John 11:56Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

They say this not because it was necessary for all to go up to Jerusalem at Passover, as at the feast of Tabernacles. Rather, they either make His failure to arrive in Jerusalem a proof of cowardice, as though He were unable to help Himself on such a day and therefore stayed away.

Or else those who had resolved to seize Him speak this among themselves. They fall into despondency because they have not yet seen Him arrive, and they hasten to carry out the decree as quickly as possible.

At the feast of Tabernacles the Law commanded all the neighboring inhabitants to come to the holy city, and it imposed a penalty on those who did not come. But at Passover the Law allowed each person to remain without penalty in his own city and house.

Therefore they said that His not coming to the feast revealed an unwillingness to follow the customs of the feast according to the Law.

Let them hear about Him from us. Let them hear from the Gospel. He was killed by their fathers. He was buried. He rose. He was recognized by the disciples, before whose eyes He ascended into heaven, where He sits at the right hand of the Father.

He who was condemned will judge. Let them hear this and take hold of Him. They answer: "How shall I take hold of Him who is not here? How shall I stretch my hand to heaven, to take hold of Him who sits there?"

Stretch forth your faith, and you will take hold of Him. Your ancestors took hold of Him bodily. You find Him in your heart, for Christ, though absent in body, is present spiritually.

If He were not present with us, we ourselves could not possess Him. Since the word is true, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Mt 28:20), He has both departed and remained here.

He returned to heaven, and yet He did not leave us. He took His body into heaven, but He did not take His majesty away from the world.

Despite this command of the authorities, the Lord entered Jerusalem solemnly, cleansed the temple, and taught there openly for several days. He put to shame the different sects that approached Him with malicious questions. Yet even so they did not dare seize Him openly.

Only when His hour had come did they seize Him secretly, by night, at the indication of the traitorous disciple.

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).