OVERVIEW
John gives us no indication of the amount of time that may have lapsed between the events of ch. 8 and the healing of the man born blind in ch. 9. All we know is that this healing miracle took place between the Feast of Tabernacles (7:14) and the Feast of Dedication (10:22) some two months later.
1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
3“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. 4As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
6Having said this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. 7“Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.
8His neighbors and those who had formerly seen him begging asked, “Isn’t this the same man who used to sit and beg?” 9Some claimed that he was.
Others said, “No, he only looks like him.”
But he himself insisted, “I am the man.”
10“How then were your eyes opened?” they demanded.
11He replied, “The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see.”
12“Where is this man?” they asked him.
“I don’t know,” he said.
13They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. 14Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man’s eyes was a Sabbath. 15Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. “He put mud on my eyes,” the man replied, “and I washed, and now I see.”
16Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.”
But others asked, “How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?” So they were divided.
17Finally they turned again to the blind man, “What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.”
The man replied, “He is a prophet.”
18The Jews still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man’s parents. 19“Is this your son?” they asked. “Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?”
20“We know he is our son,” the parents answered, “and we know he was born blind. 21But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself.” 22His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for already the Jews had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue. 23That was why his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”
24A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. “Give glory to God,” they said. “We know this man is a sinner.”
25He replied, “Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!”
26Then they asked him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?”
27He answered, “I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?”
28Then they hurled insults at him and said, “You are this fellow’s disciple! We are disciples of Moses! 29We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don’t even know where he comes from.”
30The man answered, “Now that is remarkable! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. 31We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will. 32Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. 33If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”
34To this they replied, “You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out.
35Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”
36“Who is he, sir?” the man asked. “Tell me so that I may believe in him.”
37Jesus said, “You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.”
38Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.
39Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”
40Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”
41Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.”
COMMENTARY
1 As Jesus was walking along, he “saw a man blind from birth.” Seeing this man who could not see and who supported himself by begging (v.8) moved Jesus to act compassionately and restore his sight. It is worth noting that in this situation it was Jesus who took the initiative.
2 The disciples (last mentioned in 7:3) ask Jesus whose sin was responsible for the man’s blindness—his own or his parents’. Reflecting the “primitive and crude conception of divine justice” that “regards every calamity as a punishment for some sin” (Temple, 1:154), the disciples reasoned that the man’s blindness must be the result either of his own or his parents’ sin. Since the man was born blind, it would appear that he could hardly be at fault for his lack of sight. However, some rabbis apparently thought that an infant could sin while still in the mother’s womb and that such sinning could account for inherited defects. The account of Esau and Jacob struggling while still in Rebekah’s womb (Ge 25:21–22) was understood by some as an attempt by the older to kill the younger (thus effecting sin in the womb; cf. Str-B, 2:527–29). On the other hand, it was clearly stated in the Decalogue that children are punished for the sin of the fathers (Ex 20:5; Dt 5:9).
While it is certainly true that in a specific case sin may be punished with a physical malady (e.g., Miriam was struck with leprosy for her sin against Moses; Nu 12:1–12; also 1Co 11:30), it does not follow that all illness is the result of some specific sin (Paul had a “thorn in the flesh” to keep him from being conceited; 2Co 12:7; cf. Gal 4:13). The disciples’ understanding didn’t go beyond that of Job’s friends who were sure that “every person’s suffering is indicative of the measure of his guilt in the eyes of God” (NIVSB, introduction to Job). To their way of thinking, obviously the man was blind because either he or his parents had sinned. The general principle was laid down by Rabbi Ammi: “There is no death without sin, and there is no suffering without iniquity” (b. Šabb. 55a).
3 Jesus answered their query not by denying that sin is sometimes punished with physical infirmity but by pointing out that in this specific case it was not a factor. The NEB translates, “It is not that this man or his parents sinned.” The man was congenitally blind “so that [introducing a purpose clause] the work of God might be displayed in his life.” It is not as though God decided that this particular individual should be blind from birth so that he would have the opportunity to show how great a work he could perform. It is rather that he overruled the misfortune so that both the man and those who would see the miracle would come to realize that Jesus was “the light of the world” (v.5).
4 Using the universal symbols of light and darkness, Jesus says that as long as daylight lasts, it is crucial that he and his disciples continue to do the work of the one who sent him. Night is coming, and no one can work when darkness falls. The day of which Jesus speaks represents the years of his life on earth, and the coming night the time of his departure from this world. Obviously we are dealing with an aphorism and should not understand Jesus as saying that, once he left this world, Christian ministry was over.
Some copyists, troubled by the plural pronoun “we” (hēmas) with which the Greek text of v.4 begins, substituted the singular “I” (eme), thus restricting to Jesus alone the work that God had sent him to do (so KJV, NKJV). While it is true that the redemptive work of the cross was carried out solely by Jesus, it does not follow that believers have no share in the task of taking the message to the world. In a larger sense, it is perfectly true that we, along with Jesus, must do the work of the one who sent him.
5 In 8:12 Jesus stated the same truth (“I am the light of the world”) as a general principle; here he applies it to a specific incident. A man born blind is about to receive his sight. And so it is with everyone in a spiritual sense. We are all “born blind” and come to receive sight when touched by the one who is the light of the world. Jesus, the very Son of God (who dwells in “unapproachable light,” 1Ti 6:16) is he who brings the light of salvation to all who turn to him in faith.
6 In two other places in the Gospels Jesus is said to have used saliva in connection with a healing. In Mark 7 Jesus touched the deaf and mute man’s tongue with his saliva (v.33), and in Mark 8 he moistened the eyes of the blind man at Bethsaida with saliva (v.23). People in the ancient world regarded saliva as possessing curative powers. In the Hellenistic world it was frequently used in magical rites and for that very reason came to be forbidden in the Jewish community.
7 The blind man followed Jesus’ instructions by going to the Pool of Siloam and washing. We are reminded of Elisha sending Naaman to wash in the Jordan for his leprosy (2Ki 5:10–14), though in that case Naaman resisted following the prophet’s orders and had to be persuaded by his servants to do as he was told. Not so the blind man of John 9—he went to the pool, washed, and received his sight. Note the close connection between obedience and experiencing the transforming power of God at work. Had the blind man not obeyed he would have continued in his blindness. So it is with spiritual blindness. To resist the instructions of the One who came to give spiritual sight is to continue in the darkness of unbelief.
The Pool of Siloam is located just inside the southeastern section of the city wall. Water flowed through a tunnel built by Hezekiah from the Gihon spring, outside the wall, to the Pool of Siloam. In this way a supply of water was guaranteed in case the city came under attack. John explains that the word “Siloam” means “Sent.” Applied originally to the aqueduct that brought the water, the name (Siloam) became transferred to the pool itself. As the water was “sent” to the pool within the city walls, so also was Jesus sent to bring refreshment and healing to the spiritually thirsty. Chrysostom, the fourth-century bishop of Constantinople, referred to Jesus as the Sent One, “the spiritual Siloam” (Hom. Jo. 57).
8 When the man who was born blind returned home able to see, his neighbors and others who knew him only as a blind beggar questioned whether he was that same man. Apparently there was a noticeable difference in his countenance. Now that his sight was restored, the one who used to sit at the street corner and beg suddenly experienced a new and wonderful world. No wonder his friends found it difficult to believe that he was the same man. To experience the power of the kingdom of God and for the first time to see the eternal plan of God for life both now and in the age to come effects a radical change in the life of the new believer.
9–10 Abraham Lincoln once said that “after forty every man is responsible for his own face.” More often than we are willing to admit, faces reflect the inner state of the soul. So some who were there said that he really was the blind beggar, while others held that he only looked like him. But he insisted that he was the same man whom they were accustomed to seeing as a blind beggar. Their question “How then were your eyes opened?” was not so much a procedural one as it was the natural reaction to a miracle: “How can it be that you are now able to see?”
11 The blind man tells his story in simple fashion: “The man they call Jesus” did it. It is interesting to follow the change in perspective that will take place as the narrative continues. Here he is simply “the man they call Jesus.” In v.17 he is “a prophet.” Finally he is “a man … from God” (v.33). It is the dawning realization of what has happened to him that leads the blind man to conclude that Jesus is “the godly man who does [the Father’s] will” (v.31). Honest contemplation of the life and work of Jesus will lead the unbiased person to acknowledge that Jesus is who he says he is. It has always been the case that rational thought does not hinder belief in Jesus as the Son of God. This conclusion is the natural and normal outcome of any fair-minded appraisal of the facts. Those who are unable to believe begin with the assumption that such a conclusion is unthinkable.
13–34 The Pharisees’ investigation of the healing took place in three steps. First they interviewed the blind man himself (vv.13–17), then they took up the matter with the man’s parents (vv.18–23), and finally they interrogated the blind man a second time (vv.24–34). The Jewish authorities were frustrated by the whole affair and in the end excommunicated the very one who had experienced the healing power of Jesus.
13 The text does not say who brought the blind man to the Pharisees, but it may well have been the neighbors of the blind man and those accustomed to seeing him on the street as a beggar (v.8). Since the restoration of his sight was obviously a miracle, the most appropriate group to provide a theological explanation would be the Pharisees. The Sadducees were primarily concerned with the exercise of authority and would not have been interested in an issue of (in their opinion) such minor religious significance. Interestingly, the Sadducees are not mentioned at all in the fourth gospel. That John does not mention any “scribes” as part of the examining body may be explained by the fact that by the time he wrote his gospel all the scribes were of Pharisaic persuasion. (The single reference to “scribes” in John is in the questionable section on the woman caught in adultery; see 8:3.)
14–15 John records that the day on which Jesus had made mud and performed the healing miracle was a Sabbath. This posed a serious problem for the Pharisees in that such “work” violated the Sabbath. While it was true that healing was permitted if a person’s life were in danger, in the case of the man born blind no such urgency existed. Among the thirty-nine works not allowed on the Sabbath was kneading (m. Šabb. 7:2), and the mixing of dirt and spittle fell into that category. So in a somewhat formal inquiry the council asked the man to explain how he had received his sight. In contrast to the question in v.10, this request has to do with the procedure involved. The blind man responded in a straightforward manner—“he put mud on my eyes, I washed, and now I am seeing.” (Note the two aorists followed by a present tense.)
16 The person and work of Jesus inevitably give rise to division. His claims about himself put people in a position in which they must either accept or deny what he is saying. So it has always been and always will be. In this setting the Pharisees must come to some conclusion about him and his power to heal. Some of the Pharisees reasoned that since he violated the Sabbath he could not be from God. But another group reasoned that since Jesus had done “such miraculous signs,” there was no way he could be a sinner.
The approach of the first group was theoretical. They did not stop to consider that their major premise might be flawed. Their understanding of what was not allowed on the Sabbath was the product of oral tradition. While their logic was sound, they were prevented from arriving at a satisfactory conclusion because they began with a faulty premise. The second and more open-minded group reasoned inductively from the fact of the healing itself. While biblical evidence does not support their premise that the ungodly cannot perform the miraculous (Dt 13:1–2; cf. Rev 13:13–15), they nevertheless arrived at the truth. So a division developed between the two groups (cf. 7:37; 10:19). Adolf Schlatter held that the division followed the tendencies attributed to the schools of Shammai, who tended to argue from first principles, and Hillel, who tended to pay attention to the established facts (cf. Bruce, 213).
17 It may have been members of this second group who turned to the blind man and asked for his opinion about Jesus. After all, he was the one whose eyes had been opened. Who could be better qualified to make a judgment about the one who had performed the healing? The answer of the blind man is forthright and honest: “He is a prophet” (cf. the remark of the Samaritan woman, 4:19). Temple, 1:599, cites the early writer Chemnitius as saying, “You will often find more solid theological piety among tailors and shoemakers than among cardinals, bishops, and abbots.”
18 The Jewish leaders refused to believe the testimony of the man whose sight Jesus had restored. That he could now see was obvious, but had a genuine miracle been performed? Perhaps for all these years he had only pretended to be blind in order to make a living. Or perhaps he only looked like the blind beggar and was now trying to pass himself off as someone whose sight had been restored in order to gain a following for Jesus. These questions could be settled by the man’s parents, so to them the Jews went for an answer.
19 The leaders asked two (or perhaps three) questions. First, “Is this man your son?” In effect, they say, “We need to know, and you as parents are in a position to verify that he is your son and that he was born blind.” The Greek text continues the main clause of the sentence with a dependent clause: “who you say was born blind.” The NIV turns this clause into a separate question and asks, “Is this the one you say was born blind?” Williams may be closest to the intended meaning with his interpretive, “Is this your son, and do you affirm that he was born blind?” Their final question is, “How does it happen, then, that he is no longer blind but able to see?”
What they were really struggling to find was a rational explanation for what appeared to be a miracle. Those who approach a situation with their minds made up must somehow find an explanation for evidence that points in another direction. Since it is the truth that sets a person free (8:32), all deception is a form of bondage. The authorities were enslaved to their preconceived opinions of Jesus and his claims. He could not be the Messiah, because he didn’t measure up to what they had in mind.
20–21 The parents answer the first question(s) but not the last one, thus avoiding involvement in what they correctly understood to be a risky situation. “He is our son—that we know,” they answered. “And we also know he was born blind.” They were willing to affirm that much but unwilling to speculate as to how it was that he received his sight. “How he can see now or who opened his eyes, we don’t know.” It would appear that at this point they were not telling the entire truth. Certainly a person blind from birth who was made to see would have shared such a remarkable event with his own family. So the parents tell their inquisitors to ask their son. “After all, he is of age and able to speak for himself.” To be “of age” undoubtedly meant that he had passed his thirteenth birthday and was legally responsible.
22–23 The reason for the parents’ thoughtless evasion of the issue is that they were afraid of the Jewish leaders. So they thrust the responsibility onto their son, who until this point had been blind and had suffered the disgrace of having to beg for a living. One marvels that fear is capable of silencing the parent of a son who has had the misfortune not only of being blind from birth but also of having suffered the disgrace of mendicancy.
The leaders had already decided that anyone who acknowledged that “Jesus is the Christ” would be expelled from the synagogue. Many understand this as a confessional statement and hold that it is not historical but belongs to the time when the gospel was being written. Barrett’s evaluation, 361, is often quoted: “That the synagogue had already at that time applied a test of Christian heresy is unthinkable.” Supporting this argument is the fact that the adjective aposynagōgos (“put out of the synagogue,” GK 697) occurs only in John (9:22; 12:42; 16:2) and is therefore considered to be of later usage. Lindars, 347, excuses the anachronism on the basis that “John speaks of the cost of discipleship in terms of the conditions with which his readers were familiar.”
It should be noted, however, that the statement need not be considered as the equivalent of the later Pauline confession “Jesus is Lord” (e.g., Ro 10:9). To acknowledge Jesus as Christos (“Christ,” GK 5986) was simply to affirm that he was “the Messiah.” At Caesarea Philippi Peter had confessed, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16; cf. Lk 12:8; Jn 9:35). Phillips moves entirely away from any confessional note by translating, “who admitted that Christ had done this thing.” So the evidence is far too weak to maintain that the verse is anachronistic and fails to provide an accurate picture of the historical situation. The excommunication threatened by the authorities could have been permanent exclusion from the Jewish community but more likely was temporary suspension of religious privilege. In any case, it was sufficiently serious so as to cause the parents of the blind man to stay clear of any entanglement and shift the responsibility back onto their son.
24 The testimony of the blind man’s parents was of no help to the Pharisees. They had hoped to learn that the man had not been born blind, but his parents had testified to the fact of his congenital blindness. The Pharisees were frustrated even further by the parents’ unwillingness to go on record as to who had opened their son’s eyes or how it had happened. So (the oun, “therefore,” omitted from the NIV, is important) they turn a second time to the blind man himself. Since the only other explanation open to them—that Jesus was who he said he was—was unacceptable, they reasoned that the blind man must be hiding something that would explain the apparent healing. Their charge, “Give glory to God,” is usually taken as the “equivalent of a Jewish oath” (Borchert, 321) that called on the man to own up and tell the truth. Following the rout at Jericho, Achan, who had hidden some of the spoils of battle under his tent, is told by Joshua to “give glory to the Lord” and reveal what he had done (Jos 7:19; cf. Jer 13:16, 1 Esd 9:8).
Since it is contextually difficult to relate the statement (interpreted as a Jewish oath) with the remark that follows, some have taken it to mean, “Give glory to God, not to this man Jesus.” In this case the reason is clear: “we know this man is a sinner.” The religious elite had already decided the case in their own minds and were pressing the man to conform to their evaluation. The “we” here is emphatic: “we, the recognized authorities in matters such as these, have decided that he is a sinner.” And according to their interpretation of the law, Jesus was technically a sinner, since he had broken the Sabbath by working (read “healing”) on that day.
25 The blind man refused to get entangled in the theological question of whether or not the miracle rendered Jesus a sinner; rather, he gives a straightforward declaration regarding his own experience: “I don’t know whether or not he is a sinner; that is for you to decide. The one thing I do know is that I was blind but now I see!” Such evidence is beyond disputation.
This affirmation has been adopted by millions of believers who, while not certain about how the miraculous transformation in their lives took place, nevertheless know that once they were blind (without spiritual sight) but now are able to see (to understand the presence and power of the redeeming Christ). The fact that God has entered their lives is the central reality of their new life in Christ. No amount of theological obfuscation can undermine the strong confidence that comes from personal experience.
26–27 Hoping to trap the blind man in some inconsistency, the Pharisees ask him to repeat his story, saying in effect, “Tell us how he opened your eyes.” The ruse does not work, and the man, now a bit weary from the repeated questioning, begins to counterattack. He answers that he has already told them what happened and they were unwilling to accept his account. Then, in what amounts to a satirical taunt, he asks why they want to hear it all again. “It couldn’t be, could it,” he asks, “that you want to become his disciple?” The question is asked in such a way as to expect a negative response. Bruce, 217, refers to the exchange as displaying “a hitherto unsuspected capacity for ironical repartee” on the part of the blind man.
28–29 At this point the Pharisees drop all pretense of impartiality. They take recourse to the only stratagem available to those who have come out second best in a debate—an abusive ad hominem. “We are disciples of Moses,” they say, “and we know that God spoke to him; but as for this fellow [a derogatory reference], we don’t know where he came from or who gave him any authority. We belong to Moses, but you have taken sides with this lawbreaker.” Their answer was the equivalent of the childish taunt, “My dad is better than your dad.”
The Greek articles (sy, “you,” and hēmeis, “we”) in v.28 mark a strong contrast. “You are a disciple of that man, but we belong to Moses. We know it was to Moses that God gave the law (Ex 33:11; Nu 12:6–8), but we don’t know where this Jesus came from and therefore who it was that authorized him to speak.” The comparison was meant to show how inferior were the credentials of Jesus in comparison with those of Moses. How ironic that they failed to understand it was this same Moses who spoke of the coming Redeemer (cf. Jn 5:45–47). That Isaiah had spoken of the restoration of sight to the blind as one of the signs of the messianic age (Isa 29:18; 35:5; 42:7) simply escaped them.
30–31 The Pharisees’ resort to insults was meant to put the blind beggar in his place for good, but it accomplished just the opposite. Now with even greater boldness he chides them with a logical argument that begins with God’s unwillingness to answer the prayers of sinners and leads irresistibly to the conclusion that Jesus is in fact “from God.” “What a remarkable thing!” he says in effect. “You say you have no idea as to where he came from, and yet he has opened my eyes so that I can see. How can that be? We know that God doesn’t listen to sinners but only to the one who is devout and does his will” (cf. NEB). Obviously Jesus is not denying that the sinner’s penitent prayer for forgiveness goes unanswered. He is simply reflecting the common biblical teaching that those who persist in wickedness will not be heard even when they pray (Isa 1:15; cf. 1Jn 3:21–22).
32–33 The argument continues: No one has ever heard of the restoration of sight in a person who was “born blind.” References to the healing of blindness in the OT are rare. God opened the eyes of the Arameans who had been blinded as a result of Elisha’s prayers (2Ki 6:8–20; cf. Tob 2:10; 11:10–13), but in no case do we hear of a person born blind whose sight was restored. The conclusion is obvious: “If [Jesus] were not from God, he could do nothing.” Though stated in a negative fashion, what we have is a clear confession on the part of the blind beggar that Jesus came “from God.”
34 It was obvious by now that the “power brokers of religion” (Borchert, 323) had lost the argument to the blind beggar. When all else fails, resort to personal abuse. So the Pharisees, hot with anger, blurted out, “You were steeped in sin at birth.” That the man was blind from birth was to the Jewish authorities strong evidence that God was punishing him for some sin. It would be a terrible disgrace to allow a man such as that to instruct the religious leaders of the nation. His disreputable position in society was viewed as undermining the validity of any testimony he might give. “How dare you lecture us!” Never mind that the man who had lived his entire life in darkness is now able to see; God simply doesn’t work through anyone cursed by the plague of blindness—so they reasoned.
So they “threw him out.” This is often understood as an official excommunication from the synagogue (so rendered in a number of contemporary translations, such as Goodspeed, NEB, NLT et al.). The problem is that only the Sanhedrin had the authority to excommunicate. Unless this particular group of interrogators was acting in an official capacity, it would be better to understand their action as a rude dismissal from their gathering. Temple, 1:159, calls it a “contemptuous expulsion from the Court.” While the questioning by the Pharisees would undoubtedly lead to a full excommunication from the synagogue, it is not clear at this point whether or not that particular step has been taken. The entire episode illustrates the truth of 1:5 that “the light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.” Jesus, the light of the world, remains a mystery to those who are blinded by unbelief.
35 When the word came that the blind man had been “excommunicated” by the Pharisees, Jesus set out to find him. This illustrates one of the most profound truths of the Christian faith: it is God who pursues the needy, and not the other way around. The initiative in salvation is his, not ours. We do not seek God (Ro 3:11); he seeks us (Lk 19:10).
On finding the man cured of blindness, Jesus asks, “Do you [the pronoun is emphatic] believe in the Son of Man?” While the unbelief of the religious elite was a settled matter beyond discussion, the belief of the blind man was open for instruction. The designation “Son of Man” is of special interest. While it is often used in connection with judgment (as in vv.39–41), here its primary thrust is that of Jesus as the incarnate revelation of God’s glory (cf. 3:13–14; 12:23; 13:31).
36 In asking, “Who is he?” the blind man is not asking about the meaning of the title, as if to say, “Who are you talking about when you say ‘Son of Man?’” but is asking Jesus to identify the one who is the Son of Man. “Tell me so that I may believe in him” he adds. The blind man realizes that the one of whom Jesus speaks is the one responsible for the miracle that gave him his sight. He wants to know who this person is so that he can honor him by showing that he is fully worthy of his trust.
37 Jesus stands before the man and identifies himself as the one who has brought him his sight. The man has seen him with eyes of faith (he obeyed the word of Jesus, went to the Pool of Siloam, and washed; v.7) and in fact is speaking with the very one who granted his sight. Note that the first verb is in the perfect tense (heōrakas, “have seen,” GK 3972) and the second in the present (lalōn, “is speaking,” GK 3281). The only other occasion on which Jesus so unambiguously declared his messiahship was his open confession to the Samaritan woman (4:26).
38 When Jesus revealed himself as the messianic Son of Man, the blind man responded, “Lord, I believe.” In v.36 the vocative kyrie (GK 3261) was correctly translated as a polite reference (“sir”). By v.38, however, a major theological step has been taken. When the man said, “Kyrie, I believe,” it could only mean that he viewed Jesus as one worthy of his personal trust and obedience, hence “Lord.” The contemporary ecclesiastical world contains no small group of followers who respect Jesus and regard him worthy of the title “sir.” However, it is only when kyrie becomes a personal confession of “Jesus is Lord” that one moves from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. Having confessed his allegiance to Jesus as Lord, the blind man “worshiped him.” While some think that the man’s spiritual state was still in the incipient stage of growth (and therefore understand his worship as little more than an appropriate display of respect), it is far more probable, in view of the fuller connotations of “Lord,” that the man actually knelt before Jesus in a true act of worship. (Proskyneō, GK 4686, means “to fall down and worship,” “to prostrate oneself before.”)
39 The concluding verses of ch. 9 bring into focus the theological truth that lies behind the coming to faith of the blind beggar and the determined unbelief of the Pharisees. Jesus states that as a result of his coming into the world “the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” The physical restoration of sight in the case of the blind man illustrates the truth that, though born in spiritual darkness, those who believe in the power of Jesus Christ to open the eyes of the soul are given the gift of spiritual sight. By the same token, those who profess a clear vision of the ways of God while at the same time denying by their lifestyle its transforming effect will ultimately find that they are blind. Bultmann, 341, calls this the “paradox of revelation.” It is in this sense that Jesus can say that “for judgment [he has] come into this world.” The statement is not at odds with 12:47, where he said he came not to judge the world but to save it. The ultimate purpose of his coming is to bring salvation, but its inevitable corollary is a separation between those who accept him and those who refuse (cf. 3:17–18).
40 Apparently some Pharisees were still with Jesus when he made this enigmatic statement. They ask somewhat incredulously, “Certainly we are not blind, are we?” The essential point that Jesus was making simply escaped them. Surely Jesus could not be talking about them when he said that those who see will become blind. Such is the blindness of those who are unable to follow the simplest argument when its logical conclusion runs counter to their preconceptions! They simply do not get it.
41 Jesus concludes by pointing out that if his opponents were really blind (incapable of understanding), they would not be guilty of sin, but since they claim to see, their guilt remains. The first part of the sentence does not imply that ignorance excuses guilt but that the blindness that “cries out for illumination” (Carson, 378) will not be guilty of the sin of unbelief. Rather, that kind of blindness leads to spiritual sight. On the other hand, the confident assurance that they can see (when the evidence points to a different conclusion) has resulted in a condition of continuing guilt. This kind of blindness is incurable and is what Jesus elsewhere refers to as “an eternal sin” (Mk 3:29; cf. the “sin that leads to death,” 1Jn 5:16).
2 Various diseases of the eye (including blindness) were extremely common in the ancient world. The Papyrus Ebers (1500 BC) lists a number of eye diseases and about a hundred prescriptions for treatment (cf. ISBE 1:525). In Israel and Egypt the most widespread form was probably a purulent inflammation of the eye. Eye disease was spread by flies that carried the discharge from one person to another. In keeping with OT tradition (Dt 28:28 lists blindness among the curses for disobedience), eastern culture in the first century AD regarded blindness as divine punishment for sin.
3 It is possible that ἵνα, hina, may introduce a result clause rather than a purpose clause, in which case the sentence would be saying that the man was born blind with the result that the works of God are to be displayed in him. This is supported by a similar use of ἵνα, hina, in the final clause of the preceding verse.
8 As cities began to grow so also did the practice of begging. In the OT, begging is associated with wickedness and slothfulness. The psalmist reminds us that never in his life has he seen “the righteous forsaken or his descendants begging bread” (Ps 37:25 NASB); and the writer of Proverbs notes that the sluggard doesn’t plow at the proper time, “so he begs during the harvest and has nothing” (Pr 20:4 NASB). The Jewish distaste for begging is reflected in the apocryphal book of Sirach (composed about 180 BC by a Palestinian Jew), where the writer warns, “My son, do not lead the life of a beggar; it is better to die than to beg” (40:28). In the NT period, begging was apparently widespread (examples include the blind beggar Bartimaeus, Mk 10:46; the lame man begging at the gate of the temple, Ac 3:2), primarily due to the lack of an adequate system for extended care for those in need.
17 In calling Jesus “a prophet,” the man born blind ascribed to him the highest honor he could think of. Although Jewish teachers of Jesus’ day believed that prophecy had come to an end, the term was used rather widely in a perhaps more general sense. John the Baptist was considered a prophet—Matthew 14:5 records that Herod would have liked to put him to death but “he was afraid of the people, because they considered him a prophet (cf. Mt 21:26)—and so was Jesus (Mt 21:11, “The crowds answered, ‘This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee’”). Prophecy in the NT seems to have taken two forms—either incoherent and ecstatic or coherent and rational. The former is prominent in Acts (e.g., Agabus in 11:28; the daughters of Philip, 21:9 et al.), while the latter is found in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. In the early church, prophets ranked second only to apostles, though their utterances had to be tested (1Th 5:20–21).
21 The TR places the words αὐτὸν ἐρωτήσατε (auton erōtēsate, “ask him”) after ἡλικίαν ἔχει (hēlikian echei, “he is of age”), perhaps to match the similar sequence in v.23. Later translations follow the better MS tradition reflected in P66 א2 B (D) L Θ Ψ f1 33 pc lat bo.
22 From the Jewish standpoint, the purpose of “excommunication” was to protect the traditional teachings of Judaism. Those who deviated from the norm must be “put out of the synagogue” in order to preserve the sanctity of Jewish teaching and tradition. The passage in Matthew 18:15–17 provides a procedure used by the Christian community (perhaps modeled after Jewish practice) for dealing with a recalcitrant sinner. He must first be approached in private. If that doesn’t produce the desired result, several brothers are to confront him. If he still resists correction, he is to be taken before the church, and only after this proves unfruitful is he to be put out of the believing community (“treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector,” v.17).
35 A few MSS pose the question, “Do you believe in τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ [ton huion tou theou, the son of God]?” rather than “τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου [ton huion tou anthrōpou, the Son of Man],” but “the external support for ἀνθρώπου [anthrōpou] … is so weighty … that the Committee regarded the reading adopted for the text as virtually certain” (Metzger, 194). In support of the text, NA27 lists P66.75 א B D W pc sys co.
38 The verb προσκυνέω (proskyneō, “to worship”) occurs eleven times in the fourth gospel. In six of the seven verses God is the object of worship. Only here is προσκυνέω, proskyneō, used in connection with Jesus. The NET study note at v.38 calls this “extremely significant” and concludes that the act of worship on the part of the man born blind is “the climax of the entire story.”
OVERVIEW
Some have argued for various rearrangements of the text of ch. 10 (e.g., placing vv.19–29 immediately after 9:41), but it is best to take the narrative as it stands. Chapter 9 closed with a word of judgment directed against the Pharisees for their blindness. Chapter 10 continues in the same vein with a parable identifying the Pharisees as false leaders of Israel who have gotten into the fold by fraudulent means. Continuity is confirmed by the fact that the double “amen” with which ch. 10 opens never occurs in John at the beginning of a discourse.
While shepherd imagery is common throughout the OT, it is Ezekiel 34 that provides the best single background for Jesus’ discourse on the good shepherd (other important OT passages are Isa 56:9–12; Jer 23:1–4; Zec 11; in the NT, see Mk 6:34; Lk 15:1–7; 1Pe 2:25; 5:2–4). Ezekiel 34 begins with a castigation of the shepherds of Israel, who “only take care of themselves” and allow the sheep to be scattered (vv.2–6); it closes with a declaration by the Sovereign Lord that the nation of Israel is his flock, the sheep of his pasture, and that he is their God (v.31).
OVERVIEW
In the first section of the discourse (vv.1–5), Jesus contrasts the actions of a false shepherd with those of a true shepherd. The former gains access to the sheep by climbing over the wall, while the latter calls his sheep out of the fold. They follow him because they know his voice. In these verses Jesus builds a case in general terms against the religious leaders of Israel who have forced themselves on the people. They are contrasted with a true shepherd, who because he genuinely cares for the sheep needs only to call them by name and they follow him.
1“I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” 6Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.
7Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. 8All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
11“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
14“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
19At these words the Jews were again divided. 20Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?”
21But others said, “These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”
COMMENTARY
1 “I tell you the truth” is the NIV’s translation of the frequent (25 times in John) and important amēn amēn (KJV, “verily, verily”; NASB, “truly, truly”). It is used by Jesus to call attention to the fact that what he is about to say is especially significant. In the immediate context it emphasizes the obvious truth that any person who would climb over the wall of the sheep pen instead of entering through the gate is a thief and robber.
In Jesus’ day, sheep were put into an enclosed area during the night for protection. The sheep pen was probably an outer courtyard in front of the house, surrounded by a stone wall on top of which briars were placed to provide a measure of safety. It was not uncommon for several flocks to share a single sheep pen. Jesus is making the point that a person who would gain entrance to the fold by climbing over the wall rather than going through the gate is unquestionably “a thief and a robber.” The first term (kleptēs, GK 3095) carries the idea of deception, and the second (lēstēs, GK 3334) of seizing by force. Here they are not intended to be taken as denoting two distinct types of false leaders but are joined to give a general impression.
2 In contrast to this kind of person, the man who enters the enclosure through the door is a genuine shepherd. The very fact that he has nothing to hide (entering through the gate) proves that he is a true shepherd. That the Greek text has no definite article before poimēn (“shepherd,” GK 4478) indicates the sentence is to be taken in a general sense. Jesus is merely reminding his listeners that real shepherds do not need to approach their flocks surreptitiously.
3 For this kind of a shepherd (toutō, “this one,” standing first in the sentence receives the emphasis) the watchman opens the gate, and the sheep recognize his voice. He calls them by name and brings them out. Ancient shepherds usually had certain names for favorite sheep (e.g., “long ears,” “white nose,” Bernard, 2:350), though some writers note that calling a sheep “by name” may mean “personally” or “individually” (see the NEB translation of kat’ onoma, “one by one,” 3Jn 15). In any case, they recognize his voice and follow him out of the sheep pen. From this portrayal of the close relationship between shepherd and sheep, Temple, 1:167, draws the important lesson that all true pastoral work is achieved through personal acquaintance.
4–5 Eastern shepherds lead their sheep—they do not follow behind—and with the help of dogs direct them where they should go. This is a profound lesson in leadership. No effective leader tries to make people go where he himself has not already gone. By definition, leaders lead! Contemporary leaders must inspire and lead their followers by providing the model—by moving out in the direction they want others to go (even though by such action they run the risk of finding themselves all alone).
To “know [the] voice” of the shepherd is to trust him to the point of fully believing all he says. Without personal confidence there is no authentic leadership. So sheep will not follow a stranger—in fact, they will “run away”—because they do not recognize his voice. True believers have a measure of spiritual discernment that alerts them to false teachers. When questionable doctrine is laid before them, they instinctively recognize it for what it is. The voice of truth can never be successfully imitated by the voice of error. Sheep who know the shepherd are not led astray.
6 The narrative form in which Jesus has just spoken is designated by John as a paroimia (GK 4231), a “figure of speech.” The term (which occurs five times in the NT) generally means “proverb” or “maxim” (as in 2Pe 2:22, “a dog returns to its vomit”), but in its four occurrences in John it denotes a “veiled saying” (BDAG, 629) the meaning of which is not obvious but whose spiritual truth becomes clearer to those who probe more deeply (cf. Morris, 504). In spite of the fact that Jesus used imagery intended to help his listeners understand, they did not grasp the meaning of what he was saying to them. Nothing blinds the eyes so much as pride in one’s position. From their perspective they were the authentic guardians of religious truth and Jesus was merely an itinerant teacher without proper credentials. The certainty that one knows locks out the possibility of being wrong. Blinded by the pride of office, they were unable to understand that Jesus was classifying them as thieves and robbers.
7 The “therefore” with which this verse begins continues the illustration. In the verses that follow, Jesus does not expand what he has just said, namely, that the religious leaders fail to understand what he is telling them, but he develops the shepherd and sheep figure of speech along further lines. Central to this section is the contrast between the “hired hand” (v.12), whose allegiance is to himself (not to the sheep), and the “good shepherd” (vv. 11, 14), who is willing to lay down his life for his sheep.
Once again we hear the double “amen,” this time stressing the fact that Jesus is “the gate for the sheep.” Since John’s readers would be anticipating what will soon be stated, namely, that Jesus is “the good shepherd” (v.11), it would come as a surprise to hear him refer to himself as a “gate.” R. A. Torrey resolves this problem by maintaining that the Aramaic word for “shepherd” was misread as “gate” and then incorrectly translated into Greek; however, this suggestion runs into trouble two verses later when Jesus again says that he is the gate and that those who enter through him will be saved (a difficult concept if “shepherd” was intended!). Another approach is to cite a practice, said to be common among ancient shepherds, in which the shepherd sleeps in the gateway in order to protect the flock (in that sense he would be a “gate”).
It is simpler to take the text as it stands and understand Jesus as presenting himself as both gate and shepherd. John’s manner of expression, especially where he is using figurative language, certainly allows this much flexibility (cf. Rev 17:9–10, where the seven heads of the beast are both seven hills and seven kings). John Chrysostom says of Jesus, “When he brings us to the Father he calls himself a Door, when he takes care of us, a Shepherd” (cited in Hoskyns, 373).
8 In what appears to be a blanket statement, Jesus designates “all who ever came before him” as “thieves and robbers.” It is clear that Jesus is not speaking of the great patriarchs and leaders of the OT era. Moses, Isaiah, and others could hardly be categorized in such a pejorative way. Jesus is referring to the religious establishment of his own day—eisin (GK 1639) is present tense, “are” (NASB), not “were” (NIV)—and to all the preceding “authorities” who were cut from the same bolt of cloth. The sheep didn’t listen to them because they were strangers. Their voices were not the voices of authentic shepherds.
9 When Jesus declares that he is “the gate” and that those who enter the fold through him “will be saved,” the immediate reference is to the safety of the flock that follows Jesus as shepherd. But in a fuller sense it speaks of all who will receive eternal life through faith in him. They will come in and go out and find pasture—i.e., in their relationship to Jesus they will find both safety and nourishment.
10 Using vivid language, Jesus says that the Jewish establishment (the “thief”) has as its purpose “to steal and kill and destroy.” But this is not true of Jesus the shepherd—he has come so that his followers “may have life, and have it to the full.” The former are life denying, while Jesus is life affirming. The life that Jesus came to provide is not physical but spiritual. Yet that which is spiritual naturally overflows into every aspect of physical existence. Life embraces all that it means to be alive in this world and firmly attached by faith to the living Lord. Fullness of life is the reward of faith. It is by trusting Jesus and forgetting self that real life—physical and spiritual—breaks into one’s consciousness like the dawning of a new day (cf. Mk 8:35 par.).
11 Jesus now gets around to identifying himself as “the good shepherd.” The adjective is kalos (GK 2819), which means “good” in the sense of “beautiful” or “excellent.” In the context of his sacrificial life and death, the term stresses the beauty of what he did for those who by faith have entered his fold. His goodness as a shepherd is clearly seen in the fact that he “lays down his life for the sheep.” That the verb is present tense (tithēsin, GK 5502; also in vv.15, 17, 18) suggests that Jesus is speaking primarily of his entire life (not simply his death) as sacrificial. The incarnation in its entirety was an act of unbelievable condescension. The eternal Son laid down his life by becoming a man and living among us. Because he was a good shepherd, his life and death as the ideal leader of the flock is a model beautiful to behold.
Attention is often drawn to the preposition hyper (“for”) in the phrase “for the sheep.” In such passages as Mark 14:24; Luke 22:19–20; and Romans 5:6–8, it has definite sacrificial overtones. It was on behalf of the sheep, for their benefit, that the good shepherd laid down his life. Commentators have pointed out that the death of a Palestinian shepherd meant disaster for the sheep, but the death of the good shepherd meant life for his sheep. Hendriksen, 2:111, finds limited atonement in this passage, but building a theological edifice on a figure of speech is risky, to say the least.
12 Jesus has presented himself as the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep, in contrast to the hired hand who abandons the sheep “when he sees the wolf coming.” Hendriksen, 2:111–12, is probably right when he argues for the KJV’s “hireling” rather than “hired worker/worker” in that the former term has certain unsavory connotations.
13 The hireling is said to run away in the face of danger because he “cares nothing for the sheep.” After all, he doesn’t own the sheep! But the good shepherd would never desert his charge in times of danger. Instead, he willingly sacrifices himself for their benefit. The background for this contrast may well be Zechariah 11:4–17, where the prophet, as a type of the messianic Shepherd-King, is set over against “the worthless shepherd” who deserts the flock. The true test of integrity is conduct in the face of potential personal loss. Only those who genuinely care for others stand their ground when threatened with personal disadvantage.
14–15 Again Jesus declares that he is “the shepherd,” i.e., “the good one” (the repetition of the article places the adjective in apposition). Consequently, his sheep know him. The verb ginōskō (“to know,” GK 1182) occurs four times in vv.14–15: Jesus knows his sheep and his sheep know him, the Father knows Jesus and Jesus knows the Father. Of the 222 occurrences of the verb in the NT, 82 are found in the Johannine literature (57 in the fourth gospel alone). While the Greeks held that knowledge of God was attainable by philosophical-theological contemplation of the divine reality, the Hebrews viewed knowledge as the result of entering into a personal relationship with God. The relationship between shepherd and sheep is like that between Father and Son. They know one another in the fullest sense of the word. Three times in a span of eight verses Jesus stresses that, as the good shepherd, he lays down his life for his sheep (vv.11, 15, 17). It is the willingness of the shepherd to put his own welfare aside and to give himself without reservation for the benefit of his flock that defines what it means to be a good shepherd. This “goodness” is the self-emptying concern for others that was modeled by Jesus in his life and death. It is the expected lifestyle of all who bear his name. Whether or not we are in the family of God is evident by the degree of family likeness we bear.
16 Jesus the good shepherd has drawn his first sheep from the “sheep pen” of Israel. But he has other sheep that do not belong to that fold. They are the Gentiles who will come to believe in him through the missionary outreach of the early church. The obligation of Israel to serve as a beacon light for the nations (Isa 49:6) is transferred by Jesus to his own ministry. God’s redemptive activity reaches out to include those of every tribe, people, and nation (Ac 10:34–35; Rev 5:9). These “other sheep” must be brought into the one flock as well.
The church of Jesus Christ is composed of converts not only from the Jewish nation but also from among the Gentiles. The Gentiles are the wild olive branches that have been grafted into the tree of which the Jews are the natural branches (Ro 11:17–21). The result is “one flock” (not “one fold,” as the KJV, influenced by the Vulgate, has it). There are many ecclesiastical “folds” but only one “flock.” Designations such as Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist may be convenient ways to classify believers on the basis of such secondary concerns as church governance and modes of worship, but the truth is that Christians are one glorious collection of all sorts of people who by faith in Jesus Christ have been adopted into the family of God. There is one flock precisely because there is but one Good Shepherd. One flock is all one shepherd can handle, so all who belong to him are in this one flock.
17 This verse seems to say that the Father loves Jesus because Jesus lays down his life. But certainly the love of the Father for the Son is not contingent on the willingness of the Son to give up his life. It is much more probable that Jesus is saying that his willingness to give his life is the result of the Father’s love for him. God’s love for the Son does not depend on what the Son does, but what the Son does is the result of the Father’s love.
18 Jesus lays down his life in order to “take it up again.” It is theologically important to see that no one takes Jesus’ life from him. Even on the cross Jesus is not the helpless victim of the Jewish opposition or Roman authority. When with a loud voice he calls out, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Lk 23:46), he is giving up his life voluntarily. The “authority” to lay it down and take it up was given to him by the Father. The great sacrifice of the good shepherd cannot be minimized by suggesting that his life was torn from him by his enemies. No, it was by his own volition that he laid down his life for the sheep.
19–20 The words of Jesus once again caused a division among the Jews (cf. 6:52; 7:43; 9:16). Context suggests that by “the Jews” John is referring to all who heard Jesus, the crowd as well as their leaders. Many of them said that he was possessed by a demon and out of his mind (a single charge, not two; see comments at 7:20). “If that is so,” they reasoned, “why should we pay any attention to him?” Others concluded that what Jesus was saying could not be the words of a man possessed by a demon; after all, there’s no way that a demon could open the eyes of the blind. Those who thought Jesus was possessed by a demon began with their own preconceived ideas of what could and what could not be done on the Sabbath. Since Jesus has healed on the Sabbath, it follows that he is a sinner and, worse than that, a man possessed by a demon, a raving lunatic.
21 The other group began with the undeniable reality of a miracle performed in their presence. Now anyone who can open the eyes of a man born blind cannot be demon-possessed because such an act lies outside the scope of what a demon can do.
The logic of each position is unassailable; it is the starting point of each that leads to diametrically opposing conclusions. And so it is with faith. Arbitrarily to limit the power and activity of God is to skew the results. To begin with the reality of transformed lives is to argue the validity of the one who invites our confidence. The psalmist says, “Taste and see” (34:8), not “Think it through from whatever presupposition you may choose, and then perhaps you will want to taste.”
6 The noun παροιμία (paroimia, GK 4231) does not occur in the Synoptics, but much the same idea is represented there by the more common παραβολή (parabolē, “parable,” GK 4130)—48 times in Matthew through Luke. A parable is “a relatively short narrative with a symbolic meaning” (L&N, 33:15). Parable was Jesus’ primary method of teaching. It allowed the listener to “discover” truth that he did not know by seeing it in terms of something he did know. Like all effective learning, parable moves from the known to the unknown.
7 The NASB translates ἡ θύρα τῶν προβάτων (hē thyra tōn probatōn) literally as “the door of the sheep.” The awkwardness of the Greek expression caused some early MSS (P75 sa ac mf) to substitute ὁ ποιμήν (ho poimēn, “the shepherd,” GK 4478) for ἡ θύρα (hē thyra, “the door,” GK 2598).
8 What appears to be a categorical denial of the validity of all who ever came before Jesus is eased by a number of MSS that omit πρὸ ἐμοῦ (pro emou, “before me”), and several omit πάντες (pantes, “all”). See Metzger, 197–98, for the variants. The UBS committee left both expressions in the text but enclosed πρὸ ἐμοῦ in square brackets.
18 The NASB translates, “no one has taken it away from me,” following the Greek ἦρεν (ēren, “has taken,” GK 149), which is found in P45 א* B syp. Though this reading is early and strong, it represents only a single textual type (Egyptian). For that reason the UBS committee chose αἴρει (airei, “takes”), supported by P66 rell (cf. Metzger, 196–97).
20 The NIV’s “raving mad” is probably too strong a translation for μαίνεται (mainetai, GK 3419) in this context. It suggests that Jesus was angry, while the charge was that he was out of his mind. The NASB’s “insane” is better. The word μαίνομαι, mainomai, occurs in three other places in the NT: it expresses the reaction of those in the house of Mary when they were told by Rhoda that Peter was at the door (Ac 12:15); the response of Festus on hearing Paul’s witness to King Agrippa (Ac 26:24–25); and what unbelievers would say were they to enter the church when everyone was speaking in tongues (1Co 14:23).
OVERVIEW
The next event recorded by John was an encounter between Jesus and his Jewish adversaries that took place at the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem. This celebration was not one of the religious festivals required by the OT but was of recent origin. In 167 BC the Syrian despot Antiochus Epiphanes took over Jerusalem and embarked on a campaign to Hellenize Judea by force. His most atrocious act was the desecration of Israel’s sacred altar by erecting a pagan shrine on top of it—the “abomination that causes desolation” spoken of in Daniel 9:27 (cf. Mt 24:15). The blatant offense incited a revolt, and three years later (164 BC) under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus the temple was recaptured. An eight-day Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah) was held, beginning on 25 Kislev of that year (cf. 1 Macc 4:36–59), and has been observed ever since. This joyful celebration was also called the Feast of Lights, for legend had it that when the priests reentered the temple, they found a small cruse of consecrated oil that provided just enough fuel to kindle the menorah for one day, but it miraculously burned for eight days. During the festival, lamps and candles in homes throughout the city burned brightly.
22Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24The Jews gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
25Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
40Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing in the early days. Here he stayed 41and many people came to him. They said, “Though John never performed a miraculous sign, all that John said about this man was true.” 42And in that place many believed in Jesus.
COMMENTARY
22–23 John notes that it was winter and Jesus was walking back and forth in a roofed colonnade that ran along the eastern side of the temple enclosure. While the reference to winter could be no more than an explanation as to why Jesus was in a sheltered area, some have understood it as reflecting the spiritual condition of the Jewish leaders (cf. “it was night,” 13:30). Their icy spirits and frozen response to Jesus presented a winter landscape of frigid immobility.
The name attached to this oldest remaining portico, Solomon’s Colonnade, was in memory of Solomon, the builder of the first temple. It was there that Peter spoke to the people who gathered after the healing of the crippled beggar (Ac 3:11) and where the early believers used to meet (Ac 5:12).
24 There in the colonnade the Jews “gathered around him” (the verb kykloō, GK 3240, means “to encircle,” perhaps with hostile intent; “closed in on him” [Phillips]) to ask, “How long will you keep us in suspense?” This NIV rendition implies a relatively friendly group of Jews wondering how much longer until Jesus reveals whether he is the Messiah. While the following statement, “If you are the Messiah, say so plainly” (NEB), seems to support this reading, there is evidence that supports a different translation of the difficult Greek idiom (lit., “How long do you lift up our soul?”). Barrett, 380, suggests, “How long will you provoke us to anger.” The entire encounter with the Jewish leaders has been so distinctly hostile that the Jews now ask rather irritably, “How much longer will you persist in provoking us to anger?” This reading of the text fits the context better. “If you are the Christ,” they say, “tell us plainly.” Jesus’ opponents would like to force him out into the open and get from him a clear admission that he claimed to be the promised Messiah—providing them with an indisputable basis for bringing charges against him.
25 “I did tell you,” answered Jesus, “but you do not believe” (better, “continue not to believe”—note the aorist tense, eipon, GK 3306, followed by the present, pisteuete, GK 4409). One might ask, “And when did that happen?” Although Jesus had confessed to the Samaritan woman that he was in fact the Messiah (4:26; cf. 9:35–37), so far he had not openly made that claim in Jerusalem. The reason is obvious. For the Jews of that day the title carried all sorts of military and nationalistic associations. To play into their hands as that sort of a Messiah would undoubtedly lead to a political rebellion counterproductive to Jesus’ real mission as the suffering Messiah.
So although Jesus had never openly declared his messiahship, there can be no question that the miraculous deeds he had done by his Father’s authority (i.e., “in my Father’s name”) proved him to be the Christ. To name but a few, he had just healed a man born blind (9:1–7), healed a lame man at the pool of Bethesda (5:2–9), fed the five thousand (6:5–13), and walked on water (6:16–21). In addition to the miracles, there were the many statements that pointed to his messiahship. If the Jews had viewed him through the eyes of faith, they would have understood the messianic implications of such statements as, “I am the bread of life” (6:35); “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink” (7:37); “before Abraham was born, I am” (8:58); and “I am the good shepherd” (10:11). Such words and works speak plainly to those whose ears have been opened to hear. Bruce, 231, comments, “Where the heart of the spectator [is] insensitive, each successive work [serves] but to harden it the more.”
26 Ample proof existed that Jesus was the Messiah, but to understand and accept that fact as reality is not simply a matter of logic. The reason the Jews did not believe was that they didn’t belong to his flock. “I did tell you,” said Jesus in effect, “but you persisted in unbelief because you are not my sheep. Each sheep recognizes the voice of its own master.” Jesus is not suggesting for a moment that their inability to hear was excusable; he is merely explaining why they failed to recognize him for who he is.
27 Three things are true of Jesus’ flock: they listen to his voice, they are known by him, and they habitually follow (present tense) him.
28 As a result Jesus gives them eternal life. While it is common to point out that “eternal life” is more qualitative (it is “the life of the Eternal One”) than quantitative, here the second feature is emphasized by the clause that follows, “and they shall never perish.” “They have,” as Jesus said in 5:24, “crossed over from death to life.” And this life, which is the life of the Eternal One, is a life that never ends. “When we’ve been there ten thousand years,” writes the hymnist, “bright shining as the sun, we’ve no less days to sing God’s praise than when we’d first begun.”
There is no portion of Scripture that has brought greater comfort to those who are troubled that God might somehow relinquish his hold on them and they perish than these words of Jesus: “No one can snatch them out of my hand.” The preservation of the sheep is the task of the shepherd; it is up to him to keep them safe. And one can be absolutely positive that the good shepherd will never let any of his sheep wander beyond his care. The salvation that we received in response to our faith is a salvation that cannot be lost, because it is safeguarded and guaranteed by none other than Jesus Christ himself. Morris, 521, writes, “Our continuance in eternal life depends not on our feeble hold on Christ, but on His firm grip on us.”
29 Lest the Son’s power to preserve be called into question, Jesus adds that his Father, whose power is unmatched, joins him in protecting the flock, and “no one can snatch them out of [God’s] hand.” He and his Father are one in their determination that no believer should ever perish.
The Greek text here has at least five combinations of the variants for “who” and “greater.” The NIV follows the Byzantine tradition, which takes both words as masculine; thus “My Father, who [hos] has given them to me, is greater [meizōn] than all.” A more likely transcriptional development has the neuter ho (“that which”) and the masculine meizōn, which results in, “My Father, in regard to what he has given me, is greater than all.” While the Father is obviously “greater than all” in an unqualified sense, the point of the immediate reference is that, when it comes to the care and protection of the flock, the Father is absolutely unmatched.
30 This verse has received a great deal of attention from exegetes and theologians. In context it seems to refer primarily to the fact that the Father and Son are one in purpose and action. When it comes to preserving the life of the believing flock, they are one in their desire and ability to safeguard every believer. But the verse must mean more than that. It is highly unlikely that the Jews would pick up stones to attack Jesus if all he were saying was that what he was doing was in perfect accord with the will of God. Others could easily make that claim.
It is often noted that the text uses the neuter hen (“one [thing]”), rather than the masculine heis (“one [person]”). The latter reading would lead to the unorthodox position that Jesus and his Father are one person. Rather, the neuter hen means they “belong to the same category” (Lindars, 30). The christological controversies that took place several centuries later would draw heavily on this cryptic statement. It has often been noted that the word “one” refutes the claim of Arianism, which denied unity of essence between Father and Son, and that the plural verb “are” refutes the view of Sabellianism, which denied the diversity of persons.
31–32 The Jews once again “picked up stones to stone [Jesus]” (see 8:59; cf. 5:18). They were not at all hindered by the fact that there had been no trial or that the power to execute prisoners had been denied them. Their intense hatred overruled common sense and standard practice. But before they could actually carry out their evil intention, Jesus reminded them of the great miracles he had done by his Father’s power. The works are said to be kala (“beautiful,” GK 2819), the same adjective used of the good shepherd (vv.11, 14). His works displayed the graciousness and goodness of the one who performed them; it could be no other way. Then Jesus asked his opponents very pointedly, “For which of these do you stone me?” or to put it another way, “What was it that I did that was so heinous as to deserve death?”
33 “It was not for anything you did that we are stoning you,” Jesus’ opponents answer, “but for blasphemy. It is because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” Now the truth is out. It was because Jesus’ words and actions were understood as a claim to deity that he must be put to death. While later Jewish ruling held a person guilty of blasphemy only when the sacred name of God (the tetragrammaton) was actually pronounced (m. Sanh. 7:5), it was Jesus’ claim of a special relationship with the Father that his opponents were considering the ultimate sacrilege. Leviticus 24:13 prescribes death by stoning as the appropriate punishment for blasphemy.
While the Jews were correct in their understanding that by his words and works Jesus was claiming divine status, they were terribly wrong in their assumption that he was simply a mere man. If they had accepted the obvious truth that his miraculous works indicated divine origin, they might have reconsidered their unfounded opinion. But religious prejudice blinds the minds of even the most highly trained professionals. With dogged persistence they pursued their one central goal, namely, that Jesus be stoned—the reason being his claim to be God.
34–36 Jesus points out to the Jews that in their own Law, which cannot be broken, certain people were called “gods.” How then can they say that the one who was sent into the world by God is guilty of blasphemy when he calls himself God’s Son. While the term “Law” formally designates the first five books of the Bible, here it serves as an inclusive term for the entire OT. The expression “your Law” may have had the polemic force of “the Law, which even you acknowledge.” The argument is secured by the fact that “Scripture cannot be broken.” The breadth of meaning assigned to the term “god” in Scripture cannot be ignored simply because it doesn’t suit one’s immediate purpose. “It is your Law,” says Jesus, “and you are well aware that it cannot be set aside or shown to be in error.”
The statement to which Jesus refers comes from Psalm 82. The psalmist writes, “I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High’” (v.6). But to whom was he speaking? Some have suggested angelic beings who have abused their power over the nations. The contrast in John, however, is not between God and angels but between God and “a mere man” (v.33). Others, stressing the context in Psalm 82, conclude that the psalmist was speaking to the corrupt judges of Israel, but the fact that they are those, writes John, “to whom the word of God came” (v.35) identifies them rather clearly as Israel at the time of the giving of the Law. Thus Jesus is saying that if the Israelites were called “gods,” then there can be no real objection when he refers to himself as “God’s Son” (v.36). The argument holds, even if they would not accept the fact that he was appointed by the Father and sent into the world.
37–38 Jesus confronts his Jewish listeners with a challenge: “If I am not acting as my Father would” (NASB), then “do not believe me”—the simple dative (moi) denotes credence, not personal faith. “But if I am acting as my Father would, even though you don’t trust me, at least except the evidence of my deeds.” While miracles were never intended to make people believe, they do provide strong evidence that the one able to perform the miracle is telling the truth. The argument runs like this: “The works that I do are the kinds of things my Father does, and if you can’t accept that, then at least believe that the miracles I do substantiate my claims. Those who accept the evidence of the miracles come to know and understand the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son.” (The verbs are aorist, “come to know,” and present, “grow in that knowledge.”) What Jesus referred to in v.30 (“I and the Father are one”) is spelled out in v.38b (“the Father is in me, and I in the Father”).
39 Such claims were too much for Jesus’ opponents. Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped from their grasp. John probably intends his readers to understand a miraculous escape such as took place when the people at Nazareth planned to throw Jesus down from a cliff outside the city (Lk 4:28–30).
40 The last three verses of ch. 10 record Jesus’ “strategic retreat” (Carson, 400) back across the Jordan to the place where John the Baptist ministered at an earlier time. In 1:28 we learned that John did his baptizing “at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan.” The only other Bethany we know of was the village of Lazarus and his sisters that lay a short distance southeast of Jerusalem on the road to Jericho (11:18). The “Bethany” to which Jesus now withdraws was probably the rural area known as Batanea, which lay to the northeast across the Jordan in the tetrarchy of Philip, a son of Herod the Great. There John the Baptist remained in relative seclusion.
41 It was not long until people began to come to Jesus. Unlike the religious elite in Jerusalem, these less sophisticated country people were open-minded. Remembering what John the Baptist had taught concerning the one who was to come, they confessed that, although John never performed a miraculous sign (a critical credential for a prophet), everything he said about Jesus was true.
42 The result was that there in the countryside, where the Baptist had faithfully ministered, “many believed in Jesus.” Here in contrast to v.38, where pisteuō (“to believe”) is followed by the simple dative and refers to mental assent, we have the standard pisteuō eis, which means “to put one’s trust in” someone.
NOTES
28 The Greek construction οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται (ou mē apolōntai, “they shall never perish,” GK 660) is a very strong negation. The two negatives (οὐ, ou, and μὴ, mē) strengthen each other. Commenting on this passage, Buist Fanning writes, “It would have been enough to have ou with a future indicative verb here, but Jesus is more emphatic. The subjunctive combination strongly denies even the possibility that any of Jesus’ sheep would perish: ‘they will certainly not perish,’ ‘they will by no means perish,’ is the sense of Jesus’ assertion” (cited in William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar [2d ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003], 288).
34 The NET study note here holds that the quotation from Psalm 82:6 was understood in rabbinic circles as an attack on the unjust judges and that Jesus was arguing from the lesser to the greater: if OT judges could be called “gods” because they were vehicles of the word of God, Jesus deserves much more to be called God because he is the Word incarnate.
35 “And the Scripture cannot be broken” is strong attestation to the absolute truth of divine revelation (cf. Mt 5:18; 2Ti 3:16). While Jesus’ affirmation refers to the OT Scriptures, the same approval is extended to the NT, which details the life and ministry of Jesus supplemented by the Spirit-inspired apostolic writings.
REFLECTIONS
John’s presentation of the public ministry of Jesus began and ended with a reference to the witness of John the Baptist (1:19–10:42). From this point on, the narrative increasingly reflects the coming sacrifice of the good shepherd, who in fulfillment of his messianic mission will lay down his life for his sheep.
OVERVIEW
The account of the raising of Lazarus plays a significant role in the fourth gospel. It sets into motion the final series of events that culminate in Jesus’ crucifixion. When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had raised a man from the dead—and that in plain view in a neighboring town close by the capital—they reasoned that if they allowed him to go on performing miraculous signs, two things were bound to happen: first, everyone would come to believe in him, and second, the Romans would destroy their temple and deprive them of their limited right to rule (cf. 11:48). “So from that day on they plotted to take his life” (11:53). Since this miracle is so central in John, it seems right to ask why it is not mentioned in any of the three Synoptic Gospels.
Some scholars deny that the event ever happened. Others hold that an original parable (Lazarus and the rich man, Lk 16:19–31) underwent a process that finally resulted in the present “historical” account. Still others, while acknowledging that something probably did take place, hold that there is no way to work back through the process that created the account to the original “event.” Some see John as a literary artist who, fusing together material about Mary and Martha with an otherwise unknown tradition about a man raised from the dead by Jesus, created an allegory of the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus—and thus we have no hope of recovering the truth of what actually happened.
While this is not the place for an extended discussion of the reliability of the text and the historical probability of miracles, several brief comments are in order. There is little question but that John believed that the story he was narrating actually took place. The specific and repeated mention of names and places ties the account to the real world. Furthermore, speculative explanations of the origin of the account are simply not plausible. That the Synoptics do not include the raising of Lazarus is tempered by the fact that they, as well as the fourth gospel, selected their material from a much larger source. As John reminds us, if everything Jesus did had been written down, not even the whole world would have room for that many books (21:25)! Nor was it out of any reluctance on the part of the synoptic writers to record a miraculous raising of the dead that accounts for the omission—consider the raising of Jairus’s daughter (Mt 9:23–26; Mk 5:35–43; Lk 8:49–56) and of the widow’s son at Nain (Lk 7:11–17).
The raising of Lazarus is not the only miracle left out of the Synoptics. The two healing miracles that John records as taking place in Jerusalem are likewise missing—the healing of the lame man at Bethesda (5:1–9) and the restoration of sight for the man born blind (9:1–7). Morris’s comment, 532 n. 1, is apropos: “It is to be noted that the kind of critic who rejects the historicity of this story because it is not in the Synoptics is usually not ready to accept what is there, the feeding of the multitude, for example.”
1Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. 3So the sisters sent word to Jesus, “Lord, the one you love is sick.”
4When he heard this, Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.” 5Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6Yet when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days.
7Then he said to his disciples, “Let us go back to Judea.”
8“But Rabbi,” they said, “a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?”
9Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world’s light. 10It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light.”
11After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.”
12His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.” 13Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep.
14So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, 15and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”
16Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”
COMMENTARY
1 As the chapter opens, we learn of a man by the name of Lazarus who lived in the town of Bethany. “Lazarus” is a shortened form of the Hebrew name “Eleazar,” which means “whom God helps.” Apart from this account in ch. 11 and scattered references in the following chapter (thirteen in all), the name occurs only in Luke 16, where a beggar by the same name lay at the gate of a rich man (vv.20–27).
The Bethany mentioned by John is not the area to which Jesus withdrew as recorded in 10:40–42 (cf. 1:28) but a village (currently called el-’Azariyeh, a name derived from “Lazarus”) lying some two miles southeast of Jerusalem on the road to Jericho. John identifies it as the village of Mary and her sister, Martha. In the only reference to the two sisters outside John, the names are reversed (Lk 10:38–42), apparently because in that context Martha, the older of the two, is portrayed as the one who is in charge of the home. It was Martha who was distracted by the obligations of hospitality, while Mary sat at Jesus’ feet in rapt attention.
2 In a parenthetical sentence, John identifies Mary, the sister of Lazarus, as the one who poured perfume on the Lord and dried his feet with her hair. Since John does not record this event until the following chapter (12:1–8), some regard the verse as an early gloss. The story is included in both Matthew (26:6–13) and Mark (14:3–9), but they do not provide the name of the woman who anointed Jesus with expensive perfume. It is John who identifies her as Mary.
3 Lazarus had fallen sick, so his sisters sent word to their friend Jesus. It is worth noting that all they felt they needed to do was to let Jesus know that the one he loved was sick. They do not beg him to come and restore their brother to good health; it is enough to let him know about his good friend Lazarus’s illness. Certainly this reveals an unusually close relationship between Jesus and the family at Bethany. Such confidence in Jesus undoubtedly resulted from many hours of close personal friendship. We cannot help but wish for a fuller account of the many things they must have discussed around the table. While kyrie (“Lord,” GK 3261) is a common Greek expression that could mean no more than “sir,” it is hard not to believe that on the lips of those so close to Jesus it must have carried overtones of deity.
4 When the news of Lazarus’s illness reached Jesus, he responded by declaring that the sickness would “not end in death.” He did not mean by this that Lazarus would not die. Nor is his point that although Lazarus would die, he would not remain in death. Jesus is saying that the purpose of the sickness is not death but the glory of God. Bruce, 240, writes that “this illness is not so much one that will terminate in death as one which will demonstrate the glory of God.” When the Father receives glory, the Son is also glorified. Both Father and Son are to receive honor and praise as a result of the events set in motion by the illness of Lazarus.
5–6 Perhaps it was because Jesus didn’t go immediately to Bethany but waited a few days that John felt it necessary to add that Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. It was important for John’s readers to understand that the delay on Jesus’ part did not indicate a lack of affection for the family. In fact, the specific mention of each person stresses his love for each one individually. The Greek word for “loved” (ēgapa, GK 26) is a customary imperfect stressing a continuing state. Berkeley translates, “was a dear friend to.” So Jesus, “though He had heard that Lazarus was ill” (Norlie), stayed where he was for two more days.
Pulling together the references to time will help us understand Jesus’ actions. Jesus was across the Jordan in the place where John had been baptizing in the early days (10:20). From 1:28 we identified that locale as Batanea, some 150 kilometers northeast of Jerusalem. Lazarus was still alive when Jesus received word of his friend’s illness (11:3–4). Sometime during the two-day wait, but before Jesus left for Bethany, Lazarus died (v.11). When Jesus arrived in Bethany, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days (v.17). This would have allowed Jesus adequate time to make the relatively long journey from Batanea to Bethany.
The question as to why Jesus waited two days before going to Bethany must still be answered. One would think that the illness of a dear friend would have moved him to go to his aid without delay. Some have suggested that Jesus waited so that people would understand that Lazarus had really died and that his return to life could not be explained as resuscitation from a coma. Others refer to a popular Jewish belief that the soul lingered near the body for three days after death and that only after that could there be no hope of resuscitation (cf. Str-B, 2:544). While one cannot be certain as to why Jesus delayed his departure, the most probable answer is that his progress toward Jerusalem and his coming death were self-determined. When his brothers urged him to go up to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles, he refused, for the right time had not yet come (7:1–6). So also now, when informed that Lazarus was ill, he waited because he, not others, would determine when the time was right.
7–8 After the two days had passed, Jesus told his disciples that it was time to return to Judea. The decision was met with surprise and protest: “Rabbi, just a short time ago the Jews were trying to stone you. You’re not going back there again, are you?” This is the last time in John’s gospel that the disciples refer to Jesus as “Rabbi,” the accepted manner of addressing a teacher. From that point on, his relationship with them was far greater than that of teacher—he was to become their Master and Lord.
9–10 Jesus’ answer to the disciples’ question must be understood on two levels. It is quite obvious that there are “twelve hours of daylight” and that people “will not stumble” if they walk during the day, but when night comes and there is no longer light, they will stumble. But what does this simple observation teach on a deeper level? The disciples have just expressed their fear that if Jesus returns to Jerusalem, he will be put to death by the same people who tried to stone him. Jesus answers that he has not yet finished his own twelve hours of “daylight,” and until that determined period of time is complete, he will walk in safety. The precautionary measure they suggest will not lengthen his ministry, nor will the opposition of his enemies bring it to a premature close. It is those who try to walk at night who stumble.
Jesus is the light of the world, and until his mission is accomplished, that light cannot be extinguished. Note here a second application. The disciples also have their twelve hours of daylight; during this time, they are to carry out the tasks assigned to them. They labor illumined by the one who is the light of the world. It is those without the light who will stumble because they are trying to walk in darkness. There is no light in them.
11 Jesus tells his disciples that Lazarus has fallen asleep and that he intends to go to Bethany and “wake him up.” The verb koimaō (“to fall asleep,” GK 3121) occurs eighteen times in the NT, four times in a literal sense (Mt 28:13; Lk 22:45; Jn 11:12; Ac 12:6), but elsewhere as a euphemism for death. Jesus refers to Lazarus as “our friend.” While the term reflects the close personal relationship between Jesus (along with the disciples) and the family at Bethany, it may also have been a common way of referring to another Christian believer.
12–13 The disciples thought that Jesus was talking about Lazarus being asleep in a literal sense and so reply that if that is the case, then “he will get better.” Since the verb is a future passive of sōzō (“to save,” GK 5392), some think John meant that believers who were now asleep in death would be saved (cf. Barrett, 393). While Jesus often speaks on more than one level, finding nuggets of theological truth at every turn is to confuse exegesis with homiletics. The disciples understood in a straightforward manner what Jesus had said. It is difficult to see how John, in recording their response, could have been adding to their words a second level of meaning. How would we know? John then adds the explanatory note that Jesus had been speaking of Lazarus’s death but the disciples thought he was speaking of literal sleep.
14–15 Jesus now says plainly, “Lazarus is dead.” Such knowledge on the part of Jesus about the condition of a man many miles away can be understood only in terms of supernatural enlightenment. It was certainly more than an informed guess that such a serious illness would by that time have resulted in death. Jesus adds that for the disciples’ sake he is glad that he was not there in Bethany. Had he been there he may have taken action sooner and restored Lazarus to health before he actually died. Jesus’ arrival to bring Lazarus back from the grave will be for this purpose: “so that [the disciples] may believe.”
Jesus was not speaking of initial faith but of the growth and maturing of the faith of his followers. While faith begins with a first step of commitment to the Lord, in another sense it is a progressive relationship. Faith grows as experience continues to verify the trustworthiness of the one in whom we have placed our trust. It is said that experience is the best teacher, and in no other realm is this more true than in our relationship to Jesus Christ. It is in this sense that Paul cries out, “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection” (Php 3:10).
16 In response to Jesus’ call, “Let us go to him,” it is Thomas who says to the rest of the disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” (Interestingly, apart from a single reference [6:68], Peter is not mentioned in the fourth gospel between his being chosen as a disciple [1:42–44] and the foot-washing episode in the final week of Jesus’ earthly ministry [13:6–38].) The name “Thomas” comes from an Aramaic word meaning “the twin.” John’s parenthetical statement “called Didymus” (Didymos meaning “twin,” GK 1441) is repeated in 20:24 and 21:22. There is some evidence that “Thomas” may have been a title rather than a personal name and that his real name may have been Judas. Less probable is the claim that he was a twin of Jesus, a theory probably motivated by gnostic theology.
While Thomas is usually portrayed as the great doubter, on this occasion his willingness to accompany Jesus all the way to death reflects not doubt but “raw devotion and courage” (Carson, 410). The others may well have abandoned Jesus in view of the danger awaiting them in Jerusalem, but it was Thomas who encouraged them to forsake the security of their refuge “across the Jordan” and go with Jesus into danger, even though it could cost them their lives.
NOTES
5 That John can speak of Jesus’ love for Lazarus and his sisters using the verb ἀγαπάω (agapaō, GK 26) while employing a different verb in the same context (φιλέω, phileō, GK 5797, v.3) demonstrates that their semantic ranges overlap and that it is therefore unwise to distinguish sharply between the two words for “love” (as is often done in the post-resurrection account in 21:15–17).
9 Obviously not every day of the year has twelve hours of daylight. The length of sunlight in Israel varies from fourteen hours and twelve minutes to twelve hours and nine minutes, depending on the time of year.
17On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. 18Bethany was less than two miles from Jerusalem, 19and many Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them in the loss of their brother. 20When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary stayed at home.
21“Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.”
23Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”
24Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”
25Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
27“Yes, Lord,” she told him, “I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.”
28And after she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside. “The Teacher is here,” she said, “and is asking for you.” 29When Mary heard this, she got up quickly and went to him. 30Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still at the place where Martha had met him. 31When the Jews who had been with Mary in the house, comforting her, noticed how quickly she got up and went out, they followed her, supposing she was going to the tomb to mourn there.
32When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”
33When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 34“Where have you laid him?” he asked.
“Come and see, Lord,” they replied.
35Jesus wept.
36Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”
37But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?”
COMMENTARY
17 When Jesus arrived at Bethany, Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. In the warm climate of Israel, death and burial would normally take place the same day. Deuteronomy 21:23 prescribes burial on the same day for the guilty person put to death by impalement. According to rabbinic belief, the soul of a person who has died hovers over the corpse for three days, because it desires to reenter the body. But on the fourth day, when the face of the dead person begins to change in appearance, the soul leaves (cf. Lev. Rab. 18.1). Since Lazarus had been dead for four days, it would be indisputable that he had really died. A return to life after being in the tomb for that length of time would require a miracle of God.
18 The town of Bethany, the home of Lazarus and his sisters, was less than two miles from Jerusalem. The Greek text says that the distance between Bethany and the capital was stadiōn dekapente (“fifteen stadia”), so the village would lie approximately 1.7 miles outside Jerusalem on the road leading down to Jericho.
19 Following the death of Lazarus there would have been an extended time of mourning. Not only would the family grieve over his death, but professional mourners would also take part in the prescribed ritual, which lasted for at least seven days. Since Jerusalem was so close, many Jews were able to come and offer comfort. Those who came were not the hostile leaders intent on plotting the death of Jesus, but friends of Lazarus and his sisters who had come to mourn their loss. John’s point in mentioning “many Jews” is that those who came to pay their respects constituted a large group and would provide a considerable body of witnesses for the coming resurrection of Lazarus.
20 When Martha heard that Jesus was approaching Bethany, she went out to meet him. But Mary remained sitting (ekathezeto, GK 2767, is imperfect) at home. It was customary for those who were mourning to remain in the house while friends would come and sit with them in a silence broken occasionally with sobs of grief (cf. Job 2:8, 13; Eze 8:14). The picture of Mary and Martha in the fourth gospel accords well with the way they are portrayed in Luke 10:38–42. There Martha busies herself with the obligations of hospitality, but Mary sits at Jesus’ feet to learn while the opportunity presents itself. In the story recounted by Luke, it is Mary who is commended for having “chosen what is better” (10:42), but in John’s narrative a number of scholars think that Martha comes out better. Her response to Jesus’ arrival is to go out to meet him without delay. Furthermore, in v.27 she gives voice to a magnificent confession.
21 It would be easy to interpret Martha’s words here as a complaint against Jesus’ late arrival. “We sent you word that Lazarus was sick, so where have you been for the last four or five days?” But that kind of response would have been inconsistent with the sisters’ relationship to Jesus, not only as a dear friend but also in the heightened sense of “Lord.” Martha’s words were not a rebuke but a genuine expression of sorrow mingled with the confidence that, had Jesus been there, he could have prevented the death of their brother.
22 Martha goes on to say that, even though Lazarus is now dead, she is confident that God would give to Jesus anything that he would ask of him. Martha doesn’t specifically ask Jesus to pray that Lazarus will be raised from the dead, though this is certainly implied in the way she poses the remark. Some would question Martha’s apparent confidence, calling attention to her reluctance at the tomb when Jesus asked to have the stone removed (v.39). It is better to understand that Martha, in a general sense, believed Jesus could restore her brother to life, but that at the moment when it was about to happen, her faith gave way to the reality that a body dead for four days had already begun to decompose.
23–24 Jesus doesn’t get involved in a theoretical discussion of the possibility that Lazarus could be brought back from the grave but simply tells Martha in the plainest way possible that her brother will rise again. Martha understands his words in reference to the widely accepted Pharisaic belief that the dead would be raised to life at the last day. (Only the Sadducees denied the possibility of resurrection; cf. Mk 12:18; Ac 23:8.) “I know,” she says, “he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” But this was not what Jesus had in mind. He was not speaking of something that would take place in the distant future. Those who had gathered to mourn were about to see Lazarus rise again right before their eyes.
25–26 Pharisaic doctrine was not necessarily wrong; it was simply inadequate. Not only was Jesus able to raise the dead; he was himself, as John records the words of Jesus, “the resurrection and the life” (the fifth of the seven great “I am” statements). What Jesus means by this prophetic announcement is not simply that he is able to restore life by resurrecting people from the dead but that he himself is that resurrection and life. While, as Temple, 1:181, remarks, “there is a forcing of language to express an unutterable thought,” we are nevertheless called on to see Jesus as possessing eternal life in such a way that to believe in him is to share with him the resurrected life of the new age. As Paul would put it, those who are “in Christ” are one with him in the experience of a quality of life both divine and eternal (see, e.g., Ro 8:1; 1 Co 15:22; 2Co 5:17; Eph 1:3).
In the two following clauses (vv.25b–26a) Jesus explains what he means by (1) the resurrection and (2) the life. The clauses are parallel but not synonymous, the second advancing on the first. The person who believes in him will come to life (spiritually) even though that person will die (physically). This is the true meaning of resurrection—it forever frees the believer from final death. The raising of Lazarus serves as an illustration in the realm of natural life of a truth that is essentially spiritual and belongs to a higher sphere of reality. The second clause explains “life.” Whoever comes to life (spiritually) by believing in me (Hendriksen, 2:150, calls living and believing “a kind of hendiadys: living by faith”) will never die (spiritually). While resurrection counters the dread enemy death, eternal life is the glorious result of sharing the destiny of the Resurrected One.
So Jesus puts the question to Martha: “Do you believe this?” Not, “Do you believe that I can raise your brother from death even now before the general resurrection at the end of time?” but, “Do you believe that by faith in me a person is raised to a new level of life that is spiritual and that there is no end [death] to this glorious relationship?” In other words, “Do you really believe in me in terms of the higher truths I have taught about myself and my mission?”
27 Martha’s answer comes back as one of the most complete confessions recorded in the NT. Andrew told his brother, Simon Peter, that he had met “the Messiah” (1:41), Nathanael declared that Jesus was “the Son of God” (1:49), and Philip spoke of Jesus as “the one Moses wrote about” (1:45; cf. 1:27, 30); but it was Martha who combined them all into one magnificent confession that Jesus was “the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.” The perfect tense of “believe” (pepisteuka, GK 4409) reflects what Bruce, 245, calls “a settled attitude of soul.” Martha has come to the firm belief that Jesus is the Messiah, that he is the very Son of God, and that he is the fulfillment of Jewish expectations. Even though Lazarus lies dead in the grave, her confidence in who Jesus is and what he can do is not diminished even the slightest. Sorrow fills her heart because her brother is dead, but faith reigns supreme in her confidence that, with Jesus at hand, all is well.
28 Martha leaves Jesus on the outskirts of Bethany and returns home, where she takes her sister Mary aside to tell her that the Teacher has arrived and is asking for her. Martha speaks to her sister “in secret” or “privately” (lathra, GK 3277; NIV, “aside”) in the hope that Mary can slip away unnoticed by the friends who have come to mourn. She wants her to have a few minutes alone with Jesus. The reference to Jesus as “Teacher” is a bit unusual because rabbis would not teach women (cf. 4:27). It reflects the fact that Jesus spoke his message freely to all who would listen—to women as well as to men.
29–31 Mary responded immediately to the summons. She got up quickly and went to Jesus, who was still in the place where Martha had met him. Since in Jesus’ day burial grounds were outside the town, it seems reasonable to picture Jesus as waiting there where he would soon perform a miracle rather than going into town to the home of Martha and Mary. When the mourners saw Mary leave the house so quickly, they assumed she would be going out to the tomb. So they followed her there.
One wonders why the mourners did not leave when Martha went out to meet Jesus. Could it be that they were naturally attracted by the emotional warmth of Mary but somewhat put off by her take-charge sister Martha? A winsome personality draws more friends than does any number of more aggressive types.
32 Mary’s response to seeing Jesus was to fall at his feet. Lindars, 397, thinks that her reaction was one “of supplication, rather than of worship,” but that is unlikely because no request is made. Instead, she speaks to Jesus using the very same words as Martha (cf. v.21). She did not, however, repeat what her sister had said about God granting to Jesus whatever he might ask (see v.22). Undoubtedly the sisters had lamented on repeated occasions that if only Jesus had been there, Lazarus would not have died. So it was natural for the women to express themselves in this way when they first encountered Jesus. Mary’s “[throwing] herself at his feet” (TCNT) is consistent with what we know of her from the episode in Mark 14:3–9 (cf. Jn 12:2–8), where she anointed Jesus with expensive perfume. (The account in Lk 7:36–50 appears to be a similar event but actually took place much earlier in Jesus’ ministry.)
33–34 So with Mary at Jesus’ feet, weeping and surrounded by her many friends who were also weeping and wailing (klaiō, GK 3081, refers to a loud, unrestrained form of weeping especially appropriate in times of sorrow for the dead), John writes that Jesus was “deeply moved in spirit and troubled.” This expression has engendered considerable debate. Following the lead of Martin Luther, German scholars have emphasized the primary meaning of embrimaomai (“to snort” with indignation, GK 1839) and have understood Jesus as reacting in anger at the disorderly and intemperate scene he encountered. (EDNT, 1:442, says he became “indignant,” “furious.”) If this interpretation is correct, we must ask why Jesus responded as he did. Some suggest that his frustration resulted from the fact that such a tumult was forcing him to perform a miracle, which would lead to a premature arrest. But certainly Jesus was not boxed in to such a limited course of action. Besides, anger in such a situation runs counter to what we know of Jesus elsewhere in the Gospels. If Jesus actually was angry, then it would seem to stem from the mourners’ failure to grasp the truth that their sorrow was irreconcilable with faith in the one who is “the resurrection and the life” (v.25).
The majority of English translators have understood that while embrimaomai in this context may well have indicated an outburst of indignation, the term is sufficiently comprehensive to include compassion as well. The expression “in spirit” (also “in himself,” en heauto, v.38) is said to be a “Semitism for expressing the internal impact of the emotions” (Brown, 425). Phillips translates, “He was deeply moved and visibly distressed.” Lindars, 399, concludes, “We are thus driven back to the classic interpretation of this verse as a testimony to the human feeling of Jesus, who shares with all men in their pain and distress.” Jesus asks very simply, “Where have you laid him?” to which Mary and the others answer, “Come and see, Lord”—a strange sequel if Jesus is still in a fit of anger!
35 In the shortest verse in the Bible, we learn that “Jesus wept.” Note here that John uses a different word for the tears of Jesus than for the weeping of Mary and those with her. While klaiō (GK 3081) is used of loud weeping or wailing (v.33), dakryō (GK 1233) refers to a more restrained breaking out in tears. Dakryō occurs only here in the NT, though the cognate dakryon, “a tear,” appears ten times. We read of Jesus’ tears in two other places in the NT: Luke records Jesus’ weeping over Jerusalem as he approached it for the last time (Lk 19:41), and the author of Hebrews reminds us that during the days of his life on earth, Jesus “offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears” (Heb 5:7).
The reason for Jesus’ tears in the Lazarus story was not grief over Lazarus’s death—that would bracket him with those “who have no hope” (1Th 4:13). Nor was it simply an expression of love and concern for the sisters and their friends. Jesus wept because of the havoc wrought on the world by sin and death. To the one who came to bring life, death was a stark reminder of the continuing cosmic struggle between God and Satan for the souls of men and women. As long as death reigned, the kingdom of God was not yet finally and completely established.
36 The Jews failed to understand the real cause of Jesus’ tears. They said, “See how he loved him!”—an observation true enough, but one that fell far short of the real reason for Jesus’ tears. He wept over the sad state of a people too blind to see that in him there is life eternal and that by faith in him death is transformed into a gateway to eternal bliss. It was the tragic state of their spiritual blindness that caused him pain and brought tears to his eyes.
37 While some of the mourners were impressed by Jesus’ tears, others were more critical of him. Convinced of the astuteness of their insight, they questioned why a person who could open the eyes of a blind man had not kept his good friend from dying. They implied that since Jesus could have come and prevented Lazarus’s death, there must have been some other (and more sinister) reason for his failure to do so.
NOTES
19 The single article τήν (tēn) before Μάρθαν καὶ Μαριὰμ (Marthan kai Mariam, “Martha and Mary”) is changed to τὰς περί (tas peri) in P45vid A C3 Θ Ψ 0250 et al.—a change that would indicate the Jews came not so much to Martha and Mary but to their household. The shorter text, however, is to be preferred and is supported by such MSS as P66.75vid א B C* L W and others. The article serves both names and binds them together as one.
25 The phrase καὶ ἡ ζωή (kai hē zōē, “and the life”) is omitted by the early Greek papyrus P45, two versional witnesses, and several early church fathers. This short text is suitable to the context, and the addition could easily have been made by a copyist; but the UBS committee retained the words on the basis of their age, weight, and diversification of witnesses (cf. Metzger, 199). It is interesting that while ἀνάστασις (anastasis, “resurrection,” GK 414) is found only once in John’s gospel outside the present passage (6:39), ζωή (zōē, “life,” GK 2437) occurs thirty-six times.
27 Martha’s affirmation of faith is strengthened by the addition of the first person personal pronoun ἐγώ (egō, “I”). Coupled with the perfect tense πεπίστευκα (pepiskteuka, “have believed”), it results in the strongest possible personal testimony of faith. While Martha is often criticized for what is regarded as paying unnecessary attention to the details of hospitality (vis-à-vis Mary’s desire to learn at the Master’s feet), her ringing testimony to her conviction that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is a clear indication of her perceptive mind and believing heart.
33 If ἐνεβριμήσατο (enebrimēsato, GK 1839) is taken more in the sense of anger, then it is certain that Jesus’ “anger” was directed at death itself and at the one who holds the power of death.
35 Bruce, 246, takes ἐδάκρυσεν (edakrysen, GK 1233) as an ingressive aorist and translates “burst into tears.”
38Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39“Take away the stone,” he said.
“But, Lord,” said Martha, the sister of the dead man, “by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days.”
40Then Jesus said, “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?”
41So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.”
43When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.
Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.”
COMMENTARY
38 When Jesus arrived at the tomb, his response to the situation was the same as it had been when he saw Mary and her friends mourning. He was “once more shaken with emotion” (Rieu). The tomb was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. The Jews normally buried their dead in caves hewn out of the rocks. For private burials the vertical tomb was more common. That Lazarus was in this kind of tomb is favored by two observations: (1) the preposition epi (“across,” GK 2093)—the stone that covered the opening of the tomb would be laid “over” or “across” the opening, and (2) the verb in v.39, airō (GK 149), which in this verse means “to lift up, move from one place to another” (BDAG, 24). Other tombs were cut horizontally into the rocks. In the walls of the main chamber were carved a number of vaults. The traditional site of the tomb of Lazarus dates back to the fourth century and is currently occupied by a mosque.
39 Jesus orders the stone that covers the mouth of the tomb to be taken away. Martha, who has joined the group by now, is quick to raise an objection. Lazarus has been in the tomb for four days, and “by this time there is a bad odor,” she protests. This assumes that the body was not embalmed. Some have seen a contradiction with v.44, which says that the body had been bound with strips of linen. But this does not necessarily mean that it had been embalmed. In Jewish circles, the practice of wrapping aromatic spices next to the body was to counteract the odors of decomposition, not to embalm. It has also been suggested by some that the reason Jesus wanted to have the tomb opened was not in order to prepare for the raising of Lazarus from the dead, but so that he could take a last look at his dear friend. That, however, would put Jesus in the same group with those who grieved without hope—a position inconsistent with the reality that Jesus is himself the resurrection and the life. Since Jesus was on the verge of restoring Lazarus to life, it would be pointless to “take a last look” at him in the grave.
40 So Jesus reminds Martha that if she would only believe, she would see the glory of God, i.e., “the wonder of what God can do” (Phillips). While she knew that Lazarus would be raised from the dead (v.23), that God would be glorified as a result (v.4), and that she had acknowledged the deity and the messianic mission of Jesus (v.27), still, bodies in a grave for four days are not only dead but have begun to deteriorate! It is one thing for faith to express itself in bold affirmation when it is in the form of a creed, but the stark reality of life has a way of eroding its assurance. Certainly Jesus is the Son of God who came into the world (v.27) and can receive from God whatever he asks (v.22), but, after all, Lazarus is dead and buried. The genuineness of a person’s faith is seen in how it reacts to the actual crises of life.
41–42 So at Jesus’ command (v.39) they took away the stone and Jesus raised his eyes (a few MSS add “up to heaven”), a characteristic preface to prayer (cf. Lk 18:13). God is addressed as “Father,” not “our Father,” because while Christian believers share a common relationship to God as Father, God is “Father” to the Son in a unique sense.
It is noteworthy that John does not record a prayer in which Jesus asks that Lazarus be raised from the dead. Instead he thanks God for having heard him. Apparently Jesus has been in prayer all along, asking his Father to perform a mighty miracle. With typical insight Temple, 1:184, comments, “There was no one moment of prayer. He lived prayer.” Jesus “explains” to the Father that, though he has always known that his prayers are heard (note the egō, “I”), he said what he did for the benefit of the people there. The contrast is further strengthened by the strong adversative alla (“but”). He wanted them to know that the imminent resurrection of Lazarus was the result of prayer. His purpose was that they “may come to believe” (taking pisteusōsin as an ingressive aorist).
43–44 Then Jesus “raised his voice in a great cry” (NEB), “Lazarus, come out!” And as a prelude to that great day when the dead will hear the same life-giving shout and come from the tombs of this earth, Lazarus came out of the grave—“hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.” We need not question how a man wrapped so tightly with grave clothes could walk. If God can raise the dead, he can take care of all such incidentals. We are not told how the body was wrapped. If each leg was wrapped separately, walking would have been quite possible.
Jesus then ordered that the grave clothes be taken off and that Lazarus be set free. Temple’s homiletical point, 1:185, is that as the wrappings of the grave held Lazarus fast, “so old habits may cling about us when the sin itself is eradicated. If we are truly to be alive, we must be freed from these also.”
NOTES
38 See v.33 for the other occurrence of ἐμβριμάομαι (embrimaomai) in John.
A μνημεῖ᾿ον (mnēmeion, GK 3646) is first of all a monument built to someone who has died (L&N, 7:76; as in Mt 23:29) and then a grave (the far more frequent usage).
43 Taking δεῦ᾿ρο (deuro, GK 1306) as an adverb of place yields the succinct command, “Here! Outside!” (Morris, 561 n. 83).
44 The word σουδάριον (soudarion, GK 5051) is a Latin loanword (sudarium, “a cloth used to wipe perspiration from the face”). In Luke 19:20 it was the piece of cloth in which the third servant kept the money entrusted to him. Here in John 11:44 (and also in 20:7) it refers to a piece of cloth placed over the face (or around the head) of the corpse. In Acts 19:12 the σουδάριον, soudarion is best understood as a handkerchief.
OVERVIEW
In the verses that follow, we read of the far-reaching results of the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead. Some, when they saw what Jesus had done, “put their faith in him” (v.45). Others went to the Pharisees to report the miracle (v.46), and their act led to the plot that ended in the crucifixion of Jesus.
45Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. 46But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.
“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many miraculous signs. 48If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
49Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”
51He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53So from that day on they plotted to take his life.
54Therefore Jesus no longer moved about publicly among the Jews. Instead he withdrew to a region near the desert, to a village called Ephraim, where he stayed with his disciples.
55When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, many went up from the country to Jerusalem for their ceremonial cleansing before the Passover. 56They kept looking for Jesus, and as they stood in the temple area they asked one another, “What do you think? Isn’t he coming to the Feast at all?” 57But the chief priests and Pharisees had given orders that if anyone found out where Jesus was, he should report it so that they might arrest him.
COMMENTARY
45 The raising of Lazarus was not without its immediate effect. John writes that when those who had come to mourn saw what Jesus had done, they “put their faith in him.” John’s “therefore” establishes a strong causal relationship between the raising of Lazarus and the consequent coming to faith of those who saw it happen. While faith based on the miraculous may not be a strong faith, it certainly is a beginning and is far better than no faith at all. The people’s “seeing” involved far more than natural vision. Brown, 439, notes that the verb theaomai (“to see,” GK 2517) “often connotes perceptive vision.” It wasn’t the mere sight of a dead man being raised that brought about faith, but a true insight into what was really taking place.
One may ask why the text says that the Jews “had come to visit Mary” and omit any reference to Martha? One reasonable answer is that Mary, being the more emotional of the two, would have been in greater need of comfort and solace. It is also true that Martha, with her more dominant personality, would be less likely to gain the sympathy of others. Both sisters had met Jesus just outside Bethany and greeted him with the same words, but while Mary’s plight brought tears to Jesus’ eyes (v.35), Martha received a lesson in theology (vv.20–26).
46 Those who saw and believed are now contrasted with those who only saw the unusual event. This second group went to the Pharisees and reported what Jesus had done—not out of a desire to see their leaders come to faith but out of the suspicion that any man who could work such wonders must pose a serious threat to the tenuous relationship between the Jewish nation and their Roman overlords. As one might expect, the result of a miracle once again created a division (9:16; cf. 7:43). Everyone saw exactly the same thing: in response to Jesus’ command, Lazarus, already dead for four days, had come out of the tomb alive. Those predisposed to believe accepted what they saw and gave God the glory; others rejected what they saw and resorted to a plot to get rid of the person who had such unusual power. Based on each group’s predispositions, both responses were rational and appropriate. To repeat a figure of speech, the sheep that belong to Jesus recognize the voice of their shepherd (cf. 10:2–5).
47 On learning that Lazarus has been raised from the dead, the ruling priests and the Pharisees call a meeting of the Sanhedrin. Apparently this was an official meeting (however, see the NET translator’s note that argues, on the basis of the anarthrous synedrion [“Sanhedrin,” GK 5284], that it was probably an informal meeting) in that Caiaphas, who was president of the Sanhedrin by virtue of his role as high priest, appeared to be in charge (vv.49–52). The plural designation “chief priests” is understood by Bruce, 250, to include “the high priest, the captain of the temple and the members of the leading priestly family.”
Though much of our knowledge of the Sanhedrin comes from a later time, and therefore may not reflect the actual circumstances at the time of Jesus, it is safe to say that this judicial body of seventy-one dealt with matters of justice within the boundaries set by the Romans and was the final court of appeal for questions related to Mosaic law. It reflected primarily the Sadducean point of view. From this point forward in John we hear of the Pharisees on only three occasions (12:19, 42; 18:3), the opposition to Jesus issuing in his death being led by the chief priests.
The question “What are we accomplishing?” posed by the chief priests and Pharisees is not immediately clear. Barrett, 405, suggests that the question mark be placed after the first clause of the Greek text (ti poioumen) rather than at the end of the verse, which would result in a question asking, “What are we now doing?”—the implied answer being, “Nothing. We ought to be doing something about it but we’re not, because this man is performing miracles.” This rendition is superior to taking the question as a deliberative subjective, “What are we to do?” The NIV’s “What are we accomplishing?” follows the former alternative, as does the NASB’s “What are we doing?”
48 The members of the Sanhedrin were at an impasse. It cannot be denied that Jesus had performed many miraculous signs, the most recent and certainly the most startling being the raising to life of a dead man. If they allowed him to continue, he would quickly gain a following as a messianic leader and they, the ruling elite of the Jewish nation, would lose their favored position in Jewish life and society. As the NIV puts it, “the Romans would come and take away both our place and our nation.” While “our place” (ton topon, GK 5536) is normally taken as referring to the temple (see NIV text note), it is better understood as portraying the favored position in society enjoyed by the religious leaders. Of the religious leadership, Carson, 421, writes, “They are prompted less by dispassionate concern for the well-being of the nation than for their own positions of power and prestige.”
49–50 Caiaphas had been appointed high priest in AD 18 and served in that capacity until he was deposed some eighteen years later. He was the son-in-law of the powerful Annas, who had been high priest until AD 15. (The intervening three years saw a quick succession of three other high priests.) While the high priest was theoretically appointed for life (Nu 35:25), such was not the case during Roman occupation. The Romans saw to it that no high priest who failed to serve their own political purposes would continue in office; they replaced such priests with individuals more amenable to Roman desires. John’s reference to Caiaphas as high priest that year—as though the appointment were an annual affair, as was so often the case in the Graeco-Roman world—does not indicate any lack of knowledge on John’s part about the region’s customs. The expression means no more than “in that fateful/memorable year.”
With the rudeness traditionally assigned to the Sadducees (cf. Josephus, J.W. 1.266) Caiaphas addresses the assembly: “You know nothing at all.” The added personal pronoun hymeis puts the stress on “you”; Barclay translates, “You are witless creatures.”
Caiaphas’s cynical solution to the problem of Jesus, the worker of miracles, was pure utilitarianism—“You don’t seem to grasp the fact that it is in our interest that one man die rather than the entire nation be destroyed. In other words, the welfare of Israel rests on our willingness to do what is necessary to preserve it—i.e., to put this man Jesus to death.” The power of the human mind to rationalize a course of action, no matter how devious, is marvelous to behold. Better to kill a single person than to let an entire nation perish. Sounds reasonable, but it makes the fatal mistake of disregarding the rights of the individual. All socialist doctrine fails at its basic premise—i.e., that the good of the masses is to be preferred over the good of the individual. History has shown the vacuity of this deceptive doctrine. It is only when the rights of the individual are protected that the welfare of the group is enhanced.
51 While Caiaphas was promoting the cynical idea that the greatest amount of benefit would accrue to the greatest number of people by the murder of the one unfortunate, unwittingly he was summarizing the gospel (cf. Temple, 1:187). His words were far more profound than he ever intended. Acting as high priest, he had just prophesied that the death of Jesus would serve to bring together and make one “the Jewish nation” and “the scattered children of God” (v.52). What he intended was that by killing Jesus, political Israel would be preserved. What he actually said (and that at a deeper level) was that by his death Jesus would guarantee spiritual life to Jew and Gentile alike who came to him by faith. That Caiaphas did not speak “on his own” does not mean that he had no control over what he was saying. The thought and the words chosen to express the idea were strictly his own. What was beyond his control was that these very words, cynical as they were, could also carry an important message on a different level.
52–53 Since “the scattered children of God” refers to Gentiles who were yet to hear and respond to the gospel, it is sometimes asked how they could be designated “children of God” prior to regeneration. Such is the predestinarian nature of the fourth gospel. Jesus had already spoken in the same way of “other sheep” that would hear his voice and follow him (1:3–5; cf. 6:37). The Gentiles are currently scattered, but they will be brought together with believing Jews and made one body. This, of course, enraged the authorities, who from that day plotted to take Jesus’ life (v.53).
54 Jesus then went to a village called Ephraim. The location is probably to be identified as the OT Ephron (2Ch 13:19)—the modern et-Taiyibeh, which lies about thirteen miles north-northeast of Jerusalem and some four miles northeast of Bethel. It was far enough from the capital to provide sanctuary but close enough to allow Jesus to return for the final week.
55 As the Feast of Passover approached, many Jews went up to Jerusalem from the surrounding country. Passover was one of the three great pilgrim feasts. John records a first Passover in AD 28, some forty-six years after Herod began to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem (2:20). A second Passover is mentioned in 6:4, and this is now the third (11:55). It is for this reason that most scholars accept as a time span for the public ministry of Jesus a period of slightly over two years.
56–57 Many people arrived early in Jerusalem in order to fulfill the requirements of ceremonial cleansing (cf. Ex 19:10–15; Nu 9:9–14). They were on the lookout for Jesus and wondering whether or not he would come to the Feast. They questioned one another as to whether he would show up. By this time the chief priests had issued orders that anyone who knew where Jesus was should report it to the officials so that they might arrest him.
NOTES
49 Tasker, 142 n. 49, notes that the pronoun ἐκείνος (ekeinos, “that”) is a favorite of John and that while not always emphatic, it would appear to be so in this location. It stresses the truth that this was annus mirabilis, the year of man’s redemption. In the parallel phrase in v.51, ἐκείνου, ekeinou, is omitted from P66 and D, while the entire phrase is left out by P45 e 1 sys.
55 From the very beginning Israel was to be a holy nation (Lev 20:26). Their moral separation from sin was to be expressed outwardly by separation from objects considered to be unclean. Israelites who had come into contact with that which was unclean were required to separate themselves from the congregation for a period of time and then be reinstated after certain purification rites were observed. At times a sacrifice was required. In preparation for the Jewish Passover, it was essential that everyone taking part in the festival undergo purification.
57 That John used the pluperfect δεδώκεισαν (dedōkeisan, “had given,” GK 1443) rather than the aorist ἔδωκαν (edōkan) may reflect the continuing nature of the command. The order was to remain in force until Jesus was in fact located.
REFLECTIONS
As this chapter draws to an end, an air of expectancy hangs over the city as those who had encountered Jesus or knew anything about him wait to see what will happen. The stage is set for the most dramatic and far-reaching event of Jesus’ earthly ministry. He had come to give his life “for the people” (v.50), and that moment was rapidly approaching. Angels must have held their breath in anticipation as Jesus prepared for the triumphal entry and what would follow. The redemptive invasion of God into human history is about to draw to a close with the events leading to the crucifixion of the Lamb of God and his triumphant resurrection after three days. As John the Baptist cried out at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (1:29).
OVERVIEW
With ch. 12 Jesus’ public ministry is brought to a close. In ch. 13 Jesus celebrates the Passover with his disciples in the upper room and from this point on directs his attention to his small band of followers. The three following chapters contain teachings on the return of Jesus; the power of prayer and the promise of the coming Counselor (ch. 14); the relationship of the believer to Jesus, to one another, and to the world (ch. 15); and the work of the Holy Spirit and the joy of the coming age (ch. 16). Chapter 17 provides us with the great high priestly prayer of Jesus, and chs.18–20 tell the tragic yet triumphant story of his arrest, trial, crucifixion, resurrection, and reunion with the disciples.
The fourth gospel has been called the passion of Jesus Christ with an extended introduction. None of the Synoptic Gospels devote such a large percentage of their narrative to Jesus’ final week on earth. Chapter 12 serves as a bridge between the public ministry of Jesus and the crucial final week of his life in which he carries out to the very end the purpose for which he came.
OVERVIEW
The relationship of John’s account of the anointing at Bethany to similar accounts in the Synoptics (Mt 26:6–13 = Mk 14:3–9; and Lk 7:36–50) has received a great deal of attention. While there are both differences and similarities in the accounts, it is hard not to conclude that Matthew and Mark are writing about the same incident, while Luke appears to be reporting a similar but different incident. The crux of the problem is that while in Matthew and Mark the expensive perfume is poured on the head of Jesus, John pictures Mary pouring it on his feet and wiping it with her hair. This last item seems to reflect Luke’s account, in which the woman wipes her tears from the feet of Jesus with her hair and then pours perfume on them. There is very little additional evidence, however, that would lead us to identify Mary of Bethany with the sinful woman of Luke’s account. While John’s incident takes place late in Jesus’ ministry, Luke’s story comes quite early in Jesus’ Galilean ministry. Carson, 426–27, wisely calls on the reader to “inject a small dose of historical imagination before resorting too quickly to the critic’s knife” and concludes that “it is reasonable to suppose that what actually happened was comprehensive enough to generate the accounts of both John and Matthew/ Mark, including the divergences that initially seem so odd.”
1Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
4But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5“Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” 6He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
7“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”
9Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, 11for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their faith in him.
COMMENTARY
1 The scene described here took place several weeks after the raising of Lazarus. Specifically it was six days before the Passover when Jesus arrived at Bethany, the home of Lazarus. We may assume from the context that Jesus came to Bethany from the desert area northeast of Jerusalem to which he had retreated due to the Jewish plot to take his life (11:53–54). If John places the Passover that year on Friday (the fifteenth day of Nisan), then six days prior would be Saturday (beginning at sundown on Friday evening).
2 The dinner that was given to honor Jesus would have taken place on Saturday evening. (Friday evening was the beginning of the Sabbath and Martha would not be serving at that time.) The Greek word translated “dinner” (deipnon; GK 1270) refers to the main meal of the day and in this case would have fallen in the evening after the close of the Passover. Some writers connect it with the habdalah, the service that separates the Sabbath from the rest of the week. It would appear that the meal was provided by Lazarus and his sisters, though the parallel account in Matthew/Mark places it in the home of Simon the Leper (Mt 26:6; Mk 14:3). Some have suggested that this Simon may have been the father of Lazarus and the real owner of the home. Carson, 428, calls the hypothesis “attractive” but “completely without supporting evidence.”
The portrayal of Martha as one who “was serving” (diēkonei, GK 1354, is imperfect) is markedly consistent with what we learn of her temperament in Luke 10:38–42, where she is distracted with the obligations of hospitality, while her sister Mary sits at Jesus’ feet in rapt attention to all he was saying. John notes that Lazarus was reclining at the table with Jesus.
3 Mary now pours pure nard on the feet of Jesus and wipes them with her hair. The Greek litra (the Roman pound) was about twelve ounces. Nard was a very expensive and fragrant oil extracted from the nard plant, which grew in the mountains of northern India. The meaning of the Greek word pistikos (GK 4410; NIV, “pure”) is disputed. While it may be derived from pistos (“faithful,” hence “pure,” GK 4412), it has also been traced to pinō (“to drink,” GK 4403; thus a reference to it being in liquid form) and to pistakia (“pistaschio tree”). Thankfully, the etymology is not theologically significant! The important point is that Mary anoints Jesus with expensive perfume in a gesture of humility and devotion.
The account in Matthew/Mark places the anointing in the village of Bethany and adds that it took place in the house of Simon the Leper. Neither Synoptic account provides the name of the woman who anointed Jesus, but both have her pouring the expensive perfume on Jesus’ head rather than on his feet, as John has it. This latter point provides the only substantial difference between the accounts. Calvin, 2:11, solves the problem by indicating that the reference to feet means “the whole body … down to the feet.” That she wipes his feet with her hair is reminiscent of an earlier incident in Luke in which a woman of questionable repute wept at Jesus’ feet and wiped them with her hair (7:38). Temple, 1:189, is one who holds to a single incident in all four gospels and writes that Mary “re-enacts the earlier scene when she was still ‘a woman in the city, a sinner.’” Obviously it would be unwise to claim that the Mary of Bethany could not have come from such a sordid past. After all, did not Jesus say that he came not “to invite virtuous people, but to call sinners to repentance” (Lk 5:32 NEB)? And was he not derided as “a friend of the worst sort of sinners” (Lk 7:34 NLT)? On the other hand, there are substantial textual reasons that argue against the equation of the sinful woman in Luke with Mary of Bethany as recorded by the other gospel writers.
4 It is informative to note how quick are all four of the gospel writers to point out that it was Judas Iscariot who betrayed their Master. In his account of the commissioning of the Twelve, Matthew records that it was Judas “who betrayed [Jesus]” (Mt 10:4). The same words are used by Mark in his narrative of the choosing of the Twelve (Mk 3:19). In the parallel account in Luke, Judas is named as the one “who became a traitor” (Lk 6:16). Here in John he is the one “who was later to betray [Jesus].” The memory of the despicable act lived on in infamy.
5 The perfume is said to be worth “a year’s wages” (triakosiōn dēnariōn, lit., “three hundred denarii”). Since the average daily wage of a working person was one denarius, the value of the ointment so freely poured out by Mary was exceedingly great. It is suggested that either Mary and her family were very well-to-do and could afford to purchase the pure nard or it had been passed down to her as a family heirloom. In today’s currency, its value would have been about $30,000.
6 One has to wonder why Judas, of all the disciples, was allowed to be the keeper of the money bag. Though looking back, John could properly designate Judas “a thief,” at the time there was apparently no reason to doubt his integrity. While such knowledge was available to Jesus as the Son of God, it is like the Lord to give his followers the opportunity to prove or disprove their loyalty. Life is the arena in which we demonstrate by our conduct the reality of our commitment to God. Judas simply proved openly what he had always been secretly.
John explains that Judas’s concern was not for the poor but had to do with the fact that he was in charge of the money bag and that “he used to help himself” to its contents. The proceeds from the sale of such expensive perfume would enhance his own position while at the same time appearing to be an act of wise benevolence on his part.
The “money bag” (glōssokomon, GK 1186) was originally a case for the “tongue” (glōssa, GK 1185) or mouthpiece of a flute. Later the term came to be used more generally for any kind of case or container. The Greek verb in the final clause of v.6 (bastazō, “to pick up” or “carry away,” GK 1002) has the nuance of “lifting” in the sense of stealing. Lindars, 418, calls it “a colloquial expression for pilfering the contents.”
7 Jesus’ response to the point made by Judas (that the perfume should have been sold and the money given to the poor) has been understood in various ways. When the Greek text is taken as it stands, Jesus’ answer is that Mary is to be left alone so that (hoti is the crucial word) she might keep the perfume till the day of his burial. But this means that some (or all?) of the nard should be saved for the forthcoming burial, and it is reasonable to conclude that once the alabaster jar (Mk 14:3) had been broken the contents would spill out. Sensing the difficulty, some MSS omit the hina and read a perfect tense tetērēken (“she has kept it,” GK 5498), rather than the aorist, thus meaning that Mary had already done what would normally be done at the burial. The problem here is that a bit later Nicodemus will prepare the body of Jesus for burial in accordance with Jewish burial customs (19:39–40). The most satisfactory solution is to take Jesus’ response elliptically and supply a clause following the interjection: Leave her alone. [The reason why she didn’t sell the pure nard was] so that (hoti) she might keep it for my burial. The NIV’s “it was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial” adopts this interpretation of the verse.
8 Jesus reminds the disciples that they would always have the poor among them but they would not always have him. The designation “the poor” was not a personal or derogatory statement but a common expression among the people. Jesus was not saying that those who are economically less fortunate should be left to their misery. The opportunity to respond in practical ways to the needs of the poor will continue indefinitely into the future. Jesus, however, will not continue to be with them, so it is important to meet his need while there is still time. Hendriksen, 2:180, makes the interesting comment that by implication Jesus “is saying to the church of all the ages that the care of the poor is its responsibility and privilege.” The nature of life is such that while the poor will always need the loving care of the believing church, there are certain critical periods when something of a more timely nature must take priority. The building of a sanctuary for worship could be one such example.
9–11 While Jesus was still at Bethany a large crowd of Jews arrived. Not only did they want to see Jesus but they also wanted to meet this man Lazarus whom Jesus had raised from the dead. The crowd was probably comprised of people from throughout the countryside who had come to Jerusalem early for ceremonial cleansing prior to the Passover (11:55). The attention being given to Lazarus made the chief priests realize that in addition to killing Jesus (11:53) it would be necessary to kill Lazarus too. It was because of Lazarus that many of the Jews “were falling away [from the Jewish faith] and believing in Jesus” (Rieu). He was a major embarrassment to the Sadducean religious hierarchy. Not only did a man brought back from the dead contradict one of their basic tenets (i.e., that there is no resurrection; Mk 12:18 par.), but further that man’s very presence was enough to cause a number of the Jewish people to place their faith in Jesus. Such an influence must be squelched before any more damage is done to the chief priests’ reputation and privileged position.
2 Keener, 294, observes that people in Jesus’ day normally “sat” at meals but “reclined” on couches for special meals, such as feasts or banquets. It is more likely that it was the women and the children who sat, while the men reclined on couches with wooden frames that were padded with mattresses and cushions. Leaning on their left elbow allowed them to eat with their right hand. A dinner given in honor of Jesus would include appropriate washing of the hands, the blessing, several courses of appetizing dishes, and a special portion for the guest.
12The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. 13They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting,
“Hosanna!”
“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”
“Blessed is the King of Israel!”
14Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written,
15“Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion;
see, your king is coming,
seated on a donkey’s colt.”
16At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him.
17Now the crowd that was with him when he called Lazarus from the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to spread the word. 18Many people, because they had heard that he had given this miraculous sign, went out to meet him. 19So the Pharisees said to one another, “See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!”
COMMENTARY
12–13 If the dinner that Martha served was on Saturday evening following the Sabbath (vv.1–2), then “the next day” would be Sunday of Passion Week. At that time a “great crowd” of pilgrims who had come early to Jerusalem for the necessary purification heard that Jesus was on his way to the city, took up palm branches, and went out to meet him. While Josephus’s observation (J.W. 6:422–25) that on one occasion 2.7 million worshipers had come to Jerusalem for Passover is probably inflated, there is no doubt that during religious festivals the city was jammed with visitors. The crowd undoubtedly contained many who had heard him speak and work miracles in Galilee. Perhaps now he would step forward, take on the mantle of leadership, and guide the nation to a brighter future!
It is difficult to overemphasize the impact the raising of Lazarus had on the people who had come to Jerusalem. In their minds, anyone who could raise the dead was certainly qualified to free the Jewish nation from the yoke of Rome and restore national sovereignty. So the crowd poured out through the east gate on that Sunday morning, ready with their palm branches to declare him king. Since palm branches were used in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles but not Passover, it is held by some that the account of the triumphal entry has been transferred to the latter festival. Such a transposition is hardly necessary, since from the times of the Maccabees palm branches had served as a national symbol.
As Jesus approached, the crowd began to shout (ekraugazon, GK 3189, is ingressive imperfect), “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” While the origin and meaning of “Hosanna” are uncertain, most scholars understand the term as a transliteration of the Hebrew expression that appears in Psalm 118:25 as a cry to the Lord for salvation—“Save, we pray!” or “Save now!” It would appear that the original significance was lost through liturgical usage and that by NT times it had become primarily a shout of joy or welcome (cf. ISBE 2:761). In the NT it is found six times, always in connection with Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. On the lips of the pilgrims (and the children in the temple, Mt 21:15), it is understood as announcing that all the Jewish messianic expectations are being fulfilled in Jesus.
The greeting is followed by a declaration of blessedness on the one who comes in the name of the Lord. That the people understood “Hosanna” in a messianic sense follows from their adding to the psalm itself the words “blessed is the King of Israel.” This one who comes in the name of the Lord—i.e., with the authority of Yahweh—is Israel’s king, the long-awaited Messiah.
14–15 The messiah whom the crowd was acclaiming was not, however, the kind of messiah who was entering the city. Instead of riding triumphantly on a horse, the symbol of warfare (cf. Ps 33:17; Pr 21:31), King-Messiah came in on a young donkey, a lowly animal associated with missions of peace. Zechariah 9:9 (cited in part in v.15) described the coming of Zion’s king in terms that would never have satisfied the messianic enthusiasm of this crowd that went to meet Jesus. The OT prophet depicted Zion’s king as righteous, gentle, bringing salvation, proclaiming peace, and riding on a donkey. Jesus’ triumphal entry was an acted parable in which he declared himself Messiah—not the kind of national savior they were looking for, but one who fulfilled the prophetic expectations of Zechariah 9:9–13. That the crowd came to understand that Jesus had no intention of satisfying their nationalistic expectations is supported by the fact that within a week many of the same group were calling out in a blind rage for his crucifixion (19:15).
16 Only at a later time, after Jesus had been glorified and the Holy Spirit had been given to lead the disciples into all truth (16:13), did the disciples fully comprehend what Jesus was doing when he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. By fulfilling Zechariah’s prophecy, Jesus had established himself as the true Messiah of OT expectation. That the crowd greeted Jesus as Messiah while at the same time the disciples failed to understand what was going on poses no real problem. When the crowds heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem, they felt sure that their own nationalistic expectations were about to be realized. But his entry into the city on a donkey, an animal of peace, quickly dampened their enthusiasm. As for the disciples, their failure was in not grasping the full significance of what Jesus was doing. It was only later—when they had received the Spirit of truth—that they came to understand that “these things [Zechariah’s prophecy] had been written about him” and why his entrance into the city had been met with such excitement by the crowd (taking “they had done these things to him” in a passive sense to mean “what had been done to him”).
17–18 The crowd that was with Jesus when he raised Lazarus continued to talk about what they had seen (emartyrei, GK 3455, “spread the word,” is a continuous imperfect). No one else had ever performed such a miracle, and the story spread rapidly. To be fully convinced that God acts in this world results in a witness that cannot be silenced. The crowd of v.17 is not identical with the crowd of v.12. Obviously many of the earlier group were in the later crowd as well. But along with them were others to whom they had told the miraculous story of the raising of Lazarus. And these were anxious to see the one who had raised a man from the dead.
19 All of this troubled the Pharisees greatly. In effect, those who were more extreme in their opposition to Jesus said to those who were willing to wait and learn, “See, this is getting us nowhere. The way we’ve been handling the situation thus far is ineffective. Look at the crowd of pilgrims rushing out to greet that pretender! They are shouting Hosannas and waving palm branches as he approaches. This has got to stop. The whole world [an understandable exaggeration] is running after him.”
NOTES
13 The palm tree has played an important role in the history of Israel and the surrounding countries. In Genesis Rabbah 15 it is identified as the “tree of life” (cf. Ge 2:9). Its image is found in sacred architecture of the day as well as on Jewish coins. Its fruit was part of the standard diet, its fronds were made into mats and baskets, and its bark was twisted into rope. In Psalm 92:12 the righteous are said to “flourish like a palm tree.” Palm branches were used at the Feast of Tabernacles, and in Revelation 7:9 the great multitude stands before the Lamb with palm branches in their hands.
The NIV repeats the words “blessed is” in the final clause of the sentence although the Greek is [καί] (kai, “and”) rather than εὐλογημένος (eulogēmenos, “blessed,” GK 2328). The NASB understands the καί, kai, in an ascensive sense and translates, “even the King of Israel” (so also ASV, RSV; the NRSV has a dash followed by “the King of Israel”).
14 This is the only occurrence of ὀνάριον (onarion, “young donkey,” GK 3942) in the NT. The usual word for the colt of a donkey is πῶλος (pōlos, GK 4798); all but one of its twelve occurrences are found in the Synoptic Gospels. Known for its strength and surefootedness, the donkey was a general utility animal in the ancient world. Young donkeys were not ridden for the first three years of their lives.
17 The reading ὃτε (hote, “when”) is superior to the variant ὃτι (hoti, “because”) because it is supported by better external testimony and because the latter appears to be an attempt to clarify the account (cf. Metzger, 202).
20Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the Feast. 21They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request. “Sir,” they said, “we would like to see Jesus.” 22Philip went to tell Andrew; Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus.
23Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.”
COMMENTARY
20 In contrast to the Pharisees, who were increasingly upset with the growing popularity of Jesus, a group of Gentiles wanted to learn more about this man who had raised Lazarus from the dead. They are designated as Hellēnes (“Greeks”), not Hellēnistai (“Hellenists,” or Greek-speaking Jews; cf. Ac 6:1). The term is not to be limited to those who were Greek ethnically but refers to everyone of non-Jewish birth. The phrase “Jews and Greeks” occurs eight times in the NT (e.g., Ac 19:10; 1Co 1:24). The Greeks who approached Jesus were God-fearing Gentiles like Cornelius in Acts 10 and the centurion in Luke 7:1–10.
In Jesus’ day there were a number of non-Jewish people who were attracted to the lofty morality and monotheism of Judaism. They often attended the religious festivals of the Jews but were not allowed any closer to the temple than the court of the Gentiles. While attracted to Judaism, these God-fearers stopped short of becoming proselytes because that would have required them to be circumcised. We are not told why these Greeks wanted to see Jesus, but we may reasonably conclude that they were drawn to him because while he worshiped within the Jewish religion, he questioned the authority of its religious leaders and appeared to be quite open to the Gentile world.
21 The Greeks wanted to “see Jesus,” i.e., to spend some time talking with him. We are not sure why they approached Philip rather than one of the other disciples, but it could have been because Philip is a Greek name. In addition, Philip came from Bethsaida, which lay well within the reach of the Greek cities of the Decapolis. It could be that these Greeks were from that area and may have had some previous contact with Philip. The intensity of their desire to talk with Jesus is reflected in the use of the imperfect ērōtōn (“they kept asking,” GK 2263).
22 Philip is faced with the problem of knowing whether or not Jesus would at that time welcome an interview with some Gentiles. Beyond that, if such a meeting were to take place in the temple area, would that not strengthen the opposition of the religious leaders to Jesus? So Philip turns to his friend Andrew, and together they take the request to Jesus.
23 Jesus seems to ignore the specific request of the Greeks and “replies” by laying down the principle that life always comes through death. It will be through his own death and resurrection that he will be glorified. Then when he is “lifted up,” he will draw people to himself (v.32). Indirectly, then, he does answer the request of the Greeks who wanted to see him. The answer to their deeper concern in talking with him is that his “hour has [now] come,” and based on the events about to unfold, salvation will be extended to all who believe, regardless of race or nationality. Until this point, his “hour” (the climactic point in his redemptive ministry) has always been in the future (2:4; 4:21, 23; 7:30; 8:20). But now at last his hour has come (the perfect tense, elēlythen, GK 2262, stresses that it has come to stay).
It is the hour “for the Son of Man to be glorified.” The title “Son of Man” is Jesus’ self-designation. It derives from Daniel 7:13–14, where in a vision the prophet sees “one like a son of man” to whom the Ancient of Days gives universal power and sovereignty. The title is distinctly messianic. In the Synoptic Gospels it is normally found in passages that speak either of Jesus’ suffering or of his coming glory. Here in John the two concepts are joined. His hour of suffering (the crucifixion) is, at the same time, the ultimate manifestation of his glory.
24–25 Jesus lays down the fundamental principle that life comes through death. In the agricultural world it is obvious that unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains what it is—a single kernel. But if it dies, it produces “many seeds,” i.e., many other kernels of wheat. It is only through the death of one that the life of many can be achieved. This principle is then applied in v.25. If someone loves his life, he will lose it, but if in this world he hates his life, he will keep it forever (cf. Mt 16:24–25; Mk 8:34–35; Lk 9:23–24 for parallel statements).
The paradoxical truth of life through death operates in the world of personal conduct as well. The person who “loves his life” is guilty of placing his own welfare above that of the kingdom of God. Such a person has failed to seek as the highest priority the kingdom and the righteousness that it requires (Mt 6:33). That person will lose the very life he is trying to save. The verb (apollymi, GK 660) often means “to destroy” (Jn 10:10; 1Co 1:19) and carries this nuance here, where it is set over against “keep” or “preserve.” Thus, Jesus is saying that self-love leads to self-destruction. Noting that the verb is in the present tense, Morris, 593, suggests the translation, “The man who loves his life is destroying it right now.” Strange as it may seem to the secular mind, to focus on immediate personal benefit ensures the loss of the very thing being pursued.
On the other hand, the person who “hates his life” (a rather vivid Semitic way of expressing preference; cf. Lk 14:26) will preserve it “so as to live eternally” (Knox). Life comes through death not only in horticulture but also in human experience. It is those who lose themselves in the cause of Christ and his kingdom that find both here in this life and in eternity the fulfillment they so deeply desire. It is by giving that one receives. Those who live solely for themselves are caught in a vicious cycle of self-destruction. While the immediate application of this principle is to the imminent death of Jesus the Son of Man, it applies equally to all those who bear his name.
26 The perfect relationship that existed between Father and Son, reflected in the Son doing only that which he saw the Father doing (5:19), is now extended to the believer. Whoever serves the Son must follow him. To follow Jesus means to live the same kind of self-giving life that he lived, i.e., to lose oneself in God’s great redemptive cause. The charge is not so much to imitate Jesus as it is to live one’s life controlled by the same sense of eternal values that found their perfect expression in him.
When Jesus said, “Where I am, my servant also will be,” he was not speaking geographically. The road that Jesus trod led to death on a cross. The true servant of Jesus is also on a road marked by death to self. To serve Jesus one must be where he is. And as Jesus and the believer travel the same road of self-denial, they will together be honored by the Father. The essential point is that Jesus and his followers are one in their obedience to the Father and have together embarked on the road of obedience to his will.
NOTES
25 Taking ἀπόλλυμι (apollymi, GK 660) in the sense of “destroy” the NET translates, “The one who loves his life destroys it.” The NET’s translator’s note points out that this understanding of ἀπόλλυμι, apollymi, contrasts with φυλάξει (phylaxei, “keeps” or “guards,” GK 5875) in the second half of the verse. The word ἀπόλλυμι, apollymi, occurs ten times in the fourth gospel: the NASB translates it six times as “perish,” three times as “lose,” and once as “destroy.”
27“Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28Father, glorify your name!”
Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.
30Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” 33He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.
34The crowd spoke up, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this ‘Son of Man’?”
35Then Jesus told them, “You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going. 36Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light.” When he had finished speaking, Jesus left and hid himself from them.
COMMENTARY
27–28a At this point Jesus seems to be speaking primarily to himself. First he acknowledges that his “heart is troubled.” The Greek verb (tarassō, GK 5429) used figuratively means “to cause acute emotional distress or turbulence” (L&N, 25.244). It is used in 11:33 of Jesus’ reaction to Mary’s weeping at the loss of her brother and in 13:21 of his mood in the upper room when he acknowledged that one of his own disciples would betray him.
In this state of emotional unrest Jesus asks himself what should be his response to the events about to unfold. One’s interpretation of the answer depends on whether the second sentence of v.27 is taken as a genuine prayer for deliverance (as in the Gethsemane scene, Mt 26:39 par.) or as a hypothetical possibility that is then dismissed. In the first case a full stop follows “Father, save me from this hour.” The alternative interpretation places a question mark at the same point: “Shall I say, ‘Father save me from this hour’?” This second interpretation appears to be overly cerebral in the context of acute emotional distress. Jesus would be weighing in a somewhat logical fashion the two options, only to choose the one that seemed to make the most sense in view of the purpose for which he had come to that crucial moment. It is better to take his utterance as a genuine prayer that he need not go through the terrible experience of separation from the Father. Since the fourth gospel does not recount the agony of Jesus in Gethsemane, this prayer reflects his natural abhorrence to all that death on the cross involved.
In the same way that Jesus in Gethsemane responded to his own prayer for deliverance (“Yet not as I will, but as you will,” Mt 26:39), he now answers himself with a firm “No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour.” The reason, of course, was to bring salvation to the human race. Unable to save themselves, people are totally dependent on the work of the only One to have emerged victorious over sin and Satan. “Father, glorify your name. Father, carry out your redemptive plan and bring eternal praise to your holy name. May your character as Savior be recognized and honored by all.”
28b Now for the third time in the life of Jesus a voice from heaven is heard (cf. the temptation scene, Mt 3:17; the transfiguration, Mk 9:7). It is the very voice of God declaring that he has already glorified his name and will glorify it again. For those who viewed Jesus’ life and ministry (especially his powerful signs) through the eyes of faith, the glory of God had already been manifested. And once again, in the death and exaltation of the Son the Father will bring glory to his name.
29 Many in the crowd who had heard the voice said that it had thundered. They heard the sound but did not understand the message. Others were of the opinion that an angel had spoken to Jesus. In Scripture thunder is often connected with the voice of God (Job 26:14; Rev 14:2).
30 Jesus tells the crowd that the voice from heaven was not for his benefit but for theirs. It has been asked how that could be, since the crowd did not understand what was said. But even though they could not understand the message, it would be clear to those with any degree of spiritual sensitivity that the heavenly voice must have heralded something of great and eternal significance. It would suggest to them that in the sequence of events now underway, God was bringing his redemptive plan to its climax. Jesus himself needed no such indicator.
31 The “prince of this world” is a Johannine term for Satan (cf. 14:30; 16:11). His time had come, and in the cross and resurrection he would meet his ultimate defeat (cf. Rev 12). From this point on he is a defeated foe (Col 2:13–15). Satan may have been the prince of the world, but his kingdom is about to come tumbling down.
32 In striking contrast to the defeat of Satan, Jesus is to be “lifted up”—a double reference to both his crucifixion and his exaltation. The cross is not a symbol of defeat but a symbol of victory. The world’s appraisal of critical issues is distorted by its faulty understanding of reality. Jesus’ dying on a cross appeared to the secular mind as the ultimate defeat, but to the eye of faith it was a glorious victory. Dark as it may have appeared, it was but the first step that would lead to a glorious resurrection and a triumphant ascension.
When Jesus is lifted up, he “will draw all men to [himself].” His love displayed on the cross will draw people to himself like a great spiritual magnet. People come to Jesus as they are drawn by the winsome power of the Spirit; by nature they choose to go their own way (Ro 3:11). By “all men,” John means “all” not in the absolute sense of the term but “all without distinction”—people from every race and nation. No longer will God work primarily within the Jewish nation, but following the resurrection the universal message of salvation will reach out to all who believe, regardless of ethnic background. And this is the real answer to the inquiry of the Greeks who came to see Jesus (vv.20–21). God chose to initiate his work within the Jewish race, but with the cross and resurrection the good news of salvation reaches out to all.
33 Then, so there will be no misunderstanding, Jesus explains his being lifted up as “the kind of death he was going to die.” The origin of crucifixion has been traced to the Phoenicians, from whom it passed to many other nations. Not only was it excruciatingly painful; it was designed also to publicly humiliate the victim in the most degrading way possible.
34 When Jesus spoke of being “lifted up,” the crowd understood his words as a reference to death by crucifixion. But the very idea of a Messiah dying on the cross was for them unthinkable. They point out that the Law says that “the Christ will remain forever.” Apparently by “the Law” they were referring to the entire Hebrew Bible insofar as it is difficult to find any passage in the Pentateuch supporting that idea. However, Psalm 110 says of the messianic King-Priest, “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek” (v.4; cf. Ps 89:36–37; Isa 9:7). Since the Messiah will continue forever, they ask Jesus what he means. “Who is this Son of Man? What kind of person is he? Is he someone other than the Messiah?”
35–36 Jesus’ answer is that the light will be with them only a little while longer. Soon the darkness will come and overtake them, but they are to walk while they still have the light. The light-darkness contrast is one of the more prominent figures of speech in the fourth gospel (cf. 1:4–9; 3:19–20; 8:12). “Put your trust in the light,” says Jesus, “so that you may become sons of light.”
The period of light is, of course, the time of Jesus’ presence with them, which will soon be over. With his ascension to heaven, the ultimate source of light will be gone. Thus Jesus urges the crowd to take advantage of the short time remaining before he will go to the cross and no longer be with them to explain his words and actions.
This encounter in John 12 marks the end of Jesus’ public ministry. His days of travel and of speaking to large crowds throughout the land are over. His time has come; withdrawing from a preaching ministry, he focuses on the critical events that lie ahead. When the text says that “he hid himself from them,” we are not to picture Jesus going into hiding but instead as staying out of the center of attention and all the activity connected with the Passover.
NOTES
28 Instead of δόξασόν σου τὸ ὄνομα (doxason sou to onoma, “glorify your name”), some witnesses (L X f 1.13 33 1241 pc vgmss syhmg bo) have δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν (doxason sou ton huion, “glorify your Son”). The copyists were undoubtedly influenced by the opening words of Jesus’ high priestly prayer in ch. 17.
32 The reading πάντα (panta, “everyone, all things, all”) has strong external support (P66 א* et al.), but because it is ambiguous the UBS committee favored the masculine plural reading πάντας, pantas (cf. Metzger, 202). Hence both the NIV and the NASB translate, “will draw all men to myself.”
35 The expression “son of light” would mean to a Semitic audience that the person in question is characterized by light. In Acts 4:36 the author tells us that the name “Barnabas” means “Son of Encouragement” (the distinguishing feature about Barnabas being his ability and eagerness to encourage).
36 The verb tenses here are instructive: “put your trust” (πιστεύετε, pisteuete, GK 4409; present tense, suggesting a continuous belief) in the light so that “you may become” (γένησθε, genēsthe, GK 1181; aorist tense, suggesting a specific point in time) sons of light.