c.Retirement beyond Jordan (10:40-42)

c.Retirement beyond Jordan (10:40-42)

JOHN 10

Q. THE SEVENTH DISCOURSE — THE GOOD SHEPHERD (10:1-42)

In this, the last public address of Jesus that John records, a further aspect of his ministry is unfolded in an allegory of great power. Jesus uses the figure of the Good Shepherd to differentiate his ministry from that of false shepherds and to stress the voluntary nature of his sacrifice for his people. This chapter should be read in the light of Old Testament passages that castigate shepherds who have failed in their duty (see Jer. 23:1-4; 25:32-38; Zech. 11; and espe-dally Isa. 56:9-12¹ and Ezek. 34). God is the Shepherd of Israel (Ps. 80:1; cf. Ps. 23:1; Isa. 40:10-11), which gives us the measure of the responsibility of his under-shepherds. Those entrusted with this duty must be faithful, and it is a heinous crime when they are not. But Israel's shepherds on more than one occasion did fail in their responsibility. It is this which calls forth the prophecy that a shepherd after God's own heart will in due course appear: "I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd" (Ezek. 34:23). It is this shepherd who is depicted in this chapter.

Nowadays we think of the shepherd in terms of tender care and concern for the flock, thoughts that are legitimate for the ancient world as for the modern. But we should not overlook the fact that for people in biblical times other associations were also aroused by the term. The shepherd was an autocrat over his flock, and passages are not lacking where the shepherd imagery is used to emphasize the thought of sovereignty.² Jesus is thus set forth in this allegory as the true Ruler of his people³ in contrast to all false shepherds.

Some expositors feel that there is little connection between the opening of this chapter and the close of the preceding. Various reconstructions have been proposed. But these are not necessary. It is likely that John saw a link in the Old Testament passages noted above.⁴ There are many of them, and it is clear that the Jews delighted in this kind of imagery. It is apt, accordingly, that, immediately after Israel's shepherds have failed so conspicuously in the case of the man born blind, we should have set forth the nature and functions of the Good Shepherd. "Two contrasts dominate the chapter: the contrast between the Pharisees and Jesus as shepherds of the people and the contrast between the Pharisees and the former blind man as recipients of Jesus' message" (Michaels).

The main teaching here is clear enough but there are difficulties in detail, and the passage is far from simple. Jesus is spoken of both as the Door and as the Shepherd (who goes in by the door), statements not easy to harmonize formally.⁵ Then the force of the Good Shepherd imagery is not always the same. He is contrasted first with thieves and later with hired men. Again, the meaning of the sheep seems to vary somewhat. And the discourse itself is far from being perfectly straightforward, for literal and symbolic sayings are closely interwoven.⁶

There are references to the shepherd and the sheep in the Synoptic Gospels, notably in the parable that speaks of a shepherd leaving ninety-nine sheep while he searches through the wilderness for one that was lost (Matt. 18:12-13; Luke 15:3-7). In the Synoptics the shepherd is seen in his relationship to the sheep; he provides for them and cares for them. In John this concern is clear. Indeed, it is taken further than in the Synoptics, for the Good Shepherd provides for the sheep even to the extent of laying down his life for them. But John also sounds a distinctive note. Here the Good Shepherd is seen also in contrast to false shepherds,⁷ He is the rightful shepherd, whose voice the sheep know.⁸

Finally let us notice that the shepherd imagery was common in many parts of the ancient world. Kings and gods alike were described as shepherds. Thus whenever this Gospel was read, language like this would strike a chord. In contrast to whatever false shepherds John's readers may have known Jesus would stand forth as the Good Shepherd, who makes genuine provision for his sheep.

1. The Parable (10:1-6)

1/ 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. sBut they will never follow a stranger: in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice." (Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.

Jesus begins with an allegory⁹ in which he sets forth the main facts of herding sheep in ancient Palestine. His audience no doubt is familiar enough with the general pastoral picture, but it does not discern the spiritual meaning behind the words.

1 There is no introductory explanation of the occasion or the like. The chapter opens with Jesus fairly launched on his discourse. This indicates that there is no great break from the previous section, a conclusion that is reinforced by the reference to opening the eyes of the blind in verse 21. Moreover, the blind man, so ready to heed the voice of Christ, clearly belongs among the sheep of this discourse, while the Pharisees are the very embodiment of the false shepherds. The opening "I tell you the truth" (see on 1:51) agrees with this, for elsewhere it never begins a discourse but always follows up some previous teaching. It indicates that the following statement is important, but also that it has a connection with the preceding. This passage, then, must be understood in the closest of connections with the the story of the blind man given sight. Sheep were commonly herded in a walled enclosure, mostly open to the sky, but providing protection from the worst of the elements and from beasts of prey. The word used here is the usual word for a courtyard, and thus may signify that the sheep are herded close alongside the house, though it may also mean a special fold.¹⁰ Whatever be the truth about this, the fold envisaged was one with solid walls and one door (NIV has "gate") guarded by a doorkeeper. If a man does not enter the door in the normal way but climbs over¹¹ the wall, then it is clear that he is there for no good purpose. He is castigated as a robber.¹²

2-3 By contrast, the one who enters by the door is seen to be the shepherd.¹³ He has the right to enter,¹⁴ and this is recognized when the doorkeeper opens to him. In the case of a small flock there would be no such official, but what is apparently in mind is a large fold where several flocks find shelter. One doorkeeper can thus look after a large number of sheep. Various attempts have been made to find a meaning for the doorkeeper, but none has won wide acceptance and none, it would seem, should. In an allegory not all details are significant; some are included as necessary parts of the picture even though they have no part to play in the symbolism. So here with the doorkeeper. When the shepherd comes in he calls the sheep, who know his voice. The Eastern shepherd often has an individual call for each of his sheep, and it is this that is in mind here. The sheep know their shepherd and recognize¹⁵ the call he gives his own.¹⁶ More, they respond to it,¹⁷ and in this way he leads them out.

4 When he has put all his own sheep out¹⁸ of the fold the shepherd leads them to their destination by walking before them. This is a very different picture from that of driving the sheep (which is more familiar in lands like Australia today). The sheep follow, we are told, because they know¹⁹ their shepherd's voice.

5 The case is different when a stranger attempts to lead them away. They certainly will not (double negative) follow²⁰ a stranger. The reason is given in terms of the voice again. They do not know the voice of strangers,²¹ and therefore they run away. Travelers in modern Palestine have sometimes been able to document this. It appears that strangers, even when dressed in the shepherd's clothing and attempting to imitate his call, succeed only in making the sheep run away. The sheep know their shepherd's voice but do not know and do not respond to that of a stranger.

6 "Figure of speech" translates a word not often found in the New Testament and which appears to mean "proverb" in its only non-Johannine occurrence, 2 Peter 2:22.²² In John (elsewhere 16:25, 29) it signifies something like "figure of speech." It denotes language of which the meaning is not obvious, but which conveys to those who probe deeply enough spiritual truths of importance. So here Jesus spoke indeed to his hearers, but they did not understand²³ the spiritual truth that he was conveying.

2. The Application to Christ (10:7-18)

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. 91 am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.³ 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. 11I 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/ am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me — 15 just 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 1 lay it down of my own accord. / have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

a. 9 Or kept safe

In this section of the discourse Jesus applies the saying to himself. There are two ways of viewing him, as the Door and as the Good Shepherd, and he deals with them successively. Both have to do with salvation. As the Door he is the one way of entering salvation. As the Good Shepherd he is the one who cares for the sheep and provides for their salvation at the cost of his life. The two figures lend themselves to different contrasts. When Jesus considers himself as the Door he stigmatizes those who do not come in by the Door as thieves and robbers. When he thinks of himself as the Good Shepherd he makes a contrast with hireling shepherds. Both stress personal gain on the part of the persons opposed and an absence of interest in the well-being of the sheep. In all this Jesus is not engaging in an exposition of animal husbandry. He is showing what it means to see him as the Good Shepherd. The essential and central thing is the laying down of his life. But while the earthly shepherd is a useful illustration the Good Shepherd is different from anything earthly, for Jesus insists that he has power both to lay down his life and to take it again.

7 Jesus resumes his discourse. "Therefore" may indicate that this is an explanation given in the light of his hearers' failure to understand what he has been saying. "Again" is resumptive.²⁴ For "I tell you the truth" see on 1:51. It introduces a solemn and important statement, and this is continued in the emphatic "I am" (see on 6:35). We might have expected some explanation of Christ's function as Shepherd, but instead we have the new thought introduced that he is the door.²⁵ "Door" is used metaphorically in other places in the New Testament (e.g., Luke 13:24; Acts 14:27; 1 Cor. 16:9,) but this is the only passage in which Jesus himself is seen as the door.²⁶ The thought is not unlike that of 1:51, where Jesus is the ladder connecting heaven and earth, or 14:6, where he is the Way, but here it gets its force from the imagery of the sheepfold. There is but one door to a fold, and sheep and shepherds alike must enter by this door. There is no other way for them. But Jesus does provide the way. It seems that the thought here is primarily that Jesus provides the door by which the shepherd must enter (see the next verse).²⁷ In verse 9 the emphasis is rather on the door as the way by which the sheep go in.

8 Jesus contrasts himself with his precedessors. "All who ever came before me" must refer to the Jewish religious leaders, but the expression is strangely comprehensive.²⁸ It cannot mean the prophets and the like,²⁹ for they were anything but thieves and robbers (for this expression see on v. 1). Jesus' attitude to the people of the Old Testament is clear in 5:46; 8:56. He must have in view the whole of the Jewish hierarchy of his day. They were not interested in the well-being of the sheep but in their own advantage. The Sadducees in particular were known to make quite a lot of money out of temple religion, and there are denunciations of the Pharisees (Luke 16:14) and the scribes (Mark 12:40) for covetousness. Some understand the word to refer to revolutionaries like Judah the Galilean, and if this is right the references to violence are much in point.³⁰ We should almost certainly take "before me" as part of the imagery rather than as indicating Jesus' predecessors the religious leaders. The shepherd comes to the fold for his sheep (vv. 2-3) the first thing in the morning. All who preceded him accordingly must be thieves and the like, working in the darkness. All the more is this likely to be the case in that Jesus does not say that they "were" but that they "are" thieves and robbers.³¹ The emphasis is on his own day. It is perhaps a little strange to have this reference to religious leaders when Jesus is speaking of himself as the door. We would have anticipated it rather when he is developing the idea of the Good Shepherd. The meaning appears to be that if people are to bring other people into God's fold they must first enter it themselves (cf. 1 Tim. 4:16). And the only way to enter is through the one door. These men declined to come to God through Christ. They therefore stamped themselves as impostors. All who seek to bring life to others, but who do not themselves enter life through Christ, stand condemned. Jesus has already pointed out that the sheep will take no notice of strangers. Now he says that the sheep did not hear these robbers. Those who really are the sheep, given by the Father, have spiritual discernment. They await the voice of their true Shepherd.

9 Jesus repeats that he is the door.³² This time "of the sheep" is lacking and the words stand out in impressive simplicity. The emphasis is on Jesus' function. The words "through me" are in an emphatic position; it is he and no other who enables people to enter salvation (cf. 14:6). There is a certain exclusiveness about "the" door. If there is one door then people must enter by it or stay outside.³³ They cannot demand another door. John does not often use the verb "to save," and he never explains exactly what he means by it.³⁴ But he makes it clear that salvation was the purpose of Jesus' coming (3:17; 5:34; 12:47). It is the comprehensive term for the whole process whereby people are delivered from the consequences of their sin and brought into the blessing of God. Here the blessing is described in terms of secure pasturage, the supreme good of the sheep. The sheep that enters the fold through Christ will then be able to go in and out and have all its needs met. We should not attempt to find some esoteric meaning for "come in and go out." It is simply an expression to indicate free and secure movement (cf. Knox, "he will come and go at will").

10 The thought is further developed by a contrast with the thief. His interest is entirely selfish. He steals or kills for food,³⁵ and even destroys the sheep. He comes only for harm to the flock and with no interest in its welfare. Christ by contrast ("I" is emphatic) came for the benefit of the sheep. He came that they might have life (for this term see on 1:4), and not only life, but a more abundant life (cf. 20:31). There is nothing cramping or restricting about life for those who enter his fold.

11 Now comes another of Jesus' resounding declarations. For the "I am" sayings see on 6:35. That he is the Good³⁶ Shepherd³⁷ has meant much to every generation of Christians. It makes an instant appeal to the depths of our being, even though many of us are city dwellers and have never seen a shepherd in our lives. But the thought of care for the sheep that is involved in the title is plain enough. We should notice that, while a shepherd does many things for his flock, when Jesus speaks of himself in his capacity as Good Shepherd he immediately goes on, "The good shepherd lays down his life³⁸ for³⁹ the sheep." This must have been a rare occurrence among Palestinian shepherds.⁴⁰ But it is characteristic for Jesus. It is that for which the metaphor is chosen. The great act of care for the sheep that he is impressing on his hearers by this figure is that of laying down his life. Moreover, when the Palestinian shepherd did die in defense of his sheep that was an accident. He planned to live for them, not die for them. With Jesus, however, death for his sheep was his set purpose.⁴¹ There is an element of voluntary acceptance of death in the expression "lays down his life for the sheep" that ought not to be missed (cf. v. 18). One may cavil at Moffatt's translation, "a" good shepherd (Lindars also takes the article as generic, "I am a good shepherd"), for Jesus is not classing himself as one among many shepherds. He is speaking of his own distinctive activity. "A" good shepherd does not characteristically give his life for the sheep; "the" Good Shepherd does. Moreover, the death of the Palestinian shepherd meant disaster for his sheep. The death of the Good Shepherd means life for his sheep.

12 Jesus contrasts the behavior of the man who is not really the shepherd at all, but simply a servant, paid to do his work.⁴² There is nothing evil about the term, as there is with "thief," but it points to someone whose interest is in wages, not sheep. In the only place where the word rendered "hired hand" is used in the New Testament apart from this verse and the next it refers to fishermen working for pay (Mark 1:20; MM cites its use for men paid to carry bricks; Horsley points out that the hired laborer's status was just above that of slave [New Documents, 4, pp. 97-98]). It certainly indicates someone other than the owner. It speaks of a man whose interest is in what he is paid for doing his job rather than in the job itself. So Jesus says explicitly, "Not the shepherd who owns the sheep." Such a man lacks pride of ownership and the care that proceeds from possession. When he sees the wolf coming he does not risk danger. He abandons the sheep and runs. The result is that the wolf seizes and scatters the sheep. Presumably this means that he seizes some of the sheep and the rest run in all directions. The Mishnah lays down the legal responsibility of the hired shepherd. An interesting provision is that if one wolf attacks the flock he is required to defend the sheep, but "two wolves count as unavoidable accident" (i.e., no blame attaches to the hired man for any damage they may cause).⁴³ Jesus, however, gives his life for the sheep without condition.

13 The hired hand runs away not fortuitously, but because he is what he is, hired. His interest is in wages, not sheep. He is not deeply concerned for the sheep.⁴⁴ He is not involved in their situation. His passions are not aroused. The interests of the sheep are not a lively concern with him.

14-15 Again comes the majestic assertion that Jesus is the Good Shepherd, this time not directly linked with his laying down of his life. Instead there is first put forward the relationship between the Good Shepherd and his sheep and arising from that a reiteration of his determination to lay down his life for them. Being the Good Shepherd, he knows his sheep. And his sheep know him (cf. v. 4). There is a relationship of mutual knowledge, a reciprocal knowledge that is not superficial but intimate. It is likened to the knowledge wherewith Jesus knows the Father and the Father knows him.⁴⁵ It may be that the love implied in this relationship elicits the following statement that Jesus lays down his life for the sheep.⁴⁶ Or it may be a simple addition. Either way it is the culmination of this part of the discourse. Jesus here speaks directly in the first person, "I lay down my life," whereas in verse 11 he has used the third person, "the good shepherd lays down his life."

16 Now Jesus looks beyond the immediate circle of his followers to "other sheep." It is difficult to interpret "not of this sheep pen" other than as indicating people not found within Judaism. The words look to the world wide scope of the gospel. "I have" shows that these sheep already belong to Christ, even though they have not yet been "brought" (cf. Acts 18:10, where "I have many people in this city" is used of Corinthians prior to their conversion). But the bringing of them is an urgent task, and Jesus says he "must" perform it. There is a compelling necessity here (see on 4:4). Throughout this discourse there is an emphasis on the voice of the shepherd (vv. 3, 4, and 5), and thus it is said of these other sheep that are to be brought in order that they, too, will hear the shepherd's voice. Again the thought is that they will hear with appreciation. The end result is one flock and one shepherd.⁴⁷ The other sheep are not to remain distinct from the existing sheep, as though there were to be a Jewish church and a separate Gentile church. They are to be united in one flock.⁴⁸ And they all stand under the leadership of one shepherd. The unity is not a natural unity, but one brought about by the activity of the Shepherd in "bringing" them.

17  Throughout the discourse the thought that Jesus will lay down his life recurs (vv. 11 and 15). Here it is given as the reason for the Father's loving the Son. One might have expected rather the thought that the Father loves the Son for what he is and that this leads to the cross (cf. 3:16). But the meaning here is that the death of Jesus is the will of God for him. And because he is in perfect harmony with the will of God he goes forward to that death. Thus the Father's love is the recognition from the Father's side of the perfect community between them in this matter.⁴⁹ With the death is linked the thought of the resurrection. Christ dies in order that⁵⁰ he may rise again. The death is not defeat but victory. It is inseparable from the resurrection.

18 Nowhere is John's view of Jesus as in complete command of every situation brought out more strongly than here. The Lord's death does not take place as the result of misadventure or the might of his foes or the like. No one takes⁵¹ his life from him. Far from this being the case, he himself lays it down, and does so completely of his own volition. He claims authority⁵² both to lay down his life and to take it again.⁵³ And, characteristically, the whole is linked with the Father. He gave commandment⁵⁴ to this effect, and Jesus accordingly is simply doing his will.

3. The Reaction of the Jews (10:19-21)

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?"

As always, Jesus' words cause division. Some reject him altogether, repeating the Synoptic canard that he is demon-possessed. Others reject this view on the grounds that a demon can scarcely open the eyes of the blind.

19 "Again" may indicate that the pattern is repeated. Once more there is division⁵⁵ among the Jews over words of Jesus. John often uses the expression "the Jews" to denote the religious leaders, but here it will be members of the Jewish nation in general. For the plural "words" see on 14:24.

20 First, John gives us the view of the opposition party. They put "demon" in an emphatic position: "A demon he has," as indeed they did on three previous occasions (7:20; 8:48, 52). It is not without its interest that the only occasions in this Gospel when the word "demon" occurs are when the Jews are accusing Jesus of being demon-possessed or when he is defending himself from the charge (or others are doing so, as in v. 21). A further point to be noted is that on this occasion having a demon and being mad are apparently equated. At the least they are thought of in the closest possible connection. In other places (e.g., Matt. 4:24)⁵⁶ they appear to be distinguished. Those who hold that Jesus has a demon are able to dispense with the evidence. He is mad, they say, and therefore there is no point in taking notice of him.⁵⁷

21 Others were impressed both by Jesus' words and by his deeds. The words, they affirmed, are not the words of a demon-possessed man. And a demoniac would not have been able to open the eyes of a blind man.⁵⁸ Their respect for the facts prevented this group from prejudging the case. So they refused to condemn Jesus. Yet their position remains entirely a negative one. They say what Jesus is not, but they make no attempt to say what he is.

4. The Jews' Final Rejection of Jesus (10:22-42)

There follows a section introduced by the information that it was the Feast of Dedication. The reference to sheep (vv. 26ff.) connects it with the preceding and marks it as in some sense a continuation. But there is also an advance, notably in the teaching on the unity of the Father and the Son. The question of the Person of Jesus dominates the section. It becomes clear that people must either recognize that Jesus stands in such a relation to the Father as no one else ever did, or else reject him entirely.⁵⁹ John's account of the public ministry of Jesus ends accordingly with the final breach with the Jews, after which Jesus retires beyond the Jordan.

a. The Unity of the Father and the Son (10:22-30)

22Then came the Feast of Dedication^a 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,^b tell us plainly." 25 Jesus 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 all⁰; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one.

a. 22 That is, Hanukkah

b. 24 Or Messiah

c. 29 Many early manuscripts What my Father has given me is greater than all

Using the symbolism of the Feast of Dedication, John brings us to the last act in Jesus' offer of salvation to the Jews. This feast commemorated the rededication of the Temple by Judas Maccabaeus in 165 b.c. after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes (who had sacrificed a sow to Jupiter on the altar of the Temple).⁶⁰ It was the last great deliverance that the Jews had known, and therefore it must have been in people's minds a symbol of their hope that God would again deliver his people. It was an occasion for gratitude to God, whose mercy had resulted in renewed opportunity for Temple worship and that at a time, as Josephus says, when the people scarcely dared to hope for it.⁶¹ In this present passage John is presenting us with the last act in Jesus' public ministry and with the Jews' final rejection of all that he stood for. In some aspects the passage is not unlike those in which Matthew and Luke recall that when the messengers of John the Baptist asked Jesus, "Are you the one who was to come?" he replied by pointing to the works that attested his messiahship (Matt. ll:2ff.; Luke 7:19ff). It is not otherwise here. There are the thoughts of Jesus' works that attested his messiahship (v. 25), of the eternal life he gives his sheep (v. 28), of his unity with the Father (v. 30), and of the Father's consecration of Jesus for his work of salvation (v. 36),⁶² leading up to the final appeal for faith (v. 38).⁶³ Perhaps we should also discern the thought of the dedication of a new temple (cf. 2:19ff.). All this may well be held to embody the great truths behind that Feast of Lights wherein people recalled that the sovereign God, against all human probabilities, wrought deliverance for his people, brought them out of their darkness, and enabled them to offer real worship.

Let us notice the sequence of thought. Jesus' works bear witness, but the witness is appreciated only by the "sheep." These are eternally safe. No one can take them from his hand. No one can take them from his Father's hand. The justification for two such statements together is the unity between the Father and the Son, to which this whole paragraph leads up. The statement on unity is noteworthy, as is the fact that Jesus links it with the care both have for the sheep.

22 The passage begins by mentioning that it was then⁶⁴ "the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem."⁶⁵ This could possibly be simply a time note, somewhat like the note of place that John has inserted into a section of discourse at 6:59. But, as we have already noticed, it is more likely that John wants us to see in Jesus the fulfillment of all that the feast stands for. The feast began on the 25th of Chisleu (about November-December in our calendar) and lasted for eight days. The manner of its observance resembled that for the Feast of Tabernacles (2 Macc. 10:6), and indeed it could be called "the feast of Tabernacles in the month of Chisleu" (2 Macc. 1:9). As at Tabernacles the use of lights was very important in this feast. For the benefit of those not familiar with the time of this feast John adds "It was winter." This may be no more than another time note, though some commentators see symbolical importance. They suggest that in John's mind is the thought that it was winter, grim winter, in the relations between Jesus and the Jews.

23 The term "Colonnade" denotes a roofed structure supported on pillars. It would have given a certain amount of shelter from the wintry weather. The reference is to a colonnade in Herod's temple. It appears to have been a very old structure, and was popularly thought to have been part of Solomon's Temple, though this belief, of course, was not well founded. It is mentioned again in Acts 3:11 and 5:12. It seems to have stretched along the east side of the Temple,⁶⁶ and apparently it was the place where the scribes normally held their schools. Jesus is not depicted as engaging in any formal teaching on this occasion, but simply as walking in this colonnade.

24 As he walked, the Jews (see on 1:19) crowded around him. The act of encirclement may indicate a determination to get an answer. They hemmed him in (cf. Phillips, "The Jews closed in on Him"). They are serious and want a clear reply. Their question,⁶⁷ "How long will you keep us in suspense?" implies that Jesus has not been quite fair to them.⁶⁸ He has not made his position plain but has kept them in suspense, not knowing what he claimed for himself. So now they demand plain⁶⁹ speech. But it is also possible that we should understand the words to mean "Why do you plague us?"⁷⁰ In this case the Jews are not quite so friendly and their demand for plain speaking will have been made in a hostile spirit. Another possibility that has much to be said for it is that they may mean "Why are you taking away our life?"⁷¹ in which case the Jews appearing to be discerning, somewhat in the manner of Caiaphas in 11:48, that the drift of Jesus' teaching meant the end of Judaism as they knew it. He has warned them that they will die in their sins unless they believe in him (8:21, 24), and he appears to be looking for followers outside Judaism (v. 16). The logical outcome of such a program is the end of exclusivism. Whichever way we translate, they rightly discern that the critical question is that of Jesus' messiahship and accordingly proceed to interrogate him on the matter. This makes the passage important for our understanding of this Gospel, the aim of which is to show that Jesus is the Messiah and to bring people to believe in him as such (20:31). The basic question is whether Jesus is or is not the Messiah (see on 1:41). As the passage unfolds it becomes clear that messiahship is not something that can be recognized by all, but only by the "sheep" (v. 26). It becomes clear also that the work of the Messiah is to bring eternal life, a life that can never be lost because the Messiah is one with God.⁷² Their "you" is emphatic, perhaps implying that he is far from being the glorious being that the Christ should be.

25 In view of the erroneous ideas of messiahship held by his quesdoners, to answer either "Yes" or "No" would have been misleading. But Jesus' assertion that he has already told them raises a problem, for no answer to this question has been given in specific terms in this Gospel. Jesus has spoken unequivocally to the Samaritan woman (4:26), and he has also disclosed himself to the man born blind (9:35ff.), but he has not taught the Jews in set terms that he is the Christ. He may mean that the general drift of his teaching is so clear that if they had come to him with the right attitude they would have believed,⁷³ just as his disciples did (cf. 6:68-69). Or he may mean that such statements as "before Abraham was born, I am" (8:58) are the answer. Or, as the rest of the verse indicates, he may mean that his works and his whole manner of life are such that the answer to the question is plain for all who really want to know. "You do not believe" denotes a present attitude, not simply a past state, and it indicates the root trouble. These people had no faith. The "works" (NIV, "miracles") will mean particularly the miracles, but the term is broad enough to embrace other things as well, and may include all Jesus' deeds of kindness (see Additional Note G, pp. 607-13). These works were done "in my Father's name" (for "the name" see on 1:12), that is they accord with all that the Father stands for, or fit in with his revealed character. And these works "bear witness" (NIV "speak"; see on 1:7 for "witness," and cf. 5:36 for Jesus' works bearing witness). They are not empty, though spectacular. They are meaningful and point people to the truth of God. The trouble with these men is that they do not pay attention to the significance of what is going on before their very eyes. The recent healing of the blind man is in their minds (v. 21), and this should answer their question. Such works do indeed bear a vivid witness.⁷⁴

26 "But" is the strong adversative.⁷⁵ Far from their heeding the witness, their habitual attitude is one of unbelief. The predestinarian strain in this Gospel comes out in the reason given for their failure: "you are not my sheep." Christ's "sheep" know him (v. 14), but the knowledge of Christ is not the natural possession of anybody. Faith is always a gift of God.

27 Christ's sheep hear his voice, an aspect of the sheep-shepherd relationship that has been stressed in this chapter (vv. 3, 4, 5, and 16). One might have expected "and they know me," but the proposition is reversed. It is the knowledge Christ has of the sheep that is important, and accordingly it is this that receives the emphasis. The result of this knowledge is that they follow him, the present tense denoting a habitual following.

28 Eternal life is his gift. It is often emphasized that the important thing about eternal life is its quality rather than its quantity. It is life of a certain kind, not simply life that goes on forever. While there is truth in this, we should not overlook the point that in fact eternal life does not end. It is this aspect that is prominent here. Those to whom Christ gives the gift "shall never perish."⁷⁶ This perhaps points to the impossibility of a steady decay setting in that would end in total loss. At the end of the verse the thought is rather that of active evil. No one will snatch⁷⁷ them from Christ. It is one of the precious things about the Christian faith that our continuance in eternal life depends not on our feeble hold on Christ, but on his firm grip on us. We should notice that the teaching of this verse is not that believers will be saved from all earthly disaster, but that they will be saved, no matter what earthly disaster may befall them.

29 This is a very difficult verse. The true text appears to be "What my Father has given me is greater than all" (as NIV mg),⁷⁸ but the sense of the passage seems to require something like the NIV text: "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all." But the suspicion remains that the popularity of this reading is due to the fact that the former reading was found so difficult. Taking that former reading as original would seem to give the meaning that the flock that the Father has given the Son is greater in his eyes⁷⁹ than anything else on earth. Since he thus attaches the highest value to it he will look after it to the end. Or the meaning may possibly be that the quality of life, the life of eternity that the Father has given, is greater than anything else. Another suggestion is the divine plan for salvation, the charge given by the Father to the Son, as Stephen M. Reynolds argues.⁸⁰ But it seems more probable that the reference is to believers, the church. Cf. 1 John 5:4: "everyone born of God has overcome the world." The context seems to demand that it is the "sheep" that are given.⁸¹ The statement here is more far-reaching than that in the previous verse. There we had a future, "no one will snatch them" (so, correctly, NRSV; NIV is in error); here it is "no one is able to snatch them."⁸² This Shepherd is all-powerful and the sheep in his hand have nothing to fear.

30 The bracketing of "I" and "the Father" is significant in itself quite apart from the predicate. Who else would be linked with God the Father in this fashion? "One" is neuter, "one thing" and not "one person."⁸³ Identity is not asserted, but essential unity is. These two belong together. The statement does not go beyond the opening words of this Gospel, but it can stand with them. It is another statement that puts Jesus Christ with God rather than with people. It may be true that this ought not to be understood as a metaphysical statement, but it is also true that it means more than that Jesus' will was one with that of the Father.⁸⁴ As Hoskyns remarks, "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." But they did regard these words as blasphemy as the next verse shows. They had asked Jesus for a plain statement of his messiahship, and they got more than they had bargained for.

b. A Charge of Blasphemy Rebutted (10:31-39)

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, 7 have said you are gods '^a ? 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, '1 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 learn and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

a. 34 Psalm 82:6

The Jews' reaction to Jesus' great assertion is the extreme one of trying to stone him, but he stops them with an argument based on Psalm 82:6. If there is a sense in which the term "gods" may be legitimately applied to men, then much more may Jesus assert his unity with his Father.

31 The Jews could regard Jesus' words only as blasphemy, and they proceeded to take the judgment into their own hands.⁸⁵ It was laid down in the Law that blasphemy was to be punished by stoning (Lev. 24:16). But these men were not allowing the due processes of law to take their course. They were not preparing an indictment so that the authorities could take the requisite action. In their fury they were preparing to be judges and execudoners in one.⁸⁶ "Again" will refer back to the previous attempt at stoning (8:59).

32 But they did not actually throw their stones. Before this happened Jesus "answered" them with a question (for this use of "answered" cf. 2:18; 5:17). We should not miss the calm courage he displayed. He did not run away, nor apparently did he show signs of fear or the like. In the face of stoning he quietly resumed the discussion and pointed out that he had shown⁸⁷ many good works.⁸⁸ "From the Father" indicates that Jesus is not acting in isolation. Then he asks which⁸⁹ of these good works is the cause of the attempt at stoning.⁹⁰

33 The reply rejects any thought that they are stoning Jesus for a good work. It is blasphemy⁹¹ to which they object. They particularize⁹² Jesus, they affirm, is a man,⁹³ yet makes himself God.⁹⁴ This shows that they had discerned accurately enough what his teaching meant. What they did not stop to consider was whether it was true. This is the first occasion on which the charge of blasphemy is made against Jesus, though we may fairly say that it is presupposed elsewhere (e.g., 8:59).

34 Jesus' answer is to direct them to Scripture. He uses the term "Law," which strictly applied only to the Pentateuch but which was extended in meaning to embrace the whole Old Testament, and this is the use here where the passage cited is from the Psalms. For the expression "your Law" see on 8:17. Jesus points out that in Psalm 82:6 it stands written,⁹⁵ "you are 'gods' " (the citation is exact, agreeing both with the Hebrew and LXX). The passage refers to the judges of Israel, and the expression "gods" is applied to them in the exercise of their high and God-given office.⁹⁶

35 Now Jesus unfolds the implication of this statement. If we translate "If he . . ." (as NIV), the words will be seen as the utterance of God, but it is also possible to render "If it . . ." when the law would be the subject. Either way a very high authority is being recognized in Scripture, for Jesus goes on "and the Scripture cannot be broken."⁹⁷ He says this, not in connection with some declaration that might be regarded as among the key declarations of the Old Testament, but of what we might perhaps call without disrespect a rather run-of-the-mill passage.⁹⁸ The singular is usually held to refer to a definite passage from the Old Testament and not to Scripture as a whole. Even so, what was true of this passage could be true only because it was part of the inspired Scriptures and showed the characteristics of the whole. Jesus puts all his emphasis on the exact word used. The argument would fall to the ground if any other word for "judge" had been employed. Yet Jesus not only appeals to the word, but says in connection with it that Scripture cannot be broken. The term "broken'' is not defined, and it is a word not often used of Scripture or the like (though it is so used in 7:23; cf. 5:18; Matt. 5:19). But it is perfectly intelligible. It means that Scripture cannot be emptied of its force by being shown to be erroneous. Jesus' point is that the Bible calls "gods" those who were no more than men. They were themselves the recipients of "the word of God," that is they were required to hear and heed and obey that word, primarily of course in connection with their calling as judges. Yet these men were on this occasion called "gods."

36 In the light of this word of Scripture Jesus asks whether they can say⁹⁹ that he blasphemes¹⁰⁰ when he calls himself the¹⁰¹ Son of God (see on 5:25). It is sometimes said that this verse classes Jesus as a man among men, and shows that his claims to divinity are not to be taken seriously. But we should notice that his argument is not "Psalm 82 speaks of men as gods; therefore I in common with other men may use the term of myself," but rather, "If in any sense the Psalm may apply this term to men, then much more may it be applied to him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world." Jesus is not classing himself among men. He calls himself "the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world" (for "sent" see on 3:17). He separates and distinguishes himself from men. His argument is of the "How much more — " variety. A minor difficulty arises from the fact that Jesus has not previously in this Gospel told the Jews that he is "God's Son." But this is no more than a question of terminology. He has spoken of himself as "the Son," and referred to God as his Father in such a way as to leave no doubt that he claims a special relationship. It is his way of accepting the charge made against him in verse 33. He does not deny the charge, but he denies that the Jews are right in their understanding of the situation. They thought he was making himself God. He held that he was not making himself anything. He was what he was, and it was the Father who in the first instance sent him into the world, and in the second instance testified of him (5:37).

37-38 Jesus tells them to let his works (see Additional Note G, pp. 607-13) be the criterion. They show the reality of the situation. He is ready to stand or fall by the works. If he does not do¹⁰² "the works of my Father" (NIV, "what my Father does"), then he is ready for them not to believe¹⁰³ him (the dative denotes simple credence, not trust; see Additional Note E, pp. 296-98). But if he does do such works the situation is different. If¹⁰⁴ they are not prepared to believe him, let them believe the works (simple credence both times). He suggests that they do this so that¹⁰⁵ they may come into important knowledge. The expression translated "that you may learn and understand" contains the same verb twice,¹⁰⁶ with only the tense being changed. The two verbs in NIV are an attempt to bring out the significance of the change of tense. The first verb is in the aorist with the meaning "that you may come to know," while the second is in the present, signifying "and keep on knowing." Jesus is looking for them to have a moment of insight and then to remain permanently in the knowledge that that moment has brought them. The knowledge to which a right perception of the works would bring them is that of the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son. Such works as he had done could not be done by a mere man, acting of himself (as the blind man had clearly stated, 9:30ff.). For Jesus' obedience to the Father see on 4:34.

39 This brought the discussion to an end. But instead of renewing their attempt to stone him his enemies now tried to arrest¹⁰⁷ him (though possibly they simply wanted to take him out for stoning; we do not know for certain, but it looks like judicial proceedings this time). But their attempt was unsuccessful. John does not say why; he contents himself with registering their failure. It is not necessary to think of a miracle, but it is necessary to see that until his "hour" came Jesus was safe. It is possible that the singular "hand" (NIV, "grasp") reflects a Semitic usage, for Greek often has the plural.¹⁰⁸ It is also not unlikely that John has in mind a contrast between the "hand" of the enemy, impotent to arrest, and the "hand" of the Father, mighty to protect (v. 29).

c. Retirement beyond Jordan (10:40-42)

40Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing in the early days. Here he stayed 41 and 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.

The result of the Jews' hostility was that Jesus withdrew to the land on the other side of the Jordan. But this did not mean the end of his influence. People sought him out there, particularly those who had been influenced by John the Baptist's witness to him.

40 Jesus went away from Jerusalem to the far side of the Jordan.¹⁰⁹ The locality is stated with some precision as the place where John the Baptist was baptizing¹¹⁰ at first. This is a small touch, but it shows that the author knew what he was describing. Jesus remained there for some time ("stayed"),¹¹¹ but the length of the stay is not closely defined.

41 The change of scene did not mean a diminution of activity. If Jesus was no longer moving among the people, the people sought him out where he was. It is interesting that the reason they gave¹¹² was the ministry of John the Baptist, for he has not been mentioned since 5:36, where his acti vity was spoken of as though already past. But his influence lived on. People still treasured his words, and acted on them. This final mention of John in this Gospel at the same time sounds a note of high praise and puts a definite stress on his subordinate position. It is high praise, for it affirms that his witness to Jesus was true, and true in its entirety. But there is subordination, for John did no miracle.¹¹³ His function was solely to bear witness to Jesus (see on 1:7).¹¹⁴

42 The result was that many came to believe on Jesus (see Additional Note E, pp. 296-98, for "believing"). The addition of "there" (NIV, "in that place") is probably significant. It may envisage a process similar to that at Samaria. There the woman brought people to Jesus, but they believed, not because of her words, but because they heard him themselves (4:39ff.). So here John's testimony led these people to seek out Jesus, but faith came because of their contact with the Lord. They believed, not at home reflecting on what John had said, but "there," where Jesus was. The word may contain an implied contrast with Judea. In the place where we might have thought Jesus would be welcomed people tried to stone him. Now in despised Perea people believed in him. It may also be significant that in this remote area "the Jews" would probably have little influence.

———————————————

1. In Isa. 56 the leaders are both "shepherds" and "watchmen" (cf. the "watchmen" of this passage), and they are castigated as "blind" and as those who "lack knowledge" (cf. 9:40-41; 10:6).

2. For the significance of the role of shepherd cf. Rev. 2:27, ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς έν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ.The same verb is used in Matt. 2:6 (in a quotation from Mic. 5:2) to describe

the activity of the messianic ruler (ήγούμενος).

3. Cf. Richardson, "We must, however, clearly understand that 'shepherd' in biblical phraseology means 'ruler', and St John is claiming that Jesus is the ideal ruler of prophetic expectation."

4. Lightfoot thinks 10:1-21 "to be closely connected with ch. 9" and finds grounds for this in the Old Testament use of the shepherd-sheep imagery.

5. But such statements are not uncommon in this Gospel. Jesus is the bread of life (6:35), and he gives it (6:51). He speaks the truth (8:45-46) and he is the truth (14:6). Throughout the Gospel he is depicted as showing us the way, and he is the way (14:6).

6. Brown sees the explanation in the presence of more than one parable: w. l-3a form a parable dealing with the proper approach to the sheep, through the gate opened by the gatekeeper, vv. 3b-5 are a separate parable concerned with the relationship of sheep to shepherd. It is possible to understand the passage this way, but it does not seem necessary in the light of the facts adduced in n. 5 above.

7. Cullmann finds in this chapter and especially in v. 18 an intentional contrast with the Teacher of Righteousness of the Qumran scrolls. He says of the reference to the voluntary nature of Jesus' death in v. 18, "The emphasis with which this is said makes clear that Jesus' death is being interpreted in intentional contrast to another conception" (SNT, p. 31). But this is too specific. As W. S. LaSor says, it would be just as easy to make out a case for a polemic against Socrates or Lao-tze (Amazing Dead Sea Scrolls [Chicago, 1956], p. 212). The words are general and must be understood so.

8. J. A. T. Robinson finds that this parable stands the test of genuineness, and he points out that it is significant that this should be so in a passage that obviously is not derived from the Synoptists (he also argues that there has been a fusion of two parables; Twelve New Testament Studies [London, 1962], pp. 67-75).

9. It is difficult to class this section exactly. It is called a in v. 6 (where see note), which may indicate a proverb, or, more generally, a "dark saying" of some sort. It differs from the Synoptic parables in that there is no connected story. Most people call it an allegory, but Lagrange objects that in an allegory the one person can scarcely be represented by two figures, as here Jesus is both shepherd and door. He prefers to call it un petit tableau parabolique. The name we give it matters little, but in our interpretation we must bear in mind that it does not fit neatly into any of our usual categories. It is basically an allegory, but with distinctive features of its own.

10. αὐλή is used for the court adjacent to a house in Matt. 26:58, etc. LS indicates its use to denote "steading for cattle" as far back as Homer. This might be the courtyard of a house, or an enclosure especially for sheep.

11. This is an unusual use of αναβαίνω for this Gospel. Elsewhere John uses it of going up to Jerusalem for feasts 9 times, of ascending to heaven 5 times, and in 21:11 of Peter's going up and dragging the net to land.

12. Strictly κλέπτης denotes something like a sneak-thief (it is used of Judas, 12:6), and ληστής a brigand (it is used of Barabbas, 18:40). The combination may denote a readiness to engage in violence as well as dishonesty (cf. v. 10), though we should not make too sharp a distinction between them. Incidentally we find the same two words in Obadiah 5.

13. Some translations read "a shepherd," but this is erroneous. This is another example of the definite predicate preceding the verb and therefore lacking the article (see on 1:1). We should translate "the shepherd." Some commentators treat ποιμήν as more or less adjectival owing to the absence of the article, but this is to overlook New Testament usage.

14. Augustine connects this passage with chapter 9 by emphasizing that there is one right way of entering, and the Pharisees do not use it. He also says, "there are many who, according to a custom of this life, are called good people — good men, good women, innocent, and observers as it were of what is commanded in the law; paying respect to their parents, abstaining from adultery, doing no murder, committing no theft, giving no false witness against any one, and observing all else that the law requires — yet are not Christians. . . . Pagans may say, then, We live well. If they enter not by the door, what good will that do them, whereof they boast?" (45.2; p. 250).

15. For άκούω with the genitive of the thing heard see on 5:25. It means that the sheep hear the shepherd's voice with understanding and appreciation.

16. ίδια is significant. The shepherd does not call sheep in general, but his own sheep. He has a call that they (but not other sheep) recognize.

17. Η. V. Morton gives an account of this sort of thing: "Early one morning I saw an extraordinary sight not far from Bethlehem. Two shepherds had evidently spent the night with their flocks in a cave. The sheep were all mixed together and the time had come for the shepherds to go in different directions. One of the shepherds stood some distance from the sheep and began to call. First one, then another, then four or five animals ran towards him; and so on until he had counted his whole flock" (In the Steps of the Master [London, 1935], p. 155). George Adam Smith similarly tells of three or four shepherds separating out their flocks solely by their peculiar calls (The Historical Geography of the Holy Land [London, 1931], pp. 311-12).

18. Some points of language are worth noting, ίδια reminds us of the particular relationship of these sheep to the shepherd. They belong, πάντα indicates that he secures them all. έκβάλη is somewhat puzzling. It is the word used of expelling the formerly blind man from the synagogue (9:34) and may form a link between the two narratives. But not much can be made of this, as the sense is different. There the false leaders expelled the men; here the rightful shepherd compels the sheep to leave the fold, but for their good. The word does have about it the air of force. Left to themselves the sheep might not go in the right way, but the shepherd constrains them. He uses force if necessary to ensure that their best interests are served.

19. The verb is plural, though the subject is neuter plural, and two previous verbs with the same subject are singular (ἀϰούει, v. 3, and ἀϰολουθεῖ, v. 4). The singular occurs in verses 3, 4, 12, and 16, and the plural in verses 4, 5 (three times), 8, 10, 14, 16, 27 (twice), and 28, while the textual evidence is divided in verse 16 (γενήσεται and γενήσονται). It is difficult to find a reason for the variation.

20. This is one of only three examples in this Gospel of a future indicative with ού μή (the others are in 4:14; 6:35), a construction not common anywhere in the New Testament. J. H. Moulton speaks of it as "a possible, though moribund, construction" and finds no apparent difference in meaning from the usual aorist subjunctive (Μ, I, p. 190).

21. Probably some emphasis is intended by placing των άλλοτρίων before τήν φωνήν.

22. The word is παροιμία. It is not found in the Synoptic Gospels, while παραβολή, so frequent there, is not found in John. It is difficult to make a real distinction of meaning between them, and both probably reflect the Hebrew. Either can be used of a short saying (παραβολή in Luke 4:23; παροιμία in 2 Pet. 2:22) or of a more extensive passage like the present one. Either way it may require careful thought or an explanation before its meaning is grasped. This is not to say that there is no difference between the parables so characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels and this passage. The differences are plain. All that I am saying is that it is difficult to make a hard-and-fast distinction between the meanings of the two words. The two terms are found together in Sir. 39:3; 47:17.

23. The verb is ἔγνωσαν. There is a certain emphasis on "knowing" in these verses (cf. οἴδασιν, vv. 4 and 5).

24. John uses πάλιν for repetition (as in 4:3, 13), and with the thought of going"back" (6:15, where see note). But sometimes it is little more than a connective (e.g., 16:28), as here.

25. Instead of ή θύρα the Sahidic and Achmimic and p⁷⁵ read ό ποιμήν. Despite adoption of this reading by Moffatt it is difficult to take it seriously. It would seem to be an obvious correction for a scribe who was concentrating on the thought of the Good Shepherd and did not discern that another thought is being expressed here.

26. Barrett proposes a very complicated background for the saying, including the thought of a door in heaven in Greek literature from Homer downward, "the gate of heaven" (Gen. 28:17) and similar Old Testament expressions, and the use of such terms in apocalyptic literature, the Synoptic Gospels, and early Christian theology. He also ranges forward to Ignatius and Hegesippus. On the Synoptics he says: "These synoptic passages have for the most part an eschatological reference, which John has characteristically transformed, using Old Testament material which the earlier tradition had already selected, but applying it with special reference to the person of Jesus (rather than to the kingdom) and in such a way as to make it appropriate to the intellectual atmosphere in which he lived." All this seems unnecessarily complicated. The very fact that "door" turns up in such varied literatures is evidence that it comes naturally to people to use it, and there is no need to postulate a complicated dependence. Cf. Ps. 118:20. The figure is used a good deal in early Christian writings, e.g., Ignatius, Philad. 9:1; Hegesippus (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.23.8); Hermas, Sim. 9.12.1; Clem. Rom. 48:4. Hippolytus finds a similar reference in a Naassene writer (Refut. 5.3; ANF, V, p. 54); cf. also Acts of John, 95; Clem. Horn. 3.52 (ANF, VIII, p. 248).

27. NIV translates the genitive τῶν προβάτων as "for the sheep," making this statement synonymous with v. 9. But in view of v. 8 it seems better to take "the door of the sheep" here as "the gate leading to where the sheep are" (Cassirer; JB has a note, "The gate that gives access to the sheep").

28. This may be the reason for the omission of the words πρό έμοϋ in p^45vid p⁷⁵ * Δ28 lat syr^s.p sah. But since they are read by p⁶⁶ ° A Β D W f13 33 700 boh they should be accepted. Metzger's committee found a decision difficult, but retained the words, putting them in brackets. Bultmann emphasizes the exclusiveness and the absoluteness of the claim Jesus is making. He brooks no rival.

29. Some of the Gnostics appear to have used the expression to discredit the entire Old Testament, including the God who speaks there. Hippolytus says that Valentinus held this view (Refut. 6.30; ANF, V, p. 89).

30. For the view that the Teacher of Righteousness of the Qumran scrolls is meant see n. 7 above.

31. NIV has "were," but the verb is εìσίν.

32. Morgan cites a story told him by Sir George Adam Smith to illustrate this point. "He was one day travelling with a guide, and came across a shepherd and his sheep. He fell into conversation with him. The man showed him the fold into which the sheep were led at night. It consisted of four walls, with a way in. Sir George said to him, 'That is where they go at night?' 'Yes,' said the shepherd, 'and when they are in there, they are perfectly safe.' 'But there is no door,' said Sir George. '1 am the door,' said the shepherd. He was not a Christian man, he was not speaking in the language of the New Testament. He was speaking from the Arab shepherd's standpoint. Sir George looked at him and said, 'What do you mean by the door?' Said the shepherd, 'When the light has gone, and all the sheep are inside, I lie in that open space, and no sheep ever goes out but across my body, and no wolf comes in unless he crosses my body; I am the door.' " If this is the understanding of it (as several commentators think) the expression points to the absolute safety of the sheep in the care of the Good Shepherd. But such a sheepfold is difficult to reconcile with v. 3.

33. Cf. Murray, "The door, however, has characteristics which are not conveyed under the image of the way. First, the door suggests, even more distinctly than the way, a certain exclusiveness of function. There may conceivably be more ways than one of getting to a goal. In the fold of which our Lord is speaking, He has already made it clear that there is but one door." Bultmann has an interesting note in which he draws attention to the exclusiveness and intolerance that attend all genuine revelation. When the true way is revealed it is impossible to be tolerant of the various false ways that can lead only to error and disaster.

34. It is found in 3:17; 5:34; 10:9; 11:12; 12:27, 47. Matthew uses it 15 times, Mark 15 times, and Luke 17 times, so that John's use is much less marked. He also lacks the frequent Synoptic use of the verb for healing (except for 11:12, and even this is not quite the same; it does not refer to a healing activity of Jesus). With John it signifies much the same as having eternal life, and indeed the two ideas lie close together in 3:16-17 and here (cf. v. 10).

35. θύση is usually understood as though it meant simply "kill" and were little more than a synonym for the following άπολέση. But the word means "to sacrifice." Since "to sacrifice" generally meant also to provide a meal for the worshipers, the secondary meaning developed, "to kill for food." These are the two normal meanings for the verb; in the New Testament, apart from this passage, there is no occasion on which the verb does not have one or other of these meanings. G. D. Kilpatrick examines the word and concludes that in the present passage "the three verbs have each a proper meaning and none is otiose, 'steal, kill for food, and destroy' " (BT, 12 [1961], p, 132).

36.χαλός of course means "beautiful" as well as "good," and Rieu translates "I am the shepherd, the Shepherd Beautiful." Temple also translates "beautiful," but he adds, "Of course this translation exaggerates. But it is important that the word for ^,good' here is one that represents, not the moral rectitude of goodness, nor its austerity, but its attractiveness. We must not forget that our vocation is so to practise virtue that men are won to it; it is possible to be morally upright repulsively!" This comment is interesting and draws attention to an important truth, but we must bear in mind John's penchant for variation. In particular it is difficult to find a difference in meaning between χαλός and άγαθός in this Gospel (see on 1:46). A shepherd was an autocrat (the word is often used of an absolute ruler); Jesus is saying that his shepherding is benevolent, not oppressive.

37. We should notice John's habit of introducing variation in statements he repeats three times. Here and in verse 14 there are three closely similar statements about the Good Shepherd. In the second, however, "the good shepherd" is not simply a title of Jesus, but the subject of "lays down his life for the sheep."

38. τήν ψυχήν τιθέναι is a peculiarly Johannine turn of phrase, and one he uses a number of times (w. 15,17,18 [twice]; 13:37,38; 15:13; 1 John 3:16 [twice]). We might have expected τήν ψυχήν δοῦναι as in Mark 10:45. John's expression is not found in LXX, the nearest to it being ἐθέμην τὴν ψυχήν μου έν τή χειρί μου (Judg. 12:3; cf. 1 Sam. 19:5; 28:21; Ps. 118 (119):109; Job 13:14). But there the meaning is risk the life; here it is give it (GNB misses this with "is willing to die"). The verb is used with τήν ψυχήν μου in 1 Kings 19:2. The expression does not appear to be classical, LS citing only this Gospel.

39. For ύπέρ see on 6:51.

40. Though David, at least, put his life in jeopardy (1 Sam. 17:33-37; cf. also Gen. 31:39). David was, of course, remembered as the shepherd-king (Ps. 78:70-72).

41. Cf. Marsh, "The story of the 'passion' in John is not an account of what men did to Jesus, but rather the story of what he did for them" (p. 399).

42. The expression ό μισθωτός και ούκ ων ποιμήν is unusual. The single article links the two members closely together. Our attention is also caught by ούκ since μή is more usual with participles. This carries some emphasis on factuality. This man is certainly not a shepherd. One is reminded of names in the Old Testament compounded with "not," such as "Lo-ammi." Perhaps the meaning here is that a hireling is a "no-shepherd." Moulton includes this passage in a list in many of which "we can distinctly recognise, it seems, the lingering consciousness that the proper negative for a statement of a downright fact is ού. . . . The closeness of the participle to the indicative in the kinds of sentence found in this list makes the survival of ού natural" (Μ, I, p. 232). BDF notes a preference for και ού over και μή but also an emphasis on the negation (430[ 1]).

43. The quotation is from B.Mes. 7:9. The responsibility of the hired shepherd is laid down in B.Mes. 7:8: "a paid guardian or a hirer may take an oath if the beast was lamed or driven away or dead, but he must make restitution if it was lost or stolen."

44. I do not understand how Berkeley makes a question out of this: "what does he care about the sheep?" If it were a question the ού would look for a positive answer. There is, moreover, nothing to correspond to "what."

45. This assumes the correctness of the punctuation of the NIV. It is, however, possible to put a full stop after τά έμά and begin a new sentence with καθώς γινώσκει μ« ό Πατήρ. The difficulty with this is in understanding the point of inserting a reference to the mutual love of the Father and the Son in this way. An objection raised against the view I have adopted is that it implies that the knowledge disciples have of Christ is comparable to that between the Father and the Son. But this is reading too much into καθώς. It does not necessarily signify a very close parallelism; for Bultmann it introduces "not merely a comparison but an explanation" (p. 382, n. 2). In any case, it is not so much the degree of knowledge that is in view as its reciprocal character. For Jesus' knowledge see on 4:18.

46. We have here one of John's threefold repetitions with variation. There are references to Jesus' laying down of his life in verses 15, 17, and 18 and each is worded slightly differently from the others.

47. We cannot reproduce the play on words in English, μία ποίμνη, είς ποιμήν. The KJV renders "one fold," a reading that goes back to Jerome's Vulgate. But the MS evidence is solidly against it and we must read "one flock."

48. J. W. Pryor rejects Martyn's view arising from his two-tier formula that the verse "expresses the hope that Jewish Christians scattered by Jewish persecution in the post-Jamnia situation after 80 AD will be reunited into the one fold," in favor of the view that the reference is to Gentiles who would be united with Jewish Christians (RThR, XLVII [1988], p. 46).

49. Loyd explains it in these words: "The love of God must needs express itself; and therefore the Father could not love the Son, or know Him, if that Son did not express the Father's love."

50. I f 'ίνα is used with full telic force the emphasis will be on the thought that the death of Christ is viewed in the light of triumph of the resurrection. The resurrection is not simply a happening that chanced to occur, but is as necessary as the crucifixion. The crucifixion led inevitably to the resurrection. But in view of the variety in the usage of ίνα the point cannot be insisted on.

51. It is likely that the more difficult reading ηρεν is to be preferred, though read only by p⁴⁵ * Β (ρ⁷⁵ is defective, but the editors think the space indicates ήρεν). In this case Jesus views his death as so certain that it may be regarded as already accomplished.

52. "Authority" is given some emphasis by the repetition of έξουσίαν. The same word is repeated in similar fashion by Pilate (19:10).

53. Jesus affirms that he himself has power to take it again. Strachan says, "In the New Testament Jesus is never represented as rising again by his own power." See also Hoskyns: "Elsewhere throughout the New Testament (i.e. apart from here and 2:19) the Resurrection of Jesus is always referred to as an act of God." It is undoubtedly true that the New Testament prefers to speak of God as raising Jesus, but Jesus several times predicted that he would rise (e.g., Mark 8:31; Luke 24:7) and some passages say that he did rise (Acts 10:41; 17:3; 1 Thess. 4:14). We ought not to put any opposition between the Father and the Son in this matter, nor should we doubt that the habitual New Testament form of expression is that the Father raised the Son. But we should not overlook the fact that there is also a strand of New Testament teaching that says that the Son "rose." The present passage is part of this strand.

54. John is notably interested in the commandments of God or of Christ. He uses έντολή 11 times (all but one referring to divine commandments). The Johannine Epistles use the word 18 times, but no other writing has it more often than Romans with 7 times.

55. σχίσμα, as in 7:43 (where see note) and 9:16.

56. NIV, it is true, renders σεληνιαζομένους as "epileptics." But the word is equivalent to our "lunatic." LS gives its meaning as "to be moonstruck" (though it goes on to explain this as epileptic). KJV, Phillips, and others have translations like "lunatic" or "insane."

57. For άκούω with the genitive see on 5:25.

58. The question introduced by μή looks for a negative answer.

59. Cf. Barrett, "John brings out the point that the issue between Jesus and the Jews is in the last resort Christological, and makes clearer the absolute relation between Jesus and the Father."

60. For a full discussion of this feast see O. S. Rankin, The Origins of the Festival of Hanukkah (Edinburgh, 1930). On the present passage he says, "That this theme, the divine sovereignty in the New Age, should be selected by the author of the Fourth Gospel as the topic for the days of the enkainia may not appear to be accidental if it be recognized that in other instances his mention of a festival serves a wider purpose than merely that of connecting the ministry of Jesus with Jerusalem" (p. 278).

61. Josephus gives an account of the institution of the festival (Ant 12.316-25). He concludes, "And from that time to the present we observe this festival, which we call the festival of Lights, giving this name to it, I think, from the fact that the right to worship appeared to us at a time when we hardly dared hope for it."

62. Cf. Strachan, "Here he makes use of another feature of the ceremonial of the Feast of Dedication. The altar was rededicated. Here Jesus dedicates himself to death (v. 36)." Similarly Lightfoot maintains that "here the Lord's ministry, which will reach its climax in the passion, is set forth as the one true dedication, which is to supersede and replace the Jewish festival."

63. W. Lüthi reminds us that it is all too easy to repeat the mistake of the Jews. "Nowadays we can understand all too well these people, in their militant mood, rejecting a Shepherd who lets Himself be crucified. A God who fights His battles like a shepherd, and with sheep, is no more popular today than at the feast of the dedication of the Temple. That is where the hidden danger lies for us: it is so easy to whip up a crusading mood over the shameful wrongs of the world and, in so doing, to deny the Shepherd arid no longer hear His voice" (pp. 144-45).

64. τότε is read by ρ^66c ρ⁷⁵ Β W etc. and should probably be accepted. Bernard maintains that this word "indicates here that some time had elapsed since the last date mentioned, viz. the Feast of Tabernacles (7³⁷)." We should gather the lapse of time, however, from other things than the use of τότε, which does not necessarily indicate any such thing (cf. Acts 17:14). Wright in fact argues that the word "suggests a close connexion with the preceding passage." So also Tasker and others. The lapse of time would be more probable i f the alternative reading δέ be accepted with p⁶⁶* A D Θ f 13 etc.

65. For the article with "Ιεροσόλυμα see on 2:23. The point of mentioning Jerusalem may be that this feast could be observed anywhere; lights were lit in homes. It was not like the three great festivals when the men were required to go up to the capital. There is point accordingly in mentioning that Jesus was at Jerusalem for this feast.

66. See the note by Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, V (London, 1933), pp. 483ff. See also J. Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament (Leiden, 1952), pp. 401-2. Simons gives reason for thinking that part, at any rate, of this portico was pre- Herodian, and was simply incorporated into Herod's plan (p. 421).

67. έλεγον probably indicates persistence. They pressed their question. Cf. Weymouth, "kept asking Him."

68. The Greek is 'Έως πότε τήν ψυχήν ήμών αϊρεις; The meaning of NIV may well be possible, but few passages are adduced in which τήν ψυχήν αίρω has the meaning "hold in suspense" (BAGD cites only one and that of the 12th century A.D.). In LXX the expression is used of religious aspiration, lifting up the soul to God (Ps. 25:1; 86:4; 143:8), but this is an impossible meaning here. Similar to LXX is Josephus's reference to certain Israelites who "with hearts elated at the peril, were ready to face the horror of it" (Ant. 3.48).

69. παρρησία has the meaning "boldly" as well as "plainly." The choice of word may contain the hint of an accusation of timidity.

70. A. Pallis argues persuasively for this translation from the usage in modern Greek, which, he thinks, has retained something of the idiom. He cites ώς πότε θά μας βγάζεις τήν ψυχή, "how long will you plague us?" (A Few Notes on the Gospels according to St. Mark and St. Matthew [Liverpool, 1903], pp. v-vi; so also in Notes on St John and the Apocalypse [Oxford, n.d.], pp. 23-24). This must remain a possible interpretation of the passage. Marsh says of the view that the words mean "How long will you vex, trouble, annoy us in this way?" that this "seems to make better sense of the passage" (p. 404).

71. The cogent argument in favor of this is that the nearest parallel to the expression, which is no further away than verse 18, is ούδείς ήρεν αύτήν άπ' έμοϋ, where αύτήν refers back to ψυχήν and the expression signifies death. See also the similar construction in Acts 8:33 (a quotation from the LXX).

72. Cf. Dodd, "With complete dramatic appropriateness the Jews ask 'Are you the Messiah?' Jesus's avowal is all but explicit, but in the course of the dialogue we learn what the Messiah really is: He is the Son who being one with the Father is the Giver of eternal life" (IFG, p. 361).

73. Cf. Calvin, "they accuse His teaching of obscurity, when it was abundantly plain and distinct but for falling on deaf ears."

74. Ryle has an interesting note: "We should observe how our Lord always and confidently appeals to the evidence of His miracles. Those who try to depreciate and sneer at miracles, seem to forget how often they are brought forward as good witnesses in the Bible. This, in fact, is their great object and purpose." The general attitude toward miracles in modern times should not blind us to the significance such "works" held for the New Testament writers.

75. Ἀλλά (see on 1:8).

76. Barrett argues that in John εις τόν αιώνα does no more than strengthen the negative ού μή: "not "They shall not perish eternally' but 'They shall never perish,' " and he cites 11:26. That passage, however, seems to prove the very opposite. Jesus, surely, is not telling Martha that the one who believes in him "will never die." There is a sense in which he will die (unless he is alive at the Second Coming!). Jesus is saying, "He will not die eternally." And so here. In any case it is difficult to understand what "they shall never perish" means i f we exclude "They shall not perish eternally."

77. There is a notion of violence in άρπάζω. But even this will not suffice to remove them from Christ's hand.

78. δ . . . μείζον is read by B*latt bo Ambr Hier; the masculine δς . . . μείζων by p66 f1 f13 syr sa ac ac2. the combination δ . . . μείζων by א W and δς . . . μείζον by Α Θ (ρ75 has δς, but a gap prevents our knowing whether it had μείζων or μείζον). D has the reading ό δεδωκώς μοι πάντων μείζων. This is a confused picture, but the best explanation appears to be that the first reading is original and that the others represent attempts to make better sense of it. The neuter is undoubtedly difficult (cf. Matt. 12:42; Luke 11:31), but cf. 1:4; 6:39; 17:2, and the somewhat similar Πατέρ, δ δεδωκάς μοι, θέλω . . . (17:24). Hoskyns refuses to see much difference in meaning. All the readings, he says, mean that"The Father is the only source of the ultimate security of the believers in Jesus. They belong to Jesus because they have been given to Him by the Father." Those who reject the neuter and take the masculine, at least in the pronoun, do not always face the difficulties of this reading. Neither δέδωκεν nor άρπάζειν has an object on their view, and this is an unlikely piece of Greek. For the Father's gifts to the Son see on 3:35.

79. For the use of μείζων in this sense cf. Matt. 23:17, 19.

80. WThJ, XXVIII (1965-66), pp. 38-41.

81. Twentieth Century renders, "What my Father has entrusted to me is more than all else." Cf. also Knox, "This trust which my Father has committed to me is more precious than all else."

82. This assumes that the generally accepted text is correct. A difficulty is the use of the present infinitive άρπάζειν after δύναται, whereas, unless there were some stress on continuity, we would anticipate the aorist, άρπάσαι. This is actually read by a few cursives, but it seems to be only an attempt to improve the grammar. The Sinaitic Syriac omits δύναται (see Burkitt's edition), and presupposes άρπάζει. Abbott cites this reading also from Origen and thinks it is probably correct (2767). But this, too, looks like an attempt to tidy up the grammar. It seems much more probable that δύναται άρπάζειν is original.

83. £v, not είς. There is a similar xpression in 1 Cor. 3:8, ό φυτεύων δέ και ό ποτίζων gv είσιν, and this should warn us against reading too much into the expression. We should also notice the usage in 17:11 where Jesus prays ϊνα ωσιν εν καθώς ήμεις. Cf. also 17:22-23, ίνα οχτιν 'iv καθώς ήμεις εν . . . ϊνα ώσιν τετελειωμένοι εις έν.

84. Augustine is often quoted in order to be refuted. He comments, "when He says, '1 and the Father are one,' hear both, both the one, unum, and the are, sumus, and thou shalt be delivered both from Charybdis and from Scylla. In these two words, in that He said one, he delivers thee from Arius; in that He said are, He delivers thee from Sabellius. I f one, therefore not diverse; if are, therefore both Father and Son" (36.9; p. 211). It is, of course, true that our Lord was not speaking with respect to the controversies that excited the church in later times. But it is also true that his words have implications, and it was natural for those embroiled in the controversies to seek out the implications. C. K. Barrett remarks, " I t may still be true that the Fourth Gospel not only raises dangerous questions but also contributes to their solution" (Essays on John [London, 1982], p. 21).

85. "Picked up" is έβάστασαν, "carried." There would be no stones in Solomon's colonnade, and they would have had to bring them there.

86. Yet we should not overlook the fact that in certain cases lynch law was encouraged rather than the reverse. " I f a man stole a sacred vessel or cursed by Kosem or made an Aramean woman his paramour, the zealots may fall upon him. If a priest served (at the Altar) in a state of uncleanness his brethren the priests did not bring him to the court, but the young men among the priests took him outside the Temple Court and split open his brain with clubs" (Sanh. 9:6). This last mentioned practice is all the more curious in that the legal penalty for the offense was apparently no more than scourging (Makk. 3:2).

87. The miracles were "signs" pointing out the way; therefore "shown" is appropriate. The use of the aorist is perhaps curious, but it must be borne in mind that the perfect of δείκνυμι is not common. It does not occur anywhere in the New Testament (where the verb is used 32 times).

88. The word order puts some emphasis on καλά and έργα. The works Jesus did were good works from the Father. They were about to stone him, but what he had done was work, not blasphemy. The adjective καλός is that used of the Shepherd (vv. 11, 14). As is the Shepherd, so are his works.

89. ποιον, "of what kind." It refers to the quality of the action, a quality Jesus has in this case characterized as καλά. It is the quality of the actions that shows their divine origin, and the choice of word invites the Jews to consider their significance.

90. BDF sees in λιθάζετε an example of a "conative present," explained as "an attempted but incomplete ction." They translate "want to stone me?" (319).

91. It is sometimes said that this charge can scarcely be historical since according to the Mishnah it was necessary to pronounce the sacred name for anyone to be guilty of blasphemy (Sank. 7:5), and there is no evidence that Jesus did this. But this ignores the facts that (a) the Mishnah represents Pharisaic Judaism and does not give the views of the Sadducees who were important in this connection; (b) Jesus' enemies were anxious to be rid of him and would not boggle at legal niceties; (c) in any case there was a broader interpretation of blasphemy, based on passages like Num. 15:30-31; Deut. 21:22, as SBk shows (I, pp. 1008-19). They regard the present passage as coming under this broader heading, based on Deut. 21:22 (p. 1017).

92. καί δτι does not introduce a new charge, "and that," but explains and amplifies the charge already made, "even that."

93. For John's use of άνθρωπος of Jesus see on 4:29.

94. McClymont neatly comments: "In reality He, being God, had become man (Phil, ii.5-8)."

95. For John's formula of citation see on 2:17.

96. I have discussed the passage in Ps. 82 in The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment (London, 1960), pp. 34ff. Since then J. A. Emerton has argued that "gods" in the Psalm refers to beings who "were regarded as angels by the Jews, but as gods by the gentiles." He concludes that Jesus "does not find an Old Testament text to prove directly that men can be called god. He goes back to fundamental principles and argues, more generally, that the word 'god' can, in certain circumstances, be applied to beings other than God himself, to whom he has committed authority" (JThS, n.s. XI [1960], pp. 330, 332). Emerton's discussion, in my opinion, suffers from the defect that it makes no allowance for the context in Ps. 82. It is very difficult to understand how the Psalm can refer to either angels or gods. The subject is human judges. A better explanation is that of A. T. Hanson, who takes seriously the rabbinic view that the Psalm was spoken by God to Israel at Sinai (NTS, 11 [1964-65], pp. 158-62). He thinks that John had in mind the preexistent Word, rather than God, as addressing the Jews, and that this gives the citation relevance: "if to be addressed by the pre-existent Word justifies men in being called gods, indirect and mediated though that address was (coming perhaps through Moses, certainly written down only through David), far more are we justified in applying the title Son of God to the human bearer of the pre-existent Word, sanctified and sent by the Father as he was, in unmediated and direct presence" (p. 161). M. de Jonge and A. S. van der Woude draw attention to the Qumran scroll in which Melchizedek is regarded as the speaker of Ps. 82 and evil angels as the addressees (NTS, 12 [1965-66], pp. 301-26). They disagree with Hanson's interpretation but do not offer one of their own. Emerton claims the scroll as support for his position (JThS, n.s. XVII [1966], pp. 399-401), but Hanson disputes the correctness of this and vindicates his own position in the face of the criticisms offered (NTS, 13 [1966-67], pp. 363-67). That the words refer to Israel as a whole might perhaps be favored by Jesus' words to those "to whom the word of God came," but the actual functions in the Psalm are those of judges, not of all Israel, and certainly the word of God"came" to the judges.

97. It is possible to take these words as a parenthesis (so NIV). But it is perhaps better to regard them as depending also on 81, which then introduces two certainties — that the passage calls humans "gods," and that the Scripture cannot be broken.

98. Β. B. Warfield has a valuable note on this passage (The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible [London, 1951], pp. 138ff.) in which he stresses this point: "Now, what is the particular thing in Scripture, for the confirmation of which the indefectible authority of Scripture is thus invoked? It is one of its most casual clauses — more than that, the very fonn of its expression in one of its most casual clauses. This means, of course, that in the Savior's view the indefectible authority of Scripture attaches to the very form of expression of its most casual clauses. It belongs to Scripture through and through, down to its most minute particulars, that it is of indefectible authority" (p. 140).

99. There is an air of incredulity about the question, ύμεΐς is emphatic — you who regard yourselves as the keepers and expounders of the Law. Abbott points out that only in special circumstances can ύμεις λέγετε be used interrogatively at the beginning of a clause, and he includes this passage as one of two in John in which "a conditional clause ( ' i f . . . as you cannot deny') prepares the way for something incongruous with that condition, which incongruity is expressed by an interrogative or exclamation of amazement" (2244).

100. BDF selects this as "a characteristic example" of the tendency of the New Testament narrators, and especially Mark and John, to use direct rather than indirect speech. They point out that βλασφημεϊν "would connect up much better with the preceding δν etc." (470 [1]). Though direct speech is used the quotation does not give us the exact words used, at least as John reports it. He is giving us the sense of their words rather than a transcript.

101. Υιός is anarthrous, and sometimes this is pressed ("a" son), but wrongly. This is surely another example of the definite predicate preceding the copula and therefore being without the article ("the" Son; see on 1:1).

102. ει ού ποιώ is used rather than εί μή ποιώ, which probably signifies that the negative is more or less equivalent to the ά-privative, as though negative and verb were one: " i f I were to leave undone »,..,'* " i f I were to omit to do. . . ."

103. The present imperative is curious, for we would naturally understand μή πιστεύετε to mean "stop believing."Since such an understanding is impossible here we must take it to mean "do not have a continual trust."

104. Burton classes this among concessive clauses referring to the future. Where the subjunctive is used it denotes "a future possibility, or what is rhetorically conceived to be possible." He goes on, "Και εάν introduces an extreme case, usually one which is represented as highly improbable" (Moods, 285[b]).

105. ϊνα will here have its full telic force.

106. ίνα γνώτε και γινώσκητε. Some MSS ( A f l3 etc.) read πιστεύσητε, but this seems to be no more than a scribal variant arising because of the difficulty of γινώσκητε after γνώτε. The same is perhaps true of the omission of the second verb in D syrs etc.

107. There is a change of tense: έζήτουν, "they kept on seeking"; πιάσαι, "to lay hold on him once and for all." έξήλθεν also points to a single action: "he went on out."

108. See the discussion by Turner (Μ, III, pp. 23ff.).

109. We should perhaps translate πάλιν as "back" rather than "again" (see on 6:15). Jesus went back to the early scenes of his ministry, the place where John had been as he baptized. Cf. Moffatt, "went across Jordan, back to the spot. . . ."

110. It is a question whether we are to understand ήν . . . βαπτίζων as a periphrastic tense or not. I f so, the stress will be on the continuous nature of John's activities. But the context does not require anything of the sort, and it seems better to take the expression as signifying "where John was at first, baptizing."

111. εμεινεν is read by the MS tradition as a whole, but εμενεν by Β it. I f the former reading be adopted the aorist may be constative, regarding the stay as a completed whole, or perhaps ingressive, "he settled down." In its favor is the fact that it is John's habit to use the aorist rather than the imperfect of this verb (the imperfect does not occur elsewhere in this Gospel). Against it is the possibility that he chose the less usual tense here to stress the length of Jesus' stay.

112. ελεγον is a continuous tense: "they kept saying."

113. σημεϊον in John denotes "miracle"; see on 2:11 and Additional Note G, pp. 607-13.

114. The grammatical construction is a little unusual. After 'Ιωάννης μέν we anticipate ούτος δέ. Alternatively πάντα δέ might have been preceded by σημεΐον μέν. It is difficult to understand how πάντα δέ answers to ,Ιωάννης μέν.

↑ Back to top