Thread: Kerygmania: The death of Lazarus John 11 Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001292
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Today's RCL reading is the raising of Lazarus. A couple of things struck me anew when re-reading it this morning and ties in to a number of current Kerg threads.
First, it is quite similar to last week's lectionary reading in John 9 about the healing of the blind man in that it is for God's glory:
But when Jesus heard it, he said, ‘This illness does not lead to death; rather it is for God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.’
The difference being in this story that Jesus seems to purposely stay away so that Lazarus does die. Does this shed any further light on the man born blind's story?
Second: In terms of verse 3: "Lord, he who you love is ill". Does this have anything to do with the "disciple whom Jesus loved"? Why is Jesus' love for Lazarus pointed out here?
I guess the other striking thing about this passage is why Jesus gets so upset.
33When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved
38 Then Jesus, again greatly disturbed, came to the tomb.
We have an unusual (for John?) display of emotion here. Why? What is Jesus so upset about when he knew already Lazarus was going to die?
[ 25. May 2016, 18:35: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It seems to me that Jesus is disturbed by the grief of Martha and Mary. (He knew Lazarus was dead before, and he wasn't especially stricken with grief.)
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
General compassion you think?
Or was it tinged with a bit of guilt that he let Lazarus die first? Was he perhaps struggling with the agenda set before him like his struggle in the Garden of Gethsemane? That's the only other place that comes to mind where he was "greatly disturbed in spirit". (Though not - interestingly - in the Gospel of John)
[ 06. April 2014, 02:05: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It is hard to believe that Jesus did not know that it is grievous to die. (You and I know it, so how did He miss the memo?) But to be in the presence of weeping female friends is a different kind of sad. "The sympathizing tear," as it says in the hymnn.
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on
:
could it be that he was disturbed by what this confirmed about the immediate future,,,it was all part of a slow progress
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
General compassion you think?
Or was it tinged with a bit of guilt that he let Lazarus die first? Was he perhaps struggling with the agenda set before him like his struggle in the Garden of Gethsemane? That's the only other place that comes to mind where he was "greatly disturbed in spirit". (Though not - interestingly - in the Gospel of John)
I actually think something along these lines. Even if the delay was necessary, it couldn't have been fun to anticipate the reaction of the sisters when he showed up- or even to imagine Lazarus as he lay waiting for him.
I had to put my cat down for good reasons, but it wasn't like I faced the task with a peaceful, serene heart. It was the absolute right thing to do, but it felt horrible.
[ 06. April 2014, 06:46: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Didn't Jesus also weep as He approached Jerusalem for the final showdown ?
Not sure He was given to weeping so easily earlier in His ministry, despite operating among mourners, weeping females and various other desperate situations.
Given the the Gethsemane account, with the sweating of blood and so on , I would say things had reached such a crescendo that Jesus was undergoing what some would now regard as a form of nervous collapse.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
We had this whole sentence today in St John's church, the John 11, 1-45 was read to us. It did seem nice that Jesus liked Mary and Martha and also he waited till Lazarus died, not fixing him while he was very ill. Maybe Jesus thought that was the proper thing to do just a little later after Lazarus died.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Today's RCL reading is the raising of Lazarus. A couple of things struck me anew when re-reading it this morning and ties in to a number of current Kerg threads.
First, it is quite similar to last week's lectionary reading in John 9 about the healing of the blind man in that it is for God's glory:
These gospel readings in Year A are sometimes called 'The scrutinies' and originate from the early church's Lenten preparation of those being prepared for Baptism at Easter.
I am not sure that 'John' wrote specifically with this in mind but all these passages have encounter, sometimes things are taken literally etc.
[ 06. April 2014, 14:33: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I guess the other striking thing about this passage is why Jesus gets so upset.
We have an unusual (for John?) display of emotion here. Why? What is Jesus so upset about when he knew already Lazarus was going to die?
John uses the rather intense verb twice in this episode (11:33, 38): embrimaomai (= ἐμβριμάομαι) to describe Jesus' reaction. Jesus is “deeply moved” or “intensely indignant.” The verb is used by John only here, but he does link it with another emotional verb in 11:33 – tarasso (= ταράσσω), which John uses half a dozen times in his Gospel:
5:7 – to describe the churning of the water in the Pool of Bethesda
11:33 – the current verse
12:27 – Jesus being distressed about the approaching end game
13:21 – Jesus again distressed in connection with Judas' betrayal
14:1 – Jesus urging his disciples not to be stressed themselves
14:27 – as with 14:1
It's an interesting question whether John was using the terminology consciously or not. Was the churning of the water that brought healing akin to the 'churn' that Jesus felt in the context of death (both Lazarus' and his own)? If so, is there a connection with the fact that this emotional stress was something pre-Easter, as it were, whereas Jesus' disciples (and John's audience?) were being told they had no need to face the same stress?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I read somewhere that the Greek for 'deeply disturbed' was 'snorted like a horse'.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
This wasn't my source but has some interesting things to say.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
A good thing to note is that in the Gospel of John, it is the raising of Lazarus not the Cleansing of the Temple that precipitates the events of the Passion which is IMHO why it was placed on the Sunday before Palm Sunday.
Jesus gives up his life to save the life of Lazarus, thus fulfilling 1 john 3:16.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
... which is IMHO why it was placed on the Sunday before Palm Sunday.
I think it was associated with the third scrutiny before the third scrutiny was associated with the 5th Sunday of Lent.
The identification of Lazarus with the Beloved Disciple is actually held by some. There's nothing in the text to contradict it. I'd prefer, though, to see "Lord, the one whom you love is ill" as a statement deliberately phrased in a way that many disciples could say. Feeling the Lord's absence during a loved one's illness and death is common now, and must have been for John's community, especially if, like the Thessalonians, they were concerned about the prospects for eternal life of those who died before Jesus' return. I think anglican_brat is definitely on to something with another reason for mentioning love: the connection with John 3. God so loved the world that he gave his only son that all who believe in him should not perish; Jesus so loved Lazarus that he risked his life for him.
The hotly debated point around these stories seems to revolve around how to assess the sisters' faith. Personally, I take a high view of it. For those who take a low view of it, Jesus' weeping is sometimes taken to be distress at their lack of faith. I'd prefer to take is as a mix of genuine grief and fear and trembling at being about to raise someone from the dead for the first time, possibly also with trepidation about his own imminent death.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
My son asked a very good question this morning which led to an interesting discussion: "Did Jesus let Lazarus die on purpose so God could be glorified? Wasn't that sort of mean of him?"
I thought about it and we wound up doing the Socratic question thing, and finally came to the conclusion that there's a difference between asking a stranger to suffer vs. asking your own family member or beloved friend to do so (the minor example we used was stacking and unstacking the dishwasher). To ask that of a stranger would be just mean, because you have no relationship with the stranger and he hasn't "signed on" for any joint purpose with you. But yes, I would ask a dear friend, much more my son, to do something unpleasant for my sake--in fact, the closer the relationship, the more I would feel I could ask, if I thought it necessary.
And so we get the repeated emphasis on how much Jesus loved these three people--mentioned with regard to all three once, and with regard to Lazarus a second time. They were very dear to him, certainly believers, clearly loved him in return, and had certainly "signed on" for supporting his mission, even if they didn't have a full understanding of what that entailed. And so, humanly speaking, Jesus could ask far more of them than he would of someone previously unknown like Jairus or the widow at Nain, both of whom got their loved ones back from death ASAP.
In fact, we usually deem it an honor to be allowed to "suffer" for those we love--whether by caring for them during an illness, or administering their estate, or doing some other onerous chore. We take the request to be a sign of trust. In fact, we often take the NON-request to be a sign of far greater trust--when my dear trusted friend D. commits me to an unpleasant task even though she hasn't been able to ask me in advance, I know she has only done so because she trusts absolutely that I will come through for her--which is a great compliment, coming from D. (this dynamic only works when the person doing the asking/committing is both close and trustworthy--which Jesus was and is).
Along these general lines, Christians have always regarded it as an honor to suffer for Jesus' sake. I truly think that, if you could ask Lazarus after the fact what his opinion was of the whole thing, he would say it was worth it.
(Which is why, in spite of all my whining, I still consider myself fortunate to have been allowed to live the life God set before me. Suffering is hell, and I dont' think I would ever voluntarily choose it, even if I knew it would turn out for God's glory and the salvation of people. So it's a damn good thing Jesus chose for me.)
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Our preacher took a slightly different tact than I had expected dealing with this passage. He pointed out we are all experiencing death when we get so bound up in our rules and expectations, when we separate ourselves from "the other." Just as Jesus orders Lazarus to come out from that tomb, Jesus calls on us to come out from the deathlike cocoons we find ourselves in.
I think he did not go far enough in this analogy. Jesus also tells the people to unbind Lazarus from the death clothes. Likewise, Jesus tells the church to unbind others from the clothes that bind them too.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
I've always seen Jesus' weeping at Lazarus's grave as a commentary on theodicy, in a way. The whole story, as presented, is a microcosm of the question we ask all the time: Why didn't God intervene? Jesus knew of Lazarus's suffering, could have come sooner to prevent his death, but chose to wait and allow Lazarus to experience death and his sisters to experience loss, all in the service of some greater purpose. Which is pretty much what (many) Christians claim is happening on this earth as a whole. God sees our suffering, COULD act to intervene but withholds His intervention to serve greater purposes that are not always clear to us at the time.
Jesus' tears when He sees Mary's and Martha's grief remind us that this process is painful for Him too -- though He has made the decision to allow them to suffer for a time and not to intervene, and though He knows He will ultimately bring joy and triumph out of this sorrow, still He feels their pain and weeps with them.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
In the Lazarus story, Jesus appears to be confidant that Lazarus will not die. Then he appears to dither. Then he appears to be distressed - twice - regardless of hus former confidence. And finally he heaves a great sigh of relief when someone mentions that if Lazarus were dead, he'd stink. Then comes the thanks to his father and the command to Lazarus to come out.
What's not to understand?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
In the Lazarus story, Jesus appears to be confidant that Lazarus will not die.
I don't think Jesus was confident that Lazarus wouldn't die; I think he was confident that everything would work out all right.
Moo
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I think the disciples translate that confidence that everything will work out as "Lazarus won't die". It's almost as though they've got used to Jesus healing that they have come to expect it as the way Jesus makes things work out for the best. They'd moved from amazement at any healing to almost seeing it as normal, and in the process had sort of put Jesus into a box of "healer and exorcist". Jesus bursts the box, saying in effect "you're God is too small, I'm going to demonstrate that by doing something bigger". I'm not sure they got the message until after his own resurrection, or maybe not until after Pentecost.
The conversation with Martha follows a similar pattern. Martha has an understanding of a resurrection on the last day, followed by life then. Jesus says, and demonstrates by raising Lazarus, "resurrection is NOW, new life is NOW, because I am here and I am resurrection and life".
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
In the Lazarus story, Jesus appears to be confidant that Lazarus will not die. Then he appears to dither. Then he appears to be distressed - twice - regardless of hus former confidence. And finally he heaves a great sigh of relief when someone mentions that if Lazarus were dead, he'd stink. Then comes the thanks to his father and the command to Lazarus to come out.
What's not to understand?
Jesus actually flat out says, "Lazarus is dead" shortly before they arrive on scene.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
... and that "shortly" might well have been a couple of days, since he says it before they begin their journey.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
That's OK Alan but it's worth noting that Lazarus was not resurrected in the fullest sense of the word. I'm sure he lived a good few years more after Jesus "raised" him but he still went on to die a natural death just like the rest of us will barring Christ's return. Not so with those who inherit full eternal life at the resurrection of the dead; they will be clothed with immortality. In this sense, the raising of Lazarus, amazing and wonderful as it is pales in comparison to what is promised to happen at the general resurrection of the dead.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "resurrected in the fullest sense of the word" or "inherit full eternal life". For me, they are present realities. I have been raised, I was dead in my sins but now I'm alive in Christ. I have received eternal life. Yes, I will still pass through physical death and receive an incorruptable body - but that transition will be less significant than the one already achieved by raising me from death in sin to life in Christ.
Jesus said "I am the Resurrection" and "I am the Life", not "I will be ..." - it's a present reality, not a future hope. Though, of course, that phrase "I am" has strong connotations with the name God gives himself in Exodus that is more of I-AM-IN-VARIOUS-TENSES-WITH-YOU (pinching the term Nigel M introduced on the non-stop threads) past and future as well as present.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
I mean resurrected never again to die as per Christ and the promise of 1 Corinthians 15, rather than raised from the dead to die again as per the raising of Lazarus.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
And, my point isn't that we (and Lazarus) will pass through the death of this physical body to be clothed with an eternal one. My point is that in Christ we have already been raised to life in the most important manner, getting our bodies changed for something incorruptable is just a minor detail in comparison.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
The Apostle Paul seems to express more eschatological tension than you're allowing for Alan. Romans 8:18-25 seems to capture an ongoing sense of incompletion which will only be resolved at the Apocalypse of Christ and the general resurrection.
quote:
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
[ 09. April 2014, 16:26: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
I read once (I think it was in the Church Times by Rosalind Brown) the view that Jesus cried upon mention of the tomb as he knew that his next contact with a tomb and the smell of death would be in his own tomb.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
That just sounds odd for him. I mean, he never seems like the type to turn his focus away from what's happening suffering-wise right in front of his eyes to focus on his own problems. Everywhere else, if someone's suffering, he's right there with them--not distracted.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I agree. this is a story about friendship-- what Jesus's friends expect from him, what they ask of him, what he experiences with them. As LC points out, why would he suddenly break character and not focus on the wounded people n front of him, especially since the author repeatedly emphasises that these people were particularly beloved? The author seems to be telling a story about a terrible moment in their corporate friendship.
Forgive me, but the above interpretation reminds me of Edina Monsoon weeping over her father's death because it reminds her she is going to die someday.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
I was preaching on this last week and among the commentaries I read, there did seem to be some who assumed that just because Jesus knew what he was going to do (assuming this from Jesus' words to his disciples and to Martha), he couldn't possibly have felt grief at the death of Lazarus. Which seems unlikely, to say the least, and also leads to unhelpful interpretations like "he was upset and angry because they didn't have faith in him".
That said, I'm not sure that "grieving with his close friends" and "grieving because Lazarus' death brought home his own death" are necessarily mutually exclusive - at least not for Jesus. I do think a huge part of why he weeps is because of the grief of Martha and (especially) Mary and their friends. But the cross is growing ever-closer and ever-larger in the narrative; indeed, it's the raising of Lazarus that finally tips the authorities over to making firm plans to have him killed. Also, throughout John, Jesus has shown such a keen sense of timing about his death and resurrection: he knows when the time is wrong, he knows when the time is right (see John 12:20-36). In John's narrative at least, the cross is not a surprise or a shock to Jesus. And the story of the raising of Lazarus seems to have so many echoes of the story of Jesus' own death and resurrection (not least the tomb with the stone rolled across it).
To me, at least, it wouldn't be at all surprising if Jesus saw in all of this reminders that his own time was drawing near. And I think Jesus of all people would be able to realise that without it distracting him from his sharing in the grief for his dead friend.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
May I be so bold as to share with you some of my sermon on this passage from last Sunday?
quote:
So here we are, 13 days before Good Friday considering not why, but how.
How did he walk down that 3-year road to a very real death.
Maybe we should go back to Bethany; we’re told that Jesus loved Martha and Mary and their brother Lazarus.
And the reason I look at this story today is because it reveals something of the humanity of Jesus, the ordinariness of Jesus.
And you might ask, how is Jesus anything like ordinary when he raises a man from the dead 4 days after the funeral? How is that ordinary?
And some might say, does that not prove that death is nothing to Jesus? Nothing more than inconvenience? That death or pain or even everyday hardship is like a fly that can be whisked away?
I’ve heard that about the cross itself – O Jesus was the Son of God, it was nothing to him.
But consider him… Consider him who endured the cross.
He was not untouched by it; he didn’t ride it out as if it were just an inconvenience. It was dreadful, some would say it was hell.
And the story of Lazarus shows clearly that when faced with death, the death of someone he knew, Jesus in his humanity almost didn’t know how to cope with it.
Death is not, as the dreadful funeral poem puts it, 'nothing at all…'
In Gethsemane Jesus was so frightened of death he sweat great drops of blood caused by the stress of it all. On the cross he was going to cry out 'why have you forsaken me?' and here at the graveside of his friend, beside himself with grief and hardly knowing what to say, Jesus was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. Jesus wept.
And here is another of those phrases that was better in the original language because the phrases we have mean a deep groaning, the kind of sound a man would make who doesn’t normally show his feelings.
I was at the bedside of a woman once when her life support was turned off and the husband let out a wail I have never heard before or since. And Jesus was faced with death, the most powerful and devastating experience, didn’t just have tears in his eyes, he experienced the pain of heartbreak and he expressed just how he felt.
And in that moment of rage and grief he cried out in a head-to-head battle with death itself, Lazarus come out!
And do you know, in that moment I believe Jesus saw something. He saw a foreshadowing of his own predicted rising again. In the moment that Lazarus rose Jesus saw not just a prediction but the promise of his own rising on the third day; and he saw in that moment a joy that would lead him through those final days – the joy of life overcoming death – he saw joy in the faces of Mary and Matha, he saw joy in the face of his dear friend as the graveclothes were removed and he felt it. – and for the joy that was set before him he would be able to ride into Jerusalem.
For the joy that was set before him he would pray on his knees in Gethsemane, 'not my will but thine be done'.
For the joy set before him Jesus was able to endure the cross for us.
Consider that.
Consider that Jesus did not move easily from miracle to miracle feeling no sympathy for the long-endured pain and the frustration of the people he touched.
He didn’t forgive freely without some idea of the power of the temptations we all face.
He didn’t teach and preach without some idea of the doubts we face or the struggles or challenges we face in order to believe what our Bibles tell us as we live in a society that no longer trusts or accepts the Christian faith.
Consider him who, because he has endured all these things – pain, loneliness, temptation, misunderstanding, doubt, fear and yes even death itself – because he has faced and endured these things can say to us, there is joy.
[ 10. April 2014, 14:49: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
Very powerful, Mudfrog.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Very much so. Very moving.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
Seconded. Thank you, Mudfrog.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
And it was on the radio this morning reading about him being rescued and alive again! (I always try to listen to the Christian bit of the radio every morning) They do sing all sorts of different Christian bits!
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
Good sermon, Mudfrog. But I don't think we live in a society that rejects wholesale the truths of the bible. Rather I would say that we live in a society that is no longer frightened to challenge some traditional Christian interpretations of the biblical texts. And that's very healthy. Because some of them are quite wrong.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Good sermon, Mudfrog. But I don't think we live in a society that rejects wholesale the truths of the bible. Rather I would say that we live in a society that is no longer frightened to challenge some traditional Christian interpretations of the biblical texts. And that's very healthy. Because some of them are quite wrong.
Surprisingly I would agree with you on that - especially on the bits that are interpreted through years of Church tradition. If we were to take the Bible as it was written and at its plain meaning taking into account the historical background to it all, I think we might come out with a few different things to some of the dogma and practice we have today.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
In the Lazarus story, Jesus appears to be confidant that Lazarus will not die.
I don't think Jesus was confident that Lazarus wouldn't die; I think he was confident that everything would work out all right.
Moo
But that's not what he said. The commonsense (i.e. naïve, un-theological) modern equivalent of "This illness does not lead to death" must surely be "this is not a fatal illness". Applying this commonsense interpretation makes the whole ensuing story much less problematic. What he's upset about is the fact that Lazarus' sisters have not trusted him. He has told them their brother will not die (compare this with "she is not dead, only sleeping" on another occasion). But they see no sign of life and bury him anyway. They can hardly be faulted for that. Even today, perfectly well-qualified physicians sometimes make mistakes.
But he's got to have the tomb opened. Maybe it's not too late? But what if it is? Then one of the sister's tells him "but he'll stink - it's been four days..."
Going back to the original message of Jesus, what tense is used in the Greek for "this...does not..." if it's imperfect, that would be a strong indication that he means "people don't die from this". If he was making a prediction about this specific instance, would not a future perfect tense be less ambiguous - "death will not be the end of this"?
[ 03. December 2014, 19:45: Message edited by: pimple ]
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
In the Lazarus story, Jesus appears to be confidant that Lazarus will not die.
I don't think Jesus was confident that Lazarus wouldn't die; I think he was confident that everything would work out all right.
Moo
But that's not what he said. The commonsense (i.e. naïve, un-theological) modern equivalent of "This illness does not lead to death" must surely be "this is not a fatal illness". Applying this commonsense interpretation makes the whole ensuing story much less problematic. What he's upset about is the fact that Lazarus' sisters have not trusted him. He has told them their brother will not die (compare this with "she is not dead, only sleeping" on another occasion). But they see no sign of life and bury him anyway. They can hardly be faulted for that. Even today, perfectly well-qualified physicians sometimes make mistakes.
But he's got to have the tomb opened. Maybe it's not too late? But what if it is? Then one of the sister's tells him "but he'll stink - it's been four days..."
Going back to the original message of Jesus, what tense is used in the Greek for "this...does not..." if it's imperfect, that would be a strong indication that he means "people don't die from this". If he was making a prediction about this specific instance, would not a future perfect tense be less ambiguous - "death will not be the end of this"?
If he was confident that everything would work out all right, there would be no point in hanging around in a dangerous place - a point which I think was put to him by one of the disciples.
John's take is that Jesus knew very well what he was going to do and deliberately let Lazarus die so that God would be glorified by his resurrection from the dead.
Which some Christians accept as a perfectly reasonable explanation on John's part and a perfectly acceptable action on the part of Jesus - because he was God and God's the only guy who can use "the end justifies the means" excuse.
All of which I challenge as mistaken on John's part and disingenuous on the part of traditional Christians down the ages - not so much on hte part of John's audience or those who have historically been cowed by the church, but those who are now free to think and act and speak for themselves, but who seem too darned lazy to bother!.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Well, that's me told, then.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
If, and only if, the cap fits.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Well, I'm neither part of John's original audience nor am I cowed by the church. That doesn't leave much.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
Indeed, and if your posts here are anything to go by, neither are you lazy - anything but - so there is no need to include yourself in my far too simplistic generalization.
It's what I do. Grandstanding is my way of dealing with stuff. And some of the mud is meant to stick so I'm not making a general apology. However, this did all start with a a sort of blanket personal remark so I guess I'm lucky not to be in Hell. Back to the matter in hand?
[ 25. December 2014, 16:03: Message edited by: pimple ]
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
Which, I've just remembered, is the death of Lazarus. Perhaps I should leave it alone on this forum. The traditional message (John's) means a great deal to a lot of people, and I'm very much a guest here.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
You're no more a guest here than I am, and to imply that our faith in the traditional reading of John is too fragile to handle your critique borders on insult. Seriously, just say what you want to say already.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
Perhaps we could best steer this discussion away from personal attack (or "grandstanding") by asking pimple to explain WHY you challenge the traditional reading of this story, and associate that reading with people cowed by the church (while obviously acknowledging that some people can hold to the traditional reading without being so cowed?). Since you say that was John's intent in writing the scene, it's not a matter of the church traditionally misinterpreting the text, but text itself being wrong, in your view, is that correct? I agree wholeheartedly with Lamb Chopped that there is no reason for you not to challenge the traditional reading, especially not on the grounds that it "means a great deal to people" -- that's neither here nor there when it comes to a reading of the text. Can you, as one of my old profs used to say ad infinitum, unpack your views a little more?
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
I just made a start. About a thousand words, then hit the delete button by mistake. I don't know how to cut and paste. So I'll start again.
With the premise that the gospels are self-advertised propaganda. That which is to be propagated. "The good news of Jesus, Messiah, Son of God".
I don't have a problem with that per se. But I do have a problem with "That which is to be propagated and accepted as divinely-inspired truth, on pain of death and/or damnation."
I am prepared to accept the foregoing as an emotional overreaction on my part to the historic abuses of the church.
I believe Jesus of Nazareth existed. More of what I believe about him follows.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
I believe that Jesus preached repentance (and forgiveness), healed the sick, was kind, intelligent and compassionate, but no wimp - he exposed cant and hypocrisy where he saw it and was prepared to counter it verbally and physically. He was prepared to put himself and his followers in mortal danger in the pursuit of truth and justice and the Kingdom of God - which he may have expected to be imminent.
I believe that he was unjustly killed.
I believe much more - but specifically to the argument here, I do not believe that he ever lied or resorted to any form of deliberate deception. Where others lied or were misled by their contemporaries, I do not believe that any failure on Jesus' part to correct them was a matter of lying by omission.
This begs the question, I think, of whether as God (if God he was) he could uniquely claim (or Christians could claim on his behalf) that the end justifies the means.
In the case of Lazarus, for instance, the traditional idea that Jesus allowed Lazarus to die and his sisters to suffer four days of grief in order to provide us with a divine example of how Jesus was about to suffer just
beggars belief. I can only assume that people who hold this belief would act the same way if they were God. It's a perverted way of dragging God down to their level, in much the same way as the Old Testament writers cheerfully countenanced multiple genocide.
But even without the argument "He can't have done that because he was God - because anyone who acted like that would not be in any way God-like" I would want to challenge John's account on the grounds of what I think I can see is the original story - one which instead of making a tawdry god out of him, describes Jesus as a courageous man, a faithful friend who is prepared to put his own life on the line for his belief God the Father. A belief which falters when Jesus breaks down at the news of the burial, but which in the end proves totally justified when the recovering Lazarus staggers out of the tomb.
But that is not all. This is underpinned by what I believe about some diseases, and by the way the Lazarus story continues while Jesus and his disciples wait.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
This passage has long served to me as an indication that healing miracles are first and foremost signs to all rather than for the personal benefit of the recipient.
When you think about it, the whole thing must have been traumatic for Lazarus. Firstly being sick and dying, then being resurrected swathed in his grave clothes, and being restored to this life - only to know he'd have to go through the whole dying thing again one day. I'm not sure it would be easier to bear a second time round.
In short, it works well to illustrate "I am the resurrection and the life", less so as an example of entitlement to personal healing.
[ 27. December 2014, 08:15: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
I think I half agree with you, Eutychus. ISTM that the idea of miracles as pointers to the wonder and compassion of God (for which we sceptics have yet to find a satisfactory alternative name) is one of the few bits of Christianity worth holding on to. The knowledge that there is something bigger than humanity (especially white, male, Western humanity!) is something often forgotten in this manifestly unconquered world. But -
there's a big point coming up, and it's an important one (important because of the subject matter, not because of my take on it). It's very complex, and I am finding it difficult to voice, succinctly, clearly, and accurately, what I feel I am beginning to get to grips with. It's about miracles in general, and healing miracles in particular (I'll get to the particular as quickly as I can).
What is the biggest miracle of all time, and no time? The creation? The resurrection of Jesus? Christians might say that they are both part of the one big mighty work. But the attitudes of believers and non-believers have changed over time. Few people now believe than God put trilobites in geological strata to tempt us into disbelieving Genesis. And AFAIK not many believers nowadays see Jesus being hoisted up by his armpits into a magical cloud at the ascension.
But not everyone can manage change, or face the possibility that things may not have happened exactly as they (and everybody else!) always knew they did. Creationists and their closet supporters in the mainstream churches seem to be gaining ground. Perhaps the reason for some conversions to Islam is that religion's attitude to Jesus - more fundamentalist in its intransigent belief in the indestructible nature of "prophet" Jesus than that of many mid-west "bible-bashers".
We (hominids) used to fear the elements, and made gods of them. Who now believes that thunder is the voice of God, and floods His divine punishment? Sadly, quite a few. [tbc]
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
... not everyone can manage change, or face the possibility that things may not have happened exactly as they (and everybody else!) always knew they did. Creationists and their closet supporters in the mainstream churches seem to be gaining ground. Perhaps the reason for some conversions to Islam is that religion's attitude to Jesus - more fundamentalist in its intransigent belief in the indestructible nature of "prophet" Jesus than that of many mid-west "bible-bashers".
I think you're right about the state of belief today in that there are some lively and (apparently) entrenched views about the person and work of God (for Christians that includes ditto Jesus). We're in a post-something world where a number of older lively and (apparently) entrenched views have been seen to have no clothes: the naive liberalism that took two world wars to douse; and the naive Enlightenment objectivity (popularly a.k.a. “science”) that was undermined by post-modernism. What we seem to have now is a movement into one of two other camps: a 'drawing-of-the-breath' position after the passing away of of the great philosophical thinkers of the 20th century; or a 'I-plant-my-flag-on-this-hill' position.
The former (drawing breath) has no centre, no anchor. It is characterised by those who need some time to reflect on what just happened in the 20th century. It recognises that there are no great thinkers around at the moment and decides to remain agnostic in the face of fog until something certain arises again. The latter (planting flag) is for those who cannot stand fog. That position is occupied by those who need a centre, an anchor, and who cannot remain agnostic. This possibly explains why some young people are attracted to more literalistic interpretations of their sacred texts (in whichever religion) in an age when older 'scientific' fundamentalists thought they had won the day. It is proving to be very frustrating to that older generation to find that their worldview has been undermined by post-somethingisms!
Anyway, Lazarus would have had a fit. The thing with John's take on the Lazarus episode is that he (John) is aware that his audience needed guiding to the point that Jesus seems to have deliberately left Lazarus to die in order to effect a demonstration. John adds in helpful asides to offset any audience misapprehension that Jesus was a monster in this (e.g., 11:5 – Jesus loved Lazarus and his sisters).
So the issue does seem to be the one you identified – do we take John's take on this episode verbatim, or do we stand aside to draw breath, awaiting alternative centres to arise? In Christianity we don't really have quite the same level of issue that Islam has over human interpretation of the sacred texts. In Islam the central scriptures and traditions contain a number of black-and-white texts that if taken literalistically demand the planting of one's flag on a violent hill. In Christianity the battle is more over those 6-day, miracle, ascension, type texts.
The difficulty, as I see it through the fog, is that if one wants to avoid planting a flag so definitely on a hill above the fog level, one finds oneself raging against the fates. It's extraordinarily difficult to maintain an agnostic worldview for long – drawing one's breath leads to blue faces after a while in the face of fate. One tends to need a god in order to be angry at him (possibly her). In the absence of such a god one needs to invent one to either hate or love in the absence of the alternatives on offer from existing religious texts.
Which brings me, at least, to a rather fundamental point. If the god represented in the bible (limiting this to Christianity now) is counter intuitive to the reader, upon which rock should we base the new god we want to replace that old god with? Which philosophical base is available to adopt as a support for the new god? If the older liberal or scientific worldview certainties have been swept away (even if they persist for a time in the popular imagination), what is left?
Not sure if I can plant my flag on an agnostic hill on that question!
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
When you think about it, the whole thing must have been traumatic for Lazarus. Firstly being sick and dying, then being resurrected swathed in his grave clothes, and being restored to this life - only to know he'd have to go through the whole dying thing again one day. I'm not sure it would be easier to bear a second time round.
C. S. Lewis expressed great sympathy for him.
Moo
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
radical misdiagnosis as
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
Another two hours down the shoot. My old machine had an UNDO button somewhere for inadvertent deletions/typos. This one even hides the refresh button sometimes. I'll get back to you when I've finished my sweetness and light exercises...
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
The computer is sick. But worry not, this sickness will not lead to death, but to God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
What could be easier than Ctrl+Z? Only I could take five attempts to make it work.
There was something about waiting, and something about planting flags. Interesting analogies, Nigel. I shuffle between the two - a journey without maps, and maybe it's more exciting to nail your colours to the mast than plant a flag on a rock and say ils ne passeront pas. Don't you just love my rainbow metaphors?
There are many ways of approaching illness and disease. Some historical religious attitudes (I'm thinking chiefly of Judaeo-Christian ones) are scurrilous in their dealings with disease and deformity (in other people, of course). If you have a zit, don't show your face in the temple. If you were born blind, what dreadful sin must your parents have committed? If you have an epileptic fit, you are possessed by a devil that needs to be cast out. Don't trust Arabic physicians with their magic potions - what do they know? What you need is a reliable Christian bleeder and someone who knows that when a plant has heart-shaped leaves, it must be an infallible cure for heart failure. I could go on.
And why did I say "historic" attitudes? Exorcism is still widely advocated, if not so widely practised, in the USA. Some African children are routinely abused and sometimes killed to assuage superstitious fears of devil possession, or raped as a prophylactic against AIDS. Asian girls undergo genital mutilation to preserve their virginity and protect their husband's rights. Asian couples who marry outside their caste or without the approval of their uncles undergo "honour" killings to heal their parents' wounded pride. I could go on.
Though not all these practices are widespread, they have to be taken into account, as serious and inescapable examples of how wrong we can be about disease. Not all diseases are known, analyzed, and neatly catalogued for the benefit of today's doctors and patients. New ones crop up from time to time, and we have no reason to doubt that that has always been the case. It is a wonder that the rarest forms of disease get recognized at all, when so many mistakes are made in diagnosing the more common ones. I am not attacking today's doctors or the state of medical science - they have an increasingly difficult job to do and, thankfully, misdiagnosis is uncommon. But it happens. Even in the case of that most common of all syndromes, if you can call it that - death itself. There have always been innocent mistakes, rare exceptions to the rule, untidy endings. The ability of some human bodies - even those of children - to withstand and survive traumas that by all reasonable understandings ought to kill them is a verifiable fact of life. The recovery of such individuals to normal life is often attributed, understandably, to divine intervention.
Which brings me to a rather belated reply to Eutychus's post above. I think I half agree with him. I think that the idea of miracles as pointers to the wonder and compassion of God is one of the few bits of Christianity worth hanging on to. Not just because it's comforting, but because we sceptics have yet to come up with a satisfactory alternative term for that other "something" which makes us thankful, thankful that there is something bigger than humanity - especially white, male, western humanity, that has to be taken account of. Or sworn at, if you like. [tbc]
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
Apologies for half repeating my post to Eutychus, and for the big expansive philosophical gestures that run away with me sometimes. Ship's Drama Queen, that's me.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
General compassion you think?
Or was it tinged with a bit of guilt that he let Lazarus die first? Was he perhaps struggling with the agenda set before him like his struggle in the Garden of Gethsemane? That's the only other place that comes to mind where he was "greatly disturbed in spirit". (Though not - interestingly - in the Gospel of John)
One message I heard on this suggested Jesus anger at death and the way it had cut the life of his friend short. So, compassion for the afflicted but anger at the fact of death that was never part of God's plan.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
Or perhaps he was angry with himself, with the sisters, and with his Father for letting them get it all wrong. Because the sisters had not believed his message, or because the messenger had never got through, or because he was actually wrong and this time, the victim really would die. And the victim was his own best friend,
and all that he believed in - in himself, in his father's faithfulness, in the promises he had made in good faith to others, seemed to be in jeopardy. Anyone else would have given up - when you're in a hole, stop digging!
This brings us back to the nub of the problem outlined in the OP. And before I return to my (half/threequarter-baked?) thesis, I have to acknowledge a serious recurrent error in my own reasoning.
Throughout my reading of the gospels, I have been guilty of trying to shoot the messenger. Time and time again. It was quite wrong to talk of John's "take" on this and that, in spite of the valid point about the gospels being propaganda. It seems to suggest that the final redactor of the fourth gospel manipulated and restructured the witness accounts he had received - both verbally and in writing - in order deliberately to conform to his and/or his community's Christological agenda. I'm grateful to IngoB on another thread for allowing me to see that I got the cart before the horse: "pimple, I don't believe in God because of miracles, I believe in miracles because I believe in God." (I hope that's accurate - I don't have the text in front of me).
So where I'm at now, regarding Lazarus, is this. There were witnesses to the recovery of Lazarus from the grave - possibly innocent bystanders as well as Jesus' followers, who provided the details in the early part of the story. What "John" received was whole cloth - a witnessed miracle, which he could not possibly leave out of the final version of the gospel. After all, nobody saw Jesus come out of the tomb. But they did see Lazarus do just that, and after four days! It would be a tremendous encouragement to those Christians who had been expecting the second coming since the ascension, and were getting restless.
But, as Nigel pointed out, John was also careful to explain certain anomalies, apparent contradictions in the account - contradictions only in the sense that this weeping Jesus didn't look like the man who stood up and lectured Pilate.
My thesis is not demolished however, and I will take it up again shortly. But for the time being,
I need to point out - perhaps rather pedantically - that witnesses have a point of view (I'm a witness myself - I can see what I think I can see, but I can't see round corners, any more than Jesus could). What the witnesses saw was a man being rescued from the grave. What they reported - and John faithfully passed on to posterity, was a resurrection from the dead. That was not a fact. That was a totally reasonable interpretation. And nobody could fault them, or John, for getting it wrong - if that is what they did. And that remains my thesis - not that there was any conspiracy or a wilful misrepresentation of the facts, but an innocent mistake. I'm not trying to destroy anybody's simple faith here, or trying to start a new movement. I'm only describing part of my own "journey without maps" in which nailing my colours to the mast sometimes feels dangerous. After all it's not that long ago that I could have been burned at the stake for it. If the traditional story makes sense to you, stick with it. But if it doesn't, use anything I say that helps, ditch the rest, and look for your own answers. It doesn't have to be a nightmare!
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
Unexplained deaths were, and are, legion. We still have an imperfect understanding of cot death and sudden death syndromes.
Miraculous recoveries are comparatively rare. Perhaps we should not be too surprised when they come in pairs. Were the miracles of Elisha in II Kings a re-working of those performed by his former master in I Kings?
There is a similar sort of coupling in the New Testament. Peter's "Get up, Tabitha" (i.e. Dorcas!) clearly echoes his master's "Get up, little girl! ( talitha cumi).
But that doesn't mean that any of the events quoted above were fictional, or that they were not intrinsically discrete happenings. The writers were drawing our attention not so much to the historical facts as to their cosmic significance. In religious folklore, ther is no such thing as coincidence. In our own day (almost!) Carl Jung developed this idea with his theory of synchronicity, which, briefly put, suggests that even those events which seem to lack importance in their own right are given enhanced validity by apparent repetition, while events which seem beyond belief in the first place are rendered credible by the same process. Miracles grow barnacles which, far from sinking the ship, merely slow it down so that we can get on board!
There was (and, who knows, possibly still is, a sleep which looks so much like death that mistakes are sometimes made. And sometimes there is an intuitive genius around who can recognize these mistakes and rectify them before it is too late. But he does not blame or castigate those in error. He gives them back their vulnerable children and gives the glory to God. And partly through his compassion for those innocently in error, he tells people round about not to shoot off their mouths about it.
[tbc with the last brick - potentially a weak one - in my theoretical wall: the argument from personal experience, which must be accepted as totally subjective and therefore flawed to a greater or lesser desree - you be the judges).
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
It's certainly worth asking whether it is possible to set the historical background to a reported event on one side in favour of its interpretation – or perhaps better, its significance. A miracle is a sign (John is quite sure about that) and so one could park the miracle aside and concentrate on what it points to. In effect, this takes the miracle to be a metaphor that opens up a world of meaning. Perhaps the term 'symbol' works better here than 'sign' (in English, at any rate).
John makes the point that even Jesus' opponents understood that miracles had significances beyond the immediate effect. Just after Lazarus emerges from the tomb a report is sent to the authorities in Jerusalem who reacted thusly (John 11:47):
quote:
So the chief priests and the Pharisees convened the Administrative Assembly and said, “We must do something! This man is performing many miraculous signs.”
They go on to set out the significance of these signs – what they point to (v.48):
quote:
“If we permit him this course of action, everyone will turn their loyalty to him and the Romans will come and destroy our place and nation.”
One question arises here, I suppose: Can a symbol (or sign) work adequately or even at all without a real event in the background? In other words, could the significance drawn by the Assembly have worked if people didn't really believe that a miracle had occurred – that Lazarus had indeed been dead and resurrected? My take is that it is actually quite difficult to divorce or set aside the miracle (as the event) from the significance – one doesn't really work without the other.
But what if the 'miracle' was a misinterpretation of an event? I understand the argument being made: that it is one thing for a miracle event to have actually occurred, but another for an event to have been misconstrued as a miracle. I suppose everyone at the scene of Lazarus' emergence (and later John - and also Jesus?) could have misconstrued the event; they may have earnestly believed that Mr L. had been dead, whereas in fact he had not actually died. What came out of the tomb was Mr L. as was, and there was a genuinely rationale reason for his appearing to have died – presumably one in which Mr L. was just as ignorant as his contemporaries or he would have tried to correct the record (“No really, I was just asleep; no one was more surprised than I was to find myself in a cave...”). In this case the significance is being built on a perceived miraculous event and that significance would still work for those who interpreted the event as a miracle.
Which brings us to the point pimple is making and the question arising: What implication is there for Christians in taking the event as something that was not, in fact, a miracle, but rather a mistake? Does it matter? Can a significance that worked for a misguided set of Jews in the early 1st century work for those who do not perceive an event as a miracle? Would Caiaphas have reacted to the significance of the symbol in the way he did if had not earnestly believed that Mr L. had joined the choir celestial only to be booted back to earth again?
I know some of the responses that are raised against taking Lazarus' resurrection as a misconceived event. The common response from some quarters is the slippery slope argument (give in on this and bang goes the resurrection itself), closely allied with the “If you can't believe this then what can you believe” argument. Then there's the rather circular argument that the Bible is the Word of God and God doesn't lie (because it says so in the Bible) so a miracle must be true.
Those arguments, it seems to me, preach to the converted, but are not persuasive in the public arena (God TV really needs to buck up its message here!).
I've not really thought through the argument around implications for Christians. I'll have a think. Is there anything apart from the 'preaching to the converted' responses that work here?
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
I think you've explained my position rather better than I did myself. And I probably don't need to hammer it further. The personal point was going to be about the people I have watched dying, and one I saw dead, unprepared for the shock. How I might, in a bygone age, have buried my own beloved sister prematurely. But you have pre-empted all that with a very interesting set of questions regarding the essential importance of miracles.
I've read many commentaries which claim that a sign is a vastly different kettle of fish to a piece of supernatural "magic". But Jesus himself, in John's gospel says "If you don't believe me, believe what I have done." I don't think that's an appeal to anything metaphorical.
Having said that, I have not always given Christians in general the respect their genuine beliefs deserve, thinking, and sometimes saying, that they have turned a wonderful, extraordinary man into a clairvoyant prestidigitator. It's a not very intelligent over-reaction on my part. When I see children laughing at the Sunday-school version of Lazarus, staggering out of his cardboard tomb looking like a Hammer-horror dummy, while the kiddies hold their noses and laugh, I tend to forget all the "horrors" I enjoyed as a child, a way of growing up with things that go bump in the night.
But above all, I remember the grief of Jesus himself, which the Christian tradition in no way takes into account when telling the story of Lazarus. John has to mention it, because it was there - this is not John's power of dramatization, I'm sure of it. And the witnesses tell us that he was deeply disturbed, twice, and then broke down, crying.
How many of you have been in the position where someone you love is in dire distress, and you have to be strong,for them - giving way to your own grief only when they are out of the way and you can weep alone. Jesus couldn'y do that. What? The Son of God couldn't hold his own grief in check? Or - and this is a really nasty crack, if it were serious - did he just cry to show the onlookers how human he was? I don't think so.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
Had a think about the miracle-sign thing.
The issue was: Does a significance drawn from a perceived miracle stand if that miracle was in fact not a miracle at all, but rather a genuine misconstrual of an event.
Just by way of background – I think there has to be an historical event underlying this. It doesn't work trying to explain surface things away. There had to be, for example, a man named Lazarus who was ill, who (apparently to all around him) died, and who emerged from his grave tomb on the command of Jesus. Anything else, including the consumption of magic mushrooms or conspiracy theories, will not suffice to get to the bottom of what we are talking about.
The real historical point is whether there was a miracle (Lazarus being raised to life again from mortal death), or whether everyone associated with this historical event was mistaken. Then we come to the issue for Christians and whether the related significances remain valid if the event was interpreted mistakenly. I should add that this is not a question about whether miracles are possible. Books have been written about that.
Of course, being able to define the question is not the same thing as being able to answer it!
One line I thought of was somewhat linguistic. It's a famous statement (among students of linguistics) from 1931: “The map is not the territory”. This is a warning concerning signs / symbols/ models etc. that they are not the reality itself. The bit that interests me here is that the territory is the reality and that this can stand in the following relationship:
The territory is to the map as the miracle is to the significance.
Does this work? It says that the reality is the physical event (or territory). What comes later as a reflection on that reality is the significance drawn up by human interpretation.
I think it follows that if a significance to an historical event is based on a misconstrual, then it does not properly reflect the reality. As with a distorted map, it fails to draw proper attention to the territory. So – if a follower of Jesus who saw the Lazarus event determined that what had happened was a foretaste of resurrection from the dead, he or she would have drawn the wrong conclusion if what had in fact happened was not a resurrection. No matter that everyone present had misconstrued the event, the fact that there was no miracle would invalidate the significance, because the significance must be linked to the actual event it purports to represent.
That's rather wordy. What would the impact be? I guess that a Christian who concludes that there is a God and that this God heals, on the basis of an observed healing today, would in fact have drawn the wrong conclusion if there had been no healing (just a mistake). There has to be a real territory, and this trumps all the maps.
Close thought mode. Eat dinner.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
I don't see the point of your last paragraph. If a modern Christian believed in God, and that God heals, on the basis of a single observed healing...and there was no healing, only a mistake...?
What if his reasoning process is at fault? What if he's looking at the wrong map, or the right one upside-down? What if the dismissal of the event as "only a mistake" is throwing out the baby with the bath water, like referring to Jesus as "only a human being"? How many miracles does any human being encompass, if we had the wit to recognize them all? What if there are other aspects of the event which are of greater significance than a miraculous healing?
Or is that not possible? Can there be nothing more significant than a proof that we don't after all, die? That wouldn't help me much. I'm under the knife in forty-eight hours time. Statistically, there's a one in a hundred thousand chance I won't survive the general anaesthetic (they're obliged to give you these facts nowadays).
It's not my first operation, and every one is a miracle. I'm just as valid - or invalid - a reason for believing in a healing God as Lazarus, and millions of other people. And if I'm unlucky this time, it's no reason to believe that I've been divinely zapped. Just sayin'. Just in case!
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
That last post made absolutely no sense at all. Too much of a hurry trying to find my dressing gown and toothpaste. Very sorry.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
All the best for tomorrow - puts the working week in perspective! I'll get back to this next weekend.
Cheers
Nigel
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
Having mulled over the issue I have to admit that this all feels a little far out on the philosophy tree, somewhat akin to the arguments over the existence (or non-existence) of God, which assume but rarely define the 'God' being argued about. The god of the philosophers seems to have been created because it fits nicely in a category box amenable to logical argument, whereas the God of Jesus is so much more.
While it's possible to consider links between specific miracles and their significances, I suppose the joker in the deductive pack is that God could by definition perform miracles (such as resurrection) if he so desired, regardless of any mistaken and therefore logically unsound significance drawn by your average human.
Still – I was thinking along the lines of where the real reality lies. If a miracle was not a miracle, then any significance drawn from it is worthless, or perhaps better – invalid. We would have to look elsewhere to draw the significance. Of course with the Lazarus event we have recourse to another event – Jesus' resurrection. If the former fails, then the latter... well, that brings us back to the same issue: If we are mistaken about Jesus' resurrection, then does that invalidate its significance?
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
Here is an alternative take from my former house-group leader:
* Jesus hears that Lazarus is gravely ill
* Jesus waits two days
* Jesus journeys to Bethany
* On arrival Jesus finds that Lazarus has been dead for four days
* Therefore even had Jesus set out immediately, he would still have arrived after Lazarus had died. Perhaps Lazarus was even already dead by the time the news arrived.
So - he suggested - perhaps the delay might have been in order to arrive a few days after the death rather than in the immediate aftermath, which might have been even more traumatic.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Having mulled over the issue I have to admit that this all feels a little far out on the philosophy tree, somewhat akin to the arguments over the existence (or non-existence) of God, which assume but rarely define the 'God' being argued about. The god of the philosophers seems to have been created because it fits nicely in a category box amenable to logical argument, whereas the God of Jesus is so much more.
While it's possible to consider links between specific miracles and their significances, I suppose the joker in the deductive pack is that God could by definition perform miracles (such as resurrection) if he so desired, regardless of any mistaken and therefore logically unsound significance drawn by your average human.
Still – I was thinking along the lines of where the real reality lies. If a miracle was not a miracle, then any significance drawn from it is worthless, or perhaps better – invalid. We would have to look elsewhere to draw the significance. Of course with the Lazarus event we have recourse to another event – Jesus' resurrection. If the former fails, then the latter... well, that brings us back to the same issue: If we are mistaken about Jesus' resurrection, then does that invalidate its significance?
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
In answer to your last question, some Christians would say not. Though some other Christians would refuse to acknowledge the former as Christians.
There is a very wide spectrum of belief among the "faithful". As there was in the time of Jesus himself (probably) and Peter and Paul (reportedly)
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
[BUMP] I'm coming back from IngoB's erudite thread on how literal biblical translation can, or ought, to be. In quoting John 11.38-39, I seem to have re-opened a can of worms. Maybe that it what, consciously or nor, I intended to do.
I'll try not to be rude this time! Here is the passage in question, in NRSV:
quote:
Then Jesus, again greatly disturbed, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. Jesus said, "Take away the stone." Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, "Lord, already there is a stench because he has been dead four days." Jesus said to her, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?" So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upward and said, "Father, I thank you for having heard me..."
[John 11.38-41]
I have trawled through a large number of the various translations of verses 38 and 39 provided by Bible Gateway. Most of them seem to support my point that Martha is making a reasonable assumption - though for her it's a matter of fact. "Don't open the tomb, there will be an awful smell!" she says. In some cases she is quoted literally "He stinks already!" but it's still an assumption, based on the fact that Lazarus has been dead for four days.
Now some have objected to this and said that maybe Martha could smell the decaying body - the text after all doesn't seem to describe anything like a hermetically sealed tomb.
Seconds before, Jesus had broken down in tears. Now he turns to Martha and says "I told you so!"
That's my abbreviation of the full speech, because I reckon he's not just talking about the comforting pep talk he gave her on arrival at the scene, but also to his earlier message - that Lazarus wouldn't die.
"This illness does not end in death," he says - "Don't worry, it's not fatal". But can he trust the sisters the way he trusted another character worried by the same or a similar disease? He hangs around for a while, to be certain.
As soon as the stench is mentioned, Jesus is saying "I told you so!" - most likely because he has had a good sniff. And as soon as the stone rolls away - and the stench fails to roll out, he knows he's home and dry. He gives grateful praise to his Father - without in any way loading guilt on the sisters for their panic. And of course this is immediate - he has no need to look in the tomb. In the absence of the smell he knows Lazarus is all right.
He doesn't claim any credit for himself. He thanks God. He doesn't rush up and embrace Lazarus. He tells the others (Mary and Martha) - the ones who bundled him up - to untie him. And days later they're having a quiet party among themselves.
A man who risks everything - his life, his reputation, his reason for being, to save his friend, is for me a far more attractive person than a circus clairvoyant who walks six inches above the ground and thinks he's synonymous with God Almighty. But then, the Beloved Disciple probably had the same problem...
Posted by Meike (# 3006) on
:
There might be a sense of anger and frustration both in Jesus’ tears and his "I told you so!" remark to Marta, about people’s unbelief and accusations that he hadn’t been there when he was needed.
Many translations use expressions like “groaned” or “was angry in his spirit” in verses 33 and 38 and it also makes sense in context.
So I don’t think his mood had necessarily changed or that he discovered something at the grave, like the absence of smell, which made him change his mind.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
I agree entirely with your first two paragraphs.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0