Source: http://montreal.anglican.org/comments/archive/aeas4l.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:05:07+00:00

Document:
Verses 43-47: We know that the Essenes and the Qumran community also shared everything in common. Later members of the Jerusalem church were so impoverished that Paul made a collection for them.
Comments: a little later such sharing was not the universal rule : 5:1-5 tells of Ananias who, with his wife’s consent, sold a piece of property. Rather than contributing all the proceeds to the common purse, he withheld part.
Verse 4: “darkest valley”: NOAB says that shadow of death is an ancient, but probably fanciful, rendering. See also 44:19; 107:10; Job 3:5; Isaiah 9:2 where the same Hebrew expression occurs and is translated in terms of darkness. [ NOAB] NJBC disagrees; he says that shadow of death is possible.
Verse 6: “I shall dwell”: NJBC offers may I dwell. The Hebrew verb can mean return or dwell; the ambivalence is probably deliberate, alluding to the exiles’ hope of returning home. See also 27:4.
For Yahweh as shepherd, see also Psalm 79:13, Isaiah 40:11, and Ezekiel 34:15ff.
2:16: NOAB suggests that the following insertions are helpful to understanding: “[Live] as servants of God, [so you can] live as free people ...” Christians should even honour those who malign them.
2:18-3:7: A section on the obligations of Christians. Guidelines are given for the behaviour of three groups: slaves ( 2:18-25), wives ( 3:1-6) and husbands ( 3:7). For other similar household codes, see Ephesians 5:22-6:9; Colossians 3:18-4:1; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; Titus 2:9-10. While the passages in Ephesians and Colossians contain instructions to both the inferior and superior members of the household, here masters are not addressed at all and husbands are addressed with the short form typical of household codes (in 3:7). [ NOAB] [ NJBC] [ CAB] IntPet notes that only those who are dependent on superiors (slaves and women) are addressed; he suggests that the masters and husbands here were pagans.
2:18: “accept the authority ... with all deference”: IntPet suggests that in all fear is a better translation, that this describes the slaves’ individual relationships to God rather than to their masters.
This chapter is difficult to understand partly because Jesus switches metaphor several times, a practice which was common in his time and for centuries after, but which is frowned on (to say the least!) today.
Verses 1-10: There is a selection of shepherds (leaders) here and also one of sheep (followers).
Verse 1: “climbs in”: No metaphor is perfect!
Verse 2: “shepherd”: Jesus may mean either the leader of the community or himself. If the latter, he shifts metaphor between v. 2 and v. 3. Both the shepherd and the gatekeeper/gate protect. The metaphor definitely shifts in v. 11ff to Jesus as the shepherd.
Verse 6: “figure of speech”: The Greek word is paroimia , meaning metaphor, parable, proverb, or enigmatic or fictitious illustration. The REB translates the word as parable. In spite of Jesus’ explanation (vv. 7-8), it is hard to understand, and has been interpreted in various ways.
If the “gate of the sheep” here represents accurately what Jesus said, then ... [vv. 7-10] are in an almost intolerable state of confusion. But if the suggestion is adopted that in an Aramaic original the accidental repetition of one letter (a tau) has caused the shepherd to be read as “the gate”, then verses 7 and 8 give an interpretation consistent with the original parable, and the allegory does not begin until verse 9.
This suggestion does depend on a lot of conjecture. It assumes first that there was an Aramaic original, second that it got corrupted, third that it was translated into Greek from one who was working from text and not oral tradition, fourth that the translator did not pick up on the error and fifth that there is still an allegory about an entrance further down. Note that, as we have the text, “I am the gate” occurs twice: in v. 7 and v. 9. We have no fragments of the gospels in Aramaic other than translations from the Greek.
Verse 7: “I am the gate”: i.e. I determine who is admitted to the community.
Verse 8: “All who came before me”: Some scholars understand this to mean messianic pretenders; however, for this to be the case, Chapter 10 would need to be a separate unit from Chapter 9.
BlkJn sees the “thieves and bandits” as pseudo-Messiahs. He says “this is indicated by the absolute use of came, i.e. claiming to be the coming one”. Grouping thieves and bandits with pseudo-Messiahs fits with the first-century Jewish historian Josephus’ view that there are four philosophies of which this group, which includes revolutionaries, is the fourth. (The other three are the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes.) Recall that Jesus was crucified with thieves and bandits.
But I think that this does not take the context into account. How can we account both for the previous discussion with the Pharisees, and their subsequent reaction? They are not thieves and bandits, nor are they false Messiahs. Rather they are good, upstanding, moral, respectable religious leaders. Why would they be so upset at Jesus for this Good Shepherd metaphor/allegory? Or are the Pharisees the hired hands of v. 12?
Verse 9: “will be saved”: i.e. will escape from the perils of having gone against God’s ways.
Jesus fulfils Old Testament promises that God will himself come to shepherd his people: see Isaiah 40:11 (“He will feed his flock like a shepherd”); Jeremiah 23:1-6; Ezekiel 34 (especially v. 11: “thus says the Lord God : I myself will search for my sheep, and will seek them out”).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.