I TELL YOU the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” 6Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.
7Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. 8All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
11“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
14“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
19At these words the Jews were again divided. 20Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?”
21But others said, “These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”
22Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24The Jews gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
25Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
40Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing in the early days. Here he stayed 41and many people came to him. They said, “Though John never performed a miraculous sign, all that John said about this man was true.” 42And in that place many believed in Jesus.
Original Meaning
JOHN 10 CONTINUES the series of festival sermons and controversies that we have been following since chapter 5. Jesus has appeared at Sabbath, Passover, and Tabernacles, revealing his identity and work through the festival imagery; now he appears at Hanukkah. Symbols employed in story or ritual (e.g., bread, water, light) have become avenues of revelation by which Jesus unveils his heavenly mission.
The first problem we encounter in John 10, however, is deciding if we must divide the chapter.1 The festival itself is not mentioned until 10:22; in most cases, John refers to the festival at the head of the relevant section (5:1; 6:4; 7:2). Therefore 10:1–21 could almost be seen as a continuation of the debate that concluded chapter 9. No new audience is assumed, and 10:21 refers again to the healing of the blind man. In fact, the blind man who refuses to follow the Pharisees is like the sheep of 10:5, who will not follow “because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” Thus, the failed leadership of the Pharisees described in chapter 9 is given a severe critique. They are “false shepherds” compared with Jesus, the true shepherd.
There are a few difficulties, however, when we link 10:1–21 with the end of chapter 9 exclusively. (1) There is an abrupt change of subject in chapter 10. From discussing “light” Jesus suddenly moves to the motif of shepherds. Thus, it seems plausible that we are now in a different setting. (2) In 10:26–27 (during Hanukkah) Jesus continues to refer to sheep and assumes the same audience he had in 10:1–21. The Feast of Tabernacles (ch. 9) and Hanukkah (ch. 10) are almost three months apart, and certainly John wants us to assume that the audience for all chapter 10 is the same. (3) John 10:1–21 is also an excellent preface to a theme that was central to the Hanukkah Festival. During this season Israel recalled the failed leadership of the temple during the Maccabean era; during its ceremonies Ezekiel 34, the powerful criticism of Israel’s “false shepherds,” served in the Hanukkah liturgy.2
Yet even though the events of chapters 9 and 10 are months apart, John no doubt wants us to see a literary unity between them. John 10:1–21 points both backward and forward. It is Jesus’ final public discourse and concludes his severe criticism of Jerusalem’s leadership (dramatically played out for us in the blind man story). But it also launches the principal theme of Hanukkah: identifying the true shepherd of God’s people.
The chapter divides into three main units. In 10:1–5 Jesus supplies his parable, which concludes with the failure of his audience to understand (10:6). Jesus then interprets and expands the parable (10:7–18), which is followed by a division in the audience: Some wonder if Jesus is demon-possessed while others are impressed by the compelling power of his words (10:19–21). Jesus closes the discourse by arguing for his messiahship from Psalm 82 (John 10:22–38). This forces his audience into a crisis: Some try to seize him while others choose to believe (10:39–42). The entire chapter, then, carefully follows the reactions of the audience, indicating how the coming of Christ divides the world (cf. 3:19–21; 9:5).
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. The culture of Jesus’ day understood shepherds and their sheep well. In the Synoptics Jesus commonly uses shepherding as a metaphor in his speech (Matt. 9:6; 10:6, 16) and a subject in his parables (Matt. 25:32; Luke 15:4). This becomes the principal image for describing leadership and is easily expanded into a metaphor for everyday life.
In the Old Testament, God is the shepherd of Israel (Gen. 49:24; Ps. 23; 78:52–53; 80:1). Note especially Isaiah 40:10–11:
See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power. . . .
He tends his flock like a shepherd:
He gathers the lambs in his arms
and carries them close to his heart;
he gently leads those that have young.
Moreover, shepherding became a helpful image explaining the spiritual and practical leadership among God’s people (see Isa. 56:9–12; Jer. 23:1–4; 25:32–38; Ezek. 34; Zech. 11). Moses and David, for example, were shepherds. Impious kings in Israel were commonly called “false shepherds” (1 Kings 22:17; Jer. 10:21; 23:1–2).
The occasion for this discourse, John reminds us, is the Festival of Hanukkah (10:21). This is the only reference to this minor, intertestamental festival in the Bible. Since the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 B.C., Greek influence in the Middle East not only controlled the political aspirations of people like the Jews, but gradually assimilated them into the Greek way of life. Within 150 years, Israel had adopted numerous Greek cultural and religious habits. Even the Bible was translated into Greek (the Septuagint, abbreviated LXX) for Jews who could no longer read Hebrew.
Jewish resistance to this Hellenization (in the party called the Hasidim) met opposition not only from Greeks but also from Jews who had compromised their commitment to Jewish culture and their faith. Priests such as Jason and Menelaus (2 Macc. 4–5) were corrupt and contributed to the demise of Jewish temple worship, while Greek soldiers desecrated the temple with pig’s blood, outlawed Jewish ritual (e.g., circumcision), burned Scripture scrolls, and erected a pagan idol in the temple.
In the 160s B.C. the Maccabean War erupted, pitting conservative Jewish fighters against Greeks and Hellenized Jews. Its first leader, Judas Maccabeus, captured Jerusalem’s temple and in 165 B.C. rededicated it. Hanukkah is a Hebrew word meaning “dedication,” and it became the name of the winter festival in Jerusalem that remembered these events. Sometimes (as in the NIV) it is called “The Feast of Dedication” (10:22).3 In the first century, it was celebrated for eight days in Jerusalem (recalling eight miraculous days when Judas’s supply of oil burned in the temple).4
Hanukkah thus became a season that asked hard questions about failed leadership and false shepherds. How did the temple leadership lose its way during this Greek period? Where were the shepherds? What must shepherds do today? During the week when Jesus gave his good shepherd sermon, synagogues were reading prophetic critiques of leadership.
“This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. So they were scattered. . . .
“Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, because my flock lacks a shepherd and so has been plundered and has become food for all the wild animals, and because my shepherds did not search for my flock but cared for themselves rather than for my flock, therefore, O shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. . . .” (Ezek. 34:2–10)
Jesus builds on this motif in his figurative saying in John 10:1–3. Sheep must discern the shepherds who enter by the gate (with the endorsement of the gatekeeper) and those who climb over the wall (whose intentions are destructive). God’s people have had excellent shepherds in the past as well as shepherds who have harmed the sheep.
Jesus assumes his audience understands the scene he is constructing. In the desert at night sheep were often herded into walled enclosures that either backed up against a cliff face or were at the end of a canyon. Such enclosures (still used today by Palestinian shepherds in the Judean desert) had waist-high stone walls topped with thorny branches. Such a pen was entirely for safety so that the sheep would not become prey to wild animals. One small doorway (or opening) in the wall served as the only entrance and exit. The shepherd would either close this area with dry thornbushes or would himself serve as sentry in the opening.
Not only can sheep identify rightful shepherds by their access through the main gate, but they also recognize the voice of their shepherd (10:3–5). The Middle Eastern shepherd is well known for having a personal devotion to his sheep. He talks to them and sings to them. Often shepherds will carry a short flute and use a repeated tune so that the flock has a consistent auditory cue to follow. Jesus notes that this shepherd does not simply lead any sheep but rather leads “his own” (10:3b). That is, 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 (10:4). Note that this shepherd does not drive the sheep; rather, he is out in front, leading the way.
The reverse is also true. Just as false shepherds might climb over the wall to get access to the sheep (10:1), now we learn that their voice is unrecognizable to the sheep (10:5), and the sheep flee from them.
It is not surprising that Jesus’ 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 word for “figure of speech” used in 10:6 is unusual in the New Testament (Gk. paroimia) and occurs only two other times in John (16:25, 29) and once in 2 Peter 2:22. In the Synoptics the word generally used for such sayings is “parable” (Gk. parabole), but there is likely little difference between the two words.5
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 the Synoptics the parables generally explain the “kingdom of God.” Frequently the audience does not understand (Mark 4:13). In John the theme is consistently Jesus’ 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.6
Jesus’ explanation (10:7–18) turns the story creatively. The setting of the sheep pen in the parable invites reflection particularly at three points: the gate, the shepherd, and the sheep. (1) 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).
(2) In his interpretation Jesus shifts some of the images. He now is the gate. He alone is the sentry, the one through whom access to the sheep can be found (10:7–8). 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, leaders who come after him whom he knows. 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 (10:8)? Some have argued that they are false messiahs in the first century, and we know that there were many. But the most likely target of Jesus’ criticism is the Pharisees, who have been the subject of Jesus’ teaching since chapter 9. Since the Maccabean era Jerusalem had witnessed many leaders who qualified as “false shepherds.”
But there is another nuance. Since Jesus is the gate for the sheep too (10:9a), 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 (10:9b). This thought parallels 14:6, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” 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’ 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. These are sheep that flourish and are content, thanks to the skill of the shepherd. Psalm 23 describes this sheep’s life in full (“The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want” 23:1). Similarly Psalm 118:20 describes this gate and our entry: “This is the gate of the LORD through which the righteous may enter.”
(3) At the final level of his interpretation, Jesus claims that he is the “good shepherd” (10:11–18). It is important not to overly sentimentalize the image given here.7 This is not a portrait of a kindly man holding cuddly lambs. “Good” (Gk. kalos) can just as well be translated “noble.” The shepherd’s job was severe, tiring, and hazardous. The point of contrast here is the “bad shepherd” or the hired hand (10:12), who is distinguished by his lack of commitment to the sheep. When danger comes, he flees (10:13) and the flock is attacked. His own self-preservation, his own self-interest (he “cares nothing for the sheep,” 10:13b), characterizes his career and no doubt refers directly to the leaders of Israel graphically chastised during the Hanukkah Festival. The good shepherd, by contrast, “owns the sheep” (10:12a), which speaks to his unique, passionate commitment to them.
The most important feature of Jesus’ role as shepherd is that he lays down his life for the sheep (10:11b, 15, 17–18). Of course, his intention is to live and protect them. But the point here is that he cares for them so much that he is willing to come between his flock and danger. He is willing to die for them. Jesus has in mind a flock under siege—perhaps a flock in its sheepfold, shuddering under the terror of an attack by wild animals—and the shepherd standing firm at the gate using stones and staff, unwilling to sacrifice even one of his animals to satisfy the enemy. To die “for” (Gk. hyper) the sheep is significant. Throughout the Fourth Gospel hyper is used almost exclusively in a sacrificial context, generally describing Jesus’ sacrificial death on behalf of others (e.g., 6:51; 10:11).8 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 (10:18).
Perhaps the most startling feature of Jesus’ 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 (10:4), but now we learn that this knowledge is mutual and exhaustive (10:14). Moreover, the model for this intimacy is the mutual knowledge shared between the Son and the Father—and here Jesus slips out of the parable and speaks directly of himself and God (cf. Matt. 11:27). His profound relationship with God characterizes the intimacy he seeks with his followers (17:21); as he and the Father share profound love, so too Jesus and his flock share this quality of love (15:9–10).
This explains the willingness of Jesus to die for his sheep. This is not merely about obedience to God nor is it his personal honor. Rather, Jesus is willing to die because of his profound commitment to the ones he loves.9 As Paul writes, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her . . . to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless” (Eph. 5:25, 27).
An interesting digression appears in John 10:16. The picture we have thus far consists of a sheepfold filled with animals and Jesus, the good shepherd, calling his own sheep from this fold with his voice. This flock constitutes his sheep, his followers, and those who do not know his voice presumably refers to unbelieving Jews from which Jesus’ followers come. However, Jesus says, there are “other sheep” that do not come from this sheepfold. If they come from a different fold, they come from outside of Judaism, which no doubt refers to Gentiles.10 They too will recognize Jesus’ voice and follow him, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. This is Jesus’ 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. We will learn of it in full in John 17.11
The unique love and intimacy between the Father and the Son is the model that determines the relationship of Jesus to his flock. Jesus now probes the deeper meaning of the Father’s love for him (10:17–19).12 The fundamental element in this relationship is Jesus’ 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 gives everything into the Son’s hands (3:35), shows him everything (5:20), gives him life (5:26), and gives his own glory (17:24) and name (17:26). Indeed, the Father has loved the Son from the “creation of the world” (17:24). Jesus’ 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 10:18. “No one takes it [my life] from me.” 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’ death reinforced this view. It meant that the sacrificial act of Jesus pointed to the saving work of God, not the attempt of Caiaphas and Pilate to end his life. Peter remarked to the Jerusalem crowd on Pentecost (Acts 2:23–24; cf. 4:27–28):
This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. (italics added)
The final aspect of Jesus’ uniqueness as the good shepherd—and one more feature of his union with the Father—is the authority he bears not only to die but to retake his life in resurrection (10:17b–18). The resurrection, therefore, is not an afterthought wherein God rescues his Son from an unexpected tragedy. The empty tomb was encompassed in the plan of Golgotha, and Jesus predicted this clearly (Mark 9:31). Here we see that the power that opened the tomb was a power that could not be held back. 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.13
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. “This command I received from my Father” (10:18b) means that all of Jesus’ 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 REPORTS THAT the crowd is once again “divided.” This happened before, and this is now the third time that Jesus has divided his audience (7:43; 9:16; 10:19). The NIV accurately translates that “the Jews” were the audience, but this refers to his general audience in Jerusalem during the feast, both priests and bystanders.14
John’s chief interest here is in the opposite reactions now forming. Some believe that Jesus is “demon-possessed and raving mad.” This is the fourth time such a charge is made (7:20; 8:48–49, 52), and it is curious that unlike the Synoptics, each time “demon” is mentioned it is applied to Jesus (never other people). These two terms may well say the same thing. Given the impious and presumptuous claims of Jesus (they argue), he must be out of his mind and thus not worth listening to. But this may be a genuine charge of demon-possession, and because he is thus possessed, he is insane. Either way, the reaction is antagonistic.
Still others in the audience are impressed with Jesus (10:20). They point to his miracle of opening the eyes of the blind man and make a claim not unlike that of the audience and the blind man of chapter 9: A miraculous sign points to God’s hand in this man’s life. Here in chapter 10, 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)
JOHN INDICATES THAT the Feast of Dedication (or Hanukkah) was then taking place (10:22).15 This reference to the feast alerts us at once to the symbolic power of all Jesus’ words thus far. The shepherd imagery (as outlined above) spoke directly to the festival’s recital of the corruption of the temple priesthood, the desecration of the temple by the Greeks, and its rededication under Judas Maccabeus (see comment on 10:1). That Jesus is continuing his shepherd sermon is indicated by 10:26–27. But as his audience presses him concerning his claims to messiahship, Jesus will further exploit the imagery of the festival, quoting Psalm 82 in defense of his claims.
This final section is a critical revelation for the Fourth Gospel. This is Jesus’ 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 (10:40).
Hanukkah is celebrated in winter during the Jewish month of Chislev (November to December). The main courtyard of the temple was surrounded by massive covered colonnades on all four sides, which were open to the court itself, but walled facing the outside. Solomon’s Colonnade (10:23) was on the east and though built by Herod I, took its name from the temple’s first builder, King Solomon.16 In winter, teachers used these porches as a shelter from the cold weather. Jesus is walking here, and suddenly people who have heard him before “gather [kykloo] around him” (10:24; lit., “circle in on him”). The note here is ominous; this Greek word is used elsewhere in the Gospels only at Luke 21:20 to describe how Rome would “surround” Jerusalem before its destruction.17
The crowd is looking for an unambiguous statement about Jesus’ identity. “How long will you keep us in suspense?” (10:24) 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. Thus far Jesus has not made an explicit, public claim to be the Christ. He did this privately to the Samaritan woman (4:26) and the blind man (9:35–36), and many have already offered this statement of faith.
But given the explosive, highly politicized views of the Messiah in this period, it is not surprising that Jesus has used restraint so far. He has used images in the festivals and allusions from the Old Testament. Now his audience wants a “plain” statement (cf. 7:4, 13). But we have already learned that even if Jesus were to speak plainly, only his “sheep” would recognize his voice (10:26). Ironically, his shepherd sermon was just such a disclosure, but they have not “heard” it.
The root problem is unbelief (10:25b). The character of Jesus’ life and his works or miracles wrought by God’s power (or “name”) indicate his true identity. As we learned in chapter 5, these works should be seen as evidence pointing to Jesus’ authority as God’s messenger and Son. But the true problem, which is a deep theological issue, is that only those who are Jesus’ sheep can understand these things (10:26–27). The “other sheep” cannot understand his voice, he does not know them, and they do not follow (10:1–18). This does not excuse them; it simply says that nothing in Jesus’ life is happening outside of the sovereign plan of God.
Not only is this faith a gift, but so are eternal life and security (10:28–30). This shepherd will die for his sheep, but those outside the fold will remain in jeopardy. Jesus’ assignment has been to gather up “all that the Father gives” him (6:37–40; 10:29). Therefore his skill as the good shepherd secures them from all predators (10:12) and thieves (10:1, 8). The word “snatch” (Gk. harpazo) denotes violence and is used in 6:15 for the crowds who wish to kidnap Jesus. In 10:12 it describes the attack of the wolf. But the true power behind Jesus is the Father (10:29). Thus it is the Father who is the true preserver of the sheep because no one is greater than he.18
The astounding affirmation given in 10:30 serves as a high point in the chapter. Jesus’ unity with the Father is the basis of the Father’s participation in the preservation of the sheep. But we must be clear about what Jesus is saying. Earlier he spoke about his working in cooperation with the Father (5:17, 19) and in accordance with the Father’s will (6:38; 8:26, 28; 10:18). The sheep here belong both to the Father and the Son (17:10) and enjoy fellowship with both simultaneously (14:23; 17:21–23, 26). “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.
However, we must quickly say that this is not a denial of the ontological unity of the Father and the Son, which is at the heart of John’s Christology. From beginning (John 1:1) to end (when Thomas exclaims to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” 20:28), this Gospel affirms more. A suggestion of this may lie in the present passage. This formulation of oneness is stronger than what we see elsewhere, and the response of the crowd in 10:31, 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.
Hoskyns comments here: “The unity is neither merely a moral unity or agreement of character, since the Jews would not presumably have treated as blasphemy, the idea that a man could regulate his words and actions according to the will of God.”19 Later Jesus will say, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (14:9). Jesus is the vehicle of divine revelation and salvation. He is God’s agent in the world, not merely a righteous man or divine spokesman.20
Such statements by Jesus demand a response. In chapter 8 Jesus’ 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’ miracles (10:32) but his words (cf. 6:42, 60; 7:29–30). Stoning in the first century tended to be a mob action. Roman justice systems supervised civic punishments, which tended generally to be crucifixion or beheading (for Roman citizens). The Jewish law stipulated stoning for a variety of crimes: witchcraft (Lev. 20:27), worshiping other gods (Deut. 13:10), immoral conduct (22:24), violating the Sabbath (Num. 15:35–36), and blasphemy (Lev. 24:23). While charges have been given against Jesus’ illegal work on the Sabbath, here the problem is blasphemy. His opponents believe he is claiming to be God (John 10:33). This statement is likely John’s typical use of irony, where the antagonist affirms the very truth about Jesus. As later Caiaphas will say that Jesus must die for the nation (11:50), indeed here we learn that Jesus is truly a man who is to be compared with God.
Jesus’ defense in 10:34–39 is carefully nuanced and takes advantage of the symbolic motifs present at the Hanukkah Festival. He defends himself by citing Psalm 82:6. This psalm was well known and provided a critique of Israel’s failure to respond to God (82:5–7):
“They know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
“I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons (Heb. beni) of the Most High.’
But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler.”
The relevance of the passage is striking. The absence of knowledge and understanding is a fitting description of Jesus’ audience. They do not know the shepherd’s voice. But the single point Jesus is making centers on Psalm 82:6. Rabbinic interpretation argued that this psalm was addressed to Israel’s tribes as they received the law at Mount Sinai.21 It recalled Exodus 4:22–23, “Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, ‘Let my son go, so he may worship me.’ ” If the word “god” can be applied to those other than God himself in the Scriptures—if someone can be called a “son of God” here in God’s unbreakable word—why are Jesus’ words blasphemy? In John 10:36 Jesus calls himself “God’s Son,” and this is surely an echo of this historic context.
Moreover, Jesus is the one whom God “sanctified” (Gk. hagiazo; NIV “set apart”) and sent into the world. The NIV obscures 10:36a with a paraphrase. The Greek verb hagiazo means to consecrate or make something holy. This points to the meaning of Hanukkah itself. Recall that 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 [hagiazo] 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.22
In 10:38 Jesus goes on to put his affirmation in strong language again. “The Father is in me, and I in the Father.” But this becomes too much, so that (10:39) the crowd again tries to arrest him. But they are not the ones who will control his fate. He escapes, yet as we learned in 7:30 and 8:20, we may interpret here: Jesus’ hour had not yet come.
Jesus’ departure from Judea (10:40–42) 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 (1:19–51; 3:22–36; 4:1–6). Jesus has come full circle. He has concluded his public ministry among his people, and now it is time for him to “stay” (10:40b) there until his hour does come. It is winter, and 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 3:22ff., 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 (10:38), 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.” 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, recognizing that this was God’s hand behind Jesus’ 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.
Bridging Contexts
CHRISTIANS AND THEIR LEADERS. The important universal theme behind this chapter centers on the relationship of people to their leaders. The historical crisis of the Maccabean period is an essential background. Israel’s leaders failed them, having guided them into spiritual bondage and almost destroyed their country by assimilating it into the world of Hellenism. This reminds me that in my generation the possibility always exists that the leaders whom I follow may not be worthy of my devotion and loyalty. This, of course, is true of all leaders, but in particular John 10 underscores the role of spiritual leaders. While called to represent the truth about God before their people, they sometimes fail and bring harm.
Jesus has been at work since his baptism presenting the evidence of his messiahship. He has stepped into numerous Jewish settings—from weddings to festivals—attempting to persuade his audience of his relationship with the Father. He has demonstrated this relationship through the wisdom of his words as well as through his works (or signs). While some have come to faith, the leadership of Jerusalem has failed to accept him. They have not embraced him as Messiah.
This means two things. (1) The failure of these spiritual leaders to acknowledge the work of God in Christ puts in question the legitimacy of their leadership. As an interpreter I must probe who such people might be in my own generation. It may well be church leaders, but the subject is wider than this. It is any voice that draws people away from God, any voice that inflicts harm particularly on God’s people. Jesus is remarkably bold with these people. They are “robbers” and “thieves” about whom we must be warned. And the litmus test for us is whether what they say and do coheres with the work and witness of Jesus Christ. Using Jesus’ sheepfold image, he alone is the gate that gives access to the sheep. Those who enter “over the wall,” whose voice is foreign to the voice of Jesus, who bring no safety and protection, are to be rejected.
(2) This story provides an exhortation to the sheep as well. Sheep must recognize the voice of the one who can lead and feed them. They must know how to find the sheepfold and safety. As an interpreter, such an exhortation means that I must speak honestly (though compassionately) to the people of God about their lives: Whom do they follow? What voices do they recognize? Where do they go for shelter? What are the characteristics of shepherds that can be followed and shepherds that must be avoided? This is a teaching about discernment since individuals constantly must assess those authoritative voices demanding obedience in their lives.
The importance of this theme was borne out inside the history of John’s own church. It is impossible to read 1 John without reflecting on the crisis that swamped John’s community. False “shepherds” had infiltrated the ranks of the community, teaching that Jesus is not the Christ (1 John 2:22), deceiving believers (2:26), and leading a “flock” of people out of the church. They employed charismatic authority, buttressing their teaching with claims of the Holy Spirit (4:1–3); in the end, however, they brought destruction.23 These were shepherds who sabotaged the flock, broke over the sheepfold wall, and destroyed the safety of the sheep. Therefore John must teach his followers how to recognize true shepherds and to recognize when they truly belong to the flock of God. As I think about applying the lessons of John 10 today, I would do well to consider the lessons gleaned from the Letters of John as he addressed the problem of false shepherds.
This story is virtually an allegory. The flock of Christ (the church) is led by the good shepherd (Jesus himself). Yet many interpreters are wary of taking the symbolism further. In fact some deny that John has any interest in the allegory beyond making a Christological affirmation about Jesus Christ.24 But this is surely wrong. The story is a warning as well as an affirmation. Jesus is telling us about himself to be sure, but he has done this all along in the Gospel. Now he is warning us about those detractors who damage the flock of God. In fact, the merits of all other leaders must now be tested against his leadership.
Are there risks in this teaching today? Absolutely. Perhaps this is what concerns some interpreters. Should the sheep now begin to examine every shepherd in their midst? Pastors? Teachers? Should the sheep be the new arbiters of who is qualified to lead them? To encourage discernment is to invite judgment. And legitimate leaders may find themselves to be the unfair object of scrutiny. But this is not Jesus’ intent. He rather desires to help sheep become discerning of those who bring genuine harm, leaders who come to hurt and destroy.
Ancillary issues. Several ancillary issues fan out from the primary image of shepherds and sheep. (1) The suggestion in 10:16 that there are “other sheep” invites us to reflect on the exclusivity of the flock of Christ today. They are members, but they are outside the fold. Yet when Jesus says that he desires to see “one flock and one shepherd,” we must probe the implications for today. Is this a comment about the unity of the church? Does this challenge or affirm those with a “one true church” theology? At the very least, it suggests that there are unexpected sheep that must be considered a part of the fold—sheep that the present fold does not know and might not recognize. This too invites some reflection as I bring John 10 into my own setting and world.
(2) This chapter sounds a strong note in favor of the overwhelming sovereignty of God. Jesus’ opponents are not a part of his flock (10:26) because the Father has not given them to him (10:29). This theme seems clear, but it must be balanced against Jesus parallel call for these people to believe (10:38). There is thus both human responsibility and divine participation in the building up of the flock of Christ. But how does this tension impact our view of the nature of the church today and evangelism? John would hardly accept a view that makes men and women “elect” purely by God’s choice, leaving no room for human responsibility. Yet the theme of sovereignty sounds so strongly here that any presentation of the text must address the problem.
(3) Finally, it is clear that the separation of Jesus from Jerusalem in 10:40 sounds an ominous note. He has finished his revelation, and he has spoken God’s word and completed God’s works (with the exception of his Passion). Now he separates himself. The same theme will appear at the close of chapters 11 and 12. Here too we find a provocative theme. Does this mean that once God has revealed himself to a people, he too withdraws? Is there an act of judgment on the unresponsive heart in which God declines to pursue the faithless? How could such a motif be formed in a contemporary setting?
Contemporary Significance
WHEN I EXPLAIN this chapter to the modern audience, I find that they need to have some sense of the dangers of the desert and the skills of a shepherd if they are to understand the themes that are instinctive to Jesus and his audience.
The desert. Let me begin with the desert. The desert in Israel is tremendously important in order to understand the Bible. It can be found along the eastern fringe of every major city in the central mountains of Israel, from Hebron to Shechem. From Jerusalem one simply has to climb over the Mount of Olives (a mere forty-five minute walk) to be hiking in the beginning of the desert near where Jesus was tested following his baptism. It stretches for thousands of miles across the Jordan River, into the eastern plateaus, and on through Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Today Middle Eastern children (both Arab and Jew) tell adventure stories of the desert, much like Canadian or European children might tell stories of deep, dark forests. In fact, the biblical stories about Abraham, Moses, Jacob, David, Elijah, and even John the Baptist and Jesus all contain “desert motifs” well known to this part of the world.
Villagers living along the fringe of this desolate region use it for their sheep. From October to March a good rain will suddenly make the desert bloom with a surprising number of plants, and all of these make excellent pasture for the sheep. But during the bulk of the year, the desert is inhospitable to life. Water is scarce, food is rare, and dangers are everywhere. In fact, the eastern deserts of Judea have steep, eroded cliffs that present a drop of a thousand feet in many places. Psalm 23 is an excellent source of what it means to be a competent shepherd in this environment. Such a leader can find food (“green pastures,” 23:2a), water (“quiet water,” 23:2b25), safe paths (“paths of righteousness,” 23:3), and places of safety from danger (“in the presence of my enemies,” 23:5). Competent shepherds must have skills and tools or else their sheep will become prey either to the elements or to wild animals in this region.
We cannot downplay the life-threatening danger of this environment. The parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15 gives a glimpse of how serious the life of the flock is weighed. To lead a flock through a desolate region with bandits and hungry animals is still serious business. Shepherds commonly carry a four-or five-foot wooden staff that serves chiefly as a defense weapon. They are also skilled with a sling and stones (much like the biblical shepherd David).26 When the flock is attacked, a “good” shepherd will never throw a lamb to the attacking animals in order to save the flock. He tries to find a sheep pen (described above on 10:1–18) and then stands between the flock and danger.
As already mentioned, Arab shepherds are well known for knowing their sheep personally. During the Palestinian uprising in the late 1980s the Israeli army decided to punish a village near Bethlehem for not paying its taxes (which, the village claimed, simply financed their occupation). The officer in command rounded up all of the village animals and placed them in a large barbed-wire pen. Later in the week he was approached by a woman who begged him to release her flock, arguing that since her husband was dead, the animals were her only source of livelihood. He pointed to the pen containing hundreds of animals and humorously quipped that it was impossible because he could not find her animals. She asked that if she could in fact separate them herself, would he be willing to let her take them? He agreed. A soldier opened the gate and the woman’s son produced a small reed flute. He played a simple tune again and again—and soon sheep heads began popping up across the pen. The young boy continued his music and walked home, followed by his flock of twenty-five sheep.
This is precisely the image that I need to construct for my audience. The desert is a desperate place. Our shepherd is skilled and courageous. If we remain under his leadership, if we recognize his voice, we will find safety and flourish. To make this come alive, I need to recognize the perilous environment of my life, my need of guidance, and the requisite skill that can tell the right voices from the wrong voices.
It takes little convincing to show that the environment of the world is as treacherous as a Judean desert. I was speaking at a conference recently in the mountains above Santa Cruz, California, and listened to the pastor of a large Santa Cruz church describe the dangers of secular life in his city for his children. It was not simply the illicit sexuality and overwhelming pressure to “do drugs” that bothered him. It was the persuasive moral atmosphere that said, “God is irrelevant and there are no rules.”
It is not simply the stereotypical immorality of California’s beach cities that is threatening our lives today. The environment of the world is hostile at every turn. A friend of mine is a rock musician from a rural Illinois town. Recently we were exploring together the violence, aggression, and amoral worldview served up in modern rock music. As an adult convert with a history in this industry, he argued that the threats were severe.
We do live in a modern desert. But John 10 demands that we ask a different sort of question. In the midst of this moral chaos, in this threatening desert, whose voice, which shepherd, do we follow? A youth leader of a large high school ministry summarized for me a study conducted recently by George Barna. The study asked high school students where they would turn first in times of tension, confusion, or crisis. Their fathers were ranked about No. 25 on the list. Mothers came in about No. 11. Music and personal friends scored at the top. In time of tragedy, young people may well look to the wrong leaders when coming out of the desert. To illustrate, many sitcoms today oriented to young adults (such as Seinfeld and Friends) display this tendency generously. In times of crisis, where do these apartment-dwelling singles go for their answers?
But adults respond to false voices as well. The Chicago Tribune Magazine recently reported on a woman in the city who called herself an “intuitive healer.” She claimed to have supernatural power to diagnose people’s diseases. She could even do it over the phone. While most of us would find such an article little more than entertaining, what disturbed me most was the number of people, patients as well as physicians, who relied on her powers. When people are in crisis, when they are surrounded by the dangers of the desert, they will turn to any shepherd offering a way out. Friends of mine who are missionaries in France have told me the breathtaking number of New Age healers that work in the country. Recently the cost of using these healers is covered under France’s health coverage.
Not long ago I read in a British newspaper how married couples have sought to address the problem of infertility through the council of witches.27 As hard as it is to believe, “pagan pastors” make claims to curing infertility in thirty minutes through the use of secret potions and ceremonies—and assigning the couples to make love on ancient, ceremonial stones located around the country. The mind boggles. The point here is that British society finds an interest in this and is willing to put it on some of the leading pages of one of its most respected newspapers.
Testing. These are just a handful of examples, but every communicator of biblical truth needs to sound the alarm and point his or her audience to their need of a true shepherd who can genuinely lead them from the desert. When Eastern Europe and Russia became open to Western missionaries (following the close of the Cold War), the Russian government was in a dilemma. They wanted the good things that “religion” could bring to healing their land. The Russian military even contacted the United States Navy, asking for chaplain consultants so that they could bring chaplains into their armed forces. But how could they tell what groups were trustworthy and what ones were dangerous? In the Russian desert, which of the religious voices could be trusted? In a curious behind-the-scenes assignment, leaders from a number of evangelical organizations and colleges helped interpret the mass of religion pouring over Russia’s borders.
John has given us a direct and simple solution. Jesus is the true shepherd, and he is the only one who can endorse others who will lead the sheep. The final test of a shepherd’s credentials is his or her fidelity to the leadership of Jesus. When someone makes a claim on the sheep, when a new voice emerges over the horizon, the first question we should ask is whether this voice echoes the voice of Jesus we know in the Scriptures. When John was trying to teach his congregation—and us—how to discern the false voices calling for attention, he wrote again and again that they had to recall what had been given to them “from the beginning” (1 John 1:1; 2:7, 13, 14, 24; 3:8, 11; 2 John 1:5). That is, John underscored the value of testing would-be prophets and leaders against the historic revelation we have of Jesus Christ, which springs from Jesus’ earthly ministry.28
Ancillary issues. I mentioned above that there are three provocative ancillary questions that this chapter raises but does not resolve. Nevertheless each of them invites a contemporary expression that might bear a powerful meaning today.
(1) That Jesus has “other sheep” not of “this fold” means in its historic setting that Jesus has sheep among those on the margins of Jewish society (most likely, the Gentiles) that must be included in his flock. Hints of Jesus’ interest in those outside the traditional “flock of Judaism” increases as we near the end of the Gospel. But this means that for his immediate followers, they dare not express arrogance over their control of the flock. These sheep are “outside,” they are different, but they are nevertheless equally loved and valued. Jesus’ desire is to see one body, one genuine unity, in which all of his sheep move as one flock.
When the body of Christ—or the flock of Jesus—embraces these “other sheep,” remarkable things happen. As a modern interpreter, I need to wrestle with the identity of these sheep for the church in which I live. Who lives on the margin of my world? Recently I had the privilege of speaking at a week-long family camp for a large urban Presbyterian church in Illinois. There I witnessed sights of diversity and wonder as the “other sheep” of Christ were invited into full participation: the elderly, the socially awkward, young children, blue collar, and white collar—each had a place at the table. Imagine observing the camp’s talent show filled with music and song, including a mentally impaired man’s performance of “Jesus Loves Me.” Then imagine as the congregation, whose love for this man is tangible, begins to sing with him as he forgets the words. He may be one of the “other sheep.”
Or imagine a sock-hop one evening where on the dance floor I watch little children, seniors, and regular middle-aged couples dancing to Patsy Cline. Then I observe one more miracle of the flock. A dancer sweeps over and takes the wheelchair of a young woman who last year lost both legs in a car wreck, and she dances with her hands and her wheels. She too is one of the “other sheep.” Another young woman takes the hand of a mentally impaired gentleman and draws him in, and he dances and laughs with glee. He too is a part of this flock. One more of Jesus’ “other sheep.” I lean over to the pastor of the church and comment, “You know, you don’t see a sight like this in the world. This is the kingdom of God.” “Yes,” he remarks, “it is amazing. This is the peaceable kingdom.”
Of course no church is perfect, and this one in Illinois has challenges on its horizon. As an old inner-city church with chiefly a white population, it is thinking hard about the fact that the demographics of its city have changed. The church is surrounded by a growing Hispanic community. Jesus has “other sheep” here too, and these Christians are wrestling with how to open their flock to them.
This is a comforting word for sheep who have been marginalized. But it is also a warning to those sheep whose control of the fold has made it homogenous and exclusive. These other sheep are “Jesus’ sheep,” not random sheep aspiring to gain a better identity, a better fold. The vision here is for a unity that breaks the bonds of racial, economic, and cultural divisions, that sees a person’s identity in Christ first, while all other markers fall away. In the mid 1990s I had the privilege of leading a short retreat for pastors in Bethlehem in Palestine (Israel). There I watched while courageous Palestinian pastors and messianic Jewish pastors discovered the beginnings of reconciliation that went beyond the historic, violent divisions imposed by their societies. I vowed that if Arab and Jew can overcome differences in Palestine/Israel through their identity in Christ, there is no excuse for me to fail at any reconciliation and work for the unity of the church.29
(2) The second ancillary question concerns the divine sovereignty alluded to throughout the chapter. Every theologian recognizes the problem of understanding the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of his people. Thinking Christians will pick up on this immediately. “If God’s will is sovereign, then there are no autonomous human decisions.” Every theologian likewise knows that in some fashion we have to strike a balance that pays appropriate respect to both of these themes. This is particularly true for the theology of the Gospel of John.30 C. S. Lewis was not a professional theologian, but he had a gift for providing excellent illustrations of complex themes. In an important chapter in his famous book Mere Christianity, Lewis denies the validity of a view which would make humans responsible in a world where they possess no freedom. Nevertheless, Lewis recognizes that any theology that does not embrace God’s power is truly inadequate. His picture is that of a child playing a piano, whose hands are guided note-by-note by the experienced fingers of an artist. At first the expert may play the melody and the child is invited to rest his or her fingers on the skilled fingers. Then perhaps they change places, the child’s fingers working under the guidance of the skilled hands. The point here is that God continues to work in powerful ways, but his work always invites our participation, or even demands our participation. In John 10 Jesus’ sheep are those whom God has given into his hand, and they are also sheep who have decided to believe.
This synthesis of divine aid and human effort should give us confidence when we present the truth claims of the gospel to an unreached listener. But it should also help us to understand that indeed humans have the capacity to disbelieve, to resist God’s efforts on their behalf. As Lewis once said, there are only two sorts of people in the world: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, “Thy will be done.”
(3) Finally, I am troubled by the nuanced ending of the chapter. While we hold firmly that God’s love will not be withdrawn from any person, still, the suggestion here is that once Jesus has completed his direct revelation within Judaism, he is ready to remove himself and remain outside Judea until the coming festival of Passover, when he is killed. The same motif also concludes both chapters 11 and 12. Following the raising of Lazarus Jesus “withdraws” to the desert (11:54), and in the midst of his final Jerusalem plea he “leaves and hides” (12:36).
Perhaps the application of this theme points to the limited opportunities we possess to hear the gospel. Practically, the messenger from God who speaks to me the gospel may not be there tomorrow. Consequently, “today” must be the “day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2). But this motif is not simply about a lost opportunity. It is a word of judgment. In the letters to the seven churches, the Ephesian church is told that unless it repents, its “lampstand” may be removed (Rev. 2:5). This is a similar act of judgment in which God removes the privilege of a church to exist as his church in a given locale. Could the same happen in other contexts? Can a nation or a city become so utterly godless, so utterly pagan and thoroughgoing in its repudiation of the gospel, that it experiences a diminution of God’s activity?