086. Chapter 27 - Journey to Jerusalem

Chapter 27 - Journey to Jerusalem John 7:2-10;Luke 9:51-56 John’s Narrative A very clear demonstration of the fact that the Gospel narratives are presenting selected scenes from the life of Christ is given in the Gospel of John as the sixth chapter tells of the feeding of the five thousand in April just before the Passover, and the seventh chapter opens with the Feast of Tabernacles close at hand in September. The debate with the Zealots in Capernaum had taken place the day after the feeding of the five thousand, and nothing of the exciting closing days of the ministry in Galilee is recorded by John. John simply summarizes the intervening months with the declaration they were spent in a ministry in Galilee because of the violent attempts at the capital to kill Him. John wrote a third of a century after the Synoptics were written. He was familiar with their contents. He deliberately avoided repeating a great amount of the material they contained, and recorded new incidents and sermons which they had not given. The independence of the narratives is most remarkable. The Two-source Theory and Form Criticism theorists close their eyes to these proofs of the independence of the narratives. The Unbelieving Brethren The brethren in John 7:3 are clearly distinguished from the disciples in this passage, as in John 2:12. The “brethren” are the sons of Joseph and Mary and half brothers of Jesus. Their names are given as James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas; the sisters are not named (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21). The theories that these were the children of Joseph by a former marriage, or children of a sister of Mary, were invented at a later date to protect the worship of the virgin Mary as a perpetual virgin. The earlier Christian writers set forth the natural conclusion that these were the children of Joseph and Mary.

These brethren are unbelieving and show sarcastic contempt for the claims of Jesus. They remind Him of all His disciples in Jerusalem and Judaea and the need for them to receive further confirmation by beholding His mighty works. The doubt suggested in If thou doest these things, manifest thyself to the world must have cut hard. If He really is the Christ, He should be spending His time and energy in the capital demonstrating His claim. In order that the reader will not misunderstand their jibe, John says simply, “For even his brethren did not believe on him.” That word even underscores the breaking heart of Jesus. But He shows neither anger nor impatience with them. He answers quite calmly; He will permit no dictation from them; He will pursue the course God is directing.

Ground of Their Attack The brethren of Jesus charged Him with acting secretly during His recent ministry for the following reasons: (1) Most of His ministry had been carried on in the provinces, instead of the capital; and in the homes of the poor, instead of the rich and powerful. The Jewish messiah, showing the pomp and circumstance expected of Him, should not proceed in such humble fashion. (2) Since the feeding of the five thousand Jesus had been largely in seclusion in a foreign country or in isolated sections away from the populous center of Galilee.(3) He had failed to go up to the last feast of the Passover. Not merely the disciples He had won in Judaea, but disciples from all quarters would be expecting Him at this Feast of Tabernacles. (4) He had repeatedly retreated after heated controversies with the national leaders who had been sent into Galilee to attack Him. (5) He had refused to become king of the people who sought a political Christ. The reasons back of the unbelief of His brethren are not plain — whether they attempted to dispute the validity of the miracles they saw (“If thou doest these things”) or whether they did not believe Him to be the Christ in spite of His miracles because of His refusal to be king and because of His mysteriously humble program. Jesus had hinted before this to His apostles of the jealousy which so often prevents a prophet from receiving honor “among his own kin and in his own house” (Matthew 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24; John 4:44). After His resurrection Jesus appeared to James (1 Corinthians 15:7), and lie became one of the great leaders of the Jerusalem church.

Jesus’ Reply The answer of Jesus to the sneer of His unbelieving brethren showed infinite patience and a careful determination to prevent them from assuming any sort of control of His campaign. His answer was couched in such obscure language that they could not be sure of His meaning and could not go about announcing His plans. To be able to announce that He was or was not going up to the Feast of Tabernacles and any other information they might glean from their exchange with Him would have been the very sort of thing they would have desired. Jesus was also careful to see that the management of His affairs did not pass out of His hands into those of His immediate followers. Thus He had forbidden the apostles to tell of the private conversation in which Peter had made the good confession, and He had ordered the three apostles not to report the transfiguration scene until after the resurrection. God Himself in giving the Old Testament revelation had so inspired the prophets that their Messianic predictions were veiled, and thus Jesus was left free to reveal Himself.

“My time is not yet come; but your time is always ready.” This answer must have been puzzling to them. Did He mean the time of setting up His kingdom? Was He thus replying to their general criticism of His program of hiding in the provinces instead of launching His campaign in the capital? or was this a specific answer to their urgent demand that He go up to this Feast of Tabernacles? Was His answer general or specific? They would not be able to tell. The second part of the sentence seems to indicate that He was talking about the feast. They could leave at any time they would. He had definite plans which He would not divulge. He explained in the next sentence one of the differences between their situation and His. They did not face any plots of assassination. Since it was not the Father’s will that He should die yet, the time was not yet opportune for Him to go up to the capital. This is not stated clearly, but it is implied: “The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that its works are evil.” Jesus does not condemn them for not carrying on a campaign against the devil. He does not intimate that they are particularly worldly or sinful. He simply states the facts of their silence and that the devil therefore does not find it necessary to concentrate against them. They were not equipped for such work as He had been doing. The Difference in the Text

“Go ye up unto the feast; I go not unto this feast; because my time is not yet fulfilled.” The a.v. has, “I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.” The reading of the Authorized Version offers no difficulty because of the word yet. The manuscript difference shows strong support for the reading yet: p ^{66. 75} B L T W X D Q, cursives and versions. This word oupo is omitted by) D K P, cursives and versions. It would seem that the rule of textual critics to select the more difficult of two variants exercised strong influence here. It would have been a great temptation to a copyist to smooth out the passage for the readers by adding the word yet. Moreover, the unbelieving brethren could have seized this as assurance that He was coming up later to the feast. But they could not be sure. The fact that the word yet is beyond any textual dispute in the latter part of the sentence reduces the importance of the reading in the first part of the sentence.

Jesus did not go up to keep the feast in obedience to the law of Moses which required full attendance through the entire week. He went up to proclaim the new revelation in obedience to the direct guidance of God. He arrived when the feast was at its height, not for the purpose of keeping the feast, but of revealing the gospel. His answer was obscure so they could not tell whether He meant His time for departing for this feast was not yet come or his time for final combat with the national leaders who sought His death. The two propositions are strangely intertwined in the actual circumstances as well as in His obscure declarations. It is plain that Jesus is saying it is the Father’s will that He does not go now. The companies of pilgrims were already starting at the usual time and following the usual route across the Jordan just south of the Sea of Galilee and down the eastern side of the Jordan to the Damieh Ferry and thence to Jericho. The reason for this roundabout journey was to avoid going through Samaria. If we knew all the plots that may have surrounded this pilgrimage, we would probably have a much better understanding of the procedure of Jesus. By this answer Jesus kept His unbelieving brethren from dictating or announcing His course. He kept the multitudes in suspense, prevented excess of excitement over His approach to the capital, and destroyed any deliberate plans to force Him to declare Himself the Christ. Further than this He secured quiet and seclusion for continued instruction of the twelve.

Route of Travel

John informs us that Jesus waited until the pilgrims had left for the capital and then “went he also up, not publicly, but as it were in secret.” John does not tell us how Jesus managed to make such a late start, take a private route, and yet arrive before the feast was over. To follow byways instead of highways would consume a great amount of time. When Jesus merely wanted seclusion for instruction of His disciples, the time consumed in a circuitous route was not a matter of importance.

Luke gives us the information as to how Jesus managed to start so late, travel secretly, and yet arrive before the feast was over (Luke 9:55, Luke 9:56). It is not possible to be sure of the identification of the journey described by Luke, but it fits so perfectly with the details there is reasonable assurance. Luke seems to indicate three separate journeys to Jerusalem in Luke 9:51; Luke 13:22; and Luke 17:11. By leaving in the night from Galilee, Jesus could have evaded those watching His movements. A swift journey down the backbone of the mountain range through Samaria would have enabled him to make up for the lost time of His long delay in Galilee while all the caravans of pilgrims departed by the usual route.

Crossing the Valley of Jezreel or the Plain of Esdraelon, according to a direct route south or a swing to the west, the party inevitably would have started down the crest of the mountain range from Mount Gerizim. This would have made possible an overnight stay at Sychar with the disciples He had won two years before. How fascinating to reflect on the possibility of further instruction given to the Samaritan woman and the other believers at Sychar! But the fact that His urgent purpose now was not preaching to any Samaritans, but to the vast throngs in the capital for the feast, probably led them on a forced march right through Samaria, avoiding any contacts that would mean delay. In Samaria it would not be necessary for Him to follow any side trails to avoid publicity. He could keep on the main highway. On His journey through Samaria two years before He seems to have been making a forced march out of the plots that encompassed Him in Jerusalem (John 4:1-4). One more time we shall find Jesus in Samaria or on the borders (Luke 17:11-19).

Farewell to Galilee

Luke says, “And it came to pass, when the days were well-nigh come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51). Received up means the ascension (“stedfastly set his face” plainly shows this). The time for the final tragedy of His death is approaching. Luke does not say that this is the final journey to the capital. In fact, the events narrated afterward show conclusively that Luke is merely stating the general approach of the end of His ministry and the increase in the tension by reason of the plots against His life. It seems to be Luke’s manner of saying that Jesus is now saying farewell to Galilee. His long, prodigious ministry there is now ended. With what sorrow and tender emotions Jesus must have left Capernaum, the Sea of Galilee, the mountains, the deserts, the teeming cities.

Rejection in Samaria

We gain insight into the kind of work the apostles were continually doing for the campaign; two of them had been sent on ahead to arrange for lodging overnight in a Samaritan village. If James and John were the ones sent, this explains their explosive anger at the rejection of Jesus. This arrangement may have been particularly necessary because it was in hostile Samaria. He would not expect to find disciples here, except in Sychar. The village inn would be the natural place to seek shelter. Both spring and fall have a way of varying by some weeks. If an early, cold fall rain had now drenched them, we can understand with more sympathy the fierce anger of James and John against this Samaritan village which would not even give them shelter for the night (cf. “Preaching in the Rainy Season,” pp. 57-58). The apostles seemed to have had no difficulty in purchasing food supplies in a Samaritan village on their former trip through Samaria, as both Jews and Samaritans met continually in the field of commerce, but not in social or religious fellowship. Luke specifies that the reason for the churlish attitude of the Samaritans on this occasion was “because his face was as though he were going to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:53). Had the difference been before that they were coming out of Judaea or that there was no feast in progress at that time? Evidently the Samaritans resented their country being used as a highway to the feasts. The Sons of Thunder

We do not know whether James and John, as they sought to find shelter for the party for the night, made known the identity of Jesus. The rejection was not so much of Christ, but of Jews going up to Jerusalem at the time of a feast. When Jesus had first called James and John to be disciples, He named them Boanerges, “Sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17). Here was an illustration of both thunder and lightning in their angry protest and proposal that Jesus destroy the village. Given the miraculous power and divine consent, they were quite ready to be the direct instruments of such dreadful retribution; “we bid fire.” Does their proposal that the entire village be wiped out show that they had canvassed not merely the village inn, but every house in it seeking some generous soul who would take them in for the night?

“As Elijah Did”

There is an interesting manuscript variation seen in the a.v. ; “Lord wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elijah did?” (Luke 9:54). The reference is to 2 Kings 1:10-16, where Elijah was saved from death by calling down fire from heaven to destroy two detachments of a captain and fifty soldiers sent by King Ahaziah to execute him. The manuscript evidence for inclusion of even as Elijah did is A C D X, and minuscules. The manuscripts that omit these words are) B L C, and others. Some hold that these words were omitted because some Gnostics had used them to disparage the Old Testament. The evidence is stronger for the rebuke of Jesus which is found in the a.v. : “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” (Luke 9:55).

Facing this manuscript variation, we cannot affirm absolutely that James and John cited Elijah as an example, but it is a secure conclusion that they had Elijah’s bold action in mind. They proposed to do precisely what Elijah had done if they were given the consent and the miraculous help of Jesus. They had just seen Elijah a few weeks before. They had been in his presence and had heard his conversation with Moses and Jesus about His approaching death. True, there undoubtedly must have been a contrast between what they heard Elijah say on the Mount of Transfiguration and what Elijah had done seated on a hilltop in Galilee, as the successive detachments of wicked king Ahaziah’s army ascended to destroy Elijah. The prophet had acted under direct instructions from God in calling down fire to destroy them; God was not willing that His prophet should be killed at this critical juncture.

Protest against Jesus’ Program

It is not possible to comprehend the proposal of James and John without consideration of the background of circumstances. They were not only protesting against the churlish inhospitality of the Samaritan village; they were crying out against the program of Jesus. They were repeating Peter’s agonized protest, “Lord, this shall never be unto thee.” Verily Christ had no place to lay His head, not even amid the exhaustion of a long, hard day’s journey. He had declared His intention of going up to the capital and permitting Himself to be “delivered up” to be tortured and killed. It was all part and parcel of the same incredible program of the Messiah sacrificing Himself for man. Remembering the stern rebuke that Jesus had given Peter when He called him “Satan,” James and John did not dare make a direct protest against Jesus’ course. But they could make a bold proposal in regard to the Samaritan village which would assail Jesus’ program indirectly. Had not David predicted, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet”? Why not begin now in Samaria to trample down those who were despising and defying God and go on in triumph to complete the destruction of God’s enemies in the capital?

While James and John may not have gone so far as to discuss this protest as they came striding in wrath back to the group, it seems to have been in the background of their subconscious mind. Even if their proposal represented only the sudden, incoherent explosion of thought, regretted as soon as spoken, yet the chain of circumstances must have lurked in their thinking.

Jesus’ Rebuke

Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of suggests that man is not qualified to be the eternal judge. Only God has the infinite wisdom, righteousness, justice, and mercy. “The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives” at this first coming. He had come to provide redemption from sin and approach to God for all who would hear and obey the gospel. But James and John had heard Jesus tell of the Son of man coming with His angels to bring the wicked into judgment, and “shall cast them into the furnace of fire” (Matthew 13:40-42). Their proposition is, “Why not now?” They do not comprehend God’s plan for saving a lost world.

There is no criticism of Elijah’s action. He had acted on the direct instructions of God. Jesus Himself at the triumphal entry, as He wept over the city, revealed its doom at the hands of the Romans — an unparalleled holocaust which would be the result of the rejection of the Lord’s Messiah: “If thou hadst known in this day, even thou, the things which belong unto peace” (Luke 19:42). On the great day of questions Jesus gave His enemies final, solemn warning: “Till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet” (Matthew 22:44). The apostle John, the son of thunder, finally received the revelation from God of the voice of seven thunders predicting fire from heaven on the wicked, but the time was not yet. Man is always impatient at the amazing mercy of God. But judgment will finally come upon the wicked, and God will triumph.

“They went to another village.” Whether it was in Samaria or Judaea we do not know. It is thirty-five miles from Sychar to Jerusalem. The first-century borders of Samaria, as given by Josephus, are uncertain. Luke’s account seems to imply that wild weather or inhospitable terrain prevented them from following an ordinary course, such as sleeping on the ground by the wayside. We are not told how far into the night they had to travel before they found a refuge in some other village.