From: Busy Person’s Guide to John 11 to 21 Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2019
All reproduction of
text in paper, electronic, or computer
form both permitted and encouraged so long as
authorial
credit is given and the text is not altered.
Busy Person’s Guide to the
New Testament:
Quickly Understanding John
(Volume 1: Chapters 11 to 21)
by
Roland H. Worth, Jr.
Copyright © 2019 by author
Chapter Eleven
Because His Friend Lazarus Had Died, Jesus Returns to
4 When Jesus heard this,
he said, “This sickness will not lead to death, but to God’s glory, so that the
Son of God may be glorified through it.” 5 (Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.)
6 So when he heard that
Lazarus was sick, he remained in the place where he was for two more days. 7 Then after this, he said to his disciples, “Let us go to
8 The disciples replied,
“Rabbi, the Jewish leaders were just now trying to stone you to death! Are you going there again?” 9 Jesus replied, “Are there not twelve hours in a day? If anyone walks around in the daytime, he does
not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. 10 But if anyone walks around at night, he stumbles, because the light is
not in him.”
11 After he said this, he
added, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep. But I am going there to awaken him.” 12 Then the disciples replied, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will
recover.” 13 (Now Jesus had been
talking about his death, but they thought he had been talking about real
sleep.)
14 Then Jesus told them
plainly, “Lazarus has died, 15 and I am glad for your
sake that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.” 16 So Thomas (called Didymus) said to his fellow
disciples, “Let us go too, so that we may die with him.” --New English Translation (for comparison)
11:1 Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of
The
translation “town” is technically correct--it is a community in contrast
with the countryside--but it normally refers to a smaller one. Hence the term used here (κώμης) is nearly always rendered “village” by new
translations and this is done to contrast them with cities and towns (for
example, in Matthew
Sidebar--The socioeconomic status of the family: “They
would seem to have been people of position from the village being described as
their abode (to distinguish it from the other
11:2 It was that Mary who anointed the Lord with fragrant oil and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. This was the same Mary but John hasn’t told that story yet and won’t until the first verses of chapter 12. The text reads as if saying to Christians who had read the earlier gospel by Matthew (26:6-13), “Yes, that Mary.”
Sidebar--Efforts
to identify this Mary with a different one:
“The efforts made by Bunyan . . . and
by Hengstenberg, to defend the pre-Reformation
identification of ‘Mary’ with the ‘Magdalene,’ and the Magdalene with the woman
that was a sinner (cf. Luke
11:3 Therefore the sisters sent to Him, saying, “Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick.” Because of the close friendship between the two men, the sisters sent a message to Jesus warning Him of Lazarus’ extremely serious ill health. If it were anything short of that level, there would have been no perceived need to make Him aware of it in the first place--minor ailments are simply part of the annoyances of living. When it came to a matter this desperate, requesting Jesus’ help was a quite natural act since they knew full well that He could miraculously heal their brother (verse 21).
11:4 When Jesus heard that, He said, “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” Jesus’ response to those with Him was that the illness would not actually produce the feared death but would be the means whereby Jesus gained respect and honor (“be glorified”). Here the expression “not unto death” is used in a dramatically different sense than it would normally: Instead of “He will not die at all,” it carries the connotation (in post event perspective) that “death will not be the ultimate victor” or “death will only have a temporary victory,” i.e., that Jesus will resurrect Him--something far more awesome than even keeping him from dying in the first place. The listeners don’t know this and were undoubtedly shocked to be later told by Jesus that the friend had, indeed, died (verses 11-15).
11:5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. Jesus had a deep affection for the entire family and not just one or two of them. The “conceptual freight” here is that the temporary death was not due to any lack of good will or good intentions. What was even more important than that was that the situation would demonstrate His power at its utmost. And if He could do this much for physical death, could He possibly lack the power to forgive sin and save us from spiritual death as well?
Sidebar on
the words translated love in this narrative about Lazarus and his sisters: “The English
Version loses much here, and still more in John 21:15-17, by using the
same word ‘love’ to translate two different Greek words: nor can the loss be
remedied satisfactorily. The word used
in John 11:3, philein (Latin, amare), denotes a
passionate, emotional warmth, which loves and cares not to ask why; the
affection of lovers, parents, and the like.
The word used here agapân,
(Latin, diligere),
denotes a calm, discriminating attachment, which loves because of the
excellence of the loved object; the affection of friends. Philein is the
stronger, but less reasoning; agapân the
more earnest, but less intense. The
sisters naturally use the more emotional word, describing their own feeling
towards their brother; the Evangelist equally naturally uses the loftier and
less impulsive word. The fact that the
sisters are here included is not the reason for the change of expression.” (
11:6 So, when He heard that he was sick, He stayed two more days in the place
where He was. Jesus
intentionally remained not just for a few hours to get ready to leave, but for
two additional days above and beyond that.
It wasn’t for lack of information since He already had it in His
hands. Hence His course was intentional
and not accidental. At this time He was
abiding “at Bethabara” (KJV; “Bethany on the other
side of the
Sidebar on
the reason for the delay: “It is usual to explain this delay as caused by His
wish to test the faith of the sisters, or by the nature of the work which He
was then doing, and was unwilling to leave.
But the first reason passes over the fact that their faith had been
shown in their message to Him; and the second postulates His presence at
11:7 Then after this He
said to the disciples, “Let us go to
11:8 The disciples said to Him, “Rabbi, lately the Jews sought to stone You, and are You going there again?” The disciples were far from enthusiastic about the decision as indicated by their reminder of what had happened the last time. Quite understandably they discouraged Him from repeating the danger. There is no reason to believe that on most travel plans they would have had much to say at all--only the “practicalities” perhaps and not the “should we.” In this case, however, hostility had been so strong they clearly felt the need to caution Him lest this be a decision He regretted--and them as well (verse 16).
11:9 Jesus
answered, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not
stumble, because he sees the light of this world. If you go into a situation with your eyes
open and perceptively “see” (= recognize) what is happening and what is needed,
then you are not going to stumble and hurt yourself. Implication:
I fully understand what I am doing even if you don’t yet. I know where the safety is and where the
danger is.
Edging up to nearly the same
conceptual conclusion is the approach of the Cambridge Bible for Schools and
Colleges: “The
meaning seems to be, ‘Are there not twelve working-hours in which a man may
labor without fear of stumbling? I have
not yet reached the end of My working-day, and so can
safely continue the work I came to do. ‘The
night cometh, when I can no longer work; but it has not yet come.’ Compare John 9:4.”
Sidebar: “The
Jews always divided the space from sunrise to sunset, whether the days were
longer or shorter, into twelve parts, so that the hours of their day were all
the year the same in number, though much shorter in winter than in
summer.” (Benson Commentary) Hence the “day” varied “from fourteen hours
to nine” in duration. (Pulpit
Commentary)
The
euphemism of “sleep” was a long established one and Jesus had used it
previously (Matthew
The question is natural: Why didn’t Jesus come out and say this explicitly in the first place? When the first report of Lazarus’ condition had arrived, if He had explicitly explained the fact that He was going to delay even though His friend was in bad shape, would they not have been horrified? To make delay palatable, He needed to avoid being explicit.
At this point two days later though, why still not saying things explicitly to begin with instead of talking about sleeping? Probably as an emphatic lesson to them to look beneath the surface level of other “odd” teachings He sometimes gives in this gospel--to make them realize that there is another meaning intended . . . but that they have to work and tease out what is being said. In other words, if a teaching is so much not clear cut that one might be tempted to call it “mystical” in contrast with His other teachings, they needed to “think out” the spiritual implications that the language is intended to convey.
And what was to happen would be a powerful testimony to the Lord’s unlimited power. Raising the dead when compared with healing the sick is rather parallel to the difference in warfare between a nuclear warhead and a hand grenade. You have entered into an entirely different level of raw power. Enhanced even further by the fact that He had power not merely to raise from the dead--awesome in its own right--but to raise someone all of four days dead.
“He perceives clearly how this journey to Judea will end, as respects his Master, and not only sees in it peril to themselves, as they all did, but feels as if he could not and cared not to survive his Master’s sacrifice to the fury of His enemies. It was that kind of affection which, living only in the light of its Object, cannot contemplate, or has no heart for life, without it.” (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary)
In their minds the “worst case scenario” would almost certainly become the grim reality. Yet even in fear of personal death, they still had the willingness to make the trip with Him. Clearly their faith had grown and set down deep roots in these years of working closely with Jesus.
Mary and Martha—the Sisters of Lazarus—Are Both Convinced
That Jesus Could Have Saved Their Brother If He Had Just Been Present (John
11:17-37): 17 When Jesus arrived, he
found that Lazarus had been in the tomb four days already. 1 8 (Now Bethany was less than two miles from Jerusalem, 19 so many of the Jewish people of the region had come to Martha and Mary
to console them over the loss of their brother.)
20 So when Martha heard
that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary was sitting in the
house. 21 Martha said to Jesus,
“Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will grant you.”
23 Jesus replied, “Your
brother will come back to life again.” 24 Martha said, “I know
that he will come back to life again in the resurrection at the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live even if
he dies, 26 and the one who lives
and believes in me will never die. Do
you believe this?” 27 She replied, “Yes,
Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God who comes into the
world.”
28 And when she had said
this, Martha went and called her sister Mary, saying privately, “The Teacher is
here and is asking for you.” 29 So when Mary heard
this, she got up quickly and went to him.
30 (Now Jesus had not yet
entered the village, but was still in the place where Martha had come out to
meet him.) 31 Then the people who were with Mary in the house consoling her saw her
get up quickly and go out. They followed
her, because they thought she was going to the tomb to weep there.
32 Now when Mary came to
the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said to him,
“Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” 33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the people who had come with her
weeping, he was intensely moved in spirit and greatly distressed.
34 He asked, “Where have
you laid him?” They replied, “Lord, come
and see.” 35 Jesus wept. 36 Thus the people who had come to mourn said, “Look how much he loved
him!” 37 But some of them said,
“This is the man who caused the blind man to see! Couldn’t he have done
something to keep Lazarus from dying?”
--New English Translation (for comparison)
Sidebar on
Jesus’ discovery of the time of the death after arriving and what it tells of
how His supernatural power of foreknowledge worked: “he found, i.e. on
enquiry. It would seem as if Christ’s
miraculous power of knowing without the ordinary means of information was not
in constant activity, but like His other miraculous powers was employed only on
fitting occasions. It was necessary to
His work that He should know of Lazarus’ death; it was not necessary that He
should know how long he had been buried, nor where he had been buried (John
The fact that “Jews” would visit a fellow Jewish mourner would be the kind of “taken for granted” idea that one would rarely feel the need to add. Hence the identification probably indicates that they a goodly number were aligned with the faction that scorned Jesus--a common but not fully uniform connotation of the term throughout this gospel. Whether they knew much of the family’s connection with Jesus or not, they were still willing to go through the social interactions customary at such a time. Some of them, however, recognized that Jesus was capable of working miracles to prevent death (verse 37)--friends, foes, or some of both?
Sidebar on
Jewish mourning customs: As one rabbinic
source summed up the anticipated procedure:
“We must not weep for the dead beyond the measure. The three first days are for weeping; seven
days for lamentation: thirty days [total] for the intermission from washing
their clothes, and shaving themselves.”
(John Lightfoot’s Commentary on the Four Gospels; on John
11:19) There was no Biblically
prescribed duration however. The
patriarch Jacob was mourned for seventy days and then seven (Genesis 50:3,
10). Both Aaron (Numbers
11:20 Now Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met Him,
but Mary was sitting in the house. Presumably someone from Jesus’ travel
group went ahead to inform her or else some friend of the family recognized the
Galilean travelers and hurried word back.
Rather than wait she rushed out to meet Him, perhaps even at His request
since this would give them some time for talking before He had to face the
entire party of mourners. Judging from
the account of an earlier event in their home, Martha appeared to have been the
dominant personality in the household:
In Luke 10:38-39 there is a reference to “Martha welcomed Him into
her house” and then we see how she seems clearly in charge (verse
40).
Sidebar: Sitting while mourning was quite typical in Jewish families--as in the cases in Job 2:8, 13 and Ezekiel 8:14.
Since the sisters had sent word of Lazarus’ severe condition (verse 3), the logical next question would be, “Why weren’t you able to come?” Instead something different crosses her lips. . . .
This may well be simply an indication of how deeply she remained convinced that Jesus had the full trust of the heavenly Father; what had happened had not compromised that. However she could also be hinting that He might raise him from the dead. But if she might wish it, she has avoided actually asking it--perhaps on the basis that there is such a thing as imposing on friends especially since so many days had passed since the death.
In the most literal sense everyone will be
resurrected--the good and the bad.
But the only ones who will regard that as a blessing rather than a curse
when it occurs will be those who have embraced Jesus. He is the one who makes eternal
happiness available through the shedding of His blood on the cross.
Hence if one wishes to have a
blessed resurrection, they have to embrace Jesus by belief in Him and the
accompanying loyalty and obedience that flow out of that faith. As in James 2: faith and the works produced by faith are
irrevocably linked together. Or as Jesus
conveys the sentiment in John
11:31 Then the Jews who were with her in the house, and comforting her, when they saw that Mary rose up quickly and went out, followed her, saying, “She is going to the tomb to weep there.” Those who were in the house interpreted Mary’s quick departure in a very natural and reasonable way: She was leaving to mourn at the tomb of her brother. There might be no spoken words that they could speak to assuage her sorrow, but they could at least try to comfort her by their continued presence.
Sidebar: “The word
rendered ‘weep’ here and in John 11:33, as distinct from the one used
in John 11:35 [‘Jesus wept’], indicates a loud expression of grief;
wailing and crying, not merely shedding of tears.” (
“They are on the way to the sepulcher, near to which
they have now arrived. He is conscious
of the power which He is about to exercise, and that the first result will be
the glory of God (John 11:4); but He is conscious also of the suffering hearts
near Him, and the sympathy with human sorrow is no less part of His nature than
the union with divine strength.” (Ellicott’s
Commentary for English Readers)
“ ‘The very Gospel in which the deity of Jesus is most
clearly asserted, is also that which makes us best acquainted with the
profoundly human side of His life’ (Godet). How far such a conception of deity is removed
from the pagan ideal, may be seen by even a
superficial study of the classics. Homer’s
gods and goddesses weep and bellow when wounded, but are not touched with the
feeling of human infirmity.” (Vincent’s
Word Studies)
Then there
are those hostile to the Lord. Note the
“could not” nature of the argument: If
He could do such a miracle surely He would have! These certainly aren’t suggesting He could
raise the dead, but they are suggesting that He could have stopped death
occurring in the first place. . . . if He genuinely had miraculous powers. If Jesus did not heal Lazarus, He surely
could not have healed that man either--no matter how clear the evidence
was that He had! They wanted an excuse
to disbelieve His miracles and they thought they had just found it. People with weak cases covet further
“confirmation” for it--especially if, in their more candid moments, they feel
wary that their arguments might be weaker than they want them to be.
Still Wrapped in His Burial Wrappings, the Resurrected
Lazarus Makes His Way Out of the Tomb at Jesus’ Call (John 11:38-44): 38 Jesus, intensely moved again, came to the tomb. (Now it was a cave, and a stone was placed
across it.) 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the deceased, replied,
“Lord, by this time the body will have a bad smell, because he has been buried
four days.” 40 Jesus responded,
“Didn’t I tell you that if you believe, you would see the glory of God?”
41 So they took away the
stone. Jesus looked upward and said, “Father, I thank you that you have
listened to me. 42 I knew that you always
listen to me, but I said this for the sake of the crowd standing around here,
that they may believe that you sent me.”
43 When he had said this,
he shouted in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The one who had died came out, his feet and hands tied up with strips of
cloth, and a cloth wrapped around his face. Jesus said to them, “Unwrap him and let him
go.” --New English Translation (for comparison)
Sidebar: “The word
rendered ‘grave-clothes’ is used nowhere in the New Testament except in this
passage. It means properly the bands or
straps by which the linen sheet was fastened to the body, and which kept the
spice from falling out. (Compare John
19:40.) We find it used elsewhere for
straps and thongs generally. They were
made of rushes, linen,, and other materials. The word is used once in the Greek of the Old
Testament, where it means the belts by which beds are girded (Proverbs
When the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem Hears the Reports, They Are
Horrified and Convince Themselves That Unless Jesus Is Killed, He Will
Ultimately Cause Both the Temple and the People To Be Destroyed by the Romans
(John 11:45-57): 45 Then many of the
people, who had come with Mary and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in
him. 46 But some of them went
to the Pharisees and reported to them what Jesus had done.
47 So the chief priests
and the Pharisees called the council together and said, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many miraculous
signs. 48 If we allow him to go
on in this way, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take
away our sanctuary and our nation.”
49 Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, “You know
nothing at all! 50 You do not realize
that it is more to your advantage to have one man die for the people than for
the whole nation to perish.”
51 (Now he did not say
this on his own, but because he was high priest that year, he prophesied that
Jesus was going to die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not for the Jewish nation only, but to gather together into one the
children of God who are scattered.) 53 So from that day they planned together to kill him.
54 Thus Jesus no longer
went around publicly among the Judeans, but went away from there to the region
near the wilderness, to a town called Ephraim, and stayed there with his
disciples. 55 Now the Jewish feast
of Passover was near, and many people went up to
56 Thus they were looking
for Jesus, and saying to one another as they stood in the temple courts, “What
do you think? That he won’t come to the feast?” 57 (Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that anyone
who knew where Jesus was should report it, so that they could arrest him.)
--New English
Translation (for comparison)
Of course
even accepting the physical reality of a miracle is not necessarily going to
get you to embrace the cause of the One doing it--not if you are hostile
enough: “Miracles or not, he is still a
false teacher!” No amount of evidence
will change some people. And there may
well have been those who fell back on the attribution of His power to Beelzebub
(Matthew
But at this point we must point out that “believe” can carry multiple connotations. In a sense, they certainly did “believe.” Judging from their report they clearly believed that this incredible miracle had happened but refused to believe that meant He was an authoritative teacher and religious expert with far greater authority than they could ever dream of having. To concede that would require that His teaching be the authoritative norm for their teaching and they considered that intolerable. (In light of the apparently well known hostility of the religious authorities to Jesus, I find it totally improbable that these observers went out of enthusiasm and good will--though a good number judge otherwise.)
Sidebar on the public nature and knowledge of Jesus’ raisings from
the dead. Webster and Wilkinson
are quoted by the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible
Commentary: “It is remarkable that on each of the three occasions on which our Lord
raised the dead, a large number of persons was
assembled. In two instances, the resurrection
of the widow’s son and of Lazarus, these were all witnesses of the miracle; in
the third (of Jairus’ daughter) they were necessarily
cognizant of it [since they were outside waiting to see what would
happen]. Yet this important circumstance
is in each case only incidentally noticed by the historians, not put forward or
appealed to as a proof of their veracity.
In regard to this miracle, we observe a greater degree of preparation,
both in the provident arrangement of events, and in our Lord’s actions and
words than in any other. The preceding
miracle (cure of the man born blind) is distinguished from all others by the
open and formal investigation of its facts.
And both these miracles, the most public and
best attested of all, are related by John, who wrote long after the other
Evangelists.”
Sidebar on
how the Greek makes their dilemma even more emphatic: “The question
is asked in the present tense; it is not a matter for future action: ‘What are we doing, seeing what this Man is
doing?’ They feel that they have been
inactive but too long, while He has been daily gaining influence. The form of their question is a strange
contradiction; they cannot but admit that He doeth many signs, and yet their
pride will call Him by no name but the contemptuous ‘this Man!’ ” (Ellicott’s
Commentary for English Readers)
If country
and worship are in mind, the “place” is best interpreted in terms of the
If you
admit that it is really almost as much concern about losing their
own position, it’s nowhere near as credible.
So which is it: Did fear for the welfare of religion and country dominate . . . or did fear for their own position? Or were the dominate religio-political “players” capable of making a distinction anymore?
11:49 And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, Caiaphas was high priest “that year.” The idea that the holder was changed yearly is not in mind. This is likely simply a reference to the fact that he occupied the position the year Jesus was murdered. However it could also contain a derogatory reference to the fact that the Romans felt free to depose lawful high priests and substitute someone else whenever they wanted--in defiance of the life-time tenure established by the Law of Moses. Hence the Romans were already interfering regularly in their religious life and had set the precedent for proceeding against the entire Sanhedrin at any time they chose.
Caiaphas is clearly convinced that the others were thoroughly ignorant of just how bad the situation actually was. They see a horrible danger; he sees them as blinded to the one and only course that could solve their dilemma. . . .
Sidebar on Caiaphas: “This was a surname; ‘who was called Caiaphas’ Matthew 26:3. His original name was Joseph. Caiaphas is either
the Syriac form of Cephas,
a ‘rock,’ or, according to another derivation, means ‘depression.’ The high priesthood had long since ceased to
descend from father to son. Pilate’s
predecessor, Valerius Gratus,
had deposed Annas and set up in succession Ismael, Eleazar (son of Annas), Simon, and Joseph Caiaphas
(son-in-law of Annas); Caiaphas
held the office from A.D. 18 to 36, when he was deposed by Vitellius. Annas in spite of
his deposition was still regarded as in some sense high-priest (John
11:51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, Although he was thinking in purely political terms, he unknowingly but accurately “prophesied” the fact that Jesus would “die for the nation” in a very different sense. In other words, he spoke a profound truth but not in the sense that he had consciously in mind. It was actually a death for the spiritual souls in the nation rather than a death to assure its survival as a nation--Hebrews 9:11-14.
Sidebar: Caiaphas
“prophesied” but not knowingly. “He uttered words which proved to be prophetic; or he
expressed at that time a sentiment which turned out to be true. It does not mean that he was inspired, or that he deserved to be ranked among the true
prophets; but his words were such that they accurately expressed a future
event. The word ‘prophecy’ is to be
taken here not in the strict sense, but in a sense which is not uncommon in the
sacred writers. Acts 21:9: ‘and the same man had four daughters,
virgins, which did prophesy.’ ” (Barnes’ Notes)
But this cadre of extremists were determined that by “hook or crook” they were going to steam roll their most dangerous opponent into the ground. Evidence was now irrelevant. Credibility was irrelevant. Only victory at any and all costs. And with Jesus safely out of the way, where else could the people go for religious leadership but them?
Sidebar: Obviously Jesus was around ethnic “Jews” when He went to Ephraim! This vividly illustrates how John often isn’t using the term in an ethnic sense but as a euphemism for “Jewish opponents” or “powerful Jewish opponents.”
Sidebar on
the location of Ephraim: “The position of this ‘city’ is not known. The manuscripts spell it variously as Ephraim, Ephrem, Ephram, and Ephratha.
Eusebius and Jerome both assumed it to be the same place as Ephron, but differed as to its position, the former fixing
it at eight, and the latter at twenty miles, north-east from Jerusalem. Both would place it, therefore, in Judæa; and this agrees with its position ‘near to the
wilderness,’ for the
“Different periods were necessary in order to be
cleansed from ceremonial pollution. For
example, one who had been polluted by the touch of a dead body, of a sepulcher,
or by the bones of the dead, was sprinkled on the third and seventh days, by a
clean person, with hyssop dipped in water mixed in the ashes of the red
heifer. After washing his body and
clothes he was then clean. These persons who went up before the Passover were
doubtless those who had in some manner been ceremonially polluted.” (Barnes’ Notes) These, naturally, needed to be removed before
participating.
Sidebar: For examples of the kind of problems such a situation could produce at its most extreme, consider the frustration of the returned exiles in the days of Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 30:13-20).
Chapter Twelve
At Bethany Six Days Before the Passover, a Dinner by
Lazarus’ Sisters Is the Occasion for the Anointing of Jesus’ Feet with
Expensive Ointment (John 12:1-11): 1 Then, six days before
the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom he had raised
from the dead. 2 So they prepared a
dinner for Jesus there. Martha was serving, and Lazarus was among those present
at the table with him.
3 Then Mary took three
quarters of a pound of expensive aromatic oil from pure nard and anointed the
feet of Jesus. She then wiped his feet
dry with her hair. (Now the house was
filled with the fragrance of the perfumed oil.)
4 But Judas Iscariot,
one of his disciples (the one who was going to betray him) said, 5 “Why wasn’t this oil sold for three hundred silver coins and the money
given to the poor?” 6 (Now Judas said this
not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief. As keeper of the money box, he used to steal
what was put into it.)
7 So Jesus said, “Leave
her alone. She has kept it for the day of my burial. 8 For you will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have
me!”
9 Now a large crowd of
Judeans learned that Jesus was there, and so they came not only because of him
but also to see Lazarus whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus too, 11 for on account of him many of the Jewish people from
12:1 Then, six days before the
Passover, Jesus came to
12:2 There they made Him a supper; and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those who sat at the table with Him. Lazarus remained in good health and participated in this meal with their Visitor. In light of what He had done in raising Lazarus from the dead, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that--so far as the family was concerned--He was very much the “guest of honor.”
And not just in the mind of Lazarus’ family either. Assuming that this is the same anointing as referred to in the two anointing stories in Matthew 26:6-13 and Mark 14:3-9--and the similarities are so strong that this seems certain--then the meal is actually held in the home of “Simon the leper.” Martha’s role of “serve[r]” of the food is strange in that context unless Simon is some type of kin or she had volunteered to play the role. As a former “leper,” one suspects that few marriage prospects came his way to have someone in his own household to play that role of hostess.
12:3 Then Mary took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil. Mary’s action of anointing Jesus’ feet with extremely expensive oil is usually cast as an indication of great faith in Jesus because the passage is considered in isolation. When interpreted in light of Jesus’ raising of Lazarus at an earlier date, the anointing becomes not only an indication of great faith but also of great gratitude as well.
Sidebar: The anointing of the head with some type of
oil (usually far more modest in cost!) was a well recognized social custom
based on the imagery of God doing the same for the one He especially respected: “You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore
God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than
Your companions (Psalms 45:7; quoted in Hebrews 1:9 in
application to Christ). Anointment was
especially important when done to mark the appointment of chief priests
(Leviticus
12:4 But one of His disciples,
Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, who would betray Him, said, The description “Judas Iscariot, Simon’s
son” would identify to many readers the betrayer as the son of the Simon currently
under discussion--the leper. In John
6:71, however, there is a similar identification but with the substitution of
“son of Simon Iscariot”--which makes far greater sense. (Very few translations preserve the KJV’s reading here.)
12:5 “Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” Judas was indignant that oil with the purchasing power of about a year’s wages should be used for such a purpose: there were poor about who could have been benefited. At least that was what he claimed in his “pious” indignation. Judas was not the only one, however, who was upset at the time: “And they [i.e., more than one; not just Judas alone] criticized her sharply” (Mark 14:6).
Sidebar: “The value of
this ointment is another minute indication that there is no connection between
the Lazarus of John and the Lazarus of the parable”--who was utterly destitute
and begging (Luke
12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it. Whatever sentiments Judas may have felt toward the poor--he may even have thought that they really did deserve help--the fundamental reason for the objection lay unspoken and hidden elsewhere: He was used to stealing from the collective treasury of the group and he would not now be able to arrange the sale of the spikenard . . . and remove from the proceeds whatever part he wished for himself.
Sidebar on
a translation of glōssokomon
as “bag” or “money bag” that is still frequently used: “Better, the box, the
cash-box in which the funds of the small company were kept. The word means literally ‘a case for
mouthpieces’ of musical instruments, and hence any portable chest. It occurs in the LXX of 2 Chronicles 24:8,
11, but nowhere in [the] New Testament excepting here and John 13:29.” (
12:7 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; she has kept this for the day of My burial. Recognizing His quickly approaching death, Jesus insisted that Judas stop harassing Mary for she--however inadvertently--had kept the oil for the time Jesus Himself would die. This was not the kind of practice Jesus encouraged or demanded but having given it out of a good heart and the death being less than a week away, she did not deserve a rebuke of any kind.
12:8 For the poor you have with you
always, but Me you do not have always.” If
one wished to argue from the standpoint of the needs of the poor, there would
be abundant opportunity to help them in the future. However much a society tries, there are
always those who stand in need. Curse it
to your ideological heart’s contentment but it still doesn’t change the reality
one bit. This isn’t to “condone” poverty
or to “want” people to be poor, but simply to be realistic about the fact that
it isn’t going to be fully eradicated.
As far back as the days of Moses the Lawgiver, this was recognized: “For the
poor will never cease from the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You
shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your
land’ ” (Deuteronomy
12:9 Now a great many of the Jews knew that He was there; and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might also see Lazarus, whom He had raised from the dead. Two very different motives lay behind the attenders. Some (probably most) came to congratulate Lazarus on his escape from death. They came to verify with their own eyes that Lazarus was indeed now alive again. Many or all would have heard of his severe ill health and even seen him in that condition--and attended at least part of the interment and mourning. To personally verify his restoration to good health would be fascinating and intriguing in itself. And more than a few surely wondered, “How in the world does a dead man act? Especially one that we ourselves knew.”
Others came to see Jesus for this strange Galilean had done the impossible with Lazarus. They wanted to see what He looked like and what He had to say--again sincere interest. Others came with a hostile agenda however: they had already made their decisions about Jesus. They might well be polite (out of courtesy toward Lazarus) but it was simply an insincere veneer. . . .
It was bad
enough that Jesus was still alive. But
that His cause would prosper where they decreed the criteria for
religious acceptance was bitterly unacceptable.
This was a dagger not only into egos but also into their theology as
well. Not only was Lazarus a living
rebuttal of their denial that a resurrection could or would occur, but he also
disproved their denial that there was something within that could
survive death.
Joyous Crowds Escort Jesus into
16 (His disciples did not
understand these things when they first happened, but when Jesus was glorified,
then they remembered that these things were written
about him and that these things had happened to him.)
17 So the crowd who had
been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the
dead were continuing to testify about it. 18 Because they had heard that Jesus had performed this miraculous sign,
the crowd went out to meet him. 19 Thus the Pharisees
said to one another, “You see that you can do nothing. Look, the world has run off after him!”
--New English
Translation (for comparison)
12:12 The next
day a great multitude that had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus
was coming to Jerusalem, As the most important Feast of the year it was common
for huge numbers such as this to be attending.
In light of what they immediately do (verse 13), this could not be some
vague report that He is still approaching from a distance. It must mean that He was so close by
that He would be coming that very day.
This argues that they had heard reports from or about
The words could be interpreted by listeners--especially the Roman soldiers who were little familiar if at all with the text of the Torah and the prophets--as meaning “Blessed is Jesus who comes in the name of the Lord because the Lord is the King of Israel who has sent Him.”
However they were directly motivated in their behavior, as verse 18 tells us, by hearing reports of the resurrection of Lazarus. Hence, to the extent that they are consciously invoking the Psalms text--or even without an intentional reference at all--they would hear it as meaning “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord to become the King of Israel!” In other words Jesus is about to be made King of His people . . . presumably during the Feast. Whatever the religious leadership’s knowledge of Jesus’ earlier quashing of the effort to forcefully make Him such, these were words to reinforce their worst fears.
Sidebar: For a Jewish King entering the city with palm branches consider Simon during the Maccabees’ revolt capturing the city and the massive
jubilation that followed it: “. . . The Jews entered it with praise and palm branches,
and with harps and cymbals and stringed instruments, and with hymns and songs,
because a great enemy had been crushed and removed from
12:14 Then Jesus, when He had found a young donkey, sat on it; as it is written: How He came to have access to the animal is a story not recorded here but in the Synoptic gospel accounts--Matthew 21:1-9 for example.
To us, you
would expect any half way important King to be approaching town on a fine
stead. But it is said that those in the
ancient
Although Jesus Must Be “Glorified” By God, It Is Not Only
Immediately Through the Heavenly Voice That Then Speaks, But Also Through His
Resurrection from Death (John 12:20-36): 20 Now some Greeks were among those who had gone up to worship at the
feast. 21 So these approached
Philip, who was from
23 Jesus replied, “The
time has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 I tell you the solemn truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls into the
ground and dies, it remains by itself alone. But if it dies, it produces much
grain. 25 The one who loves his
life destroys it, and the one who hates his life in this world guards it for
eternal life. 26 If anyone wants to
serve me, he must follow me, and where I am, my servant will be too. If anyone
serves me, the Father will honor him.
27 “Now my soul is
greatly distressed. And what should I
say? ‘Father, deliver me from this hour’? No, but for this very reason I have come to
this hour. 28 Father, glorify your
name.” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and I will glorify
it again.” 29 The crowd that stood there and heard the voice said that it had
thundered. Others said that an angel had
spoken to him.
30 Jesus said, “This
voice has not come for my benefit but for yours. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be
driven out. 32 And I, when I am
lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 (Now he said this to indicate clearly what kind of death he was going to
die.)
34 Then the crowd
responded, “We have heard from the law that the Christ will remain
forever. How can you say, ‘The
Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is
this Son of Man?”
35 Jesus replied, “The
light is with you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, so
that the darkness may not overtake you. The
one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. 36 While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become
sons of light.” When Jesus had said these
things, he went away and hid himself from them.
--New English
Translation (for comparison)
Although strictly speaking, the introductory words “Jesus answered them” would make us suspect that He was responding strictly to the apostles, the mention of “the people who stood by and heard” (verse 29) proves that others were present as well. The difficulty of being sure they could find Him later in the vast crowd argues that the Greeks would have followed the two apostles as they sought word from Jesus whether He would speak with them in particular. This argues that, whether directly addressed or not, the words were spoken where they could hear the words as well--and learn from them.
Sidebar: Was it a thunderous sound that was interpreted
as God’s speaking or was it God speaking in such a manner that many interpreted
it as mere thunder? “There can be no doubt what John wishes us to understand;—that a voice was heard
speaking articulate words, that some could distinguish the words, others could
not, while some mistook the sounds for thunder.
To make the thunder the reality, and the voice and the words mere
imagination, is to substitute an arbitrary explanation for the Evangelist’s
plain meaning. For similar voices
[speaking] compare that heard by Elijah (1 Kings
Sidebar on
angelic revelations: Many Jews believed
that God spoke routinely through angels rather than doing so directly. Although that was not a uniform pattern,
unquestionably the means was used. We
read of an angel repeatedly speaking to the earthly father of Jesus in his
sleep (Matthew
The
additional lesson is that Jesus personally testifies that it was a
genuine “voice” speaking and not merely inanimate thunder as some thought.
At the same time the one who claimed to be “the ruler of this world” would be cast out by God. Stripped of any pretense of genuine authority. Now will begin the “exorcism” via resurrection of that plague on the human race.
Although the “ruler of this world”--language also used in John 14:30 and 16:11--is routinely applied to Satan, it strikes me as having a valid application as well to those through whom he was acting: In particular to the religious leaders who ramroded through Jesus’ death; these would also be repudiated by the resurrection. As would Pilate as representative of the temporal “ruler of this world” since he had more than enough reason to acquit Him. Both the Devil and his earthly tools would be repudiated.
Although
the event specifically in mind is that of the crucifixion (verse 33)--He would
be “lifted up” on the cross to die--we surely should not forget the other
and far more glorious “lifting up” of His ascension into heaven since it is
from there that He rules over His kingdom.
As Acts 1:9 puts it: “While they
watched, He was taken up”--“lifted up” (NASB, NET); “carried up” (
Jesus had spoken of it to Nicodemus, comparing it to an event during the Exodus: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:14-15). John repeats his linkage of the “lifting up” to being punished by death / crucifixion in John 18:31-32.
A secondary problem in their minds: if “the Son of Man” is to be distinguished from the Christ, what in the world does the expression mean and refer to? Since the Messiah could not possibly be one who would suffer death or ever depart from the region, the “Son of Man” must be a distinct figure with different responsibilities. What are they? What role does he play in the Divine scheme of things?
Sidebar: The Messianic kingdom was pictured as
eternal, i.e., He would never cease to reign over it: “Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve Him. His
dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and
His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed” (Daniel
The person
who walks in the “darkness” that is outside of Jesus and His teaching “does not
know where he is [really] going,” even though he may think he does. This is an allusion to the fact that the
enemies of the Lord had a rationale for what they were doing, but they
were “in darkness” as to its injustice and the consequences of it. They rationalized that it was for the
ultimate good of the nation. The
horrifying (to them) result, however, would be the expansion of Jesus’ movement
to the entire human race and--in order to do that--the removing of the
distinctive limitations imposed by the very Mosaical
Law they claimed to champion. Not to
mention the destruction of the
Sidebar: Jesus had earlier stressed that because He is
the “light of the world,” anyone who follows His teaching “shall not walk in
darkness but have the light of life” (John
Though Jesus Had Performed Many Miracles to Vindicate His
Authority and Teaching, It Was Vastly Different From What The Dominant
Religious Leaders Wanted or Expected.
The Result of Their Prejudice Was That Their Eyes and Hearts Were Blinded
to the Truth (John 12:37-43): 37 Although Jesus had
performed so many miraculous signs before them, they still refused to believe
in him, 38 so that the word of
Isaiah the prophet would be fulfilled. He
said, “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the
Lord been revealed?”
39 For this reason they
could not believe, because again Isaiah said, 40 “He has blinded
their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes
and understand with their heart, and turn to me, and I would heal them.”
41 Isaiah said these
things because he saw Christ’s glory, and spoke about him. 42 Nevertheless, even among the rulers many believed in him, but because of
the Pharisees they would not confess Jesus to be the Christ, so that they would
not be put out of the synagogue. 43 For they loved praise from men more than praise from God.
Furthermore
Jeremiah described people of this mentality in his day in these words, “Can an Ethiopian
change his skin or a leopard its spots?
Neither can you do good who are accustomed to
doing evil” (ESV). The Proverbist hit
on the same point of the self-created inability/refusal to change in a proper
manner, “Though
you grind a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain,
yet his foolishness will not depart from him” (27:22, NKJV).
The common
view is to argue that it was, indeed, the future Jesus Himself who was
observed by Isaiah: “The glory of the
Son before the Incarnation, when He was ‘in the form of God’ (Philippians 2:6),
is to be understood.” (
12:42 Nevertheless
even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they
did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the
synagogue; John admits that
official hostility to Jesus was not as universal as the ultimate outcome might
indicate. A large number of officials
(“many”) “believed” in Jesus but because of hostility by those who dominated
the Pharisee movement refused to risk the threatened exclusion from the
synagogue by publicly defending Him.
(See John 9:20-23 for a case of how this danger shaped what people would
say publicly about Jesus in
How many of these were in the Sanhedrin itself we do not know, but it is significant that no mention is made of Sadducee believers in Jesus. These were the ones that dominated and controlled that institution. Pharisee opposition to Jesus would provide them “cover” from censure from the more pious element and assure that organized opposition and recriminations would be minimal or nonexistent.
Jesus’ Final Public Plea:
Accept the Authority of My Teaching—Or Be Judged By it (John
47 “If anyone hears my
words and does not obey them, I do not judge him. For I have not come to judge the world, but to
save the world. 48 The one who rejects me
and does not accept my words has a judge; the word I have spoken will judge him
at the last day.
49 “For I have not spoken
from my own authority, but the Father himself who sent me has commanded me what
I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. Thus the things I say, I say just as the Father
has told me.” --New English
Translation (for comparison)
12:49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. The reason Jesus’ teaching could be the judge is that He spoke strictly what He had been commissioned to speak. Nothing else left His mouth. He did not alter it by making it either more stringent or easier.
Sidebar: If we are to make a distinction between “say”
and “speak” at all, “ ‘Say’ probably refers to the doctrine
[that is spoken], ‘speak’ to the form in which it is expressed.” (