CHAPTER XI.

Ch. 11:1-44. THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS.--THE DIVINE OBJECT IN ALL SEEMING EVIL: NOT HUMAN DEATH BUT DIVINE GLORY (4).--THE MYSTERY OF THE DIVINE SILENCE IN OUR SORROW ILLUSTRATED AND PARTIALLY INTERPRETED (6, 12).--THE CONDITIONS OF DIVINE PROTECTION AND THE CHRISTIAN’S SAFETY (9, 10).--THE CHRISTIAN’S DEATH A SLEEP (11).--THE ANGUISH OF “IF” (21, 32).--THE PHARISAIC CREED AND THE CHRISTIAN’S FAITH CONCERNING DEATH AND THE RESURRECTION CONTRASTED (23-27).--CHRIST’S INDIGNATION AT HUMAN FALSEHOOD (33, 38).--CHRIST’S SYMPATHY WITH HUMAN SORROW (35).--THE RESISTANCE OF FAITHLESSNESS; THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH (39, 41).--THE PRAYER OF ASSURANCE OF FAITH (42).--THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE (43, 44).--A PARABLE OF HUMAN SORROW AND DIVINE COMFORT.--A PARABLE OF HUMAN SIN AND DIVINE REDEMPTION. See Supplementary Note.

PRELIMINARY NOTE.--There is nothing in John to indicate the time at which this miracle took place; and there is no general agreement among harmonists respecting it. Robinson places it immediately at the close of Christ’s Judean ministry and prior to his ministry in Perea; Andrews and Ellicott place it at the close of the Perean ministry and immediately preceding the Passion week. The reasons for so doing are: (1) It seems the immediate occasion both of the triumphal procession accorded to Jesus by the spontaneous action of the common people, and of the more deliberate determination on the part of the ecclesiastics of Jerusalem to put him to death. It does not seem reasonable, therefore, to suppose that a long period of active service in another part of the Holy Land intervened between this the greatest miracle wrought by Christ and the effects which it produced, both upon the church party and upon the common people. (2) Immediately after this miracle, and in consequence of the excitement produced by it, Christ retired into the wilderness, and is said by John to have continued there with his disciples; and the implication is that he remained in this retirement until after the Passover (vers. 54, 55). To suppose that the Perean ministry, which lasted something like three months, was interjected into this period of retirement, which is Robinson’s supposition, breaks into the continuity of John’s narrative, and does violence to its order and symmetry, without any adequate reason. (3) Jesus was at a considerable distance from Bethany at the time when Lazarus was taken sick. The sisters sent unto him at once; after receiving their message, he remained where he was two days; but when he reached Bethany, Lazarus had been four days dead (comp. vers. 6 and 39). Presumptively, therefore, he was at least one day’s journey from Bethany, even if we assume that Lazarus had died before the messengers had reached Jesus; more probably he was two days’ journey distant, for verse 11 indicates that the death of Lazarus took place after Jesus had received word of his sickness. Thus the narrative of this miracle tallies with the supposition that Christ was carrying on his ministry in the region beyond the Jordan, rather than with the supposition that he was anywhere in Judea; the more so that we have no intimation in the Gospels of any ministry in Judea except in and about Jerusalem, of which Bethany was practically a suburb. (4) In Luke 13:32, Christ uses the following language: “Behold I cast out devils and I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.” This occurs in the Perean ministry, and the “two days” here referred to, have been hypothetically identified with the “two days” during which, according to John’s narrative here, Jesus tarried where he was after receiving the message of Lazarus’s sickness. The coincidence between the two passages is at least curious, though it may be nothing more than a coincidence. These reasons make the chronology of Andrews and Ellicott more probable than that of Robinson. I believe, then, that the resurrection of Lazarus took place in the latter part of February or the early part of March A. D. 30, and that it was followed, after the brief retirement at Ephraim, by the triumphal march of Christ and his disciples up to Jerusalem, and by his Passion and his death there. See _Tab. Har._, Vol. I, p. 45; for some general considerations respecting this miracle, see Sup. Note, ver. 44.

1 Now a certain _man_ was sick, _named_ Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of[425] Mary and her sister Martha.

[425] Luke 10:38, 39.

2 (It was _that_ Mary which[426] anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)

[426] ch. 12:3; Mark 14:3.

=1, 2. Now a certain one was sick named Lazarus.= The only historic person of this name mentioned in the Bible; the indications are that he was a younger brother. From the incident in Luke 10:38-42, we judge that Martha was the head of the household. Simon, probably the father, though possibly the husband of one of the sisters, was a leper; he had probably died or been banished by the law, because of his leprosy (Matt. 26:6). The family appear to have been one of wealth and social distinction; this is indicated by the facts that they owned their house, had their tomb in their garden, and were able to give three hundred dollars worth of ointment as a costly token of honor to Jesus (John 12:5). I say three hundred dollars worth because the penny, or denarius, was a day’s wages, and therefore equivalent to our dollar. How and where the household first became acquainted with Jesus, we do not know. An ingenious writer in _Smith’s Bible Dictionary_ endeavors to identify Lazarus with the rich young ruler who had great possessions, and went away from Christ sorrowful because he was bid to sell all that he had to give to the poor (Matt. 19:16-22); but this ingenious hypothesis has only its ingenuity to commend it. Of Lazarus’s life after his resurrection, nothing whatever is known; there are traditions respecting him, and his bones were discovered by some of the credulous relic-worshippers of the ninth century in the island of Cyprus; but the traditions are as little to be trusted as the relics.--=Of Bethany.= This village lies on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, less than two miles (ver. 18, note) southeast of Jerusalem. See for description and illustration, ch. 12:1, 2, note. Its present name is El-Azarieh, derived from, and memorializing the resurrection of Lazarus. Of course, the house of Simon and of Lazarus, and the tomb of the latter are pointed out to the traveler by the accommodating monks, and of course, nothing is known about either of these sites, except that the tomb cannot possibly be the real one. It is a deep vault partly lined with masonry, entered upon by a long, winding, half-ruined staircase; the masonry is comparatively modern, and the situation of the tomb in the centre of the village is inconsistent with the Gospel narrative; the genuineness of the site is repudiated by Porter, Robinson, Thompson, and defended by no scholar.--=The town of Mary and her sister Martha.= It is so characterized because their home served as a retreat to Jesus during his ministry in Jerusalem, and it is thus distinguished from the Bethany beyond the Jordan mentioned in ch. 1:28, note. There is no reason whatever for identifying this Mary with Mary Magdalene or with the “woman which was a sinner,” or the anointing referred to here and described in ch. 12:1-8 with the anointing performed by that unnamed woman and described in Luke 7:36-50; see note there.--The designation of Bethany as the town of Mary and her sister Martha, whom John has not before mentioned, as well as his incidental reference in the parenthetical sentence following, to the anointing of the Lord by Mary, are indications that John wrote not only with a knowledge of the other Gospels, or at least with the main facts, incidents, and characters described in the other Gospels, but also with the assurance that they were familiar to most of his readers. The fact that Mary’s name is mentioned first, would, taken by itself, imply that she was the elder sister, and the head of the household; but the fact that Martha took the responsibility of providing for the guests in the two instances recorded in Luke 10:38-42 and John 12:1-8, indicates that Martha was the elder sister and the housekeeper.

3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he[427] whom thou lovest is sick.

[427] Heb. 12:6; Rev. 3:19.

4 When Jesus heard _that_, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but[428] for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.

[428] verse 40; ch. 9:3.

=3, 4. Lord, behold whom thou lovest is sick.= They have complete confidence in the sympathy of their Lord; they do not urge him to come; they do not present any petition; they simply report their trouble to him.--=He said, This sickness is not unto death.= That is, has not death for its object; (πρὸς with the accusative, marks strictly the object towards which anything is directed.) Christ does not say that Lazarus will not die, but that death is not the end for which this sickness is ordained of God.--=But for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.= Comp. ch. 9:3, note. He was glorified, (1) perhaps by the development of a higher spiritual life in Lazarus through his sickness, death and resurrection (_Trench_), though of this the Evangelist gives us no hint; (2) by the manifestation of the divine power of Jesus Christ, as one whom the Father always hears (ver. 42); (3) by the Passion and death of Jesus Christ, to which the resurrection of Lazarus directly led (vers. 47-53). This saying of Christ seems to have been uttered not merely to his disciples; it was apparently his message to the sisters, and to it he refers in verse 40 (see note there).

5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.

6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was.

7 Then after that saith he to _his_ disciples, Let us go into Judæa again.

=5-7. Now Jesus loved Martha=, etc. This statement is made in explanation of verse 6, that the reader may not fall into the error of supposing that Christ’s delay was due to any indifference or unconcern on his part.--=He abode two days in the same place where he was.= Why? Either because this delay was necessary to complete the work in which he was engaged, and from which he would not suffer himself to be drawn away even by considerations of personal sympathy, he himself acting on the principle “Let the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:60); or because this delay was necessary to the consummation of the miracle of the resurrection of Lazarus in such form as to forever prohibit the impression that death had not really taken place. The former is the better hypothesis, since in no case does Christ seem to have wrought a miracle for the mere purpose of producing by it a profound impression, and it is therefore hardly consistent to believe that he would have delayed merely for the purpose of making the miracle more startling and marvelous.--=Let us go into Judea again.= This plainly implies that Jesus and his disciples were not then in Judea, and thus incidentally confirms the supposition (see Prel. Note) that the resurrection of Lazarus was subsequent to the close of the ministry in Perea, and that he was summoned from Perea.

8 _His_ disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late[429] sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?[430]

[429] ch. 10:31.

[430] Acts 20:24.

9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If[431] any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.

[431] ch. 12:35.

10 But if a man walk in the night,[432] he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.

[432] Eccles. 2:14.

=8-10. The disciples say to him, Master, the Judeans were just now seeking to stone thee.= On the chronological hypothesis adopted above, the mob in Jerusalem had threatened the life of Jesus about three months previous. But he had not been in Judea since. The disciples attributed Christ’s remaining in Perea to the fear of the Jews, and remonstrated against his again braving them.--=Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day=, etc. In interpreting Christ’s enigmatical saying here, the student must remember that it was his habit to speak in parables, and that he rarely gave any interpretation of them. This is to be regarded as a condensed and uninterpreted parable. John has himself given us the key to its interpretation by his use of the same metaphor in his Epistle (1 John 1:5-7). God is the light. As he has appointed the hours of activity for the human race, the twelve hours of the day, so he has appointed the hours of service for each individual man. What was true of Christ is true of every one; he cannot die until his time has come (John 7:6, 8, 30; 8:20). He therefore who walks with God in the path of duty, fulfilling the divine will, cannot stumble; no harm can come to him; not a hair of his head can be injured (Psalm 91; Matt. 10:29-31; Luke 10:19; 21:18). He may and must come to his death; but not until his twelve hours have passed away.--But if a man work in darkness, _i. e._, not with God, not in the path of duty, not endeavoring to fulfil the divine will, for him there is no assurance of protection; he is always liable to stumble and fall. This is the general principle which Christ parabolically asserts; its immediate application here is that to Christ there is no danger in going into Judea, for he will not die until his appointed time has fully come. Comp. ch. 9:4, note.

11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth:[433] but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.

[433] Deut. 31:16; Acts 7:60; 1 Cor. 15:18, 51.

12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.

13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.

=11-13. Our friend Lazarus sleepeth.= An interval is indicated as having taken place between the previous discourse and the present declaration, by the words, _after that he saith unto them_. _Our friend_, implies that Lazarus was loved by the disciples as well as by their Lord. This language, coupled with that of verse 3, indicates that he possessed a peculiarly lovable character. _Sleep_ is used both in the O. T. and N. T. as a metaphor of death (2 Chron. 14:1; Ps. 13:3; Jer. 51:57; Job 14:12; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 27:52; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1 Cor. 7:39; 11:30; 15:6, 18, 20, 51; 1 Thess. 4:13, 14, 15). Some of the rationalistic critics think that the disciples were extraordinarily stupid, not to understand Christ’s metaphor; and yet they are guilty of a similar but greater stupidity. Thus, the author of _Supernatural Religion_ says (Vol. II, 460): “The disciples reply with the stupidity with which the fourth Evangelist endows all those who hold colloquy with Jesus: (Lord, if he has fallen asleep he will recover;)” and yet, on the immediately preceding page, he interprets Christ’s similar declaration respecting the daughter of Jairus (Matt. 9:24): “The maid is not dead but sleepeth,” as “an express declaration” that the case is “one of mere suspension of consciousness.” The misapprehension of the apostles here was not extraordinary; certainly not more so than that afforded by some analogous instances in the first three Gospels (see Matt. 16:7; Luke 22:38). They had understood from verse 4, that Lazarus was to be restored; they had interpreted Christ’s words as a promise of healing; they had witnessed cases of miraculous healing in at least two instances, wrought by a word on an absent patient (Luke 7:10; John 4:50-53); so when Jesus said, “Lazarus is sleeping,” they thought the crisis of the disease had passed, and that there was no reason why their Master should brave the dangers of a Judean mob to go to the bedside of a convalescent friend.

14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead;

15 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.

16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow-disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.

=14-16. Then Jesus said unto them plainly= (παῤῥησίᾳ). That is, dropping all metaphor.--=And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there.= He accompanies the declaration of the friend’s death with words of consolation and inspiration. Plain as those words are to us, they must have been inexplicable to the disciples. They did not forecast the resurrection; how could they understand why Christ should not have been present to prevent so great a sorrow. The sympathy of Christ with us in our sorrow does not prevent him, who sees the end from the beginning, from rejoicing even when he sees our tears. He sees the sheaves brought home with joy even while the seed is sown in tears, and rejoices at the tears because of the harvest. To him, faith wrought in the soul is worth immeasurably more than all the sorrow which soul-culture involves (Rom. 5:1-5; 8:18).--=Then said Thomas which is called Didymus=, that is, the twin.--=Let us also go that we may die with him.= With Christ, not with Lazarus. The little that we know about Thomas shows him to have been a man of strong passions and of little faith and hope; to such a man life is full of pathos. He could not believe that Christ could with safety go into Judea again; in this, indeed, he really forecast the result, which was the crucifixion of his Lord; but neither could he bear to be separated from him. Chrysostom notes the power of Christ on this timid nature: “The very man who dared not to go in company with Christ to Bethany, afterwards traveled with him through the inhabited world, and dwelt in the midst of nations that were full of murderers desirous to kill him.” On the character of Thomas, see further, Vol. I, p. 149; John 20:24, note.

17 Then when Jesus came, he found that he had _lain_ in the grave four days already.

18 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off:

=17, 18. He had lain in the grave four days already.= Various explanations are made respecting these four days; they are given in detail in _Andrews’ Life of Our Lord_. Since, however, we do not know definitely where Christ was, except that it was some point apparently beyond Jordan, and we do not know at all what engagements and duties detained him there, surmises as to the way in which these four days were taken up are decidedly unprofitable. The narrative seems to me clearly to imply that Lazarus was not dead when the messengers first reached Jesus. Probably of these four days, two were occupied by Christ in completing his ministry where he was when he received the message, and two, or part of two days, in a leisurely journey to the home of Lazarus.--=Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem.= The use of the past tense _was_, not _is_, indicates that Bethany had ceased to exist at the time when John wrote his Gospel; it thus incidentally confirms the opinion that he wrote a considerable time after the destruction of Jerusalem, and when that city and its environs were lying waste.--=About fifteen furlongs off.= Literally, _stadia_. The _stadium_, is about six hundred feet; fifteen stadia or furlongs were, therefore, about nine thousand feet, or a little less than two miles.

19 And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to[434] comfort them concerning their brother.

[434] 1 Chron. 7:22; Job 2:11; 42:11; Rom. 12:15; 1 Thess. 4:18.

=19. And many of the Judeans came to Martha and Mary.= The word _Jews_, as used by John, indicates always the inhabitants of Judea, as distinguished from those of other provinces in the Holy Land, and therefore generally those who were prejudiced against, if not absolutely hostile to Jesus. The fact that most of those who were present at the scene about to be described were these Judeans, is an important one, and must be borne in mind by the student, for it gives a peculiar color and significance to the entire narrative.--=To comfort them concerning their brother.= The Jewish mourning rites were most carefully defined by the Rabbinical law; they included rending the clothes, dressing in sackcloth, sprinkling of ashes or dust on the person, fasting, loud lamenting. Professional mourners were employed to increase the noisy demonstrations of grief (see Mark 5:38, note). The days of mourning were thirty, which were divided into three for weeping, seven for lamentation, and twenty for less demonstrative mourning. During the first three days the mourners were forbidden to wear their phylacteries or to engage in any servile work, or to bathe or anoint themselves; during the seven days they fasted or ate nothing but an occasional egg or some lentiles. After the funeral services were over (for account of which see Luke 7:12, note), friends and professional mourners came and sat with the afflicted ones upon the ground, no one speaking until the bereaved ones had done so, but every sentence of theirs was followed by some word of sympathy and comfort or by the wail of the mourners. Everything was done according to a prearranged system; in Phariseeism there was no liberty, even in the hour of grief.

20 Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat _still_ in the house.

21 Then said Martha unto Jesus. Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.

22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever[435] thou wilt ask of God, God will give _it_ thee.

[435] ch. 9:31.

=20-22. Then Martha * * * went and met him.= Jesus did not enter into the village, but stopped without and sent some one to let the sisters know that he had come. Geikie supposes that he thus remained without from fear of the Jews; but Christ never stopped in the performance of a duty from considerations of fear; his reply to the remonstrances of his disciples (vers. 8-10) should have prevented this prosaic interpretation of Christ’s action. To him the conventional mourning customs of Oriental society were exceedingly distasteful. He who put all the noisy mourners out of the room in which the daughter of Jairus lay dead (Mark 5:40), and who so gently rebuked the noisy and ostentatious lamentations of the women of Jerusalem at the time of his own crucifixion (Luke 23:27-31), might naturally be expected to decline to enter into the circle of formal mourners, with the alternative of either violating the precedents and rules of good society, or of submitting himself in such an hour to the bondage which they imposed.--=But Mary sat still in the house.= It would appear from verse 29, that she did not know that Jesus had come; yet the contrast between the two sisters, the one of whom with bustling activity waited upon her Lord, the other of whom, in the quieter offices of love, sat at his feet to listen to his words, or anoint those feet with precious ointment (Luke 10:38-42; John 12:1-8), reappears here. Martha, who was probably the head of the household, was naturally the first to hear of Christ’s coming, and even in her grief found comfort in activity; to Mary, in the solitude of her sorrow, no one at first reported Christ’s approach.--=Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.= This is the language both of reproach and of lamentation, though the reproach is implied rather than asserted. Her language expresses the very essence of soul torture at such times. We are slow to believe that our sorrow is “for the glory of God that the Son of God may be glorified thereby,” and in our affliction continually echo Martha’s “if,” saying to ourselves, if we had not done this, or if we had not done that, if it had not been for our blunder or that of our friends or our physician, our beloved would not have died. Chance is the God of Atheism, and is a comfortless God in the time of our trouble.--=But I know that even now whatsoever thou shouldst ask of God, God will give it thee.= This is interpreted by Meyer and Godet as an expression of Martha’s faith that Jesus is able to raise even the dead to life again; but in order to sustain this interpretation, they are obliged to depart from a natural and simple interpretation of Christ’s declaration in vers. 25, 26, to suppose that Martha desired or was anticipating her brother’s resurrection, and yet was so obtuse as to entirely miss the meaning of Christ in that declaration, and, finally, to suppose that the faith which she possessed when she first beheld Christ disappeared when she reached the tomb, where she remonstrated against opening it that the resurrection might be accomplished. I understand Martha’s utterance here to be that simply of an undefined hope. She had counted so much on Christ; he had not come in the hour of her need; all was over now; and yet now that he had come, although too late, she went out to him with a vague, restless hope of some succor or consolation, she knew not what. In our own experience in the unreasonableness of grief, like vague and delusive hopes are not uncommon. Calvin’s interpretation of Martha’s experience better accords both with what we elsewhere know of her character and with the narrative here, than does that of those who eulogize her extraordinary faith: “When she assures herself that her brother would not have died if Christ had been present, what ground has she for this confidence? certainly it did not arise from any promise from Christ. The only conclusion, therefore, is that she inconsiderately yields to her own wishes, instead of subjecting herself to Christ. When she ascribes to Christ power and supreme goodness, this proceeds from faith; but when she persuades herself of more than she had heard Christ declare, that has nothing to do with faith. * * * Martha’s faith, mixed up and interwoven with ill-regulated desires, and even not wholly free from superstition, could not shine with full brightness; so that we perceive but a few sparks of it in these words.”

23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.

24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the[436] resurrection at the last day.

[436] ch. 5:29.

=23-24. Thy brother shall rise again.= Evidently these words were not understood by Martha to contain a promise of immediate resurrection, and therefore we are not justified in saying that they were so intended by Jesus. They are vague, and are intended to be vague and suggestive, in order to lead on the mind of Martha, and to evoke an expression of her faith. This method of calling out the experience of his pupil was a customary one with Jesus in all his instruction.--=I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.= This statement of Martha’s faith is to be interpreted by the belief of the orthodox Jews. This was that all the dead departed to Hades or the Under-world, where they dwelt in a shadowy prison-house; the righteous in Paradise; the wicked in Hell; and awaited the coming of the Messiah, who would call all the righteous from the Under-world, while the wicked would be thrust back into it again. Martha believed that her brother had gone to this abode of the dead, and there was awaiting a day of judgment and of resurrection; but she found in this faith very little consolation. Her brother, to her thought, was as if he were not, and dwelt among the dead. A vague hope of a far-distant revival did not comfort her. It is in contrast to, and in correction of this creed, that Christ utters the declaration of verses 25, 26.

25 Jesus said unto her, I am the[437] resurrection, and the life;[438] he that believeth in me, though[439] he were dead, yet shall he live;

[437] ch. 6:40, 44.

[438] ch. 14:6; Isa. 38:16; 1 John 1:2.

[439] Job 19:26; Isa. 26:19; Rom. 4:17.

26 And whosoever[440] liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

[440] chaps. 3:15; 4:14.

=25, 26. I am the resurrection and the life. He that believeth in me even if he could die= (κἄν ἀποθάνῃ) =yet he should live, and every one that liveth and believeth in me never can die.= The various and conflicting interpretations afforded by the commentators of this declaration of Christ agree only in being complicated and abstruse. It is essential to comfort that it should be simple truth simply expressed; and that Christ should offer as a consolation to Martha a truth so subtle and involved in so much mystery that skillful scholarship can scarce unlock its meaning, seems to me utterly incredible. I understand these words as an embodiment of Christ’s creed respecting life and immortality. Jesus is the source of the resurrection, and the fountain of life. Whoever, therefore, by faith in Christ, has Christ in him the hope of glory, never knows death; to him there is no Hades, no dark and dismal abode of the dead, no long and weary waiting for a final great jail delivery--a judgment and an acquittal. He passes at once from the lower to the higher state; he has already come to the general assembly and church of the first-born (Heb. 12:22-24). What we call death summons him simply to depart and be straightway with Christ (Phil. 1:23; Luke 23:43). The eternal life which Christ here and now gives to those who are by faith united to him (John 5:24), is never suspended. So immortal and potent is this life principle which Christ offers to those who have received him, that, if it were possible that one having died should receive it, he would by it be made to live again. Against the conception, common now as then, of death as a long sleep or a long and dreary waiting for a final resurrection, is Christ’s teaching here that “There is no death; what seems so is transition.” In confirmation of this view, observe, (1) That Christ’s declaration is present, not future: “_I am the resurrection_,” not, _I shall by-and-by become so_. (2) The conditional clause _though he were dead_, is literally _even though he should die_, and is fairly rendered by the phrase adopted above, _even if he could die_. (3) Thus interpreted, Christ’s declaration is responsive to Martha’s confession of faith, and leads on to and agrees with the event which follows, the restoration of Lazarus to his earthly life. (4) It accords with the general teaching of the N. T., in which Christ is represented as the source of eternal life, and the death of the saints as a doorway into his immediate presence (Acts 7:59; Rom. 14:8; 2 Cor. 5:8; 1 Thess. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:8; 2 Peter 1:11, etc.). It is not necessary to give here other interpretations, for they are complicated, incongruous, and almost impossible to classify. They are the results of various and unsuccessful endeavors to bring Christ’s declaration into accord with the Pharisaic faith, which still lingers in the Christian church, of a resurrection and an eternal life postponed to the future, and an abode in death, meanwhile, in some sort of an intermediate state.

27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord; I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

=27. Yea, Lord; I have believed that thou art the Messiah, the Son of God, he who was to come unto the world.= _I have believed_ (πεπίστευκα), the perfect tense, indicates the expression of a well-established faith; perhaps of one which Christ well knew that she had entertained. Martha still adheres to her Pharisaic creed; we do not give up our religious beliefs easily. At Christ’s question, “Believest thou that I am the Resurrection and the Life, and that they that believe in me shall never die?” she replies in effect: “Yea, Lord; I believe that thou art the Messiah of the prophets at whose word all the dead shall come forth from Hades unto judgment.” And in this faith she does have some comfort, because she supposes this day of general resurrection cannot, in the nature of the case, be far distant.

28 And when she had so said, she went her way, and called Mary her sister secretly,[441] saying, The Master[442] is come, and calleth[443] for thee.

[441] ch. 21:7.

[442] ch. 13:13.

[443] Mark 10:49.

29 As soon as she heard _that_, she arose quickly, and came unto him.

30 Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place where Martha met him.

=28-30. She went her way and called Mary her sister secretly.= Evidently, from her words _The Master calleth for thee_, she did this in obedience to Christ’s direction. She went secretly because she did not desire the presence of the Judeans at the quiet conference between Jesus Christ and herself and sister.--=The Master is come and calleth for thee.= She represses the name, perhaps because she does not desire it to be overheard by those who are present. The general designation, however, _the Master_ or _the Teacher_ is enough. To Mary there is no one else worthy to be called the Teacher.--=As soon as she heard that, she rose quickly.= Therefore presumptively, Mary had not before heard that Jesus had arrived.--=Jesus * * * was in that place where Martha met him.= Not at the grave where Lazarus was buried (ver. 34), but at some point a little outside the village.

31 The Jews[444] then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there.

[444] verse 19.

32 Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if[445] thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.

[445] verses 21, 37; ch. 4:49.

=31, 32. She goeth unto the grave to weep there.= It was the custom of Jewish women often to visit the graves of their dead, especially during the first days of mourning. These too obtrusive mourners could not comprehend that Mary might desire solitude in her sorrow. They would not allow her to retreat from them. Thus the private interview which Jesus desired with the two sisters was denied him. Consequently there was no real conference between Jesus and Mary; as soon as she came he asked to be shown the grave.--=She fell down at his feet.= With a more passionate nature than that of Martha, her action and her attitude were both more strongly indicative of her uncontrollable emotion. Possibly she threw herself prostrate at his feet in the form of salutation ordinarily paid by an inferior to a superior in the East; yet, with her face upon the ground, she could hardly have carried on any conference whatever. More probably, therefore, she flung herself at first at his feet, then partially raised herself again to break forth in her reproachful complaint.--=Lord, if thou hadst been here my brother would not have died.= Her language is nearly the same as that of Martha, but she adds no expression of hope; her profounder nature refuses to entertain a hope for which she can give herself no reason.

[Illustration: FELL AT HIS FEET.]

33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,

34 And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see.

35 Jesus wept.[446]

[446] Isa. 63:9; Luke 19:41; Heb. 2:16, 17.

=33-35. When Jesus therefore saw her lamenting and the Judeans also lamenting which came with her.= The word translated in the English version _weeping_, but which I have rendered _lamenting_, is not the same as that employed in the declaration of verse 35, “Jesus wept.” It implies not only the shedding of tears but also every external expression of grief--the loud outcries, the rending of garments, and the whole vociferous and ostentatious manifestation of mourning.--=He groaned in the spirit and was troubled.= There seems to be no doubt that the Greek word rendered _groaned_, necessarily involves in it the idea of anger or indignation; it is so rendered in the Vulgate and in Luther’s translation. “The words _brimaomi_ (βριμάομαι) and _embrimaomi_ (εμβριμάομαι) are never used otherwise than of hot anger in the classics; the Septuagint and N. T. (Matt. 9:30; Mark 1:43; 14:5), except where they denote snorting or growling proper.”--(_Meyer._) With this agree both the lexicons and the critics generally. What was the cause of this indignation? According to some of the older commentaries, Christ was indignant with himself for his weakness in yielding to his emotions; his divinity was irritated at the emotion of his humanity, and violently repressed it. This opinion needs no refutation with those who believe that Christianity tends to intensify, not to suppress the natural affections--that Christian sympathy weeps with those that weep as well as rejoices with those that rejoice; and who find in the tears of Christ at the grave of Lazarus, not a manifestation of human weakness, but an expression of divine sympathy which draws God very near to every sorrowing heart. Others suppose that Christ saw in this scene a type of the woe that sin has wrought in the world; seeing its effects his indignation was aroused. Thus Trench: “He beheld death in all its dread significance, as the wages of sin; the needs of the whole world, of which this was but a little example, rose up before his eyes; all its mourners and all its graves were present to him.” We may certainly believe that this profound sense of the significance of this scene of sorrow affected Christ and intensified his sympathy; that the tears that he shed were tears of sympathy, not only with Mary and Martha, but also with all sorrowing households. This, however, interprets rather his sorrow than his indignation. A simple and natural interpretation of this indignation is afforded by a consideration of the circumstances and surroundings. He was indignant at the display of the affected grief of those who were bitter enemies of the truth, and who would, as he well knew, make use of this very miracle to promote his death, and would even join with those who would seek to put Lazarus himself to death again (ch. 12:10). He was indignant _when he saw the Jews also lamenting_, and again when he heard the sneer uttered by them (see ver. 37, note). To this effect is Meyer: “He was angered, then, at the _Judeans_, when he saw them lamenting with the deep-feeling Mary, and professing by their cries (of condolence) to share her feelings, whilst at the same time aware that they were full of bitter hostility to him who was the beloved friend both of those who mourned and of him whom they mourned.”--=And was troubled.= Literally, _he troubled himself_. The words “indicate a physical emotion, a bodily trembling, which might be perceived by the witnesses of this scene.”--(_Godet._)--=Lord, come and see.= They did not anticipate his purpose; they simply invited him to come to the grave, as would be natural in such circumstances.--=Jesus wept.= The Greek (δακρύω) signifies simply shedding of tears, weeping silently. This silent dropping of the tears from his eyes is in contrast with the weeping over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41, κλαίω). That was a public lamentation of a prophet; this was the expression of the personal sympathy of a friend. Beware of that false philosophy which represents Christ as weeping only as a man. In this, as in every utterance of his nature, he was God manifest in the flesh. By his tears at the grave of Lazarus he interprets to us the divine sympathy which shares all our sorrows, however much the great Sympathizer, with his clear view of final results, may, like Christ, be glad of the brief experience of grief that is soon to produce so much joy (ver. 15).

36 Then said the Jews, Behold, how he loved him!

37 And some of them said, Could not this man, which[447] opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?

[447] ch. 9:6.

=36, 37. Then said the Judeans, Behold how he loved him; but some of them said, Could not this fellow who opened the eyes of the blind have caused that even this man should not have died?= Some, touched by Christ’s genuine though silent sorrow, in striking contrast with the noisier demonstrations of grief of the less sincere mourners, expressed their sense of the Rabbi’s love for his friend; others replied with a sneer. This is indicated in the original by the Greek particle (δέ), which our English version renders _and_, but which should be rendered _but_; and by the phrase _This fellow_, which fairly represents the spirit of the original (see ch. 6:42, note). They referred, not to previous resurrections, for these had taken place in Galilee, and with them they were not familiar, but to the healing of the blind man, which had only a little previously taken place in Jerusalem, and which had led to a formal investigation by the Sanhedrim, and no little public excitement (ch. 7).

38 Jesus therefore, again groaning in himself, cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.

=38. Jesus therefore, again indignant in himself.= He is indignant at the sneer, and his manner gives some expression to his indignation, though it is not uttered in words.--=Cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.= The grave was sometimes cut perpendicularly in the rock, but the declaration that it was a cave implies that the tomb of Lazarus was in a horizontal chamber. The phrase _A stone lay upon it_, may as well mean that a stone was laid against the open doorway as upon a perpendicular opening. “The family vaults of the Jews were sometimes natural (Gen. 23:9), sometimes, as was this, artificial, and hollowed out from a rock (Isa. 22:16; Matt. 22:60), in a garden (John 19:41), or in some field, the possession of the family (Gen. 23:9, 17-20; 35:8; 1 Kings 2:34), with a recess in the sides (Isa. 14:15), wherein the bodies were laid, occasionally with chambers one beyond another. Sometimes the entrance to these tombs was on a level; sometimes, as most probably here, there was a descent to it by steps. The stone which blocked up the entrance and kept aloof the beasts of prey, above all the numerous jackalls, which else might have found their way into these receptacles of the dead and torn the bodies.”--(_Trench._) For further description and illustration of Jewish tomb, and the manner of closing it with a circular stone, see Mark 16:2-4, note. Presumptively, in this case, the stone was rolled away from the door of the cave, and Jesus and the friends stood in the doorway, while from the inner chamber or recess where the body of Lazarus had been laid, he issued forth at the word of the Lord. The accompanying illustration (p. 146) better represents the nature of the scene than it is possible to do by description only.

39 Jesus said, Take ye away[448] the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time[449] he stinketh: for he hath been _dead_ four days.

[448] Mark 16:3.

[449] Ps. 49:7, 9; Acts 2:27.

40 Jesus saith unto her, Said[450] I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

[450] verses 4, 23.

=39, 40. Martha * * * saith unto him, Lord, already he stinketh.= This is taken by Alford as the statement of the plain fact, and he apparently believes that it was made sensible by the ill odor which proceeded from the cave. Trench objects that this supposition gives to the miracle almost “a monstrous character.” The text seems to me to determine the question. Martha asserts the decomposition of the body, not as a _fact known_, but as a _conclusion deduced_ from the length of time that had passed since the death. With her it clearly was an opinion--whether correct or not is purely a matter of surmise. Apparently the body had not been embalmed; no explanation is offered of this singular fact. In the East it was usual to embalm the corpse at once.--=For he hath been four days= (dead). We may supply either the word _dead_, as the translators have done, or the word _buried_; it will make little difference, for burial in the warm climate of the East usually took place on the day of the death. It was a Jewish notion that for three days the spirit wandered about the sepulchre hoping that it might return unto the body; but on the fourth day it abandoned this expectation and left the body to itself. Thus Martha’s expression involves the idea that all hope of resuscitation was past, and negatives the interpretation of Meyer that her language in verse 22 implies her hope of a present resurrection.--=Said I not unto thee.= The reference is probably to the message sent to the sisters as reported in verse 4.--=If thou wouldst believe, thou shouldst see the glory of God.= The faith of the sisters was to be displayed, not in any definite expectation of the work which their Lord was about to accomplish, but in obedience to his directions; and in fact Martha tacitly withdraws her remonstrance, and the stone is rolled away from the grave. The performance of the miracle was itself dependent on the fulfillment of the condition, If thou wouldst believe. The New Testament throughout treats faith as the power of moral and spiritual discernment, and therefore the fundamental condition of receiving the divine blessing. “To unbelieving Martha, Jesus could no more have restored the dead brother, than to the unbelieving Jairus his child (Luke 8:50), or to the widow of Nain her son, if her attitude toward his compassion and his injunction ‘Weep not’ (Luke 7:13), had been one of unbelief.”--(_Meyer._) Observe the order in which Christ put seeing and believing. Men are always desirous to see in order to believe. Martha is called upon to give an example of the contrary course: to believe that she may see.

41 Then they took away the stone _from the place_ where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up _his_ eyes, and said,[451] Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.

[451] ch. 12:28-30.

42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said _it_, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

=41, 42. They took away therefore the stone.= The words _where the dead man was laid_ are wanting in the best manuscripts.--=And Jesus lifted up his eyes.= Toward heaven; not because God is in heaven more truly than upon earth (Ps. 139:7-12), but because the visible heaven is ever suggestive to the human mind of the invisible God; and Jesus thus quickened his own faith in the Father, as we may well do. He prayed toward the heavens as the devout Jew prayed toward the temple (1 Kings 8:30; Dan. 6:10).--=Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.= It is not necessary to suppose, as Alford does, a reference to some previously uttered prayer, in Perea, for example, when the message respecting Lazarus’s sickness was brought to Jesus. The language is that of the assurance of faith--faith in a God who hears the desire before it is expressed in prayer, who teaches the believing soul how and for what to pray, and who thus continually answers our prayers by anticipation. Christ regards his prayer as answered before it is presented.--=And I knew that thou hearest me always.= Alike when the prayer is granted and when it is denied; at the grave of Lazarus and in the agony in Gethsemane. God hears us when his providence says No to our petition none the less than when it says Yes. The true Christian’s faith, like Christ’s faith, rests not on the answer but on the direct personal consciousness of spiritual communion with God.--=But because of the people which stand by I said it.= Thus Christ on occasion violates the letter of his own rule which prohibits men to pray “that they may be seen of men” (Matt. 6:5, 6), just as in Gethsemane he seemed to violate the letter of his rule against repetitions in prayer (comp. Matt. 6:7 with Matt. 26:44). Here his prayer was public in order that men might know that he did pray, and that his resurrection power was not his own but was given to him by his Father, and thus might glorify not him, but the Father in him.--=That they may have faith that thou hast sent me.= Not merely that they might believe intellectually that he was a messenger or representative sent by the Father, but that their thoughts might be turned from him, who was but the instrument, the voice of God, to the invisible Father himself, who spoke in him and wrought through him. This prayer of thanksgiving is in instructive contrast with the prayer of Elijah when he raised the dead (1 Kings 17:20, 21). There was the earnestness of an anxious faith; here is the assurance of a restful faith; there the importunity of request intensified by a fear of denial; here the calmness of thanksgiving already assured of a favorable response. The simple grandeur of this prayer has not prevented it from being criticised as artificial (Supernatural Religion), “a show prayer” (_Weisse_), “a sham prayer” (_Baur_). If prayer were only petition there would be ground for this criticism; but if prayer is the frank and free communion of the soul with its Father, there is none. It will seem artificial only to those who are unable to comprehend the filial relation between a Son and his heavenly Father.

43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

44 And[452] he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes; and his face[453] was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

[452] 1 Kings 17:22; 2 Kings 4:34, 35; Luke 7:14, 15; Acts 20:9-12.

[453] ch. 20:7.

=43, 44. He cried with a loud voice.= The previous prayer had been spoken in a subdued voice; apparently, this is implied by the suggested contrast, was only heard in Christ’s immediate vicinity. The others knew that he was praying, and thus recognized the miracle as a result of his appeal to his Father; but they did not hear the words of the prayer. The “loud voice” was a type, a suggestion of that voice like the sound of many waters (Rev. 1:15), at which all who are in their graves shall come forth (John 5:28; 1 Thess. 4:16).--=Lazarus, come forth.= Literally _Here! out!_ “The simplicity of these two words, are in glorious contrast with their efficacy.”--(_Godet._)--=And he that had been dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes.= Literally _swathing-bands_ (χειρία). The supposition of Chrysostom, Lightfoot and others that this coming forth _bound_ necessitated a new miracle is entirely unnecessary. It was the Jewish custom to wrap the dead comparatively loosely in a winding sheet or shroud, which would have impeded though not prevented arising and walking. The exact nature of the swathing-bands does not appear to be known. The word occurs nowhere else in the N. T. There is, however, no reason to suppose that the limbs were so tightly bound that motion would be impossible. The same word is used in classic literature to signify a flounce worn about the bottom of the dress of the living. The accompanying cut, which in its representation of the tomb and grave-clothes, is produced from a careful study of the best archæological authorities, illustrates the probable appearance of Lazarus better than descriptive words could do. --=His face was bound about with a napkin.= A handkerchief; probably, as sometimes with us, to prevent the falling of the lower jaw.--=Loose him and let him go.= Christ gives them something to do. This is partly to recall them from their speechless and dazed astonishment, partly to prevent the too great and dangerous revulsion of feeling, partly because he has done his work and would bid them to do what in them lies to be sharers with him in the restoration of the loved one to life and liberty. In this is a moral significance; we cannot raise the spiritually dead; but we can bring Christ to their grave by our prayers, and we can aid in their perfect liberation when the divine voice has called them from their sleep of death.

* * * * *

NOTE ON THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS.--This miracle is recorded only by John. Why? It was not only the climax of all Christ’s wonderful works, but it also led directly on the one hand to the triumphal procession into Jerusalem, which is recorded by all, and on the other to the final plans for Christ’s arrest and crucifixion. Several explanations have been suggested for the silence of the synoptists: (1) That the miracle aroused hostility to Lazarus and his sisters, and involved them in danger (ch. 12:10), and that therefore all mention of it was omitted (_Godet_, _Olshausen_). But this hostility could hardly have continued to threaten any real danger to Lazarus for twenty-five or thirty years; and if it did, we can hardly think that he or his sisters would have shrunk from being designated as living witnesses to the resurrection power of their Lord. They would rather have gloried in being permitted to suffer for him. (2) That the narration of the resurrection would have made the household “the focus of an intense and irreverent curiosity” (_Farrar_). But it would also have made them the focus of an intense and reverent desire to know something with greater certainty respecting Jesus and his work. And if the miracle were wrought for the glory of God, to keep silence respecting it was to weaken if not to destroy its intended effect. (3) That the Synoptists confine themselves to a narrative of Christ’s Galilean ministry and exclude all the events in Judea prior to the Passion week (_Meyer_). But this does not explain the omission of this miracle; it simply reiterates the fact, and leaves the perplexing problem unsolved. Why should the Synoptists avoid all mention of miracles and teachings in Judea, especially one so notable as this? I agree with Trench in saying that to this question it is now difficult to find a satisfactory answer. Possibly Peter, from whom Mark is believed to have derived all his information, and Matthew were not present, and each may have limited himself to facts actually witnessed by them. This still leaves Luke’s omission of the miracle unexplained.

[Illustration: RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS.]

The significance of this miracle as an evidence of Christ’s divine character, authority and mission has always been felt, even by the more resolute unbelievers in historic Christianity. Thus Spinoza declared that “could he have persuaded himself of the truth of the raising of Lazarus, he would have broken in pieces his whole system, and would have embraced without repugnance the ordinary faith of Christians.” Various rationalistic explanations have been attempted, of which the chief are the following: (1) The mythical (_Strauss_), _i. e._, that the story is a myth which grew up out of some slight foundation, assumed its present form in the second or third century, and then was embodied in this narrative by an ecclesiastical forger, who used John’s name to give sanction to his story. (2) That the story was created by the writer for the purpose of illustrating the truth that Christ is the resurrection and the life, and that it was developed by him out of some conversation of Jesus, or perhaps out of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, or possibly out of some incident in the life of Lazarus. It is even suggested that Nain is an abbreviation of Bethany, and that the narratives of the resurrection of Lazarus and of the widow of Nain’s son have a common origin (_Schenkel_). To such straits is naturalism reduced in dealing with the miraculous. (3) That the death of Lazarus was apparent, not real; that the resurrection was a fraud contrived by the friends of Jesus in order to give _eclat_ to his anticipated entry into Jerusalem, and that to this fraud he lent himself, in a moment of intense fanatical enthusiasm (_Renan_). The various explanations are stated more in detail by Meyer, but may all be reduced to these three: a denial that John wrote the account; a suggestion that he invented it, building on a very slight foundation; and a suspicion that it was a fraud perpetrated by Lazarus and the sisters and acquiesced in by Jesus. The only alternative is belief in the miracle. The evidence of John’s authorship of the Fourth Gospel (see Introduction) refutes the first hypothesis; the simplicity of the narrative and the character of John, the second; the character of Christ himself, the third. The narrative itself is neither ideal nor dogmatic, neither an artistic picture nor a concealed argument. It is a perfectly colorless narrative of events concerning which there was no possible room for mistake. The writer does not draw from the narrative any conclusion; he does not say that any miracle was wrought or even that the dead was raised. He simply tells his readers what he saw and heard, and leaves them to draw their own conclusions. He was with Jesus beyond Jordan; word came to them that Lazarus was sick; Jesus remained where he was two days; then he told the disciples that Lazarus was dead; when they reached Bethany they found a scene of mourning; the friends had come according to Jewish custom to console the sister’s family; both sisters stated impliedly and reproachfully that Lazarus was dead; when they arrived at the grave, one of them said that he had been dead four days, and that corruption--though this apparently was only her presumption--had already commenced; Christ directed the stone to be rolled away, commanded in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth,” and he came forth bound in his grave-clothes. A scientific commission could not have reported the facts with more absolute impartiality. The writer expresses no opinion whatever respecting the occurrence. This is not the method of an idealist who has invented the occurrence for the purpose of glorifying his Master, or of a dogmatist who has written it to prove a doctrine; it is the language of a pre-eminently honest, fair-minded and impartial witness. And upon this narrative the great mass of readers and students have come to but one conclusion--that to which both friend and foe came at the time--that it was a genuine resurrection of the dead, a great and notable miracle.

An instructive parallel may be traced between the experience of these sisters in their sorrow and that of many a Christian household since. (1) _The burden of grief._ When the sisters first sent for Christ to come, he delayed. Still he often delays to answer our petitions. The house of mourning is sometimes a Christless house, not only because of our infirmity (Psalm 77:10), but also because of his will. We, like our Master, seem sometimes to be forsaken of our God (Matt. 27:46). (2) _The aggravation of grief._ Both sisters approach Christ with an “if”:--“If thou hadst been here my brother had not died.” But his death was not the result of an “if,” but for the glory of God. There is no “if”; nothing ever _happens_. Even the cup which Judas, Caiaphas, Herod and Pilate mingle for Christ is the cup which his Father gives him (ch. 18:14; Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28). (3) _The sympathy of Christ._ The tears of Jesus are a witness to the breadth and depth of the divine sympathy. He feels the anguish of our _present_ sorrow though he stands by a grave so soon to be opened, perceives prophetically the resurrection so soon to take place, and knows that weeping is but for the night and joy cometh in the morning. See Heb. 4:15, 16. (4) _The true and false conception of death._ We too often imagine, as Martha, the believer awaiting in Hades a future resurrection and a remote restoration to life. Our hearts are dead because buried in the grave of our loved ones. To us Christ declares here that the believer never dies, but steps at once from the lower to the higher life, through the grave into heavenly companionship (Luke 23:43; Phil. 1:23). (5) _The power of Christ._ This scene is a witness to the truth that all the dead shall hear his voice and come forth in resurrection. Death is but a sleep; from it he will awaken all that sleep in him (Dan. 12:2; John 5:21-29; 6:39; 1 Cor. 15:26, 54; 2 Cor. 4:14; Col. 3:4; 1 Thess. 4:14-17; Rev. 1:18; 20:14). (6) _A parable of redemption._ Sin a spiritual death; Christ the spiritual life-giver.

* * * * *

Ch. 11:45-57. THE EFFECT OF THE MIRACLE.--IT PRODUCES FAITH IN SOME; IT INTENSIFIES ENMITY IN OTHERS.--AN UNPRINCIPLED MAN AN UNCONSCIOUS PROPHET.--CHRIST’S SACRIFICE: VICARIOUS; FOR SINNERS; FOR ALL PEOPLE.--CHRIST FEARS NEITHER TO FLEE FROM NOR TO FACE DANGER.--FALSE SEEKING FOR CHRIST ILLUSTRATED.

45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen[454] the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

[454] chaps. 2:23; 10:41, 42; 12:11, 18.

46 But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.

=45, 46. Many of the Jews * * * believed on him.= Not necessarily were spiritually converted. They recognized in him a prophet, perhaps even the Messiah.--=But some of them went to the Pharisees.= _But_ (adversative) marks the contrast between the two classes, and indicates their hostile purpose. The term Pharisees here, as frequently with John, indicates the rulers of the Jews, the Jewish hierarchy.

47 Then[455] gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What[456] do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

[455] Ps. 2:2.

[456] Acts 4:16.

48 If we let him thus alone, all[457] _men_ will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

[457] ch. 12:19.

=47, 48. A council.= A meeting of the Sanhedrim. On its constitutional character and methods of procedure, see Vol. I, p. 298. Geikie gives us no good reason for accepting his dogmatic statement that the Sanhedrim had before this time been broken up by Herod.--=What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.= Not, What _shall_ we do? but, What _are we_ doing? They reproach themselves for their inaction. There is an ellipsis in the sentence; the meaning is, Something must be done, for this man, etc. For similar instance of perplexity see Acts 4:16. It always exists where conscience gives a clear command which ambition and selfishness refuse to obey.--=If we let him thus alone.= This was a causeless self-reproach; for they had already condemned him without trial (ch. 7:30, 50, 51), and determined to excommunicate all his followers (ch. 9:22). It indicates a purpose which the speaker dared not put in words, to proceed to more extreme measures.--=The Romans shall come and take away both our place and our nation.= Our _place_, it seems to me, designates neither the city, the land, nor the temple; but the office of these rulers. They were placemen, and feared the loss of their dignities and authority in the utter overthrow of the nation, which did, indeed, subsequently take place. But why should they fear this from any increase of Christ’s popularity? Not, as Augustine interprets, because he would persuade all men to live peaceful lives, and so prevent any successful revolt against the Roman government. In common with all the Jews, they expected in the Messiah a temporal king; the people had already attempted to crown Christ as king (ch. 6:15); the council did not believe that he was the Messiah, did not believe that any attempt by him to emancipate the nation would succeed; and yet his popularity was such, and the popular movement which they anticipated was likely to be such, as to provoke from the Romans the destruction of what little national life was left. Their selfishness blinded them utterly to the true nature of Christ’s mission.

49 And one of them, _named_[458] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

[458] ch. 18:14; Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6.

50 Nor consider that it is[459] expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

[459] Luke 24:46.

=49, 50.= Caiaphas puts boldly into words thoughts which others less unscrupulous dared not phrase. He overrules all scruples, whether those of conscience against the murder of an innocent man and evident prophet, or those of the Pharisaic party against appealing to the Roman government to put a prophet to death, which was necessary to carry out their purpose (Matt. 27:1, 2, note).--This he does by a Jesuitical casuistry: It is better that one innocent man should die than that the nation should be destroyed. Thus a pretended patriotism is made to cover a proposed judicial murder. The argument is that of an unprincipled politician: the end justifies the means. The signification here and in verse 51 of the phrase “high priest _that year_” is somewhat uncertain. Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, really held the office from A. D. 27 to A. D. 36 or 37. The high priesthood was originally a life office. It was now bestowed and taken away by the Romans at their will. In 107 years there were twenty-seven appointees. I am inclined to think the language here a sarcastic reference to the degenerate nature of the office; John refuses to give to Caiaphas the honor once but no longer due to the high priesthood. Prof. Fisher (_Beginnings of Christianity_) explains it “on account of the supreme importance which ‘that year’ of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus had in his (John’s) mind.” The language of Caiaphas here agrees with his course in Matt. 26:62, 67. He was an unscrupulous, vehement, and self-seeking ecclesiastical politician, such a leader as is often produced by a degenerate and turbulent era.

51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

52 And not[460] for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered[461] abroad.

[460] Isa. 49:6; Rom. 3:29; 1 John 2:2.

[461] ch. 10:16; Ephes. 2:14-17.

=51, 52.= The meaning of the Evangelist is plain. It is not merely that by accommodation a prophetic reference to Christ’s sacrifice can be put upon the words of Caiaphas, but that, unwittingly, he prophesied of that death and its signification. So Balaam prophesied blessing to Israel despite himself (Numb., ch. 23). “He who believed in no angel or spirit was compelled to be the spokesman of the Divine Word, even when he was plotting his death. Strange and awful reflection! And yet so it must be--so experience shows us continually that it is. Our words are not our own; we are no lords over them whatever we may think.”--(_Maurice._) Observe the two truths connected with the atonement here indicated: (1) that Jesus Christ dies for the nation which by its constitutional rulers is plotting his death; he dies for sinners, not for the righteous (Rom. 5:6-8); (2) by his death he gathers into _one_, _i. e._, into one nation or kingdom (see Matt. 21:43, note) the children of God from every nation under the heavens (Matt. 8:11; John 10:16; 17:20, 21; Ephes. 2:16-18; Col. 3:11; Rev. 5:9). “The cross was emphatically a message to mankind, to all tribes and races within the circle of the empire that had appointed this punishment for rebels and slaves. It is a thought which possessed the minds of all the apostles--of none more than St. John. The cross was to do what the eagle had tried to do. It was to bind men in one society.”--(_Maurice._)

53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together[462] for to put him to death.

[462] Ps. 109:4, 5.

=53.= The speech of Caiaphas was successful; it united Pharisee and Sadducee in an agreement to do _whatever might be necessary_ to compass the death of Jesus. The effect of this agreement is seen in their subsequent course (Matt. 22:15, 16, 23; 27:1, 2).

54 Jesus therefore walked no more openly[463] among the Jews: but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim,[464] and there continued with his disciples.

[463] chaps. 7:1; 18:20.

[464] 2 Sam. 13:23; 2 Chron. 13:19.

=54.= The site of Ephraim is involved in some uncertainty. The “wilderness” probably designates the wild uncultivated hill country northeast of Jerusalem, lying between the central towns and the Jordan valley. Dr. Robinson identifies Ephraim with the Ophrah referred to in Josh. 18:23; 1 Sam. 13:17, the Ephraim or Ephram referred to in 2 Chron. 13:19, and the modern et-Taiyibeh, and Ewald supposes it to be the same Ephraim near which occurred the murder of Amnon (2 Sam. 13:23). Taiyibeh is four or five miles east of Bethel and sixteen from Jerusalem, is situated on a conspicuous conical hill, and commands an extended view over the whole eastern slope, the valley of the Jordan and the Dead Sea. But the identification with Taiyibeh is only hypothetical. See _Andrews’ Life of our Lord_, p. 385. Christ must have returned to this place immediately after the resurrection of Lazarus, and his place of retirement was evidently unknown to the public (ver. 57). The “disciples” who abode there with him undoubtedly included the twelve, but may have also included others. The length of his stay is uncertain. If the chronology which I have adopted (see ch. 11, Prel. Note), be the correct one, it could only have been for two or three weeks, not five or six weeks as supposed by Andrews and Ellicott. It is not improbable that the special instructions concerning prayer, reported by Luke, were given during this period of retirement (Luke 11:1-8: 18:1-14). There is nothing in Luke to fix the time or place of these instructions; but as Christ was accustomed to draw his illustrations from circumstances and events occurring about him, it is probable that at least the parable of the Pharisee and the publican was given in or near Judea. From Ephraim Christ went up to Jerusalem to attend the last Passover, and to his passion there. See ch. 12, Prel. Note.

55 And[465] the Jews’ passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.

[465] chaps. 2:13; 5:1; 6:4.

56 Then[466] sought they for Jesus, and spake among themselves, as they stood in the temple, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast?

[466] ver. 8; ch. 5:16, 18.

57 Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew _it_, that they might take him.

=55-57. Out of the country.= From different parts of the country: not only from Palestine, but from remote provinces where the dispersed Jews were scattered. (See Acts 2:9-11.)--=To purify themselves.= No special purifications were required by the O. T. before the Passover, but the people were commanded to purify themselves before any important event (Gen. 35:2; Exod. 19:10, 11), and were accustomed to go through certain special rites of purification prior to the Passover (2 Chron. 30:13-20).--=Then sought they for Jesus=, etc. “Verse 56 graphically describes the restless curiosity of these country people, who were collected in groups in the temple and discussing the approaching arrival of Jesus.”--(_Godet._) His miracles and teachings in Galilee and Perea, and above all the resurrection of Lazarus, led his friends and _quasi_ disciples to expect his immediate revelation of himself as the Messiah (Luke 19:11); while the fact that the Sanhedrim had pronounced against him and given orders for his arrest coupled with his sudden disappearance, led others to think that he had fled from the country, or at least would for the present conceal himself (comp. John 7:11, 12).--=But the chief priests and the Pharisees=, etc. (δὲ οἱ ἀρχ.; the first καὶ is spurious). This is stated as an explanation of the doubt of the people whether Christ would appear or no. Godet’s suggestions that the order was given to intimidate Christ and his disciples is reasonable; for it could not have been difficult to ascertain Christ’s place of retreat, and when he emerged from it, and came up with peculiar publicity to the feast, no attempt was made to arrest him. According to a Hebrew tradition, as reported by Lightfoot, an officer of the Sanhedrim, during the forty days preceding this Passover, “publicly proclaimed that this man, who by his imposture had seduced the people, ought to be stoned, and that any one who could say aught in his defence was to come forward and speak. But no one doing so, he was hanged on the evening of the Passover.” To some such public proclamation John here perhaps refers.