104. Chapter 45 - The Raising of Lazarus

Chapter 45 - The Raising of Lazarus

John 11:1-54

Lazarus

“Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, of the village of Mary and her sister Martha” (John 11:1). The name Lazarus (the Hebrew is Eleazar) means “God has helped.” All that is known of Lazarus must be learned from this chapter and the few brief references to the family. (1) He was a resident of Bethany and a man of considerable position and influence, judged by the nature of the grave in which he was buried and the emphasis on the number of the Jews who came to comfort Mary and Martha. (2) He was a very dear friend of Jesus which bespeaks his faith and righteous life. Besides this account of his resurrection, there is the note that he was present at the banquet in the home of Simon the Leper on the eve of the triumphal entry, the mention that people came from afar to see Lazarus after his resurrection, the plots of the Jews to assassinate Lazarus as well as Christ, and the testimony borne to the miracle of his resurrection at the time of the triumphal entry. (3) Our lack of information as to anything which Lazarus said or did is in contrast to the clear portrait which is given of Mary and Martha. This may indicate merely the fragmentary character of the Gospel accounts or that the women were much more interesting and forceful.

Mary and Martha

John seems to offer explanation in John 11:2 as to why he names Mary first in opening the narrative. Martha was evidently the older sister and in charge of the home. But Mary became famous over all the world and for all time by her act of devotion in anointing Jesus just before His death. The name of Martha is placed first in John 11:5 and John 11:19. Luke 10:38 calls the house hers and plainly represents her as in charge of the house. This would make it natural to put her name first in the later references, after having mentioned Mary first in reminding the readers of the anointing. Martha also met Jesus first as He approached Bethany. Sadler takes the view that Martha holds the more prominent place in the narrative, but this would be as hard to prove here as in Luke 10:1-42. The place occupied by the two instead shows the differences in the character and disposition of the two sisters. The aggressive, forceful character of Martha led her to act and speak with decision when she met Jesus. Mary’s quiet disposition and profound faith stand out in the narrative. Bernard argues that John 11:2 is a later addition by an editor, but the evidence he offers is fanciful. It is true that the anointing had not yet taken place, but this same document now in the hands of the reader will make plain the event. It is as natural for john to refer to the gracious act for which Mary became world-famous before it transpired as it was for him to refer to Judas as the traitor before the event occurred. Bernard argues that John (or the imaginary editor) confused Mary of Bethany with the sinful woman of Luke 7:38, but this is gratuitous. john did not record the anointing by the sinful woman in Galilee, hence this reference in his narrative is perfectly clear. Any attempt by john to differentiate between the two anointings would have been out of place. The Message

“The sisters therefore sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick” (John 11:3). The strong friendship is evidenced by the fact that the sisters did not feel it was necessary to mention the name of Lazarus nor to invite nor urge Jesus to come. They might have wondered that Jesus had not used His miraculous insight to know of the desperate illness of Lazarus and to have come immediately. At least they felt now that all they needed to do was to let Jesus know that His dear friend was sick. Furthermore, they did not know the circumstances of Jesus’ ministry in Peraea at the moment and so did not presume to ask Him to leave His work and come. They left His course of action to His own judgment. In addition, they understood clearly the deadly plots against the life of Jesus by the national leaders in the capital. To have asked Him to come again into the midst of death might have seemed presumptuous. The respectful address the sisters use, Lord) is seen throughout the chapter. Martha calls Him “the Teacher” when telling Mary of His presence. The disciples call Jesus “Rabbi” in John 11:8. Not Unto Death

“But when Jesus heard it, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby” (John 11:4). This revelation of the future would have been an instant rejoinder to any inner doubts the apostles might have entertained at the moment as to why Jesus had not known of the sickness of Lazarus before He was notified. Later on Jesus made clear that He was not affirming that Lazarus would not die, but that the death of Lazarus would be nothing more than a brief sleep from which Jesus would call him back. Jesus liked to give enigmatical statements such as this to cause the hearers to ponder and study the meaning. His further declarations and the actual raising of Lazarus make clear His meaning. Jesus’ reference to Himself as the Son of God and the place of the miracles He wrought in proving His claims to deity are powerfully affirmed in this verse. The Delay

“Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus” (John 11:5). This statement seems to have been written by John to prepare the reader for the shocking news in the next verse that Jesus did not go instantly to answer the call for help (as He did in every other call recorded for us), but that He tarried “two days in the place where he was.” How the apostles must have wondered and discussed among themselves this delay. Remembering their own grave perplexity at Jesus’ course, John may have felt the need to assure his readers that His delay was not caused by any lack of love for these three friends.

Fear

“Let us go into Judaea again” (John 11:7). This was the sort of summons the apostles had been expecting and dreading. Bernard and others argue that the apostles were moved by fear for themselves as well as for Christ. The statement of Thomas indicated a clear-sighted vision of the danger to themselves. It indicated no fear, but rather the desperate determination to follow Him to death if necessary. They did not, however understand the divine purpose of Jesus’ relentless determination to go to His death. They were drawn in opposite directions by their desire to protect and defend Jesus, and their obligation to obey Him and permit Him to go voluntarily to His death. They would not desert Him; they could but follow blindly and in despair. Since they were human beings, they naturally knew what fear was, but their bold determination to go to their death with Him was the very opposite of fear. The Protest

“Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?” (John 11:8). Here is very clear testimony that the apostles had witnessed many attempts to slay Jesus and that they understood the charge of blasphemy upon which the Jewish leaders had rested in making these attempts. They were very respectful in their address to Jesus and their protest against the course He proposed. In their reflections and discussions among themselves they had evidently concluded that the reason Jesus had not gone immediately to help His friends was the deadly peril, and that He was avoiding the peril by remaining here in the provinces. They did not seek to dictate the course of Jesus, but they offered a gentle, heartbreaking protest.

Jesus replied with one of His profound sayings so difficult to unravel, “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” There is the day for work and the night for rest. The man who follows the wise procedure of walking in the day has no fear, for he can see his path. Jesus was walking in the light of the day that God had given Him. He could see His path. He knew that the time allotted to Him was definite and certain; it had not yet expired. His former teaching that He is the Light of the world suggested that they too might walk with confidence if they followed His leading. In John 9:4 He had declared that the night would soon come, but here He declared that it had not yet come and that He could proceed with freedom. In doing God’s will, Jesus walked in the light of God’s day. If He had refused or hesitated to do as God directed, He would have been walking in the night. He must not yield to their entreaties, but go on as God directed, otherwise He might expect to stumble in proceeding contrary to the will of God. Notice the clause the light is not in him with its emphasis upon the inner light of God’s guidance. Jesus did not walk in the night, nor did He stumble when death came.

Sleep

“Our friend Lazarus is fallen asleep; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep” (John 11:11). Jesus referred to death as a sleep just as He had done in the case of the daughter of Jairus. He was misunderstood on both occasions. The Greek verb is used both in classical and Biblical literature in the sense of ordinary sleep and in the metaphorical sense of death. In the New Testament it means the former three times; the latter, thirteen times. The gracious reference our friend Lazarus declared their common love for this noble disciple. The veiled terms Jesus used were misunderstood, in spite of their having heard Him use this same figure of speech in the home of Jairus. Their hearts were so overwrought with heartbreaking fear for their Master, they could not think very clearly. “Lord, if he is fallen asleep, he will recover” (John 11:12). Their statement should have been the basis for understanding that Jesus’ reference was figurative since He would not necessarily awaken one asleep in such a crisis. But they were trying to find some means of persuading Jesus to remain out of the deadly peril of the capital.

Death

“Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe” (John 11:14). First Jesus had told them that the sickness of Lazarus was not unto death. Then He informed them that Lazarus was asleep, but He was going now to awaken him out of his sleep. Finally He had to make His meaning very clear by stating that Lazarus was dead and He was glad for the sake of the apostles that He had not been present. Thus gradually He made clear to them the course He had followed and would follow and the motives behind the delay. The tears which Jesus shed as He met His dear friends in the roadway outside Bethany testify to the fact that He would fain have been present during the illness of Lazarus and saved them all the grief and misunderstanding. But for the sake of these stalwart messengers who were to carry the gospel to the world, Jesus rejoiced that He was able to give them and us the indubitable proof of this prodigious miracle. When asked to name a miracle of supreme power, the Christian usually names the stilling of the tempest, the walking on the water, the feeding of the five thousand, or the resurrection of Lazarus. The Glory of God In John 11:4 Jesus had declared that the sickness of Lazarus had been “for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby.” This was also promised to Martha (John 11:40). Westcott holds that it would be for the glory of God in that the great miracle would so infuriate the opposition it would precipitate the crucifixion and thus would bring about the glory of God in the offering of His Son. This may be implied as the necessary corollary (cf. John 8:34; John 9:3; John 10:25; John 14:13; John 17:1; and John 12:28, John 12:32; John 13:31, John 13:32; John 14:14). The glory of the Father and the Son are identical (John 11:4); the repeated reference to the death of Christ being for the glory of God and of Christ may indicate such a meaning here. But the entire account of the miracle indicates that Jesus had delayed because He was acting according to God’s orders and that it was God’s will that the miracle might be performed in such a way as to give the more powerful evidence to the world. Jesus had restrained His natural desire to go to them immediately in their distress because it was God’s will. He had said to them, “Let us go into Judaea again” (John 11:7); he had said this in order for them to realize the peril and decide for themselves: “Let us go into the den of lions.” Now He says, “Nevertheless let us go unto him.” In spite of the fact of His delay He is now to go to Lazarus to bring him forth from the dead.

Thomas

“Let us also go, that we may die with him” (John 11:16). This word of boldness and despair was voiced by Thomas. Peter was not always the spokesman for the group. John informs the readers that Thomas had another name, Didymus. Thomas is the Hebrew word. Didymus is the Greek rendering and means twin or one of twins. On three occasions when his name is mentioned this explanation of its meaning is given. it may have been that Thomas was generally called Didymus in Greek circles, hence this explanatory note in this Gospel sent out to the Greek-speaking world. Many have supposed the name had a mystical meaning — one of twins — Thomas was a combination of two: the believer and the unbeliever, but this is uncertain inasmuch as the name does not seem to have been bestowed by Jesus. Thomas is usually called “the doubter” because of his stubborn refusal to believe in the resurrection upon the testimony of the other apostles. He seems to have been of a pessimistic turn of mind. But here he clearly saw that the death of Jesus was approaching. With desperate courage he proposed to the group that they all go prepared to die with Him.

Bernard supposes that Peter could not have been present. But the fact that Thomas spoke up for the entire group does not prove the absence of Peter, for he was present in the scenes described in John 14:5 and John 20:24. Bernard argues on this slender supposition that Peter and others were doubtless at home for a rest since the Gospel of Mark knows nothing of this Jerusalem ministry. As if Peter, even though absent, would never have learned of this prodigious miracle of the raising of Lazarus! This is the same sort of folly which leads the modernists to say that Mark and John knew nothing of the virgin birth simply because they followed a plan of writing which did not record it. Later on we find that Thomas shows the same stubborn spirit of inquiry and demands that all the facts be known and thoroughly proved and understood (John 14:5; John 20:24, John 20:25). The Time Element The exact time of this journey and the place of starting are uncertain. The last feast Jesus attended was about December 25. Considerable time seems to have elapsed between the resurrection of Lazarus and the final Passover so that this may have been some time late in January or early in February. Jesus was in Peraea, and the indications are that He was in the northern section of Peraea. The effort of Herod to drive Him out of the kingdom would suggest this. The four days that had elapsed between the death of Lazarus and the arrival of Jesus would seem to be counted as the day on which the messenger arrived, the two days of tarrying in Peraea, and the day of journeying to Bethany. But if Jesus was in northern Peraea, it may have taken the messenger more than a day to reach Him and also for His return. Lazarus was probably dead by the time the messenger reached Jesus, or shortly afterward. The burial was usually immediate. The words of Martha seem to suggest that if Jesus had come at once He might have arrived before Lazarus died (John 11:21). She does not say, however, “If thou hadst come,” but, “If thou hadst been here,” which may imply that He could have known by miraculous insight the illness of Lazarus and have been present. The delay of Jesus evidently caused them great misunderstanding and distress, but Martha did not ask Jesus directly concerning it.

Bethany is described as “nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off” (John 11:18). A stadion, or furlong, is about one-eighth of a mile, and fifteen furlongs would be almost two miles. Yet Bethany is described as a sabbath day’s journey from Jerusalem, which is seven-eighths of a mile. This was evidently by the most direct route, the steep descent into the capital down the Mount of Olives. The count of two miles is the longer route used for the slower ascent of the mountain. The Mourners

“Many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to console them concerning their brother” (John 11:19). This seems to indicate the prominence and prestige of the family. Even after the funeral has been over for two days, guests are still in the home. The reminder of the close proximity of Bethany to Jerusalem and the presence of all these guests may also be introduced by John to show the deadly peril of Jesus. Perhaps the guests were moved not merely by sympathy for the sisters, but the desire to see whether Jesus would come in answer to their appeal and to observe what would happen upon His arrival. The Sisters The difference in the sisters is clearly set forth in the narrative. Martha was in charge of the household and so heard first of the near approach of Jesus. A watch might have been kept of the roadway for the last two days to give an immediate report if He were seen approaching on the highway. Mary, whose deeper spiritual nature was overwhelmed by grief, was isolated in an inner chamber. This does not mean that the sorrow of Martha was not also overpowering, but someone has to stand stalwart and support those who are on the verge of complete prostration in such a tragic hour. The quarrel between the sisters, which Luke describes in Luke 10:38-42, shows that they both had a mind of their own and were very determined, but in this tragic hour they voiced exactly the same feelings and the same idea when they met Jesus. Martha went forth immediately to meet Jesus and tell Him of her grief and faith. Mary either did not hear of the approach of Jesus until told by her sister or else quietly waited in seclusion for His command. When told He desired to see her, she went forth quickly and fell at His feet and wept. Her grief seems to have affected Jesus more than that of the more practical and matter-of-fact Martha. The older sister may have felt obligated to restrain her grief in order to support the more emotional Mary. Both sisters show great faith, but that of Martha faltered as Jesus ordered the tomb opened, and she had to be reminded of His promise.

Jesus and Martha

Jesus evidently tarried outside the village in order to have private conversation with the sisters. Their trial had been great, and the doubt and misunderstanding which had assailed them must have been hard to bear. “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died” (John 11:21). Martha boldly affirmed her faith that Jesus could have prevented the death of Lazarus. There is the suggestion of reproach in her remark “If thou hadst been here,” (and “why were you not here”). This raises the question: a speedy and immediate journey should have brought Him two days earlier, but would not Lazarus have been dead even then? She seems to be suggesting that by His miraculous foresight He could have known and have been present. She does not presume to complain or question His conduct. Urgent matters might have delayed Him. But she expresses her faith and dejected grief in this pathetic word. She knew, however, of those whom Jesus had raised from the dead. We do not read of any person’s asking Jesus to raise from the dead their loved one. But Martha suggests this: “And even now I know that, whatsoever thou shalt ask of God, God will give thee” (John 11:22). She does not presume to ask; she only subtly suggests. She expresses her faith in Jesus as the Son of God in language all her own. The Good Confession of Martha

“Thy brother shall rise again” (John 11:23). The reply of Jesus was purposely obscure. A good teacher does not work everything out for the student, but gives just enough help to stimulate to the utmost intellectual effort. Just as He had begun the instruction of the apostles in this crisis beyond the Jordan by giving obscure statements, so now He seeks to enlarge and challenge the faith of Martha. His statement was so couched as to leave His meaning uncertain. Did she have enough faith to enter the door He left ajar?

“I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day” (John 11:24). Martha answers with boldness and caution. She is absolutely sure of the final resurrection. The Old Testament shows there is a life after death and even records cases of resurrection. The teaching of Jesus had been clear and constant concerning heaven and hell. The actual cases of resurrection by Jesus confirmed her faith. As in her first declaration there is subtle implication. The emphasis she gave to the words, and a significant look at Jesus would have underscored her unspoken question: “I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day….Is that what you meant?...Did you mean to suggest now...?” Instead of confirming her faith in the general resurrection and offering usual words of comfort or even giving any direct answer to her subtle suggestion, Jesus returned a profound declaration of His Deity and power over life and death. His reply is one of the most significant and impressive statements ever uttered. He began many of His grand declarations of deity with the name of God: “I am,” “the Bread of life,” “the Light of the world,” “the Door,” “the Truth,” “the Life,” “the True Vine,” “the Good Shepherd.”

“I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die. Believest thou this?” (John 11:25, John 11:26). Jesus identifies Himself with the fact of the resurrection, as He later identifies Himself with life itself. John had affirmed this same great truth about Jesus in the first chapter. He is now offering proof of what he had there affirmed. Jesus is the Source of all life. The one who believes on Him, even though death overtakes him, yet he will not die in the eternal sense, but will live in glory with Christ. He will never really die in the sense that an unbeliever gives to the term — extinction. Sadler gives a mystical meaning to the statement and connects it with Romans 6:1-6 and Colossians 2:12. “1 am the resurrection”; we are raised with Christ in baptism. He emphasizes the present tense of the verbs, “Whosoever continues to live in me and to believe in me shall never die.” He argues that the verse cannot be used to sustain the “once in grace always in grace” fallacy.

Martha’s answer is magnificent. She declares that she believes not merely this tremendous and obscure statement Jesus has made, which she is not sure she understands, but she believes everything Jesus says, no matter how difficult or how tremendous it may be. By this same confession of faith she declares her humble acceptance of the course Jesus has followed in regard to the sickness and death of her brother. Whatever Christ does is according to the will of God, whether she understands it or not. “Yea, Lord: I have believed that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, even he that cometh into the world” (John 11:27). She boldly accepts the challenge to affirm her acceptance of what Jesus has just claimed; she goes further to affirm that she had already come to the firm conclusion that He was the Christ, the Son of God, even as He has claimed. Observe how she defines her terms. Paul, in stating the essence of the gospel, reached out to include the entire revelation of the Scripture concerning Christ: “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3, 1 Corinthians 15:4). Martha in like manner includes the entire Old Testament revelation concerning Christ in her confession of faith: “even he that cometh into the world.”

Jesus and Mary

Since we are informed Jesus asked for Mary to come (John 11:28), we conclude that Jesus instructed Martha to tell her privately of His presence and His desire to see her. He evidently desired to comfort Mary and strengthen her faith, as He had helped Martha. Mary’s answer to the summons was immediate. He evidently had halted outside the village for the specific purpose of having a conference with the sisters. Mary made the same heartbroken outcry to Jesus that Martha had uttered. They doubtless had said these very words over and over to one another as they had waited in perplexity for His arrival. They must have spoken it first in hope amid the grave illness of Lazarus and then in despair or at least in grave doubt. The Jews who had remained to assist in caring for the sisters in their grief may have been moved also by the keen desire to see whether Jesus would come in response to their call. They did not know as yet of His arrival, because they thought Mary was going to the tomb again to weep and mourn. Since Mary appeared to be the one who most needed support and comfort, they had concentrated their attentions upon her. Martha was so evidently able to care for herself, they did not watch her movements and seem not to have noticed her absence. They feared Mary would collapse from grief and watched her closely.

“Mary...fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died” (John 11:32). This touching act of worship was Mary’s confession of faith. The presence of the Jews who followed her prevented any such private conversation as Martha had enjoyed. All that Mary had in her heart, she knew was known to Jesus: her grief, her doubts, her fears, her perplexities, her faith, her hope. She expressed them all as she fell on the ground in worship at His feet.

Jesus’ Grief

“When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping who came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, and said, Where have ye laid him? They say unto him, Lord, come and see. Jesus wept.” (John 11:33-35). The sympathy of Jesus and the manner in which He shares all our sorrows find sublime illustration in this historic record. Some suppose that Jesus wept because of indignation at the unbelief about Him. But there has been no mention of unbelief up to this point. The faith of both sisters had been magnificent. The text shows that the Jews present were sympathetic as they wept with Mary and interpreted the tears of Jesus as evidence of His great love for Lazarus: “Behold, how he loved him” Many of the Jews present believed because of the miracle (John 11:45). Some went away later on and told the Pharisees, but we are not sure of their motives. The basis for the theory that Jesus became so angry He cried, is that this is one of the meanings of this Greek verb embrimaomai, “groaned in the spirit.” The marginal reading in the a.s.v. is “was moved with indignation in the spirit.” The verb means in its primitive use to snort like a horse when suddenly filled with terror. In the Septuagint version it is used to show indignation. In Mark 14:5 Bernard renders this verb “they roared against her” in indignation at Mary’s waste of the ointment; in that passage the idea of indignation is plain. But in Mark 1:43 and Matthew 9:30 it is not possible to render the verb as being indignant or enraged; hence, the translators rendered “to charge sternly,” although they could find no other example of such a rendering. The word evidently implied intense emotion in these two cases as in John 11:33, John 11:38. These are the only times the word is applied to Jesus. The fact that Jesus wept shows extreme emotion — sympathy rather than wrath. The interpretation which the Jews placed upon His weeping gives added confirmation. They did not say, “Behold how angry He is!” Both the a.v. and the a.s.v. translate the verb “groaned in the spirit.” The verb tarasso, which follows, means “was troubled” or “troubled himself”; Bernard renders it “he shuddered,” as His whole frame shook with grief. Bernard says, “He arrived at the tomb, not ‘indignant’ at anything nor ‘groaning’ with loud outbursts of sorrow, but making those inarticulate sounds which are the expression of mental agitation and strain” (I.C.C. on John, p. 393). Some would render it, “He strictly charged or restrained his spirit”; He restrained His human nature from any unseemly outburst. Sadler holds that the idea of indignation is inherent in the word and that Jesus was indignant at the effects of sin, so vividly brought before Him in the victory of death over His friend, in the grief of the bereaved sisters, and in the hypocrisy of some of the Jews present, and the deadly hate of others. But the Greek lexicons show that the idea of rage or indignation is not necessarily implied. The translators of the a.v. and the a.s.v. show the majority concurred in this judgment when they translated the verb “strictly charged” and in their translations of the verb in John 11:32-35. The Sympathy of Jesus

It is certainly more in harmony with the character to see Him weep from sympathy rather than of Jesus from rage. There is no evidence of rage at the other times it is recorded that He wept, at the triumphal entry (Luke 19:41) and in the Garden of Gethsemane (Hebrews 5:7). It is never recorded of Jesus that He laughed, but this does not prove that He did not. Laughter is a part of the perfection of manhood, but Jesus’ mission was too serious and the Gospel accounts too brief to leave much room for humor. When it is a matter of life and death, laughter is seldom heard. The humor of Jesus which is recorded in the Gospel accounts is always of the most pertinent and poignant type. It is recorded of Jesus that He wept three times, and in every case there is the tragic undertone of man’s doom as a result of his sin and of His death to save man from this fate.

Pure sympathy is most strongly expressed here by the tomb of Lazarus. Bernard notes the strong difference between the character of Jesus and the ideal of absolute indifference to joy and sorrow which the Stoics set up. The Christian is to rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those that weep. But the example of Jesus does not encourage excess of grief at funerals. We do not sorrow as those who have no hope. Newman points out in a beautiful passage that “the tears of Jesus” show not only His humanity, but also His deity. He came to show God’s love and mercy and to reveal how God cares for us and enters into our suffering. The ultimate difficulty in the problem of suffering is the fact that God suffers. Yet His anguished love for His lost children is the crowning glory of God Himself. The Tomb

Jesus did not need any instruction as to where the tomb was located, if He chose to use His miraculous foresight. But natural means were available and He asked the question to lead the group naturally to the spot. He intended to raise Lazarus. Bethany was on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. The tomb was evidently dug back into the side of the hill. It would not have been dug down into the ground on a flat surface which had no drainage. The a.s.v. says “a stone lay against it,” which is much superior to the translation of the a.v. , “a stone lay upon it.” The preposition can have either meaning, but the context demands “against” the entrance on the side of a hill. The rock was to keep animals or intruders out. It would be rolled aside as in the case of the tomb of Joseph. “Take ye away the stone” fits such action.

Martha’s Doubt

“Lord, by this time the body decayeth for he hath been dead four days” (John 11:39). The Jews who were present concluded from Jesus’ weeping that He had loved Lazarus with a very great love. Sympathy for the sisters undoubtedly was included in their analysis of His feelings. Their second remark shows that they realized His miraculous power: “Could not this man, who opened the eyes of him that was blind, have caused that this man should not die” (John 11:37). The attitude of the crowd seems to be friendly as is to be expected of intimate friends of Lazarus. But there may have been a cleavage among them with some leaning toward the unbelieving Jewish leadership (John 11:46).

Bernard insists that Martha had no idea that Christ intended to raise Lazarus and this protest shows “her strong sense of decorum (Luke 10:40), was horrified to think of the exposure of the corpse, it being now the fourth day after death.” But this view is to shut one’s eyes to the previous cases of resurrection by Jesus and to shut one’s ears to the conversation of Martha and Jesus in which the resurrection had been discussed. Martha protested now because her faith began to weaken. She was like a mountain climber who, scaling the mighty precipice, cannot see his destination wreathed in clouds above, and weakens under the fearful ascent, looks down into the depths, and almost loses his balance. Mary with her deeper spiritual nature and more complete faith in Jesus gave no evidence of faltering now. The Glory of God

“Said I not unto thee, that, if thou believedst, thou shouldst see the glory of God?” (John 11:40). This question clearly emphasizes the fact that Jesus required, as a part of His regular program, faith on the part of those seeking miraculous aid. When had Jesus told Martha she would see the glory of God? Jesus had told the apostles, while they were still in Peraea, that the death of Lazarus would be for the glory of God (John 11:4). It would have been most natural for Martha to have heard this from Jesus or the apostles. Jesus may have repeated the promise to her. The glory of God may be a reference to the mysterious declaration of Jesus to Martha in John 11:25-27 with all that it implied as to the immediate resurrection of Lazarus and all the eternal glories of heaven in the future. Bernard objects that if the resurrection of Lazarus is meant, the bystanders saw the resurrection and yet not all of them believed. He admits that these did not perceive “the inner meaning of this ‘sign,’ and discern in it the exhibition of Divine glory.” But a study of the Gospel narratives shows that while Jesus continually insisted those seeking miraculous aid must believe, He repeatedly performed miracles where many unbelievers were in the crowd of onlookers (cf. Mark 9:14-29). These who disbelieved were not seeking miraculous aid. When had Jesus told Martha she would see the glory of God? Jesus had told the apostles, while they were still in Peraea, that the death of Lazarus would be for the glory of God (John 11:4). It would have been most natural for Martha to have heard this from Jesus or the apostles, Jesus may have repeated the promise to her. The glory of God may be a reference to the mysterious declaration of Jesus to Martha in John 11:25-27 with all that it implied as to the immediate resurrection of Lazarus and all the eternal glories of heaven in the future. Bernard objects that if the resurrection of Lazarus is meant, the bystanders saw the resurrection and yet not all of them believed, He admits that these did not perceive “the inner meaning of this ‘sign,’ and discern in it the exhibition of Divine glory.” But a study of the Gospel narratives shows that while Jesus continually insisted those seeking miraculous aid must believe, He repeatedly performed miracles where many unbelievers were in the crowd of onlookers (cf. Mark 9:14-29). These who disbelieved were not seeking miraculous aid.

Jesus’ Prayer

“And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou heardest me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the multitude that standeth around I said it, that they may believe that thou didst send me” (John 11:41, John 11:42). Jesus urged that His disciples should go into the inner chamber to pray, but His own example shows that He did not mean to prohibit public prayer. The prayers of Jesus are an interesting study — the times, places, people, things concerned. Public prayers of Jesus are recorded when the great invitation was given (Matthew 11:25, Matthew 11:26 and a similar passage in Luke 10:21); when He gave thanks for the loaves and the fishes at the feeding of the five thousand and of the four thousand; here at the tomb of Lazarus; in the upper room; the long prayer of John 17:1-26; on the cross; the thanksgiving with the two at Emmaus. The prayer in John seventeen is the longest. He preserved such absolute harmony with God that all His speech, thought, and conduct illustrate “Pray without ceasing.” The brevity of the public prayers of Jesus is most remarkable when contrasted to the long seasons spent in private prayer. He states that this prayer at the tomb of Lazarus is not to bring His own spirit into harmony with God, but for the sake of those about. Note the absolute assurance of the answer from God, so that He speaks as if the miracle were already achieved, as indeed it was in the mind of God and of His Son. Bernard objects that it is unlike Jesus to offer thanksgiving to impress the crowd and affirms that John 11:42 is a late addition by an editor and was never spoken by Jesus. He also offers the theory that the original text may have read “because of the multitude that standeth around, I did it” (instead of “I said it”). Thus He affirms that He did the miracle in order that the crowd might believe, and not that He offered the prayer that they might believe. Bernard cites very slight manuscript authority, one uncial and the Armenian Version. But the prayer of Jesus needs no apology; it is the essence of simplicity and sincerity; it affirms that He was praying not to bring any needed confidence to His own heart, but for the sake of those who heard and thus would have this clinching evidence that this was a miracle Jesus was about to perform. Why should there be public prayer at all, if those who hear are not led thereby to the presence of God, and to believe and obey? The Miracle

“He cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth” (John 11:43). Some have suggested that if Jesus had not called the name of Lazarus, all the dead would have come forth; but this supposes that Jesus could not have made His will known except by the spoken word. The fact that Jesus addressed Lazarus and called him forth made the miracle indubitable. When “He cried with a loud voice,” all in the presence were able to hear distinctly. Two of the words spoken on the cross are reported to have been with a loud voice (Mark 15:34, Mark 15:37; cf. also Matthew 24:31; Revelation 1:10; Revelation 21:3). The voice of Jesus must have been incomparable.

“He that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes; and his face was bound about with a napkin” (John 11:44). Since he was unable to use his hands and unloose himself, Jesus had to order his friends to unloose him from the swathes about his hands and feet and the napkin from about his face, after his emergence. It would seem plain, therefore, that he could not have walked with his feet bound, except by miraculous aid. This is not affirmed, and the bandages may have been loose enough on his feet to permit motion by natural means, but the prodigious character of the miracle seems to indicate the opposite. With the napkin fastened around his face, he would have been unable to see by natural means. Augustine says, “Dost thou marvel how he came forth with his feet bound, and not marvel that lie rose being four days dead? In both was the power of the Lord, not the strength of the dead man.” The text does not affirm that he walked, but that he came forth. The Witnesses

“Many...believed on him. But some of them went away to the Pharisees, and told them the things which Jesus had done” (John 11:45, John 11:46). Sadler insists that among the intimate friends of Lazarus and the sisters there would not have been found anyone so hostile to Jesus as to go and tell the Pharisees from malicious unbelief. But in all large companies a division of character and motives may be expected. The whole current of John’s narrative would naturally lead us to conclude that these were proceeding from a motive more or less hostile. The company is parted by John’s narration between those who believed on Jesus and those who went and told the Pharisees Possibly they went because they were determined to see to it that the Pharisees had to face this new evidence. The adversative conjunction but is against such a view. The entire atmosphere seems to indicate more or less hostility on their part: the repeated efforts to kill Jesus; the demand that anyone knowing His whereabouts should report to them so they might arrest Him. The motives of those who went to the Pharisees may have been varied, but it seems they did not believe, even though they had seen the incredible miracle. The Pharisees

“The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many signs” (John 11:47). A hurried session of the Sanhedrin followed the receipt of this exciting news. They declared that there was a crisis in the life of the nation. They claimed that the growing excitement over the miracles of Jesus made imminent an outbreak against Rome which would bring ultimate disaster on the nation. This was a real peril in the light of the numbers, fanaticism, and power of the Zealot party. Jesus continually changed the location of His ministry to prevent the Zealots from capturing His movement. The hypocrisy of the chief priests and Pharisees is apparent, however, in their frank admission that Jesus was actually working miracles. The immediate conclusion is that He was speaking the message of God and they were obligated to Him. Any sort of political crisis is insignificant when compared to the wrath of God. The real folly of their objection is seen when it was actually presented to Pilate and he tore the cover from their hypocritical claim that Jesus was a rival of Caesar. Their wicked determination not to believe and repent was the real ground of their objection.

Caiaphas

“Caiaphas, being high priest that year...” (John 11:49). The high priest, according to the Old Testament law, ruled for life, but the Romans found they could make vast sums of money by deposing a high priest and selling the office to the highest bidder. At first, they permitted a high priest to rule for a number of years, but in the years immediately preceding the fall of Jerusalem they became more corrupt and demanded more bribes from the incumbent high priest and sold to the highest bidder in rapid succession. Annas ruled from A. D. 6 to 15. He was deposed by Gratus, but shrewdly managed to keep the succession in his family for a considerable period and a number of changes. His son-in-law, Caiaphas, was appointed in a.d. 18 and held office until a.d. 36, during the reign of Pontius Pilate. Bernard suggests that the phrase that year does not reflect these frequent changes at the whim of the Romans, but means “that fateful year” when the Messiah was crucified. Sadler also argues that it means the memorable year when the final atoning sacrifice was offered and the office of high priest over the temple and nation as set up in the Old Testament was no longer necessary.

Caiaphas scornfully rebuked the leaders for hesitating in their plan to kill Jesus. He urged the political situation as the ground for immediate action and declared that with the life of the nation at stake, they should not hesitate to kill Him. “He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.” God’s providence was guiding the course of events which gave a deeper meaning to Caiaphas’ wicked words and made them true in a higher sense than Caiaphas realized. God used Caiaphas’ words to have a profound meaning through the record of John, who points out that it was not only for the Jewish nation, but for all people that Jesus died.

“From that day” they began to plot with renewed venom for the death of Christ. Before this time their plotting had been spasmodic and hesitating as on occasion they were enraged and then became quiescent because their plans went astray or they were afraid of His divine power. It was becoming increasingly evident that He did not intend to use His miraculous power to destroy them, and the resurrection of Lazarus was so tremendous and so located in their very midst that they could not ignore it. From this time they plotted with unyielding determination under the furious leadership of Caiaphas They pretended to be God’s representatives in guiding and saving the nation, but they were determined to kill Jesus, whom they admitted had the divine credentials proving He was revealing God’s will to the nation. They pretended to be moved by the desire to save the nation and defended their plot to kill Jesus by the greater objective of saving the nation; but, if Jesus was the Son of God as He claimed (and they could not deny His miracles, hence His claims were true), then the good of the nation demanded above all else that they yield allegiance to Him.

Ephraim

“Jesus….departed thence into the country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim” (John 11:54). The wilderness of Judaea, called Jeshimon, was immediately west of the Dead Sea and extended several miles up the Jordan River from where it emptied into the Dead Sea. The second most desolate section in Palestine was a sort of continuation of this wilderness in the wild mountainous section to the north between the Jordan and Bethel. Ephraim is not mentioned in any other passage in the New Testament. Josephus locates a fortress called Ephraim in the mountainous region northeast of Bethel. Scholars have located ruins four miles northeast of Bethel on the road from Samaria to Jericho and about fifteen miles from Jericho. It is uncertain how long Jesus remained in this desolate section before going across the Jordan and resuming His Peraean ministry.