John 10 - Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

10:1-21 Burge (2000:286) provides three reasons why this passage should not be exclusively tied to ch 9: (1) There is an abrupt change from “light” to “shepherd,” so we could be in a new setting. (2) In the Hanukkah address of 10:26-27, Jesus returned to the topic of sheep, assuming the same audience as 10:1-21. (3) Ezekiel 34 (with its shepherd imagery) plays an important role in the Hanukkah Festival and further ties the sections together. Therefore, it is safe to say that 10:1-21 is a transition that concludes ch 9 and at the same time prepares for the Hanukkah passage of 10:22ff.

10:6 illustration. The term paroimia [TG3942, ZG4231] (“illustration”; used also in 16:25, 29) is similar to the synoptic parabolē [TG3850, ZG4130] (“parable”; this term is never used in John) and indicates a highly figurative or cryptic saying (called in Judaism a mashal) intended to bring hearers to a greater understanding of spiritual truth upon further reflection. The difference between this and the synoptic parables is that the latter contain a plot or story, while this is an extended metaphor or allegory in which each detail has meaning (cf. also 15:1-6).

10:8 All who came before me. Several mss omit “before me” (45vid 75 א* 036 037 ); it is possible that these words were added to clarify a terse sentence. In other mss, however, the “all” is also omitted (D itb,d VulgateMSS), and it seems both omissions were attempts to soften the strong condemnation of the leaders here (cf. Beasley-Murray); the phrase is likely original.

10:14 I know my own sheep. Bruce points out (1983:227) that “know” occurs four times in 10:14-15, always in the present tense with a gnomic or timeless force. The special knowledge of the Father and the Son in eternity is extended to embrace the new relationship between Jesus and the believer.

In chapter 9, the Jewish authorities oppose Jesus utterly and appear not only blind to the truth of God in him but also threaten anyone who would become his follower. The chapter ends with the verdict that their sin remains (9:41). In John 10, we see Jesus expand on that verdict, as he continues to address them and reveal that they are false shepherds, thieves and robbers, and hired hands who care nothing for the flock of God. In contrast, Jesus is the Good Shepherd and the gate to God’s sheepfold.

Jesus’ message here is expressed in the form of an extended metaphor or “illustration” (10:6), using shepherding as a means of teaching these ideas. It builds on Ezekiel 34, where God tells Ezekiel to “prophesy against the shepherds, the leaders of Israel” (Ezek 34:2). They had forsaken their flock, so God said he himself would shepherd his people and “set over them one shepherd, my servant David. He will feed them and be a shepherd to them” (Ezek 34:23). It is generally agreed that this is a messianic promise, and Jesus saw himself fulfilling that prophecy as the Good Shepherd (10:11). The illustration itself is found in 10:1-5 and is then developed via two extensive explanations: that of the gate in 10:7-10 and that of the shepherd in 10:11-16. Links with the Festival of Shelters (chs 7–9) continue, as Jesus is not only water and light (7:38; 8:12) but also the messianic shepherd. While it was often said that only the Torah could be the true shepherd, light, and water (2 Baruch 77:11-16), Jesus was saying that in reality he is the true Word (so Blomberg). Neyrey (2001:278-281), building on Hellenistic-Jewish rhetorical practices, thinks that the major emphasis is on the “noble death” of the shepherd (10:11, 15, 17-18); the thrust would then be the courageous death of the “noble (kalos [TG2570, ZG2819]) shepherd,” which becomes a victory that benefits the people of God.

The basis of Jesus’ illustration is the sheepfold of the first century, an enclosure, often built at the foot of a hill with walls on the three sides and a small opening with a gate for entering and leaving. The image of the fold here envisions a large enclosure, probably housing several flocks, for an under-shepherd is mentioned (10:3; cf. “gatekeeper,” NLT). This assistant would man the gate to protect the sheep and keep them from escaping. Bailey (1993:3-6) says that the scene is early morning in a Palestinian village, with the inhabitants (who only had a few sheep each) rounding their sheep up together under a single shepherd and sending them into the countryside to graze. The danger was always that a “thief” or “robber” (virtual synonyms here) would sneak over the wall and either steal the sheep or kill them in order to bankrupt the owners (10:10). The walls were usually not more than waist high because their purpose was to keep the sheep in and predators out rather than to stop thieves. It was the job of the “gatekeeper” to prevent robbers. On the other hand, a shepherd entered properly through the gate, and both the gatekeeper and the sheep knew him. This was how one could tell the true shepherd from the false; he entered properly and never snuck into the enclosure another way.

This scene has a great deal of Old Testament background behind it. God is often depicted as Israel’s shepherd (Gen 48:15; Pss 28:9, 80:1; Isa 40:11; Mic 5:4), who leads his people to safety and protects them (Ps 23; Ezek 34:11-16). In contrast, the leaders are false shepherds who take the milk and wool for themselves and butcher the sheep for themselves (Ezek 34:3; cf. Isa 56:11; Jer 23:1-4). As a result, the flock has been “scattered without a shepherd” (Ezek 34:5; cf. Matt 9:36; Mark 6:34). Obviously, Jesus had in mind the Jewish authorities who had opposed the work of God and tried to steal his flock. This closely resembles false teachers or cult leaders in our own day, who superimpose their own “endless discussion of myths and spiritual pedigrees” (1 Tim 1:4) over biblical truth. Jesus is the only true shepherd of God’s flock, and anyone who develops a messiah complex or claims to dictate all truth is moving in a very dangerous direction. There are too many so-called Christian leaders whose methods and message are not centered on God or his Word. In our age, as in much of modern history, Christians need to use a great deal of discernment (Heb 5:14) in living the Christian life and choosing the proper place of worship.

The true shepherd also has a very deep relationship with his flock (10:3b-5). He calls them by name, and they follow him out of the sheepfold because they know his voice. In Jesus’ day (as today), a shepherd would often assign each sheep a certain name or call (sometimes a certain note on a flute) and teach it to them. This would enable him to call any one back if it started to wander away (so Carson, Bailey, Keener). In the Near East, they would also precede their sheep and keep the animals following through their distinctive calls. Obviously, a stranger could not do this since the sheep would neither know a stranger’s voice nor respond to his leading. Jesus’ illustration here has Numbers 27:16-17 as its Old Testament background: Moses asked God for a new shepherd for the community; that person was Joshua (the Heb. form of the name “Jesus”). This is an important picture of the true Christian community/flock: Jesus knows each and every one individually and calls that person to himself (divine sovereignty, Cf. 6:36-40), and his sheep are so attuned to the Master’s voice that they both follow him implicitly and immediately recognize a false message (human responsibility, Cf. 6:35; 9:35-38). It is also the critical responsibility of all who are “under-shepherds” (1 Pet 5:2-4) to teach God’s flock to recognize the difference between truth and error.

In contrast to the leaders who pretended to bring the people to God, Jesus is the true “gate” to salvation, the only way by which anyone “will be saved” (10:9; Cf. 6:53; 8:24; 14:6). Köstenberger (2004:303) speaks of the ancient (Greco-Roman and Jewish) concept of entering heaven via a gate, a picture that fits this passage well. Jesus as the “gate to heaven” would also fit the emphasis of 1:51. Those who seek another door to salvation will face the wrath of final judgment, but those who come to God by him will “go freely and will find good pastures”—words that picture the sheep being led by the Good Shepherd to lush pasturelands (cf. Ps 23; Rev 7:17). Once more, he is quite distinct from the false shepherds, who “steal and kill and destroy”—a picture that stems from Ezekiel 34:2-3 (“feed yourselves instead of your flocks . . . and butcher the best animals”) and fits such recent false messiahs as Jim Jones and David Koresh. In contrast, under Jesus there will be “a rich and satisfying life” (lit., they will “have life and have it completely”). In every area there will be an abundance of divine provisions. This goes beyond the idea of eternal life to the daily needs of God’s flock. The sheep who come to Jesus find themselves members of a new flock or community, and they are recipients of an incredible outpouring of spiritual blessings.

In contrast, the leaders were like “a hired hand” who would run away at the sight of a wolf (10:12). The hired hand had no pride or care of ownership. The Mishnah said that he must defend the sheep if one wolf came but not if two came (so Morris), but the hired hands Jesus addressed ran at the first sign of danger. This echoes Ezekiel 34:8 (“You abandoned my flock and left them to be attacked by every wild animal”), and like the hireling here, they simply cared nothing for God’s flock. In Acts 20:28-29, Paul warns the Ephesian elders of the “false teachers, like vicious wolves,” who “will come in among you after I leave, not sparing the flock.” Churches must choose their leaders carefully and make certain their choices are not based on charisma but on their walk with God and on the centrality of scriptural truth in their ministries.

The second section (10:14-18) begins with the repetition of “I am the good shepherd” and then goes into another aspect of 10:3-5, namely the extraordinary relationship between Jesus and his flock that is the direct result of his atoning sacrifice (emphasized further in 10:15, 17, 18). The mutual indwelling of 6:56 becomes mutual knowledge in 10:14, “I know my own sheep, and they know me.” In 10:3-4, the shepherd calls his sheep by name, and they know his voice. This develops that image further and carries over to the mutual indwelling in 15:4, 5, 7—that is, the basis of the fruitful Christian life. This mutual knowledge between the shepherd and his sheep is itself grounded in the mutual knowledge between Jesus and the Father. The depth of Jesus’ knowledge of his Father is especially prominent in 1:18—“the one and only Son is himself God and is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed [Greek, ‘made him known’] God to us” (cf. also 17:21-23). The intimacy between Jesus and his Father is translated into a similar intimacy between Jesus and his flock. As God knew his people in the Old Testament (e.g., Pss 7:9; 139:23; Jer 1:5) and the New Testament (1 Cor 8:3; Gal 4:9) so his Son knows his followers. The proof of this knowledge is that he sacrifices his “life for the sheep,” repeating 10:11. Without that sacrifice, there could be no intimacy, for sin would be an ultimate barrier to knowing Christ.

The “sheepfold” Jesus has been talking about in this passage is Judaism. In 10:16, he tells the people that he has “other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold”; this must refer to the Gentiles, also known by Jesus (10:14) but who were yet to come into the Kingdom. These are the “children of God scattered around the world,” who will be brought together and united with the Jewish believers (11:52; Cf. 17:20-23). Jesus’ statement that he “must bring them also” indicated that the Gentile mission was a divine necessity. The coming of Gentiles into the people of God has a strong basis in the Old Testament, beginning with the covenant promise to Abraham that “all the families on earth will be blessed through you” (Gen 12:3; Cf. 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14) and continuing in God’s charge to Israel that he would make them “a light to the Gentiles” (Isa 49:6; Cf. 42:6). It has always been God’s plan to bring Jew and Gentile into his larger fold, and his choice of Israel as the covenant people is to bring about the procession of the nations to Zion (Isa 2:2-4; 11:10, 12; 14:1; 56:6-7; 60:3). John emphasized this in his emphasis on Jesus as “the Savior of the world” (4:42) and the “light of the world” (8:12). The love of God (3:16) and the mission of both Jesus and the disciples (17:18; 20:21) was to the “world.”

The result of Jesus’ work was to be “one flock with one shepherd” (10:16). Jesus would be the one shepherd (distinguishing him from the other so-called shepherds of Israel), uniting his people. “This indicates that the oneness will be between two groups of sheep (Jew and Gentile) and between them and the Shepherd. In other words, the oneness of the sheep is related to their oneness with the Shepherd” (Comfort 1994:95-96). The theme of unity in the church is especially stressed in 17:20-23 (“I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one”). Yet there is a twofold theme in this chapter: purity and unity. Purity is seen in the images of the thieves and robbers and the hired hands, the false teachers who will try to destroy the church. The church in every age must find the balance between purity and unity, between those times when heretics are deceiving the flock and those times when we must agree to disagree over issues that should not divide the church. In doing so, we have to distinguish between cardinal doctrines, which must lead to church discipline (doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and substitutionary atonement), and non-cardinal doctrines, which should not split the church but be handled within unity (issues like the rapture debate, Calvinism versus Arminianism, and the charismatic debate; see Osborne 1991:311-314). For instance, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is cardinal, but the issue of the gifts of the Spirit is not; the return of Christ is cardinal, but the millennial debate is not.

Everything is anchored in the Father’s love (10:17). Salvation was made possible because “God loved the world so much” (3:16), and Jesus’ mission flowed out of God’s love for him. As Morris says (1995:512), “the meaning here is that the death of Jesus is the will of God for him. And because he is in perfect harmony with the will of God he goes forward to that death.” The Father’s perfect love is linked with his Son’s perfect union with the divine plan, salvation flowing out of his “sacrifice” on the cross. Yet the wonderful truth is that Jesus laid down his life in order to take it up again. His death and the resurrection are a single event in salvation history. Death is the path to life, both for Jesus and for us. Jesus’ death also constituted his being “lifted up” to glory (3:14; 8:28; 12:32). Moreover, his death was his time of destiny (2:4; 7:30; 8:20) and was under God’s control; therefore, no one could take his life (10:18)—he would only die when he “voluntarily” gave himself up to the divine plan. The Father had given his Son “authority” to die when he wanted and also to rise from the dead at the proper moment. These two themes are central: Jesus’ absolute authority and his perfect obedience in fulfilling “what my Father has commanded.” In one sense, it was the Jewish authorities who demanded his death, and he was nailed to the cross by Roman command, but in the deeper, ultimate sense, it was Jesus’ authority and God’s command that actually led to the Cross.

10:22 Hanukkah, the Festival of Dedication. “Hanukkah” is supplied by the NLT for clarity. The Gr. is ta enkainia [TG1456, ZG1589] (lit., “renewal”). Comfort says of this (1994:98), “This is key to an interpretation . . . that Jesus had come to provide a complete spiritual renewal for the people of God, wherein he became the spiritual reality of all that they cherished.”

10:24 How long are you going to keep us in suspense? This question can also be translated as “How long are you going to annoy us?” implying opposition, but the context favors the NLT’s rendering, which implies a sincere desire to learn Jesus’ true self-image. The opposition and rejection does not come until the next scene.

10:27-30 My sheep listen to my voice. Michaels (1989:186-187) develops the parallels between this and 10:14-16. Both are revelatory “I sayings” in which the speaker is the Shepherd/Son with three features in common: (1) the mutual knowledge of the shepherd and the sheep; (2) the shepherd giving life to the sheep; and (3) the shepherd’s ministry to the sheep.

10:28 they will never perish. For the Arminian response, see the note on 6:39.

away from me. Lit., “out of my hand.”

10:29 my Father has given them to me. There are several different variations involving the relative pronoun in the Greek of this verse. Thus it could be (literally), “my Father who has given me” (cf. NLT, NIV, NASB) or “what my Father has given me” (NRSV) or even “regarding that which my Father has given me” (NJB), depending on whether the pronouns are masculine, neuter, or a combination. See Comfort 2007:[John 10:29] for further discussion of the issues.

10:30 The Father and I are one. Since the word “one” (hen [TG1520, ZG1651]) is neuter rather than masculine, it is common today to see this as a functional unity of will and purpose rather than an ontological unity of person (Bruce, Ridderbos, Witherington, Michaels, Burge). But the statement must also imply a unity of essence (so Carson, Morris, Moloney, Köstenberger). While it is not a metaphysical statement, it clearly places Jesus with God and goes beyond action, in accord with “the Word was God” (1:1) and “the unique One, who is himself God” (1:18; cf. Morris). As Barrett says (1978:382), “The oneness of Father and Son is a oneness of love and obedience even while it is a oneness of essence.”

10:32 good works. As in 10:11, “good” is the term kala [TG2570, ZG2819], emphasizing that these works were “noble, beautiful, fine” (so Beasley-Murray, Carson). Jesus was asserting that his divine origin was shown in the “noble works” of God.

10:33 blasphemy. This has often been seen as problematic because the Mishnah (m. Sanhedrin 7.5) clearly says that people do not become blasphemers unless they pronounce the name of God (the tetragrammaton yhwh [TH3068, ZH3378]) itself. Therefore, some doubt the authenticity of John 10:33 and the surrounding verses. However, the Mishnah was not codified until about AD 200, and there is some doubt as to whether it describes the situation before AD 70, especially for the Sadducees. Furthermore, there is much evidence that a charge of blasphemy was decisive at Jesus’ trial (Bock 2000). The verse should be accepted as authentic.

10:34 you are gods. There is considerable debate regarding the identity of those called “gods” in Ps 82: (1) They could be corrupt judges of Israel who have denigrated their office, but it is difficult to think of them as receiving “God’s message.” (2) It could refer to Israel itself, who had received the law yet had been unjust in treating the poor (a frequent charge from prophets like Jeremiah or Amos). (3) It could be angelic powers who had abused their God-given authority. This third, while possible for the Psalm itself, does not seem likely here, for there is no hint whatsoever in the context of angels. In light of their reception of God’s word, Israel is the best understanding (so Beasley-Murray, Whitacre).

10:40 the place where John was first baptizing. As in 1:28, the exact location for this is debated. Some (Schnackenburg, Brown, Beasley-Murray) suggest “Bethany beyond the Jordan” in Perea (1:28-34). Others (Carson, Riesner 1987, Köstenberger) look to Batanea, northeast of Judea in the tetrarchy of Philip and farther from Jerusalem. This latter is the more likely (see note on 1:28) because it is farther removed from Jesus’ troubles in Judea.

10:41 John didn’t perform miraculous signs. Plummer (1981:230) makes the interesting point that this provides indirect evidence for the veracity of the miracle stories. John was viewed as the first prophet in four centuries and as the fulfillment of Elijah’s ministry, yet in all those years of enthusiastic response, no miracles were attributed to him. Instead, all traditions attribute miracles to Jesus. It is unlikely that these traditions would simultaneously be correct regarding John and incorrect regarding Jesus.

This section recounts the last of the four festivals that Jesus is seen fulfilling in John (cf. Sabbath [[ch5], Passover [[ch6], Tabernacles [[chs7–9]) and represents the culmination of the debates between Jesus and the Jews. The central theme is the identity of Jesus, especially the question of whether he is actually the Messiah (10:24) and the “Son of God” (10:36). The Festival of Dedication, or Hanukkah, is the only extrabiblical feast in the Jewish calendar. It stemmed from the events of 167–164 BC, when the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes outlawed the Jewish religion and tried to force Hellenistic religion on the land. Soldiers went from village to village forcing the people to sacrifice pigs on pagan altars (cf. 1 Macc 1:41-50). An elderly priest, Mattathias, revolted, and a group gathered around him and his sons, fighting a guerilla war against the Seleucid armies (1 Macc 2:15ff). After a series of battles under the leadership of his son Judas (called “the Maccabee” or “the Hammer,” 1 Macc 3:1), they liberated Jerusalem on 25 Kislev (= November/December) 164 and rededicated the Temple (cf. 1 Macc 4:36ff). The eight-day celebration that ensued is also called the “Festival of Lights” due to the lighting of lamps in the homes and the legend of the miracle of the oil lamp (b. Shabbat 21b); it became Hanukkah, or the Festival of Dedication.

Jesus was still carrying out his ministry in the Temple, and John tells us it was winter (10:22). John would not need to tell his readers this since they would have been aware of the season of the feast, so some (e.g., Beasley-Murray) think the word has symbolic overtones—like “night” in 3:2; 9:4; 13:30—so that it refers to the cold spiritual climate in Israel. It is more likely an explanation as to why Jesus was walking through “the section known as Solomon’s Colonnade,” a section on the east that rested on pre-Herodian stone believed to go back to Solomon’s Temple (so Michaels). The cold winter winds forced rabbis to seek the shelter of the colonnaded porch rather than the open courtyard. While he was walking there, some Jews challenged Jesus to stop keeping them “in suspense” and declare plainly whether or not he was the Messiah (10:24). At this stage, there was not an antagonistic air; it seems to be the result of all the debates over Jesus’ true identity in chapters 5–9. They wanted him to settle the issue once and for all. To this point, Jesus had not explicitly stated that he was the Messiah in Jerusalem (the only one he told was the Samaritan woman, 4:26), spending most of his time telling them he was the divine envoy and the Son of God. We seldom realize the incredibly political nature of messianic expectations in the first century, which were centered on a nationalistic hope with military overtones (cf. on 6:15). Moreover, the Jewish people had already rejected the witnesses to who and what he was (5:31-47; 8:14-18). In light of the situation, Jesus’ reluctance is understandable. Still, they wanted a plain answer.

Jesus’ response was unequivocal: “I have already told you, and you don’t believe me” (10:25). This does not mean that Jesus had told them “plainly” but that he had told them sufficiently. It is rather clear, when we read the dialogs of chapters 5–10 thus far and consider the sign-miracles, that Jesus was communicating his identity to the people in every way possible—he is the “Son” of the Father and the heaven-sent envoy of God. Every time, they greeted his message with unbelief (Cf. 5:45-47; 6:36, 64; 7:48; 8:24, 45-46). As Jesus said, his “work” made it very clear and provided more than sufficient “proof” (in 5:36 the works provide an official “witness”) of his identity as the Messiah. Still they rejected him. The reason for this was that they were not his sheep (10:26). This goes back to 6:35-44; the sovereign God had not drawn them, and they had not “come,” so they were not his sheep. Three stages are mentioned of Jesus’ sheep: they “listen” or hear his call, Jesus “knows” them, and they “follow” him in response (10:3-4, 8, 14-16). The Jewish people did not have the eyes of faith and so could not catch the implications of his works and his words.

Then follows one of the most beautiful statements on the security of the believer in the Bible (10:28-29). Jesus gives eternal life to the sheep who hear and follow him—the ultimate culmination of the “rich and satisfying life” the shepherd gives the sheep (10:10). In John, eternal life is characterized as both a present possession (3:15-16, 36; 5:24; 6:40, 47, 51, 54, 58; 20:31) and a future promise (5:28-29; 14:2-3). This means that the sheep “will never die” (8:51, 52; 11:26) and “never perish.” For God’s sheep, death is still “the last enemy” (1 Cor 15:26), but at the same time it is also a step upward to our heavenly destiny. This security has nothing to do with our own effort but is rather centered on the power of Christ (Cf. 6:37-40; 1 Pet 1:5)—“no one can snatch them away from” him, neither the thief nor the wolf (10:1, 8, 10, 12). The idea of sheep being snatched away (Cf. 6:15) is a violent one and pictures an enemy tearing us away from Christ (Cf. 10:12). Paul developed this idea further in Romans 8:31-39, where he said, “nothing can ever separate us” from the love of God and Christ. The love and enabling presence and power of God keep the believer secure. Jesus holds us in his hand (10:28), and the Father’s “hand” is superimposed over Christ’s hand (10:29) so that we have a double security! Jesus made it clear that everything he did was based on the Father and flowed from the Father (5:19, 30; 7:16, 28; 8:16, 29, 42). God’s strength guarantees the security of the sheep, for he is “more powerful than anyone else” (10:29). The predatory leaders of Jesus’ day and the false teachers of John’s day could not steal the sheep, for God was watching over them.

The reason that the Father and the Son work in such union for the security of the sheep is that “the Father and [Jesus] are one” (10:30). Michaels (1989:187) sees this as the culmination of a syllogism:

Jesus’ response (10:34-36) was a rabbinic argument stemming from their “own law” (10:34, NLT mg), language that does not constitute a rejection of the Old Testament (“law” here refers to the whole OT canon, not just the Torah) but was rather a challenge to their understanding of the law (cf. also 8:17). Jesus then quoted Psalm 82:6, where it says of the people of Israel, “I say, you are gods.” The full text says, “I say, ‘You are gods; you are all children of the Most High. But you will die like mere mortals and fall like every other ruler.’ ” The context is the oppression of the poor by Israel and the judgment they were to receive for their unjust decisions. They had “received God’s message” on Sinai and were called God’s “firstborn son” (Exod 4:22), yet fell due to worshiping the golden calf. Jesus argued from the lesser to the greater: If they could be called “gods” (Heb. ’elohim [TH430, ZH466]), how could anyone object to Jesus being called “the Son of God”? Since “the Scriptures cannot be altered” (10:35) and they were called “gods,” then even more rightly could Jesus call himself “Son of God.” They had only received the law, while it is Jesus whom the Father “set . . . apart” (hagiazō [TG37, ZG39]); he had been consecrated to and sent upon his mission by God. Of course, Israel was also consecrated and sent, so this did not so much emphasize Jesus’ unique status as it explained why he was not guilty of blasphemy (so Ridderbos). He could validly call himself “Son of God.” Of course, Jesus’ challengers didn’t even begin to understand the deeper implications of his reasoning.

Having proven his right to label himself “Son of God,” Jesus turned to the reasons why they should believe in him (10:37-38). He made the same point as in 10:25 (Cf. 5:36): If they would not believe because of his words, they should believe because of his works, for the works showed that he was carrying out his Father’s work. They point beyond Jesus to the one who sent him, and even more to the fact that he is his Father’s Son. The Jews greeted his earlier claim in 10:25 with unbelief and an attempt to stone him, but he appealed to the same evidence once more. In 2:23-25, we observe that a sign-based belief is only a partial belief, but in 5:36, the works are offered as legal testimony that should lead to belief, for they substantiate Jesus’ words. Belief is the proper response because Jesus’ works are “evidence” for the validity of his words. They show his unity with the Father—specifically, that they act in concert. The purpose was that the Jews might “know and understand” (10:38) the mutual union between Father and Son. The formula, “the Father is in me, and I am in the Father,” occurs again in 14:10-11 and 17:21 and is the basis for the unity between believers and Jesus/the Spirit (6:56; 14:20; 15:5, 7; cf. 1 John 2:24; 3:24; 4:15) as well as the internal unity of the church (17:20-23). The knowledge of this complete intimacy between these two members of the Godhead is at the heart of true faith.

Many followed Jesus to the Transjordan (10:41, showing his public popularity had not diminished), and they commented on the significance of John. The fact that he “didn’t perform miraculous signs” showed that he fulfilled the ministry of Elijah only in the sense of messianic forerunner (Mal 4:5); Jesus, however, did fulfill the miraculous ministry of Elijah (and Elisha). As John had said, “He must become greater and greater, and I must become less and less” (3:30). Yet this was also his significance, for everything he said about Jesus had come true (10:41). He was the faithful witness (5:36, the nearest previous mention of John), and he fulfilled his mission perfectly (cf. “sent” in 1:6). As a result of reflection on John’s witness to Jesus, “many who were there believed in Jesus.” While those in Judea, where Jesus should have been welcomed, rejected him, many “in the wilderness where John had called for a ‘highway’ for Jesus” were prepared to make a decision (Ridderbos 1997:379).