4th Sunday of Easter, Apr.

26, 2015
(Acts: 4: 8-12; 1 John 3:1-2; John 10:11-18)
The issue in Sundays Acts reading continues to touch on Peters
healing a man who had been crippled from birth (Acts 3:1-11). This
led to their arrest by the priest, the temple guard and the Sadducees.
They were brought before the Jewish High Court (the Sanhedrin) and
thats where the story picks up. Peter is responding to a question raised
his accusers: By what authority or by what name have you done
this?
The question they raise is phrased by Luke to reflect the answer.
Peter says boldly and forthrightly that the crippled man was healed in
the name of Jesus the Nazorean whom you crucified, whom God
raised from the dead. These words are directed to those who played a
major role in the death of Jesus according to the Gospel accounts of
the Passion. Thus they had become part of the early preaching of
Christians in the aftermath of Jesus death and resurrection.
The stone rejected by the builders (Psalm 118:22) is now
applied to Jesus in light of New Testament writers like Luke, reflecting
on Old Testament passages, which became proof texts for things
they wrote about Jesus. This enables the New Testament writers to
delve into the Old Testament to find what appear to be ready-made
prophetic statements of what was to come in and with Jesus.
Many commentators think the verse was originally a proverb
about how an insignificant stone which the builders decided was
unworthy of placement elsewhere became the most significant stone of
the structure. As used in the Psalm it may have referred to the king,
who was the subject of verses 10-14. The king may have been
regarded as less than stellar in his role as king to that point, but then he
pulled off some kind of dramatic victory in battle and is thereby
praised together with the Lord who was Israels ultimate protector and
guide.

The New Testament reapplication of verse 22 to Jesus is selfevident. Given the many places where Jesus is also described in terms
of Isaiahs Suffering Servant, it is hard to tell the difference between
the heroic figure of this Psalm and the mysterious servant of Isaiah.
The good shepherd image of the Gospel uses the Greek word
kalos which has many meanings. In context it could mean beautiful or
handsome, describing outward appearance. In describing someone or
something it could mean good or useful. In terms of moral quality it
could mean good, noble or praiseworthy.
Deciding the precise meaning here is not easy. If he meant good
in the sense of noble or praiseworthy, then one might ask what is
praiseworthy about giving ones life for a flock which is then left
without a shepherd. If it is meant to speak of an able and wellqualified shepherd, knowing where and how to find pasture for the
sheep, again one might well ask, what good does it do for the shepherd
to give his life for the flock leaving them without a shepherd?
John explains that a good shepherd lays down his life for his
sheep. This must be understood as a wider part of a parable about
sheep and shepherds in the rest of John 10. This shepherd shows he is
not just willing to give up his life for his sheep, but he does it in order
to take up it (his life) again. I have power to lay it down and power to
take it up again. What he does is in fulfillment of a command he has
received from my Father.
Fr. Lawrence Hummer