Chapter XI
Verses 1-6. Another great chapter, one of the greatest in the four Gospels, is now before us. The miracle it records is nowhere else given. What is written in connection with it reveals Him, who had borne such a great witness concerning Himself, in all His glory. Here we find the fullest demonstration of His Divine power as well as of His loving sympathy. His heart of love, the love which passeth, knowledge, is blessedly revealed in the record of this chapter. He had claimed the same power with the Father to raise the dead, and now He manifests that power. While on the one hand He is seen as God in raising Lazarus from the dead, on the other. hand we see Him as very Man, for He wept. The great miracle is introduced here by the Spirit of God to supply the incontrovertible proof that all He had spoken concerning Himself is true, and to give to the Jews the evidence that He is the Messiah, the Son of God.
The sickness of Lazarus of Bethany is at once mentioned in the opening verse. Lazarus was the brother of Mary and Martha of Bethany, and he is introduced here for the first time. His name is the same as the Hebrew name Eleazer, which means ‘‘God is help.” Different guesses have been made as to his identity, but we know nothing beyond what is stated of him in this chapter. That he was well to do and widely known may be learned from the large number of Jews who attended his funeral, who had come to mourn for him and were subsequently the witnesses of his resurrection.
Lazarus was sick. The Lord loved Lazarus, yet He who is Omnipotent permitted him to be sick. In our own days men and women who pose as healers make the strange assertion that sickness among the children of God is an evidence of their disobedience, or their sins, and, therefore, something by which the Lord expresses His displeasure. They say that a believer who is sick must have done something which is wrong and that bodily sickness is the result of it. All these strange theories are disproven by Scripture. The Lord loved Lazarus, and with all His love He did not prevent his illness.
Beautiful is the action and the example of the two believing sisters, Mary and Martha. They sent a messenger to Him with the message, ‘‘Lord, behold, he whom Thou lovest is sick.” They turned at once to the Lord to acquaint Him with what had befallen the beloved brother. No doubt they had a physician, too, and used means, but immediately they dispatched the messenger. This is still our great privilege, to go to the Lord first in case of sickness and other troubles, We can do what Hezekiah did when he went into the house of the Lord and spread Sennacherib’s letter before the Lord (2 Kings xix:14).
And the message they sent was not a demand, not a prayer that Lazarus should be healed at once, as the centurion’s servant was healed, by the speaking of a word. How different this is from the divine healers who ‘‘demand” and who think that “demanding” is real faith. It was the highest faith when the two sisters thus turned to the Lord, acquainted Him with the fact that Lazarus was sick and then left it in His own hands.
Then the Lord gave the messengers the answer. ‘This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.”” These words of our Lord have raised questions. Why did He say that this sickness is not unto death, when Lazarus actually died and was buried? Why did He not say in plainer words, he will die and I shall raise him up from the dead? When our Lord said that his sickness was not unto death, He must have meant death in its complete form, including the complete dissolution of the body, when it returns to dust. This did not happen to Lazarus. The second part of this verse anticipates Lazarus’s death, for by his resurrection the Son of God was glorified.
Then His love for Martha and her sister is stated. Attention must be called to the fact of how the Spirit of God guards this statement in the original text. In the third verse we read the word “love” in connection with the brother of the sisters. The word used in verse 3 is expressive of love as the supreme affection, the same word which is used in John iii:16. But here the word “love” is a different one, inferior to its meaning as the word used in the third verse.
But how strange that after the information of the sickness of Lazarus was imparted unto Him, that He abode two days in the same place where He was! Of course the omniscient One knew what would happen. He knew what great work He was to accomplish, that Lazarus would die. Well, said Chrysostom in his comment, “Christ tarried that none might be able to assert that He restored Lazarus when not yet dead, saying it was lethargy, a fainting, a fit, but not death. He therefore tarried so long that corruption began.”
But what soul agony the sisters must have passed through when He did not come at once! They saw their beloved brother getting weaker and weaker and finally he passed away. It was a supreme test of faith. Perhaps they remembered Job’s word “though He slay me yet will I trust.” What perplexity theirs must have been! Yet they trusted. How beautifully they met it all will be seen later when we read the words of Martha when she met Him.
Verses 7-16. Then He told His disciples, when the two days were gone, that He would go back to Judea. They were astonished and could hardly believe that He would return to Judea, where the Jews had threatened to stone Him. He answered their objections and fears. His working hours had not yet expired. They could not touch His life. His hour had not yet come, hence there was no possibility that they could kill Him. As a man walking in the daylight stumbleth not, because in the sunlight he sees the road before himself, so He walked in certainty.
Then He gave them an exhibition of His omniscience. “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go that I may awake him out of sleep.”” He spoke thus, because He knew that Lazarus had died. Death is a sleep out of which there comes an awakening. Well has it been said by a commentator, “Sleeping, in the sense of dying, is only applied to men, because of the hope of resurrection. We read no such thing of brutes.” And He called Lazarus “friend”; though he had passed away, Lazarus was still the friend of Christ.
The disciples understood not what He meant. They thought of the natural sleep and supposed it would be a sign of his recovery. And if he is getting well, why should we go at allinto Judea? This probably was in their minds. Then the Lord spoke in plain words, “Lazarus is dead.”
If the Lord had been in Bethany when Lazarus was ill, He would have porbably healed him at once. Therefore the Lord was glad for the sake of the disciples that He was not there to prevent the death of His friend, for now they were to witness the greatest of all His miracles, for the confirmation of their faith in Him. Then He told them, “but let us go unto him.”
It has been suggested, on account of the words of Thomas which follow, that the disciples surmised, because He said, “let us go to him,” that He meant He wanted to die, to be with Lazarus. But this is a far-fetched suggestion. When Thomas said, “Let us also go, that we may die with Him,” he expressed his fear that if the Lord returned to Judea He would surely be killed. While much has been said and written about ‘‘doubting Thomas,” here we behold the fact that his heart was greatly attached to the Lord Jesus Christ, and he expresses the desire to die with Him.
Verses 17-29. Some one has said “There is a grand simplicity about this passage, which may almost be spoiled by human exposition. Tio comment on it seems like gilding gold, or painting lilies.” We shall follow the story in all its majestic simplicity, asking His gracious guidance to write something which will be a help in grasping the many spiritual lessons. The Lord Jesus arrived in Bethany with His disciples, and He found that His friend Lazarus had been put aside into the tomb; he had lain in the grave already four days. He knew, of course, that Lazarus had been put into the grave. He knew all that had taken place. He knew what He would do. Therefore He could afford to take His time and wait with His arrival, until there could be no question about the actual death of Lazarus. ‘Thus the supposition, so commonly used by infidels, that Lazarus was in a trance, is completely silenced. But the infidels in the camp of Christendom go a step further and claim that the miracle never happened at all.
The news that Lazarus had died and Been buried, probably the same day he passed away, had brought many Jews to Bethany. They came to comfort the two sisters. Lazarus must have been well known; Simon the leper, who was probably the father of Lazarus and his sisters (Matthew xxvi:6) may have been a rich and influential man. ‘That he is not mentioned in this chapter denotes that he must have died. Besides a great company of Jews from the surrounding country and Jerusalem, there were present the professional mourners (Mark v:38) to carry out what the rabbinical laws demanded at such occasions. All this was ordered by the Lord. The great gathered company was there to sympathize with the mourning sisters, to do what Jewish etiquette demanded; but the Lord had brought them there in His providence that they might be the witnesses to the great miracle He was about to perform. It is not improbable that many of the Jews who came to Bethany had heard our Lord when in His great testimony He claimed to have the power to raise the dead (John v).
The news that “the Prophet of Nazareth,” as many called Him, had arrived with His disciples, must have created a big commotion. The good news that He had come reached the home where the sisters were, surrounded by the mourning friends. Both sisters heard that “Jesus is coming” and at once the characteristic temperament of the two is manifested. Here we must consult Luke x:28-43. In this passage we see the Lord entering Bethany, and the record tells us ‘““Martha received Him into her house.’”? No sooner had the divine guest entered but Mary sat at His feet to drink in His words of life. While Martha was distracted with much serving, running hither and thither in preparing for the comfort of the wonderful visitor, Mary let Him serve her by His gracious ministry. And when Martha ventured to rebuke her sister, when she even suggested that the Lord did not care, He answered her saying, ‘““Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things; but there is need of one, and Mary has chosen the good part, the which shall not be taken from her.” Here Martha shows the same characteristic. She is the same active, hurrying, impatient Martha, rushing forth at once to meet Him. Mary sat still in the house. No doubt she sat there in quiet meditation, thinking of Him, knowing that soon He would be in her presence. What sorrow, anxiety and trial of faith must have exercised the two sisters during the days their beloved brother had been laid aside. And Martha, so anxious, may have had the thought once more — “Lord, dost Thou not care?”; while Mary in confidence must have felt in her soul, “He does all things well.”
Martha may have gone to the outskirts of Bethany to meet Him. Martha, however, was not the loser by going at once to Him, for she heard wonderful words from His gracious lips. Mary by sitting still in the house missed His words and the great comfort He imparted to Martha.
The words with which Martha greeted the Lord expressed her faith as well as her great disappointment. ‘‘Lord, if Thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.”” What a marvelous statement! She knew Him as the Lord of life and power, the great Jehovah. She knew that in His presence death had to flee away. And when today God’s Saints fall asleep, we too can say, “Lord, if Thou hadst been here, my brother would not have died.”” Some blessed day when He comes again, when His shout will gather the Saints together, to meet Him in the air, there will be no death for His own who live. “Behold I show you a mystery, we shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye” (1 Corinthians xv:51).
Her words have in them faith, disappointment and a suggestion of reproach, as if she meant, if thou hadst only come sooner, my brother would still be here. Her faith is triumphant; her doubts and her reproach give way to perfect confidence in Him. ‘But I know — not I hope — that even now, now when my brother has lain four days in the grave, whatsoever Thou wilt ask of God, God will give it Thee.” Like Abrahan,, in this hour of extremity and human impossibility, “against hope, believed in hope” (Romans iv:18) she also hoped in Him, who has the power to raise the dead.
But at the same time, swept by different emotions she lowered His dignity. Through her tears she did not see Him clearly, whom she addresses as Lord. Her words mean that she looked upon Him as destitute of independent power, as if He needed to get the insurance of the power of God by prayer. Yet He had clearly taught that the Father’s power is His power (John v:21). And He answers her at once with a definite promise — “Thy brother shall rise again.” But did Martha realize what He meant? His disciples, if they heard these words spoken must have understood what He meant, for He had told them, “I go that I may wake him out of sleep.” Her answer shows that she did not think of an immediate resurrection. She expressed her faith, and that faith was according to her knowledge in believing the Old Testament Scriptures. “TI know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” The orthodox Jews believe that all the dead go to Sheol and there await the coming of the Messiah, who would call the righteous dead and bring them back, while the wicked dead would be thrust back into Sheol again. Evidently her answer expresses disappointment. The last day for her was a far-away event; it seemed to have little comfort for her in the present sorrow.
There came from the lips of the Son of God the never-tobe forgotten words, words which have been for all generations of Christians, for a countless multitude, the words of hope, comfort, peace and glorious assurance. “J am the resurrection and the life, he that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And whosoever liveth, and believeth in me shall never die.”
Who is able to comment on these blessed words in a satisfactory way. Like all the words of eternal life which came from Him, these words are inexhaustible. He speaks of Himself as the resurrection and the life. Let us note that He puts resurrection before life. True He is the life as He is the light of men (See John i). When He puts resurrection first it must have been in anticipation of His death. He speaks once more of Himself as the “I Am,” the Jehovah. Well it is to put alongside of His words here, the words which He spoke to John in the Isle of Patmos, “Fear not! I am the first and the last; I am He that liveth, and was dead, and, behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And have the keys of hades and of death” (Revelation 1:18). JI am the resurrection and the life! No prophet before Him, though some of them raised the dead, spoke like this. No prophet could even have conceived such a statement. It is unique and one of the strongest arguments for the Deity of our Lord. He who spoke these words is the eternal Jehovah, the source and spring of all life. And He passed through death, as He said to John, ‘‘and was dead”; thus the power of death was annulled and He is the resurrection and the life for all who believe in Him.
Some have explained the words “‘he that believeth on Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live,” as meaning the same as John v:26, that is the spiritually dead. While it is perfectly true that the spiritually dead, hearing His voice and believing on Him live, in this passage it cannot possibly mean the dead sinners, but it means the physically dead. Those who have believed on Him have life; they are one with Him. If the believer lays down his body, like Lazarus did, he shall live, as surely as He liveth who died for our sins and conquered death and the grave. And when our Lord adds, “And whosever liveth and believeth on Me shall never die” He gives assurance that for those who believe on Him and live in that coming day, when the righteous dead shall hear in their graves the voice of the Son of God, that the living believers will not see death. The great statement of our Lord at this occasion is an anticipation of the fuller revelation which He gave to the Apostle Paul, when he penned his first epistle. ‘For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the Archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thessalonians iv:16-17).
Here in John xi:25, 26 we have the two classes likewise. Those who have died in Him and who will be raised from among the dead; and those who remain till He comes and who will be exempt from physical death. In that glorious day of His coming, the truth that He is the resurrection and the life will be fully demonstrated. The Lord asked Martha, “Believest thou this?” Her answer was one of faith, though she did not, and could not fully understand the words He had spoken to her. “Yea Lord, I believe (more literally: I have believed and do believe) that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.” It is as great, if not greater, than Peter’s confession of Him. She believed that He is the promised Messiah, the Son of David; that He is the Son of God and that He came into the world, to be the Redeemer, the Saviour-King.
Then she thought of her sister. The message she whispered to Mary was that He had come and called for her. Mary then arose quickly. It was the Lord’s call which stirred her at once and she came to Him.
Verses 30-37. We learn next that all that had taken place between the Lord and Martha happened outside of the Bethany village. When Mary so suddenly arose, the Jews which were also in the house with her, to comfort her, thought she was going to the grave to weep there, and the whole company followed her outside. Evidently they did not hear Martha’s message to Mary, for it was given to her secretly. They followed Mary; but they were to meet another to be the witnesses of His power and glory.
Then followed the meeting. As soon as Mary saw Him she fell down at His feet; her sister had not done so. Three times we see Mary at the feet of the Lord Jesus. She sat at His feet and listened to His words; in this she owned Him as Prophet. Here she falls at His feet craving His sympathy; she acknowledged Him as Priest. Once more we see her at His feet when she anointed Him; she did it for His burial (xii:3-7). And falling at His feet, as she did here, in the presence of the company of Jews, was a testimony for the Lord Jesus Christ; she acknowledged Him openly as her Lord in this act of worship. Mary then repeated the same words which Martha had addressed to Him, but she does not say all Martha had spoken. She said, “Lord, if Thou hadst been here my brother would not have died” and then she stopped. Perhaps her voice was choked with tears; she could not utter another word. Martha had not wept at His feet. And when Mary was weeping, the accompanying Jews were so touched by her grief, that they also wept. The word used here for “weeping” has the meaning of “loud lamenting.” When later the weeping of our Lord is recorded an entirely different word is used.
Then our Lord became deeply stirred as He looked upon the lamenting sister, and the Jews who wailed with her. He is touched with the feeling of their sorrow and infirmity, thus revealing His true humanity. He was greatly agitated, so that He groaned in spirit; His whole soul was moved in compassion and was troubled, or, as the marginal reading gives it, “He troubled Himself.” Perhaps the latter was the outward expression in His face of the inward emotion, which gave way to His blessed tears.
“Let us carefully remark that our Lord never changes. He did not leave behind Him His human nature when He ascended up into heaven. At this moment at God’s right hand, He can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and can understand tears as well as ever. Our great High-priest is the very friend that our souls need, able to save as God, able to feel as man. To talk of the Virgin Mary feeling for sinners more than Jesus is to utter that which is ignorant and blasphemous. ‘To teach that we can need any other priest, when Jesus is such a feeling Saviour, is to teach what is senseless and absurd.”’*
Then the Lord asked them, “Where have ye laid him?” They said unto Him, “Lord, come and see!” But the question our Lord asked was not to gain information as to the location of the grave. As Quesnel states, “Christ does not ask out of ignorance, any more than God did when He said, ‘Adam where art thou??” Those who answered Him must have been believers for they addressed Him as Lord; perhaps Mary and Martha spoke these words, ‘‘Lord, come and see.” Then His tears could not be restrained any longer. “Jesus wept.”” What a wonderful sentence this is! It shows once more the real humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ. As stated before, the word for weeping is a different one than that used in connection with Mary and the Jews. The word here (dakruo) means a silent weeping, the shedding of tears. The former word (aio) the loud lamenting, is the one employed to describe the weeping of Christ over Jerusalem, when He beheld the city (Luke xix:41). Then He lamented loudly; here as He approached the grave of Lazarus He wept silently. The weeping over Jerusalem was the public lamentation of a prophet; the weeping here was the expression of deepest sympathy with the sorrowful affliction of His friends. Let us remember once more that He is still the same loving, sympathizing Lord. “For we have not a high priest not able tosympathize with our infirmities, but was tempted in all things in like manner, apart from sin” (Hebrews iv:15, correct translation).
The Jews said, “Behold how He loved him!” while others said, “Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?”
*Bishop Ryle.
They were touched with His loving sympathy. But even here they sneer at Him. ‘They remember the “blind man He had healed in Jerusalem. Why then, they say sarcastically, did He not prevent this man from apne
Verses 38-46. Then once more He groaned in Himself as He came to the grave, which was a cave closed up with a stone. This cave was a kind of a horizontal chamber hewn in a rock. These burial places used by the Jews were sometimes natural caves (See Genesis xxiii:9); others were artificially hollowed out from a rock (Isaiah xxii:16; Matthew xxvii:60), in a garden (John xix:41) or in some field (Genesis xxxv; 1 Kings 11:34).
What a moment it must have been when He commanded “Take ye away the stone!”’ He could have spoken the word and by His omnipotent power the stone would have rolled away, like the stone which sealed His own grave. But He said, ‘“T’ake ye away the stone.”” This command impressed the assembled witnesses with the reality and truth of this great miracle about to be performed. ‘They knew in this cave four days ago the body of Lazarus was laid. ‘There his body rests. Perhaps some of the men had assisted in putting the stone over the mouth of the cave. And now they were to open the tomb. What witnesses they made to attest the miracle which had been performed!
Then we hear the voice of unbelief. Martha said unto Him, “‘Lord, by this time he stinketh; for he has been dead four days.” Yet while she spoke this she confirmed the indisputable fact of the death of her brother Lazarus. She would never have spoken like this if she had not been fully convinced that her brother had died. Perhaps he expired in her arms. Her unbelieving utterance was used as a link in the chain of evidence which makes the miracle of Lazarus’s resurrection unimpeachable. There could be no deception. Martha had not the remotest thought of what the Lord was abouttodo. She did not think, nor expect, that the Lord would raise him from the dead. Some infidels have suggested that the whole incident can be explained by self-deception, if not by imposture, but Martha’s words make these infidels’ claims look ridiculous. When she said “he stinketh” she referred to that which was perfectly natural and true, for a dead body in a tropical climate becomes the subject of decomposition in a very short time. There can be no question that the stench of corruption came from the cave, when the stone was removed. Martha knew it and she shrank from having the stone taken away, for she did not believe that the Lord could bring her brother back to life out of such a state. She did not remember that He who commanded “‘take ye away the stone” was the omnipotent Lord, the creator of all things, who has the power over life and death, with whom there is nothing impossible. In the traditional belief of orthodox Jews is held a theory which may shed light on the four days; why the Lord permitted Lazarus to remain buried not for three days, but four days. The tradition asserts the following: after a person dies, the spirit of the dead person lingers about the burial place, waiting to see if there might be a chance to return to the body. But when the countenance changes, and the signs of decomposition appear, then the spirit disappears and goes to its place. Therefore orthodox Jews did not certify the actuality of death till three days were gone, for they said then the countenance changes and after the third day the spirit of the deceased leaves the sepulchre and there in no hope of the dead coming back to life. Now this is a tradition only, but if it was held by the Jews in the days of our Lord, as it probably was, it may explain the reason why Lazarus was not raised on the third day, but on the fourth.
And He answered her unbelieving words in a gracious manner. “Said I not unto thee, if thou wouldest believe, that thou shouldest see the glory of God?” He must have referred to the message which He had sent to the sisters before He came (see Verse 4). He tells her that if she would believe she would see the glory of God. But with the Jew it has always been seeing first and after seeing believing (John xx:29). It is faith in Him which makes possible the manifestation of the glory of God. We doubt not that His gracious word kindled that faith in her and she believed, so that the mist of unbelief and uncertainty was scattered.
The command He gave is obeyed. Obedience to it had been delayed by Martha’s unbelieving interruption; but His answer was the signal to the men who had started to remove the stone to finish the task. The mouth of the cave is uncovered. Looking in they all must have seen the corpse in its grave-clothes. What a wonderful moment it must have been! No painter could ever picture this great scene; no pen is able to describe the agitation, the emotions and the thrill of all these eye witnesses. Here He stands in blessed, undisturbed calmness. Perhaps on either side were the two sisters, both looking, not towards the mouth of the cave, but they must have looked into His face. There was no more doubt in their faces. They believed. A little further back the many Jews; their faces must have revealed intense expectation, curiosity and astonishment.
A few moments of silence and then we hear His voice. His eyes were lifted up to heaven and He said, “Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast heard me. And I know that Thou hearest me always; but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that Thou hast sent me.” All along in His self-witness as recorded in this Gospel, He spoke of His oneness with the Father and that the Father had sent Him. Once more He bears witness to the fact in the presence of those who had heard Him speak such words before. He addresses the unseen One, whom He knows and sees, Father. What He speaks in their hearing is for the sake of the assembled company ‘“‘that they may believe that Thou hast sent me.” His words begin not with a petition, as prophets do, but with giving thanks. One would have expected prayer for the manifestation of God’s power at this thrilling moment. ‘Father, I thank Thee that Thou has heard me.” It has been suggested that He must have prayed to the Father since He knew that Lazarus had died. But this can hardly be the right view. The next sentence gives us the true meaning. “I know that Thou hearest me always.” Here is His assurance, knowing as He did beforehand, that He has already what He would ask. He knew His prayer was answered before it ever was uttered. Chrysostom said on this passage, ““Who ever prayed in this manner? Before uttering any prayer, He said, I thank Thee, showing that He needed not prayer.” And because His request was granted before it was made, He gave thanks unto the Father. It shows forth again His oneness with the
Seas. ww
: {’
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 207
Father. And He expressed Himself thus publicly for those who surrounded Him, so that they might be convinced and believe, that He acted with the Father and never without Him, even as He had said, ““The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do; for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise” (v:19). His words spoken in their presence were an evidence that He is the Christ, the One whom the Father had sent, and who was about to do what the Father doeth — ‘“‘For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son guickeneth whom He will.”
Then came the supreme moment. He cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus come forth!’ What a shout it must have been! And the loud voice which was heard here before the open tomb in which Lazarus’s body rested, will be heard again. Again He will speak with the commanding shout, another majestic “Come forth.” For the Lord Himself shall descend out of heaven with a shout (I Thess. iv:16). Then the graves of the dead in Christ will be opened; corruption will put on incorruption; and we, the living ones, shall be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye; this mortal will put on immortality. The loud cry ““Come forth” was the word of omnipotent power. —
And how the many eyes of all must have been riveted on the opening of the cave! How they must have been almost breathless as that loud voice reached their ears! What a hush of expectation! And all at once out of the darkness of the cave there looms up the white figure. Slowly that figure moves towards the entrance, and now every eye sees that it is Lazarus. “He that was dead came forth!” Encumbered by the grave-clothes, Lazarus, brought back to life, was tottering towards the daylight. He comes forth, the mighty witness to the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, a witness to all the Lord Jesus Christ had spoken, the attesting seal that His Word is true. Here is the witness to the greatness of His power; the power over death. But Lazarus came forth ‘bound hand and foot with the grave-clothes, and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him and let him go.” ‘There is no difficulty here, as some have imagined. They say, ‘Show could Lazarus have come forth out of the grave, if hands and feet were bound by a winding sheet of linen?” But the custom of the Jews was to wrap the dead comparatively loosely in the linen sheet. Around the jaw, to prevent the falling of the lower jaw, was tightly bound a napkin. These grave-clothes and the napkin also bore their witness that Lazarus had actually died. And there he stood in the portal of the cave. Life had been given by Him who is the Resurrection and the Life. But he needed something else. The grave-clothes and the napkin had to be removed; he had to be set at liberty, so that he could walk about and breathe. He could not do it for himself for neither his hands nor his feet were free. He might have spoken one word and the hindering objects would have dropped from the body of Lazarus. He called on them to doit. It aroused them from their great astonishment and for all we know the very men who had wound the body of Lazarus in the grave clothes and bound the napkin over his face, were the men who now loosed him from the bondage.
The greatest miracle had taken place. All He had claimed in His great self-witness (Chapter v) was now confirmed; what He spoke is the Truth. But in that great chapter He speaks of both, the spiritually dead and the physically dead. Both, He tells us, will hear the voice of the Son of God. The resurrection of Lazarus therefore has a typical meaning; it gives a picture of what the Lord of Life does for the spiritually,dead. Lazarus dead and buried, in the darkness of the grave, in corruption, is a picture of the natural man. He is dead in trespasses and sin; he is in darkness and all his works are but corruption, filthy rags, obnoxious to the holy and righteous God. What man needs is life. He cannot give it to himself. He is as helpless to raise himself up, as Lazarus was, shut up in the cave. Nor can the dead raise the dead. No one in that company could do anything for Lazarus; they were as helpless as the dead man was in the grave. Only One could give life and that is He who is “the resurrection and the life.”” He spoke the word of .life, “Come forth!” Resurrection — life then followed at once. And thus it is with the spiritually dead. Those who hear His voice, who believe on Him, receive life
> >
. j through Him and in Him, the resurrection-life, eternal life (John v:24). Whenever the spiritual resurrection of a lost sinner takes place it is a miracle.
But Lazurus needed liberty, freedom from the bondage of the grave. The unloosing of the grave-clothes was the condition of the exercise of the life which had been given to him. If the grave-clothes had not been taken away he would have sunk back into the tomb. And so the Lord Jesus Christ delivers from the grave-clothes, the grave-clothes of Judaism, that which is of the law, the insignia of death and not of life. Free from the law, is the happy state of the sinner who has been quickened and raised up, saved by grace. And in Christ the believer has perfect liberty. The grave clothes are gone. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Galatians v:1). And in that life there is deliverance from more than the bondage of the law, there is deliverance also from the bondage, the dominion of sin. In making known this liberty He uses His gifts, the teachers of His Word, as He used the men who stood at the tomb of Lazarus to loose him, so that he could walk in perfect liberty.
The effect of the great miracle was that many of the Jews believed on Him. What else could they do as they beheld the startling evidence that He is the Christ, the Son of God. Perhaps many of them were among the converts on the day of Pentecost. But what about the sisters? We hear nothing in the record about them at this occasion. Well can we imagine how both of them must have fallen at His feet in adoration and worship, while afterward they embraced the beloved brother. But His enemies, under satanic blindness, went to the then plotting Pharisees to give a report of what had taken place. We add some remarks on this great miracle from “Expository Thoughts on the Gospel of John.”
‘We should observe that we are not told of anything that Lazarus said about his state while in the grave, and nothing of his after history. ‘Tradition says that he lived for thirty years after, and was never known to smile; but this is probably a mere apocryphal invention. As to his silence, we can easily see there is a Divine wisdom about it. If St. Paul “could not utter” the things that he saw in the third heaven, and called them ‘unspeakable things’; it is not~strange that Lazarus should say nothing of what he saw in Paradise (2 Cor. xii:4). But there may be always seen in Scripture a striking silence about the feelings of men and women who have been the subjects of remarkable Divine interposition. God’s ways are not man’s ways. Man loves sensation and excitement, and likes to make God’s work on his fellow-creatures a gazing-stock and a show, to their great damage. God almost always seems to withdraw them from the public, both for their own good and His glory.
“We should observe that we are told nothing of the feelings of Martha and Mary, after they saw their brother raised to life. The veil is drawn over their joy, though it was not over their sorrow. Affliction is a more profitable study than rejoicing.
“We should observe lastly that the raising of Lazarus is one of the most signal instances in the Gospels of Christ’s Divine power. To Him who could work such a miracle nothing is impossible. He can raise from the death of sin any dead soul, however far gone and corrupt. He will raise us from the grave at His own second appearing. ‘The voice which called Lazarus from the tomb is almighty. “The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of Man, and they that hear shall live’ (John v:25).”
Before we follow the last portion of this great chapter a few statements as to the objections and inventions of infidelity might be in order. We mention first the worst form of infidelity, which goes by the name of “modern Biblical scholarship,” the camouflaged title of that system which is in the fullest sense of the word “‘destructive,” for it destroys everything in the line of true faith. To show what this miserable criticism teaches we quote first from an article on Lazarus in the Standard Bible Dictionary, written by Professor Samuel Dickey of the McCormick Theological Seminary (Presbyterian), of Chicago, Ills. He says the following:
“The problem is inseparably connected with the larger one of the authorship and historicity of the fourth Gospel. Those who believe this Gospel to be purely allegorical fiction(!) take the story of Lazarus to be a free composition out of elements drawn from the Synoptic Gospels
It is more usual, however, today to admit that there are many trustworthy data underlying the accounts of the fourth Gospel, and that it is not to be considered, therefore, simply a religious and dogmatic allegory. In that case the story of Lazarus may contain trustworthy elements, even though it may be difficult to determine just how much is due to modification and interpretation of the fact in the mind of the Evangelist. Obviously it is very difficult to explain the absolute silence of the Synoptic Gospels regarding Lazarus, containing reference as they do to the two sisters and an anointing in Bethany, even though we freely admit the partial character of the sources of these Gospels. Such an event with such consequences as are described in the fourth Gospel could hardly escape notice. There are also certain details in the narrative which, as they stand at least, strike us incongruous. Yet, on the other hand, it is perhaps more difficult, once the hypothesis of pure allegory is abandoned, to psychologically explain the story’s composition as an ideal construction by the Evangelist to illustrate his views of Christ as “‘the resurrection and the life.” It is too stupendous for any personal follower of Jesus, at least, to have simply invented it. Some historical foundation is required, and the underlying facts, whatever they are, may therefore belong to that body of trustworthy information regarding a ministry of Jesus in Judea which appears to have been known to the author of the fourth Gospel alone. Assuming this to be true, and that our philosophical attitude to the miraculous does not preclude its possibility, the resurrection of Lazarus may have occurred, and the worcs, “I am the resurrection and the life” have had, therefore, more than a spiritual significance.”
We have put certain words in this article in italics. Here is a Critic who tries to make it appear that he is orthodox. He is one of those who occupy the convenient place on the fence. But when he writes of the possibility that ‘“‘the resurrection of Lazarus may have occurred” he shows that he has no faith in inspiration. It is the language of doubt and uncertainty. A believer in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures does not use such language.
Zz THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
We quote next from one who is more outspoken, who does not grant the possibility that the resurrection of Lazarus may have occurred. Before us is the large volume of ‘““The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, by Dr. Benjamin W. Bacon Buckingham, Professor on New ‘Testament Criticism in Yale University.”
We quote from pages 348 and 349 the following:
“The Christian world instinctively and rightly turns to Jesus’ tender expostulations with Martha’s tears, and with the timid suggestion of both sisters that a miracle should be wrought to alleviate their individual sorrow, these are among the loftiest and purest expressions of Christian faith in face of * “bereavement. But we do injustice to this Cospel when we try to force it to our demand for the ‘historical.’ It is not historical, but ‘spiritual.’ The story of the Raising of Lazarus, absolutely excluded as it is by Synoptic tradition, should suffice of itself alone to settle this point once for all.”
Here we have it. The story of Lazarus’s resurrection is not historical. All that is written in the eleventh chapter of John’s Gospel never occurred. It is an invention of the author of the fourth Gospel, whoever he may be. ‘This view is now taught in many of the leading theological seminaries, like Union, Chicago, Boston, etc. It is infidelity pure and simple. The critical statements of these “‘scholars’”’ do not reveal “maturity” but “blindness.” If they had just a little bit of the knowledge which every child of God possesses, the knowledge imparted not by human intelligence, but by the Spirit of God, they would not write such foolishness. If the Synoptics did not mention the resurrection of Lazarus it was thus ordered by the divine Author of their documents, the Holy Spirit. He reserved the record of this miracle for the pen of the Apostle John, into whose Gospel it properly belongs.
The infidel-critical view then is this. The story was created by the writer of the Gospel for the purpose of illustrating the truth that Christ is the resurrection and the life, and that it was perhaps developed by him out of some conversation of Jesus, or perhaps out of the story of Lazarus and the rich man, possibly out of some incident in the life of Lazarus. They even suggest that Nain is an abbreviation of
Bethany, and that the narratives of the resurrection of Lazarus and the widow’s son have a common origin, etc. The denials of Destructive Criticism may be reduced to these three propositions: (1) John did not write this account at all. (2) The author of the Gospel of John invented the story, building it on a very slight foundation. (3) That it may be truth that Lazarus had been sick, but that the whole story was a fraud perpetrated by Lazarus and the sisters. Such is the infidelity in the camp of Christendom today. It deserves the most scathing denunciation and every true Christian should turn from it with abhorrence. The French infidel Renan held the same view as some of the Critics hold, perhaps they stole it from him. Renan declared that the death of Lazarus was only apparent; that the supposed resurrection was a fraud contrived by the friends of Jesus in order to give eclat to His anticipated entrance into Jerusalem, and that to this fraud He lent himself, in 2 moment of intense fanatical enthusiasm.
All these French, German and Theological Seminary infidels try to dispose of the reality of this miracle. We quote a simple, yet masterly answer to all their objections. The author of this defense we shall name after the quotation.
“The only alternative is belief in the miracle. The evidence of John’s authorship of the fourth Gospel refutes the hypothesis that John did not write the account. 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 the 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 sisters’ 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 taken away, commanded in a loud voice, ‘Lazarus come forth,’ and he came fourth 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 dogmatic 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 that time — that it was a genuine resurrection from the dead, a great and notable miracle.”
The author of this fine piece of logic in answer to the destructive infidels is Dr. Lyman Abbot, late editor of the ““Outlook.” It is quoted from page 148 of his commentary on the Gospel of John, published in New York City fifty years ago. Yet this faith he once held was abandoned by him and for years he has destroyed what he once believed.
We conclude by saying that the great miracle, unimpeachable as to its historicity, is the supreme evidence of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Infidels of every description have acknowledged that such must be the case if the miracle is true. ‘The Jewish philosopher Spinoza, with his pantheistic theory, declared “Could I be persuaded of the truth of the raising of Lazarus, I would have broken into pieces my whole system, and would have embraced without repugnance the ordinary faith of Christians.”
Verses 47-57. The great miracle had taken place. The self-witness of our Lord had been crowned by this manifestation of His omnipotence. Many Jews had been witnesses; none of them could deny it. The Sandedrim, the great council, composed of chief priests, great teachers, elders and rulers, is called together. The great question which was raised, is the question, What shall we do about it? Then follows a most startling admission. ‘This man doeth many miracles.” His foes bore united testimony to the fact
oe that He performed many miracles. The miracles He had done as recorded in this Gospel are all coupled with His claims of Messiahship and Deity. His repeated assertions of Oneness with God, who sent Him, were attested by these miracles. If these miracles had not been incontrovertible, if even the slightest uncertainty had been possible, these national leaders of Judaism would never have made such an admission. They did not even submit the question about His miracles. They were indisputable. Yet today the modern Sadducees in their councils, the faculties of seminaries, the boasters of “modern Biblical Scholarship,”’ deny the miracles of Christ, 1900 years after they had been done, when the eye-witnesses declared that He worked many miracles. If these Pharisees and chief priests who saw Christ, saw His miracles, and who left no stone unturned to oppose Him, never dared to even dispute the genuineness of these miracles, it is ridiculously absurd, to deny His miracles now. Great was the satanic blindness of these Jews; greater still and many times worse is the infidelity of the destructive critics in the camp of Christendom.
What shall we do about it? That is their question. If we let Him alone, everybody is going to believe on Him, acknowledge Him as the sent One, the promised Messiah, King-Messiah. Then follows an argument produced by the ignorance of unbelief. Selfishly they feared for their national institution. The Romans, if He should be believed on as the promised King, will take away our place (the temple) and destroy our national existence. They thought that His rejection would insure safety for them; that His acceptance would lead to disaster. But the disaster they feared came upon the temple, Jerusalem and the nation because they condemned Him to death. The cry “His blood be upon us and upon our children” has found its dreadful accomplishment in their history of nineteen hundred years.
One of their number speaks. It is Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. He and his father-a-law, Annas, were Sadducees (Acts v:17). It seems that the Sadducees must have controlled the great council at that time. Caiaphas and Annas both held the office of high driest (Luke iii:2) during the ministry of our Lord and after. That they were in power in the Sanhedrim seems to be confirmed by the sneer of Caiaphas against the statement made by the Pharisees — “Ye know nothing at all, you are ignorant about this whole question,” and he continues “nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” He suggests that He be put out of the way for expediency’s sake. “It is expedient for us,” what a statement this is!) Whether He is innocent or not, whether He is our Messiah or not, whether He is God manifested in the flesh or not, for the benefit of the whole nation, but one course is open, He must die. The question of right and law is not in view at all. God was not in their thoughts. He spoke as a clever politician, like the politicians of the world to this day, it was not the question of right with him, but the question of profit.
But there is another side. While Caiaphas acted in wickedness, God nevertheless used him as a mouthpiece to utter a great truth. He used him as an instrument, the same as Balaam, who hated Israel, was used to pronounce Israel’s blessedness. He spoke through Caiaphas whose official standing as high priest gave his words official weight and authority. However, Caiaphas was not aware that he was made the mouthpiece of the Spirit of God and that his words were prophetical. He had said in all satanic maliciousness that it would be a very good thing, an expedient thing, that this one man should die for the people, that the whole nation perish not. The truth was that “Jesus should die for that nation”; so that the nation might ultimately be saved by the sacrificial death of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the Spirit of God had spoken long ago. “For the transgression of My people was He stricken” (Isaiah lili). Being miraculously compelled by the Holy Spirit, Caiaphas spoke the same Isaiah had written over seven hundred years before. And He died for that nation. The day will come when the remnant of Israel will be saved because He died for them. Then they will confess Him in the very words of Isaiah’s great vision. “Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows, yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our
?
v
i
y
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN ay
peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed” (Isaiah liii:4 — S).
And adds the Spirit of God “Not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.” It is written in Ephesians “He loved the church and gave Himself for it.” This fact is brought out here in anticipation of the calling of the elect from all nations, the other sheep, to form the Church, His body.
The advice of Caiaphas must have made a deep impression on the majority of the council. If Nicodemus was there, as he probably was, for he belonged to the Sanhedrim, his, and perhaps the objections of others, were speedily silenced. From that day forth they took counsel together for to put Him to death. To accomplish this needed great caution; with all their wicked endeavors they were great cowards, governed in every detail by self-interest. How many council meetings they held is not reported.
And our omniscient Lord knew all about it. He was not present when Caiaphas advocated His death. He needed not the information of what had taken place to reach Him through friends. He knew their thoughts; He heard their words and therefore He walked no more openly among the Jews. He knew what would follow; He knew when His hour would come, but now He withdrew to a village called Ephraim. There He tarried. Nothing is said of His activity there; no record is given of what He spake and did in Ephraim. From this we may conclude that He spent the time there in fellowship with His Father and in communing with His disciples.
It was now Passover time; the Jews’ feast drew near. Large numbers were traveling towards Jerusalem to attend the feast in the holy city. It seems that many of these Jewish worshippers looked for the Lord Jesus. His name was widely known; His great miracles were known to the multitudes. There was a great expectation among them that He would appear at the feast in Jerusalem and manifest still greater glory. So they gathered in groups in the yard of the temple eagerly asking the question, What think ye, that He will not come to the feast?
It seems the plotting enemies of our Lord had reached a definite decision. They knew He had disappeared. No one knew where He lodged. So they had issued orders that if any man knew where He was, to report His hiding place at once, so that they might apprehend Him and carry out their dark counsels. But the Christ was not in their hands. Before He laid down His life voluntarily, before His hour came, He must be presented to Jerusalem as King openly.