John 12 - Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

As to the second issue, the story in Matthew and Mark occurs after the Triumphal Entry, while the one here in John occurs before that event. However, this is only a problem if we demand that the Gospels follow a strictly chronological pattern. Actually, this is a modern development, and ancient historians did not do so. It has long been realized that the Gospel writers often arranged their material topically, especially the Synoptics (cf. Blomberg 1987). It is generally agreed that John probably has the correct order (he tends to have a more chronological arrangement, so Coakley 1988) and that Matthew and Mark place it where they do in order to contrast the woman’s worshipful act with Judas’s betrayal (cf. Carson, Blomberg 2001, Keener).

12:1 Passover. For the major chronological debate over the dating of the Last Supper and Passover, see the note on 13:1.

12:1-11 There are two issues related to this account that need to be addressed: (1) harmonizing the Gospel accounts and (2) the chronology of the event. As to the first issue, some think this story appears in all four Gospels. Luke’s account (7:36-50), however, is clearly a separate event, for the details are quite different (a dinner at the home of a Pharisee; an alabaster jar of perfume; an immoral woman, who has been forgiven by Jesus and who anoints Jesus’ feet with her tears and then the perfume; the issue of being touched by a disreputable woman). The story in Matt 26:6-13 and Mark 14:3-9 has some interesting differences (the home of Simon the leper, an unnamed woman who breaks the jar and anoints Jesus’ head), but the similarities are far greater, and as the discussion below will show, the differences can be reasonably harmonized. These are the same account, so historically Jesus was anointed twice—first, the one in Luke and second the one reported in the other three Gospels.

12:2 A dinner was prepared. John gives the impression that this meal was in Lazarus’s home, but Matt 26:6 tells us it was in the home of Simon the leper. Some have said he was the father of the three siblings, but that cannot be known. The whole village could have been celebrating the event in Simon’s home, or (perhaps more likely) it could have been a private banquet there. There is no contradiction either way.

12:7 She did this in preparation for my burial. This is difficult Greek and can be translated several ways (cf. Carson 1991:429-430): (1) “Let her alone so she can keep it [the perfume] for the day of my burial,” but she has already poured it all out onto Jesus; (2) she has “done this [i.e., saved the perfume] for the day of my burial,” a definite possibility; (3) an imperative: “let her keep it [the perfume] for the day of my burial,” but this does not quite fit the Greek; or (4) “let her keep the credit for having poured this [perfume] out for the day of my burial,” but this adds too much to the actual Greek. On the whole, the second is preferable.

12:8 you will not always have me. Ridderbos sees this as a major theme in John’s Gospel: the Cross as the ultimate separation between the earthly and the heavenly. At the moment of his death, the manifestation of his glory in the flesh would be over. John “presents it as the break between faith and unbelief, a separation realized in relation to this end, as that comes most radically and exemplarily to expression in the contrast between Mary and Judas” (1997:418-420).

12:10 kill Lazarus. For the historical trustworthiness of the plot to kill Lazarus, see Blomberg (2001:178).

It was Saturday evening, six days before Passover. At least a week had passed since Lazarus was raised from the dead, and Jesus had been with his disciples in the village of Ephraim—a 3–4 hour walk away (11:54). Jesus’ hour, the divinely chosen time of destiny, had arrived (2:4; 7:30; 8:20), so Jesus and his apostolic band came back to Bethany (on the slopes of the Mount of Olives, two miles from Jerusalem) to stay with his friends at Lazarus’s home. The scene was set, and history’s greatest Passover sacrifice, the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29), was making himself ready. At the evening meal, Jesus was the celebrated guest, with Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead, as host or another honored guest. The latter is more likely, for the people there were probably celebrating the recent miraculous event. Martha, in keeping with her domestic instincts (cf. Luke 10:40), was serving the guests. They would have been following the normal custom at formal meals: eating while reclining on couches (Cf. 13:23, 25).

The same Mary who had sat at Jesus’ feet in Luke 10:39 took “a twelve-ounce jar (Gr., litra) of expensive perfume made from essence of nard” (12:3). The plant comes from the mountains of northern India, and this was pure nard, a very expensive perfume indeed (Cf. 12:5)—either a family heirloom or a sign of the family’s wealth. Taking this precious perfume, she anointed Jesus. While Matthew and Mark relate that she anointed Jesus’ head, John centers on the feet. Most likely she anointed both (cf. Blomberg 2001). Since they were reclining, she would have anointed his head and then walked down to his feet. Moreover, she used all the perfume (in Mark 14:3, she broke the jar, possibly the seal at the top), an incredibly lavish and devotional act. It must have run down his head and onto his robe as well as dripped off his feet. No wonder “the house was filled with the fragrance” (in Mark 14:9, this is a sign that the whole world will hear of her act). When she wiped his feet with her hair (cf. Luke 7:38), this was almost scandalous, since only a husband was supposed to view a woman’s hair. “Mary is acting with abandon, extravagant abandon, hoping that the close circle of friends will understand” (Burge 2000:339). John centers on Jesus’ feet both to show Mary’s servanthood (only slaves washed feet) and because feet signified the destiny of a person (for background sources see Coakley 1988). In Matthew and Mark, the anointing of the head was a messianic act; here, the anointing of the feet stressed that he was anointed for his death (lavish amounts were used there as well—75 pounds of myrrh and aloes in 19:39). Giblin (1992:563-564) calls Mary’s act a “prophetic action” in which the anointing pointed to his burial and the wiping off to his resurrection. While this latter aspect is perhaps too allegorical, her act was an unconscious prophecy on her part.

Judas spoke up for the rest of the disciples (12:4-5; the person is unnamed in Matt and Mark) and uttered what most of them were probably thinking—that it would have been far better to sell the perfume and give the proceeds to the poor. We must remember that the rest of the disciples did not yet know Judas’s true character, and he probably often spoke up like this. As the treasurer of the group, he would have been looked up to as a leader. In the early church, it was the pastors who were also the church treasurers. It is hard to know how Judas knew the value of the perfume. At any rate, the “year’s wages” (lit., “300 denarii,” with a denarius the daily wage of the average worker) is an unbelievable sum, enough to take care of an entire family for a year! In light of the incredible expense of the perfume, we can see that Judas had a point. It is always difficult to measure devotion versus need. This type of issue is present every time a church is built—how much goes for worship and how much for ministry? How much is spent on the building’s beauty and how much reserved for practicality?

John is clear, however, that Judas was not interested in the poor (12:6). He was a thief who carried the money purse for the apostolic band and often “stole some for himself.” Money was also one of the major reasons why he would betray Jesus. While according to Mark 14:11, the priests gave him money; according to Matthew 26:15, he demanded the money. The actual money purse was probably a box (the word was also used for a case to hold a flute or reed, so Brown) that held monetary gifts from people like the women patrons who traveled with the group (Luke 8:2-3). It paid for the needs of the group and was used to give alms to the poor. Judas would often take what he wanted from it.

Jesus defended Mary’s action as a preliminary gift for his burial (12:7-8). Such an extravagant amount would have been acceptable for a funeral (Cf. 19:39; the 75 pounds of spices), so why wasn’t it also perfectly fine to give this to him while he was still alive and could enjoy her gift of love (so Bruce)? It is certainly doubtful that she understood this. For her, it was an act of love. It was common in the ancient world to wash the feet of especially important guests, to say in effect, “We are your humble servants.” In fact, that is exactly what Jesus did at the Last Supper, when he washed the disciples’ feet (13:1-20). Jesus was saying that Mary was giving an unconscious prophecy (like Caiaphas did in 11:50). Jesus then added, “You will always have the poor among you.” There was Jewish precedent in the idea that caring for the dead has priority over almsgiving (b. Sukkah 49b; so Morris, Whitacre). There was only a short time left to show love to Jesus. The sentiment is similar to the metaphor the Baptist used in 3:29, regarding the joy that the friend of the bridegroom has when hearing the voice of the groom. Devotion to Jesus has priority over everything.

Word of Jesus’ arrival spread quickly (12:9), and a large crowd gathered to see him and Lazarus, probably from the surrounding villages, as well as from Jerusalem itself. They had both become celebrities, and Lazarus was attracting almost as much attention as Jesus. As many point out (Bruce, Carson), Lazarus had likely been kept sequestered by his sisters since the great event, so this was the first occasion people had to see him. The authorities were now doubly alarmed (12:10-11). They had lost many former followers who “deserted them and believed in Jesus” (12:11) because of what happened to Lazarus. The peoples’ loyalty had shifted from the leaders to Jesus, but even worse, they accepted him as their Messiah. Lazarus had therefore become almost as great a threat as Jesus had. Amazingly, the leading priests decided to eliminate Lazarus too. It is hard to know whether the rest of the Sanhedrin agreed with them. There is no evidence anything ever came of this. Note the irony, however: Jesus had raised Lazarus from the grave, and now they wanted to return him to it. There could be no stronger proof of their utter depravity than this. As Keener says (2003:866), “Jesus went to Judea, risking his life to give life to Lazarus; now Lazarus’s new life may cost him his life.”

12:13 Praise God! Lit., “Hosanna” or “save now” (cf. NLT mg). At the Festival of Shelters (Cf. 7:37), the Temple choir would sing the Hallel (Pss 113–118) every morning, and when they reached the “Hosanna” of 118:25 (“Please save us,” NLT), the people would wave the lulab (branches of willow and myrtle tied with palm) and repeat the cry three times (so Beasley-Murray). So this was connected in the minds of the people with the palm branches, and it was a natural thing to do when many believed their conquering king was coming. The Hallel psalms were used in Sabbath worship and at festivals, including the Passover celebration, which, at this point in Jesus’ life, was just a week away. Psalm 118 is a natural passage for the pilgrims in procession to Jerusalem (Ps 118:27, “with boughs in hand, join in the festal procession,” NIV cf. NJPS, NJB). Hosanna is the transliteration of the Aramaic (the Heb. would be hoshi‘ah-na’) and in Ps 118:25, LXX it is translated as a prayer, “Save now.” Its force here is debated. Most believe that in the first century it had become a cry of praise (Brown, Barrett, Carson, Ridderbos, Köstenberger), though a few would retain the prayer form from Ps 118 as a cry for the Kingdom to arrive (Pope 1988, Keener).

12:15 Look, your King is coming, riding on a donkey’s colt. Carson (1991:433-434) notes three points regarding the Zech 9:9 quote: (1) this was associated with the cessation of war, showing Jesus could not be a Zealot (as some have said); (2) this would produce a worldwide reign of the gentle King (cf. Ps 72:8; alluded to in Zech 9:10); (3) this was associated with the blood of God’s covenant that brings relief for prisoners (Cf. 1:29, 34; 3:5; 6:35-38; 8:31-34), connected with Passover and the death of the Servant-King. There is evidence the passage was considered messianic in Jesus’ day or shortly thereafter (Genesis Rabbah 75:6, b. Sanhedrin 98a, so Köstenberger, Keener), and Jesus’ act fits the mode of an eschatological prophet implying a royal claim. Clearly, Jesus saw himself as the royal Messiah (so J. Collins 1995:206).

12:19 There’s nothing we can do. It is interesting to contrast the attitudes of the three major parties of the last half of the first century (the Zealots appeared later but had their roots in Jesus’ day). The Sadducees believed in complete cooperation with the Romans; the Pharisees believed in tolerance—it was an oppressive thing that had to be endured; the Zealots believed it was an insult to the God of Israel and that any recognition of Rome constituted high treason against God (so Bruce).

Jesus openly declared who he was by entering Jerusalem on a donkey in direct fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9 (see note on 12:15). The Synoptics (Mark 11:1-7 and parallels) tell of the elaborate preparations Jesus made for the occasion and the deliberate nature of the whole scene; he was in a sense throwing down the gauntlet. Yet, by riding a donkey rather than a warhorse, he was also making a declaration that he was not the kind of Messiah they were expecting; he had come to bring peace, not a sword. The “next day” (12:12) indicates Sunday, one week before the Resurrection. As Jesus left for Jerusalem, the news galvanized the city. A huge crowd of “Passover visitors” (see commentary on 11:55-57) poured out to see the sight (others were also part of the crowd, see 12:17). They waved palm branches to welcome Jesus. It used to be debated whether this was a sign from the Festival of Shelters rather than Passover (actually, the palms were used at both feasts), but recently it has become more clear that it signified messianic fervor. Palm branches had long been used to welcome conquerors and celebrate military victories (1 Macc 13:51; Josephus Wars 7.100-102), and the Jews wanted Jesus to conquer the Romans for them.

The titles they used for Jesus (12:13) were also messianic. The first thing they shouted was “Praise God!” (lit., “Hosanna”). It used to be thought that this was a prayer, “O Lord, save,” which is its meaning in Aramaic, but recent studies have shown that it was a cry of acclamation (such as “hooray”) or praise to God (see note on 12:13). Since the titles were generally taken from Psalm 118, “praise God” may have been the meaning as well, in which it could have some aspect of meaning from 118:25, “Please, LORD, please save us. Please, LORD, please give us success.” The psalm celebrated pilgrims coming to Jerusalem and was particularly apt for this Passover celebration. Then the people called down divine blessing on “the one who comes in the name of the LORD,” from Psalm 118:26, a passage the Jews understood messianically (seen in the midrash on Ps 118 [Midrash Tehillim 244a], so Beasley-Murray). They wanted God to particularly bless their hoped-for liberator. Some (e.g., Michaels), however, think the crowd was not citing Scripture but uttering a spontaneous cry. The following cry, “Hail to the King of Israel” (Cf. 1:49; 18:33, 37, 39; 19:19, 21), does not come from Psalm 118 but was a concluding ascription for their Davidic conqueror. It is most likely that the crowd’s words were a combination of words from Psalm 118 and their own messianic cry. The reason the people were there is rather obvious. They could almost see the gathering battle.

Jesus quickly dashed their hopes (12:14-15). He was not riding a warhorse (cf. 1 Kgs 4:26; Isa 31:1-3 for the association with military conquest) but a donkey, signifying peace (remember Matt 21:1-7 and the elaborate preparations Jesus made to do this very thing). However, the people were likely looking to him as the conquering Messiah, for the imagery (even the donkey) was often seen in royal processions (e.g., Solomon in 1 Kgs 1:33, 38, 44). It was actually a dangerous situation; the crowd was a tinderbox ready to explode into a full-scale messianic riot. Jesus was alleviating pressure, as well as correcting their misunderstanding. John tells us this was still, however, prophetic fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9, a passage also understood messianically in the first century. Actually, two Old Testament passages are combined in John 12:15, for “don’t be afraid” does not come from Zechariah but from Zephaniah 3:16 (Brown) or Isaiah 40:9 (Carson). The Zephaniah passage would fit the “King of Israel” ascription above, for that occurs in Zephaniah 3:15, and that passage was written to show Israel that Yahweh was in their midst as king (though not in a nationalistic sense) and would deliver them. There is also a universal aspect in Zephaniah, as people will be gathered from all over the earth (3:9-10). This matches a similar theme in Zechariah and is explicitly stated in 12:19.

Zechariah 9 has a similar thrust to Zephaniah 3:9ff, promising a lowly king who will deliver his people from their oppressors and “bring peace to the nations,” establishing his rule “from sea to sea” (9:10). So, Jesus’ entry on the donkey was a prophetic act to counter the nationalistic messiah the Jews wanted. Jesus was saying the universal kingship would be established only by his death. John remarks that at that time they did not understand this prophecy until “after Jesus entered into his glory” (12:16). This should probably be understood in light of 14:26, where Jesus says the Spirit will “remind you of everything I have told you,” including things they had not previously understood. The mention of “glory” is significant and once more emphasizes the Passion as Jesus’ time of “glory.” It was the glorified Lord and his Spirit who gave them the deeper understanding (as is also the case with us). Incidentally, John was always careful to tell when the disciples’ understanding came later (Cf. 2:22, where Jesus said he would raise up the temple of his body in three days), further proof of his historical trustworthiness.

The triumphal entry is framed by two passages (12:9-11, 17-19) that contrast belief (Jews—12:11; the whole world—12:19) with the leaders’ rejection of Jesus. Added to the pilgrims in the crowd who had come for the feast (12:12) is another group of people: those who had “seen Jesus call Lazarus from the tomb” (12:17). Those who had seen the raising of Lazarus “were telling others about it” (lit., “bearing witness”), probably telling them that such a person could certainly deliver the Jewish people from the Romans. Thus continues the important theme of witness in the Gospel (cf. on 1:27; 3:26; 5:31ff; 8:13ff). In fact, it was their witness that led to the large crowds and their enthusiasm in the first place (12:18). In 12:18 the raising of Lazarus is called a “sign”—the seventh and last of the “miraculous signs” that to an extent control chapters 2–12 (see commentary on 2:1-12). The Pharisees were distraught at seeing their careful plan to take Jesus away quietly go up in smoke. They were helpless and could do nothing. Their last statement (12:19, cf. NLT mg) is another great example of double meaning. They were hardly acknowledging the universal impact of Jesus; even his disciples had no idea about this. They meant instead that pilgrims from all around the Jewish world had flocked after Jesus in the Triumphal Entry. The Evangelist John saw a great deal more significance, and this builds on the universal implications of the Zephaniah 3:16 and Zechariah 9:9 passages above. Like Caiaphas in 11:50, the Pharisees said far more than they realized; indeed the whole world would go after Jesus (12:19). For John, the Triumphal Entry both corrected the false understandings of the Jews (and the disciples) and prepared for an explosion of the gospel throughout the world.

12:21 we want to meet Jesus. Some (e.g., Bruce, Carson) believe this was a couple of days after the Triumphal Entry, and so the second cleansing of the Temple (Mark 11:15-17) had occurred, in which Jesus expelled the traders to make the Temple “a house of prayer for all nations” (Isa 56:7). The Greeks may have been curious to see if he had them especially in mind.

12:23 enter into his glory. Ridderbos (1997:428-429) states that the glorification of the Son of Man was only now “really” beginning and sees this defined in light of the “descent-ascent schema” of 3:13. The heavenly glory of Jesus (his ascent to heaven) centered on the finalization of his ascent from earth via the Cross.

12:27 my soul is deeply troubled. A similar passage is found in Heb 5:7-10, also a meditation on Gethsemane. It tells how Jesus “offered prayers and pleadings, with a loud cry and tears, to the one who could rescue him from death.” God heard his prayers, and as a result “he learned obedience from the things he suffered.” In this and other passages on Jesus’ “troubled” heart (e.g., 11:33, 38; 13:21), Beutler (1978:35-37) thinks Pss 42–43 (David’s laments) are echoed.

‘Father, save me from this hour’? While most take this as part of the question (NIV, NRSV, NJB, NLT and most commentators), some believe it is an actual prayer like the Gethsemane prayer (cf. Luke 22:42a) and should be read, “What should I pray? Father, save me from this hour! But no—this is the very reason I came” (so Carson, Witherington, Whitacre, Burge). The parallel with the Gethsemane prayer makes this a very attractive possibility. Either way, it shows that Jesus was rejecting his natural inclination to be delivered from his terrible destiny.

12:28 a voice spoke from heaven. This is the only time in John’s Gospel that God speaks audibly, although God speaks twice in the Synoptics (at the Baptism and at the Transfiguration).

12:34 We understood from Scripture that the Messiah would live forever. Most likely “the Scripture” here (lit., “the law”) refers not only to the written law but to the oral law. Therefore, this statement probably derives from three sources: (1) OT passages on the eternal reign of God’s earthly Kingdom (Ps 89:36 on his eternal dynasty; Isa 9:7 and Ezek 37:25 on the eternal Davidic line; Dan 7:14 on the eternal dominion of the one like a son of man); (2) intertestamental passages on the eternal reign of the Messiah (1 Enoch 49:2; Psalms of Solomon 17:4); and (3) Targumic passages on the eternal reign (e.g., Targum Isaiah 9:5). Scholars debate which of these are primary, but the crowd was speaking generally, and their belief was anchored in all three.

12:34 the Son of Man. There has been considerable discussion of whether or not first-century Jews would have understood the Son of Man as a messianic figure since there is not much Jewish material that would make such an identification certain. Probably the crowd’s identification was not based so much on the Son of Man title but rather on the fact that Jesus called himself Son of God and claimed to be the Messiah. Given that time of messianic foment, such a link is easy to understand. Chilton (1980:177-178) thinks that on the basis of Targum Isaiah 53:13 (which identifies the Messiah with the exalted “Servant”), the crowd understood at some level that Jesus was speaking of the Messiah with his “lifted up” language.

There are five sections in this unique story: (1) the introduction (12:20-22), in which some Gentiles (Greeks) are brought to Jesus; (2) the arrival of the “time” and its significance (12:23-26)—death as the lot of Jesus and the focus of his disciples; (3) the Father testifying to the glory that will arise from Jesus’ Passion (12:27-30); (4) the meaning of Jesus’ work as a whole—this is the time of judgment and salvation (12:31-33); and (5) the fact that light was going to be there only a little longer (12:34-36). The theme of Jesus’ impending death dominates, but within this there is an emphasis on true discipleship and the necessity of encountering Jesus while there is time.

Among the pilgrims who had come for Passover were many “Greeks” (12:20). These could possibly have been Greek-speaking Jews, but the Greek term used here normally refers to those of non-Jewish birth (Gentiles, proselytes or God-fearers). Thus the statement of the Pharisees that “everyone” (12:19) had flocked after Jesus was already coming to pass! Many Hellenists would certainly have come “for the Passover celebration” to worship God and discover more about the Jewish religion. In the book of Acts, God-fearers like Cornelius form a major source for early converts (Acts 10:2, 22, 35; 13:16, 26; cf. also Luke 7:1-5). They worshiped Yahweh and were drawn to the Jewish life but were not yet willing to undergo circumcision and become full proselytes. They were allowed in the court of the Gentiles and could participate in the festivities there but could not enter the inner courts on penalty of death.

Naturally, they were very curious about this Jesus and wanted to know more (12:21). Their desire to meet him (lit., “see” him) may have salvific significance in light of the importance of the verbs for “see” in the Johannine theme of salvation-encounter (see “Literary Style” in the Introduction). Like anyone wanting to meet a famous person, they were probably afraid to try by themselves. They probably came to Philip because, like Andrew, he was from Bethsaida (1:44), a village on the northeast corner of the Sea of Galilee and officially in Gaulanitis. It was near the Ten Cities (Decapolis), and some of these Greeks may have been from that area. They could also have been drawn to Philip because of his Greek name. At any rate, they asked him to introduce them to Jesus, and so he, along with Andrew, took them to see his Lord.

Jesus’ response (12:23) seems to ignore them, but in the larger picture it provides the core of the salvation they sought. Moreover, Jesus may well have been saying that with them, the procession of the nations to Zion that had been prophesied in Isaiah (e.g., Isa 60) had begun. This may well have been the crucial “signal” to Jesus that his hour had finally arrived (so Carson). The time was here, fulfilling the expectation of much of this Gospel regarding Jesus’ hour of destiny, when God’s plan of salvation would culminate (2:4; 7:6, 8, 30; 8:20). That hour was the hour of his death, spoken of first as his entering into his glory. John 12:23ff is one of the key Son of Man passages (along with 1:51) associated with heavenly glory and the salvation he would provide. For the Son of Man, suffering was the path to glory; in fact, here suffering is glory! As in Isaiah 52:13, Jesus, the Servant of Yahweh, “will prosper; he will be highly exalted” in the midst of his suffering (12:24-25). The idea of the suffering Servant dominates this section (so Carson, Blomberg).

Jesus used a short parable (12:24) about a kernel of wheat to teach this, beginning with another double amēn [TG281, ZG297] (“I tell you the truth”; Cf. 1:51; 5:24; 6:26) to highlight its importance. It is similar to a couple of the Synoptic parables, like the parable of the Sower (Mark 4:1-20) and the two short seed parables of Mark 4:26-32. Jesus had utilized harvest imagery before to stress the importance of his mission (4:35-38). Now he used it to emphasize the event that made the mission possible—his death. This agricultural image is very apt, centering as it does on the necessity of the grain dying before it can produce a harvest. When it does die, it produces “many new kernels—a plentiful harvest of new lives.” The contrast is between remaining alone and “bearing much fruit” (a literal rendering of 12:24). If Jesus had not died on the cross, his life would have affected no one but himself—but his death has affected the whole world. As Whitacre points out (1999:310), this harvest is not only “the fruit of evangelism” but also means that “through his death fruit will be produced in the lives of his followers.”

This discipleship theme is developed in 12:25-26, a passage reminiscent of Jesus’ teaching following his first passion prediction in Mark (Mark 8:31-38). In terms of loving and hating life (12:25), there are five Synoptic passages on the same theme (Matt 10:39; 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24; 17:33). This idea is the natural follow-up to 12:24 and could be called an “intermezzo,” applying the thrust of that teaching to the disciples (Ridderbos, Köstenberger). The same process of life via death exemplified in Jesus must be seen in his disciples. There is an antithetical dualism in the two contrasts: the destroyed life (= loving the world/self) and the preserved life (= hating the world/self). The disciple who loves the world and its things (Cf. 3:19; 12:43) will lose both in the end. The disciple who focuses on self rather than Jesus will end up with nothing. Jesus said it very well in Mark 8:34: “If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me.” Taking up the cross was a very specific metaphor; when the Romans made Jesus or anyone else bear their cross to the place of execution, they were giving them a message: “You are already dead!” To take up the cross is to count yourself dead to the things of this world. That person will “keep (his life) for eternity” (12:25). The disciples must become like the master; death is the path to life.

Therefore, the disciple must truly “follow” Jesus—that is, center on him rather than on oneself (12:26). When Jesus says, “my servants must be where I am,” it must be remembered that he was on his way to the cross: As the Cross is the basis of Jesus’ glorification, our “death” becomes the basis of our living for him (so Carson). Discipleship is based on servanthood in John; thus, it is natural that “the Father will honor anyone who serves” Jesus. As several have pointed out (e.g., Schnackenburg, Ridderbos), the context is the continuation of Jesus’ mission. The life of the disciple is a continuous reliving of the life and ministry of Jesus (also a major theme of Acts), meaning that like him, we focus entirely on the work of God and bringing the world to an encounter with the promise of life in Christ. Only then will there be reward.

Jesus then had a Gethsemane-type experience. In fact, it has often been thought that John reworked the synoptic Gethsemane story here (Schnackenburg, Lindars), though that is very unlikely in light of the significant differences in the accounts. Gethsemane was hardly the only time Jesus struggled with his impending death. As he spoke of it here, he stopped and said, “Now my soul is deeply troubled” (12:27), reflecting the deep-seated (the “soul” was the deepest part of the self) agony of heart he felt. The “now”-ness of the “time” (12:23) was upon him, and he experienced great distress (cf. Mark 14:34, “My soul is crushed with grief to the point of death”). He questioned whether he should ask the Father to “save (him) from this hour.” This is similar to the Gethsemane prayer, “Abba, Father, . . . everything is possible for you. Please take this cup of suffering away from me” (Mark 14:36a). Yet the possibility was no sooner mentioned than rejected (cf. Mark 14:36b, “Yet I want your will to be done, not mine”). Jesus realized that his coming death was the “very reason” he had come (12:27). The importance of this statement cannot be overstated. The purpose of the Incarnation was his death (Phil 2:6-8); Christmas, from the start, meant the Cross. At every turn, Jesus was centered upon his Father’s will (5:19; 6:37; 8:29, 38; 14:31), and that was never more true than in his Passion. The glory of God would only be complete with his death as the basis of the divine gift of salvation, so he cried, “Father, bring glory to your name” (12:28). His lifelong purpose was to glorify the name of God (7:18; 8:49), and this brought that goal to its culmination. As Jesus brings glory to God, God brings glory to him. That is a dominant theme in John.

The Father’s response was immediate and powerful (12:28), centering on the descent-ascent motif in John. “I have already brought glory to my name” refers to the Incarnation and ministry of Jesus on earth. Jesus had descended (katabainō [TG2597, ZG2849]) from heaven (3:13, 31; 6:38, 42, 50, 51, 58) and is the one who united heaven and earth (1:51). Thus, he is the man of glory (1:14; 2:10-11; cf. Isa 35:1-2; Joel 3:18). The glory of Christ had been manifested in his revelation of divine truths and in his performance of divine deeds. At the same time, the Father would glorify himself again. The future glory of the Christ would be seen in his ascent (anabainō [TG305, ZG326]) to heaven (3:13; 6:62; 20:17), when he would reclaim his preexistent glory. In John, the Passion events are regularly called the glory of Jesus (7:39; 13:31-32; 17:1, 5, 24). They encompass his death (as in the “lifted up” theme of 3:14; 8:28; 12:32), as well as his resurrection and ascension into glory. Beasley-Murray (1987:212) calls this “an end which is the beginning of glory.” Jesus glorifies the Father (12:28a) as the Father glorifies Jesus (12:28b), and both aspects culminated in the Cross.

The message of God at first glance seems to have been meant primarily for Jesus, not the bystanders. The crowd could not tell what had occurred (12:29, similar to Christ’s message to Paul on the Damascus road, Acts 22:9) but thought it either had thundered (which shows the power of the voice) or that perhaps an angel had spoken. Their response is not surprising; thunder is often associated with heavenly voices (2 Sam 22:14; Ps 18:13; Rev 6:1; 10:3-4; 14:2), and angels often spoke for God (so Keener). Jesus replied, “The voice was for your benefit, not mine” (12:30). This statement is probably a Semitic contrast (so Tasker)—that is, “more for your sake than mine.” Obviously the message was of comfort to Jesus, but he didn’t need it as much as they did. God was giving Jesus another “seal of his approval” (Cf. 6:27), but the crowd needed to understand its significance. Jesus was giving them an opportunity to respond. Like Jesus’ prayer at the raising of Lazarus (11:41-42), “it was a bridge between Jesus and heaven, an unusually concrete example of ‘heaven open . . .’ (1:51) and a reminder that Jesus was acting not on his own, but always and only on his Father’s initiative” (Michaels 1989:226-227). Such a supernatural portent does not happen every day, and it should have made them think carefully about their response. Even if they did not understand the words, they knew the voice was of heavenly origin (as the ancients thought regarding thunder), and so they ought to have listened and responded with zeal.

To make it absolutely clear, Jesus spelled out the implications (12:31-32). The “time” had arrived (12:23), and Jesus’ death was imminent (12:24). Yet at the same time, this was his hour of glory (12:28). Clearly, it was the turning point of the ages, that “right time” (Gal 4:4) that all the promises of the Old Testament had prepared for. Two implications flow out of this.

First, it was “the time for judging this world” (12:31). John tells us that Jesus came to save the world rather than to judge it (3:17; 8:15) but that at the same time he became its judge (8:16; 9:39). In fact, God had made Jesus judge over the world (3:35-36; 5:22-23, 29-30). The reason is that, as the living revealer (the “Word”) of God, he encounters every person at the deepest part of their being and forces them to a decision. That decision determines their destiny. For those who believe, he becomes Savior (4:42), but for those who reject him, he becomes judge. The world is characterized by rejection and rebellion (1:10), and so it is judged. This is the great irony: at the Cross, Jew and Gentile united in judging Jesus, while in reality they were being judged by Jesus!

In fact, it was far more than just the world that was being judged. At the Cross “Satan, the ruler of this world, will be cast out” (12:31b). Satan is called “ruler [or prince] of this world” in 14:30; 16:11, and elsewhere he is called “commander of the powers of the air” (Eph 2:2, NLT mg), “god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4), and “great dragon—the ancient serpent” (Rev 12:9; Cf. 20:2). The name Satan means “accuser” or “adversary.” He led the great rebellion against God and was cast out of heaven (Rev 12:4, 7-9). He possessed Judas (13:27; Luke 22:3) and helped bring about the Cross, thus participating in his own defeat. Kovacs (1995:236-238) calls the Cross a “cosmic battle,” which became the final victory over Satan (1 Enoch 1:3-4; 4 Ezra 13:26ff). The book of Revelation makes it clear that the final defeat of Satan will not be at the battle of Armageddon but has already taken place at the Cross (Rev 5:5, 6; 12:11; 13:8); Armageddon is nothing more than the last act of rebellion by an already defeated foe. Probably at the very moment Christ died on the Cross, he told the demonic forces that they had lost (1 Pet 3:19) and then disarmed them, leading them in his victory procession (cf. Col 2:15 and note the imagery of a Roman triumph).

In short, Satan is still in power in this world, but his authority is only in this world, which is actually the prison he has been “cast” into (cf. 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 1:6). When we say that Satan is the “ruler of this world,” he rules only his prison block. In fact, Witherington (1995:224) believes this passage is describing not Satan “cast out” of heaven but rather Satan removed from his role as “ruler of this world.” There is, in a sense, a tension between the already (1 John 5:4-5; Rev 12:11) and the not-yet (1 John 5:19; Rev 13:7) with respect to our struggle against Satan. Tying this together is the adverb “now” (12:31; lit., “now is the time . . . now the ruler will be cast out”), emphasizing that these end time events have already begun (so Carson). The age between the advents is a time for the progressive unfolding of the defeat of Satan, as well as of the glory of Christ.

Second, the arrival of his “time” meant that it was time for Jesus to be “lifted up from the earth” (12:32), the third of the three “lifted up” sayings in John (with 3:14; 8:28; see note on 8:28). This metaphor means that as Jesus was lifted up on the Cross, he was lifted up into glory. This same verb is used in Isaiah 52:13 (LXX) where the Servant of Yahweh is called “highly exalted” (cf. Phil 2:9); for John, the Cross was Jesus’ throne, his place of exaltation. When that happened, he would “draw everyone to” himself. The image is often used of a dragnet drawing in the fish “destined to be caught. And so it is for all the believers who have been captivated by Jesus and drawn to him” (Comfort 1994:110). This goes back to 6:44, where the Father “draws” to Jesus all he has given to him (6:37) and who come to him (6:35, 44). Yet there is also a difference, for the Father “draws” only those who come, while Jesus will draw “everyone.” This is similar to the universal salvific will passages of 1:4, 7, 9, where Jesus as the Word “gives light to everyone.” As the “light of the world” (9:5), Jesus enlightens every person, encountering them with the truth and reality of God. This work of Jesus will be carried on after his ascent by the Holy Spirit, who will “convict the world of its sin, and of God’s righteousness, and of the coming judgment” (16:8; cf. 8-11). Moreover, “everyone” means all without distinction, Jew as well as Gentile, constituting the “one flock” of 10:16; Cf. 11:52; 17:20-23. To make sure no reader would misunderstand the meaning of “lifted up,” John added that by “lifted up,” Christ was signifying “how he was going to die” (12:33).

The crowd finally understood something—that Jesus was speaking of his death (12:34)—but they were confused about what he said. In this context he does not say that the Son of Man must be lifted up (he says this in 3:14), only that the Son of Man would be glorified (Cf. 12:23). Moreover, they were seeing this in light of their messianic expectations and wondered how he could say that the eternal Messiah would die. If he is eternal, then how could he die? Also, they expected the Messiah to be a victorious conqueror, not a Suffering Servant (they didn’t understand the Servant Songs of Isaiah to be messianic). Therefore they asked, “Just who is this Son of Man, anyway?” This does not mean they failed to grasp that Jesus was calling himself the Son of Man. (This title could be taken as equivalent to “human” or “mortal” and did not demand extraordinary faith or comprehension; see note on 1:51.) Rather, they wanted to know what kind of Messiah Jesus claimed to be. The kind he seemed to be describing was not the Messiah they understood or could accept.

Jesus virtually ignored their question (12:35-36). This is his last encounter with the crowds in John, and his reply centers on their response to the light (Cf. 9:4; 11:9-10). Verse 35 seems to be a short parable on a person traveling at sunset, who must hurry lest the darkness overtake him and he lose his way. It is a parable of crisis, similar to those in Matthew 24–25 (so Lindars, Blomberg). This is the time of spiritual conflict, in which the “ruler of this world” (12:31) is operating. In the light, the darkness has been overcome (1:5), but those who refuse the light and prefer darkness (3:19-20) are in incredible danger of losing their way to God and therefore of suffering eternal darkness. The idea of darkness overtaking a person (12:35) reverses 1:5 (the same verb), where the light overtakes the darkness. Those who “walk in the darkness” cannot see their way. They think they are headed in the right direction but are on the way to destruction. They must “put [their] trust in the light while there is still time” (12:36). The darkness had already gained mastery over many of the leaders, but Jesus did not want this to happen to the crowds. The only answer was a faith-decision. Jesus, the Light, would only be with them a little longer (mere days at this time), so they would not have many more chances. If they responded, they would become “children of the light.” The Essenes of Qumran called themselves “the sons of light” and called outsiders “the sons of darkness.” Jesus was using this language to describe his followers in contrast to those who reject him. “Child of” was a Semitic idiom pointing to a person’s primary characteristic; their primary characteristic would be “light.” As Jesus is the Light, so they would be “of the light.”

This was a very fitting way for Jesus to end his public ministry, with a call for all who heard to leave the realm of darkness and come to the light. There is a type of inclusio in this, with the prologue centering on light encountering everyone (1:3-5, 7, 9) and Jesus’ ministry ending with a call to become “children of the light.” At this time, Jesus left and hid himself from them (12:36; Cf. 8:59); in this, he was both symbolizing God’s judgment on those who rejected him and awaiting the final “hour” that God had established. He had been warning them, and now the time was up.

12:38 This is exactly. In actuality, the Gr. introduces the Scripture fulfillment formula with hina [TG2443, ZG2671] (so that): “so that the word of Isaiah might be fulfilled”; many have asked how strongly the hina should be interpreted. Did God cause Jewish unbelief “for the purpose” of fulfilling Scripture (so Hendriksen, Carson, Ridderbos)? Or should it be seen more simply as a fulfillment formula (Brown)? The answer may be best expressed by Bruce (1983:271), who calls it a “Hebraic fashion of expressing result as though it were purpose.” In the context of John, there is perfect symmetry of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, so it goes too far to take a double predestination approach: John was not saying that God predestined the Jews to unbelief. Rather, the two sides worked together in a way similar to Pharaoh, who hardened his heart as God was hardening it (cf. Osborne 2003 on Rom 9:16-18, 22).

12:44-50 Whitacre (1999:324) sums up the Johannine themes present here: faith (12:44-45), Jesus the “sent one” (12:44-45, 49), light versus darkness (12:46), judging (12:47-48), saving the world (12:47), not speaking on his own (12:49), and eternal life (12:50).

12:49 I don’t speak on my own authority. Jesus’ subordination to the Father is not the whole of who Jesus is but relates entirely to his earthly mission. We could call it a functional subordination (see note on 14:28). It must be balanced by the ontological oneness between Jesus and God in 1:1, 18; 10:30. Jesus is the God-man, both subordinate and equal with God.

The message here is that this salvation-historical tragedy is in itself a fulfillment of prophecy. John centers on two passages from Isaiah, probably because the same apostasy in the land occurred in Isaiah’s day. First, he quoted the Greek version of Isaiah 53:1 (12:38), found in the fourth of the Servant songs (52:13–53:12, with 52:13 alluded to in 12:32). This song states that while the Servant is exalted by God (52:13, used in 12:32), the nations were appalled that he was disfigured and rejected. Verse 53:1 asks the natural question, “Who has believed our message? To whom has the Lord revealed his powerful arm?” God had previously shown himself in mighty deeds like the Exodus and the deliverances through the judges or David, but when he did so through one who was “despised and rejected—a man of sorrows” (Isa 53:3), the people reacted in disbelief. Jesus, the Suffering Servant, faced the disbelief prophesied in Isaiah. The Isaiah passage also sums up the impact of the words (“message”) and deeds (“powerful arm”) of Jesus. The Israel of Jesus’ day was just like the Israel of Isaiah’s day. Both rejected the clear message of God. The rejection would only become more intense when Jesus manifestly became the Suffering Servant in his Passion!

The second passage cited is Isaiah 6:10 (12:39-40); this is the major passage cited in the New Testament on Jewish unbelief (Mark 4:10-12; Acts 28:26-27; Rom 11:8). Isaiah had perhaps the most amazing, and at the same time the most appalling, commissioning service in all of human history. He had seen a vision of God on his throne and yet had been told he was to be sent on a mission of inevitable failure. God wanted him to preach to a people who would not listen to or accept his message. In fact, God was going to use him to cause that very rejection! John altered the sequence of the lines in Isaiah to apply it especially to Jesus. In Isaiah, the order is heart, then ears and then eyes. John dropped the reference to the ears and reversed the order—eyes and then hearts—because he centered on the “miraculous signs” the people had seen in Jesus and their effect on the people’s hearts (12:37). Jesus was reliving the ministry of Isaiah. Through his sign-miracles, their eyes had been blinded so they could not see, and their hearts had been hardened so that they could not understand.

Note that God would no longer allow them to repent—“They cannot turn to me and have me heal them.” This is what is normally called a “judicial hardening” of the people. Yet it was not just a cold, calculated act. Burge (2000:348) calls it “a judicial hardening that settles on a people who are already guilty.” We must remember that throughout John, the divine and the human are intertwined; sovereignty and responsibility are interdependent. The people had been guilty of unbelief, and God was hardening them. The exact logical relationship is a mystery that will not be fully understood until we get to heaven (though too many theologians believe they have it all figured out). Divine sovereignty is primary, but human responsibility is equally important, in Romans 9–11 as well as here. Köstenberger calls it “unambiguously predestinarian and yet compatibilist, including elements of human responsibility as well” (2004:391).

John explained that Isaiah was referring to Jesus “because he saw the future and spoke of the Messiah’s glory” (12:41). Of course, Isaiah saw the glory of Yahweh, but as Jesus and God are one (1:1, 18; 10:30), Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory in a typological sense. How does this relate to a context of judicial hardening? The glory of God and of Jesus are not just seen in the salvation of the faithful but also in the judgment of the enemies of God. The exalted Jesus is also Judge of all, and that is his glory as well. This theme is especially developed in the book of Revelation (e.g., the “hallelujah” choruses of 19:1-5 that celebrate the destruction of the evildoers).

Yet not all were guilty of unbelief, for even some of the Jewish leaders put their faith in him (12:42). Behind this is the assumption that even more of the common people had become followers. John wants us to understand that the rejection was not universal, even among the leaders. Even the group most active in opposing Jesus and plotting his death had some converts; however, they never spoke up “for fear that the Pharisees would expel them from the synagogue,” as they had expelled the man healed from blindness (9:34; Cf. 9:22). They are described well in 12:43: “They loved human praise more than the praise of God.” One whom we have already met, Nicodemus (3:1-15; 7:50-51), revealed himself only after the death of Jesus (19:39). Another was Joseph of Arimathea, described directly as “a secret disciple of Jesus (because he feared the Jewish leaders)” (19:38). Undoubtedly, there were several others. There is no reason to think that they were not true believers; they were merely weak believers without the courage of their convictions, like all too many today. This goes back to 2:23-25. One could almost say there are several levels of faith in John, and it is impossible (and not in John’s interest) to say which level separates the true from the false believer. Suffice it to say that every so-called “believer” must continually examine his or her faith and make certain it is vibrant and growing. The danger of losing it all in eternity is too great. Those who “trusted” in 2:23-25 thought they were all right, but Jesus knew better, and their true colors were shown in 6:60-66. Others will not find out until the last judgment, when Jesus will say, “I never knew you. Get away from me” (Matt 7:23). Therefore, those with a weak faith are in serious danger. For such “closet Christians,” like those mentioned in 12:42-43, there is spiritual danger, and they could come under the indictment of 12:47-48 (commented on below).

Then in 12:46, Jesus turns once more to the imagery of light vs. darkness (Cf. 9:4; 11:9-10; 12:35-36). Since one may “see” (12:45) the Father in the Son, he is naturally the “light” who reveals God. As “the light of the world” (8:12), he shines in this dark world to illuminate or expose its sin and rebellion (1:4-5, 9; 3:19-21). The purpose, however, is redemptive rather than punitive, for salvation rather than judgment (so 3:17). The light shines so that people can put their trust in Jesus and therefore overcome and leave the darkness (Cf. 1:5).

For those who reject the light, however, Jesus is also judge (12:47-48), another primary theme in John (Cf. 5:22-23, 30; 9:39). Two groups are described here: The first consists of those “who hear me but don’t obey me,” namely those with inadequate faith (2:23-25; probably those closet Christians of 12:42-43). Jesus says he “will not judge” them. This does not mean that there will be no judgment, for clearly such people will bring judgment down on themselves (3:19-20; 6:60-66). Rather, Jesus came to bring them salvation rather than judgment (repeating 3:17). He works with them to produce repentance and a belief that is put to work in obedience. James 2:17 says “faith by itself isn’t enough. Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless”; without the obedience that results, there is no faith in the first place. The second group is made up of those who reject Jesus and his teaching and “will be judged on the day of judgment.” This builds on 5:41-47, where the words of Moses will be their judge, for they have rejected God’s truth. Here, the “truth I have spoken” will be their accuser at the judgment day.

Jesus ends on the note with which he began this final charge (12:44-45)—namely, his subordination to his Father (12:49-50). The central point here is the Father’s “commands,” which are behind everything Jesus says and does. His commands are the “authority” behind Jesus’ words. Here, the Father commands Jesus’ words, and in 14:31, he commands Jesus’ deeds, especially the Passion events. The commands of God determine Jesus’ mission as a whole (Brown 1966:504). This may be reminiscent of the “prophet like Moses” of Deuteronomy 18:18-19: “I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell the people everything I command him.” This is fulfilled in Jesus, the final prophet (so Brown, Whitacre). The point is that Jesus’ teaching has no origin in human ideas but stems from God entirely, so it has absolute authority. Since “his commands lead to eternal life,” and Jesus is one with him, it is the words of Jesus that alone are eternal life (5:24; 8:51).