John 10:1.[58] The new chapter ought to have begun with John 9:35; for John 10:1-21 constitute one act with John 9:35-41, as is evident both from the circumstance that John 10:1 ff. follow immediately without the slightest indication of a change having taken place, and also from John 10:6 (comp. John 9:41). The parable is therefore still addressed to the Pharisees of chap. 9; as John 10:21 also shows by the reference which it contains to the healing of the blind man.

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν, etc.] After the punitive words of John 9:41, Jesus now, with solemn earnestness, and through the medium of a parable, unveils to them how their hostile relation to Him, in rejecting Him, whilst at the same time regarding themselves as the leaders of the people of God, necessarily made them the corrupters of the nation. His discourse proceeds, however, without any objection or contradiction being raised by His opponents; for they did not understand the figure, John 10:6; many also fail to understand the explanation, and despise the speaker as crazy (John 10:20); whilst others, again, yield to the impression made by the penetrating truth of His words (John 10:21). It happened, accordingly, that Jesus was able to carry out the beautiful allegory (John 10:6) in all its detail, without interruption, as it were in one breath; and had therefore, at its close, nothing further to do than to let the words spoken produce their natural impression. Their primary effect was a division among His hearers (John 10:19), in accordance with John 9:39; such as had already showed itself in John 9:16.

ὁ μὴ εἰσερχόμενος, etc.] The flocks of sheep spent the night in a fold (αὐλή, גְּדֵרָה) surrounded by a wall, at whose gate an under-shepherd (ὁ θυρωρός, John 10:3) kept watch during the night. See especially Bochart, Hieroz. I. p. 482, ed. Rosenm. Opposed to the ΕἸΣΕΡΧΌΜ. ΔΙᾺ Τ. ΘΎΡΑς (the emphasis lies on the last word) is the ἈΝΑΒΑΊΝΩΝ ἈΛΛΑΧΌΘΕΝ, who gets up (on to the wall, for the purpose of coming into the αὐλή, over it) from elsewhere, i.e. from another direction than that indicated by the gate. There is only one gate. On ἀλλαχόθεν, which is equivalent to the old classical ἄλλοθεν, see Ael. H. A. 7. 10; V. H. 6. 2; 4Ma 1:7.

κλέπτ. κ. λῃστής] Thief and robber; a climactic strengthening of the idea (Bornemann, Scholia in Lucam, p. xxx.; Lobeck, Paralip. p. 60 f.); the individual features, however, of the soul-destroying, selfish procedure thus indicated (Ezekiel 34:8; Malachi 2:8; Jeremiah 23:1) are not to be dissevered.

For the explanation of the figure we must note,—(1) The αὐλὴ τῶν προβάτων is the Church of the people of God, whose members are the πρόβατα (comp. Psalms 23, Ps. 77:21, Psalm 95:7, Psalm 100:3), conceived in their totality as the future community of the Messianic kingdom (John 21:16 f.); comp. Matthew 25:32, consequently as to their theocratic destination (ideally). It is in itself correct, indeed, as to substance, to assume a reference to the predestinated (Augustine, Lampe) (though not in the Augustinian sense); but in form it introduces something foreign to the context. (2) The ΘΎΡΑ is not to be left without its proper signification (Lücke, De Wette); nor to be taken as denoting in general the legitimus ordo, the divine calling, the approach ordained by God, and the like (Maldonatus, Tholuck, Luthardt, Brückner, Hengstenberg, Godet, and several others); but Christ Himself is the door; indeed, He Himself in John 10:7 expressly thus interprets the point, because His hearers had failed to understand it.[59] The true leaders of the theocratic people can enter on their vocation in no other way than through Him; He must qualify and commission them; He must be the mediator of their relation to the sheep. Quite a different position was taken up by the Pharisees; independently of Him, and in an unbelieving and hostile spirit towards Him, they arrogated to themselves the position of the leaders of the people of God. It is thoroughly arbitrary to assume that Jesus did not here intend by the figure of the gate to denote Himself, notwithstanding the distinct declaration contained in John 10:9. Chrysostom, Ammonius, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and several others, have perversely interpreted the doors of the Holy Scriptures. “Ipse textus addit imagini interpretationem qua contenti simus,” Melancthon.

[58] On the parable, see Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 1 ff.; Voretzsch, Diss. de John x. 1–18, Altenb. 1838.

[59] Comp. Ignat. ad Philad. 9, where Christ is termed θύρα τοῦ πατρός; also Herm. Past. 3; Sim. 9. 12.John 10:1. Ἀμὴν … λῃστής. The αὐλή, or sheepfold, into which the sheep were gathered for safety every night, is described as being very similar to folds in some parts of our own country; a walled, unroofed enclosure. The θύρα, however, is not as with us a hurdle or gate, but a solid door heavily barred and capable of resisting attack. This door is watched by a θυρωρός [door-guard, for root “or” vide Spratt’s Thucyd., iii. p. 132], who in the morning opened to the shepherd. He who does not appeal to the θυρωρός but climbs up over the wall by some other way (lit. from some other direction: ἀλλαχόθεν, which is used in later Greek for the Attic ἄλλοθεν) is κλέπτης καὶ λῃστής, a “thief” who uses fraud and a “robber” who is prepared to use violence. That is to say, his method of entrance, being illegitimate, declares that he has no right to the sheep.1–10. The Allegory of the Door of the Fold

1. Verily, verily] This double affirmation, peculiar to this Gospel (see on John 1:51), never occurs at the beginning of a discourse, but either in continuation, to introduce some deep truth, or in reply. This verse is no exception. There is no break between the chapters, which should perhaps have been divided at John 9:34 or 38 rather than here. The scene continues uninterrupted from John 9:35 to John 10:21, where we have a reference to the healing of the blind man. Moreover John 10:6 seems to point back to John 9:41; their not understanding the allegory was evidence of self-complacent blindness. This chapter, therefore, although it contains a fresh subject, is connected with the incidents in chap. 9, and grows out of them. The connexion seems to be that the Pharisees by their conduct to the man had proved themselves bad shepherds; but he has found the Good Shepherd: they had cast him out of doors; but he has found the Door: they had put him forth to drive him away; the Good Shepherd puts His sheep forth to lead them. We are not told where these words are spoken; so that it is impossible to say whether it is probable that a sheepfold with the shepherds and their flocks was in sight. There is nothing improbable in the supposition.

He that entereth not by the door] The Oriental sheepfolds are commonly walled or palisaded, with one door or gate. Into one of these enclosures several shepherds drive their flocks, leaving them in charge of an under-shepherd or porter, who fastens the door securely inside, and remains with the sheep all night. In the morning the shepherds come to the door, the porter opens to them, and each calls away his own sheep.

some other way] Literally, from another quarter: the word occurs here only in N.T.

the same] Better, he; literally, that one. It is a pronoun of which S. John is very fond in order to recall with emphasis some person or thing previously mentioned. Comp. John 1:18; John 1:33, John 5:2; John 5:39, John 9:37, John 12:48, John 14:21; John 14:26, John 15:26. In John 1:33 (‘the same said unto me’), John 5:11, and John 12:48 it is inaccurately translated, as here, ‘the same.’

a thief and robber] Everywhere in this Gospel (8, 10, John 12:6, John 18:40), as also 2 Corinthians 11:26, these words are given correctly as renderings of the Greek equivalents; but everywhere else in N.T. (Matthew 21:13; Matthew 26:55; Matthew 27:38, &c., &c.) the word here translated ‘robber’ is less well translated ‘thief.’ The ‘robber’ is a brigand, a more formidable criminal than the ‘thief;’ the one uses violence, the other cunning.

1–18. “The form of the discourse in the first half of chap. 10 is remarkable. It resembles the Synoptic parables, but not exactly. The parable is a short narrative, which is kept wholly separate from the ideal facts which it signifies. But this discourse is not a narrative; and the figure and its application run side by side, and are interwoven with one another all through. It is an extended metaphor rather than a parable. If we are to give it an accurate name we should be obliged to fall back upon the wider term ‘allegory.’

This, and the parallel passage in chap. 15, are the only instances of allegory in the Gospels. They take in the Fourth Gospel the place which parables hold with the Synoptists. The Synoptists have no allegories distinct from parables. The fourth Evangelist has no parables as a special form of allegory. What are we to infer from this? The parables certainly are original and genuine. Does it follow that the allegories are not?

(1) We notice, first, that along with the change of form there is a certain change of subject. The parables generally turn round the ground conception of the kingdom of heaven. They … do not enlarge on the relation which its King bears to the separate members.… Though the royal dignity of the Son is incidentally put forward, there is nothing which expresses so closely and directly the personal relation of the Messiah to the community of believers, collectively and individually, as these two ‘allegories’ from S. John. Their form seems in an especial manner suited to their subject matter, which is a fixed, permanent and simple relation, not a history of successive states. The form of the allegories is at least appropriate.

(2) We notice next that even with the Synoptists the use of the parable is not rigid. All do not conform precisely to the same type. There are some, like the Pharisee and Publican, the Good Samaritan, &c., which give direct patterns for action, and are not therefore parables in the same sense in which the Barren Fig-tree, the Prodigal Son, &c. are parables.… If, then, the parable admits so much deviation on the one side, may it not also on the other?

(3) Lastly, we have to notice the parallels to this particular figure of the Good Shepherd that are found in the Synoptists. These are indeed abundant. The parable of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:4-7; Matthew 18:12-13).… ‘I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matthew 15:24).… ‘But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no Shepherd’ (Matthew 9:36), which when taken with Matthew 11:28-29 (‘Come unto Me all ye that labour,’ &c.), gives almost an exact parallel to the Johannean allegory.” S. pp. 167–169.John 10:1. Ἀμήν verily) These words are in close connection with those that precede; for the ἐκεῖνοι, John 10:6, “they understood not what things they were which He spake,” has reference to ch. John 9:40, “The Pharisees—heard these words, and said, Are we blind also?” [And indeed we may suppose that this parabolic discourse, John 10:1-5, was delivered at a point of time mid-way between the Feast of Tabernacles and the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22); for John 10:21, “Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?” refers back to the miracle that was wrought next after the Feast of Tabernacles; and the words which He put forth at the Feast of Dedication, John 10:26-30 (containing the same image, sheep), refer to that parabolic discourse (John 10:1-5).—Harm., p. 363.]—διὰ τῆς θύρας, through the door) through Christ: John 10:9, “I am the door.” Only one legitimate way of access lies open; all others are closed.—εἰς τὴν αὐλήν, into the sheep-fold) concerning which, John 10:16, “There shall be one fold and one Shepherd.”—τῶν προβάτων, of the sheep) This allegory is continued as far as to ver, 30. And sheep seem to have been before His eyes at the time.—ἀναβαίνων, climbing up) over the fence.—κλέπτης καὶ λῃστής, a thief and robber) John 10:8, “All that ever came before Me are thieves and robbers.”Verses 1-21. -

5. Christ the Shepherd of the flock of God. The discourse which now follows was the Lord's parabolic or allegoric reply to the conduct of the Pharisaic malignants. These men, claiming to be infallible guides of the ignorant, to be veritable shepherds of the flock of God, had ignored the advent of the true and good Shepherd, had opposed the Divine call and supreme claim of the Messiah, had set themselves to disturb and dislocate the relations between him and those who saw his glory and found in him the Consolation of Israel. They had excommunicated the adoring disciple who had passed out of lifelong darkness into marvelous light. They had exaggerated the faint glimmer of light which had broken upon their own blindness into true vision. They had said, "We see," and thus shown themselves to be willfully in the wrong. Their sin abode upon them. The fold of God's sheep was something different from their own expectations and definitions. Their way into it proved that they did not know its true nature. To meet this crisis our Lord delivers a triad of related and parallel pictures, which differ from the ordinary parable (παραβολή). The parable is a picture which is complete in its elf, and invites the reader to discover some answering spiritual truth. It consists of a careful setting forth of some physical fact, some fragment of biography, some personal or domestic detail. It is true to life and experience, and embodies some ethical principle or religious emotion; and while it does not explicitly teach either, yet it suggests them to the inquiring mind. The parables of the synoptic Gospels are not exclusive or rigid in their form. The so-called parable of "the Pharisee and the publican" and that of "the good Samaritan" are at once transformable into patterns or principles of action. The element of its own interpretation is also conspicuous in that of "the rich man and Lazarus" and "the rich fool." With these latter specimens of our Lord's teaching may be compared the allegoric illustrations of the present discourse. These pictures are "transparencies" (Godet), through which the Savior's spiritual teaching pours its own illumination. They both alike differ from the "fable," a form of address in which personal characters and activities are attributed (as in the apologue of Jotham, etc.) to the irrational or even to the inanimate creation. The first of the similitudes before us has more of the character of the parable proper, because it does not at once carry its own interpretation with it. Vers. 1-6 represent in parabolic form the claims of those who aspired to provide a "door," i.e. a sure and safe entrance to the theocratic fold. In vers. 7-10 our Lord interprets and expands the first representation by giving special significance to the words he had already used, adding something to their meaning, and contrasting his own position with that of all others. From the eleventh to the eighteenth verse he once more reverts to the original picture, and claims to occupy a relation to the sheep of God's band of far more intimate and suggestive kind than what was connoted by the door into the fold. He is "the good Shepherd." In that capacity he adds other and marvelous features. The parabolic or allegorical language passes away into vivid description of the leading features of his work. The parable at last glows into burning metaphor. In the first paragraph our Lord gives a parabolic picture of flock and fold, door and porter, robber and shepherd. In the second paragraph he emphasizes the relation between the door and the fold, claiming to be "the Door." In the third he illustrates the function and the responsibility of the true "Shepherd," and the relation of the shepherd to the flock, and he claims to be the Shepherd of Israel. Verses 1-6. -

(1) The parable of the fold and flock, the door and the porter, the robber and the shepherd. Verse 1. - Verily, verily, betokens the deep solemnity and importance of the matter in hand, but not a complete break in the circumstances - neither a new audience nor a new theme. The adoption by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 23:1-4), by Ezekiel (34.), and by Zechariah (Zechariah 11:4-17) of similar imagery to denote the contrast between the true and false shepherds, and the anticipation by the prophets of a time when the true and good Shepherd would fulfill all Jehovah's pleasure, throws vivid light on these words of our Lord. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. Several commentators of eminence have maintained that by "the door," in this first verse, our Lord (as in ver. 7) meant at once to designate himself. This is not necessary. He rather summons the Pharisees to recognize the fact that there is a door, a way of sure and divinely appointed admission to the "fold of the sheep," through which the veritable Shepherd passes, bringing his flock with him by well-known voice and manner. Later on, our Lord claims to be the one Way' by which all under-shepherds can gain true access to the flock, and all the sheep of God's pasture can find protection and freedom; but here he suggests the principle of discrimination between a true shepherd and a thief or robber. The κλέπτης is one who is selfishly seeking his own ends, and would avoid detection; the λῃστής is one who would use violent means to secure his purpose (Judas was a "thief," Barabbas was a "robber"). The false shepherd disdains the door, and climbs up some other way along his own selfish lines of action (ἀλλαχόθεν is used in this place only, equivalent to "from some other quarter than the ordinary home of the shepherd"). His purpose is not to benefit the sheep, but to seize them, or slaughter them for his own purposes (Ezekiel 34:8). The Lord suggests that many have assumed to sustain the relation of shepherd to the flock and fold of God, with no inward call either of commission or profession. They have been eager to insist on their own rights, have mistaken their own narrow traditions for the commandments of God, have imposed upon starved and worried souls their own selfish interpretations of that commandment, and have shown that they had no legitimate access to the hearts of men. Verily, verily (ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν)

The formula never begins anything quite new, but connects what follows with what precedes. This discourse grows out of the assumption of the Pharisees to be the only authoritative guides of the people (John 9:24, John 9:29). They have already been described as blind and sinful.

Sheepfold (αὐλὴν τῶν προβάτων)

Literally, fold of the sheep. So Rev., better, because the two ideas of the flock and the fold are treated distinctly. Compare John 10:16.

Some other way (ἀλλαχόθεν)

Literally, from some other quarter. The thief does not, like the shepherd, come from some well-known direction, as from his dwelling or from the pasture, but from an unknown quarter and by a road of his own. This from is significant, because, in the previous discourses, Jesus has laid great stress on the source from which He proceeded, and has made the difference in character between Himself and His opposers turn upon difference of origin. See John 8:23, John 8:42, John 8:44. In the latter part of this chapter He brings out the same thought (John 10:30, John 10:32, John 10:33, John 10:36).

Thief - robber (κλέπτης - λῃστής)

For the distinction see on Mark 11:17. There is a climax in the order of the words; one who will gain his end by craft, and, if that will not suffice, by violence.

John 10:1 Interlinear
John 10:1 Parallel Texts


John 10:1 NIV
John 10:1 NLT
John 10:1 ESV
John 10:1 NASB
John 10:1 KJV

John 10:1 Bible Apps
John 10:1 Parallel
John 10:1 Biblia Paralela
John 10:1 Chinese Bible
John 10:1 French Bible
John 10:1 German Bible

Bible Hub