Chapter XI (2)

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

[455] Ps. 2:2.

[456] Acts 4:16.

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

[457] ch. 12:19.

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

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

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

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

[459] Luke 24:46.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[462] Ps. 109:4, 5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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