Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom Of God (part 5 of 5)

Beyond the fact that the meal is taking place at the house of a leper (though one may be tempted to imagine that the meal is taking place at Lazarus’ house because it is said “they prepared a dinner for Jesus there” (Mark 12:2), the “there” must be a reference to Bethany), when folding in the details from the Gospel of John, one is now urged to look a second time at the fact that Martha was serving.  Martha is not only serving, but she, a wealthy woman like her sister (who can afford to “waste” a valuable amount of perfume), is serving in the house of a leper.  This is unthinkable in that day. 

Clearly, Simon is somebody that is further down the social scale from Lazarus, Martha, and Mary, so the fact that a more noble member of society is serving in the house of somebody that is “beneath them,” is a radical shake-up in the normal social order, though such things seem to be quite commonplace with Jesus.  It is the presence of Jesus, and that alone, that is bringing this unthinkable occurrence to pass.    

The social mobility of modern times (for a large part of the world), along with the casual mixing of classes that makes it impossible to positively and concretely identify one’s socioeconomic status was unknown in the ancient world.  Various aspects of the culture, especially the setting of meals and banquets, revealed social status in no uncertain terms.  The fact that this is so foreign to most people causes results in missing these aspects that would have stood out in the early years of the church.  One tends to read past these things, whereas a time and a culture that is thoroughly accustomed to these things and ordered around meals, would have had very strong reactions and opinions associated with what was being seen in Jesus’ actions and what was being communicated by the church about Jesus’ actions. 

A prominent feature of this story is that Mark makes it a point to mention that Jesus is dining at the house of a leper named Simon.  For some reason, Lazarus is absent from Matthew and Mark’s story, and of course, is absent from any Gospel save that of John.  Though Lazarus’ lack of any presence at all in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is bizarre (to say the least), it is Simon who is conspicuous by his absence from the telling in John. 

Though Simon is not present in John, Lazarus, though he is famous and people are coming to see Jesus on account of him, is not presented as the honored guest.  He does not take the place of Simon, but is presented merely as “among those present at the table with Him” (John 12:2b).  Lazarus is just another guest, Martha is serving, and Mary is (according to John’s record, wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair---which brings its own provocative considerations that are beyond the pale of this study).  There is a dynamic at work here with this particular meal that should serve to provide structure for any thoughts and considerations of Jesus’ kingdom message.

Visiting Bethany (part 6 of 6)

As the Gospel of John reports, with many witnesses present and presumably able to confirm or deny the story that is being told, Jesus calls Lazarus forth from the tomb.  It is reported that, as a result of this display of life-giving power, many people came to believe in Jesus.  Whether they came to believe in Him as a miracle-worker or as the Messiah is not specified.  However, it can surely be imagined that many that had witnessed the event, and who had perhaps witnessed the whole of His coming to Bethany (the veritable parousia that had taken place), happily joined with Mary and Martha in calling Him “Lord,” “Christ” (Messiah), and “Son of God.” 

This verbal elevation of Jesus to the position that was categorically reserved for the king of Israel (or one who would be king---remember, these are not titles of divinity in and of themselves), without the requisite approval from or sanction of Rome, among a number of other issues that are swirling around Jesus, is shown to have sparked the Pharisees and chief priests and council to declare “If we allow Him to go on in this way, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation” (11:48). 

It seems that the author wants those that hear or read the story to understand, along with what these men clearly understand, that Jesus’ actions are intensely political.  The author appears to be making this point in the way he shapes his narrative, deftly and somewhat subversively pointing to the fact and the ways of the coming kingdom of God in which Jesus rules over all kings. 

So Jesus, as is discovered in the text, was acclaimed by the people for His miraculous work in raising Lazarus, which was the culmination of a great number of miraculous works and the point in the narrative where the tide turns and an onward rush to the climactic conclusion of crucifixion and Resurrection begins.  It is quite likely that He gained the honor and respect and worship of all in Bethany upon the event of this visit, which would be significant in an honor and shame culture.  A first century hearer or reader would presumably be inclined to accord this Jesus honor as well.  If he or she understood the underlying movement of the narrative that suggests that Jesus is a greater King than Caesar, then it is possible that this honor is accorded to Jesus at the expense of the Caesar.  

Figuratively, the whole of the community, upon Lazarus’ return to life, would have bowed at the feet of Jesus.  Had Caesar visited Bethany, the response would have been expected to have been the same.  All would have bowed at his feet in recognition of his power and rule and dominion over “the whole earth”.  The main difference is that when Jesus came to Bethany in his quasi-parousia, He brought life, and it was the bringing of life that would have induced the authentic worship and real honor.  While it is true that Caesar would also have received a form of worship, in the end, in spite of all the good that he might very well have done or have been able to do for the people under his rule, ultimately, men and women would only fall at Caesar’s feet because he demanded it, carrying with him the threat and power of death.    

Visiting Bethany (part 5 of 6)

After a brief exchange between Jesus and Martha that serves to outline the basic Jewish hope concerning the resurrection of the dead, “Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life.  The one who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and the one who lives and believes in Me will never die’.” (11:25-26a)  How does Martha respond?  Again, making use of imperial titles, “She replied, ‘Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God Who comes into the world’.” (11:27) 

Now, even though both “Christ” (Messiah) and “Son of God” are both titles for the Jewish king, and are not necessarily meant to automatically connote divinity (ironically enough, as opposed to the appellation of the term “son of god” to the Roman emperor as part of the Caesar cult), one can here discover yet another appropriation of emperor related language, further reinforcing the idea of the supremacy of the eternal kingdom of the Creator God that is being established in and through Jesus (Son of God), as opposed to the temporal kingdom of Rome that has been established and perpetuated by the Caesar (son of god). 

Shortly thereafter, Mary, repeating Martha’s actions, “got up quickly and went to Him (Jesus)” (11:29b).  What follows is where it is learned that Jesus has not, in fact, entered into Bethany, as the text states: “Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still in the place where Martha had come out to meet Him” (11:30).  This information is inserted parenthetically here in the middle of the story, rather than at the beginning, which is a subtle placement which would seem to serve to partially mask the politically subversive nature of the language that is being used surrounding this event that leads up to Jesus’ grand parousia, which is His “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem.  That particular parousia will bear all of the explicit earmarks of what would be well-understood as a royal visit (depending on one’s viewpoint) by a Caesar or by Israel’s King. 

As would be expected from a person going out of his or her city to greet the “Lord Caesar,” upon reaching Jesus “Mary fell at His feet and said to Him, ‘Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died’.” (11:32b)  Here, Mary echoes Martha, and once again use is made of an imperial title, as Mary calls Jesus “Lord.”  The author clearly does not want his audience to lose sight of Jesus’ position.  

It was at this point then, with Jesus having been greeted outside the city, with people falling at His feet, referring to Him as Lord and Son of God and Messiah, and making note of His great power, that Jesus finally enters into the village.  It seems that the tomb is in the village, or at least adjacent to the village, which would account for the author’s comment that Jesus “had not yet” made His way to the village. 

The reader makes note of the fact that Mary did not go to Jesus by herself (11:31,33,36), so when Jesus does make His way to the tomb, presumably, it is with a group of people.  Since Martha’s voice can again be heard breaking into the story when Jesus asks for the stone over the mouth of the cave to be rolled away, one can also presume that Martha, as one that has bowed at the feet of Jesus and called Him Lord, was one of the people in the procession that made its way to the tomb with Jesus.   

Visiting Bethany (part 4)

If a compare and contrast is underway, one glaring contrast between Jesus and the Caesar can be found in verses previously quoted from the third chapter of John.  There it is said that the covenant God of Israel “gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through Him” (3:16b-17).  Caesar, the man entitled with “son of god,” was looked to as the one who dragged the world from darkness to light.  With this, the parallel between John and the Augustus inscription becomes increasingly obvious. 

Yes, it was Caesar Augustus who was said to have brought order out of the chaos.  It was Caesar Augustus that was said to be responsible for the life and vitality of the world, with this spread throughout the world via the pax Romana (Roman peace).  It is Caesar Augustus who is referred to as the “Savior” of the world.  Ironically, though war would be almost endless, Augustus is credited with putting an end to war.  It is worth nothing that, though death continues, Jesus is credited with putting an end to death. 

For Ceasar of course, the end of war was accomplished by crushing his enemies through massive warfare.  Furthermore, it is said that Caesar Augustus is the fulfillment of all hopes and in him the world has “good news.”  How did this son of god “save” the world?  How did he bring the world into new life?  It could be argued that he did so through the instrument of death. 

He, his predecessors, and those that would follows and take up his mantle, slaughtered millions so as to usher in an era of “peace” and to give their version of life to the world.  Effectively, in order to give the world life and vitality through the establishment of the Roman empire, the world experienced an almost unprecedented level of condemnation.  The other Son of God, however, is said to bring eternal life and peace and light, which will be accomplished and effected through His worldwide kingdom. 

As the Gospel of John informs its readers, through Jesus the world will be saved, but this salvation will not come about through the world-condemning instrument of war and its power of death.  Ultimately, this salvation will come about through the laying down of His own life and going willfully into death in an act of self-sacrificial love---making Himself subject to that which was (and still is) the Caesar’s only true power. 

Returning to the issue at hand then, Martha can be heard speaking to Jesus and saying, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.  But even now I know that whatever You ask from God, God will grant you” (John 11:21-22).  In calling Jesus “Lord,” and doing so in the context of what is increasingly looking to be a “parousia” of Jesus, Martha has conferred upon Him one of the titles that was then accorded to and reserved for the Caesar.  Much like that which would have been experienced by the emperor when he would visit subjects within his realm, the one that has come out to greet Jesus makes it a point to honor the world’s ruler and to make comment upon His power. 

Visiting Bethany (part 2)

No, He did not go straight to the tomb or to the house of Lazarus’ sisters, Mary and Martha, with whom He was known to have shared a close relationship---at least, knowledge of this close relationship is implied in the Gospel narrative.  Instead, and quite curiously, Jesus is reported to have stopped outside the village.  Does this not seem a bit strange?  It does indeed.  It does so because the one who reads the Gospel is presumably already aware of the outcome of the situation, already privy to the full story. 

Because the full story is known, together with the way the story happily ends with Lazarus being raised from the dead, it is known that Jesus loved both Lazarus and his sisters.  One would think that this love would compel Him to not only not delay His visit to Bethany, but also to go straight to the grieving sisters without hesitation upon reaching their town. So why does the story, as told exclusively in the Gospel of John, make the point that He did not immediately go to these people that He loved?   

It may seem redundant to point out, but as the story of the raising of Lazarus begins, Jesus’ love for this family was immediately evident, as it is said that the two sisters went to the trouble of sending a message to Jesus that Lazarus was sick.  Why go to the trouble to do this unless the expectation was that Jesus would come quickly to the aid of the one He loved?  Coupled with Jesus’ not immediately rushing to provided the requested and likely expected assistance to His friend, this stopping outside of Bethany and not even going into the town seems doubly strange.  If it seems a bit perplexing to those that would later hear or read this story, one can probably imagine that it was every bit as frustrating for these two sisters of Lazarus in that day as well, and that along with them, their fellow villagers were likely struck by the oddity of this occurrence. 

Not only that, but in small, tight-knit communities as Bethany no doubt was, not only would the entire village know that Lazarus was sick, they would also know that Lazarus had died.  It is likely that they would be aware of the fact that a message had been sent to the miracle-worker Jesus, informing Him of the sickness of Lazarus.  They would also learn that Jesus did not respond to the message by coming to Bethany with all rapidity (perhaps even bringing a bit of shame to this family), and they would now know that when Jesus did finally make His way to Bethany, that He stayed just outside the town, forcing the grieving sisters to come out to Him. 

Almost undoubtedly, they would know all of these things in the larger context of the hope of Mary and Martha that Jesus could do something about the sickness, which can be seen to be manifested in their urgent message to Jesus about Lazarus’ sickness and the words that are reported to have been spoken to Him when they finally see Him.  This hope, that would eventually be vindicated by their brother’s raising at the hands and words of Jesus, would have been reasonably and understandably spurred by the healings and other miraculous occurrences that had marked Jesus’ ministry, not to mention Jesus’ love for Lazarus and his sisters.         

Naturally, based on the information heretofore provided, Jesus’ visit to Bethany should be considered in the light of the parousia of the Caesar.  So when one hears or reads that “when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet Him” (John 11:20a), a context has been created.  It is here necessary to bear in mind that the readers of this Gospel, in the first century, would be quite familiar with an imperial parousia.  Those that would hear this story in the world in which Jesus was said to have become King of all by His own Resurrection, would find that this going out of the village to meet Jesus, on the part of Martha, very much fits into the mold of expectations concerning an imperial visit.  

Visiting Bethany (part 1)

Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still in the place where Martha had come out to meet Him. – John 11:30  (NET)

In the time of Jesus, when the emperor (the Caesar) came to pay a visit to a town or a city within a colony or province under his dominion, his visit was generally referred to as a “parousia.”  When this visit would be made, as one would expect, the great emperor, for whom notoriety and honor (especially in an honor and shame culture) would be of paramount concern, would not simply enter into the town or city un-announced. 

Such a thing would be unthinkable, especially in light of the Caesar-cult (worship of Caesar as a divine being---the son of god) that was so prevalent in the first century world so dominated by Rome.  Quite the opposite would occur, in fact, as the Caesar would be lauded in grand fashion by the people of the places that he deigned to visit.  After all, the man making this visit was rightly viewed as the most powerful man in the world, and would be afforded as much honor as possible. 

Not only would this honoring of the god-man be expected, but it would also demanded.  To effect this, quite apart from Caesar simply entering into the city by himself, or with nothing more than his imperial entourage, a large group from the city would be expected to go out to meet him while he was still outside of or at some distance from their city.  This would occur while all (or at least most) inside the city would be preparing themselves, in a conformity (for some) that was most likely under the threat of physical pain or even death (or shame), to receive the exalted emperor with the appropriate acclamation and with reverence. 

Upon greeting the Caesar outside the city boundaries, the selected and special group from the city, quite naturally, would return to the city with Caesar  and his royal entourage in tow, celebrating his entrance into yet another place in which he was acknowledged to both reign and have complete and unrivaled dominion.  This would seem to be an entirely appropriate reception for the one who, beginning with that which would come to be said of the emperor Augustus, is referred to as “lord” (the lord of the world who claimed allegiance and loyalty from his subjects throughout the whole of his empire), whose birthday was referred to as “evangelion” or “good news,” is referred to as the “son of god” and “savior,” and who was thought of as the one who had finally brought light and peace and order into a  dark and often chaotic world.

Having provided that basic bit of information, the scope of this study move to the eleventh chapter of the Gospel of John, and the story of raising of Lazarus from the dead at the hands and word of Jesus.  In the story, one is able to observe some rather interesting elements, making His visit to Bethany something of a “parousia” by Jesus.  The first thing to notice, though it is not revealed immediately, is that after Jesus had remained in the place where He was for two days after hearing that Lazarus (the one He is said to have loved) was sick (John 11:6), and upon His finally reaching the town of Bethany after what can be thought of as an unexpected delay, Jesus did not immediately go into the village. 

Raising Lazarus For Glory (part 8)

To this point, this study has traversed a chapter and a half of the Gospel of John, with the bulk of the trek related in some way to the death and raising of Lazarus.  On two occasions, mention has been made of the glory of the Creator God in connection with the raising.  The first mention of the Creator God’s glory was upon Jesus’ hearing about Lazarus’ sickness.  The second time was in response to Martha’s insistence that Lazarus would stink, having already been in the tomb for four days.  Both times would lead the reader to believe that Lazarus’ raising itself was that which would reveal the glory of the covenant God, but further observation will allow one to conclude that such was not necessarily the case. 

Immediately after the Pharisees can be heard saying, “Look, the world has run off after Him” (John 12:19b), in reference to the welcome of Jesus into Jerusalem as King, one goes on to read, “Now some Greeks were among those who had gone up to worship at the feast.  So these approached Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and requested, ‘Sir, we would like to see Jesus.’  Philip went and told Andrew, and they both went and told Jesus” (12:20-22). 

It can be presumed that the Greeks that were in Jerusalem for Passover had seen (or at least heard about) this rousing welcome of Jesus, having also, along with the teeming masses, learned at least some information about the raising of Lazarus and the growing number of people that were, because of that raising, looking to Jesus as the Messiah.  It can also be imagined that these Greeks, in making inquiries about this Jesus fellow, who was now being loudly hailed as Messiah, had learned about some of His rather strange practices of regularly interacting with Gentiles.  Though they were Greeks, since they were in Jerusalem for Passover, it is likely that they had adopted the covenant markers (the works of the law), and were justified (saved, righteous, part of the covenant people).  It is the combination of a number of factors that most likely served to induce these Greeks to ask Jesus’ disciples for an audience with Jesus. 

Because they were in Jerusalem for Passover, and therefore in recognition of the Creator God’s covenant and His covenant people, which was likely indicated by their adoption of covenant markers themselves, it can also be deduced that they were aware of what were taken to be the prophecies of messiah, and would have been especially keyed in on those prophecies which clearly showed forth the messiah as so much more than a messiah for ethnic and national Jews alone, but which, according to some readings, announced a messiah for all peoples and all nations. 

It is worthwhile to attempt an examination of the scenario, in an attempt to determine why it was that they would want to see Jesus.  What was their peculiar motivation?  It is quite possible that, even though they were Greeks (Gentiles) that recognized the covenant and the covenant people, and even though they were in Jerusalem to recognize the Creator God’s saving deliverance in association with the Passover, that they were systematically excluded from full fellowship with those of ethnic and national Israel, even if they kept to the covenant marker of circumcision, along with the food and Sabbath laws. 

With the “Jesus situation,” combined with their understanding of a presumed understanding of the messiah as a figure that would transcend the traditional covenant boundaries, they desired to see Jesus.  A direct audience with the one being hailed as messiah could certainly put these controversial issues to rest.  The question was, with the knowledge that they were Gentiles, would He see them or would He rebuff them---putting them off as unworthy, regardless of potential bearing of covenant markers, because they were not of Israelite descent? 

Raising Lazarus For Glory (part 4)

In Jesus, Peter says, the Creator God has performed the resurrection of the righteous dead, and now invites all of Israel, and all of mankind, to join Him in His Resurrection, which is the expectation of the “last days” now brought forward into their present.  This invitation is “accepted” through believing “beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus Whom you crucified both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36b).  What Peter tells his hearers is that their messianic expectations have indeed been confirmed, albeit inexplicably, through the vehicles of a Roman cross and a family tomb. 

This Resurrection had taken place in what should now be considered to be the last days (or at least the beginning of the “last days” --- a term that did not denote the end of the creation, but the messianic age and the beginning of the renewed creation, in which Israel’s Creator God was King and Lord of all); and now, a new day and a new age has dawned, and the long-awaited kingdom of God has been inaugurated, with Jesus as its Messiah-King.  Jesus is to be recognized as King and Lord of all, which was the role that was believed to have been reserved for the Creator God Himself. 

Thus, Jesus, as Messiah and the herald of the messianic age, comes to be equated with the God of Israel.  With this, the inexorable, unrelenting march towards the Creator God’s final restoration of all things has begun, with that God’s covenant people, now identified by belief in Jesus, the vehicles by which the Creator God will continue to reveal Himself, through what is taken to be the inward to outward working of the Spirit, sending His light and glory into the world.    

With this declaration of Jesus as Lord and Christ, or Lord and Messiah---presenting Him as the “Lord” that Israel’s King David had called Lord, as well as being the King of Israel (Son of God, Son of Man), Peter seizes on the well-understood concept that Israel’s king would always serve as a representative of the people, with the fortunes of the people of God waxing and waning based on the performance of their king as it related to what their God required of His covenant people (avoiding idolatry, reverencing the sanctuary, keeping the Sabbaths---what was then understood as the “works of the law” and the identifying marks of those in good covenant standing and therefore able to participate in the age of the renewed creation, resurrection of the righteous dead). 

This representation of the covenant people by the King can be most explicitly seen in King David’s infamous “numbering of the people.”  When David did this, without carrying it out appropriately and in the way that God had commanded (which would have been in association with an offering as outlined in the book of Exodus), a plague came upon the people.  This, as promised.  When David repented, built an altar, and made a sacrifice (an offering), the plague stopped.

With all of that said, one is able to return to the situation with Lazarus.  After a brief interaction with Mary and a demonstration of emotion (because Jesus loved Lazarus-John 11:36), Jesus “came to the tomb” (11:38).  Jesus ordered the stone to be rolled away from the mouth of the tomb (demonstrating the common burial practice of a multiple-use tomb that was in place in that day).  Upon this, Martha offers a mild protest about the smell that will come forth, perhaps indicating that, in her mourning, along with her expectation that Jesus would in fact be doing something about Lazarus’ sickness and death, she and her sister had not performed the standard ritual of anointing the body with spices.  This could serve as something of a possible indicator of their belief in Jesus’ Messiah-ship and in the power of the Creator God that would be wielded by Him as the Messiah.  Jesus responds to this concern by saying “Didn’t I tell you that if you believe, you would see the glory of God?” (11:40) 

Raising Lazarus For Glory (part 3)

Before one can return to the issue of Lazarus’ sickness and death and God’s glory, it is necessary to traverse the territory that is laid out before the reader with the exchanges that take place between Martha and Jesus, and Mary and Jesus.  Jesus goes to Bethany, where He encounters the grieving sisters of Lazarus, whom He loved (along with his sisters).  Upon His arrival, Martha greets Him, saying, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.  But even now I know that whatever You ask from God, God will grant You” (John 11:21-22). 

There is, it needs to be said, a faith-rooted belief to be found in those statements.  Martha, apparently believing Jesus to be the Messiah, and combining that belief with some type of knowledge that part of the work of Messiah will be to restore all things, along with the general belief in the resurrection of the dead, appeals to her awareness of His powerful, healing and restoring works, in hopes that a restoration to life will be granted to her deceased brother.  Jesus responds to Martha’s faith and messianic understanding by saying, “Your brother will come back to life again” (11:23). 

Martha, who is merely reflecting the general hope of Israel in that day, which was the resurrection of the righteous dead (the Creator God’s covenant people) into their God’s good and restored creation, replies by saying, “I know that he will come back to life again in the resurrection at the last day” (11:24).  Jesus’ response to this is to flatly inform Martha that “I am the resurrection and the life.  The one who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and the one who lives and believes in Me will never die” (11:25-26a).  An interesting statement to be sure. 

Jesus punctuates this statement of response with an inquiry, saying, “Do you believe this?” (11:26b)  With this, Jesus confirms both Martha’s belief in Him as Messiah, as well as the Jewish hope in the resurrection of the Creator God’s covenant people into a renewed created order in which the God of Israel has put down death and corruption (as they were most definitely not looking towards a spiritual, dis-embodied, heavenly existence for all eternity), defeating the evil that had been launched into the world at Adam’s fall, all of which was connected with the coming of messiah at the last day.  Martha’s enthusiastic reply is “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ (the Messiah), the Son of God (King of Israel) Who comes into the world” (11:27-parentheses supplied).   

This worldview that Martha presents is that upon which the Apostle Peter will seize in what is generally referred to as his Pentecost “sermon” in the second chapter of Acts.  As a member of the nation of Israel, Peter himself had been looking towards their God’s action in history, which would eventually culminate in the resurrection of the righteous dead into the renewed creation.  The righteous dead were the saints---those who were the Creator God’s covenant people, Israel.  In that tremendous piece of oratory, Peter said, with an ultimate reference to what had been wrought in the world via the Resurrection of Jesus, that “this is what was spoken about through the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16).  Following that, Peter recounts Joel’s prophecy, which, prior to the Christ-event, was generally understood as a presentation of that which would accompany the resurrection of the righteous dead, Israel, in the last days. 

After quoting Joel, Peter would go on to speak of Jesus, saying “God raised Him up, having released Him from the pains of death, because it was not possible for Him to be held in its power” (2:24).  This was what the people of Israel, Peter’s fellow Jews, were expecting to be said of all of their God’s covenant people in the last days.  Peter makes it clear that the expectation of Israel has been fulfilled in Jesus, and that He had gone down into death and had been raised up, experiencing these things as Israel’s representative.  

Raising Lazarus For Glory (part 1)

When Jesus heard this, He said, “This sickness will not lead to death, but to God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” – John 11:4  (NET)

Prior to making this statement, Jesus had received a message about a good friend.  In that message, He had been told that “the one You love is sick” (11:3b).  As an aside, it should be noted that Lazarus is the only man in the New Testament of whom it is said that Jesus loved him, while here it can also be learned that “Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus” (11:5).  It is fascinating to consider that it is these people alone that are of spoken of in this way (Jesus loved him/them), and spoken of this way here in this Gospel alone, which makes an internal claim to be authored by the disciple whom Jesus loved (21:20,24). 

Upon hearing this, Jesus---the one that had demonstrated power to turn water into wine, who is said to have pronounced from afar the healing of the son of a royal official in Capernaum, reported to have healed a long-crippled man at the pool of Bethesda, multiplied a few loaves and fishes to feed a multitude of people, walked on water, and gave sight to a man that had been blind from birth---did not run to Lazarus’ bedside and He did not pronounce healing from afar, though presumably, based on His track record and what is reported about Him, He could have done so.  The author reports that He simply replied to the message by saying that “This sickness will not lead to death, but to God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”  Additionally, having heard this report about the one (the only individual in Scripture) that Jesus is specifically said to have loved, somewhat oddly, “He remained in the place where He was for two more days” (11:6b). 

So what did Jesus mean by this statement concerning sickness, death, the Son of God, and glory?  Many conclusions can be drawn.  As possible answers are considered, it must be remembered that these Gospel narratives were not compositions of random occurrences.  Rather, the Gospels, John included, are continuous narratives.  As continues narratives that leave out some details of Jesus’ life, while including and highlighting others, are designed to tell a story that is subsequently designed to prompt the reader of the story to draw a conclusion about the person upon Whom they are focused. 

When Jesus said that this sickness would lead to God’s glory, was He indicating a knowledge that Lazarus was going to die, and that He was going to go and call him forth from the tomb, thus bringing glory to the Creator God?  This is possible and simple, but it seems to be unlikely.  In fact, it is probably as unlikely as the idea that the man that had been born blind, about whom can be read in the ninth chapter of John, spent an entire lifetime suffering in blindness and darkness so that one day Jesus could come along and heal Him and the God of Israel could be glorified through the healing.  That would seem like nothing more than a great, cosmic joke by a prankster god unworthy of praise.  That does not seem like the type of God that Jesus is said to reveal.  

Considering the record of the man that was born blind, Jesus said that this condition existed “so that the acts of God may be revealed through what happens to him” (9:3b).  Thus, that case would seem to  less about the healing and more about Jesus’ Messianic claims, as the fall-out over the healing, as recorded in the Gospel narrative that must be read as a continuous and connected story, would ultimately center on questions about Jesus as Messiah and Jesus’ presenting Himself as the Good Shepherd, which carried patently messianic undertones.  Through the healing, the acts of the Creator God were in fact revealed, in that one of the widely held expectations about Israel’s messiah was that he would be the physical, human embodiment of the faithful and covenant God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that He would be acting on behalf of Israel to fulfill His promises to them.  In addition to that, through the healing, the reader, who has been introduced into the Johannine story about the true divine image-bearer with the words “In the beginning,” is given a glimpse into what the Creator God had always intended for humanity.