The paradox of Jesus’ glory in John 12


The lectionary gospel reading for the fifth Sunday in Lent in Year B is John 12.20–33, and here we are reading the text in a strange order! There are clear indications that this passage follows on, in terms of both contexts and themes, from the first part of John 12, which describes the so-called ‘triumphal entry’ into Jerusalem—but we don’t read about that until next week (either from Mark 11 or John 12)! And the passage itself is full of apparent non-sequiturs, and several theologically-dense aphorisms or proverbial sayings of Jesus—so we have our work cut out to immerse ourselves in the text!

Both the previous passage and this one are marked by the later ‘re-membering’ of these events from a time after Jesus’ resurrection, something we have seen repeatedly in previous passages in the Fourth gospel. The disciples did not understand the events around Palm Sunday at first, but only with benefit of hindsight and reading the scriptures again (John 12.16). And Jesus’ final saying in today’s passage only makes sense by looking back from the end of the story (‘what kind of death he was going to die’ John 12.33).

The intense conflict that Jesus is facing on a human level in Jerusalem is traced by this gospel back to the raising of Lazarus in chapter 11; this is why the crowd are so intensely interested in him, and why his opponents are (temporarily) despairing. But their ironic comment sets up the opening of our passage: ‘See, the whole world has gone after him’ (John 12.19). This is the ‘world’ that was made through him, but, on the whole, did not recognise him (John 1.10); the Pharisees represent ‘his own’ who did not receive him (John 1.11). (It is worth noting two things about language in passing. The first is that kosmos here means the world of humanity, not the whole created order; this is not the place to go for arguments about the environment. Secondly, this gospel at times paints with a broad brush: it seems that ‘the Pharisees’ are bitterly opposed to Jesus as a group, but this must mean ‘some Pharisees’ or ‘many Pharisees’ since we know that Nicodemus, a ‘ruler’ of the group (John 3.1) came to be a supporter of Jesus, and we know that other Pharisees also became disciples.)

The passage itself appears to fall into three parts: the approach of the Greeks; Jesus’ response in a series of aphorisms; and the ‘voice from heaven’.


In order to demonstrate the ironic truth of the Pharisees’ observation, we now see that ‘some Greeks’ were in Jerusalem for this third Passover in the gospel narrative. The term Hellen used here doesn’t need to mean Greek nationals, nor is it the same as the Greek-speaking (ie Diaspora) Jews (Hellenistai) of Acts 6.1, but is another way of talking about gentiles. Since they have come for the Jewish feast, we should assume that they are God-fearers—those gentiles who associate themselves with Jewish belief, without actually converting as proselytes.

We were already told in John 1.44 that Philip was from Bethsaida, across the territorial border formed by the Jordan and culturally Greek, as were Andrew and Peter. Philip (‘lover of horses’) and Andrew (‘manly’) are the only ones of the Twelve with Greek names; Philip characteristically goes to others for support, Nathanael in John 1.45 and Andrew here. Philip is the one consulted by Jesus about sources of food in John 6.5, since Luke 9.10 tells us that the feeding of the 5,000 took place near Bethsaida.

The request of the Greeks is that they might ‘see Jesus’. At a practical level, this is perhaps not surprising, since he has become the sensation of the moment after the raising of Lazarus, and visitors to the city will have heard the rumours without having witnessed the events themselves. Yet we have already explored how the language of seeing is transformed into the language of ‘believing’; where Israel looked at the lifted-up serpent in Numbers 21, those who ‘believe in’ the lifted-up Jesus will be healed, forgiven and live. And yet belief then eclipses actual seeing by the end of the narrative in John 20.29; those who believe having not seen actually see more truly than those who have seen and not believed (John 9.41). And so the phrase ‘Sir, we would see Jesus’ becomes for us a desire to grow in our understanding and our trust.

What is fascinating here is the interaction between the literal/historical, and the symbolic. On the one hand, the gospel narrative is constrained by the realism of the events. There would indeed have been gentiles in Jerusalem; they would naturally have identified with the Greek-named disciples; Philip might well have asked his compatriot Andrew for assistance; and their request to see Jesus is an understandable one. Yet these visitors symbolise the truth that the news of this Jewish messiah offering salvation from the Jews will spread to all the world. Their desire to ‘see’ Jesus becomes an evocation of the desire to believe. And the fact that they seek Jesus, not the other way around, illustrates the truth that Jesus ends this passage with: that he will draw all kinds of people to himself. In this gospel, Jesus never calls people, they are always drawn to him, symbolically expressing the attractiveness of both his person and his teaching.

(The illustration here is ‘The gentiles ask to see Jesus’ by James Tissot, from his collection of paintings illustrating the life of Jesus.)


It is rather striking that Jesus neither accedes to the request, nor appears to actually meet those wishing to see him, but instead replies in the most oblique of terms—once more characteristic of the ‘elusive Jesus’ of this gospel. His response consists of a declaration about ‘the hour’, followed by three separate but linked sayings, two of which have exact or close parallels in the Synoptics.

Jesus’ rebuttal to his mother Mary at the wedding in Cana in John 2.4 was that his ‘hour’ had not come—though this first ‘sign’ pointed towards it—the first of seven mentions of ‘the hour’. In this fourth mention, that ‘hour’ has now come, and the ‘lifting up’ or exaltation of the Son of Man promised in John 3.14 is at hand, expressed in the language of ‘glory’ which will be characteristic of this second half of the narrative. Where the Synoptic gospels make this final Passover week the climax of their narratives by omitting mention of earlier visits, the Fourth Gospel does it by means of narrative time (‘the hour’) within Jesus’ discourse.

The first of the three sayings is one of the 25 ‘Amen, amen I say to you…’ (John 1.51, 3.3, 3.5, 3.11, 5.19, 5.24, 5.25, 6.26, 6.32, 6.47, 6.53, 8.34, 8.51, 8.58, 10.1, 10.7, 12.24, 13.16, 13.20, 13.21, 13.38, 14.12, 16.20, 16.23, 21.18) sayings of Jesus. The occurrence of the singular form ‘Amen, I say to you…’ in the Synoptics (50 times), and the inclusion of the Aramaic term ‘amen’ within the Greek text both point to the historic authenticity of this form of speech by Jesus. But the frequency of this phrase, its use at moments of conflict, and its increased occurrence in the Last Supper discourse, highlight the importance of truth as a developing theme of the gospel.

The content of this saying is an example of rabbinical argumentation ‘from the lesser to the greater’ (kal vahomer) in which the second half of the argument is left for the reader to deduce. The talmudic version of this applies it to the hope of resurrection more generally:

If the grain of wheat, which is buried naked, sprouts forth in many robes, how much more so the righteous, who are buried in their raiment (b Sanh 90b)

This is the same kind of argument Paul uses in his discussion about the resurrection body  in 1 Cor 15.36–44; for Paul, the eschatological framework is explicit, whereas here in the Fourth gospel it is either implicit or assumed.

The second, ‘greater’ half of the saying (‘Unless I die, the gospel will not bear fruit in the whole world as God intends’) is not spelled out, but belongs to the symbolic meaning of the literal saying. Again, we appear to have a hint of the later reality of the gentile mission, but expressed in terms constrained by the words of Jesus in context. We are perhaps accustomed from Gal 5.22 to think about ‘fruit’ in terms of character. But the much more basic sense is that fruit means growth and multiplication; a tree that bears fruit leads to the growth of more trees as the seeds of the fruit germinate and grow themselves. There is another implicit eschatological motif here as well: the wheat harvest is a consistent positive image for the end-times salvation of the righteous, those who have been drawn to Jesus, as already deployed earlier in the gospel narrative at John 4.35.

The second aphorism of Jesus extends the particular example of his coming death and resurrection to the general pattern of discipleship for all who follow him. It has an almost exact parallel in the Synoptics, though here has a distinctive Johannine twist:

For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it (Matt 16.25).

For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it (Mark 8.35).

For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it (Luke 9.24).

Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life (John 12.25).

All three Synoptic sayings follow immediately after Jesus’ prediction of his death, and rebuke of Peter’s rebuke. Mark’s version includes his characteristic term ‘the gospel’ which he introduced at Mark 1.1. The saying here in the Fourth Gospel makes a slight grammatical change; it drops the ‘save/lose/lose/save’ parallelism and instead talks of ‘loving’ and ‘hating’ one’s life, language that Jesus will use again in chapter 14; and once more we have the ever-sharpening contrast between the life of discipleship and the life of ‘the world’; and the final reward is not ‘being saved’ but ‘eternal life’, the life of the age to come.

The third of these three aphorisms again picks up language from the context of the previous sayings in the Synoptics, and in fact provides the logical connection between the first and the second. If Jesus will lose his life in order to gain it and be fruitful (saying 1), and if to be a disciple of Jesus means following after him and going where he goes (saying 3), then it follows that every disciple of Jesus will also lose their own life, and by losing it will keep it (saying 2). The closeness of servant and master is an expectation of any such relationship in the ancient world between disciple and rabbi, and is expressed in slightly different terms in the later saying found in all Matthew, Luke and John:

Truly, truly I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, and a messenger is not greater than the one who sent him (John 13.16; compare Matthew 10:24; Luke 6:40; John 15:20).

There is a challenge to this—following Jesus will mean dying to self and giving up our lives to God and to others. But, as Jesus unfolds it in the following chapter, there is comfort too: as we abide in Jesus, then we find our home in the Father’s love.

Perhaps this brings us to the end of the implicit and oblique answer to the request of the Greeks who would ‘see Jesus’: if you want to see me, to believe in me, to follow me, then this is what it will mean.


In the final section of our reading, Jesus returns to the theme of ‘the hour’. His expression of his soul ‘being troubled’ has some loose parallels with the scene in Gethsemane in the Synoptics, especially Matt 26.38. The word he uses also described him at the tomb of Lazarus in John 11.33, reinforcing the connection with that preceding event, and the overall tenor is much more positive, as he answers his own question about why he should go through with the ordeal that awaits him—once more, glorification, not just for him but for his Father’s name.

A voice from heaven has been heard at Jesus’ baptism, at the transfiguration, and now here for a third time. Voices from heaven feature in Jewish Second Temple apocalyptic, and of course in the Book of Revelation. But the rabbis believed that, since the death of the last prophets (Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi) Israel could no longer hear the voice of God, but only the bat qol, literally, ‘the daughter of the voice’, a mere echo of what God might say—until Messiah came (b Sanh 11a).

The sound of heavenly thunder was usually thought to signify judgement—but the judgement would not be on Jesus, but on ‘this world’ and the ‘ruler of this world’, the accuser of the brethren who was cast down from his position of power by the death of Jesus (compare Rev 12.10).

And so we end where we began: when Jesus is lifted up = glorified, death for him will mean life for all who look to him. He will draw all kinds of people to himself, including these Greeks who have been seeking him. Lifted up in death, he will bear fruit in the whole world, and the ironic fear of the Pharisees will become a reality—the whole world, from every tribe, language, people and nation, will follow him (Rev 7.9).

To be fruitful a seed must die. But it does so by finding its home in the warm soil, and the result is that it bears much fruit. This has been true for Lazarus; it was true for Jesus; and it can be true for us too.


Come and join James and Ian as they discuss all these issues…and more!


DON'T MISS OUT!
Signup to get email updates of new posts
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.


Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

For other ways to support this ministry, visit my Support page.


Comments policy: Do engage with the subject. Please don't turn this into a private discussion board. Do challenge others in the debate; please don't attack them personally. I no longer allow anonymous comments; if there are very good reasons, you may publish under a pseudonym; otherwise please include your full name, both first and surnames.

3 thoughts on “The paradox of Jesus’ glory in John 12”

  1. On “seeing” Jesus and the conversion of an accomplished theologian.
    “We would see Jesus” The Greeks had in their culture many great thinkers versed in the questions of “being”
    Here I think that they want to examine more of Jesus’s thinking. As James and Ian pointed out they want to
    “Know” Jesus { to become intimate, to enter his mind, to perhaps understand the reasons for His popularity}.
    Jesus shared with them his devotion, mind and DNA which they and disciples would not fully understand until
    Post crucifixion.
    Saul, an accomplished theologian of the time on “seeing” and hearing the Risen Christ was shattered to bits and required a prolonged re evaluation of theology. The effect being, an utter, entire devotion to Jesus Christ and his
    Crucifixion; in fact he could declare that he had the “mind” of Christ, and Gal 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world; Along with his determination amongst the Corinthians to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.

    Luther comes to our aid here. Toward the end of his life and in the preface to Volume One of the Wittenberg Edition, Luther identifies three criteria for the study of theology:
    oratio (prayer), meditatio (meditation), and tentatio (suffering)
    .17 As Oswald Bayer observes, with this trifecta Luther points us to the fundamental passivity that governs theological existence, and precisely as such sheds light upon Luther’s earlier dictum, crux sola nostra theologia—“the cross alone is our theology.”
    18 For Luther, Christian theology unfolds from the “receptive life” (vita passiva). We suffer alongside the suffering servant, and are crushed with Christ beneath the heel of the hidden God who works against us with strange power and unfathomable providence.
    In just this way we participate in and bear the cross, and our theological existence is fashioned into the image of the cross—theology, that is, becomes cruciform.
    Prayer and meditation are receptive theological actions flowing out of theology’s originary cruciformity; discursive theological habits and practices such as reading, writing, discussing, teaching, learning, and contemplating emerge from and are animated by our participation in the cross.
    For Luther, the word of the cross is a message that continues to impose itself upon the one endeavoring to think and speak theologically. Crux probat omnia—the cross puts everything to the test, including (especially!) our thought about God.
    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0040573618763572%5D
    it is Paul’s experience of and participation in the sufferings of the crucified One that enlivens and emboldens him to theologize on behalf of the Corinthians. Even Paul’s apostolic commission and authority, apparently under heavy fire in the period after the first epistle was received by the congregation, is, according to Paul, rooted in his partaking of the abundant sufferings of Christ (2 Cor 1:3–7; cf. 11:23–33).

    Paul’s theology is predicated on his desire to “know” Christ fundamentally and experientially. The cross is not just a n historical event but a total immersion into its significance. Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
    To “know” Christ is to go to the Cross, alas this is very often not the preaching of the cross often heard today.
    8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Raised ,to be seated with Christ in heavenly places.

    Reply
  2. This is no mere armchair theology.
    Both Jesus and Paul deliniate the meaning of true Christianity as previiously cited.
    This is true Christianity. Anything else is a fraud and a sham.
    Any effort to try to be “religious” or “Christian” which doesn’t stem from this threefold relationship of being made alive in Christ, raised with new power, and put back into life to rest in his activity and the certainty of his accomplishing his work, is a basic counterfeit of the Christian life.
    It is “godliness” without God, “Christianity” without Christ, “spirituality” without the Spirit. And it can never accomplish anything except to turn people away. What Paul has outlined for us here, and this alone, is true Christianity. Anything else is wrong.
    These three great facts are already true of every regenerated Christian. They aren’t something you try to make true — they are already true.
    They are not something which is going to happen when you are further advanced and have another great experience with God.
    Most of us don’t have much understanding of it., they may not be your experience yet, because of two factors: First, ignorance. You might not have begun to experience this because you were unaware of this relationship this way. So we need to know more about it.
    Furthermore it may not be true in your experience because you love the pleasures the flesh can give you more than those of the Spirit.
    We all love the twisted, perverted pleasure of acting in the flesh, in the old way — the self-effort, the self-pleasing, self-indulgent life. We love that.
    So we choose it at times. But when we do, we ought to remember that we have not lost this threefold relationship and need to repent,turn back to God.
    We can always return to it. It is not something temporary. It is a permanent fixture in our lives. And when we acknowledge the evil — the flesh to which we have submitted — we can return to this relationship.
    I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless, I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Galatians 2:20 KJV)
    For more on this subject see
    .raystedman.org/new-testament/ephesians/alive-to-live

    Reply
  3. All good stuff.
    It is an interesting quote from the Babylon Sanhedrin and although many evangelicals would be unhappy about citing Second Temple literature, I think this is unfounded, and largely based on the fact it presents a different world view to contemporary Greek culture—with implications for our own understanding of the NT. And although the Babylon Sanhedrin is considered to postdate the NT by some time the concepts themselves can reach back to NT times.

    Reply

Leave a comment