Jesus Must Die, Two Perspectives (11:45-53)

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

Have you ever noticed how often people, who are presented facts that contradict their firmly held beliefs, immediately change their mind? Yea, me neither.

The impeachment process offers a helpful, although potentially provocative, example of such behavior. Regardless of one’s position, no one is changing their mind, regardless either sides presentation of their “facts.” In fact, it seems like people’s opinions are so set, that any evidence either way only more firmly roots their already established conviction.

Paul presents a similar concept in his second letter to the Corinthians. “For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life” (). When the gospel and Christ are presented to some people, that information is a sweet aroma, whereas to the other group of people, that same information is a fragrance of death.

Drawing your attention to , how exactly could someone witness the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus and conclude that Jesus needs to be destroyed? How is it that some people see Lazarus’ resurrection and embrace Jesus, and others see the exact same event and run to the religious leaders, attempting to get Jesus in trouble?

And yet, this reality is always ever present. People either embrace Christ or they reject Him. They love him or hate him. They interpret all of life through the lens of Christ being real or interpret all of life through a lens of rejection of Christ’s significance. Matthew writes in his gospel, “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other” ().

Throughout John’s gospel, John points to the reality that there are only two responses to Christ, acceptance or rejection, and this reality is most clearly seen following the resurrection of Lazarus. Nothing reveals Christ’s deity more than Lazarus’ resurrection, and yet, even amid such obvious proof, Christ is rejected.

Jesus Must Die: Perspective 1

Rejecting Jesus while embracing significant enemies. The religious leaders, who typically agreed on very little, had no problem having bipartisan agreement on their hatred for Jesus. They may not like each other. They may refuse to work together on anything else, but they could come together to get rid of their common nuisance – Jesus.

The Pharisees were a religious party, not really political, but because the people held them in such esteem, they held political clout. The Sadducees, on average, were less religious even though inevitably they were cloaked in a form of religion when it was expedient for them. The Sadducees were the politicians, and they compromised with Rome in order to keep their power and position.

Josephus. the behavior of the Sadducees one towards another is in some degree wild; and their conversation with those that are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them.[1]

New Bible Dictionary. In NT times the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem comprised the high priests (i.e. the acting high priest and those who had been high priest), members of the privileged families from which the high priests were taken, the elders (tribal and family heads of the people and the priesthood), and the scribes, i.e. the legal experts. The whole comprised both Sadducees and Pharisees.[2]

Rejecting Jesus while denying obvious truth. There was no attempt to reject the validity of the miracle. These leaders had already attempted to deny an obvious miracle when they brought the man born blind into the court. They were publicly embarrassed. They were not going to make that same error. When confronted with this resurrection miracle, they don’t even attempt to deny the reality. They even refer to the miracle as a “sign.” They acknowledge that this resurrection was miraculous and even more so that this miracle pointed to something of greater significance, but they refuse to consider the greater significance.

Instead, they work together in determining how to get rid of a threat. It never mattered what Jesus did. They would refuse to accept. Why? Why do they continue to reject? It’s not because of a lack of information. The religious leaders had plenty of firsthand evidence for Jesus unique existence and purpose.

Two things revealed. Their ongoing refusal to believe in Jesus draws attention to a couple secondary realities. (1) Unless someone’s heart is divinely changed, no manner or amount of proof or evidence will convince them of their need for Jesus. We often error in thinking that we may be able to manufacture the right line of logic or the right circumstances or affectively appeal to one’s emotions in order that someone will come to Christ. If people saw Lazarus’ rise from the dead and immediately rejected Jesus, there is nothing that we will be able to manufacture to compete with that. (2) Their rejection highlights the depths of brokenness in our hearts.

Rejecting Jesus while revealing one’s true heart. Likely, it never occurred to these religious leaders to consider whether Jesus was right or wrong. It didn’t matter. What mattered was whether their position and power and influence were solid. Their present position was more important than any eternal consideration. And, this same struggle is still present in many of us today.

Power (11:48). Those in the court decided that, “If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation” (). It is possible, and some commentators conclude such, that the religious leaders were concerned, primarily, that Jesus would cause a scene and that the Romans would come in and destroy the temple and Jerusalem. Well, this may have been part of their concern, and very likely possible, the construction of the sentence seems to indicate a deeper and much more selfish concern. These religious leaders were concerned that the Romans would take away their authority and power in the temple and Jerusalem. You could accurately understand the end of verse 48 as, “the Romans will come in and take away from us both our place and our nation.”

Borchert. The usual way of rendering the Greek has been “the Romans will come and destroy our (holy) place and our nation” (cf. RSV 11:48). But the position of hēmōn (“our”) in the Greek suggests that it was not the temple and nation about which the Council was most worried. It was their role as leaders and the nation as they knew it that would therefore be at stake if, as they thought, this Jesus fellow were permitted to continue his activity.[3]

Carson. They fear such reprisals could end in destruction of ‘our place’ (almost certainly a reference to the temple: cf. 2 Ezra 14:7 [lxx; cf. ]; ; ) and nation . . . Nevertheless, the peculiar way this is worded shows they are above all afraid that the Romans will come and take away from them the temple and nation.17 They are prompted less by dispassionate concern for the well-being of the nation than for their own positions of power and prestige.[4]

Expediency (11:49-50). Motivated by a desire to retain their power, these religious leaders become very pragmatic. The high priest Caiaphas utters words, far beyond his own understanding, that reveal both his corrupt heart but also the actual reason for Christ’s coming. Caiaphas said, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish” ().

Of course, Caiaphas sees Jesus as a problem and a threat – a threat that needs to be eliminated. Caiaphas cloaks his horrid nature in religious garb. “Because we care so deeply for our people, we need to be willing to sacrifice one for the good of them all.”

Jesus Must Die: Perspective 2

While Caiaphas’ words displayed his dark and self-centered motivation, his words as well revealed a much greater truth. Christ would in fact die for all of Israel.

Christ died for others. Caiaphas had concluded that if Jesus was not killed and allowed to continue to cause disruption then the Romans would come in and destroy Jerusalem and the temple. Caiaphas concluded wrongly in several ways, but he was correct in that if Jesus was not killed, then all the Jewish people would perish – just not the way Caiaphas thought. Without the death of Christ, all the Jewish people would remain lost in their sin and condemned to eternal punishment. Not only would the Jewish people perish, but all humanity would perish.

“For” the nation. Hence, the importance of the word “for.” Jesus died “for” the nation. Jesus died “on behalf of” or “for the sake of”[5] the whole nation. The underlying Greek word translated “for” “is often used in the context of substitutionary atonement. “In the Old Testament the devotees and priests would place their hands on the sacrificial animals or scapegoat in identification, and thus the animals would carry the weight of sin and guilt on behalf of (for) the worshipers. Accordingly, the worshipers would not bear the punishment of God.”[6] Christ carried the weight of sin “for” the Jewish nation. And, Christ carried the weight of sin “for” you.

Christ died for the children of God. Most likely, the Jewish people would have understood the reference to those “who are scattered abroad” as the Jews spread throughout the Diaspora. John intended more than the dispersed Jews. Christs’ death would not only save the nation, but the many others of God’s children that were spread throughout all people groups throughout the world. Lenski summarizes well, “In all the redemptive work of the Son, God always looks to what we may call the net result: the souls that will actually be brought to eternal salvation.”[7] These children of God, who are scattered abroad, are the same that are sheep from another fold referenced in the first half of .

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. ().

They are as well the believers that Jesus prayed for in .

I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. ().

I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, ().

Christ died with a specific purpose in mind. In his death, Christ would gather all those that the Father had given him. His death would effectively accomplish the work of gathering from many sheep folds, all his sheep into one fold.

Conclusion

(1) We will never offer a more convincing method of evangelism than Christ’s raising Lazarus from the dead, and even then, many rejected such compelling evidence. Once again, we are reminded that the work of drawing others to Christ is divine. We will never effectively manipulate people’s emotions or successfully appeal to their intellect in such a way as to draw them to Christ. If the work is to be successfully done, it will only be accomplished through God’s divine work in their hearts and minds. But, since we aren’t sure who God will divinely and effectively work within, we genuinely appeal to all to come to Christ.

(2) Specifically, to believers. The religious leaders, and even some of Mary and Martha’s friends, rejected truth because it either conflicted with their preestablished beliefs or threatened their position and comfort. While, we have been redeemed and are hearts have been transformed, we still live with the remnants of our sinful flesh. We can have similar tendencies as these religious leaders. We pick and choose the truths in Scripture that we will accept. We pick and choose the commands we will obey. Often, our choices are contingent on what we already believe or the position, power, and comfort we already possess. Sadly, if a truth statement or command conflicts with our firmly held beliefs or comfort, we somehow rationalize them away.

(3) Our rejection never ultimately renders the results we desire. In 70 AD, the temple was destroyed and Jerusalem was taken away from the Jews. That which they wanted to protect, they lost. “The Romans, weary of Jewish stubbornness, besieged Jerusalem, and left it a heap of ruins with a plough drawn across the Temple area. How different things might have been if the Jews had accepted Jesus! The very steps they took to save their nation destroyed it.”[8] Our acceptance may not render immediate treasure but does offer eternal glory.

[1] Josephus and Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, 608.

[2] J. A. Thompson, “Sanhedrin,” I. Howard Marshall et al., eds., New Bible Dictionary, 3rd edition (Leicester, England ; Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 1060.

[2] J. A. Thompson, “Sanhedrin,” I. Howard Marshall et al., eds., New Bible Dictionary, 3rd edition (Leicester, England ; Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 1060.

[3] Borchert, , 25A:365.

[3] Borchert, , 25A:365.

[4] Carson, The Gospel According to John, 420–21.

[4] Carson, The Gospel According to John, 420–21.

[5] Friberg, Friberg, and Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 389.

[5] Friberg, Friberg, and Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 389.

[6] Borchert, , 25A:366.

[6] Borchert, , 25A:366.

[7] Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel, 831.

[7] Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel, 831.

[8] William Barclay, The Gospel of John, vol. 2, The New Daily Study Bible (Louisville, KY: Edinburgh, 2001), 122.

[8] William Barclay, The Gospel of John, vol. 2, The New Daily Study Bible (Louisville, KY: Edinburgh, 2001), 122.