Suicide And The Thief In John 10:10

By James M. Wisland

[James M. Wisland is director of research and education at the Arctic Resource Center for Suicide Prevention in Fairbanks, Alaska.]

Abstract

Some in the church associate John 10:10 with suicide, identifying Satan as “the thief” who comes “to steal and kill and destroy.” Careful exegesis, however, shows that while Satan may be working in the background as a sinister force of deception, Satan is not presented in John’s Gospel as having the power to create life or directly instigate death. Rather, the thief represents the false shepherds who do harm to God’s flock by rejecting Jesus’s messianic signs of healing.

* * *

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website reports that suicide “was responsible for more than 47,500 deaths in 2019.”[1] In addition, those who ended their lives in this way each left behind, on average, ten family members and/or close friends. These data points translate into the startling reality that about half a million people were directly impacted by suicide in that one calendar year. If 20 percent of them (100,000 people) attended church, and if there were 380,000 churches in the US at the time, then it is conceivable that a quarter (26.3%) of all the churches in the US encountered loss from suicide in one fashion or another.[2] This happens year after year, with the number of suicide deaths and the corresponding rate gradually increasing.[3]

How does the church respond to this social and theological tragedy? Frequently, John 10:10 is cited, where Satan is understood to be “the thief” who comes “to steal and kill and destroy.” In discussing John 10:10, Jim Logan says of Satan, “First, he wants to steal the eternal significance of your life. . . . Second, Satan wants to kill you. But he can’t do that without God’s permission, so he’ll tell you to do it for him. Most of the people I deal with have had serious thoughts of suicide because . . . they’re convinced it’s the only way out.”[4] This demonic association with suicide becomes so dominant in some circles that other legitimate contributors to the suicidal act are not considered.[5] Careful exegesis of this passage, however, does not support identifying “the thief” in this fashion. This text is simply not addressing the topic of suicide at all; there is no direct reference to the issue nor is there even a tangential implication of its presence. When the church misspeaks about suicide by isolating this verse from its context and wrongly inserting Satan as “the thief,” it increases the stigma surrounding suicide and thereby hinders appropriate suicide prevention efforts.[6] Thus, a careful look at John 10:10 is needed to correct this wrongful application to a difficult and complicated concern.

Historical Background Of John 10:10

The broader context of John 10:10 begins, obviously, in John 1 but becomes more focused in chapter 4. There, large crowds are following Jesus, his popularity having reached its apex. Then John 5 opens with Jesus healing, ominously, on the Sabbath (5:9). Thus begins the formal opposition to Jesus’s ministry by Jerusalem’s religious leaders. Because of the grave nature of this opposition, Jesus leaves Jerusalem for Galilee. But then in Capernaum, many disciples decide that eating Jesus’s flesh and drinking his blood is too “hard” and quit following him (6:52, 60, 66). John 7 begins with Jesus going “about in Galilee” (7:1), not wanting to return to Jerusalem because “the Jews were seeking to kill him.” But, dramatically, the “Feast of Booths was at hand” (7:2).[7] John records opposition to Christ before (7:1–13), during (7:14–36), the last day of (7:37–53), and immediately after this feast (8:12–10:21). Since the whole of John 7–10 is circumscribed by this one event that takes place in Jerusalem, a brief summary of that celebration is in order as it pertains to the healing of the man born blind.

Figure 1: Outline of John 7–10

The Opposition at the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem (7:1–10:21)
I. Before the Feast of Tabernacles		7:1–13
	A. Christ’s brothers do not believe	7:1–9
	B. Christ secretly goes to the feast	7:10–13
II. In the middle of the Feast of Tabernacles		7:14–36
	A. Christ’s authority from the Father	7:14–24
	B. Christ’s origin from the Father	7:25–31
	C. Christ’s departure to the Father	7:32–36
III. On the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles		7:37–53
	A. Christ reveals the “living water”	7:37–39
	B. Israel is divided over Christ	7:40–44
	C. The Sanhedrin is confused over Christ	7:45–53
IV. After the Feast of Tabernacles		8:1–10:21
	A. A woman is caught in adultery	8:1–11
	B. Christ announces: “I am the light of the world”	8:12–59
	C. Sixth sign: Christ heals the blind man	9:1–41
	D. Christ announces: “I am the good shepherd”	10:1–21[8]

The Feast of Booths, or Feast of Tabernacles, was the seventh and final feast prescribed in Leviticus 23:39–43 , but it became one of the most popular events after the Babylonian captivity, drawing some of the largest crowds to Jerusalem.[9] In its origins, however, it was meant to be a reminder of Israel’s wilderness wanderings. By Jesus’s time, two ceremonies had been added to the Leviticus 23 stipulations:[10] (1) “Drawing water from the Pool of Siloam, and pouring it upon the altar (John 7:2, 37), as a memorial of the water from the rock in Horeb; and (2) . . . lighting the lamps at night, as a memorial of the pillar of fire by night during their wanderings.”[11] These enormous lamps were lit on the last night of the feast, and celebrants stayed up dancing under their light. “It is within this context that Jesus invites the thirsty to drink from Him and declares that He is the light of the world.”[12]

John gives an added time reference in 10:22 when he refers to the Feast of Dedication.[13] This additional eight-day feast celebrates the purification of the temple after Antiochus Epiphanes polluted the altar with pagan sacrifices. Initiated by Judas Maccabee in 164 BC at the end of the Maccabean revolt, three years to the day after the desecration, it is the only Jewish festival not ordained in the Hebrew Scriptures. Since it was celebrated so close in time to the Feast of Tabernacles, it became known as the “Second Feast of Tabernacles.”

John 10:10, then, can best be understood as taking place after the Feast of Tabernacles (in the fall, around the end of September or beginning of October) but before the Feast of Dedication (in the winter, normally around the end of December); about a three-month time span. The initial theological context is the Sabbath-keeping conflict of John 5:1–9. That is the source of the deadly opposition Jesus encounters in John 7:1.[14] From that healing miracle (5:1–9) on, the Jerusalem leaders are seeking to kill Jesus (vv. 16–18).[15] Indeed, it is this threat that keeps Jesus in Galilee from John 5:9 all the way to 7:10. But this animosity does not dissipate, as demonstrated by two facts. First, Jesus eludes arrest on two occasions—once in John 7 (vv. 30–32, 44–45) and once again in John 8 (vv. 20, 59). Second, Jesus is arrested in John 18 (v. 12) and put to death in John 19 (v. 30). His death occurs about five or six months after John 10:21.

To better underscore this life-threatening scenario, it should be noted that when Jesus finally goes to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles in John 7:10, he asks the Jews, “Why do you seek to kill me?” (v. 19). They respond, “You have a demon! Who is seeking to kill you?” (v. 20). This is the first use of δαιμόνιον in chapters 7–10 but it is repeated in 8:48, 52; 10:20, 21. In each case, these references to a demon are spoken by the leaders regarding Jesus. Jesus never accuses the leaders of having a demon, and he denies having a demon himself (8:49). Instead, he insists that he is from the Father in heaven (v. 18), that he teaches what the Father has taught him (v. 28), that he honors the Father (v. 49), and that he existed before Abraham (v. 58). If they “knew” Jesus’s Father, they would “know” him.

Critical to understanding this murderous rage of the Jerusalem leaders, therefore, is not only the breaking of the Pharisaic application of Sabbath keeping in John 5. That is the expressed surface motivation. The deeper impetus for their lethal indignation is repeatedly given by Jesus—the religious leaders of Israel do not know their heavenly Father (8:19, 27, 28) but instead know their father Satan (vv. 43–44). Their not knowing the true heavenly Father is Jesus’s basis for repeatedly saying that they also do not know him (7:28–29; 8:14, 19, 37, 55) because they “are of [their] father the devil . . . [who] was a murderer . . . and does not stand in the truth. . . . [H]e is a liar and the father of lies” (8:44).

This burden of “knowing” or “not knowing” is paramount in chapters 9 and 10 as well, for the parents “know that this is our son and that he was born blind” (9:20). The Pharisees “know that this man [Jesus] is a sinner” (v. 24), and they “know God does not listen to sinners” (v. 31). Jesus says that “the sheep follow him [the shepherd], for they know his voice” (10:4). “A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers” (v. 5). In short, the Jerusalem leaders do not know (and so do not understand) the actual intent of the Mosaic Law given by God for Sabbath keeping and applied properly by Jesus.[16] Instead, they are hypervigilant about their own understanding of this precept and their extensions of it.[17] Their inspiration for such rigidity is not godly, good, or right. Instead its impulse is demonic. It is overrestrictive and does not promote the life-giving benefit that the Sabbath was intended to ensure.[18]

The Healing Event Of John 10:10

All of this background material comes into play when Jesus heals the man born blind (9:7). Unfolding from that healing event is a lengthy, multiperson interaction involving the Pharisees, the healed man, his neighbors, his parents, and Jesus.[19] What is staggeringly difficult for these various entities to accept is this: Not only did a miraculous healing take place, and not only did it have to do with congenital blindness, but it specifically took place (once again) on the Sabbath, it was (once again) by a pool of water, and it (once again) confronted the Jerusalem leadership on their spiritual (and most fundamental) priorities. These last three points connect 5:1–9 to 9:1–7. On this occasion, however, the healing act of 9:7 broke the Pharisaic law regarding eye plaster rather than the carrying of an object.[20]

The Intense Anxiety Over The Healing

The ESV records 169 questions in John’s Gospel. Thirty-three percent of these questions (55) are found in these four chapters (7–10), which comprises only nineteen percent of John’s overall content. In other words, John 7–10 contains a disproportionate number of questions for its length, which indicates a high level of anxiety among the participants. These questions guide the discourse. John 10:10 is a partial answer to the Pharisees’ main question to Jesus: “Are we also born blind?” (9:40). Any interpretation of 10:10 must therefore address this question. John 10:10 is part of three tightly woven scenes—John 9:39–40; 9:41–10:6; and 10:7–18.

John 9:39–40

In a profound way, John has Jesus opening this scene with an overall purpose statement that defines the entirety of his earthly mission. Such a statement summarizes not only the specific healing of the man born blind, but also why Jesus left heaven’s multiple glories to become lowly God-in-the-flesh. It truly is one of the more magisterial statements in all of the New Testament. It also begins the last encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees regarding the healing of the man born blind. Jesus places the scene on significant theological ground by saying, “I came into this world for judgment, in order that those who do not see will see and those who do see will become blind” (9:39, CSB).

The man born blind had neither physical nor spiritual sight before Jesus healed him. After Jesus’s healing touch, he had both (v. 38). Jesus’s mission, then, is summarized by this one miraculous event. Those not seeing will see. Those who literally see will become blind (10:21). The subject who does this “judgment” is the familiar ἐγώ. However, John makes it emphatic. Adding weight to this subject highlights Jesus’s personal mission in the most direct way possible. In effect, John underscores Jesus’s coming into the world for the purpose of spiritual sight and/or blindness (“judgment”).[21]

Why did Jesus take on human flesh? Jesus became incarnate in order to bring sight to those who receive him and blindness to those who reject him. As can easily be inferred, both the sight and the blindness are response dependent. Given John’s major stress on belief, it is fair to say that Jesus came to open the eyes of those believing and to close the eyes of those not believing.[22]

The ἵνα subordinating conjunction clause introduces two purposes: (1) those not seeing will see (the healed blind man); (2) those seeing will become blind (the Pharisees). The implication for the readers and/or hearers is immediate and direct: Be like the blind man, who humbly obeyed the instructions of the Savior. The scene concludes with the Pharisees asking the central question in 9:40: “Are we also blind?”

John 9:41–10:6

This scene begins with Jesus’s first, and general, answer to the question, “Are we also blind?” “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (9:41).

If the Pharisees had realized their true spiritual blindness like the blind man had realized his true physical blindness, then they “would have no guilt.”[23] Spiritually blind individuals (Pharisees) cannot lead others who are also spiritually blind (the man born blind) to the right practice (Sabbath keeping). In other words, they would not be culpable for what they could not do. Their guilt is evidenced, however, by their claim of spiritual sight. Their bold assertion is “We see better than Jesus on Sabbath keeping!” Yet they were blind. They had Moses and the Prophets so they should have known Jesus’s Father. And if they had known his Father, they surely should have known Jesus as well. Tragically, they did not know either.

As a result the Pharisees evidenced gross spiritual arrogance.[24] They had overreached, and they had overstepped. They had placed themselves on a higher spiritual plane for Israel than they had any right to claim. If they had known Jesus’s true identity, they surely would have abdicated their tightly held convictions on Sabbath keeping in order to adopt his divine viewpoint on all of it. But their long-held and consistent message was that they knew more, and they knew better, than the God of Israel who had become flesh and was standing there in front of them.

In order to facilitate the Pharisees’ eyesight, Jesus chose the metaphor of a shepherd properly guarding a sheepfold (10:1–6). The shepherd (Jesus) uses legitimate means to provide pasturage for his sheep (healing on the Sabbath is equated to the door of v. 2); the gatekeeper provides entrance to the sheep pen (the gatekeeper can be none other than the Father, v. 3a);[25] the sheep respond to the voice of the shepherd (which is demonstrated by the blind man believing Jesus, 3b); the shepherd leads out his sheep (the healed blind man is led away from the Pharisees) and he (Jesus) goes before him just as a shepherd leads his sheep (v. 4). In contrast to this “good shepherd,” the thief uses illegitimate means to gain access to the sheep (v. 1, represented by the Pharisees accepting neither the healing event nor the healed man) and the sheep (the healed blind man) do not follow them (v. 5).

John 10:7–18

Now comes the second, and longest, reply to the Pharisees’ question, “Are we also blind?”[26] As a result, it is focused on better addressing this central question, since there was a failure to grasp the first reply. Jesus begins this second response with two different identifying metaphors, both of which are mentioned twice and both of which are placed back-to-back. Jesus says twice, “I am the door” (10:7, 9), and twice, “I am the good shepherd” (vv. 11, 14).[27] The twice-repeated “I am the door” comes immediately before John 10:10. The twice-repeated “I am the good shepherd” comes immediately after John 10:10. Obviously, much has been written[28] on these rich metaphors. The purpose here, however, is to limit the comments to what has significance regarding John 10:10.

In this regard, two questions must be asked. First, what is the relationship between the door of the sheep pen, the shepherd of the sheep, and the thief that “comes only to steal and kill and destroy”? The answer: the door and the shepherd guard against just such a thieving action. Second, how does this answer the question asked by the Pharisees, “Are we also blind?” The answer: to the man born blind, Jesus was both the door to his physical and spiritual eyesight as well as the shepherd who led him away from the Pharisees and to himself. To the Pharisees, Jesus is the door that closes off his messianic offer and the shepherd who uncovers their false shepherd status.

Focused Attention On John 10:10

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy.
I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.

The Thief (ὁ Κλέπτης)

John 10:10 contains two complete sentences with the subject of 10a being ὁ κλέπτης, better understood as “the thieves,” and the subject of 10b being the pronoun ἐγὼ (I), standing for Christ. Looking more closely at 10a first, one leading lexicon defines κλέπτης as “thief . . . generally cheat, knave.”[29] Homer wonderfully illustrates κλέπτης in the opening lines of the Iliad, book 3. The Trojan and Greek armies are about to meet for the first time. The Trojan army is advancing “like wildfowl when the long hoarse cries of cranes sweep on against the skies” (Il. 3.2–3). In contrast, the Greek army “came on strong in silence, breathing combat-fury, hearts ablaze to defend each other to the death” (Il. 3.8–9). In other words, the Trojans are yelling and whooping as they draw near to battle while the Greeks march quietly forward to meet them. As both armies advance, though, dust from their combined feet is likened to “mist on the mountaintops, no friend to shepherds, better than night to thieves [κλέπτῃ]” (Il. 3.10–11).

The point being made here, therefore, is the connection between shepherds and thieves. The “mist” (the dust of soldiers marching) is “better than night to thieves” because they are able to rob the sheep without being seen by the shepherd. The “thieves” in Iliad 3.11 (κλέπτῃ) and “the thief” in John 10:10 (κλέπτης) are both masculine singular nouns. But the thief of John 10:10 is articular (ὁ κλέπτης), which might result in a translation of “The Thief” (i.e., Satan). But just as the singular (κλέπτῃ) is better understood as “thieves” in Iliad 3.11, so likewise it is better to understand John’s ὁ κλέπτης as “thieves” in general.[30] In short, there is no grammatical support behind reading “Satan” in John 10:10.

Comes Only To Steal And Kill And Destroy (Οὐκ ἔρχεται Εἰ Μὴ ἵνα Κλέψῃ Καὶ Θύσῃ Καὶ ἀπολέσῃ)

The robbing action of the thieves is immediately negated, however, in John 10:10.[31] Thieves do not come except to “steal (κλέπτω) and kill (θύω) and destroy (ἀπόλλυμι).”[32] Suggestively, the Greek term θύσῃ, translated by the ESV as “kill,” often means “to sacrifice.”[33] This, then, places the priestly function of temple sacrifice front-and-center. Sheep were killed/slaughtered (θύω) in the thousands by the priests on high holy days (like at the Feasts of Tabernacles and Dedication), with their meat given to the celebrants for food. Accordingly, the Pharisees (9:40) are likened to thieves who slaughter sheep for food. Similarly, thieves come not only to “steal” and “kill” but also to “destroy” (ἀπόλλυμι). This term, commonly used by Homer, majors on “death in battle” as the heroes of the Trojan War fight on the plains of Troy.[34] In that sense, ἀπόλλυμι fits in nicely with the sacrificing action of θύσῃ. The sheep, during high festival days, suffer “death in sacrifice” according to John 10:10. This is a unique use of ἀπόλλυμι in John’s Gospel, however. In its nine other appearances, it normally takes on the idea of being lost or perishing.[35] The point here is that in the bitter dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees over spiritual leadership, physical death is not in view. What is magnified is the blind condition of the Jerusalem leaders.

I Came That They May Have Life (ἐγὼ ἦλθον ἵνα Ζωὴν ἔχωσιν)

In contrast to these thieves, the good shepherd in John 10:10b has come (ἦλθον) “so that they may have life.” This coming of the good shepherd is expressed with the same word and tense as well as the same emphatic emphasis upon Jesus’s mission (“I, even I, have come”) as in John 9:39. Magisterially, John has Jesus stating his mission here in 10:10b in the same perfective aspect and with the same purpose in mind. Clearly, this accentuates the divine purpose of Jesus’s earthly ministry, which no evil power could (or can) thwart. Stated in context, Jesus’s mission, as the door and as the good shepherd, is not that of the thieves (the Pharisees). The two are working in opposition to each other. One (Jesus) comes for life (in 9:39, the blind man sees with physical and spiritual sight); the others (Pharisees) come for death (9:39 implies physical sight but enduring spiritual blindness).[36] The contrast between the two could not be made more sharply.

And Have It Abundantly (Καὶ Περισσὸν ἔχωσιν)

One prominent lexicon categorizes περισσός here this way: “a quantity so abundant as to be considerably more than what one would expect or anticipate.”[37] Another key lexicon defines περισσός as “being extraordinary in amount; abundant, profuse . . . going beyond what is necessary.”[38] Clearly, Jesus is framing his worldwide mission in terms of a generous giving of life. However, the “abundant life” of the healed blind man must be understood exclusively in terms of spiritual benefits rather than material goods. This is because his conversion caused him to lose all ties to his former life. His parents disowned him (9:18–23); his religious community excommunicated him (v. 34); his benevolence funding network had been terminated with no replacement forthcoming (v. 38). The “abundant life” for this man was not the “American dream” of overflowing material goods.[39] Rather, the “abundant life” that Jesus references must be in close connection to his good shepherding and rich pasturage. That is the repeated emphasis of the immediate context. The “life” that results from Jesus’s mission has to do with spiritual benefits rather than with physical possessions. In other words, physical life and death are not in view.

Conclusion On The Thief’s Identity

With this contrast between Jesus’s ministry purpose and the Pharisees’ reaction to it now in place, what can be said about the identity of the thief? To be sure, “the thief” is not Satan. Rather, “the thieves” are the evil shepherds (Pharisees), who are guarding their own status-driven religiosity rather than seeking the betterment of the flock they are supposed to be protecting.[40] Five reasons support this conclusion.

First, Satan is not a relatable character in John’s Gospel. John does call Satan “the ruler of this world” on three different occasions (12:31; 14:30; 16:11), but this ruler “will be cast out” (12:31); “has no power over [Jesus] (14:30); “has been judged” (16:11). Jesus does pray that his disciples will be protected from “the evil one” (17:15), and, alarmingly, Satan enters Judas before he betrays Jesus (13:27). But nowhere does John have Satan relating to any of the people in his Gospel.[41] Consequently, John 10:10 is all about the long confrontation between Jesus and the Jerusalem Pharisees that began in John 5 and continues through John 10. Satan is not physically and/or spiritually manifested (as in Matt 4) in these chapters, nor is there any kind of dialogue between him and the other characters involved in this drama. All the personal relating in John 5–10 is between people. To directly insert Satan artificially into the text of John 10:10 is to mix metaphors.

Second, the term “thief” is never used for Satan in the Scriptures or in extrabiblical literature.[42] However, it is used for the leaders of Israel in the Old Testament (Isa 1:23; Jer 2:26; 7:11; 23:30). Jesus was reusing an existing shepherd parable from Ezekiel 34.[43] There, God condemns the failed (selfish) leaders of Israel, who had stolen from the sheep, killed them (a metaphor for plundering them), and caused them to become scattered. God said that he would remove these hired/evil shepherds and replace them with himself and David as shepherds. Jesus is doing the same thing in John 10. He condemns the Pharisees as unjust thieves, and he asserts that he is a true shepherd.[44] As proof of their evil actions, the Pharisees threw out (ἐξέβαλον, 9:34) of the synagogue a true member of God’s flock. Good shepherds do not abandon the newborn, but these false shepherds did so without any remorse. They are the blind and false shepherds of Ezekiel 34:1–10 who act in ways contrary to the genuine care of believers in Christ.[45] They steal sheep in order to kill (excommunicate) them, thus destroying part of the flock.[46] In contrast, Jesus is “the light of the world” (John 8:12, 9:5),[47] “the door” of the sheepfold (10:7, 9), and the “good shepherd” (vv. 11, 14) of Ezekiel 34:11–31, which has direct messianic implications in John 10:10. Jesus came to restore Israel to renewed spiritual life, while the religious leaders refused that life by their actions. Cyril of Alexandria (AD 378–444) describes this perspective in a particularly appropriate way.

While Our Savior Christ was saying He Himself was the Door, and teaching that it was His both to admit those whom He would and to keep outside him who is unfit and quite useless for shepherd’s work; and moreover, in addition to this, had denounced as thieves and robbers those who were self-appointed to an honor not given them from above; the wretched Pharisees again were taking counsel, deliberating Who this Man was that showed so much boldness, and considering whether He ought . . . to be numbered among those whose coming He reproved: for they thought that He too was a false shepherd and a false teacher, as merely self-consecrated by His own determination; not that being God He had been made Man, according to the ancient declaration of the inspired Scripture. And it is indeed probable that even when they had gathered a true knowledge of Him, they rejected it as something which was intolerable to their unbelief, and refused to consider anything which was not in harmony with their own pleasure and their own dear delight; and this was to be leaders of the people and to be spoken of accordingly. When therefore He . . . declares that the question ought to be decided by testing their actions, as to who was the shepherd, and who was the thief; saying that it would be by no means difficult to thus discriminate, if any one would consider the object and behavior of each. For the thief cometh, He says, for the destruction of the sheep, since the desire of taking plunder undoubtedly leads to this issue; but the really good shepherd will come without bringing any harm into the sheepfold, but rather will work for their advantage, and whatever he may understand to be for their greatest good, that he will zealously labor for.[48]

Along these same lines, the most convincing argument for the identity of the thief in John 10:10a among modern scholars was given by Whitacre. He suggested that “the good shepherd” would be the one who helped the man born blind, and the “thief” would be those who did him harm.[49] Christ is the good shepherd because of his healing ministrations to the man born blind. After all, the man born blind is the one who recognized the voice of Christ (v. 3); who followed Christ even at the loss of family and friends (v. 4); who refused to follow strangers (vv. 5, 8); and who formed a new fold (αὐλή, v. 16). In contrast, it was the Pharisees who threw this new convert out of their fellowship to abandon him. Hence, the Pharisees did that man genuine harm.[50]

Third, the Pharisees are clearly the foil in John 5–10. Jesus’s healing of the man born blind in John 9 initiated the man’s new birth by faith (3:3). This conversion involves Jesus as “the light of the world” and also the light of the blind man who washes with water. As the blind man gains physical sight, he also gains spiritual sight. The Pharisees, never having spiritual sight, were the opposing force to this healing event. Based on Jesus’s testimony, this spiritual blindness was the result of at least three dynamics. First, Jesus’s advent brought the “judgment” of spiritual sight to some and spiritual blindness to others (9:39; 10:10). Second, Jesus affirmed “the miraculous power of His sheep’s spiritual instinct (10:5).”[51] Third, John repeatedly implied in chapters 5 through 10 that Satan played some kind of opposing role via the Pharisees, albeit without explicitly stating the means.[52] Summarily, the Pharisees did not know Jesus, who had come from the heavenly Father, nor did they “see” Jesus’s messianic offer of himself to them, which could have ushered in the messianic kingdom. Instead, they repeatedly accused Jesus of having a demon.[53]

To drive this point home further, John presents Jesus as the definitive interpreter of the Mosaic Sabbath regulations. The murderous rejection of Jesus by the Pharisees because of this divine perspective on the Law is what John reveals as Satanic. This vivid conflict is summarized in the key question from the Pharisees, “Are we also blind?” Such a question boldly confronts Jesus with who has the authority to determine proper application of Sabbath requirements. Will it be the established religious leaders of Israel, or will it be Jesus, the miracle worker? The issue revolves around shepherding Israel regarding her obligations toward a fundamental religious precept. The Pharisees say they are best equipped for this spiritual function. Jesus says they are utterly disqualified because of the source of their understanding (Satan) and because of their wicked application of their understanding (their response to the healed man born blind). To be sure, this momentous debate has nothing to do with the act of suicide.

Fourth, suicide has no bearing on the healing of the man born blind. John’s original readers never would have thought that suicide was under discussion in these chapters (9–10) and none of the church fathers ever made that connection.[54] More specifically, John 10:10 has nothing to do with taking one’s life. Indeed, it could well be argued that 10:10 is the opposite of suicide. Why? Because this healing pericope has everything to do with the application of Mosaic Law to Sabbath keeping. John presents the Pharisees as overzealous in their guarding of this observance. In turn, their safeguarding was flagrantly disregarded by Jesus. Jesus acted on the higher good of healing the blind man on the Sabbath, which then accompanied his subsequent spiritual conversion. In this regard, John used common words (light / water / healing / salvation in contrast to murder / death / deception / demonic) to symbolically convey spiritual realities. No one physically dies in John 9:1–10:21; consequently, no one dies by suicide.

To better see this perspective, it helps to focus on John’s purpose in writing chapters 7–10. As stated, the plot of John 7–10 turns on spiritual sight and life versus spiritual blindness and death. In sharp contrast to suicide, the central figure receives physical as well as spiritual sight, resulting in physical healing and eternal life. Those who oppose this miracle have physical sight but never gain spiritual sight. They, consequently, act in spiritual blindness prompted by their father Satan and thereby cause the separation of the man born blind from their fellowship. Following this, John 11 tells of the raising of Lazarus from the dead and chapter 12 depicts of the triumphant entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. John 13–14 takes place in the Upper Room; 15–17, on the way to the Garden. John 18–21 unfolds the arrest, trials, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Suicide certainly plays no part within the pericope itself (9:1–10:21) nor within this larger, overarching plot line of John’s Gospel as a whole.

Fifth, the unique two-word phrase “truly, truly” (ἀμὴν ἀμὴν) heightens the obvious contrast. It does so by emphasizing the difference between Jesus and the Jerusalem Pharisees. In the New Testament, this two-word phrase occurs a total of 25 times, all in John’s Gospel, and all spoken by Jesus.[55] It is John’s exclusive way of doubly emphasizing truth. Two of these “truly, truly” statements are found in John 10. In verse 1, Jesus doubly negates other doors to the sheepfold, which by implication strongly negates the Pharisees’ effort to keep Sabbath law in order to gain spiritual life. A life-giving relationship with God is not to be found according to their approach. Then again, in verse 7, Jesus doubly affirms that he is the only door. Entering the sheepfold through him, and him alone, is equated with pasturage (salvation), for he is the good shepherd, who knows his sheep by name, who calls them to himself, and they respond by coming to him. This viewpoint is opposite to that of the Pharisees regarding the healed blind man.

Summary Of Commentaries

In a thorough commentary review, Ezekiel 34 consistently surfaced as the Old Testament backdrop for the behavior of the Pharisees toward the healed blind man.[56] “False shepherds” were also consistently mentioned, even without referencing Ezekiel 34.[57]

The most interesting word used to describe these false shepherds comes from Bruner when he calls them “Otherwayers.”[58] These Otherwayers are false shepherds and do not go through the door, which can only be Christ. Because of this denial/refusal of the one true door, the Otherwayers can legitimately be seen as motivated by Satan to carry out their rejection of Christ and his ministry. However, this is a far cry from identifying “the thief” as Satan. The terms “Satan” and “Pharisees” and “thieves” are not synonyms. As a result, they are not interchangeable. Therefore, it is not an appropriate hermeneutic to insert “Satan” for “thief,” as so often happens in casual use of John 10:10. In point of fact, only Lapide, MacEvilly, Calvin, and Brown make any reference to Satan here. Yet while they affirm that the Pharisees act as “ministers of Satan,” they reject that the idea that “the thief” is Satan.[59] Others identify “the thief” as human leaders,[60] false shepherds or teachers,[61] Jesus’s opponents,[62] or the Pharisees in particular.[63]

Summary Of John 10:10 As Related To Suicide

This famous verse is set within the context of conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders of Jerusalem about six months before Jesus’s crucifixion. The conflict unfolds between two important feasts, Tabernacles and Dedication, with healing on the Sabbath as its presenting angst. In keeping with John’s use of symbols, the healing of the man born blind involves light (physical as well as spiritual sight) and water (cleansing, purification, baptism).

In direct opposition to Jesus’s ministry, Satan is kept in the background as a sinister force of deception.[64] As such, he blinds the eyes of some of the Pharisees, who then cannot see or understand who Jesus is and what he offers the nation of Israel.[65] Satan is not presented with more supernatural power than this singular act. Indeed, given that Jesus’s overall earthly mission was one of “judgment” so that the blind are made to see and those seeing become blind, a strong counterargument to Satan’s power in John’s Gospel is God’s sovereignty. Neither Satan nor the Pharisees had any deflating influence over the healing miracle of the man born blind. Moreover, neither Satan nor the Pharisees could prevent the healed blind man from following Jesus and acting as his witness. As a result, the man born blind humbly accepts Jesus’s commands for healing and comes to have both physical and spiritual sight.[66]

In contrast, at least a portion of the Pharisees reject Jesus’s healing prescriptions as well as the healed man and, consequently, remain spiritually blind even though they have physical sight. They are, therefore, evil shepherds who do harm rather than good to God’s flock. Given the major emphasis John places on the passion week (chapters 13–21), the largest point that John makes is that Satan had no power over the death of Jesus, just as he had no power to keep the healed blind man from believing in Jesus.[67]

Moreover, this healing pericope (9:1–10:21) has nothing to say about suicide nor does it contribute anything to that life-ending act. Satan is not presented in John’s Gospel as a supernatural being with the power to directly create life or to directly instigate death. Summarily, he is not the sovereign entity over the creation of life or the causation of death.[68] That capacity is restricted to Jesus alone. The stealing, killing, and destroying acts described in 10:10 are not in reference to suicide nor are they directly applicable to Satan. Instead, these terms all revolve around the spiritual acts of false shepherds (the Jerusalem Pharisees) who reject Jesus’s messianic signs of healing. In this same line of reasoning, it should also be carefully noted that the healing miracle dealt with a physical malady—congenital blindness. Jesus clearly denied any sinfulness connected to this condition (9:1–3).

Therefore, to read this verse (John 10:10) as a prooftext for suicidal motivation does harm to the overall intent of John, its author. Furthermore, it gives much more power to Satan than is his due. Both of these are exegetical fallacies that distort and overemphasize Satan’s role in the general course of human affairs. Satan’s deceptive tactics are in fact demonstrated by these hermeneutical missteps. When applied to suicide, melodramatic claims such as “all suicides are satanic” greatly increase the already high stigma surrounding the suicidal act and greatly hinder appropriate suicide prevention efforts. Worse, applying deliverance efforts to suicidal individuals who have no demonic influence in their lives is a harmful act of malpractice. This would be especially true if John 10:10 is used as the basis for this ill-suited idea.

Notes

1. “Facts about Suicide,” Suicide Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, last reviewed August 30, 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/fastfact.html. 47,500 deaths equals “one death every 11 minutes.” Many more suicides occur than are officially reported.
2. For the number of churches see Daniel Silliman, “US Religion Census Maps Changing Churches, Declining Denominations,” Christianity Today, January 6, 2020, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/january-february/religious-congregation-census-2020-asarb.html.
3. On the rising suicide rate see Nell Greenfieldboyce, “CDC: US Suicide Rates Have Climbed Dramatically,” NPR, June 7, 2018, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/06/07/617897261/cdc-u-s-suicide-rates-have-climbed-dramatically.
4. Jim Logan, Reclaiming Surrendered Ground: Protecting Your Family from Spiritual Attacks (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 27. See similar comments in Robert Dean and Thomas Ice, What the Bible Teaches about Spiritual Warfare (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2000), 126; Mark Bubeck, Preparing for Battle: A Spiritual Warfare Workbook (Chicago: Moody, 1999), 10; and Tony Evans, The Truth about Angels and Demons (Chicago: Moody, 2005), 52–53.
5. Other contributors include serious mental illness, adverse childhood experiences, traumatic brain injuries, chronic traumatic encephalopathy, and loss (social/financial/work).
6. Marcia Webb, Toward a Theology of Psychological Disorder (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017), 3–34.
7. Jesus consistently honored the great Jewish feasts, and so the Jerusalem temple, during his public ministry (John 2:13–14; 5:1, 14; 7:2, 10, 14; 8:2; 10:22–23).
8. Adapted from Bruce Wilkinson and Kenneth Boa, Talk Thru the Bible (Nashville: Nelson, 1983), 341–42.
9. Other references include: Exod 34:22 (“feast of ingathering”); Neh 8:13–18; Zech 14:16–19. In the Mishnah Sukkah 1:1–5:8; Jerusalem Talmud (Sukkah 1a); Babylonian Talmud (Sukkah 2a–56b).
10. Also Num 29:12–38; Deut 16:13–17.
11. M. G. Easton, “Tabernacles, Feast of,” in Easton’s Bible Dictionary (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1893).
12. Benjamin M. Austin, “Booths, Feast of,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham: Lexham, 2016).
13. This is also known as Hanukkah or the Feast of Lights; 1 Macc 4:41–59; 2 Macc 10:6–8.
14. John 5:1–18 records the Jerusalem religious leaders’ anger over Jesus’s healing the 38-year invalid lying by the Bethesda pool. The Sabbath injunction that Jesus supposedly violated is given in Mishnah 7.2.L.39, where it forbids the transporting of an object from one domain to another.
15. John 5:18; 7:1, 19, 20, 25; 8:37, 40.
16. Mark 2:25–3:5 and Jesus’s healing on the Sabbath show that restorative rest and the care of illness (working for life) are in keeping with the Law (Exod 20:8–11).
17. The two words for “knowing” in chapters 7:1–10:21 are important. (1) οἶδα (used 28 times) has a “reflective sense” (knowing about) as well as a “personal sense” (knowing though experience). (2) γινώσκω (used 19 times) has a “experiential sense” (a knowing through the senses); an “intellectual sense” (grasping the meaning of something), as well as the “personal sense.” The words for “knowing” that John uses elsewhere in his Gospel include γνωρίζω (15:15; 17:26); δείκνυμι (10:32; 14:8–9); γνωστός (18:15–16); ἐμφανίζω (14:21–22); ἐξηγέομαι (1:18); ἴδιος (10:3–4).
18. Part of the motivation for the “no healing” rule on the Sabbath, however, was that healers also needed to observe the rest prescribed in Sabbath keeping.
19. This multiparty drama extends from John 9:8 to 10:21, which equals fifty-five verses. A point to be developed later is that Satan is not one of the parties in this debate.
20. Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 8.1.A.5. For John 5:1–9, see Mishnah 7.2.L.39.
21. Adding a pronoun to the verb (ἐγὼἦλθον) puts a double force on the subject. The impact is Jesus saying, “I, even I, came into the world for judgment.” See Ronald Trail, An Exegetical Summary of John 1–9 (Dallas: SIL International, 2013), 508, for κρίμα meaning “judgment” as well as “separation,” as in believers from unbelievers.
22. John’s emphasis on believing (πιστεύω) is well documented, since the verb occurs 98 times in his Gospel. Other New Testament authors use πιστεύω far less frequently. Acts has 37 occurrences of πιστεύω with Romans coming in third with only 21. Incredibly, Revelation does not use πιστεύω at all. The implication seems clear enough—believe now, for it will be too late in the future! The Synoptic Gospels use πιστεύω far less often than John (Mark, 14 times; Matthew, 11 times; Luke, 9 times).
23. The second class conditional clause assumes nonreality. William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John, 2 vols. in 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–1954), 1:41.
24. Homer’s phrase for such hubris (ὕβρις) is “outrageous violence [ὔβριςτεβίητε] goes up into the iron sky” (Od. 15.329; 17.565). Such a phrase poetically summarizes the opening of Jesus’s mission statement in 9:39, “I came into the world for judgment.” Not knowing the Father—or the Son sent by the Father—caused the Jerusalem Pharisees not to recognize their Messiah-King. Such a chain of events could only bring about the hardening of heaven so that it would become like “iron” in judgment.
25. “Father” referring to God occurs 16 times between John 7:1 and John 10:22. More specifically, the love of the Father for the Son in redemption (10:17) makes the Father the gatekeeper.
26. These 12 verses make up nearly a quarter (21.3%) of the entire healing pericope.
27. The other five “I am” statements are: (1) “I am the bread of life” (6:35, 48); (2) “I am the light of the world” (8:12; 9:5); (3) “I am the resurrection, and the life” (11:25); (4) “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (14:6); (5) “I am the true vine” (15:1–5).
28. For a helpful overview of how to interpret metaphors, see Ian W. Scott, “Metaphor Theory and Theology: From Substitution to Conceptual Metaphors,” Didaktikos: Journal of Theological Education 3:1 (2019–2020). After reviewing previous approaches to interpreting metaphors (“substitution theory” and “interaction theory”), Scott lands on Lakoff and Johnson’s current and influential “conceptual metaphor theory.” One sample of this approach is applicable to John 10:10: “A conceptual metaphor structures one concept (the target domain) by mapping its elements to the elements of a second concept (the source domain). The metaphor ‘Jesus is a lamb’ invites us to relate the target (Jesus) to the source (lamb) systematically. Not only is Jesus a lamb, but Jesus’ death on the cross is a lamb’s death at slaughter. Jesus is weak and vulnerable, just as a lamb is weak and vulnerable. Jesus faces violence from the Jerusalem leadership, just as a lamb suffers violence at the butcher’s hand. This mapping allows us to draw inferences, or ‘entailments,’ by transferring patterns of interaction from one domain to the equivalent elements of the other” (41).
29. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie. A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 958. It is not in a superlative.
30. Barclay Newman, A Handbook on the Gospel of John (New York: United Bible Society, 1993), 328: “The Greek text literally reads ‘the thief,’ and TEV and most other translations maintain this expression exactly as the Greek has it. The definite article the does not point to any specific thief, but is simply a part of the parabolic style. The reference is generic, and such an expression as ‘a thief’ or ‘thieves’ may also be used.” Of the 44 English translations surveyed, only eight (18%) had the more general “a thief.”
31. The phrase οὐκἔρχεται is found only four times in the New Testament with three of them in John’s Gospel: (1) Luke 17:20 “not coming”; (2) John 3:20 “does not come”; (3) John 5:24 “does not come”; (4) John 10:10 “comes only.” John 10:10 has the unique “comes only” due to the following phrase εἰμὴ.
32. κλέπτω is the verbal form of κλέπτης.
33. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 452: “Since ‘to sacrifice’ generally meant also to provide a meal for the worshipers, the secondary meaning developed, ‘to kill for food.’ These are the two normal meanings for the verb; in the New Testament, apart from this passage, there is no occasion on which the verb does not have one or other of these meanings.”
34. Liddell, Scott, and Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, 207.
35. (1) John 3:16, Jesus says that those believing shall not “perish”; (2) 6:12, Jesus instructs that the fragments of bread and fish should be gathered so that “nothing may be lost”; (3) 6:27, Jesus admonishes, “Do not work for the food that perishes”; (4) 6:39, Jesus says that God’s will for him is that he “should lose nothing”; (5) 10:28, Jesus says believers “will never perish”; (6) 11:50, Caiaphas says it is better that “one man should die” than “that the whole nation should perish”; (7) 12:25, Jesus says, “Whoever loves his life loses it”; (8) 17:12, Jesus says that “not one of them has been lost”; (9) 18:9, Jesus says, “Of those whom you gave me I have lost not one.”
36. Note the two imperfects in 9:41: Εἰ τυφλοὶ ἦτε, οὐκ ἂν εἴχετε ἁμαρτίαν.
37. Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, vol. 1 (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 598.
38. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 805.
39. E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (New York: E. & J. B. Young & Co., 1898), 630, in reference to 10:9 says, “To go out and come in is used of . . . life in general.”
40. Grant Osborne, Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 190: “These Jews [the church in Smyrna; cf. Rev 2:9] claim to be God’s people, but since they have rejected his Messiah and persecuted his people, they ‘lie’ (cf. 1 John 1:10; 2:4) and ‘are not’ his true people but rather belong to Satan (cf. John 8:44; 2 Cor. 11:13–15).”
41. In contrast, Matthew 4 famously has Jesus and Satan relating back and forth in the wilderness.
42. Gary Manning, “Misinterpreting the Thief (John 10:10),” The Good Book Blog, April 28, 2016, https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2016/misinterpreting-the-thief-john-10–10.
43. For references to Old Testament passages in John 7–9, see Gary Manning, Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 100–135.
44. Manning also argues that the church fathers, the Reformers, and all commentators until about the mid-1850’s understood the “thief” to be the Pharisees. Not until the latter part of the 19th century did Satan become identified with the “thief.” Manning, “Misinterpreting the Thief.”
45. Charles Dyer, “Ezekiel,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), 1294: “Their first error was to put their own interests above those of the people. . . . The second error of the leaders was their harsh treatment of the people. A shepherd was to lead his sheep to food, protect them from attack, nurse to health the injured sheep, and search for any that strayed and got lost. . . . The third error of the rulers was their flagrant disregard for the people, letting them be scattered without looking for them.”
46. The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2043: “In the OT, God as the true shepherd is contrasted with unfaithful shepherds who will be judged by him (Psalm 23; Isa. 40:11; Jer. 23:1–4; Ezekiel 34; Zech. 11:4–17; see note on John 10:8). But David or the Davidic Messiah is also depicted as a (good) shepherd (2 Sam. 5:2; Ps. 78:70–72; Ezek. 37:24; Mic. 5:4), as is Moses (Isa. 63:11; cf. Ps. 77:20). Jesus as God and man is the fulfillment of both of these themes. The reference to the ‘good shepherd’ who lays down his life for the sheep calls to mind young David, who literally risked his life for his sheep (1 Sam. 17:34–37). But Jesus surpassed David in that he gave his life on the cross for his sheep, see Jn 10:15.”
47. As mentioned, the huge torches lighting up the temple mount allowing people to dance through the night make Jesus’s statement “I am the light of the world” all the more pertinent. The healing of the blind man (physical sight) who gains spiritual eyesight is in direct, and ironic, contrast to the Pharisees who have physical sight but remain spiritually blind throughout the pericope.
48. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel according to S. John, vol. 2 (London: Walter Smith, 1885), 71–72.
49. Rodney Whitacre, John, vol. 4 (Westmont, IL: IVP Academic, 1999), 259: “In contrast to the protection, freedom and pasture that come from entering through Jesus are the stealing, death and destruction brought by the thief (v. 10). One has a positive effect on the sheep, whereas the effect of the other is negative. The thief acts for his own selfish ends and to the detriment of the sheep. Jesus, however, serves the sheep by providing for them the way of life, which he will do . . . at the cost of his own life. Thus, the contrast with the thief is complete.”
50. Jesus himself clearly identifies the thieves by saying in John 10:8: “All who came before me are thieves and robbers.” Bullinger calls this an example of “Synecdoche of the Genus,” where “all is put for the greater part.” Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 615. “All who did not enter in by the door, but climbed in some other way” are thieves.
51. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 341. He gives 10:5 as an example of “repeated negation.”
52. The New Testament uses nine different words for deception, but John uses only the most common word (πλανάω) twice (7:12, 47). Since Satan is not in the context of either of these uses, the deception of the Pharisees is not being overtly stated. However, John’s overarching point in 5–10 is that the Pharisees remain in a state of spiritual blindness even when witnessing Jesus’s miracles. A logical inference from these observations is that this enduring blindness is demonically sourced.
53. John 7:20; 8:48, 52; 10:20. Jesus is the only one in John 5–10 who accurately uses the term “demon” when he states unequivocally in 8:49, “I do not have a demon” (Ἐγὼ δαιμόνιον οὐκ ἔχω). This fact should give pause to those who wish to bring Satan into a variety of different contexts where he does not belong.
54. All searches for John 9–10/John 10:10 and suicide within the church fathers and in a library of 132 commentaries on John’s Gospel came back with zero hits.
55. John 1:51; 3:3, 5, 11; 5:19, 24, 25; 6:26, 32, 47, 53; 8:34, 51, 58; 10:1, 7; 12:24; 13:16, 20, 21, 38; 14:12; 16:20, 23; 21:8.
56. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Gospel of John, trans. William Urwick, ed. Frederick Crombie (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), 322; Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 514–15; Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2017), 270; Phillip McFadyen, Open Door on John: A Gospel for Our Time (London: Triangle, 1998), 73.
57. H. A. Ironside, Addresses on the Gospel of John (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1942), 420; Cornelius à Lapide, The Great Commentary of Cornelius à Lapide: S. John’s Gospel, Chapters 1 to 11 (Edinburgh: John Grant, 1908), 365; John MacEvilly, An Exposition of the Gospel of St. John (New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1902), 208; Roy E. Gingrich, The Gospel of John (Memphis, TN: Riverside Printing, 1990), 36; J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: St. John, vol. 2 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1875), 192; Gordon J. Keddie, A Study Commentary on John, vol. 1 (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2001), 392; Lewis Foster, John: Unlocking the Scriptures for You, Standard Bible Studies (Cincinnati: Standard, 1987), 114.
58. “Chapter 9’s contest between Jesus’ Missionary Blind Man and the Jesus-Resisting Religious is crowned in chapter 10 by Jesus’ contrast between the Christocentric Gate and the Good Shepherd, on the one hand, and the “Otherwaying” (non-Christocentric Thieves and Robbers) on the other. . . . The sheep flee Otherwayers; they ‘flock’ to those whose voice alone they recognize as trustworthily Christ-centered.” Frederick Dale Bruner, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 569, 615.
59. John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel according to John (Bellingham: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 401; Lapide, The Great Commentary of Cornelius à Lapide, 365; MacEvilly, An Exposition of the Gospel of St. John, 208; Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, vol. 1, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 394.
60. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 385; Andrew Paterson, Opening Up John’s Gospel, Opening Up Commentary (Leominster: Day One Publications, 2010), 78; Tom Wright, John for Everyone, Part 1: Chapters 1–10 (London: SPCK, 2004), 149; cf. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 584.
61. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-book, 322; Ironside, Addresses on the Gospel of John, 420; Bruner, The Gospel of John, 569; Gingrich, The Gospel of John, 36; Keddie, A Study Commentary on John, 392; Kruse, John, 270; McFadyen, Open Door on John, 73; Foster, John, 114.
62. Brooke Foss Westcott and Arthur Westcott, eds., The Gospel according to St. John: Introduction and Notes on the Authorized Version, Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament (London: J. Murray, 1908), 153; Joseph Dongell, John: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing, 1997), 130; Jey J. Kanagaraj, John, New Covenant Commentary Series (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013), 106; Whitacre, John, 258; H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed., St. John, vol. 2, Pulpit Commentary (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1909), 44.
63. Köstenberger, John, 514–15; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 805, 812; Ryle, Expository Thoughts, 192; Arthur Walkington Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John (Swengel, PA: Bible Truth Depot, 1923–1945), 519; Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel according to Saint John, Black’s New Testament Commentary (London: Continuum, 2005), 295; Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John, 2:109.
64. Boisen’s list of themes in this passage demonstrates that spiritual warfare is only one among many important themes: “Jesus is the Good Shepherd: Themes: Atonement; Blasphemy; Church: Fellowship and Unity; Conflict; Conversion; Eternity; Evangelism; God: Father; God: Knowledge; God: Love; God: Power; Guidance; Jesus: Death; Jesus: Divinity; Jesus: Miracles; Jesus: Resurrection and Ascension; Leadership; Obedience and Disobedience; Parables; Persecution; Power; Prejudice; Prophecy: Jesus; Sacrifice; Salvation; Spiritual Warfare; Stealing; Substitution. Speakers: Jesus; Addresses: Pharisees; Other Participants: Jews; Healed Blind Man; Pharisees asking about the Blind Man; Settings: Jerusalem; Things: Sheep; Door; Sheep pen; Events: Jesus’ Judean and Perean ministry; Jesus heals a man born blind and answers the Pharisees; Jesus finds the blind man and calls himself the good shepherd.” Sean Boisen, Composite Gospel: Parallel Passages (Bellingham: Faithlife, 2017), 203:
65. There was division among the Jerusalem religious authorities regarding Christ’s healing on the Sabbath at its beginning and at its conclusion (John 9:16; 10:19–21).
66. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 861, s.v. πρᾶότης: “The devil is thwarted by humility.”
67. John makes it abundantly clear that it is Jesus who lays his life down for the sheep and not Satan who causes the death of Jesus (10:11, 15, 17, 18).
68. John 8:44 is a complicated verse that goes beyond the scope of this article. That said, murder is not suicide. Murder is the taking of another person’s life. Suicide is the taking of one’s own life. The emotional, mental, psychological, and social implications connected with murder are not the same as those involved with suicide. While it is a common fallacy to equate murder and suicide, such a move is part of the misunderstanding that surrounds the issue. For the definition of suicide used by this work, see Suicide Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, last reviewed September 7, 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention / suicide / index.html.