John 11

[Josh]

Post your comments/ questions/ discussion starters about John chapter 11 as replies here.

[Josh]

5Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6Yet when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days.

This is a powerful statement about God's timing-- and this chapter opens up just a little crack of sunlight into why God sometimes seems to respond immediately but often seems to hold back. The power of this story is that we're not talking about the invisible father and His mysterious ways, but Jesus in the flesh-- we seem Him in the 1st century acting in the same kinds of 'mysterious ways' that He acts in our lives right now. Jesus does give us a bit of reasoning behind his mysterious absences-- namely:

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.

Somehow his hide-and-seek behavior gets the most 'mileage of belief' out of us, it seems.

[nathaniel]

On a similar note, when Jesus sees Mary and others weeping, he is, "Deeply moved in spirit and troubled," and weeps also. I think it's helpful to know that God doesn't just sit back sternly while he hides, (for whatever his purpose may be: to glorify himself, to help us believe, to grow us) but he hurts also, and presumably more so. It's like he wishes he could show himself, but he knows, however hard, that it's best to wait.

[Josh]

That is a sublime truth of this passage indeed, Nate.

We could spend a lifetime plumbing those thoughts.

[Josh]

So, on another note, one thing that has always been a question in my mind-- and a bit of a perplexing one about the gospels, is, why, when this miracle (raising Lazarus from the dead) seems to be perhaps Jesus' greatest pre-crucifixion miracle, we don't hear about it in the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)?

Is there some good reason why it wasn't in those books and was included by John, other than the obvious conclusion a hostile skeptic would jump to, namely, that John just made the story up later?

I have some seeds of thought in regard to this germinating. Any have anything to throw in?

[nathaniel]

Just a couple shots in the dark.

• It does seem to fit the pattern of most miracles John records, in that the other gospels don't have them. But, that just justifies it being there, not why such a great miracle would be left out of the others.
  
• The other writers didn't think it would aid, or might even detract, from the purpose they were writing for.
  
• (Assuming John wrote his gospel after the others) maybe Lazarus had died by the time John wrote his, and previous to that the synoptic writers didn't want to get Lazarus caught up in anymore controversy about it.
  
• Word just hadn't gotten to the other authors about it by the time they wrote their accounts. Or, they had heard about it, but hadn't yet confirmed it, so they omitted it. But, since John was an eye witness (was John an eye witness?) he felt comfortable taking that liberty.
  

...but i really have no idea. And it does seem a bit odd.

[Josh]

Nice Nate! Gettin' the apologetic gears turning on a tough one!

It does seem to fit the pattern of most miracles John records, in that the other gospels don't have them. But, that just justifies it being there, not why such a great miracle would be left out of the others.

You mean that John records certain kinds of miracles, and this fits that theme ("signs" miracles, for instance), whereas the other gospels record miracles of different themes? I can see how this could have something to do with it-- it's just that it seems to me that it's such a monumental miracle that it seems anyone aware of it would have tried to fit it into any theme they were using.

The other writers didn't think it would aid, or might even detract, from the purpose they were writing for.

Hmmm, I suppose that it's inclusion might distract from other things (like, for instance Matthew and Luke's focus on Jesus' teachings and parables). Or maybe Mark thought exorcisms were "cooler" than temporary resurrections.

(Assuming John wrote his gospel after the others) maybe Lazarus had died by the time John wrote his, and previous to that the synoptic writers didn't want to get Lazarus caught up in anymore controversy about it.

This is the direction I've been leaning, although I haven't thought it through too much. Interestingly, John 12 tells us that:

9Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, 11for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their faith in him.

First off, that's one of the funniest passages in the Bible. Plotting to kill a guy who just came back from the dead!!

But, the reality is that just because Jesus rose him from the dead didn't mean that Lazarus was going to be immortal or should act carelessly in the face of death threats. Jesus tells his followers elsewhere to flee from persecution if possible (Matthew 10:23). Could it be that this death threat was still active at the time Mark, Luke, and Matthew were written, and that those authors were just making sure that writing it down wouldn't inadvertently cause his death?

I think this line of thinking is promising, but it seems a bit hard to get a firm handle on. Some quesitons that remain are: would Luke, writing so far away, really have needed to exclude this to protect Lazarus?

Word just hadn't gotten to the other authors about it by the time they wrote their accounts. Or, they had heard about it, but hadn't yet confirmed it, so they omitted it. But, since John was an eye witness (was John an eye witness?) he felt comfortable taking that liberty.

Well, this one holds less promise for me, for this reason-- it's possible that John Mark was a very young disciple of Jesus, and in any case, strong, relatively early tradition holds that Mark is basically Peter's gospel-- ie, a gospel Mark put together from Peter's sermons. So, though it wasn't probably written by an eye-witness, it does contain eye-witness testimony.

Matthew may have been an eye-witness gospel, if indeed it was written by Matthew/ Levi the disciple.

Luke had time in Palestine to research his gospel and interview eyewitnesses (while Paul was emprisoned there), plus he was good buds with Paul, who we'd think would have known about this.

Your suggestion about confirming it/ verifying the story is interesting. Hadn't thought of a scenario like that-- "I know this happened, but I don't know enough details to include it reliably"
Have to think about that some more.

Lastly, though again I'm not too convinced on this, it seems that the theory that Lazarus was actually the author of John*, would fit the third scenario nicely.


*see the thread on this on the John page

[Josh]

An interesting quote on causality and God's role in sickness from the early Church:

"Jesus saw that in the end, Lazarus's illness and death would be for the glory of God. This is not to say that the sickness came on Lazarus so that God should be glorified, for it would be silly to say this, but rather, since the sickness had come upon Lazarus, Jesus foresaw the wonderful conclusion to Lazarus's illness"

Cyril of Alexandria

[Josh]

In 11:21 and 11:32 both the sisters freely express their frustration with Jesus' timing (if you had been here...)

I love how Jesus not only tolerates this near-accusation, but greives along with them.

God can handle our feelings shot to Him from the hip in prayer. In fact, just talking to Him no matter how we feel can open us up to hearing His voice in a powerful new way.

[Josh]

Augustine's got a nifty little saying on the shortest verse in the Bible: John 11:35 (Jesus wept)

"Why did Christ weep except to teach us to weep?"

[michelle]

I like that quote from Augustine. John 11:35 has always been one of my favorite verses of the entire Bible. I think that Jesus wept not only to teach us how to weep, but to let us know that He too felt deeply enough and hurt deeply enough to weep. I've always thought of it as a way for us to be able to relate to Jesus and to see that He too experienced and felt loss.