John 12 - Expositor's Bible Commentary - Abridged

F. The Crisis of the Ministry (12:1–50)

Chapter 12 of John is devoted to the crisis of Jesus’ ministry that preceded its conclusion. As previously noted, the hostility of the religious authorities had been increasing and had intensified because they had been unable to entangle Jesus in any compromising dilemma or defeat him in public debate. In spite of a decline in his popularity because he refused to become involved in a political coup (6:15) and because some of his teaching was obscure to his listeners (6:52–66), he still retained a loyal group of disciples; and a large segment of the populace still regarded him with awe. They hoped that he might still decide to use his miraculous powers on their behalf and establish a new political and economic order that would make Israel dominant among the nations.

For Jesus himself, the period was critical because the forces for and against him were crystallizing, and he had to make a decision as to which way he should turn. He had been living by a program that had been established by the Father and was outlined progressively by Scripture and experience. No doubt the temptation to deviate from it for considerations of power or safety was always with him (Lk 4:13). Now, as the moment for the fulfillment of the divine purpose approached, the tension increased.

1. The dinner at Bethany (12:1–11)

1–2 At this point Jesus’ time schedule becomes more definite than previously in this gospel. Martha and Mary gave a dinner for Jesus. The notation that Lazarus was among the guests seems unnecessary at first reading. If the dinner was an expression of gratitude for the restoration of Lazarus (Ch. 11), he would naturally be expected to attend it. Perhaps the writer is suggesting that after Lazarus’s restoration to life he retired from any public appearance since he did not want to be an object of curiosity (cf. v.9). On this occasion he may have come out of seclusion to honor Jesus.

3 The anointing of Jesus’ feet by Mary was not difficult because of the custom of reclining to eat instead of sitting at a table. Guests usually reclined on divans with their heads near the table. They leaned on cushions with one arm and ate with the other. Mary could easily have slipped from her couch, walked around the other couches, and poured the ointment on Jesus’ feet.

Spices and ointments were quite costly because they had to be imported. Mary’s offering was valued at approximately a year’s wages for an ordinary working person. She presented it as an offering of love and gratitude, prompted by Jesus’ restoration of her brother to the family circle. Wiping his feet with her hair was a gesture of utmost devotion and reverence. The penetrating fragrance of the ointment that filled the house told all present of her sacrificial gift.

4–6 Judas Iscariot reappears here (Cf. 6:70–71, the only previous mention of him in this gospel). Jesus knew Judas’s tendencies and was well aware of his coming defection. Whereas many of Jesus’ disciples had deserted him (6:66), Judas remained to betray him. He was determined to make Jesus serve his purpose—by treachery if necessary.

Judas had been appointed treasurer of the band of disciples, but he had been using his office for his own enrichment. His remonstrance over Mary’s gift revealed that he had a sharp sense of financial values and no appreciation of human values.

7–8 Mary seems to have been the only one who was sensitive to the impending death of Jesus and who was willing to give a material expression of her esteem for him. Jesus’ reply shows his appreciation of her act of devotion. His words disclose also the current of his thought, for he was anticipating death. His comment on the poor was not a justification for tolerating unnecessary poverty; but it was a hint to Judas that if he were really concerned about the poor, he would never lack opportunity to aid them. Mary and Judas stand in sharp contrast to each other.

9–11 The response of the crowds to Jesus brought another crisis to his enemies. So many were becoming his followers that the priestly party was sure that their fears as expressed by Caiaphas were justified. Their resolution to destroy Jesus was strengthened, and in their wild madness of unbelief they even contemplated the possibility of removing Lazarus, since his restoration to life was an undeniable witness to Jesus’ power.

2. The entry into Jerusalem (12:12–19)

12 This story is one that also appears in the Synoptic Gospels (Mt 21:1–11; Mk 11:1–10; Lk 19:28–40). John identifies two distinct multitudes: the larger one was composed of the “great crowd” of pilgrims who had come to Jerusalem for the Passover and were already there (v.12); the other one was those who were traveling with Jesus and had witnessed the raising of Lazarus (v.17).

13 If the former crowd came from Galilee, they would be well aware of Jesus’ works there; a number of them had probably wished for a long time that he would declare himself as the expected Messiah. They applied to him the words of Ps 118:25–26, a song customarily sung by Passover pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem. These words ascribed to him a messianic title as the agent of the Lord, the coming king of Israel.

14–15 The entry into Jerusalem was Jesus’ announcement that his hour had come and that he was ready for action, though not according to the expectation of the people. He did not come as a conqueror but as a messenger of peace. He rode on a common donkey, not a royal steed. John couples this entry with a prophecy of Zechariah (9:9), who announced that the king of Israel would appear in humility without pomp and ceremony. The pilgrims who had come to Jerusalem to attend the feast went out to greet Jesus; the other crowd gathered in his train. “Hosanna” is a Hebrew expression meaning literally “Save now!” (see comment on Mk 11:9). It may be interpreted as a plea for immediate action on the part of the king (cf. v.13). “Daughter of Zion” is a personification of the city of Jerusalem; it occurs frequently in the OT, especially in the later prophets (Isa 1:8; 52:2; Jer 4:31; Mic 4:8; Zec 2:10; et al.).

16 This parenthetical statement by the author states that the disciples did not then understand the situation but that they later comprehended it (Cf. 2:17, 22). His comments demonstrate that the gospel must have been written when he and the others had attained a spiritual perception they did not possess in the years of their travels with Jesus. The Passion and the Resurrection were keys in unlocking the mystery of Jesus’ person.

17–18 The second group in this account consists of those who were following Jesus, some of whom had witnessed the raising of Lazarus in Bethany. These people continued to publicize Jesus’ miracle and aroused the curiosity of many in the city. These, in turn, joined the crowd that was on the way to meet Jesus as he neared Jerusalem.

19 The convergence of the pilgrims from a distance with Jesus’ enthusiastic supporters from Jerusalem made a popular following that caused the rulers to become apprehensive. They felt that their attempts to stop Jesus were too few and too late.

3. The response to the Greeks (12:20–36)

20 Another element that contributed to the crisis was the request of the Greeks to see Jesus. They were probably Gentile Greeks who had joined the Jewish pilgrims to Jerusalem—inquirers, possibly from Galilee or the Decapolis, who had become interested in the Jewish faith but had not become full proselytes.

21–22 Just why these Greeks approached Philip rather than one of the other disciples is not stated. Philip in turn referred them to Andrew, and both of them carried the request to Jesus himself.

23 Curiously enough, John never writes whether Jesus either gave these Greeks an audience or sent a reply back to them. Nevertheless, Jesus’ action itself is an answer to their inquiry, because he announced openly that the great hour of his life had arrived. He felt the pressure of the Gentile world and realized that the time had come to open the way to God for the Gentiles and to fuse Jew ish and Gentile believers into one body. To accomplish this objective, he had to sacrifice himself (Cf. 10:16).

24 The likeness of the grain of wheat that is buried in the cold soil only to rise again multiplied for harvest is applicable to all believers in Christ. Until the seed is planted in the ground and dies, it bears no fruit; and if it is sacrificed, it produces a large crop. This also served as a metaphor for Jesus’ own life’s plan.

25 The man who attempts to preserve his life will lose it, while the man who readily sacrifices his life will keep it for eternal life. The two words translated “life” are different (GK 6034 & 2437). The first is generally rendered “soul” and denotes the individual personality, with all its related experiences and achievements. The second is usually coupled with the adjective “eternal” in John and means the spiritual vitality that is the experience of God (17:3; cf. Mt 10:39; Mk 8:36; Lk 14:26).

The expression “who hates his life” is a hyperbolic expression which means that one is to base one’s priorities on that which is outside oneself. In this instance, it is to make Christ the Master of one’s life.

26 In this verse, Jesus explained what hating one’s life means. The impending Cross would involve the disciples in the same way it would involve Jesus, and he was informing them that he was the model for them to follow (cf. his discourse on the Good Shepherd; 10:4). “Going ahead of them” implies that he does first what he asks them to do and that he confronts the dangers before they encounter them. Jesus went on to promise that wherever he might go, his servants would be privileged to accompany him and share his glory (Cf. 17:24).

27–28a Turning from how the crisis would affect the disciples, Jesus revealed how it affected him. His dilemma here corresponds to what happened in Gethsemane as recorded in Mt 26:36–46; Mk 14:32–42; Lk 22:40–46. John reveals that that struggle, which he does not record, was the culmination of an earlier struggle. In these words spoken publicly in the period of crisis, Jesus indicates that he is breaking under the strain of the crisis; its dangers and irrationality are overwhelming him. Should he ask the Father to spare him from the cataclysm that was so rapidly approaching? Had he done so, he might have averted seeming disaster at the price of failing to achieve his redemptive purpose. But Jesus adhered boldly to his original purpose of completing the mission God had entrusted to him. His resolution was final. He wanted the Father’s name to be glorified, no matter what the cost!

28b–30 The voice from heaven is the third and final instance recorded in the gospel narratives, and the only one in John (cf. the voice at his baptism, Mt 3:17; Mk 1:11; Lk 3:21–22; and at his transfiguration, Mt 17:5; Mk 9:7; Lk 9:35). On each occasion it was a public acknowledgment of the sonship and authority of Jesus and an endorsement of his work by the Father. John asserts unmistakably that the voice was a genuine, audible sound, though the crowd did not understand it. Jesus explained that the voice from heaven was intended to encourage the disciples and to inform the crowd, not to encourage him.

31 Jesus recognized and announced unmistakably that the final crisis had arrived. Both the disciples and the more sympathetic segment of the crowd were uncertain of what his fate would be (see 6:60–66; 7:25–27, 40–44; 10:19–24; 11:55–56). Now he declared that a decisive action must follow. God’s purpose is to glorify him. The hour for judgment has come, and the prince of the world must be exposed for what he is. “Judgment” (GK 3213) does not imply that the final day of judgment has come or that only now is retribution for sin exercised. Jesus conveyed the meaning that God, having now made his final revelation, must hold people responsible for their obedience or disobedience (cf. also Ac 17:30–31). The revelation of God in Christ is itself a disclosure of sin and a judgment on it.

“The prince of this world” can be none other than Satan (Cf. 14:30; 16:11; similarly in 2Co 4:4; Eph 2:2; 6:12). The Cross and the Resurrection spelled Satan’s defeat and marked the glorification of all Satan renounced and the reversal of all he sought to attain. Satan was motivated by self-will; Jesus, by the will of the Father. Satan’s power brought destruction and death; Jesus’ power imparted renewal and life. Though Satan is still active, his action is only the desperation of futility (cf. Rev 12:12).

32–33 The preposition “from” (GK 1666) means “out from” rather than “away from.” It connotes not only being lifted or suspended above the earth, as on a cross, but also being brought up out of the earth. Jesus had in mind not only the fact that he would be elevated on the cross but also that he would be exalted by the Resurrection (see also 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34). Elsewhere in the NT the verb “lifted up” does mean “exalt” (GK 5738; see comment on 3:14). Thus, it lends itself well to the double meaning of the method of death as specifically stated here and the exaltation to spiritual sovereignty as described in apostolic preaching (Ac 2:33; 5:31; Php 2:9).

“All men” does not imply that everyone will ultimately be saved; instead, it means that Christ draws people to himself indiscriminately, without regard to nationality, race, or status. Jesus’ utterance was prompted by the presence of the Greek Gentiles (v.20) and should be evaluated in that context. Note that there is a clear differentiation between believers and unbelievers, between the saved and the lost, in John’s writings (Cf. 1:11; 3:18, 36; 5:29; et al.; 1Jn 3:10, 15; 5:12).

34 The crowd was puzzled by Jesus’ prediction of his death. According to their understanding, the Messiah would be a supernatural person who would inaugurate his final and eternal reign as God’s Anointed, the Son of David. In the OT (expressed by the word “Law” here), God promised to David that his descendants would reign “forever” (2Sa 7:12–13, 16; cf. Ps 89:26–29, 35–36). The people were confused by Jesus’ reference to the “Son of Man” and wanted to know who he was.

Although John 12:32 uses the first person pronoun “I” rather than “Son of Man,” Jesus undoubtedly was speaking of himself by this title (see comment on Mk 8:31). The query of the crowd, “Who is this ‘Son of Man’?” implies that his concept of its meaning was different from theirs. To them, the apocalyptic Son of Man (cf. Da 7:13–14) would not die. Jesus was enlarging the concept of “Son of Man” by applying it to the whole of his work: his true humanity, his suffering, his exaltation, and his judicial work.

35–36 Jesus spoke with urgency. The light would not always be available (Cf. 9:4). If his hearers wished to walk with certainty, they should act at once, for after his departure they might find themselves in the darkness. “Put your trust” implies a persistent faith, not solely a momentary decision (Cf. 14:1).

4. The response to unbelief (12:37–50)

Verses 37–50 are the author’s explanation of the significance of his narrative up to this point. They focus on the conflict of belief and unbelief and include Jesus’ final appeal for decision. The historical crisis must be resolved by immediate action that reveals either the belief or unbelief of those involved. The spiritual crisis that occurs when one confronts Christ is resolved through personal decision.

37–38 The author expresses surprise and regret that in spite of Jesus’ numerous “signs” the people still obstinately refused to believe in him. Unbelief was rapidly approaching the climax attained in the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus. John connected this with the prophecy of Isaiah, thus plainly affirming that Jesus was the subject of the passage on the Suffering Servant (Isa 52:13–53:12; John quotes 53:1). Parts of this prophecy are quoted repeatedly in the NT (Mt 8:17; Lk 22:37; Ac 8:32–33; Ro 10:16; 15:21; 1Pe 2:22, 24–25), and it is an important basis for the doctrine of the Atonement. Prophecy repeatedly played a large part in apostolic preaching (e.g., Ac 2:17–35; 3:18, 21, 24).

39–40 Not only did prophecy describe unbelief, it also explained it. Why should the hearers of Jesus not believe in him when the signs so unmistakably accredited his claims? John quotes from Isa 6 (the story of Isaiah’s commission) to show that unbelief is the result of the rejection of light, which act, by the sovereign law of God, gradually makes belief impossible. God warned the prophet in advance that his mission would not be successful, for the hearts of those who heard him would be hardened. John interprets this prophecy by its effect rather than by its intention. It was not God’s desire to alienate his people; but without the offer of faith and repentance, they would never turn to him anyway. The cumulative effect of unbelief is a hardened attitude that becomes more impenetrable as time progresses.

41 The implication in this verse is startling. Isaiah 6 opens by Isaiah saying that he saw the Lord (Isa 6:1, 5). John now claims that Isaiah saw Jesus and spoke of him. In other words, he identified Jesus with the Lord (Heb. “Yahweh”; GK 3378) of the OT.

42–43 John notes that many of the leaders believed (including probably Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus; Cf. 19:38–39; Mk 15:43; Lk 23:50–51). Possibly John learned of this movement among the national leaders through his acquaintance with Nicodemus. Since the attitude of the council as a whole would call for the excommunication of any avowed believers in Jesus (Jn 9:22), these people remained silent.

44–46 Jesus equated belief in him with belief in God (cf. John 14:1; 1Jn 2:23). The Father and the Son are inseparable; though they are two personalities, they work as one being. Jesus spoke of the Father as the one who had sent him, and he claimed to be the light that illumines the darkness of those who are without God.

47–50 Judgment on unbelief is not arbitrary but inevitable. The message of Christ will become the condemnation in the last days of any who refuse it, since nobody who refused it can plead ignorance. Jesus’ emphasis, however, is positive. His mission was intended to evoke belief and to rescue humans from darkness. The Father’s sovereign purpose is to lift people out of helplessness and death and give them eternal life. Because Jesus speaks the message the Father commanded him to speak, he is the Word of God.

At this point John closes the account of Jesus’ public ministry of teaching. Subsequently he taught only the disciples and prepared them for the final act of his life.