John 10 - The NIV Application Commentary on the Bible: One-Volume Edition

The Good Shepherd (10:1–18). Jesus is stepping into a venerable Old Testament tradition when he describes himself as the good shepherd of Israel. In the Old Testament, God is the shepherd of Israel. Moreover, shepherding became a helpful image explaining the spiritual and practical leadership among God’s people. Moses and David, for example, were shepherds. Impious kings in Israel were commonly understood to be false or bad shepherds.

The occasion for this discourse, John reminds us, is the Festival of Hanukkah (v. 22). This is the only reference to this minor, intertestamental festival in the Bible. Since the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 BC, Jewish resistance to Hellenization met opposition not only from Greeks but also from Jews who had compromised their commitment to Jewish culture and their faith. In the 160s BC the Maccabean War erupted, pitting conservative Jewish fighters against Greeks and Hellenized Jews. Hanukkah thus became a season that asked hard questions about failed leadership and false shepherds.

Jesus assumes his audience understands the scene he is constructing. In the desert at night sheep were often herded into walled enclosures. Not only can sheep identify rightful shepherds by their access through the main gate, but they also recognize the voice of their shepherd. Just as Arab shepherds today can separate personal sheep from larger flocks by using peculiar calls, so Jesus knows his own sheep, they can recognize his voice, and he leads them (v. 4).

It is not surprising that Jesus’s audience does not understand the figurative saying. They understand the nature of shepherding, but they fail to grasp the spiritual point he is making. The Middle East delights in the dark saying that must be unpacked, and every good teacher must know how to use the proverb and the symbolic story. In John the theme is consistently Jesus’s identity; stories unveil who he is. But in each case, the problem is not necessarily intellectual. The problem is often an unwillingness to respond to the challenge of the saying.

Jesus’s explanation turns the story creatively. The first image of the parable that Jesus does not interpret concerns his entry into the sheepfold. The watchman permits him entry, making him God’s shepherd. He is the rightful leader who goes through the gate. He has authority to lead the sheep (while others do not).

In his interpretation Jesus shifts some of the images. He becomes the gate. He alone is the sentry, the one through whom access to the sheep can be found. He stands in the gate, and any who enter without his permission (who sneak into the flock) are not to be trusted. This implies some endorsement of those who enter into leadership in Christ’s name. But it also implies a warning, for there are illegitimate shepherds whose entry he prohibits. Who are these “thieves and robbers” who have come before Jesus (v. 8)? The most likely target of Jesus’s criticism is the Pharisees.

Jesus is the gate for the sheep; only those sheep who find him will enter the sheepfold and find safety. They alone will know his leadership and exit to find safe, lush pasture. The image here is a flock of sheep in a threatening desert. Food and water are scarce. Predators are everywhere, and they know the sheep are vulnerable. Jesus’s image is that of well-fed sheep whose shepherd knows how to lead them to pasture and water daily, and who at night gives them safe rest in the sturdy walls of the sheepfold.

At the final level of his interpretation, Jesus claims that he is the “good shepherd” (v. 11). It is important not to overly sentimentalize the image given here. This is not a portrait of a kindly man holding cuddly lambs. “Good” (kalos) can just as well be translated “noble.” The shepherd’s job was severe, tiring, and hazardous. The hired hand is distinguished by his lack of commitment to the sheep. When danger comes, he flees and the flock is attacked. His own self-interest refers directly to the leaders of Israel graphically chastised during the Hanukkah festival. The good shepherd, by contrast, “owns the sheep” (see v. 12), which speaks to his unique, passionate commitment to them.

The most important feature of Jesus’s role as shepherd is that he lays down his life for the sheep. He cares for them so much that he is willing to come between his flock and danger. He is willing to die for them. To die “for” (Gk. hyper) the sheep is significant (v. 11). Throughout the Fourth Gospel, hyper is used almost exclusively in a sacrificial context, generally describing Jesus’s sacrificial death on behalf of others. Therefore, Jesus is pointing to the depth of his love for the flock of God and his commitment to die for them in obedience to God’s will.

Perhaps the most startling feature of Jesus’s interpretation is his description of the intimacy of the sheep and their shepherd. We have already learned that the sheep “know” the shepherd’s voice (v. 4), but now we learn that this knowledge is mutual and exhaustive. Moreover, the model for this intimacy is the mutual knowledge shared between the Son and the Father; as he and the Father share profound love, so too Jesus and his flock share this quality of love. This explains the willingness of Jesus to die for his sheep. Jesus is willing to die because of his profound commitment to the ones he loves.

Jesus further says there are “other sheep” that do not come from this sheepfold (v. 16). If they come from a different fold, they come from outside of Judaism, which no doubt refers to gentiles. They too will recognize Jesus’s voice and follow him, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. This is Jesus’s vision for the unity of the church: Jewish believers and gentile believers living together under Christ’s leadership. For the first time, Jesus is anticipating in detail the wider scope of his ministry to reach the world.

Jesus next probes the deeper meaning of the Father’s love for him. The fundamental element in this relationship is Jesus’s dependence on and obedience to God’s will. This is expressed utterly in his willingness to die on the cross. We must avoid the idea that in giving his life, the Son wins the Father’s love. The Father has loved the Son from the “creation of the world” (17:24). Jesus’s voluntary death therefore is a hallmark of his union with the Father’s will and an expression of the love they share together.

This is underscored at the beginning of verse 18. Jesus is not a victim of human conspiracies. He was not a martyr whose life was ended as a tragedy. He obediently participates in the plan of God. The early Christians who interpreted Jesus’s death reinforced this view.

The final aspect of Jesus’s uniqueness as the good shepherd is the authority he bears not only to die but to retake his life in resurrection (vv. 17b–18). The resurrection, therefore, is not an afterthought wherein God rescues his Son from an unexpected tragedy. As the tomb could not contain God, so too Jesus, in his union with the Father, possessed the authority and power to vanquish the death he had embraced on Good Friday. He takes his life up again.

But even in this act he is not working independently, as if he submits to God’s plan of sacrifice but recovers through his own power of resurrection. Jesus’s authoritative, powerful activity, from Good Friday to Easter Sunday, operates in harmony with God, who has authorized and directed it.

The Reaction of the Crowd (10:19–21). John’s chief interest here is in the opposite reactions now forming. Some believe that Jesus is “demon-possessed and raving mad” (v. 20). The reaction is antagonistic. Still others in the audience are impressed with Jesus. This part of the crowd fails to identify Jesus accurately or exhibit belief. Nevertheless, they are open to new possibilities and unwilling to judge Jesus outright.

The Controversy Intensifies (10:22–42). This final section is a critical revelation for the Fourth Gospel. This is Jesus’s final public disclosure of himself to his people. It will be an ultimate disclosure of his complete identity. The account ends with his returning to where it all began—the Jordan River, where John had baptized him.

The crowd is looking for an unambiguous statement about Jesus’s identity. “How long will you keep us in suspense?” (v. 24) can also be translated, “How long will you annoy us?” Are these people seeking clarity or are they antagonistic? What they want is an open, clear statement from Jesus about his messiahship, and no doubt they are poised to judge him if his answer is not to their liking.

Given the explosive, highly politicized views of the Messiah in this period, it is not surprising that Jesus has used restraint so far. Now his audience wants a plain statement. Yet we have already learned that even if Jesus were to speak plainly, only his “sheep” would recognize his voice (v. 26). Ironically, his shepherd sermon was just such a disclosure, but they have not “heard” it.

The root problem is unbelief. The character of Jesus’s life and his works or miracles wrought by God’s power indicate his true identity. But the true problem, which is a deep theological issue, is that only those who are Jesus’s sheep can understand these things. The “other sheep” cannot understand his voice, he does not know them, and they do not follow. This does not excuse them; it simply says that nothing in Jesus’s life is happening outside of the sovereign plan of God.

Not only is this faith a gift, but so are eternal life and security. This shepherd will die for his sheep, but those outside the fold will remain in jeopardy. Jesus’s assignment has been to gather up “all those the Father gives” him (6:37–40). Therefore, his skill as the good shepherd secures them from all predators and thieves (10:29).

The astounding affirmation given in verse 30 serves as a high point in the chapter. Earlier Jesus spoke about his working in cooperation with the Father and in accordance with the Father’s will. The sheep here belong both to the Father and the Son and enjoy fellowship with both simultaneously. “One” in Greek is neuter and does not refer to “one person.” Therefore, Jesus is affirming a unity of purpose and will. The protection of the sheep results from the joint work of Father and Son.

This formulation of oneness is stronger than what we see elsewhere, and the response of the crowd in verses 31, 33 suggests that they hear something different too. This is not a man who is saying he has joined his efforts with God; this is a man who is saying something dangerous, something more, something blasphemous.

Such statements by Jesus demand a response. In chapter 8 Jesus’s summary disclosure of his relationship to Abraham ended in an attempt to stone him. The same thing happens here. The perceived problem is not Jesus’s miracles but his words. While charges have been given against Jesus’s illegal work on the Sabbath, here the problem is blasphemy. His opponents believe he is claiming to be God. This statement is likely John’s typical use of irony, where the antagonist affirms the very truth about Jesus.

Jesus’s defense in verses 34–39 is carefully nuanced and takes advantage of the symbolic motifs present at the Hanukkah festival. He defends himself by citing Psalm 82:6. If the word “god” can be applied to those other than God himself in the Scriptures, why are Jesus’s words blasphemy?

Moreover, Jesus is the one whom God “sanctified” (hagiazō; NIV “set apart”) and sent into the world (v. 36). The NIV obscures 10:36a with a paraphrase. The Greek verb hagiazō means to consecrate or make something holy. This points to the meaning of Hanukkah itself. Judas Maccabeus had reclaimed the temple after he conquered his Greek oppressors. In 1 Maccabees 4:48 we read, “They also rebuilt the sanctuary and the interior of the temple, and consecrated [hagiazō] the courts.” Jesus, then, is the object of Hanukkah’s interest. He is the “sanctified place,” the “holy place,” the “temple” of God celebrated in this season. Not only is his title “Son of God” justified by Psalm 82, but his identity as the locus of God’s presence, as the divine courier from heaven, gives him an incomparable status.

Jesus’s departure from Judea (vv. 40–42) is as much a theological statement as it is geographical. He is moving away from the area of conflict in Jerusalem and returning across the eastern deserts near the Jordan River, where John the Baptist had worked. As such it forms a literary bookend that matches the John the Baptist stories at the start of the Gospel. Jesus has come full circle. He has concluded his public ministry among his people, and now it is time for him to “stay” (v. 40b) there until his hour does come. In a few months he will appear in Jerusalem at Passover to be glorified as God has planned.

For the last time, John the Baptist’s role is affirmed. Echoing the words of 3:22–30, his ministry is placed in perspective. He was a trustworthy and reliable witness to the truth about Jesus. Jesus alone has provided divine signs that point to the hand of the Father in his life, but John provided a voice, a voice in the desert, calling men and women to faith.

Ironically, the evangelist adds, “And in that place many believed in Jesus” (v. 42). Jesus finds faith not among the ranks of the religious in the holy city of Jerusalem. Rather, he finds it when he moves to the desert and works among those who must travel at some hardship to find him. “Many people came to him” in the desert by the Jordan and believed in him (v. 41), recognizing that this was God’s hand behind Jesus’s works and God’s voice within his words. But the leaders of Jerusalem will not see him again until they are given an opportunity to crucify him.