CHRIST THE FULFILMENT OF ALL SYMBOLICAL PASTORAL LIFE; THE TRUTH OF THE THEOCRACY AND THE CHURCH. A) THE DOOR OF THE FOLD IN ANTITHESIS TO THE THIEVES; B) THE FAITHFUL SHEPHERD IN ANTITHESIS TO THE HIRELING AND THE WOLF; C) THE CHIEF SHEPHERD OF THE GREAT DOUBLE FLOCK. (REFERENCE OF THE DOOR OF THE FOLD TO THE EXCOMMUNICATION, Joh_9:35. CHARACTERISTICS OF FALSE SHEPHERDS, THIEVES AND MURDERERS. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD. CHRIST, THEREFORE, NOT ONLY THE HIGHER REALITY OF THE EARTHLY, BUT ALSO THE TRUTH AND FULFILMENT OF THE SPIRITUAL PASTORAL OFFICE IN ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH, IN CONTRAST TO THE FEARFUL PERVERSIONS OF THE SYMBOLICAL OFFICE.) THE SYMBOLICAL COMMUNION AND THE REAL COMMUNION, OR SYMBOLICAL EXCOMMUNICATION AND REAL EXCOMMUNICATION.—THE COMMOTION AND DISAGREEMENT AMONG THE JEWS AT THEIR UTMOST HEIGHT
Joh_10:1-21
(Joh_10:1-11 pericope for Tuesday in Whitsun-week; Joh_10:12-16 pericope for Misericordias Domini.)
1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by [through] the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2But he that entereth in by [through] the door is the [omit the] shepherd of the sheep. 3To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear [give heed to] his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. 4And when he putteth forth his own sheep [when he hath put forth all his own], he goeth before 5them, and the sheep follow him: for [because] they know his voice. And [But] a stranger will they [they will] not follow, but will flee from him; for [because] they know not the voice of strangers.
6This parable spake Jesus [Jesus spoke] unto them; but they understood not what things they were which he spake [spoke] unto them.
7Then said Jesus unto them again [Jesus therefore said], Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 8All that ever [All those who] came before me [or, instead of me,
ἦë
o
ïí ðñὸ ἐìïῦ
] are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 9I am the door; by [through] me if any man enter in, he shall 10[will] be saved, and shall [will] go in and out, and [will] find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for [omit for] to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come [I came] that they might [may] have life, and that they might have it more abundantly [may have abundance].
11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth [layeth down] his life for the sheep. 12But he that is an hireling, and not the [a] shepherd, whose own the sheep are not [nor the owner of the sheep], seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth; and the wolf catcheth [teareth] them, and scattereth the sheep.13The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. 14I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine [and they know 15me even as]. As [as] the Father knoweth me, even so know I [and I know,
êὰãþ
] the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall [will] hear my voice; and there shall be [will become] one fold [flock,
ðïßìç
, not
áὐëÞ
, Comp. Joh_10:16], and17[omit and] one shepherd. Therefore [On this account, for this reason] doth my [the] Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might [may] take it again. 18No man [No one] taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
19There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. 20And many of them said, He hath a devil [demon], and is mad; why hear ye him? 21Others said, These are not the words of him [of one] that hath a devil [demon]. Can a devil [demon] open the eyes of the blind?
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
[The parabolic discourse of John 10 is closely connected with the preceding miracle and suggested by the tyrannical and cruel conduct of the Pharisees—the blind guides and false shepherds—towards the blind man who had been restored to sight by Jesus—the Light of the world and the true Shepherd. It was no doubt spoken before the same audience, as may be inferred not only from the uninterrupted connection, but also from the express reference to the preceding miracle in Joh_10:21. We have here a divine pastoral taken from everyday life in Palestine and addressed mainly to ministers of the gospel. With the whole subject should be carefully compared the Old Testament descriptions of the false shepherds and the true Shepherd of Israel with prophetic reference to the Messiah, in Ezekiel 34.; Jer_23:1-6; Zec_11:4-17. To these may be added, as a remoter parallel, the incomparable Psalms 23 which represents the Lord as the good Shepherd of the individual believer, who feeds and guides and protects him throughout life, and even through the dark valley of death.—John omits the parables which form such a prominent and characteristic part of Christ’s teaching in the Synoptists (comp. especially Matthew 13), but he gives two parabolic discourses or parabolic allegories, extended similes (called
ðáñïéìßá
, Joh_10:6), one on the Good shepherd (John 10), and on the True Vine (John 15), which are not found in the other Gospels. A parable (
ðáñáâïëÞ
, from
ðáñáâÜëëù
, a comparison, similitude), in the strict technical sense derived from the synoptical parables, is a poetic narrative taken from real life for the illustration of a higher truth relating to the kingdom of heaven, which is reflected in, and symbolized by, the world of nature. As a conscious fiction, the parable differs from the myth, and the legend, which are unconsciously produced and believed as an actual fact (as children invent stories without doubting the reality); as a truthful picture of real life for the illustration of spiritual truth, it differs from the fable, which rests on admitted impossibilities (as animals thinking, speaking and acting like rational men), and serves the purpose of inculcating the lower maxims of worldly wisdom and prudence. John’s parables are extended allegories rather than parables; they present no narrative or completed picture, but simply one figure, either a man (the shepherd in relation to his flock), or an object of nature (the vine in relation to its branches), as a symbolic illustration of the character and relation which Christ sustains to His true disciples. Christ stands out here expressly as the object and meaning of the parable. In the parable before us we must distinguish two acts: in the one Christ appears as the Door of access to the church and to God, Joh_10:1-10; in the other as the true Shepherd of the flock, Joh_10:11 to Joh_18:14 A similar blending of images we find in Hebrews 9, 10, where Christ is set forth both as the priest and the sacrifice, as the offerer and the offering (Joh_9:12; Joh_10:19). Bengel says: Christus est ostium et pastor et omnia.—P. S.]
Our section closes the period of undecided fluctuations and fermentations in the nation. It is not merely a continuation of the word of the preceding chapter (as Meyer, Tholuck, Besser suppose); in that light is the fundamental idea, in this the shepherd is the leading thought. The conversion of the man who was born blind to Christ and his excommunication by the Pharisees (it appears from this chapter also, that they acted as an official forum) induce the Lord to exhibit in His own person the truth and fulfilment of the earthly as of the spiritual pastoral office, and in believers on Him the truth and fulfilment of the theocratic communion. Hence, this discourse ripens the disagreement among the people to a point necessarily resulting in separation. The scene is undoubtedly unchanged, the auditors are the same, but there is no reason why we should on this account, in pursuance of the example of Meyer [to which Alford assents], begin the chapter with Joh_9:35. Even Joh_10:40-41 belong to the close of the foregoing chapter.
This figurative speech is in form a flowing parabolical discourse [
ðáñïéìßá
, together with
ðáñáâïëÞ
to be comprehended in the Hebrew
îָùָׁì
; according to Quinctilian: fabella brevior, as the saying, Joh_15:1), and not a completed similitude (a parable). There is no foundation for the assumption of Strauss, that what was originally a parable was transposed by the hand of the evangelist into this more fluent form, especially as flowing parabolic discourses are to be found in the Synoptists also. Tholuck after Wilke (Rhetorik [p. 109],): “It has the character of an allegory, which exhibits a relation and is technically significant in all its features, not that of a parable, the scope of which is the application of the fundamental thought.” Allegories and parables form, however, no true antithesis. See Comm. on Matthew, chap. 13.
Joh_10:1-9. First parabolic discourse.—Christ the Door of the fold for the true shepherds of the communion in antithesis to thieves and slaughterers. Introduced by the solemn formula, Verily, verily.—Certain knowledge of the true church-discipline in antithesis to that exercised by the hierarchy.
Joh_10:1. He that entereth not through the door,etc.—A figure borrowed from oriental pastoral life. The sheep needing protection and guidance, but, at the same time, submissive and gentle, pressing closely to its fellows in such wise as to form a flock, knowing and following its leader, symbolizes the pious, believing soul; the flock is a symbol of the Church; the shepherd, entering by the door, symbolizes the ministry in the Church (Psa_100:3; Psa_95:7; Psa_77:20); the fold
âְּãֵøָä
áὐëÞ
aula), i.e., an uncovered space, surrounded by a low wall and affording protection to the flock at night—is a symbol of the fenced-in and inclosed theocracy (
öñáãìüò
, Mat_21:33); the door itself, as the necessary entrance to the fold, is the symbol of Christ. For the further features consult the sequel. The Entering in [
åἰóåñ÷üìåíïò
] is brought forward as the leading thought in antithesis to the climbing up [
ἀíáâáßíùí
]. By itself it denotes authorized entrance with right purposes. Each, however, is characterized by the addition: Through the door. There should be no doubt as to the meaning of this, after the explanation of Christ, Joh_10:7, in reference to the Pharisees who did not understand Him, Joh_10:6 : I am the door.
The interpretation of the door as signifying the Holy Scriptures (Chrysostom, [Theophyl., Euth.-Zigab.] Ammon), is connected with the false discrimination of the parabolic discourses, in accordance with which the similitude changes as early as Joh_10:8 or 9; Tholuck approves of this discrimination. Patristic expositors since Augustine have therefore rightly comprehended the expression as having reference to the institution of the ministry by Christ; they were wrong only in limiting it to the historic Christ and the New Testament ministry. Luthardt wishes us to understand by the door, simply, the way ordained by God, without further definition, in contradiction to Joh_10:7. Tholuck, assenting to the opinion of Luthardt: the right, divinely ordained entrance, by which devoted love to the sheep is meant. De Wette: Only in His truth, in His way can one arrive at the condition of a true shepherd of the faithful. Approximately correct. But why is Christ spoken of in the Old Testament, and why is He in an especial manner the subject of this Gospel throughout? Christ is the principle of the Theocracy, the fundamental idea, fundamental impulse and goal of the Old Testament church of God, and hence the principle of every theocratico-official vocation from the beginning. Thus, He is the Door of the fold. He who enters not by Abrahamic faith in the promise, or through the spirit of revelation and in accordance with that, upon a theocratic office, has not entered into the fold through the door. Even Meyer says: Christ Himself is the door,—with the wonted, chiliastic reference, however, to the “future members of the Messianic Kingdom.”
Climbeth up some other way [
ἀíáâáßíùí ἀëëá÷üèåí
].—Climbeth over from some other side [than the one indicated by the door], in order to get in over the wall or over the hedge. The “Other whence [
ἀëëá÷üèåí
, like the old classical
ἄëëïèåí
],” chiefly indicates the other place; it denotes likewise, however, the comer from some other direction, the stranger, who does not belong to the fold. Significant of the untheocratic mind, i.e., disbelief of the promise, and of untheocratic motives (according to Matthew 4 cupidity and sensuality, ambition, lust of power). The climbing over may denote a human, vain striving in scriptural learning, legalistic zeal, etc., in antithesis to the way of the Spirit.
The same is a thief and a robber. The false way is in itself indicative of treacherous designs. The
ëῃóôÞò
, robber, is not simply a climactic augmentation (Meyer); neither is it a downright murderer. But the robber readily becomes a murderer if he meet with resistance, and the sheep-robber in the like case becomes a slaughterer (in this respect also the translation: Murderer is incorrect, since it is a question of sheep). In the explanation, Joh_10:10, the thief is the leading idea; it is divided, however, into the stealing thief and the rapacious slaughterer and destroyer. Thus, false officials become thieves to those souls that submit themselves to them and confide in them, and worriers of those that maintain their independent faith, as. chap. 9 of the blind man whom they excommunicated. The antithesis presented by these thieves and true shepherds is of course (after Tholuck) the antithesis of selfishness (Eze_34:8) and love (Jer_23:4).
Joh_10:2. Is a shepherd of the sheep.—[
ðïéìÞí
without the article, in the generic sense, while in Joh_10:11-12; Joh_10:14 where it refers specifically to Christ, the article is used three times. The E. V. misses this difference by translating in all cases “the shepherd,” while Luther is equally inaccurate in using uniformly the indefinite article: “ein (guter) Hirte.” In tho first part of the parable, Joh_10:1-10, Christ appears as the Door; in the second as the Shepherd. He is indeed both, but the figures must not be mixed in the same picture.—P. S.] Only he who has become a shepherd through faith in the promise or through Christ, has a loving shepherd’s heart. The form of his entrance upon the office must have been pure, in accordance with his pure motive, and he will prove himself a shepherd. This True shepherd does but form a contrast to the robber; he is not yet, as the Good Shepherd, placed in antithesis to the hireling, or as the head Shepherd (Joh_10:16) to the under shepherds.
Joh_10:3. To him the porter [
ὁ èõñùðüò
] openeth.—The porter watches in the night-time within the fold, and in the morning thrusts aside the bolt for the shepherd when he announces himself. Meyer (after Lücke, De Wette and others): “
Ὁ èõñùñüò
is requisite to complete the picture of the lawful entering in, and is not designed for special exegesis; hence it is not taken into consideration again Joh_10:7. It is, therefore, not to be interpreted either as referring to God (Maldonat, Bengel [Tholuck, Ewald, Hengstenberg, with reference to Joh_6:44 f.] ), or to the Holy Spirit, Act_13:2 (Theodor., Heracl., Rupert, Aret., Cornel, a Lap. and several others), or to Christ (Cyrill, Augustine), or to Moses (Chrysost., Theod. Mopsuest. and several others).” Tholuck interprets it as signifying The Father, in accordance with Joh_6:44-45. But as the porter is within, in the fold, we must undoubtedly, with Stier, apprehend the Holy Spirit in this feature of the parable, although qualified as the Spirit of the church; this view is contested by Luthardt without sufficient grounds.
And the sheep [
ôὰ ðñüâáôá
] give heed to his voice, and he calleth his own sheep [
ôὰἵäéáðñüâáôá
] by name.—The article
ôὰ ðñüâáôá
is to be observed. According to most expositors, these are all the sheep of the fold, and are identical with the
ἴäéá ðñïâáôá
. [Bengel, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, etc.—P. S.] This view is impugned by the fact that nothing is said of the
ðñüâáôá
in general, but that they hear his voice; the
ἴäéá
however, he calls by name. According to Bengel, these
ἴäéá
are distinguished from the great mass of the sheep by their special need. Meyer considers it necessary to make use of the circumstance that one fold often afforded shelter at night to several flocks, whose shepherds, coming every morning, were known to all the sheep. On the other hand, the
ἴäéá
are the sheep belonging to the particular flock of the shepherd in question. It is, however, an unfree dependence [of Meyer] upon an archæological note to pretend to discover in this passage a portrayal of the driving together of a plurality of flocks, when the figure has reference to the unitous Old Testament Theocracy. The second misapplication of an archæological comment, according to which it, was customary for the shepherds to give names to the sheep (Pricæus on our passage), consists in the idea that the shepherd must call out all the sheep of his flock by their names (indulge in a very minute roll-call). The statement that the sheep hear his voice forms part of the ideal background of the figure, for in the enclosure of the Old Testament Theocracy there are some that are not true sheep, and these do not give ear to the voice of the shepherd (comp. the Prophets and Galatians, chaps. 3 and 4). But from the real sheep, i.e., the susceptible in general, Christ further distinguishes the
ß
̓
äéá ðñüâáôá
, that the shepherd calls by name; the favorite sheep, the elect in a stricter sense [Leben Jesu, II., p. 995); in the symbol of pastoral life the bell-wethers which precede the flock and are followed by it.
Meyer controverts this view in the text and ratifies it in the note (against Luthardt) in these words [p. 395]: “Only the
ἴäéá
does the shepherd call by name.” The idea of the figure is very clear: among the sheep there are some that are on terms of closest intimacy with the shepherd; these he calls by name, and because these follow him, he is followed by the whole flock. But to
ôὰ ðñüâáôá
, the others in the fold, do not here come under further consideration.
Joh_10:4. And when he hath put forth [
ἐêâÜëῃ
] all his own [
ôὰἲäéáðÜíôá
, according to the true reading, instead of
ôὰ ἴäéá ðñüâáôá
his own sheep.—P. S.] These come at his call. He Lays Hold Of Them and brings them out through the door. Comp. Acts 10. An intimation of the exode of the faithful from the old theocracy. He brings forth all the elect (see the reading
ðÜíôá
), leaves not one behind.
[
ἘêâÜëëåéí
illustrates the energetic mode of
ἐîáãáãåῖí
, and is appropriate to the employment of a shepherd who “drives” and “turns out” the sheep to pasture. It implies that the sheep hesitate and linger behind, and must be almost forced out of the enclosure. Dr. Lange first discovered in this passage an allusion to the approaching violent secession of the Christian church from the Jewish theocracy, although Luther already intimated that Christian freedom from legal bondage and judgment was here hinted at. It is supported by the term
ἐêâÜëëåéí
, by the true reading,
ðÜíôá
, but especially by the preceding historical situation, the excommunication of the blind man, Joh_9:34, the threatening decree of the excommunication of Jesus with all His disciples (Joh_9:22) and the deadly hostility of the Jewish leaders, which made an ultimate violent rupture inevitable. Meyer objects without reason, but Godet adopts and expands Lange’s view, although he connects it more with
ἐîÜãåé
(Joh_10:3) than
ἐêâÜëῃ
(Joh_10:4). “Jesus, he says (II. 280), charactérize par ces mots une situation historique determinée. Le moment est venu pour lui d’emmener son propre troupeau hors de la théocratic, dévouée à la ruine,” etc.—P. S.]
Joh_10:5. But a stranger.—The communion represented in Joh_10:4-5, is delineated in respect of its exclusive nature. By the stranger only the false prophets can here be understood, until the time of the pseudo-Messiahs.
[They will not follow, but will flee from him. The future
ïὐ ìὴ ἀêïëïõèÞóïõóéí
(the true reading instead of
ἀêïëïõèÞóùóéí
), and
öåýîïíôáé
is taken by Lampe as Prophetic, pointing to the cathedra Mosis plane deserenda, by Meyer simply as indicating the consequence.—This whole picture of Joh_10:4-5 is drawn from real life, and is to this day illustrated every day on the hills and plains of Palestine and Syria. Thomson, The Land and the Book, I. p. John 301: “I never ride over these hills, clothed with flocks, without meditating upon this delightful theme. Our Saviour says of the good shepherd, ‘When he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him.’…This is true to the letter. They are so tame and so trained that they follow their keeper with the utmost docility. He leads them forth from the fold, or from their houses in the villages, just where he pleases. Any one that wanders is sure to get into trouble. The shepherd calls sharply from time to time to remind them of his presence. They know his voice, and follow on; but, if a stranger call, they stop short, lift up their heads in alarm, and if it is repeated, they turn and flee, because they know not the voice of the stranger. This is not the fanciful costume of a parable; it is a simple fact.”—P. S.]
Joh_10:6-7. This parable spoke Jesus unto them,etc.—
Ðáñïéìßá
[not=
ðáñáâïëÞ
], any discourse deviating from (
ðáñÜ
) the common way (
ïἶìïò
). See above [and Meyer and Alford in loc.]. What has been said is totally incomprehensible to the Pharisees, in consequence of the idea entertained by them of their office; hence follows the direct explanation of Christ, see above. Tholuck remarks: The not understanding is not to be taken in a merely literal sense, any more than Joh_8:27; it means rather a state of being sealed up against that truth, which would affirm that they are not the true leaders of the people. Nevertheless it is here a question of an inability to understand, resting upon that evil basis, not simply of the unwillingness to understand.—The door to the sheep,i.e., here, the door of the shepherds; not yet primarily that of the sheep (Chrysostom, Lampe). [Joh_10:7. I am the door of the sheep. An expansion of the parabolic allegory and the key to its understanding.
Ἐãþ
, emphatic.
ôῶíðñïâÜôùí
not to the sheep (Lange and Meyer who thinks that Joh_10:1 requires this interpretation), but for the sheep, i.e., the door through which both the sheep and the shepherds (spoken of Joh_10:1-5 in distinction from the one true arch-shepherd, mentioned afterwards, Joh_10:11) must pass into the fold of the church of God (Chrysostom, Lampe, Hengstenberg, Godet, Alford, etc.).—P. S.]
Joh_10:8. All who came instead of me,
ἧëèïíðñὸἐìïῦ
.—The expression is obscured by the failing to abide strictly by the figure, i.e., the door. In the first place, then, the meaning is: all who
ðñὸ ôῆò èýñáò ἧëèïí
. With the first idea of passing by-the door, this other is connected: the setting of themselves up for the door, i.e., all who came claiming rule over the conscience, as spiritual lords, instead of the Lord who is the Spirit. The time of their coming is undoubtedly indicated to be already past by the
ἧëèïí
, not, however, by the
ðñü
, forasmuch as the positive
ðñü
does not coincide with the temporal one. Hence we must not only reject the interpretation of this passage as an antijudaistic utterance against Moses and the Prophets (Hilgenfeld), but also the temporal construction of Meyer: the hierarchic, especially the Pharisaic opposition preceded Him. John the Baptist also came before Him, as did all the Prophets. The explanations of Camerarius: præter me (sine me, me neglecto), of Calov: before me (antequam mitterentur, instead of after me), of Tittmann, Schleussner:
ὑðÝñ
, loco, in the place of, are correct; they are, however, imperfect and liable to misapprehension, since all the prophets came in a certain sense loco Christi. The instead of our text at once expresses the substitution of some one for Christ, the denial of Christ, the claim to absolute Messianic authority. And at the same time emphasis is given to the
ἦëèïí
. They came as though the Messiah were come; there was no room left for Him (Jerome, Augustine, etc.). As a matter of course, they were false Messiahs, though without bearing that name. It is not necessary that we should confine our thought to those who were false Messiahs in the stricter sense of the term (Chrysostom, Grotius and many others), since the majority of these did not make their appearance until after Christ. Every hierarch prior to Christ was pseudo-Messianic in proportion as he was anti-christian, for pseudo-christianity involves anti-christianity, and the converse is also true. To covet rule over the conscience of men is pseudo-christian. Be it further observed that the thieves and robbers who climb over the wall, appear in this verse with the assumption of a higher power. They stand no longer in their naked selfishness; they lay claim to positive importance, and that not merely as shepherds, but as the Door itself. Thus, the hierarchs had just been attempting to exercise conscience-rule over the man who was born blind.
But the sheep did not heed them. Only those who were like-minded with them became their followers. But the true sheep remained constant to the good Shepherd.
Joh_10:9-10. I am the door; if any one enter in through me.—Conclusion of the antithesis.—Enter in through me, he will be saved;i.e., he shall find deliverance in the theocratic communion. The fence of the fold saves from destruction; so also does entrance into the true fastness of the church Through Christ.—He will go in,i.e., in the truth of the Old Testament he shall subordinate himself to the Law.—He will go out;i.e., he shall find in the fulfilment of the Old Testament, in Christ, the liberty of the New Testament faith.—And will find pasture. He who goes out through the door shall reach the true pasturage of faith, knowledge, peace. Already a new parabolical discourse announces itself: the true shepherd does indeed find the pasture for his sheep in the first place, but he also finds it for himself as a sheep (Augustine, Stier and others). Opposed to him stands the thief who arbitrarily makes a false door for himself, and finally himself counterfeits the door. He comes but, on the one hand, to steal, i.e., to rule over souls, and, on the other hand, to slay, i.e., to cast out spirits; in the one case, however, as in the other, to destroy.
The following words: I came that they may have life, and that they may have abundance (
ðåñéóóüí
), constitute the transition to the next parable. Two considerations here claim our attention. First, they are for the first time to receive true life; secondly, together with true life they are to receive abundance of true food (green meadows, fresh water-springs). [Comp. Joh_1:1 : “Of His fulness have we all received grace for grace.” The English Version (with the Vulg., Chrysostom, Grotius, etc.), renders
ðåñéóóüí
“more abundantly,” but this would require
ðåñéóóüôåñïí
.—P. S.]
Joh_10:11. I am the good shepherd. Second parabolic discourse. Antithesis of the good Shepherd and the hireling, on the one hand; on the other hand, of the good Shepherd and the wolf, Joh_10:11-15. I,
Ἐãþ
, emphatically repeated. As The Shepherd (with the article), He is the true, real Shepherd, in antithesis to symbolical shepherds in the field and symbolical shepherds in the legal office (Heb_13:20 :
ü ðïéìὴí ὁ ìÝãáò
); as the Good Shepherd (
ὁ êáëüò
). He is the ideal of the shepherd (Psalms 23; Isa_40:11; Eze_34:11) in antithesis to bad shepherds (Ezekiel 37; Zechariah 11; Jeremiah 23), who first appeared in the form of the thief, and now branch out into the figures of the Hireling and the wolf. That this is at the same time indicative of the promised Shepherd, Eze_34:23; Eze_37:24, results from the foregoing passages, especially the: “I came,” “they came in my position.” “Comp. Tr. Berachoth, fol. Leviticus 1 : Three things God Himself proclaims; famine,, plenty and a
ôּøðí èåá
i.e., a good shepherd or head of the congregation;
ôãðñéí èåáéí
of Moses and David in Vitringa, Syn. Vet., p. 636. As the leading consideration in the idea of the shepherd, sacrificing love for his sheep is brought forward in Heb_13:20.” Tholuck.
Layeth down his life for the sheep—
ÔéèÝíáé ôὴí øõ÷Þí
, a Johannean expression (Joh_13:37; Joh_15:13; 1Jn_3:16). If we keep the figure in mind, this is here expressive neither of the sacrificial death, nor of the payment of a ransom for the slave, but of the heroic risking of life in combat with the wolf. The
ὑðÝñ
, then, is here synonymous with
ἀíôß
. The shepherd dies that the flock may be saved. [Alford: “These words are here not so much a prophecy, as a declaration, implying, however, that which Joh_10:15 asserts explicitly.”—P. S.]
Joh_10:12. But he that is an hireling [
ìéóèùôüò
]. —He is characterized by two things: 1. he is not a real shepherd to the sheep, but a hired servant,—he has no affection for the sheep; 2. the sheep are not his own, are not united to him by appropriation and cannot confide in him. The inner vital bond is wanting on both sides. Characteristic of the Pharisaic leaders of the people. Whose own the sheep are not, does not denote the “owner,” but the own shepherd. In this very thing consisted the guilt of the hierarchical hirelings, that they constituted themselves “owners” of the flock. And in this very way also they became hirelings, i.e. under-shepherds, to whom the dishonestly increased wages were the principal thing, while they of course as hirelings had also the predicate of the official situation. [Christ sees here, prophetically, the long list of those selfish teachers who make merchandise of the ministry for filthy lucre and hate the cross, from the apostolic age (Gal_6:12; Php_3:18) down to the present.—P. S.]
He beholdeth the wolf coming.—That he perceives him while yet at a distance, is expressive of his fear, not of his watchfulness; this fear is manifested by his withdrawal at first to a place of security (
ἀößçóé ôὰ ðñïâ
.), and then by his downright flight (
öåýãåé
). The wolf comes from without, from the wilderness; he is, however, connected with the hireling by the fact of his being an alien to the flock and by his treachery towards it. He has been interpreted as symbolizing the devil (Euthymius and others, Olshausen), heretics (Augustine and others), “every anti-theocratic power” (Lücke); “every anti-Messianic power, whose ruling principle, however, as such, is contained in the devil” (Meyer). According to Mat_7:15 and Act_20:29, wolves may also make their appearance in an official or pseudo-prophetic form. In such case, however, according to the first passage, they have disguised themselves in sheep’s clothing. The declared wolf is the enemy of the flock, displaying his enmity openly and boldly, while the apostasy of the hireling is still cloaked in cowardly friendship; hence the wolf is the antichristian adversary of the Church, as heretic or persecutor,—in any case the instrument of Satan (comp. the Wolf in Northern Mythology).
The wolf ravisheth them and scattereth.—Twofold pernicious effect. Individual sheep are ravished and torn to pieces, i.e. individual souls are destroyed, but the flock as a Whole, the Church, is confused and scattered.
Joh_10:13. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling,etc.—No repetition, but the explanation of the flight. As a hireling, he is solely and selfishly interested in pasturing himself; he has not the welfare of the sheep at heart. It is questionable in what degree this figure is illustrated by the conduct of the Jewish shepherds of that time. They did not seem to be wanting in bravery; at first they acted like havening wolves towards Christ, the Good Shepherd, and in the Jewish war they conducted themselves in a similar manner towards the Romans. The point illustrated by the figure is this: The hireling vanishes at the appearance of danger. There are two classes of shepherds to be found when destruction overtakes a church; the one class is composed of cowards who are secretly faithless, the other of bold and open apostates. It is, however, the cowardice of the former that enables the boldness of the latter class to excite consternation in the church. Such hirelings composed a good part of the Sanhedrin, and were especially numerous among the Scribes in the time of Jesus (Joh_12:42); they possessed a consciousness of the truth of Christ but no heart for it, and they delivered up the Good Shepherd to the wolf.
Joh_10:14. I am the good shepherd. I know my own,etc.—Explicit interpretation of the parabolic discourse just unfolded, as Joh_10:7. The proof of this character: I know them that are Mine, and the fact of the indissoluble connection with the flock, with true believers, whom the Father has given Him, here expressed by the relation of mutual acquaintance. True, this knowing does not mean loving; but it is still an emphatic expression by which a loving knowledge is implied. It is the expression of the personal, divine cognition of kindred personalities. The grace of Christ is such a cognition of His own on His part; faith, on the other hand, is a corresponding cognition of Christ on their part.
Joh_10:15. Even as the Father knoweth me.—[Belongs to the preceding verse. The E. V. wrongly treats this as an independent sentence.—P. S.] In the personal, spiritual communion of the Father with Christ, and of Christ with the Father, the mutual relationship between Christ and the faithful is rooted. The “as” denotes the similarity of manner as also of kind, inasmuch as the life imparted by Christ to His people is a divine one. A chief motive for the comparison, however, is that the cognition on the part of Christ is the cause of His recognition by believers in return, as the cognition of the Father is the foundation for the corresponding cognition of Christ (comp. chap, Joh_14:20; Joh_15:10; Joh_17:8; Joh_17:21; 1Jn_5:1; Mat_25:40). Tholuck: “The
ãéíþóêåéí ôὰ å
̇
ìÜ
corresponds with the
êáëåῖí êáô
’
ὄíïìá
, the
ãéíþóêïìáé
with the
ïἴäáóé ôὴí öùíὴí áὐôïῦ
.”—And I lay down my life.—Expression and measure of the strength of His love towards His people. But the salvation of the heathen also is to be effected by His death (see Joh_11:52; Joh_12:24; Eph_2:14; Heb_13:20). Thus this thought leads to the following.
Ôßèçìé
. “Near and certain future,” Meyer.
Joh_10:16. And other sheep I have. [Other sheep, not another fold; for they are scattered throughout the world (Joh_11:52), while there is but one kingdom of Christ into which they will all ultimately be gathered, and to which they already belong in the counsel and love of God and His Son. Salvation comes from the Jews, but passes over to the Gentiles.—P. S.] Christ the chief Shepherd as Shepherd of the double flock of believers from the Jews and the Gentiles, Joh_10:16. The Jews resident out of Palestine (Paulus) are not meant, for they too belonged to the unitous Jewish fold; it is the heathen to whom Christ refers; they are not to be thought of as existing in a fold (De Wette), although subject to the guidance of God in another way (Joh_11:52; Act_14:16). The heathen are His sheep in the manner stipulated, even as the Jews, i.e. those who hear His voice, who follow the drawing of the Father. Of these Christ says: I have them (
ἔ÷ù
) with divine confidence. He must lead them (
äåῖ
); it is the decree of His Father’s love and of His own love. That He shall bring them into the fold of Israel (Tholuck), is not implied by the
ἀãáãåῖí
, which “means neither adducere, bring (Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Lutthardt [Hengstenb. Godet]), nor
óõíáãáãåῖí
(Euthymius, Casaubon and others), but to lead as a shepherd.” Meyer. Bengel: “Non opus est illis solum mutare.” Yet the form:
ἀãáãåῖí
certainly indicates that the imminent manifest leading of these sheep is a continuation of a secret leading, previously begun (gratia præveniens). Christ saw the restriction of His ministry to Israel (Mat_10:5) abolished with His death (Mat_21:43; chap. 28) As the exalted Christ He was made manifest as the Shepherd of the nations.
And they shall hear my voice.—Christ’s confidence in His mission to the Gentiles presupposes at the same time an assurance of their destination to salvation and of the divine guidance of grace exercised over them. They are already sheep, not merely proleptically speaking (Meyer), for the idea of the sheep which gives heed to the voice of the shepherd, and the idea of the regenerate child of God are not one and the same. The sheep is a symbol of the man who hears the voice of Christ; hence, he is shown to be a sheep by his calling, while regeneration occurs but in company with justification.
One shepherd, one flock [
ìßá ðïßìíç
,
åἷò ðïéìÞí
].—The asyndeton betokens the closer connection of the two members. On an analogous utterance of Zeno in Plutarch (Alex., chap. vi.), see Tholuck. The two flocks become one flock by means of the one Shepherd, in Him; not by entrance into the
áὐëÞ
of the Jews. On the contrary, the subject recently under consideration has been the leading of the Jewish flock out of the
áὐëÞ
to pasturage. Tholuck: “Since the Old Testament and the New Testament kingdom of God is but One kingdom, the latter being merely an outgrowth of the former, the Gentiles’ reception into it is pictured as a leading unto Zion (Isa_2:3; Zec_14:17), by Paul as a grafting into the trunk of the good olive-tree and, similarly, in this passage as a reception into the
áὐëÞ
of Israel.” See, against this view, the note to Joh_10:16. In connection with the unity of the Old and the New Testament kingdom of God, we must, however, not overlook the antithesis between the typical Old Testament theocracy and the real New Testament kingdom of heaven. See Dan_7:14. The latter does not issue from the former, but the former goes before the latter shadow-wise. Christ is the principle of the kingdom of heaven; He is, therefore, also the principle of the unity of the two flocks, Rom_11:25. Inner relation to Christ being the grand point here, this promise has been fulfilled from the beginning of Christianity (one church); but, hence, it must also receive at last its perfect fulfilment in appearance. [Christ is, as Bengel remarks on
åἶæ ðïéìÞí
always the one Shepherd by right, but He is to become so (
ãåíÞóåôáé
) more and more in fact. So it may be said, the unity of Christ’s flock exists virtually from the beginning and need not be created, but must be progressively realized and manifested in the world. The unity of the church, like its catholicity and holiness, are in a steady process of growth towards perfection. “It has not yet appeared what we shall be.” The nearer Christians draw to Christ, the more they will be united to each other. It is a shallow exegesis to say that this word of Christ was completely fulfilled in the union of Jewish and Gentile believers in the apostolic church. It was indeed fulfilled then; comp. Eph_2:11-22, which is a good commentary on the passage; but it is also in ever-expanding fulfilment, and, like His sacerdotal prayer for the unity of all believers, it reaches as a precious promise far beyond the present to the gathering in of the fulness of the Gentiles and such a glorious unity and harmony of believers as the world has never seen yet. Meyer says correctly: “The fulfilment of the sentence began with the apostolic conversion of the Gentiles; but it progresses and will only be complete with Rom_11:25 f.”—P. S.]
Joh_10:17. On this account doth the Father love me.—The freedom of Christ’s self-sacrifice, Joh_10:17-18. Various conceptions. 1.
Äéὰ ôïῦôï
—
ὅôé
significatively refers to the following: “By this doth the love of my Father appear, that I lay down My life only to take it again” (Bucer, Stier). This view may seem to be upheld by the fact that the love of the Father precedes the work of redemption, and is manifest in the exaltation of Christ. But the love which from eternity has flowed from Father to Son, the love modified by their Trinitarian relation, does not exclude a love to the God-Man, called forth by His historic accomplishment of the work of redemption, and by His moral conduct on earth. Comp. Joh_8:29; Php_2:9. Hence 2. Meyer:
Äéὰ ôïῦôï
—
ὅôé
is to be understood as in all passages in John (Joh_5:16; Joh_5:18; Joh_8:47; Joh_12:18; Joh_12:39; 1Jn_3:1): on this account, because namely,—so that
äéὰ ôïῦôï
refers to the words preceding, and
ὄôé
introduces an exposition of
äéὰ ôïῦôï
. Consequently: “therefore, on account of this my pastoral relation of which I have been speaking (down to Joh_10:16), doth My Father love Me, because namely, I (
åãþ
with the emphasis of self-appointment, see Joh_10:18) lay down My life,” etc. Manifestly, the whole thought is contained in Joh_10:15-16 also, for the resurrection of Christ must of course precede the taking possession of the “other sheep” from the heathen-world.
Even the conclusion, in order that I may take it again (
ἵíá ðÜëéí ëÜâù áὐôÞí
), is variously understood. 1. It denotes the simple consequence of the sacrifice of Christ expressed in the preceding clause (Theod. of Mopsuest., and many others); 2. it indicates the condition (hac lege ut, Calvin, De Wette); 3. the subjective purpose of Christ: because thus only could be fulfilled the ultimate design of the pastoral office Joh_10:16 (Stier, Meyer); 4. the divine appointment of the aim; namely, in order to take it again, in accordance with the purpose of God, 1Co_1:14; 1Co_7:29; Rom_8:17. This taking again, also, is comprehended in the divine
ἐíôïëὴ ôïῦ ðáôñüò
, Joh_10:18. Tholuck. Since the obedience of Christ is here represented as the object of the love of God,
ἵíá
must undoubtedly be understood as referring to the purpose of Christ; this purpose, however, is not merely subjective, but corresponds with the
ἐíôïëÞ
of the Father, which again, is an
ἐíôïëÞ
of personal life; this has not without reason, been urged by Calvin and De Wette.
The sense then is this: therefore doth My Father love Me, because I, dying, render a sacrificial obedience whose principle and motive is infinite trust in the resurrection of My personal life in the fellowship of His absolute personality; because I do not die despairingly, with the idea of annihilation, but in the assurance that I shall thus obtain the full revelation of life; or because I fall into the ground like a grain of wheat, in order to bear much fruit. In this victorious reliance on the new life in death contained in His sacrifice, Christ is the delight of the Father, as, in a similar spirit, the Christian is well-pleasing to God in Christ (see Isa_53:12; Luk_2:14; Mat_3:17; Joh_17:5; Joh_12:28; Joh_17:1). “If the Father love the Son for this reason, this love contains also His love to the world, in the sense of Joh_3:16. Calvin: amorem unigenito debitum ad nos velut ad finalem causam refert.” Tholuck.
Joh_10:18. No one taketh it from me.—As on many other occasions Christ has here, by the solemn asseveration of His voluntary self-sacrifice, precluded any misconstruction of His death, as if He had succumbed to the hostile power of the world involuntarily and contrary to His expectations.—I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. Different interpretations of
ἐîïõóßá
.
1. Ancient dogmatical opinion: the power of the Son of God, the power of the divine nature to render the human nature quiescent in death, and to rouse it again. Tholuck: “Like Joh_14:13 a dictum probans for the non posse mori of the Redeemer (Quenstädt, III. p. 420, also according to Beck, Christl. Lehrwissenschaft, 2. p. 513 and 517). But it is not the intrinsic, physical necessity of death that is denied, but the compulsive force of circumstances, as
ïὐäåßò
shows. Nothing is meant but what is contained in Mat_26:53. Comp. Joh_14:30. Mortality, as also Luther rightly acknowledges, is to be imputed to Christ, inasmuch as He took upon Himself sin-infected [?] humanity; see my [Tholuck’s] Commentary on Rom_6:9.”
2. Meyer: “The authorization, in the first place of His self-sacrifice and secondly of His re-assumption of life, resting in the divine
ἐíôïëÞ
.” Probably a not altogether correct resumption of the views of Lücke and De Wette.
3. Lücke: “If the Father have given to the Son to have life in Himself (Joh_5:26), He has also given Him power to take it again. If that power be essentially a moral one, so too is this. But holy, moral power is at the same time always a power over nature. Forasmuch as Christ freely died as the Holy One, He likewise had power over death, but as a power in which the power of the Father is always present as absolute cause.”—There, however, the definite distinction: in Himself,Joh_5:26, is not adhered to.
4. Tholuck: “The human
ðíåῦìá
of Christ did not die; His self-activity, gaining still greater freedom by His death, penetrates the bodily organ and admits it to the process of spiritualization; thus, according to John 5, Christ proceeds in the case of believers. Again, in Joh_2:19 it is the Son who effects His own resurrection.”
5. A separation of the divine and the human nature is unseasonable here. It was in His divine-human nature that Christ had life, as the principle of immortality and revivification, in Himself, i.e., in personal principial independence, though it was communicated by the Father. In this life-power, as the Man of spirit from heaven (1Co_15:45), He could pass immediately, by transformation, from the first earthly form of existence into the second heavenly one. But He also had power to let His pure and holy body assume the death-form of natural humanity (not by a quiescence of its immortality, but by suffering the natural conditions of death, by humbling Himself as a man even to die as men do). He might die, but He could not see corruption; for He had power to take His life again, i.e., to cause the transformatory energy reposing in His spirit, now modified into a resurrective energy, to operate within His organism from which life had been expelled. This fact is a re-animation on the part of the Father, since the physical conditions of life, the omnipresent healing powers of God in nature, forthwith meet the spirit returning to life; it is a spontaneous resurrection, because, at the actual life-call of the Father, Christ from the other world performs the wonder of His self-quickening. [Comp. Joh_9:19; Joh_11:25,
ἐãþ åἱìé ἡ ἀíÜóôáóéò
; 1Pe_3:19,
æùïðïéῃèåὶò ðíåýìáôé
.]
This commandment,i.e., this known, universal law of life. Christ never has but one law of life, for holy life is perfect simplicity. This
ἐíôïëÞ
is the voice of God in unison with His situation and His consciousness. It has a peculiar form for each moment, Joh_12:49. Here, however, He has sketched it in respect of its ground-plan. It is the fundamental plan foretokened in the leading of all Old Testament saints through suffering to glory and reflected in the lives of all the faithful. This
ἐíôïëÞ
has reference not merely to dying (Chrysostom), nor is it to be understood simply as a promise of new life (many of the ancients); it embraces both considerations, their indissoluble connexion being precisely the main point.
Joh_10:19-21. There was a division therefore again. —The definite presentation of the characteristic features of Christ's redemptive work again occasions a division among the Jews, Joh_10:19-21; a division which is to be regarded as the final and most serious one, the foretoken of approaching separations. Be it observed that this division occurs among the “Jews” (not in the
ὄ÷ëïò
), i.e., among the Pharisaic hearers with whom the Lord’s last discussion was, Joh_9:40.
ÐÜëéí
refers to Joh_9:16.
The last words of Christ had indeed the effect of embitterin
