“Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. ‘Teacher,’ they said … ‘Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory’ ”(Mark 10:35-37). People will go to great lengths to get the best seats in a restaurant, a theater, or at some important public occasion, but James and John excelled themselves in their asking, through their mother (Matthew 20:20-21), for the seats at the right and left hand of Christ in his coming kingdom.
We should remember that this event took place shortly after Jesus had already promised his apostles that they should all “sit upon thrones” judging the twelve tribes of Israel in the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:28). Their request was not just for authority, but to be elevated to the highest positions at Christ’s right and left hand.
The audacity of these two men may seem remarkable in what they asked, but in reality, James and John were not the only disciples enamored by the thought of ruling with power. Mark shows that the other disciples were extremely angry once they realized the two brothers had made this bid for prominence in the group (Matthew 20:24). While the other disciples’ reaction may have been one of “righteous indignation,” it is probably more likely that they were simply angry at being almost outmaneuvered in regard to who would be the greatest among them.
Yet we should notice that Jesus did not rebuke the disciples regarding their desire for these elevated positions. Rather, he first asked James and John if they were able to “drink the cup” he was going to have to drink (Matthew 20:22).
Jesus then patiently explained to all the disciples that the greatest among them must be the greatest servant (Matthew 20:25-27) and tried to help them to understand that before any such elevated positions in his kingdom were assigned, he must suffer and die (vs. 28).
After this, Jesus continued on the way to Jerusalem where he knew his life would end. But we do not know if the disciples learned the lesson he had attempted to teach them. There is nothing in the Gospels that indicates they did understand or apply the lesson at that time. We can almost see them jostling with each other to get to be closest to Jesus as he rode, humbly yet triumphantly, into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:1-11). But the events that soon took place must surely have brought the lesson back in their memories.
After Jesus’ betrayal, when it came to the time of his death on the cross, the only ones who were lifted up at his right and left hand were the two condemned individuals who were crucified on either side of him (Matthew 27:38). We can only wonder if James and John realized the irony of that fact, and if they saw in it the lesson Christ had tried to teach them – that those who get to be elevated on the right and left hand of the Son of God are not the great of the world who rule by the world’s power, but those who symbolically, spiritually, are crucified with him (Galatians 2:19-20).
Sometimes a little biblical detective work can open new windows into our understanding of the stories of the New Testament.
The Priest
The Gospel of John tells us that when Jesus was betrayed: “They bound him and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year” (John 18:12-13). The apostle John apparently knew some of the high priest’s family and was able to provide this detail not found in the other Gospels.
Annas was the patriarch of a dynasty of priests. He had served as High Priest for ten years, from AD 6–15, and when he was deposed by the Roman procurator Gratus, Annas maintained a high degree of power through arranging the appointment of his five sons (Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, Ananus) and his son-in-law, Caiaphas, to succeed him.
The Jewish High Priest normally served for life (Numbers 35:25, 28), so the rapid-fire changes in succession after Annas suggest that he may have worked to ensure that he kept control of things as the real power behind the temple hierarchy. This maintaining power while technically deposed would explain why Annas was able to continue as head of the Jewish Sanhedrin (Acts 4:6), and perhaps explains why, when Jesus was arrested, he was first taken not to “Caiaphas, the high priest that year,” but to Annas. In fact, so real was Annas’ behind-the-scenes power that Luke records the word of God came to John the Baptist “during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas” (Luke 3:2).
The Plot
In his Gospel, the apostle John gives us another bit of information relative to the dealings of the chief priests. After Jesus raised Lazarus from the grave, John tells us that “a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and believing in him” (John 12:9). Again, John may have learned this perhaps because of his contacts in the high priestly households; but it is clear that this was a very real plot to get rid of not only Jesus himself, but also Lazarus as evidence of Christ’s miracle. Although Annas is not mentioned by name, it is inconceivable that such a plot would have been made without the knowledge of the chief priest and his sons – though it was more likely instigated by them as the “chief priests.” To understand the significance of this background, we must look at one of Jesus’ parables given at that time.
The Parable
In his parable ofLazarus and the Rich Man, Jesus told his listeners: “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus” (Luke 16:19-20). The parable continues to say that when he died, in the afterlife, the rich man implored the patriarch Abraham “I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment” (vss. 27-28). Notice that although the NIV says “to my family,” the Greek actually says “to my father’s house” (as translated in the ESV and almost all other versions). When Abraham replies that “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them,” the rich man responds “No, father Abraham … but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent” (vss. 9-30). To this Abraham states conclusively: “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (vs. 31).
The cast of characters in this parable is unmistakable. Although “Lazarus” is not specified to be the Lazarus of Bethany Christ raised from the dead, the New Testament does not speak of any other Lazarus – had it been a different individual, John would surely have identified him as he does in other instances when multiple people shared the same name.
The “rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen” is surely the high priest Caiaphas whose robes were exactly as described. Conclusively, the rich man has a father and five brothers. In the close families of ancient Palestine, “brothers” could mean blood brothers or brothers-in-law. So the identity of these individuals is clear – they are none other than Caiaphas (the rich man), Annas (the father-in-law) and his five sons (the brothers-in-law). If this were not the case, there would have been no reason for Jesus to include five brothers in the parable – the rich man could just have pleaded for his family.
For Jesus’ original hearers it was doubtless clear that his parable made the point that just as the rich man’s father and brothers would not believe even after the return of the Lazarus of the parable from the dead, so the actual high priestly family had not believed when the real Lazarus had indeed been raised. Understood this way, the story of Lazarus and the rich man is paralleled by a number of other parables in which Jesus used actual historical situations of his day (for example, Luke 14:28-33; Luke 19:11-27).
A Lesson for Today
There is also perhaps a small practical lesson we can take from this understanding of Jesus’ parable: the unfailing discretion of Jesus. Although the characters of his parable may have been recognizable to his audience, Jesus did not go as far as identifying them by name. This fits the pattern we see throughout the New Testament in which Jesus never identifies and condemns individuals by name, only as groups: the Pharisees, scribes, tax collectors, or whatever. Although he could have publicly accused and discredited specific individuals on many occasions, Christ did not do so in his human life. In our own time – a time of heightened political invective – this is an example for every Christian to consider.
* Download a free copy of our e-book Lessons from the Life of Jesushere.
Recent Comments