5.A Final Challenge to Believe (12:44-50)

5.A Final Challenge to Believe (12:44-50)

JOHN 12

S. THE CLOSE OF JESUS' PUBLIC MINISTRY (12:1-50)

John has practically concluded his account of the public ministry. Chapter 13 begins the section on the final discourses addressed to the disciples in the upper room after which John goes on to the events surrounding the Passion. This chapter then contains Jesus' last teaching and acts before the general public. John selects three incidents: the anointing at Bethany, the triumphal entry, and the visit of the Greeks to Jesus. Then he rounds the section off with an appeal to prophecy, showing why it was that some did not believe, followed by a rousing call to faith, spoken by Jesus himself.

1. The Anointing at Bethany (12:1-8)

1 Six 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^a 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. 4 But 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.^b" 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 meant 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. "

a. 3 Greek a litra (probably about 0.5 liter)

b. 5 Greek three hundred denarii

There are accounts of an anointing of Jesus by a woman in all four Gospels, and the question of the relationship between the accounts is complicated. The first is found in Mark 14:3-9 ( Matt. 26:6-13). It tells of an anointing in Bethany by a woman who poured "very expensive perfume, made of pure nard" over Jesus' head. This provoked great indignation among some who thought the perfume might have been sold and the money given to the poor. But Jesus defended the woman, saying, "She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial (Mark 14:8). The second story is in Luke 7:36-50. It appears to take place in Galilee earlier in Jesus' ministry and is located in the house of a Pharisee. His name is given as Simon, but he is not called a leper (as in Mark), nor indeed could he be under the circumstances. In any case Simon was one of the commonest of names, so we need not think of these persons as identical. The woman who carried out the anointing is called "a sinner." She first wet Jesus' feet with her tears, then wiped them with her hair, kissed them, and finally anointed them. This led the Pharisee to think that Jesus could not even be a prophet, and this opened the way for Jesus to speak of the greatness of the woman's love. The story in John is clearly different from that in Luke. There is no reason for equating Mary of Bethany with Luke's "sinner" and, although the anointing is of the feet, and the hair is used to wipe them, the time, the circumstances, and the discussion are all different.¹

It is otherwise with the Markan story. There the similarities are great.Both use the most unusual expression "pure nard"² for the perfume. Both locate the incident in Bethany, and if Mark says the house belonged to Simon the leper,³ John does not say to whom it belonged. Perhaps he means that the house belonged to Lazarus and the sisters, but more probably he does not say whose it was because the owner had no part in his story. Particularly strong are the resemblances in the reaction aroused by the anointing. In both the suggestion is made that the unguent should have been sold. In both a sum of three hundred denarii is mentioned (in Mark the price is "more than" this), and in both it is suggested that the money be given to the poor. In both Jesus' answer includes "Leave her alone" and a reference to his burial. The chief differences are that Mark appears to place the incident after the triumphal entry,⁴ John before, and second that Mark speaks of an anointing of the head⁵ and John of an anointing of the feet.⁶ The amount of perfume used is considerable, and we should bear in mind that Jesus speaks of his "body" as being anointed (Mark 14:8), which is an unusual way of referring to the head (or for that matter, the feet). Carson is surely right when he says, "it is reasonable to suppose that what actually happened was comprehensive enough to generate" both accounts.⁷ There are also minor differences of wording and word order, and Mark's words about the woman's having done a good work are absent from John, as is the reference to people being able to do good to the poor when they will. Mark does not name the woman, but John says it was Mary. Mark speaks of the woman as breaking an alabaster cruse to release the unguent, and he reports Jesus as saying that wherever the gospel is preached the story will be told in memory of the woman, neither of which is in John. He also refers generally to some of those present as being indignant, whereas John says that Judas objected.⁸

In some points John's account is nearer that of Matthew than of Mark. Thus Matthew says it was "the disciples" who were indignant (John specifically names Judas), and he omits Jesus' words about being able to do good to the poor at any time.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Matthew, Mark, and John all refer to the same incident. But Luke's story appears to be different.

1 "Therefore" (which NIV omits) ties this section of the narrative to the preceding. The chief priests and the Pharisees were seeking to put Jesus to death. He had no intention of rushing needlessly into danger and accordingly had retired to a quiet spot (12:54). But this Gospel is written out of a deep conviction that Jesus came to die for sinners. It was in the purpose of God that he should lay down his life for others. "Therefore" at the set time he came to the city where he would be delivered up to death. John's interest in precise detail comes out in that he tells us exactly when Jesus came to Bethany, locating his arrival characteristically with a reference to one of the great feasts. Six days before Passover⁹ would be the Sabbath, presuming that the 14th of Nisan that year fell on a Friday. Jesus may have arrived on the Friday after sunset, or alternatively he may not have traveled very far so as not to exceed the Sabbath Day's journey. John proceeds to characterize Bethany by the great miracle he has just described. It was the place "where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead." The repetition of the name Jesus in this verse may be a way of emphasizing the personal activity of the Lord.

2 The result of Jesus' visit was a dinner.¹⁰ John does not say who arranged it, and his "they" may mean the people of the village who were impressed by the miracle, though, of course, it could denote the people of the household. Martha is mentioned first, which may indicate that she was acting as hostess. She was active in serving (Moffatt, "waited on him"; the imperfect tense denotes a continuing activity). This agrees with Luke's portrait of her on another occasion when Jesus visited the family (Luke 10:40; "the work" there is cognate with "served" here).¹¹ Lazarus is placed among the guests; he was one of those who reclined at table with¹² Jesus. This is perhaps a more natural remark if the meal were in another house than Lazarus's own. His presence among the guests could be assumed in his own home.

3 John introduces a third consecutive verse with "therefore" (NIV's refusal to translate it means that the reader misses the way John is tying the anointing in with the preceding happenings). Mary now took "about a pint"¹³ of very costly unguent.¹⁴ This would be a scented oil that might be poured on the head as a mark of festivity. "Perfume" gives the sense of it. The quantity Mary used is quite a large one and this perfume was expensive, so that Mary's was a very costly action. John goes out of his way to emphasize the cost involved. The use of unguents was very common among first-century Jews, especially on festive occasions. But the oil was normally poured on the head, and the peculiar thing about this anointing was that Mary poured it on Jesus' feet. This is probably to be taken as an act of utter humility. Mary is taking the lowliest possible place. A little later in this Gospel there is an incident in which Jesus rebuked the disciples by washing their feet, a menial task that none of them would willingly undertake (13:2ff.). To attend to the feet was the task of the most lowly slave, so that Mary's action involved great humility as well as great devotion. This is further emphasized by her using her hair to wipe the feet. It is perhaps curious that the oil was wiped off at all. In the case of the incident in Luke 7 it is understandable that the tears be wiped off before the oil was applied, but wiping off the perfume is different. But Coakley points out that a large amount of perfume was used and that Mary was simply dealing with the excess; some of the perfume would remain.¹⁵ Be that as it may, the use of the hair rather than a towel or the like may also indicate something of personal involvement. The act is all the more striking in that a Jewish lady never unbound her hair in public. This was apparently seen as a mark of loose morals.¹⁶ But Mary did not stop to calculate public reaction. Her heart went out to her Lord, and she gave expression to her feelings in this beautiful and touching act. The repetition of "feet" may be a way of stressing Mary's willing acceptance of the lowliest place. Lightfoot reminds us that Jesus' words to Peter in connection with the feet washing imply that the washing of the feet "is equivalent to a complete washing" (13:9-10). He adds, "possibly the same principle may hold good here. If so, the reader is invited to see in Mary's action a symbolical embalming of His body for burial, as though He were already dead." Calvin thinks the reference to the feet means that the "whole body was anointed down to the feet." John recalls that "the house was filled with¹⁷ the fragrance of the perfume." This looks like the reminiscence of someone who was there. It is possible also that it has a further significance. There is a rabbinic saying: "(The scent of) good oil is diffused from the bed-chamber to the dining-hall while a good name is diffused from one end of the world to the other."¹⁸ If some such thought is in mind, this may be John's equivalent of the saying that the action would be spoken of throughout the world (Mark 14:9).

4 Mark simply tells us that "Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another ..." (Mark 14:4). John, however, singles out Judas for mention and characterizes the man in three ways: he gives his surname, Iscariot (see on 6:71), he speaks of him as one of Jesus' disciples, and he reminds us that he would betray Jesus.¹⁹ He does not launch out on a tirade against the traitor. The only way he brings out the enormity of the offense is by setting side by side the statements that he was a disciple and that he would betray the Lord.

5 Judas points out that the nard was valuable. He asks why it was not sold for 300 denarii and the proceeds given to poor folk.²⁰ The sum is a large one. A laborer was paid a denarius a day (Matt. 20:2), so that, allowing for Sabbaths, it was about "a year's wages" for a laboring man (NIV).

6 Such a gift would have been a worthwhile benefaction especially considering the small size of the apostolic group. But John now volunteers the information that Judas did not speak in this way out of concern for the poor²¹ but from motives of dishonesty (Tenney remarks that his words here "revealed that he had a sharp sense of financial values and no appreciation of human values"; EBC). This is the one place in the four Gospels wherein Judas is shown to be of bad character prior to the betrayal. John characterizes him as "a thief," his word indicating something like a sneakthief.²² He also gives us the information that Judas was the "treasurer"²³ of the little band, which argues that he was a man of some ability. It also meant that he would be in a position to help himself from time to time.²⁴ It further opens up the possibility that disappointed avarice may have been one of the motives leading Judas to betray Jesus. This is especially clear in the arrangement of the narrative in Matthew and Mark. These two Evangelists speak of Judas as going away to the chief priests and making his agreement with them immediately at the close of this incident. The impression left is that Judas, seeing one source of personal enrichment lost, hastened to create another. And if this is the character of the man, we may well feel that he was dissatisfied with the way the mission of Jesus was turning out. Certainly he would have hoped for better pickings when he first attached himself to the little band.

7 Jesus immediately took Mary's part. He would have nothing to do with the criticism brought against her, though there is difficulty in understanding the precise bearing of his defense. In the first place it is curious that he should refer to his "burial."²⁵ Anointing was usually a mark of festivity. Its omission was an act of discourtesy toward a guest (Luke 7:46). When people were engaged in solemn activities such as fasting, they sometimes refrained from anointing as a way of drawing attention to what they were doing, a practice that Jesus discouraged (Matt. 6:16-17). Anointing was thus associated with revelry rather than with funerals. A remark about a burial is not at all what we would have expected. We must take this as a measure of the extent to which the Passion was in Jesus' mind at this time. It loomed large in his thoughts and therefore an action that at another time might arouse very different associations he immediately linked with his death. And he associated Mary with this view. He may mean that she had entered more fully into his mind than others and knew that the end could not be far off. Or he may mean that she had procured the perfume with a view to his final anointing. Probably the former.

Another difficulty is in understanding what meaning we are to put into the word "save,"²⁶ for Mary had just done the very opposite of "saving" the perfume. She had poured it out, and it was irrevocably lost. Perhaps the meaning is that Mary should "save" the perfume for the use she had in mind, and not devote it to the use of which Judas had spoken. That is to say, she had kept it for a special purpose. In view of Jesus' imminent death now was the time to accomplish that purpose.²⁷ Little appears to be said for the view of Bernard, Richardson, and others that part only of the perfume was used and the rest kept until the burial (cf. v. 3; Mark 14:3).²⁸ Such a view is difficult to reconcile with Judas's remarks. He was complaining that the perfume had been wasted, not that it was being reserved for a wrong purpose.²⁹

8 Opportunity is to be seized while it is there. The poor are always present (cf. Deut. 15:11). But Jesus³⁰ is not. He will not live to old age but will soon be taken from among them. The time for actions of devotion toward him is much shorter than those at table think.³¹ Jesus accordingly welcomes Mary's action.

2. The Triumphal Entry (12:9-19)

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. 12The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. 13 They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, "Hosanna!^a" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord "^b "Blessed is the King of Israel!" 14Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written, 15 "Do not be afraid, Ο Daughter of Zion; see, your king is coming, seated on a donkey's colt. "^c 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 had continued to spread the word that he had called Lazarus from the tomb, raising him from the dead.^d 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!"

a. 13 A Hebrew expression meaning "Save!" which became an exclamation of praise

b. 13 Psalm 118:25, 26

c. 15 Zech. 9:9

d. 17 Or Now the crowd that had been with him when he called Lazarus from the tomb and raised him from the dead were telling everyone

The narrative of the triumphal entry is found in all four Gospels. At this point accordingly John's story links up with those in the Synoptic Gospels. John does not include all the details we find elsewhere, and, for example, he says little about the procuring of the ass, saying only that Jesus "found a young donkey and sat upon it" (v. 14). But John tells us enough to bring out die royalty of Jesus. Characteristically he does not think of this as a glorification of Jesus (for that he looks to the cross, v. 16). But he leaves no doubt but that the challenge of Jesus was felt and appreciated. He has some touches of his own. He alone dates the incident on the Sunday preceding the Passover. He alone mentions the palms, the reference to the raising of Lazarus, the fact that the disciples did not understand the significance of these happenings until after Jesus "was glorified," and the pessimistic utterance of the Pharisees.

9 It was not difficult to make the journey from Jerusalem to Bethany, and a great crowd of people came. The expression is similar to that which KJV renders "the common people" in Mark 12:37, but the word order is different,³² and it would seem that John's meaning is "the great crowd." While obviously this will include many of the "common people," yet this is not what John says and his intention should be respected. The crowd is described as "of the Jews" (NIV omits the article), an expression which in this Gospel naturally applies to Jesus' enemies rather than to those who were disposed to be friendly toward him. They came to know³³ that Jesus was there, and so they came. John makes it plain that Lazarus was a great attraction for them. They came not simply to see Jesus but on account of Lazarus. To this man's name John adds "whom he had raised from the dead." He does not let his readers lose sight of the stupendous miracle.

10-11 John now records the effect on the high priests. They took counsel in order that they might kill Lazarus³⁴ (the construction indicates purpose). This seems a strange desire since death had not been able to hold him in the face of Jesus' command. But the "as well" is significant. They wanted to destroy both Lazarus and the Man who had raised him. Perhaps, too, they felt that the raising had not been genuine so that if they could really secure Lazarus's death it would be an end to the mischief that the reports of his raising were causing. Caiaphas had said, "it is better for you that one man die . . ." (11:50). But one was not enough; now it had to be two. Thus does evil grow. For the Sadducees Lazarus was a double embarrassment. Not only did he cause people to go over to the side of Christ, but he was also a standing condemnation of their doctrine. They denied that there would be a resurrection and here was a man who had lived through death. "Many of the Jews," that is of the group normally opposed to Jesus, "were going over to Jesus."³⁵ John uses the imperfect tense, which may indicate continuity, in which case he sees the process as going on for quite some time. Or it may be inceptive, "they began to go away," "they began to believe." The construction used for "putting their faith" in Jesus is that which John habitually uses for a deep and genuine faith (see Additional Note E, pp. 296-98).

12-13 "The next day" is a typical Johannine note of time, and refers back to verse 1. "The great crowd"³⁶ is the same expression as that used in verse 9 (where see note), but it does not refer to the same people. There it designated the people from Jerusalem who went out to Bethany; here it refers to the people from other parts who were coming up to Jerusalem for the feast, probably many of them from Galilee.³⁷ Some of them had apparently reached Jerusalem and now "went out" to meet Jesus. These would accordingly be people among whom the greater part of his ministry had been exercised, a fact that perhaps explains their enthusiasm. Doubtless many of them had felt for some time that Jesus' teaching and miracles showed him to be the Messiah. But until now he would not make the claim. He would never set himself up as King. When on this occasion he did not reject their acclamation, their enthusiasm knew no bounds. He was now doing, they thought, what they had always wanted him to do. As John tells it, these people did not happen to be in the way as Jesus came. They heard³⁸ that he was coming and went out of set purpose to meet him.³⁹

They took palm branches and they cried out (the imperfect tense means that they cried out persistently; cf. Berkeley, "shouting all the while"). Both the actions and the words expressed their praise. John's word for "branches"⁴⁰ is found only here in the New Testament. It is not clear why the Synoptists do not indicate the kind of branches that were used on this occasion, but it is to John that we owe the information that they were palms. The law provided that palms should be used at the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 23:40), and later they were used on other festal occasions also (1 Macc. 13:51; 2 Macc. 10:7).⁴¹ In keeping with this we read in Revelation of a multitude before the throne with palms in their hands (Rev. 7:9). Palms were an emblem of victory, and in John's mention of them here we must detect a reference to the triumph of Christ.

The word "Hosanna" is the transliteration of an Aramaic or Hebrew expression with the meaning, "Save, I pray" (Torrey translates "God save him!").⁴² It is not likely that the crowd used the term with a clear idea of its etymological significance (any more than we do when we say "Good-bye"). But John was probably mindful of the meaning, and thought of Jesus as entering the city on a mission of salvation, indeed on a royal, triumphant mission of salvation. The verb to be supplied after "blessed" might be "be" or, as NIV, "is." Usually "be" is to be preferred since the expression is used in calling down blessing on a man. But here "is" seems preferable. The crowd are proclaiming the blessedness of Jesus rather than praying that he might be blessed. "He who comes in the name of the Lord" is almost certainly John's meaning (though the Hebrew of Ps. 118:26 should probably be understood as "Blessed in the name of the Lord is he that comes"). The expression here is a messianic title.⁴³ There is evidence that the Jews looked for "a coming one." The Messiah might be spoken of in various ways. Here the thought is that he comes in God's name. To this the crowd adds that he is "the King of Israel"⁴⁴ (this expression does not occur in the prophecy; it is the crowd's addition). In the first chapter Nathanael had greeted Jesus as Israel's King (1:49). Now John brings out the royalty of Jesus by ascribing the same conviction to the multitude at large. In the Synoptics the acclamation is given after the mention of Jesus as seated on the ass and riding into Jerusalem, whereas here it is before. But it is not likely that John is in essential contradiction. It may be that it was the fulfillment of prophecy that drew forth the acclamation and that John's mention of the ass is left till later in order to put emphasis on the acclamation, not with the meaning that the ass was found late. Phillips translates: "For Jesus had found a young ass." Moreover, it is not at all impossible that both accounts are needed for the complete picture. We need not think that Jesus sent the disciples for the ass before there was any indication at all of the crowd's enthusiasm. When this enthusiasm began to be manifested Jesus chose to accept it. But he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey to symbolize a conception of messiahship very different from that of the crowds. They hailed him as the messianic King.⁴⁵ He came as the Prince of peace. There is of course no great significance in the fact that the shouts of the crowd are differently reported in the several accounts. In a crowd people shout many things.

14-15 Nothing is said as to the way Jesus obtained the ass.⁴⁶ John simply says that he found⁴⁷ it and sat on it. The other Gospels tell how Jesus sent disciples into a village with instructions for finding the animal. They also tell us that when the ass was brought the disciples sat Jesus on it, using their garments as a saddle. John says nothing of these things. But he does go on to speak of the fulfillment of Scripture. For him it is important that the will of God was done. He quotes from Zechariah 9:9.⁴⁸ Zion appears originally to have denoted either the citadel at Jerusalem or the hill on which it stood, but the word was used poetically as a designation of the city itself. "Daughter of Zion" is a collective, referring to the inhabitants of Jerusalem as a whole. The words of this prophecy point to a distinctive mark of Christ's kingship. The ass was not normally used by a warlike person. It was the animal of a man of peace, a priest, a merchant, or the like. It might also be used by a person of importance but in connection with peaceable purposes.⁴⁹ A conqueror would ride into the city on a war horse, or perhaps march in on foot at the head of his troops. The ass speaks of peace.⁵⁰ John sees accordingly not only a fulfillment of prophecy, but such a fulfillment of prophecy as indicates a special kind of king.

16 Later John tells us that when the Holy Spirit came he would lead believers into all the truth. In this verse he gives us an example of this. At first the disciples did not understand what these things⁵¹ meant, things that they themselves had done.⁵² It was only when Jesus was "glorified" that they recalled these prophecies⁵³ and saw how they had been fulfilled⁵⁴ (cf. 2:22). The meaning of the happenings in the life of Jesus are not open for every unregenerate person to see. They are revealed only by the Holy Spirit of God. Barrett sees the narrative as self-contradictory: the multitude recognized that Jesus was the messianic King (v. 13), but it was not possible for the disciples to recognize this until after the glorification of Jesus. But what John appears to be saying is that the disciples did not understand the real significance of these events. They did not comprehend the nature of Jesus' kingship (though they may well have thought of him as in some sense the messianic King). John is not affirming that the multitude correctly evaluated the Person of the Lord. They thought of him as King in a wrong sense.⁵⁵ After the glorification the disciples thought of him as King in a right sense. There is no contradiction.

17 John now introduces us to a different group, "the crowd that had been⁵⁶ with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead" (NRSV; NIV does not seem to represent the Greek; the crowd in vv. 12 and 18 seems to be people who had come to Jerusalem for the feast, while this crowd was from Bethany). Mention is made both of the calling of Lazarus from the tomb and of his being raised from the dead. The latter was the important thing, but the way Jesus had done it in calling the dead man to come out of the tomb had evidently made a profound impression. The multitude is described as bearing witness (see on 1:7), the imperfect tense denoting a continuing process. In the middle of the scenes of enthusiasm, with Jesus being hailed on all sides as king, those who had seen the stupendous miracle were moved to tell others of what they had seen.

18 For this reason "many people . . . went out to meet⁵⁷ him." This, it would seem, is a different crowd from that mentioned in verse 17,⁵⁸ though the same expression is used of them. What John evidently means is that those who had seen the miracle bore their witness as a result of which those who had not seen it but now heard⁵⁹ of it went out to meet him. They wanted to see for themselves the one who had done such a stupendous thing. In verse 12 the multitude that went with Jesus was clearly the pilgrim crowd streaming into Jerusalem. In this verse it seems to be rather the Jerusalem mob coming out to meet the procession. The reason given is "because they had heard that he had given this miraculous sign."⁶⁰ The last word is significant (see Additional Note G, pp. 607-13).

19 The scene provoked the Pharisees to pessimism.⁶¹ "See" is clearly addressed to one another, but it is not at all certain whether it should be taken as an imperative (as NIV), or as an indicative (as NRSV, "You see"). Perhaps the latter is a little more probable, but we cannot be sure. The first part of their statement points to a complete lack of success. They had made no progress at all in what they were doing against Jesus. The second part points to the great success attending Jesus' efforts. In a magnificent hyperbole they say "the whole world has gone after him!" John may wish us to see in this an unconscious prophecy of the effects of the preaching of the gospel (cf. Acts 17:6). It is ironical. They are concerned that a few Judeans were being influenced. But their words express John's conviction that Jesus was conquering the world.

3. The Greeks (12:20-36a)

20Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the Feast. 21 They 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. 23 Jesus replied, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24/ 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. !^Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me. 27Now 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. 31 Now 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^a 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.

a. 34 Or Messiah

This rather curious incident is rather peculiar to John. I say "rather curious" because it is unusual that we encounter Greeks in a narrative of events at Jerusalem, because the other Evangelists do not mention the incident, and because the Greeks simply say, "Sir, we would like to see Jesus" and then disappear from the narrative. Clearly John regards their coming as significant but he does not treat their presence as important. Jesus recognizes in their coming an indication that the climax of his mission has arrived. Immediately when he hears of them he says, "The hour has come," and goes on to speak of his glorification and of death.⁶² In this Gospel we see Jesus as the world's Savior, and evidently John means us to understand that this contact with the Greeks ushered in the climax. The fact that the Greeks had reached the point of wanting to meet Jesus showed that the time had come for him to die for the world. He no longer belongs to Judaism, which in any case has rejected him. But the world, whose Savior he is, awaits him and seeks for him.

20 John introduces us now⁶³ to certain Greeks. Since these men had come up⁶⁴ to worship, it is likely that they were "God-fearers." They may have been proselytes, but if so they would scarcely have been described simply as "Greeks."⁶⁵ The "God-fearers" were people who were attracted by the lofty morality and the monotheism of Judaism, but who did not care to become full proselytes by circumcision. They might visit Jerusalem for the great feasts, but they could not pass beyond the court of the Gentiles when they went up to the Temple.⁶⁶ These "Greeks" would not necessarily have come from Greece itself. There were many Greeks in Decapolis, for example, and they could have come from such a place. At Passover time worshippers came from widely scattered places throughout the Roman Empire to join in the festivity.

21 It is not clear why they came to Philip. Possibly being Greeks they were attracted by his Greek name (though Andrew, to whom Philip came in perplexity, also has a Greek name). If so, they could easily have been misled, for the name signified little; many Jews bore this Greek name. But if this is not the reason, we have no means of knowing why they selected Philip. John particularizes by telling us that this Philip was the one from Bethsaida of Galilee (see on 1:44). John says that they "came with a request" (the tense of the verb is continuous, "they kept asking"), but no question is recorded, though one is implied in "Sir, we would like to see Jesus." "See," of course, means something like "interview"; anyone could "see" Jesus as he moved among the people, but the Greeks clearly wanted more than that. They wanted to talk to him and get to know him. They give no reason for this. Until this point John has given no indication that Jesus' reputation was such that Greeks would have heard of him (though, of course, in a place like Decapolis this would not have been difficult). But the general tone of his Gospel leaves us in no doubt as to the point of the inquiry. Jesus was the Savior of the world, and this group of Gentiles symbolically represents the world seeking its salvation from Jesus.

22 Philip did not know what to make of their request (Philip seems frequently to have been in difficulties; see on 1:43). In his perplexity he sought out Andrew. He is mentioned along with Andrew in 1:44; 6:7-8; cf. Mark 3:18. Andrew, as might have been expected, joins Philip in telling⁶⁷ the Master (we find Andrew bringing people to Jesus in 1:42; 6:8-9).

23 Jesus' answer is surprising. He totally ignores the Greeks and neither immediately or subsequently makes any reference to them whatever. His words are apparently addressed to Andrew and Philip,⁶⁸ but it is impossible to confine the reference to them. Clearly the words are addressed to a wider audience, possibly including the Greeks. Plainly their coming is important. Jesus views it as evidence that his mission has reached its climax and that he is now to die for the world, Greeks included. Barrett comments, "Here John does not represent Jesus in direct conversation with the Greeks; this however is not careless writing, for the rest of the chapter winds up the ministry of Jesus to the Jews in order that the true and spiritual 'conversation' of Jesus with the Greeks may begin — on the other side of the crucifixion." The gospel is a gospel for the whole world only because of the cross. "The hour has come"⁶⁹ reminds us of the series of references to "the hour" throughout the Gospel (see on 2:4). Though unobtrusive, this is one of the important themes in this Gospel. It marks that for which Jesus is destined. The verb "has come" is in the perfect tense: "the hour has come and stays with us." There is no going back on it. In referring to his "hour" there is no doubt but that Jesus is referring to his death (see the next verse). But he speaks not of tragedy but of triumph.⁷⁰ He is not to be dishonored; he is to be glorified (for "glory" see on 1:14), and that by the way of the cross.⁷¹ "The Son of Man" is Jesus' way of referring to himself, especially in connection with his mission. Its use in this verse accordingly is significant (see further Additional Note C, pp. 150-52).

24 The solemn "I tell you the truth" (see on 1:51) introduces a statement of importance. The⁷² grain of wheat introduces us to a paradox, namely, that the way of fruitfulness lies through death. Unless the wheat falls into the ground and "dies" it will not bear.⁷³ It is only through "death" that its potentiality for fruitfulness becomes actual. This is a general truth. But it refers particularly to Jesus.⁷⁴

25 The application of the analogy from the grain of wheat is made plain. Anyone who loves his life loses it (cf. Mark 8:35 and parallels). By the very fact of his love for it he loses the possibility of real life. The verb translated "lose" often means "destroy" (Phillips, "The man who loves his own life will destroy it"). John means us to understand that loving the life is a self-defeating process. It destroys the very life it seeks to retain. This may be involved also in the use of the present tense, "loses," where we might expect a future to match "will keep" (NIV actually translates the present by "will lose"!). Jesus is saying that anyone who loves his life is destroying it right now. "Hates," of course, is not to be taken literally, but "hating the life" is the natural antithesis of loving it (cf. Matt. 6:24 - Luke 16:13; Luke 14:26). It points to the attitude that sets no store by this life in itself. People whose priorities are right have such an attitude of love for the things of God that all interest in the affairs of this life appear by comparison as hatred. Such people will keep their life "for eternal life"⁷⁵ — unto the life of the age to come (see on 1:4; 3:15).

26 The outcome of all this is the service of Christ. Throughout this verse the first person pronoun is used with emphasis.⁷⁶ Personal relationship to Christ is important. The servant must follow his Lord and be where his Lord is.⁷⁷ This must be understood in the light of the previous verse: being where the Lord is entails suffering. It means losing the life for the Master's sake. There is no other way of Christian service. But the verse concludes on a different note. Anyone who serves Christ in this fashion will be honored by the Father.

27 The big question in this verse is whether the words "Father, save me from this hour" are a hypothetical prayer that Jesus looked at and declined to pray (his actual prayer being given in v. 28), or whether he actually prayed these words (and immediately took them back). There is no question but that he was deeply moved: "My heart is troubled" signifies deep perturbation (cf. REB, "my soul is in turmoil") and the perfect points to a continuous state.⁷⁸ Jesus first asks "what shall I say?" It may be important that his verb is "say" rather than "choose" or the like; there is no question about whether he will do the Father's will or not. The question is "What is the Father's will?" Some scholars take the next words as a positive prayer (e.g., Beasley-Murray, Bernard, Hendriksen, Barclay). But this is very difficult. If this is the sense, Jesus, immediately after offering his prayer, goes on to repudiate what he has prayed as he recognizes that he came to "this hour" in order to undergo it. NIV is surely correct in taking "Father, save me from⁷⁹ this hour" as a possible answer to the question "What shall I say?" (GNB removes all doubt by inserting "Shall I say" before the question). Unless we take it this way it is hard to catch the point of the preceding deliberative subjunctive. It is also difficult to see the point of the strong adversative that begins the next clause unless this be a question.⁸⁰ The whole structure of the verse points to a hypothetical rather than an actual prayer; the words are a rhetorical question, the words of a prayer Jesus looks at but refuses to pray. He asks whether he should pray to be saved from this hour and immediately answers that this is the very reason for which he has come.⁸¹ This "hour" must be faced and passed through. The words express the natural human shrinking from death. Since John does not record Jesus' agony in Gethsemane, this may well be his equivalent of the Synoptic prayer in the Garden: "not what I will, but what you will" (Mark 14:36).⁸² The "hour" in this Gospel has about it the air of inevitability. It represents the doing of the Father's will. So⁸³ Jesus affirms that this is the reason for his coming to this "hour." "Here 'for this cause' looks back to 'this hour,' and forward to a phrase in which 'hour' is repeated for emphasis ('to [meet] this hour')."⁸⁴

28 Jesus prays that the Father will glorify his name, a prayer in which the overruling sovereignty of God is implied. The aorist tense in the verb perhaps indicates a single act, and if so it will be the cross that is in mind. There supremely the name of God was glorified. The response to this prayer is a voice from heaven, the voice of God himself.⁸⁵ "I have glorified it" is in the aorist tense, but it is not easy to know which action is in mind. The baptism of Jesus, with the voice from heaven, or the transfiguration with the similar phenomenon, would meet the situation, but unfortunately John records neither. It may be that we should attach little significance to the tense. The perfect active of the verb is never used in the New Testament and the aorist may well be used here with something of the meaning of the perfect, in which case we need not search for one specific occasion. The future, "will glorify," is a little easier. In this place it will refer to the cross.

29 We do not know where all this took place. There appears to be a break between verses 19 and 20, and it is impossible to say whether this event immediately followed the triumphal entry or not. So we do not know whether "the crowd" is the same as the one referred to in verse 9 or verse 12, or a different group. The crowd is described as standing (NIV omits this verb) and as hearing the voice from heaven, a voice that was variously interpreted. Those who thought it was thunder had Old Testament precedents where thunder is sometimes understood as the voice of God (e.g., Ps. 29:3). Others thought an angel had spoken to Jesus.⁸⁶ Clearly John wants us to think of a sound audible to all, even if the meaning was not. He is not describing a subjective vision.⁸⁷ We are reminded of the various accounts of the heavenly voice that spoke to Saul of Tarsus, from which it seems clear that Saul's companions heard a sound but did not understand what was said (Acts 9:7; 22:9).

30 Jesus responded to their perplexity. He explained that the voice did not come for his sake but for theirs. But if this removes one difficulty it introduces another. If it was intended primarily for the crowds, why did they not understand it? Perhaps because they lacked the spiritual perception to recognize the voice of God. Jesus enjoyed intimate communion with the Father and did not need to be reassured.⁸⁸ But the voice would be of the greatest value to those of his followers who could take in something of its significance, even though they lacked the spiritual perception to understand it fully.

31 The connection of this verse with the preceding one is not clear. But Jesus is now plainly proceeding to the meaning of the cross, the cross that represents the judgment of the world. The world will condemn itself by its treatment of the Son (cf. 3:18-19 and the notes there). "The prince of this world" is, of course, Satan (the expression recurs in 14:30; 16:11 and cf. 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:2; 6:12).⁸⁹ So much is he the ruler of people's minds that he may be spoken of as their "prince."⁹⁰ But if the expression stresses his power in this world, it may also be meant to convey a hint of his powerlessness in the other world. And just as the cross represents the judgment of this world, so it represents the defeat of Satan. To people it appeared as his victory; it looked like the triumph of evil, but in fact it was the source of the world's greatest good. Satan was defeated in what appeared outwardly to be the very moment of his triumph. "Driven out" is not the verb that we expect here. It probably contains a reference to something like being thrown into the outer darkness of which we read in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30).

32 "But I" (the Greek means "And I") is emphatic; this is a work for Christ and no other. In this Gospel "lifted up" refers to the cross (see on 3:14),⁹¹ and here the meaning is made indisputable by the next verse. In this one Jesus is concerned with the effect rather than the simple fact of his death. "Draw" is used elsewhere in this Gospel to bring out the truth that people do not naturally come to Christ. It is only as God works in one's soul and draws one that one can come to Christ (6:44, where see note). "All men" is something of a problem, for in fact not every person is drawn to Christ, and this Gospel envisages the possibility that some will not be. We must accordingly take the expression to mean that all those who come to Christ are there because they have been drawn. Jesus is not affirming that the whole world will be saved; he is affirming that all who are saved are saved in this way. And he is speaking of a universal rather than a narrowly nationalistic religion.⁹² The death of Jesus would mean the end of particularism. By virtue of that death "all men" and not the Jews alone would be drawn. And they would be drawn only by virtue of that death.⁹³

33 John adds a typical explanatory note. These words of Jesus are to be understood as indicating the kind of death he would die. This, of course, does not mean that his exaltation is excluded. As we saw in the note on 3:14, the two thoughts of death and exaltation are combined in John's use of this word. But this verse makes it quite plain that the verb points us to the cross. It was there that the "lifting up" took place.

34 The crowd sets itself in contrast to Jesus. Their "we" and their "you" are both emphatic. They are sure that they are right in saying that Scripture teaches certain things about the Christ (see on 1:20, 41), but Jesus is teaching something different. They ask for an explanation and base their questions on "the Law," but it is difficult to find in the Pentateuch any passage that says "the Christ will remain forever."⁹⁴ They may have in mind passages elsewhere (as Ps. 89:36; 110:4; Isa. 9:7; Dan. 7:14). In this case "the Law" is being used in the wide sense of "Scripture." The crowd evidently discerned that "lifting up" referred to death.⁹⁵ If "the Son of Man" (see Additional Note C, pp. 150-52) was the Messiah, they could not reconcile this with their understanding of Scripture. They thought the Messiah would live forever. Their minds were probably full of thoughts aroused by the Triumphal Entry. They were expecting Jesus to claim to be the Messiah of popular expectation. But instead he speaks of death. So they inquire who this Son of Man is; perhaps he is not the Messiah after all. Since John does not say that Jesus used the term "Messiah" there is a difficulty. Perhaps he has given us the substance of what Jesus said, not his exact words. More likely the crowd knew that Jesus called himself "the Son of Man" (he did this in v. 23) and their question means not "Which individual is the Son of Man?" but rather, "What is the function of the Son of Man? Is he distinct from the Messiah?" John may have here one of his many double meanings. The question was natural enough on the lips of the speakers. But it is also the significant question in all religion.

We should not overlook the fact that this is the last mention of the crowd in Jesus' ministry. To the end they remain confused and perplexed, totally unable to appreciate the magnitude of the gift offered to them and the significance of the Person who offers it.

35 Jesus does not answer their question directly. His reply points them to the urgent necessity to act on the light they have.⁹⁶ It is reasonable to infer that to do this is to enter into a knowledge of the Son of Man. Let them give up their preconceived notions of messiahship and act on the revelation Jesus is giving them, and their question will be answered. The light is there only for "just a little while longer." This applies to Jesus' earthly presence; he is about to be taken from the earth. But it also points to the timeless truth that if we do not use the light we lose it.⁹⁷ So Jesus enjoins his hearers to walk (the present imperative means "keep on walking") while they have the light, "before darkness overcomes"⁹⁸ them. Those in darkness do not know where they are going, and this applies to the spiritual realm as to the physical. There is emphasis on "light," which occurs five times in these two verses (NIV omits one of these in v. 36, see NRSV; cf. 3:19-21, and see on 1:4). It is perhaps worth noting that walking in the light or the darkness is not dissimilar to the thought in the Qumran scrolls that there are two ways in which people may walk, light and darkness being used to describe them, though the terminology is not quite that of this Gospel. Perhaps both are indebted to Isaiah 50:10, which refers to "him who walks in the dark, who has no light. ..."

36a We would expect "while you have the light, walk in the light" but instead we have "Put your trust (i.e., believe) in the light while⁹⁹ you have the light." This reminds us that throughout this discussion Jesus himself must be understood as the light (cf. also 8:12; 9:5). The passage is concerned not only with illumination, but with faith. People must put their trust in Jesus. This makes an important difference from the Qumran texts. There there is a good deal about light and about "the sons of light." But the scrolls do not call on people to perform an act of faith in their Lord in order to become "sons of light." They are apparently such because they belong to the good spirit. The major difference between the scrolls and the New Testament is Christ. This is not peripheral but central. People must believe in him. There is an interesting change of tense. "Believe" (NIV, "Put your trust") in the present tense gives the thought of a continuous belief, whereas "become" in the aorist points to a once-for-all becoming sons of light. While faith is an activity to be practiced without ceasing one does not become a "son of light" by degrees. One passes decisively out of death into life (5:24). In Semitic idiom to be a "son of" is to be characterized by the quality in question.¹⁰⁰ "Sons of light" are accordingly not merely people with a slight interest in light, but those whose lives have been so revolutionized that they may be characterized with reference to light (cf. Luke 16:8; Eph. 5:8; 1 Thess. 5:5). One cannot be a follower of Jesus, the light of the world, and be half-hearted about the light.

4. The Witness of Prophecy to Jesus (12:36b-43)

When he had finished speaking, Jesus left and hid himself from them. 37Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. 38This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:

"Lord, who has believed our message

and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"^a

39For this reason they could not believe, because as Isaiah says else-where:

40"He has blinded their eyes

and deadened their hearts,

so they can neither see with their eyes,

nor understand with their hearts,

nor turn — and I would heal them. "^b

41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him. 42Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; 43for they loved praise from men more than praise from God.

a. 38 Isaiah 53:1

b. 40 Isaiah 6:10

The unbelief of the Jews has been a recurring theme throughout this Gospel. As John brings his account of the public ministry of Jesus to a close he brings out this point once more, and this time he gives something of an explanation of it by pointing us to prophecy. Even the fact of unbelief is not beyond the power and even the purpose of God. After centuries of Christian history, during which the church has been almost exclusively Gentile, we have come to accept it as quite normal that there should be very few Jews in its membership. But this is not the way it seemed to people in New Testament days. For them the Jews were the people of God and Jesus was the Messiah of Jewish expectation. The Jews accordingly ought to have welcomed him. Paul agonized over the problem of his people, as we see, for example, from Romans 9-11. John's contribution to the solution we see here. The Old Testament again and again denounces the Israelites for their failure to recognize the messengers of God and to heed their message. And the same Old Testament shows that God overrules the designs of evil people to work out his purpose. So John looks to prophecy and sees the Jews' rejection of Jesus there.¹⁰¹

36b When he had completed the discourse Jesus went away and was hidden¹⁰² The previous narrative has made it plain that he will certainly die. But he will die when he wills. He will not be seized before the right time for his death.

37 John draws attention both to the intrinsic quality of the miracles and to their abiding effects. As often, he refers to them as "signs" (see Additional Note G, pp. 607-13). They are not simply displays of power. Such an event may become past history, but its abiding meaning does not. It remains. It is probable that John's word for "so many"¹⁰³ also contains a hint at the quality. He has in mind not only the number but the kind of signs (cf. Barclay, "such great signs"; Knox, "such great miracles"). "Had done" renders a perfect participle¹⁰⁴ that once more points to the permanent character, the continuing quality of Jesus' actions, a quality that ought to have elicited faith. The perfect makes it all in some sense present. The guilt of Jesus' opponents was for John still present, not simply past. He records that they "still would not believe in him," where the tense points to their continuing state. They might perhaps give occasional evidence of a transitory belief, but that is not saving faith (cf. 8:30ff.). See further Additional Note E, pp. 296-98.

38 Unbelief is now seen to be foreshadowed in prophecy.¹⁰⁵ John has already made it clear that it is only as God draws us that we can believe. Now we have the further thought that what is written in prophecy must be fulfilled.¹⁰⁶ The prophecy cited (Isa. 53:1) speaks both of failure to believe and of a revelation of "the arm of the Lord." In other words, faith and the divine activity are connected. And even unbelief has some place in the purpose of God.

39-40 John is explicit that they were not able¹⁰⁷ to believe¹⁰⁸ ecause of another Scripture. The divine sovereignty is strongly insisted upon.¹⁰⁹ The quotation is from Isaiah 6:9-10, words that are cited by Jesus himself (Matt. 13:14-15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10), and also by Paul (Acts 28:26-27). In Isaiah the words are imperative and might be thought of as indicating punishment for past evil. In the Synoptics they are the illustration of a principle: people who are unbelieving hear the outward words of the parable but they do not discern the inner meaning. Paul sees it as the reason that "God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles" (Acts 28:28). The present passage ascribes everything to the will of God. Unless his hand is somehow in it nothing is possible. But when John quotes "He has blinded their eyes ... ," he does not mean that the blinding takes place without the will or against the will of these people.¹¹⁰ So with the hardening¹¹¹ of their hearts. These people chose evil. It was their own deliberate choice, their own fault.¹¹² We should make no mistake about that. Throughout his Gospel John has insisted on the seriousness of the decision forced on the Jews by the presence of Jesus, on their responsibility and on their guilt. He is not now denying any of that. What he is now saying is that the hand of God is in the consequences of their choice (cf. the threefold "God gave them over" in Rom. 1:24, 26, 28). The ultimate cause of all there is, in a genuinely theistic universe, must be found in the will of God. This passage is very thoroughgoing. John makes it clear that the hand of God is in the whole process, even though this means that people do not "see" nor "understand"¹¹³ nor "turn" nor are they "healed."¹¹⁴ God's purposes are not frustrated by the opposition of evil people. They are accomplished.¹¹⁵ In this particular case, while there is certainly an element of the mysterious it is also true that we can discern a little of the divine purpose. Had the Jews accepted the gospel it is difficult to understand how it could have gone out to all the nations. But when the Jews rejected it, it became a world religion. We cannot think that all this took place apart from the will of God.

41 John sees in the words of the prophet primarily a reference to the glory of Christ. Isaiah spoke these things "because¹¹⁶ he saw Jesus' glory."¹¹⁷ The words of Isaiah 6:3 refer to the glory of Yahweh, but John makes no hard-and-fast distinction between the two. To him it is plain that Isaiah had in mind the glory revealed in Christ.¹¹⁸ Again we have the complex idea of glory. It points at once to the supreme greatness of Christ and to the cross as the supreme illustration of his greatness. Here it includes the thought of his rejection, for that, too, is part of his real glory. He, being what he is, stooped to a position where people might and did reject him. Only as we see this can we see what his glory implies. John says that Isaiah "spoke about him." Whatever other application the words of the prophet may have, for John the supremely important thing is that they speak of Jesus.

42 But John does not leave us with the impression that none of the leaders believed. On the contrary,¹¹⁹ many from among them did just this. They "believed in him," where the construction signifies a genuine faith. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea are the only ones of whom we have knowledge, but evidently they were but two of a much greater number. The ministry of Jesus was not without its effect even in the highest circles. But by now the opposition to Jesus on the part of the Pharisees was so great that it meant excommunication¹²⁰ to confess him.¹²¹ So they were silent.¹²²

43 John puts the condemnation of these people in one crisp, memorable phrase, "they loved praise from men more than¹²³ praise from God." The word NIV renders "praise" is normally translated "glory," and John is surely looking back to his use of the term in verse 41. The glory of Christ sets the standard. To love the glory of people above the glory of God is the supreme disaster.¹²⁴

5.A Final Challenge to Believe (12:44-50)

44Then Jesus cried out, "When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. 45 When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me. 46/ have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. 47As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, 1 do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. 49For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. 50I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say. ״

John finishes off his account of the public ministry of Jesus with one last appeal to people to believe. He has had some stern things to say about the Pharisees and their ilk. but his last word is not one of condemnation; it is one of tender appeal. Jesus came that people might believe and be saved. It is interesting to notice that in this brief concluding section some of the important themes that run right through this Gospel find expression. Faith, Jesus as the One sent by the Father, light and darkness, judgment now and at the last day, eternal life, all are caught up in this final summary and appeal.

44-45 The occasion is not indicated,¹²⁵ and it is not important. These words of Jesus form the conclusion to John's account of the ministry as a whole. In the light of verse 36 it may be that they were spoken earlier, but are inserted here as a fitting summary of Jesus' message. While we need not doubt that they were spoken on some specific occasion or occasions, yet for John it is not the occasion that is important but the challenge to people to believe. The words were spoken loudly¹²⁶ (cf. Moffatt, "And Jesus cried aloud"), which is probably a way of indicating their importance. The closeness of the Father and the Son is brought out: anyone who trusts Christ trusts not simply the Man of Galilee but God the Father. The two are so close that to trust the one is to trust the other. Characteristically the Father is not referred to by name, but as "the one who sent me" (for "sent" see on 3:17). Similarly anyone who steadily contemplates the Son contemplates him who sent him (cf. 1:18; 13:20; 14:9). The two are not to be separated.

46 "I" is emphatic (and this is repeated in vv. 47,49, and 50). Whatever be the case with others, Christ's own activities and purposes are clear. "Have come"¹²⁷ in the perfect tense denotes a coming forth and remaining. For Christ as "the Light" see on 8:12. Once again we have the duality of light¹²⁸ and darkness (see on 1:4). Darkness is the state in which people find themselves naturally, but Jesus came to deliver us from this state. It is not his purpose that we should continue in darkness. In view of the preceding section with its strong emphasis on the hand of God even in the unbelief of sinners this verse is important. The purpose of Christ's coming was salvation. He came to deliver us from darkness, not to imprison us within it.

47 The same truth now receives emphasis from another direction. Those who have an intelligent understanding of Jesus' teaching¹²⁹ and yet do not keep it are certainly condemned. But Jesus can say, "I do not judge him." We are not to think of him as standing over people as a judge. There is indeed a sense in which he judges (5:22, 27, 30; 8:16, 26; 9:39), but in a very real sense people judge themselves (3:18-19). John puts a certain emphasis on "the world" by repeating it (cf. 3:17, and see NRSV here, ". . . not to judge the world, but to save the world"); the pronoun "it" could easily have been used (and NIV does exactly this, thus obscuring John's emphasis).

48 As always in this Gospel, there is another side to the saving action. Where the saving word is spoken and where anyone despises the Speaker and persistently rejects¹³⁰ his sayings, that person does not go unscathed, but has a judge, and that judge is the very saving word itself. In the last day the judgment will be that the word of salvation came to that person and that person rejected it.¹³¹

49 "For" introduces the reason for the foregoing. It is because Jesus' message is divine in origin that it is the fitting judge of people on the last day. "I did not speak of my own accord"¹³² is an emphatic disclaimer of personal responsibility for the message. Jesus is not, of course, saying that he disagrees with it. It is the word he has always proclaimed. What he is saying, and saying in the strongest possible terms, is that the saving word did not originate in any human source. It is the Father who gave¹³³ the commandment (see on 4:34). Once again the Father is characterized in terms of the Son's mission, "the Father who sent me." That is to say, the Father is bound up with the mission of the Son. He has, so to speak, committed himself in the Son. "He" is emphatic (though NIV omits it).¹³⁴ It stresses that it is the Father and no other who gives the commandment. "Commanded" is in the perfect tense, which shows that the message is permanent. It is not withdrawn nor will it be. It is not easy to make a distinction between the two verbs "say" and "speak."¹³⁵ But the two words together stress the totality of Jesus' message. For the thought cf. Deuteronomy 18:18-19.

50 The final words of Jesus' public ministry contain a renewed note of certainty. The Father's commandment is no harsh restriction; on the contrary, it "is life eternal." It does not simply speak of life eternal, nor is it the case that keeping it leads to life eternal (as NIV, "leads to eternal life"). The commandment is life eternal. It is God's great love acting upon us, and acting upon us for our salvation.¹³⁶ "Therefore" (the word is important; NIV has "So") the things that Jesus speaks he speaks just as the Father has spoken to him. "Has told me" (NIV inserts "to say") in the perfect tense stresses the permanence of the message, while the present "I say" indicates that Jesus continues right to this moment to speak in this way. The whole verse puts emphasis on the permanent relation between the Father and the Son. This is a striking note on which to end the account of the ministry of Jesus. "Jesus is not a figure of independent greatness; he is the Word of God, or he is nothing at all" (Barrett).

———————————————

1. Yet some argue that all three accounts refer to the same anointing. A variant is that put forward by, for example, Bernard. He argues that Mark and John describe the same incident, and that Luke describes an earlier incident with the same woman. He identifies Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene and thinks of her as saved from a life of sin by Jesus. The first anointing expresses her penitence and gratitude; the second recalls the first, which is why the feet are anointed and why the hair is used. But this time there are no tears, for Mary cannot go back to her earlier emotions. Perhaps the strongest argument for this view is that the present passage clearly indicates that Mary of Bethany had an interest in Jesus' burial, yet none of the Gospels speak of her at the tomb, whereas all four mention Mary Magdalene. Bernard further points out that the identification of Mary as the one who anointed Jesus' feet and wiped them with her hair (11:2) demands that only one woman had done this. I f two did the same thing, it would not identify her. Temple, Bailey, and others take up similar positions. Strachan thinks that John is working on oral tradition that included details from the traditions underlying both the Marcan and the Lucan stories. Dodd thinks that Mark, Luke, and John all worked on oral tradition, but "each evangelist used independently a separate strand of tradition, and the strands overlapped" (HTFG, p. 172). Brown holds that Luke tells of a woman who wiped tears from Jesus' feet and Mark and John of Mary as anointing Jesus' head, but that during the period of oral transmission details were transferred from each story to the other. The strength of the case is the difficulty of understanding why in the one story feet should be anointed, and why in the other perfume should be wiped off.

2. νάρδου πιστικής. This highly unusual expression is nowhere attested before the Gospels. Η. E. Edwards refuses to see in it evidence of literary dependence: "We might compare it to the phrase 'a mess of pottage', which, as nine people out of ten will tell you, was the price for which Esau sold his birthright. The phrase is not to be found in Scripture at all, either in Genesis, where the stoiy is told, or in Hebrews, where allusion is made to it. It has come down to us orally, preserved in our memories by its pithy and unusual form"

(The Disciple Who Wrote These Things [London, 1953], p. 98).

3. R. A. Cole thinks that Simon the leper was the father of Lazarus and the sisters. Thus the house was his, but for practical purposes belonged to the children. He reminds us of Uzziah living in isolation while his son Jotham reigned (The Gospel according to Mark2 [Leicester and Grand Rapids, 1989], p. 285).

4. Yet it is to be borne in mind that neither Matthew nor Mark dates the incident with precision. Both simply recount it in immediate juxtaposition to Judas's betrayal. The place where they insert it may be due to a desire to draw a sharp contrast with the traitor rather than to put it in its correct chronological position. C. Ε. B. Cranfield says, "As Mark seems to have interpolated vv. 3-9 between vv. If. and 10f., it may be that the Johannine dating is more correct" (The Gospel according to Saint Mark [Cambridge, 1959], p. 415). W. L. Lane also argues that Mark has "intercalated" the anointing story (The Gospel according to Mark [Grand Rapids, 1974], p. 492, n. 18).

5. The anointing of the head is probably to be understood as a recognition of Jesus' royal place as Messiah. Cf. R. V. G. Tasker: "she pours the fragrant perfume, her most costly possession, over His head as though she were anointing a king" (The Gospel according to St. Matthew [London, 1961], p. 242).

6. Anointing the feet is most unusual, to say the least. In neither incident is a reason given for such an anointing, but it appears to indicate the taking of a very lowly place.

7. Cf. the anointing of Aaron in Ps. 133:2 when the oil ran down his beard and "over his body," as Leslie C. Allen translates (he points out that the traditional "over his collar" is linguistically unsatisfactory and that the beard would extend below the collar (Word Biblical Commentary: Psalms 101-150 [Waco, 1983], p. 212).

8. J. F. Coakley, in an important article "The Anointing at Bethany and the Priority of John" (JBL CVII [1988], pp. 241-56), argues that John's account is independent of the accounts of anointings in the Synoptic Gospels and that it may readily be understood on the hypothesis of the priority of John. He draws attention to a number of anointings of feet attested in ancient literature, so that Mary's gesture was not as unusual as is often argued.

9. He does not in fact say six days before the Passover," but προ έξ ήμερων τοϋ πάσχα, that is six days before, beginning from the Passover. Some think the construction is a Latinism, but Moulton points out that the earliest Greek examples are pre-Roman and finds "the hypothesis of Latinism utterly improbable" (Μ, I, p. 101). The construction is certainly like ante diem tertium Kalendas, but in view of the early occurrence of the Greek all that we can say is that the similar Latin may have stimulated its use. A parallel expression is found in Amos 1:1, πρό δύο ετών τοϋ σεισμού G. D. Fee informs us that in p66, nstead of 6ξ, we have the singular reading πέντε (JBL, LXXXIV [1965], p. 71).

10. δειπνον can denote a meal at any time of the day (see LS). In the New Testament, however, it appears to be the main meal of the day, held toward evening. Elsewhere in this Gospel it is used only of the Last Supper.

11. The words are διακονία and διακονέω. Morgan makes the point that in the Lukan passage where she served a meal for four people Martha was distracted; here she probably had seventeen, but "there is not a word here about being distracted. Martha had learned something on that sad, dark day. . . . Her service had not ceased, but some secret had been learned, which kept her from distraction."

12. "With" is σύν, apreposition found elsewhere in this Gospel only at 18:1; 21:3. If, as is generally held, its use is a mark of literary rather than spoken Greek, it is of interest that it occurs 4 times in Matthew, 6 times in Mark, but 23 times in Luke, and 52 times in Acts.

13. λίτρα is a Latin loanword that equals libra. It is a measure of weight, not volume and denotes a Roman pound, that is 12 ounces, or 327.45 grams (BAGD). It is found again in the New Testament only in 19:39.

14. There are some difficulties about this perfume, νάρδος is fairly straightforward. It refers in the first place to the plant and in the second to the perfumed oil the nard plant yields. But the adjective πιστική is more difficult. It is not found before the Gospels, so that there are no earlier passages with which to compare this one. There seem to be four possibilities. The word may derive from πίστις with a meaning like "faithful," "trustworthy," hence "genuine" (hence NIV's "pure"). Nard was apparently adulterated on occasion, and this would mean that this specimen was of the pure type. A second view is that it derives from πίνω and means "drinkable," that is "liquid" (LS favors this view); BAGD is surely right in regarding this as "very improbable." The third view connects the word with πιστάκια, "pistachio tree," but it is hard to understand how this is relevant. The fourth view sees in it a place name (so Augustine) or a trade name "pistic nard," the significance of which now eludes us. A small point in favor of the last is the absence of καί before πολυτίμου, for this may indicate that νάρδου πιστικής is being treated as something like a compound noun (so Abbott, 2168).

15. "The Anointing at Bethany," p. 251.

16. In Num. 5:18 the priest loosed the hair of the woman suspected of adultery; cf. also Sot. 8a where the priest undoes the hair of the adulteress. J. Lightfoot cites a rabbinic passage: "Kamitha had seven sons, who all performed the office of high-priests: they ask of her, how she came to this honour? She answered, The rafters of my house never saw the hairs of my head" (HHT, p. 361). A respectable woman always kept her hair covered.

17. This is the one place in the New Testament where πληρόω is followed by έx. This preposition follows γέμω in Matt. 23:25 and γεμίζω in Luke 15:16; Rev. 8:5, but it is rather rare with all verbs of filling.

18. Eccl. Rab. VII.1.1 (Soncino edn., p. 166).

19. John has a similar statement about Judas in 6:71, but characteristically in repeating it he makes slight changes. The word order is different, for while in the earlier passage, έx is used before των δώδεκα, here it is not (some MSS have it here, but this does not seem to be the true text); there we have τών δώδεκα, here τών μαθητών, to which αύτοϋ is added; and while the former has έμελλεν this passage reads ό μέλλων.

20. There is no article with πτωχοις, so that the meaning is "to poor people" rather than "to the poor."

21. The construction is impersonal, ούχ δτι περί τών πτωχών έμελεν αύτώ. The only other example of this construction in John is in 10:13 where it is used of the hired hand who "cares nothing for the sheep." This may be more than a coincidence.

22. κλέπτης.

23. το γλωσσόκομον έχων. The noun denotes a small box or case, originally one for the mouthpiece of a flute (γλώτται). From its proper use for the flute it appears to have been used for any small case, but in the New Testament its two occurrences (here and 13:29) both refer to a money box. MM comments: "This out-of-the-way-looking word proves to be decidedly vernacular, and quite in place in Jn 126, 1329, where it is 'moneybox' (cf. RV marg.): its original meaning, as 'receptacle' (κομίζω) for the 'tongues' or mouthpieces of flutes, had long been forgotten, and influenced it only by stamping on it generally the sense of small size and portability." They cite numerous examples. See also Field, p. 97. What is clear is that it referred to a box made of wood or other rigid material, not a "bag" (as NIV) or "purse" (REB).

24. βαστάζω has a double meaning, not unlike the English word " l i f t . " It means"to carry" (as KJV, "bare"), but it may also mean "to carry away" and thus "to pilfer" (see MM). Judas not only "carried" what was put in the box, but "carried it off."

25. ενταφιασμός refers properly not so much to the burial as to the "laying out" of the corpse, the preparation for burial (MM). In 19:40 the wrapping in linen with spices is described as the Jewish custom ένταφιάζειν.

26. There is some difficulty with the construction άφες αύτήν, ίνα τηρηση. Moulton points out that άφες is possibly used more or less as an auxiliary, which would here give the meaning "let her keep it." The accusative αύτήν, however, and the similar expression in Mark 14:6 are against the auxiliary idea, and favor "Let her alone: let her keep i t " (Μ, I, pp. 175-76). The former interpretation is behind ARV. "Suffer her to keep it," but the latter seems preferable with NRSV, GNB, REB, etc. Barrett lists a number of possible meanings but concludes, "It cannot be said that any of these is wholly satisfying."

27. This accords with the view of Lagrange, who points out that ετήρηκεν of the received text, while not the true reading, has yet preserved the true sense. Compare the words of Jesus, "She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial" (Mark 14:8). See also Lindars, "The occasion is symbolically equivalent to the day of burial, and for this reason she was right to keep the ointment and use it in this extravagant way." Bruce gives the meaning as "Let her keep the credit of having performed the last rites for me here and now, against the day of my burial."

28. Jesus does not refer to part of it, but to " i t " (αύτό). Moreover, Mark refers to the alabaster cruse as having been broken (Mark 14:3), which makes it unlikely that any significant amount could have been retained.

29. Torrey makes the words a question: "should she keep it for the day of my burial?"

30. The emphatic έμέ set at the beginning of the clause places Jesus in the sharpest contrast with τους πτωχούς.

31. There are Jewish expressions that indicate that care of the dead takes precedence over almsgiving. Thus Sukk. 49b praises Gemiluth Hasadim ("the practice of kindness") above charity, among other reasons because it can be done both to the living and the dead, the later of which is explained as, "By attending to their funeral and burial" (Soncino edn., p. 233, n. 8).

32. Mark has ό πολύς δχλος, and John appears to read ό δχλος πολύς with the adjective in the predicate position. This is the reading of Β* al, and, though most authorities omit the article, it should probably be accepted. A text without it would read smoothly and there seems to be no reason for inserting it, whereas the omission from a text containing it would seem a fairly obvious correction. There is a division of authorities again over the same expression in verse 12. If we accept the reading ό δχλος πολύς, we have another problem. The expression ought to mean "the crowd is great," but the context makes it clear that "the great crowd" is meant. Lightfoot thinks the unusual expression may be meant to recall the crowd of 6:2, 5 (δχλος πολύς and πολύς δχλος), for that crowd had followed Jesus in Galilee and sought to make him King. Westcott regards δχλος πολύς as a "compound noun." This would simplify the situation, but he gives no reasons.

33. Ingressive aorist.

34. The καί before Lazarus looks back to 11:53 where they plotted to kill Jesus. Now they include Lazarus also in their plans (NIV, "as well").

35. The verb is ύπήγον, a common verb in John. It seems to be used here with the meaning "depart from one's allegiance" (i.e., to the chief priests). Cf. its use in 6:67

36. The article is read by ρ66* Β L Θ f l syrs boh. As in v. 9 it should probably be accepted.

37. Great numbers assembled at Jerusalem at Passover time. Josephus speaks of a crowd exceeding 2,700,000 (Bell. 6.425). Even allowing for some exaggeration it is clear that large numbers could be expected at this feast. J. Jeremias estimates that on such occasions the city could accommodate 150,000 persons (Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus [London, 1969], pp. 82ff.).

38. The plural άκούσαντες, coming as it does after the singular noun δχλος and the singular participle έλθών, is to be noted. It would not be so strange i f it came after the plural verb ελαβον. Perhaps John is putting some emphasis on plurality in the crowd, which may also be in mind in the adjective πολύς.

39. είς ύπάντησιν αύτω. Moulton has a note on the expression in which he denies that it is a Semitism, and regards it as synonymous with είς άπάντησιν. Of the latter he says, "It seems that the special idea of the word was the official welcome of a newly arrived dignitary" (Μ, I, p. 14, n. 3). Similarly MM speaks of it as "a kind of t.t. for the official welcome of a newly arrived dignitary." This, of course, is very much in place in the present context.

40. βαΐα. He speaks of τά βαΐα των φοινίκων, which is peculiar in that either βαΐα or φοινίκων could denote palm branches (though the latter might also mean "palm trees"), so that the whole means "palm branches of palm trees." βαιον is apparently taken over from the Coptic bai (BAGD). Some scholars suggest that what is meant is the lulab or branch of palm, willow, and myrtle used at the Feast of Tabernacles, but no sufficient found reason is given for their use at Passover. It is better to think of palm branches used in a spontaneous expression of joy as a royal Person is acclaimed. Some interpreters see an inaccuracy in that palms do not grow near Jerusalem, but there is at least one reference to entering Jerusalem "with praise and palm branches" (1 Macc. 13:51). In any case John

does not say where they got them from. They may have been carrying them for general festal purposes. The references cited from Maccabees and Revelation show that palms were used on occasions of festal rejoicing. See further the note by W. R. Farmer, JThS, n.s. Ill (1952), pp. 62-66.

41. Lightfoot points out that the palm is also found on Jewish coins of the period 140 B.C.—A.D. 70, sometimes with the inscription "the redemption of Zion."

42. Aramaic ; Hebrew It is found in Ps. 118:25 where NIV renders "save us." It apparently became a familiar liturgical expression, though our evidence for this is later than the New Testament. The Greek form ωσαννά is not found in LXX, and may be a Christian coinage (so Edwin D. Freed, Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John [Leiden, 1965], pp. 71-72). It is not easy to understand why words that have meaning in connection with supplication should be used in this way of acclamation. It is possible that we should take the expression as a prayer addressed to Jesus, who is then implored as Messiah to bring salvation. Against this is the difficulty of taking this meaning with a following έν τοις ύψίστοις (Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:10). Others have uggested that the words should be understood as a prayer addressed to God for his Messiah (cf."God save the king"), or that it had become conventionalized and meant something like"Hail" or "Praise" (so, e.g., Augustine, who thought it indicates "rather a state of mind than having any positive significance" (61.2; p. 283); in other words it is an interjection. J. A. Fitzrnyer thinks it is a "spontaneous cry of greeting or a cry of homage" (G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz, eds., Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament, p. 115).

On the whole the last-mentioned or the view of Augustine seems most probable. See further E. Werner, JBL, LXV (1946), pp. 97-122; G. Dalman, 27le Words of Jesus (Edinburgh, 1902), pp. 220-23; Edwin D. Freed, Old Testament Quotations, pp. 66-73.

43. See Vincent Taylor, The Names of Jesus (London, 1953), pp. 78-79. He cites Cadbury, "There is no evidence that it was a Jewish or Christian technical term," but notes that it is used of Jesus quite a number of times. He thinks that "the title had only a brief and restricted currency in certain circles. It has a marked eschatological tone."

44. There is textual doubt, ό βασιλεύς is read by p66 D Θ fl al, but καί is prefixed by p75 (vid.) Β W and seems to be right. We should understand it in the sense, "even the King. . . ."

45. A. Schweizer says that the Entry was messianic for Jesus, but not for the people (The Quest of the Historical Jesus [London, 1945], pp. 391-92. He is followed, e.g., by J. W. Bowman, The Intention of Jesus [London, 1945], pp. 133-34). But such a position fails to account for the enthusiasm of the crowds. Not so were the prophets hailed. They thought of him as a prophet indeed, but also as "he who comes."

46. The word is όνάριον, found here only in the New Testament. It is a diminutive in form, but it is not certain whether this should be pressed, since the word often seems to mean simply a "donkey." simply

47. Some commentators see a contradiction between εύρων here and the Synoptic accounts of the way the disciples brought the ass to Jesus. But this is to be unnecessarily precise. John's εύρων does not mean that Jesus personally went searching for an ass until he found one. It is his way of passing over the details entirely, and concentrating on the main event. In any case, the word could well mean "found by the agency of others."

48. The form here does not agree exactly, notably in the opening words. The Hebrew is rendered in LXX by Χαίρε σφόδρα, so that John agrees with neither. Some scholars suggest that his Μή φοβοϋ is from Isa. 40:9, but there it is the plural μή φοβεϊσθε. In any case it is scarcely necessary to find a scriptural source for so simple an expression or to imagine that John is using a text different from any known to us. It is quite natural to prefix such words, words, moreover, that were frequenly on the lips of Jesus, to a prophecy telling how Jesus comes as the Prince of peace.

49. The ass had lowly associations. Cf. the dictum: "Fodder and a stick and burdens for an ass" (Sir. 33:24).

50. As the prophecy goes on to make clear. God will take away the chariots and the war horses, while the battle bow will be broken and "He will proclaim peace to the nations" (Zech. 9:10).

51. There is a threefold repetition of ταϋτα in this verse. Such a ultiplication of pronouns is not common in John (he much prefers to use nouns). It is likely that he wants to lay some stress on the way the events fulfilled prophecy.

52. The subject of έποίησαν will be the same as that of the earlier verbs. John is not talking accordingly about what others, the crowd in general, had done, but about what the disciples themselves had done.

53. The preposition έπί is somewhat unexpected in the expression ταϋτα ή ν έπ' αύτω γεγραμμένα (ΒAGD cites Herodotus 1.66 as a parallel [II. 1 .b.δ]). This is all the more the case in that John frequently uses περί with the genitive in the sense "about." John is not fond of έπί, which he uses 33 times (and only 5 times with the dative) out of a New Testament total of 878, whereas he uses περί twice as often, namely 66 times out of a New Testament total of 331. His use of έπί here is thus far from usual.

54. John does not repeat δτι before ταϋτα εποίησαν. It may be that he is hinting at a unity, in that the prophecy and the fulfillment are in some sense one. But this is perhaps too subtle.

55. "The distinctive emphasis of John is to present Jesus' action as a conscious corrective of a planned political ovation" (Robinson, Priority, p. 230).

56. Burton notices ών here as an example of the present participle used to denote action prior to that of the main verb (Moods, 127).

57. The significance of καΐ ΰπήντησεν is sometimes overlooked. The position of και shows the meaning to be "For this reason the crowd (besides doing other things) also met him," not "For this cause also (i.e. in addition to other causes)" (as ARV).

58. Swete, commenting on the Markan narrative, sees two crowds, one pouring out from Jerusalem and the other coming from Bethany (on Mark 11:9).

59. ήκουσαν is used in much the same sense as the pluperfect, "they had heard."

60. τοϋτο is separated from σημεϊον, possibly for greater emphasis: "They heard that he had done this thing — the sign." There is a similar separation of this adjective from its noun in 9:16 (where see note).

61. Black takes πρός έαυτούς as a reflection of an Aramaic dativus ethicus (AA, p. 77). This, if correct, would strengthen the conviction that an Aramaic source or Aramaic thinking lies behind this Gospel.

62. A. Cole sees a link with the saying about the destruction of the Temple (2:19), for the abolition of the Temple and the inclusion of the Gentiles are closely linked (The New Temple [London, 1950], p. 31).

63. His δέ may indicate a contrast with the preceding. The Pharisees set themselves in opposition to Jesus, but the Greeks came up to Jerusalem and to Jesus.

64. The present participle, άναβαινόντων, may indicate habitual practice, "among those who used to go up. . . ." The verb is used for "going up" to celebrate the festivals.

65. Έλλην of course does not necessarily indicate a person of the Greek race. It can stand for the cultured over against the noncultured (Rom. 1:14), or for Gentiles over against Jews (Acts 14:1). In Mark 7:26 a woman is described as Έλληνίς and then as Συροφοινίκισσα. But if proselytes are meant, some further descriptive word would be natural (though J. A. T. Robinson thinks the meaning "Greek-speaking Jews or proselytes . . . not Gentiles" [Priority, p. 60]). The fact that they came to Jerusalem to worship does not mean that they were necessarily proselytes, for the Ethiopian eunuch did this (Acts 8:27) and he could not be a proselyte. The word is to be distinguished from 'Ελληνιστής (Acts 6:1 etc.), though this term does not denote Greek-speaking Jews as certainly as ome

suggest (see the note by H. J. Cadbury, The Beginnings of Christianity, V London, 1933], pp. 59ff). Josephus speaks of many Greeks, Έλληνες, as being attracted to Judaism (Bell. 7.45).

66. See SBk, II, pp. 548-51 for the status and limitations of these "half-proselytes."

67. The rule appears to be that where a verb precedes more than one noun that together constitute its subject it is singular, but where the verb follows it is plural. Thus we have the singular έρχεται and the plural λέγουσιν.

68. This is the significance of άποκρίνεται αύτοΐς (though "them," of course, which MV omits, might refer to the Greeks). This verb occurs 78 times in John, the almost invariable form being the aorist passive. The present is found only here, 13:26, 38; 18:22. It may be meant to make these passages especially vivid. See also on 1:21.

69. The reference to the hour as come is probably another example of John's habit of introducing slight variations in repetitions. Here and in 17:1 we have έλήλυθεν ή ώρα, but in 13:1 Jesus knew δτι ήλθεν αύτοϋ ή ώρα. Then in 16:32 we read έρχεται ώρα και έλήλυθεν (though in this last-mentioned passage the meaning of "hour" is slightly different).

70. Cf. G. Bornkamm, "John does not regard the death of Jesus as a passing episode in which a mythical divinity who came from heaven returns to the glory from which he came. It is rather a supremely real event, the triumph of the heavenly glory viewed and interpreted with the eyes of faith" (The New Testament: A Guide to Its Writings [London, 1974], p. 141).

71. Cf. Barclay, "When He said that, the listeners would catch their breath. They would believe that the trumpet call of eternity had sounded, and that the might of heaven was on the march, and that the campaign of victory was on the move. But Jesus did not mean by glorified what they meant. By glorified they meant that the subjected kingdoms of the earth would grovel before the conqueror's feet; by glorified He meant crucified."

72. The article with κόκκος denotes the class.

73. αύτός μόνος puts emphasis on the aloneness of the grain that does not "die."

74. As Augustine long ago pointed out, "He spake of Himself. He Himself was the grain that had to die, and be multiplied; to suffer death through the unbelief of the Jews, and to be multiplied in the faith of many nations" (61.9; p. 285).

75. There is a change from ψυχήν of loving or hating the life, that is, this present, earthly life, to ζωήν of the life proper to the age to come. It may be entered on here and now, but its characteristics concern eternity. McClymont says that ψυχήν here denotes "the natural life of man, with all its appetites, desires, and affections, which seek their gratification irrespective of the will of God. The loving of this life is another name for the spirit of selfishness which is unwilling to spend or be spent for any higher object than self-enjoyment and self-aggrandisement, while the hating of it denotes that spirit of self-sacrifice which counts nothing in this world too dear to be given up in obedience to the Divine will."

76. The first έμοί is especially emphatic; it precedes τις (Rieu has "me" in italics), whereas the third (which is also linked with τις) follows it, though before we put too much emphasis on this we should remember John's habit of making small changes in repetitions. John also has έγώ and έμός. The first person is prominent throughout the verse.

77. Hunter aptly comments: "It has been said that follow me is the whole of a Christian's duty, as to be where Christ is is the whole of his reward."

78. For the verb ταράσσω see on 11:33. Jesus is to use this verb of the isciples' not being troubled (14:1, 27). But the price of their peace is his trouble of spirit.

79. έx does not always signify "out of" a state one is already in. It surely means here, "keep me from coming to be in the hour." Westcott takes the meaning as "bring me safely out of the conflict" (citing Heb. 5:7) rather than "keep me from entering into it." But Heb. 5:7 does not really support him. It says, "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death. . . . " The meaning surely is that God had the power to save him even from death (even though in fact he did die).

80. Godet stresses the importance of this strong adversative: "Here Westcott proposes an absolute tour de force. 'But to what purpose say this? The favorable issue is not doubtful.' This sense of but is altogether forced; and there is no more opposition between: to come forth from the struggle, and: to have come for it. However we may turn this phrase, we are always brought back to see in it a hypothetical prayer." Bultmann sees άλλά here as " = no, as in classic Greek after a self question" (p. 427, n. 4: cf. BDF 448 [4]"; NRSV translates "No").

81. Strachan comments, "The best commentary ever made on this utterance are the terse words of Bengel. Concurrebat horror mortis et ardor obedientiae; 'horror of death and ardour of obedience are fused together.' "

82. MacGregor says of this verse: "John thus tacitly corrects the Synoptic radition hat Jesus was ever subject enough to human weakness to pray 'My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass me' (Mt. 26:39)." But in the first place it is unlikely that John had the Synoptists before him, and in the second it is astonishing to have a reference to "human weakness" rejected in a passage in which Jesus says, νϋν ή ψυχή μου τετάρακται.

83. άλλά indicates that, far from being saved from the "hour," this was the very purpose of his coming.

84. Abbott, 2389a.

85. In rabbinic literature we read of a heavenly voice, the , lit., "the daughter of a voice." This is explained by the Tosephtist on Sanh. 11a in this way: "One would not hear the sound which went out from heaven, but another sound went out of this sound, as when a man strikes a blow with violence and one hears a second noise which goes out from it (the blow) in the distance. One would hear such a sound; therefore it is called 'Daughter of the sound' " (SBk, I, p. 125). That is to say, it is an echo. Among the rabbis the bath qol was thought of as inferior to prophecy; God no longer spoke to people directly. But in the New Testament on each occasion when a voice is heard from heaven it is the voice of God himself. Thus it is not true that the New Testament reproduces the rabbinic idea of bath qol. The New Testament concept is something different. It is the very voice of God.

86. Cf. Lightfoot: "Unhappily the multitude, owing to the half-light in which it lives, cannot discern or appreciate the import of the utterance from heaven."

87. Bernard points out that neither here, nor on the occasion of the voice at the Baptism or the Transfiguration, is it said that others than Jesus understood the voice, "and if we put this into our modern ways of speech, we should say that their messages were subjective in the sense that they conveyed a meaning to none but Him to whom they were addressed, while objective in the sense that He was not deluded or deceived, for they were truly messages from God" (on v. 28). But this does not do justice to the present passage. The people did hear something objective, and Jesus said it was spoken not on his account but on theirs (v. 30). They were meant to hear.

88. Tasker, however, understands this expression as "probably an example of the Semitic way of expressing comparison, rather than a strict contrast — i.e., 'more for your sake than Mine'. It is clear that on this occasion the voice had considerable significance for Jesus Himself."

89. SBk cites examples of this designation of Satan from Jewish cources (II, p. 552). ϰοσμοϰράτωρ is transliterated and used also in this sense (the same authority also notes that the rabbis often have in mind not Satan but a leading angel). Schnackenburg refuses to see a reference to Satan here (II, p. 416).

90. The word is άρχων, "ruler." K. G. Kuhn finds equivalents in the Qumran texts, and that with a good reference as well as a bad one. He says, "God as well as Satan has such in his army, or (in another image) in his court, always with specific duties. In the Qumran texts and in Jewish apocalyptics — and not in the gnosis — is the place of origin of this idea" (SNT, p. 266, n. 11). Raymond E. Brown reminds us that John never describes Satan as "the leader, spirit, or angel of the forces of darkness" as do the scrolls, but he sees a similarity in the struggle between Christ and "the prince of this world" (SNT, p. 88).

91. έάν here does not introduce a note of uncertainty, and NIV correctly brings out the meaning of the passage with "when."

92. Cf. Calvin, "When He says all it must be referred to the children of God, who are of His flock. Yet I agree with Chrysostom, who says that Christ used the universal word because the Church was to be gathered from Gentiles and Jews alike."

93. "This saying contains the whole of the Fourth Gospel's 'Church-theology'. The Church is anchored in the death and resurrection of Christ. She is thus founded not on myth but on historical reality, called into being not by human hands but by the intervention of God Himself" (A. Corell, Consummation Est [London, 1958], p. 13).

94. The view was, however, held within Judaism, and apparently fairly widely. Cf. 1 Enoch 49:1; 62:14; Sib. Or. 3:49-50; Ps. Sol. 17:4. In other places, however, we find the idea that the Messiah will die, so that this is not the only Jewish teaching on the subject.

95. For "must" in relation to the ministry of Jesus see on 4:4.

96. It is usual to take ώς here in the sense of έως, "while," though elsewhere John does not use it in this fashion (unless those MSS are right which read ώς at 9:4). But it makes quite good sense to take it in its more usual sense of "as," to yield the meaning, "walk as you have the light," that is "Live and act according to the light that you have" (Weymouth). Cf. Col. 2:6. BDF prefers to read &ος, "as long as," in this verse and ώς, "now while," in the next (455 [3]).

97. Cf. Hans Urs von Balthasar: "As long as God's presence in the world and for the individual is regarded more or less as a universal philosophical sun which is always available because it neither rises nor sets and is without time and without history, being of the same nature as Ideas, it will scarcely be possible to grasp the quality of the Johannine 'light' which is always just rising now, always shining just for this present time, and whose dawn always carries with it (even for us!) the threat of denial and withdrawal" (A Theology of History [London and New York, 1964], p. 69).

98. ϰαταλάβη. "Before" would be better "lest."

99. For ώς see n. 94 above. Weymouth here translates, "In the degree that you have light. . . . "

100. The form of expression is Semitic, but this exact expression is not common. In fact SBk does not find it attested (Π, p. 219). It is, however, used in the Qumran scrolls to describe the members of the community, a further indication that there may be some connection between Qumran and this Gospel. It must also be borne in mind that such an expression is not difficult in Greek, where it would be equivalent to "enlightened ones."

101. Hoskyns goes as far as to say: "The fact of the unbelief of the Jews is, however, only superficially a scandal to Christian faith (cf. Rom. ix-xi). Rightly understood in the light of the Old Testament Scriptures it is the ground of the manifestation of the inevitable judgement of God upon unbelief. The unbelief of the Jews is not a problem; it is the precise fulfilment of prophecy." Later he says, "The Jews are manifestly culpable, since the Evangelist has recorded the mission of Jesus in such a manner as to exclude the thought that it was impossible for them to recognize Him as the Son of God. The purpose of his final summary of the public ministry of Jesus is not to deny the whole tenor of his narrative, but to point out that the rejection of the Messiah by His own people ought not to surprise those familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures."

102. έκρύβη is passive, but most expositors take it as equivalent to the middle. See on 8:59. If it is a passive, the meaning will be that he was hidden by God.

103. τοσαΰτα (NIV, "all"; NRSV has "so many"). The word is used of quality as well as of quantity (see BAGD, etc.). Yet we should not overlook the fact that elsewhere John always uses it of quantity (6:9; 14:9; 21:11).

104. πεποιηϰότος. The genitive absolute is a construction not often found in this Gospel in the words of Jesus (Abbott, 2031).

105. This is the first occurrence in this Gospel of the formula ίνα πληρωθη with respect to prophecy (it is frequent in Matthew). It occurs a number of times in subsequent chapters (13:18; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24, 36).

106. ίνα, as usually in John, denotes purpose.

107. Cf. Plummer, "Grace may be refused so persistently as to destroy the power of accepting it. Ί will not' leads to Ί cannot'."

108. The present, "to believe continuously" or "habitually," not the aorist, "to come to believe."

109. Cf. Murray, "We must never forget that it is by God's appointment that if His word does not quicken, it must deaden."

110. J. Painter argues strongly that it is "the prince of this world" (v. 31) who blinds people, and he draws attention to the "remarkable parallel" in 2 Cor. 4:4 (R. Banks, ed., Reconciliation and Hope [Grand Rapids and Exeter, 1974], p. 46).

111. έπώρωσεν αύτών τήν καρδίαν. The verb originally has to do with the forming of a callus and thus is very expressive. Amplified renders "hardened and benumbed." NIVs"deadened" employs other imagery.

112. Bruce speaks of this "Hebraic fashion of expressing result as though it were purpose. . . . Not one of them was fated to be incapable of belief."

113. The aorist here might be constative, of complete knowledge, or ingress!ve, "come to realize" (cf. Moulton, Μ, I, p. 117).

114. We should notice the future indicative, though apparently this verb, too, is governed by 'ίνα. In this context the subject of the verb will be Jesus.

115. Cf. Augustine, "God thus blinds and hardens, simply by letting alone and withdrawing His aid: and God can do this by a judgment that is hidden, although not by one that is unrighteous" (63.6; p. 293).

116. δτι, "because," is read by p66 p⁷⁵ A Β L Θ fl 33 cop etc., and is to be preferred to δτε, "when" with D fl3 565 etc. W reads έπεί.

117. The Greek says "his glory"; MVs substitution of "Jesus'" is probably a correct interpretation, but we should understand that it is an interpretation, not what John wrote.

118. In the Targum on Isa. 6:1, instead of "I saw the Lord" we read, "I saw the glory of the Lord."

119. "Yet at the same time" renders δμως μέντοι, an expression found here only in the New Testament. The combination forms a very strong adversative.

120. For άποσυνάγωγοι see on 9:22.

121. Calvin comments: "We must also notice, that rulers have less courage and constancy, because ambition almost always reigns in them, and there is nothing more servile than that. To put it in a word, earthly honours may be called golden shackles binding a man so that he cannot freely do his duty."

122. There is an interesting variation of tenses in this verse, έπίστευσαν denotes the definite act of faith, the imperfect ώμολόγουν the continuing failure to confess, while with γένωνται we return to the aorist and the decisive act of expulsion from the synagogue.

123. ήπερ is found here only in the New Testament. Abbott thinks it implies that they loved the glory of God not at all (2092).

124. Godet denies that this verse refers to people like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. Rather, those "who remained outwardly attached to the Jewish system, such as Gamaliel and many others, the Erasmuses of that time." Westcott is scathing: "Such ineffective intellectual faith (so to speak) is really the climax of unbelief."

125. NIV's "Then" seems to locate the following words as the immediate sequel to those in v. 43. But δε will not carry this weight; it is better to take it as having adversative force and marking a contrast with the preceding. The words form a concluding summary to Jesus' whole ministry.

126. The verb is κράζω. It is used of Jesus in 7:28 (where see note), 37, and of John the Baptist in 1:15. On each occasion when Jesus is the subject the verb is in the aorist, but the perfect is used when John the Baptist cries. The verb used of the multitude in v. 13 is κραυγάζω.

127. έλήλυθα. Three times John has this perfect with εις τον κόσμον (16:28; 18:37), and there are the usual slight differences in repetition. The perfect is found also in other contexts with reference to Jesus' coming (3:19; 5:43; 7:28; 8:42), though the aorist is also common (1:11; 8:14; 9:39; 10:10; 12:27, 47). After the perfect in this verse John immediately moves to the aorist in the next, a typical variation.

128. φως is emphatic from its position: "I light have come. . . ."

129. The genitive after άκούω signifies "hear with appreciation and understanding" (see on 5:25). In John ρñμα always refers to the words of Christ or of God. Here the expression stands for Christ's whole teaching.

130. ό άθετών is a strong expression. Barclay translates, "He who completely disregards me as of no account." Cf. Luke 10:16,

131. Brown points out that in the first part of this verse we have realized eschatology, and in the latter part final eschatology. But the last "is offered as an explanation of the first part — an indication that the sharp contradiction drawn today between realized and final eschatology was not so apparent in NT times."

132. έξ έμαυτοϋ, an expression found here only in this Gospel, though John has άπ' έμαυτοϋ seven times. There seems to be no difference in meaning.

133. For the various things said to have been "given" to the Son by the Father in this Gospel see on 3:35. The tense is most commonly the perfect, as here, indicating the permanence of the gift.

134. The pronoun αύτός follows ό πέμψας με Πατήρ.

135. εΐπω and λαλήσω. NIV tries with "what to say and how to say it," but it is more than dubious whether this is the meaning.

136. Cf. Temple, "His commandment is not a stark precept given by supreme authority; it is direction given by almighty love . . . it is the impact of His holy love upon our consciences and wills."

↑ Back to top