JOHN 10:22-42

Elsewhere (see my post on “John's Gospel: Introduction to the Literary Structure”) I have analyzed the literary organization of this Gospel and identified chapters 9-10 as a single symmetrical unit.

The Structure of John 9-10

    1. Jesus’ work: healing the blind (9:1-34)

        a. Response of faith (9:35-38)

            b. Response of unbelief (9:39-41)

                2. The Shepherd and the sheep (10:1-18)

                        a,b. Mixed response (10:19-21)

1'. Jesus’ work as a witness: Feast of the Dedication (10:22-25)

           b. Response of unbelief (10:26a)

                2'. The Shepherd and the sheep (10:26b-30)

                    b. Response of unbelief (10:31)

    1". Jesus work as a witness (10:32-38)

                    b. Response of unbelief (10:39)

            a. Response of faith (10:40-42)

I would now like to specifically concentrate on the last part of this unit, John 10:22-42.

John 10:22-23 The setting is Jerusalem is in late December during the last-instituted Jewish feast, the Festival of the Dedication, better known today as Hanukkah. It commemorated the rededication of the Temple in 164 BC after it had been desecrated by the Greek ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes. There may or may not be some symbolic significance to the alternative name of this event, Feast of Lights, in consideration of the way John uses other feasts to comment on the events taking place during them.

Whether or not that is true, from a literal viewpoint Guthrie notes, “The season of the year, winter, accounts for Jesus walking and discussing in Solomon's portico” since that would have been somewhat sheltered from the elements.

John 10:24-30 The Jews begin to gather around Jesus to question him regarding his identity. Ellis says, “But the very fact that these Jews had asked such a question put their will and truth outside the flock of God.” Two points are worth making at this point:

1. As Blum explains, the Greek verb ekyklosan has the nuanced implication of “closing in on” Jesus.

2. Most commentators note that within John's Gospel, the word “Jews” is sometimes taken in its neutral sense, but in many other passages it has a very negative connotation referring to only those Jews who opposed Jesus and his ministry. The latter is obviously in mind in this passage, as it is in John 7:19; 8:17; and 15:25, for example.

In regard to Jesus' statement in v. 28, “I give them eternal life,” Donald Guthrie says, “The tense of the verb is present, which shows that the people of God have already entered into possession of eternal life.” And his statement, “They shall never perish” should immediately remind us of John 3:16.

Jesus then makes a rather bold statement for a Jew in v. 30 when he declares, “The Father and I are one.” And the effect on the crowd is predictable, as subsequent verses demonstrate. But what meaning is Jesus trying to convey to us? Several scholars attempt to answer that important question.

    Bartels: “Jn. 10:30 should not be interpreted to mean that oneness of Jesus with the Father consists of the joining of two persons or beings who were formerly separated. We must understand it in the light of Jn. 14:9: 'He who has seen me has seen the Father.' In a Christian sense no one can speak of God unless he is speaking concretely of Jesus.”

    Blum: “He was not offering that He and the Father are the same Person. The Son and the Father are two Persons in the Trinity...Instead, He was saying They have the closest possible unity of person.”

    Ellis: “the neuter gender [for “one”] rules out any thought of meaning 'one Person.' This is not a comment on the nature of the Godhead.” He feels that Jesus is instead underlining “what He has said by indicating that in action the Father and He can be regarded as a single entity, because their wills are one.”

If you read or discuss John 10:29 in a group, you may be surprised at how different translations render it. The problem arises from the many textual versions present in the ancient documents. These are thoroughly discussed by textual critic Bruce Metzger and sometimes referenced in the notes on this verse in several study Bibles. He talks about trying to sort out “this nest of variant readings which present all possible combinations of the masculine or neuter relative pronouns and the masculine or neuter comparative adjective.” And these are not the only variations among the manuscripts.

Many translations follow KJV, which is based on the most common Greek text:

    “My Father, which gave them [to] me is greater than all and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.”

But because these are based on a majority text which in Metzger's opinion “is impossible Greek, and cannot be construed,” the NRSV goes with a less attested text which yields the following English translation, also listed as footnotes in The Jerusalem Bible and RSV.:

    “What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father's hand.”

In addition, JB deletes “it” in that verse, as found in some other manuscripts.

In any case, the eternal security of the believer appears to be taught in this verse.

John 10:31-39 This section is bounded by attempts by the Jews to lay hands on Jesus in vv. 31 and 39.

The Jews give as their reason for attacking Jesus the fact that he considered himself to be God's son, and thus he was “making” himself God Himself. Hendricksen notes that this Greek verb in v. 33 has the meaning of “considering yourself” God. This same use of the verb is found in John 5:18 and 8:53.

Blum points out an inconsistency in the peoples' answer in v. 33. “They claimed that they found no objection in His works (yet His healings on the Sabbath had angered them [5:18; 9:16]).”

Jesus next makes an appeal to the Jews by citing “your law.” As Reese explains, “Many interpreters take Jesus' reference to 'your law' in 8:17; 10:34 as distancing Jesus from the Jewish law. More likely, just as Moses appeals to Israelites on the basis of the 'Lord your God' (e.g. Deut. 4:10), Jesus appeals to his interlocutors on the basis of their fundamental obligation to their own law.” Blum adds, “It was 'your' Law in the sense that they gloried in their possession of it...”

Another confusing thing to some concerning Jesus' statement is that he refers to the “law” and yet quotes from the Psalms instead. Guthrie explains, “The word law here embraces all three parts of the Jewish Scriptures [Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Writings] so that a citation from Ps. 82:6 is not out of place.”

In many ways, verses 34-36 form the heart, and most difficult, portion of the chapter. Holladay chooses this passage as an illustration of the first rule of interpretation formulated by the great Jewish teacher Hillel. “Rule 1 was called 'light and heavy', that is, deriving a 'heavy' conclusion from a 'light' premise, typified by the expression 'how much more'. Thus...if the Scripture calls 'gods' those whom God addressed (Ps. 82:6), how much more may he whom God sent into the world be called 'son of God.'” Kostenberger summarizes, “In essence, Jesus is saying that there is Old Testament precedent for referring to humans as 'gods.'”

Michael Heiser totally fails to understand this common method of argumentation when he states, “Nearly all modern commentators fail to take the verse [Psalm 82:6] in light of the original context of Psa 82, which has the divine council as its focus. They strangely have the elohim of Psa 82:6 as mere humans, which reduces Jesus' self-defense to saying that he is allowed to call himself the son of God because every other Jew could as well.” For a more complete analysis of Heiser's exegesis (also shared by Emerton) of that Psalm, see my post “Psalm 82: Critique of Michael S. Heiser's Interpretation.” But suffice it to say that the quoted words are addressed to the leaders (judges) of the Jews, not the heavenly council of angels and not all Jews. In that contention, as even Heiser admits, most evangelical scholars are in agreement.

As Ellis says, the judges of Israel “were designated 'gods' because they administered justice as part of their divine commission. How then can they charge Jesus with blasphemy if He is evidently sent from God (36)?”

Just imagine for a moment the effect on the crowd if Jesus were saying, according to Heiser's interpretation, “Of course I can call myself the son of God since the angels in God's High Council are called gods.” What sort of sense would that statement have made?

In summary of verses 32-39, it has been often explained that human personality consists of three basic components: emotional, intellectual, and volitional. An easy way to remember these three is just to consider Dorothy's three friends in The Wizard of Oz. The tin woodman wants a heart; the scarecrow needs a brain; and the lion seeks courage. In replying to the hostility of the Jews, Jesus actually attempts to deal with all three aspects of the Jews' criticism of him. First, with pointed sarcasm Jesus exposes their totally irrational and emotion response to his good works. Then, when they insist that it is his pretensions of divinity that have upset them, he takes an intellectual approach by the use of rabbinical exegesis of an OT passage. And finally, when that fails and their combined will is to capture him, Jesus simply escapes their clutches.

The only remaining comments I would like to bring up concern Jesus' escape from the crowd mentioned in v. 39 but not described in any detail at all. It seems similar to other accounts found in Luke 4:30; John 5:13; 8:59; and 12:36. There are two basic attitudes toward these sort of occurrences. One is to see some sort of supernatural forces at work. Thus, J.A. Martin states in regard to Luke 4:30, “Luke no doubt described a miraculous escape from the angry crowd.” And Craddock says, “Jesus' escape, stated without detail, is reminiscent of the elusive Elijah who is mysteriously caught away by the Spirit of God (I Kings 18:7-12)...”

If this is the intended view in mind for these passages then one might imagine Jesus either (a) exercising some sort of Jedi mind control over the crowd that allows him to calmly escape or (b) exercising the power He obviously had later in His resurrected state of disappearing and re-appearing at will (as in Luke 24:31; John 20:19, 26).

But not all commentators feel that a supernatural miracle is necessarily intended here or in the similar Gospel accounts elsewhere:

    Culpepper: “Shrewdly, he [Jesus] always seems to know just when his opponents have reached the boiling point and when to withdraw.”

    Geldenhuys: “This detail is often considered miraculous, but there is no need to interpret it so.”

    Morris: “It is not necessary to think of a miracle, but it is necessary to see that until His 'hour' came Jesus was safe from men.” Other commentators similarly point to the importance of the “hour” in this regard.

As a personal aside, it may be worth noting that even when I was in junior high and once saw a gang of older boys walking toward me in a threatening manner on a deserted street, I knew intuitively that the wisest course was for me to calmly continue walking straight at them while totally ignoring their taunts and without making eye contact with any of them. I think they were so surprised by my behavior that they forgot to harass me until I was safely away. Remember that Jesus is said to have done much the same thing when a hostile group of Jews showed him a women caught in adultery whom they were ready to stone. After saying, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” Jesus purposely looked down at the ground so as not to openly confront any of them, and they all quietly slunk away.