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.  

Raising Lazarus For Glory (part 2)

Getting back to the situation with Lazarus, one can see that Jesus did in fact say, “This sickness will not lead to death.”  However, just a few verses later, after the two days of delay in His going to see Lazarus, Jesus tells His disciples that “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep.  But I am going there to awaken him” (John 11:11b).  Because of His disciples’ reported confusion about what Jesus was attempting to communicate to them, Jesus clarifies His meaning and says, “Lazarus has died” (11:14b).  This would seem to run contrary to His previous statement, but one must keep an eye on the bigger picture.  Thus, to this He adds, “and I am glad for your sake that I was not there, so that you may believe.  But let us go to him” (11:15). 

Here again, the reader is presented with another question to consider.  Did Jesus expect that His raising of Lazarus from the dead would finally cause His disciples to believe that He was Who He seemed to be indicating that He was, namely, Israel’s Messiah (King=Son of Man & Son of God)?  In similarity to the first answer proffered in this study, this is unlikely, as if these disciples had not yet come to believe in the strong possibility that He was in fact the long-awaited Messiah that would usher in the kingdom of heaven and a new golden age for Israel and all the earth, especially after all that they had been said to have seen and experienced to this point in the Gospel narrative, it is improbable that this event would serve to convince them. 

At the same time, it would seem to be more than likely that they already believed that He was the promised Messiah, and that they were firmly ensconced within His movement, though there could certainly be lingering doubts about the manner in which He was going about His mission, and an ongoing wondering if He was going to eventually take up arms in the style of King David, so as to drive the Romans from the land, which would have been part and parcel of the widely held messianic considerations. 

Now that’s not to say that they would or could not be quickly shaken from this belief---the evidence as it is reported following His arrest and crucifixion suggest otherwise.  At this point however, they do seem to be largely on board.  In fact, one of the disciples---the one referred to as a doubter---might very well have been put on display in the story as the first and only one to both realize that Jesus was the Messiah, and that, contrary to what the rest expected, that He was also going to die on behalf of the people, as their King. 

If Thomas does realize this (or something like this), it would be widely contradictory to the commonly held worldview that a messiah, by definition, is not going to die.  If this realization is realistic, it seems that Thomas, following the death of Jesus, may have had a change of heart, which is more than understandable (though “doubter” as an epithet simply does not seem to fit Thomas any more than the rest of the disciples, at least when the Gospel narratives are broadly taken into consideration). 

After Jesus informed His disciples that they were going to be returning to the area around Jerusalem, of which the disciples had previously reminded Jesus that “the Jewish leaders were just now trying to stone You to death” (11:8b), this one disciple was heard to have said, “Let us go too, so that we may die with Him” (11:16b).  It does seem possible that, at least here, the “doubter” might have been the one with understanding, grasping the nature of Jesus’ mission, what would be required of Him, and what it would ultimately accomplish.   

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.

Hezekiah's Prayer (part 3 of 3)

Hezekiah goes on to exclaim, “Look, the grief I experienced was for my benefit.  You delivered me from the Pit of oblivion.  For You removed all my sins from Your sight” (38:17).  Apparently, Hezekiah was made to be thankful for both the sickness and the deliverance.  Not only that, but by connecting his sickness with sin (failure to rightly bear the divine image), Hezekiah demonstrated that he understood that the sickness that he carried resulted from his violations of the divine covenant.  Not only was sickness understood to be a curse that entered into the world with man’s fall, but sickness was also associated with Israel’s failure to keep covenant with their God.  The Creator God had promised sickness to His people , while also promising that if they repented from their failure to keep covenant, He would remove the associated curses. 

As it applied to the whole of God’s covenant people, so it also applied to the king.  Hezekiah, as the representative of the people, linked the removal of his sickness with the removal of sins.  Furthermore, because being conquered by a foreign people was part of the Creator God’s curse that would be directed toward His people if they were to completely disregard His covenant, and as this recovery from sickness and its attendant prayer follows closely on the heels of the expulsion of Assyria from Judah when it looked as if they were about to suffer the same fate as the northern kingdom of Israel, the removal of his sins (forgiveness), as evidenced by his healing, is also closely linked to the covenant God’s removal of the sins of His people (forgiveness), as evidenced by God Himself by the narrative that presents their God Himself intervening and defeating the Assyrians and sending them away.

Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the kings of Israel and Judah were the representatives of God’s people.  When David numbered the people, though this was his action alone, the people suffered.  When Manasseh brought Judah to the pinnacle of its idolatry, it was in conjunction with this that their God declared, with no reversal (though the judgment would be briefly stayed), that Judah would be conquered and sent into captivity (the promised curse would come).  In addition, Israel also held to the idea of a vicarious sacrifice for the removal of sins, which can be seen in the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement.  One sees the representative principle at work here with Hezekiah, and it is in this narrative context that the prayer of Hezekiah can be heard on the lips of Jesus in the garden prior to His passion. 

Jesus could quite easily say that “the grief (or illness) I experienced was for My benefit,” as He could reflect on the suffering servant prophecy of Isaiah fifty-three, fully convinced that His suffering would benefit not only His people, but Himself as well.  Though He knew Himself to be walking the path of death (not only in the time leading up to the crucifixion, but throughout His revolutionary ministry), it is quite easy to hear Jesus say, with a faith like that which was exhibited by Abraham when he confidently declared that both he and Isaac would return from the mountain of sacrifice, that “You delivered Me from the Pit of oblivion.” 

However, it would only be as Israel’s King---as Israel’s representative and as the representative of all of those that would come to call Him King, in substitution for His people, that Jesus could say “You removed all My sins from Your sight.”  This could only occur through God’s King bearing God’s cursing on behalf of God’s people, though Jesus Himself is understood to have never failed to rightly bear the divine image (thus, without sin).  It is because of this execution of faithfulness that Hezekiah could say, “The living person, the living person, he gives you thanks, as I do today” (38:19a).  Those that share in the blessed and vital union with the Christ join with him in such a prayer.