Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - John 10:1 - 10:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
10:1. ἀὴ ἀὴ λγ ὑῖ. For this solemn prelude to sayings or discourses of special significance, see on 1:51. It is never used abruptly to introduce a fresh topic, out of connexion with what has gone before, nor does it begin a new discourse. It always has reference to something that has been said already, which is expanded or set in a new light (cf. 8:34, 51, 58). Thus it introduces here the allegory of the sheep in the fold who recognise their shepherd, which arises out of the pronouncements in vv. 26-29. To begin this allegory by “Verily, verily,” is exactly in the Johannine manner.
Verses 1-5 are a πριί of general application, of which Jesus explains the reference to Himself and His flock in vv. 7-16.
The αλντνποάω is the open courtyard in front of the house, where the sheep were folded for the night. The word is used thus in Homer, where the Trojans are compared to ὄε πλπμνςἀδὸ ἐ αλ (Iliad, iv. 433). So Josephus represents Abraham as sitting πρ τ θρ τςατῦαλς where the LXX has σηῆ (Gen_18:1; cf. Antt. 1. xi. 2). A shepherd, who had access to the courtyard, would naturally come in and go out by the θρ. See on v. 16; and cf. 18:15, 16 for these terms.
ἀλ ἀααννἀλχθν “but one climbing up another way,” sc. a man who gets over the wall into the courtyard. ἀλχθν(4 Macc. 1:7) is a legitimate form for ἄλθν and is found in the papyri (see Moulton-Milligan, s.v.). It does not occur elsewhere in the N.T.
ἐενς inserted for explicitness, as Jn. so frequently uses it (see on 1:8).
κέτςἐτνκὶλσή, “is a thief and a robber”; he has, presumably, come to steal the sheep and to carry them off with violence. See further on v. 8. κέτςis used again of Judas (12:6) and λσή of Barabbas (18:40). Cf. Oba_1:5 for κέτιand λσα coming by night.
2. ὁδ εσρόεο κλ On the other hand, a man coming into the court or fold by the door presumably is entitled to do so. He is a shepherd, whose business it is to look after the sheep. He is πιὴ ποάω (Gen_4:2). The application of this to Jesus comes later. So far the picture is true of all sheepfolds and shepherds.
3. τύῳὁθρρςἀογι “to him the doorkeeper opens” the door when he comes. This, again, is part of the general picture. It does not appear that in the allegory the θρρςis significant. In every parable there are details in which a spiritual meaning is not necessarily to be sought.
κὶτ πόαατςφνςατῦἀοε κλ The sheep hear his voice with obedient attention (see v. 27 and the note on ἀοενwith the gen. at 3:8). That is, they recognise his voice as that of a shepherd.
τ ἴι πόααφνῖκτ ὄοα Several flocks under different shepherds might be brought into the same fold for a night. All the sheep might discern the note of authority in the voice of any lawful shepherd. But it is only the sheep of his own flock that a shepherd will call by name. This he does, as he leads them out to pasture; and it is only “his own sheep” that follow.
φνῖ So א as against the rec. κλῖ(ΓΘ Jn. prefers φνῖ to κλῖ; but cf. Isa_40:26, Isa_43:1, Isa_45:3 for the use of κλῖ with ὄοα See on 1:48.
It is still common for Eastern shepherds to give particular names to their sheep, “descriptive of some trait or characteristic of the animal, as Long-ears, White-nose, etc.”1
4. ὅα τ ἴι πναἐβλ. So אΘ but AΓ read πόααfor πνα The rec. has κὶὅα (with ADΓ), but אΘomit κί It probably came in from κὶτ ἴι in the preceding verse. “When he has put out (of the fold) all his own”: he is careful to forget none, as he leads his flock to pasture. ἐβλενsuggests a certain measure of constraint, the shepherd thrusting out a sheep that delays unduly in coming forth at his call.
The shepherd, having collected his own flock from the fold, goes before them (ἔποθνατν At 3:28 ἔποθνis used of priority in time; here it refers to space, as at 12:37. His own sheep follow him (cf. v. 27), because they know his voice (cf. vv. 26, 3).
5. They will not follow an ἀλτις that is, any one who is not their own shepherd, whether he be the legitimate shepherd of another flock, or an impostor and a thief (v. 1) Rather will they run away from him, for they do not know or recognise his voice. This, as we shall see (v. 8), is a specially significant feature of the allegory. Cf. v. 26 above and v. 8 below.
ἀοοθσυι. So ABDΔ but אΘhave ἀοοθσσν
6. τύη τνπριίνεπ κλ πριί occurs again in N.T. only in Joh_16:25, Joh_16:29 (as well as in 2Pe_2:22, where it introduces a quotation from Pro_26:11). On the other hand, πρβλ does not occur outside the Synoptists, except at Heb_9:9, Heb_11:19. In the LXX both words are used to translate משָ: in Eze_12:23, Eze_12:18:2, Eze_12:3, the LXX having πρβλ and Symmachus πριί. In Ecclus. 47:17 we find Solomon’s ᾠα and πριίιand πρβλίall mentioned together.
Etymologically πρβλ suggests the placing of one thing beside another (πρβλεν or a comparison, while πριί is derived from πρ ομν something said “by the way.” But the distinction sometimes put forward, that πρβλ always stands for a fictitious narrative, intended to instruct the hearer, as in the “parables” of Christ, while πριί is a “proverb,” a terse saying of wisdom, cannot be sustained. Thus in the passage now under consideration, πριί is the description of the allegory of the Shepherd and the Sheep, while at Luk_4:23 the proverbial taunt, “Physician, heal thyself,” is called a πρβλ (cf. Luk_5:36). And in Ezekiel πρβλ is sometimes descriptive of an allegory (17:2f.), and sometimes signifies a “proverb” (16:44, 18:2). Cf. Ecclus. 8:8, 39:3, for the πριίιof the wise and their hidden meaning.
All that can be said about these two Greek words here is that Jn. uses πριί, while the Synoptists prefer πρβλ, both doubtless going back to the Hebrew משָ, a saying or discourse which, either from its terseness or its veiled significance, may need explanation before it can be fully understood.
This πριί of the Shepherd and the Sheep was addressed to the Jews (see v. 25): επνατῖ ὁἸσῦ. They, however (ἐενι for clearness as to the persons indicated; see on 1:8), did not understand its application; and accordingly Jesus proceeds to explain how it bears on what he had told them (v. 26). The idea of a shepherd as a spiritual leader was, of course, quite familiar to them (see on v. 26), as were also the ordinary habits of shepherds and sheep. But what they did not realise was the appositeness of the allegory in vv. 1-5, in relation to their question, “Art thou the Messiah?” (v. 24). In particular, what was the Door through which Jesus said the true shepherd must come?
Jesus is Not Only the Shepherd, He is the Door (vv. 7-10)
7. επνονπλνὁἸσῦ. ονis here more than a mere conjunction; it was because they did not understand that the explanation which follows was given. “Accordingly, Jesus said to them again”; πλνalso being emphatic (cf. 8:12, 21).
The rec. adds ατῖ after πλν but om. א
ἀὴ ἀὴ λγ ὑῖ. Cf. v. 1; and see on 1:51.
ὅι(recitantis) is omitted by BL, but is found in אΘ
ἐώεμ ἡθρ τνποάω. For the use in Jn. of the dignified prelude ἐώεμ, which marks the style of deity, see Introd., p. cxviii.
ἡθρ τνποάω must mean primarily the gate by which the sheep enter and leave the αλ, and this would also be the gate used by the shepherd. The phrase cannot be translated, however, “the gate to the sheep,” although that is involved. Cf. ἡπλ τνἱπω, “the horse gate” (2Ch_23:15), meaning the gate by which the horses enter. “The sheep gate” (cf. 5:2) in Neh_3:1 is ἡπλ ἡποαιή Jn. never uses πλ, while θρ occurs again 18:16, 20:19, 26.
When Jesus announces here that He is ἡθρ τνποάω, the primary meaning is that He is the legitimate door of access to the spiritual αλ, the Fold of the House of Israel, the door by which a true shepherd must enter. In v. 9 the thought is rather that He is the door which must be used by the sheep.
For ἡθρ, the Sahidic supports ὁπιή, which is adopted by Moffatt as the true reading here. But, apart from the fact that ἡθρ τνποάω has the weight of MS. authority overwhelmingly in its favour, ὁπιή would not fit the argument at this point. The Jewish inquirers could not have failed to understand that Jesus claimed to be the Shepherd (see v. 26); their difficulty was as to the interpretation of the Door which was so important in the allegory of vv. 1-5. Verses 7-10 are taken up with the explanation of this: “I am the Door,” a figure verbally inconsistent indeed with the image of the Shepherd entering by the door, but being quite intelligible when taken by itself. See further on v. 9.1
8. πνε ὅο ἦθνπὸἐο κέτιεσνκὶλσα. So א but א om. πὸἐο, with most vss., including the Latin, Sahidic, and Syriac; and Westcott-Hort treat the words as a “Western and perhaps Syrian” gloss. On the other hand, they may have been omitted by scribes to lessen the risk of the passage being interpreted as if it applied to the O.T. prophets.2 πὸἐο must relate to priority in time (cf., e.g., Neh_5:15). But even if the words be omitted, ἦθνinvolves a “coming” in the past; and we must translate “all that came before me are thieves and robbers.”
The reference is, undoubtedly, to v. 1. He who enters the fold by any other way than the “door” is “a thief and a robber.” Now Jesus claims to be the Door of the Fold of the Flock of Israel, and hence it follows that all who sought a way of access to the sheep before He was manifested as the “Door” may be described as “thieves and robbers.” This, nakedly stated, is a harsh saying. But, if the sequence of the argument be followed from v. 23 onward (see on v. 26), it is not so intolerant as it sounds (see also on 14:6). The distinction that is being drawn out is not that between the ministrations of older prophets and teachers, and the perfect ministration of Jesus, but rather (as Chrysostom points out) between those who falsely claimed to be heaven-sent deliverers and the true Messiah Himself.
The methods, e.g., of Judas of Galilee, who instigated the people to revolt against Roman taxation about the year a.d. 6, were violent, and led to murder and robbery (so Josephus, Antt. XVIII. i. 6; cf. B.J. II. viii. 1 and Act_5:37). According to Act_5:36, Theudas was an earlier impostor of the same type, although Josephus (Antt. xx. v. 1) seems to put him later, if indeed he is describing the same person. And, apart from Judas and Theudas, we have the testimony of Josephus (Antt. XVII. x. 4, 18) that at the beginning of the first century Judæ was the scene of innumerable risings and disorders, which were caused, in part at any rate, by current misinterpretations of the Messianic idea, associated by the Zealots with militant activities. It is true that we have no knowledge of any Jew before Barcochba (a.d. 135) who claimed explicitly to be the Messiah. But there were many pretenders to the office of leadership of the nation, and to such the words of Jesus, “thieves and robbers,” were fitly applied. And the present tense εσνconfirms the view that His allusion was to leaders of revolt who belonged to the first century, some of whom were probably living at the time.
The convincing proof that none of these was the divinely appointed Shepherd of Israel was: οκἤοσνατντ πόαα “the sheep,” sc. the true sheep of Israel, who are alone in view throughout this chapter, “did not listen to them” (cf. vv. 4, 5, where it was pointed out that sheep recognise their true shepherd’s voice, while they will not listen to one who is only an impostor). It was just because the Jews who were arguing were not the true sheep of Israel that they did not accept Jesus as their Shepherd (v. 26).
9. ἐώεμ ἡθρ. This is repeated from v. 7, a repetition in the Johannine manner (see on 3:16), a slight change being made in the form of the saying. In v. 7 the stress is laid on Jesus being the Door through which a lawful shepherd would enter. But here the thought is simpler. He is the Door through which the sheep must enter the fold, a saying which is not relevant to the allegory of this chapter, but is consonant with the teaching of Jesus as presented by Jn. elsewhere. He is the Door into the spiritual fold, as He is the Way (and the only Way) of access to the Father (14:6; cf. Eph_2:18, Heb_10:20). The αλ (see v. 1) to which He is the Door is the fold of the house of Israel, the Jewish fold; nor has anything been said up to this point which suggests any wider fold (cf. v. 16, where the Gentile fold is indicated for the first time). But the saying I am the Door has always been quoted, from the first century onward, as having as wide an application as the parallel saying I am the Way.
Clement of Rome, commenting on Psa_118:19, Psa_118:20, speaks of “that gate (πλ) which is in righteousness, even in Christ” (§48). Ignatius (Philad. 9) speaks of Christ as being θρ τῦπτό, “through whom Abraham and Isaac and Jacob enter in, and the prophets and the apostles, and the Church.” Both these passages seem to carry an allusion to ἐώεμ ἡθρ. So also Hermas (Sim. ix. 12) has: ἡπταατ κὶἡπλ ὁυὸ τῦθο, the explanation being added that the Rock is ancient, but the Gate recent (κιή because “He was made manifest in the last days of the consummation,” …ἵαο μλοτςσζσα δʼατςεςτνβσλίνεσλωιτῦθο, words which recall the teaching of v. 9. According to Hegesippus (Eus. H.E. II. xxiii. 8), James, the Lord’s brother, was asked by inquirers τςἡθρ τῦἸσῦ which carries an allusion either to this passage or to a Synoptic precept such as Luk_13:24 ἀωίεθ εσλενδὰτςσεῆ θρς(Mat_7:13 has πλς
Two reminiscences of the Johannine “I am the Door” may be quoted from Gnostic sources. In the hymn in the second-century Acts of John (§95), we find the phrases θρ εμ σι[τ] κοοτ μ, ὁό εμ σιπρδτ. The image of one knocking at a door is not identical with that of one entering by it; but it probably goes back to Joh_10:9. Again, Hippolytus cites Joh_10:9 from a Naassene writer in the form ἐώεμ ἡπλ ἡἀηιή and he represents the Naassene as adding ο δντισθνιὁτλιςἄθωο, ἐνμ ἀαενθ δὰτύη εσλὼ τςπλς(Ref. v. viii. 21), a passage which recalls Joh_3:5 as well as 10:9.1
Probably the proclamation “I am the Door” should be taken in connexion with the Synoptic saying about the Narrow Door (Mat_7:13, Luk_13:24). Jn., however, is careful not to suggest that the Door is narrow, while he implies that there is only one Door. The comparison with the Synoptists suggests that the αλ or fold of the spiritual Israel represents the kingdom of God.
δʼἐο ἐντςεσλῃ σθστικλ δʼἐο comes first for emphasis. The form ἐντςexpresses the catholicity of the implied appeal (cf. 7:17); any one may enter by this Door. And the sheep which enters the fold thus shall, first of all, be safe (σθστι see on 3:17). As Jesus had said already, none can snatch His sheep from the Shepherd’s hand (v. 28).
κίεσλύεα κὶἐεεστι The “going out and coming in” suggests being at home (Deu_28:6, Psa_121:8), the daily routine of the sheltered flock (cf. Act_1:21). Num_27:17, which speaks of the shepherd leading the sheep out and bringing them in again, is hardly apposite, for at this point the thought is of the sheep rather than of the shepherd. We must take the words in connexion with κὶνμνερσι The sheep which has entered the fold by the door is then safe, and he shall find pasture for his needs. Cf. 1Ch_4:40, where the same phrase ερσεννμνis found. The shepherd leads the sheep to pasture (v. 3 above; and cf. Psa_23:1, Psa_74:1, Psa_95:7, Psa_100:3, Eze_34:14); but here the thought is of the happiness of the sheep rather than of the duty of the shepherd.
10. ὁκέτςοκἔχτικλ The thief (cf. Exo_22:1) comes only to steal and kill (κέτι and θενdo not occur again in Jn.) and destroy (see Jer_23:1; and cf. v. 28, ο μ ἀόωτιεςτναῶα
ἐὼἦθνκλ “I have come (on the contrary) that they may have life.” Cf. v. 28 and 14:6. The Fourth Gospel was written that believers might thus “have life” in the Name of Jesus (20:31).
κὶπρσὸ ἔωι, “and may have it to the full.” This is the πρσεαof Christ’s grace (Rom_5:20). So Xenophon (Anab. VII. vi. 31), πρσὸ ἔεν “to have a surplus.”
Jesus the Good Shepherd (vv. 11-30)
11. We have had the allegory of the Shepherd and the Sheep (vv. 1-5); then the explanation of what is meant by the Door (vv. 7-10); now we come to the great proclamation of Jesus as the Good Shepherd, as contrasted with the hireling.
Philo (de Agric. § 6, 9, 10) draws out a similar contrast between the ἀαὸ πιή, who does not allow his sheep to scatter, and the mere herd (κηορφς who permits the flock to do as it likes. But the similarity does not go beyond what may naturally be observed between the words of two writers who are expounding the same image; there is no literary connexion to be traced between Joh_10 and Philo.
On ἐώεμ, and the special appropriateness of this phraseology in passages such as this, something has already been said in the Introduction (p. cxviii). Dods quotes, however, a striking parallel from Xenophon (Mem. II. vii. 14), where ἐώεμ is used only to mark a contrast, the sheep-dog being represented as saying to the sheep, ἐὼγρεμ ὁκὶὑᾶ ατςσζν ὥτ μτ ὑʼἀθώω κέτσα, μτ ὑὸλκνἁπζσα. If this had been found in Philo, it would probably have been claimed by somebody as the source from which Jn. derived the language of these verses. But literary parallels do not always imply literary obligation.
ὁπιὴ ὁκλς “the Good Shepherd,” Pastor bonus. We have already noticed that Philo calls his good shepherd ἀαό; and it is not possible to draw any clear distinction in such passages as the present between the two adjectives. No doubt, goodness and beauty were closely associated in Greek minds; and, if we please, we can find the thought of the beauty of holiness suggested by the application of κλςto the Good Shepherd (cf. κλ ἔγ in v. 32). But ὁκλςονςin 2:10 is simply good wine, the adjective carrying no allusion either to moral or æ beauty. In Tob. 7:7 and 2 Macc. 15:12 an “honest and good man” is κλςκὶἀαό, a frequent Greek combination. And when κλςis combined, as here, with the description of a man pursuing a particular business, it simply conveys the idea that he discharges his office or fulfils his calling well, just as we would speak of “a good doctor.” Thus we have κλὶοκνμι “good stewards” (1Pe_4:10); ὁτῦμσο κλςἀτπδτς “the good paymaster of the reward,” i.e. he who will make no default (Barnabas, xix. II); and “good priests,” κλὶκὶο ἱρῖ (Ignatius, Philad. 9), in comparison with the High Priest, who is κεσω. Barnabas in another place (7:1) speaks of “the good Lord,” ὁκλςκρο. Here, then, ὁπιὴ ὁκλςis simply the Good Shepherd, One who tends His flock perfectly, without any failure of foresight or tenderness, of courage or unselfishness.1
τνψχνατῦτθσνκλ He lays down His life for the sheep. All good shepherds are ready to risk their lives in defence of their flock (1Sa_17:35, Isa_31:4); He who is uniquely the Good Shepherd lays down His life.
For τθσν א substitute the more usual δδσν but τνψχνατῦτθνιis a characteristic Johannine expression for the “laying down” of His life by Jesus, occurring again vv. 15, 17, 13:37, 38, 1Jn_3:16, and (of a disciple acting as Jesus did) 15:13. It stands in contrast with the Synoptic δῦα τνψχνατῦ(Mar_10:45, Mat_20:28).
The expression τνψχντθνι “to lay down one’s life,” ponere animam, is not found in the Greek Bible outside Jn. (cf. 15:13, 1Jn_3:16). Nor is it a classical phrase, but from Hippocrates, ψχνκτθτ, “he died,” is quoted by Dods, following Kypke. We have, indeed, in Jdg_12:3 (cf. 1Sa_19:5, 1Sa_28:21), ἔηατνψχνμυἐ χιίμυ “I took my life in my hand,” i.e. I risked my life; but in Jn. τνψχντθνιmeans rather “to divest oneself of life,” as at Joh_13:4 τθσ τ ἱάι means “He divests Himself of His garments.”
ὑὲ τνποάω, “on behalf of the sheep.” The Synoptists in similar contexts have ἀτ (Mat_20:28, Mar_10:45), but ἀτ occurs only once in Jn. (1:16), and there it does not mean “instead of.” In this passage the Death of Jesus is said to be “on behalf of the sheep”: it is not explicitly declared that it was on behalf of all men, “to take away the sin of the world,” as at 1:29, 1Jn_2:2. But there is no inconsistency with the catholicity of these great pronouncements; and, lest the allegory might be too narrowly interpreted, mention is made in v. 16 of “other sheep” who must learn to follow the Shepherd.
12. ὁμσωὸ κὶοκὢ πιή. The rec. with AΓhas δ after, אΔ have it before, μσωό: om. BLW. Syr. cur. has “the hireling, the false one, ” but this explanatory gloss is not in Syr. sin.
Blass (Gram. 255) suggests that οκis a Hebraism, “since in the case of a participle with the article, the LXX render לאby ο” (cf. σερ ἡο τκοσ, Isa_54:1). But although in v. 1 we have ὁμ εσρόεο, “any one not coming through the door,” at v. 12 οκis preferable to μ before ὤ, because the hireling is certainly not the shepherd.
ὁμσωό. The term occurs again in the N.T. only at Mar_1:20, where it is used of the “hired servants” in Zebedee’s boat. It occurs often in the LXX, and is not necessarily a term of reproach. In Job_7:2 it is used, as here, of a servant who thinks primarily of his wages. The μσωό may be an honest man; but the care of a herdsman who comes for wages to look after a flock of sheep can never be equal to that of their own shepherd, who knows each one and is ready to give his life for theirs. In vv. 1-5 the shepherd was contrasted with the thief, nothing being said about the excellence of the shepherd’s service, the thought being only of his right to enter the fold. Here, in vv. 11-15, we have the contrast exhibited between a good shepherd and a hired man whose only interest in his flock comes from his wages. In vv. 12, 13, the conduct which may be expected from the μσωό in the hour of danger is described in terms contrasting strongly with the conduct of the really good shepherd. We must not confuse the “hireling” with the “thief” of v. 1, any more than with the “wolf” of v. 12. He is only blameworthy because his service is perfunctory, as compared with ὁπιὴ ὁκλς who is the perfect shepherd.
The centre of the picture is the figure of “the Good Shepherd,” that is, of Jesus Himself. His example of self-sacrifice and watchfulness has always been held up to the “pastors” of His Church (vv. 1-16 form the Gospel for the Ordering of Priests); but to these lesser pastors there is no direct reference in this passage, while the figure of the “hired man” supplies a warning to them all. Cf. 1Pe_5:2, where those who tend the flock of God are warned that they must not do their work “for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.”
ο οκἔτντ πόααἴι, “whose own the sheep are not.” There is no thought here of the owner of the sheep; that does not come into the allegory. But every true shepherd counts the sheep entrusted to his care as his own in a peculiar sense; this the μσωό does not feel.
θωε τνλκνἐχμνν “notices the wolf coming.” For θωενas signifying intelligent perception, see on 2:23, and cf. 9:8.
The wolf is the great danger to sheep in a country like Palestine (cf. Mat_10:16); and that “grievous wolves would enter in, not sparing the flock” (Act_20:29), was a warning to the Church at Ephesus of which its leaders could not mistake the meaning. The μσωό is likely to leave the sheep and run away when the wolf appears. Cf. “ut non derelinquas nos, sicut pastor gregem suum in manibus luporum malignorum” (2 Esd. 5:18). See Zec_11:17.
ὁλκςἁπζιατ, “the wolf snatches them,” as no enemy could snatch His sheep from the care of Jesus (v. 29). That is because He is “the Good Shepherd.”
κὶσοπζι The rec. adds τ πόαα but this explanatory addition is not necessary, and is not found in א A consequence of the carelessness of the man in charge of the sheep is described similarly in Jer_10:21 κὶδεκρίθσν(cf. Jer_23:1). And in the vision of Eze_34:5, when the shepherds neglected their duty “the sheep became meat to all the beasts of the field, and were scattered.”
For σοπζμι δακρίοο, as applied to the “scattering” of the spiritual flock, cf. 11:52, 16:32. One of the marks of the unworthy shepherd of Zec_11:16 is τ ἐκριμννο μ ζτσ. Cf. also Zec_13:7, “smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.”
The rec. repeats after σοπζι ὁδ μσωὸ φύε, but this unnecessary gloss is omitted by אΘ W om. this, and also the following ὅιμσωό ἐτν
13. ο μλιατ πρ τ π We have the same construction, descriptive of God’s providence, at 1Pe_5:7 ατ μλιπρ ὑῶ. Cf. Tob. 10:5, ο μλιμι
14. ἐώεμ ὁπιὴ ὁκλς repeated after the Johannine manner. Cf. v. 9 for the repetition of “I am the Door”; and see on 3:16.
κὶγνσωτ ἐά This has been said already, v. 27, κγ γνσωατ. It is one of the marks of a good shepherd; cf. v. 3, where it is noted as a habit of the shepherd to have individual names for his sheep. “The Lord knoweth them who are His” is a sentence of judgment (Num_16:5); but it may also be taken as a benediction (2Ti_2:19). Cf. Nah_1:7.
The rec. proceeds κὶγνσοα ὑὸτνἐῶ (see on 14:21), following AΓΘ but א read κὶγνσοσ μ τ ἐά This, too, has been said or implied before; cf. vv. 27, 3, 4. The sheep know their shepherd’s voice.
15. κθςγν…κγ γνσω…We have seen on 6:57 that the constr. κθς…κγ may be taken in two different ways. In the present passage we may either (1) place a full stop after ἐά and then we have a new sentence, sc. “As the Father knoweth me, so I know the Father,” the constr. being the same as that at 15:9, 20:21; or (2) we may treat κθςγνσε …τνπτρ as explanatory of the preceding words, sc. “I know mine, and mine know me, even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father,” the constr. then being similar to that at 6:57, 17:21. The A.V. follows (1), the R.V. adopts (2); and both are legitimate renderings of the Greek, and consistent with Johannine usage. The difficulty of (1) is that the words “As the Father knoweth me, so I know the Father,” would seem to be irrelevant to the context, unless we are to connect them with what is said in v. 17, and understand by v. 15, “As the Father knoweth me, so I know the Father, and, because I know Him and His will, I lay down my life for the sheep.”1 But this is to interpolate a thought which is not expressly stated. On the other hand, it may be objected to the rendering (2), that it suggests that the knowledge of Christ by His true disciples is comparable in degree and in kind to the knowledge that He has of the Father. No other statement in the Fourth Gospel or elsewhere claims for His disciples so intimate a knowledge of Christ as this would seem to do (the promise of 14:20 is for the future, not the present). But we have seen (on 6:57) that κθς…κίdoes not, in fact, imply a perfect or complete parallelism with what has gone before. All that is said here, if rendering (2) be adopted, as we believe it must be, is that the mutual knowledge by Christ’s sheep of their Good Shepherd, and His knowledge of them, may be compared with the mutual knowledge of the Son and the Father; it is not the perfection or intimacy of the knowledge that is in view, it is its reciprocal character. Cf. 1Co_11:3; and see further on 17:18.
Adopting rendering (2), the sequence of thought in vv. 14, 15, is plain: “I am the Good Shepherd, as is shown first by my knowledge of my sheep and theirs of me, and secondly by my readiness to lay down my life on their behalf.” These are the two principal marks of the Good Shepherd which have been noted in the preceding verses.
The mutual knowledge of the Father and the Son which is brought in here parenthetically is explicitly stated in the great declaration Mat_11:27, Luk_10:22, and is implied at 17:21 and at many other points in the Gospel. That Jesus knew God in a unique manner and in pre-eminent degree was His constant claim (see on 7:29; and cf. also 8:55, 17:25).
κὶτνψχνμυτθμ κλ This is repeated, like a refrain, from v. 11, in the Johannine manner. See note on 3:16 for such repetitions.
For τθμ, א have δδμ. See the similar variant in v. 11, and the note there.
16. ἄλ πόααἔωκλ These “other sheep” were the Gentiles, who “were not of this fold,” i.e. not of the Jewish Church.1 They were not, indeed, in any fold as yet, being “scattered abroad” (11:52). Jesus claims them as already His: “Other sheep I have, ” for such is the Divine purpose, which, being certain of fulfilment, may be spoken of as already fulfilled.
κκῖαδῖμ ἀαεν “them also I must lead,” δῖexpressing that inevitableness which belongs to what is foreordained by God (see on 3:14). Not only had it been prophesied of Messiah that He was to be a “Light to the Gentiles” (Isa_42:6, Isa_49:6), but there was the explicit promise, “The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to Him, beside His own that are gathered” (Isa_56:8).
All this is intelligible from the standpoint of a Christian living at the end of the first century, when it had long been conceded that the gospel was for the Gentile as well as for the Jew. But it is not so easy to be sure how far Jesus taught this explicitly. Had His teaching been clear on so important a point, it is difficult to believe that the apostles could have misunderstood it. Yet Acts and the Pauline Epistles show that acute controversy arose in the apostolic circle about the position of the Gentiles. All were ready to admit that, as Jewish proselytes, they might pass into the Christian Church; but could they be admitted to Christian baptism without passing through the portal of Judaism? For this Paul contended successfully, but his struggle was severe. Had he been able to quote specific words of Christ determining the matter, his task would have been easier; but this, seemingly, he was unable to do. Did Jesus, then, teach plainly that Gentile and Jew were equally heirs of the Gospel promises?
In Mk. (excluding the Appendix), the mission of Jesus to those who professed the Jewish religion is the exclusive topic of the narrative, and there is no saying of Jesus recorded which would suggest that He had a mission also to the Gentiles. Indeed, when He crossed the border into the country “of Tyre and Sidon,” He did not wish His presence to be known (Mar_7:24); and when the Syrophœ woman asked Him to cure her daughter He is reported to have said to her, “Let the children first be filled,” adding that children’s bread should not be given to “dogs.” This may have been a proverbial saying (which would mitigate its seeming harshness); but at any rate Mk. gives no hint that Jesus regarded non-Jews as having any claim on His ministry. In Mt. (15:24) Jesus actually says to the woman, “I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”; as He had said to the apostles in an earlier passage (10:5, 6), “Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
But these are only seemingly instances of Jewish particularism. They do not explicitly convey more than that Jesus regarded His mission as directed in the first instance to the Jews; and, in fact, there are many indications that both Mt. and Lk. believed the Gentiles to be included within the redeeming purpose of Christ. The prophecies about Messiah being a light to the Gentiles are quoted (Mat_4:16, Mat_4:12:21; cf. Luk_2:32). The Roman centurion was commended for his faith (Mat_8:10); so was the Samaritan leper (Luk_17:19); and the example of the Good Samaritan is held up for imitation (Luk_10:37). The saying, “Many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob,” is in Mt. (8:11), and, in a different context, also in Lk. (13:28). The command to preach to all nations is in the Marcan Appendix (Mar_16:15) as well as in Mat_28:19; and, even if it be supposed that we have not in the latter passage the ipsissima verba of Christ, there can be no doubt that it represents one aspect of His teaching (cf. Mat_24:14, Luk_24:47).
In Jn.’s narrative the Gentiles come without argument or apology within the scope of the Gospel. Jesus stays two days with the Samaritan villagers, to teach them (4:40); He does not admit that descent from Abraham is a sufficient ground for spiritual self-satisfaction (8:39); He is approached by a party of Greeks (12:20f.); He declares that He is the Light of the world (8:12), which implies that the Gentiles as well as the Jews are the objects of His enlightening grace. And in the present passage (10:16) Jesus, in like manner, declares that He has “other sheep” besides the Jews, while it is not to be overlooked that He puts them in the second place: “Them also I must lead.” They are not His first charge: that was to shepherd “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” He “came to His own” (1:11) in the first instance.
Jn., then, is in agreement with Mt. and Lk. in his representation of the teaching of Jesus about the Gentiles; and this teaching is accurately represented in the saying of Paul that the gospel was “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Rom_1:16). Mk. is the only evangelist who says nothing about the inclusion of the Gentiles. The significance of what Jesus had said about this was perhaps not appreciated by Mk., any more than it was by those with whom Paul had his great controversy. See further on 11:52, 12:21.
κὶτςφνςμυἀοσυι. So He says again, v. 27 (cf. 18:37). So Paul said of the Gentiles, when the Jews at Rome had declined to accept his message: τῖ ἔνσνἀετλ τῦοτ στρο τῦθο·ατὶκὶἀοσνα, “they will hear it” (Act_28:28). Note that ἀοενhere takes the gen., as it does when it connotes hearing with understanding and obedience. See on 3:8.
μαπίν, εςπιή, “one flock, one shepherd”: the alliteration cannot be reproduced in another language.
A rendering of the Latin Vulgate in this verse has led to so much controversy, that the textual facts must be briefly stated. All Greek MSS. have ἐ τςαλςτύη …μαπίν, εςπιή. The O.L. vss.1 correctly preserve the distinction between αλ and πίν, by rendering them respectively ouile (fold) and grex (flock). But Jerome’s Vulgate has ouile in both places. This might be taken for a mere slip, were it not that in his Comm. on Ezekiel (46) he distinctly implies that the Greek word αλ is repeated, saying that he is dissatisfied with the old rendering ouile for αλ and suggesting atrium. Wordsworth and White (in loc.) regard this as establishing Jerome’s reliance here on some Greek authority which had αλ in the last clause instead of πίν. Into this question we need not enter, further than to note that no such Greek authority is now extant. However Jerome’s eccentric rendering unum ouile et unus pastor arose, the weight of authority is overwhelmingly against it, although it has caused misunderstanding and perplexity for many centuries.
Jesus did not say there would be one fold (αλ): He said one flock, which is different. In one flock there may be many folds, all useful and each with advantages of its own, but the Flock is One, for there is only One Shepherd. The unity of the Hebrew people is indicated similarly in Ezekiel by the assurance that one shepherd will be set over them, as ruling over an undivided kingdom, Judah and Israel having come together again: “I will set up one shepherd over them, even my servant David: he shall feed them” (Eze_34:23; cf. 37:24). The phrase “one shepherd” is also found in Ecc_12:11, where it refers to God as the one source of wisdom.
Jn., in the next chapter, expresses the thought that the Death of Jesus had for its purpose the gathering into one of the scattered children of God: ἵατ τκατῦθο τ δεκριμν σνγγ εςἕ (11:52). In 10:16 Jesus is to “lead” (ἀαεν the Gentile members of His flock: in 11:52 He is to bring them together (σνγγῖ).
17. δὰτῦο…ὅι See on 5:16 for this favourite Johannine construction, δὰτῦοreferring to what follows. The meaning here is that God’s love for Jesus is drawn out by His voluntary sacrifice of His life in order that He may resume it after the Passion for the benefit of man. The same idea is found in Paul: “Wherefore God also highly exalted Him” (Php_2:9). See also Heb_2:9; and cf. Isa_53:12
μ ὁπτρ So אΘ the rec. has ὁπτρμ.
μ ὁπτρἀαᾷ Jn. generally uses ἀαᾶ of the mutual love of the Father and the Son (see on 3:16), but at 5:20 we find ὁπτρφλῖτνυό. See also on 3:35, 21:17, as to the alleged distinction in usage between ἀαᾶ and φλῖ, a distinction which is not observed in the Fourth Gospel.
ὅιἐὼτθμ τνψχνμυ sc. as a good shepherd does for his sheep (see on v. 11 for the phrase). The self-sacrificing love of Jesus for man draws out the love of the Father to Him. Love evokes love.
ἵαπλνλβ ατν ἵαmust be given its full telic force. It was in order that He might resume His Life, glorified through suffering, that Jesus submitted Himself to death. Death was the inevitable prelude to the power of His Resurrection Life. It was only after He had been “lifted up” on the cross that He could draw all men to Himself (12:32). The Spirit could not come until after the Passion (7:39, where see note). The purpose of the Passion was not only to exhibit His unselfish love; it was in order that He might resume His life, now enriched with quickening power as never before.
18. οδὶ ἦε ατνἀʼἐο. א read ἦε, while the easier reading of the rec. text (אΘlatt.) is αριIf the aorist ἦε is adopted, “no one took it from me,” Jn. is representing Jesus as speaking sub specie œ The issue is so certain that He speaks of His death, which is still in the future, as if it were already past. Whether ἦε or αριbe read, it is the voluntariness of the Death of Jesus which is emphasised; cf. 18:6, Mat_26:53.
ἀλ ἐὼτθμ ατνἀʼἐατῦ This clause is omitted by D, probably because of its apparent verbal inconsistency with 5:19 (cf. 5:30, 7:28, 8:28) ο δντιὁυὸ πιῖ ἀʼἑυο οδν But there is no real inconsistency. ἀʼἐατῦhere does not mean without authority from the Father, for that authority is asserted in the next sentence. It only implies spontaneity, voluntariness, in the use of the authority which Jesus has received from the Father, and in the obeying of the Father’s commandment. See on 5:19.
ἐοσα ἔωθῖα ατν For ἐοσα “authority” as distinct from “power,” in Jn., see on 1:12. The authority which Jesus claimed from the Father was, first, the authority to lay down His life spontaneously (which no one has unless he is assured that his death will directly serve the Divine purposes); and, secondly, the authority to resume it again. That He had been given this latter ἐοσαis in accordance with the consistent teaching of the N.T. writers that it is God the Father who was the Agent of the Resurrection of Jesus. Jesus is not represented as raising Himself from the dead. See on 2:19.
τύη τνἐτλνκλ This was the Father’s commandment, viz. that He should die and rise again. See further on 12:49 for the Father’s ἐτλ addressed to Christ. This Johannine expression is recalled in Hermas (Sim. v. vi. 3), δῦ ατῖ τννμνὃ ἔαεπρ τῦπτὸ ατῦ
10:19. The sequence of ideas brings vv. 19-29 into direct connexion with c. 9 rather than with 10:1-18, and they are printed accordingly at this point. See Introd., p. xxiv, for some considerations which favour the order 9:41, 10:19-29, 10:1-18, 10:30ff.
Diversity of Opinion About Jesus (vv. 19-22)
σίμ. A division of opinion had appeared before among the crowd (7:43), but this was among the Jewish critics of Jesus, the Pharisees, who were not all of one mind about Him. πλνrefers back to the σίμ of 9:16, which had originated in the cure of the blind man, and which is still apparent.
20. διόινἔε. This was an easy way of accounting for the strangeness of the teaching of Jesus, and we have