April 18, 2007

 

Chapter 11, verses 49-53- Caiaphas, being a Sadducee, is insulting in his remarks.  His proposal is very pragmatic—“it is necessary that this man (Jesus)

die in order to preserve the status quo.  If he doesn’t die, the confusion that results may destroy the nation.”  The plan is that the individual must be served up to protect the masses, even if that individual doesn’t have input into the arrangement.

  Vs. 51-52 are not part of Caiaphas’ remarks, but John’s observation.  The phrase “he prophesied” is not meant as a authoritative function in the office of prophet, but that Caiaphas’ words unintentionally had ‘prophetic’ significance.

What was “give His life for the sheep” in 10:11 has become “die for the nation”.  John adds that a secondary purpose is “that He would gather together in one the children of God ….scattered abroad.”  This phrase likely refers to the “other sheep I have” in 10:16.

  So what Caiaphas saw as a necessary, although cruel, need of Jesus to die,

John seizes upon and expands to express both short and long term results of Jesus’ death.  Vs.53 expresses the determined plan by these leaders to see

that Jesus dies.

 

Chapter 11, verses 54-57- John uses the murderous intent of these leaders as a reason to say in vs.54 –“Therefore, Jesus no longer walked openly among the Jews…”  Soon His ministry (as described in John’s gospel) will now be limited to private conversations with small groups.  Ephraim is thought to be

north of Jerusalem in the wilderness hills of Judea.  As the Passover (3^rd in this gospel- 2:13 & 6:4) approaches, and Jews come to Jerusalem, conversations turn to the issue of whether Jesus will be in attendance at the Passover feast.  The leaders have issued a command that if Jesus is sighted in the masses coming to the city, they should be informed so as to arrest Him.  The synoptic gospels do record His public activity in Jerusalem at this Passover, although John omits such.

 

Chapter 12, verses 1-8- this will describe a dinner in Bethany where Jesus is attended to by Mary with his feet anointed with oil.  John places His arrival

6 days before the Passover. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 2

 

  The incident of the ‘anointing’ of Jesus has parallels in other passages:

Reference                                    Incidental details

Matt.26:6-13-          house of Simon, the leper, unnamed woman, disciples

                              are indiginant over waste, anointed His head, commends

                              the woman, mention of burial

Mark 14:3-9           house of Simon, the leper, “some..indignant”, unnamed

                             woman, anointed His head, commends the woman, mention

                             of burial

Luke 7:36-50-         house of Pharisee, woman=sinner, anointed His feet,

                             announces forgiveness of woman’s sin, burial omitted

John 12:1-8-           owner of house unnamed, woman=Mary (Martha serves),

                             Judas indignant, commends the woman, burial mentioned

Question:  Are these all the same event?  Or, is it possible there are similarities, but different events altogether?

  It is likely that the event in Lk.7 is not that in Matt, Mk & John due to difference

in several details.  It is plausible He was anointed early in His ministry.

  Harmonizing all the details of the other into one event is difficult, but possible.

It is likely both His head and His feet were anointed.

  While Martha served, Mary gave a unique gift of tenderness and affection to Jesus in the form of the expensive oil of spikenard.  The He was the object of such a gift speaks much of her love.  Jesus sees this action in terms of His

suffering (vs.7).  Yet, Judas (joined by others) speaks negatively of her use of

the oil while pretending to care about the poor.  Jesus words to defending her action reveals that pragmatism should not be the dominant mindset in Christian

circles.