John 12

CHAPTER XII

II. The Last Days of the Attestation in the Public Ministry. Chapter 12

The Anointing at Bethany, 12:1–11

At the beginning of a discussion of this chapter the observation is in place that all its sections deal with the imminent death of Jesus except the final paragraph, v. 44–50, which constitutes John’s conclusion to the entire first half of his Gospel. We are now in the actual shadow of the cross.

John 12:1

1 Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised from the dead. John loves the continuative οὗν: with things being as reported in the closing section of chapter 11. “We moderns do not feel the same need for connecting particles between independent sentences. The ancient Greeks loved to point out these delicate nuances,” R. 1192. The orders of the Sanhedrin (11:57) did not amount to much since Jesus was not in hiding, and anyone who wanted to reach him could certainly find him. The day after the feast at Bethany he openly entered Jerusalem, and no one touched him.

“Six days before the Passover” is not in conflict with the two days before the Passover mentioned in Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:1. Neither of these two evangelists gives the date of the supper at Bethany. They report a saying of Jesus that he would be betrayed and crucified at the feast of the Passover two days hence, while at the very same time the Jewish authorities resolved not to destroy him at the time of the Passover. Then, without following the chronological sequence of events, these two evangelists report the supper. Matthew merely says, “now when Jesus was in Bethany,” and Mark, “and being in Bethany,” neither fixing the date. John supplements the others and records the date.

When counting the days the Greeks always began from the far end, here from the Passover back to the supper, and, unlike the Romans, did not include in the count the day from which they counted. In πρὸἓξἡμερῶντοῦπάσχα the forward position of the preposition is not a Latinism, as has been often assumed, but is found in the Doric and the Ionic and is common in the Koine, R. 110, 424, 621. M.-M. furnish examples and state that Moulton regards the second genitive as an ablative, “starting from the Passover.” This fixes the date of the arrival at Bethany. For, since the Passover began with the 14th of Nisan on the afternoon of which the paschal lambs were killed, we must begin the count backward of six days with the 13th, and thus obtain the 8th of Nisan as the day of the arrival. We cannot start the count with the 14th and place the arrival at the 9th. With the arrival fixed on the 8th, it is incredible that this should be a Sabbath; for Jesus certainly had no need to violate the Sabbath by a long journey, and the supposition that he spent the night before the Sabbath so close to Bethany that on the Sabbath he needed to walk only a Sabbath-day’s journey (three-fourths of a mile) to enter Bethany, is equally incredible, since another short hour would take him to Bethany, and no place so near to Bethany is known where he could have lodged, unless he would sleep in the open.

If the 8th was not a Sabbath, neither was the 15th. The Sabbath during which Jesus rested in the tomb was the 16th of Nisan, the day of the crucifixion the 15th, and the evening when Jesus ate the Passover with his disciples was the evening of the 14th, the lamb being killed in the afternoon. With this phrase, “six days before the Passover,” John thus agrees perfectly with the synoptists and answers the contention of the opponents of the Quartodecimans in the second century that John clashes with the synoptists by making the Friday of Jesus’ death the 14th and the Sabbath in the grave the 15th of Nisan. See 19:14 and compare Zahn on the question. On Friday morning the 8th, after a night spent in the home of Zacchaeus, Jesus left Jericho and arrived in Bethany that afternoon. The supper was not given that evening; for v. 12 reports that “on the morrow,” i.e., the morning after the supper, Jesus made his royal entry into Jerusalem.

The Sabbath began at dusk on Friday. That Sabbath Jesus spent quietly with his beloved friends in Bethany. On Saturday, when the sun set and ended the Sabbath, the supper was prepared. John writes: Bethany, “where Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised from the dead,” in order to recall the events recorded in chapter 11, with their bearing on what now follows. The other two evangelists omit mention of Lazarus. The best reading omits the ὁτεθνηκώς of the A.

V. On ἐκνεκρῶν see the exposition in 2:22.

John 12:2

2 They, accordingly, made him a supper there. And Martha was serving, while Lazarus was one of those reclining with him. “Accordingly” hints at the fact that the friends of Jesus embraced this opportunity to honor Jesus. The δεῖπνον was the main meal of the day and was served in the evening, whether we today call it “a supper” or “a dinner.” “They made him a supper” means that they prepared a special feast in Jesus’ honor. The indefinite plural subject in the verb cannot be restricted to Lazarus, or to him and his two sisters; other friends joined with them. Matthew and Mark report that this supper was made in the house of Simon the leper, about whom we lack further information. With this agrees John’s statement that Martha was serving, which would be self-evident if the supper were held in her own home; likewise, that Lazarus was one of the guests.

It is gratuitous to say that Lazarus is mentioned in order to indicate his complete recovery. He is mentioned as one of the honored guests.

It is fair to conclude that Jesus had healed Simon of his leprosy, and that this was one reason why the supper was made in his house. It is fancy to say that Lazarus was placed on one side of Jesus and Simon on the other. That would be possible if the guests sat at a table in our modern fashion; but these guests reclined upon couches, as the fashion was among the Jews, and consequently the chief place, the upper end of the central couch, was reserved for Jesus, and only one person could be next to him. We have no reason to think that Martha is mentioned as serving (διηκόνει, doing service for the sake of service) because she was the wife of Simon; some think that she was his widow, supposing that, since we hear nothing further about him, he was dead. The fact that Martha alone is mentioned as serving is not stated in order to place her in contrast to Mary, as though Mary was not serving. Mary, as well as others, must have helped, for at least fifteen guests must have been present, all men, of course, since women would not recline in public with men. Martha’s serving is noted because of a fine sense of fairness and justice which does not omit Martha in an account where Mary appears so prominently.

John 12:3

3 Mary, therefore, having taken a pound of perfume of genuine nard, very precious, anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped off his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment. The connective οὗν has the same force as in the previous verses. We need not elaborate on the well-established fact that the act here described and that recorded in Luke 7:36 differ in time, place, the owner of the house, the moral character of the woman anointing the Lord, and in the conversation that took place. Gregory the Great has the doubtful distinction of identifying Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene and with the sinful woman (unnamed) who anointed Jesus in the Pharisee’s house and of giving this view general currency in the Roman Catholic Church. The truth, however, was brought out so forcibly by Luther, Calvin, Calov, and others that this view never obtained credence among Protestant commentators. The sister of Lazarus is not Mary Magdalene or the other unnamed woman in Luke.

In 10:38 this evangelist introduces Mary as a new personage after the introduction of Mary Magdalene and after the account of the unnamed woman in the Pharisee’s house. It is unwarranted to assume that, if the same woman is referred to, Luke would give her three different designations in as many chapters, 7, 8, and 10. In the accounts of Matthew and of Mark Mary’s name does not occur, although these writers report the word of Jesus: “Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.” Yet in not recording Mary’s name the evangelists are guilty of no omission, for it is her act, not her name, which is to be praised in all the world. Moreover, when they wrote, Mary may have still been alive, and to mention her name might have caused her trouble and danger.

The quantity of the ointment was ample, “a pound,” λίτραν, twelve ounces according to the weight of water. The word μύρον is a general term for any “perfume” or essence with a delightful odor (used beside ἀρώματα in Luke 23:56). “Nard” is the plant which furnishes the essence for the perfume, the finest coming from India. This “nard” is called πιστική, an adjective that has been much in dispute, but the meaning of which is now settled; it is derived from πιστός (πίστις) and means “genuine,” “pure,” over against adulterated preparations containing inferior substances; M.-M., as well as Zahn. Hence not “liquid” or “drinkable.” The word has no connection with πίνειν, “to drink.” The “spikenard” of our versions comes from Spica Nardus, the Indian nard named after its wheatlike tips or spikes; yet πιστικός does not mean spicatus, “spiked.” The spikenard now listed by botanists is a variety of the valerian family, whose roots furnish a fragrant essence.

All the evangelists remark on the value of the perfume. Matthew calls the μύρον “exceeding precious,” βαρύτιμον; Mark “very costly,” πολυτελής; and John “very precious,” πολύτιμος. Judas mentions the actual value of it. The question is asked as to how Mary came to have so precious a perfume at hand on this occasion. The assumption that it remained over from her former voluptuous life vilifies Mary by the spurious identification with the harlot mentioned in Luke. The suggestion that the perfume remained over from the burial of Lazarus is untenable because of the great value. In lieu of a positive answer we prefer to think that Mary long in advance provided this precious essence for an occasion of this kind, freely spending her money for the honor of Jesus.

John uses ἀλείφω, the verb for any application of oil, not χρίω, the word for sacred and ceremonial anointing. Matthew and Mark record that Mary anointed the head. John takes for granted that his readers know these records and supplements them by stating that Mary anointed the feet. The precious fluid was abundant; poured out upon the head and flowing upon the neck and the shoulders, enough was left for the feet, in fact, so much that Mary wiped off the feet with her hair. The broken alabaster cruse was thus entirely emptied—all its contents offered to the Master. In the house of the Pharisee the holy feet of Jesus had not been washed as even common politeness on the part of the host required, but at this supper in Bethany the washing certainly had not been omitted.

But the devoted heart of Mary is not satisfied with the commoner fluid, she now adds the abundance of this most precious ointment that she was able to find. How many dusty, weary paths those beloved feet had trodden—now they are honored, indeed, as they deserve. The Baptist said that he was unworthy to loose the latchet of the sandals of these feet, and Mary feels the same way. At the feet of Jesus she sat when she listened to the words of life, and these feet had brought the Master of death to recall her brother to life.

It means much that Mary should use her hair to wipe the feet, and John even repeats the word feet, as if he meant to emphasize the humiliation expressed in using the hair of the head upon the feet. But in the case of a Jewish woman this act means more. To unbind and loosen the hair in the presence of outsiders was considered an indecent act. Lightfoot tells of a woman who prided herself on the fact that the beams of her house had never seen her hair. Mary’s act is thus one in which she lays her own woman’s honor at the feet of Jesus. She takes that honor and makes it a towel for his holy feet.

Hers is a different act from that of the woman in the Pharisee’s house. If there we may say that the proper place for a sinner’s head is at the Savior’s feet, here we may add that the proper place for a disciple’s head is at the Savior’s feet.

As one who vividly recalls the scene John adds that “the house was filled with the oder of the ointment,” another evidence of its supreme quality and at the same time a symbol of the far-reaching influence of Mary’s act. “The odor of Mary’s ointment has the promise that it shall penetrate and fill the whole world.” Nebe. Yet at first it seemed to fail in this respect; to some of those present at the supper it was not at all “a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God,” Phil. 4:18.

John 12:4

4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, who was about to betray him, says, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred denars and given to poor people? On “Iscariot” see 6:71. The very name exhales an evil odor, the absolute opposite of that of Mary’s ointment. A sad note is sounded in the apposition, “one of his disciples.” It seems incredible, impossible—one of the chosen band, favored to see and to hear everything, honored by Jesus with the highest office in the world, who should have been first to applaud, to understand, yea to vie with Mary in doing something equally great and significant for his Master’s honor. Beside “one of his disciples” John puts, “who was about to betray him,” ὁμέλλων with the present infinitive in place of the future, R. 1118. This explains everything.

The faulty translation, “which should betray him,” must not lead us to think of a divine compulsion. The traitorous act of Judas was not the result of a divine decree, it was entirely his own act, just as other wicked deeds are the product of men’s own hearts. Judas resisted all the grace of God, all the blessed influences and warnings of Jesus, and thus betrayed him. When grace is in vain, only almighty power is left; and this power cannot convert or save, all that it can do is to carry out the purposes of God among the wicked, so controlling their wickedness that it shall further God’s plans.

John mentions that only Judas objected to Mary’s act, while Matthew says “the disciples” and Mark “some” had indignation. Nowhere are we told that all the disciples objected. When John focuses our attention on Judas he supplements the accounts of the other evangelists by showing us how the objection to Mary’s deed arose. Judas started the movement by unhesitatingly pronouncing adverse judgment. His plea is specious, and some others are carried away by it, evidently not taking time to think for themselves. It is often thus.

As Mary’s perfume filled the house with its odor, so the poison of Judas’ words contaminated at least some hearts. In the basest of moves a man can find some supporters and abettors, especially if he is able to hide his motive and his intention under some plausible argument.

John 12:5

5 Judas might have found many things to object to in Mary’s deed and Jesus’ acceptance of it, for instance, that it ill became a man of simple manners; that anointing the feet as well as the head was a piece of extravagance and effeminacy offensive to Jewish custom; that such luxury did not agree with the life of a prophet; that Jesus himself had said that they that wear soft clothing dwell in kings’ houses, and among them but not for one like Jesus the use of perfumes might be considered appropriate. But the point to which Judas directs attention is characteristic of the man. His eye is set on money, and so he sees the financial side. “Why was not this perfume sold for three hundred denars?” Incidentally we thus learn the probable price of the perfume, between $40 and $50 (δηνάριον, 16c). The addition: “and given to poor people” (πτωχοῖς, poor people in general) sounds as though Judas is concerned about the poor, prompted by the noble motive of charity. Yet the words cover the gravest kind of a charge not merely against Mary but against Jesus himself. Judas implies that Jesus is robbing the poor; that he is lavishing upon himself what should be devoted to charity; that for his own glorification he allows a waste that is wrong; that his example is harmful to others—and that Judas is the man who knows what is right, proper, charitable, and is not afraid to come out with it!

This is the traitorous touch in the proceeding of Judas. He is a traitor now as he reclines among the Twelve and partakes of the hospitality of Jesus’ friends. We now see why John in his deeper view of things brings Judas and his actual words to our attention.

John 12:6

6 John himself bares the root of Judas’ treachery. Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief and, having the box, was carrying what was cast therein. Urging the needs of the poor without caring for the poor, speaking the words of charity without a heart of charity, marks the hypocrite. In this case hypocrisy is linked with secret criminality: Judas actually was a thief. When this stealing was discovered we are not informed, but John’s positive accusation is based on fact.

How Judas managed to steal is also explained: he was the treasurer of the little band, he carried the γλωσσόκομον. The term, originally used to designate a case in which to keep mouthpieces (γλῶσσαι) for flutes, came to be used for any boxlike receptacle, here one to hold coins, and was translated “bag” by the Vulgate, which translation Luther and our versions followed. The dispute as to whether ἐβάσταζεν means “was taking away” (stealing), or “was carrying,” is not decided by pointing out, on the one hand, that John has already called him a thief, or, on the other hand, that John has already said that he had the moneycase. This imperfect verb is to be construed with τὰβαλλόμενα. Judas was in charge of the offerings made by friends for the support of Jesus and his disciples, βάλλειν being the regular verb for the act of making an offering. To translate, “he was stealing the offerings,” would say entirely too much.

He had charge of them, and thus his little peculations occurred with regard to sacred money, offerings made to the Lord. This makes his crime the blacker. Incidentally, we see that Jesus and his disciples had a common purse. What was his was theirs; and Judas, Jesus’ familiar friend, who lifted up his heel against him, ate his bread.

Why did Jesus, who undoubtedly was aware of the thieving Judas, not take the treasury from him? This is only a part of the larger question as to why God does not by his omniscience and omnipotence interfere in every case of crime, preventing it from being carried out. Jesus brought all his grace to bear upon Judas; if that proved ineffective, nothing could change the heart of the traitor-thief. This answer is truer than to say that the counsel of God prevented Jesus from interfering.

John 12:7

7 Jesus, therefore, said, Let her be, that she kept it for the day of my entombment. After the parenthetical remarks in v. 6 οὗν resumes the course of events. Mary is silent, Jesus makes her defense. John restates only two points of this defense; his readers know what Matthew and Mark have recorded. The first point is that Mary has anointed him for his entombment; the second is that the disciples will not have him always. Both of these briefly stated points John selects because they speak of Jesus’ death, now so near at hand. What he records on these points agrees perfectly with the statements of the other evangelists.

“In the N. T. ἄφες is not yet a mere auxiliary as is our ‘let’ and the modern Greek ἄς” R. 931. This shows that the rendering of the A. V., “Let her alone,” is correct; and that of the R. V., “suffer her to keep it,” is wrong, for it makes ἄφες a mere auxiliary to τηρήσῃ. This is unlikely also because of the intervening ἵνα; for when ἄφες came to be used as an auxiliary it was directly connected with the main verb, see the examples in R. 931–932. The word has a ring of sharpness, like Matthew’s, “Why trouble you the woman?”

Textually the reading ἵνατηρήσῃ is established in preference to τετήρηκεν without a conjunction. The latter is easier grammatically: “against the day of my burying hath she kept this” (A. V.), namely in advance to anoint me as she has done for my burial. The sense of the reading with ἵνα and the subjunctive is the same. What has prevented some from seeing this is, in the first place, ἵνα, which they regard as final, and, in the second place, the subjunctive, which they regard as future to the moment when Jesus spoke. Now some have come to read this ἵνα as subfinal and the aorist subjunctive as future to the moment when Mary bought the ointment.

The aorist of this subjunctive should have been a help for understanding this word of Jesus; if Jesus has in mind a keeping, future to the moment of his speaking, the present subjunctive would have been in place. Zahn translates in this manner: dass sie es aufbewahre. This, then, is interpreted out of keeping with the context, as though αὑτό does not refer to the μύρον, all of which was used by Mary in her act, but to a supposed portion that is still left; and this portion, Jesus is thought to say, Mary shall be allowed to keep without blame until the coming entombment of Jesus. Yet the objection of Judas was not raised in regard to such a remainder but in regard to the ointment used upon Jesus. One reason for this incorrect grammar and this interpretation is the fact that commentators regard one evangelist as contradicting another instead of allowing each to help in understanding the other. Matthew writes very plainly, “For in that she poured this ointment upon my body, she did it for my burial”; and Mark, “She hath anointed my body aforehand for the burying.” Exactly this John means when he says that Jesus ordered Judas to let Mary alone—on what matter? “that she kept the ointment for the day of my entombment,” i.e., anointing me now (“aforehand”) for that day.

Besides, Jesus was not anointed after he was removed from the cross; he knew that he would not be; Mary of Bethany was not on Calvary; and any keeping of ointment by Mary for that actual day of entombment would have been in vain. The only anointing the body of Jesus received for his entombment it received here at Bethany at the hands of Mary. Yet it is improper to call the day of the supper in Bethany the day of the entombment, or to think that Jesus spoke of it as being such; for Mark writes, “aforehand for the burial,” and Matthew, “to prepare me for burial.”

But did Mary actually think that she was anointing the body of Jesus there at the supper for his entombment? Some think of only a providence and regard Mary’s purpose as an unconscious one. Some let Jesus “lend” this significance to Mary’s act. Some think of a foreboding, an indistinct premonition. Only a few state that when Mary bought and had the ointment ready, she did this consciously for the very purpose Jesus so clearly states. Let us remember that what Jesus spoke in Galilee, Matt. 16:21; what he told his disciples so plainly at the beginning of his last journey, Matt. 20:17, Mark 10:32, 33, Luke 18:31–34; and what he told his enemies in Jerusalem, John 7:33; 8:21–23; 10:11 and 17, 18, and what these enemies well knew, Mary must also have known.

She knew in addition about the threats and the plots of his enemies with which Jesus, too, had charged them openly, John 5:18; 7:1 and 19; 8:59; 10:31, etc.; 11:53 and 57. The disciples, it is true enough, did not realize what was so close at hand. But why should not at least one heart realize it? The character of this woman is such that it ought not to surprise us that, where dull-witted men failed, she saw that Jesus was, indeed, going straight to his death—even to crucifixion, as he himself said. Thus her mind leaped to the conclusion that, when the tragedy now broke, it would be utterly impossible to anoint the dead body of Jesus. That is why she acted now, unhesitatingly embracing the opportunity which she had hoped would come and for which she had prepared.

Only if Mary knew that she was anointing the body of Jesus for its burial, is the tremendous praise accorded her act by Jesus himself justified: “Verily I say unto you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her,” Matt. 26:13. Nebe is right when he points out that those who let Jesus “lend” a purpose to Mary’s act that is not in Mary’s mind make Jesus a modern lawyer who invents motives for his client at which the client himself is then surprised; and that Jesus acts as such a lawyer in the shadow of his own death and on the very subject of that death.

John 12:8

8 Regarding the poor John adds only so much from the words of Jesus: For the poor you always have with you, but me you have not always. The verbs are plural, addressed quite properly to all present. “The poor” has the article of previous reference, Judas having referred to them. Even today they are with us in spite of all social and economic reform. Jesus is the last to forget or to neglect the poor. Mark writes, “And whensoever ye will ye can do them good”—a strong hint for thieving Judas, who, by secretly robbing the treasury of Jesus, was robbing also the poor, to whom Jesus was wont to give (13:29). Where Jesus is anointed the poor will never suffer.

Mary is a better almoner than any Judas that ever lived. A mean, low, beggarly spirit of utilitarianism is offended at every costly gift, every beautiful ornament, every display of genius and art, which honor Jesus and do not rob him to enrich the poor. While we spurn this, let us not go to the opposite extreme, of which some are guilty who do great and notable things ostensibly in honor of Jesus yet forget the Lazarus at their door.

“Me you have not always” is prophetic of the death so near at hand. It would have been a shame if he who was going into death for all of us should not have been honored by at least one who understood in a way that was befitting his death. Because of its very nature this opportunity could come but once.

John 12:9

9 The great multitude of the Jews, therefore, learned that he was there, and they came not for Jesus’ sake only but in order to see also Lazarus, whom he did raise from the dead. As was the case in chapter 7, the ὄχλος consists of pilgrims who had come for the Passover feast. Many of these had come days before (11:55), and their number grew constantly. The combination ὁὄχλοςπολύς is unusual in that the noun and the adjective seem to form “a composite idea,” R. 656. The news spread in Jerusalem and in its environs in the most natural way, for Jesus and his little band were part of the caravan that moved from Jericho toward Jerusalem, and while Jesus halted at Bethany, the rest went on to the city. This, too, is how the crowds learned where Jesus was: ὁτιἐκεῖἐστι, the Greek retaining the tense of the direct discourse, “He is there,” i.e., in Bethany.

John most likely adds “of the Jews” because presently he intends to tell about certain Greek pilgrims (v. 20). None of the latter went out to Bethany, only crowds of Jewish pilgrims did so. What these Jewish pilgrims did on Sunday is told in v. 12, etc. (ὄχλοςπολύς repeated). “Of the Jews” cannot refer to emissaries of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, nor to Jews who were residents in the capital.

The account regarding Lazarus had spread, and so crowds flocked out to Bethany all day Saturday to see not only Jesus, who had wrought this astounding miracle, but Lazarus as well, the man who had been dead and buried for four days. No hostile attitude or intent on their part is manifested. The two miles to Bethany were no hindrance as regards a Sabbath day’s journey, for hosts of pilgrims always had to camp outside of the city at the time of the great festivals.

John 12:10

10 At once the Jewish leaders heard of these visits of the curious to Bethany and took action. But the high priests took counsel with each other to kill also Lazarus because on his account many of the Jews were going away and were believing on Jesus. These were only the high priests, Caiaphas and his Sadducee relatives, who headed the Sanhedrin. The Pharisees in this body were left out, evidently because they were not of a kind to consent to the murder of a perfectly innocent man. These unscrupulous rulers consulted with each other (ἐβουλεύσαντο, reciprocal middle, R. 811) and came to the decision (aorist) to kill also Lazarus (ἵνα non-final, stating the substance of the decision, R. 993–994). The reason (ὅτι) for this decision is astounding.

The man himself had done absolutely nothing that was in any way punishable; only others were doing something that was also absolutely non-punishable, coming out to see him and in consequence believing in Jesus. For this reason Lazarus was to be killed. The criminality of the Sadducean rulers was outrageous. The imperfects ὑπῆγον and ἐπίστευον are descriptive of repeated action, and while the two actions are grammatically coordinate, the former is merely circumstantial for the latter.

The Royal Entry, 12–19

John’s account of the royal entry is purposely brief, frankly presupposing that of the other evangelists, yet it has some distinct features of its own.

John 12:12

12 On the morrow a great multitude that had come to the feast, having heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took the palm branches of the palm trees and went out to meet him and kept shouting, Hosanna! Blessed he that comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel! “On the morrow” = on the next day, namely on Sunday, the day after the supper of Saturday evening. At once, when Jesus prepared to leave Bethany for Jerusalem, the pilgrim visitors, described in v. 11 as constantly coming out from the city to see Lazarus as well as Jesus, rushed the news back to the city that Jesus himself was now coming to Jerusalem. “Jesus is coming!” was the word passed along. This caused “a great multitude” of the pilgrim host, “that had come to the feast” (ὁἐλθών), to form a grand procession to meet Jesus on the way and to bring him into the city. The synoptists speak of two multitudes, and John makes clear how this is to be understood: one was with Jesus as he leaves Bethany, the other started from Jerusalem to meet him on the way.

John 12:13

13 The latter “took the palm branches of the palm trees.” John does not add what they did with them, for this had already been told. To say that John means that the people kept them in their hands while the other evangelists tell us that the people laid them in the road for Jesus to ride over, is to find a contradiction where none exists. Nor do the articles mean that this use of the palm branches was a customary one like the carrying of the “lulab” or festive spray at the Feast of Tabernacles. This is placing too great an emphasis on the articles, which refer only to the branches of the trees that lined the road up the Mount of Olives. Those palms and their branches, well known in those days as gracing that road, have long since disappeared—now all is bare. Since τὰβαΐα already means “the palm branches,” the addition τῶνφοινίκων constitutes a kind of pleonasm.

The other evangelists refer only to “trees”; John records that these were palm trees. To get the right impression of the scene we must know how the orientals regarded palm trees: majestic in their height, the queens of all lowland trees, with their proud diadem of great fronds, spreading with their face to the sun, in immortal green, unceasingly replenished with new life from the deep-set roots, in those desert lands and in many an oasis the picture of life in a world of death (Delitzsch on Ps. 92:7). To the oriental the palm tree was the perfect tree, embodying everything a tree should really be; even its life, extending to 200 years, made it a symbol of immortality. We usually regard palm branches as symbols of victory and triumph but the oriental regarded them as symbols of life and salvation.

Luke tells us that the shout of Hosanna was first raised “at the descent of the Mount of Olives,” and he adds that “the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice” thus. John’s imperfect ἐκραύγαζον, “kept shouting,” notes only the continuation on into the city, through the streets, to the Temple. Tissot’s painting of one of the scenes of the Entry into the Temple shows the boys of the age of twelve and over who had come to the festival mimicking their elders, parading in festival white in front of Jesus, keeping step to their clapping and rhythmic shouts.

The words are taken from Ps. 118:25, 26, to which interpretative additions are made: compare also Luke 19:38. Psalms 113–118 are termed the Hallel, and this was sung at the Passover when the festival procession was received by the priests; it was sung also, a part before and a part after the Passover meal (Mark 14:26). The most distinctive part of the chant was “Hosanna,” three of the evangelists recording the Hebrew transliteration: Hoshʾah-na, schaffe Heil, “grant salvation” (“save now,” A. V.) In greeting Jesus the word seems to have been used by the multitude less like a prayer to God and more like a joyful acclamation, a little like our: All hail!

The rest of the words taken from the Psalm: “Blessed he that comes in the name of the Lord” (Jehovah), constitute a welcome. The perfect εὑλογημένος, “having been blessed,” has its usual present force, “having been and thus now still blessed.” And ὁἐρχόμενος, here too is a Messianic designation, especially since it is coupled with the phrase, “in the name of Jehovah.” The enthusiastic multitude thus acclaims Jesus as blessed by Jehovah, not merely with words of benediction, but with all the gifts and treasures implied in the benedictory words, coming thus to Jerusalem bearing these blessings. For we must remember that John supplies what the other evangelists omit, namely the connection of this acclaim with the great miracles of Jesus, the last of which, the raising of Lazarus, has stirred the hearts of these pilgrims to their very depths. As the One so blessed they greet him with the Messianic title, “the One who Comes” and whose coming is “in the name of the Lord,” i.e., in connection with the revelation (ὄνομα in this sense, compare the explanation in 1:12) of Jehovah.

Luke has more of the additions made to the words taken from the Psalm (19:38), yet despite all his brevity John records, “even the King of Israel.” Beyond question this means the Messiah-King. It is fruitless to speculate on the meaning attached to these words by the multitude. Whatever of wrong earthly expectation still beclouded the vision of these “disciples” (Luke) and of the multitude generally, a holy enthusiasm had caught their hearts on this Sunday, a wave of real spiritual feeling and joy, the direct product of “all the mighty works they had seen” (Luke), which moved them when thus welcoming Jesus to “praise God” (Luke). This helps us to explain why Jesus accepted this honor and by his very act lent himself to this enthusiasm, riding into the city as the King of Israel that he was.

John 12:14

14 Now Jesus, having found an ass, sat upon it, as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Zion! Thy King comes, sitting on an ass’s colt. Here is the picture of the King on his royal entry. Since we know from the other records how Jesus “found an ass;” John is very brief and mentions only the fact, although in v. 17 he indicates the aid of others in securing the ass: “they had done these things unto him.” Only the essentials are given, first, of the fulfillment; secondly, of the prophecy. The extensive perfect, “as it has been written,” includes the present: is still on record.

John 12:15

15 John quotes Zech. 9:9. In the call, “Fear not!” he reproduces only the sense of the original, “Rejoice greatly!” For when fear goes out, joy comes in, i.e., over against God. One may quote the ipsissima verba, but an entirely legitimate form of citation is to restate the sense in equivalent terms, especially such parts of a quotation as are not to be stressed. Here the call to rejoice is entirely minor; the point of the quotation is the statement about the King’s coming, riding upon the foal of an ass. This remarkable feature is the one stressed by Zechariah. “Daughter of Zion,” to which the prophet adds, “daughter of Jerusalem,” is one of the honor names of Israel. “Zion” seems to have been the name of the locality where Jerusalem came to be built and was then used as a designation for the highest eminence in the city. The Temple, however, was not on this high point but on Moriah, which lies lower.

Thus “the daughter of Zion” names the people according to the most prominent eminence which distinguishes its capital. By a legitimate transfer this poetic title is now applied to the New Testament Israel, the Christian Church.

By losing the regular verb accent, the circumflex, and carrying the acute, ἰδού becomes an interjection that is equivalent to our “lo!” Here it points dramatically to the figure of the Peace-King, marked as such by coming to his capital, not in the panoply of war, but sitting upon the colt of an ass. There is symbolism in the animal which Jesus rode, a symbolism intended by Zechariah in his prophecy. It has well been observed that the ass is lowly as compared with the horse; it symbolizes peace, as the horse does war. Thus the ass was chosen to bear the meek and lowly, yet divinely royal Prince of peace in his triumphal entry to his capital. When, however, the colt is called untamed, and the symbolism is carried farther so as to include the universal domination of Jesus over nature as well as over spirit, this goes too far. The colt was gentle enough, but with the clause, “whereon yet man never sat,” Luke 19:30, indicates why a colt was chosen instead of an older animal.

Jerusalem deserved the fate that her King should come with power to punish her wickedness and unbelief, but this was still the day of grace, and the crowning deeds of grace were yet to be done. So this King came with grace and salvation, not to be feared and dreaded, but to be loved, trusted, and joyfully followed. John emphasizes the literal fulfillment of the prophecy. This would not be so striking if Jesus had usually ridden about the country (like the good Samaritan, Luke 10:34), but he always walked until this day when, by his own orders, the beast was found for him to ride on.

John 12:16

16 John makes a confession at this point; compare 2:22; 20:9. These things his disciples did not realize at the first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things had been written about him, and that they had done these things for him. “These things,” made emphatic by two repetitions, include the entire occurrence as the fulfillment of a specific prophecy. The Twelve are referred to, who, though they knew the Scriptures, never at the time realized that they were helping to fulfill a prophecy plainly recorded in these Scriptures. The fact that Jesus realized this is evidenced, if by nothing else, then by his sending his disciples for the colt. Not until Jesus was glorified (risen from the dead, etc.) did the disciples see the connection between “these things” that had been written by the prophet and “these things” which they themselves on that day had done for Jesus. Even then, we may say, it was only by the promised aid of the Holy Spirit (14:27 and 45) that they remembered and realized, although John does not here hint at this final teaching of Jesus.

John has several of these striking references to prophecy, beginning with that of Jesus, 2:19–22; the unconscious prophecy of Caiaphas, 11:50–52, finally 18:31–39; 19:24 and 34–37. On ἐπʼ αὑτῷ, “in his case,” see R. 605.

John 12:17

17 The multitude, therefore, that was with him kept bearing witness that he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead. On this account also the multitude met him, because they heard that he had done this sign. The resumptive οὗι continues the narrative after the explanation in regard to the disciples in v. 16. Verse 9 reports that between Friday and Sunday many went out to Bethany to see both Lazarus and Jesus. Thus on Sunday when Jesus started for Jerusalem, a mass of people were in Bethany and accompanied Jesus when he left for the city. This is ὁὄχλοςὁὢνμετʼ αὑτοῦ, “the multitude that was with him.” This multitude naturally “kept testifying” to the miracle regarding Lazarus, “that (ὅτι) he did call Lazarus out of the tomb and did raise him from the dead.” Note the double statement, the first half regarding the manner of the miraculous act (“did call,” etc.), the second regarding the effect (“did raise,” etc.).

The doubling also makes the testimony emphatic. On ἐκνεκρῶν see the explanation of 2:22. While ὅτε has better textual evidence than ὅτι, the present consensus is in favor of the latter. For if we read, “the multitude which was with him when he called,” etc., we should have to go back of v. 9 to the people who actually were present when the miracle was performed, namely residents of Jerusalem (11:31, etc.), of whom John would now say that they kept spreading the report of the miracle. Yet we have already heard (11:46) that some of these told the Pharisees, and that even the Sanhedrin took action in consequence. The whole matter was thus already public from the very start.

It would seem strange that John should at this point tell us that this multitude (the original witnesses) were still testifying, ἐμαρτύρει; and ὁὤν would have to be read as a kind of imperfect participle, R. 892. It is far more natural that John advances us to the crowds that came out to verify the story about Lazarus (v. 9), in particular, on this Sunday, to the multitude now in Bethany for this purpose, i.e., “the one being with him” now. Having seen Lazarus with their own eyes, having also inspected the tomb, they now kept testifying to the wondrous deed.

John 12:18

18 In v. 12, 13 we noted that a great multitude started out from the city to meet and to greet Jesus when they heard that he was coming from Bethany. John now adds that all these had heard of the sign Jesus had done. “On this account also the multitude met him,” etc. This is a different multitude, one that gathered in Jerusalem, that did not go to Bethany but met Jesus on the way (“at the descent of the Mount of Olives,” Luke 19:37). “On this account because they heard,” etc., means that what stirred them to action was the report spread all over the city during the past days that Jesus “had done this sign.” The infinitive in indirect discourse after the verb of hearing is sharper than a participle would be, R. 1103. Since this is indirect discourse, these people heard the report in this form: Jesus “has done this sign”—“he has done it,” and it now stands as done; τὸσημεῖον, “the sign,” a deed full of the highest significance, revealing Jesus as the Messiah-King (v. 13). By giving these details John supplements the accounts of the other evangelists and informs us just how the enthusiasm started that produced the royal welcome which Jesus received on his entry into the capital. Note also the tremendous contrast in the effect of this sign on the Sanhedrin (11:47–53, and v. 57) and in that on the pilgrim hosts that filled the city.

John 12:19

19 The Pharisees, therefore, said to each other, Behold how you profit nothing! See, the world has gone away after him! This graphically depicts the reaction of the Pharisees. Two parties seem to be represented, the one, more unscrupulous, siding with the radical Sadducees, the other, more lenient, hesitating to propose violent measures. The former address the latter who were in the majority and had thus far prevented violence. Their words, full of helpless wrath, taunt the milder party, declaring that all their temporizing has proved abortive and useless: “you are profiting in no respect,” gaining nothing whatever.

Against this negative they place the positive: “the world” is running after him—passionate hyperbole. This royal entry seemed like a public challenge of the authority which had issued orders for Jesus’ arrest and had formally resolved to destroy him. Inscii prophetant, writes Bengel. Unconsciously they utter words such as the prophecy of Caiaphas, for soon enough thousands turned to faith, and the church spread over all the world.

The Greek uses the aorist to indicate what has just happened and is present at the moment. This aorist seems awkward in English, which, however, is due only to the English. We must translate with either the present or the perfect: “the world is going after him,” or “has gone after him”; read R. 841–843. With ὀπῆλθεν the Pharisees mean, “away from us,” and thus “behind” or “after him,” indicating the gulf between him and them. This dark background of hate in the hearts of all the leaders in Jerusalem makes the whole spectacle on Palm Sunday dramatic in the highest degree: and this the more when we realize that all this murderous hate was perfectly known to Jesus, and that in the very face of it he followed his sure course.

The Request of the Greeks Reminds Jesus of the End, 20–36

John 12:20

20 This one incident from the days following the royal entry on Palm Sunday is preserved by John, not on account of the Greeks, who furnished only the occasion, but on account of the testimony of Jesus regarding his death now so close at hand. The Pharisees say, “the world goes after him,” and here even these Greeks want to see Jesus. “Just as the setting sun sends out its most beautiful rays and lights up the circle of the earth afar, so the glory of our Lord Christ, standing at the threshold of death, sends out its. rays, and the desire to see him is roused even in the hearts of Gentiles coming from afar; in the same manner at the dawn, in his childhood, the wise men, as the first-fruits of the Gentiles, were drawn by the light of the wondrous star from faraway Persia.” Gerhard. Bengel calls their coming “a prelude of the transition of God’s kingdom from the Jews to the Gentiles.”

Now there were certain Greeks of those accustomed to come up to worship at the feast. These Ἕλληνες were not Greek Jews or Hellenists but “proselytes Of the gate,” the φοβούμενοι or σεβόμενοιτὸνΘεόν of the Acts, former idolaters who had accepted the essentials of the Jewish religion and some of its customs and practices without formally being received into the synagogue by circumcision, which would have made them “proselytes of righteousness.” They resembled the Ethiopian eunuch, the centurion Cornelius, and others. The present participle expresses customary action: ἐκτῶνἀναβαινόντων (ἐκ partitive), “of those accustomed to go up”; many of these proselytes visited the great Jewish festivals. Their purpose was “to worship at the feast” like the Jews whose faith they shared. Whether they also went up for purposes of business we do not know; John intimates nothing on that score, rather the contrary. Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the Temple expressly refers to such “strangers”; read 1 Kings 8:41–43.

John 12:21

21 These, therefore, came to Philip from Bethsaida, of Galilee, and were requesting him, saying, Sir, we want to see Jesus. John does not state why these Greeks approached a disciple and in particular Philip. It may be that Jesus was in the Court of the Men, where Gentiles were not allowed to enter. Happening upon Philip either passing in or out, they addressed him. John mentions the home town of Philip, which seems to hint at the fact that these Greeks had met him there and thus knew him. They present their request with all due respect, as κύριε shows. “To see Jesus” is modest for meeting Jesus and receiving an opportunity to hear him.

If these Greeks desired only to look upon this famous person as men generally are curious to see great people and proud to report that they have seen them, abundant opportunity offered itself daily as Jesus moved about in the Temple courts. These Greeks ask for a personal interview.

John 12:22

22 Philip comes and tells Andrew; Andrew comes and Philip, and they tell Jesus. The hesitation of Philip is usually explained in whole or at least in part by calling Philip timid; yet this seems too much like inventing an explanation where none is given in the text. Philip and any other disciple had reason to hesitate. Jesus had instructed them not to go in the way of the Gentiles (Matt. 10:5); he had declared concerning himself that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24); likewise, he had placed the gathering of the other sheep into the future (John 10:10). Yet he had heard the petition of the woman of Canaan, had spoken of many coming from the east and the west and sitting down with the patriarchs in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 8:11), and had praised the great faith of the centurion at Capernaum (Matt. 8:5–10; Luke 7:2–9). Thus argument might be advanced in either direction.

Moreover, here in the Temple hostile eyes watched every movement of Jesus with the most vicious intent. For him to make advances to these Greek proselytes might involve him in great peril. So Philip consults Andrew, one of the three disciples that formed the inner circle of the Twelve, and together they tell Jesus.

John 12:23

23 We hear nothing further about the Greeks. John is faulted for this and for similar apparent omissions in his narrations, yet the fault lies with those who do not see that John is not telling the story of these Greeks but of Jesus. The important thing for us is to learn what Jesus testified at this moment. For little did Andrew and Philip imagine how this request of a few Gentile proselytes would affect Jesus. Both the omission of John in not telling us whether Jesus allowed these Greeks to confer with him, as well as the words which he spoke when their request was brought to him, have been urged as indicating that Jesus declined their request. Yet it is hard to see how this conclusion can be drawn.

It would not be like Jesus. We prefer to think that at an opportune moment Jesus allowed these Greeks to meet him. And Jesus answers them, The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. The following verses show that the answer to Andrew and Philip was given in the audience of “the multitude.” Repeatedly we have heard that “the hour” has not yet come, 7:6 and 30; 8:20, etc. Here Jesus now announces that it “has come,” ἐλήλυθε, the extensive perfect, a state that has arrived at completion (R. 992), like a vessel that is finally filled up. The Greeks often use ὥρα for “hour” in the wider sense, as when they speak of “the day and the hour,” the specific date and the appropriate time (Matt. 24:36).

So here. The actual day of Jesus’ death was not yet come, but “the hour” or time for his death had now arrived.

Yet, strange to say, Jesus calls this “the hour for the Son of man to be glorified.” In the one word δοξασθῇ he sums up everything—the passion as something glorious, the exaltation following, and the future adoration by the hosts of believers the world over and in heaven. Jesus was glorified by the obedience he rendered to the Father even unto the death of the cross, and in the redemption he thus achieved for the fallen world; he was glorified when the Father highly exalted him, giving him a name above every name and seating him at his right hand; he was and is glorified in the work of the Holy Spirit (“he shall glorify me,” 16:14) as it leads thousands to the feet of the Savior. Those who do not include the passion in the glorification should consider carefully 13:31, 32; 17:1. The glory begins with the passion—Jesus sees how from his passion and his death a magnificent vista opens, reaching onward through the ages into all eternity, and it is one shining path of glory. The passive verb ascribes the glorifying act to the Father. On the Messianic title “the Son of man,” which Jesus here again gives himself, see 1:51.

John 12:24

24 With solemn assurance Jesus depicts the inwardness of what this great “hour” brings. Amen, amen, I say to you (see 1:51), Unless a grain of wheat, having fallen into the earth, dies, itself remains alone; but if it dies it bears much fruit. The weight of this utterance is marked by the double seal of verity and the added seal of authority. To Nicodemus, the Jew, Jesus speaks of the serpent being lifted up in the wilderness; for these Greeks, to whom this word will presently be reported, he speaks of the grain of wheat, a symbol which is clear to Jew and to Gentile alike. With divine mastery Jesus pictures the glorification which is about to begin for him. The image chosen perfectly illustrates both the necessity of the cross and its resultant glory.

The tertium comparationis is fruit through dying—the former only through the latter. As in nature, so in Jesus. In every illustration we are confined to the tertium; whoever goes beyond this disturbs the sense. Here the tertium has nothing to do with the wheat germ, the sprouting, and the growing unto harvest. It uses only the death of the grain as a necessity for the following fruit.

If a grain of wheat be not put into the soil, it will, indeed, not die, but it will then “itself remain alone” and produce nothing. So will the Son of man remain alone if he does not stoop to death on the cross. But if the grain falls into the earth, dies, and is consumed, it brings much fruit. So the Son of man, God’s incarnate Son, by dying will produce millions of children of God, fruit in most glorious abundance. “The death of Christ was the death of the most fertile grain of wheat.” Augustine. In the petition of these Greeks Jesus sees the great harvest that will go on and on as the product of the great Grain of Wheat (himself) which fell in the earth. The present tenses in the apodosis are timeless, as often in maxims, R. 1019.

John 12:25

25 Jesus is like the grain of wheat which by dying produces much fruit, i.e., makes many thousands of children of God. Now these are all like Jesus as regards loving their life, they aim to achieve something higher, the ζωὴαἰώνιος. He that loves his life loses it; and he that hates his life in this world shall protect it. By ψυχή the Greeks understood the immaterial part of man in so far as it animates the physical body, while πνεῦμα is this same immaterial part in so far as it is able to receive impression from the Πνεῦμα of God. Thus ψυχή comes to mean “life.” On the difference between φιλεῖν, the love of mere affection, over against ἀγαπᾶν, the love of intelligence and purpose compare 3:16. He who clings to his earthly life with passionate attachment, Jesus says, by that very act of clinging to it with such love loses it.

It cannot be held thus and kept indefinitely; for him who is thus attached to his life, that life with all its happiness and its treasures, yea with its very form as counted so dear, slips away and disappears. “If you have loved ill, you have hated; if you have hated well, you have loved.” Augustine. The world is full of these blind lovers who love themselves to their undoing. Many will at last hate themselves bitterly for not having hated themselves properly in this life.

The first paradox is followed by a second. The effect of the two is heightened by making the second the direct reverse of the first. Not only this, but the positives and the negatives are placed chiastically:

This perfection of form makes the double paradox sink into the mind and stay there without effort. Here μισεῖν is used relatively, as in Luke 14:26 and Rom. 9:13, which is indicated also by the modification “in this world”; hence “he that hates his life in this world” = he who is ready to go contrary to his natural inclinations and desires in his life here on earth, to wound, grieve, deny, crucify, mortify self in repentance and in sanctification. He may look as though he is losing his life by getting nothing out of it, yet in reality he is the only one who is taking care of and protecting even his earthly life, for by thus treating his life he will protect it “unto life eternal.” The verb φυλάσσω means “to stand guard over” and thus “to protect”; note also αὑτήν, the ψυχή or natural life. The lover of his natural life “is losing it,” present tense, which leaves open the hope that he may see his folly before it is too late and may learn to hate his life as the other one does. Concerning the other one Jesus uses the future, “he shall protect it,” which counts on his doing so permanently, so that the heavenly life ever remains his. He shall thus get out of his natural life what God intends him to get (αὑτήν) and at the same time attain “the life eternal” with all its glory in the blessedness of heaven. Here the word used is ζωή, the very principle of life which joins to God, the source of this life, and, passing unharmed through physical death, lives forever with God; see the exposition in 3:15.

It is worth while to note that ὁκόσμοςοὗτος is not identical with ὁαἰὼνοὗτος The latter is the present “world eon or era” as distinguished from the one about to come, ὁαἰὼιμέλλων, the former being filled and characterized by passing temporalities, the latter being filled and characterized by the eternal treasures promised by Christ. “This world,” ὁκόσμοςοὗτος, is the world as a place, ein dinglicher Organismus (S. Goebel), and the context must decide whether sinfulness is included (as in 12:31, 16:11) or only remotely implied (as in 9:39, 11:9, 13:1, 18:36; 1 John 4:17). Although in the present passage some stress the sinfulness of “this world,” the context does not justify this view. Our natural life can be lived only in this orderly cosmos of God’s own creation.

Although the Christlikeness has been mentioned in v. 26 (brought out strongly in Heb. 12:1–3), the great difference between the divine Grain of Wheat, dying to give us life and us, “much fruit,” must be noted Only Jesus could do and did what he says in 10:18, only Jesus could by his dying produce the church of believing children of God All that we can do—and that only by his grace not of ourselves—is to use our earthly and natural life so as to gain for ourselves the life eternal. He alone is the Savior, we are nothing but the saved. He needed no salvation; we cannot save even our own selves

John 12:26

26 It may sound cryptic to say that by hating one’s life in this world one protects it for life eternal. Jesus explains in simple words just what this means. If me anyone serves, me let him follow. And where I myself am, there also my own slave shall be. If me anyone serves, honor him will the Father. This is not smooth English but it may serve to indicate the points of emphasis which are quite essential for the sense.

Not to love one’s life but to hate it in this world in the sense of Jesus, means to serve him not self as all worldly men do; ἐμοί, emphatic over against τὴνψυχὴναὑτοῦ. “Anyone” is both individual (for this serving is a highly personal matter) and universal (open to any and to all) The two conditions of expectancy (ἐάν with the subjunctive) vividly contemplate such future servants and their service. The present subjunctive speaks of continual service, a life devoted to this service. The verb διακονεῖν signifies voluntary service, service just for the sake of service, which one delights to render. He who would thus serve ME, “ME let him follow,” continue to follow! This is a sweet gospel command (10:4). To follow Jesus is to keep close to him, to walk in the path of his choosing (true obedience), to hear his voice and word (not relying on our own wisdom).

Service and following always go together; this injunction is thus most natural. Yet it has been said—only too truly—the Son of man has many admirers but few followers. Some even bid others follow but are themselves remiss in following.

“Let him follow me” is really the offer of a high privilege, for not Jesus but the follower derives all the benefit (6:68, 69). And the blessing thus intended is to continue forever: “And where I myself am, there also my own slave shall be.” He speaks as though this will be a delightful place indeed, 14:2, 3. To the unbelieving Jews he said the very opposite, “And where I am, you cannot come,” 7–34; “Whither I go, you cannot come,” 8:21. The fact that Jesus is speaking of a place to which he will presently go and where he will remain permanently, is indicated in the broad character of the promise, which, while it is again worded in the singular (“my own slave”) and thus is directly personal, is at the same time universal, including every servant of his. He refers to heaven, or, as he stated repeatedly to the Jews (7:33; 8:14), the heavenly presence of his Father. On the future sense of εἰμί see R. 869–870. “It is not merely prophecy, but certainty of expectation that is involved.” Both ἐγώ and the possessive adjective are strongly emphatic’ “where I myself go,” I, the Lord and divine Master, “there also my own slave shall be.” The two belong together.

Yet this is not an association like that of a common master and his servant; for we know that in heaven all such service will be ended. This is the association in which Jesus receives us to himself (14:3), where we share in his glory and honor and sit with him in his throne (Rev. 3:21). Where did earth ever show a master who treated his slaves thus? Think of our poor service here, even though it be διακονία, and this reward that is promised us’ The future ἔσται, “shall be,” is divine promise.

Nor is this all. For Jesus is the Son whom the Father sent on his great mission, the Son who will return in glory to his Father when that mission is carried out. Thus all who by this Son’s mission are joined to him are brought also to the Father (Heb. 2:10, “bringing many sons unto glory”). Therefore the addition” “If me anyone serves, honor him will my Father.” The protasis is the same as the preceding one and speaks of our service in this life; the apodosis is future and speaks of what shall be in heaven when we are there united with Jesus. The emphasis is on τιμήσει not on αὑτόν. This is the climax when the Father shall do no less than honor the servants of his Son. “It was something great when Joseph was honored by Pharaoh, the King of Egypt, and Mordicai by Ahasuerus, the Persian prince; but it is something immensely greater for the Blessed and Only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, to honor the servants of Jesus Christ.” Gerhard.

Perish the thought of any merit on our part! This reward is in accord only with the infinite greatness and magnanimity of him whose delight it is to bestow it. If the Father so honors the servants of his Son, how will he honor and glorify the Son himself after the service which this Son rendered!

John 12:27

27 In the request of the Greeks Jesus sees his own death standing before him. While he calls it a glorification of the Son of man, in particular as regards the glorious fruit that will result, nevertheless, this impending death stirs the soul of Jesus to its very depth. Now my soul has been troubled. And what shall I say? Father, deliver me out of this hour? But no—for this reason I came into this hour.

Jesus is not addressing the disciples and the bystanders. This is a monolog, uttered before a higher presence; yet uttered audibly for those at hand to hear. They are granted a glimpse into what transpires in the soul of Jesus. “Now” is defined in v. 23: “the hour has come.” “Now my soul has been troubled,” deeply stirred and agitated, reveals what Jesus feels in his human soul as the death shadow begins actually to envelop him. The perfect tense is intensive (R. 895), for the agitation that is now upon Jesus reaches back, although its present intensity leads him now to reveal it.

Not by any means coldly, indifferently, or without feeling is Jesus going into his death. He was perfectly aware of all that his death entailed. His was not to be a death like that of the Christian for whom the terrors of death have been removed by the cancellation of sin and guilt; nor like the death of the unbeliever who is blind or realizes only in part what awaits him. Jesus was to die with all the world’s sin and guilt upon him. The curse and damnation of that guilt was to strike him and to crush out his life. All the dreadfulness of this impending death was fully revealed to him he saw all that was awaiting him.

Moreover, he was going into his death voluntarily. No power compelled him save his own will, which was one with that of his Father. He was free even now to withdraw from that death. But since the hour has come, the act of sacrifice is about to begin, the frightfulness, the utter horror, the inconceivable dreadfulness of death came over the soul of Jesus. All that was human in him recoiled from the rending ordeal, just as our body, to use a weak comparison, shrinks from some painful contact and quivers when it begins yet submits and endures, no matter what the pain, held to the agony by the power of the will. The sinless, holy Jesus, God’s only-begotten Son, was to stoop beneath the damning guilt of the world and by his own death as a man to expiate that guilt.

Thus was his soul shaken in this hour.

We must read together as really forming only one question: “And what shall I say? (Shall I say:) Father, deliver me from this hour?” Jesus is speaking to his Father. The thought is: shall this be what he shall say to the Father, that the Father shall save him from this hour? The verb εἴπω is a deliberative aorist subjunctive, the proper form for a question in which one asks himself what he shall do. The aorist imperative σῶσον is used because the deliverance would be accomplished by one decisive act. Unfortunately, both of our versions read the second part of the question as a declaration: Jesus actually asking the Father to deliver him. The context not only forbids this sense but actually annuls it.

For the Greek ἀλλά negatives the idea of such a prayer: “But no—for this very reason I came into this hour.” Then follows the prayer that Jesus does make. R. 1187 tells us that ἀλλά “interrupts the thought,” in fact, it contradicts the very idea of such a prayer. As in Gethsemane, Jesus merely thinks of the possibilities obtaining in his case, namely that even now, though the hour has come, he might ask the Father to deliver him completely from it. In plain human fashion, true man that he was, he looked at that possibility, allowed us to hear his thoughts, and then at once dismissed them from his mind—he had come to suffer and he was resolved to suffer. The phrase διὰτοῦτο has no grammatical antecedent; it is construed ad sensum. For this very reason, namely to die for the world, Jesus “came” into this hour, the aorist ἦλθον to indicate a coming that has just occurred, R. 843. “Into” this hour is in contrast to the preceding “out of” (ἐκ) this hour, i.e., the one on which Jesus had just entered, R. 598.

For this hour is the one which is to crown all his previous life and work.

John 12:28

28 Instead of praying to be delivered, this is what Jesus prays in this great hour, Father, glorify thy name! The one, and in the highest sense the only, purpose of Jesus, now as ever, is the Father’s glory and will. Any thought apart from that, or merely omitting that, Jesus puts away; never for an instant does it find lodgment in his heart. The aorist imperative δόξασον is both decisive and complete regarding the act requested. And the ὄνομα is the revelation of the Father, the unveiling of himself in his will and his purpose. To glorify that “name” is to make it stand out before men in all its truth, grace, power, and other attributes; for the δόξα of the Father is the sum of the divine attributes or any portion of them, and the act of δοξάζειν their display.

The unveiling here referred to is the one that results from the passion and the exaltation of Jesus as our Redeemer. Jesus prays that the Father may help him carry his redemptive work to completion, thereby displaying his truth, love, righteousness, power, etc., to all the universe. So few the words, so immense the sense!

Instantaneously a miraculous response to this prayer came from the Father. There came, therefore, a voice out of heaven, I both have glorified and will again glorify it. We recall the voice heard at the time of the Baptism of Jesus and in connection with his Transfiguration. The Father speaks audibly from heaven. He himself supports and strengthens Jesus as he passes into this hour. The English must supply the object with at least an “it” (ὄνομα) The absence of the common circumstantial participle “saying” makes the narrative more dramatic.

The Greek may use his aorist ἐδόξασα, whereas we prefer the perfect, “I have glorified,” R. 845. The Father did glorify his name in and through Jesus through all his past life and work, for in the entire mission of Jesus as accomplished thus far the grace, power, and blessed purposes of the Father shone out with resplendent clearness. And he will do this also in the hour now begun through the passion and the resurrection of Jesus. Note how the Father combines the past and the future as though the former is to serve as the assurance for the latter.

John 12:29

29 The multitude, therefore, that was standing by and heard it were saying it had thundered; others were saying, An angel has spoken to him. This multitude is part of the pilgrim host that has come to attend the Passover. They heard the sound from heaven without distinguishing the words. Compare Acts 9:7, where Jesus from his throne of glory speaks to Saul on the road to Damascus, and where likewise only they understand for whom this address is intended, while the rest hear only a sound. The question of faith or of its lack should not be brought in as an explanation for understanding the words or for hearing only a sound—Saul certainly had no faith, yet he understood. The understanding was accomplished in those for whom the word was intended; yet in the case of the rest God wanted the impression of a supernatural manifestation connected with Jesus.

The astounding sound coming from heaven was called “thunder” by those who sought a natural explanation. Perhaps the sound resembled thunder to their ears. Others, nearer the truth, connect the sound with Jesus and imagine that an angel from heaven has spoken to him. The thunder hypothesis would be offered by the skeptics of today, who deem any but a natural explanation of supernatural phenomena “superstition.” Yet for the clear skies of Palestine thunder is a poor hypothesis, it is rather on the order of the new wine spoken of in Acts 2:13. The two perfect tenses are intensive (R. 908) and alike although the one is used in indirect discourse, “that thunder has occurred,” and the other in direct discourse, “An angel has spoken to him.” Intensive means that the effect of what has just been heard is present when these explanations are offered.

John 12:30

30 Jesus answered and said, Not for my sake has this voice come but for your sake. On ἀπεκρίθηκαὶεἶπεν compare 1:48. The former is used as a middle without a previous question and may meet only a situation or an occurrence, as here, where no dative “to them” follows. This word of Jesus is addressed only to his disciples, who, together with Jesus, had heard and understood the Father’s reply. Jesus himself needed no audible answer from the Father to any of his prayers; he knew that the Father always heard him. This miraculous reply was for the disciples, that they might hear directly and with their own ears both that the Father had, indeed, answered Jesus and what that answer was.

It was another attestation of the Father, of the clearest and the strongest kind, that Jesus was his well-beloved Son. This explanation Jesus gave with others standing by, who thus might also learn what really had taken place.

John 12:31

31 Since the voice from heaven spoke audibly in order that the disciples might hear, Jesus explains his own prayer and the Father’s answer. Now there is a judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world shall be thrown out. The two emphatic “now,” refer to the hour already begun, in which the Father will answer the prayer of Jesus by glorifying him. This hour is a judgment of this world, κρίσις without the article. An act of judgment will now take place upon “this world” (objective genitive), a κρίσις resulting in a κριμα or verdict. The fact that this will be adverse is not expressed in κρίσις but follows from the second statement.

On “this world” see v. 25 also 8:23. The cosmos as an ordered complex is referred to, in which men stand at the head with all else focusing upon them. It may appear as though by rejecting Jesus this world is pronouncing a verdict upon him, in reality, by doing this very thing a judgment descends upon the world itself—a terrible condemnation—it loses its right to exist. “By killing Jesus the world pronounced its own death sentence, lost its right to exist,” Zahn. The case of the world is like that of the Jews and their Temple in 2:19; by destroying him for whom the Temple stood they destroyed their Temple and themselves. Not that the world will at once end, but this hour decides that its enduring character has passed—it is vain, empty, transient, passeth away (1 John 2:17), it is doomed.

The second statement is parallel to the first; each illumines the other. Here is the same emphatic “now” for the hour already begun in which the Father glorifies Jesus. By bringing a judgment on this world this hour throws “the ruler of this world” out of his domain and dominion over the world. By inciting the world to kill Jesus the devil wrecked his own domain. Its right to existence has passed, his own rule and reign meets its doom. He who rules the world by using all the things of nature for his purposes which are hostile to God, inciting men against their God by all that the world contains, he is now himself dethroned, and all that is left to him is the shadow of power.

The future tense, “shall be thrown out,” is punctiliar. This is not a gradual pressing back of his control that runs its course through the centuries until the day of judgment but a sudden dethronement in the hour that is now at hand. The devil receives his doom in the death and the resurrection of Jesus. Compare the symbolic description in Rev. 20:1–3, and the exposition in the author’s little volume Saint John. Bound in the bottomless pit by the great Angel of the Covenant (Jesus), Satan “should deceive the nations no more” for the era of the thousand years, the great New Testament period. Not that the world is now wholly rid of the devil and goes on with him being completely removed.

The judgment on his kingdom (“this world”) is the judgment on his rule over this kingdom, the decree that throws him out. What remains to him is the hopeless attempt of an already dethroned ruler to maintain himself in a kingdom, the very existence of which is blasted forever.

John 12:32

32 In the hour now at hand the world and its ruler seemed to win, for Jesus was crucified and slain, his earthly work brought to a tragic end. But the very reverse was the fact. Over against the judgment of this world and the doom of its ruler Jesus sets the triumph of his mission And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto myself. This emphatic “I” is placed over against “this world” and “the ruler of this world.” Over against their fate as embodied in his glorification, Jesus places the triumph of his mission as summarized in his glorification now to take place in the hour that has come. While the clause, “if I be lifted up,” is conditional, it is the condition of certain expectancy, “if I be (or shall be) lifted up,” as, indeed, I shall. We must read no contingency or doubt into this clause, Jesus vividly imagines the lifting up as being accomplished (aorist). Some texts read ἄν, which is only the abbreviated ἐάν, R. 190, 1018

In contrast with Satan, who shall be thrown ἔξω, Jesus says of himself that he shall be lifted ἐκτῆςγῆς, the preposition denoting separation, R. 597. Both ἔξω and ἐκ refer to “this world” The difference lies in the verbs Satan is thrown out “outside,” Jesus is lifted up “out of” The connection of Satan with this world is shattered, that of Jesus is only modified That is why Jesus with reference to himself here employs ἐκτῆςγῆς, “out of the earth,” which implies “into heaven” and the corresponding higher form of existence, whereas “out of this world” would here be misleading because of the preceding reference to Satan Jesus is speaking of the transfer of his body and human nature to the right hand of God’s power The days of his humiliation will cease, the eternity of his glorification will begin While this refers to his human nature, it does not mean that Jesus will no longer be present with his disciples according to his human nature. The entire God-man, divine and human, will be wit them to the end of the world, and where two or three are gathered together in his name, he will be in their midst. Yet not as now, walking visibly on earth and in humble form, but with the glory of transcendent power and in the manner of his eternal exaltation. Just as what now is about to occur on Calvary and in Joseph’s tomb is the doom of this world and the dethronement of its ruler, so it will for Jesus constitute his enthronement in heaven forever.

Hence the conclusion, “And I … will draw all unto myself.” This is the same drawing as that mentioned in 6:44 (compare 6:37), there predicated of the Father, here of Jesus; for the opera ad extra sunt indivisa and are thus predicated of all the persons, now of one, now of another, and never of one to the exclusion of the others. This is the drawing exerted by grace through the means of grace (Word and Sacrament), alike in effectiveness and seriousness for all men, not in any way limited on God’s part. Yet here, as in 6:37; 6:44; 10:16; 11:52, and other connections, Jesus is speaking of this universal and unlimited grace only in so far as it succeeds in actually drawing men from the world to himself. All are alike drawn, but by their perverse obduracy many nullify all the power of grace and harden themselves in unbelief (Matt. 23:37), while others, in equal sin and guilt, are converted by this same power of grace. Why some are thus lost and others won, all being under the same grace, constitutes a mystery insoluble by our minds, about which we know only this, that those who are lost are lost solely by their own guilt, while those who are won are won solely by divine grace.

Jesus is speaking only of the latter when he says, “I will draw all unto me.” These πάντες are all “his servants,” of whom he says in v. 26 that he wants them to be with him in heaven. They constitute the “much fruit” of v. 24. They form the “one flock” of 10:16, “the children of God” now scattered abroad (11:52) through all the world in all ages. To the eyes of Jesus, though they are yet unborn, they are all present. Jesus will see to it that all of them shall come to him (6:37), and that not one of them shall be lost (6:39). The volitive future ἑλκύσω is simply futuristic (R. 889) and tells how Jesus will draw them “unto myself” in the glory of heaven. Thus will all the glorious fruit of his redemptive mission be garnered at last.

John 12:33

33 At this point John adds the explanation which helps us to see fully what Jesus had in mind. Now this he was saying, signifying by what manner of death he would die. The imperfect ἕλεγε bids us dwell on what Jesus “was saying.” The moment we observe that σημαίνων refers to Jesus and not to John we are relieved of the idea that John is giving us his interpretation of what Jesus said. It is Jesus who, by using the verb ὑψωθῶ, “signifies” or plainly indicates the manner of his death, namely crucifixion. This, then, is not “a mystical interpretation” by John “after the manner of his time” and “without effect on the historical sense” of what Jesus really said, nor is this an ambiguity involved in the word “be lifted up.” Jesus purposely chooses this word as he used it in 3:14, and in 8:28 (where the Jews are designated as those that will lift up Jesus), because it is a pregnant term which is capable of expressing both his return from earth to heaven and the manner of death by which this return would be effected These two are really not two but a unit For not merely by returning to heaven will Jesus become the Savior who draws us to heaven after him, but by returning to heaven through the death on the cross as the sacrifice for our sins. The participle “signifying” thus means “prophesying”, wherefore also in 18:32 the fulfillment of this very prophecy is noted. Instead of John’s inserting his own thought into what Jesus says, John is recording just what Jesus himself had in mind and said.

John 12:34

34 The multitude, therefore, answered him, We for our part did hear out of the law that the Christ remains forever; and how art thou for thy part saying, The Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man? The crowd of pilgrims surrounding Jesus and intent on what he says in answer to the request of the Greeks is puzzled. Note the emphatic contrast in ἡμεῖς and σύ: “we” on our part, “thou” on thine. They state what they did hear and thus learn “out of the law,” the Old Testament Scriptures. It is “that the Christ remains forever,” i.e., that, when the Messiah comes, he will establish an earthly kingdom in which he will rule eternally, remaining right here as the King.

But Jesus seems to have an entirely different idea. “And how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up?” i.e., transferred from earth to heaven. The contrast lies in both the predicates: “remain forever” here—“be lifted up” away from here; and in the subjects: “the Christ,” the title common among the Jews, and “the Son of man,” this strange title employed by Jesus (v. 23) to designate himself. While Jesus had not used δεῖ, “must” be lifted up, this addition by the spokesman of the multitude is not out of line with Jesus’ words. On εἰςτὸναἰῶνα see 8:35 and 14:16.

The entire difficulty is brought to a point in the question, “Who is this Son of man?” Since τίς here = ποῖος, R. 735, and “the Son of man” may be predicative to οὗτος, we may translate, “What kind is this person—the Son of man?” Can Jesus by this strange title be referring to himself as the Christ (so it would seem) and yet be predicating of himself something that is quite contrary to what these Jews find in the Scriptures? The pilgrims who put this question to Jesus are not hostile to him as were the Sanhedrists. In fact, they are not adverse to accepting Jesus as “the Christ” if he will live up to what they expect “the Christ” to be. However, they have no understanding for the Christ who is “the Son of man” about to leave the earth and to ascend to his Father.

John 12:35

35 It is useless for Jesus to attempt a direct answer to these people After all that he has said and done they cling to their self-made opinions Jesus, therefore, said unto them, Yet for a little time the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, in order that darkness may not befall you. And he that walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. While you have the light, believe on the light, in order that you may be sons of light. Jesus “said” this to them in the strict sense of the word it was not a reply to their specific question. In a way this is a reply the one they needed not the one for which they asked How can Jesus say that he must be lifted up, he the Son of man?

The answer is: Believe on the light, and you will know—and unless you believe, how can you ever know, remaining as you do in darkness? Faith alone is able to settle all questions, remove all doubts, for faith is like coming out into the light where one can see, while unbelief is like remaining in the darkness, wondering and questioning about things that are in the light and which cannot be understood without going and seeing them in the light.

“Yet for a little time (accusative of extent of time) is the light with you,” as Bengel says, is quite the opposite of the conception which these pilgrims have, who think that the Christ will rule as an earthly king forever. Their delusion prevented them not only from understanding what Jesus said about his death but also from perceiving the passing of the day of grace which had come for them in the earthly life and work of Jesus. Jesus is speaking of himself as “the light” (1:9; 8:12; 12:46). Light is associated with truth, the revelation of divine and spiritual reality. Jesus here speaks of himself as the embodiment of saving truth and its revelation to men. This is far more than the expression of moral perfection, serving either as a mirror to reveal the sinfulness of men or as an example that men are to imitate.

As the light Jesus is the source of salvation for sinful men; men must receive him as the light in their hearts by faith and thus be changed inwardly to become “sons of light.” The phrase ἐνὑμῖν is substantially the same as μετʼ ὑμῶν in 7:33, “in your midst” or “with you.” Only a few days and the visible presence of Jesus would be removed. The “little time” may be extended to include the preaching of the apostles on and after the day of Pentecost, but even then the time would be brief.

In 7:33 and 8:21, etc., Jesus sounds a similar warning to the Jewish leaders, foretelling their judgment and damnation. Here, in addressing this crowd of festive pilgrims, his words are milder, full of warning, indeed, but combined with earnest admonition. “Walk while you have the light.” The image refers to one who seeks to reach a goal, say a traveler far from home. The imperative is absolute, “Be walking!” do not dally, use the light while the way may be seen. Since a temporal modifier precedes, namely “a little time,” we must here and in v. 36 regard ὡς as temporal, “while you have the light,” not as qualitative, “as the light requires that you walk.” To have the light means to have its radiance shining over us and lighting the way for us.

This call and admonition is re-enforced by the warning, “in order that darkness may not befall you.” “Darkness,” or “the darkness,” as the opposite of Christ, the light, is not merely the absence of light (merely negative) but always like an evil power (positive). Hence καταλαμβάνειν, used with reference to darkness in this sense, means to seize upon you, lay hold on, befall you like a monster that destroys.

Instead of continuing the clause with ἵναμή, “lest darkness befall you, and you know not where you go,” the latter warning is made an independent sentence, “and he that walks in the darkness knows not where he is going.” This makes the statement axiomatic, hence the present tenses. This man is lost. It is the tragedy of the darkness. “But who believes that it is such a serious thing of which Christ here speaks? How little is the light esteemed, and people imagine they can get it at any time when they want it, even if now they do not take it. But Christ says: No! if you despise it, the darkness will overtake you.” Luther. Too late, too late to reach the goal when the darkness descends. “He that walketh in the darkness,” ὁπεριπατῶνἐντῇσκοτίᾳ, a true description of the Wandering Jew, of the orthodox as well as of the Reformed Jew, and of thousands who, like them, have rejected Christ, the light. “Knows not where he is going” (ποῦ used like our “where” for “whither”) points out the lost man’s subjective condition.

He may imagine and talk a great deal; but he does not know. He is like a man in the desert without a path, without a guide, without a goal, without one star of hope above him, yea, without eyes and power to see; 1 John 2:11, “and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.” Jesus knows whither such men go, 8:21; whither he is going they cannot come, 8:14.

John 12:36

36 The admonition is repeated and thus intesified. The figurative “walk” is explained by the literal “believe.” The arrangement is chiastic:

Walk——while you have the light!

While you have the light——believe!

Man’s own activity is not implied in the figurative term “walk” and is not to be ascribed to the literal term “believe.” This is contrary to the Scripture doctrine of faith. “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ my Lord, or come to him.” Luther. Whenever Jesus or the Scriptures bid us believe, the very words by which they do this contain the power that works faith and actively direct upon us the divine effort to produce faith. This is the case here as Jesus calls on these Jewish pilgrims to believe. The fact that they and others like them may successfully resist this faith-producing power of the light, namely of Jesus and of his Word and Spirit, so that no faith is kindled in their hearts, in no way proves that such power is not present and active.

The ἵνα clause in v. 36 is the opposite of the ἵναμή clause in v. 35. “In order that you may be sons of light,” matches the thought contained in the verb “believe.” The implication is that those who are lost in the darkness are the sons of darkness. In each case the light or the darkness is not something external, only surrounding the person, but something internal that forms the very nature of that person. Never is Jesus called “a son of light,” always he himself is “the light.” The term “sons” denotes derivation. “For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord,” Eph. 5:8. Even when we are called “the light of the world,” Matt. 5:14, this derivation holds good, Luke 16:8; John 8:12; 2 Cor. 4:6. We may translate γένησθε either “be” or “become” sons of light. The point to hold to is that no gradual process is involved in this aorist, for the moment we believe we are no longer darkness, the first reception of “the light” makes us “sons of light.”

The Conclusion of the First Half of John’s Gospel. Summary, 37–50

In the first paragraph of this conclusion John himself sums up the results of the public ministry of Jesus. In the second paragraph the attestation made by Jesus throughout his public ministry is summarized in a compact selection from his teachings.

John 12:37

37 These things Jesus said and went away and hid himself from them. The entire paragraph shows that this statement refers not merely to the scene in the Temple just described but to the entire public ministry. “These things Jesus said” summarizes all his past teaching among the Jews. Properly we have ἐλάλησεν, for from now on Jesus remained silent and no more taught in public. He was through teaching publicly. Robinson’s Harmony of the Gospels fixes this day as the Tuesday after Palm Sunday. “And having withdrawn, he hid himself from them,” means, having withdrawn from the Temple and public places, he placed himself where the public could not find him. Not that Jesus went into hiding; he simply retired from further public appearances. He most likely went to quiet Bethany and remained in the circle of his friends in the village until two days later Judas betrayed him.

As the sun sets quietly after a glorious day, taking all its brightness and radiance with it, so Jesus withdrew from his public work. His action was the beginning of judgment upon the unbelieving nation. It was symbolic of his final and eternal separation from these unbelieving Jews.

Yet though he had done so many signs before them, they were not believing in him. This is the echo of 1:11, “His own received him not.” Now all has been done, and this is, indeed, the sad, sad outcome. This is not recorded, however, as though Jesus had failed—he cannot fail; nor as though this outcome of his labors were a perplexing, disappointing, unexpected thing—quite the contrary. It was all positively and fully foretold; it was the will of God himself (this will, of course, rightly understood); it was all fully taken into account by God from the very beginning. The genitive absolute is concessive: “though,” etc., R. 1129. The imperfect ἐπίστευον expresses the course of action on the part of the Jews, the course now in progress.

The number of the “signs” is emphasized because their number had a cumulative effect. These “signs” as signs should also have been enough to elicit faith; for each one of them, to say nothing of all of them taken together, indicated and revealed so much. On the term “sign” consult 2:11. These “signs” were placed ἔμπροσθεναὑτῶν, a veritable demonstratio ad oculos, before the very faces of all to see and to take to heart. Although John records only six of these signs in his own Gospel, he counts on his readers knowing those recorded by the other evangelists, to which also he himself refers incidentally in 7:31; 9:16; 11:47.

John 12:38

38 The Jews remained without faith, in order that the word of Isaiah, the prophet, might be fulfilled, which he spoke,

Lord, who did believe our report?

And the arm of the Lord, to whom was it revealed?

On the critical question whether Isaiah wrote the second half of the book which bears his name (chapters 40–66) consult Jesaias II, by Aug. Pieper, Einleitung. The overwhelming evidence for Isaiah’s authorship of the entire book cannot be brushed aside by the remark, which begs the question, that “evidently John did not know any better.” The two poetic lines quoted from Isa. 53:1, follow the LXX translation, which adds to the Hebrew the word of address, “Lord.” It should be self-evident that John is not putting the prophet’s words into the mouth of Jesus; v. 38 and 41 present Isaiah as the speaker.

The great Ebed Yahweh, the Servant of Jehovah, the Messiah, is presented in Isa. 52:13–15 as with his deep humiliation and with his lofty exaltation he will affect the Gentiles, who shall see what they have never been told and will consider what they have never heard. Over against these Gentiles, to whom the gospel story of the Messiah comes as something entirely new, Isaiah places Judah, the chosen people, who have for a long time had the fullest information concerning this Servant of Jehovah from Jehovah himself through his prophets. Even in his fifty-third chapter Isaiah pictures at length and in detail the coming Messiah, his passion and his death and his glorious exaltation. But as the prophet looks forward to the day of fulfillment, he exclaims: “Who did believe our report? And the arm of the Lord, to whom was it revealed?” The implied answer is negative, i.e., as far as the mass of the chosen nation is concerned. This prophecy of Isaiah’s, John writes, is now fulfilled as Jesus closes his public ministry.

“Our report,” ἀκοὴἡμῶν, is generally understood to mean: the hearing which we, the chosen people, have had (objective). The sense of the question then is: “Who did believe the message that has come to us all along about the coming Messiah?” The advantage of this interpretation is the fact that the “we,” running through v. 1–6, is throughout: we, God’s people. Only those who deny that the Servant of Jehovah is the Messiah, and let this Servant signify Israel as a nation, say that “we” still refers to the Gentiles mentioned in 52:15. The other view regards “our report” as meaning: the hearing which we, the prophets of God, have given to the chosen people (subjective). This has “we” in v. 1 denote the prophets and “we” in v. 2–6 the chosen people together with the prophets. If it is objected that such a change in subjects is unlikely, the answer is that throughout this section Isaiah speaks dramatically and keeps changing the speakers; in 52:13–15, it is the Lord (“my servant”), in 53:1, the prophets, in 53:2–6, the people, and in 7–9 the Lord.

It seems most natural to take “our report” subjectively; the message which we prophets let the chosen people hear. In substance little difference is offered by the other view. But when v. 1–6 are regarded as the utterance of repentant Israel, confessing that it once failed to understand and perceive, this should not be referred to the entire nation, as those do who hold to a final national conversion of the Jews, but only to the repentant part of the nation which comes to faith throughout the centuries.

So Isaiah utters the plaint that the message which he and the prophets brought to Israel about the coming Messiah was not believed: “Who ἐπίστευσεν (aorist) actually believed it?” The implication is: hardly anyone, speaking of the nation in general. And this, John means to say, was actually fulfilled when the Messiah came, and when his work was about completed. Parallel with “our report,” or the prophetic message from the Lord, is “the arm of the Lord,” his almighty power, evidenced most completely in the signs (v. 37) wrought by Jesus. The Jews saw these signs but with their unbelieving eyes refused to see that Jehovah’s arm was revealed in them, that they were divine works and nothing less. Neither the divine testimony of the prophets including Jesus himself, nor the divine testimony of the signs wrought faith in the hearts of the Jews.

This happened, John writes, “in order that the word of Isaiah, the prophet, might be fulfilled,” that the event might fill up completely the word of prophecy spoken long before at the order of Jehovah. In other words, it was God’s own intent that the Jews should not believe. The case is stated more strongly still.

John 12:39

39 On this account they could not believe, that Isaiah said again:

He has blinded their eyes and did harden their heart;

Lest they should see with their eyes and perceive with their heart

And should turn, and I should heal them.

The ὅτι clause is appositional to τοῦτο, R. 699: on this account … that (not “for” or “because”). Here John says not only that it was God’s intention that the Jews should not believe in Jesus but that they could not believe because their unbelief had been foretold. It was impossible for them to believe because of the prophecy spoken by Isaiah.

John 12:40

40 Isaiah 6:9, 10 reads in the Hebrew: “And he (Jehovah) said, Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not, and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and convert, and be healed.” The LXX translates ad sensum with two prophetic future tenses, followed by three aorists (which may also be considered prophetic). When appropriating this prophecy John very properly reproduces neither the imperatives of the Hebrew, which were addressed to Isaiah, nor the modifications of the LXX, but uses two past tenses, since the ancient prophecy is now completely fulfilled at the close of Jesus’ ministry. The perfect, “has blinded,” and the aorist, “did harden,” merely view the past actions in two ways, both of which are pertinent. The three aorist subjunctives after ἵναμή are effective, “lest they actually see,” etc.; and the passive στραφῶσι is reflexive “turn themselves,” i.e., because of what they see and perceive. The fourth verb is a future indicative, ἰάσομαι, appropriated, it seems, from the LXX and, of course, entirely allowable in the Koine, B.-D. 369, 2, and R. 194.

The point John stresses is that God himself blinded and hardened the Jews. When at the end he writes: lest “I should heal them,” changing to the first person, we decline to have this mean: “I, Isaiah,” by my preaching: but “I, Jehovah,” since the Hebrew has the passive: lest “they be healed,” in which Jehovah is the agent.

The problem thus presented is how God himself could intend that the Jews should not believe in Jesus, and, apparently still worse, how God himself by blinding and hardening the Jews could make it impossible for them to believe. This should not be evaded, nor should its solution be made easier by in some way modifying either the words of Isaiah or their reproduction by John. We have the identical problem in Matt. 13:14, where Jesus says why he speaks in parables and where he himself quotes the Isaiah prophecy from the LXX; in Acts 28:26, 27, where Paul warns the Jews in Rome; and at full length in Romans chapters 9–11. The question raised is: What caused the unbelief of the Jews? The answer is: God. The question is by no means: In what respect is this unbelief not a reason against but a reason for the Messiahship of Jesus? a question nowhere raised or answered by John. The classic example for the problem here presented is Pharaoh (Exod. 9:16; Rom. 9:17): “In very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, to show in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.” On Pharaoh see Concordia Triglotta, 1091, 84–86.

It would be contrary to the entire Scriptures to assume an arbitrary, deterministic will of God, commanding the prophet to declare the unbelief of the Jews and then, in order to make good the prediction, himself to cause this unbelief in the hearts of the people concerned. The observation is correct that any decree of reprobation is completely shut out by Jesus’ own last call to the pilgrim crowd in the Temple, “Believe on the light, that you may be sons of light.” “And this call of God, which is made through the preaching of the Word, we should not regard as jugglery (Spiegelfechten—literally: fencing before a mirror, sham fencing), but know that thereby God reveals his will, that in those whom he thus calls he will work through the Word, that they may be enlightened, converted, and saved.” Concordia Triglotta., 1073, 29. The answer to the problem is that in Isaiah’s and in John’s words we have not the antecedent but the subsequent will of God. This is not a blinding and heardening decreed in advance by an absolute will, forcing damnation upon men; but a judicial and punitive decree upon those whose obduracy God infallibly foresees. They who wilfully and wickedly turn the gospel, which on God’s part is meant for them as a savor of life unto life, into a savor of death unto death (2 Cor. 2:16), shall, indeed, go to their doom. The announcement of their fate in advance by prophecy is due to the foreknowledge of God, which declares that they who will not believe and be saved shall not believe and find salvation.

John 12:41

41 These things said Isaiah because he saw his glory and he spoke concerning him. Some texts have: “when” he saw, etc. “These things” are the ones contained in the two quotations from Isaiah. The prophet uttered them, not as applying only to the nation at his own time, but as applying equally to the Jews of the time of Jesus. Isaiah “saw his glory.” “I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.… Mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts,” Isa. 6, 1–5, preceding by a little the last quotation. This is the glory of the exalted Son after his return to the Father, the glory referred to in v. 28. Isaiah beheld it before the Incarnation, John after; Isaiah beheld it in a heavenly vision, John beheld it in the words and the deeds of Jesus, in the person and the character of the God-man on earth: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth,” 1:14.

And Isaiah knew that this glorious Son would in the fulness of time appear on earth, to be rejected by the Jews, even as they rejected the Lord in Isaiah’s own time (compare Isa. 53). It is thus that the prophet “spoke concerning him,” namely Jesus.

John 12:42

42 Nevertheless, even of the rulers many did believe in him; but because of the Pharisees they were making no confession, in order that they might not be persons banned; for they loved the glory of men rather than the glory of God. Only once in the New Testament have we the combination ὅμωςμέντοι, “nevertheless.” It comes as a surprise to read that “many of the rulers” or Sanhedrists actually believed in Jesus (aorist to express the fact as such). Here is strong evidence of the mighty effect of the person and the work of Jesus. Yet this faith was too weak to confess itself: “they were not confessing,” the imperfect tense to indicate the course of conduct. Yet, since this is an open tense, it implies nothing as to the eventual outcome, whether in the end after all at least some, like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, did, or did not confess. These two at least did.

The powerful sect of the Pharisees, strongly represented also in the Sanhedrin, and numerous and otherwise dominating, sealed the lips of these believing rulers. Their weapon was the cherem or ban (on which see 9:22), which they had decreed for every confessor of Jesus.

John 12:43

43 How this operated in the hearts of the believing rulers John states with an explanatory γάρ. He uses ἀγαπᾶν in saying that they “loved” the glory of men rather than the glory of God. They have had many followers. Of the two between which they had a choice they gave preference to the former. The two genitives are subjective: the δόξα which men give and that which God gives. Perhaps, in using δόξα instead of “honor” or “praise,” John here had in mind the prayer of Jesus and its answer from God in v. 28. It is idle, of course, to speculate hypothetically: What if these rulers had promptly confessed? Would this have blocked the crucifixion of Jesus? Many tragedies are precipitated by the cowardly weakness of those who are silent in the hour in which they should speak.

John 12:44

44 John might have closed the first half of his Gospel with v. 43. He adds another paragraph in which he combines previous utterances of Jesus and fashions them into a brief summary of Jesus’ call and testimony to his nation. This constitutes an impressive declaration on the supreme importance of faith and on the fatal error and doom of unbelief. And Jesus cried and said—no note of either time or place; no indication of persons addressed, either friends or foes. Verse 36 shuts out the supposition that Jesus spoke what follows when he was in the act of leaving the Temple. “Cried and said” denotes public speaking, which removes the supposition that these words were spoken to the Twelve in explanation of the unbelief of the Jews. Bengel is right in his Gnomon: it is the evangelist who here sums up from all the utterances of Jesus the essentials of his testimony to the Jews.

This is the call he had issued to them, this is what he said, and this is what they definitely refused to believe. The two aorists are merely historical, stating the past fact as such.

He that believes in me does not believe in me but in him that did send me. And he that beholds me beholds him that did send me. While these statements are not elsewhere found verbatim, they are closely akin to 7:16, etc., and 8:42; compare also 14:9. “He that believes on me” at once strikes the keynote—everything depends on believing. For this Jesus lived and labored, taught and wrought. The matter is personal, hence the singular. Believing means to receive in confidence and trust.

We may analyze faith as knowledge, assent, and confidence (fiducia), but the confidence is the real essential to which the other two are aids. The present participle is qualitative with no note of time, save that the quality is considered as enduring. The object of true faith is “me”—Jesus in his person, mission, word, and work, all these combined. He is such as to deserve and call forth from our hearts the very highest measure of confidence. The only natural and proper thing is to respond with such confidence; to refuse it is unreasonable, wrong, wicked. As in ordinary life, when a man is revealed to us fully as being good, true, great, strong, kind, loving, and as extending his help to us, all that he is calls forth our confidence and we yield it, yield it because he produces it; so also in the case of Jesus, but as his person, word, and work show, on a far higher plane.

He “believes not in me,” of course, means: “not in me alone,” as though I stand alone or have come of myself. Hence the addition: “but in him that did send me.” Throughout John’s Gospel, throughout Jesus’ testimony and his signs we hear this word about “him that did send me,” Jesus’ great Sender. Him the Jews should have known and trusted because of his mighty revelation in the Old Testament. They claimed that they knew him, but when his own Son and Messenger came to them, they did not recognize or trust him. The reason was that they never knew this Sender and would not let Jesus acquaint them with that Sender. But this great Sender is the ultimate basis of our faith in Jesus.

Behind Jesus stands God himself; and he who sees that at once sees that Jesus is more than man, is God’s own eternal Son in the form of man. Thus he was sent, and this is what believing in him really means—trust in God and in the Son he sent. For this sending is the culmination and complete fulfillment of all God’s saving promises. There is no possible higher cause to awaken trust in us miserable sinners, whose only help is in this Sender and in the Son he sent. The aorist πέμψαντα designates the great historic act: “he did send.”

John 12:45

45 This second statement emphasizes the first, yet it also deepens the sense. Again we have the qualitative participle, but now it brings out a new shade of thought. “To behold” Jesus is to see and perceive who he really is. It is faith alone that beholds, in fact, beholding is faith. No need to add: he “does not behold me” only (as if I could ever be alone by myself, 8:16 and 29). At once Jesus adds, “he beholds him that did send me.” These two in whom we trust, one of whom we see, are not far apart, so that from the one we must draw conclusions as to the other, conclusions that are, perhaps, doubtful on this very account. Between the prophets of God and the God who sent them a wide gap appears, which is bridged by the word they brought; between Jesus and his Sender there is no gap—in the one you see the other, for the Son is the express image of the Father, Heb. 1:3.

All that the Father thinks is fully revealed in Jesus. More than this, the Father and the Son are one in essence and so in will and in work. No division and separation is possible between them. To see the Son is thus in full reality to see the Father who did send him, 8:19; 14:9; also 5:19 and 30.

John 12:46

46 I have come as a light for the world in order that everyone that believes in me may not remain in the darkness, 8:12; 9:5; 12:35, etc. The perfect “have come” includes, and thus am now here. So he stood before the Jews in all his glorious ministry and now stands before us in the Word. Jesus is, of course, “the Light,” besides whom there is none other; he is the Truth itself, the very embodiment of all the saving realities of God for us. But in another sense Jesus is not the only Light that God has sent. In all the prophets of God a bright light shone.

In so far as they testified of Jesus he was the Light that shone in and through them, yet in so far as they were bearers of God’s light they, too, may be called lights. The phrase εἰςτὸνκόσμον, if construed with the verb, would be rather too emphatic since it precedes the verb. It seems to modify φῶς: “a light for the world,” intended for it. The world is assumed to be in total darkness spiritually; it is like chaos before the first day when God called light into existence. This is the darkness of sin and of death. The Light comes to drive away this darkness; this is its great mission and work.

Again we see that the matter is personal because it centers in each individual: “in order that everyone that believes in me,” etc. Again faith is the decisive thing, for faith receives the Light and thus escapes the darkness. Yet note the universality in both the term “the world” and in “everyone that believes” (the present participle as in v. 44 and 45). This term “everyone” is like a blank space into which every believer is entitled to write his own name, or—Jesus himself by his Word writes it there for him. The purpose of the coming of the Light is that the believer “may not remain in the darkness.” This darkness (note the definite article) is not merely the absence of light but the evil power of ignorance, error, falsehood, and deadly deception. “To remain in the darkness” is to lie helpless under this deadly power. “Not to remain” (note the aorist) is to be definitely delivered from this power. To accomplish this two acts are necessary: Jesus, the Light, must come, and this Light must enter the heart and fill it with faith.

Thus the deliverance is effected. In this contrast and opposition of “Light” and “the darkness” lies the most effective appeal. How every soul should delight to escape out of this darkness and to live henceforth in the Light! What a monstrous thing that men, made for the Light, should love the darkness rather than the Light (3:20, 21) and deliberately remain in the cold, killing, devil darkness!

John 12:47

47 First faith, then unbelief. And if anyone shall hear my sayings and shall not guard them, I for my part do not judge him; for I did not come in order to judge the world but in order to save the world. Compare 3:17 and 8:15. “If anyone shall hear my sayings” implies that Jesus will say or have them said to the man in question. Always he and his Word come to the sinner. In ῥήματα the idea is spoken and audible utterance. Jesus makes his utterances sound in the sinner’s ears and consciousness.

The plural indicates many such utterances. The underlying thought is that the gospel is to be proclaimed and taught. “And shall not guard them” means disbelief. Instead of valuing the gift and treasure offered him, this man treats it as worthless and throws it aside as something he does not want. To him the gold of Jesus’ “sayings” is counterfeit coin. He does not hold tightly to it and see that it does not slip away from him or is snatched or lured from him. The two aorist subjunctives denote actual hearing and actual refusal to guard.

The condition of expectancy (ἐάν with the subjunctive) expects such cases to occur.

“I for my part do not judge him.” The emphatic ἐγώ implies that another will attend to this. But Jesus is speaking of himself as at the time being engaged in his mission (“he that did send me,” v. 44, 45). So the reason why he on his part is not judging is that he did not come into the world for this purpose. The world did not need judgment (Rom. 5:16), it already had that; it needed saving with all that lies in this mighty concept σώζειν—compare 3:17—especially the idea of rescue from mortal danger and of being placed in permanent safety. Here again the universal, antecedent, good and gracious will of God for the whole world of men is pointedly stated. The difference between the two tenses is this: not to engage in judging—but to accomplish the saving of the world.

John 12:48

48 But what about such a man and his judgment? He that rejects me and receives not my sayings has one that judges him. The word that I did utter, that will judge him at the last day. The double subject: “he that rejects me and receives not my sayings” is an exact definition: Jesus is rejected, cast aside as worthless, when his sayings are not received or appropriated with all that they convey. The two present participles are qualitative; they are like the two used as subjects in v. 44 and 45. This man does not need to attack Jesus or rage against his sayings; simply not to receive them is fatal and insures his judgment.

He “has one that judges him,” has him now, at this moment sitting on the bench in the great tribunal in his judicial robes with all the court officers in place. In τὸνκρίνοντα we have another qualitative present participle: “one engaged in judging”; while τὸνπέμψαντα, aorist, in v. 44, 45 makes the single past act of sending the qualitative designation. See what Jesus here says: whoever hears his Word has that Word either as his savior or as his judge. Once you hear that Word, you cannot escape. Many think they can but they are wholly mistaken.

“The word that I did utter, this shall judge him at the last day.” The WORD is the judge of every disbeliever. Jesus does not say “my sayings” shall be his judges. He summarizes the ῥήματα with ὁλόγος. Though “he did utter” them, and they were thus “sayings” (the two expressions corresponding to each other), they are not a mere sound heard, gone, forgotten, like the utterances of men, but a grand unit of eternal substance and reality. “The Word” as the majestic expression of the eternal will of Jesus shall be the disbeliever’s judge. This Word which Jesus spoke the disbeliever heard from the lips and through the voice of Jesus. It will thus be a mighty familiar judge whom the disbeliever confronts at the last day.

If there is any surprise, it will be his at meeting again this Word that he spurned in life. It decides his fate now (“one that is engaged in judging him”), although that fate may yet be changed while life lasts; but when life is done, the final verdict is reached, which will be proclaimed in public at the last day before the universe of angels and of men. What a warning against disbelief! Jesus here combines himself with his sayings or Word. Hence no discrepancy exists between the statement that Jesus will be the judge at the last day and this one which says his Word will be the judge. As the Word now comes from Jesus’ lips, as he is in it and comes to us through it, so this Word will then come from his lips, and he will be in it and act through it.

In the Word we deal throughout with Jesus.

John 12:49

49 For I on my part made utterance not out of myself, but the Father that sent me, he himself has given me direction what I shall say and what I shall utter. Does anyone need to know why the Word of Jesus is so mighty as to reject all its rejecters at the last day? Jesus did not think it out and utter it of himself as his own invention and thus apart from God, as men do with their wisdom and their notions. The Word comes from Jesus’ Sender whom he now names: “the Father,” the First Person of the Godhead. “He himself,” no less a person, “has given” this Word to Jesus when he came from heaven on his mission; and the perfect tense denotes a giving that accompanied the entire life and work of Jesus. As in all instances in which Jesus says that something is “given” to him this giving refers to his human nature. The entire ministry and work of Jesus was thus under the Father’s direction.

The Father gave, the Son in human flesh, in the state of his humiliation, took from the Father and gave to us. This applies to the miracles as well, 5:19, etc.; 11:41–43. In this sense we must translate ἐντολήν, “direction” and not “commandment” in the legal or Mosaic sense but in the gospel sense of good and gracious behests for our salvation, even as Jesus now also gives us ἐντολαί, 13:34. For this reason also the whole work of Jesus is an obedience to the Father, the Son carrying out the Father’s gracious and blessed will, “a sweet smelling savor unto God,” Eph. 5:2. Thus all that Jesus said and did is the Father’s own Word and will. No wonder such eternal judicial majesty inheres in the Word.

The two indirect questions: “what I shall say and what I shall utter,” would be questions of deliberation in direct discourse, hence with the subjunctive, which the indirect retains, R. 1044. The English is weak in translating the difference between the two questions. The first with εἴπω matches ὁλόγος, the Word as so much substance of thought; the second with λαλήσω matches ῥήματα, the sayings sounded by the lips: So completely is the Word of Jesus that of the Father—both its substance and the very sounds of its utterance go back to him. The two aorists do not refer to “every case,” as some explain them, thinking that for every case Jesus received separate instruction. These are constative aorists, summarizing and viewing as a whole all that Jesus spoke and uttered during his mission. This was not doled out to him bit by bit, nor did he have to ask for it bit by bit. It was all one gift and behest.

John 12:50

50 While thus the origin and the full majesty of Jesus’ Word is brought out, showing us the terribleness of falling under its judgment, the real purpose of this Word, like that of the entire mission of Jesus, is not condemnation but salvation. And I know that his direction is life eternal. What, therefore, I myself utter, even as the Father has spoken to me, thus I utter. This οἶδα, “I know,” does not rest on air, is no subjective idea, nor subject to any question whatever. It rests on the reality of the sending. He who was sent and showed by a thousand proofs that he was sent and came from heaven and from the Father who sent him, he could not but “know.” Compare on οἷδα 6:64; 7:29; especially 8:14 and 55; 11:42; and other passages in the second half of the Gospel.

Jesus knows that the very contents and substance of the ἐντολή or “direction” given him for his mission are altogether “life eternal,” the gift of the true life principle itself to us sinners, which unites with God, passes unharmed through death, and lives in heavenly blessedness forever; see 3:14, and the other passages that have ζωὴαἰώνιος. As the Father’s “direction” covers the Word and utterance of Jesus (v. 49), so this Word and utterance is “life eternal.” Every believer receives this “life,” every disbeliever casts it away.

Knowing what the Father’s will and direction regarding the Word and its utterance is, Jesus finally says, “What, therefore, I myself utter, even as the Father has spoken to me, thus I utter.” How could he do otherwise? How could he change, omit, or falsify a single sentence, yea a single syllable? His very mission was to bring life eternal—would he defeat himself? Note the emphasis on ἐγώ corresponding with ὁπατήρ, likewise the two λαλῶ regarding Jesus, “I am uttering,” and εἴρηκε (from λέγειν) regarding the Father: he “has spoken,” conveying all the substance (“life eternal”) to Jesus when he descended on his mission. The last word, then, of the entire first half of John’s Gospel is λαλῶ—the great theme of these twelve chapters of John: Jesus’ public testimony. And the last summary of John centers in these three: the Word—faith—life everlasting.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.