Sunday School Lesson
October 4
Lesson 5 (KJV)
Love that Intercedes
Devotional Reading: Matthew 5:43–48
Background Scripture: 1 Samuel 19:1–7; 23:1–18; 2 Samuel 9
1 Samuel 19:1–7
- And Saul spake to Jonathan his son, and to all his servants, that they should kill David.
- But Jonathan Saul’s son delighted much in David: and Jonathan told David, saying, Saul my father seeketh to kill thee: now therefore, I pray thee, take heed to thyself until the morning, and abide in a secret place, and hide thyself:
- And I will go out and stand beside my father in the field where thou art, and I will commune with my father of thee; and what I see, that I will tell thee.
- And Jonathan spake good of David unto Saul his father, and said unto him, Let not the king sin against his servant, against David; because he hath not sinned against thee, and because his works have been to thee-ward very good:
- For he did put his life in his hand, and slew the Philistine, and the Lord wrought a great salvation for all Israel: thou sawest it, and didst rejoice: wherefore then wilt thou sin against innocent blood, to slay David without a cause?
- And Saul hearkened unto the voice of Jonathan: and Saul sware, As the Lord liveth, he shall not be slain.
- And Jonathan called David, and Jonathan shewed him all those things. And Jonathan brought David to Saul, and he was in his presence, as in times past.
Lesson Aims
After participating in this lesson, each learner will be able to:
- Summarize Jonathan’s defense of David and Saul’s reaction.
- Explain the risks Jonathan faced in the reconciliation process.
- Identify opportunities to counsel reconciliation and do so.
HOW TO SAY IT
Goliath
Go-lye-uth.
Philistine
Fuh-liss-teen or Fill-us-teen.
Introduction
A. Targeting Peacemakers
What risks do peacemakers face in areas of conflict? A study, begun in 2010 by the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, seeks to answer that question. The fact that such a study exists confirms the sad truth that we all know: peacemakers sometimes come to very violent ends.
A government that doesn’t want outside influence can forcefully remove peaceful humanitarian efforts. One side or another of a military conflict might attack the peacemakers, hoping that the aid they would have given to their opponents will result in victory. Or one individual who stands opposed to a specific peacemaker can kill that one, hoping the movement will end with his or her death. We need only recall conflicts in Syria or Sudan, or assassinations like those of Martin Luther King Jr. or Oscar Romero, to realize that peacemaking can be a very dangerous business.
There is no guarantee that efforts for reconciliation will work. But Jonathan, son of King Saul, believed the risk was worth taking. His actions are an example to all of us about the potential power of peacemaking.
B. Lesson Context
Two of the Old Testament’s books of history are 1 and 2 Samuel. They take their name from Samuel, the last judge of Israel. He was instrumental in the transition from the period of the judges to the time of kings. As such, the two books record the transition from the theocracy (when the Lord reigned as sole king of Israel, with human leaders in the roles of judges) to the monarchy of human kings.
This transition began about the year 1050 BC. It began with the Israelites’ demand that Samuel give them an earthly king “like all the nations” (1 Samuel 8:5). This demand was not primarily a rejection of Samuel or his sons but of the Lord as their king (8:7). God had called Israel to be His special nation (Exodus 19:5–6), and their desire for a king expressed a wish to be not quite so special. Samuel proclaimed the Lord’s warning of the negative consequences of a human king (1 Samuel 8:11–18). But the people persisted, and the Lord granted their request (8:19–22).
The Lord selected Saul as the first king of Israel (1 Samuel 9:17; 10:17–24). Saul started well, but when he failed to carry out faithfully the Lord’s commands, the Lord selected a different king (15:16–26). Samuel informed Saul of his being rejected by God, and Samuel anointed David as the next king (16:1–13). That signified that Saul’s royal line would end when David took the throne.
When the Philistines challenged Israel, it was young David who slew Goliath, which in turn led to a routing of the Philistines (1 Samuel 17:1–54). After this great victory, David became a member of Saul’s royal household in two important ways. First, David and Jonathan, Saul’s son and heir to the throne, became fast friends (18:3). Second, David married Michal, daughter of Saul (18:27).
When military victories were celebrated, however, people esteemed David’s accomplishments more highly than Saul’s (1 Samuel 18:6–8). This made Saul angry, jealous, and suspicious of David to the point that Saul attempted to kill him (18:10–11; 19:9–10).
- The Plot
(1 Samuel 19:1–3)
- Execution Order (vv. 1–2)
- And Saul spake to Jonathan his son, and to all his servants, that they should kill David.
This verse continues the story of 1 Samuel 18, giving the consequences of Saul’s jealous rage. We may wonder why Saul would charge his servants to implement the deadly deed of killing David. The word translated servants occurs about 800 times in the Old Testament, with a broad range of applications. It applies to various levels of service to the king, not just what we might term butlers and maids. Faithful subjects of a king were considered to be servants (1 Kings 12:7).
Notice the progression: Saul had tried to kill David by his own hand (see Lesson Context), then by stealth by putting David in peril (1 Samuel 18:17, 25). The text before us represents a new attempt. It involved not Saul himself or the Philistines but instead his son and his court.
The author interjects this important detail to remind us of Jonathan’s potentially split allegiance. Emphasizing Jonathan’s relationship to his father, Saul, ratchets up the tension. Would Jonathan’s loyalty to his father (and potentially his own future place on the throne) determine his path? Or would his delight in David decide Jonathan’s course of action?
The situation was made more problematic by the covenant between Jonathan and David (1 Samuel 18:3–4). It should prevent Jonathan from obeying his father’s orders to kill David. In order to save his friend and honor their covenant, Jonathan would have to disobey his father. And the king could certainly punish his son any way he saw fit for such an act of rebellion.
2b. And Jonathan told David, saying, Saul my father seeketh to kill thee.
The reader doesn’t wait long in suspense. Jonathan clearly chose his love for David over his devotion to his father, the king. The role of a son was to honor his father (Exodus 20:12), which included obeying him (Proverbs 23:22; compare Ephesians 6:1–3). Jonathan’s informing David of Saul’s pronouncement undermined his father’s will.
Since the Lord had rejected Saul in favor of David (1 Samuel 15:28), the contrast highlights for the reader Saul’s opposition to the will of God. It may also show Jonathan’s acceptance of David’s place as the future king rather than himself (which becomes clearer later; see 23:16–17) and thus as a man who followed God’s will.
No doubt there was a full conversation between Jonathan and David, but only Jonathan’s revelation of Saul’s plot is reported. Jonathan’s warning consisted of (1) the report, (2) three commands (see commentary on 1 Samuel 19:2c–d, below), and (3) four actions Jonathan will take (see commentary on 19:3, below).
Seeketh emphasizes Saul’s very active desire to have David put to death. He was not just daydreaming. The king was coming up with plans to kill David.
What Do You Think?
Under what circumstances should a Christian violate confidential communication to prevent a wrong?
Digging Deeper
How does Proverbs 11:13 speak to this issue, if at all?
2c. Now therefore, I pray thee.
Grammatically, a request and a command appear the same. Determining whether Jonathan commanded David (so that David needed to obey him) or requested of David (so that David could make up his own mind) is a matter of context. Considering each man’s status relative to the other’s leads to an impasse. At the moment, Jonathan is of higher status because he is the king’s son and heir apparent to the throne. However, he and David both knew that David had been chosen by God to be the next king (compare 1 Samuel 16:1–13; 20:31).
Furthermore, a warning, though it comes as a command, can be softened by the concern of the one who issues it. One can imagine that Jonathan, though apparently ordering David to do what he said, would have been open to other suggestions as long as they were intended to keep David safe from harm.
2d. Take heed to thyself until the morning.
The fact that the warning take heed is followed by until the morning indicated that the threat was an immediate danger. This was not the kind of general “take care” advisory with which we end casual conversations today!
2e. And abide in a secret place, and hide thyself.
These two imperatives reveal Jonathan’s intention to give David an active-yet-passive part in the plan. The active part was for David to hide himself; the passive part is to abide (meaning “wait”) after he did so. Jonathan did not know if his attempt to convince his father not to kill David would succeed; thus this precautionary measure.
- Clemency Plan (v. 3)
3a. And I will go out and stand beside my father in the field where thou art.
And I points out a shift of focus from David’s tasks to Jonathan’s. The first pair, seen here, describes where Jonathan would be: standing with David’s sworn enemy in the same field near David. Apparently the secret place where David was to hide (see 1 Samuel 19:2e, above) would be secret only from Saul, not from Jonathan. Therefore David would be completely vulnerable in trusting Jonathan not to betray him.
3b. And I will commune with my father of thee; and what I see, that I will tell thee.
Jonathan’s second pair of actions describes what he planned to say, first to Saul, then to David. Once again, David would have to trust that Jonathan planned to tell him everything that he needed to know to survive.
What Do You Think?
Were you to attempt to mediate a reconciliation, what tactics would you consider to be off-limits? Why?
Digging Deeper
What Scripture passages can you cite to support your answer?
- The Intercession
(1 Samuel 19:4–5)
- Exemplary Record (vv. 4–5b)
4a. And Jonathan spake good of David unto Saul his father, and said unto him, Let not the king sin against his servant, against David.
Jonathan’s intercession with Saul leaves the reader to assume that David had already done what Jonathan required. Once again, Saul’s position as Jonathan’s father is emphasized. This brings to mind the complicated responsibilities Jonathan had toward him. The expression let not the king, in third person, is more polite than a bald command, “Do not!” Jonathan’s address of his father as king may be designed to calm Saul’s insecurity over his kingship.
We also recall that resisting kings was dangerous. In the Law of Moses, before the existence of kings in Israel, disobeying priests and judges was punishable by death (Deuteronomy 17:12–13). This practice extended to kings in Israel in that they had power over life and death of their subjects (example: 1 Kings 2:23–25), as did kings in the surrounding nations (Daniel 3:13–15).
However, Jonathan’s address also reminded the king that he had a duty to God not to sin against others. Although “might makes right” seems to have been the rule throughout history, God’s people are to be different. We live by standards given by the Lord, not rules determined by people. For this reason, Saul did not have the moral authority to have David killed. That would go against God’s injunctions about killing innocent people, which even the king is meant to obey and uphold.
David is identified as Saul’s servant. By the use of this term, Jonathan describes David as a faithful member of Saul’s court just like the servants of verse 1.
What Do You Think?
Under what circumstances should one wait to be asked to mediate a reconciliation rather than taking personal initiative in doing so?
Digging Deeper
How does God’s taking the initiative to reconcile us to himself (described in 2 Corinthians 5:18–20) help shape your answer?
4b. Because he hath not sinned against thee, and because his works have been to thee-ward very good.
Again, not sinned means David had done nothing to bring harm to Saul. In fact, David was committed to supporting the king as the anointed of the Lord, even though Saul was seeking David’s life (compare 1 Samuel 26:9–11; 2 Samuel 1:14). Thee-ward means “towards you” or “for your benefit.” The works that had been very good refer to all the noble acts David had done in service to King Saul. These included not just military service (see commentary on 1 Samuel 19:5a, next) but also playing the harp to soothe Saul in his times of distress (16:16–23).
5a. For he did put his life in his hand, and slew the Philistine, and the Lord wrought a great salvation for all Israel.
David had risked his own life for Saul in slaying the Philistine Goliath (1 Samuel 17). Though everyone else in the army had been too afraid to confront the giant, David had trusted in the Lord’s protection and His intention to defeat the Philistines. Because of his faith in God, David was able to brave Goliath’s threats and use the skills learned as a shepherd to defeat and kill Israel’s fearsome enemy.
The result the Lord had granted Israel through David was nothing less than a great salvation from an oppressive foe, the Philistines (1 Samuel 17:52–53). Jonathan mentioned only the military deeds of David. Those and other victories were the cause of David’s popularity (18:5–7), which in turn was the cause of Saul’s deadly jealousy and plan to execute David. For that reason, reminding Saul that David’s popularity was a result of his service to the king could soothe the king’s feeling that he had been usurped.
5b. Thou sawest it, and didst rejoice.
Then Jonathan pointed out Saul’s eyewitness status and reaction at the defeat of Goliath. Saul had appreciated David’s service not only at that time (1 Samuel 17:50–58), but also when David played the harp to comfort him in his affliction (16:14–23).
- Rhetorical Question (v. 5c)
5c. Wherefore then wilt thou sin against innocent blood, to slay David without a cause?
Jonathan concluded his argument by returning to his beginning exhortation (1 Samuel 19:4a, above), couching it as a rhetorical question. Such a question is designed to make a point, rather than seek information. The answer here was obvious to the king: he should not slay David because then the king himself would become guilty and deserving of death (Deuteronomy 19:10–13).
Blood refers to the life force (compare Genesis 9:4 for “life” and 42:22 for “death”). Thus innocent blood refers specifically to David’s manner of living: David had acted faithfully as a servant in the court of Saul. David had never given Saul a cause for Saul’s anger and retribution.
Unlikely Friendship
My youngest son always struggled with his need to be popular, often getting in trouble at school for related issues. One day when he was in eighth grade, he came home from school with a note. This time he had been suspended for fighting. I felt deflated. We had just moved to a new town, and I was really hoping for a fresh start.
However, when he told me more, a glimmer of parental pride crept in. He had come across a crowd of people surrounding two students who were fighting, and the one who was substantially bigger had the other in a headlock. As the bigger boy pummeled the smaller one, my son had jumped in and (admittedly roughly) pulled the bigger kid off the smaller one.
Despite the suspension, I was proud of my son. Months later, he came home with an invitation to the rescued student’s birthday party. To this day, they are fast friends. That is something of a reverse, mirror-image of 1 Samuel 19. There the friendship came first and the rescue followed. God rescued us while we were His enemies (Romans 5:10). Realizing that, under what conditions would you be willing to stand up for Him at the risk of losing relationships, job, or even life?
—P. L. M.
III. The Aftermath
(1 Samuel 19:6–7)
- Vow (v. 6)
- And Saul hearkened unto the voice of Jonathan: and Saul sware, As the Lord liveth, he shall not be slain.
Jonathan’s argument had the desired effect. Hearkened unto means to heed; that is, both to hear and to act in accordance with what was said (example: Genesis 21:12). Similarly, the exodus from Egypt was initiated because God not only heard but acted on the groaning of the children of Israel (Exodus 2:24–25).
Jonathan’s intervention thus culminated in Saul’s making a vow that David would not be put to death. Making a vow or taking an oath is equivalent to making a covenant (Deuteronomy 4:31). It is quite to Saul’s credit that he relented from his own call for David’s execution. Although Saul had a history of rebellion against the Lord (example: 1 Samuel 15:17–23), in this case he honored God by heeding wise counsel and choosing not to sin against David.
The Lord expected the king to keep his vow (Numbers 30:2; see also Matthew 5:33–37). Deuteronomy 23:21–23 declares that vows must be kept, while Ecclesiastes 5:4–6 reminds the reader that breaking a vow angers the Lord. By swearing that David will live, Saul bound himself to do all in his power to protect David.
What Do You Think?
In what situations should one discontinue mediation attempts should those attempts be met with hostility and rejection?
Digging Deeper
How do 1 Samuel 20:18–33 and Acts 7:23–29 help frame your response?
The Unbreakable Vow
I had a friend who had been married a long time. Her husband was a God-loving man who took care of her and their family. But for various reasons my friend had spent years building up resentment against him.
One day she said she intended to leave him. How could I tell her I wouldn’t support this decision because it was wrong? I prayed silently as she poured out her heart. And then I blurted out, “What if it were cancer?”
She looked at me blankly. I asked, “Would you leave him then?” Of course she wouldn’t, she said. “Why not?” I pressed her. She broke down as it dawned on her: she had vowed to be with him not just in sickness and health but in bad times as well as good. Breaking this vow would mean sinning against her husband and God.
Jonathan cautioned the same to Saul. Thankfully, just like my friend, Saul saw reason and realized his mistake. The choice is for us too: Will we honor our vows to honor God?
—P. L. M.
- Reconciliation (v. 7)
- And Jonathan called David, and Jonathan shewed him all those things. And Jonathan brought David to Saul, and he was in his presence, as in times past.
David emerged from his prearranged hiding place after hearing Jonathan’s call. As promised (see 1 Samuel 19:3), Jonathan reported to David everything that had happened. This would have included especially Saul’s change of heart and his vow not to put David to death.
For David to return to Saul’s presence indicates that David believed Jonathan completely and no longer had any fear that Saul would try to kill him. The result of all of Jonathan’s efforts was that David resumed his place in Saul’s court as in times past. This phrase calls back to mind how well David and Saul had worked together initially. The reader is left to wonder, in view of Saul’s past behavior toward David, how long this peace will be observed.
What Do You Think?
In what situations should estranged parties be left to work out reconciliation on their own rather than be encouraged to use a mediator?
Digging Deeper
How is Christ’s service as a mediator (Hebrews 8:6; etc.) helpful in answering this question, if at all? Why?
Conclusion
- Roles People Play
The three characters in this story illustrate positions people find themselves in today. Saul was a person in power who was abusing his position in doing wrong toward another. David, of lower status, was the innocent victim of that wrath. Jonathan was the one who risked sharing that wrath by standing up for the victim. He cared for both the wrongdoer and the wronged as he sought to end the conflict by reconciling them.
Doing wrong and suffering wrong can lead to conflict. Hurt feelings can break relationships and end communication. Differences in status, such as employer-employee or parent-child, can make restoring relationships difficult. The one in power finds it difficult to admit wrong. The one of lower status does not feel safe to confront the enraged offender. At these times, restoration is practically impossible without an intermediary.
At various times of conflict, we may find ourselves in any of the three roles. The boss who is rankled by the exceptional skill of an employee may feel threatened, becoming bitterly jealous in the process. Perhaps such a boss will belittle the employee or make sure that promotions or raises are not offered. The boss’s subordinate might be puzzled and feel wronged for trying to give the best effort. Someone who genuinely cares for both the boss and employee, and whom both parties trust, may be in a position to reconcile those in conflict.
Finally, it must be emphasized that Jonathan, the peacemaker, was not the offender’s peer; Jonathan was subordinate to Saul both as a son and as a subject of the king. Jonathan’s brave and respectful challenge of his own father and king serves as a model for us in handling conflict.
B. Prayer
Heavenly Father, show us opportunities to reconcile strife. Grant us courage to act and wisdom in speech. In Jesus’ name we pray. Amen.
C. Thought to Remember
Peacemakers seek to turn others away from sinning.
KID’S CORNER
Gathering the Children of God
Sunday, October 4. 2020
John 11:47-57
John 11:47-57
(John 11:47) Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs.
After some of those who heard the words of Jesus and saw Him raise Lazarus from the dead rushed from Bethany to Jerusalem to report His latest sign to the Pharisees, the chief priests and Pharisees called a council meeting (a meeting of the Sanhedrin) to deal with Jesus. No one denied the fact that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, did good works, and performed signs that indicated He came from God. Unable to deny the fact Jesus did many good deeds that only God could do, they objected when Jesus did not comply with their traditions and interpretations of the Law of God, for He sometimes healed on the Sabbath. Because of the signs Jesus performed and because He would not obey them, the religious leaders called an assembly to decide what they should do with Jesus.
(John 11:48) “If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
Because of Jesus’ many signs that revealed the compassion of God, increasing numbers of Jews, Samaritans, and others began believing in Him. This fact led the religious authorities to believe that if Jesus became widely acknowledged as the promised Messiah then a revolution would result, and the Romans would destroy their temple, their Jerusalem, and their nation (Judea). As we consider their reasoning, we need to remember that the conflict between Jesus and these leaders ran far deeper than a political and cultural conflict or a concern only for their loss of power over others and their wealth if Jesus were proclaimed God’s Messiah. Consider what Jesus told these religious leaders earlier when He told them what motivated their unbelief and hatred of Him. In John 8:19, Jesus told them that they rejected Him because, “You know neither me nor my Father.” In John 8:21, Jesus warned them, “You will die in your sin.” In John 8:23, He said, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.” In John 8:44, Jesus told them, “You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” And in John 8:47, Jesus summarized, “Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God.” What Jesus revealed in these verses should be deeply considered by every generation in every society and nation.
(John 11:49) But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all,
Under Roman rule, the Romans appointed the high priest, so every high priest had many self-centered incentives to cooperate with the Romans rather than risk their life or livelihood. After the Romans appointed a new high priest sometimes yearly, it was possible to retain the title “high priest,” but without the same power. Caiaphas impatiently insulted the Sanhedrin when he ended their discussion with the words, “You know nothing at all!”
(John 11:50) nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.”
Perhaps thinking only politically and selfishly from his point of view, Caiaphas proclaimed the devil’s desires while also making a divinely inspired prophecy about Jesus. Caiaphas may have selfishly thought that it was better for Jesus to die than for him to die, for he would lose everything he valued if the Romans destroyed Judea. He wanted the Sanhedrin to realize that if they did not kill Jesus then all of them could lose everything too. He expressed a complete lack of the knowledge of God, a total disregard of the Scriptures’ teachings, and no concern for the people of God who heard Jesus gladly.
(John 11:51) Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,
Just as God prophesied through a donkey to Balaam (see Numbers 22), so God prophesied through a wicked high priest, Caiaphas. The high priest did not prophesy because He spoke for God as one of God’s people, for Jesus had already said of the religious authorities in John 8:47, “Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God.” Caiaphas did not hear, but rejected, the words and signs of Jesus because he was not from God. Caiaphas spoke on one level of meaning as a person of this world and the devil’s child. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, John spiritually interpreted the high priest’s words as a prophesy about Jesus’ death for the sins of the nation; that is, that everyone who believed in Jesus might not die in their sin but receive the forgiveness of God. At the hands of sinners, Jesus died as a sacrifice for our sins and enabled God (His Father and He) to lovingly, justly, and mercifully forgive sins and grant the gift of eternal life to those who believed in Jesus.
(John 11:52) and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
Jesus died for the sins of those who would repent of their sins and believe in Him. Some of the religious leaders and priests would eventually do so. Before Jesus died, Nicodemus believed in Him, for he helped with Jesus’ burial. In Acts 6:7, we read, “The word of God continued to spread; the number of the disciples increased greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.” Then immediately, in Acts 6:8, we read of the martyrdom of Stephen (see Acts 6:8-15). In order for Jesus to gather into one the dispersed children of God, Jesus would need to rise from the dead, which He did on the third day after His death. The “one” would be “the Church,” the believers in Jesus that the disciples gathered as they preached in the power of the Holy Spirit. The dispersed children of God would include Jews living outside Judea, Samaritans, Romans, Gentiles, and the children of God in every tribe, tongue, and nation between the time of Jesus’ resurrection until He comes again on the last day.
(John 11:53) So from that day on they planned together to kill Him.
Prior to His resurrection from the dead, His greatest sign, raising Lazarus from the dead was the last great sign Jesus gave that He came from His Father into the world. Jesus knew that by raising Lazarus from the dead, the religious leaders would seek to kill Him and later want to kill Lazarus. The chief priests revealed how evil they had become when we read ahead in John 12:9-11, “When the great crowd of the Jews learned that He was there, they came not only because of Jesus but also to see Lazarus, whom He had raised from the dead. So the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death as well, since it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and were believing in Jesus.” The chief priests illustrate how the more people harden their hearts against God and suppress the truths they know, the more evil they can become until they begin doing what was previously unthinkable to them.
(John 11:54) Therefore Jesus no longer continued to walk publicly among the Jews, but went away from there to the country near the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim; and there He stayed with the disciples.
We know from the gospels how slow the disciples were to understand and fully believe in Jesus. After Jesus rose from the dead, in Luke 24:25-26, Jesus said to two of them on the road to Emmaus, “Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?” Jesus no longer walked about openly so He could teach His disciples as much as possible with the time He had left rather than immerse himself in endless controversies with the religious leaders who would never believe in Him. In fulfillment of prophecy, Jesus would not die until the Passover. But rather than tempt His Father to save Him by needlessly putting himself in harms’ way before then, Jesus took the opportunity to keep teaching His disciples the Scriptures and about himself. They all knew they needed His teaching, but the disciples did not yet know how much they would need it!
(John 11:55) Now the Passover of the Jews was near, and many went up to Jerusalem out of the country before the Passover to purify themselves.
Prior to the Passover Feast, the Jews (Jewish males were required to attend the Passover Festival) went to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices for their sins. Their sacrifices were intended to purify them from ritual defilements. To purify themselves, they would go to the temple, pray, confess their sins, and offer sacrifices, but they would never receive the assurance of forgiveness of sins until after Jesus died and rose again and they heard and received the good news about Jesus that His disciples preached as the Holy Spirit enabled them. Obviously, the religious leaders who plotted to kill Jesus were not only ritually defiled but morally and spiritually defiled in every way. None of their ritual performances would purify them. They did not heed their prophets’ calls to obey God and the Scriptures; for example, in Micah 6:8, we read, “He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.” They rejected the teachings of Jesus about God, and refused to do what His Father desired, as we read in Hosea 6:6, “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” By their words and actions, we know they totally lacked steadfast love and the knowledge of God.
(John 11:56) So they were seeking for Jesus, and were saying to one another as they stood in the temple, “What do you think; that He will not come to the feast at all?”
As at the Feast of Booths, before the Passover Festival the crowds were looking for Jesus and discussing whether He would come to the festival or not. Some argued that He would not come to the festival because they knew the chief priests and Pharisees were looking for Him to arrest Him. They could not believe that Jesus would risk His life by coming to the feast.
(John 11:57) Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where He was, he was to report it, so that they might seize Him.
Having decided to arrest and kill Jesus, as the Passover celebration neared, the chief priests and the Pharisees ordered the people to tell them if they knew where Jesus was. When Judas betrayed Jesus and led those the chief priests sent to arrest Him, he did exactly what they ordered, for he knew where Jesus often went to pray with His disciples.
Gathering the Children of God
Sunday, October 4. 2020
John 11:47-57
And this spake Caiaphas not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad (John 11:51-52—KJV).
Now Caiaphas did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad (John 11:51-52—NASB).
Caiaphas did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God (John 11:51-52—NRSV).
Because the crowds might proclaim Jesus was the Messiah, Caiaphas argued that Jesus should die to save their nation and temple from destruction by the Romans, so a council of religious leaders began planning to kill Jesus. These religious leaders in Jerusalem thought mostly in terms of political power and they considered Jesus a threat to their tenuous relationship with Rome. They never understood that Jesus represented the kingdom of God and not a political kingdom. As Jesus told Pilate when questioned, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36). Though Caiaphas thought he argued only in political terms, John explained that God made him foretell what Jesus would do on a spiritual level that Caiaphas would not believe and could never understand. John explained that Jesus did die for the nation; that is, that those in the nation who believed in Him might have their sins forgiven by God. Then, Jesus rose from the dead that He might draw to himself the children of God that were dispersed throughout the world. Because Caiaphas would have been an unwilling spokesman for the Messiah, God spoke through him to save those who would believe in His Son. Today, followers of Jesus look for opportunities to talk about Jesus and “gather into one the dispersed children of God.”
Thinking Further
Gathering the Children of God
Sunday, October 4. 2020
John 11:47-57
Name ____________________________
- What did the council know Jesus was doing and what did they know about the result among many in the crowds who heard and saw Him.
- What did the council think would happen if everyone eventually believed in Jesus as the Messiah?
- What did Caiaphas, the high priest, advise the council? Why did he advise this?
- Why did the Jews go to Jerusalem before the Passover? Did they demonstrate the effectiveness of their preparations later? Why or why not?
- What were the orders of the Pharisees and the chief priests?
Discussion and Thinking Further
- What did the council know Jesus was doing and what did they know about the result among many in the crowds who heard and saw Him. They knew that Jesus was performing many signs. They knew that many in the crowds were believing in Jesus and eventually everyone would believe in Jesus if they did not stop Him.
- What did the council think would happen if everyone eventually believed in Jesus as the Messiah? They feared the Romans would come and destroy their temple and their nation; thereby, they would lose their influence, wealth, and power
- What did Caiaphas, the high priest, advise the council? Why did he advise this? He advised that it was better for one man (Jesus) to die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed (which would have included them). He did not say this on his own. He prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation and gather into one the dispersed children of God.
- Why did the Jews go to Jerusalem before the Passover? Did they demonstrate the effectiveness of their preparations later? Why or why not? They went to Jerusalem early to purify themselves for celebrating the Passover. No. At the urging of the council and the chief priests, many of them called out for Jesus to be crucified.
- What were the orders of the Pharisees and the chief priests? They ordered that anyone who knew where Jesus was should let them know so they might arrest Jesus. Judas eventually did as they ordered. He obeyed men rather than God.
Word Search
Gathering the Children of God
Sunday, October 4. 2020
John 11:47-57
Name __________________________
C U D P A S S O V E R J G T M
P M C C O U N C I L G U X F U
E I S A N O I T A N S A R V L
G D E Y I C K J Q J N B J E F
M Z E Q G A E C K W G H O P D
D P S Z V S P Z M J I U S H E
N M I A U J F H S E S R D R I
Z X R S L P V N A R W E S A S
U F A G Y D R E P S Y V O I E
H E H E N O Y R E V E E F M H
Z O P O M F I D U H C I Z A P
S G L A U E N L S B D L O K O
N P N Y S J A I F V O E V F R
U S I T Q P Z H O P C B X K P
D E S T R O Y C A D T I S L O
Priests
Pharisees
Council
Signs
Everyone
Believe
Romans
Destroy
Holy
Nation
Caiaphas
Prophesied
Children
Ephraim
Passover
True and False Test
Gathering the Children of God
Sunday, October 4. 2020
John 11:47-57
Name ___________________________
Circle the True or False answers. Correct the False statements by restating them.
- After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, the chief priests called the Council to deal with Jesus. True or False
- Jesus’ words and works as signs did not convince everyone on the Council to believe He was God’ promised Messiah. True or False
- The Council was concerned that so many Roman soldiers were believing in Jesus that they might start a revolution against Israel. True or False
- The Council became afraid and wanted to kill Jesus because they thought that because of Jesus’ signs everyone would believe in Him. True or False
- The Council was concerned that as the Messiah Jesus would so alarm the Romans they would then destroy their temple and nation. True or False
- Because he was a holy high priest, Caiaphas foretold that Jesus would die for the people. True or False
- The Council decided to reason with Jesus and try to convince Him to repent of His sins so they would not need to kill Him. True or False
- Jesus became too afraid to walk openly in Jerusalem, so He fled to Ephraim to hide with His disciples. True or False
- Jesus knew when God wanted Him to die on the cross for our sins and it was His duty to go to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover. True or False
- The Pharisees wanted to arrest Jesus, so they told everyone to tell them if they knew where Jesus was. True or False
True and False Test Answers
- True
- True
- False
- True
- True
- False
- False
- False
- True
- True
Prayer
Heavenly Father, show us opportunities to reconcile strife. Grant us courage to act and wisdom in speech. In Jesus’ name we pray. Amen.