Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 11:45

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 11:45” utilice nuestra app.

Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

45 57. Opposite Results of the Sign

45. Then many of the Jews ] The English Version is here misleading, owing to inaccuracy and bad punctuation. It should run thus: Many therefore of the Jews, even they that came to Mary and beheld that which He did (see on Joh 6:14). The Jews who witnessed the miracle all believed: ‘of the Jews’ means of the Jews generally.

But some of them went ] Some of the Jews generally, not of those who saw and believed, went and told the Pharisees; with what intention is not clear, but probably not out of malignity. Perhaps to convince the Pharisees, or to seek an authoritative solution of their own perplexity, or as feeling that the recognised leaders of the people ought to know the whole case. The bad result of their mission has made some too hastily conclude that their intention was bad, and that therefore they could not be included in those who believed.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Joh 11:45-46

Then many of the Jews believed on Him.

But some went their ways to the Pharisees

Different effects of the same revelation on different, men

1. Many believed. In their ease

(1) The moral end of the miracle was then answered. They saw the glory of God.

(2) The end of Christs mission was answered. He became their Saviour.

2. Some did not believe. If they hear not Moses and the prophets. The different effect of the same revelation on different minds is

I. A COMMON OCCURRENCE (Act 17:32-34). The gospel is to some the savour of life unto life, etc. In every congregation there are believers and unbelievers. Like the sun, which wakes the vital germ in a grain of corn, and calls into being a beautiful and manifold life yet draws poisonous vapours out of the morass, so the gospel brings life to some objects and death to others.

II. A SIGNIFICANT OCCURRENCE, indicating

1. Diversity in mens minds. If all men were alike, the same cause acting upon them would produce the same results. But they are not alike.

(1) Naturally. No two have the same kind and measure of faculty.

(2) Morally. No two have the same quality and force of disposition.

(3) Educationally. No two have had exactly the same training.

At St. Pauls conversion some saw the light, but heard not the voice. Here is an extraordinary circumstance which is common in life. Everywhere there ere men hearing the same voice but receiving different impressions; seeing the same lights, but observing different objects. A voice fraught with deep meaning to some is mere empty sound to others: a light revealing the grandest realities to some discloses nothing to others.

2. The moral force of depravity. Men, through prejudices, sinful habits and carnal tendencies, become strong enough to resist the mightiest evidences and appeals. Ye do always resist the Spirit of God.

3. The uncoerciveness of the gospel. The gospel is the power of God, but not a resistless force. It reasons and persuades, but does not outrage the freedom of the soul

4. The need of perseverance in the Christian preacher. Do not be discouraged because some do not believe; others will. Sow beside all waters. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The power of unbelief

Death more readily yielded to Christ than mans infidelity. (J. A. Bengel.)

The consequences of unbelief

A vessel named The Thetis was cruising in the Mediterranean in search of a shoal or bank, or something of that kind, said to exist beneath the treacherous waters. The captain, after he had adopted all the means he thought necessary, having failed, abandoned the enterprise, declaring that the reported danger was all a dream. An officer on board formed a different judgment, went out by himself on an expedition afterwards into the very same latitude and longitude, and there discovered a reef of rocks, which he reported at the Admiralty; and it was inserted in the charts, the discoverer being rewarded with a high appointment. The intelligence came to the captains ears; he would not believe in the discovery. He was a shrewd, clever, practical man, but unscientific, incredulous, and obstinate. The whole thing is a falsehood, he exclaimed, adding, If ever I have the keel of The Thetis under me in those waters again, if I dont carry her clean over where the chart marks a rock, call me a liar, and no seaman. Two years after he was conveying, in the same vessel, the British ambassador to Naples. One windy night, he and the master were examining the chart on deck by the light of the lantern, when the latter pointed out the sunken rock on the map. What! exclaimed the old seaman, is this invention to meet me in the teeth again? No; I swore I would sail over the spot the first chance I had; and Ill do it. He went down into the cabin, merrily related the story to the company, and said, Within five minutes we shall have passed the spot. There was a pause. Then, taking out his watch, he said, oh! the time is past. We have gone over the wonderful reef. But presently a grating touch was felt on the ships keel, then a sudden shock, a tremendous crash: the ship had foundered. Through great exertions, most of the crew were saved: but the captain would not survive his own mad temerity, and the last seen of him was his white figure, bare headed, and in his shirt, from the dark hull of The Thetis, as the foam burst round her bows and stem. He perished, a victim of unbelief. So perish multitudes. (J. L. Nye.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 45. Many of the Jews – believed on him.] They saw that the miracle was incontestable; and they were determined to resist the truth no longer. Their friendly visit to these distressed sisters became the means of their conversion. How true is the saying of the wise man, It is better to go to the house of mourning than to the house of feasting! Ec 7:2. God never permits men to do any thing, through a principle of kindness to others, without making it instrumental of good to themselves. He that watereth shall be watered also himself, Pr 11:25. Therefore, let no man withhold good, while it is in the power of his hand to do it. Pr 3:27.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

That is, which came to visit Martha and Mary in their mourning; and, coming to Mary, did go along with her to the sepulchre to meet Christ, and there meeting him, saw all the passages relating to this miracle, truly believed on him as the true Messiah, Joh 12:11,18. Or it may be, it is to be understood more largely of such a faith as is but preparatory to true and saving faith; for there was a double use of miracles.

1. To prepare men for faith, disposing them to give an ear to him, to whom God hath given so great a power; so as after the sight of them they were more fitted to hear, and inclinable to believe.

2. To confirm faith in those that believed, so as they believed the more firmly, seeing the doctrine they heard confirmed by such miraculous operations.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

45, 46. many . . . which . . . hadseen . . . believed . . . But some . . . went . . . to the Phariseesand told them what Jesus had donethe two classes whichcontinually reappear in the Gospel history; nor is there ever anygreat work of God which does not produce both. “It is remarkablethat on each of the three occasions on which our Lord raised thedead, a large number of persons was assembled. In two instances, theresurrection of the widow’s son and of Lazarus, these were allwitnesses of the miracle; in the third (of Jairus’ daughter) theywere necessarily cognizant of it. Yet this important circumstance isin each case only incidentally noticed by the historians, not putforward or appealed to as a proof of their veracity. In regard tothis miracle, we observe a greater degree of preparation, both in theprovident arrangement of events, and in our Lord’s actions and wordsthan in any other. The preceding miracle (cure of the man born blind)is distinguished from all others by the open and formal investigationof its facts. And both these miracles, the most public and bestattested of all, are related by John, who wrote long after the otherEvangelists” [WEBSTERand WILKINSON].

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Then many of the Jews which came to Mary,…. To her house, to comfort her, and that came along with her to the grave:

and had seen the things which Jesus did; in raising the dead body of Lazarus, and causing him to walk, though bound in grave clothes:

believed on him; that he was the true Messiah: such an effect the miracle had on them; so that it was a happy day for them, that they came from Jerusalem to Bethany to pay this visit.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The Consultation of the Pharisees; The Prophecy of Caiaphas; A Conspiracy against Christ.

45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. 46 But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. 47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. 48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. 49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. 53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. 54 Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples. 55 And the Jews’ passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves. 56 Then sought they for Jesus, and spake among themselves, as they stood in the temple, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast? 57 Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should show it, that they might take him.

We have here an account of the consequences of this glorious miracle, which were as usual; to some it was a savour of life unto life, to others of death unto death.

I. Some were invited by it, and induced to believe. Many of the Jews, when they saw the things that Jesus did, believed on him, and well they might, for it was an incontestable proof of his divine mission. They had often heard of his miracles, and yet evaded the conviction of them, by calling in question the matter of fact; but now that they had themselves seen this done their unbelief was conquered, and they yielded at last. But blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. The more we see of Christ the more cause we shall see to love him and confide in him. These were some of those Jews that came to Mary, to comfort her. When we are doing good offices to others we put ourselves in the way of receiving favours from God, and have opportunities of getting good when we are doing good.

II. Others were irritated by it, and hardened in their unbelief.

1. The informers were so (v. 46): Some of them, who were eye-witnesses of the miracle, were so far from being convinced that they went to the Pharisees, whom they knew to be his implacable enemies, and told them what things Jesus had done; not merely as a matter of news worthy their notice, much less as an inducement to them to think more favourably of Christ, but with a spiteful design to excite those who needed no spur the more vigorously to prosecute him. Here is a strange instance, (1.) Of a most obstinate infidelity, refusing to yield to the most powerful means of conviction; and it is hard to imagine how they could evade the force of this evidence, but that the god of this world had blinded their minds. (2.) Of a most inveterate enmity. If they would not be satisfied that he was to be believed in as the Christ, yet one would think they should have been mollified, and persuaded not to persecute him; but, if the water be not sufficient to quench the fire, it will inflame it. They told what Jesus had done, and told no more than what was true; but their malice gave a tincture of diabolism to their information equal to that of lying; perverting what is true is as bad as forging what is false. Doeg is called a false, lying, and deceitful tongue (Psa 52:2-4; Psa 52:3), though what he said was true.

2. The judges, the leaders, the blind leaders, of the people were no less exasperated by the report made to them, and here we are told what they did.

(1.) A special council is called and held (v. 47): Then gathered the chief priests and Pharisees a council, as was foretold, Ps. ii. 2, The rulers take counsel together against the Lord. Consultations of the sanhedrim were intended for the public good; but here, under colour of this, the greatest injury and mischief are done to the people. The things that belong to the nation’s peace were hid from the eyes of those that were entrusted with its counsels. This council was called, not only for joint advice, but for mutual irritation; that as iron sharpens iron, and as coals are to burning coals and wood to fire, so they might exasperate and inflame one another with enmity and rage against Christ and his doctrine.

(2.) The case is proposed, and shown to be weighty and of great consequence.

[1.] The matter to be debated was what course they should take with this Jesus, to stop the growth of his interest; they said What do we? For this man doeth many miracles. The information given about the raising of Lazarus was produced, and the men, brethren, and fathers were called in to help as solicitously as if a formidable enemy had been with an army in the heart of their country. First, They own the truth of Christ’s miracles, and that he had wrought many of them; they are therefore witnesses against themselves, for they acknowledge his credentials and yet deny his commission. Secondly, They consider what is to be done, and chide themselves that they have not done something sooner effectually to crush him. They do not take it at all into their consideration whether they shall not receive him and own him as the Messiah, though they profess to expect him, and Jesus gave pregnant proofs of his being so; but they take it for granted that he is an enemy, and as such is to be run down: “What do we? Have we no care to support our church? Is it nothing to us that a doctrine so destructive to our interest spreads thus? Shall we tamely yield up the ground we have got in the affections of the people? Shall we see our authority brought into contempt, and the craft by which we get our living ruined, and not bestir ourselves? What have we been doing all this while? And what are we now thinking of? Shall we be always talking, and bring nothing to pass?”

[2.] That which made this matter weighty was the peril they apprehended their church and nation to be in from the Romans (v. 48): “If we do not silence him, and take him off, all men will believe on him; and, this being the setting up of a new king, the Romans will take umbrage at it, and will come with an army, and take away our place and nation, and therefore it is no time to trifle.” See what an opinion they have,

First, Of their own power. They speak as if they thought Christ’s progress and success in his work depended upon their connivance; as if he could not go on to work miracles, and make disciples, unless they let him alone; as if it were in their power to conquer him who had conquered death, or as if they could fight against God, and prosper. But he that sits in heaven laughs at the fond conceit which impotent malice has of its own omnipotence.

Secondly, Of their own policy. They fancy themselves to be men of mighty insight and foresight, and great sagacity in their moral prognostications.

a. They take on them to prophecy that, in a little time, if he have liberty to go on, all men will believe on him, hereby owning, when it was to serve their purpose, that his doctrine and miracles had a very convincing power in them, such as could not be resisted, but that all men would become his proselytes and votaries. Thus do they now make his interest formidable, though, to serve another turn, these same men strove to make it contemptible, ch. vii. 48, Have any of the rulers believed on him? This was the thing they were afraid of, that men would believe on him, and then all their measures were broken. Note, The success of the gospel is the dread of its adversaries; if souls be saved, they are undone.

b. They foretel that if the generality of the nation be drawn after him, the rage of the Romans will be drawn upon them. They will come and take away our place; the country in general, especially Jerusalem, or the temple, the holy place, and their place, their darling, their idol; or, their preferments in the temple, their places of power and trust. Now it was true that the Romans had a very jealous eye upon them, and knew they wanted nothing but power and opportunity to shake off their yoke. It was likewise true that if the Romans should pour an army in upon them it would be very hard for them to make any head against it; yet here appeared a cowardice which one would not have found in the priests of the Lord if they had not by their wickedness forfeited their interest in God and all good men. Had they kept their integrity, they needed not to have feared the Romans; but they speak like a dispirited people, as the men of Judah when they basely said to Samson, Knowest thou not that the Philistines rule over us? Judg. xv. 11. When men lose their piety they lose their courage. But, (a.) It was false that there was any danger of the Romans’ being irritated against their nation by the progress of Christ’s gospel, for it was no way hurtful to kings nor provinces, but highly beneficial. The Romans had no jealousy at all of his growing interest; for he taught men to give tribute to Csar, and not to resist evil, but to take up the cross. The Roman governor, at his trial, could find no fault in him. There was more danger of the Romans’ being incensed against the Jewish nation by the priests than by Christ. Note, Pretended fears are often the colour of malicious designs. (b.) Had there really been some danger of displeasing the Romans by tolerating Christ’s preaching, yet this would not justify their hating and persecuting a good man. Note, [a.] The enemies of Christ and his gospel have often coloured their enmity with a seeming care for the public good and the common safety, and, in order to this, have branded his prophets and ministers as troublers of Israel, and men that turn the world upside down. [b.] Carnal policy commonly sets up reasons of state, in opposition to rules of justice. When men are concerned for their own wealth and safety more than for truth and duty, it is wisdom from beneath, which is earthly, sensual, and devilish. But see what was the issue; they pretended to be afraid that their tolerating Christ’s gospel would bring desolation upon them by the Romans, and therefore, right or wrong, set themselves against it; but it proved that their persecuting the gospel brought upon them that which they feared, filled up the measure of their iniquity, and the Romans came and took away their place and nation, and their place knows them no more. Note, That calamity, which we seek to escape by sin we take the most effectual course to bring upon our own heads; and those who think by opposing Christ’s kingdom to secure or advance their own secular interest will find Jerusalem a more burdensome stone than they think it is, Zech. xii. 3. The fear of the wicked it shall come upon them, Prov. x. 24.

(3.) Caiaphas makes a malicious but mystical speech in the council on this occasion.

[1.] The malice of it appears evident at first view, Joh 11:49; Joh 11:50. He, being the high priest, and so president of the council, took upon him to decide the matter before it was debated: “You know nothing at all, your hesitating betrays your ignorance, for it is not a thing that will bear a dispute, it is soon determined, if you consider that received maxim, That it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people.” Here,

First, The counsellor was Caiaphas, who was high priest that same year. The high priesthood was by divine appointment settled upon the heir male of the house of Aaron, for and during the term of his natural life, and then to his heir male; but in those degenerate times it was become, though not an annual office, like a consulship, yet frequently changed, as they could make an interest with the Roman powers. Now it happened that this year Caiaphas wore the mitre.

Secondly, The drift of the advice was, in short, this, That some way or other must be found out to put Jesus to death. We have reason to think that they strongly suspected him to be indeed the Messiah; but his doctrine was so contrary to their darling traditions and secular interest, and his design did so thwart their notions of the Messiah’s kingdom, that they resolve, be he who he will, he must be put to death. Caiaphas does not say, Let him be silenced, imprisoned, banished, though amply sufficient for the restraint of one they thought dangerous; but die he must. Note, Those that have set themselves against Christianity have commonly divested themselves of humanity, and been infamous for cruelty.

Thirdly, This is plausibly insinuated, with all the subtlety as well as malice of the old serpent. 1. He suggests his own sagacity, which we must suppose him as high priest to excel in, though the Urim and Thummim were long since lost. How scornfully does he say, “You know nothing, who are but common priests; but you must give me leave to see further into things than you do!” Thus it is common for those in authority to impose their corrupt dictates by virtue of that; and, because they should be the wisest and best, to expect that every body should believe they are so. 2. He takes it for granted that the case is plain and past dispute, and that those are very ignorant who do not see it to be so. Note, Reason and justice are often run down with a high hand. Truth is fallen in the streets, and, when it is down, down with it; and equity cannot enter, and, when it is out, out with it, Isa. lix. 14. 3. He insists upon a maxim in politics, That the welfare of communities is to be preferred before that of particular persons. It is expedient for us as priests, whose all lies at stake, that one man die for the people. Thus far it holds true, that it is expedient, and more than so, it is truly honourable, for a man to hazard his life in the service of his country (Phi 2:17; 1Jn 3:16); but to put an innocent man to death under colour of consulting the public safety is the devil’s policy. Caiaphas craftily insinuates that the greatest and best man, though major singulis–greater than any one individual, is minor universis–less than the collected mass, and ought to think his life well spent, nay well lost, to save his country from ruin. But what is this to the murdering of one that was evidently a great blessing under pretence of preventing an imaginary mischief to the country? The case ought to have been put thus: Was it expedient for them to bring upon themselves and upon their nation the guilt of blood, a prophet’s blood, for the securing of their civil interests from a danger which they had no just reason to be afraid of? Was it expedient for them to drive God and their glory from them, rather than venture the Romans’ displeasure, who could do them no harm if they had God on their side? Note, Carnal policy, which steers only by secular considerations, while it thinks to save all by sin, ruins all at last.

[2.] The mystery that was in this counsel of Caiaphas does not appear at first view, but the evangelist leads us into it (Joh 11:51; Joh 11:52): This spoke he not of himself, it was not only the language of his own enmity and policy, but in these words he prophesied, though he himself was not aware of it, that Jesus should die for that nation. Here is a precious comment upon a pernicious text; the counsel of cursed Caiaphas so construed as to fall in with the counsels of the blessed God. Charity teaches us to put the most favourable construction upon men’s words and actions that they will fear; but piety teaches us to make a good improvement of them, even contrary to that for which they were intended. If wicked men, in what they do against us, are God’s hand to humble and reform us, why may they not in what they say against us be God’s mouth to instruct and convince us? But in this of Caiaphas there was an extraordinary direction of Heaven prompting him to say that which was capable of a very sublime sense. As the hearts of all men are in God’s hand, so are their tongues. Those are deceived who say, “Our tongues are our own, so that either we may say what we will, and are not accountable to God’s judgment, or we can say what we will, and are not restrainable by his providence and power.” Balaam could not say what he would, when he came to curse Israel, nor Laban when he pursued Jacob.

(4.) The evangelist explains and enlarges upon Caiaphas’s words.

[1.] He explains what he said, and shows how it not only was, but was intended to be, accommodated to an excellent purpose. He did not speak it of himself. As it was an artifice to stir up the council against Christ, he spoke it of himself, or of the devil rather; but as it was an oracle, declaring it the purpose and design of God by the death of Christ to save God’s spiritual Israel from sin and wrath, he did not speak it of himself, for he knew nothing of the matter, he meant not so, neither did his heart think so, for nothing was in his heart but to destroy and cut off, Isa. x. 7.

First, He prophesied, and those that prophesied did not, in their prophesying, speak of themselves. But is Caiaphas also among the prophets? He is so, pro hc vice–this once, though a bad man, and an implacable enemy to Christ and his gospel. Note, 1. God can and often does make wicked men instruments to serve his own purposes, even contrary to their own intentions; for he has them not only in a chain, to restrain them from doing the mischief they would, but in a bridle, to lead them to do the service they would not. 2. Words of prophecy in the mouth are no infallible evidence of a principle of grace in the heart. Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? will be rejected as a frivolous plea.

Secondly, He prophesied, being high priest that year; not that his being high priest did at all dispose or qualify him to be a prophet; we cannot suppose the pontifical mitre to have first inspired with prophecy the basest head that ever wore it; but, 1. Being high priest, and therefore of note and eminence in the conclave, God was pleased to put this significant word into his mouth rather than into the mouth of any other, that it might be the more observed or the non-observance of it the more aggravated. The apophthegms of great men have been thought worthy of special regard: A divine sentence is in the lips of the king; therefore this divine sentence was put into the lips of the high priest, that even out of his mouth this word might be established, That Christ died for the good of the nation, and not for any iniquity in his hands. He happened to be high priest that year which was fixed to be the year of the redeemed, when Messiah the prince must be cut off, but not for himself (Dan. ix. 26), and he must own it. 2. Being high priest that year, that famous year, in which there was to be such a plentiful effusion of the Spirit, more than had ever been yet, according to the prophecy (Joe 2:28; Joe 2:29, compared with Acts ii. 17), some drops of the blessed shower light upon Caiaphas, as the crumbs (says Dr. Lightfoot) of the children’s bread, which fall from the table among the dogs. This year was the year of the expiration of the Levitical priesthood; and out of the mouth of him who was that year high priest was extorted an implicit resignation of it to him who should not (as they had done for many ages) offer beasts for that nation, but offer himself, and so make an end of the sin-offering. This resignation he made inwittingly, as Isaac gave the blessing to Jacob.

Thirdly, The matter of his prophecy was that Jesus should die for that nation, the very thing to which all the prophets bore witness, who testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ (1 Pet. i. 11), that the death of Christ must be the life and salvation of Israel; he meant by that nation those in it that obstinately adhered to Judaism, but God meant those in it that would receive the doctrine of Christ, and become followers of him, all believers, the spiritual seed of Abraham. The death of Christ, which Caiaphas was now projecting, proved the ruin of that interest in the nation of which he intended it should be the security and establishment, for it brought wrath upon them to the uttermost; but it proved the advancement of that interest of which he hoped it would have been the ruin, for Christ, being lifted up from the earth, drew all men unto him. It is a great thing that is here prophesied: That Jesus should die, die for others, not only for their good, but in their stead, dies for that nation, for they had the first offer made them of salvation by his death. If the whole nation of the Jews had unanimously believed in Christ, and received his gospel, they had been not only saved eternally, but saved as a nation from their grievances. The fountain was first opened to the house of David, Zech. xiii. 1. He so died for that nation as that the whole nation should not perish, but that a remnant should be saved, Rom. xi. 5.

[2.] The evangelist enlarges upon this word of Caiaphas (v. 52), not for that nation only, how much soever it thought itself the darling of Heaven, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. Observe here,

First, The persons Christ died for: Not for the nation of the Jews only (it would have been comparatively but a light thing for the Son of God to go through so vast an undertaking only to restore the preserved of Jacob, and the outcasts of Israel); no, he must be salvation to the ends of the earth, Isa. xlix. 6. He must die for the children of God that were scattered abroad. 1. Some understand it of the children of God that were then in being, scattered abroad in the Gentile world, devout men of every nation (Acts ii. 5), that feared God (Acts x. 2), and worshipped him (Acts xvii. 4), proselytes of the gate, who served the God of Abraham, but submitted not to the ceremonial law of Moses, persons that had a savour of natural religion, but were dispersed in the nations, had no solemn assemblies of their own, nor any peculiar profession to unite in or distinguish themselves by. Now Christ died to incorporate these in one great society, to be denominated from him and governed by him; and this was the setting up of a standard, to which all that had a regard to God and a concern for their souls might have recourse, and under which they might enlist themselves. 2. Others take in with these all that belong to the election of grace, who are called the children of God, though not yet born, because they are predestinated to the adoption of children, Eph. i. 5. Now these are scattered abroad in several places of the earth, out of all kindreds and tongues (Rev. vii. 9), and in several ages of the world, to the end of time; there are those that fear him throughout all generations, to all these he had an eye in the atonement he made by his blood; as he prayed, so he died, for all that should believe on him.

Secondly, The purpose and intention of his death concerning those persons; he died to gather in those who wandered, and to gather together in one those who were scattered; to invite those to him who were at a distance from him, and to unite those in him who were at a distance from each other. Christ’s dying is, 1. The great attractive of our hearts; for this end he is lifted up, to draw men to him. The conversion of souls is the gathering to them in to Christ as their ruler and refuge, as the doves to their windows; and he died to effect this. By dying he purchased them to himself, and the gift of the Holy Ghost for them; his love in dying for us is the great loadstone of our love. 2. The great centre of our unity. He gathers them together in one, Eph. i. 10. They are one with him, one body, one spirit, and one with each other in him. All the saints in all places and ages meet in Christ, as all the members in the head, and all the branches in the root. Christ by the merit of his death recommended all the saints in one to the grace and favour of God (Heb. ii. 11-13), and by the motive of his death recommends them all severally to the love and affection one of another, ch. xiii. 34.

(5.) The result of this debate is a resolve of the council to put Jesus to death (v. 53): From that day they took counsel together, to put him to death. They now understood one another’s minds, and so each was fixed in his own, that Jesus must die; and, it should seem, a committee was appointed to sit, de die in diem–daily, to consider of it, to consult about it, and to receive proposals for effecting it. Note, The wickedness of the wicked ripens by degrees, Jas 1:15; Eze 7:10. Two considerable advances were now made in their accursed design against Christ. [1.] What before they had thought of severally now they jointly concurred in, and so strengthened the hands one of another in this wickedness, and proceeded with the greater assurance. Evil men confirm and encourage themselves and one another in evil practices, by comparing notes; men of corrupt minds bless themselves when they find others of the same mind: then the wickedness which before seemed impracticable appears not only possible, but easy to be effected, vis unita fortior–energies, when united, become more efficient. [2.] What before they wished done, but wanted a colour for, now they are furnished with a plausible pretence to justify themselves in, which will serve, if not to take off the guilt (that is the least of their care), yet to take off the odium, and so satisfy, if not the personal, yet the political conscience, as some subtly distinguish. Many will go on very securely in doing an evil thing as long as they have but something to say in excuse for it. Now this resolution of theirs to put him to death, right or wrong, proves that all the formality of a trial, which he afterwards underwent, was but show and pretence; they were before determined what to do.

(6.) Christ hereupon absconded, knowing very well what was the vote of their close cabal, v. 54.

[1.] He suspended his public appearances: He walked no more openly among the Jews, among the inhabitants of Judea, who were properly called Jews, especially those at Jerusalem; ou periepatei—he did not walk up and down among them, did not go from place to place, preaching and working miracles with the freedom and openness that he had done, but while he staid in Judea, he was there incognito. Thus the chief priests put the light of Israel under a bushel.

[2.] He withdrew into an obscure part of the country, so obscure that the name of the town he retired to is scarcely met with any where else. He went to a country near the wilderness, as if he were driven out from among men, or rather wishing, with Jeremiah, that he might have in the wilderness a lodging place of way-faring men, Jer. ix. 2. He entered into a city called Ephraim, some think Ephratah, that is, Bethlehem, where he was born, and which bordered upon the wilderness of Judah; others think Ephron, or Ephraim, mentioned 2 Chron. xiii. 19. Thither his disciples went with him; neither would they leave him in solitude, nor would he leave them in danger. There he continued, dietribe, there he conversed, he knew how to improve this time of retirement in private conversation, when he had not an opportunity of preaching publicly. He conversed with his disciples, who were his family, when he was forced from the temple, and his diatribai, or discourses there, no doubt, were very edifying. We must do the good we can, when we cannot do the good we would. But why would Christ abscond now? It was not because he either feared the power of his enemies or distrusted his own power; he had many ways to save himself, and was neither averse to suffering nor unprepared for it; but he retired, First, To put a mark of his displeasure upon Jerusalem and the people of the Jews. They rejected him and his gospel; justly therefore did he remove himself and his gospel from them. The prince of teachers was now removed into a corner (Isa. xxx. 20); there was no open vision of him; and it was a sad presage of that thick darkness which was shortly to come upon Jerusalem, because she knew not the day of her visitation. Secondly, To render the cruelty of his enemies against him the more inexcusable. If that which was grievous to them, and thought dangerous to the public, was his public appearance, he would try whether their anger would be turned away by his retirement into privacy; when David had fled to Gath, Saul was satisfied, and sought no more for him, 1 Sam. xxvii. 4. But it was the life, the precious life, that these wicked men hunted after. Thirdly, His hour was not yet come, and therefore he declined danger, and did it in a way common to men, both to warrant and encourage the flight of his servants in time of persecution and to comfort those who are forced from their usefulness, and buried alive in privacy and obscurity; the disciple is not better than his Lord. Fourthly, His retirement, for awhile, was to make his return into Jerusalem, when his hour was come, the more remarkable and illustrious. This swelled the acclamations of joy with which his well-wishers welcomed him at his next public appearance, when he rode triumphantly into the city.

(7.) The strict enquiry made for him during his recess, v. 55-57.

[1.] The occasion of it was the approach of the passover, at which they expected his presence, according to custom (v. 55): The Jews’ passover was nigh at hand; a festival which shone bright in their calendar, and which there was great expectation of for some time before. This was Christ’s fourth and last passover, since he entered upon his public ministry, and it might truly be said (as, 2 Chron. xxxv. 18), There never was such a passover in Israel, for in it Christ our passover was sacrificed for us. Now the passover being at hand, many went out of all parts of the country to Jerusalem, to purify themselves. This was either, First, A necessary purification of those who had contracted any ceremonial pollution; they came to be sprinkled with the water of purification, and to perform the other rites of cleansing according to the law, for they might not eat the passover in their uncleanness, Num. ix. 6. Thus before our gospel passover we must renew our repentance, and by faith wash in the blood of Christ, and so compass God’s altar. Or, Secondly, A voluntary purification, or self-sequestration, by fasting and prayer, and other religious exercises, which many that were more devout than their neighbours spent some time in before the passover, and chose to do it at Jerusalem, because of the advantage of the temple-service. Thus must we by solemn preparation set bounds about the mount on which we expect to meet with God.

[2.] The enquiry was very solicitous: They said, What think you, that he will not come to the feast? v. 56.

First, Some think this was said by those who wished well to him, and expected his coming, that they might hear his doctrine and see his miracles. Those who came early out of the country, that they might purify themselves, were very desirous to meet with Christ, and perhaps came up the sooner with that expectation, and therefore as they stood in the temple, the place of their purification, they enquired what news of Christ? Could any body give them hopes of seeing him? If there were those, and those of the most devout people, and best affected to religion, who showed this respect to Christ, it was a check to the enmity of the chief priests, and a witness against them.

Secondly, It should rather seem that they were his enemies who made this enquiry after him, who wished for an opportunity to lay hands on him. They, seeing the town begin to fill with devout people out of the country, wondered they did not find him among them. When they should have been assisting those that came to purify themselves, according to the duty of their place, they were plotting against Christ. How miserably degenerate was the Jewish church, when the priests of the Lord were become like the priests of the calves, a snare upon Mizpeh, and a net spread upon Tabor, and were profound to make slaughter (Hos 5:1; Hos 5:2), –when, instead of keeping the feast with unleavened bread, they were themselves soured with the leaven of the worst malice! Their asking, What think you? Will he not come up to the feast? implies, 1. An invidious reflection upon Christ, as if he would omit his attendance on the feast of the Lord for fear of exposing himself. If others, through irreligion, be absent, they are not animadverted upon; but if Christ be absent, for his own preservation (for God will have mercy, and not sacrifice), it is turned to his reproach, as it was to David’s that his seat was empty at the feast, though Saul wanted him only that he might have an opportunity of nailing him to the wall with his javelin, 1 Sam. xx. 25-27, c. It is sad to see holy ordinances prostituted to such unholy purposes. 2. A fearful apprehension that they had of missing their game: “Will he not come up to the feast? If he do not, our measures are broken, and we are all undone for there is no sending a pursuivant into the country, to fetch him up.”

[3.] The orders issued out by the government for the apprehending of him were very strict, v. 57. The great sanhedrim issued out a proclamation, strictly charging and requiring that if any person in city or country knew where he was (pretending that he was a criminal, and had fled from justice) they should show it, that he might be taken, probably promising a reward to any that would discover him, and imposing a penalty on such as harboured him; so that hereby he was represented to the people as an obnoxious dangerous man, an outlaw, whom any one might have a blow at. Saul issued out such a proclamation for the apprehending of David, and Ahab of Elijah. See, First, How intent they were upon this prosecution, and how indefatigably they laboured in it, now at a time when, if they had had any sense of religion and the duty of their function, they would have found something else to do. Secondly, How willing they were to involve others in the guilt with them; if any man were capable of betraying Christ, they would have him think himself bound to do it. Thus was the interest they had in the people abused to the worst purposes. Note, It is an aggravation of the sins of wicked rulers that they commonly make those that are under them instruments of their unrighteousness. But notwithstanding this proclamation, though doubtless many knew where he was, yet such was his interest in the affections of some, and such God’s hold of the consciences of others, that he continued undiscovered, for the Lord hid him.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Beheld that which he did ( ). First aorist middle participle of and first aorist active indicative of in the relative () clause. They were eye-witnesses of all the details and did not depend on hearsay.

Believed on him ( ). Such a result had happened before (7:31), and all the more in the presence of this tremendous miracle which held many to Jesus (John 12:11; John 12:17).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

The things which Jesus did. The best texts omit Jesus. Some read o, that which He did; others a, the things which.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Then many of the Jews which came to Mary,” (polloi oun ek ton loudaion hoi elthontes pros ten Mariam) “Then many of the Jews who had come to Mary,” to comfort her and console her, and weep with her, from the Jerusalem area, Joh 11:18-19; Joh 11:31; Joh 11:33.

2) “And had seen the things which Jesus did,” (kai theasamenoi ho epoiesen) “And had observed what he did,” how He had groaned or shook in the spirit and wept, Joh 11:33; Joh 11:35; Joh 11:38. And how He prayed, called Lazarus to come forth from the grave, and directed that he be loosed of the graveclothes, Joh 11:39-44.

3) “Believed on him,” (episteusan eis auton) “They believed into or on him,” as others had done, Joh 8:30-31; Act 9:42; And they were saved, trusted in Him, had no question of His Sonship, or that He was the Savior, Act 10:43; 1Jn 5:11; Rom 1:16.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

45. Many therefore of the Jews believed on him. Christ did not permit the miracle which he had wrought to be without fruit, for by means of it he drew some persons to the faith. For we ought to understand that miracles have a twofold use. They are intended either to prepare us for faith, or to confirm us in faith. The former is here denoted by the Evangelist; for he means that those of whom he speaks regarded Christ with admiration and reverence, so as to submit to be his disciples; otherwise the bare miracle could not have been sufficient to produce faith. Accordingly, by the word believe we must not suppose anything else to be meant than a willingness to embrace the doctrine of Christ.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(45) Then many of the Jews which came to-Mary, and had seen . . .Better, Many therefore of the Jews, which had come to Mary and seen . . . The comma should be placed after the word Jews. The Greek cannot mean, Then many of the Jews, i.e., of those which came to Mary. It must mean, Many therefore of the Jews, i.e., all those which had come to Mary. The miracle is so utterly beyond all their conceptions that it carries conviction to every heart, and leaves no further possibility of doubt. They are called those which had come to Mary, because they had remained with her after Martha had gone to meet our Lord, and had followed her when she herself went.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

45. Many believed Hence it can scarce be affirmed that no one would be, convinced if one should rise from the dead. See on Luk 16:31. Indeed, the many who believed seem to be more numerous than the some who went to the Pharisees, as stated in the next verse.

The Sanhedrim in council against the life of Jesus, 47-57.

The startling news from Bethany summons like a trumpet the Sanhedrim to session. They meet probably in the customary Hall of Gazith, with Ananias and Caiaphas at their head, and debate ensues, which ends in adopting the violent counsels of the high priest.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

The Reaction ( Joh 11:45-57 ).

‘Many therefore of the Judaisers who came to Mary and watched what he did, believed on him, but some of them went away to the Pharisees and told them the things that Jesus had done.’

Reaction to what He had done was divided. Many of ‘the Judaisers’, the leading people of the land who were seen as representative of the land, believed in Him. Now they knew beyond all doubt that He was what He claimed to be. But others took a different view and reported what had happened to ‘the Pharisees’, that is the Pharisaic leaders who were mainly responsible for regulating their actions and decisions. They realised just what an impact this might make. Thus do men reveal their hearts by their actions. It is of course astonishing, but it is not at all unlikely. By this time they expected Jesus to do unusual things and had begun to take them for granted. What mattered now was what repercussions this might have among the common people. Their hearts were hardened against any spiritual impact.

The fact that ‘many — came to Mary’ brings out how Mary’s relative helplessness drew sympathy from strong men (compare Joh 11:31). She was probably noted in the village for her piety and vulnerability, and clearly popular. They probably thought that the stronger and more assertive Martha did not need so much help.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Plot to Kill Jesus ( Mat 26:1-5 , Mar 14:1-2 , Luk 22:1-2 ) Joh 11:45-54 tells us of how the plot to kill Jesus Christ intensifies after the raising of Lazarus from the dead.

Joh 11:45 Comments – Within each of the six feast sections is found a miracle that testifies of Jesus’ deity. We find six of these miracles ending with a statement that many believed in Him because of these miracles (Joh 2:11, Joh 4:53, Joh 5:15, Joh 6:14, Joh 9:38, Joh 11:45). The seventh miracle ends with a similar statement (Joh 20:29).

Joh 11:47 Comments The motif of the people believing in Jesus because of the miracles runs parallel with the motif of the Jewish leaders persecuting Jesus and plotting to kill Him. These two motifs are woven throughout the Gospel of John.

Joh 11:48 Comments – Pro 10:24 says that the fear of the wicked shall come upon him.

Pro 10:24, “The fear of the wicked, it shall come upon him: but the desire of the righteous shall be granted.”

The Jewish leaders feared the wrath of the Romans. Therefore, they slew the King of Kings, Jesus Christ. But this caused the very thing that they feared to come upon them. Forty years later, under Titus, the Romans surrounded the city of Jerusalem and destroyed it, killing an entire generation of Jews in the process.

Joh 11:51 Comments – Note how prophecy operates in the office of the high priest, despite the fact that the heart of the priest was not right with God. In a similar manner to Caiaphas the high priest, King Saul prophesied although his heart was not always right with God ( 1Sa 10:10-11 ; 1Sa 18:10; 1Sa 19:23-24).

The gift of prophecy is often associated with the Old Testament prophets, priests, and kings. For example, the spirit of prophecy was taken from Moses and given to the seventy elders (Num 11:24-25).

Joh 11:54 “but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness” – Comments – Joh 11:54 reminds us of King David during his years of exile in similar desert regions around Palestine.

Joh 11:54 “into a city called Ephraim” Comments – Although the Old Testament frequently mentions the tribe of Ephraim, there is no reference to a city by this name. However, the city of Ephraim ( ) (G2187) is mentioned one time in the New Testament (Joh 11:54). Regarding its location, we must refer to extra-biblical literature. Comments made by Josephus seem to place Ephraim near Bethel when he says, “after which he [Vespasian] took Bethel and Ephraim, two small cities” ( Wars 4.9.9) Eusebius lists a city by this name saying, “Aiphraim, a city of the lot of Issachar, and it is now called a village of Aphraia a distance of six miles north of Legeonos ( Onomasticon “Ai ”) (author’s translation). [228]

[228] Eusebii Pamphili Episcopi Caesariensis Onomasticon: Urbinum et Locorum Sacrae Scripturae, eds. F. Larsow and G. Parthey (Berolini: Aedibus Friderici Nicolae, 1862), 28.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Joh 11:45-46. Then many of the Jewsbelieved Considering the nature and circumstances of this great miracle, it ought to have silenced the peevishness of cavilling, might have overcome the obstinacy of prejudice, and should have put to shame the impudence of malice; for the deliberate and purposed delay of Christ, his declaration of Lazarus’s death, and prediction of his resurrection, the variety and multitude of the persons who were witnesses, the accidental circumstances which led them to be present, the consequent faith of many Jews who were there, (by no means prejudiced in favour of Jesus, or disposed to believe in him,) as well as the acknowledgment made of the reality of this miracle to the Jewish sanhedrim, are such testimonies, as must place this wonderful event beyond the power of cavil or contradiction: wherefore we cannot help being surprised to find that the cry, Lazarus, come forth, did not produce on all who were present an effect some way similar to that which it had on Lazarus: it raised him from the natural death, and might, through divine grace, have raised the most stupid of the spectators from the spiritual, by working in them the living principle of faith. It afforded, however, a dreadful confirmation of that weighty truth, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Every reader must be sensible that there is something incomparably beautiful in the whole of our Lord’s behaviour on this occasion; after having given such an astonishing instance of his power, he did not speak one word in his own praise, either directly or indirectly. He did not rebuke the Jews for having, in former instances, maliciously detracted from the lustre of his miracles, every one of which derived additional credit from this incontestable wonder. He did not say how much they were to blame for persisting in their incredulity, though he well knew what they would do: he did not insinuate, even in the most distant manner, the obligations which Lazarus and his sisters were laid under bythis signal favour; he did not upbraid Martha and Mary with the discontent that they had expressed, at his having delayed to come to the relief of their brother. Nay, he did not so much as put them in mind of the mean notion they had entertained of his power; but, always consistent with himself, he was on this, as on every other occasion, a pattern of perfect humility and absolute self-denial. It is beautiful to observe the gradation in the resurrections of the dead performed by our Lord: the first person he raised, Jairus’s daughter, had been in the state of death only a few hours; the second, the son of the widow of Nain, was raised as his friends were carrying him out to burial; but when Jesus recalled Lazarus to life, he had been in the grave no less than four days; and therefore, according to our apprehensions, his resurrection was the greatest of the three, the whole power of death being accomplished upon h

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Joh 11:45-46 . This occurrence makes an overwhelming impression upon the party adverse to Jesus, upon the . Many of the those, namely, who had come to Mary, and had seen the act of Jesus believed on Him. A certain number, however, of them (of these who had become believers) went away (from the scene of the miracle) to the Pharisees, and said to them, etc., but with well-meaning intent, in order to put them in possession of a correct account of the act, and to bear witness to them of the miracle (comp. Origen). The ordinary understanding of the passage finds here two sections among the who had come to Mary; many of them had become believers , but certain of them remained unbelieving , and the latter had denounced Jesus to the Pharisees with evil intent (as a Gote, thinks Euth. Zigabenus; as a sacrilegious person, who had disinterred the corpse, thought Theophylact; as a dangerous person , think most commentators), or communicated the fact, simply with the view of obtaining a judgment upon it (Luthardt). The error of this interpretation lies in not observing that John has not written (which is the reading of D), but , . . ., so that is said generally of the in general , and ( ii, qui , etc.) more closely defines the ; instead of , however, Joh 11:46 , there now remain no others , none who had not become believers, since indicates that they went away from the place to the Pharisees, while in the preceding only the Jews who came to Mary are mentioned. Lachmann and Tischendorf have rightly placed a comma after .

] for the same reason as in Joh 11:1 she was named first , here she is briefly named alone . Hengstenberg strangely imports into the words an antithesis to those who had come only for Simon’s sake. See on Joh 11:1-2 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

C. Two-fold result of the raising of Lazarus. The believing Jews. The obdurate ones as betrayers. The high-priestly prophecy, or the extinction of the ancient Urim and Thummim. Demoniacal policy and Divine counsel. Jesus now in the wilderness of Ephraim, as He was in the wilderness at the beginning of His ministry

(Joh 11:45-57.)

45Then many [Many therefore] of the Jews which came [who had come]65 to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus [what he] did, believed on [in] him. 46But some of them went their ways [went away] to the Pharisees, and told them what things [omit things] Jesus had done.

47Then [Therefore] gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council [the Council, or, the Sanhedrin]66 and said, What do we [shall we do, or, are we to do]? for this man doeth [worketh] many miracles [signs]. 48If we let him thus alone [thus go on], all men [omit men] will believe on [in] him; and the Romans shall [will] 49come and take away both our place and nation. And [a certain] one of them, named [omit named] Caiaphas, being the [omit the] high priest that same [omit 50same] year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor [do ye] consider that it is expedient for us [for you],67 that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not [and not the whole nation perish]. 51And this spake he [he spoke] not of [from] himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied [gave the high-priestly prophetic decision] that Jesus should [was about to] die for that [the] nation; 52And not for that [the] nation only, but that also he should [that he might also] gather together in [into] one [body, or, people] the children of God that were [are] scattered abroad.

53Then [Therefore] from that day forth they took counsel together68 for [omit for] to put him to death. 54Jesus therefore walked no more [longer] openly [freely] among the Jews; but went [departed] thence unto a [into the] country near to [omit to] the wilderness, unto a city called Ephraim, and there continued [so-journed, 55abode] with his [the] disciples. And [Now] the Jews passover [the passover of the Jews] was nigh at hand [omit nigh, or, at hand]: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves. 56Then sought they [They sought therefore] for Jesus, and spake [said] among themselves, as they stood in the temple, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast? 57Now both [omit both]69 the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment [issued commandments or, ordered],70 that, if any man [any one] knew where he were [was], he should shew it [give information, or, make it known], that they might take [seize] him.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Joh 11:45. Many of the Jews therefore. A new split in the Pharisaical party in Jerusalem itself. The important effect of the raising of Lazarus is observable in the fact that many of these Jews became believers. Some, however, of those who witnessed the miracle at Bethany, separate from the believing portion and confirm themselves in their obduracy, giving notice of the event to the Pharisees, i.e., here, the hostile members of the Sanhedrin. Origen held these individuals to be friends of Jesus, whose intentions in giving the information were good. On the other hand the view of Euthymius who regarded them as malevolents, is the one generally entertained. According to Euthymius, they denounced Him as a sorcerer (); according to Theophylact, as a sacrilegious person, who had disinterred a corpse. These hypotheses overlook the possibility that the hardened denunciators held the same opinion to which Caiaphas gives utterance Joh 11:50, and considered Jesus to be merely a dangerous man. And thus their notification is apprehended by the generality of people. Meyer impugns the assumption of hostile intention on the part of these men; it is [who had come], says he,not [the reading of D. and text rec.P. S.] But in this construction the evangelist would say, that theJews who came to Bethany constituted a plurality of the whole body of Jews. The better plan would be, perhaps, to distinguish among the spectators friends of Mary, sharers of her sentiments; these had come to Mary and were . The Jews were well aware of the deadly enmity of the Pharisees towards Jesus; if these informants had been friends, they must have witnessed for Jesus with heroic martyr-courage, and they would have secured a firm and conspicuous station in the evangelical history.

Joh 11:47. The high priests and the Pharisees therefore assembled the Sanhedrin.See Comm. on Matthew, chap. 5 p. 113, Am. Ed.; Winer, Art. Synedrium.

1. The Name: , talmudic: , Sanhedrin.71

2. Signification: the supreme, theocratico-hierarchical Court of the Jews, resident at Jerusalem.

3. Composition and organization. It consisted of seventy-one members forming three classes (chief priests, elders, scribes). At that time it was composed of Pharisaic and Sadducean elements (Caiaphas, the high-priest, belonged to the Sadducean party). The Sanhedrin had a president (), ordinarily the high-priest, who was assisted by a vice-president ( ). There is not sufficient proof that a third functionary, styled , stood at the left of the high-priest (Vitringa).

4. Sessions. Extraordinary: in urgent cases at the house of the high-priest. Ordinary: held daily (with the exception of the Sabbath and feast days), of old in a session room adjoining the temple, called Gazith, but in later times (from a period of forty years before the destruction of the temple) in places near the temple-mount.

5. Matters coming under the cognizance of this court as a forum: Matters concerning a whole tribe, a false prophet, the high-priest, or an arbitrary war, or blasphemy.

6. Punitory power. Formerly: Infliction of capital punishment (stoning, burning, beheading, hanging); later: excommunication and recommendation for capital punishment.

7. Administration. Connection with the minor courts; highest court of appeal from these; intercourse with them through surrogates and apparitors.

8. Extent of authority: Legislation, administration, justice.

9. History. According to the Talmudists this court originated in the institution of Moses, Num 11:24. That, probably, was but prelusive. So, too, the Supreme court of Jehoshaphat, 2Ch 19:8. Increased importance of this institution after the exile. The in the time of the Seleucid (2Ma 1:10); the first decided mention at the time of Antipater and Herod (Joseph. Antiqu., XIV. 9, 4). A session of the Sanhedrin is called.

What shall we do [or, What are we to do, ]?The indicative, i.e., something must be done.For this man.Implacable hatred. They no longer protest against the many signs of Jesus; but nevertheless they contemptuously

say: this man. Doubtless the expressionmany miracles, is also intended to obliterate the simple recognition of the grand raising of the dead. At the same time an expression of fear that He would perform yet other miracles.

Joh 11:48. If we let Him thus alone.The policy of fear and anti-christianity. It is a wicked and empty fear that all will believe on Him; a wicked and empty fear that thence troubles will arise that will cause the Romans to invade the country; a wicked and empty fear that they will then make an end of the Jewish commonwealth. There is, moreover, in each one of these considerations a co-operative element of falsehood; hence it is likewise a trebly hypocritical fear And a fear, in sooth, which thinks itself justified by its motives, in carrying on hostile proceedings against a prophet of God, a doer of many miracles. In fine, a fear that occasions the very mischief it considers itself bound mischievously to avert. Weisse and Strauss have regarded this hierarchical portrait as an improbable one. Analogies at once suggest themselves; for instance, Ultramontanism confounds the Reformation with Anabaptism, Socialism, Communism, Antichristianity,and is itself the parent of those very things which it seeks to foist upon the other.

They will take away both our place and nation []. according to Euthymius and many others, , according to Nonnus and others: they will wrest from us; this certainly is more in accordance with their egotistical sentiment which considers everything lost when the hierarchical rule is gone. Tholuck is in favor of: annihilate,because Judea was already a Roman province. But the hierarchy still exercised rule. Our, . Meyer: placed first, with the emphasis of egotism. variously construed: 1. As the temple, as the central sanctuary (Origen, Lcke [De Wette, Hengstenberg] and others, after Act 6:13; 2Ma 5:19); 2. as the country, Land und Leute [Luther] country and people(Bengel, Luthardt, and others);72 3. as the holy city [the seat of the Sanhedrin and the whole hierarchy], in favor of which, 2Ma 3:18; 2Ma 3:30. Chrysostom, Meyer.73 Be it observed that the temple with the holy mountain and the holy city form a concrete unit, as the residence of the theocratical hierarchy. However, the expression is also an unconscious prophecy, like the subsequent remark of Caiaphas.

Joh 11:49. And a certain one of them, Caiaphas. . See Comm. on Matt. Mat 26:3. Also Luk 3:2. It must be observed that the Sadducees, to whom Caiaphas belonged, have already begun to take part in the hostility against Jesus; having probably long despised Him, their active enmity is doubtless excited by the raising of Lazarus. They now, in the person of Caiaphas, take the foremost rank in the persecution; subsequently we see them for a time take the lead even of the Pharisees in hostility towards the Christian Church (Act 4:1-2).

Being high-priest that year [ ]. Different interpretations:

1. Bretschneider, Strauss [Schenkel, Scholten]: It is the erroneous idea that the high-priestly office changed hands from year to year. [But whoever was the writer of this Gospel, he shows sufficient familiarity with Jewish customs and localities throughout, to manifest that he was incapable of making such a mistake.P. S.]
2. Baur: The Pseudo-John supposed Caiaphas and Hannas to have discharged the office alternately [very arbitrary].
3. Tholuck: The repetition of . . Joh 11:49; Joh 11:51; Joh 18:13 cannot be understood otherwise than thus: namely, that the high-priest who once in the year offered the joint sacrifice for the people (Heb 9:7), must himself declare that in that year a greater and more universal joint sacrifice should be offered. Yet John himself refers the saying not to the high priestly, but to the prophetic position of the high-priest.

4. Lcke: In that memorable year, the deathyear of the Redeemer, Caiaphas was at the head of affairs (and the Evangelist deemed it superfluous to add to the mention of this fact a reference to the duration of the office).74 This suffices; yet the expression undoubtedly contains also an intimation to the effect, that the high-priestly-office was debased at that time by the frequent alternations it sustained. See Leben Jesu.

Ye know nothing at all. . As he is aware that he is giving utterance to the inmost wishes of the greater part of them, he can, with an appearance of righteous indignation, revile them, without apprehending the taking of much offence.

Joh 11:50. Nor consider that it is expedient [] for usus of the Sanhedrin75that one man should die for the people [according to divine purpose , and not the whole nation perish, . Thus the Jewish priesthood expired with an unconscious and unwilling prophecy of Christs atoning death, which it typically foreshadowed. Stier and Luthardt see in this a sublime irony of a most special Providence in the very centre of the worlds history.P. S.] The , in commodum, for the benefit, becomes also an , instead of, in consequence of the concluding clause: and that not the whole nation (, the whole mass of the people) perish.76 Analogous sentences are collected by Schttgen and Wetstein. The devilishness of this pseudo-political maxim as conceived by Caiaphas, is contained in the idea that Jesus shall be a guiltless and involuntary sacrifice to secure the good of the nation. This diabolical notion causes the proposition to assume, in this sense, an ultra-heathenish, superstitious and lying aspect. It is the completed idea of the most revolting heathen Moloch-sacrifices, into which Israel lapses when at the very acme of its legalistic zeal for putatively pure Judaism. See Leben Jesu, II., p. 1138.

Joh 11:51. But being high-priest that year, he prophesiedi.e., unconsciously to himself, the wicked decree, as he apprehended it, had the significancy of an official prediction, and, as such, a higher sense. Various interpretations:

1. In the sense of (De Wette). There is undoubtedly something of a kindred nature in the Bath Kol; yet that is here insufficient, and it belongs to another sphere. See Herzogs Real-Encyklopdie [I. 719].77

2. An involuntary prophecy, like that of old, contained in the involuntary blessing of Balaam (Lcke, Tholuck).78 The cases are certainly allied; they differ, however, in that in the ease of Balaam, a distinction must be made between his common consciousness and his inspired mood (wherefore his words of blessing are not susceptible of a double interpretation, as is his character), while in Caiaphas we have to distinguish between his consciousness and the unconscious expression, mirroring a higher truth, and hence bearing a double meaning.

3. A sentence in accordance with the appointment of the high-priest, to prophesy by the Urim and Thummim, i.e., to utter the decision assignable to divine causality. Leben Jesu 2, 2, p. 1137. [So also Alford. This view is confirmed by the repetition of the phrase . . But this reference to the Urim and Thummim does not exclude the second view.P. S.] The high-priest, says Meyer, was considered in ancient Israelitish times as the bearer of the divine oracle, the organ of divine revelation (Ewald, Antiquities, p. 385 sq.), which he obtained by examination of the Urim and Thummim (Exo 28:30; Lev 27:21). It is true that this examination was discontinued in later times (Joseph. Ant. III., 8, 9)the high-priestly office being in all things shorn of its glory; yet even in the prophetic age there still existed a belief in the prophethood of the high-priest (Hos 3:4); we find also in Josephus Antiq. VI., 6, 3, the ancient high-priesthood represented as the bearer of the oracle, etc., [p. 444 f., 5th ed.] The high-priest was not the organ of divine revelation, but of divine decision; for the people whose king was God, must be able in all cases to have the mandate of its King. Now the decision was, if auspicious (as Philo,79 idealizing the priest, represents him as a prophet), a prophecy of blessing; but if the high-priest was an unenlightened man, his oracle became the utterance of a curse. The decision might also, in itself, be the fountain sometimes of fortune, sometimes of misfortune. But even in the latter case there was attached to it the blessing of a divine judgment, that brought deliverance to the pious (rabbinical passages of unconscious predictions in Schttgen).

That Jesus was about to die []. . The subsequent observation is not merely a pious reflection of John, as Lcke represents it; it is declaratory of the decisive providence of God, which caused the wicked decree to be so worded that it must express at the same time, unconsciously to the speaker, a divine sense, containing the real doctrine of salvation,the doctrine of the redemption of man by the death of Jesus. To die for the nation.The (Joh 11:50), with its hierarchico-national sound, is here changed, in accordance with the last words of Caiaphas, into .

Joh 11:52. And not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one [people] the children of God that are scattered abroad.Christian universalism, conditional, however, upon divine ordinance, as defined in the Bible, and upon human faith.[Joh 11:52 is an addition of the Evangelist to the unconscious prophecy of Caiaphas to prevent a limitation of the benefits of Christs death; comp. 1Jn 2:2 : He is the propitiation for our sins; not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.] The children of God. Interpretations:

1. The future children of God. [Among the heathen. Prophetic and proleptic, like 10:16]. (Euthymius [ ], Meyer [Alford, Trench: Those who should hereafter become His children. So also Calvin, in a predestinarian sense (to which Meyer assents): Filios ergo Dei, etiam antequam vocentur, ab electione stimat.P. S.]

2. Children of God, who are longing for Christ (Messner [Tholuck, Luthardt, Godet]).
3. Children of God by nature, who are such without first becoming so through Christ (Hilgenfeld [contrary to 1:12; 3:3, 6, etc.])

4. The children of God generally, among the Jews,they being in reality scattered by the hierarchy, jealous for the ,as among the heathen, whose religious men have been scattered abroad since the building of the tower of Babel. The antithesis is: dying for the nation as a unit; dying in order to the gathering of the people of God from all places whither they have been scattered. The fundamental idea is the bringing together (this expression does not refer to place) of all the children of God into one, i.e., into one nation, in antithesis to the of Caiaphas. Comp. Eph 2:14. In that passage the fundamental idea is the union of believing Jews and Gentiles, as Joh 10:16; here the fundamental thought is the union of the scattered sheep. Caiaphas said: the nation is perishingtherefore He must die; John says: He, doubtless, has by His death created the true, real . Christ is the union of this people.

Joh 11:53. From that day forth they held assemblies of their council, having in view His death: meetings for the murder of Christ. Before this time inferior courts, as well as the Sanhedrin itself, have occasionally sought to bring about His death (chh. 5 and 8); before now, individual Pharisees have sought to thrust Him aside by means of their standing tribunal of zealotism (chh. 9 and 10); before this, too, His adherents have been threatened with excommunication,have been actually excommunicated (John 9) Now the question how He shall be put to death, becomes a settled and ever recurring subject of debate in the Sanhedrin. It is clear that Jesus has long been considered by them as under the ban; apparently, fear of the people has deterred them from inflicting public and formal excommunication upon Him, although this is involved in the mandate issued subsequently to this session.

Joh 11:54. To a city called Ephraim.Jesus can no longer appear openly among the people without exposing Himself to the danger of being seized and prematurely sacrificed. It only remains to Him to reflect upon the true way of sacrifice. For this purpose He retires to the city of Ephraim, a small place, whence He can easily withdraw into the wilderness for security and contemplation.Into the country.The country in antithesis to Jerusalem.Into a region near the wilderness. generally denotes the wilderness of Judea. In reality, however, it is a uniform desert tract between Jerusalem or the hill-country of Judea and the valley of the Jordan; its centre is formed by the wilderness of Judea between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea, to the right of the brook of Kidron; this wilderness is continued southwards in the deserts of Engeddi, Siph and Maon, and northwards in those of Tekoa, Jericho (with Mt. Quarantania) and Ephraim, which last appears as the northern extension of the whole desert region of Judea. Thus it was, in effect, one wilderness in which Christ dwelt at the beginning and the close of the years of His ministry. Ephraim was probably situated not far from Bethel, since it is several times associated with Bethel in historical events and records. With regard to the site of Bethel, it is Robinsons belief that he recognized it in the ruins of Beitn (Biblical Researches, II., p. 127 [Am. ed., vol. I., p. 449]). Bethel, he remarks, was a border city between Benjamin and Ephraim; at first assigned to Benjamin, but conquered and afterwards retained by Ephraim. According to Eusebius and Jerome, it lay twelve Roman miles from Jerusalem, on the right or east of the road leading to Sichem or Neapolis (Nbulus). From Beitn to el-Breh we found the distance to be forty-five minutes, and from Breh to Jerusalem three hours, with horses. In an easterly direction, not far from Bethel, Robinson passed the night at the village of Taiyibeh. Here the proximity of the wilderness was plainly discernible. In particular, there is here a rocky valley, overgrown with furzy plants and sage, interspersed with the fragrant Zaeter. For a description of the desert itself see Robinson. The village of Taiyibeh is considered by some to be identical with the ancient Ephraim [the same with Ophrah (Jos 18:23; 1Sa 13:17) and Ephron (2Ch 13:17) of the Old Testament. So besides Robinson, Van de Velde and Stanley. The latter says (Sinai and Palestine, p. 210): Further still, the dark conical hill of Taiyibeh, with its village perched aloft, like those of the Apennines, the probable representative of Ophrah of Benjamin, in later times the city called Ephraim, to which our Lord retired, near to the wilderness, after the raising of Lazarus.P. S.]

Since Jesus was now resolved to repair to Jerusalem with the next Galilean and Peran paschal caravan, i.e. since but one step remained for Him to surrender Himself publicly to the Messianic hope entertained by the pious among the people and now purified by Him,possessing a distinct foresight, however, of the death resulting upon this step, accompanied by the succumbing of the party of believers to the hierarchical party(see Leben Jesu II., p. 1140)Ephraim was the place exactly fitted for a temporary sojourn. Hence He could at need withdraw into the desert; here He could collect His disciples and prepare them for the last journey (see Comm, on Matthew, p. 360, Am. Ed.); here He could join either the caravan coming across Samaria to Bethel or the one passing through Jericho on its way from Pera (see Tholuck, p. 316). Comp. Jos 15:61; Jos 16:1; Jos 18:22; 2 Kings 2. It was in the vicinity of Jericho, according to the Synoptists, that Jesus attached Himself to the festive train from Pera, having, it is probable, previously received His friends from the Galilean company that passed through Samaria.

Joh 11:55. And the passover of the Jews was at hand. The nearness of this feast occasioned many to go out of the Jewish country ( not simply that region, as Bengel supposes, but the country in contrast to Jerusalem) beforehand up to Jerusalem, because they had to purify themselves (Lightfoot) before the feast, by means of the prescribed sacrifices and ablutions (Num 9:6; 2Ch 30:17 ff.).

Joh 11:56. They sought therefore for Jesus. We gather from this, in the first place, how eagerly all the people were expecting the appearance of Jesus at the feast. They had hoped to find Him already in Jerusalem. Hence, then, it likewise follows that no special reference is had to people from the country about Ephraim. We therefore translate the : that He will not come (with Meyer), but not: that He has not come (Vulgate and others). Some appear to take it for granted from the condition of things that He will not come, while others question this decision. Manifestly, it is like a sort of betting whether He will come or not. The occasion of this conduct was the mandate of the high-priest, which had been spread abroad throughout the land by means of special orders of the Sanhedrin (see the Textual note) and in accordance with which every one who knew of the abode of Jesus, was bound to give information of it. This mandatea kind of interdictof course presupposes excommunication. There seems to have been at that time not a single traitor among the peasants and dwellers in the deserts of Ephraim. Subsequently, however, this decree formed a point for Judas to fasten on. He probably silenced his conscience at first with the cry, that he must be an obedient son of the hierarchical Church, or a loyal subject of the spiritual authorities. The decree may be regarded as the result of the session Joh 11:47 (comp. Joh 11:53, Meyer). The anteposition of , with reference to the decree, is emphatic. We must observe that this edict was at all events designed as an interdict,a fact of special importance to the friends of Jesus; no one should receive Him into his house without giving information of Him, i.e. without hostility to Him. In all probability the command was issued with a particular view to the family of Lazarus. See Joh 12:10.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. It has been early demonstrated by John in the history of Nicodemus, that a sincere lawzealot, Jew and Pharisee may believe and be saved. Here he gives prominence to the fact that many Jews believed after witnessing the raising of Lazarus. And this was the second great spiritual miracle connected with the external mighty miracle of the raising of Lazarus: with one impulse many Jews believed on Him. Some, indeed, of those who at first were overpowered by the grand fact, may probably have apostatized. At all events, there was a remnant of unbelievers. To these the savor of life unto life did here become literally a savor of death unto death.
2. The Jews who go from Bethany, from the grave of Lazarus, to the Pharisees, to show them what Jesus has done, are thus become precursors of Judas; in a general sense, types of apostates. They all comefrom Bethany; they all goto the Pharisees; they all, with hostile intent, report what Jesus has done.

3. The council of blood. The policy of fear. It occasions what it means to avert. The policy of timidity became a policy of intimidation, terrorism. Probably the rough words of Caiaphas to his colleagues were further serviceable in terroristically beating down any attempt on the part of the friends of Jesus, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, to dwell upon His many miracles (comp. Gerlach on this passage). It is not likely that these men had any share in the subsequent determined deliberations of the Council of Blood. Once they expressed their positive disapprobation (see Luk 23:51), probably on this very occasion. To this the minute account of this session is no doubt attributable.

4. On the road of ultra-Judaism the Jews have relapsed into the worst heathenism. Pursuant to the counsel of Caiaphas, they relapsed, as regards their intentions into the Moloch-sacrifice. After the destruction of Jerusalem, at the conquest of Massada, into the suicidal despair of the Hindus (Josephus, De bello jud., VII. chh. VIII. IX.); with their Talmud into a mythology which, in comparison with that of Greece and Home, is utterly odious. Thus, too, Christian Judaism [Romanism] usually relapses into the most abominable heathenism.

5. Even Caiaphas, then, has with tolerable plainness set forth the maxim: the end justifies the means.
6. The extinction of the Old Testament office of high-priestly prophecy in the sentence of Caiaphas. Caiaphas must unconsciously sketch the principal features of Christian dogmatics and soteriology. The fearful double meaning of his speech with regard to his intention and the meaning of the Spirit. What it proves: 1. Pro 16:1 :80 Man is master of his intention; that is his own; not so, however, the full import of his words. In the domain of speech the cooperating and counteracting rule of divine providence begins. 2. The symbolical ministry becomes, even in its ungodly tendency, an unconscious prophecy of the real ministry of the Spirit; the false, official high-priest a prophet of the true High Priest and His sacrifice. In what relation do these types stand to the former typism? They are types moulded by the irony of divine dispensation from the elements of human perversity. The school of truth is perfected in the mouth of these wicked priests, while the school of falsehood is perfected in their heart. Hence they are able to blaspheme with words of prayer, to prophesy with words of demoniacal policy. Caiaphas prophesied. Roman Catholics apply this to popes; popes, though wicked, might still be the organs of truth, as Stolberg remarks in his History of the Religion of Jesus. Our church teaches onlythat the Word of God and the Sacraments retain their own virtue even when administered by unregenerate preachers. Heubner. But here also a relative soundness of the Church as a body must be assumable.

7. The Urim and Thummim are likewise expressive of the truth that decision and resolution are needful in all cases, while, on the other hand, endless vacillation is the greatest evil. Therefore God hardens Pharaohs heart with the view of expediting matters, and Judas also receives the command, What thou doest, do quickly. The temporal hardening of the people of Israel, however, was designed to prevent their eternal obduracy, Romans 9-11.
8. The work of Christ, regarded by His enemies as a scattering and destroying of the ancient people of God, resulted in the creation of a new and real people of God, gathered from abroad.
9. Christ in the wilderness at the beginning and the end of His career. In the beginning He resolved not to appear publicly under the title of the Messiah, to avoid the Messianic conception of His nation. Now the time had come for Him to issue from the desert for the purpose of surrendering Himself to the Messianic faith of His people, in the state of purification to which He had brought it.
10. Christ the subject of interest and conversation with all the people, while they are occupied with services of ordinances and legal works of purification. How is this? An ultra-montane mind cannot rid itself of the thought of the Evangelical Confession; moreover, the friends of Jesus are present in the camp of legality.
11. The mandate of the Supreme Council: the interdict. Men should show where Christ was. Soon He showed Himself and afterwards all Christian church-steeples pointed upwards to Him. And thus Luther is no longer hidden in the Wartburg, but is everywhere proclaiming himself to the hierarchy.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The decisive effect of the raising of Lazarus.Bethany and its quiet family the starting point of the decision: 1. The starting point of the positive separation between the friends and the enemies of Jesus; 2. of the palm-entry; 3. of Judas, as 4. of the faithful anointing of the dying Christ.Sincere consciences are liberated from dead ordinances by facts of life.The some also believed that Jesus had raised Lazarus; they believed it and trembled with fear and rage. Comp. Jam 2:19.Even the new life of Lazarus to some a savor of death unto death.And thus every important awakening is a soul-danger (of offence) for those whose attitude towards the truth is a false one.Treachery a main-spring of unbelief.The conference of the Supreme Council about the raising of Lazarus: 1. The wicked lack of counsel of some; 2. the hellish counsel of the high-priest; 3. the silenced voice of the pious counselors (Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea); 4. the heavenly counsel of divine Providence.How selfish fear ever brings on by its superstitious proceedings the very trouble it would avert by arbitrary acts (the parents of (dipus).He who thinks to escape some fate by wicked ways of his own choosing, incurs the doom he flees.The Supreme Council also prophesied in its own fashion,like the high-priest; the former conversely, Caiaphas unconsciously.The recognition of the works of Christ uttered by the Supreme Council: He doeth many signs.The saying of Caiaphas in its twofold sense.The irony of divine Providence as exercised over human perversity, Psa 2:4.The ministry of the letter a type of the ministry of the spirit; thus, too, unconsciously, officialthings and words are manifoldly typical.Christ, by His death, the Rescuer of the ancient people, the Creator of a new people.They would kill Him because He made alive.This the main reproach that the slaying ordinance has to make against vitalizing faith.How the Supreme Council has become a standing court of inquisition against Christ.Jesus, outlawed and banished, in the wilderness.The Jews who have repaired to Jerusalem, do not converse about their Jewish rites and ceremonies, but about Christ.The conjectures (bets), as to whether He will dare come or not.The champion of God; and Israel with Philistinish thoughts concerning Him.The Jewish edict and interdict, Joh 11:57.How all the world fulfils this commandment: 1. How enemies show where Christ Isaiah 2. friends.How Christ gives information concerning Himself. See Mat 26:64.How far the edict was ineffectual or rather accomplished the reverse of its design.

Starke, Hedinger: How wise worldly-minded people and knavish men think themselves, when they imagine that they are able to quench the word and kingdom of Christ by their false, famous strokes of state!Cramer: It is possible even for councils and assemblies of the learned to err.It is never well to make church matters affairs of state.Zeisius: The Jews thought that if they did but put Christ out of the way, their repose and prosperity would be lastingly secured, and it was thus that they lost both their temporal and spiritual good things.Bibl. Wirt.: God often punishes the wicked with calamities which they thought they had averted.Canstein: It is almost a daily occurrence for men to plunge into disaster while essaying to ward off some imaginary evil.Ibid.: It is the way of worldly-minded politicians to measure all things by the standard of profit and gain, not by that of truth, righteousness and justice; and this, while in most cases the prosperity of the country is declared to be the grand reason for such a course, though in reality they are actuated by nothing but selfishness.Osiander: The false church is cruel and blood-thirsty.O happy country, that receives the Son of God in His persecution!

Gerlach: That He should die instead of the whole nation, a cleanse-offering, as it were, to avert the ruin that else would threaten the entire nation.It seems that superstition was mingled with the unbelief of the Sadducee, or that he feigned it while in company with the Pharisees. (Not the Sadducees, however, but the Essenes, were at variance with the old system of sacrifices).Not merely for the Jews whom Caiaphas meant, but also that He should gather Gods elect into His flock from among the heathen, whilst this wicked high-priest believed that the dispersion of His followers would be the natural accompaniment of His death. (Quite right. This, however, is the first antithesis present to the mind of the evangelist: In the sense of Caiaphas the meaning is: if Christ die, the Jewish nation lives, in the ordinary sense,while the higher sense of the ambiguous expression was; if Christ die, the nation lives as a redeemed people, and thus a great nation is formed from the scattered children of God).Lisco: The decision of Caiaphas, that the end justifies the means, that necessity is here an excuse for injustice.They feel that one must fall: the kingdom of purity and truth, or the kingdom of falsehood and hypocrisy; and this last, in their avaricious lust of dominion, they desire to save.

Gossner: They are forced to say it themselves: this man doeth many miracles. This is true, to be sure,butof what consequence is a single man? (thinks Caiaphas) it is the many, to whom regard is due. The world cares nothing for the small ones of the earth; it thinks: what if they be unjustly dealt with, so long as the others are satisfied?

Joh 11:55. To His last hour He was a faithful church-goer and observer of religion. If He for once missed a feast-day, the people immediately inquired: where is He?

Joh 11:57. They wished to prepare themselves a festive joy, and to do God a service by slaying His Son at the Passover.He should show it. An obedient son of the devil was Judas, who conscientiously obeyed this command of hell and delivered Jesus into their hands. The church hath commanded it. Thus Judas might (fain would) think.

Heubner: The assembly should have met for the recognition of Jesus. It was the duty of the Supreme Council to be the first to accept Jesus and to call upon the nation to accept Him. But from this very college proceeded the rejection of Jesus. The power of self-interest, and avarice, make men blind to the strongest proofs of divine power,deaf to the voice of God.

Joh 11:49-50. How are the weal of the masses and the right of the individual to be united? Impure state-craft never discovers the right means for accomplishing such a result.The same words have an entirely different sense in the mouth of the wicked and the meaning of the Holy Ghost.

Joh 11:54. This concealment of Jesus also belonged to His state of humiliation. The Light that lightened all men must withdraw itself.Often it was a hidden country, valley, that received Christs faithful ones until the wrath of the enemy was overpast.

Schleiermacher: Evil should be overcome only by good. But to do evil that good may come is the grossest perversity and the worst depravity into which man can fall.Involuntarily he prophesied, and in uttering the counsel of human depravity, he declared at the same time the counsel of eternal wisdom and love,the counsel of Him who gave His Son for us while we were yet sinners.

Besser, Joh 11:43 : They went their way to the Pharisees who were a net spread, Hos 5:1.Once, on the threshold of the Promised land, Israel was blessed through the prediction of a prophet who would fain have cursed; him the strength of the Lord overpowered, putting words into his mouth which confirmed the promise made to the Patriarchs and renewed through Moses, Num 23:24. Thus Caiaphas, willing to curse, must now, a second Balaam, on the threshold of the New Covenant, pronounce a blessing upon the true Israel, confirming the prediction of the law and the prophets concerning the expiatory death of the Lamb (see, however, the note to Joh 11:51).Caiaphas and Pilate condemned Jesus, but both must testify of Him in words exceeding the sense which they consciously attached to them; here Caiaphas witnesses to the high-priestly death of Christ,there Pilate testifies to His kingdom, in the superscription of the cross (Bengel).John reads the names of many scattered ones already written in Gods heart as children; he gazes with opened eyes into the holy mission movement of the whole reconciled world, which movement shall not end until all that the Father hath given the Son are brought together.

[Craven: From Origen: Joh 11:47. This speech an evidence of their audacity and blindness.

Joh 11:51. Not every one who prophesies is a prophet, as not every one who does a just action is just.

Joh 11:54. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews: It is praiseworthy when struggles are at hand (pressed upon us) not to avoid confession or refuse to suffer; and it is no less praiseworthy to avoid giving occasion for such trial. If we do not avoid our persecutor, when we have the opportunity (without sin), we make ourselves responsible for his offence.From Gregory: Joh 11:50-53. That which human cruelty executed against Him, He turned to the purposes of His mercy.From Augustine: Joh 11:47-48. They were afraid of losing temporal things and thought not of eternal life, and thus they lost both.

Joh 11:54. He would show by example that believers do not sin by retiring from the sight of persecutors.From Chrysostom: Joh 11:51. The power of the Holy Ghost in drawing forth a prophecy from a wicked man.The virtue of a (divinely appointed) office.

Joh 11:56. His enemies made the feast time, the time of His death.From Alcuin: Joh 11:56. Men may seek Jesus with bad intent.From Theophylact: Joh 11:55-57. While engaged in purifications they were plotting our Lords death.From Burkitt: Joh 11:45-46. The different effects produced by this miracle.

Joh 11:48. Opposers of Christ color their enmity with specious pretences.

Joh 11:50. A most wicked speech: as a judge he regarded not what was lawful but as a politician consented to what was (apparently) expedient.It is unlawful to (strive to) promote the greatest national good by unlawful means.

Joh 11:51. It is consistent with the holiness of God to make use of the worst of men in declaring his will.

Joh 11:53. The baneful effects of evil counsel, especially from leading men.From M. Henry: Joh 11:47. The witness of the Sanhedrin for Christ.

Joh 11:48. The success of the gospel the dread of its adversaries. When men lose piety they lose courage. Pretended fears are often the color of malicious designs.

Joh 11:49-50. Carnal policy commonly sets up reasons of state in opposition to rules of justice.That calamity which we seek to escape by sin, we take the most effectual course to bring upon us.That the welfare of communities is to be preferred before that of individuals, is a true or false maxim as it may be employed; it is expedient and honorable for an individual to hazard his life for his country, but it is devilish for rulers to put an innocent man to death under color of consulting the public safety.

Joh 11:51. Caiaphas prophesied1. God often employs wicked men as His instruments; 2. prophecy in the mouth is no infallible evidence of grace in the heart.

Joh 11:51-52. The enlargement of the Evangelist on the prophecy, teaching1. for whom Christ died, (1) the Jews, (2) the children of God scattered abroad, (a) then living, (b) throughout all time; 2. the purpose of His death concerning these, to gather them together in one.Christs dying is1. the great attractive of our hearts; 2. the great centre of our unity, (1) by the merit of His death recommending all in one to the favor of God, (2) by the motive of His death drawing each to the love of every other.

Joh 11:53. Evil men confirm themselves and one another in ill practices by conference.

Joh 11:57. It is an aggravation of the sins of rulers when they make their subjects the instruments of their unrighteousness.From Scott: Joh 11:47-57. No devices of man can derange the purposes of God; whilst hypocrites and worldlings pursue their own projects, Christ still communes with His disciples (Joh 11:54) and orders all things for His own glory and their salvation.From Barnes: Joh 11:50-51. God may1. fulfill the words of the wicked in a way they do not intend; 2. make their wicked plots the means of accomplishing His purposes.From A Plain Commentary (Oxford): Joh 11:51. The unworthiness of the individual does not affect the sanctity of his office.From Ryle: Joh 11:46. Seeing miracles will not necessarily convert souls, Luk 16:31.

Joh 11:47-57. The power of unbelief; ecclesiastical rulers are often the foremost enemies of the gospel. Joh 11:50. What is morally wrong can never be politically right.

Joh 11:53. The conclusions of great ecclesiastical councils are sometimes wicked.

Joh 11:54. Christ retires Himself for a season before His last great work; it is well to get alone and be still, before we undertake any great work for God.

Joh 11:55. What importance bad men sometimes attach to outward ceremonial. The religion which expends itself in zeal for outward formalities is worthless.From Owen: Joh 11:52. Gathered in one, i.e., into one spiritual nation or people.

[Joh 11:47-50. The blinding power of hate.

Joh 11:54. Christ never acted recklessly nor in bravado, nor in the spirit of one seeking martyrdom; He did Himself from danger when duty did not require exposure.]

Footnotes:

[65]Joh 11:45.[ is the true reading, supported by Origen, and adopted by Alford, Tischendorf, etc., instead of of Cod. D.P. S.]

[66]Joh 11:47.[ means the Sanhedrin, the great council of the Jews. See Exeg.P. S.]

[67]Joh 11:50.[Tischendorf (ed. 1869), Alford, Westcott and Hort read in accordance with B. D. L., etc., instead of . Lange follows here the text. rec.P. S.]

[68]Joh 11:53.[Tischendorf supplies by in accordance with Sin. B. D.P. S.]

[69]Joh 11:57. is omitted by Lachmann and Tischendorf in accordance with many Codd. Yet it is recommended by Cod. D. and others, and was perhaps omitted because men failed to recognize the great intensification of the persecution of Jesus expressed in this mandate. Since the decree in question must be disseminated throughout the land, we also consider the reading , in accordance with B. M., etc., to be correct. [The first after , which in the E. V. is rendered both, must be rejected on the authority of . A. B. K. L. M. U. X., Alford, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort.P. S.]

[70]Joh 11:57.[The singular of the text. rec. as a correction (because but one is mentioned) must be set aside for the plural , orders, on the authority of Cod. Sin. and B., etc.P. S.]

[71][Sanhedrin is more accurate than Sanhedrim, though this is more frequently used (even by Alford). The rabbinical attempts to trace it to a Hebrew root are futile (see Buxtorf, sub verb.); it is formed from the Greek (, ), a sitting together, an assembly, a council. Winers article is more scholarly than the article Sanhedrim in Smiths Dictionary of the Bible. Lange has conveniently brought together all the necessary information on the subject.P. S.]

[72][Alford: Our local habitation and national existence.P. S.]

[73][So also Grotius, Ewald, Bumlein, Godet.P. S.]

[74][So also Meyer and Alford. Comp. 18:13, where the expression is repeated.P. S.]

[75][Lange follows Lachmann in reading . But the true reading is , for you, see Text. Notes.P. S.]

[76][There is here a slight mistake, as will he seen by referring to the Greek text. Caiaphas uses in the first, and in the last clause. Meyer distinguishes between , the people as a nation, and , the people as a political or theocratic society. Or, to speak more accurately, usually signifies the chosen people (Mat 1:21; Mat 2:4; Mat 2:6, etc.), , a nation among the nations (comp. below Joh 11:52 ); Mat 24:7, nation against nation; 25:32, all nations, etc.). Yet is also used for a great crowd or multitude, like , Joh 8:2; Luk 23:27, a great company of people, etc.P. S.]

[77][The Talmudic term, Bath Kol, lit., the daughter of the voice, means the echo of a heavenly voice of revelation, or a divine oracle which the Rabbins imagined to receive, or which they were accustomed to derive from accidental circumstances and lots. It arose after the extinction of the prophecy and is a bastard substitute for it. John would not use of this the verb .P. S.]

[78][So also Trench and Wordsworth. Similar instances of involuntary prophets or witnesses to the truth we have in Pharaoh, Saul, Nebuchadnezzar, Pilate.god uses bad men as well as good ones for His own ends; He can speak wisdom even through the mouth of an ass, and confound the philosophers. Trench says: There is no difficulty in such unconscious prophecies as this evidently is. How many prophecies of the like kind,most of them, it is true, rather in act than in word, meet us in the whole history of the crucifixion! What was the title over our blessed Lord, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews, but another such scornful and contemptuous, yet most veritable prophecy? Or what again the robe and the homage, the sceptre and the crown? And in the typical rehearsals of the great and final catastrophe in the drama of Gods providence, how many Nimrods and Pharaohs, antichrists that do not quite come to the birth, have prophetic parts allotted to them, which they play out, unknowing what they do; for such is the divine irony; so, in a very deep sense of the words,

Ludit in humanis divina potentia rebus,P. S.]

[79][De creat. princ. II., p. 367.]

[80][Luthers translation reads differently from our English version, viz: Man indeed proposeth in his heart, but from the Lord cometh what the tongue shall speak.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. (46) But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.

Reader! be not in the least astonished at the different effects the sight of Lazarus coming forth from the grave wrought on the lookers-on. It must have been so then. It is so now. It will be at the great day of the universal resurrection of all men. The many which are here said to have believed, are like those in all ages of the Church which belong to Christ, concerning whom the Lord said, My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. Joh 10:27 . The some which went their way to the Pharisees, to seek accusation against Jesus, are the representatives of all those in every age of the Church, which belong not to Jesus, but of whom he saith, Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you! Joh 10:26 . And what will it be at the last day but the same? When the Infidel of every description and character shall see with open eye, and be then awfully convinced; it will be a conviction not to believe and be saved, but the forced conviction of believing and be lost. For so the Lord speaks, Joh 17:21-23 ; Rev 1:7 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

Ver. 45. Believed on him ] And so God had his honour and Christ his end in this, according to Joh 11:4 .

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

45 57. ] THE DEATH OF JESUS THE LIFE OF THE WORLD. Consequences of the miracle. Meeting of the Sanhedrim and final determination, on the prophetic intimation of the High Priest, to put Jesus to death. He retires to Ephraim .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 11:45-54 . The consequences of the miracle .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Joh 11:45 . . “Many therefore of the Jews, viz. , those who had come to Mary and seen what Jesus did, believed on Him.” That is to say, all the Jews who thus came and saw believed.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

John

THE OPEN GRAVE AT BETHANY

Joh 11:30 – Joh 11:45 .

Why did Jesus stay outside Bethany and summon Martha and Mary to come to Him? Apparently that He might keep Himself apart from the noisy crowd of conventional mourners whose presence affronted the majesty and sanctity of sorrow, and that He might speak to the hearts of the two real mourners. A divine decorum forbade Him to go to the house. The Life-bringer keeps apart. His comforts are spoken in solitude. He reverenced grief. How beautifully His sympathetic delicacy contrasts with the heartless rush of those who ‘were comforting’ Mary when they thought that she was driven to go suddenly to the grave by a fresh burst of sorrow! If they had had any real sympathy or perception, they would have stayed where they were, and let the poor burdened heart find ease in lonely weeping. But, like all vulgar souls, they had one idea-never to leave mourners alone or let them weep.

Three stages seem discernible in the self-revelation of Jesus in this crowning miracle: His agitation and tears, His majestic confidence in His life-giving power now to be manifested, and His actual exercise of that power.

I. The repetition by Mary of Martha’s words, as her first salutation, tells a pathetic story of the one thought that had filled both sisters’ hearts in these four dreary days.

Why had He not come? How easily He could have come! How surely He could have prevented all this misery! Confidence in His power blends strangely with doubt as to His care. A hint of reproach is in the words, but more than a hint of faith in His might. He does not rebuke the rash judgment implied, for He knew the true love underlying it; but He does not directly answer Mary, as He had done Martha, for the two sisters needed different treatment.

We note that Mary has no such hope as Martha had expressed. Her more passive, meditative disposition had bowed itself, and let the grief overwhelm her. So in her we see a specimen of the excess of sorrow which indulges in the monotonous repetition of what would have happened if something else that did not happen had happened, and which is too deeply dark to let a gleam of hope shine in. Words will do little to comfort such grief. Silent sharing of its weeping and helpful deeds will do most.

So a great wave of emotion swept across the usually calm soul of Jesus, which John bids us trace to its cause by ‘therefore’ Joh 11:33. The sight of Mary’s real, and the mourners’ half-real, tears, and the sound of their loud ‘keening,’ shook His spirit, and He yielded to, and even encouraged, the rush of feeling ‘troubled Himself’ . But not only sympathy and sorrow ruffled the clear mirror of His spirit; another disturbing element was present. He ‘was moved with indignation’ Rev. Ver. marg.. Anger at Providence often mingles with our grief, but that was not Christ’s indignation. The only worthy explanation of that strange ingredient in Christ’s agitation is that it was directed against the source of death,-namely, sin. He saw the cause manifested in the effects. He wept for the one, He was wroth at the other. The tears witnessed to the perfect love of the man, and of the God revealed in the man; the indignation witnessed to the recoil and aversion from sin of the perfectly righteous Man, and of the holy God manifested in Him. We get one glimpse into His heart, as on to some ocean heaving and mist-covered. The momentary sight proclaims the union in Him, as the Incarnate Word, of pity for our woes and of aversion from our sins.

His question as to the place of the tomb is not what we should have expected; but its very abruptness indicates effort to suppress emotion, and resolve to lose no time in redressing the grief. Most sweetly human are the tears that start afresh after the moment’s repression, as the little company begin to move towards the grave. And most sadly human are the unsympathetic criticisms of His sacred sorrow. Even the best affected of the bystanders are cool enough to note them as tokens of His love, at which perhaps there is a trace of wonder; while others snarl out a sarcasm which is double-barrelled, as casting doubt on the reality either of the love or of the power. ‘It is easy to weep, but if He had cared for him, and could work miracles, He might surely have kept him alive.’ How blind men are! ‘Jesus wept,’ and all that the lookers-on felt was astonishment that He should have cared so much for a dead man of no importance, or carping doubt as to the genuineness of His grief and the reality of His power. He shows us His pity and sorrow still-to no more effect with many.

II. The passage to the tomb was marked by his continued agitation.

But his arrival there brought calm and majesty. Now the time has come which He had in view when He left his refuge beyond Jordan; and, as is often the case with ourselves, suddenly tremor and tumult leave the spirit when face to face with a moment of crisis. There is nothing more remarkable in this narrative than the contrast between Jesus weeping and indignant, and Jesus serene and authoritative as He stands fronting the cave-sepulchre. The sudden transformation must have awed the gazers.

He points to the stone, which, probably like that of many a grave discovered in Palestine, rolled in a groove cut in the rocky floor in front of the tomb. The command accords with His continual habit of confining the miraculous within the narrowest limits. He will do nothing by miracle which can be done without it. Lazarus could have heard and emerged, though the stone had remained. If the story had been a myth, he very likely would have done so. Like ‘loose him, and let him go,’ this is a little touch that cannot have been invented, and helps to confirm the simple, historical character of the account.

Not less natural, though certainly as unlikely to have been told unless it had happened, is Martha’s interruption. She must have heard what was going on, and, with her usual activity, have joined the procession, though we left her in the house. She thinks that Jesus is going into the grave; and a certain reverence for the poor remains, as well as for Him, makes her shrink from the thought of even His loving eyes seeing them now. Clearly she has forgotten the dim hopes which had begun in her when she talked with Jesus. Therefore He gently reminds her of these; for His words Joh 11:40 can scarcely refer to anything but that interview, though the precise form of expression now used is not found in the report of it Joh 11:25 – Joh 11:27.

We mark Christ’s calm confidence in His own power. His identification of its effect with the outflashing of the glory of God, and His encouragement to her to exercise faith by suspending her sight of that glory upon her faith. Does that mean that He would not raise her brother unless she believed? No; for He had determined to ‘awake him out of sleep’ before He left Peraea. But Martha’s faith was the condition of her seeing the glory of God in the miracle. We may see a thousand emanations of that glory, and see none of it. We shall see it if we exercise faith. In the natural world, ‘seeing is believing’; in the spiritual, believing is seeing.

Equally remarkable, as breathing serenest confidence, is the wonderful filial prayer. Our Lord speaks as if the miracle were already accomplished, so sure is He: ‘Thou heardest Me.’ Does this thanksgiving bring Him down to the level of other servants of God who have wrought miracles by divine power granted them? Certainly not; for it is in full accord with the teaching of all this Gospel, according to which ‘the Son can do nothing of Himself,’ but yet, whatsoever things the Father doeth, ‘these also doeth the Son likewise.’ Both sides of the truth must be kept in view. The Son is not independent of the Father, but the Son is so constantly and perfectly one with the Father that He is conscious of unbroken communion, of continual wielding of the whole divine power.

But the practical purpose of the thanksgiving is to be specially noted. It suspends His whole claims on the single issue about to be decided. It summons the people to mark the event. Never before had He thus heralded a miracle. Never had He deigned to say thus solemnly, ‘If God does not work through Me now, reject Me as an impostor; if He does, yield to Me as Messiah.’ The moment stands alone in His life. What a scene! There is the open tomb, with its dead occupant; there are the eager, sceptical crowd, the sisters pausing in their weeping to gaze, with some strange hopes beginning to creep into their hearts, the silent disciples, and, in front of them all, Jesus, with the radiance of power in the eyes that had just been swimming in tears, and a new elevation in His tones. How all would be hushed in expectance of the next moment’s act!

III. The miracle itself is told in the fewest words. What more was there to tell?

The two ends, as it were, of a buried chain, appear above ground. Cause and effect were brought together. Rather, here was no chain of many links, as in physical phenomena, but here was the life-giving word, and there was the dead man living again. The ‘loud voice’ was as needless as the rolling away of the stone. It was but the sign of Christ’s will acting. And the acting of His will, without any other cause, produces physical effects.

Lazarus was far away from that rock cave. But, wherever he was, he could hear, and he must obey. So, with graveclothes entangling his feet, and a napkin about his livid face, he came stumbling out into the light that dazed his eyes, closed for four dark days, and stood silent and motionless in that awestruck crowd. One Person there was not awestruck. Christ’s calm voice, that had just reverberated through the regions of the dead, spoke the simple command, ‘Loose him, and let him go.’ To Him it was no wonder that He should give back a life. For the Christ who wept is the Christ whose voice all that are in the graves shall hear, and shall come forth.

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 11:45-46

45Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him. 46But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done.

Joh 11:45 “Therefore many of the Jews. . .believed in Him” This is the stated theme of the Gospel (cf. Joh 20:30-31). This phrase becomes a pattern (cf. Joh 2:23; Joh 7:31; Joh 8:30; Joh 10:42; Joh 11:45; Joh 12:11; Joh 12:42). However, it must be restated that faith in John’s Gospel has several levels and is not always saving faith (cf. Joh 2:23-25; Joh 8:30 ff). See Special Topic at Joh 2:23.

Joh 11:46 “some of them went to the Pharisees, and told them the things which Jesus had done” It is amazing the degree of spiritual blindness in the face of such marvelous teaching and powerful miracles. However, Jesus divides all groups into those who come to trust Him and those who reject the truth about Him. Even a powerful miracle like this does not bring belief (cf. Luk 16:30-31).

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

seen (Greek. theaomai. App-133.) = regarded with wonder.

the things which. Some read “the thing which”, referring to this special miracle, or rather these two miracles; for how could Lazarus, when restored to life, come forth, bound, as he was, hand and foot, and his eyes covered, save by a further exercise of Divine power? Thus there was a great increase of disciples, which alarmed the rulers.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

45-57.] THE DEATH OF JESUS THE LIFE OF THE WORLD. Consequences of the miracle. Meeting of the Sanhedrim and final determination, on the prophetic intimation of the High Priest, to put Jesus to death. He retires to Ephraim.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Lazarus had been publicly raised from the dead. A great number of persons saw the miracle, and there was never any question about its having been wrought.

Joh 11:45-46. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.

We could hardly have conceived it possible that men would have been guilty of such conduct as this to post off to Christs enemies, and lay it as an accusation against him, that he had raised a man from the dead.

Joh 11:47-48. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

They pretended that if Jesus Christ gathered to himself a great party, the Romans would take umbrage at it pounce upon the whole nation and destroy it, for fear of its revolting from under their sway. A gross falsehood throughout.

Joh 11:49-50. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all. Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, And that the whole nation perish not.

That was his advice. You are, none of you, up to the mark. You do not handle this thing rightly. Let us kill this man. Let him be put to death not that he deserves it, but that it is expedient that it should be, lest our nation should be destroyed; and this is the way that governors and kings have been accustomed to think not Is it right? but Is it expedient and we may always pray to God that we may have a Government that will do that which is right, and not be guided by the evil direction of that which is expedient. One has well said that if the death of a righteous man would save ten thousand, yet it would be an atrocious thing that he should be put to death unwillingly for the saving of any. The right is, after all, expedient. Yet Caiaphas did not know what he said. He was speaking a great truth.

Joh 11:51. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation:

He did not understand his own words. He was saying a great deal more than he meant to say for it was expedient blessedly expedient that Jesus should die willingly and of his own accord, giving himself up to death for the sake of his people.

Joh 11:52-53. And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

One bold wicked man can often sway the counsels of men who are equally bad, but more cowardly. It had not yet come to this that they would hurt him to the death; but now they take counsel to put him to death.

Joh 11:54. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples.

We do not find that he wrought miracles there or preached, but in a holy and devout retirement, it may be, he prepared his mind for the last great week the week of his passion and his death. It is generally best for us to imitate him in this; and when we have some great work to do something that will need all the grace that we can get, it is well to make a retreat get into retirement, and school the heart, and seek to drink in fresh strength that we may be prepared for that which lies before us.

Joh 11:55-56. And the Jews passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves. Then sought they for Jesus, and spake among themselves, as they stood in the temple, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast?

They had heard much of him in the country. Country people coming to town want to hear the great minister to see the great Prophet: so that is their question, Will he come to the feast?

Joh 11:57. Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should show it, that they might take him.

They could not deny the miracle: they could arrest and punish the miracle-worker.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Joh 11:45. , who had come) Joh 11:19, to comfort them concerning their brother, 31.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 11:45

Many therefore of the Jews, who came to Mary and beheld that which he did, believed on him-It would seem singular that any who saw this could doubt, but saying that many believed shows that some did not. Those who followed Mary to the grave were present, and heard and saw what was said and done, and many of them believed on Jesus. The evidence was such that no honest-hearted man could doubt that Jesus was of God, that God was with him, and spoke and acted through him. The strange thing is that any should fail to believe on him.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

the Innocent for the Guilty

Joh 11:45-57

The friends of the family who had come to lament with them, were disposed toward Jesus and believed; but the mere spectators hastened with the news, to inflame the hatred of the Pharisees. The Romans dreaded the power acquired by permanent office, and often exchanged one high priest for another. Hence the expression, being high priest that year. By his vote Caiaphas may be said to have appointed and sacrificed his victim, who in that memorable year was to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. See Dan 9:24; Dan 9:27.

Caiaphas professed to fear that Jesus would presently gain such an ascendency over the people as to lead a revolt against Rome, which would cause a deluge of blood in which the whole nation would perish. Therefore he recommended that they should compass the death of Jesus. But, as the evangelist puts it, he spoke more widely and truly than he knew, because the death of Jesus is gathering into one the children of God who are scattered abroad-that is, the heathen who were living up to their light, as in Joh 10:16 -that of the twain He might make one new man.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Jews: Joh 11:19, Joh 11:31, Joh 2:23, Joh 10:41, Joh 12:9-11, Joh 12:17-19, Joh 12:42

Reciprocal: Exo 14:31 – believed Joh 4:39 – many Joh 8:30 – many Joh 10:42 – General Joh 11:42 – that they Joh 12:11 – General Act 9:42 – and many

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

This miracle caused many of the Jews to believe on Jesus. That was one of the purposes for which the deed was done. (See chapter 20:30,31.)

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Joh 11:45. Many therefore of the Jews, they which came to Mary, and beheld the things which Jesus did, believed in him. The statement is very remarkable, but the language of the original is so clear as to leave no doubt as to the meaning. The great manifestations of our Lord to the people, whether in word or in miracle, were usually, as we have several times seen, followed by a marked division of opinion and feeling among His hearers. There is such a division in the present instance, as the next verse shows; but the effect of the miracle is great beyond precedent, for all those of the Jews who had come to the house of Mary (Joh 11:19), and who with her witnessed the actions of Jesus, became believers in Him.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Observe here, 1. The different effects which this miracle had upon those Jews who were present at the raising of Lazarus; some of them believed on Christ: but others, persisting in their unbelief, went to the Pharisees and informed against him. Notwithstanding all the evidence which our Saviour gave of his being the Messias, by the miracles which he wrought, yet many rejected him, and refused to believe in him, to their unutterable and inevitable condemnation.

Observe, 2. How greatly disturbed the Pharisees were upon the account of our Saviour’s miracles’ knowing how proper an argument they were to convince men, they concluded, that if Christ were suffered to go on and work miracles, he would draw all men after him.

Learn hence, That Jesus proved himself to be the true Messias by the miracles which he wrought, his enemies themselves being judges. For we find here, the worst of our Saviour’s enemies were afraid of his miracles, that by them he would draw all men after him; If we let him alone, all men will believe on him.

Observe, 3. What was the ground of the Pharisees fear, if they let Christ go on to work miracles, that he would have so many followers as would alarm the Romans, and awaken their jealousy, and cause them to come upon them with an army, to deprive them of the little liberty they indulged them, and take away their place and nation: their place: that is, their place of worship, the temple: and their nation: that is, bring the whole body of the Jewish nation to utter destruction.

Learn hence, How all the enemies and opposers of Christ and his kingdom do endeavour to colour their quarrel with some specious pretences, that they may hide the odiousness of their practices from the eye of the world, and may not be openly seen to fight against God. Thus the Pharisees here persecute our Saviour, not as the Messias (though the miracles he wrought were a sufficient evidence that he was such) but as one who would bring ruin upon their nation. If we let him alone, the Romans will come, and take away both our place and nation.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Joh 11:45-46. Then many of the Jews, which came with Mary And were eye-witnesses of this illustrious miracle; believed on him As the Messiah. Indeed, so incontestable a proof of his power and authority left them no room to doubt of his character. They knew that no impostor could perform any miracle; and so great a one as the resurrection of a person who had been in the grave four days was a miracle worthy of the Messiah himself. Willing, therefore, to know the truth, they yielded to the force of this evidence, and it is marvellous that all present did not yield to it; for, considering the nature and circumstances of this wonderful display of divine power, it surely ought to have silenced the peevishness of cavilling, overcome the obstinacy of prejudice, and put to shame the impudence of malice in every one that was a witness of it. And we may well be astonished to find that the cry, Lazarus, come forth, did not produce on all present an effect somewhat similar to that which it had on Lazarus. It raised him from the natural death, and one would suppose might have raised the most stupid of the spectators from the spiritual, by working in them the living principle of saving faith. But, alas! this was not the case. For, some of them Blinded by prejudice, and that spirit of the world which is enmity against God, departed from this astonishing spectacle as firmly resolved to oppose Jesus as ever; they went their ways to the Pharisees Namely, the chiefs of the sect who lived in the city; and told them what things Jesus had done In order, as is evident, to induce them to take such measures as might crush Christs growing reputation. What a dreadful confirmation of that weighty truth, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead!

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

Vv. 45-53.

1. The result of the miracle was the production of the desired faith, not only in the sisters and the disciples, but also in many of the Jews who had come to express their sympathy with Mary. The strict rules of construction make the same with , while refers to the whole body usually called the Jews in this Gospel. There is no serious objection to this view of the sentence. If it be adopted, the may refer to the (Meyer), or it may refer to the (Godet). If, on the other hand, , by an irregularity, takes the place of , the statement would seem to correspond better with what we might antecedently expect as more probable. The declaration, in that case, is: Many of those Jews who have already been spoken of as coming to Mary believed, but some of them (those who did not believe) went and told the Pharisees. This explanation gives so simple and natural a meaning that it commends itself, if the substitution of the nominative participle can be supposed.

2. The difficulty which has been found by some writers in the fact that Caiaphas is spoken of in Joh 11:49 as high-priest of that year has no real foundation. The statement is not introduced with reference to Caiaphas, but to Jesus. The man who was high-priest in that remarkable year when Jesus died uttered the prophecy respecting His death.

3. The utterance of Caiaphas is spoken of as a prophecy. This is apparently a kind of figurative expression, by which the author would intimate, not that Caiaphas was inspired of God, but that, in the providential plan respecting Christ, it came to pass that an utterance was made which proved to be prophetic of the immediate future, and was made by the head of the Jewish system.

4. The precise condition of the minds of the Sanhedrim at this time is strikingly exhibited in these verses. They were awakened to see that the policy of inaction or delay would be no longer safe. The influence of Jesus, rapidly becoming greater, was likely to be much increased by this remarkable miracle, and action was necessary on their part, or it might be too late. It was natural that the party favoring more vigorous measures should now succeed in leading the body to commit itself and to begin more seriously and resolutely to work towards effecting the murder of Jesus.

5. The understanding of this prophetic utterance was made known to the author and his fellow-apostles, no doubt, by the events which followed, and the words took their place in the line of testimonythe testimony unconsciously given, in this case, by an enemyto Christ and His future work.

6. It is noticeable that, while the raising of Lazarus is represented in this chapter as inciting the Jewish authorities to more active and decisive measures, it is not referred to afterwards as constituting an element in the accusation made against Him at His trial. This fact, which has been urged as bearing against the reality of the event and the truthfulness of the story, seems to indicate, on the other hand, the exact relation which the event had to the end. It excited the enemies to action, but it was not the cause of Jesus’ death. It was not a matter to be brought forward in the trial, but it was one important circumstance which led to the hastening of the trial. Moreover, the trial before Pilate was, as Meyer remarks, connected rather with an accusation of a political character; while that before the Sanhedrim, it may be added, turned more towards a charge of blasphemy.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

Joh 11:45-57. The Results of the Miracle.The majority of the Jews who came to comfort the sisters were convinced, but some remained hostile, and gave information to the Pharisees. The chief priests, i.e. the Sadducees, always first when action is needed, and the Pharisees, summon a council. In face of the growing number of adherents their inaction is felt to be unsatisfactory. If it leads to civil disturbance, the Romans will intervene and hold them responsible for their failure to maintain order. Caiaphas, the High Priest of that year, the notable year of the Passion, demands a policy which he pretends to be necessary in the interests of the nation. One must die rather than the whole nation perish. In this the author sees an unconscious prophecy. Jesus would indeed die on behalf of the nation, and of all Gods children scattered throughout the world. That the author supposed the High Priesthood to be a yearly office, like that of the Asiarchs of his own Asia, is inconsistent with his knowledge of Juda and Jewish customs. It was the irony of the situation that the unconscious prophet would have in virtue of his office to offer on the Day of Atonement the sin offering on behalf of the people.

In consequence of the hostility of the Sanhedrin, Jesus retires to Ephraim, usually identified with et-Taijibeh, 13 miles N. of Jerusalem in the wilderness of Bethaven (cf. 2Sa 13:23).[86] The Passover was near, and those who came up to Jerusalem to prepare for it were divided in opinion as to whether He would risk the danger of appearing at the Feast.

[86] [Cheyne (EBi. Joh 13:21) conjectures that Jericho may have been the original text, which having been indistinctly written was misread as Ephraim. Thus Jn. might be reconnected with the Synoptic tradition.A. J. G.]

In the commentary on this chapter the attempt has been made to show that even m its present form, and therefore a fortiori still more clearly in the events which it records, or in the material (whether oral tradition or fixed in literary form) which the author used, we have something very different from what it is represented as being in most critical commentaries, viz. doctrinal instruction, under the guise of fictitious narrative, on the nature and work of the Incarnate Logos, thinly disguised in human form, and always acting in such a manner as to fulfil the terms of His definition (Loisy; cf. Scott, pp. 164ff.). The evangelist has, of course, told the story from his own point of view. As usual, by selection and by his process of writing up, he has brought that point of view rather than the actual events as they really happened into prominence. He intends the narrative to present to us the Christ who is the author of life, to whom it has been given to have life in Himself, and to raise up whom He will. He also wishes to record the occasion of the final outburst of Jewish hostility which culminated in the events of the Passion. But if he has merely worked on Synoptic accounts of raisings of the dead, the Lucan story of Martha and Mary, and the parable of Dives and Lazarus, especially its final statement, Neither will they believe if one rise from the dead, it is obvious that he has done his work very badly indeed. Behind the obvious points which he sets himself to teach, there is certainly another portrait, of a really human Jesus, not merely a few human traits thrown in as an antidote to Docetism. He is wholly dependent on His Fathers will, and obedient to it. He cannot move, even to save His friend, before He receives the sign of the Divine approval. He accepts the delay with resignation, and even finds true cause for joy in what had been real sorrow to Him. Though absolutely sure of the Divine help, and confident that the pain of sickness, and even of death if that ensue, will issue in the glory of God and the vindication of His Messenger, He does not know in what way this will be accomplished, till His final prayer, the answer to which shows Him how it shall be. After severe effort to restrain His human feelings of emotion He breaks down. He has to ask where the sepulchre is. He prays a real human prayer, and announces publicly His thanks for its answer that the people may know that the boon comes from God, not from Him, and that God has really sent Him to His people. If the terms of His definition are Deity stalking in human disguise, it is certainly difficult to see how in all this the central figure is merely fulfilling them.

The difficulties connected with the event itself are the same as in similar Synoptic accounts. The heightening of the miraculous element, the interval of four days since the death, is a question of degree, not of kind. The difficulties connected with the history of the ministry are undoubtedly great, though in some quarters they have been exaggerated, and they have not been solved. No thoroughly satisfactory explanation of the silence of the Synoptists, and especially Lk., has yet been found. At the same time it must be remembered that the Synoptic Gospels confine their narrative to events in Galilee, to which is added a relatively long account of the last visit to Jerusalem. The story, therefore, belongs to a period which is altogether ignored in the Synoptic narrative, except in so far as it is suggested by the great insertion in Lk., in which, however, so much material belonging to different periods and occasions is accumulated that we can get very little help from it towards the reconstruction of the actual history of the period between the crisis in Galileo and the final catastrophe in Jerusalem. All that can be said is that the incident, if historical, did not form part of a tradition which is obviously fragmentary and incomplete.

When, however, we turn to the narrative itself it is clear that the difficulties of the critical explanation of its origin are equally serious. The material in this chapter, even as it stands, which does not help forward the chief objects that the author has in view in telling his story, is so clear that we are justified historically in presupposing as the basis out of which the narrative has been elaborated at least as much background in real history as lies behind the parallel narratives in the other gospels of the raising of Jairas daughter, the widow of Nains son, and similar accounts. The final question of what really happened can, of course, only be determined by the consideration of wider problems than those to which the literary and historical criticism here attempted can offer a solution. There will always be differences of opinion as to the limits which the verifiable experience of our own or other times should rightly impose on the credibility of the abnormal.

The view, now perhaps generally held by scholars, that the author, having used up the real cause of the final conflict, the Lords action in defying the authorities by the cleansing of the Temple, at a much earlier date, had to invent an adequate explanation, is plausible; but it exaggerates the importance attached to that event in the Synoptic account. Even Mk.s narrative, where the best case can be made out for the view that this incident was the determining factor in the tragedy, is not conclusive (Mar 11:15-18*). The rulers intervene subsequently to demand by what authority He does these things, a general phrase referring apparently to His general teaching in the Temple and His attitude to the authorities at least as much as to the actual cleansing of the Temple. We must be content to wait for the final and satisfactory solution of the great difficulties of this chapter. Meanwhile it should be frankly acknowledged that the difficulties which await solution are not confined to either side in the Johannine controversy.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

2. The responses to the raising of Lazarus 11:45-57

Again Jesus’ words and works divided the Jews (cf. Joh 6:14-15; Joh 7:10-13; Joh 7:45-52; Joh 10:19-21).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The popular response 11:45-46

Even this most powerful miracle failed to convince many that Jesus was God’s Son. Many who had come to console Mary believed on Him, but the depth of their faith undoubtedly varied. A faith based on miracles is not the strongest faith, but John viewed it as better than no faith at all (cf. Joh 2:23). [Note: Morris, p. 500.] John’s reference to Mary rather than to Martha and Mary may imply that these people had greater affection for Mary. Alternatively they may have viewed her as needing more emotional support than her sister (cf. Joh 11:19). Other observers of this miracle went to the Pharisees. The contrast suggests that they disbelieved and went to inform the Pharisees so these leaders would take action against Jesus.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 24

JESUS THE SCAPEGOAT.

Many therefore of the Jews, which came to Mary and beheld that which He did, believed on Him. But some of them went away to the Pharisees, and told them the things which Jesus had done. The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many signs. If we let Him thus alone, all men will believe on Him: and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation. But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor do ye take account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. Now this he said not of himself: but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation; and not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one the children of God that are scattered abroad. So from that day forth they took counsel that they might put Him to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews, but departed thence into the country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim; and there He tarried with the disciples.- Joh 11:45-54.

When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead He was quite aware that He was risking His own life. He knew that a miracle so public, so easily tested, so striking, could not be overlooked, but must decisively separate between those who yielded to what was involved in the miracle, and those who hardened themselves against it. It is remarkable that none had the hardihood to deny the fact. Those who most determinedly proceeded against Jesus did so on the very ground that His miracles were becoming too numerous and too patent. They perceived that in this respect Jesus answered so perfectly to the popular conception of what the Messiah was to be, that it was quite likely He would win the multitude to belief in Him as the long-looked-for King of the Jews. But if there were any such popular enthusiasm aroused, and loudly declared, then the Romans would interfere, and, as they said, come and take away both our place and nation. They felt themselves in a great difficulty, and looked upon Jesus as one of those fatal people who arise to thwart the schemes of statesmen, and spoil well-laid plans, and introduce disturbing elements into peaceful periods.

Caiaphas, astute and unscrupulous, takes a more practical view of things, and laughs at their helplessness. Why! he says, do you not see that this Man, with His clat and popular following, instead of endangering us and bringing suspicion on our loyalty to Rome, is the very person we can use to exhibit our fidelity to the Empire. Sacrifice Jesus, and by His execution you will not merely clear the nation of all suspicion of a desire to revolt and found a kingdom under Him, but you will show such a watchful zeal for the integrity of the Empire as will merit applause and confidence from the jealous power of Rome. Caiaphas is the type of the bold, hard politician, who fancies he sees more clearly than all others, because he does not perplex himself by what lies below the surface, nor suffer the claims of justice to interfere with his own advantage. He looks at everything from the point of view of his own idea and plan, and makes everything bend to that. He had no idea that in making Jesus a scapegoat he was tampering with the Divine purposes.

John, however, in looking back upon this council, sees that this bold, unflinching diplomatist, who supposed he was moving Jesus and the council and the Romans as so many pieces in his own game, was himself used as Gods mouthpiece to predict the event which brought to a close his own and all other priesthood. In the strange irony of events he was unconsciously using his high-priestly office to lead forward that one Sacrifice which was for ever to take away sin, and so to make all further priestly office superfluous. Caiaphas saw and said that it was expedient that one man die for the nation; but, as in all prophetic utterance, so in these words, says John, a very much deeper sense lay than was revealed by their primary application. It is, says John, quite true that Christs death would be the saving of a countless multitude, only it was not from the Roman legions that it would long save men, but from an even more formidable visitation. Caiaphas saw that the Romans were within a very little of terminating the ceaseless troubles which arose out of this Judean province, by transporting the inhabitants and breaking up their nationality; and he supposed that by proclaiming Jesus as an aspirant to the throne and putting Him to death, he would cleanse the nation of all complicity in His disloyalty and stay the Roman sword. And John says, that in carrying out this idea of his, he unwittingly carried out the purpose of God that Jesus should die for that nation-and not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

Now it must be owned that it is much easier to understand what Caiaphas meant than what John meant; much easier to see how fit Jesus was to be a national scapegoat than to understand how His death removes the sin of the world. There are, however, one or two points regarding the death of Christ which become clearer in the light of Caiaphass idea.

First, the very characteristics of Christ which made Caiaphas think of Him as a possible scapegoat for the nation, are those which make it possible that His death should serve a still larger purpose. When the brilliant idea of propitiating the Roman government by sacrificing Jesus flashed into the mind of Caiaphas, he saw that Jesus was in every respect suited to this purpose. He was in the first place a person of sufficient importance. To have seized an unknown peasant, who never had, and never could have, much influence in Jewish society, would have been no proof of zeal in extinguishing rebellion. To crucify Peter or John or Lazarus, none of whom had made the most distant claim to kingship, would not serve Caiaphass turn. But Jesus was the head of a party. In disposing of Him they disposed of His followers. The sheep must scatter, if the Shepherd were put out of the way.

Then, again, Jesus was innocent of everything but this. He was guilty of attaching men to Himself, but innocent of everything besides. This also fitted Him for Caiaphass purpose, for the high priest recognised that it would not do to pick a common criminal out of the prisons and make a scapegoat of him. That had been a shallow fiction, which would not for a moment stay the impending Roman sword. Had the Russians wished to conciliate our Government and avert war, this could not have been effected by their selecting for execution some political exile in Siberia, but only by recalling and degrading such an outstanding person as General Komaroff. In every case where any one is to be used as a scapegoat these two qualities must meet-he must be a really, not fictitiously, representative person, and he must be free from all other claims upon his life. It is not everyone who can become a scapegoat. The mere agreement between the parties, that such and such a person be a scapegoat, is only a hollow fiction which can deceive no one. There must be underlying qualities which constitute one person, and not another, representative and fit.

Now John does not expressly say that the deliverance Jesus was to effect for men generally was to be effected in a similar manner to that which Caiaphas had in view. He does not expressly say that Jesus was to become the scapegoat of the race: but impregnated as Johns mind was with the sacrificial ideas in which he had been nurtured, the probability is that the words of Caiaphas suggested to him the idea that Jesus was to be the scapegoat of the race. And, certainly, if Jesus was the scapegoat on whom our sins were laid, and who carried them all away, He had these qualities which fitted Him for this work: He had a connection with us of an intimate kind, and He was stainlessly innocent.

This passage then compels us to ask in what sense Christ was our sacrifice.

With remarkable, because significant, unanimity the consciences of men very differently situated have prompted them to sacrifice. And the idea which all ancient nations, and especially the Hebrews, entertained regarding sacrifice is fairly well ascertained. Both the forms of their rites and their explicit statements are conclusive on this point,-that in a certain class of sacrifices they looked on the victim as a substitute bearing the guilt of the offerer and receiving the punishment due to him. This seems, after all discussion, to be the most reasonable interpretation to put upon expiatory sacrifice. Both heathens and Jews teach that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins; that the life of the sinner is forfeited, and that in order to the sparing of his life, another life is rendered instead; and that as the life is in the blood, the blood must be poured out in sacrifice. Heathens were as punctilious as Hebrews in their scrutiny of the victims, to ascertain what animals were fit for sacrifice by the absence of all blemish. They used forms of deprecation as exactly expressing the doctrines of substitution and of atonement by vicarious punishment. In one significant, though repulsive, particular some of the heathen went farther than the Hebrews: occasionally, the sinner who sought cleansing from defilement was actually washed in the blood of the victim slain for him. By an elaborate contrivance the sinner sat under a stage of open woodwork on which the animal was sacrificed, and through which its blood poured upon him.

The idea expressed by all sacrifices of expiation was, that the victim took the place of the sinner, and received the punishment due to him. The sacrifice was an acknowledgment on the sinners part that by his sin he had incurred penalty; and it was a prayer on the sinners part that he might be washed from the guilt he had contracted, and might return to life with the blessing and favour of God upon him. Of course, it was seen, and said by the heathen themselves, as well as by the Jews, that the blood of bulls and goats had in itself no relation to moral defilement. It was used in sacrifice merely as a telling way of saying that sin was acknowledged and pardon desired, but always with the idea of substitution more or less explicitly in the mind. And the ideas which were inevitably associated with sacrifice were transferred to Jesus by His immediate disciples. And this transference of the ideas connected with sacrifice to Himself and His death was sanctioned-and indeed suggested-by Jesus, when, at the Last Supper, He said, This cup is the New Testament in My Blood, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins.

But here the question at once arises: In what sense was the Blood of Christ shed for the remission of sins? In what sense was He a substitute and victim for us? Before we try to find an answer to this question, two preliminary remarks may be made-first, that our salvation depends not on our understanding how the death of Christ takes away sin, but upon our believing that it does so. It is very possible to accept the pardon of our sin, though we do not know how that pardon has been obtained. We do not understand the methods of cure prescribed by the physician, nor could we give a rational account of the efficacy of his medicines, but this does not retard our cure if only we use them. To come into a perfect relation to God we do not require to understand how the death of Christ has made it possible for us to do so; we need only to desire to be Gods children, and to believe that it is open to us to come to Him. Not by the intellect, but by the will, are we led to God. Not by what we know, but by what we desire, is our destiny determined. Not by education in theological requirements, but by thirst for the living God, is man saved.

And, second, even though we carry over to the death of Christ the ideas taught by Old Testament sacrifice, we commit no enormous or misleading blunder. Christ Himself suggested that His death might be best understood in the light of these ideas, and even though we are unable to penetrate through the letter to the spirit, through the outward and symbolic form to the real and eternal meaning of the sacrifice of Christ, we are yet on the road to truth, and hold the germ of it which will one day develop into the actual and perfect truth. Impatience is at the root of much unbelief and misconception and discontent; the inability to reconcile ourselves to the fact that in our present stage there is much we must hold provisionally, much we must be content to see through a glass darkly, much we can only know by picture and shadow. It is quite true the reality has come in the death of Christ, and symbol has passed away; but there is such a depth of Divine love, and so various a fulfilment of Divine purpose in the death of Christ, that we cannot be surprised that it baffles comprehension. It is the key to a worlds history; for aught we know, to the history of other worlds than ours; and it is not likely that we should be able to gauge its significance and explain its rationale of operation. And therefore, if, without any sluggish indifference to further knowledge, or merely worldly contentment to know of spiritual things only so much as is absolutely necessary, we yet are able to use what we do know and to await with confidence further knowledge, we probably act wisely and well. We do not err if we think of Christ as our Sacrifice; nor even if we somewhat too literally think of Him as the Victim substituted for us, and ascribe to His Blood the expiatory and cleansing virtue which belonged symbolically to the blood of the ancient sacrifices.

And, indeed, there are grave difficulties in our path as soon as we strive to advance beyond the sacrificial idea, and try to grasp the very truth regarding the death of Christ. The Apostles with one voice affirm that Christs death was a propitiation for the sins of the world: that He died for us; that He suffered not only for His contemporaries, but for all men; that He was the Lamb of God, the innocent Victim, whose blood cleansed from sin. They affirm, in short, that in Christs death we are brought face to face, not with a symbolic sacrifice, but with that act which really takes away sin.

If we read the narrative given us in the Gospels of the death of Christ, and the circumstances that led to it, we see that the sacrificial idea is not kept in the foreground. The cause of His death, as explained in the Gospels, was His persistent claim to be the Messiah sent by God to found a spiritual kingdom. He steadily opposed the expectations and plans of those in authority until they became so exasperated that they resolved to compass His death. The real and actual cause of His death was His fidelity to the purpose for which He had been sent into the world. He might have retired and lived a quiet life in Galilee or beyond Palestine altogether; but He could not do so, because He could not abandon the work of His life, which was to proclaim the truth about God and Gods kingdom. Many a man has felt equally constrained to proclaim the truth in the face of opposition; and many a man has, like Jesus, incurred death thereby. That which makes the death of Jesus exceptional in this aspect of it is, that the truth He proclaimed was what may be called the truth, the essential truth for men to know-the truth that God is the Father, and that there is life in Him for all who will come to Him. This was the kingdom of God among men-He proclaimed a kingdom based only on love, on spiritual union between God and man; a kingdom not of this world, and that came not with observation; a kingdom within men, real, abiding, universal. It was because He proclaimed this kingdom, exploding the cherished expectations and merely national hopes of the Jews, that the authorities put Him to death.

So much is obvious on the very face of the narrative. No one can read the life of Christ without perceiving this at least-that He was put to death because He persisted in proclaiming truths essential to the happiness and salvation of men. By submitting to death for the sake of these truths He made it for ever clear that they are of vital consequence. Before Pilate He calmly said, To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. He knew that it was this witnessing to the truth that had enraged the Jews against Him, and even in prospect of death He could not refrain from proclaiming what He felt it was vital for men to know. In this very true sense, therefore, He died for our sakes-died because He sought to put us in possession of truths without which our souls cannot be lifted into life eternal. He has given us life by giving us the knowledge of the Father. His love for us, His ceaseless and strong desire to bring us near to God, was the real cause of His death. And, recognising this, we cannot but feel that He has a claim upon us of the most commanding kind. Not for His contemporaries alone, not for one section of men only, did Christ die, but for all men, because the truths which He sealed by His death are of universal import. No man can live eternal life without them.

But again, Jesus Himself explained to His disciples in what sense His death would benefit them. It is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away the Comforter will not come unto you. The spiritual kingdom He proclaimed could not be established while He was visibly present. His death and ascension put an end to all hopes that diverted their minds from that which constituted their real union to God and satisfaction in Him. When He disappeared from earth and sent the Holy Spirit to them, what remained to them was Gods kingdom within them, His true rule over their spirits, their assimilation to Him in all things. What they now clearly saw to be still open to them was to live in Christs spirit, to revive in their memories the truths His life had proclaimed, to submit themselves entirely to His influence, and to make known far and near the ideas He had communicated to them, and especially the God He had revealed. It was His death which set their minds free from all other expectations and fixed them exclusively on what was spiritual. And this salvation they at once proclaimed to others. What were they to say about Jesus and His death? How were they to win men to Him? They did so in the first days by proclaiming Him as raised by God to be a Prince and a Saviour, to rule from the unseen world, to bless men with a spiritual salvation, by turning them from their iniquities. And the instrumentality, the actual spiritual experience through which this salvation is arrived at is the belief that Jesus was sent by God and did reveal Him, that in Jesus God was present revealing Himself, and that His Spirit can bring us also to God and to His likeness.

Still further, and not going beyond the facts apparent in the Gospel, it is plain that Christ died for us, in the sense that all He did, His whole life on earth from first to last, was for our sake. He came into the world, not to serve a purpose of His own, and forward His own interests, but to further ours. He took upon Him our sins and their punishment in this obvious sense, that He voluntarily entered into our life, polluted as it was all through with sin and laden with misery in every part. Our condition in this world is such that no person can avoid coming in contact with sin, or can escape entirely the results of sin in the world. And in point of fact persons with any depth of sympathy and spiritual sensibility cannot help taking upon them the sins of others, and cannot help suffering their own life to be greatly marred and limited by the sins of others. In the case of our Lord this acceptance of the burden of other mens sins was voluntary. And it is the sight of a holy and loving person, enduring sorrows and opposition and death wholly undeserved, that is at all times affecting in the experience of Christ. It is the sight of this suffering, borne with meekness and borne willingly, that makes us ashamed of our sinful condition, which inevitably entails such suffering on the self-sacrificing and holy. It enables us to see, more distinctly than anything besides, the essential hatefulness and evil of sin. Here is an innocent person, filled with love and compassion for all, His life a life of self-sacrifice and devotion to human interests, carrying in His person infinite benefits to the race-this person is at all points thwarted and persecuted and finally put to death. In this most intelligible sense He very truly sacrificed Himself for us, bore the penalty of our sins, magnified the law, illustrated and rendered infinitely impressive the righteousness of God, and made it possible for God to pardon us, and in pardoning us to deepen immeasurably our regard for holiness and for Himself.

Still further, it is obvious that Christ gave Himself a perfect sacrifice to God by living solely for Him. He had in life no other purpose than to serve God. Again and again during His life God expressed His perfect satisfaction with the human life of Christ. He who searches the heart saw that into the most secret thought, down to the most hidden motive, that life was pure, that heart in perfect harmony with the Divine will. Christ lived not for Himself, He did not claim property in His own person and life, but gave Himself up freely and to the uttermost to God: more thoroughly, more spontaneously, and with an infinitely richer material did He offer Himself to God than ever burnt-offering had been offered. And God, with an infinite joy in goodness, accepted the sacrifice, and found on earth in the person of Jesus an opportunity for rejoicing in man with an infinite satisfaction.

And this sacrifice which Christ offered to God tends to reproduce itself continually among men. As Christ said, no sooner was He lifted up than He drew all men to Him. That perfect life and utter self-surrender to the highest purposes, that pure and perfect love and devotion to God and man, commands the admiration and cordial worship of serious men. It stands in the world for ever as the grand incentive to goodness, prompting men and inspiring them to sympathy and imitation. It is in the strength of that perfect sacrifice men have ceaselessly striven to sacrifice themselves. It is through Christ they strive to come themselves to God. In Him we see the beauty of holiness; in Him we see holiness perfected, and making the impression upon us which a perfect thing makes, standing as a reality, not as a theory; as a finished and victorious achievement, not as a mere attempt. In Christ we see what love to God and faith in God really are; in Him we see what a true sacrifice is and means; and in Him we are drawn to give ourselves also to God as our true life.

Looking then only at those facts which are apparent to every one who reads the life of Christ, and putting aside all that may over and above these facts have been intended in the Divine mind, we see how truly Christ is our Sacrifice; and how truly we can say of Him that He gave Himself, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God. We see that in the actual privations, disappointments, temptations, mental strain, opposition, and suffering of His life, and in the final conflict of death, He bore the penalty of our sins; underwent the miseries which sin has brought into human life. We see that He did so with so entire and perfect a consent to all Gods will, and with so ready and unreserved a sacrifice of Himself, that God found infinite satisfaction in this human obedience and righteousness, and on the basis of this sacrifice pardons us.

Some may be able to assure themselves better of the forgiveness of God, if they look at what Christ has done as a satisfaction for or reparation of the ill that we have done. He properly satisfies for an offence who offers to the offended party that which he loves as well or better than he hates the offence. If your child has through carelessness broken or spoiled something you value, but seeing your displeasure is at pains to replace it, and does after long industry put into your hands an article of greater value than was lost to you, you are satisfied, and more than forgive your child. If a man fails in business, but after spending a lifetime to recover himself restores to you not only what you lost by him, but more than could possibly have been made by yourself with the original sum lost, you ought to be satisfied. And God is satisfied with the work of Christ because there is in it a love and an obedience to Him, and a regard to right and holiness, that outweigh all our disobedience and alienation. Often, when some satisfaction or reparation of injury or loss is made to ourselves, it is done in so good-hearted a manner, and displays so much right feeling, and sets us on terms of so much closer intimacy with the party who injured us, that we are really glad, now that all is over, that the misunderstanding or injury took place. The satisfaction has far more than atoned for it. So is it with God: our reconciliation to Him has called out so much in Christ that would otherwise have been hidden, has so stirred the deepest part, if we may say so, of the Divine nature in Christ, and has called out also so signally the whole strength and beauty of human nature, that God is more than satisfied. We cannot see how without sin there could have been that display of love and obedience that there has been in the death of Christ. Where there is no danger, nothing tragic, there can be no heroism: human nature, not to speak of Divine, has not scope for its best parts in the ordinary and innocent traffic and calm of life. It is when danger thickens, and when death draws near and bares his hideous visage, that devotion and self-sacrifice can be exercised. And so, in a world filled with sin and with danger, a world in which each individuals history has something stirring and tragic in it, God finds room for the full testing and utterance of our natures and of His own. And in the redemption of this world there occurred an emergency which called forth, as nothing else conceivably could call forth, everything that the Divine and human natures of Christ are capable of.

Another result of Christs death is mentioned by John: That the children of God which were scattered abroad might be gathered together in one. It was for a unity Christ died, for that which formed one whole. When Caiaphas sacrificed Christ to propitiate Rome, he knew that none but Christs own countrymen would benefit thereby. The Romans would not recall their legions from Africa or Germany because Juda had propitiated them. And supposing that the Jews had received some immunities and privileges from Rome as an acknowledgment of its favour, this would affect no other nation. But if any members of other nations coveted these privileges, their only course would be to become naturalized Jews, members and subjects of the favoured community. So Christs death has the effect of gathering into one all those who seek Gods favour and fatherhood, no matter in what ends of the earth they be scattered. It was not for separate individuals Christ died, but for a people, for an indivisible community; and we receive the benefits of His death no otherwise than as we are members of this people or family. It is the attractive power of Christ that draws us all to one centre, but being gathered round Him we should be in spirit and are in fact as close to one another as to Him.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles