Pulpit Commentary - John 12:1

Pulpit Commentary - John 12:1 - 12:50

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Pulpit Commentary - John 12:1 - 12:50

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

12:1 - 12:50

EXPOSITION

The twelfth chapter neither belongs intrinsically to that which precedes nor to that which follows. It is a paragraph of high significance, as bearing on the construction of the Gospel. It is the transition between the public and the private ministry, the great pause between the two classes of manifestation forming the climax of the public ministry.

III. CONSUMMATION OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY.

Joh_12:1-8

1. The feast of love and gratitude.

Joh_12:1

Jesus therefore, six days before the Passover. Every preliminary of that solemn feast is memorable to our evangelist. The coincidence of the Passover feast and the killing of the Paschal lamb, with the sacrifice of "Christ our Passover," cannot be concealed. [For the grammatical construction with πρὸ , cf. note, Joh_11:18, where a similar use of ἀπό occurs; not, however, a Latinism, as some have supposed, as similar phrases are found in good Greek.] The date from which the calculation is made is complicated with the intricate controversy upon the day of our Lord's death, i.e. whether he suffered on the 14th or 15th of Nisan, and whether a "harmony" is possible or not with the statements of the synoptists, who all three assert that our Lord ate the Passover with his disciples ^£. However this matter be finally settled, if the 14th of Nisan was the day on which the Passover was killed, "between the evenings," the 13th was reckoned as the first day before the Passover, and the sixth day would be the 8th of Nisan. If the weekly sabbath occurred on the 16th, then the 9th also was a sabbath. The Lord would then have reached Bethany on the eve of the sabbath, and have rested on the sabbath itself. The evening of the 9th would be the occasion of the feast, and the 10th would correspond with Palm Sunday. If the Lord were crucified on the 14th, and the weekly sabbath coincided with the Passover-day of convocation, the 15th, then the previous sabbath was on the 8th, and our Lord must have reached Bethany in "the end of the sabbath," and then the feast was on the following day. When Jesus halted at Bethany, the vast crowd of pilgrims advanced into the suburbs of Jerusalem, encamping on the Mount of Olives, and would be ready for the great demonstration of the next day. Westcott, after Bengel, observes that John's Gospel begins and ends with a sacred week (cf. Joh_1:29-35, Joh_1:43; Joh_2:1). Jesus therefore, sis days before the Passover, came to Bethany. The quiet rest of that last sabbath with the family at Bethany is a thought full of suggestion. Thoma accounts for the triumphal feast and anointing, "six days before the Passover," as answering to the day on which the lamb was separated from other and secular animals, and consecrated for this holy service (Exo_12:3-6; Heb_7:26). The segregation, however, was partial or premature, and the anointing (see below) took place five days before the Passover. It is not said that the day of his arrival at Bethany is the day of the festive welcome. Bethany is described as the place where Lazarus was. The explanatory clause, ^£ he who had been dead, is not necessary, as the evangelist limits and explains sufficiently the great motive for his pause and presence at Bethany by adding, whom he (Jesus) raised from the dead. It is extraordinary that some most able expositors should be so unwilling to accept the synchronous statements of the synoptists. Their narrative is not out of harmony with the hypothesis that our Lord passed the previous days with the pilgrim-band from Peraea, and that, taking the head of the procession as it was passing through Jericho., he should thus have distinctly challenged the authorities, and taken up the public position to which they were anxious he should lay claim. By his visit to the house of Zacchaeus he proclaimed the new feature and spirit of his kingdom; by healing the blind man he gave a typical illustration of the work of grace needed by all his disciples; by resting at the home where human love and Divine power had been so wonderfully blended he called the most solemn attention to his supreme claims; by pressing on with urgency up the steep mountain pathway at the head of his disciples he seemed to be ready, in his own words, "to lay down his life, that he might take it again." The οὖν , according to Meyer, is simply the resumption of the narrative, but surely those are right who regard it as a distinct reference to Joh_11:55. The Sanhedrists had given the ἐντολή that if any knew where he was, they should declare it. Christ was resolved, now that his hour was come, to lift the whole responsibility from his friends, and take it upon himself. The other evangelists do not mention the halt. Their purpose was not a chronological one. They give the narrative of the anointing apart from its deepest meanings and consequences, apart from any references to Lazarus. There are other subtle omissions from the synoptists, the difficulties of which must be settled as between themselves. Thus, according to Mar_11:12 and Mar_11:20, an interval of a whole day and night took place between the withering of the fig tree and the conversation about it, but Matthew makes the conversation follow immediately upon the miracle. In like manner, John abstains from any reference to the discussions in the temple, to the withering of the fig tree, to the cleansing of the temple, or to the parables which followed.

Joh_12:2

There, therefore, they made him a supper, and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. John does not tell us in whose house "they made the dinner" or supper, and unless Simon the leper is a member of the family, we cannot suppose that it was in the quiet home of Bethany that this feast in honor of Jesus was held, but that it took place, as the synoptists positively declare, "in the house of Simon the leper." Simon may easily have been one of the many lepers whom our Lord had healed, and whose soul was filled with accordant gratitude. At that table there would be seated two transcendent; proofs of the power of Jesus to save, not only from the semblance but from the reality of death (see Meyer; Mat_26:6). We wonder, with Godet, that Meyer should reject this simple supposition as "spurious harmony." All that is here stated is in agreement with it:

(1) that Martha should have shown her reverence by serving her Lord, according to her wont, not necessarily as hostess (Hengstenberg and Lange), but as the expression of her devoted thankfulness;

(2) that Lazarus should have been one of those who sat at meat, reclined at table, with him, i.e. took a position as a guest, like himself; and

(3) that Mary should have poured forth her costly spikenard, in royal self-forgetting love. The conduct of all the three thus mentioned is compatible with the fact stated in the synoptic narrative, that the festival was celebrated in the house of Simon the leper. Our Lord had commented, in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luk_7:44, etc.), on the absence of the customary anointing with oil. Mary knew of this, and resolved that, whatever the woman who was a sinner had done, no similar act of neglect should occur on that memorable evening. A chronological discrepancy renders an identification of the synoptic narrative of Matthew with this story perplexing. In Mat_26:2 we are brought to within two days of the Passover, whereas here we cannot well be less than five days before it. However, there is nothing in Mat_26:6-13 which indubitably declares the date of the supper The "two days" may refer to the date of Judas's treachery, after mentioning which he goes back to an event which furnished occasion and temptation to the avaricious mind of Judas.

Joh_12:3

Mary therefore took a pound of ointment ("liquid perfume," sometimes added to the more ordinary oil), of pure (or possibly; pistie) nard. Mark uses this unusual word πιστικός , which belongs to later Greek. The derivation of πιστκτικός from πίνω , equivalent to "potable," is not appropriate in meaning, though this "nard" was used for perfuming wine. In Mar_14:3 also the Authorized version translates it "spikenard," as it does here (cf. also Son_1:12 and Son_4:13, Son_4:14, where Hebrew ãÌÀøÀïÅ corresponds with νάρδος ). But the one place where the word was supposed to be found in Aristotle is now seen not to be πισττικός , but πειστικός , trustworthy, or unadulterated. It is possible that the word may have had a local geographical value, belonging to some proper name, and is untranslatable. Very precious. Mark (Mar_14:3) uses the word πολυτελοῦς , and Matthew (Mat_26:7) βαρυτίμου . John appears to combine the idea of both words in his πολυτίμον . Each of the synoptists severally mentions a fact which John omits—that Mary broke the alabaster box, and poured the costly unguent on his head in rich abundance, as though hers had been the royal or high-priestly anointing (cf. Psa_133:1-3.); but John shows that this at least was not all she did. She anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment. Thoma thinks that, conformably with John's idea, the anointing of the head of the true High Priest was the work of God alone, quoting Philo's comment on Le Joh_21:10, etc., "The head of the Loges, as High Priest, is anointed with oil, i.e. his innermost essence gleams with dazzling light;" and adds, that as the feet of the high priest were washed with water from recent defilement of the world's dust, so God's anointed Lamb and Priest was anointed on his feet with the spikenard of faith, the best and costliest thing that man could offer. So profound an analogy seems to us contrary to the simplicity of the narrative, which is perfectly natural in its form. The perfumed nard ran down to the Savior's feet and the skirts of his garments, and there accumulating, the significant act is further recounted how Mary wiped off the superfluous perfume from his feet with the tresses of her loosened hair. This simple act proclaimed the self-humiliation and adoration of her unbounded love, seeing that the loosening of a woman's hair was a mark of unusual self-abandonment, Many most unnecessary inferences have been drawn from this. John adds an interesting feature, revealing the sensitive eye-witness of the scene, "and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment;" and the whole house of God ever since has been fragrant with her immortal and prophetic act.

Joh_12:4

But Judas the Iscariot, one of his disciples ^{£, who was about to betray him, said. The speaker here is singled out by name. Matthew refers the speech to the disciples generally, in whom the suggestion of Judas had stirred up (without guile or blame on their part) a not unnatural inquiry. Mark says "some" murmured to themselves, "Why this waste?" (loss, destruction). John (without the malice which Renan has attributed to the writer) mentions the source of the suggestion, "Judas Iscariot, Simon's son." The word
Σίμωνος
, contained in T.R., is omitted here in the best texts. The fact that he was the traitor, being one of the well-known and awful events of the gospel history when John wrote some half a century later, might well be introduced by the evangelist, with no other than a purely historical motive.

Joh_12:5, Joh_12:6

Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? Sinful motive often hides itself under the mask of reverence for another virtue. In Mark's Gospel the same price was put upon the pound of pure nard as that which is mentioned here—about f10 of our money. Christ had given emphatic advice about generosity to the poor, and even during this very week (Joh_13:29) it is clear that his words were not forgotten, and in his great discourse, probably also delivered during this same week, he identified himself with the poor (Mat_25:35, etc.), and called for unreserved consideration of them; so that this language was not unnatural. The value of this ointment is another minute indication that there is no connection between the Lazarus of John and the Lazarus of the parable. But John adds that the utter lack of perception on Judas's part of Mary's self-devotion was prompted by the most unworthy motive. The suggestion of Judas is put down by the evangelist to the sheerest covetousness. During the interval that elapsed, Judas had revealed his character, and John did not hesitate to refer the suggestion to the traitor. Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor. He really cared nothing for the poor. He was ambitious, eager for the display of the Master's power, anxious for the rewards which might follow the Master's assumption of supreme authority, turning to his own account all that might happen. But because he was a thief, and having ^{£ possession of the common purse (the word
γλωσσόκομος
, which occurs in the sense of a chest (2Ch_24:8), has a curious etymology, which had passed out of recognition; from
γλώσσα
and
κομέω
comes
γλωσσοκομεῖον
, that in which month-pieces of flutes might be kept in safety, and subsequently a chest or box for the safe guardianship of other valuables), he was the bearer—perhaps, bore array (see Joh_20:15, and Josephus, ' Ant.,' Joh_7:15. 3, for this use of
βαστάζω
), at all events had at his disposal—of the things which were cast, in generous profusion, into it. Thoma makes the astounding suggestion that "John" here covertly refers to Simon Magus of Act_8:18, etc. The question is often asked—Why was Judas entrusted with the common purse? Was it not likely to aggravate a disposition to which he was prone? Did not Jesus know what was in man? and had he not discerned the propensity of Judas (see Joh_6:71)? In reply:

(1) The appointment may have been made by the apostles themselves.

(2) Our Lord may not have interfered with it, deeming confidence more likely to help him than distrust.

(3) It may also show how, if men will yield themselves to sin, God will not and does not promise them immunity from temptation, but sometimes even brings them into it.

(4) The purse might have been a preservative against the vile temptation to sell his Master, and a test and motive for self-con-quest.

Joh_12:7

The two readings of the text must here be compared with one another and with the synoptic narrative. The T.R. reads, Let her alone: ^{£ unto the day of the preparation for my burial she has carefully guarded this precious perfume. This is, in one sense, that very day, and she has found out the solemn fact in a way in which the disciples had as yet failed to do. With this agrees the language of the synoptists," Why trouble ye the woman? she hath wrought a good work on me;… she hath done that which was possible to her (
ὃ ἐσχεν

ἐποίησεν
)" of Mar_14:8. In fact, Mark expressly conveys this thought—"she has anticipated the anointing of my body for the burial." If we have the direct testimony of Mark (i.e. Peter), Christ must have expressed himself thus. Matthew also in different words records the same pathetic and subtle thought: "For in that she poured [cast] this ointment upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial" (Jn 26:12) Hengstenberg, Godet, and Stier abide by the reading of the T.R.; but the principal manuscripts, in most powerful combination, have led Lachmann, Alford, Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort to read here,
Ἵνα εἰς τὴν

ἡμέραν τοῦ ἐνταφιασμοῦ τηρήση αὐτό
, "In order that she may keep or guard this for the day of my burial." Westcott says that the synoptists imply rather, by the word
κατέχεεν
, that She had not already consumed the whole of the ointment. Meyer, with this text, translates, "Let her alone, that she may preserve it (this ointment, of which she has just poured some over my feet) for the day of my embalmment." This certainly seems inconsistent with the complaint of the disciples or of Judas, at the apparently superfluous expenditure, and would compel us to restrict the abed to the unused portion. The advocates of the T.R. reading say that it represents the original text, which has been altered by criticism arising from misunderstanding of the idea of the day of burial having ideally arrived; but why did they not alter on the same principle the language of the synoptists? The advocates of Lachmann's text say that it has been altered by copyists, to bring it into accord with the text of the synoptists. Lange justifies the Revised version, "Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying," and puts it thus: "Permit her to keep it [i.e. to have kept the ointment which she might have used at the burial of Lazarus] for the day of my burial," now ideally present in the outbreak of Judas's devilish malignity. So virtually Luthardt and Baumgarten-Crusius. Godet argues that this is forced and ungrammatical. But there is this advantage in it, that it brings the language into much closer relation with the synoptists. Westcott prefers the idea of Meyer. The older view is to me far mere satisfactory. Edersheim (2:35) adds to this, "Mary may have had that alabaster box from early days, before she had learned to serve Christ. When she understood that decease of which he constantly spake, she may have put it aside, "kept it," "against the day of his burying." And now the decisive hour is come.

Joh_12:8

This verse is omitted in D, but abundantly attested here. It occurs almost verbatim in Matthew and Mark, and cannot be set aside on the authority of this one eccentric manuscript. For the poor ye have always with you (cf. Deu_15:11). You will always have opportunity of doing to them, as to representatives of me, what is in your heart of compassion (cf. Mat_25:40-45). But me, as an object of personal, tangible regard and visible attention, deserving thus and ever the affluence and exuberance of your love, ye have not always; and, though I shall be with you always in my Divine power and Spirit, even unto the end of the world, and though I shall always be with you in the person of the poor and needy, yet in the sense in which this expression of love Can be made, I shall be absent. As though he had said, "After this very night, the opportunity to offer me affectionate attention or symbolic homage, to give expression to feelings in accordance with just presentiments as to my mission, will be over forever, and belong to the irrecoverable past—Now or never! She has done this thing, she will have everlasting remembrance thereby." The frankincense of the Wise Men, the ointment of Mary, the homage of the Greeks, were symbols, and can never be repeated. The greatest motive for generous and affectionate interest in the poor is that they represent the Lord; but they are not to be rivals of the Lord himself. Westcott remarks, "The promise of the future record of the act of love is omitted by the one evangelist who gives the name of the woman who showed this devotion to her Master." Moulton, "The very charity that cares for the poor whom we see has been kept alive by faith in and devotion to the crucified Redeemer whom we cannot see."

Joh_12:9-11

2. The effects of the great sign.

Joh_12:9

(1) On much people of the Jews. The article (
ὁ
), which the best texts introduce before
ὄχλος πολὺς
, gives to these words an almost technical force. The huge multitude of the Jews—the surging crowd of ever-gathering pilgrims blended with the "common people," the bulk of the population of Jerusalem and its neighborhood (Joh_11:55, Joh_11:56)—therefore—because, i.e., of the rumors of the feast, the news of the royal consecration and sacred anointing, which had taken place in honor of Jesus and his last great miracle—learned that he was there—that he had left his unknown place of retirement at Ephraim. We gather from the synoptic narrative that he had joined the pilgrim-throng, advancing first into Jericho, and then, after a night spent there, had moved onwards to Bethany. The dispersion of hundreds of these excited followers into Jerusalem had again bruited abroad the fact of the resurrection of Lazarus, and, by reason of the Lord's return to Bethany, the Jerusalem-party at length learned where he was.
Ὁ ὄχλος ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων
shows an antithesis intended between the Judaean and the Galilean crowds. These the synoptists describe as "those that went before, and those that followed after." And they came, not for the sake of Jesus only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he raised from the dead. Jesus was not the only attraction; the risen man Lazarus was a rival in popularity, and by this ocular, tangible specimen of the supernatural resources of Jesus, they would deepen their interest and strengthen their convictions. Many of this Jerusalem populace, on account of him (Lazarus), and the fact of his resuscitation (
ὑπῆγον
), went away, perhaps, though not necessarily so, "apostatized," from the high-priestly party, from the hostile party in the capital, and separated themselves from the open but desperate plot against the Divine Master, and believed on Jesus—threw in their part and lot with the Lord and his disciples. This roused the malignity of the unspiritual and unscrupulous party of Caiaphas, of Annas, and of the Pharisees in the Sanhedrim

Joh_12:10, Joh_12:11

(2) On the chief priests. The chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus. They deliberated to kill Lazarus as well as Jesus. It was not enough that one man should die; another and another must follow if their plan is to succeed. And now the hour had come (Joh_2:4; Joh_7:30), but not until our Lord once more warned the disciples with intense significance and explicitness of his approaching death and burial. Thus another striking illustration is given of the judgment, the crisis, the sifting process, which is always going on in the presence of Christ. His greatest signs, his wisest teachings, his most amazing love, bring out the twofold result. Some receive, some reject, some burst into louder acclaim, some try to slay. As with the history of this "Gospel," some hear in it the very voice of the Eternal, but there are others who would grind it to powder. Because Ignatius and Polycarp bear witness to the existence of the Gospel, these Lazaruses must be put to death, or banished to a later period out of harm's way. Even the genuineness of the Apocalypse, so long a tower of defense for the Tübingen school, is too powerful a proof of St. John's residence in Asia to be accepted with equanimity or left in possession, and some of the later critics have taken counsel to repudiate its Johannine authorship.

Joh_12:12-19

3. The triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Christ's challenge of the authorities, and its results. On the precise order of events it is difficult to speak with absolute decision. The main difference between the synoptists and John is in the break at Bethany of the journey from Jericho to Jerusalem, to introduce a feast, which is related afterwards by the synoptists, though not limited by them to any later chronological position. It should be observed, moreover, that the synoptic narrative contains numerous references to the residence in Bethany during several days of the week which followed. John adds important details, and while he omits the great discussions in the temple, the withering of the fig tree, the cleansing of the temple, the parables of the judgments on scribes and Pharisees, and the prophecy of the future, he portrays the inner life of the Lord, and records his most gracious esoteric teaching and sublime prayer. The current tradition of the Church, the distinct note of time for Christ's arrival at Bethany (six days before the Passover), make the triumphal entry take place on Sunday afternoon (cf. verse 1) of Passion week.

Joh_12:12, Joh_12:13

The next day (on the morrow) must be the day after the feast. We have seen that that feast probably took place on the evening of the sabbath. The events that happened are far more abundantly described in Matthew, Mark, and Luke—the excitement in Jerusalem, the method in which the triumph was carried through, the mode adopted to secure "the young ass," the weeping ever Jerusalem from the summit of the hill; none of these circumstances are inconsistent with this account. Brief, however, as our narrative is, it adds some features which are peculiar and highly historic. A ^{£ vast crowd that had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. These that had come from the country, and had already encamped near or in Jerusalem, came group after group to Bethany to escort him into the city. The synoptists, not mentioning the pause of the sabbath at Bethany, and not clearly indicating where and when the feast at Bethany took place, naturally connect the journey from Jericho with the entrance into Jerusalem. John explains, in addition, that there were of the Jerusalemites themselves certain who had been led to go to Bethany and throw in their lot with the Lord. The early pilgrims mentioned in Joh_11:55, Joh_11:56, also came forth from the city to hail and welcome his approach. Took branches of the palm trees, and went forth to meet him. The synoptists had mentioned that the triumphant host had cut "branches,"
κλάδους
(Mat_21:8), from the trees, and Mark (Mar_11:8) had said
στιβάδας
, fragments of trees, grass, small branches, that could be strewn in the way. Luke (Luk_19:35) simply mentions the garments thus strewn—a fact mentioned also by Mark and Matthew. Our narrative gives greater definiteness, and even adds a new feature, by speaking of
τὰ βαία τῶν φοινίκων
, "the palm branches of the palm trees," which they waved probably in triumph, as they had been accustomed to do in token of the approach of a conqueror (cf. 1 Macc. 13:51, where Simon's return to the city was celebrated with "thanksgiving and
βαΐ́ων
and with harps and cymbals," etc.). The use to which the branches of the well-known palm trees were put, differs from, but does not exclude, the use to which
κλάδοι
and
στοιβάδες
were also put. Bethany (see note, Joh_11:1) was "the house of dates," and the palm branches for the Feast of Tabernacles, on its first celebration after the Captivity (cf. Le 23:40), Were fetched from the mount (Neh_8:15). The palm tree was a sacred symbol for Israel "Tamar," a palm tree, was a favorite name for a woman. The Maccabaean coins were decorated with the palm and vine. The medal struck by Titus represented a captive sitting under a palm. Throughout their history, in their gorgeous temple ritual, it continually reappears, and at the last the Apocalypse represents the victorious songs of triumphant elders accompanied by the waving of the palm. If we compare the four accounts of the demonstration, we shall see again how in combination they vividly represent the whole scene. The multitude cry, according to—

Mat_21:9 : "Hosanna ^£ to the Son of David: Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest."

Mar_11:9, Mar_11:10 : "Hosanna; Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord: Blessed be the coming kingdom of our father David: Hosanna in the highest."

Luk_19:38, remembering the angel's song: "They praised God with a loud voice.… Blessed be the King that cometh in the Name of the Lord: in heaven peace, and glory in the highest."

John says they went forth to meet him, palm branch in hand, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord, and (blessed be) (even) the King of Israel.

These differences show how various groups used with freedom the tones and sentiment of the hundred and eighteenth psalm, adopting the welcome with which the priests were accustomed to greet the pilgrims to the festival. But each account demonstrates that, on this occasion, there was a general ascription to our Lord of Messianic honor. He is hailed by the people as King of Israel, as the Head of the coming kingdom of their father David, and as giving glory to God. The Name of the Lord is the manifestation and compendium of all the perfections of the Lord. For centuries the gracious hope had rung forth in the sacred liturgy, and now the people see that the hope is on the point of realization.

Joh_12:14

And Jesus, having found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written. The whole account of the process by which our Lord secured this
ὀνάριον
is described at great length by the synoptists. The foal implies that the animal had never borne another burden. The account of Matthew refers to the mother and the foal, as though they were inseparable, and together bore the sacred burden. Mr. Holman Hunt, in his picture of the 'Triumph of the Innocents,' has represented the beast bearing Mary and her Child as accompanied by the colt. The entire process of securing both must have taken time, and augmented the excitement. Christ at length, on the eve of his Passion which he so distinctly foreshadowed, allowed the enthusiasm of the people to prevail, and accepted the homage. The Galilee pilgrims take up the demonstration, which was commenced, as we see from John's Gospel, by "the Jews" and those Jerusalemites who had been profoundly moved by the significance of the resurrection of Lazarus. The circumstances thus elucidated from the four narratives, reveal undesigned coincidences. The entry into Jerusalem did not take place till the afternoon, and so we find that all that our Lord did on arrival was to "go to the temple, look round on all things, and, now that the even was come, to revisit Bethany with the twelve" (Mar_11:11).

Joh_12:15

John, as well as Matthew, sees here a symbolical fulfillment of what had been declared by one of the latest of the prophets, as the peculiarity of the Messiah (Zec_9:9): Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt. ^£ This oracle is admitted by commentators of opposite schools to refer to the Messiah. There was no need, in order to fulfill the spirit of the whole passage, that the King should come to his own literally upon the back of a beast of burden. The prophecy does, however, suggest the modesty, the absence of all pomp or display of worldly wealth and power; nay, the humiliation on the part of the true King. Both Matthew and John omit the characteristics of "righteous and saved," ^£ i.e. "delivered" from the hands of his cruel enemies. The suffering Servant of God of the great oracle of Isa_53:1-12. was in the mind of the Prophet Zechariah, and he adds this feature to the triumphant coming of the true Prince of Peace, that he would "cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem," i.e. so act that even the national pride and power and military prowess should come to an end; "Speak peace to the nations; rule from sea to sea, from the river to the ends of the earth." As John and Matthew both see the symbolical fulfillment of the prophecy, they doubtless would have us bear in mind the whole passage. John transforms the "Rejoice greatly, shout," etc., of the prophet into "Fear not." He seems to take it at one stage only of fulfillment, when anxiety might momentarily be put to rest. The "Fear not" is a lower form of "great rejoicing." It is something for men to dismiss their doubts and hush their unrest, even when they cannot burst into song. Hengstenberg and Godet urge that the "meekness and lowliness" to which the prophet referred, and which Matthew cited from him, was imaged in the lowly beast on which never man sat. But it must not be forgotten that the ass was used by distinguished personages (Jdg_5:9, Jdg_5:10; Jdg_10:4; 2Sa_17:23; 2Sa_19:26). And all that was really meant by it was the choice of a creature associated rather with daily life than with military display. Meyer and Moulton urge that it was a chosen symbol of peace (
καθήμενος
is substituted for the
ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ
of the LXX. and Mat_21:5). Contrary to Keim's animadversion, our Lord and his disciples adopted here the idea of a Jewish Messiah, stripping it of its worldly characteristics. It should be observed that, while John's narrative is in harmony with the synoptists, he greatly abbreviates it.

Joh_12:16

These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him. This verse shows that the disciples (of whom John was one) took part in the celebration, though they did not see at the time, nor until after the Ascension—not until they saw by faith the
δόξα
into which the Lord had entered—that the honor which they had done to him had corresponded strangely with the marvelous words of the old prophecy. And that they had done—clearly the disciples, on grammatical grounds;
οἱ μαθηταὶ
, is the subject of
ἐποίησαν
—these things unto him.
Ἐδοξάσθη
is used of the uplifting to the glory which he had before the world was; not until then was the Spirit given that explained so much of the mysterious life. (For other illustrations of
τὸ πρῶτον
, in the rare sense of "at first," see Joh_10:40; Joh_19:39.)

(1) Men often act and speak without perceiving the full meaning of deed or word, not grasping the link of connection thus instituted between a consecrated past and a predestined future.

(2) Words and actions are freely done from personal motives and in entire spontaneity when they are nevertheless fulfilling the Divine purpose and working out the plan of God.

(3) The revealing moment comes, and the whole significance flashes into view.

Joh_12:17-19

These verses connect the enthusiasm of the multitudes with the great miracle of Joh_11:1-57., indicating a point concerning which the synoptic narrative is silent, and further they consociate the miracle and its effect upon the multitude with aggravation of the malignant feeling of the constituted authorities which leads to the capture and crucifixion of the Lord Jesus.

Joh_12:17

The multitude therefore which was with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb, and raised him from the dead, were bearing witness. The seventeenth verse goes back to the (
ὄχλος
) multitude who are mentioned in Joh_11:42; i.e. to the friends of Mary and Martha and to other inhabitants of Bethany, as well as visitors from Jerusalem (Joh_11:31). All these are involved in the explicit declaration,
ὁ ὤν μετ

αὐτοῦ
. Which was with him when ^{£ he called Lazarus out of his grave, and (not only so, but) raised him from among the dead. Those who had actually beheld the miracle, and were as eye and ear witnesses of the event, who had hovered about Bethany since his return to it,—these were bearing witness. They spread themselves abroad in the crowd of Galilaean pilgrims and others, and were uttering their testimony on all sides. The word is used absolutely, as in Joh_19:35, and the imperfect tense should not be turned here into a mere preterit.

Joh_12:18

For this cause also the (
ὁ ὄχλος
) multitude—which here seems to be the aggregate of the (
ὄχλος πολύς
) crowds made up of the Judaean and Galilaean pilgrims and "the Jews" who had believed on him—met him (see especially Joh_12:12, Joh_12:13)—went forth, and cut down the branches of the palm trees, and came in high jubilance to meet him—because they heard that he had wrought this sign. The resurrection of Lazarus is the motive of the triumphal procession. The synoptists, who have omitted the whole episode of Bethany, are naturally silent concerning the impression produced by it on the Passover pilgrims and the Jerusalem crowd. John, more intimately acquainted with the currents of thought in the capital than the rest, drew here from his experience and memory, and has preserved historical features which they had ignored.

Joh_12:19

The Pharisees therefore, at the sight of the popular enthusiasm, said to themselves; i.e. to their own inner circle. Hengstenberg thinks here is a hint of some medium of communication between John and the Pharisees, and imagines it to be found through Martha and Simon (her husband). Their language was, Perceive [ye]—or, ye perceive (either imperative or indicative)—that ye prevail nothing! The interrogative may also be a true translation. Do ye perceive that ye prevail nothing? On either hypothesis, it cannot be, as Chrysostom says, the language of the friends of Jesus among the Pharisees, but rather the cry of despair and rage. Behold, the (
κόσμος
) world has gone away after him. They are repenting that they had not followed out the coercive plans and murderous designs of Caiaphas, and had been content with half-measures.

Joh_12:20-30

4. The desire of the "Greeks "—the representatives of the Western world—go see Jesus, and his reply. And now a scene is related of transcendent interest—the one solitary incident of the Passion week between the triumph and the night of the Last Supper. John assumes here a knowledge of all that, in current tradition and narrative, had taken place between these two events. The cleansing of the temple, the solemn parables by which Jesus repulsed the Sanhedrin, the conflict with Sadducees and scribes, and with the combined forces of Herodians and Pharisees, the denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, and the prophetic parables, possibly the awful doom of Jerusalem, and the departure from the temple. This event may have occurred towards the close of this solemn and crowded week, and it made profound impression upon John. The Hellenes were probably "proselytes," like the Ethiopian chamberlain (Act_8:27). Edersheim says they were "proselytes of righteousness," for no others would be allowed to worship at the feast. Whether they came from some Greek city in Ituraea, or from Cyrene or Edessa, Ephesus or Alexandria, we know not. As wise men came from the East to the cradle of the Lord, some can imagine these Hellenes to have been Judaized thoughtful men who were longing for the light and joy found in the Holy Scriptures, and the religious teachings or ceremonial of the temple, into the outer courts of which they would be admitted. When they saw the kind of reception which this mighty Sage was receiving from his own people and from the constituted authorities, they were ready to plead with him to go among them, and to offer his message to the Gentiles. For the most part he had confined his mission to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel," but in his care for the Herodian nobleman, the Roman centurion, the Syro-Phoenician woman, and his references to the "other sheep he had," to the "world" which his Father loved, etc., he partially revealed his ultimate mission to the whole world, though he always implied that such a mission presupposed his cruel cutting off and awful mysterious hour.

Joh_12:20

Now there were certain Greeks among those that went up to worship at the feast.
Τινες
implies a group, and a larger company of these
ἀναβαινόντων
, who were and are in the habit of going up (perhaps were still doing it even when John, before writing his Gospel, had first put the narrative into words). They went up with a view to worship in the feast, that is, there were burnt offerings and thank offerings which they were allowed to present. This shows that they were not heathen nor uncircumcised Hellenists, whichever view of that word be accepted.

Joh_12:21

These therefore came to Philip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus. The first expression of that great yearning which, swollen by multitudes without number, is loud as the voice of many waters and mighty thunderings. It is the wail of every penitent; it is the birth-cry of every renewed soul; it is the raptured burst of joy as each son of God passes behind the veil The "therefore" implies some kind of previous relation with Philip, whose somewhat timid, cautious, speculative mind, as hinted in the earlier portions of the Gospel, made him accessible to them. Personal acquaintance is, of course, possible. Was Philip identical with the Aristion of Papias? The mention of Bethsaida of Galilee confirms the suggestion that they were inhabitants of one of the Greek cities of Decapolis, or of the slopes of the Lebanon. Many commentators refer to Philip's Greek name as indicating proclivities or sympathies on his part which would make him peculiarly accessible.

Joh_12:22

The slight modification of text preferred by the Revised version gives great vivacity to the picture (see below, note 1). Philip receives the respectful request of the Greeks, "Sir [my lord], we would see Jesus," i.e. "converse with." They probably sought to bring some proposal before him. Surely they must have had, if they wished it, many opportunities of merely seeing Jesus, when he crossed the Mount of Olivet during those three days, or tarried in the court of the Gentiles; now they pressed for an interview. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew. Andrew was the earliest of the disciples, who brought his own brother Simon to Jesus (Joh_1:40-42). He is mentioned as in close association with Simon, James, and John, as partners with them in the fishing-trade on the lake of Galilee. There is some hint that Andrew and John, after the first call to become followers of Christ, clung to him, and went with him to Jerusalem, and then returned with him through Samaria, after which occurred the second call of the brothers Simon and James. The frequent references to Andrew and Philip in this Gospel correspond with the tradition preserved in the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon, touching Andrew's part in the composition of this Gospel. These two disciples are represented as consulting with each other on previous occasions, as though peculiarly related in sympathy. Philip sees certain difficulties, and Andrew has a practical mind, and proposes a way out of them (see Joh_6:7, Joh_6:8). There was something now to be said on both sides. Their ancient prophecies anticipated a world-wide aspect of the Messianic kingdom (Isa_55:4, Isa_55:5; Isa_56:3, Isa_56:7; as well as Gen_49:10). Now, if this incident occurred after Jesus had claimed the hundred and tenth psalm as an oracle which described his own Divine claims and his universal victory as the Lord and Son of David and royal Warrior-Prest (Mat_22:41-46, and parallel passages), Philip may have felt this moment to be a most critical one in his history; for he may have been perfectly aware of the outbreak of peril which converse with Greek proselytes might at that moment have provoked in the minds of the turbulent populace. ^£ Andrew cometh and Philip, and they (together) tell Jesus. Jesus alone could solve the difficulty at that time, and Jesus himself is the just and reasonable Source of all enlightenment. Jesus is at this hour the highest Expression of man and his destiny, and he is also the perfect Manifestation of the Father, the only Mediator between God and man, absolutely one with both. We still go to him to know what God is and what God would have us to think and to be, and to learn what man may become. We take to him the puzzles of our logic, the accusations of our conscience, and the burdens of our heart. Additional interest is thrown round this narrative by a suggestion of Archdeacon Watkins, that, in the course of this week, our Lord had cleansed the temple and courts of its profane traffic, and declared it to be a house of prayer for all nations. Such grand revolutionary conceptions as those of our Lord must have deeply stirred the souls of the susceptible Greeks. Aliens were, as we know from Josephus ('Ant.,' 15:11.5), forbidden to pass beyond the balustrade round the
ἵερον
,. M. Ganneau ^£ has found among the ruins of Jerusalem one of the slabs of stone which recorded this exclusion.

Joh_12:23-26

(1) The glorification of the Son of man in and through death.

Joh_12:23

And Jesus answereth ^£ them. Many commentators (Ewald, Godet, Hengstenberg) think that Jesus did not address the following words to the Greeks, that until he had gone through the agony of death, and entered in human nature on his Divine and mediatorial reign, the mission to the Gentiles could not commence. Tholuck supposed that the interview was over, and that the solemn words are addressed to the disciples in the presence both of Greeks and of others afterwards; but there is no such break suggested. It is more probable (with Luthardt, Edersheim, Lunge) that the Greeks were close behind Andrew and Philip, and that our Lord at once, for their advantage, as well as for that of the disciples, proceeded to explain the solemn impression made upon himself by this remarkable desire. Surely it is unnecessary to say that our Lord was anxious not to give umbrage to the priests, or to rouse the animosity of the people. Every word of the terrible address of Mat_23:1-39., all the controversies in the temple, even the triumphal entry itself, would and did give mortal umbrage to the priestly party and to the Sanhedrim He had boldly challenged their entire position, tie had smitten down their prejudices and assailed their notions of exclusive privilege, and therefore would not have shrunk, on that ground, from intercourse with devout Greeks worshipping at the feast. The words are surely said to them and about them, but in the main for the instruction of the disciples themselves. The hour is come for which he had been waiting (see Joh_2:4; Joh_13:1)-the mysterious "hour" on which his glory would depend, and the destiny of the world turn. God not only contemplates great periods, eons of time, but "acceptable years," "days of the Lord," "moments of time," as parts of the eternal plan. That the Son of man should be glorified. The "Son of man," rather than "Son of God," is the term he uses in reference to, and in the presence of, the Greeks. The highest Man is now about to assume his supreme glory, to go forth, as the mighty Man, to rule the world of men. The Son of man is about to ascend into his eternal throne, to clothe himself with all authority of judgment and mercy in heaven and earth. The glorification of the Son of man is one of the high main themes of the Gospel, and its justification is to be found in the fact that the Son of man is indeed the Loges made flesh, and the Lamb slain, and like the Serpent is being lifted up, and as the true Shepherd is laying down his life that he might take it again. The advent of the Greeks opens prophetic vistas which involve tremendous experiences of his own, and also great principles of service for all his followers. His Passion was so inextricably interwoven with his glory, that the former becomes verily the prelude of his victory and supreme exaltation. His death is but his glory. Moreover, the approach of the Gentiles suggested the universal belief in him which would follow upon his Passion and resurrection, and he" foretells that the hour of his glorification was already come".

Joh_12:24

The oracle is introduced with a solemn
Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν
: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except the corn (or, grain) of wheat, having fallen to the ground, die, it abideth by itself alone: but if it die, it beareth much fruit. The simple illustration of life through death, life triumphing over death. "Even nature protests against the Hellenic fear of death" (Lange). As long as the corn of wheat is scrupulously kept from decomposition and death in the granary, the hidden germ is dormant; let it be sown as "bare grain" (1Co_15:36, etc.), then the strange force within it puts forth its hidden faculty, the outer covering of this point of energy falls away, and the new thing appears. God gives it a body, and much fruit is brought forth. Thoma suggests that the Johannist here is putting into the lips of Jesus the thoughts of Paul. How much more probable is it that Paul grasped the thought of Jesus, and applied a part of it to the grand argument for the resurrection, both of Christ and Christians! Compare with this the teaching of Joh_6:1-71., where the Bread of life is given for the food of men. Even the "bread-making" for man involves, in another way, the temporary destruction of the living germ in the grain of which it is composed, that it may become the life of men. Christ is himself the "Son of God," the "Logos incarnate," the "Son of man." By becoming, in his death, the food of man's soul, he created thus a new life in the hearts of men. Over and over again our Lord has declared himself to be "the Life," and "the Source of life," for men; but he here lays down the principle that this life-giving power of his is conditioned by his death. The great harvest will be reaped only when he shall have sacrificed his life and put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. It is, too, only as every believing man dies to himself, is crucified with Christ, is dead with him to the world, that he rises again in the newness of life.

Joh_12:25, Joh_12:26

The Lord here introduces a solemn, almost oracular utterance, which proves how close and intimate is the relationship between the synoptics and the Fourth Gospel. On several great occasions our Lord has impressed this law of the Spirit of life upon his disciples. Thus in Mat_10:37-39, in the lengthened commission given to the twelve, after calling on his followers to place his own claim on their affection as greater than that of father, mother, friend, and calling for self-sacrifice, and self-crucifixion, he said, "He that findeth his life (
ψυχὴ
) shall lose it: he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." Again (Mat_16:25, etc.), after rebuking Peter for his unwillingness to recognize the necessity and significance of the killing of "the Son of the living God," he laid down the same law once more, calling for self-denial and daily cross-bearing, and adds, "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." So also Luk_9:23, etc. Luke (Luk_15:26) also introduces the same solemn aphorism in our Lord's discourse concerning the close of the Jewish national life. Surely here he is applying to his own case the law of the Divine life which he had shown to be universal, and of which he was on the point of giving the crowning and climacteric expression. He does it with amplifications and a supply of motives. If life be regarded as an end in itself; if it be treated as complete when rounded with its own individuality; if life shrink from sacrifice, if it "love itself," and will at all hazards preserve itself; if the natural and instinctive fear of death, and instinct of self-preservation, become a self-idolatry;—that life will "abide alone." If it sacrifice itself for higher ends than self; if it regard the higher end as more valuable than itself; if it lose itself in the object to which it is consecrated; if it be content to "die;"—it abideth no longer "alone," but "bringeth forth much fruit."

Joh_12:25

He that loves his own life (
ψυχή
); life used as equivalent to "self," in that totality of being which, like the life of the seed-corn, survives the accident of death—he that loves his own life (self) is losing ^{£ it; or, perhaps, destroying it, ipso facto. There are ends and objects of love so much greater than" the self," that to keep it by some act of will and recreant fear is to make it utterly valueless, is really to destroy its true vitality. And he that hateth his (
ψυχή
) life (self) in this world, wherever the greater claim of Christ and of the Father would be compromised by loving it, shall veritably preserve it, viz. the self, unto eternal (
ζωή
) life; i.e. to the blessedness of eternal being. The
ψυχή
is a great possession; and "what advantageth a man if he should gain the whole world, and lose it?" But if a man persists in gaining the world, and forgets that this earthly existence is not capable of satisfying the demands or finding a sphere for the true self, and so makes the earthly reign or enjoyment of the
ψυχή
the end of all striving,—then he miserably fails. So far it is clear that our Lord is applying a great principle of the true life to the case of his own Messianic work and ministry. He draws, from a law of the superiority of the Divine life to the fear of death and to the fact of death, a justification of his own approaching doom. He can only by dying live his perfect life, win his greatest triumph; reap his world-wide harvest.

Joh_12:26

In this verse the Lord brings the light of heaven down into this deep paradox. He speaks like an anointed King and great Captain of salvation, who has (
διάκονοι
) "servants" willing to do his bidding. If any man will be my servant, let him follow me along the line which I am prepared to take, in the way of sacrifice and death, which is the true glorification; and where I am, there shall also my servant be. This association of the servant with the Lord, as the sufficient and the transcendent motive, pervades the Gospels (cf. Joh_14:3 and Joh_17:24; comp. also Luk_23:43, "with me in Paradise;" and 2Co_12:2, 2Co_12:4; 2Co_5:8; Php_1:23). It is remarkable that Christ chose the twelve that they should be "with him" (Mar_3:14). There is no greater blessedness. Still, the Lord adds, If any man serve me, him will the Father honor. For the Father to honor a poor child of the dust seems almost more than we can receive. The conception of the steps by means of which the Lord makes this possible to his followers and servants produced in his own self-consciousness one of those sudden and overwhelming crises and changes from joy to perturbation, as of agony to peace and to reconcilement with the eternal Father's will, which prove how certainly St. John is always portraying the same Personage, the same transcendent character whom the synoptists describe (Luk_12:49, Luk_12:50; comp. Luk_19:38, Luk_19:41; Mat_11:20, Mat_11:25; Mat_16:17, etc., and 21). More than this, the whole passage that follows is a solemn prelude to that agony of the garden which the synoptists alone record, while they omit this.

Joh_12:27-30

(2) The anticipation of Gethsemane.

Joh_12:27

Now, at this moment, has been and yet is my soul troubled ("concurrebat horror morris et ardor obedientisa," Bengel). In Joh_11:33 we hear that he troubled himself, and shuddered wrathfully in his "spirit" (
πνεύμετι
) at the contemplation of all}}}}}}