It was the popular belief that on the fourth day after death the spirit had finally departed from the vicinity of the corpse, and that thereafter decomposition proceeded unhindered. This may explain Martha"s impulsive though gentle objection to having the tomb of her brother opened four days after his death (John 11:39). It is possible that the consent of the next of kin was required for the lawful opening of a grave. Both Martha and Mary were present, and in the presence of many witnesses a.s.sented to the opening of the tomb in which their brother lay.
6. Jesus Groaned in Spirit.--The marginal readings for "he groaned in the spirit" (John 11:33) and "again groaning in himself" (v. 38), as given in the revised version, are "was moved with indignation in the spirit" and "being moved with indignation in himself." All philological authorities agree that the words in the original Greek express sorrowful indignation, or as some aver, anger, and not alone a sympathetic emotion of grief. Any indignation the Lord may have felt, as intimated in verse 33, may be attributed to disapproval of the customary wailing over death, which as vented by the Jews on this occasion, profaned the real and soulful grief of Martha and Mary; and His indignation, expressed by groaning as mentioned in verse 38, may have been due to the carping criticism uttered by some of the Jews as recorded in verse 37.
7. Caiaphas, High Priest that Year.--John"s statement that Caiaphas was high priest "that same year" must not be construed as meaning that the office of high priest was of a single year"s tenure. Under Jewish law the presiding priest, who was known as the high priest, would remain in office indefinitely; but the Roman government had arrogated to itself the appointive power as applying to this office; and frequent changes were made. This Caiaphas, whose full name was Josephus Caiaphas, was high priest under Roman appointment during a period of eleven years. To such appointments the Jews had to submit, though they often recognized as the high priest under their law, some other than the "civil high priest" appointed by Roman authority. Thus we find both Annas and Caiaphas exercizing the authority of the office at the time of our Lord"s arrest and later. (John 18:13, 24; Acts 4:6; compare Luke 3:2.) Farrar (p. 484, note) says: "Some have seen an open irony in the expression of St. John (11:49) that Caiaphas was high priest "that same year," as though the Jews had got into this contemptuous way of speaking during the rapid succession of priests--mere phantoms set up and displaced by the Roman fiat--who had in recent years succeeded each other. There must have been at least five living high priests, and ex-high priests at this council--Annas, Ismael Ben Phabi, Eleazar Ben Haman, Simon Ben Kamhith, and Caiaphas, who had gained his elevation by bribery."
8. Divinely Appointed Judges Called "G.o.ds."--In Psalm 82:6, judges invested by divine appointment are called "G.o.ds." To this scripture the Savior referred in His reply to the Jews in Solomon"s Porch. Judges so authorized officiated as the representatives of G.o.d and are honored by the exalted t.i.tle "G.o.ds." Compare the similar appellation applied to Moses (Exo. 4:16; 7:1). Jesus Christ possessed divine authorization, not through the word of G.o.d transmitted to Him by man, but as an inherent attribute. The inconsistency of calling human judges "G.o.ds," and of ascribing blasphemy to the Christ who called Himself the Son of G.o.d, would have been apparent to the Jews but for their sin-darkened minds.
FOOTNOTES:
[1009] John 10:22-39.
[1010] Also rendered Kislev, Chisleu, and Cisleu. See Zech. 7:1.
[1011] Josephus, Antiquities, xii, 5:3-5. See Ezra 6:17, 18; also Note 1, end of chapter.
[1012] Note 2, end of chapter.
[1013] John 8:58; and 10:11; see also pages 411 and 416 herein.
[1014] Revised version gives "I and the Father." See Note 3, end of chapter.
[1015] John 8:59. Page 412.
[1016] Concerning blasphemy see pages 191 and 269, also page 629.
[1017] Psa. 82, particularly verses 1 and 6. Note 8, end of chapter.
[1018] A better rendering of the last verse is: "But if I do them [i.e.
the Father"s works], though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."--(Revised version.)
[1019] John 10:40-42.
[1020] Pages 121-124.
[1021] Note 4, end of chapter.
[1022] John 11:1-46.
[1023] Compare Matt. 9:24; Mark 5:39; Luke 8:52; Job 14:12; 1 Thess.
4:14.
[1024] Note 5, end of chapter.
[1025] John 9; see page 412 herein.
[1026] Note 6, end of chapter.
[1027] Note 5, end of chapter.
[1028] John 6:12; Matt. 15:37; see pages 334 and 358 herein.
[1029] Matt. 9:23-25; Luke 7:11-17; pages 251 and 313 herein.
[1030] John 9:3.
[1031] John 12:9-11, 17.
[1032] John 11:46-54.
[1033] Luke 16:31; page 466 herein.
[1034] John 12:10.
[1035] Note 7, end of chapter.
[1036] John 11:57.
[1037] John 11:54.
[1038] 2 Chron. 13:19; Josh. 15:9.
CHAPTER 29.
ON TO JERUSALEM.
JESUS AGAIN FORTELLS HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION.[1039]
Each of the three synoptic writers has made record of this last journey to Jerusalem and of occurrences connected therewith. The deep solemnity of the developments now so near at hand, and of the fate He was setting out to meet so affected Jesus that even the apostles were amazed at His absorption and evident sadness; they fell behind in amazement and fear.
Then He paused, called the Twelve about Him, and in language of absolute plainness, without metaphor or simile, He said: "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again."
It is to us an astounding fact that the Twelve failed to comprehend His meaning; yet Luke unqualifiedly affirms: "And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken." This avouchment of the Savior"s approaching death and resurrection spoken in confidential certainty to the Twelve was the third of its kind; and still they could not bring themselves to accept the awful truth.[1040] According to Matthew"s account, they were told of the very manner by which the Lord should die--that the Gentiles should crucify Him; yet they understood not. To them there was some dreadful incongruity, some dire inconsistency or inexplicable contradiction in the sayings of their beloved Master. They knew Him to be the Christ, the Son of the living G.o.d; and how could such a One be brought into subjection and be slain? They could not fail to realize that some unprecedented development in His life was impending; this they may have vaguely conceived to be the crisis for which they had been waiting, the open proclamation of His Messianic dignity, His enthronement as Lord and King. And such indeed was to be, though in a manner far different from their antic.i.p.ations. The culminating prediction--that on the third day He would rise again--seems to have puzzled them the most; and, at the same time, this a.s.surance of ultimate triumph may have made all intermediate occurrences appear as of but secondary and transitory import. They persistently repelled the thought that they were following their Lord to the cross and the sepulchre.
THE QUESTION OF PRECEDENCE AGAIN.[1041]
Notwithstanding all the instructions the apostles had received concerning humility, and though they had before them the supreme example of the Master"s life and conduct, in which the fact that service was the only measure of true greatness was abundantly demonstrated, they continued to dream of rank and honor in the kingdom of the Messiah.
Perhaps because of the imminence of the Master"s triumph, with which they all were particularly impressed at this time though ignorant of its real significance, certain of the Twelve appealed to the Lord in the course of this journey with a most ambitious request. The pet.i.tioners were James and John, though according to Matthew"s record their mother[1042] was the first to ask. The request was that when Jesus came into possession of His kingdom, He would so signally honor the aspiring pair as to install them in seats of eminence, one on His right hand, the other on His left. Instead of sharply rebuking such presumption, Jesus gently but impressively asked: "Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" The answer was full of self-confidence inspired by ignorant misapprehension. "We are able," they replied. Then said Jesus: "Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father."
The ten apostles were indignant at the two brothers, possibly less through disapproval of the spirit that had prompted the pet.i.tion than because the two had forestalled the others in applying for the chief posts of distinction. But Jesus, patiently tolerant of their human weaknesses, drew the Twelve around Him, and taught them as a loving father might instruct and admonish his contentious children. He showed them how earthly rulers, such as princes among the Gentiles, domineer over their subjects, manifesting lordship and arbitrarily exercizing the authority of office. But it was not to be so among the Master"s servants; whoever of them would be great must be a servant indeed, willingly ministering unto his fellows; the humblest and most willing servant would be the chief of the servants. "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."[1043]
SIGHT RESTORED TO THE BLIND NEAR JERICHO.[1044]
In the course of His journey Jesus came to Jericho, at or near which city He again exerted His wondrous power in opening the eyes of the blind. Matthew states that two sightless men were made to see, and that the miracle was enacted as Jesus was leaving Jericho; Mark mentions but one blind man, whom he names Bartimeus or the son of Timeus, and agrees with Matthew in saying that the healing was effected when Jesus was departing from the city; Luke specifies but one subject of the Lord"s healing mercy, "a certain blind man," and chronicles the miracle as an incident of Christ"s approach to Jericho. These slight variations attest the independent authorship of each of the records, and the apparent discrepancies have no direct bearing upon the main facts, nor do they detract from the instructional value of the Lord"s work. As we have found to be the case on an earlier occasion, two men were mentioned though but one figures in the circ.u.mstantial accounts.[1045]