6.The Reaction of Unbelief (11:46-57)

6.The Reaction of Unbelief (11:46-57)

JOHN 11

R. THE SEVENTH SIGN — THE RAISING OF LAZARUS (11:1-57)

In a sense the problems of the Fourth Gospel may be summed up in miniature in this chapter. John narrates here a stupendous miracle — the raising of a man who had been dead for four days. Moreover, he says that this was done in circumstances that necessarily involved publicity, and that in Bethany, a little village no more than a couple of miles from Jerusalem. The miracle was witnessed by some of "the Jews," who told the Pharisees what had been done (v. 46). It was on account of this that the chief priests and Pharisees consulted about how Jesus could be destroyed and thus was instituted the chain of events that was to lead to his death.

All this is perfectly straightforward. Critics might be expected to boggle at the thought of a dead man's being raised, but had this been the only Gospel we possessed it is likely that the discussion would have centered on the type of event that lay at the heart of the story. But we also possess the three Synoptic Gospels, and none of them so much as mentions this miracle.¹ It may be fairly argued in many cases that there was no reason why the Synoptists should include things that John narrates. They had plenty of material of their own, and in any case no one expects them to have known all the information that was at the disposal of the Fourth Evangelist.

But in the case of the raising of Lazarus things are said to be different. The publicity of which John speaks makes it difficult to understand how this miracle should not have been known to the Synoptists. And if they did know it, and if it had the consequences that John says it had, it is difficult to understand why they should have omitted it.² They seem to give to the events associated with the triumphal entry and the cleansing of the Temple the role of initiating the events that were to issue in the crucifixion, whereas for John it seems to be the raising of Lazarus that does this.

It is not surprising accordingly that quite a battle has raged around the interpretation of this chapter. Of those who do not view the story as historical³ some have suggested that it is inspired by the scattered references in Luke. There we read of Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38-42), of an unnamed woman who anointed Jesus (Luke 7:36-50), and of a character called Lazarus in a parable, and a resurrection parable at that (Luke 16:19-31). But in the first place, it is difficult to see how such material could give rise to our story, and in the second, it is a fallacy to suppose that John had no information other than that contained in the Synoptics. Others find in it no more than a dramatic illustration of Jesus' words, "I am the resurrection and the life" (v. 25; cf. also 5:21, 25), a kind of acted parable.⁴ It is difficult to reconcile this with John's method, however, and few find this really satisfactory. It seems clear that John believed he was narrating something that had actually happened. The multiplicity of factual details he includes is evidence of that.⁵ In a symbolic narrative there would be no need for details like the names of persons and the village, the distance from Jerusalem, and so on. We are faced with the straight choice between accepting what he says, and refusing to accept the story as credible because of our regard for the Synoptic tradition. Yet it must be borne in mind that the Synoptists do speak of Jesus as claiming to raise the dead (Matt. 11:5; Luke 7:22), and they give two specific examples, the daughter of Jairus (Matt. 9:18ff.; Mark 5:22ff.; Luke 8:41ff.) and the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:1 Iff.). It is possible that they saw no need to add to these.

It is also to be borne in mind that, if the traditional view that the reminiscences of Peter lie behind the Second Gospel is true, the silence of the Synoptists may be explicable. Peter is not mentioned in John between 6:68 and 13:6, and there is a similar, though not so pronounced a gap in Matthew (19:27 and 26:33) and Luke (18:28 and 22:8). The gap in Mark is between 10:28 and 11:21, but there is nothing in that Gospel against the view that Peter remained behind (in Galilee?) when the others went up to Jerusalem, and that he came up to the capital city only for the week prior to Passover. If so, the reason he said nothing about the raising of Lazarus was that he did not see it. It did not belong to his personal reminiscences. All the more is this possible in that it does not seem that this miracle took place immediately before the events leading to the Passion.⁶ One small piece of evidence supporting the view that Peter was absent is the fact that Thomas is the spokesman for the Twelve in verse 16. Normally we would expect Peter to fill that role. Since Matthew seems dependent on Mark at this stage in his narrative, the absence of the story from the first Gospel follows from its absence from the Second. Its absence from Luke is more serious, but it has to be borne in mind that Luke's special source (or sources) appears to be episodic rather than a full chronological narrative. I do not maintain that this clears up all the difficulty, but it must be borne in mind so that the difficulty is not exaggerated.⁷ We must also remember that the miracles in Jerusalem form no part of the Synoptic tradition. Not only this one, but those concerning the lame man at Bethesda and the blind man at Siloam are not mentioned in the Synoptists. For whatever reason they deal only with the last week at Jerusalem and omit all that goes before. Since this miracle must apparently be dated an appreciable time before that week,⁸ they naturally do not mention it.

This, of course, is not to deny that the story has spiritual meaning. This Gospel has a good deal to say about life, from the Prologue on, and John loves to convey the revelation by Jesus' deeds as well as his words. There can be no doubt but that he attaches spiritual significance to this story, placing it as he does as the climax of Jesus' ministry. John wants us to understand that Jesus does give life⁹ and that it is this aspect of Jesus' ministry which brought him into the final clash with the authorities.

1. The Death of Lazarus (11:1-16)

1Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. 3So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick. "4When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it." 5Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6Yet when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days. 7Then he said to his disciples, "Let us go back to Judea." 8 "But Rabbi," they said, "a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?" 9Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light. 10It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light." 11After he had said this, he went on to tell them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up." 12His disciples replied, "Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better." 13 Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. 14So then he told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead, 15and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him." 16Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him."

In this introduction the scene is set for the miracle. Jesus' friends inform him of Lazarus's sickness, but he makes no immediate move. After a couple of days he suggests going into Judea and tells the disciples that Lazarus is dead. The disciples recognize the danger but agree to go with him.

1 Without a time note Lazarus of¹⁰ Bethany is introduced, and we are told that he was a sick man. It is curious that in this introduction his relationship to Mary¹¹ and Martha is not mentioned. That comes in the next verse. Here it is simply said that they lived in the same village. Lazarus (the name is the same as Eleazar)¹² is mentioned in the New Testament only in this chapter and the next (though the name is found also in the parable in Luke 16:19-31). The two sisters are mentioned both in these chapters and in Luke 10:38ff. It seems that Martha was the elder of the two (she is the hostess in the Lukan passage), and if this is so it is interesting that Mary is mentioned before her here and is mentioned alone in verse 45. She was probably the more important in Christian tradition, and she had probably entered more deeply into the mind of Christ.

2 Mary is now identified as the one who anointed Jesus with unguent and wiped his feet with her hair. It is curious that John identifies her in this fashion, for he has not yet described the incident (he relates it in the next chapter). But clearly it was well known in the church, and he could presume that his readers would be familiar with it.

3 The sisters sent to let Jesus know that Lazarus was ill, neither of them being specially mentioned in particular as taking the initiative. For "Lord" we should probably read "Sir" (see on 4:1). They do not name Lazarus but refer to him simply as "the one you love" (REB, "your friend").¹³ If this was sufficient identification, the ties between Jesus and the family must have been very close indeed. We are reminded that our knowledge of the events in the life of Jesus is meager at best. There is no request that Jesus should come to them. Doubtless the sisters were well aware of the dangers that would beset him if he were to visit them, and they do not ask him to imperil himself. Nevertheless their words are in effect a plea for help. Jesus was resourceful, and they look to him for aid without specifying ways and means.

4 Jesus earlier denied that a certain man was bom blind on account of sin, saying that it was rather "so that the work of God might be displayed in his life" (9:3). Now he gives a similar reason for Lazarus's sickness. It is not a sickness that will "end in death."¹⁴ This does not mean that Lazarus would not die (in v. 14 Jesus says plainly that he has died). It means that the ultimate issue of this sickness would not be death. Rather it would be "for God's glory" (for "glory" see on 1:14; Haenchen remarks, "God's glory does not consist in sparing the faithful life's difficulties"). The glory of the Father and the glory of the Son are always in close connection in this Gospel, so it is not surprising that Jesus adds that "God's Son" would also be glorified through it. Once again we have the close relation between the Father and the Son, as well as the thought of glory, both favorite themes in this Gospel. And it is likely that we should understand the glorification of the Son in two ways in the Johannine manner. Jesus was seen to be at one with the Father, and many came to believe on him (v. 45). But the true glory is in the cross, and this incident led right on to Calvary (v. 50).

5 Now John tells us that Jesus loved¹⁵ all three in the family. It is not without its interest that Martha is named first and Mary is not named at all; she is simply identified by her relationship to Martha (probably the elder of the two; see on v. 1). The separate mention of the three persons is probably meant to put some stress on Jesus' affection for each one individually. He did not simply love the family. He loved Martha, he loved Mary, and he loved Lazarus. It may be that John has prefaced verse 6 with this note to make it clear that Jesus' failure to move immediately was not due to any lack of affection for the family.

6 We would have expected Jesus to take action immediately on receipt of the news about Lazarus. The message of the sisters is a plea for help, even though they do not in set terms ask Jesus to do anything. But Jesus simply remained, indeed "therefore"¹⁶ remained where he was for two days. John gives no indication of any urgency in the work he is doing. Indeed, he does not so much as mention what that work was. But his "therefore" cannot mean that Jesus deliberately waited for Lazarus to die; the death must have taken place before the messengers reached him. When Jesus reached Bethany, Lazarus had been dead for four days (v. 39), and the journey would scarcely have taken more than a day. The four days are accounted for by allowing a day for the journey of the messengers, the two days that Jesus remained where he was, and a day for Jesus' journey. Lazarus must have died shortly after the messengers started on their way. The delay would certainly heighten the miracle, but we cannot think that Jesus made his friends suffer bereavement simply in order that he might perform a more spectacular miracle. It is much more probable that John wants us to see Jesus as moved by no external forces, but solely by his determination to do the will of God. "Therefore" will relate to God's glory (v. 4); this was not to be set forward by following human suggestions. As on the occasion of the Feast of Tabernacles (7:3-10), Jesus made his journey as and when he himself determined, not at the dictates of others. At the marriage in Cana (2:Iff.) Jesus had been urged by his mother to take action. In all three cases the urge to action came from those near or dear, in all three their request was refused, in all three Jesus in the end did what had been suggested, but in all three only after it had been made clear that he did what he did in God's time and according to God's will. He was not to be coerced, not even by his dearest friends. All the more is this the case in the present instance, because Jesus was going up to Jerusalem to his death, the climax of his mission.

7 The double time note "then" and "after this" (NIV omits the latter)¹⁷ puts some emphasis on the delay. It was only after the two days that Jesus suggested action. He invited the disciples to go¹⁸ with him once more into Judea. He says "to Judea," not "to Bethany," for it was the entrance into unbelieving Judea, which would crucify him, that was the significant thing.

8 The suggestion provokes an immediate protest. The disciples have not forgotten the Jews' attempt to stone Jesus (10:31), which they speak of as happening "now" (NIV, "a short while ago"). The incident was vivid in their memory and they were fully alive to the danger. So they ask Jesus whether he is going back there again.¹⁹ They address him as "Rabbi" (for the last time in this Gospel), and their question brings out something of Jesus' courage. To go up to Judea clearly meant to run into danger. But Jesus went up.

9  "Twelve hours" stands for the whole day. People in antiquity did not have the time pieces we take for granted and thus twelve hours was not a precisely calculated period. They divided the whole of the daylight into twelve, so that one hour meant one-twelfth of the whole day. The actual amount of time in twelve hours would thus vary from one part of the year to another.²⁰ When Jesus then speaks of "twelve hours" he is reminding his hearers that this is all the time there is in a day. It is during these hours that "a man" may walk without stumbling, for he has "this world's light" to guide him. In the context "this world's light" must be the sun and Jesus is speaking of his intention to go up to Jerusalem. He, like other people, must do his work while he has the opportunity (cf. 9:4-5). But in view of his repeated statement that he is "the light of the world" (8:12; 9:5) we should probably discern a deeper meaning, in the Johannine manner. People should make the most of the presence of Christ, the Light of the world, for when he is withdrawn from them there is no possibility of their "walking" without stumbling. It is not impossible in view of the use of "hour" in this Gospel that the reference to "hours" here contains an allusion to the work that Jesus, the Light of the world, came to do. The disciples need not fear to go up with him, because he cannot die before the appointed time, and there is still a little time left.²¹ There will also be the thought that to be with him is to be in the light, and the next verse brings out the reverse — if they are away from him they will certainly stumble in the darkness.

10 This is the corollary of the previous statement. The man who walks in the night stumbles. The metaphorical element is plain in this verse, for Jesus says, "the light is not in him" rather than "he has no light" (NIV) or the like.²² The saying is true with regard to physical events. We will stumble if we walk in darkness. But the real concern here is with the deep darkness that may be within us. When there is darkness in the soul, then we will stumble indeed.

11 Now²³ John gives attention to the sickness of Lazarus. He carefully separates Jesus' words about walking in the day or the night, words that have a mystical and spiritual as well as a literal application, from the words that have to do with the sickness of Lazarus. Jesus speaks specifically of his friend when he says that he "has fallen asleep." In the New Testament the death of the believer is characteristically spoken of as "sleep."²⁴ In passing it is worth noticing that few things illustrate more graphically the difference the coming of Christ made than this. Throughout the ancient world the fear of death was universal. Death was a grim adversary that everyone feared and noone could defeat. But Jesus' resurrection altered all that for his followers. For them death was no longer a hateful foe that could not be resisted. Its sting was drawn (1 Cor. 15:55). Of course this development was as yet future. But in the words of Jesus we find the manner of speaking that was to become characteristic of his followers. Death is now no more than sleep. So he speaks of Lazarus as sleeping. He adds that he is going to wake Lazarus from this sleep. In view of the disciples' unwillingness to go it may be significant that Jesus here uses the singular and not the plural as in verse 7. But in verse 15 he again associates them with him.

12 There is a common pattern in this Gospel wherein Jesus' hearers misunderstand something he has said, usually taking in a literal fashion what he means metaphorically, and this opens the way for further teaching (see on 2:20). This may be an example of this pattern, but the mistake is natural. The disciples think not of death but of natural sleep, and they affirm that if Lazarus is sleeping that is a good sign. "He will get better."²⁵ They were probably all the more ready to reach this conclusion because it removed the necessity for the dangerous journey into Judea.

13 John makes the situation clear. Jesus has spoken²⁶ of Lazarus's death. The disciples, however, misunderstand. They²⁷ are thinking of "the sleep of slumber" (BAGD).²⁸

14 Therefore Jesus removes their uncertainty and says plainly,²⁹ "Lazarus is dead." The aorist tense, which incidentally is somewhat abrupt, indicates that the action has taken place; "Lazarus is died" gives the sense of it.³⁰ We might contrast the perfect tense in verse 11, where the continuing state is meant. This statement of Jesus implies supernatural knowledge (see on 4:18). The messengers had spoken only of illness, and there was no other human source of information.

15 Yet Jesus sees this as matter for rejoicing. We should not take this too calmly, for "The same shock that the disciples would have felt we also are intended to feel, when we hear Jesus say, 'Lazarus is dead, and I rejoice.' "³¹ He is aware of what he will do and he has already said that the death of Lazarus is "for God's glory" (v. 4). Now he says that his joy is for the disciples, "so that you may believe" (cf. vv. 42, 45, and 48). The aorist tense used here would naturally indicate the beginning of faith, and this is curious in the case of the disciples who had so trusted Jesus that they left all they had to follow him. Without a doubt they were already "believers." Yet their faith was not strong, for at the critical hour they were all to forsake him.³² The meaning will be that faith is progressive. There are new depths of faith to be plumbed, new heights of faith to be scaled. The raising of Lazarus will have a profound effect on them and give their faith a content that it did not have before. Faith will be strengthened (cf. Luke 17:5). "But" will connect with "I was not there." Jesus had not been there when Lazarus died but now he calls on his followers to accompany him to the place.

16 It is somewhat curious to find Thomas taking the lead. He is not usually the spokesman for the Twelve, but here he takes the initiative. John identifies him by giving his name and its meaning. "Didymus" is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Thomas," both of which mean "twin."³³ Thomas then said to his fellows,³⁴. "Let us also go, that³⁵ we may die with him."³⁶ Thomas is usually known to us as the doubter. It is good accordingly to see this act of leadership and courage.³⁷ In a way it fits his doubting, for it is a gloomy saying and not marked by any abundance of faith. In a sense, too, it expressed more than Thomas (or the others for that matter) could perform. When it came to the point Thomas like all the others forsook Jesus and ran away. Nevertheless we should not overlook these brave words. Thomas looked death in the face and chose death with Jesus rather than life without him.³⁸ His words, in the Johannine manner, may also have a further meaning. They should probably be read in the light of 12:24-26; the follower of Christ must die if he would truly live.

2. Jesus' Meeting with Martha (11:17-27)

17On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. 18Bethany was less than two miles³ from Jerusalem, 19and many Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them in the loss of their brother. 20When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary stayed at home. 21"Lord, "Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother would not have died, 22But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask." 23Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." 24Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." 25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this? 27" Yes, Lord, "she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ,^b the Son of God, who was to come into the world."

a. 18 Greek fifteen stadia (about 3 kilometers)

b. 27 Or Messiah

John takes this story in stages. He does not move immediately to the central miracle, but describes Jesus' meetings first with Martha, then with Mary, and he makes these meetings the vehicle of important teaching.

17  We have no description of the journey. John simply tells us that when Jesus arrived he found that Lazarus had already been buried for four days.³⁹ We do not know how long before that he died, but probably not long. Burial was not usually delayed, and for example Ananias and Sapphira were buried immediately when they died (Acts 5:6, 10). The four days may be significant. There was a Jewish belief that the soul stays near the grave for three days, hoping to be able to return to the body.⁴⁰ But on the fourth day it sees decomposition setting in and leaves it finally. If this view was as early as the time of which we are thinking (it is attested c. a.d. 220 but is probably a good deal earlier) it will mean that a time had been reached when the only hope for Lazarus was a divine act of power.⁴¹

18 John inserts a typical topographical note. He locates Bethany with precision as "less than two miles"⁴² ("about 3 kilometers," mg.) from Jerusalem⁴³ By contrast, when he is referring to this family Luke speaks only of "a village" (Luke 10:38), giving neither the name nor the location. John's note about distance serves a twofold purpose; it explains how "many Jews" could be there to comfort the sisters, and it tells us that Jesus had practically reached Jerusalem for the climax. The suggestion that the use of the past tense "was" indicates that John was writing after Bethany had been destroyed is surely reading too much into a very natural use of the past tense.

19 "The Jews" (the Greek means "many of the Jews," but NIV drops the article) in this Gospel usually denotes the enemies of Jesus, and con-sequently of his adherents (see on 1:19). Its use here is accordingly a little unusual. Perhaps John means to imply that, though the mourners could bring themselves to sympathize with Martha and Mary,⁴⁴ they were hostile to Jesus. They apparently came⁴⁵ with the intention of staying for some time and not simply of paying a passing visit. A fairly prolonged stay to comfort the bereaved seems to have been usual at a time of bereavement.⁴⁶ At the funeral itself the mourners were left alone with their sorrow and their friends refrained from speaking to them. But later it was expected that visits for consolation would be made, and the Jews rated this duty highly.

20 There is a difference in the attitudes of the two sisters that is not unlike the difference in the incident recorded in Luke 10:38-42. Then Martha was occupied with the duties of hospitality, while Mary simply "sat at the Lord's feet listening to what he said." So here, when the news of Jesus' coming reached them, it was Martha who went out to welcome him. It is not said that Jesus summoned her, nor indeed that he sent any message (though we should bear in mind that no words of his summoning Mary are recorded, but he did this, v. 28). A call to Martha may have gone unrecorded, but it is perhaps more likely that Martha heard that he was near, and that was enough for this busy, active lady. It would be natural for anyone giving information to give it first to Martha, as the mistress of the household. Clearly she was the one who was likely to take the initiative, especially in the duties of hospitality. Mary remained sitting where she was in the house.⁴⁷ Incidentally sitting appears to have been the usual posture in which mourners received their comforters (cf. Job 2:13).⁴⁸

21 Martha's greeting is an expression of faith: had Jesus been present her brother would not have died. In the story in Luke Martha rebuked Jesus because he did not tell Mary to help her with the housework, and some hear an implied rebuke here, too. Why had Jesus not been there when he was needed? Martha knew when the message had been sent to him and she knew how long it had taken him to get there. If we are right in our explanation of the four days (see on v. 6) he could not have arrived in time, but Martha may have been upset about his two days' delay. But she does not say "If only you had come — ," Her remark probably expresses regret rather than rebuke. It may well echo what she and Mary had often said to one another (cf. v. 32) during the past few days.⁴⁹

22 The meaning of this verse is puzzling. On the surface it seems to mean that Martha knew that Jesus could even now perform the miracle, he could raise Lazarus from the sleep of death. But the subsequent narrative shows that she cannot have meant that, or at any rate that if she did mean it she was not able to sustain the high faith the words imply. When Jesus commanded that the stone be taken away from the tomb it was Martha who objected in the strongest of terms (v. 39). Her attitude there is so clear that it seems impossible to reconcile it with any real hope of a resurrection here. The words may be an expression of faith to make up for any lack of warmth in the previous verse. "Even now" may perhaps point to the thought of a resurrection, but equally the expression may be logical rather than temporal with the meaning: "If you had been here my brother might not have died, for I know that God gives you the things you ask." "Whatever" is plural. It does not point to any one gift, but to whatever things Jesus should at any time ask.⁵⁰

23 Jesus turns Martha's thoughts to resurrection: Lazarus will rise. The words could be taken as a general reference to the final resurrection, for Jesus does not mention his own part, nor that the rising is imminent.

24-25 Martha unhesitatingly takes the words to refer to the final resurrection at the end of the age.⁵¹ Her words show that she had no idea of an immediate raising of Lazarus to life, but they do represent a certainty about the resurrection at the last day. Many commentators think that they also show that she thought of Jesus' words as a commonplace of consolation, as the sort of thing others had doubtless been saying to her frequently, and in which she found but cold comfort. Be that as it may, her words open the way for one of the great declarations of Jesus that mark this Gospel.⁵² (For these "I am" sayings see on 6:35.) Jesus does not say simply that he will give resurrection⁵³ and life.⁵⁴ So much are resurrection and life associated with him that he says that he is the resurrection and the life.⁵⁵ The linking of resurrection and life perhaps points to the truth that the life he brings is the life of the age to come. It is the "eternal life" of which he speaks elsewhere (see on 1:4; 3:15). Those who believe on Jesus (the construction implies personal trust; see Additional Note E, pp. 296-98) will live even though they die. The paradox brings out the great truth that physical death is not the important thing. For the heathen or the unbeliever death may be thought of as the end. Not so for those who believe in Christ. They may die in the sense that they pass through the door we call physical death, but they will not die in the fuller sense. Death for them is but the gateway to further life and fellowship with God. This transcends the Pharisaic view of a remote resurrection at the end of time. It means that the moment we put our trust in Jesus we begin to experience that life of the age to come which cannot be touched by death. Jesus is bringing Martha a present gift, not simply the promise of a future good.

26 Everyone who lives and believes on Jesus (one article ties the two closely together; life and faith must be understood in the closest of connec-tions) will never die. Jesus does not, of course, mean that the believer will not die physically. Lazarus was dead even then, and millions of Jesus' fol-lowers have died since. He means rather that believers will not die in the sense in which death has eternal significance. They will not⁵⁶ die in the age to come.⁵⁷ They have eternal life, the life of the age to come. Jesus rounds this off with a challenge: "Do you believe this?"⁵⁸ His words about faith and life are not a philosophical dictum to be critically argued. They are a saving truth to be received in faith and acted on.

27 These words of Martha do not always receive the attention they should. When Martha and Mary are spoken of, Martha is apt to be character-ized as the lady of whom Jesus said, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better . . ." (Luke 10:41-42). But with all her faults, Martha was a woman of faith and hers is a significant declaration. First, she agrees with what Jesus has said. She is not choosing her own way but accepting his. She may not understand fully the implications of what he has just said, but as far as she can she accepts it. Then she expresses her faith in her own words. Her "I" is emphatic. Whatever be the case with others she has put her trust in Jesus. "I believe" or better "I have believed" indicates a faith once given and per-manently remaining.⁵⁹ And she believes that —. Her faith is not a vague, formless credulity. It has content, and doctrinal content at that. She brings out three points. First, Jesus is "the Christ," that is the Messiah of Jewish expectation (see on 1:20, 41). Second, he is "the Son of God" (for this expression see also the confessions of John the Baptist [1:34] and Nathanael [1:49], and for Jesus' own use of the term see the note on 5:25). It is an expression which can mean little more than that the person so described is godly, but it can also point to an especially close relationship to God. It is in the latter sense that it is used throughout this Gospel, and, indeed, John writes explicitly to bring people to faith in Jesus as the Son of God (20:31). There can be no doubt but that Martha is giving the words their maximum content. Third, she speaks of Jesus as "who was to come into the world" (see on 3:31 and cf. 6:14), that is the long-awaited Deliverer, the One sent by God to accomplish his will perfectly. Taken together these three affirmations give us as high a view of the person of Christ as one well may have.⁶⁰ Martha should be remembered by this moving declaration rather than by her worst moment of criticism and fretfulness.

3. Jesus' Meeting with Mary (11:28-32)

28And after she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside. "The Teacher is here," she said, "and is asking for you." 29When Mary heard this, she got up quickly and went to him. 30Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still at the place where Martha had met him. 31When the Jews who had been with Mary in the house, comforting her, noticed how quickly she got up and went out, they followed her, supposing she was going to the tomb to mourn there. 32When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died."

John describes Jesus' meeting with Mary much more briefly. There is no outstanding declaration on the part of Mary corresponding to that of Martha (v. 27),⁶¹ nor is there any resounding statement of Jesus.

28 Having made her great declaration of faith Martha calls her sister unobtrusively.⁶² Why she does it this way is not said. Possibly she wanted Mary to have the opportunity for a few minutes' private conversation with Jesus, as she apparently had had. And this may be the reason why Jesus remained for a time outside the village. She speaks of him as "The Teacher" and the article is probably important. Among his followers Jesus was desig-nated primarily by his teaching activities.⁶³ But he is recognized as incom-parable: he is "the Teacher." It is important to notice this use of the term by a woman. The rabbis refused to instruct women, but Jesus took a very different view. John does not record any words of Jesus asking for Mary, so that he is not giving a complete account of all that took place. He tells us sufficient and leaves the rest to be understood.

29  "When Mary heard this" indicates an action performed without delay. Mary was quick to act on her sister's word. It is possible that we should read "gets up" rather than "got up,"⁶⁴ in which case John is introducing a vivid touch. He sees Mary in the act of rising. "Went" is in a continuous tense: "she began to go" or "she was going" (this too may even be a present,⁶⁵ "she is going").

30 A brief explanation of the situation is given. John tells us why Mary was going to Jesus. Martha in her eagerness had gone right outside the village to meet the Lord (v. 20). He was still in the same place, Martha having perhaps suggested that she should go and fetch Mary. Some students hold that an additional reason for Jesus' remaining outside the village was that he was nearer the cemetery where his real business lay, but this is speculation. We do not know where the cemetery was, but Jesus was certainly at some distance from it. In any case he could scarcely have chosen his stopping place with reference to the cemetery, for he did not know exactly where it was (v. 34).

31 The Jews (v. 19) had remained with Mary; they did not accom-pany Martha when she went out to meet Jesus. John tells us that they were "comforting" Mary, though we do not know exactly what form that took. When they saw that Mary got up quickly⁶⁶ and left they followed, telling themselves that she was going to wail at the tomb (for lamentation at the tomb cf. Wis. 19:3). They may have intended to share in this activity. Their action meant that what followed would have many witnesses and so receive wide publicity.

32 Mary now came to the spot where Jesus was waiting. She greeted him by falling at his feet in homage; she seems to have been more emotional than her rather matter-of-fact sister. For "Lord" see on 4:1. In this context it will have its full meaning. Mary's words, which are almost identical with those of Martha (v. 21),⁶⁷ are eloquent of a firm conviction that Jesus' power could have saved Lazarus from death. They reveal Mary's certainty that Jesus could overcome sickness. But they reveal no more. It is possible that her quick action (vv. 29, 31) gained her a short respite from the attentions of her comforters, who did not realize at first where she was going. Her prostration and greeting may accordingly have been private. But her companions speedily rejoined her, as the next verse shows.

4, Lazarus is Raised (11:33-44)

33When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 34"Where have you laid him?"he asked. "Come and see, Lord, "they replied. 35Jesus wept. 36Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!" 37But some of them said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?" 38Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39"Take away the stone, "he said. "But, Lord, "saidMartha, the sister of the dead man, "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days." 40Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?" 41So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me." 43When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" 44The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, "Take off the grave clothes and let him go. "

John brings out the point that nobody expected an act of resurrection. He has let us see that both Martha and Mary had confidence in Jesus' power to cure sickness, and he now goes on to bring out the same point for the Jews who were with them (v. 37), But none of them expected resurrection. John proceeds to describe just that.

33 The previous verse has said nothing about Mary's tears, but they were to be expected, and this verse makes it clear that she was wailing in grief, as were the Jews who had accompanied her. The word signifies a loud weeping, a wailing.⁶⁸ It was the habit of the day to express grief in a noisy, unrestrained fashion and this is what these mourners were doing. With a crowd of people all doing this there must must have been quite a scene of confusion and sorrow. The sight of it caused Jesus deep emotion. The verb rendered "he was deeply moved"⁶⁹ is an unusual one. It signifies a loud inarticulate noise, and its proper use appears to be for the snorting of horses. When used of people it usually denotes anger,⁷⁰ and many exegetes hold that this is the meaning here;⁷¹ if so, it is probably anger against death that is meant.⁷² But the word may not be so specific. It is difficult to read anger into either of the other passages where it is used of Jesus. Both times it denotes his attitude to men he cured, namely two blind men (Matt. 9:30) and a leper (Mark 1:43).

Before we can accept anger as the meaning we must have some indication of the object of the anger, and so far this does not seem to be forthcoming. Why would Jesus be angry with Martha? Or Mary? Or the mourners? That Jesus would have been deeply moved at the lack of trust and the wrong attitude to death of those present is understandable. That he should be angry with people, however mistaken their ideas, who were giving expression to emotions normal at a funeral is not. John probably means no more (and no less) than that Jesus was profoundly moved.⁷³ John is clearly saying that Jesus was deeply moved (cf. NRSV, "he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved"). "In spirit" does not, of course, refer to the Holy Spirit, but to the human spirit of Jesus.⁷⁴ It signifies that his feeling was no light emotion. This is meant also by "troubled."⁷⁵ Rieu translates, "he gave way to such distress of spirit as made his body tremble." All this is somewhat curious. Jesus was about to raise Lazarus and we cannot interpret his perturbation as an act of mourning for the deceased. It must refer to his deep concern and indignation at the attitude of the mourners. They so completely misunderstood the nature of death and that of the Person of the Son.⁷⁶ Even Mary, who from what we know of her elsewhere might have been expected to have understanding, had her thoughts firmly fixed on earth. The words will also probably mean that to work this miracle cost Jesus something (cf. Mark 5:30).

34 Jesus now inquires as to the location of the tomb. Instead of directing him they invited him to come and see. "They" is not defined, but apparently it means the two sisters.

35 In this, the shortest verse in the Bible, the noteworthy thing is that a different word is used for weeping than that used of Mary and the Jews. The word used of them means a loud, demonstrative form of mourning, a wailing. That used here (and here only in the New Testament) signifies rather a quiet weeping.⁷⁷ Jesus did not wail loudly, but he was deeply grieved. As in verse 33 this will not be because of the death of his friend, for he was about to raise him. It will be because of the misconceptions of those around him.⁷⁸ We are reminded of that other occasion when Jesus wept over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41). There as here it was the wrong attitude of the Jews that aroused his deep emotion.⁷⁹

36 As always the Jews fail to enter the mind of Christ. They take his tears to be no more than a mark of the love he bore to Lazarus. They do not discern the deeper reason.

37 Some of them now reach a position much like that of Martha and Mary. They remember Jesus' ministry to the sick and specifically his opening of the eyes of the blind man. So they ask: "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?" There is no reason for thinking of these words as spoken in mockery. These people seem quite sincere, and, while they are not as definite as Martha and Mary, they think that Jesus' power might somehow have been exercised. He might have done⁸⁰ something. They misinterpret his tears as though they meant frustration. But there is no reason for doubting their sincerity.

38 Jesus comes to the burial place. Again he is moved by strong emotion; "deeply moved" is the same verb as that in verse 33 (where see note).⁸¹ Tombs might be of various kinds,⁸² and John supplies the infor mation that this one was a cave with a stone against the opening. This type of burial place was not uncommon in Palestine of the day, especially for people of some importance. There is no indication here of whether the cave is thought of as vertical with the stone lying on top of it, or as horizontal with the stone up against it. Both types were used. From the later statement that Lazarus came out (v. 44) it is probable that this was the horizontal type.

39 This verse is of the greatest importance for John's understanding of what took place. The Evangelist puts some stress on the actuality of the death of Lazarus. He leaves no doubt but that he is describing a miracle of resuscitation. First comes Jesus' command to remove the stone, then Martha's astonished protest based on the certainty that the body would be decomposing, for it had already been buried for four days.⁸³ If the reading, the sister of "the dead man," is the true one,⁸⁴ John also conveys the idea of death by the use of the perfect participle that points to the permanence of the state into which Lazarus had entered. Martha is described as "the," not "a," sister of Lazarus, perhaps because she was the elder. At any rate throughout this narrative she takes the leading place. Mary consistently remains in the background.

40 Jesus firmly rejects the protest. He reminds Martha of his earlier words, but this introduces a small difficulty, for these exact words have not previously been recorded. As we saw earlier, there is a tendency in this Gospel for slight variations to be introduced when statements are repeated (see on 3:5), and this may be another example. Alternatively Jesus may be referring to a saying uttered on some other occasion and not recorded. The words are not unlike those of verse 4, but those were not spoken to Martha (though Jesus may be assuming that they have been reported to her). The suggestion that there is a reference to verse 26 is improbable, for the critical words, "the glory of God," are absent from that verse. His words are a challenge to faith ("if you believed"; cf. 2:11) and a reminder of what for Jesus was central — "the glory of God." What was about to happen would be a spectacular miracle, a display of the power of Jesus, an inestimable gift to the sisters. But typically Jesus speaks of none of these. For him "the glory of God" was the one important thing. This means that the real meaning of what he would do would be accessible only to faith. All who were there, believers or not, would see the miracle. But Jesus is promising Martha a sight of the glory. The crowd would see the miracle, but only believers would perceive its real significance, the glory (cf. Guthrie, "many saw Lazarus come from the grave but never saw the glory of God").

41-42 After Jesus' words they moved the stone. Who actually did this is not said, but presumably it was "the Jews" who accompanied Martha and Mary.⁸⁵ Jesus raised his eyes in the attitude of prayer (cf. 6:5; 17:1). He addressed God simply as "Father" (cf. 12:27-28; 17:1), not as "our Father" or the like; his relationship to the Father is not the same as that of others. The first words of his prayer are a thanksgiving that the Father has heard him. The aorist points to a prayer already prayed, presumably a prayer that Lazarus be raised. Jesus may have uttered a prayer that John does not mention (he does not mention everything in this story, e.g., Jesus' request for Mary to come to him, v. 28). Or he may want us to think that Jesus prayed within the recesses of his soul so that God heard, though the people did not. The aorist will more naturally refer to a particular prayer than to God's habitual hearing of Jesus. The habitual hearing comes out in the next words, "I knew that you always hear me." "But" is the strong adversative.⁸⁶ It was because of the crowd standing around that Jesus had spoken his thanksgiving aloud (not that the Father needed to be told); the emphasis here is on his concern for the people. We should distinguish between his prayer (presumably that Lazarus be raised) that is not recorded, and his thanksgiving that was uttered so that people could hear. As Wright puts it, "The Evangelist does not say that Jesus's prayer was for the sake of the multitude; but that His thanksgiving was for their sakes. Jesus, in other words, would always have people know that He did nothing of Himself." "That"⁸⁷ introduces the thought of purpose. Jesus spoke "in order that" the crowd might believe (the aorist tense points to the beginning of faith) that he had been sent by God. Once again we notice that faith has content and that that content is concerned with the mission of the Son. It includes the conviction that he is indeed God's "Sent One" (for "sent" see on 3:17). John consistently depicts Jesus as dependent on the Father and concerned for his glory. He is not like the run-of-the-mill popular wonder-workers who sought to magnify themselves. So here Jesus acts not of his own volition but in dependence on the Father to whom he addresses his prayer. The prayer, publicly uttered, would make it clear to all who heard that he depended on the Father.

43 Jesus summoned the dead man. He cried out in a loud voice⁸⁸ and addressed Lazarus directly by name, calling him to come⁸⁹ out of the tomb. The loud voice was not, of course, because a loud voice was needed to make the dead hear. It was probably in part at least so that the crowd would know that this was no work of magic, but the very power of God. Wizards muttered their incantations and spells (cf. Isa. 8:19). Not so the Son of God.

44 John records that the man who had been dead⁹⁰ came out. He notes that he was still bound hand and feet with the grave clothes.⁹¹ It is difficult to see how he could walk under such circumstances, and it is possible that we are to understand what Hoskyns calls "a miracle within a miracle. Lazarus does not walk out of the grave; he is rather drawn out tightly band-aged." It is, however, quite possible that the legs were bound separately, in which case there is no insuperable difficulty. John makes special mention of the sweatband⁹² over his face. It must have been a strange sight indeed. John concludes his account of the miracle with Jesus' command to loose Lazarus and let him go. We are reminded of Synoptic incidents that show a similar thoughtfulness, as when he commanded that something to eat be given to the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:43). Jesus was never so carried away by the wonder of his miracles that he forgot the needs of the person.

5. The Reaction of Faith (11:45)

45Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him.

45 The result of the miracle, as always, is division. Because Jesus is who and what he is he inevitably divides people. John first brings before us those who believed. These were "of the Jews," and John makes it clear that there were "many" of them. Interestingly he describes them as those "who had come⁹³ to visit Mary." Throughout this narrative the emphasis has been on Martha; thus it is curious that the Jews are said to have come to the less prominent sister. They were associated with her also in verses 31 and 33. It may be that they were more concerned for Mary than for the bustling Martha. Mary may well have been more emotional, and may perhaps have been in greater need of consolation. Whatever the reason, they are associated with Mary here once more. Linked with "had come" is "had seen. . . ."⁹⁴ It was the sight of the miracle⁹⁵ that brought the effect. "Put their faith in him" = "believed in him," John's favorite construction for genuine trust (see Additional Note E, pp. 296-98). A faith that is based on the miracles is not the highest faith but is accepted throughout this Gospel as better than no faith at all (see on 2:23).

6. The Reaction of Unbelief (11:46-57)

46But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin, "What are we accomplishing?" they asked. "Here is this man performing many miraculous signs. 48If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place^a and our nation." 49Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." 51He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52and not only for that nation hut also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53So from that day on they plotted to take his life. 54Therefore Jesus no longer moved about publicly among the Jews. Instead he withdrew to a region near the desert, to a village called Ephraim, where he stayed with his disciples. 55When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, many went up from the country to Jeru-salemfor their ceremonial cleansing before the Passover. 56They kept looking for Jesus, and as they stood in the temple area they asked one another, "What do you think? Isn't he coming to the Feast at all?" 57But the chief priests and Pharisees had given orders that if anyone found out where Jesus was, he should report it so that they might arrest him.

^a48 Or temple

Following his brief account of the birth of faith in some who saw the miracle John goes on to speak of those who were repelled. This leads on to the effect of the report. The chief priests and others were so hardened that they plotted against Jesus' life. This in turn leads into the reporting of Caiaphas's unconscious prophecy of the substitutionary death of Jesus.⁹⁶

46 In contrast with those who believed were others⁹⁷ who simply went away to the Pharisees, known to be the enemies of Jesus, and told them the things that Jesus had done. While John makes no explicit declaration about their motive, in the context there can be little doubt but that they acted in a spirit of hostility. They were bearing the latest news to the enemy, not trying to win them over.

47 The result was the gathering of a council of chief priests and Pharisees.⁹⁸ This may possibly have been an informal meeting, though the words more probably mean that an official meeting of the Sanhedrin⁹⁹ was held. It may well be that this was the real trial of Jesus; by Jewish law in capital cases a verdict of guilty could not be given on the same day as the trial, nor could it be given without the presence of the defendant.¹⁰⁰ That is apparently why John says so little about the Jewish trial after Jesus was arrested; on this view the trial had already been held and all that remained after the arrest was to deliver sentence.¹⁰¹ It agrees with this that Mark says that when the high priests and others gathered they did not speak of conducting a trial but of putting Jesus to death (Mark 14:1; so also Matt. 26:3-4).

From this point on John does not mention the Pharisees often; the opposition to Jesus is firmly in the hands of the chief priests. In all four Gospels the Pharisees are Jesus' principal opponents throughout his ministry, but in all four they are rarely mentioned in connection with the events as-sociated with the Passion. The discussion that took place apparently included much heart-searching. "What are we accomplishing?" means that at this point they are not planning a course of action, but wondering how effective their efforts have been ("What shall we do?" GNB, misses the point). They may also be implying that they are getting nowhere in contrast to Jesus, who was doing miracle after miracle. We should not miss their clear recognition of the fact of the miracles. Jesus,¹⁰² they say, "is . .. performing (the tense indicates continuous action) many miraculous signs" (see Additional Note G, pp. 607-13). It has always been the case that those whose minds are made up to oppose what Christ stands for will not be convinced by any amount of evidence. In this spirit these men recognize that the miracles have taken place, but find in this a reason for more wholehearted opposition, not for faith. In their hardness of heart they continue on their own chosen way and refuse to consider the evidence before their eyes.

48 To them it is certain that many will put their trust in Jesus if they leave him alone. Indeed, they go as far as to say that "everyone" will do so, an exaggeration that indicates the strength of their fears. The Romans would not stand by indifferent if there were popular tumult stirred up by messianic expectations.¹⁰³ Since they would certainly take strong action, the speakers feared the destruction of all they stood for. "Our¹⁰⁴ Place"¹⁰⁵ probably means the temple (so in Acts 6:13-14; 21:28). It was in a special sense the place for the Jews (though REB goes too far when it translates "our temple"). The nation, too, they feared, would cease to exist, and with it, of course, their own special position.

49 John singles out the reaction of Caiaphas. This man was high priest from about a.d. 18 to a.d. 36. John describes him as "high priest that year," which some have drawn into an argument for the view that John had little idea of what went on in Palestine. They suggest that he was ignorant of the fact that the high priesthood was normally conferred for life, and that he thought it an annual appointment. This, however, is to read too much into the expression. There is a good deal of evidence that John was familiar with Palestine, and with pre-a.d. 70 Palestine at that. It is not without significance that he twice repeats the statement (v. 51; 18:13). It is difficult to think that in as careful and theologically minded a writer as John such solemn repetition would be given to a minor piece of administrative information — information, moreover, that he could not have checked for on this view it was erroneous. What he means is "that fateful year."¹⁰⁶ That was the year when the world's salvation was accomplished. In that year of all years it was Caiaphas who was the high priest. The information is the more relevant in that, though the office was not an annual one, the Romans did change the high priest quite often. Caiaphas's first words "You know nothing at all!"¹⁰⁷ demonstrate a rudeness that is alleged to have been typical of the Sadducees.¹⁰⁸ "You" is emphatic and probably contemptuous. He himself clear-sightedly and ruthlessly discerns a line of action that he accounts desirable and he contemptu-ously dismisses the whole assembly of the Sanhedrin because its members do not see things the same way.

50 Caiaphas continues with his rebuke. "You do not realize" trans-lates a verb that is used of reckoning up accounts¹⁰⁹ and the like. He is saying that they cannot even calculate, cannot even work it out, that such and such a course of action is the expedient one. "It is better for you" concentrates attention on their own position. Neither Caiaphas nor the others were basically concerned for abstract right and wrong, nor yet for the nation as a whole. But the position of the privileged class is threatened and their action would save this privileged class that the high priest recommends. "That one man die for the people"¹¹⁰ is a simple prophecy of the meaning of the cross. But on Caiaphas's lips it is sheer cynicism. Better that one man, however innocent, should die than that the nation as a whole should perish is the reasoning of this worldly-wise politician. This is, of course, another example of John's irony. The leaders did adopt the expedient of slaying the innocent, but so far from saving the nation this, on John's view, initiated the events that would lead to its destruction.

51-52 John adds his own reflection on these words. They did not originate with Caiaphas.¹¹¹ On the contrary,¹¹² he spoke this way because he was the high priest, and it was because of his office that God spoke through him.¹¹³ What Caiaphas spoke as a piece of cynical political realism, God meant to be understood in a deeper, more significant way. John repeats the important part, namely, "that Jesus would die¹¹⁴ for the Jewish nation."¹¹⁵ His death was a death for others, not a death for himself. We should not overlook that this way of putting it means a definitely substitutionary death.¹¹⁶ Either the nation dies or Jesus dies. But if he dies the nation lives; it is his life instead of theirs. John also sees a wider purpose in the death of Jesus than the salvation of the Jewish nation. This death would be the means of gathering together the children of God wherever they might have been scattered¹¹⁷ (they are called "children" even before they are gathered together). Caiaphas's words are not big enough. John has a worldwide vision. And those who are gathered are gathered into a unity ("make them one;" cf. 10:16). Sin scatters people, but salvation in Christ brings them together. The New Testament always thinks of a very real unity as linking all who are truly Christ's. "The scattered children of God" would normally be taken on the lips of a Jew to mean the Jews of the Dispersion, but here the words point to Gentile Christians.

53 Having concluded his own aside John returns to the Sanhedrin. Caiaphas's words mark a turning point. From that day (John has the habit of noting the time when events took place) they looked for ways and means of killing Jesus. The high priest's words had had the effect of clarifying their ideas; they now knew what they must. do. Schonfield: "So that day they decided to kill him."¹¹⁸

54 "Therefore" will denote a much stricter sequence of thought than often in this Gospel. Because of the plot of the chief priests and their allies Jesus no longer walked openly among the Jews. Far from it, he went away to the district near the wilderness. With his customary precision John tells us that he went to a city whose name was Ephraim. The site of this city is not known for certain, but if its identification with Ophrah be accepted it was about fifteen miles from Jerusalem.¹¹⁹ Jesus then did not retire to a very great distance. But he went to a place lonely enough for him to be undisturbed. John adds that he stayed there with his disciples. In this difficult period the little band stuck together.

55 As was his custom, once again Jesus draws attention to the ap-proach of a feast, this time the Passover. As in 2:13; 6:4, he characterizes it as "Jewish." Well before the feast many went up out of the countryside in order to purify themselves ceremonially.¹²⁰ The point of mentioning this is to make clear that well before the actual feast itself Jerusalem would be crowded with pilgrims.

56 After the resolve taken in verse 53 Jesus' enemies were looking for him. "Kept looking" signifies a continuing process. And as they looked for him they kept asking one another whether Jesus would come to the feast. The second of their questions seems to show that they expected the answer to be "No"¹²¹ (Phillips: "Surely he won't come to the Festival?"). They considered it unlikely that he would be so foolhardy as to put in an appearance.

57 Another reason for this view appears. In furtherance of their plan the authorities had commanded¹²² that anyone who knew Jesus' whereabouts should disclose the information. This would make anyone who came to know where he was but did nothing about it an accessory, and would thus constrain people to supply information and facilitate arrest.¹²³

———————————————

1. Cf. A. Richardson, "The reason for thinking that the Lazarus story is not literally true is not that it is difficult to believe. . . . The difficulty about accepting it as literally true is that it cannot be reconciled with the Synoptic tradition." Earlier he has said, "St John expresses the truth of history by means of a story that is not literally true." But though he is thus alert to the difficulties of the traditional view, he totally ignores the difficulties involved in his own. For example, he never attempts to show how such an attitude to historical truth is compatible with the aim of combating opponents of a "docetic" type, an aim that almost all admit was one of John's motives. These people rejected the historical fact of the Incarnation while accepting Christ as the supreme revelation of truth. But Richardson's evaluation of John's method rather classes him with such men than sets him in opposition to them. Westcott pinpoints another difficulty: "No explanation of the origin of the narrative on the supposition that it is unhistorical, has even a show of plausibility. Those who deny the fact are sooner or later brought to maintain either that the scene was an imposture, or that the record is a fiction. Both of these hypotheses involve moral miracle." In any case it is to be noted that the kind of critic who rejects the historicity of this story because it is not in the Synoptics is usually not ready to accept what is there, the feeding of the multitude, for example. On this Richardson says, "it is clear to us that in the Feeding stories, even in St Mark's version, we do not have simple straightforward historical accounts of 'what happened', but elaborately theological interpretations which have turned the historical facts into profound parables of the significance of the person of Christ and of the Eucharist in his Church" (An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament [London, 1958], p. 102). There appears to be something other than the absence of Synoptic attestation that causes the hesitation.

2. Yet possibly we are subconsciously expecting the Evangelists to see things as we see them. Cf. Ε. M. Sidebottom: "it must be remembered that in the world of those days tales of marvels and omens, rivers running blood and stones gushing out water were of everyday occurrence. . . . The 'tremendous miracle' of the raising of a dead man would not be such a sensation to a first-century writer as to necessitate its inclusion by Mark; Luke's widow of Nain and her son are tucked away into a corner" (The Christ of the Fourth Gospel [London, 1961], p. 179).

3. Hamilton finds it impossible to say what happened. He goes on: "We can, of course, decide on principle that this did not happen, merely because this kind of thing cannot happen. But perhaps it should not be quite so easy for us to make our peace with these difficult portions of the New Testament. If God is really doing something in Jesus Christ that is unique, can we decide on the impossibility of incomprehensible or improbable events with assurance?"

4. The point made by Lagrange with respect to the view that John was concerned not with facts but with the teaching that Jesus confers on believers a life that would triumph over death, should be borne in mind: "To prove it by a symbolical narrative would be plain childishness; it must be an actual happening" (p. 311).

5. Hunter is impressed by these. He does not underestimate the seriousness of the problem posed by the Synoptic silence and thinks it may never be solved. He adds: "But in view (a) of the vivid and lifelike detail of the narrative, and (b) of the abundant evidence that John had access to good independent sources of information about Jesus, the one thing we should not do is to dismiss this famous story as fiction."

6. In v. 8 the disciples say that the Jews "a short while ago" tried to stone Jesus. This appears to refer to the attempt recorded in 10:31, at the Feast of the Dedication (10:22). This was on 25th of Chisleu (November-December). Thus the events of ch. 11 took place close to the Feast of Dedication (even allowing for the stay in Perea, 10:40), and hence at some distance from Passover. It accords with this that John says, "from that day on they plotted to take his life" (v. 53). This does not appear to mean that the Passion followed within a few days. It suggests rather that there was plotting over a period.

7. Such considerations induce Temple to say: "I accept the Johannine narrative as correct. " He adduces also the placing of the cleansing of the temple in Mark. Since that Evangelist records but one visit to Jerusalem the cleansing had to be included at the end of Jesus' life and gave a motive for the chief priests to intervene. It is difficult, then, to find a place and a reason for the Lazarus story. Holding John to be substantially later than Mark, Temple thinks a further motive for not mentioning the incident was possible em-barrassment to a still living Lazarus. He concludes: "Of course all this is mere conjecture, and by no means satisfactory. All I contend is that the origins of Mark are such that the omission of this story there is not at all decisive; and to accept, as I do, the Johannine narrative is in no way false to the principles of evidence. The story is singularly vivid and has all the characteristics of the record of an eye-witness." Bailey similarly accepts the story despite its difficulties, for he finds it "still more difficult to believe that the fourth evangelist is either misinformed about, or deliberately misplacing or inventing an incident which bears such strong evidence of personal observation."

8. See note 6 above.

9. Cf. Tasker, "Jesus raises Lazarus not solely out of sympathy with Martha and Mary the bereaved friends of Jesus, though His sympathy was great, nor merely because Lazarus was especially dear to Him, though that was equally true, but because through the miracle of his restoration Jesus desires to manifest Himself as the resurrection, and the the life."

10. Some find a difference of meaning between άπό (with Βηθανίας) and έx (with της κώμης^ φβ former denoting domicile and the latter origin. Johannine usage, however, is against such a distinction between the prepositions (see on 1:44). It is of course quite possible that the family had changed its place of residence, all the more so since Luke 10:38ff. appears to locate them in Galilee. But the prepositions do not prove this.

11. The name is here given in the form Μαρία, but elsewhere in this Gospel John uses the indeclinable Μαριάμ.

12. is the Old Testament form, but this was later abbreviated to . The name means "God has helped."

13. This has led some to hold that Lazarus was "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (13:23, etc.). But it would be a very curious procedure to speak of him by name 11 timesin chapters 11 and 12 and to abandon the name in all subsequent references to him.

14. πρός θάνατον, "with a view to death," is an unusual construction (found again in 1 John 5:16-17). By contrast it is ύπέρ της δόξης τοϋ θεοϋ, "on behalf of God's glory." Barrett understands ύπέρ here as "for revealing," "in order to reveal": "V. 40 shows that the meaning is not 'in order that God may be glorified'; here as elsewhere the glory of God is not his praise, but his activity." For the confident attitude in the face of death we may compare Jesus' words concerning the daughter of Jairus, "The child is not dead but asleep" (Mark 5:39).

15. The verb is ήγάπα, whereas φιλεϊς was used in v. 3 of Jesus' love for Lazarus. It is difficult to find a difference between the two verbs here, φιλεω is used again in v. 36. See further on 21:15.

16. NIV and GNB translate "yet." Abbott draws attention to the fourfold use of ούν in this story (vv. 6, 17, 33, 38; NIV omits them all) and comments, "the intention of the narrative as a whole is to represent the Raising of Lazarus as foreordained; and this repetition of 'therefore' may be intended, in particular, to show how the Son, step by step, moved forward in a regular and predetermined sequence to do the Father's will in per-forming the last and greatest of His 'signs' " (2198). This may be so, but we must bear in mind the fact that οΰν is used frequently in this chapter (in addition to the verses listed by Abbott, in 3, 12, 14, 16, 20, 21, 31, 32, 36, 41, 45, 47, 53, 54 and 56). In view of this we may not be able to insist that Abbott's four verses are especially significant. But the word certainly has its normal significance in the present passage and it should not have been translated "yet."

17. έπειτα and μετά τοϋτο. The latter expression recurs in v. 11. As used by John the phrase seems to mean much the same as the more frequent μετά ταϋτα (see on 2:12).

18. άγωμεν is here used intransitively, though the verb is usually transitive. When it is intransitive the first person plural is most common (cf. vv. 15-16).

19.καί is used in the sense of καίτοι, "and yet."

20. The variation in Palestine was between 14 hours 12 minutes and 9 hours 48 minutes (SBk).

21. Barclay points out that this has relevance to our own situation: "If there are twelve hours in the day there is time enough for everything a man should do. There is no need for a rushed haste. If a man uses these twelve hours all that he ought to do can be done in them. . . . But, even if there are twelve hours in the day, there are only twelve hours. They cannot be extended. And, therefore, time cannot be wasted. There is time enough, but there is not too much time."

22. D misses this point, and actually reads "the light is not in it" (αύτη, i.e., the night).

23. For μετά τοϋτο see on 2:12.

24. Thus the verb κοιμάομαι (used here) denotes literal sleep 4 times and death 14 times. The Christian word for a burial place, "cemetery" (κοιμητήριον), is connected with this root and denotes "a place of sleep." The use of "sleep" for death is not, of course, an invention of Christians; it is also to be found in secular writers. But it is not characteristic of them whereas it is characteristic of Christians.

25. The word for "he will get better" is σωθήσεται, "he will be saved." The verse may perhaps be intended to convey a secondary meaning pointing to a truth of salvation; if a believer "sleeps" (the word in use among Christians for "dies") he will be saved. p⁷⁵ reads έγερθήσεται, but this can scarcely be right.

26. The verb is είρήκει, the only example of the pluperfect of this verb in John. Abbott thinks this tense "takes the reader, as it were, behind the scenes — after some mention of deeds or words — to tell him what really had been the cause of the result" (2481).

27. έκείνοι δέ gives the subject emphasis: they in distinction from him.

28. περί της κοιμήσεως τοϋ ύπνου. The noun κοίμησις is found here only in the New Testament (Horsley thinks the idea "thoroughly Greek"; New Documents, 3, p. 93); ΰπνος occurs 6 times in the New Testament, but here only in John.

29. παρρησία often has the meaning "boldly," and this may be mind here. Jesus boldly spoke the truth, trusting that his disciples would not fail, but would receive it. If this is correct, the reaction of Thomas (v. 16) is an immediate vindication of Jesus' action.

30. Unless with Black we take it as the rendering of a Semitic perfect (AA, p. 93), when the continuing state will be in mind.

31. Abbott, 2102. He has a long note on the passage (2099-2102).

32. Cf. Temple, "It is hard to know what one's faith is worth till some severe test comes. I believe — in some measure; of that I am quite sure. But in which measure I do not know. I pray God to do for me, or to me, or in me, whatever will have the result that I may believe."

33. The Greek Δίδυμος and the Hebrew . It is not said to whom Thomas was twin, and in some of the apocryphal literature he is even said to have been the twin of Jesus (e.g., Acts of Thomas, 31), and to have resembled him (Acts of Thomas, 11). His personal name is said to have been Judas (Acts of Thomas, 1). Plummer thinks he may have been twin to Matthew, with whom he is linked in all the lists in the Gospels. MM, however, points out that Δίδυμος was quite capable of standing alone; one brother might be given a name and the other called simply "Twin." In the Synoptic Gospels Thomas is mentioned only in the lists of the Twelve, but in this Gospel, in addition to the present incident, he is mentioned in connection with a question asked in the upper room (14:5) and twice in the resurrection narratives (20:24-25, 26-29). The Hebrew name does not appear to be attested before the New Testament (EB, IV, 5058), but Δίδυμος is much earlier.

34. τοΐς συμμαθηταΐς. The noun is used here only in the New Testament. The choice of the unusual word may possibly be meant to hint that Thomas and the rest had a fellow feeling. Thomas was not isolated in his view.

35. ίνα expresses purpose: "Let us go in order that. . . ."

36. It is grammatically possible to take μετ' αύτοϋ to mean "with Lazarus," but this is a highly improbable understanding of the passage. Thomas is seeking to avoid a situation in which Jesus would die alone, not in seeking to rejoin Lazarus.

37. Cf. Loyd, "Here is a sufficient rule to walk by, whether our faith be dim or clear; namely, sheer loyalty."

38. Torrey translates, "Let us also go, to mourn with him," and asks, "Is it not probable that ϊνα πενθώμεν was mistakenly copied as fv' άποθάνωμεν?" This presupposes an unlikely mistake and an original that appeals to have left no trace in the MS tradition. His further suggestion that even if Jesus were to be executed the disciples had no cause for fear is unrealistic.

39. For the accusative of time after the verb έχω see oil 5:5.

40. "R. Abba b. R. Pappai and R. Joshua of Siknin said in the name of R. Levi: For three days (after death) the soul hovers over the body, intending to re-enter it, but as soon as it sees its appearance change, it departs. . . . Bar Kappara said: The full force of mourning lasts for three days. Why? Because (for that length of time) the shape of the face is recognisable" (Lev. Rab. 18:1; Soncino edn., p. 226; see also Eccl. Rab. 12:6). In line with this the Mishnah provides that evidence of the identity of a corpse may be given only during the three days after death (Yeb. 16:3).

41. See SBk, Π, p. 544 for the relevant passages. On the significance cf. Strachan, "The conception that the mourning reaches its height on the fourth day implies that all hope of any restoration to life by what might be called natural means, is banished. Restoration can only be accomplished by a new creative act of God. Such a creative act, Jesus is represented as accomplishing."

42. NIV puts the distance in modern measure. John speaks of fifteen στάδια and a στάδιον measured 606 3/4 feet, so NIV is correct.

43. The Greek order is rather curious: ἐγγὺς τῶν 'Ιεροσολύμων ώς άπò σταδίων δεϰαπέντε. We would expect άπό to precede τῶν 'Ιεροσολύμων (cf. 21:8 and Luke 24:13). But our translation certainly gives the sense correctly. We should probably understand the measurement to be conceived as beginning "from" Jerusalem. Some suggest that this is a Latinism, but BDF deny this (161 [1]), as does Moulton (Μ, I, p. 102). For the article with "Ιεροσόλυμα see on 2:23.

44. The received text reads τὰς περί Μάρθα ϰαὶ Μαριάμ (with ⁴⁵ק [vid] Α Θ fl fl3 etc.), making the Jews come not so much to Martha and Mary as to their (feminine) friends or perhaps their household. This is inherently unlikely, and the better texts read τήν. Bernard suggests that τάς περί may have come from (αύ)τάς περί in the next line; the better texts lack both words here. We should have anticipated that there would be no article or that it should be repeated before Μαριάμ. The expression τήν Μάρθα καὶ Μαριάμ is possibly meant to indicate something of a unity. The two sisters now made up the household.

45. The pluperfect έληλύθεισαν denotes previous action. The Jews "had come" before Jesus made his appearance.

46. A. Edersheim speaks of a threefold division in the time of mourning. The first three days were days of weeping; then there was deep mourning for the rest of the week, and lighter mourning for the remainder of thirty days (Sketches of Jewish Social Life [London, n.d,l, p. 174; see also LT, Π, p. 320; SBk, IV, pp. 592-607). The regulation is given in the Talmud: "Three days for weeping and seven for lamenting and thirty (to refrain) from cutting the hair and (donning) pressed clothes" (MK 27b; Soncino edn., p. 180).

47. Ryle thinks that Martha comes off best in this incident: "There is such a thing as being so crushed and stunned by our affliction that we do not adom our profession under it. Is there not something of this in Mary's conduct throughout this chapter? There is a time to stir, as well as to sit still; and here, by not stirring, Mary certainly missed hearing our Lord's glorious declaration about Himself. I would not be mistaken in saying this. Both these holy women were true disciples; yet if Mary showed more grace on a former occasion than Martha, I think Martha here showed more than Mary." Strachan also commends Martha here above Mary. Curiously Newbigin downgrades her, saying that Martha does not offer Jesus "her total worship" and that "She has yet to reach the point where — in the fullest sense — she believes."

48. Cf. Edersheim, "Immediately after the body is carried out of the house all chairs and couches are reversed, and the mourners sit (except on the Sabbath, and on the Friday only for one hour) on the ground or on a low stool" (Sketches of Jewish Social Life, p. 174).

49. It is probable that for άπέθανεν at the end of the verse we should read έτεθνήκει (see the discussion on v. 32).

50. Martha uses the verb αίτέω. While Jesus uses this verb of people's prayers (14:13; 15:7, 16, etc.) he never uses it of his own prayers. Instead he employs έρωτάω (14:16; 16:26; 17:9 [twice], 15, 20), which, with the exception of 1 John 5:16, is used of prayer to God only in this Gospel, and always of the prayers of Jesus, unless 16:23 is an exception). But too much ought not to be built on this. It is hard to establish a consistent difference between the two verbs in late Greek. Perhaps there is a slight hint at equality, or at least of less inequality, in έρωτάω that originally meant to ask a question rather than to make a request. But we must not overlook the fact that the verb is once used of the prayers of people (1 John 5:16). See also on 1:19.

51. This, of course, was the accepted teaching of the Pharisees, but was denied by the Sadducees.

52. And according to Godet they were meant to lead up to something of the sort: "If she speaks only of the final resurrection, which is to her mind certain, it is that she may give to Jesus the opportunity to explain Himself, and to declare expressly what she scarcely dares to hope for in the present case."

53. άνάστασις is not a common word in this Gospel, being found only in v. 24 and twice in 5:29. Similarly the verb άνίστημι occurs only in 6:39, 40,44, 54; 20:9 outside this chapter, ζωή by contrast is one of the great concepts of this Gospel, being found throughout (36 times).

54. The words καί ή ζωή are lacking in p⁴⁵ (vid) a I syr^s Cyp Or. This is scarcely sufficient to establish the shorter reading as original, and in any case the meaning will be much the same.

55. Calvin comments, "First, He calls Himself the resurrection; for restoration from death to life precedes the state of life. But the whole human race is plunged in death. Therefore, no man will possess life unless he is first risen from the dead. Hence Christ teaches that He is the beginning of life. Afterwards He adds that the continuity of life is also the work of His grace."

56. "Never" renders οΰ μή . . . είς τον αιώνα, the emphatic double negative coupled with a reference to the age to come.

57. As in 10:28 (where see note) Barrett argues that the meaning is "shall never die" and denies that the meaning is "shall not die eternally." His idea appears to be that there is a kind of death that believers do not die ("The only death that is worth regarding cannot affect those who believe in Christ"), and that this is all that is in view here. But I do not see how this is to be separated from the idea that the life believers have is eternal life. It may well be true that Jesus is saying that there is a kind of death believers do not die, but to say that this does not refer to dying eternally seems to misrepresent the situation. The wonderful truth he is enunciating is that the believer "to all eternity cannot die" (Knox). The believer has eternal life. The believer will not undergo the worst of deaths, eternal death.

58. This is the only place in this Gospel where πιστεύω is followed by the accusative.

59. This is the force of πεπίστευκα. Cf. the use of the perfect also in 3:18; 6:69; 8:31; 16:27; 20:29. Martha's use of this tense is all the more remarkable in that the present would have been the natural tense to use in reply to Jesus' question.

60. Lindars views this declaration as "the climax of this theological section of the chapter."

61. Schnackenburg says that Mary "gives the impression of being nothing but a complaining woman." But this is surely untrue and unfair.

62. λάθρα may go either with the preceding or the following: "called Mary secretly and said" or "called Mary and said secretly." But there is no great difference in meaning. NIV's "aside" is not the meaning.

63. διδάσϰαλος is used by Matthew 12 times, Mark 12 times, Luke 17 times, and John 8 times, and with the exception of the general statement of the relationship of μαθητής to διδάσϰαλος (Matt. 10:24-25 and parallels), the statement about the child Jesus sitting among the teachers (Luke 2:46), and the information that Nicodemus was "Israel's teacher" (3:10) they all refer to Jesus. In addition,ρκχββεί is used of him by Matthew twice, Mark 3 times, and John 8 times and ραββουνεί by Mark and John once each.

64. Many MSS do read ήγέρθη, but the present, attested by p⁴⁵ ρ⁶⁶ AC^C Θ fl f 13 etc. is perhaps preferable.

65. The present is found in p⁴⁵ p⁶⁶ A D Θ fl fl3 lat etc. It is possible that past tenses were substituted for presents on account of the preceding ήκουσεν.

66. "Quickly" here is ταχέως, while in verse 29 it is ταχύ. There seems to be no difference in meaning, this being another of John's variants. BDF speaks of ταχέως as "the more literary" (102 [2]), but this will scarcely be significant in the present passage, where indeed they think it "likely an interpolation." Neither form occurs elsewhere in this Gospel.

67. Martha's verb is probably έτεθνήκει and Mary's άπέθανεν, while μου is differently placed. In view of John's habit of making slight alterations when statements are repeated these variations should not be regarded as significant (see on 3:5). Most MSS read άπέθανεν in v. 21, but this seems an assimilation to the present passage; therefore έτεθνήκει is to be preferred there with A C³ Γ Δ Λ Θ Ψ. John uses άποθνήσκω 28 times and θνήσκω but twice, so there would be a tendency for scribes to replace the less familiar verb with the more common one.

68. κλαίω is defined as "cry, wait, lament, of any loud expression of pain or sorrow" (LS).

69. ένεβριμήσατο. Elsewhere in the New Testament it is found only in verse 38; Matt. 9:30; Mark 1:43; 14:5. LS give its meaning as "snort in . . , of horses."

70. Beasley-Murray points out that while the English tradition understands this term of deep emotion, the German tradition has seen it as referring to anger. He himself takes the latter view and sees Jesus as angry because the mourners "mourned 'like the rest of men'." But this seems unnecessarily harsh.

71. Thus Barrett says, "It is beyond question that ἐμβριμᾶσθαι... implies anger. This is suggested by biblical . . . and other . . . usage of the word itself, by the use of the simple form βριμᾶσθα... of which ἐμβριμᾶσθαι is here only an intensive, and by the usage of the cognates." This view may be supported by appealing to the Greek commen-tators.

72. This view has nowhere been better put than by Β. B. Warfield: "It is death that is the object of his wrath, and behind death him who has the power of death, and whom he has come into the world to destroy. Tears of sympathy may fill his eyes, but this is incidental. His soul is held by rage: and he advances to the tomb, in Calvin's words again, 'as a champion who prepares for conflict.' The raising of Lazarus thus becomes, not an isolated marvel, but — as indeed it is presented throughout the whole narrative ... — a decisive instance and open symbol of Jesus' conquest of death and hell. What John does for us in this particular statement is to uncover to us the heart of Jesus, as he wins for us our salvation. Not in cold unconcern, but in flaming wrath against the foe, Jesus smites in our behalf" (The Person and Work of Christ [Philadelphia, 1950], p. 117). There is little to be said for Plummer's idea that it is wrath against the Jews for their hypocritical wailing, for, as we shall see, there is no reason to accuse them of insincerity.

73. Thus Bernard can say: "anger is not primarily suggested by the verbἐμβριμᾶσθόι, nor does the idea of Jesus being angry enter into the story of the Raising of Lazarus." Lagrange points out that the ancient versions such as the Latin, Syriac, and Sahidic do not take the word to mean anger. Black finds in the expression a Syriacism meaning "he was deeply moved in his spirit" (AA, pp. 174ff.).

74. Chiysostom takes the dative τω πνεύνατι as the object of the verb (like the dative in Matt. 9:30; Mark 1:43) and thinks that Jesus rebuked his spirit for feeling so troubled: "He weepeth, and is troubled; for grief is wont to stir up the feelings. Then rebuking those feelings (for He 'groaned in spirit' meaneth, 'restrained His trouble,')..." (63.1; p. 232).

75. έτάραξεν έαυτόν. Later Jesus says, "Now my heart is troubled" (12:27), and the Evangelist says, "Jesus was troubled in spirit" (13:21). These references together form another example of John's habit of variation in repeated statements (see on 3:5). The present passage is the one example of the active voice of this verb in this Gospel, "He troubled himself" (NIV omits "himself"). Cf. Lightfoot, "the expression used here implies that He now voluntarily and deliberately accepts and makes His own the emotion and the experience from which it is His purpose to deliver men." For the last point cf. 14:1, 27. The expression is a way of showing that Jesus of his own free will entered fully into the human lot, identifying himself with the griefs of his friends. As Morgan puts it, "He made Himself responsible, and gathered up into His own personality all the misery resulting from sin, represented in a dead man and broken-hearted people round about Him. This was voluntary identification with the sorrow that issues from sin, and was the outcome of righteous wrath against the sin that caused the sorrow. It is a most remarkable unveiling of the heart of Jesus."

76. Barrett understands it thus: "Jesus perceives that the presence and grief of the sisters and of the Jews are almost forcing a miracle upon him, and as in 2.4 the request for miraculous activity evokes a firm, almost rough, answer, here, in circumstances of increased tension, it arouses his wrath. This miracle it will be impossible to hide (cf. vv. 28, 30); and this miracle, Jesus perceives, will be the immediate occasion of his death (vv.49-53)." Richardson's view is similar. I find such interpretations impossible to accept, I do not see how the presence of grief almost forced a miracle on Jesus (who had decided to "wake" Lazarus even before he left trans-Jordan, v. 11). This would be quite out of harmony with the position taken up consistently throughout this Gospel that Jesus is supremely the Master of every situation and that he is not coerced by any. In this very chapter he has refused to move when informed of Lazarus's illness and has awaited God's time for action (v. 6, where see note). And in this very sentence John does not say "he was troubled" but "he troubled himself." Nor is it any easier to think of the anger as caused by the prospect of his death. Throughout his Gospel Jesus moves majestically to the appointed consummation, and there seems to be no reason for him to rebel now. It is, moreover, completely out of character for Jesus to give way to anger against friends who, even if misguided, sought him no harm. Lindars examines a number of ways of under-standing the passage and accepts "the classic interpretation of this verse as a testimony to the human feeling of Jesus, who shares with all men in their pain and distress."

77. δακρύω means "to shed tears." Though the verb is found here only in the New Testament the cognate noun δάκρυον occurs ten times. The aorist here should probably be taken to signify "burst into tears."

78. Lightfoot comments, "He Himself, in His first words recorded in this gospel, at l^35-42, had invited two of John's disciples, who were following Him, to 'come and see' where He abode; and this had resulted in their own discipleship and that of others; in other words, by following Him, they had themselves received 'the light of life' (8¹²). But now He is Himself invited by the mourners round Him to leave the place and the light which are His by nature and by right, and to 'come and see' (ll³⁴) — and so, if the analogy with 1^38,39 may be pressed, to become associated with — darkness and death, since those around Him regard darkness and death as being in control of the situation; and the strain upon Him finds expression in an outburst of tears."

79. See Hoskyns for a succinct account of the great variety of interpretations that have been given this passage in both ancient and modern times.

80. The aorist infinitive ποιησαι looks for some particular act, not for an attitude or a continuous activity.

81. Calvin finds here something of the cost of the miracle: "Christ does not come to the sepulchre as an idle spectator, but like a wrestler preparing for the contest. Therefore no wonder that He groans again, for the violent tyranny of death which He had to overcome stands before His eyes."

82. μνημεῖον is "a memorial" and so a monument to the memory of the dead. It was used of burial places in general, σπήλαιον, "a cave," might be used of a robbers' haunt (Mark 11:17) or a place of refuge (Heb. 11:38). But a natural cave might also be used for a burial place, as here.

83.τεταρταῖος: "he is a fourth day man." The Jews used spices at burials, but this was not embalming (as in the case of the Egyptians); it did not prevent decomposition.

84. The words are omitted by Θ it syr^s ac². This is an interesting combination, but the strong probability is that the words are genuine.

85. Chrysostom thinks that Jesus made the Jews move the stone, rather than simply raising Lazarus without their aid, so that they would know for a certainty that it was indeed Lazarus who had been raised. They would not, he says, be like those who disputed in the case of the blind man, with some saying "It is he" and others "It is like him" (63.2; p. 233). Similarly he thinks that later Jesus commanded the Jews to release Lazarus from the grave clothes for the same reason (64.3; p. 239).

86. άλλά. Abbott cites this as ail instance of the usage "where, without a negative in the context, it introduces something different from the past, something for which the past has not prepared us, but which nevertheless will take place" (2058).

87. ίνα.

88. ϰραυγάζω of itself means "cry loudly"; here it is reinforced with φωνῇ μεγάλη. This is the one place (out of six occurrences) where John uses the verb of Jesus. Ε. K. Lee thinks that the word often indicates passion and lack of self-control and that it is significant that the one place where Jesus uses it is when he is concerned for others {ExT, LXI [1949-50], pp. 146f.).

89. δεϋρο is an adverb of place that may be used as an imperative like our "Here!" This is the only place where it occurs in this Gospel. Jesus' command is wonderfully succinct: "Here! Outside!"

90. ό τεθνηκώς. In v. 39 ό τετελευτηκώς is used. No difference of meaning is apparent; and we must regard this as another example of John's love of variation. Burton sees the perfect here as used "to denote a state existing antecedent to the time of the principal verb. The action of which it is the result is, of course, still earlier" (Moods, p. 156).

91. κειρίαις. The word denotes "bandages" (see LS; MM note its use "several times in the fragments of a medical papyrus"), so that we are to think of narrow strips wound round the body.

92. σουδαρίῳ. The word is a transliteration of the Latin sudarium, defined by BAGD as "face-cloth for wiping perspiration, corresp. somewhat to our handkerchief."

93. We might have expected των έλθόντων. The expression is difficult, but 01 έλθόντες must be taken as in apposition with πολλοί and explanatory of it: "many of the Jews, namely the ones who came . . ." or as Rieu, "many of the Jews, those who had visited Mary and witnessed what he did." The Greek says simply "had come to Mary"; NIV supplies "to visit."

94. One article links έλθόντες and θεασάμενοι. The same people performed both actions.

95. This assumes the reading ὅ with p⁶⁶*(vid) A^c Β C* D f l sa ac². & is read by p⁶ p⁴⁵ A* W 28 33 f l 3 lat. The attestation for ἅ is perhaps slightly stronger, but this reading may well have crept into the text to make it agree with the next verse. On the whole the singular is more likely. The thing that carried conviction at this point was the great, stupendous miracle, a single act. But when some went to report to the Pharisees they spoke of a number of things.

96. C.H, Dodd examines the pericope, vv. 47-53, in the Cullmann Festschrift (Neotestamentica et Patristica [Leiden, 1962], pp. 134ff.). He decides that the many primitive touches show that the Evangelist "was in a position to draw, directly or indirectly, upon a source of information deriving from a very early Jewish Christian circle still in close association with the synagogue" (p. 143).

97. τινὲς ὲξ αὐτῶν could mean "some of the Jews" or "some of the Jews who had come to Mary." The former seems required, for the language of v. 45 (oί ὲλθόντες ϰτλ.) implies that all who had come to Mary and seen what Jesus did believed. These people are distinguished from those.

98. The separate articles with "chief priests" and "Pharisees" possibly point to two groups combining for the purpose.

99. This is the only occurrence of συνέδριoν in this Gospel, and the only place in the New Testament where the singular is found without the article (the plural is so found, giving the sense "councils"). It may thus mean "a" sanhedrin" or council rather than "the" Sanhedrin. This would be supported by the fact that Caiaphas is called "one of them" (v. 49), whereas in the Sanhedrin he would have been president. But this may be reading too much into the absence of the article.

100. For the first point see Mishnah, Sank. 4:1, and for the second John 7:51.

101. See J. A. T. Robinson, Priority, pp. 223ff.

102. For John's use of άνθρωπος of Jesus see on 4:29.

103. There is evidence from Jewish sources that the authorities were rather nervous for some time before the Jewish War. Thus Josephus speaks of all manner of pottents that occurred in Jerusalem (Bell. 6.288ff.). It is clear that the leading men would not have tolerated anything that looked as if it were provoking disorder.

104. ήμῶν stands before ϰαὶ τὸν τόπον ϰαι τὸ ἔθνος, which Abbott finds to be possibly the one example in the Gospels of "the precedent unemphatic possessive with ήμών" (2559a). Other pronouns such as μου and σου are used much more often in this way. So also BDF (473[l]). Hoskyns and Bernard think ήμών here to be emphatic, but perhaps wrongly.

105. Cf. Mishnah Bikk. 2:2, "(Second) Tithe and First-fruits require to be brought to the Place. . . ." Both here and in the passage we are discussing the "place" could be Jerusalem, but the Temple seems more likely. In 2 Macc. 5:19 the reference is plainly to the Temple: "the Lord did not choose the nation for the place's sake, but the place for the nation's sake."

106. "As E. A, Abbott well says, 'Luke dates the coming of "the word of God" about Jesus from (inter alia) "Annas and Caiaphas." John dates Caiaphas from Jesus' " (FGRCI, p. 189).

107. There is an emphatic double negative, ούϰ οἴδατε οὐδέν. Barclay translates, "You are witless creatures." Cf. P. D. Duke, "Irony can hardly be richer. Caiaphas, who has waited in the wings these many chapters, now steps on stage to utter his only line. He delivers it with proper conviction and flourish, but cannot hear how he mocks himself, and never perceives that his unseen audience looks on with amusement and pity ... the ignorance for which the high priest berates them is the very ignorance in which he will excel them" (Irony in the Fourth Gospel [Atlanta, 1985], p. 87).

108. Cf. Josephus: "The Sadducees . .. are, even among themselves, rather boorish in their behavior, and in their intercourse with their peers are as rude as to aliens" (Bell. 2.166).

109. λογίζεσθε. MM say that this verb "is common in the sense of 'reckon,' 'put down to one's account'."

110. In Gen. Rab. XCIV.9 there is a discussion of whether one man should be given up to save the lives of others, based on the incident in 2 Sam. 20 in which Sheba was slain and the city of Abel spared. Most agreed that one man should die and thus save others.

111. But Rieu is probably too strong with "These words, it must be noted, were put into his mouth." John does not mean that Caiaphas had no control over his words. He was not speaking like Balaam. He had thought the matter out and he gave his verdict. But God so overruled that, while Caiaphas meant one thing, his words had another and a deeper and more important meaning.

112. He uses the strong adversative άλλά (see on 1:8).

113. Prophecy was associated with the high priest, as in the manipulation of the oracle (Num. 27:21). David calls Zadok a seer (2 Sam. 15:27). Philo can speak of the true priest as necessarily a prophet (De Spec. Leg. 4.192), and Josephus claims that since he was of priestly descent he was himself able in some measure to foretell the future (though his emphasis is on knowledge of the prophetical books, Bell. 3.352). It was held among the Jews that prophecy was often, perhaps even usually, unconscious, as a number of passages testify (SBk, II, p. 546).

114. έμελλεν adds a touch of certainty.

115. John's interpretation twice uses έθνος for "nation." In v. 50 Caiaphas has used both λαός and έθνος. The former word is that usual for the people of God, whereas έθνος is the general word for a nation, and in the plural it is the ordinary expression for "the Gentiles." John's avoidance of λαός in his interpretation of Caiaphas's remarks may be due to an unwillingness to use an expression that might imply that the Jews were the people of God. Yet this cannot be pressed because John is prone to slight alterations when he repeats, and in any case Caiaphas applies both words to the Jews.

116. Moule lists this as one of the passages in which there is not much difference between ΰπέρ and άντί (IBNTG, p. 64), For ύπέρ see on 6:51.

117. The perfect διεσκορπισμένα may perhaps indicate the permanence of the scattering, apart from Christ's saving work.

¹¹⁸. BAGD gives the meaning of βουλεύω here as "resolve, decide." There may have been a formal resolution of the Sanhedrin.

119. This town is mentioned in 2 Chron. 13:19 with Bethel in the immediate context. Josephus also links it with Bethel (Bell. 4.551). Most are inclined to identify it with the modern El-Tayibeh.

120. Ceremonial defilement disqualified anyone from keeping the Passover (Lev. 7:21; Num. 9:6; cf. 2 Chron. 30:17-18). Depending on what was involved, the rites for purification might last as long as a week so that, with large numbers involved, it might be well to come to the city early. The "whitewashed tombs" of which Jesus spoke (Matt. 23:27) were whitened to make them conspicuous so that people at festival time would not contract defilement accidentally.

121. See Moulton (Μ, I, pp. 188ff.) for a valuable note on the use of ού μ ή in the New Testament. He combats the view that it is used so often that it has lost its emphatic sense, pointing out that most examples are in quotations from LXX or in the words of Christ. Apart from these the expression is rare, and when it does occur, as here, it must be given its full weight of emphasis.

122. The pluperfect δεδώκεισαν may be meant to indicate the permanent nature of the order. The command was given and remained in force. BDF points out that the pluperfect includes the idea of lasting consequence; otherwise the aorist is used (347). This is John's one use of "orders" (έντολάς) for anything other than a command of God or of Christ (see on 10:18).

123. öπως πιάσωσιν αυτόν is the one example of the use of όπως in this Gospel. Interestingly Mark also has it once, but Matthew 17 times and Luke 7 times. Here the word may be used simply for the sake of variety as John has just used ίνα, which is his usual conjunction for expressing purpose.

↑ Back to top