Ch. 11:1-44. THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS.--THE DIVINE OBJECT IN ALL
SEEMING EVIL: NOT HUMAN DEATH BUT DIVINE GLORY (4).--THE MYSTERY OF THE
DIVINE SILENCE IN OUR SORROW ILLUSTRATED AND PARTIALLY INTERPRETED (6,
12).--THE CONDITIONS OF DIVINE PROTECTION AND THE CHRISTIAN’S SAFETY
(9, 10).--THE CHRISTIAN’S DEATH A SLEEP (11).--THE ANGUISH OF “IF” (21,
32).--THE PHARISAIC CREED AND THE CHRISTIAN’S FAITH CONCERNING DEATH
AND THE RESURRECTION CONTRASTED (23-27).--CHRIST’S INDIGNATION AT HUMAN
FALSEHOOD (33, 38).--CHRIST’S SYMPATHY WITH HUMAN SORROW (35).--THE
RESISTANCE OF FAITHLESSNESS; THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH (39, 41).--THE
PRAYER OF ASSURANCE OF FAITH (42).--THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE (43,
44).--A PARABLE OF HUMAN SORROW AND DIVINE COMFORT.--A PARABLE OF HUMAN
SIN AND DIVINE REDEMPTION. See Supplementary Note.
PRELIMINARY NOTE.--There is nothing in John to indicate the time at
which this miracle took place; and there is no general agreement
among harmonists respecting it. Robinson places it immediately at
the close of Christ’s Judean ministry and prior to his ministry in
Perea; Andrews and Ellicott place it at the close of the Perean
ministry and immediately preceding the Passion week. The reasons
for so doing are: (1) It seems the immediate occasion both of the
triumphal procession accorded to Jesus by the spontaneous action of
the common people, and of the more deliberate determination on the
part of the ecclesiastics of Jerusalem to put him to death. It does
not seem reasonable, therefore, to suppose that a long period of
active service in another part of the Holy Land intervened between
this the greatest miracle wrought by Christ and the effects which it
produced, both upon the church party and upon the common people. (2)
Immediately after this miracle, and in consequence of the excitement
produced by it, Christ retired into the wilderness, and is said by
John to have continued there with his disciples; and the
implication is that he remained in this retirement until after the
Passover (vers. 54, 55). To suppose that the Perean ministry,
which lasted something like three months, was interjected into this
period of retirement, which is Robinson’s supposition, breaks into the
continuity of John’s narrative, and does violence to its order and
symmetry, without any adequate reason. (3) Jesus was at a considerable
distance from Bethany at the time when Lazarus was taken sick. The
sisters sent unto him at once; after receiving their message, he
remained where he was two days; but when he reached Bethany, Lazarus
had been four days dead (comp. vers. 6 and 39). Presumptively,
therefore, he was at least one day’s journey from Bethany, even if
we assume that Lazarus had died before the messengers had reached
Jesus; more probably he was two days’ journey distant, for verse
11 indicates that the death of Lazarus took place after Jesus had
received word of his sickness. Thus the narrative of this miracle
tallies with the supposition that Christ was carrying on his ministry
in the region beyond the Jordan, rather than with the supposition that
he was anywhere in Judea; the more so that we have no intimation in
the Gospels of any ministry in Judea except in and about Jerusalem,
of which Bethany was practically a suburb. (4) In Luke 13:32, Christ
uses the following language: “Behold I cast out devils and I do cures
to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.” This
occurs in the Perean ministry, and the “two days” here referred to,
have been hypothetically identified with the “two days” during which,
according to John’s narrative here, Jesus tarried where he was after
receiving the message of Lazarus’s sickness. The coincidence between
the two passages is at least curious, though it may be nothing more
than a coincidence. These reasons make the chronology of Andrews and
Ellicott more probable than that of Robinson. I believe, then, that the
resurrection of Lazarus took place in the latter part of February or
the early part of March A. D. 30, and that it was followed, after the
brief retirement at Ephraim, by the triumphal march of Christ and his
disciples up to Jerusalem, and by his Passion and his death there. See
_Tab. Har._, Vol. I, p. 45; for some general considerations respecting
this miracle, see Sup. Note, ver. 44.
1 Now a certain _man_ was sick, _named_ Lazarus, of
Bethany, the town of[425] Mary and her sister Martha.
[425] Luke 10:38, 39.
2 (It was _that_ Mary which[426] anointed the Lord with
ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother
Lazarus was sick.)
[426] ch. 12:3; Mark 14:3.
=1, 2. Now a certain one was sick named Lazarus.= The only historic
person of this name mentioned in the Bible; the indications are
that he was a younger brother. From the incident in Luke 10:38-42,
we judge that Martha was the head of the household. Simon, probably
the father, though possibly the husband of one of the sisters, was a
leper; he had probably died or been banished by the law, because of
his leprosy (Matt. 26:6). The family appear to have been one
of wealth and social distinction; this is indicated by the facts that
they owned their house, had their tomb in their garden, and were able
to give three hundred dollars worth of ointment as a costly token of
honor to Jesus (John 12:5). I say three hundred dollars worth
because the penny, or denarius, was a day’s wages, and therefore
equivalent to our dollar. How and where the household first became
acquainted with Jesus, we do not know. An ingenious writer in _Smith’s
Bible Dictionary_ endeavors to identify Lazarus with the rich young
ruler who had great possessions, and went away from Christ sorrowful
because he was bid to sell all that he had to give to the poor
(Matt. 19:16-22); but this ingenious hypothesis has only its
ingenuity to commend it. Of Lazarus’s life after his resurrection,
nothing whatever is known; there are traditions respecting him, and
his bones were discovered by some of the credulous relic-worshippers
of the ninth century in the island of Cyprus; but the traditions are
as little to be trusted as the relics.--=Of Bethany.= This village
lies on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, less than two miles
(ver. 18, note) southeast of Jerusalem. See for description
and illustration, ch. 12:1, 2, note. Its present name is El-Azarieh,
derived from, and memorializing the resurrection of Lazarus. Of
course, the house of Simon and of Lazarus, and the tomb of the latter
are pointed out to the traveler by the accommodating monks, and of
course, nothing is known about either of these sites, except that
the tomb cannot possibly be the real one. It is a deep vault partly
lined with masonry, entered upon by a long, winding, half-ruined
staircase; the masonry is comparatively modern, and the situation
of the tomb in the centre of the village is inconsistent with the
Gospel narrative; the genuineness of the site is repudiated by Porter,
Robinson, Thompson, and defended by no scholar.--=The town of Mary and
her sister Martha.= It is so characterized because their home served
as a retreat to Jesus during his ministry in Jerusalem, and it is thus
distinguished from the Bethany beyond the Jordan mentioned in ch.
1:28, note. There is no reason whatever for identifying this Mary with
Mary Magdalene or with the “woman which was a sinner,” or the anointing
referred to here and described in ch. 12:1-8 with the anointing
performed by that unnamed woman and described in Luke 7:36-50; see note
there.--The designation of Bethany as the town of Mary and her sister
Martha, whom John has not before mentioned, as well as his incidental
reference in the parenthetical sentence following, to the anointing of
the Lord by Mary, are indications that John wrote not only with a
knowledge of the other Gospels, or at least with the main facts,
incidents, and characters described in the other Gospels, but also
with the assurance that they were familiar to most of his readers. The
fact that Mary’s name is mentioned first, would, taken by itself,
imply that she was the elder sister, and the head of the household;
but the fact that Martha took the responsibility of providing for the
guests in the two instances recorded in Luke 10:38-42 and John 12:1-8,
indicates that Martha was the elder sister and the housekeeper.
3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord,
behold, he[427] whom thou lovest is sick.
[427] Heb. 12:6; Rev. 3:19.
4 When Jesus heard _that_, he said, This sickness is not
unto death, but[428] for the glory of God, that the Son of
God might be glorified thereby.
[428] verse 40; ch. 9:3.
=3, 4. Lord, behold whom thou lovest is sick.= They have complete
confidence in the sympathy of their Lord; they do not urge him to come;
they do not present any petition; they simply report their trouble to
him.--=He said, This sickness is not unto death.= That is, has not
death for its object; (πρὸς with the accusative, marks strictly the
object towards which anything is directed.) Christ does not say that
Lazarus will not die, but that death is not the end for which this
sickness is ordained of God.--=But for the glory of God, that the Son
of God might be glorified thereby.= Comp. ch. 9:3, note. He was
glorified, (1) perhaps by the development of a higher spiritual life
in Lazarus through his sickness, death and resurrection (_Trench_),
though of this the Evangelist gives us no hint; (2) by the
manifestation of the divine power of Jesus Christ, as one whom the
Father always hears (ver. 42); (3) by the Passion and death of Jesus
Christ, to which the resurrection of Lazarus directly led (vers.
47-53). This saying of Christ seems to have been uttered not merely to
his disciples; it was apparently his message to the sisters, and to it
he refers in verse 40 (see note there).
5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.
6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode
two days still in the same place where he was.
7 Then after that saith he to _his_ disciples, Let us go
into Judæa again.
=5-7. Now Jesus loved Martha=, etc. This statement is made in
explanation of verse 6, that the reader may not fall into the error of
supposing that Christ’s delay was due to any indifference or unconcern
on his part.--=He abode two days in the same place where he was.= Why?
Either because this delay was necessary to complete the work in which
he was engaged, and from which he would not suffer himself to be drawn
away even by considerations of personal sympathy, he himself acting on
the principle “Let the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach
the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:60); or because this delay was necessary
to the consummation of the miracle of the resurrection of Lazarus in
such form as to forever prohibit the impression that death had not
really taken place. The former is the better hypothesis, since in no
case does Christ seem to have wrought a miracle for the mere purpose
of producing by it a profound impression, and it is therefore hardly
consistent to believe that he would have delayed merely for the
purpose of making the miracle more startling and marvelous.--=Let us
go into Judea again.= This plainly implies that Jesus and his
disciples were not then in Judea, and thus incidentally confirms the
supposition (see Prel. Note) that the resurrection of Lazarus was
subsequent to the close of the ministry in Perea, and that he was
summoned from Perea.
8 _His_ disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of
late[429] sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither
again?[430]
[429] ch. 10:31.
[430] Acts 20:24.
9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day?
If[431] any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because
he seeth the light of this world.
[431] ch. 12:35.
10 But if a man walk in the night,[432] he stumbleth,
because there is no light in him.
[432] Eccles. 2:14.
=8-10. The disciples say to him, Master, the Judeans were just now
seeking to stone thee.= On the chronological hypothesis adopted above,
the mob in Jerusalem had threatened the life of Jesus about three
months previous. But he had not been in Judea since. The disciples
attributed Christ’s remaining in Perea to the fear of the Jews, and
remonstrated against his again braving them.--=Jesus answered, Are
there not twelve hours in the day=, etc. In interpreting Christ’s
enigmatical saying here, the student must remember that it was his
habit to speak in parables, and that he rarely gave any interpretation
of them. This is to be regarded as a condensed and uninterpreted
parable. John has himself given us the key to its interpretation by
his use of the same metaphor in his Epistle (1 John 1:5-7). God is the
light. As he has appointed the hours of activity for the human race,
the twelve hours of the day, so he has appointed the hours of service
for each individual man. What was true of Christ is true of every one;
he cannot die until his time has come (John 7:6, 8, 30; 8:20). He
therefore who walks with God in the path of duty, fulfilling the
divine will, cannot stumble; no harm can come to him; not a hair of
his head can be injured (Psalm 91; Matt. 10:29-31; Luke 10:19; 21:18).
He may and must come to his death; but not until his twelve hours have
passed away.--But if a man work in darkness, _i. e._, not with God,
not in the path of duty, not endeavoring to fulfil the divine will,
for him there is no assurance of protection; he is always liable to
stumble and fall. This is the general principle which Christ
parabolically asserts; its immediate application here is that to
Christ there is no danger in going into Judea, for he will not die
until his appointed time has fully come. Comp. ch. 9:4, note.
11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them,
Our friend Lazarus sleepeth:[433] but I go, that I may
awake him out of sleep.
[433] Deut. 31:16; Acts 7:60; 1 Cor. 15:18, 51.
12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he
shall do well.
13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought
that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
=11-13. Our friend Lazarus sleepeth.= An interval is indicated as
having taken place between the previous discourse and the present
declaration, by the words, _after that he saith unto them_. _Our
friend_, implies that Lazarus was loved by the disciples as well
as by their Lord. This language, coupled with that of verse 3,
indicates that he possessed a peculiarly lovable character. _Sleep_
is used both in the O. T. and N. T. as a metaphor of death (2
Chron. 14:1; Ps. 13:3; Jer. 51:57; Job 14:12; Dan. 12:2; Matt.
27:52; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1 Cor. 7:39; 11:30; 15:6, 18, 20, 51; 1
Thess. 4:13, 14, 15). Some of the rationalistic critics think
that the disciples were extraordinarily stupid, not to understand
Christ’s metaphor; and yet they are guilty of a similar but greater
stupidity. Thus, the author of _Supernatural Religion_ says (Vol.
II, 460): “The disciples reply with the stupidity with which
the fourth Evangelist endows all those who hold colloquy with
Jesus: (Lord, if he has fallen asleep he will recover;)” and yet,
on the immediately preceding page, he interprets Christ’s similar
declaration respecting the daughter of Jairus (Matt. 9:24):
“The maid is not dead but sleepeth,” as “an express declaration” that
the case is “one of mere suspension of consciousness.” The
misapprehension of the apostles here was not extraordinary; certainly
not more so than that afforded by some analogous instances in the
first three Gospels (see Matt. 16:7; Luke 22:38). They had understood
from verse 4, that Lazarus was to be restored; they had interpreted
Christ’s words as a promise of healing; they had witnessed cases of
miraculous healing in at least two instances, wrought by a word on an
absent patient (Luke 7:10; John 4:50-53); so when Jesus said, “Lazarus
is sleeping,” they thought the crisis of the disease had passed, and
that there was no reason why their Master should brave the dangers of
a Judean mob to go to the bedside of a convalescent friend.
14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead;
15 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to
the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.
16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his
fellow-disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.
=14-16. Then Jesus said unto them plainly= (παῤῥησίᾳ). That is,
dropping all metaphor.--=And I am glad for your sakes that I was not
there.= He accompanies the declaration of the friend’s death with
words of consolation and inspiration. Plain as those words are to us,
they must have been inexplicable to the disciples. They did not
forecast the resurrection; how could they understand why Christ should
not have been present to prevent so great a sorrow. The sympathy of
Christ with us in our sorrow does not prevent him, who sees the end
from the beginning, from rejoicing even when he sees our tears. He
sees the sheaves brought home with joy even while the seed is sown in
tears, and rejoices at the tears because of the harvest. To him, faith
wrought in the soul is worth immeasurably more than all the sorrow
which soul-culture involves (Rom. 5:1-5; 8:18).--=Then said Thomas
which is called Didymus=, that is, the twin.--=Let us also go that we
may die with him.= With Christ, not with Lazarus. The little that we
know about Thomas shows him to have been a man of strong passions and
of little faith and hope; to such a man life is full of pathos. He
could not believe that Christ could with safety go into Judea again;
in this, indeed, he really forecast the result, which was the
crucifixion of his Lord; but neither could he bear to be separated
from him. Chrysostom notes the power of Christ on this timid nature:
“The very man who dared not to go in company with Christ to Bethany,
afterwards traveled with him through the inhabited world, and dwelt in
the midst of nations that were full of murderers desirous to kill
him.” On the character of Thomas, see further, Vol. I, p. 149; John
20:24, note.
17 Then when Jesus came, he found that he had _lain_ in the
grave four days already.
18 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen
furlongs off:
=17, 18. He had lain in the grave four days already.= Various
explanations are made respecting these four days; they are given in
detail in _Andrews’ Life of Our Lord_. Since, however, we do not know
definitely where Christ was, except that it was some point apparently
beyond Jordan, and we do not know at all what engagements and duties
detained him there, surmises as to the way in which these four days
were taken up are decidedly unprofitable. The narrative seems to me
clearly to imply that Lazarus was not dead when the messengers first
reached Jesus. Probably of these four days, two were occupied by
Christ in completing his ministry where he was when he received the
message, and two, or part of two days, in a leisurely journey to the
home of Lazarus.--=Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem.= The use of the
past tense _was_, not _is_, indicates that Bethany had ceased to exist
at the time when John wrote his Gospel; it thus incidentally confirms
the opinion that he wrote a considerable time after the destruction of
Jerusalem, and when that city and its environs were lying
waste.--=About fifteen furlongs off.= Literally, _stadia_. The
_stadium_, is about six hundred feet; fifteen stadia or furlongs were,
therefore, about nine thousand feet, or a little less than two miles.
19 And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to[434]
comfort them concerning their brother.
[434] 1 Chron. 7:22; Job 2:11; 42:11; Rom. 12:15; 1
Thess. 4:18.
=19. And many of the Judeans came to Martha and Mary.= The word
_Jews_, as used by John, indicates always the inhabitants of Judea, as
distinguished from those of other provinces in the Holy Land, and
therefore generally those who were prejudiced against, if not
absolutely hostile to Jesus. The fact that most of those who were
present at the scene about to be described were these Judeans, is an
important one, and must be borne in mind by the student, for it gives
a peculiar color and significance to the entire narrative.--=To
comfort them concerning their brother.= The Jewish mourning rites were
most carefully defined by the Rabbinical law; they included rending
the clothes, dressing in sackcloth, sprinkling of ashes or dust on the
person, fasting, loud lamenting. Professional mourners were employed
to increase the noisy demonstrations of grief (see Mark 5:38, note).
The days of mourning were thirty, which were divided into three for
weeping, seven for lamentation, and twenty for less demonstrative
mourning. During the first three days the mourners were forbidden to
wear their phylacteries or to engage in any servile work, or to bathe
or anoint themselves; during the seven days they fasted or ate nothing
but an occasional egg or some lentiles. After the funeral services
were over (for account of which see Luke 7:12, note), friends and
professional mourners came and sat with the afflicted ones upon the
ground, no one speaking until the bereaved ones had done so, but every
sentence of theirs was followed by some word of sympathy and comfort
or by the wail of the mourners. Everything was done according to a
prearranged system; in Phariseeism there was no liberty, even in the
hour of grief.
20 Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming,
went and met him: but Mary sat _still_ in the house.
21 Then said Martha unto Jesus. Lord, if thou hadst been
here, my brother had not died.
22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever[435] thou wilt ask
of God, God will give _it_ thee.
[435] ch. 9:31.
=20-22. Then Martha * * * went and met him.= Jesus did not enter into
the village, but stopped without and sent some one to let the sisters
know that he had come. Geikie supposes that he thus remained without
from fear of the Jews; but Christ never stopped in the performance of
a duty from considerations of fear; his reply to the remonstrances of
his disciples (vers. 8-10) should have prevented this prosaic
interpretation of Christ’s action. To him the conventional mourning
customs of Oriental society were exceedingly distasteful. He who put
all the noisy mourners out of the room in which the daughter of Jairus
lay dead (Mark 5:40), and who so gently rebuked the noisy and
ostentatious lamentations of the women of Jerusalem at the time of his
own crucifixion (Luke 23:27-31), might naturally be expected to
decline to enter into the circle of formal mourners, with the
alternative of either violating the precedents and rules of good
society, or of submitting himself in such an hour to the bondage which
they imposed.--=But Mary sat still in the house.= It would appear from
verse 29, that she did not know that Jesus had come; yet the contrast
between the two sisters, the one of whom with bustling activity waited
upon her Lord, the other of whom, in the quieter offices of love, sat
at his feet to listen to his words, or anoint those feet with precious
ointment (Luke 10:38-42; John 12:1-8), reappears here. Martha, who was
probably the head of the household, was naturally the first to hear of
Christ’s coming, and even in her grief found comfort in activity; to
Mary, in the solitude of her sorrow, no one at first reported Christ’s
approach.--=Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.=
This is the language both of reproach and of lamentation, though the
reproach is implied rather than asserted. Her language expresses the
very essence of soul torture at such times. We are slow to believe
that our sorrow is “for the glory of God that the Son of God may be
glorified thereby,” and in our affliction continually echo Martha’s
“if,” saying to ourselves, if we had not done this, or if we had not
done that, if it had not been for our blunder or that of our friends
or our physician, our beloved would not have died. Chance is the God
of Atheism, and is a comfortless God in the time of our trouble.--=But
I know that even now whatsoever thou shouldst ask of God, God will
give it thee.= This is interpreted by Meyer and Godet as an expression
of Martha’s faith that Jesus is able to raise even the dead to life
again; but in order to sustain this interpretation, they are obliged
to depart from a natural and simple interpretation of Christ’s
declaration in vers. 25, 26, to suppose that Martha desired or was
anticipating her brother’s resurrection, and yet was so obtuse as to
entirely miss the meaning of Christ in that declaration, and, finally,
to suppose that the faith which she possessed when she first beheld
Christ disappeared when she reached the tomb, where she remonstrated
against opening it that the resurrection might be accomplished. I
understand Martha’s utterance here to be that simply of an undefined
hope. She had counted so much on Christ; he had not come in the hour
of her need; all was over now; and yet now that he had come, although
too late, she went out to him with a vague, restless hope of some
succor or consolation, she knew not what. In our own experience in the
unreasonableness of grief, like vague and delusive hopes are not
uncommon. Calvin’s interpretation of Martha’s experience better
accords both with what we elsewhere know of her character and with the
narrative here, than does that of those who eulogize her extraordinary
faith: “When she assures herself that her brother would not have died
if Christ had been present, what ground has she for this confidence?
certainly it did not arise from any promise from Christ. The only
conclusion, therefore, is that she inconsiderately yields to her own
wishes, instead of subjecting herself to Christ. When she ascribes to
Christ power and supreme goodness, this proceeds from faith; but when
she persuades herself of more than she had heard Christ declare, that
has nothing to do with faith. * * * Martha’s faith, mixed up and
interwoven with ill-regulated desires, and even not wholly free from
superstition, could not shine with full brightness; so that we
perceive but a few sparks of it in these words.”
23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again
in the[436] resurrection at the last day.
[436] ch. 5:29.
=23-24. Thy brother shall rise again.= Evidently these words were not
understood by Martha to contain a promise of immediate resurrection,
and therefore we are not justified in saying that they were so intended
by Jesus. They are vague, and are intended to be vague and suggestive,
in order to lead on the mind of Martha, and to evoke an expression of
her faith. This method of calling out the experience of his pupil was a
customary one with Jesus in all his instruction.--=I know that he
shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.= This statement
of Martha’s faith is to be interpreted by the belief of the orthodox
Jews. This was that all the dead departed to Hades or the Under-world,
where they dwelt in a shadowy prison-house; the righteous in Paradise;
the wicked in Hell; and awaited the coming of the Messiah, who would
call all the righteous from the Under-world, while the wicked would be
thrust back into it again. Martha believed that her brother had gone
to this abode of the dead, and there was awaiting a day of judgment
and of resurrection; but she found in this faith very little
consolation. Her brother, to her thought, was as if he were not, and
dwelt among the dead. A vague hope of a far-distant revival did not
comfort her. It is in contrast to, and in correction of this creed,
that Christ utters the declaration of verses 25, 26.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the[437] resurrection, and the
life;[438] he that believeth in me, though[439] he were
dead, yet shall he live;
[437] ch. 6:40, 44.
[438] ch. 14:6; Isa. 38:16; 1 John 1:2.
[439] Job 19:26; Isa. 26:19; Rom. 4:17.
26 And whosoever[440] liveth and believeth in me shall
never die. Believest thou this?
[440] chaps. 3:15; 4:14.
=25, 26. I am the resurrection and the life. He that believeth in me
even if he could die= (κἄν ἀποθάνῃ) =yet he should live, and every one
that liveth and believeth in me never can die.= The various and
conflicting interpretations afforded by the commentators of this
declaration of Christ agree only in being complicated and abstruse. It
is essential to comfort that it should be simple truth simply
expressed; and that Christ should offer as a consolation to Martha a
truth so subtle and involved in so much mystery that skillful
scholarship can scarce unlock its meaning, seems to me utterly
incredible. I understand these words as an embodiment of Christ’s
creed respecting life and immortality. Jesus is the source of the
resurrection, and the fountain of life. Whoever, therefore, by faith
in Christ, has Christ in him the hope of glory, never knows death; to
him there is no Hades, no dark and dismal abode of the dead, no long
and weary waiting for a final great jail delivery--a judgment and an
acquittal. He passes at once from the lower to the higher state; he
has already come to the general assembly and church of the first-born
(Heb. 12:22-24). What we call death summons him simply to depart and
be straightway with Christ (Phil. 1:23; Luke 23:43). The eternal life
which Christ here and now gives to those who are by faith united to
him (John 5:24), is never suspended. So immortal and potent is this
life principle which Christ offers to those who have received him,
that, if it were possible that one having died should receive it, he
would by it be made to live again. Against the conception, common now
as then, of death as a long sleep or a long and dreary waiting for a
final resurrection, is Christ’s teaching here that “There is no death;
what seems so is transition.” In confirmation of this view, observe,
(1) That Christ’s declaration is present, not future: “_I am the
resurrection_,” not, _I shall by-and-by become so_. (2) The
conditional clause _though he were dead_, is literally _even though he
should die_, and is fairly rendered by the phrase adopted above, _even
if he could die_. (3) Thus interpreted, Christ’s declaration is
responsive to Martha’s confession of faith, and leads on to and agrees
with the event which follows, the restoration of Lazarus to his
earthly life. (4) It accords with the general teaching of the N. T.,
in which Christ is represented as the source of eternal life, and the
death of the saints as a doorway into his immediate presence (Acts
7:59; Rom. 14:8; 2 Cor. 5:8; 1 Thess. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:8; 2 Peter 1:11,
etc.). It is not necessary to give here other interpretations, for
they are complicated, incongruous, and almost impossible to classify.
They are the results of various and unsuccessful endeavors to bring
Christ’s declaration into accord with the Pharisaic faith, which still
lingers in the Christian church, of a resurrection and an eternal life
postponed to the future, and an abode in death, meanwhile, in some
sort of an intermediate state.
27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord; I believe that thou art
the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the
world.
=27. Yea, Lord; I have believed that thou art the Messiah, the Son of
God, he who was to come unto the world.= _I have believed_
(πεπίστευκα), the perfect tense, indicates the expression of a
well-established faith; perhaps of one which Christ well knew that she
had entertained. Martha still adheres to her Pharisaic creed; we do
not give up our religious beliefs easily. At Christ’s question,
“Believest thou that I am the Resurrection and the Life, and that they
that believe in me shall never die?” she replies in effect: “Yea,
Lord; I believe that thou art the Messiah of the prophets at whose
word all the dead shall come forth from Hades unto judgment.” And in
this faith she does have some comfort, because she supposes this day
of general resurrection cannot, in the nature of the case, be far
distant.
28 And when she had so said, she went her way, and called
Mary her sister secretly,[441] saying, The Master[442] is
come, and calleth[443] for thee.
[441] ch. 21:7.
[442] ch. 13:13.
[443] Mark 10:49.
29 As soon as she heard _that_, she arose quickly, and came
unto him.
30 Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in
that place where Martha met him.
=28-30. She went her way and called Mary her sister secretly.=
Evidently, from her words _The Master calleth for thee_, she did this
in obedience to Christ’s direction. She went secretly because she did
not desire the presence of the Judeans at the quiet conference between
Jesus Christ and herself and sister.--=The Master is come and calleth
for thee.= She represses the name, perhaps because she does not desire
it to be overheard by those who are present. The general designation,
however, _the Master_ or _the Teacher_ is enough. To Mary there is no
one else worthy to be called the Teacher.--=As soon as she heard that,
she rose quickly.= Therefore presumptively, Mary had not before heard
that Jesus had arrived.--=Jesus * * * was in that place where Martha
met him.= Not at the grave where Lazarus was buried (ver. 34), but at
some point a little outside the village.
31 The Jews[444] then which were with her in the house, and
comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily
and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the
grave to weep there.
[444] verse 19.
32 Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him,
she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if[445]
thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.
[445] verses 21, 37; ch. 4:49.
=31, 32. She goeth unto the grave to weep there.= It was the custom of
Jewish women often to visit the graves of their dead, especially during
the first days of mourning. These too obtrusive mourners could not
comprehend that Mary might desire solitude in her sorrow. They would
not allow her to retreat from them. Thus the private interview which
Jesus desired with the two sisters was denied him. Consequently there
was no real conference between Jesus and Mary; as soon as she came he
asked to be shown the grave.--=She fell down at his feet.= With a more
passionate nature than that of Martha, her action and her attitude
were both more strongly indicative of her uncontrollable emotion.
Possibly she threw herself prostrate at his feet in the form of
salutation ordinarily paid by an inferior to a superior in the East;
yet, with her face upon the ground, she could hardly have carried on
any conference whatever. More probably, therefore, she flung herself
at first at his feet, then partially raised herself again to break
forth in her reproachful complaint.--=Lord, if thou hadst been here my
brother would not have died.= Her language is nearly the same as that
of Martha, but she adds no expression of hope; her profounder nature
refuses to entertain a hope for which she can give herself no reason.
[Illustration: FELL AT HIS FEET.]
33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also
weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and
was troubled,
34 And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him,
Lord, come and see.
35 Jesus wept.[446]
[446] Isa. 63:9; Luke 19:41; Heb. 2:16, 17.
=33-35. When Jesus therefore saw her lamenting and the Judeans also
lamenting which came with her.= The word translated in the English
version _weeping_, but which I have rendered _lamenting_, is not the
same as that employed in the declaration of verse 35, “Jesus wept.” It
implies not only the shedding of tears but also every external
expression of grief--the loud outcries, the rending of garments, and
the whole vociferous and ostentatious manifestation of mourning.--=He
groaned in the spirit and was troubled.= There seems to be no doubt
that the Greek word rendered _groaned_, necessarily involves in it the
idea of anger or indignation; it is so rendered in the Vulgate and in
Luther’s translation. “The words _brimaomi_ (βριμάομαι) and
_embrimaomi_ (εμβριμάομαι) are never used otherwise than of hot anger
in the classics; the Septuagint and N. T. (Matt. 9:30; Mark 1:43;
14:5), except where they denote snorting or growling proper.”--(_Meyer._)
With this agree both the lexicons and the critics generally. What was
the cause of this indignation? According to some of the older
commentaries, Christ was indignant with himself for his weakness in
yielding to his emotions; his divinity was irritated at the emotion of
his humanity, and violently repressed it. This opinion needs no
refutation with those who believe that Christianity tends to
intensify, not to suppress the natural affections--that Christian
sympathy weeps with those that weep as well as rejoices with those
that rejoice; and who find in the tears of Christ at the grave of
Lazarus, not a manifestation of human weakness, but an expression of
divine sympathy which draws God very near to every sorrowing heart.
Others suppose that Christ saw in this scene a type of the woe that
sin has wrought in the world; seeing its effects his indignation was
aroused. Thus Trench: “He beheld death in all its dread significance,
as the wages of sin; the needs of the whole world, of which this was
but a little example, rose up before his eyes; all its mourners and
all its graves were present to him.” We may certainly believe that
this profound sense of the significance of this scene of sorrow
affected Christ and intensified his sympathy; that the tears that he
shed were tears of sympathy, not only with Mary and Martha, but also
with all sorrowing households. This, however, interprets rather his
sorrow than his indignation. A simple and natural interpretation of
this indignation is afforded by a consideration of the circumstances
and surroundings. He was indignant at the display of the affected
grief of those who were bitter enemies of the truth, and who would, as
he well knew, make use of this very miracle to promote his death, and
would even join with those who would seek to put Lazarus himself to
death again (ch. 12:10). He was indignant _when he saw the Jews also
lamenting_, and again when he heard the sneer uttered by them (see
ver. 37, note). To this effect is Meyer: “He was angered, then, at the
_Judeans_, when he saw them lamenting with the deep-feeling Mary, and
professing by their cries (of condolence) to share her feelings,
whilst at the same time aware that they were full of bitter hostility
to him who was the beloved friend both of those who mourned and of him
whom they mourned.”--=And was troubled.= Literally, _he troubled
himself_. The words “indicate a physical emotion, a bodily
trembling, which might be perceived by the witnesses of this
scene.”--(_Godet._)--=Lord, come and see.= They did not anticipate his
purpose; they simply invited him to come to the grave, as would be
natural in such circumstances.--=Jesus wept.= The Greek (δακρύω)
signifies simply shedding of tears, weeping silently. This silent
dropping of the tears from his eyes is in contrast with the weeping
over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41, κλαίω). That was a public lamentation of a
prophet; this was the expression of the personal sympathy of a friend.
Beware of that false philosophy which represents Christ as weeping
only as a man. In this, as in every utterance of his nature, he was
God manifest in the flesh. By his tears at the grave of Lazarus he
interprets to us the divine sympathy which shares all our sorrows,
however much the great Sympathizer, with his clear view of final
results, may, like Christ, be glad of the brief experience of grief
that is soon to produce so much joy (ver. 15).
36 Then said the Jews, Behold,
how he loved him!
37 And some of them said, Could not this man, which[447]
opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this
man should not have died?
[447] ch. 9:6.
=36, 37. Then said the Judeans, Behold how he loved him; but some of
them said, Could not this fellow who opened the eyes of the blind have
caused that even this man should not have died?= Some, touched by
Christ’s genuine though silent sorrow, in striking contrast with the
noisier demonstrations of grief of the less sincere mourners,
expressed their sense of the Rabbi’s love for his friend; others
replied with a sneer. This is indicated in the original by the Greek
particle (δέ), which our English version renders _and_, but which
should be rendered _but_; and by the phrase _This fellow_, which
fairly represents the spirit of the original (see ch. 6:42, note).
They referred, not to previous resurrections, for these had taken
place in Galilee, and with them they were not familiar, but to the
healing of the blind man, which had only a little previously taken
place in Jerusalem, and which had led to a formal investigation by the
Sanhedrim, and no little public excitement (ch. 7).
38 Jesus therefore, again groaning in himself, cometh to
the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.
=38. Jesus therefore, again indignant in himself.= He is indignant at
the sneer, and his manner gives some expression to his indignation,
though it is not uttered in words.--=Cometh to the grave. It was a
cave, and a stone lay upon it.= The grave was sometimes cut
perpendicularly in the rock, but the declaration that it was a cave
implies that the tomb of Lazarus was in a horizontal chamber. The
phrase _A stone lay upon it_, may as well mean that a stone was laid
against the open doorway as upon a perpendicular opening. “The family
vaults of the Jews were sometimes natural (Gen. 23:9), sometimes, as
was this, artificial, and hollowed out from a rock (Isa. 22:16; Matt.
22:60), in a garden (John 19:41), or in some field, the possession of
the family (Gen. 23:9, 17-20; 35:8; 1 Kings 2:34), with a recess in
the sides (Isa. 14:15), wherein the bodies were laid, occasionally
with chambers one beyond another. Sometimes the entrance to these
tombs was on a level; sometimes, as most probably here, there was a
descent to it by steps. The stone which blocked up the entrance and
kept aloof the beasts of prey, above all the numerous jackalls, which
else might have found their way into these receptacles of the dead and
torn the bodies.”--(_Trench._) For further description and
illustration of Jewish tomb, and the manner of closing it with a
circular stone, see Mark 16:2-4, note. Presumptively, in this case,
the stone was rolled away from the door of the cave, and Jesus and the
friends stood in the doorway, while from the inner chamber or recess
where the body of Lazarus had been laid, he issued forth at the word
of the Lord. The accompanying illustration (p. 146) better represents
the nature of the scene than it is possible to do by description only.
39 Jesus said, Take ye away[448] the stone. Martha, the
sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this
time[449] he stinketh: for he hath been _dead_ four days.
[448] Mark 16:3.
[449] Ps. 49:7, 9; Acts 2:27.
40 Jesus saith unto her, Said[450] I not unto thee, that,
if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of
God?
[450] verses 4, 23.
=39, 40. Martha * * * saith unto him, Lord, already he stinketh.= This
is taken by Alford as the statement of the plain fact, and he
apparently believes that it was made sensible by the ill odor which
proceeded from the cave. Trench objects that this supposition gives to
the miracle almost “a monstrous character.” The text seems to me to
determine the question. Martha asserts the decomposition of the body,
not as a _fact known_, but as a _conclusion deduced_ from the length
of time that had passed since the death. With her it clearly was an
opinion--whether correct or not is purely a matter of surmise.
Apparently the body had not been embalmed; no explanation is offered
of this singular fact. In the East it was usual to embalm the corpse
at once.--=For he hath been four days= (dead). We may supply either
the word _dead_, as the translators have done, or the word _buried_;
it will make little difference, for burial in the warm climate of the
East usually took place on the day of the death. It was a Jewish
notion that for three days the spirit wandered about the sepulchre
hoping that it might return unto the body; but on the fourth day it
abandoned this expectation and left the body to itself. Thus Martha’s
expression involves the idea that all hope of resuscitation was past,
and negatives the interpretation of Meyer that her language in verse
22 implies her hope of a present resurrection.--=Said I not unto
thee.= The reference is probably to the message sent to the sisters as
reported in verse 4.--=If thou wouldst believe, thou shouldst see the
glory of God.= The faith of the sisters was to be displayed, not in
any definite expectation of the work which their Lord was about to
accomplish, but in obedience to his directions; and in fact Martha
tacitly withdraws her remonstrance, and the stone is rolled away from
the grave. The performance of the miracle was itself dependent on the
fulfillment of the condition, If thou wouldst believe. The New
Testament throughout treats faith as the power of moral and spiritual
discernment, and therefore the fundamental condition of receiving the
divine blessing. “To unbelieving Martha, Jesus could no more have
restored the dead brother, than to the unbelieving Jairus his child
(Luke 8:50), or to the widow of Nain her son, if her attitude toward
his compassion and his injunction ‘Weep not’ (Luke 7:13), had been one
of unbelief.”--(_Meyer._) Observe the order in which Christ put seeing
and believing. Men are always desirous to see in order to believe.
Martha is called upon to give an example of the contrary course: to
believe that she may see.
41 Then they took away the stone _from the place_ where
the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up _his_ eyes, and
said,[451] Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.
[451] ch. 12:28-30.
42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because
of the people which stand by I said _it_, that they may
believe that thou hast sent me.
=41, 42. They took away therefore the stone.= The words _where the
dead man was laid_ are wanting in the best manuscripts.--=And Jesus
lifted up his eyes.= Toward heaven; not because God is in heaven more
truly than upon earth (Ps. 139:7-12), but because the visible heaven
is ever suggestive to the human mind of the invisible God; and Jesus
thus quickened his own faith in the Father, as we may well do. He
prayed toward the heavens as the devout Jew prayed toward the temple
(1 Kings 8:30; Dan. 6:10).--=Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard
me.= It is not necessary to suppose, as Alford does, a reference to
some previously uttered prayer, in Perea, for example, when the
message respecting Lazarus’s sickness was brought to Jesus. The
language is that of the assurance of faith--faith in a God who hears
the desire before it is expressed in prayer, who teaches the believing
soul how and for what to pray, and who thus continually answers our
prayers by anticipation. Christ regards his prayer as answered before
it is presented.--=And I knew that thou hearest me always.= Alike when
the prayer is granted and when it is denied; at the grave of Lazarus
and in the agony in Gethsemane. God hears us when his providence says
No to our petition none the less than when it says Yes. The true
Christian’s faith, like Christ’s faith, rests not on the answer but on
the direct personal consciousness of spiritual communion with
God.--=But because of the people which stand by I said it.= Thus
Christ on occasion violates the letter of his own rule which prohibits
men to pray “that they may be seen of men” (Matt. 6:5, 6), just as in
Gethsemane he seemed to violate the letter of his rule against
repetitions in prayer (comp. Matt. 6:7 with Matt. 26:44). Here his
prayer was public in order that men might know that he did pray, and
that his resurrection power was not his own but was given to him by
his Father, and thus might glorify not him, but the Father in
him.--=That they may have faith that thou hast sent me.= Not merely
that they might believe intellectually that he was a messenger or
representative sent by the Father, but that their thoughts might be
turned from him, who was but the instrument, the voice of God, to the
invisible Father himself, who spoke in him and wrought through him.
This prayer of thanksgiving is in instructive contrast with the prayer
of Elijah when he raised the dead (1 Kings 17:20, 21). There was the
earnestness of an anxious faith; here is the assurance of a restful
faith; there the importunity of request intensified by a fear of
denial; here the calmness of thanksgiving already assured of a
favorable response. The simple grandeur of this prayer has not
prevented it from being criticised as artificial (Supernatural
Religion), “a show prayer” (_Weisse_), “a sham prayer” (_Baur_). If
prayer were only petition there would be ground for this criticism;
but if prayer is the frank and free communion of the soul with its
Father, there is none. It will seem artificial only to those who are
unable to comprehend the filial relation between a Son and his
heavenly Father.
43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice,
Lazarus, come forth.
44 And[452] he that was dead came forth, bound hand and
foot with graveclothes; and his face[453] was bound about
with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let
him go.
[452] 1 Kings 17:22; 2 Kings 4:34, 35; Luke 7:14, 15;
Acts 20:9-12.
[453] ch. 20:7.
=43, 44. He cried with a loud voice.= The previous prayer had been
spoken in a subdued voice; apparently, this is implied by the
suggested contrast, was only heard in Christ’s immediate vicinity. The
others knew that he was praying, and thus recognized the miracle as a
result of his appeal to his Father; but they did not hear the words of
the prayer. The “loud voice” was a type, a suggestion of that voice
like the sound of many waters (Rev. 1:15), at which all who are in
their graves shall come forth (John 5:28; 1 Thess. 4:16).--=Lazarus,
come forth.= Literally _Here! out!_ “The simplicity of these two words,
are in glorious contrast with their efficacy.”--(_Godet._)--=And
he that had been dead came forth, bound hand and foot with
grave-clothes.= Literally _swathing-bands_ (χειρία). The supposition
of Chrysostom, Lightfoot and others that this coming forth _bound_
necessitated a new miracle is entirely unnecessary. It was the Jewish
custom to wrap the dead comparatively loosely in a winding sheet or
shroud, which would have impeded though not prevented arising and
walking. The exact nature of the swathing-bands does not appear to be
known. The word occurs nowhere else in the N. T. There is, however, no
reason to suppose that the limbs were so tightly bound that motion
would be impossible. The same word is used in classic literature to
signify a flounce worn about the bottom of the dress of the living.
The accompanying cut, which in its representation of the tomb and
grave-clothes, is produced from a careful study of the best
archæological authorities, illustrates the probable appearance of
Lazarus better than descriptive words could do. --=His face was bound
about with a napkin.= A handkerchief; probably, as sometimes with us,
to prevent the falling of the lower jaw.--=Loose him and let him go.=
Christ gives them something to do. This is partly to recall them from
their speechless and dazed astonishment, partly to prevent the too
great and dangerous revulsion of feeling, partly because he has done
his work and would bid them to do what in them lies to be sharers with
him in the restoration of the loved one to life and liberty. In this
is a moral significance; we cannot raise the spiritually dead; but we
can bring Christ to their grave by our prayers, and we can aid in
their perfect liberation when the divine voice has called them from
their sleep of death.
* * * * *
NOTE ON THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS.--This miracle is recorded only by
John. Why? It was not only the climax of all Christ’s wonderful works,
but it also led directly on the one hand to the triumphal procession
into Jerusalem, which is recorded by all, and on the other to the
final plans for Christ’s arrest and crucifixion. Several explanations
have been suggested for the silence of the synoptists: (1) That the
miracle aroused hostility to Lazarus and his sisters, and involved
them in danger (ch. 12:10), and that therefore all mention of it was
omitted (_Godet_, _Olshausen_). But this hostility could hardly have
continued to threaten any real danger to Lazarus for twenty-five or
thirty years; and if it did, we can hardly think that he or his
sisters would have shrunk from being designated as living witnesses to
the resurrection power of their Lord. They would rather have gloried
in being permitted to suffer for him. (2) That the narration of the
resurrection would have made the household “the focus of an intense
and irreverent curiosity” (_Farrar_). But it would also have made them
the focus of an intense and reverent desire to know something with
greater certainty respecting Jesus and his work. And if the miracle
were wrought for the glory of God, to keep silence respecting it was
to weaken if not to destroy its intended effect. (3) That the
Synoptists confine themselves to a narrative of Christ’s Galilean
ministry and exclude all the events in Judea prior to the Passion week
(_Meyer_). But this does not explain the omission of this miracle; it
simply reiterates the fact, and leaves the perplexing problem
unsolved. Why should the Synoptists avoid all mention of miracles and
teachings in Judea, especially one so notable as this? I agree with
Trench in saying that to this question it is now difficult to find a
satisfactory answer. Possibly Peter, from whom Mark is believed to
have derived all his information, and Matthew were not present, and
each may have limited himself to facts actually witnessed by them.
This still leaves Luke’s omission of the miracle unexplained.
[Illustration: RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS.]
The significance of this miracle as an evidence of Christ’s divine
character, authority and mission has always been felt, even by the
more resolute unbelievers in historic Christianity. Thus Spinoza
declared that “could he have persuaded himself of the truth of the
raising of Lazarus, he would have broken in pieces his whole system,
and would have embraced without repugnance the ordinary faith of
Christians.” Various rationalistic explanations have been attempted,
of which the chief are the following: (1) The mythical (_Strauss_),
_i. e._, that the story is a myth which grew up out of some slight
foundation, assumed its present form in the second or third century,
and then was embodied in this narrative by an ecclesiastical forger,
who used John’s name to give sanction to his story. (2) That the story
was created by the writer for the purpose of illustrating the truth
that Christ is the resurrection and the life, and that it was
developed by him out of some conversation of Jesus, or perhaps out of
the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, or possibly out of some
incident in the life of Lazarus. It is even suggested that Nain is an
abbreviation of Bethany, and that the narratives of the resurrection
of Lazarus and of the widow of Nain’s son have a common origin
(_Schenkel_). To such straits is naturalism reduced in dealing with
the miraculous. (3) That the death of Lazarus was apparent, not real;
that the resurrection was a fraud contrived by the friends of Jesus in
order to give _eclat_ to his anticipated entry into Jerusalem, and
that to this fraud he lent himself, in a moment of intense fanatical
enthusiasm (_Renan_). The various explanations are stated more in
detail by Meyer, but may all be reduced to these three: a denial that
John wrote the account; a suggestion that he invented it, building on
a very slight foundation; and a suspicion that it was a fraud
perpetrated by Lazarus and the sisters and acquiesced in by Jesus. The
only alternative is belief in the miracle. The evidence of John’s
authorship of the Fourth Gospel (see Introduction) refutes the first
hypothesis; the simplicity of the narrative and the character of John,
the second; the character of Christ himself, the third. The narrative
itself is neither ideal nor dogmatic, neither an artistic picture nor
a concealed argument. It is a perfectly colorless narrative of events
concerning which there was no possible room for mistake. The writer
does not draw from the narrative any conclusion; he does not say that
any miracle was wrought or even that the dead was raised. He simply
tells his readers what he saw and heard, and leaves them to draw their
own conclusions. He was with Jesus beyond Jordan; word came to them
that Lazarus was sick; Jesus remained where he was two days; then he
told the disciples that Lazarus was dead; when they reached Bethany
they found a scene of mourning; the friends had come according to
Jewish custom to console the sister’s family; both sisters stated
impliedly and reproachfully that Lazarus was dead; when they arrived
at the grave, one of them said that he had been dead four days, and
that corruption--though this apparently was only her presumption--had
already commenced; Christ directed the stone to be rolled away,
commanded in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth,” and he came forth
bound in his grave-clothes. A scientific commission could not have
reported the facts with more absolute impartiality. The writer
expresses no opinion whatever respecting the occurrence. This is not
the method of an idealist who has invented the occurrence for the
purpose of glorifying his Master, or of a dogmatist who has written it
to prove a doctrine; it is the language of a pre-eminently honest,
fair-minded and impartial witness. And upon this narrative the great
mass of readers and students have come to but one conclusion--that to
which both friend and foe came at the time--that it was a genuine
resurrection of the dead, a great and notable miracle.
An instructive parallel may be traced between the experience of these
sisters in their sorrow and that of many a Christian household since.
(1) _The burden of grief._ When the sisters first sent for Christ to
come, he delayed. Still he often delays to answer our petitions. The
house of mourning is sometimes a Christless house, not only because of
our infirmity (Psalm 77:10), but also because of his will. We, like
our Master, seem sometimes to be forsaken of our God (Matt. 27:46).
(2) _The aggravation of grief._ Both sisters approach Christ with an
“if”:--“If thou hadst been here my brother had not died.” But his
death was not the result of an “if,” but for the glory of God. There
is no “if”; nothing ever _happens_. Even the cup which Judas,
Caiaphas, Herod and Pilate mingle for Christ is the cup which his
Father gives him (ch. 18:14; Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28). (3) _The sympathy
of Christ._ The tears of Jesus are a witness to the breadth and depth
of the divine sympathy. He feels the anguish of our _present_ sorrow
though he stands by a grave so soon to be opened, perceives
prophetically the resurrection so soon to take place, and knows that
weeping is but for the night and joy cometh in the morning. See Heb.
4:15, 16. (4) _The true and false conception of death._ We too often
imagine, as Martha, the believer awaiting in Hades a future
resurrection and a remote restoration to life. Our hearts are dead
because buried in the grave of our loved ones. To us Christ declares
here that the believer never dies, but steps at once from the lower to
the higher life, through the grave into heavenly companionship (Luke
23:43; Phil. 1:23). (5) _The power of Christ._ This scene is a witness
to the truth that all the dead shall hear his voice and come forth in
resurrection. Death is but a sleep; from it he will awaken all that
sleep in him (Dan. 12:2; John 5:21-29; 6:39; 1 Cor. 15:26, 54; 2 Cor.
4:14; Col. 3:4; 1 Thess. 4:14-17; Rev. 1:18; 20:14). (6) _A parable of
redemption._ Sin a spiritual death; Christ the spiritual life-giver.
* * * * *
Ch. 11:45-57. THE EFFECT OF THE MIRACLE.--IT PRODUCES FAITH IN SOME;
IT INTENSIFIES ENMITY IN OTHERS.--AN UNPRINCIPLED MAN AN UNCONSCIOUS
PROPHET.--CHRIST’S SACRIFICE: VICARIOUS; FOR SINNERS; FOR ALL
PEOPLE.--CHRIST FEARS NEITHER TO FLEE FROM NOR TO FACE DANGER.--FALSE
SEEKING FOR CHRIST ILLUSTRATED.
45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had
seen[454] the things which Jesus did, believed on him.
[454] chaps. 2:23; 10:41, 42; 12:11, 18.
46 But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and
told them what things Jesus had done.
=45, 46. Many of the Jews * * * believed on him.= Not necessarily were
spiritually converted. They recognized in him a prophet, perhaps even
the Messiah.--=But some of them went to the Pharisees.= _But_
(adversative) marks the contrast between the two classes, and
indicates their hostile purpose. The term Pharisees here, as
frequently with John, indicates the rulers of the Jews, the Jewish
hierarchy.
47 Then[455] gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a
council, and said, What[456] do we? for this man doeth many
miracles.
[455] Ps. 2:2.
[456] Acts 4:16.
48 If we let him thus alone, all[457] _men_ will believe on
him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place
and nation.
[457] ch. 12:19.
=47, 48. A council.= A meeting of the Sanhedrim. On its constitutional
character and methods of procedure, see Vol. I, p. 298. Geikie gives
us no good reason for accepting his dogmatic statement that the
Sanhedrim had before this time been broken up by Herod.--=What do we?
for this man doeth many miracles.= Not, What _shall_ we do? but, What
_are we_ doing? They reproach themselves for their inaction. There is
an ellipsis in the sentence; the meaning is, Something must be done,
for this man, etc. For similar instance of perplexity see Acts 4:16.
It always exists where conscience gives a clear command which ambition
and selfishness refuse to obey.--=If we let him thus alone.= This was
a causeless self-reproach; for they had already condemned him without
trial (ch. 7:30, 50, 51), and determined to excommunicate all his
followers (ch. 9:22). It indicates a purpose which the speaker dared
not put in words, to proceed to more extreme measures.--=The Romans
shall come and take away both our place and our nation.= Our _place_,
it seems to me, designates neither the city, the land, nor the temple;
but the office of these rulers. They were placemen, and feared the
loss of their dignities and authority in the utter overthrow of the
nation, which did, indeed, subsequently take place. But why should
they fear this from any increase of Christ’s popularity? Not, as
Augustine interprets, because he would persuade all men to live
peaceful lives, and so prevent any successful revolt against the Roman
government. In common with all the Jews, they expected in the Messiah
a temporal king; the people had already attempted to crown Christ as
king (ch. 6:15); the council did not believe that he was the Messiah,
did not believe that any attempt by him to emancipate the nation would
succeed; and yet his popularity was such, and the popular movement
which they anticipated was likely to be such, as to provoke from the
Romans the destruction of what little national life was left. Their
selfishness blinded them utterly to the true nature of Christ’s
mission.
49 And one of them, _named_[458] Caiaphas, being the high
priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at
all,
[458] ch. 18:14; Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6.
50 Nor consider that it is[459] expedient for us, that one
man should die for the people, and that the whole nation
perish not.
[459] Luke 24:46.
=49, 50.= Caiaphas puts boldly into words thoughts which others less
unscrupulous dared not phrase. He overrules all scruples, whether
those of conscience against the murder of an innocent man and evident
prophet, or those of the Pharisaic party against appealing to the
Roman government to put a prophet to death, which was necessary to
carry out their purpose (Matt. 27:1, 2, note).--This he does by a
Jesuitical casuistry: It is better that one innocent man should die
than that the nation should be destroyed. Thus a pretended patriotism
is made to cover a proposed judicial murder. The argument is that of
an unprincipled politician: the end justifies the means. The
signification here and in verse 51 of the phrase “high priest _that
year_” is somewhat uncertain. Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas,
really held the office from A. D. 27 to A. D. 36 or 37. The high
priesthood was originally a life office. It was now bestowed and taken
away by the Romans at their will. In 107 years there were twenty-seven
appointees. I am inclined to think the language here a sarcastic
reference to the degenerate nature of the office; John refuses to give
to Caiaphas the honor once but no longer due to the high priesthood.
Prof. Fisher (_Beginnings of Christianity_) explains it “on account of
the supreme importance which ‘that year’ of the trial and crucifixion
of Jesus had in his (John’s) mind.” The language of Caiaphas here
agrees with his course in Matt. 26:62, 67. He was an unscrupulous,
vehement, and self-seeking ecclesiastical politician, such a leader as
is often produced by a degenerate and turbulent era.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest
that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that
nation;
52 And not[460] for that nation only, but that also he
should gather together in one the children of God that were
scattered[461] abroad.
[460] Isa. 49:6; Rom. 3:29; 1 John 2:2.
[461] ch. 10:16; Ephes. 2:14-17.
=51, 52.= The meaning of the Evangelist is plain. It is not merely
that by accommodation a prophetic reference to Christ’s sacrifice can
be put upon the words of Caiaphas, but that, unwittingly, he
prophesied of that death and its signification. So Balaam prophesied
blessing to Israel despite himself (Numb., ch. 23). “He who believed
in no angel or spirit was compelled to be the spokesman of the Divine
Word, even when he was plotting his death. Strange and awful
reflection! And yet so it must be--so experience shows us continually
that it is. Our words are not our own; we are no lords over them
whatever we may think.”--(_Maurice._) Observe the two truths connected
with the atonement here indicated: (1) that Jesus Christ dies for the
nation which by its constitutional rulers is plotting his death; he
dies for sinners, not for the righteous (Rom. 5:6-8); (2) by his death
he gathers into _one_, _i. e._, into one nation or kingdom (see Matt.
21:43, note) the children of God from every nation under the heavens
(Matt. 8:11; John 10:16; 17:20, 21; Ephes. 2:16-18; Col. 3:11; Rev.
5:9). “The cross was emphatically a message to mankind, to all tribes
and races within the circle of the empire that had appointed this
punishment for rebels and slaves. It is a thought which possessed the
minds of all the apostles--of none more than St. John. The cross was
to do what the eagle had tried to do. It was to bind men in one
society.”--(_Maurice._)
53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together[462]
for to put him to death.
[462] Ps. 109:4, 5.
=53.= The speech of Caiaphas was successful; it united Pharisee and
Sadducee in an agreement to do _whatever might be necessary_ to
compass the death of Jesus. The effect of this agreement is seen in
their subsequent course (Matt. 22:15, 16, 23; 27:1, 2).
54 Jesus therefore walked no more openly[463] among
the Jews: but went thence unto a country near to the
wilderness, into a city called Ephraim,[464] and there
continued with his disciples.
[463] chaps. 7:1; 18:20.
[464] 2 Sam. 13:23; 2 Chron. 13:19.
=54.= The site of Ephraim is involved in some uncertainty. The
“wilderness” probably designates the wild uncultivated hill country
northeast of Jerusalem, lying between the central towns and the Jordan
valley. Dr. Robinson identifies Ephraim with the Ophrah referred to in
Josh. 18:23; 1 Sam. 13:17, the Ephraim or Ephram referred to in 2
Chron. 13:19, and the modern et-Taiyibeh, and Ewald supposes it to be
the same Ephraim near which occurred the murder of Amnon (2 Sam.
13:23). Taiyibeh is four or five miles east of Bethel and sixteen from
Jerusalem, is situated on a conspicuous conical hill, and commands an
extended view over the whole eastern slope, the valley of the Jordan
and the Dead Sea. But the identification with Taiyibeh is only
hypothetical. See _Andrews’ Life of our Lord_, p. 385. Christ must
have returned to this place immediately after the resurrection of
Lazarus, and his place of retirement was evidently unknown to the
public (ver. 57). The “disciples” who abode there with him undoubtedly
included the twelve, but may have also included others. The length of
his stay is uncertain. If the chronology which I have adopted (see ch.
11, Prel. Note), be the correct one, it could only have been for two
or three weeks, not five or six weeks as supposed by Andrews and
Ellicott. It is not improbable that the special instructions
concerning prayer, reported by Luke, were given during this period of
retirement (Luke 11:1-8: 18:1-14). There is nothing in Luke to fix the
time or place of these instructions; but as Christ was accustomed to
draw his illustrations from circumstances and events occurring about
him, it is probable that at least the parable of the Pharisee and the
publican was given in or near Judea. From Ephraim Christ went up to
Jerusalem to attend the last Passover, and to his passion there. See
ch. 12, Prel. Note.
55 And[465] the Jews’ passover was nigh at hand: and
many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the
passover, to purify themselves.
[465] chaps. 2:13; 5:1; 6:4.
56 Then[466] sought they for Jesus, and spake among
themselves, as they stood in the temple, What think ye,
that he will not come to the feast?
[466] ver. 8; ch. 5:16, 18.
57 Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a
commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should
shew _it_, that they might take him.
=55-57. Out of the country.= From different parts of the country: not
only from Palestine, but from remote provinces where the dispersed
Jews were scattered. (See Acts 2:9-11.)--=To purify themselves.= No
special purifications were required by the O. T. before the Passover,
but the people were commanded to purify themselves before any
important event (Gen. 35:2; Exod. 19:10, 11), and were accustomed to
go through certain special rites of purification prior to the Passover
(2 Chron. 30:13-20).--=Then sought they for Jesus=, etc. “Verse 56
graphically describes the restless curiosity of these country people,
who were collected in groups in the temple and discussing the
approaching arrival of Jesus.”--(_Godet._) His miracles and teachings
in Galilee and Perea, and above all the resurrection of Lazarus, led
his friends and _quasi_ disciples to expect his immediate revelation
of himself as the Messiah (Luke 19:11); while the fact that the
Sanhedrim had pronounced against him and given orders for his arrest
coupled with his sudden disappearance, led others to think that he had
fled from the country, or at least would for the present conceal
himself (comp. John 7:11, 12).--=But the chief priests and the
Pharisees=, etc. (δὲ οἱ ἀρχ.; the first καὶ is spurious). This is
stated as an explanation of the doubt of the people whether Christ
would appear or no. Godet’s suggestions that the order was given to
intimidate Christ and his disciples is reasonable; for it could not
have been difficult to ascertain Christ’s place of retreat, and when
he emerged from it, and came up with peculiar publicity to the feast,
no attempt was made to arrest him. According to a Hebrew tradition, as
reported by Lightfoot, an officer of the Sanhedrim, during the forty
days preceding this Passover, “publicly proclaimed that this man, who
by his imposture had seduced the people, ought to be stoned, and that
any one who could say aught in his defence was to come forward and
speak. But no one doing so, he was hanged on the evening of the
Passover.” To some such public proclamation John here perhaps refers.