Fifth
Sunday in Lent
John 11:1- 45
Exegetical Notes by Brian
Stoffregen
5 Lent A: John 11:1-45 exegetical notes
NOTE: In older Lutheran Lectionary, the lesson continued through v.
53 -- which includes an ironic twist to this event. The act of raising
the dead to life, will lead to Jesus' death. By returning to Judea to
give life to another, Jesus will give up his own life as the chief
priests and the Pharisees decide to put him to death in order to
protect the whole nation from being destroyed by the Romans. At the
time John was written, the readers knew that such fears were well
founded; the Romans had come in and destroyed the temple in 70 AD,
although not because of the insurrection of Jesus or his followers.
Especially as we look at this text on the Fifth Sunday in Lent, its
connection with Jesus crucifixion should be noted. Jesus' great power
for giving life only raises the anger and power of those who want to
take life.
"John's Gospel begins with a wedding and closes with a funeral." These
are part of the opening comments on these verses by Malina and
Rohrbaugh (_Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John_). I don't
know what significance it has to understanding our passage, but
thought it was a nice tid-bit to share.
As usual in John, this miracle has both a more literal meaning -- the
raising of Lazarus from death -- and a more symbolic meaning -- the
giving of life to all people whom Jesus loves. There is physical death
and life illustrated by Lazarus. There is spiritual death as
separation from God and spiritual life as connection with God. Both
are part of John's message in this text. [A similar double meaning was
part of last week's story about the healing of a blind man -- there is
both physical and spiritual blindness.]
My comments are set within the outline suggested by Brown (_John_,
Anchor Bible).
SETTING (1-6)
The name Lazarus (= God helps) is also used by Luke in a parable in
ch. 16. Are there connections between the two? Probably not.
Mary & Martha are found in Luke 10 with no connection to Lazarus.
John
tells us before the event about Mary anointing Jesus with ointment,
but that won't happen until the next chapter (John 12:3). It is quite
possible that Mary and Martha, as single women, were dependent upon
Lazarus. His death would be more than just the loss of a brother, but
of their means of living (Malina & Rohrbaugh, p. 195).
Often in John _phileo_ is synonymous with _agapao_. In v. 3 Lazarus is
described as "the one whom Jesus loves" (_phileo_). In v. 5 it says
that Jesus was loving (_agapao_ -- imperfect tense) Martha, her
sister, and Lazarus.
On one level, the text talks about these three people whom Jesus
loves. On another level, it is about all disciples whom Jesus loves.
Lazarus may represent the believers who die before Christ returns.
What happens to them? That was a question in the early church (1 Thess
4:13ff.).
V. 4 is filled with irony. "This sickness is not leading to death,"
Jesus says, but Lazarus' sickness does result in death. Does this mean
that Jesus was lying? One way to respond to this is that John defines
life as being connected to God and death as disconnection. Although
Lazarus had physically died, that death did not disconnect him from
God.
Another irony is the fact that Lazarus' sickness (and resurrection)
will lead to Jesus' death -- but again, at least in John, Jesus' death
did not disconnect him from God.
"This sickness ... [is] for the glory of God; so that the Son of God
might be glorified by it." First question: What does the last word
"it" refer to? Is it the sickness that glorifies the Son of God; or is
it "the glory of God" that glorifies the Son? Both "sickness"
(_astheneia_) and "glory" (_doxa_) are feminine nouns; to which the
"it" could refer. If we assume the general rule that a pronoun refers
to the closest related noun; then "it" is "the glory". Thus, Jesus is
not glorified by sickness and death. Jesus is glorified by God's
glory.
A more important question is "By what deed is the Son of Man
glorified?" On one level, Jesus is glorified by the resurrection of
Lazarus. On another level, the hour of Jesus' glory is his suffering
and death (12:23; 13:31; 17:1). Lazarus' sickness (and resurrection)
is for the glory of God not just because of itself, but because it
will ultimately lead to Jesus' death for the sake of all people.
This may explain the very strange act of Jesus of remaining where he
was for two more days. As Bultmann (_The Gospel of John_, p. 398)
says, "The work of Jesus has its own hour." By choosing his time to
return, Jesus is choosing the time of his death. (In a similar way, in
last week's text, Jesus purposely healed the blind man on the Sabbath.
I doubt that waiting one more day for the miracle wouldn't have made
any difference to the blind man.) There is a purpose for Jesus'
timing.
A theme I have presented in other notes, and one that Moloney (_John_,
Sacra Pagina) gives in this text: "The motivation for Jesus' decision
to go to Bethany is a response to God's designs, not to human need"
[p. 326].
How do we as clergy (or even as ministering lay people) learn to
discern "God's designs"? It is not healthy to try and take care of
every need within the congregation or the world, but how do we know
when and what is God's will amid all the needy people both in and out
of our congregations; our own needy family -- spouses, children,
parents; and our personal needs, e.g., personal devotions, exercise,
hobbies, etc.; and the needs of the members of our congregations and
people in our communities?
GOING TO JUDEA -- TO DIE (7-10, 16)
In these verses, there is no mention of helping Lazarus.
The Jews had tried to stone Jesus in 10:31.
The image of the day (similar to 9:4-5) seems to indicate that the
time of Jesus' work is limited.
Thomas' comment in v. 16 has an ironic twist to it. On one level, he
is talking about possibly being stoned with Jesus if they go back. On
another level, we are called to die with Jesus through baptism (Ro
6:8); and to deny ourselves, and seek not to save our lives (Mk
8:34-35).
GOING TO JUDEA -- TO HELP LAZARUS (11-15)
Confusion about the meaning of words: "sleep"/"death". Jesus means one
thing. The disciples understand it another way. NOTE that "he will be
all right" of v. 12 NRSV; is a translation of the word sozo usually
translated "to save" or "to heal".
In these verses, the purpose of the delay is "So that you might
believe." (It was "glory" in v. 4.) I'm inclined to think that this
entire passage is centered on the theme of faith rather than
resurrection or life. They come as results of faith. More about this
later.
ARRIVING AT BETHANY (17-19)
The four days: One day for the messenger to travel and tell Jesus'
about Lazarus' illness. Two days of waiting. One day for Jesus and the
disciples to travel to Lazarus. There was a tradition that one's soul
hovered near the body for three days. After that time, there was no
hope of resurrection.
The presence of many Jews (v. 19) will become witnesses to the miracle
and then believe in Jesus (v. 45), which scare the chief priests and
the Pharisees into the decision to kill Jesus in order to save the
nation (vv. 48-52).
Without embalming technology, bodies were buried on the day of death
and the mourning followed the burial.
MARTHA & JESUS (20-27)
It is not clear from v. 20 if Mary also hears what Martha has heard
about Jesus coming.
What tone of voice would Martha have uttered: "Lord, if you had been
here, my brother would not have died"? Is this a statement of faith
that Jesus could have done something? Recited like we usually do the
creeds in worship? Is it a complaint or a lament, which were part of
the language of faith in the OT? Was it spoken with anger? With
sorrow?
The Jews believed that God could give life to the dead (Dan 12:2; 2
Macc 7:9, 14). The second of their 18 benediction declares: "You, O
Lord, are mighty forever, for you give life to the dead."
Martha, as an example of faith, has all the right answers -- she knows
her Bible and Christological terms. She knows that God will answer
Jesus' prayers. She believes in the resurrection of the dead.
Apparently she had listened and remembered Jesus words about the
resurrection on the last day (Jo 6:39, 40, 44 54). She believes that
Jesus is the resurrection and the life. She believes that Jesus is the
Messiah/Christ, the Son of God, the One coming into the world.
The question raised earlier about the believers who had died before
Christ returned is answered in v. 25 -- they will live. I'm sure that
many of us have emphasized that passage when preaching at a funeral.
Perhaps the more important issue when preaching on the fifth Sunday of
Lent is in v. 26 -- what do we say to the people who are living and
believing now? How does "they will never die" fit into their lives?
They know that they will die. What is meant by this phrase? (See
similar phrases in 6:51, 58; 8:35, 51, 52; 10:28). One answer is to
define "death" as separation from God. Those who are now living and
believing (present tense participles) have established a relationship
with God that will never end. As Paul says, "[Physical] Death . . .
will not be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus
our Lord" (Ro 8:38-39).
Anyway, back to Martha's confession of faith -- none of us could do it
better. After this great profession of faith, what does Jesus do for
her? He does nothing. He doesn't even move from the spot where Martha
finds him (v. 30). Martha's confession of faith did nothing to move
Jesus. Martha goes and gets Mary by telling her a little lie: "The
Teacher is here and is calling for you" (v. 28).
MARY & JESUS (28-33)
While Martha's faith is centered on knowing, Mary's is much more
emotional. She moves "quickly". She begins by saying exactly the same
words as Martha: "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not
have died" (v. 32), but she is saying them while crying at Jesus'
feet. She says nothing else. She doesn't utter all the proper phrases
like Martha about the all-powerful Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God
or any belief about the resurrection of the dead. Mary just cries.
While Martha had depth in her confession, there was little emotion.
Mary has great emotion, but perhaps little depth in the knowledge her
faith. While it might appear that Mary's tears moved Jesus to raise
Lazarus, that isn't the case. Jesus had told his disciples before they
had arrived that he was coming to "wake up" "sleeping" Lazarus. He
went there with the intentions of raising Lazarus before either sister
came to him. Why not just go to the tomb and do the miracle? Why let
both sisters come to him? A dramatic pause in the story? Giving them a
chance to express their faith and concerns? Further evidence that
Lazarus was really dead?
V. 33 presents a translation problem: how should _embrimaomai_ be
understood? (It also occurs in v. 38.) Usually it is a term of anger.
(Its root _brimaomai_ was thought to sound like the sound of horses
snorting in anger.) It is always used of anger or indignation in the
LXX. If it means, "disturbed" as in the NRSV, the emotion implied is a
negative one. We might translate it with "he huffed."
Probably every parent of a teenage daughter knows what a "huff" is. It
can happen every time they are asked to do something they don't like.
It can happen when a pastor has just sat down to dinner with the
family and there's a phone call from a parishioner who needs help
right now. There may be a huff when the phone is hung up. They are
angry that another family meal is disrupted. They are angry, not at
the people who need their help, not at the chosen profession which
requires them to respond to such needs, but that the world is in such
a state that such emergencies happen. They are frustrated that their
own plans are all blown to pieces by the needs of other people, by the
requirements of their calling. Oh, to live in a perfect world where
there are no traumatic events; where there are no accidents. Another
disrupted family meal is an indication that we are not in control of
the world – or, often, even our own lives. Emergencies, crises, people
in need take control of our lives. We have times when we huff. If we
get into a huff at times, it's quite possible that Jesus had the same
feelings. We don't know exactly what Jesus was busy doing when he
hears that his friend Lazarus was sick. Whatever it was, it must have
been very important, because, even after hearing about Lazarus, he
stays where he was for two more days.
What would Jesus have been in a huff about? Perhaps the people's
inadequate faith (illustrated by Martha and Mary?). Perhaps coming
face to face with the powers of Satan represented by his friend's
death. However, given that we are told that Jesus has just seen "her
weeping and the Jews who came with her weeping," could his anger be at
the large crowd who would witness what he is about to do? Some in the
crowd will "get the picture" and have a proper faith in Jesus. Some
will misinterpret the miracle and have an improper faith in
Super-Jesus. Some will be "turned off" by the event and actively seek
to stop Jesus. These last two groups will make life miserable for
Jesus. (These same types of reactions make life miserable for
ministers, too.) If it had only been Jesus' disciples and Mary and
Martha who were to witness the miracle, would Jesus have been so
huffy? I think not.
PRELUDE TO THE MIRACLE (34-40)
John 11:35 has been a favorite memory verse for generations. In the
Greek New Testament, it is *not* the shortest verse in the Bible. It
contains three words and 16 letters. 1 Thess 5:16 has only two words
and 14 letters.
This is the only occurrence of _dakruo_ ("weep") in the NT. It is a
different word used of Mary or the Jews "weeping" (_klaio_). Does John
mean to imply that Jesus' crying was somehow different than the
weeping (wailing?) of the others?
The question from the crowd is provocative: "Could Jesus have kept
this man (or any person) from dying?" As far as I remember, there are
no instances where Jesus kept someone from dying -- not even himself.
There are other instances of Jesus (and his followers) raising up
those who had died, which created a temporary situation. They would
eventually die again. I think that the promise we proclaim is not that
Jesus can keep people from dying; but that Jesus will raise up the
dead and that (physical) death will never separate believers from God.
This may also imply that Jesus may not keep people from traumatic
events or suffering, but that he can pull them through such events to
a new life on the other side.
Martha's statement about the smell may indicate that her faith in
Jesus' ability to raise Lazarus was not so strong. She also reaffirms
the reality of death -- four days -- the hovering soul would have left
by now. Her lack of faith is pointed out by Jesus, "If you would
believe, you would see the glory of God." On one level, there is the
glory of God revealed in the resurrection of Lazarus. On another
level, one's faith sees the glory of God in the suffering, death, and
resurrection of Jesus; and, perhaps, also in the midst of our human
suffering and death.
THE MIRACLE (41-44)
Jesus' prayer doesn't ask for a miracle; but is one of thanksgiving to
God and meant to be overheard by those standing by. Perhaps like the
Great Thanksgiving in the Eucharist, while it offers thanks to God, it
is also a proclamation to those who overhear the prayer.
The purpose of the miracle is so that the people might believe that
God has sent Jesus (v. 42). As I said earlier, I think the main
concern of this text is faith. The content of faith from this verse is
that Jesus has been sent by God.
Jesus' shout (_kraugizo_) in v. 43 gives life. The same word is used
of the crowds shouting for Jesus' death (18:40; 19:6, 12, 15). (Its
only other instance in John is 12:13 where the Palm Sunday crowd
shouts their Hosannas.) It is in response to Jesus' word that Lazarus
finds life. (Could Lazarus have refused to come out?) It is also in
response to Jesus' word that Lazarus is freed from his restrictive
bindings, by other people. Not all of God's works take place
supernaturally. Sometimes they require work on our part.
_deuro_ -- "come" is used in the synoptics as a discipling word: Mt
19:21; Mk 10:21; Lu 18:22. (The related _deuto_ is used even more
often in Jesus' call "to follow" him.)
The dead are bound (_deo_ of Lazarus in v. 44 and of Jesus in 19:40)
in bandages. Jesus' act of releasing (_luo_) Lazarus results in Jesus
being physically bound (_deo_) at his arrest (18:12, 24). These same
two words (_deo_ & _luo_) are used in Mt 16:19 & 18:18 as the
authority given with the Keys of the Kingdom. Could resurrected
Lazarus symbolize the "loosed" (_luo_) and "forgiven" (_aphiemi_ --
used in the last line of v. 44 "*let* him go) sinners?
Two other pictures of faith in this text: The disciples -- they don't
understand what's going on. They misunderstand Jesus' words about
"sleeping". They are reluctant to go with Jesus, because they might
die. They are pessimistic and discouraging in this text. They are
still Jesus' disciples, but perhaps not the best models of faith.
Perhaps the most peculiar paradigm of faith is Lazarus. He is
dead in
the grave. Lazarus can do nothing for himself. All he can do is
receive the power of God to give him new life. A similar illustration
is given in the first lesson from Ezekiel 37. The call to faith is a
call to die, so that God's power might be manifested in giving us
life. Theologically, we died in baptism and we die in daily
repentance, and God raises us to new life. However, sometimes after
God has given us new life, we still want to keep ourselves wrapped up
and bound in our grave clothes -- signs of the old life. We can keep
ourselves bound up by holding onto those sins from which Jesus has
freed us and has forgiven us. When we may keep punishing ourselves for
our mistakes, we are, in a sense, placing ourselves above God. God
forgives us. So should we.
I wonder how life was different for Lazarus after his death and
resurrection event. Were his priorities the same afterwards as before?
Did he work less and spend more time with family and friends? Could we
imagine what his new life was like and then apply it to our own lives
as resurrected people through our baptismal births from above?
REFLECTIONS
O'Day (_John_, NIB) offers these "reflections" (with a lot of "big"
words).
... Jesus' "I am" statement of v. 25a, one of the christological
high points of the Gospel, loses much of its eschatological and
soteriological significance if the only time the church engages it
is at Easter or funerals. The church preaches about death and
resurrection at the time of death, but shies away from such topics
in the midst of life. Yet it is in the everyday rhythms of life that
the church most needs to talk about Jesus'' power as the
resurrection and the life, so that death can indeed lose its sting.
To proclaim the power of resurrection only at the time of death is
both to impoverish the proclamation and to weaken the power of its
witness in the face of death. There is thus a critical need to
include conversations about death and the theological significance
of Jesus as the resurrection and the life in the ongoing theological
reflection of the church, not just in its reflection about death.
In the moment of crisis, at the funeral of a loved one, the
immediate need is for pastoral care and reassurance about the power
of the resurrection. Indeed, funerals do provide gospel witness to
the power of God in Jesus. But a funeral is not the moment for
believers to reassess their lives in the light of the new
eschatological reality in which the incarnation enables the church
to live, because the power of grief and loss is so palpable. Why,
then, does the church so often save its most powerful proclamation
about death and resurrection for funerals?
Jesus' powerful announcement to Martha suggests that the church
needs to embrace Jesus as the resurrection and the life not only at
times of death, but also in the daily moments of human lives,
because these moments, too, whether one names them so or not, are
also lived in the face of death. John 11 asks the church to reflect
that Jesus is the resurrection and the life not just for the crisis
moment of death, but for all moments in life. Jesus as the
resurrection and the life is the decisive eschatological
announcement, because he announces that the world is now
definitively under Gods' care and power. ... [p. 695]
How much more fitting are her reflections after 9/11? the death of
soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq? the drowning of
thousands in the tsunami? How much harder is it to believe that the
"world is now definitively under God's care and power," as we are
killing and being killed by wars, terrorists, and natural disasters?
How shall we proclaim Jesus as the resurrection and the life to our
world today?
Brian Stoffregen
Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Ave., Yuma, AZ 85364
e-mail: brian.stoffregen@gmail.com