205 The Resuscitation of Lazarus. ―This, the third and most notable case of Christ’s raising the dead, has always excited sharp criticism by sceptics. Spinoza is said to have declared that if he could be satisfied that the miracle was actually performed he would become a Christian. But, of course, such an intellectual creed, several times spoken of in this Gospel, has never permanently profited anyone. At the present day the main objection taken to the incident is that John alone records it, which circumstance is considered to invest the story with suspicion, because it is alleged an incident represented to have brought about the death of the Lord (see note on verse 53) must have been known to one or other of the Synoptists if it really took place. So Cassels, Abbott. Burkitt, etc., after Strauss, Keim, and their Continental followers. It affords prominent illustration of a favorite “critical” canon―that if a biblical historian knows of an event he is bound to record it. The author of “Supernatural Religion” goes so far as to say that “each of the Synoptic Gospels professes to be complete in itself”—a principle that can only yield an absurd result. Not even does the preface of Luke lend itself to such an idea. That Evangelist’s “all” is said of his resources, not of the things in which Theophilus had been instructed, for the accuracy of which Luke is prepared to vouch.
If there were any sound basis in the principle, it would, of course, apply all round. Matt. 27:5252And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, (Matthew 27:52), for example, would fall under it; there alone are we told of the dead saints who left their graves and appeared in Jerusalem after the Lord’s own resurrection. In respect of the present Gospel we should have to assume that, in the face of Synoptic declarations to the contrary, John himself knew nothing of the raising of Jairus’s daughter, of the Transfiguration, of the agony in Gethsemane, or the forsaking on the Cross, all recorded by Mark, who was a witness of none of these! Two of such incidents are indirectly attested by John (see notes 20 above, and that on 12:27); and other such incidents as the Temptation (Matthew, Luke) some (as Reynolds) believe have parallels in his Gospel (chapters 1-4).
Keim treated the resuscitation of Lazarus as a fiction; O. Holtzmann (“Life of Jesus,” p. 275), followed by Burkitt, cannot fit it into the framework of Mark’s, conceived to be the fundamentally historic, narrative. Schmiedel (col. 2,521), as Abbott in the same work (col. 1,805), after Bruno Bauer and Schenkel, regards it as a development of the parable of Lazarus in Luke 16:19-3119There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: 20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. 27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. (Luke 16:19‑31); and so Wernle (“Sources,” pp. 42 f.). As to all this, see note 5 in the volume on Mark, and cf. Turton, p. 413. Remark will be made below on individual features of the narrative, to show how worthless are such insinuations against its credibility. See, further, Weiss, “Life of Christ,” Bk. vi., § 6, or Westcott, “Study of the Gospels,” p. 164, who says: “It did not fall in with the common plan of the Synoptists, which excluded all working at Jerusalem until the final entry.”
206 Verse 2.―The Evangelist assumes that an incident is already known from the earlier accounts which he will himself describe later (12:2). Cf. Luke’s manner of writing in 4:23, 31 of his Gospel.
207 Verse 15. ― “Let us go unto him.” These words negative the idea of Swedenborgians and spiritualists that the disembodied is the final state of man, as if after death the body is no more resumed.
208 Verse 16.― “That we may die with him.” As in the first edition, “him” has been printed with small initial letter, because of the uncertainty which attaches to its exact meaning. Zahn, as did Grotius, takes it of Lazarus; most commentators, however, understand JESUS. See verse 9 f.
209 Verse 18.― “Was.” For the imperfect tense here, instead of the present, as in 5:2, Lightfoot compares Luke 4:2929And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. (Luke 4:29) (“Biblical Essays,” p. 175). See also Blass in Expository Times, July, 1907.
211 Verse 27.― “That should come into the world.” See note on 1:9.
212 Verse 33.― “Where have ye laid Him?” If the Lord had not asked this question, would not unbelievers have said that He was only acting a part, or that there was collusion? As to the Lord being “moved in spirit,” see Maclaren, 2:99.
212a Verse 35.― “Jesus wept” ―i.e., shed tears simply, not “sobbed,” as the word means which is used in verses 31, 33. The word employed in the present verse appears here only in the New Testament. For other occasions of the Lord’s weeping, see Luke 19:4141And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, (Luke 19:41); Matt. 26:3939And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. (Matthew 26:39). Chrysostom remarks that this Evangelist emphasizes His affections whilst making higher statements as to His nature than the other Evangelists.
Cassels has described our Lord’s tears here as “the theatrical adjuncts of a dramatic scene” (“Supernatural Religion,” p. 461). Such writers have not profited by the lesson of Mark 9:13, 1613But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him. (Mark 9:13)
16And he asked the scribes, What question ye with them? (Mark 9:16) and parallels. The propriety of those tears has been questioned because of the early removal of the cause of sorrow. But surely, as Christ thought of the vast area of misery brought in by Satan with sin, the sorrow shown here was natural and becoming. Indeed, had the Lord not wept, would not sceptics have suggested that it was not a representation of any true humanity?
213 Verse 38.― “A cave” ―that is, a rock-hewn tomb (Schor, “Palestine and the Bible,” p. 34), as shown at the Palestine Exhibitions.
214 “Take away the stone.” Had the Lord removed it miraculously, objectors would have insinuated that it evinced fraud; that Lazarus had done it from inside.
214a Verse 39.― “The sister of the deceased.” Does not the Evangelist say this in order to remove the least shred of suspicion of imposture?
215 Verse 41 f.―Cassels “Evidently artificial.” But although the prayer by Christ is mentioned in previous cases of resurrection, the fourth Gospel aims at exhibiting Him as the SON submissive in all things to the Father’s will, not an independent Deity. Hence its propriety, which, of course, only a believer can appreciate.
215a Verse 43 f.― “Lazarus... the dead.” The dead is strictly applicable to the body, and so that attaches to man risen. Resurrection, therefore, is not, as some represent, emancipation of the soul from the body at death. But that notion, doubtless, is widely prevalent.
215b Verse 46.―Origen’s view that the information was conveyed to the Pharisees with a friendly intention is, as Carr says, unlikely.
216 Verse 47 f. ―Bengal: “Death more easily yields to Christ’s power than unbelief” (cf. note 219). Observe that “many” miracles are spoken of.
217 Verses 49, 51.― “Being high priest of that year.” Instead of election for life, the office was held at the whim of the Romans, according to Josephus, “Antiq.,” 18:2. Eleazar and Simon (appointed in succession by Valerius Gratus, after the deposition of Annas) each held the office for only one year. The Evangelist, neither here nor in 18:12, uses the article before “high priest.” It is, perhaps, another illustration of his “irony” (Salmon).
217a The decision as to the death of JESUS must rest with the high priest for the time being (Weiss).
217b “One of them.” This may indicate that Caiaphas was not acting as president of the Sanhedrin (Godet). The brusqueness here of this Sadducean illustrates what Josephus tells of his party (Bell. Jud., 2:8, 14). Here it was a case of “Sadducee versus Pharisee.”
218 Verse. 50.― “For the nation.” This is clearly substitutionary, not “in behalf of”; ὐπὲρ, “instead of.” Our Lord died as Saviour or Redeemer of Israel (Isa. 45., 49.), as well as of the Church. “For the transgression of My people was He stricken.” Not that He was made a curse for Israel alone, as Kaftan supposes (“Dogmatics,” pp. 461 f.). See Gal. 3:1313Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3:13), and cf. Orr, p. 73.
219 Verse 53. Cf. note 216. Use has been made of this verse for the supposition that it is to the raising of Lazarus we must attribute the Crucifixion, so as to heighten any difficulty about the silence of the other Evangelists. The Lord’s death, however, had been determined on long before (see 7:1, 25 f., 44; again in 8:39, and 10:31, 11:8, 16). This incident did not bring matters to a crisis and lead the rulers to give definite shape to their plans, because the characteristic tenet of the high-priestly family had been shaken to its foundations, so as to discredit them to the utmost.
220 Verse 54.―This place is identified with the modern El-Taiyibeh, about twenty miles from Jerusalem, on the road from Jericho north-westwards. It was from here, probably, that the Lord went to Jericho, and thence to Bethany (12:1; cf. Mark 10:4646And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimeus, the son of Timeus, sat by the highway side begging. (Mark 10:46); Luke 18:31, 3531Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. (Luke 18:31)
35And it came to pass, that as he was come nigh unto Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way side begging: (Luke 18:35)).