Death Interrupted: Third Essay on John 11

If we think about the flow of this passage for a while, we are astonished that, up until now, there has been little raw emotion expressed. Jesus speaks generally about the glory of God; the disciples (in the person of Thomas) wonder about whether they will also be facing death; Martha expresses her belief that Jesus presence would have led to differnet results for her brother Lazarus. There was theological discussion about who Jesus was. But now, in this scene, Jesus deals with Mary and the emotions of loss.

The languages is unmistakable. When Mary hears that Jesus is present, she speedily (tachu) arises and comes to Jesus. Jesus has still not made it into the village, but Mary just had to go out to meet him. The Jews, a sort of gathering of unidentified but interested people, follow along, thinking she is going out to the tomb of her brother.

The urgency of her movement is matched by the urgency of her words when she finally finds Jesus. The language is powerful. Upon seeing him, she fell at his feet and then spoke. Falling at Jesus' feet is a sign of respect, no doubt, but also an indication of her desperation and need. She is in an abject position of powerlessness, a humiliating position, a position of extreme need. In this position she says nearly the same words as her sister Martha about 10 verses previously:

"Lord, if you had been here, my brother [the Greek text doesn't have the word 'my'] would not have died," (v. 32; compare v. 21).

Jesus' reaction is quite different than when he responded to these nearly identical words of Martha. The text says that when Jesus saw her and the Jews weeping:

"he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved," (v. 33).

This isn't a good translation. As Dr. Ramsey Michaels points out, the words are better translated:

"he became angry in his spirit and shook himself."

That is, Jesus has a deeply emotional reaction to their terrible loss. What was he angry about? What does it mean that he shook? Sometimes when we receive bad news, or when the weight of that news collapses on us, we shake because it seems as if all the forces of the universe are arrayed against us. We shudder because it is as if the news is penetrating into our core and we are trying to bring it in and assimilate its message to our heart. Is Jesus' anger because he delayed in coming? That is, is he angry at himself? Is he angry because this marks another victory for the powers of death over life? The point is not to be missed--that Jesus was highly agitated when he saw the reaction of all the people to the death of Lazarus. He no longer could keep things at a comfortable theological distance--which he could do with Martha. Now he was himself confronting the death of a friend he loved, and he didn't like the situation at all.

The conversation that follows is brief. He gets right to the point, not giving any indication of his tendency to enigmatic statements. "Where have they laid him?" (v. 34). This will be echoed with the plaintive comment of the women who come to the tomb of Jesus after his death, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him" (20:13). Her response was identical to the response of the earliest disciples who wanted to introduce Jesus to others, "Come and see" (v. 34; cf. 1:46). Jesus wept. That is all we know of his immediate reaction to seeing the place where they laid Lazarus.

But even here we have two reactions from the Jews to Jesus' tears and, indeed, when a public figure weeps, people can be forgiven for interpreting the tears in more than one way. That is, when a public person reacts with a display of any emotion, the first thing that onlookers should ask is whether the emotion was contrived. This may seem to be a cynical reaction to emotion, but anyone who has lived a while realizes that public figures are always "on display." Pastors know that this is true about their lives, to a great extent. Thus, that the Jews construed Jesus' tears in two ways not only is expected, but the "negative" reading of his emotion can't simply be dismissed as a sign of lack of faith. Emotion displayed by public persons invites interpretation.

The two reactions? (1) "See how he (Jesus) loved him," and (2) "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have keep this man from dying?" I understand both reactions, but even the skeptics were probably not ready for what then happened.

V. Lazarus! Come Forth (11:38-45)

Finally we arrive at the drama to which this story had long been pointing. Again, we learn that Jesus was angered (the NRSV just says he was "greatly disturbed"--v. 38). A nice editorial touch is added in the second half of v. 38 to describe the tomb; "It was a cave and a stone was lying against it." But now Jesus' anger is going to drive the rest of the narrative. Sometimes we feel anger but aren't sure how to express it, how to give it a proper "life." Jesus had been nurturing his anger for five verses, and now he acts. He won't let the objections of onlookers, who object to the smell (v. 39), stop him now. All that is on his mind now is the manifestation of the glory of God (v. 40). The prayer of Jesus, though seemingly for the crowd that is present, is really for us, the reader. The Gospel writer wants us to believe (cf. 20:31), and so he has Jesus say these precise words.

The rest of the scene follows quickly. Jesus calls to Lazarus to come ouside. The text then says, "He who had been dead, with hands and feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face wrapped in a cloth, came forth." The reaction to this miracle was also twofold. You wonder sometimes how anyone could have found fault with this action, but when people want to oppose someone, not even the action of raising a person from the dead will keep them from their task. Many believed, but many used this event as a reason for going to the Pharisees to "report" Jesus. After all, when someone displays this kind of power, it definitely threatens the powers that be. They simply cannot endure it, and they will have to try to eliminate it.

Conclusion

I conclude with some words from Dr. Ramsey Michaels' (my teacher) comment on this passage:

"In itself, the raising of Lazrus is not qualitatively different from Jesus' other miracles of healing A resuscitation is a kind of 'super-healing,' and the other two instances in the synoptic Gospels in which Jesus raised the dead (i.e., Mark 5:35-43; Luke 7:11-17) are not singled out from his healings for special attention. It is only as a sign that the raising of Lazarus stands supreme among Jesus' miracles. But because John's Gospel is interested in Jesus' miracles precisely as signs of his glory..this miracle serves the narrator as the fitting conclusion and capstone to the series of signs that comprise Jesus' public ministry," John, p. 190.

Indeed, after reading this passage, we can agree with the author:

"We have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth," (1:14).

3352