John 10 - Expositor's Bible Commentary - Abridged

2. The Good Shepherd discourse (10:1–21)

Chapter 10 opens a new topic, the discourse on the Good Shepherd. It is seemingly unrelated to the previous narrative, though the reference in v.21 to opening the eyes of the blind shows that the author connects it with the preceding text. This discourse in some respects resembles parables in the Synoptics (e.g., the parable of the lost sheep in Mt 18:12–14; Lk 15:3–7). The Johannine presentation, however, is not concentrated on one point but utilizes the allegory with a wider meaning. The teaching is based on the practice of shepherding, and several aspects are utilized to create a picture of the relation of Christ to his people.

1–2 Jesus introduces this section with a solemn affirmation (“I tell you the truth”), emphasizing the importance of the teaching that the allegory contains, particularly regarding the ministry of Jesus himself. The imagery of the first two paragraphs is based on the concept of the “sheep pen.” It was usually a rough stone or mud-brick structure, only partially roofed, or a cave in the hills. It had a single opening through which the sheep passed when they came in for the night. The pen served to protect them against thieves, robbers, and wild beasts.

Thieves, who would have no right of access by the gate, used other means to gain entrance. The shepherd entered by the gate, the lawful method of entry. Jesus was contrasting himself with the false messiahs who by pretense or violence were attempting to gain control of the people. He came as the legitimate heir of the chosen seed and claimed to be the fulfillment of the OT revelation.

3 The “watchman” (GK 2601) cannot be identified with any particular person; rather, the word illustrates Jesus’ coming at the right time and in the right way. He alone has the right to spiritual leadership of his people, and the sheep listen to him. The Oriental shepherd usually named his sheep and could summon them by calling them.

4–6 A pen frequently held several flocks; and when the time came to go out in the morning pasture, each shepherd separated his sheep from the others by his peculiar call. Instead of driving them, he led them so that they followed him as a unit. Wherever they went, the shepherd preceded them, guiding them to adequate pasture and guarding against possible danger. The sheep refused to follow a stranger because his voice was unfamiliar. In fact, if a stranger should use the shepherd’s call and imitate his tone, the flock would instantly detect the difference and would scatter in panic.

In view of the fact that shepherds and sheep were so common in Palestine, it seems incredible that Jesus’ metaphor was not understood. His hearers, however, failed to comprehend his meaning because of their spiritual deadness. If they would not recognize his claims, they would not accept him as a shepherd; and their assumption that they were God’s flock because they were descendants of Abraham (8:39) would eliminate the necessity of personal faith in Jesus for salvation.

7 The sudden shift of metaphor from shepherd to gate seems rather strange to us, but in reality it is not. When the sheep returned to the fold at night after a day of grazing, the shepherd stood in the doorway of the pen and inspected each one as it entered. He anointed any who were scratched or wounded and gave water to those who were thirsty. After all the sheep had been counted and brought into the pen, the shepherd lay down across the doorway so that no intruder—human being or beast—could enter without his knowledge. The shepherd became the door, the sole determiner of who entered the fold and who was excluded (Cf. 14:6).

8 The “thieves and robbers” refer to the false messiahs and supposed deliverers of the people who had appeared in the period following the restoration from the Exile and especially in the century before Jesus’ advent, or possibly to the religious leaders of the Jews. After the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C., many factions were contending for the leadership of the nation and attempting by violence to throw off the Roman yoke. But Jesus’ purpose was not political, as the emphasis of the discourse shows.

9–10 Jesus’ main purpose was the salvation (health) of the sheep, which he defined as free access to pasture and fullness of life. Under his protection and by his gift they can experience the best life can offer. In the context of John’s emphasis on eternal life, this statement takes on new significance. Jesus can give a whole new meaning to living because he provides full satisfaction and perfect guidance (cf. Eze 34:15).

11 The concept of a divine shepherd goes back to the OT (e.g., Ps 23; Jer 23:1–3; Eze 34:12, 15). To the disciples the figure would have been specially apt since shepherding was one of the major occupations in Palestine. It involved both a protective concern and a sacrificial attitude. This latter is expressed in the words “the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” This phrase, unique to the Johannine writings, means a voluntary sacrificial death (10:11, 17, 18; 13:37–38; 15:13; 1Jn 3:16). “Life” (GK 6034) implies more than physical existence; it involves personality and is more frequently translated “soul.” The good shepherd stands ready to sacrifice his total self for the sake of the sheep.

12–13 Jesus’ statement about the hired hand indicates the differences between himself and the religious leaders of the day. The main concern of the hired hand is his pay (cf. 1Pe 5:2–3), not the welfare of the sheep. When the flock is attacked by a wolf, he deserts them, for he will not endanger himself for them. Without proper and courageous leadership, the sheep will be dispersed and easily become the victims of their enemies.

14–15 The reaffirmation “I am the good shepherd” is based on knowledge of the sheep. “Know” (GK 1182) implies a relationship of trust and intimacy. The definitive analogy given here is drawn from Jesus’ relation to the Father. The Shepherd is concerned for the sheep because they are his property and because he loves them individually.

16 The sheep “not of this sheep pen” probably refers to the Gentiles to whom Jesus sent his disciples (Mt 28:19; Lk 24:47; Ac 1:8) and whom he planned to include in his salvation. He also stresses this idea of unity in his farewell prayer (17:20).

17 The thrice-repeated allusion to laying down his life (10:11, 15, 17) gives the basis for Jesus’ sacrifice as the means of our reconciliation both to God and to one another (see 1Jn 3:16).

18 Two important aspects of Jesus’ death are clarified by his authority. (1) His death was wholly voluntary. His power was such that no human hand could have touched him had he not permitted it. The gospel has already made clear that Jesus avoided capture or execution (5:18; 7:44–45; 8:20, 59; Cf. 10:39; 11:53–54). Only when he declared that “the hour has come” (12:23) was it possible for his enemies to arrest him. (2) Jesus had authority both to lay down his life and to take it up again. The death of Jesus was part of a plan to submit to death and then emerge from it victoriously alive. Anyone can lay down one’s life, if that means simply the termination of physical existence; but only the Son of God could at will resume his existence. This entire plan was motivated by his love for the Father and his readiness to carry out his Father’s purpose.

19–21 The reaction of the populace was divided. To Jesus’ enemies, his claims seemed so exaggerated and so contradictory to the popular understanding of the unity of God that they could be attributed only to the irrational and blasphemous utterance of a demoniac (Cf. 7:20; 8:48). On the other hand, many of the crowd regarded Jesus as thoroughly sane. After all, demoniacs do not cure the blind. The reference to the miracle narrated in Ch. 9 shows that it must have left a strong impression in Jerusalem.

3. The debate in Solomon’s Colonnade (10:22–42)

22–23 The Feast of Dedication, now known as Hanukkah, was established as a memorial to the purification and rededication of the temple by Judas Maccabeus in 165 B.C., after its profanation three years earlier by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Antiochus, the king of Syria, had captured Jerusalem, plundered the temple treasury, and sacrificed a sow to Jupiter on the temple altar. His attempt to hellenize Judea resulted in the Maccabean revolt, which was successful in defeating the Syrian armies and liberating the Jewish people. Solomon’s Colonnade (or Porch) was a long walkway covered by a roof supported on pillars on the east side of the temple, overlooking the Kidron Valley. Jesus used it as a center for informal teaching and preaching, since there were almost always some people present for worship at the temple.

24 The Jews encircled Jesus and demanded him to make a categorical statement of his identity, to dispel an illusion and/or to enlist their allegiance. Was he the Messiah or not? If so, they wanted him to fulfill his calling by achieving independence for the nation; if he was not the Messiah, they would look elsewhere. They could not escape the fact that his miracles exceeded the powers of any ordinary person and that his teachings carried an authority greater than that of the established religious leaders. On the other hand, he had not formally presented himself as the Messiah, nor had he evinced any political ambitions.

25–26 Jesus’ reply placed the burden of proof on his questioners. He reminded them that his previous sayings and works should be sufficient to establish his messianic mission (Cf. 5:16–47; 6:32–59; 7:14–30), but they were refusing that evidence. The reason they did not believe was that they were not his sheep. In saying that, Jesus implied that the main criterion of salvation is not descent from the chosen line, but whether or not people follow him. His immediate hearers refused to believe and thus cut themselves off from further revelation.

27–28 The sheep that are given by the Father to the Son belong to his flock and are characterized by obedience, recognition of the shepherd, and allegiance to him. They, in turn, are guaranteed eternal life and permanent protection. All the resources of God are committed to their preservation.

29 The gift of the Father to the Son is the “sheep” viewed collectively. He assures their destiny, for nobody can wrest them from his hand. Throughout the discourse, Jesus has been stressing his relationship with the Father, his intimate knowledge of the Father (v.15), the love of the Father for him (v.17), and his works done in the Father’s name (v.25).

30 “I and the Father” preserves the separate individuality of the two Persons in the Godhead; the word “one” (GK 1651) asserts unity of nature or equality (cf. 1Co 3:8). The Jews were quick to apprehend this statement and reacted by preparing to stone Jesus for blasphemy because he, a man, had asserted that he was one with God. For them Jesus’ language did not mean simply agreement of thought or purpose but carried a metaphysical implication of deity.

31 The verb translated “picked up” literally means “to carry.” It is doubtful whether there were any loose stones in the paved courtyard of Solomon’s Colonnade. But not far off was the temple that was in the process of being built, and certainly stones would have been readily available there. Stoning was the punishment prescribed for blasphemy in the law of Moses (Lev 24:16), and the opponents of Jesus were preparing for just such an execution.

32 Jesus’ question challenged the people’s action on the ground that he had performed only helpful deeds. They should take stock of what he had done, and then they would see that stoning was incongruous with his actions.

33 The Jews replied that the issue was not the quality of his works but his blasphemous claim to be God. Had Jesus not meant to convey a claim to deity, he undoubtedly would have protested the action of the Jews by declaring that they had misunderstood him.

34–35 On the contrary, Jesus introduced an a fortiori argument from the Psalms to strengthen his statement. Psalm 82:6 represents God as addressing a group of beings whom he calls “gods” and “sons of the Most High.” If, then, these terms can be applied to ordinary mortals or even angels, how could Jesus be accused of blasphemy when he applied them to himself, the One whom the Father set apart and sent into the world on a special mission? Jesus was not offering a false claim; he was merely asserting what he was by right.

The parenthetic statement “and the Scripture cannot be broken” illustrates the high regard Jesus had for the OT. Throughout this gospel the constant assumption is that Scripture is the revelation of God, setting the timing, content, and character of Jesus’ ministry (see 1:45; 2:22; 3:14–15; 5:39; et al.). Such passages presuppose a confidence in the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture that is in keeping with Jesus’ attitude.

36 Jesus unmistakably refers to himself as “God’s Son [GK 5626]” To him it was not a strained assertion but a logical statement, for he was fully aware of his relation to the Father and to the responsibility the Father had committed to him. The accusation of blasphemy seems to be utterly unreasonable in the light of that relationship.

37–39 Jesus’ appeal to his opponents summed up the attitude and method of his argument. He took his position, not on the basis of his personal authority, but on the attestation of his “miracles.” If they showed that he was demonstrating divine compassion and exercising divine authority over people and matter, he was divinely accredited. Those miracles were peculiarly expressive of his nature and revealed his personality and mission. For those predisposed not to believe in him, he offered pragmatic proof of his special relationship with God: “The Father is in me, and I in the Father.” The appeal failed; and once again “they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.”

40–42 Having eluded their attempt to capture him, Jesus retreated to Perea, on the east side of the Jordan, which was the domain of Herod Antipas and where the rulers in Jerusalem had no authority. There he would be comparatively safe from arrest. There also he found a better reception, for “many believed on him.” The Jews’ allusion to the testimony of John the Baptist indicates that his ministry had enduring influence, and they accepted Jesus on that basis. As in the case of the woman of Samaria, faith in Christ was preceded by the witness of another.