Conflict Over the Healing of a Blind Man. 9:1–10:21

This narrative demonstrates Jesus» claims in the previous context and chronologically follows directly on Jesus» departure from the temple on the last day of the festival (7:37; 8:59). It probably begins not far from the temple (cf. 9:7). This section opens with the healing of a blind man (9:1–7) and closes with the recognition that this miracle was not what one expected from a demon (10:21). The narrative between includes Pharisaic charges that Jesus» healing cannot be from God (9:16,22,24), a response from the formerly blind man that challenges the logic of their paradigm (9:25, 27, 31–33), and a response from Jesus, who reverses the charge and shows that it is his opponents who are not from God (9:40–10:18).⁷⁰⁰⁹ Jesus» claim in this section to be the good shepherd (10:11) implicitly advances his previous claim to deity (8:58).

Contrary to what the elite supposed (9:34), the man was not born blind due to a sin (9:2–3), nor was his healer a sinner (9:16, 24); by contrast, the elite themselves are sinful and spiritually blind (9:39–41). The true connection between blindness and sin links together the entire section 9:1–41. But because 9:40–41 begin the response to the Pharisees which is continued in 10:1–18 and 9:35–39 begins Jesus» defense of the healed man, we have limited the first section to the material directly related to the healing and responses to it (9:1–34). The following section (9:35–10:18) traces Jesus» own response to the varied responses to his act, especially the responses of the healed man and the Jerusalem elite. Moreover, the contrast between physical and spiritual blindness (dependence on Christ and opposition to him) of 9:39–41 is already implicit at the beginning of this section. Jesus became invisible in some sense to his enemies in 8:59, so they could not see him; but here Jesus cures a man physically blind and so despised by his enemies (9:2, 34). (Indeed, worldly evaluations of the reasons for blindness form an inclusio around Jesus» healing and the man's fidelity to him; 9:2, 34.) Epistemological terms («know») dominate the dialogue scenes and probably provide the metaphoric meaning of «sight» language also prominent in the chapter.⁷⁰¹⁰

The blind man himself becomes a paradigm of growing discipleship; when he confesses Jesus openly, he moves from recognizing him as a «man» (9:11) to a «prophet» (9:17) and a man from God (9:33), and with Jesus» revelation recognizes him as «Son of Man» and «Lord» (9:35–37).⁷⁰¹¹ The end of this account contrasts starkly with the man healed in ch. 5 who did not proceed to become a disciple (5:1–16); for point-by-point contrasts with that account, see comments there. This man, like others who did the truth, would come to the light (3:19–21; cf. 9:3; 5:14).

Blindness «from birth» was considered especially difficult,⁷⁰¹² though John mentions the duration of the malady (9:1; cf. 5:5) at least partly to lead into the disciples» question of who merited his birth in this state (9:2). Ancients generally believed that, under extraordinary circumstances, blind persons could be healed;⁷⁰¹³ thus some contended that Isis both cured eye diseases and made blind,⁷⁰¹⁴ and in a list of healings at Epidauros, the lame and blind appear in a summary (perhaps as the most dramatic cures).⁷⁰¹⁵ The Jesus tradition multiply attests that Jesus healed some blind people;⁷⁰¹⁶ there the opening of blind eyes, like the healing of the lame (5:9), reflects signs of the messianic era (Isa 35:5–6). Redaction critics often argue that, given Jesus» reputation for healing blindness and the pre-70 character of traditions like the pool of Siloam, the core account (9:1, 6–7) is authentic, the rest being Johannine theologizing on that story.⁷⁰¹⁷ Most regard 9:22, along with 12and 16:2, as a reflection of the situation with which the Johannine community was struggling.⁷⁰¹⁸ Whatever John's degree of adaptation here, he certainly seeks to be relevant to his audience. In contrast to the staging of the rest of the Gospel, Jesus is missing from twenty-seven of forty-seven verses; to merit such extended discussion without Jesus» presence, the circumstances of the story must be particularly relevant to the experience of John's audience.⁷⁰¹⁹

That Jesus «passed by» (9:1; cf. Matt 9:27) implies that he left the temple (8:59) by one of the roads leading from it; the pool of Siloam was near the temple and no break appears between chs. 8 and 9. The blind, or members of the families they would have otherwise supported, had to support themselves by begging for charity.⁷⁰²⁰ The location near the temple (8:59–9:1) therefore makes sense; temples with their broad colonnades provided natural places for begging.⁷⁰²¹

In the story world it therefore remains the final day of the Feast of Tabernacles (7:2, 37).⁷⁰²² As here (9:1) and in the parallel passage in 5:1–14 (5:5), healing reports often emphasized the duration of the distress (e.g., Mark 5:25; Acts 3:2), heightening the significance of the healing.⁷⁰²³ That the man was also healed on the Sabbath (which some view as a Johannine addition to the original story to fit its Johannine context) becomes an issue only at 9:14, when the narrative begins to report the involvement of the Pharisees (9:13); one may recall Johns similar stylistic practice in 5:9b-10.

Blindness was often associated with sin; in many cultures it is natural to associate another's affliction with a specific avoidable cause to prevent anxiety on the part of those who speculated about the causes (cf. Job 6:21).⁷⁰²⁴ Thus one source suggests that a person was struck blind because he failed to perform sacrifices properly,⁷⁰²⁵ though some thinkers did object that blindness could happen to anyone.⁷⁰²⁶ Jewish literature provides many examples of the connection;⁷⁰²⁷ one who saw a blind, lame, or otherwise seriously afflicted person should praise God as the righteous judge.⁷⁰²⁸

Ancients held that wrongdoing caused a variety of maladies. Thus the gods and Fate often sent punishment like (ϊσος) the crime;⁷⁰²⁹ Jewish sources, including both early sages and sectarian sources⁷⁰³⁰ as well as later rabbis,⁷⁰³¹ recite the same principle. In many Greco-Roman sources, God or the gods punished with physical afflictions, including blindness;⁷⁰³² in Jewish sources, sickness often stemmed from sin.⁷⁰³³ Thus a woman would die childless only because of her sin (J En. 98:5). The Testament of Job even supplies a possible sin (pride) committed by Job's sons that made them susceptible to death (T. Job 15:9/10).⁷⁰³⁴ Some Jewish teachers did, however, express skepticism that we could know the reasons the righteous suffered,⁷⁰³⁵ and argued that not all kinds of suffering derived from sin.⁷⁰³⁶ Like leprosy, blindness was a state compared with death;⁷⁰³⁷ like other disabled or generally defenseless persons,⁷⁰³⁸ however, a blind person received some special protection under law.⁷⁰³⁹

If sin lay directly behind the man s ailment, it could be attributed either to the parents or to a prenatal sin. Most would have accepted the proposal that blindness could derive from the parents» sin (cf. Exod 20:5);⁷⁰⁴⁰ some would even associate a birth defect or other malady with a sin of the mother during pregnancy.⁷⁰⁴¹ Some people in antiquity also believed in significant prenatal activity;⁷⁰⁴² it would thus not prove surprising that some could also suspect prenatal sin,⁷⁰⁴³ though the view was probably less dominant than is sometimes supposed.⁷⁰⁴⁴ But this passage rejects both alternatives posed.⁷⁰⁴⁵

The Pharisees (9:34), even more strongly than Jesus» misinformed disciples (9:2), attribute the man's ailment to sin. Yet John is clear that the man was born blind not because of sin (9:2–3; contrast the man in 5:14) but so that God's works should be revealed in him (9:3);⁷⁰⁴⁶ Jesus had now come to accomplish those works (9:4).⁷⁰⁴⁷ It is also possible to repunctuate the sentence so that, after it declares that neither sinned, it declares that Jesus had to work the Father's works that they might be revealed; in this case revealing God's works may not constitute the cause of the man s blindness.⁷⁰⁴⁸ Such a reading would cohere adequately with Johannine theology and would be intelligible on ancient presuppositions,⁷⁰⁴⁹ but is less likely in view of the description of the purpose for Lazarus's sickness in 11:4. In Johns theology, people might not understand God's eternal purposes until they actually came to pass (cf. 2:22; 12:16; 13:7); in this case, the fulfillment that revealed the purpose arrived many years after the situation began.⁷⁰⁵⁰ This principle would have made sense to John's contemporaries; for example, many sages believed that God had allowed Israel to endure troubles in the past so that God might redeem them for his glory.⁷⁰⁵¹

That Jesus speaks of the doers of God's works in the plural (9:4) could include the Father doing the works with him (14:10), but more likely it is an invitation to the disciples (14:12), hence to John's audience, to share in continuing Jesus» mission from the Father.⁷⁰⁵² In either case, the works are plainly from the Father (cf. 5:20, 36; 10:25, 32, 37; 14:10–11; 15:24); believers» opponents could not accuse them of diverting God's glory. That one «must» perform Jesus» works during the light is Johannine language for divine necessity (3:7,14, 30; 4:4, 24; 10:16; 12:34; 20:9). That people could not work after nightfall because it had grown dark was common knowledge (applicable to battles and other activities;⁷⁰⁵³ used as an image in 11:10; 12:35); obviously, modern lighting was not available. John applies this image figuratively, as he does light, darkness, and night elsewhere (e.g., 1:4–5; 3:2; 11:10; 12:35; 13:30); but whereas in 11:9–10 the emphasis lies on Jesus» obedience to the Father's timing, here it lies on Jesus» power as the light to impart sight to the blind, both literally (9:6–7) and figuratively (9:39–41). Jesus parabolically demonstrates that he is the light of the world (9:5; see comment on 1:4), alluding to his announcement earlier that day (8:12), by healing the blind.

The use of spittle appears elsewhere in the Jesus tradition (Mark 7:33), including for healing blindness (Mark 8:23). Many ancient reports of cures mention the use of a curative drug,⁷⁰⁵⁴ even when Asclepius appeared to suppliants in his temple in dreams.⁷⁰⁵⁵ Spittle was sometimes used superstitiously, to avert an ill,⁷⁰⁵⁶ and sometimes associated with curative powers.⁷⁰⁵⁷ That Vespasian reportedly healed blindness with spittle (Tacitus Hist. 4.81; Suetonius Vesp. 7)⁷⁰⁵⁸ may suggest that John contrasts Jesus with the Roman emperor (Vespasian's son Domitian was then reigning); the account seems to have circulated widely. More likely, however, the stories about both Vespasian and Jesus draw on purportedly curative properties of spittle more widely known.

Jewish tradition sometimes reports curing through spittle,⁷⁰⁵⁹ though Jewish custom probably borrowed it from the more widespread ancient custom.⁷⁰⁶⁰ Such usage would have rendered its symbolic effect more comprehensible. But far more importantly, by making clay of the spittle and applying it to eyes blind from birth, Jesus may be recalling the creative act of Gen 2(cf. John 20:22).⁷⁰⁶¹ This allusion would fit well the likely creation allusion in the healing in John 5 (see comment on 5:19–20).

Whatever the spittlés symbolic value, if the blind man knew the source of the mud he would not likely have thought it pleasant. Granted, later rabbis idealized the purity of those in the holy city, and a second-century rabbi thus deemed all spittle found there (except in the market area frequented by the unclean) ritually pure (m. Seqal 8:1).⁷⁰⁶² But spittle could be impure if it came from one who was impure;⁷⁰⁶³ thus one touched by Gentile spittle had to immerse afterwards,⁷⁰⁶⁴ and later teachers claimed that a high priest touched by spittle had to be replaced so that a clean priest would be available on the Day of Atonement.⁷⁰⁶⁵ The shaming implied by spitting in Num 12could be understood as a cursing (Sipre Num. 106.1.1).⁷⁰⁶⁶

Whether John intends a symbolic double entendre in «anointing» is difficult to determine, but readers accustomed to his double entendres will likely find it plausible. The language of «anointing» (έπέχρισεν, 9:6, 11) may suit symbolically or literally curative substances (cf. άλείφω in Mark 6:13; Jas 5:14, though this was a natural way to describe any application of oil–Matt 6:17; Luke 7:46; χρίω in Heb 1:9).⁷⁰⁶⁷ Yet it also appears in some early Christian texts as a depiction of the Spirit's empowerment for mission (χρίω in Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38; 2Cor 1:21), not least in Johannine literature (χρίσμα in 1 John 2:20, 27).

The command to «wash» may be compared with various purification rituals in antiquity (see comment on 1:25–26,31), but for Johns biblically informed ideal audience it may evoke the story of Naaman (2 Kgs 5:10–14), though this man is not a Gentile.⁷⁰⁶⁸ As with Naaman, the man is instructed to carry out an act which by itself would never have brought healing;⁷⁰⁶⁹ hence the significance of the pools title, «sent.»

Probably within Jerusalem's walls at this time,⁷⁰⁷⁰ the Pool of Siloam included masonry varying in height from 12 to 18 inches,⁷⁰⁷¹ with four porches around the pool (cf. κολυμβήθρα similarly in 5:7).⁷⁰⁷² If the blind man were near the outer wall of the temple (8:59–9:1), walking to Siloam and back could have slightly exceeded a legally acceptable Sabbath day's journey.⁷⁰⁷³ But because John does not clarify the location or the distance (even former Jerusalemites may not have recalled this distance), and because it is not the basis for charging Jesus with a Sabbath violation (9:15–16; nor would an observer necessarily know how far the man was walking), it is probably not part of John's point here. The pool of Siloam was reputed to be especially effective for purification,⁷⁰⁷⁴ and many proselytes were reportedly immersed there;⁷⁰⁷⁵ even to this day some popularly call the pool «the mikveh of the high priest Ishmae1.»⁷⁰⁷⁶

Most importantly, the renowned ritual of water-drawing at the festival of Tabernacles drew water from the Pool of Siloam; because no clear break exists between chs. 7 and 8 on the one hand and 9:1–10:21, Jesus uses the water that at this festival would be deemed particularly holy.⁷⁰⁷⁷ Yet as the Pool of Bethesda could not heal (5:5–6), so neither can this water heal by itself, but only because Jesus has «sent» someone there. Because Jesus sends the man to this pool, it becomes clear that John does not oppose ritual waters (e.g., 2:6; 3:25) per se; it is just that the traditional rituals of his Jewish heritage are not efficacious apart from an encounter with Jesus.

John either revocalizes and modifies the term or adapts the etymology freely.⁷⁰⁷⁸ The matter is less the nature of «Siloam's» original etymology than the function of the wordplay in this context. Wordplays were common in the ancient Mediterranean world⁷⁰⁷⁹ and were already practiced in ancient Israel; «Judah's» name originally meant «praise» toward God (Gen 29:35) but in Jacob's blessing Judah's brothers praise Judah (Gen 49:8) in a context of other wordplays (e.g., 49:19).⁷⁰⁸⁰ Though ancients could recognize and criticize strained etymologies,⁷⁰⁸¹ among Gentiles both appeals to etymologies⁷⁰⁸² and arguments based on plays on words were common;⁷⁰⁸³ etymologies sometimes also functioned as part of the cryptic meaning of oracular utterances.⁷⁰⁸⁴ Jewish interpreters also reasoned from both etymologies and wordplays.⁷⁰⁸⁵ Interpreters sometimes even modified the text to make wordplays most effective.⁷⁰⁸⁶

Although miracle stories often include confirmation by astonished onlookers, Jesus is not present in 9:8–9 and they represent a new scene.⁷⁰⁸⁷ Although it was not inconceivable that someone could deceptively pretend to be needy,⁷⁰⁸⁸ a prior pretense by the blind man would not occur to his neighbors: he had been blind from birth, and Jesus» probably creative act in 9may well indicate that his eyes had been noticeably inactive. The «opening» of eyes was a natural expression for receiving sight (2 Kgs 6:20; Isa 35:5; 42:7; Matt 9:30; 20:33) or being able to see more clearly (Gen 21:19; Luke 24:31); it also applied to receiving spiritual vision (Gen 3:5, 7; Num 22:31; 2 Kgs 6:17; Ps 119:18; Acts 26:18; Eph 1:18), including by Israel (1 En. 89).⁷⁰⁸⁹

The response of the healed man's Jerusalemite neighbors, like that of many Judeans in surrounding narratives, is mixed but includes a negative element (they brought him to the Pharisees, 9:13); the elite themselves prove divided (9:16), but the vocal and dominant element prove hostile to Jesus. The healed man's own parents lack courage to stand against the leadership's hostility.

The neighbors recognize the man as the one who used to beg (9:8). Certainly in Jerusalem a beggar could survive, though he would invariably remain poor and dependent. Although Greeks recognized both strangers and the poor as invitations from Zeus,⁷⁰⁹⁰ they emphasized charity far less than Judaism did. Jesus» Jewish contemporaries emphasized charity heavily, as even Gentiles recognized (Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.283);⁷⁰⁹¹ sages declared that one should treat the poor as members of onés family (m. "Abot 1:5). Even Greeks admonished beggars not to be too ashamed to beg, lest they remain poor;⁷⁰⁹² but begging was viewed in any case as a wretched life.⁷⁰⁹³ One Cynic writing advocated practicing begging from statues to accustom oneself to being turned down!⁷⁰⁹⁴ Some Jews considered it better to die than to be forced to the disgrace of begging (Sir 40:28–30).⁷⁰⁹⁵

Because the man was healed near the temple and the Pool of Siloam, the «neighbors» (9:8) must be Jerusalemites, hence (in the broader context of the Gospel) may be presumed more hostile than favorable toward Jesus if they know who he is. The healed man's neighbors recognize that, if this is the man they knew (9:9), he must have been healed somehow, for he had certainly been blind. This point underlines the credibility of the healing; even those without commitment to Jesus could recognize that a positive miracle had taken place. The confusion engendered by not understanding how the man was healed (9:9) reflects the broader division caused by Jesus» presence (9:16).

That people were divided in their response to Jesus (9:9, 16; 7:43; 10:19) represents one narrative way to emphasize his importance,⁷⁰⁹⁶ but also parallels the situation of John's day: clearly not all those in the synagogues openly opposed Jesus, but those among the dominant leadership who were willing to speak out (cf. 12:42–43) did. That the neighbors brought the healed man to the Pharisees, however (9:13), is not positive, and probably evokes judicial imagery (cf., e.g., Acts 5:21; 6:12; 9:2; 17:19; 18:12). The term has positive connotations in many contexts in the Fourth Gospel (1:42; 10:16), but when the elite are those to whom one is brought, the image is negative (7:45; 18:13,28; 19:4,13; cf. 8:3). That the neighbors trust the leaders to make the appropriate decision indicates that they will be easily led by them, rather than by the true shepherd (10:3–4,16). That the healed man does not know where Jesus is (9:12) not only parallels 5:12–13 at this point but also makes sense in the story world: the man has not actually seen Jesus yet (9:7).

In this narrative the Sabbath first appears here (9:14; note the repetition in 5:9–10,16, 18);⁷⁰⁹⁷ though not strictly relevant to the man's healing, it is essential to the Pharisaic condemnation of the healing. John himself does not think that Jesus violates the Sabbath; rather, he employs Sabbath controversies as a stage on which to articulate his high Christology.⁷⁰⁹⁸ Sabbath violation is a necessary foundation for the charge that Jesus is not from God (9:16), which allows some to respond to Jesus» recent claims to be from God (8:42), not to have sinned (8:46), and to call on others to «keep» his word (8:51) when he does not in fact «keep» God's laws like the Sabbath (9:16). John's title «the one once blind» heightens for the reader the irony of his current interrogation.⁷⁰⁹⁹

A key term throughout the entire account of the blind man's healing is οΐδα, and the term is largely restricted in this account to the man's controversy with the authorities (9:12, 20–21, 24–25, 29–31). If this story is directly relevant to the experience of the Johannine community, as most scholars since Martyn have argued (see introduction; cf. also 12:42; 16:2), the text suggests that a primary issue of controversy was the matter of epistemology: the authorities make claims to knowledge about Jesus, namely that he is sinful (9:24), based on their interpretation of Torah (9:29). By contrast, the healed man appeals to his experience (9:25), which at this point is all he has; his attempt to offer an argument from biblical principles is rebuffed in any case (9:31).

As Culpepper points out, the interrogators who hold power in the situation diplay excessive confidence, making frequent assertions that contrast with the healed man's «pleas of ignorance.» This establishes «a classic contrast between a braggart (an alazon in Greek drama) and the ironist (an eiron). With delightful subtlety, the narrator shows us the man's insight and exposes the Pharisees» blindness.» Through most of the account the blind man does not know (9:12,25) or knows only what he sees (9:25); the Pharisees, who assert that Jesus is not from God (9:16), claim what they do know (9:24, 29).⁷¹⁰⁰ This is comic relief at the Pharisees» expense; the blind man serves a function like Socrates in Platós dialogues, though less cognizant of the direction his dialogue will take. Philostratus (Vit. soph. 1.480–481), claims that philosophers (like diviners) start by admitting ignorance and pursuing knowledge, whereas sophists (like mantics) begin with confident assertions of knowledge. To the limited extent that this distinction holds, the interrogators start more like sophists (9:24, 29), whereas the man's knowledge emerges after reflection (9:31).

Most striking are the authorities» appeals to group knowledge («we know,» 9:24, 29) and the healed man's mistaken supposition that he could still speak as a member of their community (9:31). Rhetorical claims to group knowledge (οϊδαμεν) could be dishonest (Luke 20:21) or could represent affirmations of faith (e.g., Rom 2:2; 3:19; 7:14; 2Cor 5:1). Here they may recall the first use of οϊδαμεν in the Gospel, when Nicodemus makes a moderate claim about Jesus» identity («We know that you are a teacher who has come from God,» 3:2) and Jesus countered that «we» (presumably himself and his Father) speak what «we know,» divine revelation from above (3:11). Being able to view these competing claims to knowledge from outside the narrative world, the latter claim rooted in heavenly revelation, would certainly encourage Johannine Christians. This is especially the case given admissions of inadequate knowledge (9:29) and claims to knowledge that the Gospel's narratives prove inadequate (6:42; 7:27).⁷¹⁰¹

Although this epistemological conflict surfaces most dramatically here, surrounding narratives provide its context. The previous encounters between Jesus and the authorities during this festival (chs. 7–8) offer sufficient perspective. Jesus knows his identity and knows the Father, whereas his opponents, despite their false claims and partial knowledge, do not (the use of οΐδα in 7:27–29; 8:14,19, 55); the rough synonym γινώσκω⁷¹⁰² functions in the same polemical fashion with challenges, condemnations, and responses (7:27, 49, 51; 8:27–28,32,43,52,55). The crucial significance of this conflict is resolved only in Jesus» following discourse (10:4–6, 14–15) and appended material (10:27, 38), which interpret the correct epistemology of Jesus and his followers in terms of the covenant knowledge of God and his people in the earlier biblical record (see comment there).⁷¹⁰³

While various forms of discipline were practiced in this period, and one who grants a high degree of historical verity to John's narrative can argue that the healed man did in fact confront religious teachers or leaders in Jerusalem, no one can deny that John has framed the dialogue in his own language relevant for his own audience (see introduction on the genre and setting of this Gospel). Historically, local elders functioned as judges and leaders; of particular classes, priests probably filled this role most frequently.⁷¹⁰⁴ Here, however, the Pharisees, likely more influential in Jerusalem, as here, than in Galilee (though Mark sometimes places them in the latter), fill this role (9:13); see discussion in the introduction. Historically, some Pharisees (of the school of Hillel) permitted prayer for the sick on the Sabbath.⁷¹⁰⁵ If the more lenient Hillelites would have permitted prayer on the Sabbath,⁷¹⁰⁶ the Shammaite school was probably dominant among Pharisees in Jesus» day,⁷¹⁰⁷ though no longer in John's.⁷¹⁰⁸ Yet most Pharisees probably would have opposed making a clay poultice on the Sabbath for someone not in danger of dying (9:14).⁷¹⁰⁹ The procedure, more than the healing act itself, would have violated Jesus» contemporaries» views.⁷¹¹⁰ What functioned initially as a typical miracle story (for John, a «sign» with christological implications) now becomes a setting for theological conflict (9:14; cf. 5:9). In 9:15, the healed man retells the account of his healing slightly more briefly than he did for the crowds (9:11); this could be due to intimidation,⁷¹¹¹ though it probably simply represents John's rhetorical abbreviation to avoid repeating all of what the reader already knows.

The leaders considered Jesus a «sinner» (9:16) for breaking their understanding of the Sabbath (9:14); they may employ this term because Jesus had recently challenged them to find any genuine transgression (8:46), implying by their silence at that time that they could not.⁷¹¹² The tone of their interrogation in 9may imply their skepticism that Jesus really «opened» the man's eyes in the literal sense or, for that matter, the spiritual sense.⁷¹¹³ The passage shows how much their agenda of opposing Jesus colors their interest in truth: evasively, they repeatedly ignore the testimony of the miracle itself. They begin with interest only in the Sabbath violation (9:16), ignore the healed man's own testimony (9:13–17);⁷¹¹⁴ and intimidate his parents, who already know the danger of disagreeing with what their inquisitors wish to hear (9:22). Their violation of what we know of traditional early Jewish principles concerning evidence suggests a bias so extreme it flouts any amount of evidence provided.⁷¹¹⁵ Some other radical ancient sages also noticed that dogmatic certainty was difficult to penetrate with reason (Epictetus Diatr. 1.5.1–2). The arrogance of many Pharisees in this Gospel does not fit what we know of Pharisaic or rabbinic ethics;⁷¹¹⁶ it does fit what we know of human nature.⁷¹¹⁷

That the Pharisees themselves were divided (9:16), however, reinforces a critical emphasis of this Gospel (cf. «the crowd» in 7:43; «the Jews» in 10:19; others in 12:29). Nicodemus and those for whom he spoke recognized that Jesus was not «able» to do his works unless God had sent him (3:2); some of similar persuasion now do not understand how a sinner would be «able» to do the kinds of signs Jesus does (9:16).⁷¹¹⁸

John is certain that despite any public display of unity, many of the elite had to know that Jesus really did come from God (12:42–43). The formerly blind man responds positively (cf. 1:21; 4:19; but inadequately–cf. 6:14; 7:40; cf. Matt 21:11) that Jesus is a prophet (9:17); but for this man, the affirmation allows him to be open to a higher Christology, a Christology which develops in the course of the narrative (9:35–38), from man (9:11) to prophet (9:17) to Son of Man (9:35–36). In this, his faith resembles that of the Samaritan woman (4:19, 29).

John probably uses έφώνησαν, «they called,» both as a scene change (cf. 9:24) and to signal the social power wielded by these leaders, who summoned and dismissed witnesses in the course of their legal investigation. It is not impossible, however, that John may also imply a contrast between these interrogators and the good shepherd, who gently calls his own (10:3), just as their casting one out (9:34) may contrast with the gentle way the shepherd leads forth his own (10:4). The testimony of relatives might be considered biased (see comment on 7:3–5), but at least the parents would be accurately positioned to verify whether their son was born blind.

That the parents had allowed their son to subsist by begging may imply that the parents themselves were poor; to be put outside the synagogue community might have reduced whatever other income the father was able to procure.⁷¹¹⁹ We know something of the rabbinic tradition of excommunication by the second century C.E. (e.g., m. Móed Qat. 3:1–2)⁷¹²⁰ and probably earlier (m. Ta^can. 3:8); the practice as a community discipline must be pre-Christian (Ezra 10:8; various levels in 1QS 6.24–7.25).⁷¹²¹ Indisputably community disciplines occurred, such as the «forty» (or thirty-nine) stripes⁷¹²² of public beatings (based on Deut 25:2–3) attested in the first century (2Cor 11:24; Josephus Ant. 4.238, 248).⁷¹²³ Without explaining how the miracle occurred, they could not deny the miracle; but in early Christian tradition this is usually a situation in which those unwilling to consider where signs point find themselves (11:46–48; 12:9–11; Acts 4:16).

Technically the parents did not «know» how their son was healed (sorcery was always a possibility; cf. comment on 7:20) and could offer only secondhand testimony; but their motives for concealing even that testimony make their confession more like a denial (cf. 18:17,25–26; he denies knowing Jesus in Mark 14:71), showing little support for their son.⁷¹²⁴ In Johns epistemology, faith can come through testimony as well as (or better than) through sight (15:26–27; 20:29–31). Claiming that their son is «of age» means that he was at least thirteen,⁷¹²⁵ though he could have been much older.⁷¹²⁶ But given their own fear (9:22), their failure to support their sons evident testimony is not courageous. When intimidated by oppressive power structures, most people chose not to defend someone indicted by the authorities;⁷¹²⁷ sometimes even parents might abandon a child to those in power due to fear.⁷¹²⁸ To be sure, their son's blindness did not stem from their sin (9:3), but the narrative does not praise their fidelity to their son here; they refuse to confess the one who had vindicated them against shame (9:2). The Pharisees will attribute the sin either to them or to the man before birth (9:34; cf. 9:2), yet the parents fear to differ with them openly.

The repetition of their statement of 9in slightly different words in 9may be meant for clarification to prevent the reader losing the flow of the narrative after the narrator's aside in 9:22.⁷¹²⁹ In any case, however, it underlines the point (as in the analogous case of repetition 13:10–11); here it reinforces their unwillingness to commit themselves. They resemble others who fear to contradict the authorities (7:13), especially lest they be dismissed from the synagogues (12:42), because they cared more for human honor (12:43). That 12:42–43 alludes to this passage in part may be concluded from their unique joining of the key phrases «confess» (όμολογέω) and «become out-synagogued» (άπο-συνάγωγος with the aorist subjunctive of γίνομαι).

As argued in the introduction, the dilemma posed to the formerly blind man is equivalent to the dilemma being posed to most of John's audience; Johannine scholarship as a whole is therefore undoubtedly correct to see a challenge to the Johannine Christians through this character. Many members of John's audience, at least the younger members not from those Jewish-Christian families which may have migrated from Palestine (possibly as long as two decades earlier), may have faced the unbelief of their families (cf. comment on 7:5).

This paragraph also underlines the dogmatism of the elite which keeps them from hearing (or «seeing"–9:39–41) the truth, and the cost that believers pay in terms of their own families (see commenton 7:3–9). The Johannine Christians, perhaps in conflict with the established and wealthy leaders of synagogue communities in Roman Asia,⁷¹³⁰ could not expect justice from Roman courts, within synagogues, and perhaps from family members. They had to recognize a principle applicable in most cultures, that the elite often command more respect by virtue of their powerful status than does the testimony of otherwise believable close associates.

This scene is an interrogation of the healed man (9:23), but turns more into a legal debate. The Pharisees wish to guide the man's response (9:24,28–29), which violates the objectivity that was supposed to attend legal procedures.⁷¹³¹ The healed man in turn seems at first oblivious to the leaders» bias, but knows his experience and by the end of the discussion hopes to persuade them accordingly (9:30–33). Their predetermined commitment to expel from the synagogue anyone who affirms Jesus» positive character–despite the miracle–exposes their bias (9:22,34). This is the sort of description that a frustrated minority perspective, convinced of the absolute Tightness of its testimony, might offer concerning those they believe to be intentionally repressing their testimony.

Unlike some in the Gospel who received prior explanation of Jesus» identity (e.g., 1:45; 4:29), the healed man has an experience but not yet an adequate interpretation for it (9:25). Feigned ignorance could function as a rhetorical device (άπορία);⁷¹³² whether or not the narrative characterizes the man as sophisticated enough to challenge his interrogators on this level, they would be sophisticated enough to infer it as one possible way to understand him. However we read the motives of characters in the story world, the narrative lays open a clear choice: either Jesus is a sinner (9:24), or Jesus is from God, and it is ultimately only the latter claim that matches the data (9:31–33). The man's interrogators are clear in the response they are looking for;⁷¹³³ ancient prosecutors would grill witnesses harder if they were perceived as friendly to the accused.

The phrase «give glory to God» (9:24) can refer to praise,⁷¹³⁴ but in a trial or interrogation context, can mean, «give glory to God by confessing your wrong» (Josh 7:19; 1 Esd 9:8).⁷¹³⁵ Thus they may be exhorting the man to admit that he is following a «misleader» (see comment on 7:12)–and exhorting him to glorify God by repenting. Again this is Johannine irony;⁷¹³⁶ the man does not respond the way they intend, but he does glorify God by testifying of God's works through Jesus (9:25–33) and then suffering the penalty (9:34)–which was one way to glorify God in truth (12:23–24; 21:19). From the perspective of Johannine witness, any other response on the part of the healed man would have deferred to human glory rather than God's (12:42–43). He proves more courageous than his parents (9:20–22), an example which may also summon Johannine Christians to courage (cf. 7:3–10; cf. Acts 4:20).

The healed man claims that he had answered their questions before (9:27; cf. 9:15, 19); their repeated question probably reflects traditional Jewish procedures for cross-examining witnesses (e.g., Sus 48–62; m. "Abot 1:9; cf. Mark 14:56). The healed man, however, does naively hope that they are as impressed with his new experience as he himself is (9:27), a hope immediately shown vain by their ridicule (9:28). Some scholars would link their ridicule with the Birkath Ha-minim; the term λοιδορέω applies to reviling and abuse, which would be nearly as accurate as the more precise «malediction.» Nevertheless, the term (a Johannine hapax) has broader application in early Christianity (Acts 23:4; 1Cor 4:12), including to Jesus» sufferings (1Pet 2:23).⁷¹³⁷ Like the possible hint in 7:49, this is at most a hint; John's environment (assuming the Birkath had by this point occurred and exercised noticeable effects even in Roman Asia) does not totally overtake the story, and the story world remains internally consistent and plausible.

The «you are» and «we are» of 9are both emphatic, each clause beginning with a pronoun (though the verbs would have sufficed), heightening the contrast.⁷¹³⁸ The claim to be «disciples of Moses» probably echoes genuine Pharisaic tradition;⁷¹³⁹ regardless of their immediate sources, later rabbis could speak of ultimately receiving tradition from Moses on Sinai.⁷¹⁴⁰ Moses, «father of the prophets,» was also their teacher and master;⁷¹⁴¹ thus a later rabbi could claim that God told Jeremiah to attend to his teacher and his teachers teacher, Moses, who taught all the prophets.⁷¹⁴² The image probably circulated in the first century; speaking figuratively, Philo claims that he was initiated into the mysteries of Moses and became a student of Jeremiah (Cherubim 49). Likewise, he speaks of biblical psalmists and prophets as Moses» acquaintances (Confusion 39, 62);⁷¹⁴³ Joshua (Ίησοϋς) was Moses» first pupil (φοιτητής, Virtues 66);⁷¹⁴⁴ Solomon was one of the pupils (φοιτητών) of Moses (Prelim. Studies 177), and so are all the virtuous (Spec. Laws 1.345; 2.88).⁷¹⁴⁵ One could also be a «disciple» of other links in the tradition from Moses, such as Ezra.⁷¹⁴⁶

Yet their claim to be «disciples of Moses» (9:28) is ironically refuted by the rest of Johns Gospel (cf. 5:45–47), as is their trust in Moses (5:45). On a broader level, their claim to speak for all of Judaism is ironically undermined by John's ecclesiology elsewhere, including the ensuing discourse (10:3–5; cf. pp. 199–201, 214–28). Indeed, their very behavior in this context undermines their claim to be disciples of Moses, for Moses was meek (Num 12:3); the dominant Pharisaic tradition by Johns day was Hillelite, which emphasized the importance of mercifully drawing seekers near rather than thrusting them aside.⁷¹⁴⁷ Thus Hillel himself reportedly declared that those who loved their fellows and drew them near to Torah were disciples (מתלמידיו) of Aaron (m. "Abot 1:12). The expression «disciple of» a patriarchal figure would probably make sense in the Diaspora as wel1.⁷¹⁴⁸

In this section, the healed man responds to his interrogators who have already decided that Jesus is guilty. Far from being a sinner (9:24), Jesus is not a sinner (9:31), but from God (9:33), as the evidence plainly indicates (9:31–32). The interrogation, meant to force the man to deny Jesus, produces the opposite effect as he honestly considers his encounter with Jesus. As 3:19–21 predicted, some would flee from the light (like the healed man in 5who would not abandon his sin) while others would ultimately embrace it (as here).

The question of Jesus» origin is bantered back and forth in the Gospel; although the authorities never recognize that Jesus is «from above» or «from God» (his true origin), they do not hesistate to presume that they know where he is from when it is convenient (7:52), or where he is not from (7:42); now they admit that they do not know where he is from (9:29), ironically exposing, in good Johannine fashion, the ignorance behind their other claims.⁷¹⁴⁹

Their denial confirms Jesus» claim that they do not know his origin (8:14; cf. 7:28).⁷¹⁵⁰ Yet the claim not to know where Jesus is from (9:29) may be a strong implied insult;⁷¹⁵¹ although it is not clear, it is possible that the interrogators may be implying that they do not know or have not heard of Jesus» «father» of whom he often speaks, so that perhaps he is of illegitimate origins.⁷¹⁵² Less certainly but still possible, if later sources preserve early ideas here, a mamser, one illegitimately born, might be considered more prone to apostasy, and worthy of derogation of his birth.⁷¹⁵³ Within the story world, «not knowing where he is from» might also constitute repudiation (Luke 13:25)⁷¹⁵⁴ by implying that Jesus is of no reputation.

Yet the most important function of their denial, on the overall level of John's story, is to confirm their ignorance for John's reader, whose response is helped along by that of the healed man. Their charge appears to backfire against them; once he is aware that they do not know Jesus» place of origin, the healed man moves from a defensive to an offensive posture:⁷¹⁵⁵ he provides here his longest answer (9:30–33), to which they respond by ridiculing his attempt to instruct them (9:34).

Many might have disputed the man's claim that no one born blind had ever been healed before (9:32);⁷¹⁵⁶ pagan pilgrims to cult sanctuaries might hear stories like the later account in which Asclepius healed during the night a man with no eyes in his eye sockets.⁷¹⁵⁷ But Palestinian Jewish tradition, while reporting healings of the blind on rare occasions (Tob 11:12–13), included no reports of healing of those born blind, and if any members of Johns probable Diaspora audience had heard stories to the contrary, they would nevertheless undoubtedly excuse the hyperbole.

Finally the blind man concludes that Jesus is not only not a sinner (9:31), but he, in contrast to his interrogators (9:30), knows exactly where Jesus is from: he is from God (9:33). If he were not from God, he could do nothing (9:33; cf. 3:2);⁷¹⁵⁸ again, Johns informed audience might, after hearing the Gospel a few times, catch Johns irony. The Pharisees themselves could do no good (12:19); therefore they were not from God (9:33). At the same time, the Gospel here may suggest an edifying principle of dependence on God (15:5).

The man reasons that Jesus cannot be a sinner, a Sabbath-breaker; he must be a doer of Gods will, that is, of the law.⁷¹⁵⁹ Diaspora Judaism often praised those who were «pious» (θεοσεβής and related terms; 9:31);⁷¹⁶⁰ the term could apply to Israelites,⁷¹⁶¹ and often was used also for Gentile sympathizers (e.g., Acts 10:2; 13:16; Josephus Ant. 20.195; synonym in T. Jos. 4:6), as has come to be widely recognized,⁷¹⁶² despite some earlier questions.⁷¹⁶³ Various Jewish traditions also emphasized that God heard only the righteous;⁷¹⁶⁴ at the least they had a special position of favor before God (e.g., Ps 34:10,15–18), a general principle most Jews and Christians would have affirmed. Even many exclusivist early Christians acknowledged that God noticed the good deeds of those who were not yet believers (Acts 10:4, 31, 35); John 3may also imply this, though it could well depict those in the process of becoming persevering believers, as in many of Johns narratives.

His accusers have now decided their case; they conclude that he himself must be a sinner (replying to 9:31), therefore unqualified to teach them; after all, he was born in sins, as his blindness proved (9:34). Ironically, however, Jesus, who knew the circumstances of his birth (like everything else–e.g., 2:23–25) and confirmed that knowledge by bringing healing, had already declared that the man's blindness did not derive from his sin or that of his parents (9:2–3), as the informed reader will recognize. No less ironically, the reader knows that these accusers themselves have not been born from God (3:3) and hence are born in sin as heirs of the devil (8:44) and destined to die in sin (8:21). Further, they reject as a mark of his ignorance his comment that if Jesus were not from God, he could not do these signs (9:33);⁷¹⁶⁵ yet the attentive reader will recall that a teacher of Israel made precisely the same affirmation earlier (3:2). Again, in front of John's informed audience the man's accusers simply demonstrate their own ignorance.

Angrily the offended leaders «cast» the man «out» (9:34); whether the recurrence of the same term έκβάλλω in 10is intentional or coincidental, the contrast with Jesus» carefully shepherding his flock in and out of the fold seems ironic.⁷¹⁶⁶ Ejecting the healed man from their presence may not imply formal excommunication as we know it from the later sources,⁷¹⁶⁷ but it surely fulfills the threat of 9:22; like much of John's audience, this man was forced to choose between loyalty to his healer and the claims of the community of which he had been a part.

In this section, Jesus defends the healed man who was expelled from the synagogue for following him; he also indicts the Pharisees for their poor leadership among God's people. Thus Jesus fulfills the role of an «advocate» (14:16) and prosecutor (16:8–11), just as the Spirit continues to do in John's own day.

The man's loyalty to Jesus set him on the right road, but did not yet confirm him as a disciple. Nicodemus and some of his allies in the synagogue had recognized Jesus as a teacher from God (3:2), but he had not yet confessed him publicly. It is in 9:35–39 that the healed man moves to a more christologically adequate confession of Jesus» identity.⁷¹⁶⁸

The Father seeks true worshipers (4:23), and Jesus, who does the Father's will (9:3–4), seeks this man out in 9:35;⁷¹⁶⁹ parallel language in 1and 5strongly suggests that this description implies Jesus» intention. (That he «heard» that they had cast him out may imply a secondhand report,⁷¹⁷⁰ but also might imply having heard from the Father, as in 5:19–20 and 8:38.) But John deliberately contrasts this man whom Jesus finds (9:35) with the man he found in 5:14, who after being healed turned on Jesus rather than take responsibility for following his teaching. The two prospective disciples provide a negative and positive model, which together issue a challenge to progress to disciple-ship. The personal pronoun σύ in Jesus» inquiry in 9is emphatic: Do you believe? This emphasis suggests a contrast in the immediate context with the Pharisees;⁷¹⁷¹ but for Johns informed reader it may also suggest a contrast with the healed man of 5:14–16, who after being healed failed to persevere to discipleship–and now awaited a worse fate than before (5:14; cf. 15:22, 24; 3:36).

The healed man still can reason only from his experience and lacks an adequate grid for interpretation (9:36); Jesus now supplies that grid (9:35–37). «Son of Man» by itself might hold ambiguous christological significance⁷¹⁷² (perhaps suggesting a historical core for these actual words), but its cumulative effect in the Gospel to this point suggests a fuller significance for the informed reader (1:51; 3:14; 5:27; 6:27; 8:28); an even greater weight may rest on «believe» (9:35; see introduction, ch. 7). Jesus responds by revealing himself as he did to the Samaritan woman (4:26); to one who had been blind before their previous encounter, Jesus ironically announces, «I am the one you have now seen" (9:37).⁷¹⁷³

The healed man responds with a heightened Christology as soon as the word makes a more adequate interpretation possible (9:38). Gentiles sometimes prostrated themselves before rulers,⁷¹⁷⁴ and Jewish people apparently often followed suit;⁷¹⁷⁵ even looking at another's feet instead of another's face showed respect for the other's higher status.⁷¹⁷⁶ It could connote intense respect (e.g., Rev 3:9) or that one was begging or seeking mercy.⁷¹⁷⁷ Thus the term by itself need not indicate worship of a deity; but in its broader Johannine context (4:20–24; 12:20–21), including John's Christology (1:1, 18; 20:28), it fits the Johannine portrait of Jesus» deity and invites John's own audience to worship Jesus.⁷¹⁷⁸

In 9:39–41 John epitomizes and makes more explicit the guiding irony that dominates the whole of ch. 9.⁷¹⁷⁹ John earlier affirms that Jesus did not come to judge the world (3:17; also 12:47); here (9:39) he claims that he came to bring about judgment (a characteristic messianic mission); the judgment here is to divide people into two groups, those who heed the light and those who reject it (also 3:19; cf. 1 John 2:11). One who presses far enough, however, will have the paradox resolved (12:44–49). John's words about spiritual blindness develop his dualism of light and darkness (see comment on 1:4–5).

Greek and Roman tradition could play on the irony of the spiritual sight of a blind seer like Tiresias;⁷¹⁸⁰ one Greek philosopher allegedly blinded himself physically to make his mental contemplations more accurate.⁷¹⁸¹ But pagan sources more frequently viewed figurative blindness as a primarily intellectual than as a primarily moral fault,⁷¹⁸² and the Jewish tradition provides much more abundant source material for John's irony.⁷¹⁸³ Isaiah the prophet offered the standard text about spiritual blindness adopted by John (Isa 6:9–10 in John 12:40), but the image was common in the biblical prophets (Isa 29:9; 42:18–19; 56:10; Jer 5:21; Ezek 12:2), the Jesus tradition (cf. Matt 13:14–15; 15:14; 23:16; Mark 4:12; 8:17–18; Luke 8:10; perhaps Luke 4:18; cf. Acts 28:26–27), and appears in other early Jewish sources.⁷¹⁸⁴ John's irony sometimes turns on convicting the leaders from their mouths, but sometimes on paradox from Jesus» own.⁷¹⁸⁵

The Pharisees sarcastically demand whether they, too, are blind (9:40).⁷¹⁸⁶ Jesus responds (9:41) that their very claim to see makes them all the more responsible for the light that has come to them; if they refuse to believe, their sin remains (8:24; 15:24; 16:9); those satisfied with their own condition were the ones condemned to remain in it (cf. Rev 3:17).⁷¹⁸⁷ Just as the Paraclete will later prosecute the world in defending the disciples (16:7–11), Jesus, who has entered the world for judgment (9:39), convicts the Pharisees.

The present context may not be the first to have connected spiritual blindness (9:39–41) with the image of sheep (10:1–4). Many Jewish people may have known the story in which blind sheep who could not follow their master were judged and hurled into the abyss of fire (1 En. 90:26–27); because their judgment follows that of the fallen angels and pagans, the scene probably refers to the final judgment and damnation of the sinners from Israe1.

The Pharisees have excluded the healed man from their synagogue community, as if they have the authority to decide who does and who does not belong to the covenant people (9:34).⁷¹⁸⁸ In response, Jesus defends the healed man and convicts the Pharisees (9:39–41). In 10:1–18, which assumes the biblical image of sheep as God's people, he turns to the question of the true and false owners of the sheep, showing that he is the shepherd (probably a divine allusion from Ezek 34) and they the false shepherds of Ezek 34. Shepherds had to battle thieves, robbers and wolves for the sheep's safety; in this Gospel, Jesus» shepherdly defense of the blind man against his opponents, the «thieves,» would therefore eventuate in his death at their hands (10:15).

For the sake of treating material in greater detail in the commentary, we have divided 10:1–18 into a discussion on the shepherd and the thieves (true and false owners) in 10:1–10 and a discussion of the true shepherd's sacrifice (10:11–18, which briefly contrasts the owner with mere hirelings).

Jesus claims two titles in the predicative «I am» claims of this passage, «door» (10:7) and «good shepherd» (10:11,14). Some connect the parable of the good shepherd with Ha-nukkah (10:22),⁷¹⁸⁹ but this proposed connection obscures the continuation of Jesus» words from the end of ch. 9, on the last day of the festival of Tabernacles (7:2, 37). Jesus is still addressing the Pharisees in the presence of the man born blind. In fact, in what is probably the final comment of this Tabernacles section (7:1–10:21) before the festival of Hanukkah (10:22), a reference to the man born blind (10:21) connects that context with 9:1–38.⁷¹⁹⁰ Even those who regard 10:1–21 as a unit separate from ch. 9 sometimes recognize this discourse as at least partly a commentary on that narrative.⁷¹⁹¹

Some deny that John includes parables, because John's form for them differs from that in the Synoptics; but the meaning of parable was wider than any particular usage in the Synoptics,⁷¹⁹² and on formal grounds one cannot conclude John's allegories inauthentic.⁷¹⁹³ Further, against some scholars, John's παροιμία (10:6) is virtually synonymous with παραβολή, and in the LXX both terms translate the same Hebrew term, masha1.⁷¹⁹⁴ That term applies not only to full-fledged story parables but to any sort of comparison.⁷¹⁹⁵ Schweizer thinks that John s analogies are closer to Platós comparisons of earthly shadows and heavenly reality than to Synoptic parables, seeing earthly shepherds as shadows of Jesus.⁷¹⁹⁶ Yet John surely implies no metaphysical relationship between Jesus and earthly shepherds; they simply serve as analogies for Jesus as they served for God, Moses, or David in the biblical tradition. More likely, John s metaphors function in a manner analogous to Synoptic parables.⁷¹⁹⁷

The parallels between the shepherd and vine parables⁷¹⁹⁸ also underline the ecclesiological point of the parable. Some have argued that 10:1–5 provides an authentic, noneschatological core parable, followed by the evangelist's allegorical exposition.⁷¹⁹⁹ The problem with this thesis is that it follows Jeremias's work on Synoptic parables, which regards allegorical expansions as secondary, an approach that, in view of considerable data from other early Jewish parables, should be regarded as demonstrably wrong.⁷²⁰⁰ Further, though it is not impossible that John may redact earlier materials here,⁷²⁰¹ 10:1–18 does function as an essential unity, warning against thieves and false shepherds.⁷²⁰² But the approach is correct to point out that 10:1–5 does fit what is known of «pastoral life in Palestine,»⁷²⁰³ and that, as in the Synoptic passages employing similar language, Jesus confronts the authorities with an opportunity «to fulfill their role as the watchmen of God's people.»⁷²⁰⁴ Further, Jesus also used shepherd images in his Synoptic parables (e.g., Mark 6:34; Matt 18:12; Luke 15:4–6).⁷²⁰⁵

Thus, like most of this Gospel, we lack sufficient external data to verify or falsify this passage from a strictly historical perspective; the stories do not appear in the Synoptics and the language is Johannine. The images employed, however, are certainly consistent with the Synoptic portrait of the historical Jesus (whether John received them as entire stories or wove together images from Jesus tradition or elsewhere). Jesus elsewhere spoke of wolves as false prophets (10:12; cf. Matt 7:15; cf. Matt 10:16; Luke 10:3) and the shepherd who cares sacrificially for his sheep (Matt 18/ Luke 15:4–5). Other images such as robbers (Mark 11:17; Luke 10:30) and gates (Matt 7:13–14; Luke 13:24–25) are frequent enough in other teachers» illustrations that the «coherence» is less significant.⁷²⁰⁶ «Knowing the Father» (10:14–15) resembles a passage in Q (Matt 11/ Luke 10:22). Historically, then, one finds here, at the least, verisimilitude of substance, albeit in Johannine idiom.

Scholars have proposed various backgrounds for Jesus» teaching about the sheep. Some have argued for a gnostic,⁷²⁰⁷ especially Mandean, background.⁷²⁰⁸ As we argued in our introduction, however, a demonstrable Mandean background for anything in the Fourth Gospel is virtually impossible, since the earliest extant Mandean sources are over half a millennium later than the Fourth Gospe1. Indeed, the late Mandean «parallels» probably reflect some dependence on John here.⁷²⁰⁹ By contrast, Gods intimacy with his flock is clearly an OT image (e.g., Isa 40:11; Ezek 34:12–16), and where John goes beyond this he may reflect the early Christian development of the intimacy theme (e.g., in Q, Matt ll:27/Luke 10:22).⁷²¹⁰

While the OT background is paramount, John's audience would also think of what they knew of shepherds. Less informed members of his original audience, new to the Jewish and Christian conceptual realm, would have at least recognized various affective associations with the shepherd image. Some in the western Mediterranean would have recalled nostalgically «the idyllic life of» shepherds,⁷²¹¹ but a more widespread perception, especially among urban dwellers, was one of suspicion, since many perceived shepherds «as rough, unscrupulous characters, who pastured their animals on other peoplés land and pilfered wool, milk, and kids from the flock.»⁷²¹² Yet the nature of Jesus» comparisons in the passage will evoke especially the pictures of shepherd as «leader» rather than as unscrupulous.

Sheep had various uses. They were prized then as now especially for woo1.⁷²¹³ At least in Egypt, sheepshearing occurred in January or February and, after sheep had grown another coat, in September. Although modern Westerners think of cheese from cows» milk, Greeks and Egyptians preferred cheese made of sheep's and goats» milk. The skins of dead sheep, pigs, and especially goats were used as leather, particularly for carrying liquids.⁷²¹⁴

Despite the important shepherds in biblical times (Exod 3:1; 1Sam 16:11; cf. Amos 7:14),⁷²¹⁵ by this period they represented a frequently despised profession,⁷²¹⁶ as commentators point out.⁷²¹⁷ Texts often portray them as rogues, sometimes even responsible for brigandage and murder⁷²¹⁸ (though certainly not consistently enough to link them with the «thieves» here). Some Palestinian rabbis link them with Gentiles (t. B. Mesi^ca 2:33); others treat shepherding as a dishonorable profession, like tax gathering.⁷²¹⁹ Like field watchmen, shepherds were normally unable to join communal prayers of local communities.⁷²²⁰ Sanders may be right to doubt that they were social outcasts⁷²²¹ and is surely right that society depended on shepherds,⁷²²² yet he too readily dismisses evidence for their low social status.⁷²²³ Throughout the rural empire, peasants were impoverished, and among the peasants there was but one class distinction: «Only the goatherds and shepherds constitute a separate and lower class.»⁷²²⁴

Still, it should be observed that it was the elite and their urban audience that would most despise shepherds; shepherds themselves undoubtedly held a higher opinion of their appropriate status. Thus the negative opinions of shepherds in Jewish literature generally stem from the rabbis, who represented an educated elite; most Roman lists of despised professions also originate from the elite.⁷²²⁵ Although elite opinions usually trickled down to the masses, this evidence may suggest that those who looked down on shepherds were especially people with wealth and status. By any reckoning, this would have to include Jesus» opponents in this narrative.

As rulers of sheep,⁷²²⁶ shepherds provided a natural image, in metaphorical contexts, for rulers;⁷²²⁷ this was true in both Hellenistic⁷²²⁸ and Jewish⁷²²⁹ contexts. As early as Homer, «shepherd of the people,» clearly an equivalent for «ruler of the people,»⁷²³⁰ became a familiar label for both Greek⁷²³¹ and Trojan⁷²³² leaders and their allies, especially for Agamemnon, the leader of the Achaian host.⁷²³³ Later writers continued to exploit this image.⁷²³⁴ That those who were blind needed others to «lead» them (Matt 15:14; 23:16; Acts 13:11; Rom 2:19)⁷²³⁵ reinforces the importance of the shepherd leading his people in this context (9:39–41).

The reputed character of sheep naturally reinforced this image. Although most animal fables by the first century included an interpretation, animal fables from the start were often too obvious to require explanation;⁷²³⁶ this presupposes a cultural milieu where much was known about characteristics of animals. In his work On Animals (7.27), Aelian regards sheep as the most obedient of animals, submissive to others» rule, following the shepherd and his dogs and even goats; they also remain near the rest of the flock.⁷²³⁷ Sheep were considered gentle (placidumб Terence Adelphi 534–535).

The typical obedience of sheep to their shepherd provided a natural image of Israel as God's sheep in Scripture,⁷²³⁸ an image that was continued in early Judaism.⁷²³⁹ As Robinson notes, «that Israel was intended by the sheep-fold needed no more explanation than the similar language of the «housé or the Vineyard.»»⁷²⁴⁰ Some have compared the «fold» with the tabernacle⁷²⁴¹ or, still less likely, the «seventh hall» of Jewish mysticism.⁷²⁴² The semantic range of the term αυλή is simply too broad to require such connotations. In the Fourth Gospel it is also used of the high priest's courtyard, entry to which required being known to the doorkeeper (18:15)–but that commonality simply testifies to a general need to guard onés property from intruders, not to an intentional parallel on John's part. (The doorkeeper is probably simply one of the «props» for the story, though smaller folds would be unlikely to have a doorkeeper.)⁷²⁴³

Early Judaism also often continued the portrait of Moses as their shepherd.⁷²⁴⁴ For example, a few centuries after the Fourth Gospel was written a rabbi told a parable in which Moses had to rescue Israel, a lamb, from a wolf, Pharaoh.⁷²⁴⁵ David,⁷²⁴⁶ the prophets,⁷²⁴⁷ Ezra,⁷²⁴⁸ the leaders whom God appointed over Israel⁷²⁴⁹ (sometimes including important teachers⁷²⁵⁰ or officers),⁷²⁵¹ and the messiah⁷²⁵² also appear as shepherds.⁷²⁵³ But the chief shepherd of early Judaism, and especially of the OT, was God himself.⁷²⁵⁴ God acted like a shepherd for his people, carrying the young (Ps 28:9; Isa 40:11; 46:3–4) and leading his flock as in the first exodus.⁷²⁵⁵

Some of the language of this section borrows from Moses or David, but most of it points to God shepherding his flock, which fits a primary allusion to Ezek 34 (34:11–12)⁷²⁵⁶ and especially John's overall Christology (1:1,18; 20:28; see comment on 10:27–30 with Ps 95:7). The parallels are not so explicit as to reveal Jesus» identity to his opponents; but in the context of the whole Gospel, they certainly reaffirm his identity for the informed reader. Some other early Christians had used the shepherd image for Jesus (1Pet 5:4), sometimes recalling Moses (Heb 13:20) and perhaps God (1Pet 2with Isa 53:6–7); it is not unlikely that, in whatever sense, Jesus originally applied the image to himself (Mark 6:34; 14:27; cf. Matt 25:32; Luke 15:4).

Thieves and robbers were common and could prove very costly to property owners.⁷²⁵⁷ Jewish law technically distinguished thieves from robbers; although definitions varied, most commonly the former broke into homes, the latter accosted wayfarers.⁷²⁵⁸ The ideas were closely enough associated, however, that when used metaphorically they could be linked as part of the same semantic domain.⁷²⁵⁹ With regard to assaulting a sheepfold, there would be little difference (10subsumes both titles under «thief»);⁷²⁶⁰ wolves in 10serve the same function, as a further image of those who seek the sheep for their own gain.⁷²⁶¹

Thieves were so common in Egyptian villages⁷²⁶² that the men had to appoint unpaid representatives from their number to guard their threshing floors at night.⁷²⁶³ Robbers became a severe danger in Egypt as well, resulting in harsh threats against them.⁷²⁶⁴ Papyri testify that toll charges often supported desert police, whose job was to protect caravans against bands of robbers.⁷²⁶⁵ Ancient Mediterranean laws generally demanded harsh punishment for thieves.⁷²⁶⁶ Indeed, if a villager caught a thief, he might enlist his fellow villagers to help him beat the man.⁷²⁶⁷

Different kinds of theft existed. A spiteful enemy might sneak onto property to hack at the vines,⁷²⁶⁸ or a jealous acquaintance might seek to steal an anima1.⁷²⁶⁹ Early Roman law reportedly even treated as theft the use of a borrowed animal for a purpose other than that for which one borrowed it.⁷²⁷⁰ Some Jewish teachers also considered those who cheated, deceived, or shortchanged their neighbors–what we would call «white-collar crime"–to be thieves.⁷²⁷¹ Such theft occasionally included unethical seizure of sheep.⁷²⁷² The more familiar image, however, remained that of roadway bandits (as «robbers») and those who would break in (as «thieves»), which would probably provide the primary image here.

Robbers endangered travelers,⁷²⁷³ sometimes murdered their victims,⁷²⁷⁴ and were generally feared and hated.⁷²⁷⁵ If they gathered disaffected recruits while passing through the countryside, they could attain large numbers, which it might take a small army to challenge.⁷²⁷⁶ Mediterranean sources cite the danger of robbers to shepherds at least as early as Homer.⁷²⁷⁷ Shepherds were often robbed or raided by mounted and sword-wielding rustlers, which was why many Mediterranean shepherds were ready for combat with their staffs and had vicious attack dogs.⁷²⁷⁸ Although their use in Israel was probably rarer (attestation like Job 30is relatively minimal), other Mediterranean sources typically depict the use of dogs in shepherding.⁷²⁷⁹ Their primary role was to guard the sheep.⁷²⁸⁰ When shepherds knew that a colleague had a useful dog, they sometimes wanted to keep their flocks near his.⁷²⁸¹

Speakers could employ the titles «thieves» and «robbers» as insults.⁷²⁸² Some applied the label of «robberies» or «plunder» figuratively to officials exploiting a province (a useful comparison for Jesus» application to the elite here).⁷²⁸³ The image was hardly friendly.⁷²⁸⁴ One Jewish sage declared that thieves, like liars, would inherit destruction (Sir 20:25).⁷²⁸⁵ Thus thieves in Tannaitic parables most often stand for pagan nations oppressing Israel;⁷²⁸⁶ that Jesus would apply the image to Israel's leaders would not commend him to their sympathies.

Some take John's «thieves and robbers» as false messiahs who «came before» Jesus,⁷²⁸⁷ usually revolutionary leaders,⁷²⁸⁸ which accords with one of Josephus's primary uses of ληστής (e.g., Josephus War 4.138). This use does not fit well the specific context in John, however.⁷²⁸⁹ John refers to Israels disobedient leaders,⁷²⁹⁰ in particular the Pharisees he has just been reproving.⁷²⁹¹ Later in the book, ironically, these leaders will prefer a literal ληστής to Jesus (18:40); Judas, the son of destruction, is a «thief» (12:6).

The formerly blind man had debated with the Pharisees not only about Jesus» identity but about epistemology, as evidenced by the frequent repetition of οΐδα (9:12, 20–21, 24–25, 29–31); the healed man knew what the Pharisees did not (9:25, 31). The healed man thus becomes paradigmatic for Jesus» sheep, who «know» him, that is, are in relation to him. It is significant that John employs in οΐδα 10:4–5, and its synonym (see introduction) γινώσκω in 10:6,14–15, 27.

Shepherds normally became very familiar with their sheep, which would usually not be difficult if the average flock size was about one hundred.⁷²⁹² «Calling by name» (10:3) most of all indicates familiarity, and often a degree of affection.⁷²⁹³ An ancient goatherd like Daphnis knew his animals by name.⁷²⁹⁴ Conjoined with reports of more recent Palestinian custom, it seems likely that shepherds assigned names «according to shape, colour, and peculiarities, and the names given to the lamb or kid are still borne by the grown animal»; such names both provided a way to call the animal and indicated the shepherd's ownership.⁷²⁹⁵ Thus one family she-goat was called Chionê, «snowy (white).»⁷²⁹⁶ Shorter descriptive names were preferable so one could summon animals more quickly.⁷²⁹⁷ Shepherds probably generally counted their sheep,⁷²⁹⁸ certainly after an attack by wild animals.⁷²⁹⁹

Shepherd dogs heeded their masters» calls;⁷³⁰⁰ sheep and goats were also taught to «obey the voice» (φωνή πείθεσθαι) and respond to their shepherd's pipe.⁷³⁰¹ Obedient animals might be led by voice and pipe without requiring physical suggestions from a staff.⁷³⁰² A particularly diligent herdsman might train animals to respond to various instructions on a pipe, to rise, begin grazing, rest, or flee to the woods if a wolf were approaching.⁷³⁰³ A modern shepherd in this region could «lead over 200 sheep through a valley by walking slowly in front of them giving his ten-second call roughly every 40 seconds.»⁷³⁰⁴ Each morning, as a shepherd prepares to lead sheep to pasture, he offers «either a special call or a special tune that he plays on a small flute,» and if necessary, enters the court and repeats the cal1.⁷³⁰⁵ Granted, when a worker called the animals to the fold, a few goats might stubbornly refuse to come;⁷³⁰⁶ but the cooperation of most, especially sheep, was the rule.⁷³⁰⁷

Different shepherds might share the same fold for a night, but separating the sheep in the morning or at other times was not difficult. The sheep can distinguish the voice of their own shepherd from the voice of other shepherds.⁷³⁰⁸ Particular notes on the pipe were thought more suitable for cattle (strong), others for goats (shrill), and still others for sheep (gentle);⁷³⁰⁹ piping could also call out one person's sheep or goats while leaving another's behind.⁷³¹⁰ As in this passage, Eastern shepherds often go before the sheep to lead them (10:4).⁷³¹¹

Shepherds provided an image of intimate concern for their sheep, both in ancient Israel (Ps 23:1; Ezek 34:2–6, 11–16) and in later times (e.g., CD 13.9; Mark 6:34). Calling «his own» sheep (10:3–4, 12) employs the image of shepherds who recognized their sheep (though outsiders might not distinguish them well) and sheep who recognized their shepherds, and conveys a thought of belonging and intimacy (cf. 1:11; 13:1).⁷³¹² Knowing the sheep by name (10:3) provides an apt figure for this intimacy (cf., e.g., 3 John 15), which is illustrated on a narrative level by the encounter in 20:16.

The image of knowing names communicates beyond the figurative image of sheep. Those who knew the names of their citizens or the people they addressed showed their concern thereby and more readily won their favor.⁷³¹³ That God knew Moses by name (Exod 33:17) and hence revealed his glory to him (Exod 33:18–19; John 1:14–18) indicates the special relationship Moses had with God.⁷³¹⁴ God calling by name can indicate omniscience and power (Isa 40:26; 45:3–4)⁷³¹⁵ but also a special covenant relationship with his people (Isa 43:1; 62:2; cf. 65:15).⁷³¹⁶ Yet these texts in the LXX employ καλέω with όνομα, whereas John employs φωνέω (10:3), possibly (though far from certainly) because of his other uses of that term (1:48; 11:28; 12:17; but cf., e.g., 9:18, 24; 18:33). John uses καλέω only twice,⁷³¹⁷ but φωνέω twelve times, and φωνή fifteen times.

At the same time, John may also adapt the phrase to recall the biblical conception of God's «voice» to his people, which was often equivalent to his covenant word to them through the law or prophets.⁷³¹⁸ Israel especially heard Gods voice at Sinai (Deut 4:33, 36; 5:22–26; 18:16), as some early Jewish interpreters recognized (1QM 10.10–11).⁷³¹⁹ In Scripture, God s voice was his message to his people through the law and/or prophets; thus Israel was to «hear,» that is, «hearken to» or «obey» God's voice (Exod 15:26; 19:5).⁷³²⁰ Jewish tradition commented less on the divine voice, except in terms of the heavenly bat qol and prophetic inspiration;⁷³²¹ but for the most part God was held to speak only to the very righteous.⁷³²² Illustrating this principle, we may note that some rabbis even thought that only Moses could hear God's voice, despite its power.⁷³²³

The point is that God's true people hear Jesus because they recognize him as the shepherd; thus the very authorities who have excluded the healed man from the synagogue now prove excluded from the people of God.⁷³²⁴ John often emphasizes «hearing» Jesus⁷³²⁵ or the Father;⁷³²⁶ he speaks of hearing God s «voice» in terms of knowing and recognizing God (5:37), of recognizing Jesus» voice (10:3, 16, 27; 18:37; cf. 3:29), of being resurrected by his voice (5:25, 28) and of the mysterious voice of the Spirit (see comment on 3:8).

If John and Revelation stem from the same community (as we argued in the introduction), some in John's audience may have believed they experienced that voice in physical visions or auditions (e.g., Rev 1:10, 12; 3:20; 4:1); in the total context of John's Gospel, however, the Spirit might reveal Jesus to all believers in ways not always so dramatic (cf. 16:13–15). In the Fourth Gospel, the community continues to hear Jesus through the word, the orally presented message of the enfleshed word (17:20), and the Spirit who reveals Jesus in that word (16:7–15).⁷³²⁷ Knowing Jesus» voice (10:4) also means knowing Jesus (10:14), a covenant relationship of intimacy no less serious than Jesus» relationship with the Father (10:15; cf. 10:30). The present tense of 5suggests that Jesus obeyed the Father by continuing revelation, and 10:14–15 suggests that the ideal relationship John envisions for believers is one in which they continually receive divine direction as they carry out God's wil1. Their experience of this life in the Spirit (16:13–15) distinguishes them from their adversaries but links them with the biblical prophets, undergirding their polemic.⁷³²⁸ The word of the Lord was not innate (5:38; 8:37),⁷³²⁹ but dwelled in the righteous community (15:7; 1 John 2:14, 24), as a sign of the new covenant (Jer 31:33).

Just as «hearing» Jesus connotes «heeding» him (given a frequent biblical connotation of «hear»), so knowing him (10:14) connotes «following» him (10:27), that is, obedience (1 John 2:3).⁷³³⁰ Temporary following, perhaps because one saw signs (6:2), is not what John means here, for it cannot yield life (8:21, 24); following means discipleship (1:37–38, 40, 43), implying a new kind of life (8:12) and following to the death (13:36), even as one of the sheep (21:19). The image of the lamb guiding and his people following also appears in Revelation 7:17; 14:4.

That the sheep would recognize and follow the shepherd but not a stranger (10:5; in this context, the thief [10:1]) fits the normal behavior of sheep.⁷³³¹ Domestic animals like dogs were known to be more receptive to acquaintances than to strangers (Plato Rep. 2.376A). (Greeks could tell stories, however, of another learning an animal herder's pipe tunes and luring away the animals.)⁷³³² Kenneth Bailey notes that when a family buys a new sheep from others, it remains unaccustomed to the new family's cal1. Thus when the new shepherd calls and other sheep leave the fold, it remains behind agitated and stays hungry until it can be trained. It does not respond to an unfamiliar voice.⁷³³³

On παροιμία in 10:6, see the introductory comment on the parablés genre above. Their misunderstanding (10:6, ουκ Εγνωσαν–they did not «know» his words), however, demonstrates that they cannot hear his message (8:43)–which in turn simply demonstrates that they are not his sheep (10:3–4). On John's misunderstanding motif, see comment on 3:4.

A first-century C.E. Roman writer compares a general guarding his troops with a shepherd who sleeps securely knowing that his flock is penned safely with iron bars, protected from the hungry wolves raging fruitlessly against the fortification.⁷³³⁴ Ancient Jewish sources provide less detail than we might like, but reports of Palestinian shepherds from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries may well preserve longstanding pastoral practice. It is unlikely that all sheepfolds were the same; variation in rank and resources would naturally produce somewhat different arrangements. One could build enclosures for sheep in various ways; one could use a cave (1Sam 24:3),⁷³³⁵ a square hillside enclosure made of stone walls to keep out animals and winter wind, a roofed enclosure, or a temporary shelter using thorn-bushes for sides, or (as some think more likely here) «a yard in front of a house, surrounded by a stone wall which was probably topped with briars.»⁷³³⁶ Such a sheepfold might have only one door, guarded by a porter and providing entrance to both the sheep and the house,⁷³³⁷ or adjoining a house but with its own separate entrance.⁷³³⁸

Reasoning from some contemporary sheepfold customs in the same region, Bailey paints a vivid picture of what he thinks the sheepfold was like. Although 10may depict an entrance in a lower, thorn-topped enclosure in the open countryside, he thinks the enclosure here is a village family courtyard with walls over two meters high, because the thief must «climb» in (10:1).⁷³³⁹ The «door» (10:1–2) would then be «a heavy door in a stone wall» opening onto the village street, «used by both people and animals.»⁷³⁴⁰ Most village families own between three and ten sheep, which may stay with other animals in their courtyard but may enter the house in bad weather or winter.⁷³⁴¹ A neighborhood boy or a couple of girls or a hired watchman often guards the sheep for an entire neighborhood. These shepherds who do not own the sheep remain outside the enclosure, but the doorkeeper knows their voices and admits them to get the sheep for pasture in the morning.⁷³⁴² By contrast, in 10:7–9 the fold represents the sort of temporary summer shelters in open pasture, with unroofed walls of stones topped with briars. This sort of enclosure has no door or doorkeeper, so the shepherd sleeps across the opening, himself acting as the door.⁷³⁴³

This reconstruction is uncertain. It remains appealing (it would explain for instance, the introduction of wolves only in 10:12, with thieves in both places), and may be correct. But it invites further exploration. Άναβαίνων in 10need not signify climbing a high wall (cf., e.g., Gen 38:12; 41:2; Mark 1:10). The distinction between the shepherd and the hirelings (10:11–12) may also suggest that in this case the shepherd is also the owner of this flock rather than merely a watchman over several families» sheep (cf. 10:16).⁷³⁴⁴ We do know of more sizeable flocks than this, even in Jesus» parables (Matt 18:12; Luke 15:4). Bailey's insightful approach explains details in the text and the image some hearers of Jesus» message might have envisioned, but the text's details may remain insufficient to confirm this approach with certainty.⁷³⁴⁵

In any case, those who wished to steal sheep had to come secretly or by force,⁷³⁴⁶ and thieves were known to enter through windows (Joel 2:9) or break through walls (Matt 6:19–20; cf. Exod 22:2).⁷³⁴⁷ Some have suggested an image (mentioned above), based on some later shepherds» practice, in which the sheepfold has no gate so the shepherd himself lies across the entrance. This would explain the mixed metaphor by which Jesus could be both shepherd and door later in the passage (10:9–11).⁷³⁴⁸ But it should also be admitted that neither Jesus nor most of his contemporaries scrupled about mixing metaphors.⁷³⁴⁹ The primary purpose of pens or folds was to protect the sheep from hostile animals or other intruders.⁷³⁵⁰ Wolves and human predators compared with them sometimes came stealthily at night,⁷³⁵¹ and wolves sometimes penetrated the winter sheepfolds, unseen by shepherds and sheepdogs,⁷³⁵² but often feared to enter them.⁷³⁵³ Similarly they might prove unable to penetrate them; when hungry, they might simply run around the enclosure, frightening the sheep, or vainly assault its stakes and doors.⁷³⁵⁴

In 10:7–9, Jesus returns to the door metaphor. But whereas in 10Jesus is or uses the door to the sheepfold, in 10he becomes the door to salvation (cf. 14:6; Matt 7:13–14; 25:10; Luke 13:24–25).⁷³⁵⁵ The figure might remain the same as in 10:1–5,⁷³⁵⁶ if the shepherd lies across the entrance (as some have argued; see above) or if the sheepfold represents the people of God also envisioned as the community of salvation. But as noted above, it was also not inappropriate to mix metaphors. This image could recall one of the most frequently mentioned «doors» in the law (about sixty times in the LXX, especially in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers): that of the tabernacle, the place of God's presence.⁷³⁵⁷ Elsewhere in Johannine literature an «open door» may indicate access to God's presence and respond to exclusion from the synagogue (Rev 3:7–9), though the relevance of this parallel is mitigated by the fact that it is a specific usage of a more broadly applied phrase (1Cor 16:9; 2Cor 2:12; Col 4:3).⁷³⁵⁸ Heavenly portals as in some apocalyptic visionary texts (Rev 4:1; 11:19)⁷³⁵⁹ should also not be ruled out, though it is not likely anywhere close to the foreground of John's thought here.

Jesus would lead the sheep in and out ( 10:9), that is, through the door ( 10:7,9). People who were settled in the land would leave and return home for a day's work; the coming and going probably represent a Semitic way of expressing freedom of movement and saying «all the time» (Deut 28:6,19; 2 Kgs 19:27; Ps 121:8; CD 11.10) by contrasting opposites (cf. Deut 6:7).⁷³⁶⁰ But the sheep and shepherd image remains primary here, alluding especially to Num 27:16–17, where Moses prays for a successor (Joshua, Num 27:18) to come in and out and lead the people as a shepherd.⁷³⁶¹ Neither the court of a village home nor the makeshift pens in the countryside would hold enough food for the sheep year-round; they would need to be led out to the pastures to graze.⁷³⁶² This leading of the sheep was a fitting expression for one who would watch over them with their best interests at heart.⁷³⁶³ In 10he would likewise «drive» the flock from the fold for pasture; the expression in this text might (though need not) suggest a contrast with the harsh expulsion of the healed man from the Judean leaders» fold in 9(where έκβάλλω appears in a more typical sense). In the image, the «saving» of sheep by bringing them in and out (10:9) refers to safety from robbers (10:8–10), but the specific term points beyond that to the sort of salvation Jesus provides those who follow him,⁷³⁶⁴ the eschatological salvation God promised his own flock (Ezek 34:22; Zech 9:16).

He would also provide «pasture» (νομή, 10:9). In some parts of the ancient Mediterranean, shepherds and goatherds would begin grazing their animals just after dawn,⁷³⁶⁵ lead them to pools to drink around 10 a.m.,⁷³⁶⁶ get them to shade during the midday heat,⁷³⁶⁷ bring them again to the water and then pasture them further, allowing them to graze again in the fields until evening.⁷³⁶⁸ At evening a shepherd would gather the sheep into the fold,⁷³⁶⁹ whether permanent or makeshift. Although goats could fend for themselves, sheep depended on the shepherds to find them pasture. «Shepherds also had to provide shelter, medication, aid in lambing time, and provision for lameness and weariness. Without the shepherd the sheep were helpless.»⁷³⁷⁰

Where possible in the Mediterranean world, sheep might remain in the open all year, driven in spring to the uplands for summer grazing and in fall to the valleys for winter grazing;⁷³⁷¹ but this was not always possible. In cooler regions, sheep remained in the pen or fold during the cold part of the year,⁷³⁷² but went to the fields in warm weather.⁷³⁷³ In some years heavy winter snows could delay animal herders in leading their flocks to pasture in the spring.⁷³⁷⁴ Shepherds had to move flocks far from home for long periods during the dry summers.⁷³⁷⁵ Because of the topography of some regions or because only the more elevated pastures remained green during the dry summers, shepherds often grazed their flocks in the mountains⁷³⁷⁶ and became skilled mountaineers.⁷³⁷⁷

The Scriptures also portrayed Israel as the sheep of Gods pasture (Ps 74[73:1 LXX]; 79[78LXX]; 95[94LXX]; 100[99LXX]; Jer 23:1; Ezek 34:31), and God as their shepherd would lead them to pasture (Jer 23:3; 50:19; Ezek 34:14).⁷³⁷⁸

In 10:8,10 Jesus develops the image of the thief from 10:1: unlike Jesus, the authorities who seek to gain possession of the sheep are not the true shepherd.⁷³⁷⁹ The contrast of v. 10 continues an earlier contrast, because the sheep heeded the shepherd but not the thieves (10:4–5, 8). Not only were the false leaders of Israel failing shepherds (Jer 23:1–2; Ezek 34:2); they were also thieves and robbers (Isa 1:23; Jer 2:26; 7:11), greedily exploiting God's people (Ezek 34:2–10). Although the worst of thieves one might envision wished to steal, kill, and destroy,⁷³⁸⁰ the specific verbal distinction between stealing and killing in 10may reflect Jewish legal language. Jewish law protected the lives of thieves who acted with intent merely to steal (Exod 22:3), but not if they broke in at night, when their intention could be presumed to kill (Exod 22:2).⁷³⁸¹ Like wolves (10:12), robbers were enemies of the sheep, and sheep should know who had their best interest at heart (10:4–5);⁷³⁸² in one ancient story a butcher and a shepherd vied for a sheep's attention, with predictable results (Maximus of Tyre Or. 19.2).

Jesus notes that the thieves have come only to work harm for the sheep (10:10); once they stole the sheep from the rightful owner, they sometimes would even kill the animals (cf. Exod 22:1, 4), and animal herders had good reason to fear this (e.g., Longus 2.22). By contrast, Jesus came to bring life to the sheep (10:10); the emphasis on «more abundant» life⁷³⁸³ makes clear that the text refers to eternal life, that is, the life of the coming age which, in John s theology, begins in the present with a divine birth (3:3–5; see comments on life in the introduction). John s words about Jesus coming to bring life, versus the Pharisees coming to kill (10:10), naturally leads into the following section where Jesus must die to save the sheep. Yet whereas one would expect him to point again to the Jerusalem elite as those who «kill» the shepherd, John prefers to emphasize Jesus» choice to offer himself rather than his enemies» choice to execute him (10:18; cf. comment on 13:26).

The contrast between the shepherd who cares for and brings life to the sheep and the thieves who come to destroy the sheep (10:10) leads into a discussion of how fully the good shepherd loves his sheep. In this section Jesus demonstrates his relationship with his sheep in terms of his death on their behalf. The «hirelings» (10:12–13) presumably represent the false shepherds of Israel (Jer 23:1–2; Ezek 34:10), hence might function as the allegorical equivalent (though certainly not with the same function in the story itself) of the thieves and robbers– those who care about their own office rather than about the sheep. Such people ultimately bring about only destruction (10:10); ch. 11 will provide a narrative contrast between the life-bringing Jesus (11:43–44) and the life-destroying Judean elite (12:10–11; cf. the irony in 11:48); that Jesus himself must die at their hands reinforces the graphic contrast (11:50–52).⁷³⁸⁴ The most significant role of the hirelings, however, whether they function allegorically or not, is their foil for Jesus» role: he is committed to the sheep because they belong to him, hence he is prepared to face death from the thieves, robbers, or wolves to protect the sheep.

A «good shepherd» (ποιμήν άγαθός) was one who cared for his sheep and would not harm them.⁷³⁸⁵ A trustworthy shepherd would nurse the sick sheep back to health.⁷³⁸⁶ Moreover, the life of a faithful shepherd would be difficult (cf. Gen 31:38–42), and would require facing predators on behalf of the sheep (cf. 1Sam 17:34–35).⁷³⁸⁷ Sometimes resisting thieves could lead to a shepherd's or cowherd's death.⁷³⁸⁸ (Wolves, as appear in 10:12, could also kill shepherds on occasion.)⁷³⁸⁹ But that this shepherd shows his love for the sheep in the ultimate sacrifice, by deliberately dying for them (10:11), bursts the bounds of the shepherd and sheep image.⁷³⁹⁰ The shepherd's willingness to lay down his life for the sheep (10:11) may connect him with the lamb (1:29).⁷³⁹¹ This motif of self-sacrifice would be intelligible in a Greek or Diaspora context; for instance, Iphigeneia was willing to die, at Artemis's bidding, to save Greece.⁷³⁹² A good governor would accept danger to protect his charge.⁷³⁹³ In the context it is the thieves, robbers, and wolves which pose a danger to the flock, hence spell the death of the shepherd. This picture is a direct challenge to the Pharisees» hostility in this Gospe1.

The hireling (10:12) may refer to Jesus» own ministers (21:15–17),⁷³⁹⁴ but in view of the biblical backdrop of the other images probably refers to the irresponsible shepherds of Israel (Ezek 34:10). As with tenant farmers, most shepherds in rural parts of the rural empire worked for others.⁷³⁹⁵ Even moderate-sized landholdings might employ hired hands.⁷³⁹⁶ Some modern Middle Eastern villagers will use a boy or two girls from a neighborhood family, but if none is available, the villagers may hire a stranger, a «hireling,» to watch their sheep.⁷³⁹⁷

A good shepherd must protect his sheep. Sheep naturally fled from wolves as from «strangers» (10:5), but those charged with caring for the sheep were not supposed to flee (10:12). Careful shepherds might count the sheep twice a day to make certain that none was lost.⁷³⁹⁸ The strict owner of a flock could require a shepherd to repay any sheep found missing (Gen 31:38–39), and David apparently assumed that his protection of sheep against animals and bandits would be welcomed (1Sam 25:7,15–16). The clearest biblical allusion, however, is to God's care for the small of his flock and his requiring the losses from the hand of the wicked shepherds (Ezek 34:2–10).

It was understood that shepherds were not responsible for the actions of robbers.⁷³⁹⁹ But it was recognized that a μισθωτός, a hireling, acted for pay, not from loyalty or friendship; in classical rhetoric an aristocrat could apply the title contemptuously to challenge the appropriateness of another aristocrat's social rank.⁷⁴⁰⁰ It was also understood that the owner was more apt to notice something amiss than hired hands were.⁷⁴⁰¹ One fictitious farmer's wife complains that the hireling was continually falling asleep, so that a wolf seized their best she-goat; she warns that, if her husband discovers what happened, the hireling will be beaten and the husband will go looking for the wolf.⁷⁴⁰² One slave is compared to a wolf, having sold or killed some of the goats; he would be shackled once captured.⁷⁴⁰³ Ancient writers noted that physical prowess was a less important trait for ideal keepers of a flock than diligence and thrift to watch over onés property wel1.⁷⁴⁰⁴ Whereas a caring shepherd protects his flock, robbers, wolves and other factors would diminish a flock whose shepherd failed to care for them.⁷⁴⁰⁵ An undisciplined hireling might milk the ewes too much;⁷⁴⁰⁶ might damage a goat's horn in an act of anger;⁷⁴⁰⁷ such undershepherds if unmarried might even be suspected of copulating with sheep.⁷⁴⁰⁸ One writer warned that slaves, who had nothing invested in the master's property, rarely would protect it against robbers, and sometimes would steal from it themselves.⁷⁴⁰⁹ Another writer opines that although Cyrus ruled Persia like a shepherd who lovingly guards his flock against wolves, his successors «turned from good shepherds into wicked wolves, ravaging the flock and straying from the path of knowledge.»⁷⁴¹⁰

Although wolves were less formidable than lions,⁷⁴¹¹ Mediterranean shepherds regarded wolves as the natural predators of sheep⁷⁴¹² and other animals.⁷⁴¹³ Greek epic portrays bloodthirsty warriors as hungry wolves, often as a heroic image;⁷⁴¹⁴ but could also employ the image negatively, as when Paris pursues Helen like a wolf stealing a heifer,⁷⁴¹⁵ or as an analogy for an evil, conquering king,⁷⁴¹⁶ or for greedy moneylenders.⁷⁴¹⁷ Wolves were thought to be deceitful⁷⁴¹⁸ and eager to plunder,⁷⁴¹⁹ similar to thieves (10:10). The same image of wolf as predator of sheep appears in biblical and early Jewish tradition (Isa 11:6; 65:25; Matt 7:15; 10:16; Luke 10:3; Acts 20:29; 4 Ezra 5:18), sometimes representing Israel's enemies (Jer 5:6; Hab 1:8; 1 En. 89:55)⁷⁴²⁰ or Israel's evil leaders (Ezek 22:27; cf. Zeph 3:3).⁷⁴²¹ The Jesus tradition and early Christianity applied the image to false prophets within (Matt 7:15; Acts 20:29) and to opposition to the gospel without (Matt 10:16; Luke 10:3). The «wolf» simply carries forward and intensifies the evil associated with the sheeps» enemies, here the Pharisees.

Thieves and wolves are often listed together as enemies of onés animals,⁷⁴²² and a keeper of animals who suspected a thief of stealing animals might find the «thief» to be a natural predator instead.⁷⁴²³ In a Greek novel, one goatherd complained that no wolf had successfully seized any goats, but that now the enemy (invaders) had taken the goats and would harm them.⁷⁴²⁴

Sheep were safer in a flock; once scattered, they became easier prey for attackers (Ezek 34:8); God had complained that Israels leaders had allowed his flock to be scattered⁷⁴²⁵ for lack of a genuinely concerned shepherd (Jer 23:1–2; Ezek 34:5–6; cf. Ezek 34:21; Zech 11:16–17).⁷⁴²⁶ God himself would gather and restore his scattered flock (Jer 23:3; Ezek 34:11–16; cf. John 16:32–33). Here the wolf seeks to «snatch» members of the flock (10:13), but Jesus promises that no wolf can snatch them from his or his Father's hand ( 10:28–29); a superhumanly empowered shepherd (contrast Gen 31:39), Jesus lost none of the flock the Father entrusted to him (6:39; 17:12; 18:9).

Jesus» sacrifice expresses his care for the sheep (10:11–13) as well as obedience to his Father (10:15,17). His «own» (τα έμά) are those sheep the Father has given him (17:9–10), those who are his own (τά ίδια) mentioned earlier in the passage who are intimate with him. The theme of his relationship with the sheep picks up the image from 10:3–5 (see comment there) and provides a pivotal statement of the theme of knowing God that pervades the Fourth Gospel (see introduction). The healed man came to know Jesus; his opponents admitted that they lacked knowledge of him (9:29; see comment on 9:13–17).

Background for the passage lies close at hand, given the likely assumption that John's ideal audience was biblically literate. God summoned Israel to «know» him in terms of recognizing him and acknowledging his authority.⁷⁴²⁷ When John speaks of «knowing» the shepherd's voice, one could hear this phrase merely in terms of recognition. But the Scriptures could also use «knowing» God as part of the covenant motif (Exod 6:7), especially with regard to the new covenant (Jer 24:7; 31:33–34). In the new covenant, such knowledge of God would stem from God's word in his peoplés hearts (Jer 31:33–34), and may allude also to the language of covenant marital intimacy (Jer 31:32; Hos 5:4), a familiar image (e.g., Gen 4:1).⁷⁴²⁸ That Jesus» own (his sheep)⁷⁴²⁹ «know» him as the Father knows him and he knows the Father (10:14–15) indicates an intimacy that would exceed that of the biblical prophets.⁷⁴³⁰ Given the behavior and misunderstandings of the disciples on a narrative level (and Jesus» acknowledgement of it, e.g., 13:38), and its contrast with the perfect relationship in which Jesus walks with the Father, it is doubtful that John wishes us to understand this equation in a quantitative sense even after his resurrection (cf. 1Cor 13:9,12).

But if «know» is the language of covenant relationship, such as in marital intimacy, it may imply that by virtue of the mutual indwelling of Jesus and believers (14:23; 15:4), believers shared the divine relationship.⁷⁴³¹ Reciprocal knowledge of Jesus and his own is rooted in the reciprocal relationship of Jesus and the Father.⁷⁴³² A new husband and wife may not yet have explored the fulness of their intimacy, but they had established a covenant relationship within which such exploration is invited. The rest of the Gospel confirms that such intimacy is indeed meant to be characteristic of believers; they are actually in Gods presence continually ( 14:17) and can continually learn from the Spirit the intimate matters of Jesus» heart and character (14:26; 16:13–15).⁷⁴³³ Jesus» relationship with the Father–doing always what he sees the Father doing (5:19), doing always the things that please him (8:29), and their mutual love (3:35; 5:20; 10:17; 14:31; 15:9; 17:24, 26)–becomes a model for his followers» relationship with him. Such an emphasis also serves John's apologetic interests: if believers rather than their accusers held such an intimate relationship with God, they were clearly God's servants, persecuted like the biblical prophets (cf. Matt 5:12).

Some have suggested that the «other sheep» (10:16) are the next generation of believers, who have not personally seen the historical Jesus (17:20). But the pregnant imagery for Israel in the context suggests a play on the issue of the people of God, as does the language of scattering (10:12; cf. 11:52) and gathering (10:16). That John uses the imagery of the people of God, however, does not solve all the passagés potential interpretive dilemmas; presumably the original audience may have known what issues John was addressing, but reconstructing them at this distance is speculative.

Some suggest that John may refer to the uniting of Ephraim and Judah under one shepherd in Ezek 37:22–24, and that therefore the «other sheep» are the Samaritan believers of 4:39–42.⁷⁴³⁴ In favor of such a suggestion is the clear mention of Samaritan believers in the Gospel, whereas fully Gentile believers may be merely inferred (depending on how one interprets «Greeks» in 12and perhaps 7:35). Against such a suggestion is the fact that the other sheep may not yet have heard Jesus» voice (10:16), in contrast to the Samaritans who had already received him (4:42); further, though the allusion to Ezek 37is probable here, it contextually includes the restoration of Diaspora Israelites to the land (Ezek 37:21).

One may dispute whether the «other sheep» are Diaspora Jews, like much of John's probable audience,⁷⁴³⁵ or Gentiles,⁷⁴³⁶ which John's audience would have to know had joined Christian groups in large numbers. Some might adduce in favor of Diaspora Jews «Gods scattered children» in 11:52, since the high priest would have meant Diaspora Jews rather than Gentiles in 11:50; the high priest does prophesy that Jesus will die on others» «behalf» (11:50). But the high priests own intention is irrelevant to the deeper sense the narrator intends for his audience; clearly the high priest intends Jesus» vicarious death differently from how John intends his audience to hear it (11:51). Moreover, «scattered children of God» is the narrator's interpretation rather than the high priest's phrase in any case (11:52), and in this Gospel the term must refer to believers in Jesus (1:12).

Also possibly in favor of Diaspora Jews are the texts in the biblical prophets from which the image is drawn (Jer 23:1–8; 31:1–10; Ezek 34:5–6; 37:21–28).⁷⁴³⁷ But if John views Gentiles as spiritual proselytes to Israel (cf. 3:5) and challenges the sufficiency of ethnic descent from Abraham (8:34, 39), he might apply these same biblical images for the people of God to include Gentile converts. (In contrast to later Gentile Christian teachings about a new Israel replacing the old, however, John would think in terms of Gentiles being grafted into the covenant community through conversion to biblical Judaism; cf. Rom 11:16–24.) John's emphasis on a mission to the «world» broader than «the Jews» (1:10; 4:42; 12:32) probably also implies the inclusion of Gentile believers.⁷⁴³⁸ Most importantly, John implies the Gentile mission in 7and 12(see comment there).

If «other sheep» at least includes Gentile Christians, it is significant that they become part of the «flock,» which in the Hebrew Scriptures was the people of God (cf. Eph 2:15–19).⁷⁴³⁹ But it was already understood that when Gentiles converted to Judaism they became part of the Jewish people (e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.210). Jesus» death (10:15) is the prerequisite for the ingathering of Gentiles (10:16), which fits Johannine theology (12:20–24)⁷⁴⁴⁰ and might also serve an apologetic function, if it is necessary to explain why the Jesus tradition includes so little outreach to Gentiles. As in Jewish tradition about God and Israel, the «oneness» of the people in this Gospel (10:16; 11:52) mirrors (10:30, 38; 5:44; 17:3) and derives from (17:11, 21–23) the oneness of God and Jesus.⁷⁴⁴¹ The Samaritans recognized that Jesus was «savior of the world» (4:42), which would have to include Gentiles.⁷⁴⁴²

John apparently declares that Jesus lays down his life⁷⁴⁴³ «in order that» he might take it again (10:17); on this reading the resurrection «is not a circumstance that follows the death of Jesus but the essential completion of the death of Jesus.»⁷⁴⁴⁴ The term tva could connote result rather than purpose here,⁷⁴⁴⁵ and appears in some unusual senses in John (e.g., 17:3); but given John's usual practice, it most likely connotes purpose here.⁷⁴⁴⁶ The cross is necessary in part as a precursor to the resurrection. It is also part of Jesus» obedient relationship with his Father (10:17–18; cf. 14:31; 15:10). Even more explicitly than in the Synoptics, in this Gospel Jesus» cross is his choice and not that of his enemies (10:15,17–18; 15:13; 19:30);he acts on behalf of his sheep (10:15),to save them (11:50; cf. 1:29).

On the division (10:19), see comment on 7:43; 9:16. The unity of the new flock (10:16) would come at the expense of division in the first-century synagogues (cf. Acts 13:42–50; 18:6–8; 19:8–9). Even to listen to Jesus was offensive to some (10:20), just as some of John's contemporaries probably felt that it was wrong to listen to the Jewish Christians.⁷⁴⁴⁷ Certainly some early second-century rabbis considered even listening to schismatics a dangerous exercise.⁷⁴⁴⁸ (On the charge of demonization, see comment on 7:20; 8:48.) Others, however, were impressed by the miracle (10:21) which had started the current debate (9:1–38). John closes this section by pointedly referring his audience back to the sign on which the following debate commented.