41  The Resurrection and the Life—  Part Four: Reactions  to the Resurrection  of Lazarus  (John 11:45–57)

Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done. Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they planned together to kill Him. Therefore Jesus no longer continued to walk publicly among the Jews, but went away from there to the country near the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim; and there He stayed with the disciples. Now the Passover of the Jews was near, and many went up to Jerusalem out of the country before the Passover to purify themselves. So they were seeking for Jesus, and were saying to one another as they stood in the temple, “What do you think; that He will not come to the feast at all?” Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where He was, he was to report it, so that they might seize Him. (11:45–57)

The gospel of John has rightly been called the gospel of belief. Throughout its pages, there is a clear emphasis on genuine saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (e.g., 1:12; 3:15–16, 18, 36; 5:24; 6:29, 35, 40, 47; 7:38;8:24; 11:25–26; 14:1, 12; 17:8, 20–21; 19:35). As John himself stated, his purpose for writing was “so that [his readers] may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing [they] may have life in His name” (20:31).

In keeping with that purpose, John consistently presented the claim of Jesus Christ to be God in human flesh (e.g., 5:17–47; 8:24, 58; 10:30). The Lord’s seven “I AM” statements, for instance, are nothing less than emphatic declarations of His deity and messiahship (6:35; 8:12; 10:7, 9; 10:11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 5). As the response of the unbelieving Jews (they wanted to stone Jesus for blasphemy) indicates, they clearly were outraged because they understood exactly who He was claiming to be (5:18;8:59; 10:31).

To authenticate His claims, Jesus performed many miraculous signs (21:25), of which seven are featured in the gospel of John (2:1–11; 4:46–54; 5:1–18; 6:1–15; 6:16–21; 9:1–41; 11:1–57; John also highlighted a post-resurrection miracle of Jesus in 21:6–11). These seven signs culminated with the Lord’s spectacular display of divine power in raising Lazarus from the dead. As has been noted in earlier chapters of this volume, while the miracle strengthened believers (11:15) and substantiated Jesus’ claim to be divine, its purpose was that all who would ever know of it might give glory to Jesus and the Father (11:4, 40).

Such a radical assertion (that Jesus is God) always compels people to make a decision—they can either acknowledge His claim as true or reject it as false. Essentially, those are the only two possible responses, belief or unbelief. As John states in his gospel, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (3:36). There is no third, neutral position toward Christ; those who claim to be indifferent are in reality opposed to Him. In the words of Jesus, “He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me, scatters” (Luke 11:23).

During Jesus’ ministry, some of the Jews reacted to Him with open hostility. The people of His hometown of Nazareth, for example, rejected Him and even attempted to kill Him (Matt. 13:54–58; Luke 4:16–31). Others accused Him of being demon-possessed (John 7:20; 10:20), as did the religious authorities (8:48, 52). Those same leaders also attributed His miraculous power directly to Satan (Matt. 9:34; 12:24; Luke 11:15); charged Him with violating the tradition of the elders (Matt. 15:1–9); accused Him of being a blasphemer (Luke 5:21); demeaned Him for associating with the outcasts of society (5:30; 7:36–50); and accosted Him for violating their manmade Sabbath regulations (6:1–11). They disputed His authority (Matt. 21:23; John 2:18), challenged His teachings (Matt. 22:15–33; Luke 11:53–54), and ultimately plotted successfully to take His life (Matt. 26:3–5; John 7:1).

Others, perhaps the majority of the people, reacted to Jesus with apparent indifference. They were thrill seekers (6:22–31), lukewarm followers (cf. Matt. 4:25; 8:1; 13:2; Mark 5:24; Luke 5:15), and false believers (John 2:23–25; 6:60–66; 8:30–31). But Jesus condemned such spiritual coldness and indifference (cf. Rev. 3:15–16). On one occasion, He declared the indifference of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum—three cities that had witnessed many of His miracles—to be worse than the paganism of Tyre and Sidon, and even the immorality of Sodom (Matt. 11:20–24).

But in contrast to those unbelievers who were hostile and indifferent, there was also the “little flock” (Luke 12:32) consisting of those whose faith in Jesus Christ was genuine. Among them were the Twelve (minus Judas Iscariot), who “left everything and followed” Him (Matt. 19:27), believed in Him (John 2:11; cf. 1:35–51), and affirmed Him to be “God’s Son” (Matt. 14:33; cf. 16:16; John 6:69; cf. 20:28–29); the repentant chief tax collector Zaccheus (Luke 19:1–10); some of the Samaritans in the little village of Sychar (John 4:5ff.); a royal official (and his household) whose son Jesus healed (4:53); a blind man whose sight Jesus restored (9:35–38); and many to whom He ministered across the Jordan River in Perea (10:42).

The various reactions of the Jewish people to Jesus after He raised Lazarus from the dead are typical responses. In verses 45–57 the responses of faith, hostility, and indifference are all represented. Thus we meet the many (who display faith), the murderers (who display hostility), and the multitudes (who display indifference).

THE MANY

Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him. (11:45)

Why only Mary is mentioned is not clear. Perhaps she, being the more emotional of the two sisters (cf. vv. 31–33), required more consoling than Martha did. Or Mary may have had a wider circle of acquaintances than her sister, or been considered the more “spiritual.” Whatever the reason they came to her, it was because of the raising of Lazarus that many of the Jews who had witnessed the miracle believed in Him. They not only saw it with their eyes, but also contemplated it with their minds, noted its significance, and drew the only right conclusion from it.

The statement that they believed in Him is simple but critical, since saving faith is always placed in the Lord Jesus Christ and no other, as John emphasized throughout his gospel (1:12; 2:11; 3:16, 18, 36; 4:39; 6:29, 35, 40; 7:31, 38–39; 9:35–36; 10:42; 11:25–26; 12:44, 46; 14:1, 12; cf. 1 John 3:23; 5:10, 13). Christ alone is “the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through [Him]” (John 14:6), because “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

It is, however, also true that not everyone who believed in Jesus manifested true saving faith (cf. 2:23–25; 6:66; 8:30–31; James 2:19). Nonetheless, the faith of these individuals (in 11:45) appears to have been genuine for several reasons. First, verses 49–52 refer to Christ’s death resulting in salvation for His people—a salvation that, in context, seems to include this group of Jews who believed in Him. Second, Jesus’ primary reason for raising Lazarus was to glorify Himself and the Father (vv. 4, 40), and the Lord is glorified when people truly believe and are saved (2 Cor. 4:15). Third, the Jewish authorities evidently viewed these people as genuine followers of Jesus Christ (v. 48); they saw them as a legitimate threat to their hypocritical religious authority. Fourth, those who are said to believe are contrasted with the unbelievers who reported the incident to the Pharisees (v. 46); the apostle John makes a clear distinction between the two groups. Finally, though faith based solely on Jesus’ miracles was not always genuine (2:23), this miracle was so powerful and convincing that it was unlikely to have produced shallow, superficial believers.

THE MURDERERS

But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done. Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they planned together to kill Him. Therefore Jesus no longer continued to walk publicly among the Jews, but went away from there to the country near the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim; and there He stayed with the disciples. (11:46–54)

Jesus’ words and actions frequently caused division among those who heard and witnessed them (cf. vv. 36–37; 7:12, 43; 9:16; 10:19–21); as He Himself said, “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division” (Luke 12:51). While many believed in Jesus, having seen the true significance of Lazarus’s resurrection (v. 45), some did not. Instead they went to the Pharisees to tell them what Jesus had done.

Some commentators argue that these individuals went to the Pharisees because they were perplexed, or to try to win the Jewish leaders over. But since they are contrasted with the many who believed (v. 45), and they surely knew of the Pharisees’ bitter hatred for Jesus (cf. 7:13), their intent was likely hostile. They had been unbelievers before the miracle and, incredibly, remained so afterward. Homer Kent observes,

That they told the Pharisees the things which Jesus had done further confirms their hostility to Him, because “those who believed would no doubt want to stay with Jesus, whereas the skeptics would be desirous of letting the religious authorities know what had happened so that they could take the necessary action” (Merrill C. Tenney, “The Gospel of John,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981], 9:121–22).

It is not surprising that they sought out the Pharisees instead of the Sadducees. As the experts in the law, as teachers and leaders of the synagogue, the Pharisees had more contact with the common people than the aristocratic Sadducees. Nonetheless, the Sadducees would soon be involved with the Pharisees in finding a way to silence Jesus (vv. 47–52). By informing the Pharisees about Jesus’ actions, these unbelievers evidenced their own stubborn hard-heartedness. Their response demonstrates that no amount of evidence, even something as spectacular as the raising of a dead man, can convince some sinners to abandon their hypocrisy and sin to come to the Savior.

Alarmed by the news of the most astonishing miracle yet performed by Christ, and understanding the public effect of it, the Pharisees were galvanized into action. They did not have the authority to act on their own (since the Sadducees were the majority party and controlled the Sanhedrin), so along with some of the chief priests (former high priests and members of important priestly families) the Pharisees convened a meeting of the full council (the Sanhedrin). The Sanhedrin was the ruling body of Israel and had wide-ranging authority in civil and criminal, as well as religious, matters (though the Romans withheld the right of capital punishment [18:31]). (For more information on the San-hedrin, see the exposition of 3:1 in chapter 8 of this volume.)

The Pharisees and Sadducees normally did not get along, as they had little in common. The Pharisees were devoted to the Law (both the inspired Old Testament Scriptures and their human traditions); the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch as authoritative. The Pharisees affirmed the resurrection of bodies and the existence of angels, both of which the Sadducees rejected (Matt. 22:23; Acts 23:8). The Pharisees were ultranationalists and chafed under the yoke of Rome; the Sadducees were compromising political opportunists. The Pharisees were primarily from the middle class of Jewish society; the Sadducees tended to be wealthy aristocrats. (For more information on the Pharisees and Sadducees, see the exposition of 3:1 in chapter 8 of this volume.) But despite their differences, their mutual hatred for Jesus drove them to take joint action against Him. What brought them together was the threat Jesus posed to their power and influence.

There was only one item on the meeting’s agenda: what to do about Him. The question that opened the meeting, “What are we doing?” or “What are we accomplishing?” (NIV) could also be rendered “What shall we do?” (NKJV). Both meanings are appropriate; if the question is taken in the first sense, the answer was, “Not very much!” in light of the Lord’s popularity (cf. 12:19). And as to what they should do, they would soon hear a sinister proposal from their leader (vv. 49–53).

The Sanhedrin’s concern was that Jesus was performing many signs, and if they let Him go on doing them, all men would believe in Him (cf. 12:19), and the Romans would come and take away both their place (the temple [cf. Acts 6:13–14; 21:28]; symbolic of their authority, power, and privilege) and their nation (the Jewish people). That even Jesus’ most bitter enemies did not deny His miracles offers convincing proof of their authenticity. But despite their admission that He was performing many signs, they refused to believe in Him as Messiah and Lord, choosing instead to hold to their damning hypocrisy and eliminate Him. They were masters at deliberately ignoring the evidence, as they had earlier done when Jesus healed a man born blind (9:1–41). The old adage that there are none so blind as those who will not see was certainly true in their case (cf. 9:39–41).

For the Sanhedrin, Jesus threatened the status quo. Its members were not judging the situation based on objective standards of right and wrong, but by how they would be affected. If Jesus’ miraculous signs ignited the fervent messianic passions of the Jewish people (cf. 6:15), the Sanhedrin could lose everything. That danger was especially grave, they knew, since the Passover was approaching and Jerusalem would be packed with huge crowds of zealous pilgrims. If the Roman governor got wind of a potential uprising, his response would be swift and harsh—Pilate had already demonstrated his capacity for ruthlessness (Luke 13:1). Rome did not tolerate insurrection (as the Jews would learn a few decades later when the Romans crushed their revolt and sacked Jerusalem); any uprising would be brutally put down. But in this as in everything else, His opponents completely misjudged Jesus; He had not come to incite a revolution (cf. 18:36; Matt. 22:21), but “to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). (It is not until He returns to earth at His second coming that He will vanquish all rulers, set up His earthly kingdom, and rule as King of kings and Lord of lords [Rev. 20:1–6].)

With the Sanhedrin unsure of its next move, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, proposed a radical direction. Joseph Caiaphas had been appointed high priest in A.D 18 by the Roman prefect Valerius Gratus. He would continue in office until he was deposed in A.D. 36. He was the son-in-law of Annas, who had served as high priest from A.D. 6–15 and still retained a great deal of power and influence (cf. 18:22; Luke 3:2). John’s note that he was high priest that year does not imply that John mistakenly believed that high priests served only for one year. It merely means that Caiaphas was the high priest at that time. Theoretically, a high priest served for life. By the first century, however, the office had become heavily politicized, with the Romans frequently removing those high priests who displeased them. Caiaphas’s tenure as high priest was actually one of the longest in the first century, a tribute to his political acumen and his conniving and opportunistic nature.

His opening remark, “You know nothing at all,” was not designed to win friends or flatter his colleagues. It typified the kind of rude, boorish behavior that, according to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, characterized the Sadducees. “The behavior of the Sadducees one toward another is in some degree wild,” he wrote, “and their conduct with those who are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them” (The Wars of the Jews, 2.166. It should be remembered, however, that Josephus was a Pharisee and thus hardly an unbiased observer). Caiaphas was frustrated by the indecision of the rest of the San-hedrin; in response to their hesitancy he proposed a radical, thoroughly ruthless solution—one in keeping with his character.

His proposal was death. “It is expedient,” he told them, “that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” He presented them with a false either/or dilemma, giving them two extreme alternatives as if there were no other options. Either Jesus dies, Caiaphas argued, or the nation perishes. His outward veneer of patriotic concern masked his seething hatred and jealousy of Jesus. Such pious hypocrisy would reach its apex during Jesus’ trial. Caiaphas would tear his robes in feigned shock and sorrow over Jesus’” blasphemy,” while secretly being delighted that he had found a way to condemn Him (Matt. 26:64–65). Ironically, though the Sanhedrin was successful in crucifying Jesus, the nation did not escape. The whole nation did perish at the hands of the Romans in the massacre of A.D. 70 and the years that followed.

The startling footnote that Caiaphas did not say this on his own initiative does not mean that he was forced to act against his will; he was no puppet, and was responsible for his own wicked words. But God providentially invested those words with a meaning that he did not intend. In his capacity as high priest and hence technically by office God’s spokesman (cf. Num. 27:21; 2 Sam. 15:27), God ordained an opposite meaning when Caiaphas prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation. He spoke cynical words of political expediency, claiming that Jesus must die to preserve the Sanhedrin’s power and the nation’s existence. However, Caiaphas unwittingly spoke prophetically of Christ’s sacrificial death (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24). God sovereignly turned his wicked, blasphemous words into truth (cf. Gen. 50:20; Ps. 76:10; Prov. 16:9; 19:21; Acts 4:27–28).

While Caiaphas thought only in terms of Israel, Jesus’ death was much broader in scope. It was not to be for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. From a purely Jewish perspective, the children of God who are scattered abroad referred to the Jews of the Diaspora, those who lived outside of Palestine. They, too, would be gathered into the body of Christ’s redeemed people (cf. Acts 2:5, 41; 11:19). But in a wider sense, it referred to the salvation of the Gentiles (cf. 10:16; 12:32; Isa. 42:6; 49:6; 56:6–8; Acts 9:15; 10:1–11:18; Rom. 1:16) and their union with the Jews in the church (1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:11–18; 3:6; Col. 3:11).

The high priest’s malicious proposal to execute Jesus met with the Sanhedrin’s approval, so from that day on they planned together to kill Him. Their decision, made well before Jesus was even arrested, rendered His later trial a total mockery. It was a mere formality, confirming a sentence that had already been passed.

In the wake of the Sanhedrin’s decision to put Him to death, Jesus no longer continued to walk publicly among the Jews, but went away from there to the country near the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim; and there He stayed with the disciples.

Whether He exercised His omniscience on this occasion, or was informed of the Sanhedrin’s decision by one of its members who was sympathetic to Him (such as Nicodemus [John 7:50] or Joseph of Ari-mathea [Mark 15:43]), or both, Jesus became aware of the decision and took appropriate action. The Lord remained in absolute control of the circumstances, and would not allow Himself to be taken before the appointed time in God’s plan (7:8, 30, 44; 8:20; 11:9–10). “To those with eyes to see he was making a theological statement: no human court could force him to the cross” (D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 423).

The city called Ephraim to which Jesus went and stayed with the disciples is probably to be identified with the Old Testament city of Ephron (2 Chron. 13:19). It was located about four miles northeast of Bethel on the edge of the wilderness, and about a dozen miles from Jerusalem. From there Jesus would make a brief visit to Samaria and Galilee (Luke 17:11–19:28) before returning to Jerusalem for the Passover at the appointed time for His passion (John 12:23).

THE MULTITUDES

Now the Passover of the Jews was near, and many went up to Jerusalem out of the country before the Passover to purify themselves. So they were seeking for Jesus, and were saying to one another as they stood in the temple, “What do you think; that He will not come to the feast at all?” Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where He was, he was to report it, so that they might seize Him. (11:55–57)

This is the third and final Passover mentioned in John’s gospel (2:13; 6:4). As required by the Law (cf. Num. 9:6), many went up to Jerusalem out of the country before the Passover to purify themselves. Jerusalem was crowded well before Passover began; some estimate that more than a million people packed the city during the three major feasts (Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004], 354). It is bitterly ironic that the people zealously purified themselves “while their leaders had indelibly stained themselves as they ruthlessly plotted the death of the blameless Son of God” (Gerald L. Borchert, John 1–11, The New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002], 368).

The huge crowds that gathered in Jerusalem eagerly were seeking for Jesus, and were saying to one another as they stood in the temple, “What do you think; that He will not come to the feast at all?” Would He dare show Himself in Jerusalem, they wondered, since the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where He was, he was to report it, so that they might seize Him? They showed intense interest in Jesus, but no commitment. They were, in fact, ultimately indifferent to Him; many who eagerly anticipated Jesus’ arrival and hailed Him as Messiah would soon cry out, “Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!” (19:15). Their fickle devotion proved that, despite their superficial concern, they were actually just as hard-hearted as their hostile leaders.

The resurrection of Lazarus, like the rest of Christ’s life and ministry, forced people to a decision about Him. Many responded in faith; others were indifferent; and some were murderously hostile. As Jesus’ final Passover drew near, it would not be long before those who were indifferent and those who were hostile would unite to crucify the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8).