The Results of the Miracle. The majority of the Jews who came to comfort the sisters were convinced, but some remained hostile, and gave information to the Pharisees. The chief priests, i.e. the Sadducees, always first when action is needed, and the Pharisees, summon a council. In face of the growing number of adherents their inaction is felt to be unsatisfactory. If it leads to civil disturbance, the Romans will intervene and hold them responsible for their failure to maintain order. Caiaphas, the High Priest of that year, the notable year of the Passion, demands a policy which he pretends to be necessary in the interests of the nation. One must die rather than the whole nation perish. In this the author sees an unconscious prophecy. Jesus would indeed die on behalf of the nation, and of all God's children scattered throughout the world. That the author supposed the High Priesthood to be a yearly office, like that of the Asiarchs of his own Asia, is inconsistent with his knowledge of Judæ a and Jewish customs. It was the irony of the situation that the unconscious prophet would have in virtue of his office to offer on the Day of Atonement the sin offering on behalf of the people.
In consequence of the hostility of the Sanhedrin, Jesus retires to Ephraim, usually identified with et-Taijibeh, 13 miles N. of Jerusalem in the wilderness of Bethaven (cf. 2 Samuel 13:23). [86] The Passover was near, and those who came up to Jerusalem to prepare for it were divided in opinion as to whether He would risk the danger of appearing at the Feast.
[86] [Cheyne (EBi. John 13:21) conjectures that Jericho may have been the original text, which having been indistinctly written was misread as Ephraim. Thus Jn. might be reconnected with the Synoptic tradition. A. J. G.]
In the commentary on this chapter the attempt has been made to show that even m its present form, and therefore a fortiori still more clearly in the events which it records, or in the material (whether oral tradition or fixed in literary form) which the author used, we have something very different from what it is represented as being in most critical commentaries, viz. doctrinal instruction, under the guise of fictitious narrative, on the nature and work of the Incarnate Logos, thinly disguised in human form, and always acting in such a manner as to fulfil the terms of His definition (Loisy; cf. Scott, pp. 164ff.). The evangelist has, of course, told the story from his own point of view. As usual, by selection and by his process of writing up, he has brought that point of view rather than the actual events as they really happened into prominence. He intends the narrative to present to us the Christ who is the author of life, to whom it has been given to have life in Himself, and to raise up whom He will. He also wishes to record the occasion of the final outburst of Jewish hostility which culminated in the events of the Passion. But if he has merely worked on Synoptic accounts of raisings of the dead, the Lucan story of Martha and Mary, and the parable of Dives and Lazarus, especially its final statement, Neither will they believe if one rise from the dead, it is obvious that he has done his work very badly indeed. Behind the obvious points which he sets himself to teach, there is certainly another portrait, of a really human Jesus, not merely a few human traits thrown in as an antidote to Docetism. He is wholly dependent on His Father's will, and obedient to it. He cannot move, even to save His friend, before He receives the sign of the Divine approval. He accepts the delay with resignation, and even finds true cause for joy in what had been real sorrow to Him. Though absolutely sure of the Divine help, and confident that the pain of sickness, and even of death if that ensue, will issue in the glory of God and the vindication of His Messenger, He does not know in what way this will be accomplished, till His final prayer, the answer to which shows Him how it shall be. After severe effort to restrain His human feelings of emotion He breaks down. He has to ask where the sepulchre is. He prays a real human prayer, and announces publicly His thanks for its answer that the people may know that the boon comes from God, not from Him, and that God has really sent Him to His people. If the terms of His definition are Deity stalking in human disguise, it is certainly difficult to see how in all this the central figure is merely fulfilling them.
The difficulties connected with the event itself are the same as in similar Synoptic accounts. The heightening of the miraculous element, the interval of four days since the death, is a question of degree, not of kind. The difficulties connected with the history of the ministry are undoubtedly great, though in some quarters they have been exaggerated, and they have not been solved. No thoroughly satisfactory explanation of the silence of the Synoptists, and especially Lk., has yet been found. At the same time it must be remembered that the Synoptic Gospels confine their narrative to events in Galilee, to which is added a relatively long account of the last visit to Jerusalem. The story, therefore, belongs to a period which is altogether ignored in the Synoptic narrative, except in so far as it is suggested by the great insertion in Lk., in which, however, so much material belonging to different periods and occasions is accumulated that we can get very little help from it towards the reconstruction of the actual history of the period between the crisis in Galileo and the final catastrophe in Jerusalem. All that can be said is that the incident, if historical, did not form part of a tradition which is obviously fragmentary and incomplete.
When, however, we turn to the narrative itself it is clear that the difficulties of the critical explanation of its origin are equally serious. The material in this chapter, even as it stands, which does not help forward the chief objects that the author has in view in telling his story, is so clear that we are justified historically in presupposing as the basis out of which the narrative has been elaborated at least as much background in real history as lies behind the parallel narratives in the other gospels of the raising of Jairas-' daughter, the widow of Nain's son, and similar accounts. The final question of what really happened can, of course, only be determined by the consideration of wider problems than those to which the literary and historical criticism here attempted can offer a solution. There will always be differences of opinion as to the limits which the verifiable experience of our own or other times should rightly impose on the credibility of the abnormal.
The view, now perhaps generally held by scholars, that the author, having used up the real cause of the final conflict, the Lord's action in defying the authorities by the cleansing of the Temple, at a much earlier date, had to invent an adequate explanation, is plausible; but it exaggerates the importance attached to that event in the Synoptic account. Even Mk.'s narrative, where the best case can be made out for the view that this incident was the determining factor in the tragedy, is not conclusive (Mark 11:15-18 *). The rulers intervene subsequently to demand by what authority He does these things, a general phrase referring apparently to His general teaching in the Temple and His attitude to the authorities at least as much as to the actual cleansing of the Temple. We must be content to wait for the final and satisfactory solution of the great difficulties of this chapter. Meanwhile it should be frankly acknowledged that the difficulties which await solution are not confined to either side in the Johannine controversy.