John
11:32-44 (NRSV)
32When Mary came where Jesus was and saw him, she knelt at his feet and said to him, ‘Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.’ 33When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved. 34He said, ‘Where have you laid him?’ They said to him, ‘Lord, come and see.’ 35Jesus began to weep. 36So the Jews said, ‘See how he loved him!’ 37But some of them said, ‘Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?’ 38 Then Jesus, again greatly disturbed, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. 39Jesus said, ‘Take away the stone.’ Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, ‘Lord, already there is a stench because he has been dead for four days.’ 40Jesus said to her, ‘Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?’ 41So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upwards and said, ‘Father, I thank you for having heard me. 42I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.’ 43When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come out!’ 44The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, ‘Unbind him, and let him go.’
32When Mary came where Jesus was and saw him, she knelt at his feet and said to him, ‘Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.’ 33When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved. 34He said, ‘Where have you laid him?’ They said to him, ‘Lord, come and see.’ 35Jesus began to weep. 36So the Jews said, ‘See how he loved him!’ 37But some of them said, ‘Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?’ 38 Then Jesus, again greatly disturbed, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. 39Jesus said, ‘Take away the stone.’ Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, ‘Lord, already there is a stench because he has been dead for four days.’ 40Jesus said to her, ‘Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?’ 41So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upwards and said, ‘Father, I thank you for having heard me. 42I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.’ 43When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come out!’ 44The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, ‘Unbind him, and let him go.’
The
readings this week are for All Saints Day celebrated next Sunday.
In this reading we have a lovely example of the humanity of our Lord. It is so important for me to stress that Jesus was fully human, for if he was not, then how could he really know what we all experience? Yes, he was the incarnation if God as well, but I do not believe that this means that he was not human in the same way as we are. The incarnation will always remain a mystery.
Jesus was heartbroken by the news of the death of his friend Lazarus – and he wept. It was especially sad as, while it is possible to argue that the others whom Jesus raised might merely have been in a coma or a very deep sleep, all Jews were of the view that, after four days, the spirit finally left the body, and a sign of this was that the body – very definitely – began to decay; in fact in the hot climate, by this time it would be so badly decayed that it would be hardly recognisable.
Jesus asked for the stone to be removed, and because of the decay, his request was initially challenged because of the stench that would result. But Jesus responded “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?”
Before going into any depth, Barclay suggests that there are certain things to take special note of:
Firstly, Jesus prayed. The power that flowed through him was not his; it was God’s. “Miracles” says Godet, “are just so many answered prayers.”
Secondly, Jesus sought only the glory of God. He did nothing to glorify himself.
Everything that Jesus did was due to the power of God and was designed for the glory of God. We are so different. Barclay comments: “So much that we do is attempted in our own power and designed for our own prestige. It may be that there would be more wonders in our life too, if we ceased to act by ourselves and for ourselves and set God in the central place.”
I must admit, that I found Barclay’s notes on this passage – that I used last time – a little disappointing, as he did not penetrate the text in the same way that he normally does. In a later reflection, he gets closer to the mark when he exhorts us to honestly face the difficulties.
(i) In the other Gospels there are accounts of people being raised e.g. Jairus’ daughter, the widow’s son at Nain. As I mentioned earlier, it is quite possible that these people were merely in a coma. Barclay explains that, at this time, it happened quite frequently that people were in fact buried alive because of the necessary haste to bury them, so Jesus could have been seen as saving them from this sort of death.
(ii) There is no mention at all of the raising of Lazarus in the other Gospel accounts.
(iii) John portrays the event of the raising of Lazarus as the final straw which caused the authorities to want to get rid of Jesus – where in the other Gospels, it was Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple.
There have been some attempts to address these issues:
(i) Renan sees the whole incident as a fraud arranged by Jesus and Martha, Mary and Lazarus. Barclay (rightly) dismisses this as needing to be mentioned just to be dismissed as incredible.
(ii) Perhaps Lazarus was in a coma, but the events in the narrative seem to dismiss this – the detail is simply too vivid.
(iii) The story could be an allegory.
I like the way Barclay deals with this. He agrees that there are difficulties and we might never really know exactly what happened. But something significant must have happened.
Perhaps the most important thing to stress here is the fact of our present experience of death and resurrection, for this is something that is real in the life of Christians. So Barclay comments:
“There may be problems with this story; we may never know what exactly happened at Bethany so many years ago: but we do know for certain that Jesus is still the Resurrection and the Life. That is what the story tells us – and that is what really happens …”
I had never thought that this passage was as controversial as it seems – probably because most of my ministry has been in schools where I have been a teacher of philosophy. So many scholars think it probably never happened and that this was just John revealing an important truth – a vital truth – but using a made up story to illustrate the point. Richardson calls this the ‘… last and most stupendous of St John’s seven signs …’ Richardson continues explaining that John’s purpose was ‘… to relate the Gospel story in such a way as to make the meaning of the life of Christ in history while at the same time he felt free to re-cast the whole synoptic tradition in the interest of his purpose …’So, Richardson concludes that it is not literally true but John is telling a story to explain a greater than literal truth.
In this reading we have a lovely example of the humanity of our Lord. It is so important for me to stress that Jesus was fully human, for if he was not, then how could he really know what we all experience? Yes, he was the incarnation if God as well, but I do not believe that this means that he was not human in the same way as we are. The incarnation will always remain a mystery.
Jesus was heartbroken by the news of the death of his friend Lazarus – and he wept. It was especially sad as, while it is possible to argue that the others whom Jesus raised might merely have been in a coma or a very deep sleep, all Jews were of the view that, after four days, the spirit finally left the body, and a sign of this was that the body – very definitely – began to decay; in fact in the hot climate, by this time it would be so badly decayed that it would be hardly recognisable.
Jesus asked for the stone to be removed, and because of the decay, his request was initially challenged because of the stench that would result. But Jesus responded “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?”
Before going into any depth, Barclay suggests that there are certain things to take special note of:
Firstly, Jesus prayed. The power that flowed through him was not his; it was God’s. “Miracles” says Godet, “are just so many answered prayers.”
Secondly, Jesus sought only the glory of God. He did nothing to glorify himself.
Everything that Jesus did was due to the power of God and was designed for the glory of God. We are so different. Barclay comments: “So much that we do is attempted in our own power and designed for our own prestige. It may be that there would be more wonders in our life too, if we ceased to act by ourselves and for ourselves and set God in the central place.”
I must admit, that I found Barclay’s notes on this passage – that I used last time – a little disappointing, as he did not penetrate the text in the same way that he normally does. In a later reflection, he gets closer to the mark when he exhorts us to honestly face the difficulties.
(i) In the other Gospels there are accounts of people being raised e.g. Jairus’ daughter, the widow’s son at Nain. As I mentioned earlier, it is quite possible that these people were merely in a coma. Barclay explains that, at this time, it happened quite frequently that people were in fact buried alive because of the necessary haste to bury them, so Jesus could have been seen as saving them from this sort of death.
(ii) There is no mention at all of the raising of Lazarus in the other Gospel accounts.
(iii) John portrays the event of the raising of Lazarus as the final straw which caused the authorities to want to get rid of Jesus – where in the other Gospels, it was Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple.
There have been some attempts to address these issues:
(i) Renan sees the whole incident as a fraud arranged by Jesus and Martha, Mary and Lazarus. Barclay (rightly) dismisses this as needing to be mentioned just to be dismissed as incredible.
(ii) Perhaps Lazarus was in a coma, but the events in the narrative seem to dismiss this – the detail is simply too vivid.
(iii) The story could be an allegory.
I like the way Barclay deals with this. He agrees that there are difficulties and we might never really know exactly what happened. But something significant must have happened.
Perhaps the most important thing to stress here is the fact of our present experience of death and resurrection, for this is something that is real in the life of Christians. So Barclay comments:
“There may be problems with this story; we may never know what exactly happened at Bethany so many years ago: but we do know for certain that Jesus is still the Resurrection and the Life. That is what the story tells us – and that is what really happens …”
I had never thought that this passage was as controversial as it seems – probably because most of my ministry has been in schools where I have been a teacher of philosophy. So many scholars think it probably never happened and that this was just John revealing an important truth – a vital truth – but using a made up story to illustrate the point. Richardson calls this the ‘… last and most stupendous of St John’s seven signs …’ Richardson continues explaining that John’s purpose was ‘… to relate the Gospel story in such a way as to make the meaning of the life of Christ in history while at the same time he felt free to re-cast the whole synoptic tradition in the interest of his purpose …’So, Richardson concludes that it is not literally true but John is telling a story to explain a greater than literal truth.
To modern ears – even to mine – this seems outrageous: how
can he feel free to (in effect) make something up, portray it as something that
actually happened, to make a theological point?
It is true that experience bears witness to the truth that
Jesus has conquered death and that spiritual existence is more real and
precious than mere physical existence. John Suggit explains that the experience
of Lazarus is a type of Christian disciples and what happened to him is the
experience of every Christian. Like Lazarus we are loved by the Lord, we are
called by name from death to life, like him, as sheep of the good shepherd, we
listen and obey and we are handed over into the Christian community when we
have found new life in Christ and most important, just as Lazarus was found at
dinner with Jesus and the disciples (12:2) so are we at the celebration of the
Eucharist. Suggit concludes:
“It is not difficult therefore to consider chapter 11 as
reflecting the experience of every Christian who has been raised to life by
Christ …”
But is it true that John was just writing a spiritual gospel
for those who were already in the faith? Suggit disagrees and adds:
“…John has narrated the story, which presumably he
accepted as a historical event, in a way which symbolically describes the
person and work of Jesus …”
John is stressing that they need to see the life of Jesus
and his earthly ministry and relate it to their own experience. Lazarus’ death
and rising is mirrored in our experience. Jesus is the giver
of life – real life – and this is much more than mere physical existence, not a
mere continuation of mortal life. True life can be found only by abiding in
Christ. This life is received by faith, when a person becomes a Christian. This
new life involves a death. To find life we must share in the death of Christ as
Thomas said earlier in chapter 11 (verse 16) “Let us too go with him that we
may die with him.”
We need to have died to our old selves and find new meaning
by being united with Christ.
This passage tells of something both dramatic and yet very
ordinary. It tells of a simple trust and faith friends have for each other.
Mary comes to Jesus with the simple words of conviction: “Lord, if you had been
here, my brother would not have died.” Jesus responds with the complete
identification of love for her and her brother and so spontaneously allows
himself to be moved to tears because he is vulnerable and is overwhelmed. He
wept; he did not just shed a polite tear – he literally wept. Those who are
allowed to witness the privilege of this profound intimacy comment: “See how he
loved him …” What they next say shows how they are voyeurs and not part of the
real moment. For me evidence this is evidence that the author of this Gospel
was John, the Apostle and the Beloved disciple; because John notices that Jesus
was “… greatly disturbed …”
Jesus said to Martha, ‘Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of
God?’ Allow me a moment to elaborate on this, which for me, is a most important
point. Karen Armstrong, in her The Case
for God makes an important point:
Why did Jesus set such store
by [belief]? The simple answer is that he did not. The word translated ‘faith’
in the New Testament is the Greek pistis
… which means ‘trust; loyalty; engagement; commitment’. Jesus was not asking
people to ‘believe’ in his divinity … he was asking people for commitment. He
wanted disciples who would engage with his mission, give all they had to the
poor, feed the hungry, refuse to be hampered by family ties, abandon their
pride, lay aside their self-importance and sense of entitlement … trust in the
God who was their father.
In Middle English bileven
meant to ‘prize; to value; to hold dear. It was related to the German belieben (to love). Armstrong continues:
So, ‘belief’ originally meant
‘loyalty to a person to whom one is bound in promise or duty.
Belief and faith became interchangeable. Belief only became
to be seen differently during the late 17th Century and the Enlightenment. Now it started to be used
as an intellectual assent to a particular proposition, teaching, opinion or
doctrine. Armstrong concludes:
It was used in this modern
sense first by philosophers and scientists, and the new usage did not become
common in religious contexts until the 19th Century.
It seems feasible then, that Jesus was saying to Martha –
and now to paraphrase – “Did I not tell you that if you remained loyal and
committed and trusted God, your Father, you would see his glory.”
John’s writing is so crucial for Christians. It forces us to
move away from being mere observers and challenges us to become engaged in a
dynamic, personal encounter with the narrative and from there to the living
Christ in our own lives. Suggit puts it this way:
… the purpose is to draw the
reader or hearer to be closely involved in the story which he unfolds … the
story is as much a reflection of the circumstances in which the gospels were
produced as a history of the events in Jesus’ life …
If this was not the case, all we would have would be the
so-called ‘facts’ about what happened, but we would be unaware of their real
significance. Jesus is not just a figure of past history, but the living Lord
of the Church. Suggit continues:
… the meaning is [also] not
fixed once for all but has continually to be discovered or rediscovered by the
reader or hearer, who needs to share at least some of the attitudes of the
evangelist.
This is what I believe!
Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment