John 11:55Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

But this celebration was only a shadow of the future. It was a prophecy of the Christ to come, a prophecy of the suffering accepted for us on this day. The shadow will pass, and the light will come. The sign will pass, and the truth will be established.

Thus the Jews celebrated the Passover in shadow, but we in light. For why did the Lord command them to slaughter a lamb on the day of the feast, if not because of the prophecy concerning Him: "Like a sheep He was led to the slaughter" (Is 53:7)?

The doorposts of the Jews were marked with the blood of a slain animal. Our foreheads are marked with the blood of Christ.

Yesterday's passage from the Holy Gospel, concerning which we said what the Lord granted us, is continued by today's passage. Concerning it we intend to say what will be granted us by the Lord.

Some things in the Scriptures are so plain that they need a hearer rather than an interpreter. We should not linger over them, so that there may be time for weightier questions on which we must dwell.

Therefore the Passover of the Jews was drawing near. The Jews desired that this feast day be dyed with the blood of the Lord. And on this feast day the Lamb was slain, who sanctified this feast for us by His blood.

There was a council among the Jews concerning the killing of Jesus. He who had come from heaven to suffer wished to draw near to the place of the Passion, for the hour of suffering was near.

"And many from the whole country came to Jerusalem before the Passover, in order to purify themselves." The Jews did this according to the Lord's prescription commanded through Moses in the Law. All were to gather from everywhere in Jerusalem at the feast of Passover and be purified during the celebration of this day.

But this celebration was a shadow of what was to come. Why was it a shadow of what was to come? It prophetically indicated the coming advent of Christ. It prophetically indicated on which day He would suffer for us, so that the shadow might disappear and the light come, and the sign yield to the truth.

Thus the Passover among the Jews remained in shadow, but among us it is in light. For why did the Lord prescribe that a sheep be slaughtered on this feast, if not because it was foretold of Him: "Like a sheep He was led to the slaughter" (Is 53:7)?

The doorposts of the Jews were anointed with the blood of the slaughtered sheep. Our forehead is sealed with the blood of Christ, that is, with the sign of the cross.

That sign, filled with special meaning, served so that the destroyer would not enter the anointed houses (cf. Ex 12:22-23). The sign of Christ drives the destroyer away from us, if our heart has received the Savior.

Why have I said this? Because many anoint the doorposts and do not have the Dweller within. They simply place the sign of Christ on the forehead, and do not receive the word of Christ in the heart.

Therefore I say this, brothers, and repeat it once more: the sign of Christ drives the destroyer away from us only if our heart has Christ as its inhabitant. I have said this so that all may know what this Jewish feast means for us.

So the Lord came as the sacrifice, so that we might obtain the true Passover by celebrating His Passion as the slaughter of the Lamb.

At last He stopped and called them to Himself. Then once more, indeed for the third time, He spoke to them with fuller, clearer, more striking, and more terrible details than ever before. He said that He would be delivered to the chief priests and scribes (Mt 20:17-19; Mk 10:33; Lk 18:31-34). They would condemn Him to death and deliver Him to the Gentiles. The Gentiles would mock Him and scourge Him. Now, for the first time, He clearly revealed to them the most terrible event: that He would be crucified, but on the third day He would rise again.

While the rulers of the people thus took counsel together against the Lord and against His Christ (Ps 2:2), the Lord, according to the prophet’s word, laughed (v. 4) at this assembly of evildoers. He turned their malicious designs toward the fulfillment of the holy purposes of His providence. Those who now so brazenly imagined themselves masters of the Lord’s life were in fact nothing but insolent slaves. He Himself watched over their wicked plans, not allowing them to pass beyond the bounds known to Him and marked out by Him from eternity.

Although Caiaphas’ mouth was plainly moved by malice and cold cruelty, the tongue of the high priest, unknown to himself, was at that moment proclaiming to the whole world, as if by inspiration, the imminent accomplishment of one of God’s greatest mysteries.

Caiaphas pronounced his judgment concerning the saving character of Christ’s death by an overshadowing from above, as Balaam once did. This came through an influx of the gift of prophecy, which, since it comes from God, contains nothing evil or criminal in itself. Only the passions that possessed the high priest interpreted this revelation in their own way. They darkened and distorted in his soul the true meaning of the prophecy.

God revealed to Caiaphas that the death of Jesus Christ would be saving for all. Yet this revelation neither inspired nor obliged him to seek the destruction of the Righteous One, despite His innocence and miracles. Caiaphas added all this from the evil treasure of his heart (Lk 6:45).

For a corrupted heart, nothing is easier than to misuse the holiest truths. It turns them into instruments of its passions, and it distorts and perverts their meaning with additions and explanations according to the whim of the ruling passion.

The Sanhedrin’s decision to deliver Jesus Christ to death moved Him to withdraw for a time. He did not go from Bethany straight to Jerusalem, but departed with the apostles to the city of Ephraim, near the wilderness of Jericho.

Meanwhile, the people, already gathered in Jerusalem from all the surrounding districts for the feast of Passover, spoke animatedly about Christ and awaited His coming: "What do you think? Will He not come to the feast?" (v. 56). But the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where He was, he should report it, so that they might seize Him (v. 57).

Another reason that prompted them to come to Jerusalem a week or more before Passover was that various preparations for the celebration itself had to be made on the spot (Talmud tract. Schekalim). Thus a multitude of people had now gathered in Jerusalem before Passover.

The latest miracles had drawn everyone's attention to Christ Jesus. Formerly, Jesus usually taught the people in the outer court of the temple. Here too they now expected Him. Meanwhile, the order of the Sanhedrin became known in Jerusalem: "If anyone knew where He was, he should report it, that they might seize Him."

This increased the talk about Jesus even more. They asked one another in the temple court: Τι δοκει υμιν, οτι ου μη ελθη εις τ. εορτην? Some understand these words thus: "What do you think of the fact that He is not coming to the feast?"

They justify this explanation by its faithfulness to the words of the original. The οτι is not omitted without significance. The subjunctive aorist is more easily taken as present than as future. The ου μη signifies an intensified negation.

Even so, amid the impatient expectation of the people, stirred by the resurrection of Lazarus, it would be fitting for them to wonder so early that Jesus Christ had not appeared a week before Passover.

A more important objection to this interpretation is that the words τι δοκει σοι, according to common usage, suppose another question rather than calling forth a positive thought. Therefore another explanation is preferred: "What do you think? Will He not come to the feast?"

Since a question with the double negation ου μη commonly expects an affirmative answer (Jn 18:11; Rev 15:4), those asking here express their confidence that He will come.

As we finish considering John's narrative of the resurrection of Lazarus and the consequences of the miracle, and as we find not a word about this great event in the other Evangelists, we pause over the question: why do the other Evangelists not speak of the resurrection of Lazarus?

Some, such as Olshausen and others, thought that the other Evangelists kept silent about this event out of fear of stirring up the Sanhedrin's hatred against Lazarus and his sisters. But after the resurrection of Christ Jesus, all His disciples, including Lazarus, no longer feared to testify openly to the works of Christ Jesus.

Moreover, with the multitude of witnesses to the Bethany miracle who had joined the number of Jesus' disciples, the Sanhedrin surely became convinced that its previous decision concerning Lazarus was very inconvenient to carry out.

Others, such as Kuinoel, say that the three Evangelists considered the story of Lazarus's resurrection unnecessary after they had recounted the raising of Jairus's daughter (Mt 9:18; Mk 5:22; Lk 8:41) and the youth of Nain (Lk 7:11).

It is true that it is unwise to insist that the Evangelists were not careful in selecting events for their history, or that they did not avoid excess. But since they also recount many instances of healing the sick, it is clear that, besides avoiding excess, they had another guiding thought in view, which ordered their narrative.

What was this thought? The three Evangelists, as is clear from the contents of their Gospels, dealt with events that took place beyond the borders of Judea. Only with the history of the Savior's sufferings do they pass into Judea, recounting Jesus' entry into Jerusalem as an introduction to the history of the Passion.

This is why they do not have the story of Lazarus's resurrection.

Was it not from among these that some beat their breasts as they returned from the "spectacle of the Cross," Ἐπὶ τὴν Θεωριάν ταύτην, Lk 23:48? And were not their women those who wept and lamented as they followed the Lord being led to crucifixion (Lk 23:27)?

We think that not all in this crowd were infected with Pharisaic malice. There were people with a good soul, with a true and holy feeling that drew their hearts to Him. He had illumined their souls by His word, gladdened them by great miracles, and opened to them a new and radiant spiritual world.

Therefore malice did not speak in the mouth of the people who asked one another about the Lord. Malice was expressed in the command of the rulers of the people, that anyone who recognized the Lord should make known where He was.

But it is remarkable that the one who betrayed Him, and indicated how and where to seize Him, was not one of the people obeying the command issued by the chief priests. The Lord was betrayed by a disciple.

Among the people, at least we find no indication of it, no betrayer was found while the Lord was still in Bethany and while many could know of His approach to Jerusalem.

The question of Judas’ betrayal is very obscure with respect to his purely human plans. Some suppose that Judas wanted to force the Lord to declare Himself King and Messiah, and so to test His divinity. But we must hold to the text of John’s Gospel, that the betrayer was first of all a thief (Jn 12:6). In its place below, we shall indicate the meaning of the silver piece and the price of betrayal.

The Lord’s divinity and the power of God are shown in Jn 18:6, when the Lord by one meek word casts to the ground those who seek Him. But neither the contemptible betrayer nor the Pharisees with the chief priests could understand that He was the One of whom Isaiah spoke: "He was despised and rejected by men... He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities... yet He suffered willingly" (Is 53:3-7).