João 10:3

To him the porter openeth. — The word “porter” is not, perhaps, misleading to many, but for the sake of the possible few, it may be noted that door-keeper is what is here meant. There is no further interpretation of what, in the spiritual fold, corresponds to the office of the porter, whereas the door and the shepherd are successively made the texts of fuller expositions of Christ’s own work. We are not, therefore, to regard “the porter” as an essential part of the allegory (comp. João 10:5), nor need we trouble ourselves with the various expositions which have been given of it. At the same time, we should not forget that the thought is one which impressed itself on the mind of St. Paul. At Ephesus “a great and effectual door was opened unto him” (1 Coríntios 16:9); “when he came to Troas to preach Christ’s gospel a door was opened unto him of the Lord” (2 Coríntios 2:12); the Colossians are exhorted to pray that “a door of the word (the gospel) may be opened, to speak the mystery of Christ” (Colossenses 4:3); at the close of the first missionary journey he and Barnabas told how “God had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles” (Atos 14:27). We have St. Paul’s authority, therefore, for understanding by the “door-keeper,” if we are to interpret it here, the Holy Spirit, whose special work it is to determine who are shepherds and sheep, and to call each to the work and position given to him by God. We must be careful to note, with this interpretation, that St. Paul gives divine titles to Him who thus opens the door, lest, from the humble position of the porter in the material fold, we should be led to unworthy thoughts of Him who is “neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.”

And the sheep hear his voice. — The reference is here to the whole of the sheep in the fold; they are all roused as they hear a shepherd’s cry, which is the signal for their being led forth to the pastures.

And he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. — Now the sheep of the shepherd’s own flock are thought of. They are singled out from the rest, each one by its own name. A mountain shepherd in our own country, and even a shepherd’s dog, will know a single sheep among hundreds from other flocks, and there is nothing more strange in the sheep being trained to know its own name and its shepherd’s voice. We have to think, also, of a much closer relationship between the owner and his sheep, which were almost part of his family, than any with which we are familiar. All animals learn to know those who love and protect them, and the Eastern shepherd was as much with his sheep as we are with the domestic animals. (Comp. 1 Samuel 17:34; 2 Samuel 12:3.) The practice was not unknown in the West, for Aristotle tells us that “in each flock they train the bell-wether to lead the way, whenever he is called by name by the shepherd” (History of Animals, vi. 19); and Theocritus has handed down to us the names by which the Shepherd Lacon addressed three of his flock: —

“Ho, Curly-horn; Ho, Swift-foot, leave the tree,
And pasture eastward where ye Baldhead see.”

Idyll. v. 102, 3.

(3) The reference in Lucas 10:3 to the wolves among whom they would be as lambs, throws light upon João 10:12. He who would lay down His life for them would expose them to the wolves because He as the Good Shepherd would save them from the wolf.

And it was at Jerusalem. — Better, And the Feast of the Dedication was being held at Jerusalem. — Although St. John gives no hint that our Lord had left the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, this specific mention of the city implies a return from a distance, for the words would be out of place if He had continued there during the interval since João 10:21. They cannot be restricted to the feast, which was not confined to Jerusalem, but was universally observed by the Jews.

The reference in the margin warns us against the error of understanding “the Feast of the Dedication” as a feast in honour of the dedication of Solomon’s or Zerubbabel’s temple. We know of no annual festival connected with these dedications, and the statement that this feast was “in the winter” makes it almost certain that it was the feast instituted, B.C. 164, by Judas Maccabæus, in commemoration of the cleansing of the Temple after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes (1Ma. 4:52-59). It extended over eight days, beginning on the 25th of the month Kisleu, which answers to parts of our November and December. It is still called “Chanuca,” the Dedication, while St. John’s Greek name for it, which was adopted by the Vulgate (Encœnia), is familiar to English ears in connection with another commemoration. In this, as in other rejoicings, illumination was a prominent feature, and it was sometimes called the “Feast of Lights.” The Temple and private houses were illuminated, and it was customary in the houses of the more wealthy and pious Jews to have a light for each member of the family, increasing by an additional light for each evening of the feast. The illumination has been sometimes traced to the discovery in the temple by the Maccabees of a vial of oil, sealed with the high priest’s ring. This, it is said, was sufficient for the lamps for one evening only, but was miraculously multiplied so as to suffice for eight evenings, which was therefore devoted to annual illuminations in remembrance of this gift of God (Talmud, Shabbath 216).

And it was winter. — Better, It was winter. These words should then be connected with the following verse. Our division breaks the sense.