November 22, 2015 John 11:45 – 12:2
Download discussion questions: John 11_45-12_2 back to Bethany
Download structural outline: John 11_45-12_2 back to Bethany THEREFORE-SO-BUT
Lazarus is alive! He was dead four days, and now Jesus has brought him back to life. As one of our group pointed out, you would expect that even the most skeptical of the chief priests and Pharisees would see that and accept Him and His claims.
The tension between Jesus and the Jewish leaders has been escalating for several chapters because of His statements, such as “The Father and I are one” and “Before Abraham was, I AM.” And His miraculous evidence of those claims has also been escalating, first wine from water and then healings, even a man born blind. Ultimately, He performs a sign that should be convincing, a dead man raised back to life.
John records a different response. The Jewish leadership decided, under the direction of Caiaphas, that the solution was killing Jesus.
In the observation part of our study (remember – Observation, Interpretation, Application) we looked at the repeated use of connecting words, such as “therefore” and “so” (nine times in this short passage) and contrasting or explanatory words such as “but” or “now” (another nine times). Looking at those kinds of links in a passage are helpful in following the writer’s thought process. (See the structural outline download for an example of reformatting the text to follow those logical connections.)
The flow of the passage shows the repeated pattern of consequences and contrasts. “Many” believed as a consequence of the raising of Lazarus (v. 45), but (the contrast) some reported to the authorities (v. 46). The chief priests and Pharisees were uncertain what to do (v. 47) in response, but (in contrast) one man, Caiaphas, proposed a drastic action (v. 49). One part of our discussion was about John’s skill (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) as a storyteller. As the conflict and tension has escalated to this high point, the pace of the story also accelerates. John keeps our attention and makes us want to keep reading to see what happens next in this drama.
As an interesting side note, our group met right after a worship service where the sermon was on leadership (from 1 Peter 5:1-5), including the opening word of the chapter, “So.” That small word (as in our passage in John’s Gospel) is an important link to see Peter’s train of thought, connecting the importance of leadership in the context of suffering. Our discussion naturally turned to the leadership qualities of the chief Priests and Pharisees in this passage. They experienced what one of our group members described as “leadership temptation,” the tendency to use power for self-preservation. Murder may be against the Law, but the end (saving our nation from Roman destruction) justifies the means (killing Jesus). Not only did they not accept the miraculous signs of Jesus as proof He was sent from the Father, they didn’t even seem to consider what God might be doing. It was up to them to solve this problem.
We discussed the distinction between managers and mystics. The Pharisees were probably good managers. They knew how to get things done, how to make things happen. A mystical alternative (seeing what God might be doing through Jesus) never occurred to them. They probably never said out loud (we usually don’t, either), “I know better than God how to handle this situation.” But that seems to be their attitude. Like the chief Priests and Pharisees, we feel that we have to manage circumstances or manipulate people (we usually have nicer language for it) in order to achieve the outcome that is most in our best interest. Mystics, in contrast with managers, can appreciate the ambiguity of not knowing exactly how God is working in a situation but still have the willingness to watch to see His outcome.
We considered the motives of the chief priests and Pharisees. Maybe they genuinely were concerned for the nation. Maybe they only cared about their position and prestige within the nation. Either way, they felt they needed to manage the problem. G.K. Chesterton described a similar contrast between chess players (carefully planning every move, even several moves in advance) versus poets (who in Chesterton’s words, “float easily in an infinite sea”[1]). The chief priests and Pharisees chose not to “float easily” in uncertainty or in situations out of their control. The Jewish leaders were definitely chess players.
The evidence that God was at work even in the machinations of the managers comes through loud and clear in John’s commentary. Caiaphas did not speak “on his own initiative.” We talked about what that might mean. If Caiaphas spoke at God’s initiative, did he have free will? (One comment was that Caiaphas was “God’s unexpected mouthpiece.”) Was his initiative affected by the fact that he was high Priest and was responsible for the sacrifices for the atonement of the people under the Law? Did he realize what he was saying, or even after he said it? God’s providence (like the words of Caiaphas) does not occur in a momentary instance. God’s providence extends back countless generations in Caiaphas’ line, and to all the influences that shaped him. Caiaphas may not have consciously intended to make the profound and ironic statement. Yet he was completely free to make exactly the statement that God (in His providence) intended through all the influences that shaped Caiaphas up to that moment. God is always at work, and sometimes, as in the case of Caiaphas, we get to see His providence displayed. John recognized it and recorded it for us as part of the story he was telling.
One member of our group pointed out that managers and mystics may exhibit the same behavior or take the same actions, but with different motives or different heart attitudes. Being a mystic (in the sense of trusting God’s work rather than us making things happen) doesn’t mean we never act. We use common sense, we take practical steps to solve problems. So what is the difference? One way of recognizing whether we are managers or mystics: How do we react when the practical plan we have doesn’t work out? Managers react with a new and better plan, by working harder, by insisting that “I must have this problem solved for life to be OK.” Mystics may try a new plan or a different approach, but without the (often unspoken), “I need this for life to be OK.” Rather, “I would really like this circumstance to change, but my joy and satisfaction and fulfilment are not dependent on that change.” Managers expect satisfaction and fulfilment from circumstances. Mystics recognize circumstances (some pleasant, some not so pleasant), but they know that joy and satisfaction and fulfilment come from knowing God and seeing Him at work, regardless of the circumstances. Mystics are much more likely to see and recognize and rejoice in God’s providential working than managers who try to manage circumstances. What Jesus was doing was the work and the will of the Father, and some people (mystics?) recognized that and followed Him. The chief Priests and Pharisees turned to schemes and conspiracies to manage what they perceived as an undesirable situation. John keeps his story on track with his comment about Caiaphas. God is always at work, even through an “unexpected mouthpiece.”
[1] G.K. Chesterton, “Orthodoxy” in Collected Works, Volume 1 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 220.