John 11 - Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

11:2 This is the Mary who later poured the expensive perfume on the Lord’s feet. It is difficult to know why John relates this at this point. Perhaps he simply wanted to point forward to a key event, but it does seem to presuppose that John expected his readers to know of this event. Thus, it is likely that many (but not all) of the intended audience were Christians who had already heard of it (contra Carson) and that John wished to explain who these women were. Also, as Witherington points out (1995:200), this is evidence that some of Jesus’ followers were well off. Not only did she have very expensive perfume, but they took care of many Jews who had come to mourn Lazarus (11:19, 45) and later held a banquet for many of them (12:1-2). The tomb with a rolling stone also indicates wealth. Probably Jesus and his disciples often stayed in their home when visiting Jerusalem. This indicates that Jesus ministered to the upper class as well as the outcasts.

11:3 Lord. It is generally agreed that by saying “Lord,” the sisters were not recognizing his universal lordship but rather were showing themselves as disciples of their rabbi/master. It was a title with greater weight than “sir” (Cf. 4:19 for “sir”) but less than a reference to deity.

11:9 twelve hours. People of the ancient world did not calculate time as exactly as today, for they did not have clocks like we do. Day and night were calculated at 12 hours each. The actual length of daylight in Palestine varied from 9 hours 48 minutes to 14 hours 12 minutes (so Morris).

11:16 Thomas, nicknamed the Twin. The Heb. for “twin” (toa’mim [TH8380, ZH9339] or cf. the Aramaic t’oma’) sounds like the Gr. for “Thomas,” and sometimes a Jewish man who was a twin or descended from one was given the name “Thomas.” It may be that the added “Didymus” (cf. NLT mg) was used as a reminder of the Semitic origin and meaning of his name (so Michaels).

11:19 come to console. There were three stages to the mourning rituals: For the first seven days, the family stayed at home, receiving condolences and leaving only to visit the tomb; then for 30 days they did not participate in feast days or leave town. After that, they returned to normal life (McCane 2000:174-175).

11:25 the resurrection and the life. It is debated whether “resurrection” and “life” are synonyms (in the sense that resurrection is further explained by life; so Bultmann, Schnackenburg) or complementary ideas (with physical resurrection extending into eternal life; so Dodd, Brown, Carson). The latter is better, seen in 11:25b-26, which explains how the two relate to each other.

11:27 I have always believed. This is in the perfect tense, emphasizing her state of being. Martha was affirming that belief defined her life.

11:28 called Mary aside. Some have read theological meaning into the secrecy surrounding Martha and Mary’s interaction with Jesus—for instance Barrett (1978:398), who takes these verses as “marks of the secrecy which is characteristic of the miracle narratives in Mark.” This is too allegorical and does not fit Johannine themes. It is best to take this as simply part of the local color of the story.

11:38 a cave with a stone rolled across its entrance. This cave became an important place of pilgrimage, and in the fourth century, Christians had a church erected over it called “the Lazareion.” While we cannot be sure of the authenticity of the cave as shown today, it is of the same style as the one described here.

11:39 Roll the stone aside. Wilcox (1977:131-132) thinks that this prayer at the rolling away of the stone deliberately echoes the “stone” imagery of Ps 118:22 (“The stone that the builders rejected has now become the cornerstone”) and is an “early Christian ‘stone’ midrash.” While difficult to prove, the idea is an interesting possibility. At the same time, the statement foreshadows the greater rolling away of the stone at the resurrection of Jesus (20:1; Mark 16:3-4).

11:42 You always hear me. This special privilege would be passed on to the disciples, as power in prayer was given to them in 14:12-14; 15:7, 16; 16:24. In fact, every aspect here would be handed over to the disciples, who would become “sent ones” in 17:18; 20:21 after receiving the Spirit (20:22). This is indeed the mission theology of John (cf. “The Holy Spirit” and “Mission” in the Introduction).

11:45-54 It is common today to think that this is John’s version of the Sanhedrin trial found in the Synoptics (Bultmann, Schnackenburg, Lindars). But the historical details of this meeting before Jesus was arrested fit closely with what we know of legal procedures at the time (cf. Blomberg 2001), and a close reading of Mark 14:1-2 (two days before Passover) indicates that the chief priests and scribes were putting into action a decision that had already been made. There is no good reason to doubt the historicity of this event.

11:49 at that time. Lit., “that year.” While according to the OT, high priests held the office all their lives (Num 35:25), the Romans used to replace Jewish high priests as they saw fit, though not every year. Some (e.g., Bultmann) have taken “that year” to indicate that John ignorantly read pagan customs (changing the high priesthood every year) into the Jewish situation. It is more likely that “that year” refers not to the timing of Caiaphas’s reign but to “that fateful year in which Christ died” (Brown 1966:440, italics his).

11:51 led to prophesy. In general, the high priest was occasionally linked to prophetic gifts. Josephus (Wars 1.68-69) attributes prophecy to John Hyrcanus (high priest from 135–104 BC) and describes a revelation given to the high priest Jaddua when Alexander the Great visited Jerusalem (Antiquities 11.327, 333-334).

11:52 bring together. Lit., “gather”; a word found also in 11:47, when the Sanhedrin gathered together. Blomberg (2001:173-174) thinks the paragraph (11:47-53) is framed by the two “gatherings,” thus determining a central contrast in the paragraph between “the gathering of the mighty to maintain a rule of violence versus the gathering of humanity united by one who is a powerless victim.”

11:55 Passover. This is an important note in dating Jesus’ death. Since Jesus began ministering in the forty-sixth year of the ongoing construction of Herod’s temple (AD 27–28, see on 2:20), and this was the third Passover/second year from then, Jesus probably died in 30 AD (cf. Carson). This also means that Jesus had a ministry lasting a little over two years (depending on how much time elapsed between his baptism and the first Passover in 2:13).

There has always been reluctance on the part of certain scholars to accept the historicity of this miracle, for it is not only the most spectacular of the miracle stories, engendering incredible publicity, but it also appears only in John. While some like Bultmann reject it out of anti-supernatural bias, others believe the evidence for it is too scanty, thinking it a development of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. But it is difficult to see why so developed a story would grow out of a parable that is so very different in substance. And there are good reasons for accepting the historicity of this account: The incredible detail and lifelike portrayal is historically plausible and fits a first-century setting. Also, as stated in the Introduction, John is quite trustworthy in his handling of his sources throughout his Gospel. Furthermore, there are two other passages that make reference to Jesus raising the dead (Matt 11:5; Luke 7:22) and two other accounts of him raising dead people—Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:22ff) and the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:11ff). There is insufficient reason for refusing to keep this among the historical stories (cf. Morris, Carson, Blomberg 2001, Keener).

This is a beautiful story, not just about Jesus’ power to raise the dead, but also about the loving relationship Jesus had with his friends. It is the seventh sign-miracle (see commentary on 2:1-12) and the culmination of the series, demonstrating in a powerful way Jesus’ authority to give life (5:21, 25-26). There is also deep-seated irony in this story, for Jesus’ giving life to Lazarus precipitates the events that lead to his own death (Cf. 11:45-54).

Jesus responded very strangely, prophesying that Lazarus’s illness would not end in death but that the final result would be “for the glory of God” (11:4; cf. his response here to his comment about the blind man in 9:3). The glory of God was the major goal of Jesus’ life, and everything he did was meant to bring his Father glory (12:28; 14:13; 17:1, 4). The glory of God meant also the glory of Jesus, for the mutual union between the Father and the Son (10:38; 14:10, 11, 20; 17:21) means a reciprocity of glory. Carson brings out (1991:406) that the glory of God in John is “not the praise that is God’s due but his revelation, his self-disclosure” that comes primarily via the Son. The glory of one is the glory of both. The raising of Lazarus would reveal the glory of the Father in the Son. Yet the glory of the raising of Lazarus was but a preparation for the true glory to be demonstrated in the dying and rising of Jesus himself.

Then comes an even stranger aspect of the story. After telling the messengers everything would be all right, he stayed there in Bethany, in Transjordan (Perea) an extra two days (11:5-6). He dearly loved all three (naming Martha first may mean she was the oldest of the three), and yet he stayed put, almost as if he was enjoying his R & R too much to leave just yet. In fact, Lazarus must have died shortly after the messengers left to see Jesus: the journey took about a day, and in 11:17, we learn that Lazarus had been dead for four days when they arrived (one day for the messengers to come, two days that Jesus remained there, and a fourth day for Jesus to travel to Bethany). This hints at omniscience on Jesus’ part (Cf. 1:48; 4:18). He knew the whole situation. There may have been two reasons for the delay: (1) it heightened the miracle, showing even more powerfully that he is “the resurrection and the life” (so Carson, Burge); and (2) it showed that Jesus was waiting for God’s timing. Jesus knew that when he left, the “time” would arrive for the Passion events to begin (Cf. 7:30; 8:20). Jesus waited for his Father to signal that the time had come (so Morris, Ridderbos, Köstenberger). Only then did he tell his disciples that they would be returning to Judea (11:7).

The emphasis on Judea rather than Bethany shows that his major emphasis was on the events soon to transpire and not just on the imminent miracle. The disciples were very aware of the danger of returning; after all, that was the reason they had left—after the Jews had tried to stone Jesus (10:31, 39). The disciples had realized they were in grave danger as well. In a short while, Thomas would say, “Let’s go, too—and die with Jesus” (11:16). They could not believe he wanted to go there again.

Christ’s response (11:9-10) reiterated the point he made in 9:4, that night was coming so they had to work while it was still day. The metaphor is quite simple: it is easier to walk during the daytime, when “the light of this world” helps you to see obstacles and not stumble over them. The spiritual thrust is also clear: Jesus, “the light of the world” (8:12), was illuminating this world of darkness with the light of God (1:4, 5, 9). There was only a short time left before the darkness took over and he faced the Cross. Therefore, he had no time to remain in hiding but had to go confront the powers of darkness (Cf. 12:30-31). He had to perform the work of his Father while the “twelve hours” of his life and ministry lasted. That night was almost there, and he had to use every minute of the remaining time he had. The same was true for his disciples: The Light was with them for only a short time, and they had to follow that Light while they could. To “walk safely,” they had to follow the Light, and that meant a return to Judea. Ironically, there was no “danger of stumbling” so long as they followed Jesus into danger!

When Jesus told them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep” (11:11), he expected the disciples to understand the phrase “wake him up” as indicating Jesus’ intention to raise him from the dead. After all, they had seen Jesus raise people from the dead before. The disciples, however, completely missed his point and took it literally, figuring “he will soon get better” (11:12). This can be taken as an indication of their obtuseness and stupidity (so Calvin) or as a natural misunderstanding in light either of the fact that they were thinking about illness or the fact that sleep and waking up were not really used in the ancient world as euphemisms for death and resurrection (so Bruce, Carson). The latter is more likely since John thought he needed to explain to the readers that Jesus was speaking of death (11:13). At any rate, they believed this was a sign that Lazarus was getting better. This type of literal misunderstanding occurs often in John (e.g., 3:4, 9; 4:33; 6:7-9) and always leads to further teaching on the issue—in this case, teaching on Jesus as the resurrection and the life (11:25).

Jesus then told the disciples directly that Lazarus was dead (11:14). What followed must have been confusing to the disciples. Jesus was “glad” that he wasn’t there when Lazarus was dying. This perhaps sounds startling to us, as well—but as with the blindness of the man in 9:3, there were larger issues involved. Jesus wanted them to know that God was orchestrating the scene “for your sakes” (11:15). First, it was happening “for the glory of God” (11:4) and, second, so the disciples would “really believe” (11:15; Cf. 11:42, 45, 48). If Jesus had been there, it would have been a healing miracle, but now he was about to demonstrate his authority to give life, an event that would strengthen the disciples’ faith. Jesus did not mean that the disciples had no faith but that their young faith needed to develop further. Thomas, not understanding, was thinking only of the danger they all faced. He told the others that it was time to go “and die with Jesus” (11:16; though some [e.g., Zahn; and Köstenberger calls it “possible”] think “die with him” refers to Lazarus—a view rejected by most). He had tremendous courage and certainly exemplified Jesus’ dictum in Mark 8:34 to his would-be followers—“You must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me.” Thomas had great earnestness but lacked understanding, a characteristic that continues in other scenes (14:5; 20:24-29). He was not really “doubting Thomas” (for this see comments on 20:24-29), for his courage and willingness to go with Jesus all the way were his primary characteristics.

The fact that Bethany was “only a few miles” (lit., “15 stadia,” about 2.8 kilometers or 1.7 miles) from Jerusalem meant that the mourners who came to “console Martha and Mary” were primarily from Jerusalem. The fact that there were many visitors may well indicate that they were a prominent family (so Carson). At the same time, it also hints that the “time” (2:4; 7:30; 8:20) of Jesus’ destiny had nearly arrived, for he had come virtually to Jerusalem. Mourning was a serious duty within Judaism. There was a great deal of weeping and loud exclamations, and grief was shown quite openly by all concerned (Cf. 11:33). As he was nearing Bethany, word came that he was close, and Martha rushed to see him. This was a slight breach of custom, for the family usually stayed at home and sat shiva, waiting for people to arrive, which is exactly what Mary did. The picture also fits the story in Luke 10:38-42, with Martha busy bustling about, while Mary sat at Jesus’ feet. Keener (2003:843) says Martha was showing Jesus “great respect” by rushing out to meet him.

Martha’s statement to Jesus (“Lord, if only you had been here, my brother would not have died,” 11:21) may sound like a rebuke, but she would have known that Lazarus died shortly after the messengers had been sent. It probably represents her sorrow and sincere belief that Jesus could have done something if only he had been there. When she added, “even now I know that God will give you whatever you ask,” it sounds like full-blown faith, but her insufficient faith leads to a challenge by Jesus in 11:39-40. Several scholars think she looked at Jesus as merely an intermediary with God (Westcott, Brown, Whitacre, Ridderbos); however, that is a little too strong. Her response was not a literal misunderstanding like Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, or the Jews. There is a definite faith component—not fully developed to be sure, but still present (so Barrett, Carson, Burge, Köstenberger). She did not go so far as to say that he could still raise Lazarus from the dead, but there was an indistinct hope that God through Jesus could still do something.

Jesus drew out the limit of her faith by affirming, “Your brother will rise again” (11:23). Martha could not have been thinking of Lazarus’s resurrection that same day because she affirmed her belief in the resurrection “at the last day.” This was a major debate between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who denied any possibility of afterlife (cf. Mark 12:18-27; Acts 23:6-10); the majority of Jews sided with the Pharisees. Later, after the destruction of Jerusalem, belief in the resurrection and afterlife became the official Jewish view. Martha was looking forward to that distant day and did not understand that Jesus was promising more than she thought, possibly because Lazarus had been dead four days (cf. on 11:17).

The keynote for the entire story is sounded in 11:25, when Jesus utters his fifth “I am” saying with a predicate (6:35; 8:12; 10:7, 14)—“I am the resurrection and the life.” A major theme in John is Jesus’ authority to give life, both eternal life in the present (5:21, 24, 25; 6:27, 33) and the resurrection of the body in the future (5:28, 29; 6:39-40, 44). Martha had not understood the key truth that Jesus is life itself; she needed to deepen her partial realization regarding the afterlife to a personal faith in the one who gives it. The key is belief. The one who comes to a faith- decision “will live, even after dying.” This is the physical resurrection. Death has no hold on the one who believes. Though it is “the last enemy” (1 Cor 15:26a), its destiny is “to be destroyed” (1 Cor 15:26b). The one who lives and believes in Jesus “will never ever die.” This is the spiritual resurrection; eternal life is the believer’s destiny. Jesus is life and controls life; the only way to participate in his life is via faith (note Rom 3:21–4:25, where “faith”, pistin [TG4102, ZG4411], occurs 18 times).

Jesus’ challenge (“Do you believe this, Martha?”) was an invitation that went beyond raising Lazarus from the dead. He asked Martha to believe in the power that not only can raise the dead but also can give eternal life. The raising of Lazarus was in this sense a prophetic action (like those performed by Jeremiah or Ezekiel) signifying the new life that God, in Jesus, offers to anyone who believes (Cf. 6:35-44). When Martha responded, “Yes, Lord,” she was taking a step of saving faith. Note her language, confessing Jesus as “Messiah, the Son of God,” the very titles used in 20:30-31 as a definition of true faith. She had taken an important step, bringing “faith” to its fullest development to this point in John’s Gospel. Like Andrew, she confessed him as Messiah (1:41); like Nathanael, she confessed him as Son of God (1:49, so Bruce). She also confessed him as “the one who has come into the world from God” (11:27; Cf. 7:28-29; 8:29, 42).

Jesus’ reaction was quite surprising. Most translations have watered down the verbs (e.g., NIV, “deeply moved in spirit and troubled”), but the first verb (embrimaomai [TG1690, ZG1839]; 11:33) always speaks of deep-seated anger and does not connote mere emotional upheaval (cf. the excellent discussion in Beasley-Murray, contra Lindars, Morris, Köstenberger [who see this more as excitement than anger]). The second term, rendered “deeply troubled,” is used of Jesus’ state of mind when he faced the Passion (12:27; 13:21; Cf. 14:1). But what was Jesus very angry about and deeply troubled by? There are three possibilities: (1) anger that they were forcing a miracle on him, leading to a response similar to 2:4 (Barrett); (2) anger at lack of faith in their excessive mourning (Schnackenburg, Comfort, Keener); (3) anger at the power of sin and death in this world. The first is unlikely because Jesus fully intended to perform a miracle all along (Westcott, Brown, Burge). The second could fit here but not in 11:38 where the verb is repeated. The third is the best answer, although overtones of the second are certainly present, at least in this scene (so Carson, Whitacre). Jesus was overcome with the scene and its futility, with the terrible specter of death hanging over God’s people and the fact that the mourners were overcome with it rather than trusting in the one who is life itself. This is a critical message for us all. Christ has overcome death, and we need to live in light of that fact.

Christ then asked, “Where have you put him?” (11:34). Upon being shown the tomb, he wept. Paul says that believers should “not grieve like people who have no hope,” (1 Thess 4:13) and that is Jesus’ example here. The verb does not denote the same wailing of the mourners in 11:31 and 33 but a more gentle form of weeping. Here we see the two sides of Jesus’ nature—his justice and his love as seen in wrath and grief. Carson (1991:416) says, “Those who follow Jesus as his disciples today do well to learn the same tension—that grief and compassion without outrage reduce to mere sentiment, while outrage without grief hardens into self-righteous arrogance and irascibility.” Jesus knew he was about to raise Lazarus from the dead, and he still wept, undoubtedly for the same reason—that his loved ones and followers still had to suffer the horrible pangs of death. The onlookers were split in their feelings. Some were overcome by the depth of his love for Lazarus; others were upset that the same one who could heal the blind had not kept Lazarus from dying. Both sides were partly right (he did love Lazarus and could have healed him) but mainly wrong; they realized neither Jesus’ true intention nor his power over death.

Martha still did not understand Jesus’ intentions, in spite of the dialog in 11:21-27. So Jesus repeated his challenge: “Didn’t I tell you that you would see God’s glory if you believe?” (11:40). In 9:3, Jesus said the man was born blind “so the power of God could be seen in him,” and this is similar. The glory of God is often linked to miracles as a sign of the shekinah presence of God (Cf. 2:11; for the death and Resurrection as “glory,” see 12:41; 17:5) and is also seen as the reason for this miracle in 11:4. The promises of 11:23-26 are summed up as “glory.” Yet to see that glory, Martha and the others needed the same faith that the disciples showed in 2:11. The glory would be shown no matter the faith, but it would be perceived and appropriated only via faith. Without faith they would not benefit from God’s great deed.

After they rolled away the stone, Jesus lifted his face to heaven in prayer (11:41). The gesture of looking to heaven is itself a symbol of the contents of the prayer since it signifies dependence on heavenly power. Interestingly, this is the only mention of a prayer before any of Jesus’ miracles in the Gospels, and Jesus himself stated that he was doing this for the benefit of the hearers (11:42). He wanted them to know that everything he did only happened because he was completely dependent on the Father (5:19, 30; 7:16, 28; 8:16, 29, 42). As is characteristic of his prayers (the only exception is the cry of dereliction on the cross, Mark 15:34 and parallels), he began with “Father,” the title for God he used throughout this Gospel and the one that most thoroughly acknowledges Jesus’ special relationship to God. He then showed that the decision to raise Lazarus had already been made, so that now Jesus merely thanked God for listening to his previous prayer. In fact, God always hears Jesus. The Old Testament teaches that God hears the righteous (e.g., Pss 34:15; 145:19), and Jesus is perfectly righteous. As R. H. Fuller says (Interpreting the Miracles, 107-108, cited in Whitacre 1999:290), “Jesus lives in constant prayer and communication with the Father. When he engages in vocal prayer, he is not entering, as we do, from a state of non-praying into prayer. He is only giving overt expression to what is the ground and base of his life all along.” The resurrection of Lazarus was proof that Jesus’ claim of a special relationship with God was true. In Jesus’ prayer he stated that on account of this, the bystanders should indeed believe that God had sent him (11:42). There could be no better proof that Jesus was indeed God’s envoy (cf. on 3:17). It is insufficient to believe in Jesus as a wonder-worker or even as a prophet. He is the one sent from heaven by God.

Having prayed, Jesus cried out, “Lazarus, come out!” (11:43). It has often been said that if Jesus had not specified Lazarus, all the dead would have emerged from every grave, for Jesus’ authority was such that in the last days, all the dead would hear his voice and rise again (5:28-29). And the last days were indeed here. We now see why Jesus did not heal Lazarus before he died; God’s will was to use him to show that Jesus was indeed “the resurrection and the life.” At Jesus’ command, Lazarus emerged “bound in graveclothes, his face wrapped in a headcloth.” The Jews buried their dead by placing the corpse on a long wide cloth with the feet at one end. Then the cloth would be drawn over the head to cover the body, where it would be tied together at the ankles, with the arms secured to the body with linen strips and the face bound with a headcloth over the face to hide its discoloration (so Sanders, Beasley-Murray). Needless to say, Lazarus could do little but shuffle to the opening, so Jesus said, “Unwrap him and let him go!” (11:44). (One wishes John had described the scene with its hysteria and joy, as well as the aftermath at the family’s home in Bethany, but those details must await their telling in eternity.) Here we see another parallel with the Resurrection story, for Jesus left the “linen wrappings” and the head cloth “folded up and lying apart from the other wrappings” (20:5, 7). The difference was that Lazarus would die again, while Jesus conquered death forever at his resurrection (so Beasley-Murray).

This caused the authorities to call a meeting of the Sanhedrin (11:47), though it is possible it was more unofficial, judging from the tone (so Brown). As stated earlier (Cf. 1:19), the Sanhedrin was the Jewish high council into whose hands the Romans had placed authority for civil and religious affairs. It was made up of 70 Jewish leaders—some chief priests (the extended family of the high priest and other temple officials, all of them Sadducees, who dominated at this time), some Pharisees (lay leaders and experts of law), and some elders (the landed aristocracy)—with the high priest leading it. They had intended to kill Jesus earlier (5:18), had thoroughly muddled attempts to arrest him (7:32, 45), and had been outclassed by a formerly blind beggar (ch 9).

Now a true crisis had arrived that threatened the very future of the nation, and a final decision about Jesus had to be made. Jesus’ many miraculous signs had made the people flock after him, and if things continued, everyone would soon believe in him (11:48). There could be no more indecisive leadership; they had to act firmly. If they were to fail at this point, the Roman army would “come and destroy both [their] Temple and [their] nation” (11:48). Since many of the first-century rebellions were messianic in nature, the leader’s fear was that the fervor that people were showing toward Jesus would be interpreted as another anti-Roman rebellion. Note that there was no consideration that he might actually be the Messiah. They had already hardened their hearts and were no longer open to the truth (Cf. 5:41-47; 7:27, 47-49; 8:48-59; 10:33). Also, note the centrality of “our” (first in the Greek for emphasis). While at one level, they seemed to be concerned for the nation, they were actually more concerned for their own positions. They acted as if the nation and Temple were their own possession (so Westcott).

Then Caiaphas, “high priest at that time” (lit., “that year”), took over (11:49-50). Caiaphas reigned for quite a length of time (AD 18–36), taking office shortly after his father-in-law Annas had held it (AD 6–15; Annas appears in 18:12-24). By Jewish law a high priest reigned for life, but the Romans controlled the reins of government, even the high priesthood, and frequently would replace a high priest who had fallen out of favor. To the Jewish people, however, such a person would still be considered a high priest (e.g., Annas in 18:12-24). As head of the Sanhedrin, it was natural for Caiaphas to speak up. He began with a blast at his own colleagues, accusing them of ignorance. His tone fits Josephus’s charge that the Sadducees were wild and barbarous toward each other (Wars 2.166). Self-interest controlled his statement: “It’s better for you”; the national interest took second place. “The portrait here of Caiaphas as a blunt, cynical, and self-serving figure is only confirmed by what Josephus says about the Sadducees as leaders in general” (Witherington 1995:205). Still, as Beasley-Murray says (1987:196-197, building on Daube, Collaboration with Tyranny in Rabbinic Law), there may have been precedent for this type of statement. Building on 2 Samuel 20:1, where a troublemaker, Sheba, was surrendered to Joab during a revolt, it may have been deemed viable to give up a named individual to save the lives of the people. Still, however, self-interest prevailed with Caiaphas.

Caiaphas didn’t realize the significance of what he said. John tells us that “one man should die for the people” (11:50) was actually an unconscious prophecy. The language used here is interesting: “As high priest at that time he was led to prophesy” (11:51). In the Old Testament, the high priest was God’s spokesman and often declared the will of God, which he ascertained by means of the Urim and Thummim (cf. Exod 28:30; Deut 33:8; Ezra 2:63), even at times given a prophetic voice by God (cf. Bruce, Schnackenburg). This was the case here, but Caiaphas did not realize it. First, he prophesied that “Jesus would die for (huper [TG5228, ZG5642]) the entire nation,” referring to a substitutionary or atoning sacrifice in which he died in their place. This is emphasized more often in John than in the Synoptics (Cf. 1:29; 6:51; 10:11, 15; 11:50-52; 15:13; 17:19). Note that John uses only “nation” and omits “people” from 11:50. Whitacre (1999:297) points out that the term “people” was not used often in classical Greek but is found 2,000 times in the Septuagint in reference to the covenant people, Israel. This shift in wording could signify that the Jews were no longer the “people” but had become only another “nation” (so also Westcott).

Second, Caiaphas prophesied that Jesus would “unite all the children of God scattered around the world.” This, of course, goes beyond the scattered Jewish communities of the Diaspora to embrace the Gentile mission. As in 6:51, Jesus would die “so the world may live.” This develops further the idea of the Good Shepherd sacrificing his life not only for his sheep but also for those “not in this sheepfold” (10:15-16). These groups constituted “the children of God” (11:52) because they had been drawn to or given to Jesus by the Father (6:37, 44), and they would be gathered into one church (Cf. 10:16, “one flock with one shepherd”; 17:11, 20-23). Throughout this Gospel, the object of God’s mission was “the world” as the object of his love (3:16), and the Jewish people had been part of the world (1:10-11). Christ had “come into the world” (11:27) to be “the Savior of the world” (4:42) and “the light of the world” (8:12). The whole world of mankind was (and is) the object of the divine mission, and Jew and Gentile would become one in Christ (cf. Eph 2:11-22).

The final decision was made to seek the death of Christ (11:53). The string of decisions to eliminate the troublemaker (5:18; 7:30, 32; 8:59; 10:31) had entered its final stage. The resurrection of Lazarus was the climactic catalyst (Blomberg) because it made Jesus more popular than ever, and the leaders felt they dare delay no longer. The news undoubtedly spread quickly, so Jesus halted his public ministry and “left Jerusalem.” In light of what we read in 7:30 and 8:20, this was not because he was afraid but because “his time had not yet come.” God, not the Sanhedrin, would determine the exact hour, and Jesus alone had “authority” to surrender his life (10:17-18). He took his disciples to a village called Ephraim, a small town near Bethel, 12 to 15 miles northeast of Jerusalem (so Brown, Barrett, Carson). He wanted to be away from the furor of Jerusalem but close enough to return in a few days for his final Passover.

During these days, Jesus was the hot topic. The pilgrims looked everywhere for him, figuring that, with the danger, he would not dare to come. The major area of discussion was the Temple, both because it was the focus of all the Passover activity and because it was where Jesus taught when he was in Jerusalem (7:14, 28; 8:20; 10:23). The tone of the discussion indicates they were “well-disposed towards him” (Schnackenburg). In contrast, the authorities had not only put out an arrest warrant but warned the people that they had better report any sighting of him.