Jesus therefore said to them again: Amen, amen I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.

“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.”

“Then said Jesus unto them again , Verily, verily , I say unto you , I am the door of the sheep. Maldonatus thinks that Christ here speaks of two doors, the door of the house, i.e., Holy Scriptures, and the door of the sheepfold, which is Christ. He believes that the word door is used in two senses, one by which the shepherds themselves, and the other by which the sheep enter. But this distinction is more subtil than solid For Christ speaks in both cases of one and the same door, that is of the sheepfold What He said obscurely and parabolically (ver. 1) He explained in the parable. “ He opened,” says S. Augustine, “ that which was closed. He is the door. Let us enter that we may rejoice in having so done.” This distinction evades indeed one difficulty, how Christ enters as a shepherd through the door ; that is, how He enters the door of Digitized by V^rOOQie THE PROPHETS PRECURSORS OF CHRIST. 363 the Church by Scripture witnessing to Him. But it does not escape the other difficulty — how the same person is both the shepherd and the door. We must say, therefore, that He united together two parables (as was said above, ver. 2). For Christ intended to teach two things. First, that no one could enter into the Church, and afterwards into heaven, that is be justified and sanctified, except through Him. This He shows by the parable of the door. For as there is no ingress into the fold except through the door, so there is no entrance into the Church, militant and triumphant, except through Christ; and secondly, that He is the true Shepherd, as laying down His life for the sheep; but that the others were hirelings, whom the sheep ought not to follow. This He sets forth by the parable of the shepherd. But because this latter subject is connected with the former, He mixes up the two parables together. V er. 8 . — All that ever came before me were thieves and robbers. What then 1 were all the prophets thieves and robbers ? S. Augustine (contra Faustum , xvi. 12, and S. Jerome, lib. il contra Felag.) replies that the prophets came not of their own accord, but were sent by God. And again they were not sent in addition to Christ, but with Christ, as His precursors, and announcing His advent They were therefore not contrary to Christ, but counted as one with Him, as having come for His sake, and by His order and guidance. “ They came with the Word of God. He sent them as the heralds of Him who was to come, and He possessed the hearts of those whom He had sent” Euthymius adds, “ They came indeed before Christ, but they entered through the door.” He speaks specially of those impostors who claimed to be the long-expected Messiah. They were thieves and robbers, such as Judas of Galilee, Theudas, and afterwards Simon Magus, Barchochebas, and many others, who claimed for themselves the name and title of the Christ So S. Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, and others. But the sheep did not hear them. Because they discovered that they did not bring the token of the Messiah, as predicted by the prophets, but wished to steal away the faithful from Christ, to claim them for themselves, and to cast them into hell. Digitized by V^rOOQie 364”

“Then said Jesus unto them again,.... By way of explanation of the above parable, since they did not understand it: verily, verily, I say unto you; this is certainly truth, and what may be depended on as such, whether it will be believed or not: I am the door of the sheep; and of none but them; not of goats, dogs, or swine; none but sheep enter at this door; and all the sheep do sooner or later: Christ is the door to them, by which they enter into a visible church state, and are let into a participation of the ordinances of it, as baptism and the Lord's supper: no man comes into a church, at the right door, or in a right way, or has a right to partake of Gospel ordinances, but he that truly believes in Christ, and makes a profession of faith in him: Christ is the door of the under shepherds of the sheep; none are fit to be pastors of churches, but who first enter into a Gospel church at this door, and are qualified, and called, and sent forth by Christ: he is the door of the sheep, by which they are let into the presence of his Father, and have communion with him, and partake of all the blessings of grace; it is through him that sanctifying, justifying, pardoning, and adopting grace, are conveyed unto them, and they brought into the enjoyment of them; it is through him they have all their peace, joy, and comfort, and deliverance from, and victory over all their enemies; through him they have heirship, and a right unto eternal life, and that itself; for he is the door into heaven itself, through which they shall have an abundant entrance into it: and he is the only door into each of these; there is no coming to God the Father but by, and through him; nor to a participation of the blessings of the covenant, nor rightly into a Gospel church state, and to the ordinances of it, nor into heaven at last, but in at this door: and this is a door of faith and hope, and an open one, for all sensible sinners, for all the sheep of Christ, to enter in at; though it is a strait gate, the number being few that enter in at it; and those that do, though they are certainly, yet but scarcely saved; for it is through many tribulations and afflictions that they enter.”

“I am the door of the sheep - It is through me only that a man can have a lawful entrance into the ministry; and it is through me alone that mankind can be saved. Instead of, I am the door, the Sahidic version reads, I am the shepherd; but this reading is found in no other version, nor in any MS. It is evidently a mistake of the scribe.”