Ship of Fools: Rise Up, O Lazarus

Thread: Rise Up, O Lazarus Board: Kerygmania / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=002349

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

John 11: 1-45

Something I just realized. While the RCL has this lesson at the end of Lent (giving the impression that this is toward the end of Jesus' life), this is actually in the middle of the Gospel of John.

And there is a shift in focus. John 1-10 focuses on the Light coming into the World, where the words light and life are used 82 times in the first half of John and only 6 times in the second half. But John 11-21 focuses on the disciples. The key word in the second half is love. It appears 31 times in the second half, but only 6 times in the first half.

Seems like the Gospel of John is written in two volumes.

And, then, there is the question of why Jesus waited so long before he went to be with the family.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

I think the thing to keep in mind about John is that it does not just present events so much as it interprets them to a far greater degree than do the Synoptics.

The position of the Lazarus story at about halfway in the Gospel doesn't mean it's halfway through Jesus' life. The fourth Gospel goes straight from that event to the anointing by Mary of Bethany and then into the events of Holy Week. Jesus' sayings during the last week of his life are expanded into lengthy discourses (statements of theology which could provide for a whole thread in itself).

Additionally, there are more, and longer descriptions of post-Resurrection events in the fourth Gospel as well.

Does that make it two volumes? I don't think so -- the introduction to the fourth Gospel in the Oxford Annotated Study Bible divides it into six parts -- but I'm not sure that is significant. (I find the structure of Matthew's and Mark's Gospels more clear-cut, but that's a tangent.)

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Sorry to double-post, but there are actually two questions in the OP, and I wanted to respond to them separately. Why did Jesus wait so long before he went to be with the family. Looking at the text (vv. 4-6), you get

quote:
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.” Accordingly, though Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, after having heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.

I've always found that passage troubling, because to me it makes Jesus sound almost dismissive. Did he not take Lazarus' illness seriously? Was he willing to let Lazarus die to provide yet one more "sign"?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

It is just before the passion so is appropriate before Holy Week. Lazarus Saturday is a fixed day before Holy Week in the Orthodox Church.

The commentaries (Lightfoot, Brown) I have been reading make the point that the raising of Lazarus is the final action of Christ to lead "the Jews" to plan Christ's own death. So in giving life to Lazarus, Christ is giving up his own life.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

Bit of an aside, but does the message in verse 3 (“Lord, look, the one you love is sick”) imply that Lazarus was in fact the Beloved Disciple?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Sorry to double-post, but there are actually two questions in the OP, and I wanted to respond to them separately. Why did Jesus wait so long before he went to be with the family. Looking at the text (vv. 4-6), you get

quote:
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.” Accordingly, though Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, after having heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.
I've always found that passage troubling, because to me it makes Jesus sound almost dismissive. Did he not take Lazarus' illness seriously? Was he willing to let Lazarus die to provide yet one more "sign"?

I have problems with the timing of it all. Jesus tarried 2 more days before setting out. We don't know where He was, except that it was not in Judea, but by the time He arrived, Lazarus has been in his grave 4 days. Is it right to conclude that Jesus knew that no matter what he did, Lazarus would be dead before he arrived, waited a couple more days so that those at Bethany knew that Lazarus was well and truly dead before Jesus arrived?

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

That's what is so hard for me to understand, Gee D. It says, “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.” Was he getting overconfident in his track record for healing?

(I feel guilty just typing that, but I'm trying to make sense of the verse.)

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Not at all sure that what's in your last sentence is in the reading, but apart from the usual bit about it being beyond doubt that Lazarus was dead, with the already putrefying corpse. But how does that fi with the complaint that had Jesus come straight away Lazarus would have been dead in any event.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Without knowing where he was, I don't think we can be sure either way what would have happened if he had set out immediately. We don't know how long the message took to reach him.

As for the "this illness will not end" speech, we don't know who he said it to. If it was to the disciples, it might have been for reassurance' sake (since they were doubtless antsy about staying where they were); if it was to himself, it might be yet another sign of his essential humanity cropping out (and taking comfort in the self-reassurance).

Somehow I can't make myself read this with any air of "No problem, we've got plenty of time, let's go have another beer"--which would IMHO have been offensive. It just sounds ominous, and I can't get past that.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Lamb Chopped , I don't see anything along the lines of your last paragraph in anything on this thread - it certainly is offensive.

No, we don't know where He was, save that after tarrying 2 more days, Lazarus had been dead 4 days when Jesus arrived. I conclude from that had Jesus set out straight away, He would still have been 2 days late. All these little twists and turns.

Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :

Chrysostom says that Jesus waited a further two days to be sure there would be no doubt that Lazarus was dead, having begun to putrefy, so that no one could claim that the miracle was a hoax, and that Lazarus was not really dead, but had merely fainted, or something like that.

I suppose we can contrast this with the raisings of the son of the widow of Nain, and Jairus' daughter, at both of which that accusation could have been levelled.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
That's what is so hard for me to understand, Gee D. It says, “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.” Was he getting overconfident in his track record for healing? ...

Jesus' response here has an overlap with the reply he gives in respect of the man born blind (9:3) -

quote:
“Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but he was born blind so that the acts of God may be revealed through what happens to him.”

It's as though Jesus was saying that an event (blindness, death) has already happened and there was nothing Jesus could have done to prevent it, but at the same time it is an opportunity for Jesus to demonstrate something of God's working and mission.

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Something I just realized. While the RCL has this lesson at the end of Lent (giving the impression that this is toward the end of Jesus' life), this is actually in the middle of the Gospel of John.

The Lazarus story is the last and greatest of the 'signs' performed by John's Jesus. They have a common theme- Jesus does a miracle that impresses at a physical level, but acts as a signpost to something fuller and deeper.

It also moves the plot on to the need to kill Jesus (11:45f, ironically for bringing the dead to life, with a further irony that Lazarus will need to be killed again for bringing life to believers 12:9-11)

quote:
And, then, there is the question of why Jesus waited so long before he went to be with the family.

I think the solution may lie in the later verses 39- 41

quote:
39 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.” 40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upward and said, “Father, I thank you for having heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.”

We are to understand that Jesus prayed on hearing the news, knew that Lazarus would die, and that He knew that the sickness would not have as its ultimate result death, but the glorification of God. There was no smell when the tomb was opened; Jesus knows His prayer, for Lazarus' body to be uncorrupt, has been answered. (A good thing, or Lazarus would spend the rest of his life looking like something from a zombie movie.)

After that it's just paperwork.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Does not John also want us to compare Lazarus's being raised from death back to ordinary life and needing to be unembalmed with Jesus' self-resurrection leaving the linen wrappings behind?
Of course, the final accounts of Jesus not being able to be touched by Mary and the invitation to Thomas to touch seem to give different understandings of Jesus' resurrection body.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Depends on your translation--the phrase sometimes translated "touch me not" can be just as easily "stop hanging on to me, stop clinging!" which is IMHO more likely at such a joyful and unexpected time.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

...where a smiling 'for goodness sake stop hanging off of me and give me a bit of room!' reinforces the impression of the physical resurrection; 'touch me not' giving an altogether different feel (or lack thereof!).

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I have the impression that Mary Magdalen plastered herself to Jesus' feet, so that he was unable to move.

Moo

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Yeah--ever been hugged around the knees by an overly enthusiastic toddler? You aren't going anywhere.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Moo

I do not think Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala are the same person.

Mary was a common name, still is.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Moo

I do not think Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala are the same person.

Mary was a common name, still is.

I'm pretty sure the last four or five posts are about the Resurrection story in John 20:1-18, where Magdalene was present.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

So they were, my error.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Bit of an aside, but does the message in verse 3 (“Lord, look, the one you love is sick”) imply that Lazarus was in fact the Beloved Disciple?

Thank you for the link. The article seems to be well researched and I'm currently getting the library here to print all 42 pages of it!

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
Chrysostom says that Jesus waited a further two days to be sure there would be no doubt that Lazarus was dead, having begun to putrefy, so that no one could claim that the miracle was a hoax, and that Lazarus was not really dead, but had merely fainted, or something like that.

I suppose we can contrast this with the raisings of the son of the widow of Nain, and Jairus' daughter, at both of which that accusation could have been levelled.

But why call it an accusation? That these people were given their lives back is what matters, whether they were saved from a fate worse than death or magicked back from hell or heaven or wherever seems to me to be totally irrelevant from the victim's point of view. Of course, we never get the victim's story, do we? Poor Lazarus - I can imagine the questions - what was it like down there (or up there?) Which is probably why Jesus told so many of those he saved not to make a big song and dance about it!

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
...from the victim's point of view. Of course, we never get the victim's story, do we? Poor Lazarus -

C. S. Lewis expressed great sympathy for Lazarus, because he had to die twice.

Moo

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Poor Lazarus - I can imagine the questions - what was it like down there (or up there?) Which is probably why Jesus told so many of those he saved not to make a big song and dance about it!

Novelist Dorothy Sayers wrote a play about Jesus, called "The Man Born To Be King". In it, Jesus counsels the just-risen Lazarus not to reveal any state secrets. [Smile]

ISTM that J was both serious and joking. YMMV.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0