exposition is necessary as regards the first wolf, for against the devil one need not flee bodily. But because it also happens that some shepherd flees bodily on account of certain wolves, namely a heretic having power, and a tyrant, therefore another answer must be applied, which Augustine gives in his letter to Honoratus. For, as he himself says, it seems that it is lawful even to flee the wolves bodily, not only from the authority of the Lord set forth above, but also from the example of certain saints, for instance Athanasius and others who fled their persecutors. For he is blamed not because he flees, but because he abandons the sheep: hence if he could flee without abandoning the sheep, it would not be blameworthy. For it happens sometimes that the person of the prelate is sought; sometimes the whole flock. It is manifest, however, that if only the person of the prelate is sought, others can be deputed in his place to the custody of the flock, who in his stead may console and govern the flock. Hence if he flees in this way, he is not said to abandon the sheep; and in this manner, in such a case, it is lawful to flee. But if the whole flock is sought, either it is necessary that all the shepherds be together with the sheep, or it is necessary that some of them remain, and some withdraw. But if they totally desert the flock, then what is said here applies to them: he sees the wolf coming, and abandons the sheep, and flees. Here the imminent danger is set forth, which is twofold. One is the plundering of the sheep; hence he says the wolf snatches, that is, he usurps to himself what is another's. For the faithful of Christ are his sheep. Then, therefore, some heresiarch and wolf snatches the sheep, when he draws the faithful of Christ to his own false doctrine; Ezekiel 34:5: "my flock has become a prey to all the beasts of the field." The other danger is the dispersion of the sheep, hence he says and scatters the sheep, inasmuch as some are led astray, and some persist; Ezekiel 34:6: "my flocks have been scattered; and there was none to seek them." Here he shows how the aforesaid conditions follow one from another: for from the first two the third follows. For from the fact that he seeks his own advantage, and is not affectively disposed toward the flock through love and solicitude, it follows that he does not wish to sustain hardship for it. And therefore he says but the hireling flees, for this reason, namely, because he is a hireling, that is, he seeks his own advantage, as to the first condition; and it does not pertain to him concerning the sheep, that is, he does not love them, nor is he solicitous for them, as to his second condition. Hence at Job 39:16 it is said of the bad shepherd: "he is hardened toward his young as if they were not his own." But conversely it is with the good shepherd: for he seeks the advantage of the flock, not his own; Philippians 4:17: "I seek not the gift, but I seek the fruit," etc. And it pertains to him concerning the sheep; that is, he loves them, and is solicitous for them, Philippians 1:7: "because I have you in my chains," etc.”

“The thief cometh not but for to steal,.... That is his first and principal view; to steal, is to invade, seize, and carry away another's property. Such teachers that come not in by the right door, or with a divine commission, seek to deceive, and carry away the sheep of Christ from him, though they are not able to do it; and to steal away their hearts from him, as Absalom stole the hearts of the people from their rightful lord and sovereign, David his father; and to subject them to themselves, that they might lord it over them, and make a property of them, as the Pharisees did, who, under a pretence of long prayers, devoured widows' houses. And to kill and to destroy; either the souls of men by their false doctrines, which eat as doth a cancer, and poison the minds of men, and slay the souls that should not die, subverting the faith of nominal professors, though they cannot destroy any of the true sheep of Christ; or the bodies of the saints, by their oppression, tyranny, and persecution, who are killed all the day long for the sake of Christ, and are accounted as sheep for the slaughter, by these men, they thinking that by so doing they do God good service. I am come that they might have life; that the sheep might have life, or the elect of God might have life, both spiritual and eternal; who, as the rest of mankind, are by nature dead in trespasses and sins, and liable in themselves to an eternal death: Christ came into this world in human nature, to give his flesh, his body, his whole human nature, soul and body, for the life of these persons, or that they might live spiritually here, and eternally hereafter; and so the Arabic version renders it, "that they might have eternal life"; Nonnus calls it, "a life to come"; which is in Christ, and the gift of God through him; and which he gives to all his sheep, and has a power to give to as many as the Father has given him: and that they might have it more abundantly; or, as the Syriac version reads, "something more abundant"; that is, than life; meaning not merely than the life of wicked men, whose blessings are curses to them; or than their own life, only in the present state of things; or than long life promised under the law to the observers of it; but even than the life Adam had in innocence, which was but a natural and moral, not a spiritual life, or that life which is hid with Christ in God; and also than that which angels live in heaven, which is the life of servants, and not of sons: or else the sense is, that Christ came that his people might have eternal life, with more abundant evidence of it than was under the former dispensation, and have stronger faith in it, and a more lively hope of it: or, as the words may be rendered, "and that they might have an abundance": besides life, might have an abundance of grace from Christ, all spiritual blessings in him now, and all fulness of joy, glory, and happiness hereafter.”

“But for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy - Those who enter into the priesthood that they may enjoy the revenues of the Church, are the basest and vilest of thieves and murderers. Their ungodly conduct is a snare to the simple, and the occasion of much scandal to the cause of Christ. Their doctrine is deadly; they are not commissioned by Christ, and therefore they cannot profit the people. Their character is well pointed out by the Prophet Ezekiel, Eze 34:2, etc. Wo be to the shepherds of Israel, that do feed themselves! Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool; ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock, etc, How can worldly-minded, hireling, fox-hunting, and card-playing priests read these words of the Lord, without trembling to the center of their souls! Wo to those parents who bring up their children merely for Church honors and emoluments! Suppose a person have all the Church's revenues, if he have God's wo, how miserable is his portion! Let none apply this censure to any one class of preachers, exclusively. That they might have life - My doctrine tends to life, because it is the true doctrine - that of the false and bad shepherds tends to death, because it neither comes from nor can lead to that God who is the fountain of life. Might have it more abundantly - That they might have an abundance, meaning either of life, or of all necessary good things; greater felicity than ever was enjoyed under any period of the Mosaic dispensation; and it is certain that Christians have enjoyed greater blessings and privileges than were ever possessed by the Jews, even in the promised land. If περισσον be considered the accusative fem. Attic, agreeing with ζωην, (see Parkhurst), then it signifies more abundant life; that is, eternal life; or spiritual blessings much greater than had ever yet been communicated to man, preparing for a glorious immortality. Jesus is come that men may have abundance; abundance of grace, peace, love, life, and salvation. Blessed be Jesus.”

“I am come that they might have life, and . . . more abundantly--not merely to preserve but impart LIFE, and communicate it in rich and unfailing exuberance. What a claim! Yet it is only an echo of all His teaching; and He who uttered these and like words must be either a blasphemer, all worthy of the death He died, or "God with us"--there can be no middle course.”