The image of the Good Shepherd is an image that is quite familiar within the church and remains one of the most familiar images depicted in Christian art.  Who hasn’t seen a picture or a stained-glass window of Jesus gently carrying a little lamb on his shoulders?  Because the image of Jesus with the lamb is so prevalent, our understanding of Jesus as the good shepherd has come to be relegated to the realm of sentimentality or nostalgia.  Consequently, Jesus’ teaching concerning his being the good shepherd becomes little more than a children’s story — a story that we are expected to outgrow.  And yet, the context of this story is a conversation that Jesus is having with adults — more specifically, a debate with religious leaders.  This teaching of Jesus is meant to impact the realm of our adult lives rather than be written off as a sweet and comforting children’s story. 

As we consider Jesus’ teaching it is imperative that we not lose sight of the reputation that shepherds had in the first century of the Common Era.  For those listening to Jesus, the term “good shepherd” would be considered an oxymoron.  Shepherds were never understood to be either good or admirable.  A shepherd was someone who was viewed with contempt — someone who lived in the wild, in the realm of chaos — that is, outside the bounds of respectable and civilized society.  Think about the story of David in the Hebrew Scriptures.  When Samuel came to anoint one of Jesse’s sons as king, David wasn’t even considered to be a remote possibility, much less a deserving candidate.  All his brothers were summoned to the dinner, but David remained excluded — out in the fields with the sheep.  David is only thought of and invited after all his brothers had been rejected and Samuel insisted that there must be another brother.  The common perception of shepherds was that their tough, dirty, and dangerous job made them devoid of the refined attributes of honesty, courtesy, and goodness.  Needless to say, Jesus’ use of the imagery of a “good shepherd” has captured the attention of his audience. 

Although Jesus’ imagery is implying that he too is an outsider and in some sense rejected, Jesus uses the image of a shepherd for another reason.  Shepherds were known to have a relationship with their flocks — known even to die protecting their flock.  With this insight the emphasis of the imagery shifts from that of an outsider to that of being in relationship.  The relationship between the shepherd and the sheep stands in marked contrast to that of shepherd and society.  The relationship the shepherd has with the sheep is one of trust and is attentive.  The sheep, in contrast to society, trust the shepherd explicitly.  Sheep, by nature, are very dependent and needy animals — completely dependent upon the shepherd for their safety and survival.  And the relationship Jesus portrays is intimate — for the sheep know their shepherd’s voice.  Here, knowledge is not understood to be cognitive but relational.  Unlike the Greeks, the Hebraic understanding of knowledge is first and foremost relational.  And the model and true measure of knowledge is God’s and Jesus’ mutual relationship.  Jesus, you see, is not the good shepherd simply because of his relationship to the sheep, but, more importantly, because of his relationship to God.  Jesus comprehends that his relationship to the flock is the same as his relationship to God.  For Jesus, all relationships are grounded in mutuality and Love.  Life is found only in the other. 

It is only within the context of mutuality and relationship that Jesus is able to talk of laying down his life.  Although this reference may well be interpreted as alluding to Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion, more importantly it reveals Jesus’ freedom of life.  Jesus is not constrained by the tit-for-tat relationships mandated by us and our society:  I’ll love you, if you love me first; I’ll respect you, if you first respect me; or I won’t attack you, if you don’t attack me.  No, Jesus gives himself fully and without hesitation to others and the Other — fearless of either motivations or consequences.  Simply put, Jesus, secure in the knowledge (relationship) and love of God, offers himself completely to us and our world.  Here we encounter the Easter paradox:  the inexhaustibility of life when shared and bestowed to others.  That in giving of ourselves to others, we experience life in its fullest. 

The “good shepherd” discourse is far from being a sentimental children’s story that we promptly outgrow.  To the contrary, the story of the good shepherd challenges the core values of our society:  a society which insists that it is both noble and honorable to lay down your life waging war but foolish and subversive to give your life for peace and justice.  Yes, the story of the good shepherd challenges us to live our lives fearlessly — embracing the will and Love of God completely and fully, without hesitation.  We, like Jesus, are called to live lives of justice, mercy, peace, and love — lives of compassion — living life firmly in the dream of God even amid uncertainty and chaos.  For you see, we too have been given the authority to love — to love fully and completely, regardless of the consequences.  We have the power, the ability, to live compassionate lives especially when faced with chaotic times and circumstances.  And when we dare to live our lives in Love, we too receive the authority to take up Life itself.