The Response of the Crowds ( Joh 12:34-43 ).

‘The crowd answered him, “We have heard from the Law that the Messiah remains for ever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up. Who is this Son of Man?”

The crowds were puzzled by His words, which raise a number of questions. We must ask firstly whether this is to be looked on as one question, with the Messiah equated with the Son of Man, or whether the crowd were yelling out a number of questions with the questions about the Messiah and the Son of Man being two or three selected out of many? Either way they are selected by John as illustrating the following words of Jesus. And they emphasise to the reader both His Messiahship and His future triumph at God’s right hand.

Furthermore we then have to ask whether when they spoke of the Son of Man the crowds themselves had Jesus in mind, or whether they were just speaking of a theological figure spoken of in current thought and literature. The impression given by the third question is that they had not related the Son of Man directly to Jesus.

In John’s use of the questions the answer to these questions is not too important, for Jesus does not answer the questions directly. What He does do is refer them to Himself as the Light of the world (compare Joh 8:12; Joh 9:5) Who is now about to be with them for only a short time so that response to Him is urgent. John clearly therefore sees this reply as in some way answering the questions. John’s purpose in selecting the questions is thus to bring out to his readers that what mattered was not speculation about Messiahs and Sons of Men, both of which Jesus was (there was no point in bringing them up if He was not), but response to Him as the Light shining out of darkness.

It also stresses that at this stage Jesus was not prepared to enter into such theological questions. His main concern was on the fact that He was about to die, and that it was urgent that they face up to the truth. There had been times when He was prepared to deal with such questions in detail, but not now when His departure was just around the corner. Theological titles are of secondary importance when the Light of the world is there before them. That being said, for the sake of completeness, we will look at the questions more deeply.

The crowds said that they had been taught from ‘the Law’ that Messiah, their great expected leader, would remain for ever. They used the term Law loosely (compare Joh 10:34). They really meant that they had had it from the teachers of the Law who had so interpreted the Scriptures. The verses utilised may have included Psa 89:36; Psa 110:4; Isa 9:7; Eze 37:25; Dan 7:14 taken literally. Psa 89:36, for example, speaks of David’s “seed” remaining forever, and later in the same Psalm, in Psa 89:51, mention is made of the “anointed one” (Messiah). This Psalm was interpreted messianically in both the New Testament (Act 13:22; Rev 1:5; Rev 3:14) and in the later rabbinic literature (Midrash Rabbah 97 on Genesis). But if this was so, they asked, how could Jesus be the Messiah if He was to be ‘lifted up’?

The inference is that they recognised that by being lifted up He was referring to His own death of which He has been speaking clearly. In this case Jesus’ reply stresses that the time is now urgent because the Light will soon be taken from them. It is therefore essential that they respond immediately. It is confirming that such a question about the Messiah has no simple answer if related to Him because He is about to die. (He still preferred to leave in the air the question as to whether He was the Messiah).

With regard to the second question(s) there are two ways of looking at them. Firstly that they equated the term Son of Man with the Messiah. (‘How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up if the Messiah remains for ever’). This is quite possible. Writings about the Son of Man as a heavenly figure are known around the time of Jesus, and there may well have been others, and some may well have seen him as a ‘Messianic’ figure.

Alternately the questions about the Son of Man might have been from a different section of the crowd and have been totally unrelated to that about the Messiah. They may have referred back to what Jesus had earlier taught in Joh 8:28; Joh 3:14. And they may or may not have associated the Son of man with Jesus.

Either way Jesus replies by pointing to Himself as the Light of the world. Thus with His death soon approaching He is not prepared to discuss theological niceties and speculation, but preferred to face them with the challenge of why He was here. Immediate response was required. He was here in order that they might come to the Light and not walk in darkness, and might do it urgently while He was still here, with the warning that darkness might soon overtake them. He leaves it to be implied that He Himself is this Son of Man.

By ‘who is this Son of Man?’ they may basically have meant ‘of what nature is the One described by the title?’. It is at least clear that they are now being made to think. Jesus reply answers their question. Let them now look to the Light of the world, that is, to Himself.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Walking in the Light. Joh 12:34-41

The necessity of believing in the Light:

v. 34. The people answered Him, We have heard out of the Law that Christ abideth forever; and how sayest Thou, The Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?

v. 35. Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you; for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.

v. 36. While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide Himself from them.

For once the people understood at least a part of the message which Jesus tried to convey to them; they comprehended that He was referring to His death. But now the Law, the Old Testament Scripture, contained some prophecies, Psa 110:4; Isa 9:5; Dan 7:13-14, which spoke of an eternal kingdom of the Messiah. The Jews could not make these statements agree with the words of Christ. And so they impatiently asked who this Son of Man was to whom He was always referring. It was true enough: Christ should abide forever, but not in an earthly, visible kingdom. Through His death He was to enter into this new life, in which He was to live and reign forever. Jesus did not answer their question directly, but gave them such instructions as would enable them to find out the truth for themselves. It would now be only a very short time that He, the Light of the World, would be with them. And therefore they should make the best use of this time. They should walk in this Light; they should give the rays from this wonderful Light an opportunity of shining into their hearts. If they would not receive light from this Light, then the darkness of their own heart and the destruction which follows it would remain for them. The man that travels in darkness is always in danger of losing his way and of landing in pitfalls. He that is without Christ, the true and only Light, is helpless in the midst of the thousands of spiritual dangers in these latter days. Therefore Jesus urges that the Jews believe in the Light, put their faith and trust in Him, their Savior. This faith would make them children of light, would give them the manner, the attributes of the true Light. They would then be filled with love toward God, with truth and righteousness, with all the virtues that characterize the true believer. This was the climax of Christ’s sermon; He had again sent forth His call of grace; He had again invited them to partake of the blessings which He offered to them all. He now went away from them, He hid Himself after He had given the people the explanation recorded at the end of the Chapter.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Joh 12:34-36. The people answered him, The people, on hearing Jesus affirm that he was to be lifted up, told him, that was inconsistent with the character of the Messiah, who, according to the law, (so they named the whole of their sacred writings,) was never to die. Who then is this Son of man? “What sort of a Messiah must he be, who is to die, in immediate contradiction to the voice of the prophets? (See Psa 89:29; Psa 110:4. Isa 9:7. Dan 2:44; Dan 7:14.)Is he a different person from the Messiah whom we have been taught to expect, under the title of the Son of man?” This was a real and important difficulty; but it was fit that some obscurity should for the present be left upon it, lest the plainness of the prediction should have prevented its accomplishment. Our Lord therefore gave the discourse a useful turn, and a few days more proclaimed the mystery which he had before revealed to his apostles in private, when he sat out on his last journey to Jerusalem. See Mat 20:18-19. Ch. Joh 8:12 Joh 11:9-10 and Rom 11:25.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Joh 12:34 . The people rightly understanding . . , Joh 12:32 , of an exaltation to take place by the way of death gather thence, that in accordance therewith no everlasting duration of life ( , see on Joh 21:22 ) is destined for Him on the earth, and do not find this reconcilable with that which they on their part ( ) had heard out of the Scripture ( , as in Joh 10:34 ) of the Messiah ( ., namely, by reading, comp. Gal 4:21 ). They reflect on the scriptural doctrine (comp. also the older book of Enoch) of the everlasting kingdom of the Messiah, which they apprehend as an earthly kingdom, and especially on passages like Psa 110:4 , Isa 9:5 ; Isa 9:7 , and particularly Dan 7:13-14 .

From the latter passage, not from Joh 12:23 , where He does not speak to the people, they put in the mouth of Christ the words ., as He had designated Himself so frequently by this Messianic appellation, in order at once to make manifest that He, although He so terms Himself, yet on account of the contradictory token of the . which He ascribes to Himself, cannot be the Danielian Son of man, He who was so characterized in the Scripture; the Son of man, by which name He is wont to designate Himself, must in truth be quite another person.

] this strange Son of man, who is in opposition to the Scripture, over whom that is said to be impending. [117] That the speakers, however, were unacquainted with the appellation . for Jesus (Brckner) is, after the first half of the verse, not to be assumed.

[117] The inquiry has in it something pert, saucy, as if they said: “A fine ‘Son of man’ art thou, who art not to remain for ever in life, but, as thou dost express it, art to be exalted!” To the Danielian Son of man an everlasting kingdom is given, Dan 7:14 . This also in answer to Hofmann, Schriftbew . II. 1, p. 79.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth forever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man? (35) Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you; for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. (36) While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them. (37) But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: (38) That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? (39) Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, (40) He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. (41) These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. (42) Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: (43) For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. (44) Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. (45) And he that seeth me, seeth him that sent me. (46) I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. (47) And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. (48) He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. (49) For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. (50) And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

I have only to lament that the limits of a Poor Man’s Commentary will not grant me the indulgence to enlarge as I could wish on this very blessed discourse of Christ. Every verse, more or less, is full of divine instructions. But I will only detain the Reader on that part of it which respects the vision of Esaias, which is here most decidedly declared to be the glory of Christ which he saw. And the Reader will observe, that the observation is not the Evangelist’s, but God the Holy Ghost’s. In proof, I beg of him first to read the Prophet’s own account of it, Isa 6 . Then I wish him to consult Act 28:26-27 . And when he hath done both these things, let the Reader himself determine what less than the glory of God could have been set forth in the presence of Christ, in that vision which the Prophet saw. The train of the Lord, which filled the temple, was a beautiful representation of God in his divine nature filling the temple of Christ’s body, agreeably to what the Holy Ghost hath said, that in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Col 2:9 . God the Holy Ghost be praised and adored; first, for explaining to the Church the Prophet’s vision; and, secondly, in causing it to be recorded for the everlasting instruction and comfort of the Church in all ages.

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

34 The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?

Ver. 34. We have heard out of the law ] But had they never heard out of the law that Christ must first suffer, and then enter into his glory? Isa 53:2 ; Dan 9:26 . There is none of us Jews, saith Josephus, but being asked of any point of the law, can answer to it more readily than tell his own name. Quilibet nostrum de lege interrogators, facilius quam nomini suo respondet. Is it then ignorance or malice that they thus cavil and quarrel our Saviour?

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

34. ] In such passages as Psa 89:36 , and perhaps Psa 110:4 ; Dan 7:13-14 .

] The O.T.: see ch. Joh 10:34 .

The actual words . . . . . had not been on this occasion used by Jesus; but in His discourse with Nicodemus, ch. Joh 3:14 , and perhaps in other parts of His teaching which have not been recorded.

] They thought some other Son of Man, not the Messiah, was meant; because this lifting up (which they saw implied taking away ) was inapplicable to their idea of the Messiah, usually known as the Son of Man.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 12:34 . The crowd apparently understood the allusion to His death, for they objected: ; “we have heard out of the law,” i.e. , out of Scripture ( cf. Joh 10:34 , Joh 15:25 , and Schechter, Studies in Judaism , p. 15: “under the word Torah were comprised not only the Law, but also the contributions of later times expressing either the thoughts or the emotions of holy and sincere men”), “that the Christ abides for ever”; this impression was derived from Psa 110:4 , Isa 9:7 , Eze 37:25 , Dan 7:14 . A different belief was also current. Their belief regarding the Messiah seemed so to contradict His allusion to death that it occurred to them that after all “the Son of Man” might not be identical with “the Messiah” as they had been supposing. So they ask, ; This among other passages shows that the “Son of Man” was a title suggestive of Messiahship, but not quite definite in its meaning and not quite identical with “Messiah”.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

John

THE SON OF MAN

Joh 12:34 .

I have thought that a useful sermon may be devoted to the consideration of the remarkable name which our Lord gives to Himself-’the Son of Man.’ And I have selected this instance of its occurrence, rather than any other, because it brings out a point which is too frequently overlooked, viz. that the name was an entirely strange and enigmatical one to the people who heard it. This question of utter bewilderment distinctly shows us that, and negatives, as it seems to me, the supposition which is often made, that the name ‘Son of Man,’ upon the lips of Jesus Christ, was equivalent to Messiah. Obviously there is no such significance attached to it by those who put this question. As obviously, for another reason, the two names do not cover the same ground; for our Lord sedulously avoided calling Himself the Christ, and habitually called Himself the Son of Man.

Now one thing to observe about this name is that it is never found upon the lips of any but Jesus Christ. No man ever called him the Son of Man whilst He was upon earth, and only once do we find it applied to Him in the rest of Scripture, and that is on the occasion on which the first martyr, Stephen, dying at the foot of the old wall, saw ‘the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.’ Two other apparent instances of the use of the expression occur, both of them in the Book of Revelation, both of them quotations from the Old Testament, and in both the more probable reading gives ‘a Son of Man,’ not ‘the Son of Man.’

One more preliminary remark and I will pass to the title itself. The name has been often supposed to be taken from the remarkable prophecy in the Book of Daniel, of one ‘like a son of man,’ who receives from the Ancient of Days an everlasting kingdom which triumphs over those kingdoms of brute force which the prophet had seen. No doubt there is a connection between the prophecy and our Lord’s use of the name, but it is to be observed that what the prophet speaks of is not ‘the Son,’ but ‘one like a son of man’; or in other words, that what the prophecy dwells upon is simply the manhood of the future King in contradistinction to the bestial forms of Lion and Leopard and Bear, whose kingdoms go down before him. Of course Christ fulfils that prediction, and is the ‘One like a son of man,’ but we cannot say that the title is derived from the prophecy, in which, strictly speaking, it does not occur.

What, then, is the force of this name, as applied to Himself by our Lord?

First, we have in it Christ putting out His hand, if I may say so, to draw us to Himself-identifying Himself with us. Then we have, just as distinctly, Christ, by the use of this name, in a very real sense distinguishing Himself from us, and claiming to hold a unique and solitary relation to mankind. And then we have Christ, by the use of this name in its connection with the ancient prophecy, pointing us onward to a wonderful future.

I. First then, Christ thereby identifies Himself with us.

The name Son of Man, whatever more it means, declares the historical fact of His Incarnation, and the reality and genuineness, the completeness and fullness, of His assumption of humanity. And so it is significant to notice that the name is employed continually in the places in the Gospels where especial emphasis is to be placed, for some reason or other, upon our Lord’s manhood, as, for instance, when He would bring into view the depth of His humiliation. It is this name that He uses when He says: ‘Foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head.’ The use of the term there is very significant and profound; He contrasts His homelessness, not with the homes of men that dwell in palaces, but with the homes of the inferior creatures. As if He would say, ‘Not merely am I individually homeless and shelterless, but I am so because I am truly a man, the only creature that builds houses, and the only creature that has not a home. Foxes have holes, anywhere they can rest, the birds of the air have,’ not as our Bible gives it, ‘nests,’ but ‘roosting-places, any bough will do for them. All living creatures are at home in this material universe; I, as a Representative of humanity, wander a pilgrim and a sojourner.’ We are all restless and homeless; the creatures correspond to their environment. We have desires and longings, wild yearnings, and deep-seated needs, that ‘wander through eternity’; the Son of Man, the representative of manhood, ‘hath not where to lay His head.’

Then the same expression is employed on occasions when our Lord desires to emphasise the completeness of His participation in all our conditions. As, for instance, ‘the Son of Man came eating and drinking,’ knowing the ordinary limitations and necessities of corporeal humanity; having the ordinary dependence upon external things; nor unwilling to taste, with pure and thankful lip, whatever gladness may be found in man’s path through the supply of natural appetites.

And the name is employed habitually on occasions when He desires to emphasise His manhood as having truly taken upon itself the whole weight and weariness of man’s sin, and the whole burden of man’s guilt, and the whole tragicalness of the penalties thereof, as in the familiar passages, so numerous that I need only refer to them and need not attempt to quote them, in which we read of the Son of Man being ‘betrayed into the hands of sinners’; or in those words, for instance, which so marvellously blend the lowliness of the Man and the lofty consciousness of the mysterious relation which He bears to the whole world; ‘The Son of Man came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for the many.’

Now if we gather all these instances together and they are only specimens culled almost at random, and meditate for a moment on the Name as illuminated by such words as these, they suggest to us, first, how truly and how blessedly He is ‘bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh.’ All our human joys were His. He knew all human sorrow. The ordinary wants of human nature belonged to Him; He hungered, He thirsted, and was weary; He ate and drank and slept. The ordinary wants of the human heart He knew; He was hurt by hatred, stung by ingratitude, yearned for love; His spirit expanded amongst friends, and was pained when they fell away. He fought and toiled, and sorrowed and enjoyed. He had to pray, to trust, and to weep. He was a Son of Man, a true man among men. His life was brief; we have but fragmentary records of it for three short years. In outward form it covers but a narrow area of human experience, and large tracts of human life seem to be unrepresented in it. Yet all ages and classes of men, in all circumstances, however unlike those of the peasant Rabbi who died when he was just entering mature manhood, may feel that this man comes closer to them than all beside. Whether for stimulus for duty, or for grace and patience in sorrow, or for restraint in enjoyment, or for the hallowing of all circumstances and all tasks, the presence and example of the Son of Man are sufficient. Wherever we go, we may track His footsteps by the drops of His blood upon the sharp flints that we have to tread. In all narrow passes, where the briars tear the wool of the flock, we may see, left there on the thorns, what they rent from the pure fleece of the Lamb of God that went before. The Son of Man is our Brother and our Example.

And is it not beautiful, and does it not speak to us touchingly and sweetly of our Lord’s earnest desire to get very near us and to bring us very near to Him, that this name, which emphasises humiliation and weakness and the likeness to ourselves, should be the name that is always upon His lips? Just as, if I may compare great things with small, some teacher or philanthropist, that went away from civilised into savage life, might leave behind him the name by which he was known in Europe, and adopt some barbarous designation that was significant in the language of the savage tribe to whom he was sent, and say to them: ‘That is my name now, call me by that,’ so this great Leader of our souls, who has landed upon our coasts with His hands full of blessings, His heart full of love, has taken a name that makes Him one of ourselves, and is never wearied of speaking to our hearts, and telling us that it is that by which He chooses to be known. It is a touch of the same infinite condescension which prompted His coming, that makes Him choose as His favourite and habitual designation the name of weakness and identification, the name ‘Son of Man.’

II. But now turn to what is equally distinct and clear in this title. Here we have our Lord distinguishing Himself from us, and plainly claiming a unique relationship to the whole world.

Just fancy how absurd it would be for one of us to be perpetually insisting on the fact that he was a man, to be taking that as his continual description of himself, and pressing it upon people’s attention as if there was something strange about it. The idea is preposterous; and the very frequency and emphasis with which the name comes from our Lord’s lips, lead one to suspect that there is something lying behind it more than appears on the surface. That impression is confirmed and made a conviction, if you mark the article which is prefixed, the Son of Man. A Son of man is a very different idea. When He says ‘the Son of Man’ He seems to declare that in Himself there are gathered up all the qualities that constitute humanity; that He is, to use modern language, the realised Ideal of manhood, the typical Man, in whom is everything that belongs to manhood, and who stands forth as complete and perfect. Appropriately, then, the name is continually used with suggestions of authority and dignity contrasting with those of humiliation. ‘The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath,’ ‘The Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins’ and the like. So that you cannot get away from this, that this Man whom the whole world has conspired to profess to admire for His gentleness, and His meekness, and His lowliness, and His religious sanity, stood forward and said: ‘I am complete and perfect, and everything that belongs to manhood you will find in Me.’

And it is very significant in this connection that the designation occurs more frequently in the first three Gospels than in the fourth; which is alleged to present higher notions of the nature and personality of Jesus Christ than are found in the other three. There are more instances in Matthew’s Gospel in which our Lord calls Himself the Son of Man, with all the implication of uniqueness and completeness which that name carries; there are more even in the Gospel of the Servant, the Gospel according to Mark, than in the Gospel of the Word of God, the Gospel according to John. And so I think we are entitled to say that by this name, which the testimony of all our four Gospels makes it certain, even to the most suspicious reader, that Christ applied to Himself, He declared His humanity, His absolutely perfect and complete humanity.

In substance He is claiming the same thing for Himself that Paul claimed for Him when he called Him ‘the second Adam.’ There have been two men in the world, says Paul, the fallen Adam, with his infantile and undeveloped perfections, and the Christ, with His full and complete humanity. All other men are fragments, He is the ‘entire and perfect chrysolite.’ As one of our epigrammatic seventeenth-century divines has it, ‘Aristotle is but the rubbish of an Adam,’ and Adam is but the dim outline sketch of a Jesus. Between these two there has been none. The one Man as God meant him, the type of man, the perfect humanity, the realised ideal, the home of all the powers of manhood, is He who Himself claimed that place for Himself, and stepped into it with the strange words upon His lips, ‘I am meek and lowly of heart.’

‘Who is this Son of Man?’ Ah, brethren! ‘who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.’ A perfect Son of Man, born of a woman, ‘bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh,’ must be more than a Son of Man. And that moral completeness and that ideal perfection in all the faculties and parts of His nature which drove the betrayer to clash down the thirty pieces of silver in the sanctuary in despair that ‘he had betrayed innocent blood’; which made Pilate wash his hands ‘of the blood of this just person’; which stopped the mouths of the adversaries when He challenged them to convince Him of sin, and which all the world ever since has recognised and honoured, ought surely to lead us to ask the question, ‘Who is this Son of Man?’ and to answer it, as I pray we all may answer it, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God!’

This fact of His absolute completeness invests His work with an altogether unique relationship to the rest of mankind. And so we find the name employed upon His own lips in connections in which He desires to set Himself forth as the single and solitary medium of all blessing and salvation to the world-as, for instance, ‘The Son of Man came to give His life a ransom for the many’; ‘Ye shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.’ He is what the ladder was in the vision to the patriarch, with his head upon the stone and the Syrian sky over him-the Medium of all communication between earth and heaven. And that ladder which joins heaven to earth, and brings all angels down on the solitary watchers, comes straight down, as the sunbeams do, to every man wherever he is. Each of us sees the shortest line from his own standing-place to the central light, and its beams come straight to the apple of each man’s eye. So because Christ is more than a man, because He is the Man, His blessings come to each of us direct and straight, as if they had been launched from the throne with a purpose and a message to us alone. Thus He who is in Himself perfect manhood touches all men, and all men touch Him, and the Son of Man, whom God hath sealed, will give to every one of us the bread from heaven. The unique relationship which brings Him into connection with every soul of man upon earth, and makes Him the Saviour, Helper, and Friend of us all, is expressed when He calls Himself the Son of Man.

III. And now one last word in regard to the predictive character of this designation.

Even if we cannot regard it as being actually a quotation of the prophecy in the Book of Daniel, there is an evident allusion to that prophecy, and to the whole circle of ideas presented by it, of an everlasting dominion, which shall destroy all antagonistic power, and of a solemn coming for judgment of One like a Son of Man.

We find, then, the name occurring on our Lord’s lips very frequently in that class of passages with which we are so familiar, and which are so numerous that I need not quote them to you; in which He speaks of the second coming of the Son of Man; as, for instance, that one which connects itself most distinctly with the Book of Daniel, the words of high solemn import before the tribunal of the High Priest. ‘Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the glories of heaven’; or as when He says, ‘He hath given Him authority to execute judgment also because He is the Son of Man’; or as when the proto-martyr, with his last words, declared in sudden burst of surprise and thrill of gladness, ‘I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.’

Two thoughts are all that I can touch on here. The name carries with it a blessed message of the present activity and perpetual manhood of the risen Lord. Stephen does not see Him as all the rest of Scripture paints Him, sitting at the right hand of God, but standing there. The emblem of His sitting at the right hand of God represents triumphant calmness in the undisturbed confidence of victory. It declares the completeness of the work that He has done upon earth, and that all the history of the future is but the unfolding of the consequences of that work which by His own testimony waa finished when He bowed His head and died. But the dying martyr sees him standing, as if He had sprung to His feet in response to the cry of faith from the first of the long train of sufferers. It is as if the Emperor upon His seat, looking down upon the arena where the gladiators are contending to the death, could not sit quiet amongst the flashing axes of the lictors and the purple curtains of His throne, and see their death-struggles, but must spring to His feet to help them, or at least bend down with the look and with the reality of sympathy. So Christ, the Son of Man, bearing His manhood with Him,

‘Still bends on earth a Brother’s eye,’

and is the ever-present Helper of all struggling souls that put their trust in Him.

Then as to the other and main thought here in view-the second coming of that perfect Manhood to be our Judge. It is too solemn a subject for human lips to say much about. It has been vulgarised, and the power taken out of it by many well-meant attempts to impress it upon men’s hearts. But that coming is certain. That manhood could not end its relationship to us with the Cross, nor yet with the slow, solemn, upward progress which bore Him, pouring down blessings, up into the same bright cloud that had dwelt between the cherubim and had received Him into its mysterious recesses at the Transfiguration. That He should come again is the only possible completion of His work.

That Judge is our Brother. So in the deepest sense we are tried by our Peer. Man’s knowledge at its highest cannot tell the moral desert of anything that any man does. You may judge action, you may sentence for breaches of law, you may declare a man clear of any blame for such, but for any one to read the secrets of another heart is beyond human power; and if He that is the Judge were only a man there would be wild work, and many a blunder in the sentences that were given. But when we think that it is the Son of Man that is our Judge, then we know that the Omniscience of divinity, that ponders the hearts and reads the motives, will be all blended with the tenderness and sympathy of humanity; that we shall be judged by One who knows all our frame, not only with the knowledge of a Maker, if I may so say, as from outside, but with the knowledge of a possessor, as from within; that we shall be judged by One who has fought and conquered in all temptations; and most blessed of all, that we shall be judged by One with whom we have only to plead His own work and His own love and His Cross that we may stand acquitted before His throne.

So, brethren, in that one mighty Name all the past, present, and future are gathered and blended together. In the past His Cross fills the retrospect: for the future there rises up, white and solemn, His judgment throne. ‘The Son of Man is come to give His life a ransom for the many’; that is the centre point of all history. The Son of Man shall come to judge the world; that is the one thought that fills the future. Let us lay hold by true faith on the mighty work which He has done on the Cross, then we shall rejoice to see our Brother on the throne, when the ‘judgment is set and the books are opened.’ Oh, friends, cleave to Him ever in trust and love, in communion and imitation, in obedience and confession, that ye may be accounted worthy ‘to stand before the Son of Man’ in that day!

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

We have heard = we heard. The Greek tense (aorist, refers to a definite time, and may refer to a portion of the law (compare note on Joh 10:34) read on the Great Sabbath, two days previously. The quotation is usually referred to Psa 89:29, but it may rather be Psalm 92 (Psa 92:1), which is said to have been read on the Sabbath from the days of Ezra.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

34.] In such passages as Psa 89:36, and perhaps Psa 110:4; Dan 7:13-14.

] The O.T.: see ch. Joh 10:34.

The actual words . . . . . had not been on this occasion used by Jesus; but in His discourse with Nicodemus, ch. Joh 3:14, and perhaps in other parts of His teaching which have not been recorded.

] They thought some other Son of Man, not the Messiah, was meant; because this lifting up (which they saw implied taking away) was inapplicable to their idea of the Messiah, usually known as the Son of Man.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Joh 12:34. , we) This word has in it something of irony in this passage.[322]- ) out of the Law, under which are comprehended the prophets and psalms.-, abideth) Psa 16:10, Neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption; Psa 45:7 [6?], Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; Psa 72:5, They shall fear Thee as long as the sun and moon endureth, throughout all generations; Psa 89:29, His throne as the days of heaven; Isa 53:8, Who shall declare His generation? Joh 12:10, He shall prolong His days.-[323] , and) The Jews join together things which ought not to have been joined:[324] Isa 53:8, He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare His generation? Death itself was His path to everlasting duration.-, , how, who) They ask a double question: concerning His being lifted up, from Joh 12:32; concerning His being the Son of man, from Joh 12:23, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified [with which comp. ch. Joh 8:28, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am He].-) Who is, say they, the Son of man, if the Christ be not? And yet Thou sayest, that the Son of man is about to be lifted up; whereas the Christ does not die: , who, of what nature and character.

[322] We had always heard so and so, but you, in sooth, are wiser.-E. and T.

[323] , for ever) They therefore were entertaining exalted sentiments concerning the Christ.-V. g.

[324] i.e. They ought not to have confounded together His everlasting dominion and His death: the former is distinct from, though to be preceded necessarily by the latter.-E. and T.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 12:34

Joh 12:34

The multitude therefore answered him, We have heard out of the law that the Christ abideth for ever:-They referred to the language of David: Jehovah hath sworn, and will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (Psa 110:4). And to such other prophecies as: Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this. (Isa 9:7). And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. (Dan 7:14). All the Old Testament scriptures are classed as the law. It is true that he was to abide forever, but not in the flesh.

and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?-[Jesus had frequently applied this term to himself, which they quote also from Dan 7:13-14. Realizing that he refers to death in the lifting up, they exclaim against the incongruity of this with the Jewish idea of a glorified, victorious Messiah.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

the law: Joh 10:34, Joh 15:25, Rom 3:19, Rom 5:18

Christ: 2Sa 7:13, Psa 72:7, Psa 72:17-19, Psa 89:36, Psa 89:37, Psa 110:4, Isa 9:7, Isa 53:8, Eze 37:24, Eze 37:25, Dan 2:44, Dan 7:14, Dan 7:27, Mic 4:7

who: Joh 3:14-16, Joh 5:25-27, Joh 8:53-58, Mat 16:13, Mat 21:10, Mat 22:42-45

Reciprocal: 2Sa 7:16 – General Isa 40:8 – the word Dan 7:13 – one like Mar 8:38 – the Son Mar 9:10 – what Luk 1:32 – give Luk 9:45 – General Luk 23:33 – they crucified Joh 7:36 – manner Gal 4:21 – the law Heb 7:24 – he continueth

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

4

As usual, the people failed to recognize in Jesus a person who was both human and divine. As a result, they could not understand how he could die bodily, and yet establish a kingdom that would “stand forever.”

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?

[We have heard out of the law.] Out of the law; that is, as the phrase is opposed to the words of the scribes. So we often meet with This is out of the law; or Scripture, to which is opposed This is out of the Rabbins.

“That Christ abideth for ever.” How then came the Rabbins to determine his time and years? some to the space of forty years, some to seventy, and others to three generations? After the days of Messiah, they expected that eternity should follow.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

We may learn, from these verses, the duty of using present opportunities. The Lord Jesus says to us all, “Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you.-While ye have the light believe in the light.” Let us not think that these things were only spoken for the sake of the Jews. They were written for us also, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

The lesson of the words is generally applicable to the whole professing Church of Christ. Its time for doing good in the world is short and limited. The throne of grace will not always be standing: it will be removed one day, and the throne of judgment will be set up in its place. The door of salvation by faith in Christ will not always be open: it will be shut one day for ever, and the number of God’s elect will be completed. The fountain for all sin and uncleanness will not always be accessible: the way to it will one day be barred, and there will remain nothing but the lake that burns with fire and brimstone.

These are solemn thoughts: but they are true. They cry aloud to sleeping Churchmen and drowsy congregations, and ought to arouse great searchings of heart. “Can nothing more be done to spread the Gospel at home and abroad? Has every means been tried for extending the knowledge of Christ crucified? Can we lay our hands on our hearts, and say that the Churches have left nothing undone in the matter of missions? Can we look forward to the Second Advent with no feelings of humiliation, and say that the talents of wealth and influence and opportunities have not been buried in the ground?”-Such questions may well humble us, when we look, on one side, at the state of professing Christendom, and, on the other, at the state of the heathen world. We must confess with shame that the Church is not walking worthy of its light.

But the lesson of the words is specially applicable to ourselves as individuals. Our own time for getting good is short and limited; let us take heed that we make good use of it. Let us “walk while we have the light.” Have we Bibles? Let us not neglect to read them.-Have we the preached Gospel? Let us not linger halting between two opinions, but believe to the saving of our souls.-Have we Sabbaths? Let us not waste them in idleness, carelessness, and indifference, but throw our whole hearts into their sacred employments, and turn them to good account.-Light is about us and around us and near us on every side. Let us each resolve to walk in the light while we have it, lest we find ourselves at length cast out into outer darkness for ever. It is a true saying of an old divine, that the recollection of lost and mis-spent opportunities will be the very essence of hell.

We may learn, secondly, from these verses, the desperate hardness of the human heart. It is written of our Lord’s hearers at Jerusalem, that, “though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him.”

We err greatly if we suppose that seeing wonderful things will ever convert souls. Thousands live and die in this delusion. They fancy if they saw some miraculous sight, or witnessed some supernatural exercise of Divine grace, they would lay aside their doubts, and at once become decided Christians. It is a total mistake. Nothing short of a new heart and a new nature implanted in us by the Holy Ghost, will ever make us real disciples of Christ. Without this, a miracle might raise within us a little temporary excitement; but, the novelty once gone, we should find ourselves just as cold and unbelieving as the Jews.

The prevalence of unbelief and indifference in the present day ought not to surprise us. It is just one of the evidences of that mighty foundation doctrine, the total corruption and fall of man. How feebly we grasp and realize that doctrine is proved by our surprise at human incredulity. We only half believe the heart’s deceitfulness. Let us read our Bibles more attentively, and search their contents more carefully. Even when Christ wrought miracles and preached sermons, there were numbers of His hearers who remained utterly unmoved. What right have we to wonder if the hearers of modern sermons in countless instances remain unbelieving? “The disciple is not greater than his Master.” If even the hearers of Christ did not believe, how much more should we expect to find unbelief among the hearers of His ministers. Let the truth be spoken and confessed. Man’s obstinate unbelief is one among many indirect proofs that the Bible is true. The clearest prophecy in Isaiah begins with the solemn question, “Who hath believed?” (Isa 53:1.)

We may learn, thirdly, from these verses, the amazing power which the love of the world has over men. We read that “among the chief rulers many believed on Christ: but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue. For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.”

These unhappy men were evidently convinced that Jesus was the true Messiah. Reason, and intellect, and mind, and conscience, obliged them secretly to admit that no one could do the miracles which He did, unless God was with Him, and that the preacher of Nazareth really was the Christ of God. But they had not courage to confess it. They dared not face the storm of ridicule, if not of persecution, which confession would have entailed. And so, like cowards, they held their peace, and kept their convictions to themselves.

Their case, it may be feared, is a sadly common one. There are thousands of people who know far more in religion then they act up to. They know they ought to come forward as decided Christians. They know that they are not living up to their light. But the fear of man keeps them back. They are afraid of being laughed at, jeered at, and despised by the world. They dread losing the good opinion of society, and the favorable judgment of men and women like themselves. And so they go on from year to year, secretly ill at ease and dissatisfied with themselves,-knowing too much of religion to be happy in the world, and clinging too much to the world to enjoy any religion.

Faith is the only cure for soul ailments like this. A believing view of an unseen God, an unseen Christ, an unseen heaven, and an unseen judgment-day,-this is the grand secret of overcoming the fear of man. The expulsive power of a new principle is required to heal the disease. “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” (1Jn 5:4.) Let us pray for faith, if we would conquer those deadly enemies of souls, the fear of man and the love of man’s praise. And if we have any faith, let us pray for more. Let our daily cry be, “Lord, increase our faith.” We may easily have too much money, or too much worldly prosperity; but we can never have too much faith.

==================

Notes-

v34.-[The people answered, etc.] This verse supplies a remarkable instance of the perverse and hardened blindness of the Jews in our Lord’s time. They pretended to be unable to reconcile the Lord’s language about being “lifted up,” with the Old Testament prophecies about the eternity and never dying of Christ.-That “lifted up” meant being put to death on the cross, they seem to have understood. That our Lord, or the Son of man, as He called Himself, claimed to be the Christ, they quite understood. What they stumbled at was the idea of the eternal Christ being put to death. They had got hold of the idea of a glorious, eternal Messiah. They had not got hold of the idea of a suffering, dying Messiah.

Of course they were right in holding that “Christ abideth forever.” It is the universal doctrine of the Old Testament. (Compare Isa 9:7; Psa 110:4; Eze 37:25; Dan 7:14; Mic 4:7.) Our Lord had never for a moment denied this. He was the promised Savior, who as Gabriel said to Mary, was to “reign over the house of Jacob for ever.” (Luk 1:33.)

On the other hand, they were entirely wrong in not understanding that Christ had to suffer before He reigned, and to go to the cross before He wore the crown. They were wrong in not seeing that His sacrifice as our Substitute and our Passover, was the very corner-stone of revealed religion, and that the very “law” of which they made so much, pointed to His sacrifice as clearly as to His eternal glory. They forgot that Isaiah says that Messiah is to be “brought as a lamb to the slaughter,” and that Daniel speaks of His being “cut off.” (Isa 53:7; Dan 9:26.)

The words “we” and “thou,” in this verse, in the Greek are emphatic. “WE Jews have always been taught to believe the eternity of Messiah. THOU, on the other hand, sayest that Messiah must be put to death, and lifted up on the cross. How is this? How are we to understand it?”

“The law,” in this verse, must evidently be taken for the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures.

It is worthy of remark that the Jews charge our Lord with saying “the Son of Man must be lifted up.” Yet our Lord in the last verse but one had not mentioned the Son of man, but had only said, “I, if I be lifted up.”-It is also singular that our Lord nowhere uses the expression “lifted up” except in His conversation with Nicodemus, in Joh 3:14. We must therefore either suppose that the Jews referred to the saying of Christ when He spoke to Nicodemus (which is very unlikely); or else that the expression “The Son of man must be lifted up” was so frequently on our Lord’s lips, that the Jews caught it up and pressed it on Him here; or else that our Lord so frequently spoke of Himself as the Son of man, that when He said, “If I be lifted up,” the Jews thought it equivalent to saying “If the Son of man be lifted up.”

The question,”Who is this Son of man?” can hardly imply that the Jews did not know that Christ was speaking of Himself. Does it not rather mean, “Who, and what kind of a Person dost Thou claim to be, calling Thyself the Son of man, and yet talking of being lifted up on the cross? Dost Thou really mean that one and the same person can be a dying person, and yet also the eternal Christ? Dost Thou claim to be the eternal Christ, and yet talk of being lifted up on a cross? Explain this apparent contradiction, for we cannot understand it.”-It is just the old story over again. The Jews could not and would not understand that Messiah was to suffer as well as to reign, to die as a Sacrifice as well as to appear in glory. They could not and would not see that the two things could be reconciled, and could meet in one person. Hence their perplexity exhibited in the question of the text.

The title, “Son of man,” is first found applied to Messiah in Dan 7:13. We cannot doubt that the Jews understood and remembered that passage.

Let us note that a half knowledge of Scripture, a suppression of some texts, and a misapplication of other texts, will account for a large portion of mistakes in religion. In this way people get a heresy or a crotchet into their heads on some doctrinal point, and seem blind to the truth. No heresies are so obstinately defended, and so difficult to meet, as those which are based on a perverted view of some portion of Scripture. In reading our Bibles, we must be careful to give every part and portion its due weight.

Let us remember, before we judge the blindness of the Jews too severely in this place, that many Christians are just as slow to see the whole truth about the second advent of Christ and His coming glory, as the Jews were to see the whole truth about the first advent and the cross. Multitudes apply texts to the first advent which only belong to the second advent, and are just as much prejudiced against the second personal coming of Christ to reign, as the Jews were against the first personal advent to suffer. Not a few Christians, I fear, are ready to say, “We have heard out of the Scriptures that Christ was to come in humiliation to be crucified; and how say ye, then, that Christ must come in power to reign?”

The expression, “this,” is rather emphatic, and has something contemptuous about it. “We have heard of a Son of man who is eternal. Who is THIS Son of man about to be lifted up on the cross, of whom you speak?”

v35.-[Then Jesus said unto them…light with you.] It is noteworthy, that our Lord makes no direct answer to the question of the Jews. He only warns them in a very solemn manner, of the danger they were in of letting their day of grace slip away unimproved. He draws a figure from the light of day, and the acknowledged importance of walking and journeying while we have the light. By “the light” He evidently means Himself. “I, the Light of the world, am only going to be with you a very little longer. My day is drawing to a close. The sun will soon set.” (Compare Jer 13:16.)

Here, as elsewhere, we see how clearly and distinctly our Lord saw His own approaching death and withdrawal from the world.

Ecolampadius thinks that there is a latent connection between this verse and the question of the Jews. “You ask who is this Son of man? I reply that He is the Light of the world, as I have often told you. Like the sun, He is about to be eclipsed, or withdrawn from your eyes very shortly. Make haste, and delay not to believe on Him.”

Gerhard justly remarks on this sentence, how far from infallibility the best of the Fathers were. Even Augustine, from his slight acquaintance with Greek, renders the sense, “There is yet a little light in your hearts!”

A German commentator remarks, that Christ seems here to rebuke this quibbling and questioning about phrases. “There was no time now for sophistry and circumlocution. It was a solemn matter. How differently ought they to demean themselves in their little residue of time, and not to fritter it away with affected contradictions! How earnestly they ought to seek at once for refuge to the light, and shield themselves against coming darkness?”

[Walk while ye have the light.] This solemn exhortation was meant to urge the Jews to do for their souls’ safety what a wise traveler would do to get safely to his journey’s end. “Enter in at the strait gate: walk in the narrow way: flee from the city of destruction: set out on your journey towards eternal life: rise, and be moving, while I and my Gospel are close to you, shining on you, and within your reach.”

Hengstenberg remarks, that “walking here denotes activity, and stands opposed to an idle and indifferent rest.”

[Lest darkness come upon you.] Our Lord here warns the Jews of the things to be feared, if they neglected His advice. Darkness would overtake, catch, and come upon them. He would leave the world, and return to His Father. They would be left in a state of judicial darkness and blindness as a nation, and with the exception of an election, would be given over to untold calamities, scattering, and misery. How true these words were we know from the history of the Jews written by Josephus, after our Lord left the world. His account of the extraordinary state of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, during the siege of the city by Titus, is the best commentary on the text before us. The state of the Jews, as a nation, during the last days of Jerusalem, can only be described as “darkness that might be felt.”

[For he…darkness…knoweth not…goeth.] This is an argument drawn from the acknowledged helplessness of one who attempts a difficult journey in a dark night. He cannot see his way. He only gets into trouble, and perhaps loses his life. This was exactly the case of the Jewish nation, after our Lord left the world. Up to the time of the destruction of the temple, they seemed like a nation of madmen, and a people judicially blinded,-conscious that they were in a wrong position, struggling furiously to get out of it, and yet only plunging deeper into the mire of hopeless misery, till Titus took the city, and carried the whole race into captivity. They had put out their own eyes by rejecting Christ, and were like a strong man blinded, maddened by a sense of his own misery, and yet impotent to get out of it.

v36.-[While light…believe…children of light.] This sentence would have been more accurately rendered, “While ye have THE Light;” that is, “while ye have ME, the Light of the world, with you.” It is a final, affectionate entreaty to the Jews, repeating in more plain words the exhortation of the last verse, “To walk in the light.” It is as though our Lord said, “Once more I beseech you to believe in Me as the Light of the world, while I am with you.” The end and object for which they are to believe is also added, “That ye may become my children, have light in your hearts, light in your consciences, light in your lives, light on your present path, light in your future prospects.” There can be no doubt that the expression “children of light” is a Hebraism, signifying, “to be brought in close connection with or under the full influence of light.”

Let us note that here, as elsewhere, believing is the first step,-the one thing needful. The exhortation is still to be offered to every sinner, directly and personally: “Believe, that thou mayest be a child of light.”

[These things…spake…departed…hide…them.] We know not exactly on what day in the last week of our Lord’s life the words just recorded had been spoken. The sentence before us certainly seems to mark a break and interval, and we can hardly suppose that the short address from the forty-fourth verse to the end of the chapter was spoken the same day, or was continuously connected with the discourse ending in this verse.

To me it seems probable that our Lord “departed” to Bethany after the miracle of the Voice from the heavens, and the commotion that followed it.-The words of our English version “Did hide Himself,” seem to me rather stronger than the Greek warrants. It would be more literally, “Was concealed from them.” Whether this was by miracle, as on other occasions, is not clear.

Calvin seems to think that our Lord only departed from the hearers immediately round Him, and went to the temple, where He met with another audience of a more believing kind. Flacius, too, thinks it was only a short and temporary withdrawal. Poole on the contrary takes the view that I adopt, and says that our Lord withdrew to Bethany.

v37.-[But though…so many miracles…them.] This verse begins a long parenthetical comment which John was inspired to make at this point, on the peculiar unbelief of the Jerusalem Jews. He remarks on the singular hardness of this section of the nation, in the face of the singularly strong evidence which they enjoyed of Christ’s Messiahship.

The expression, “So many miracles,” seems to point out that the miracles recorded by John are by no means all the miracles that our Lord performed in and near Jerusalem. Beside the purifying of the temple, John only records three,-the healing of the impotent man, the healing of the blind, and the raising of Lazarus. (John 5., 9., 11.) Yet John expressly speaks of miracles (both here, and in Joh 2:23); and the Pharisees say, “This Man doeth many miracles.” (Joh 11:47.)

The Greek word rendered “before,” is very strong. It is the same that is “In the sight of,” in 1Th 1:3; and “In the presence of,” in 1Th 2:19.

[Yet they believed not on Him.] In estimating the peculiar hardness and unbelief of the Jews at Jerusalem, it is worth remembering that all experience proves that where there is the greatest quantity of the form of religion, there is often the greatest proportion of formality and unbelief. The places where men become most familiar with the outside and ceremonial of Christianity are precisely the places where the heart seems to become most hard. Witness the state of Rome at this day. Witness too often the state of cathedral cities in our own land. We need not wonder that the city in which was the temple, the daily sacrifice, and the priesthood, was the most unbelieving place in Palestine.

v38.-[That…saying…Esaias…fulfilled…spake.] We must not suppose this means that the Jews did not believe in order that the prophecy of Isaiah might be fulfilled. This would be teaching sheer fatalism, and would destroy man’s responsibility. The true meaning is, “So that by this unbelief the saying of Isaiah was fulfilled.” (See Joh 5:20; Rom 5:20; 2Co 1:17.)

Chrysostom observes, “It was not because Isaiah spake that they believed not, but because they were not about to believe, that he spake.”

Augustine says, “The Lord, by the Prophet, did predict the unbelief of the Jews,-predict, however, not cause. It does not follow that the Lord compels any man to sin because He knows men’s future sins.”

Theophylact and Euthymius say much the same.

[Lord, who…believed our report.] This question begins the well-known fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, which describes with such extraordinary accuracy our Lord’s sufferings. It is certainly a most singular fact, that the very chapter which the Jews in every age have been most obstinately unwilling to believe, should begin with this question. It is a Hebraism tantamount to saying, “Nobody believes our report.” The unbelief of the Jews was a thing as clearly foretold in Scripture as the sufferings of Christ. If they had not been unbelieving, the Scriptures would have been untrue.

[To whom…arm of…Lord revealed.] The expression, “arm of the Lord,” is thought by Augustine to mean Christ Himself. It may be so. If not, it must mean, “To whom is the Lord’s power in raising up a Redeemer and an atoning sacrifice revealed?” That is, the Lord’s power is revealed to and received by none. The question here again is a Hebraism, equivalent to an assertion.

Bullinger observes, that “some might perhaps wonder that the Jews did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah. To this John replies, that Isaiah long ago foretold that they would prove an unreasonable and unbelieving nation.”

The quotation of Isaiah in this place is strong evidence that the fifty-third chapter of this prophecy applies to Christ, and none else.

v39.-[Therefore they could not believe, because, etc.] This is undeniably a difficult verse. It cannot of course mean that the Jews were unable to believe, although really desirous to do so, and were prevented by the prophecy of Isaiah. What then can it mean? The following paraphrase is offered: “This was the cause why they could not believe: they were in that state of judicial blindness and hardness which Isaiah had described; they were justly given over to this state because of their many sins: and for this cause they had no power to believe.”

“Therefore,” is literally, “on account of this.” It cannot, I think, look backward, but forward. (Compare Joh 10:17, and Joh 12:18.)

“They could not,” is literally, “they were not able.” It precisely describes the moral inability of a thoroughly hardened and wicked man to believe. He is thoroughly under the mastery of a hardened and seared conscience, and has, as it were, lost the power of believing.-They had no will to believe, and so they had no power. They could have believed if they would, but they would not, and so they could not.-The expression is parallel to the well-known words, “No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him.” There the meaning is, “No man has any will to come unless he is drawn, and so no man can come.”

Even in our own English language the expression, “could not,” is sometimes used in the sense of “would not.” Thus the brethren of Joseph “hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him.” (Gen 37:4.)

The word “because” is a needlessly strong rendering of the Greek. It would be just as correctly translated, “for.”

Chrysostom observes, “In many places Christ is wont to term choice, power. So, ‘The world cannot hate you, but Me it hateth.’ So in common conversation a man says, ‘I cannot love this or that person,” calling the force of his will, power.

Augustine says, “If I be asked why they could not believe, I answer in a word, Because they would not.”-He also says, “It is said of the Omnipotent, He cannot deny Himself: and this is the power of the Divine will. So ‘they could not believe’ is the fault of the human will.”

Zwingle also says that “could not” means “would not.”

Ecolampadius observes, “They would not, and therefore they could not believe. God is wont to punish those who commit some sin by giving them up to other sins.” This, he remarks is the heaviest judgment to which we can be given up,-to have sins punished by sins; that is, by being let alone to commit them.

Bishop Hall says, “They could not believe because, as Isaiah says, in a just punishment for their maliciousness and contempt, God had stricken them with a reprobate sense, so that their eyes were blinded.”

Quesnel says here, “Let us bewail this inability of will, with which by means of Adam’s sin we are all born, and which by our own sins we daily increase. Let us continually have recourse to Him who said, ‘Without Me ye can do nothing,’ and, ‘No man can come to Me, unless the Father draw him.’ “

v40.-[He hath blinded their eyes, etc.] This quotation is a free paraphrase of the general view of a verse in Isa 6:9-10. I think it can only have one meaning. That meaning is, that “God had given over the Jews to judicial blindness, as a punishment for their long-continued and obstinate rejection of His warnings.” That God does in some cases give people over, as a punishment for obstinate unbelief, and that He may be justly termed the cause of such unbelief, is I think quite plain in Scripture. Pharaoh is a case in point. He obstinately refused God’s warnings, and so at last He was given over, and God is said to have “hardened his heart.” Compare Jos 11:20-“It was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might destroy them.” (So Deu 2:30; 1Sa 2:25; Rom 9:18.)

This is no doubt a very solemn and awful subject. It seems at first sight to make God the author of man’s destruction. But surely a moment’s reflection will show us that God is a Sovereign in punishing, and may punish in any way he pleases. Some He cuts off suddenly the moment they sin. Others He gives over to judicial blindness, and ceases to strive with their consciences. “The Judge of all the earth will certainly do right.” Those whom He is said to “harden and blind” will always be found to be persons whom He had previously warned, exhorted, and constantly summoned to repent. And never is He said to harden and blind, and give men up to judicial hardness and blindness, till after a long course of warnings. This was certainly the case with Pharaoh and with the Jews.

The consequence of God blinding and hardening a person, is that he does not “see” his danger with his eyes, or “understand” his position with his heart. The result is that he holds on his way unconverted, and dies without his soul’s disease being healed. “Seeing” and “understanding” are essential parts of conversion. No simpler reason can be given why myriads of church-goers continue careless, unaffected, unmoved, and unconverted: they neither “see” nor “understand.” God alone can give them seeing eyes and understanding hearts, and ministers cannot. And one solemn reason why many live and die in this state is, that they have resisted God’s warnings, and are justly punished already with a judicial blindness and hardness, by Him whom they have resisted.

The key to the whole difficulty, after all, lies in the answer we are prepared to give to the question, “Is God just in punishing the sinner?”-The true Christian and honest Bible reader will find no difficulty in answering that question in the affirmative. Once grant that God is just in punishing the ungodly, and there is an end of the problem. God may punish by giving over the obstinate sinner to a reprobate mind, as really as by sentencing him to everlasting fire at the last day.

One thing only must never be forgotten. God “willeth not the death of any sinner.” He is willing to soften the hardest heart, and to open the blind eyes of the greatest sinner. In dealing with men about their soul, we must never forget this. We may well remind them that by hardened impenitence they may provoke God to give them up. But we must also press on them that God’s mercies in Christ are infinite, and that, if they are finally lost, they will have none but themselves to blame.

Burgon thinks that the nominative to “blinded” at the beginning of the verse is not God, but “the Jewish people;” and that the meaning is, “This people hath blinded their own eyes.” But I cannot see that this idea can be supported by reference to Isaiah, and though it smooths over difficulties, I dare not receive it.

Calvin thinks that the passage applies to the hardness by which God punishes the wickedness of an ungrateful people. They are given over justly to an unbelieving and judicially blinded state of mind.

Poole observes, “We have this text, than which there is none more terrible, no less than six times quoted in the New Testament. In all places it is quoted and given as a reason for the Jews’ unbelief in Christ. (Mat 13:14-15; Mar 4:12; Luk 8:10; Act 28:26-27; Rom 11:8.) It is not quoted alike in all places, but for substance it is the same. In the original, Isaiah is made the instrumental cause. Matthew and Luke, in Acts, mention the people themselves as the cause. All the other texts speak of it as God’s act. The thing is easily reconciled.”-He then says “The Jews first shut their own eyes, and hardened their own hearts. Thus behaving themselves, God judicially gave them up to their own lusts, permitted their hearts to harden, and suffered them to close their own eyes, so that they could not repent, believe, or return. God did not infuse any malice into their hearts, but withdrew His grace from them.”

Rollock makes the wise and deep remark, that “Darkness does not blind men so much as light, unless God renews their minds by His Spirit.”

It is of course noteworthy that this quotation is not given literally and exactly as it stands in the Old Testament. But it is particularly mentioned by Surenhusius, in his book upon the quotations in the New Testament, that it was a common thing with the Hebrew doctors to abbreviate texts in quoting them, and to be content with giving the general sense. The abbreviation, therefore, in the text quoted before us, would not strike John’s contemporaries as at all extraordinary.

Let us not fail to remark how “seeing, understanding, being converted, and being healed,” are linked together.

v41.-[These things…Esaias…his glory…him.] To see the full force of this verse we should read the sixth chapter of Isaiah in its entirety. We should there see a magnificent description of the Lord’s glory, before which even the seraphim veiled their faces. We should observe their cry, “Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of Hosts.” We should mark how Isaiah says, “Mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of Hosts.” And then let us remember that John says, “Esaias saw Christ’s glory, and spake of Christ”!-How any one, in the face of this evidence, can say that Jesus Christ is not very God, it seems hard to understand.

Lightfoot thinks that Isaiah in this chapter had a view of the glory which our Lord would have when He came to punish the Jewish nation. He thinks this is pointed out by “the posts of the door being shaken;” by “the temple being filled with smoke;” and by “the cities being wasted.” (See Isa 6:1-13.)

v42.-[Nevertheless…rulers…many believed Him.] Here John mentions a fact which he would have us take together with his account of the hardened unbelief of most of the Jews. There were some who were not so utterly hardened as the rest. They were in a different state of mind: not blind but convinced; not hardened against our Lord, but secretly persuaded that He was the Christ. Many even of the chief people at Jerusalem believed, in their own secret minds, that Jesus was the Christ. This faith no doubt was only the faith of the head, and not of the heart. But they did believe.

Let us note that there is often far more going on in people’s minds than preachers are aware of. There is much secret conviction.

[But because…Pharisees…not confess Him.] They dared not openly confess their faith in our Lord, for fear of the persecution of the Pharisees. They were cowards, and influenced by the fear of man. No wonder that our Lord spoke so strongly in other places about the duty of confessing Him.

[Lest…put out of…synagogue.] The thing that they feared was excommunication. We can have little idea perhaps of the extreme dread with which a Jew regarded exclusion from the visible Jewish Church. Unlike ourselves, he knew no other Church in the whole world. To be shut out of this Church was equivalent to being shut out of heaven. The dread of excommunication in the Irish Catholic Church is perhaps the nearest thing to it in our days.

v43.-[For…loved…praise…man more…God.] John here tells us plainly the prevailing motive in the minds of the cowardly Jews. They loved above everything to be well thought of by their fellow-men. They thought more of having the good opinion of man than the praise of God. They could not bear the idea of being laughed at, ridiculed, reviled, or persecuted by their fellow-men. To keep in with them and have their praise, they sacrificed their own convictions, and acted contrary to their conscience. How much this feeling injures the soul, is shown by our Lord’s words in a former place: “How can ye believe which received honor one from another?” (Joh 5:44.)

Let us remember that all over the world the same miserable motive is still ruining myriads of souls. “The fear of man bringeth a snare.” (Pro 29:25.) Nothing seems so difficult to overcome as the desire of pleasing man, keeping in with man, and retaining man’s praise. Nothing will overcome it but thorough faith. “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” (1Jn 5:4.) The expulsive power of a new principle, that makes us see God, Christ, heaven, hell, judgment, eternity, as realities, is the grand secret of getting the victory over the fear of man.

Poole says, “They were not willing to part with their great places in the magistracy, which brought them respect, honor, and applause from men. They valued this more than God’s praise.”

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

Joh 12:34. The multitude therefore answered him, We have heard out of the law that the Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted on high? The multitude, who are Jews not Greeks, have rightly understood the words of Jesus in Joh 12:32 to mean a lifting on high by death. But they have learned from the Scriptures (here, as in chap. Joh 10:34, called the law)probably from such passages as Sam. Joh 7:13-15; Psalms 72, 89, 110; Isaiah 6, 7; Dan 7:14that the Christ abideth for ever, that, according to their interpretation, He should have a glorious and eternal reign on earth. There is thus an irreconcilable contradiction between the fate expected by Jesus and the claims which they might perhaps have otherwise allowed.

Who is this Son of man? The words are not an honest inquiry who this Son of man can be, and how he can be the Christ. They are really a rejection of the claims of Jesus. Who is this? We have nothing and shall have nothing to do with Him. The interpretation thus given is greatly confirmed by the fact that the words are immediately followed not by explanation, but by solemn warning on the part of Jesus (Joh 12:35-36), and by the Evangelists own reflections on the hardness and perversity of man (Joh 12:37-41); while, at the same time, it is in a high degree suitable to the place occupied by them in the Gospel. Son of man had been the favourite designation by Jesus of Himself. How appropriate is it that, when finally rejected, He should be rejected in that character! Have we not here also another illustration of the Evangelists love of commemorating instances when, against themselves and as if under the guidance of an irresistible power, men were compelled to ascribe to Jesus in contempt epithets which, rightly understood, were His highest glory?

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Observe here, 1. The objection which the Jews make against our Saviour’s being the true Messias. Their argument runs thus: ” It was foretold under the law, that Christ or the Messias abideth for ever; but thou sayest, the Son of man must be lifted up and die. How then canst thou be the promised Messias?” The answer is, ” In his state of humiliation unto death, he was lifted up: but, in his state of exaltation, he abideth for ever.”

Learn hence, that Christ’s lifting up by death, and his abiding for ever, do very well consist together; for both are true of him, the one in his state of humiliation, the other in his state of exaltation.

Observe, 2. Our Saviour returns no answer to their cavilling objection, nor doth he undertake to demonstrate how his sufferings and his abiding for ever, are consistent: but gives them intimations that he was the light of the world, and advises them, whilst they had, the light with them, to prize it highly, and improve it faithfully. Yet a little while is the light with you, walk whilst ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you.

Note here, 1. A choice and singular privilege enjoyed; the light is with you, a personal light, Christ; a doctrinal light, the gospel: both these brought with them a light of knowledge, answering our darkness of ignorance; a light of grace and holiness, answering our darkness of sin, which we had brought upon ourselves; and a light of joy and comfort, answering the darkness of misery and horror, which we lay under by reason of our guilt.

Note, 2. The time of enjoying this privilege limited: yet a little while is the light with you. The time of a people’s enjoying the light and liberty of the gospel, it is a limited time, it is a short time.

Note, 3. A duty enjoined by Christ answerable to the privilege enjoyed by us; Walk whilst ye have the light. An uniform and constant course of holy walking, according to the rule of the gospel, is the indispensible duty and obligation of all those that enjoy the light and liberty of the gospel; namely, to walk according to the precepts and commands of the gospel, answerable to the privileges and prerogatives of the gospel, answerable to the helps and supplies of grace which the gospel affords, and answerable to the glorious hope and expectation which the gospel raises us unto.

Note, 4. A danger threatened to the neglecters of this duty; lest darkness come upon you; namely, a darkness of ignorance and judicial blindness, a darkness of error and seduction, a darkness of horror and despair, and the fatal and final darkness of death and hell; for all contemners of gospel-light, there is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. Where sin and torment run parallel, their torment makes them sin, and their sin feeds their torment.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Joh 12:34-36. The people answered Understanding the phrase as implying some violent death shortly to come upon him; We have heard out of the law, that Christ abideth for ever On hearing Jesus affirm that he was to be lifted up, or taken off by a violent death, they told him that it was inconsistent with the character of the Messiah, who, according to the law, (so they named the whole of their sacred writings,) was never to die. And how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? How can these things be reconciled? Who is this Son of man? Is he a different person from the Messiah, whom we have been taught to expect under the title of the Son of man? If not, what sort of a Messiah must he be that is to die? Then Jesus said Not answering them directly, but exhorting them to improve what they had heard already; Yet a little while is the light with you As if he had said, Do not cavil at what I now say; but remember how short this opportunity is, which through the divine goodness you now enjoy; and improve by my instructions, who am the light of the world. See on Joh 8:12. Lest darkness That is, spiritual blindness; come upon you By the just judgment of God. Rom 11:25. If that should happen to you, ye will be in a miserable condition indeed: For he that walketh in darkness, knoweth not whither he goeth Knoweth neither the way he is walking in, nor the end he is walking toward: he knows not into what danger and misery he may fall the very next step he takes: and much more dreadful will it be for you to be deserted of God, and left to the darkness and folly of your own hearts. Observe, reader, he that is destitute of the light of the gospel, that is unacquainted with its discoveries and directions, wanders endlessly in mistakes and errors, in a thousand crooked paths, and is not aware of it: he is probably going to destruction, and knows not his danger: he is sleeping, or sporting, on the brink of the pit. While you have the light, therefore, believe in the light While you enjoy the benefit of my doctrine, example, and miracles, which clearly prove my mission from God, believe on me; for it is thus alone you can become children of light Children of God, wise, holy, and happy. These things spake Jesus When the Greeks applied themselves to him; and as the unbelieving Jews were greatly irritated by the actions and discourses of the day, and would not be awakened to conviction, he left them and departed thence to a retired place. Greek, , which Dr. Campbell renders, He withdrew himself privately from them: observing, that he thinks our translation, he departed and did hide himself from them, conveys a sense different from that of the original, which denotes simply, that in retiring he took care not to be observed by them.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Ver. 34. The multitude answered him, We have heard from the law that the Christ abides for ever; how sayest thou then, The Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?

Joh 12:34. How sayest thou, thou? This thou is opposed to we, : we who are acquainted with the law and those among us who explain it. The passages to which the Jews allude are those in which the Messiah is represented as founding on the ruins of the heathen empires an eternal kingdom: Isa 9:6; Psa 110:2-4; Dan 7:14, etc. On the term the law, see p. 165. In order to resolve the difficulty, the objectors themselves make a supposition respecting which they ask to be enlightened. Jesus has the habit of designating Himself as the Son of man; might this name perhaps designate in His mouth a personage different from the Christ? This question is not without analogy to that which John the Baptist addressed to Jesus from the centre of his prison: Art thou he that should come or are we to look for another? (Vol. I., p. 323f.). The Jews certainly do not mean: Is this Son of man thyself or some other? He has just applied to Himself this title, Joh 12:23. As Jesus has always refused to take openly before them the title of Christ, they ask themselves rather if the term Son of man does not designate a different personage from the Messiah, one of the numerous forerunners who were looked for. Meyer and Weiss explain differently: What a strange Messiah is he who wishes to go away, instead of transforming everything! But the terms of the question do not express this idea. The expression must have been: What sort of Christ is this! and not: Who is this Son of man? These words of the people appear to me to prove that the title Son of man was not generally used in Israel to designate the Messiah; and, as we have already seen, it was precisely for this reason that Jesus had chosen it to designate Himself habitually (vol. I., p. 338f.). We find ourselves in accord on this point with Colani. The question proposed by His hearers leads Jesus to explain to them the vital importance of the present hour for Israel in particular.

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

Verse 34

This Son of man. We observe that this expression is not contained in what Jesus had said, as reported above. And, undoubtedly, in all these cases, it is only the substance of the dialogue which the sacred writers record. It is possible, however, in this case, that they may refer to a preceding conversation. (John 3:14.)

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

Jesus’ prediction of His death puzzled His listeners. They were probably thinking of the passages in the Old Testament that spoke of Messiah and or His kingdom enduring forever (e.g., 2Sa 7:12-13; 2Sa 7:16; Psa 89:26-29; Psa 89:35-37; Dan 7:13-14). Jesus had been speaking of His dying. How could Jesus be the Messiah and die? What kind of Son of Man was Jesus talking about?

"We should not overlook the fact that this is the last mention of the crowd in Jesus’ ministry. To the end they remain confused and perplexed, totally unable to appreciate the magnitude of the gift offered to them and the significance of the Person who offers it." [Note: Ibid., p. 533.]

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