January 3, 2016 John 12:35 – 50
Download discussion questions: John 12_35-50 Seeing & Believing
“Seeing is believing” according to the familiar saying. In this passage Jesus has a lot to say about both. John records Jesus’ repeated mention of light and darkness at the beginning of the section (v. 35-36) and again later in His teaching (v. 46). In addition to the explicit references to light and darkness, Jesus also mentions seeing (v. 45), and John quotes the prophet Isaiah about blindness and sight (v. 40, quoting Isaiah 6:10). Belief is the other idea stressed in this passage as Jesus exhorts His hearers to believe as a result of seeing the light (v. 36). He returns to the theme of belief later (v. 44), again in the context as a response to light that He brought into the world (v. 46). John also adds his comments from Isaiah about belief in the form of the question, “Who has believed?” (v. 38, quoting Isaiah 53:1). A reasonable question from this passage would be: What is the relationship between the two themes?
Is seeing believing? Clearly the initial answer must be “no” since even His many signs (v. 37) were not enough for some to move from seeing (the signs) to believing (in Him). This is the point in the passage where John apparently decided that the quotations from Isaiah would help his readers (in the first century as well as us) understand. He tells us that Isaiah’s words were the result of the prophet seeing God’s glory (v. 41). The second quotation is from Isaiah 6 which records Isaiah’s dramatic vision of God’s exalted glory (“I saw the Lord ….”). John is using the prophetic references to make the point that God’s glory is central.
One member of our discussion group pointed out the importance of the word “Nevertheless” in verse 42. Words like that indicate the writer’s thought process. Here there is the contrast that John draws between the unbelief (indeed, the inability to believe, v. 39) and the fact that some did believe (v. 42). The insertion of the quotations from the Hebrew prophet might be John’s way of directing our attention to the fact that God is ultimately responsible for our belief in the way He reveals Himself.
A significant amount of our discussion time was considering the rulers who believed but did not confess (v. 42b). John makes the interesting comment that while they believed in Jesus they were not confessing Him, not publicly acknowledging what they believed. We have seen the fear-inducing intimidation of the Pharisees and chief priests already several times in John’s descriptions (7:13, 9:22). That fear had a chilling effect even on persons with status and respect and social standing (“rulers” in v. 42). What did it mean for them to believe but not confess? One person in our group was quick to point out that there is no middle ground, either people believe in Jesus or they don’t. Does that mean their fear revealed a lack of genuine faith? Another person commented that even as believers we live on a continuum. “I may be bold and talk about Christ today, but tomorrow I may hesitate to say a word.” That range of responses is indicative of our imperfections even as sincere believers. Sometimes we respond better than at other times. The earlier comment about the either/or nature of faith is certainly true when we stand before the Eternal Judge. In our present unfinished state we must not be too quick to judge each other or to judge the first-century rulers. As several group comments indicated, we may be risking popularity or friendships, maybe a job. Those Jewish rulers, brand-new believers, were probably risking their lives. The religious authorities, from the High Priest on down, had decided that multiple murders would be appropriate to stop the growth of Jesus’ followers (John 11:50, 12:10). Nicodemus had visited Jesus by night (John 3:1-2), perhaps in early recognition of the danger from his colleagues among the Pharisees.
How do we decide when speaking boldly is appropriate? That question took up most of the rest of our discussion time. John makes a single comment after reporting about the rulers and their fear. “They loved the approval (literally, “glory” δόξαν) of men more than that of God.” The contrast that John draws is helpful, especially when we recognize the use of the word “glory” (cf. ESV and YLT[1]). John has used the word “glory” six times already in this chapter, plus twice in this verse. Those first six instances are all about the glory ascribed to God, either to the Father (three times in v. 28) or to the Son (v. 16, 23). In the immediate context of the statement about the rulers, John explains Isaiah’s words as the result of a vision of God’s glory (v. 41). In all of these cases the sense is glory directed to God, not approval received from God (as the NASB translation in v. 43). Perhaps the problem with the rulers’ young faith was that they had an inadequate idea of God’s glory, and the approval (NASB and The Message) or praise (KJV, NIV) of men was more important to them than the possibility of seeing God honored and exalted. Perhaps the Common English Bible (CEB)[2] comes closer to John’s meaning: “They believed, but they loved human praise more than God’s glory.”
God’s glory is the critical criterion for our speech as well. Jesus modeled that passion for God’s glory all through His incarnation, and He expressed it clearly in this passage:
49 For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak. 50 I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me.”
As a sinless human, did ideas and thoughts come into Jesus’ mind that He chose not to speak because they were not of the Father’s command? We don’t know. But we do know without a doubt that things come into our mind all too often that are not of the Father. That is where we can grow in learning to apply what Jesus said: “I speak just as the Father has told Me.”
Jesus was confident in what He said because He knew it was from the Father and was for the glory of the Father. Our speech can be guided by that same principle. Jesus gave us encouragement for that confidence, even in the most threatening circumstances: “But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you” (Matthew 10:19-20). For us, the Father’s commandment is communicated to us by the Holy Spirit.
Before we speak we can ask, “Am I saying this for the praise of men? (See how clever I am. See how good I am at winning arguments. See what a good Christian I am.)” Or do I desire to display the character and love of God to the person, perhaps even by just listening and saying nothing. We can ask the Holy Spirit to make clear to us what words or what silence or what actions will most display the glory of God in each situation.
The rulers failed to confess and acknowledge Jesus because they did not understand the supremacy of God’s glory. May we learn to speak in dependence on the Holy Spirit to show us how to display the glory of the Father through the message of the Son.
[1] Robert Young, Young’s Literal Translation (Lafayette, Indiana: Greater Truth Publishers, 2004).
[2] See Bible Gateway for other translations: John 12:43 in all English translations
According to the Bible, how many Old Testament prophets raised people from the dead? Answer: Two. Elijah and Elisha.
That’s it. And they only did it three times. So the act of raising someone from the dead would have been seen as a very, very big deal. It was not like healing someone of a disease or casting out demons. Lots of people, it seems, could do those miracles. Nope, raising someone from the dead was the big kahuna of all miracles!
In the Gospel of John chapter 11, we are told that Lazarus had been dead for four days. His body was decomposing to the point that he stunk. Lazarus death and burial were very public events. His tomb was a known location. Many Jews had come to mourn with Mary and Martha and some of them were wondering why the great miracle worker, Jesus, had not come and healed his friend Lazarus; essentially blaming Jesus for letting Lazarus die.
Let’s step back and look at the facts asserted in this passage: Only two OT prophets had raised people from the dead, and these two prophets were considered probably the two greatest Jewish prophets of all time: Elijah and Elisha. If this story is true, the supernatural powers of Jesus were on par with the supernatural powers of the greatest Jewish prophets of all time! If this event really did occur, it should have shocked the Jewish people to their very core—a new Elijah was among them! This event must have been the most shocking event to have occurred in the lives of every living Jewish man and woman on the planet. The news of this event would have spread to every Jewish community across the globe.
And yet…Paul, a devout and highly educated Jew, says not one word about it. Not one. Not in his epistles; not in the Book of Acts. Think about that. What would be the most powerful sign to the Jews living in Asia Minor and Greece—the very people to whom Paul was preaching and attempting to convert—to support the claim that Jesus of Nazareth himself had been raised from the dead? Answer: The very public, very well documented raising from the dead of Lazarus of Bethany by Jesus!
But nope. No mention of this great miracle by Paul. (A review of Paul’s epistles indicates that Paul seems to have known very little if anything about the historical Jesus. Read here.)
And there is one more very, very odd thing about the Raising-of-Lazarus-from-the-Dead Miracle: the author of the Gospel of John, the very last gospel to be written, is the only gospel author to mention this amazing miracle! The authors of Mark, Matthew, and Luke say NOTHING about the miracle of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Nothing.
This is a tall tale and nothing more!
The comment by “Gary” illustrates a troubling tendency. He wants to decide our own subjective criteria to determine what parts of the Bible we will accept and which we will ignore. I wanted to include his comments on this blog in order to offer at least a brief response. I would suggest that methodical, inductive study of the text of the Bible is a much better approach to understanding what it says.
Gary makes an attempt at defending the assertion that the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead is “a tall tale and nothing more.” But his selection is very subjective. The fact that Paul did not mention the miracle (and in fact, according to Gary, knew “very little if anything about the historical Jesus”). That observation apparently is conclusive for Gary.
Objective information, such as textual evidence and even an author’s own claims are better guidelines than our subjective determinations of the acceptability of any ancient document, including the Bible. The authenticity and dating of the text of John’s Gospel are not in doubt, and he claims to be an eyewitness. To describe the story of Lazarus as a “tall tale” is a polite way of saying that John is a liar. He was there, he saw the interaction between Jesus and His friends in Bethany, and then decided to liven up the story (literally) with the “raised from the dead” addition. That approach opens up anything John said to serious question. Once you determine a person (a friend or an ancient writer) lies, everything he says is suspect. Gary apparently has the freedom to pick the parts he likes from John’s historical record, and the author’s claims and textual evidence are thrown to the wind.
Gary is right about the raising of Lazarus being a “very, very big deals.” The living Lazarus was a big deal to the many who believed because of the miracle (John 11:45, 12:11) and to the large curious crowd who came just to see Lazarus after the event (John 12:9) and those other eyewitnesses who, like John, continued to testify about what they had seen (John 12:17). The public event was also a big deal to the chief priests who decided both Jesus and Lazarus needed to die to end their influence (John 12:10). The raising of Lazarus was indeed “a very, very big deal.” But there was an even bigger deal to come.
The key point Gary depends on (Paul’s silence about Lazarus) is a red herring. Without trying to speculate about what Paul did or did not know about the details of Jesus earthly life and ministry, one thing is absolutely clear. Paul’s focus was on the resurrection of Jesus. He repeatedly emphasizes the importance of the central event of history. If, as Paul repeatedly asserts, the resurrection of Jesus is the culmination of His saving and redeeming work, why would he mention Lazarus? Raising someone from the dead by Elijah and Elisha (as Gary apparently stipulates) is indeed, as he says, “a very, very big deal.” But what is that compared to One who is raised never to die again, who ascended to heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, who will return in glory to judge the quick and the dead? The raising of Lazarus does not confirm the Gospel or ensure salvation. The Resurrection of Jesus does. Paul’s silence about Lazarus is a matter of focusing on the main event that overshadowed other events, even “very, very big deals.” By his criterion, Gary can not only dismiss parts of John’s Gospel that he does not care for, he can also choose to ignore any part of any of the Gospels that he doesn’t find explicitly mentioned by Paul. Such subjective selectivity will almost certainly result in distortions of the faith.
Finally, I am curious about Gary’s comment. The last mention of the passages about Lazarus on this blog were several entries back. I have to wonder if the comment was a canned (even an automated) answer. The comment had nothing to do with the entry where it is found (John 12:35-50, Seeing and Believing), and the comment did not respond to any specific thoughts expressed even in the blog posts that did actually relate to Lazarus.