By Alfred E. Garvie
Part XIV - XV
XIV. THE RAISING OF LAZARUS AND
ITS RESULT (John xi.).
(1) The raising of Lazarus from the
dead raises the problem of
miracle in a very acute form.
For the naturalistic
explanation of the acts of
healing as moral therapeutics it
must appear as an absolute
impossibility, and so the record
must be rejected as entirely
unhistorical. Whether a
rationalistic explanation as
restoration from a prolonged
trance bas any probability from
the standpoint of modern medical
science is a question the writer
claims no competence to decide.
(i)
This is not the only instance of
the raising of the dead by
Jesus. The case of the daughter
of Jairus is recorded by the
three Synoptists (Matt. ix.
18-26; Mark v. 35-43; Luke
viii. 49-56). The words of
Jesus, " She is not dead, but sleepetb," are interpreted in two
ways. "Either Jesus, confident
of His power to recall from
death, speaks of death as a
sleep from which He will awaken
(cf. John xi. 11), or He
declares that the girl is not
dead, but in a trance.
Wonderful insight, if the
latter is the case, takes the
place of wonderful power, if the
former. The words are ambiguous,
but the evangelists convey the
impression that they are
recording a restoration to life,
not a recovery from a trance"
(St. Luke, in Westminster New
Testament, p. 169). The case of
the widow's son of Nain is
recorded by Luke alone (vii.
11-17); and in this record
there is no ambiguity of
language. Although the
circumstances do not exclude the
possibility
of a trance, yet it would be a
marvellous coincidence that the
revival should take place at the
moment when Jesus spoke the
words of recall. The record in
no way suggests such an
explanation.
(ii) The case of Lazarus as
recorded in the Fourth Gospel is
held by many scholars tp be an.
attempt to outbid the
marvellousness of the case of
the widow's son of Nain,
inasmuch as Lazarus had lain in
the grave four days (John xi.
17, 39), and the widow's son was
being borne to it (Luke
vii. 12). Luke too is charged
with outbidding in the miracle
he records, the common Synoptic
record, as the daughter of
Jairus had just died (Mark v.
35). One may ask whether the
difference in point of time in
the first two cases would be as
significant for the evangelists
as it may appear for the modern
scholar who is casting about for
a naturalistic explanation. If
the reality of the death is
conceded is restoration any more marvellous after a lapse of a
number of hours than after the
lapse of an hour? Do we know
enough about the relation of
soul and body to be able to
declare confidently at what
moment an irrevocable
separation takes place? We
need not speculate, as do Weiss
and Beyschlag, regarding this
insoluble problem. (See Bruce's
The Miraculous Element in the
Gospels, p. 200.)
(iii) The case of Lazarus is
more difficult, and it is
impossible to escape the
impression that the evangelist
in verse 39 desires to magnify
the marvellousness of the
miracle. If normally the process
of putrefaction would have set
in in the interval, we must
suppose either an arrest or a
reversal of the process by the
miraculous power of Jesus. "
Beyschlag," according to Bruce,
"remarks that the ἤδη ὄζει of
Martha cannot have been intended
by the writer to exaggerate the
miracle by making it consist in
restoring life to an already
putrefying corpse. One bent on
magnifying the miracle would
have represented the interval
that had elapsed from death, not
as few days, but rather as four
years or centuries and would not
have put the ἤδη ὄζει in the form of
a mere inference, a mistaken
one, as the author thinks. Leben
Jesu, I., 300." "That may be
so," continues Bruce, " but it
is difficult to think of a body
out of which life has fled four
days as still having within it
'echoes of life' as if the soul
had not yet quite left it"
(ibid.). But does not the
evangelist quote Martha's words
expressly to indicate the
probability in the known
conditions that the process of
dissolution had begun? The
evangelist has increased our
difficulty by his manner of
telling the miracle, unless, as
Mr. Strachan suggests in the
March EXPOSITOR, we may here
suspect the editor's hand. The
writer desires to guard his own
mind against all credulity, and
with hesitation he accepts the
reality of the miracle on the
grounds that on the one hand he
cannot bring his mind to believe
that the evangelist was capable
of sheer invention when he seems
most desirous of conveying the
assurance of truth, and that, on
the other, he cannot fix the
limits of the possibility of the
miraculous action of the
supernatural person of the Word
become flesh, the Conqueror of
death as Risen Lord.
(2) It must be frankly conceded
that apart from the wider
problem of miracle, the
narrative in John xi. raises
many difficulties. It has been
urged as an objection to the
historicity of this event, that
the silence of the other Gospels
is inexplicable. "It is just
conceivable," says Dr. Moffatt,
" that the incident failed for
some reason to be included by
the synoptic gospels; their
silence would not by itself be
absolutely conclusive against
the historicity. The difficulty
is to give any adequate
psychological reason why so
stupendous and critical an
episode (witnessed ex hypothesi
by all the disciples) should
have failed to win a place in
the synoptic tradition, even
when that tradition is admitted
to be incomplete at certain
points, and this difficulty is
heightened by the obvious
motives of the writer, who makes
this miracle the pivot of the
final Jewish attack on Jesus,
instead of the purging of the
temple, which he transfers to
the beginning of the ministry."
(Introduction to the Literature
of the New Testament, p. 539.)
In spite of the concession at
the beginning, this passage,
sets forth clearly the
difficulty the silence of the Synoptists involves, and so
deserves close scrutiny.
(i)
The incompleteness of the
Synoptic tradition needs to be
asserted more unreservedly.
If the record in the Fourth
Gospel of a J Judean ministry
prior to the Galilean, and
renewed from time to time in
visits at the great feasts, is
at all trustworthy, and in a
previous article reasons are
given for its historical
probability, then the
incompleteness of the Synoptics
is at far more than "certain
points," and one whole side of
Jesus' ministry, and in some
respects the most important, is
ignored in the Synoptic
tradition. If the Logia or " Q "
source contained mainly sayings,
and Mark (ultimately Peter) was
the source of the Synoptic
record in its main outlines, we
can explain its incompleteness
by the limitation of Peter's
interest or knowledge. As a
Galilean disciple he was
concerned solely about the
Galilean ministry apart from
the final tragedy, and an event,
however significant, and
crucial for the Judean ministry,
about which the Fourth Gospel is
concerned, might quite probably
be passed over by him. If such
limitation of interest be held
incredible, there remains the
possibility of the limitation of
his knowledge.
(ii)
The parenthesis in Dr. Moffatt's
statement " witnessed ex hupothesi by all the
disciples,'' appears a
conclusion going beyond the
data. As has already been
indicated, the record in the
Fourth Gospel affords ground for
believing that the twelve, who
were the constant companions of
Jesus in Galilee, did not
accompany Him on all His visits
to Jerusalem; and that there was a
circle of disciples in Judea,
regarding whom because of the
extreme hostility of the Jewish
rulers secrecy had to be
maintained. When disciples are
mentioned in the Fourth Gospel
we are not entitled straightway
to assume that the twelve are
meant. If the mission of the
seventy in Luke x. 1-20 is a
historical reality, a wider
circle of disciples accompanied
Jesus in the wanderings of the
last stage of His ministry. Even
if the disciples mentioned in
verses 7, 8, 12 and 16 included
some of the twelve, it is not at
all improbable that Peter was
not one of the number. Would the
disciple, who was always ready
to speak for, and take the lead
of the others, have left it to
Thomas, had he been present, to
propose that they should go, if
necessary, even to death? These
conjectures are offered as no
more than conjectures; but as
at least forbidding the
confident assertion that the
twelve must all have been
present on this occasion.,
(iii) Even if the episode
appeared so critical to the
evangelist with his dominant
interest in the Judean
ministry, and the influence of
that ministry on the Jewish
authorities, as bringing to a
head the purpose of the rulers
to rid themselves of Jesus once
for all, the event need not have
had the same significance for
Peter, even if he knew of it, or
any other witnesses to the
Galilean ministry, as probably
they were entirely ignorant of
the course of hostile action
against Jesus by the scribes and
Pharisees in Jerusalem. Verses
47-53 appear to come from one
who was somehow in touch with
the inner circles of Jewish
politics, as none of the
Galilean disciples could be.
(3) It has been suggested that
as the Synoptic tradition comes
from a much earlier date than
the Fourth Gospel, regard for
the safety of the family in
Bethany at a time of violent
Jewish hostility to the
followers of Jesus may have been
the motive of silence. But this
seems an improbable reason. If
the Jewish rulers were
influenced in their action by
this event, as the Fourth Gospel
asserts, the family in Bethany
would already be known to them,
and a record of the event would
not at a later date in any way
increase their peril. This
suggestion does get some
support, however, from the fact
that in Luke's reference to
Martha and Mary, Bethany is not
mentioned, but only " a certain
village "
(x. 38), and that in Mark's
(xiv. 3) and Matthew's (xxvi. 6)
account of the anointing at the
supper, while Bethany is
mentioned, the house is
described as "of Simon the
leper," and the name of the
woman is not given. Is it likely
that the company of disciples
would know nothing about the
family in Bethany? Some reason
which we cannot now even
conjecture there may have been
for silence. In the preceding
paragraphs, however, an adequate reason for the absence
of any record of this event from
the Synoptic Gospels has been
given apart from this possible
reason.
(4)
The writer must confess that for
him the greatest difficulties
arise from the way in which the
evangelist has presented the
event in his narrative,
affording not a little
justification for such an
explanation as that quoted from
Forbes by Dr. Moffatt. "The
whole evidence points strongly
to the conclusion that the
evangelist, using some tradition
to us unknown and the synoptic
material mentioned, elaborated
them freely into a narrative
designed to be at once:
(a)
an astonishing manifestation of
the Logos—Christ, (b) a
pictorial setting forth of the
spiritual truth of Christ as
Life,
(c)
a prophetic prefiguration of the
death and resurrection of Jesus,
as shown by the facts that the
name Jesus and Lazarus have the
same meaning, and that the
narrative forms a transition to
the final struggle and to death
" (p. 273). While it seems
incredible that the evangelist
was capable of so freely and
boldly inventing history in the
interests of theology as the
above quotation suggests, yet it
must be admitted that at several
points doctrinal pragmatism
appears to do violence to
historical accuracy.
(i)
Few statements have touched the
human heart as the simple words
"Jesus wept" (v. 35; cf. 33 and
38), revealing the depth of His
compassion and the breadth of
His sympathy for man in the
presence of death. But it is not
easy to reconcile with " this
touch of nature that makes the
whole world kin" His declaration
in v. 4, in which His interest
in the glory which is to be won
by the performance of the
miracle obscures His regard for
His friends in their anxiety and
need; or His further explanation
in v. 15 that He is glad of His
friend's death because of the
opportunity it gives of
strengthening the disciples'
faith. Wendt (St. John's Gospel,
pp. 153-158), in accordance with
his partition hypothesis,
derives from the source vv.
23-26, and also probably
v.
27, and then as introductory to
this utterance in vv. 1-22 he
assigns the greater part to the
same except vv. lb, 2, 4, ll-15,
taking similar exception to the
representation there given of
Jesus' attitude. Dr. Bruce seeks
to weaken the strength of the
objection by the following
considerations:" The glory
which is represented as the aim
of the miracles is not of the
vulgar, worldly kind.
Glorification and humiliation
are close of kin, or virtually
identical, in John's Gospel."
After quoting verse 4 he asks, "
How does the sickness contribute
to Christ's glorification? As
the exit of the traitor did
(xiii. 31)—by causing His
crucifixion" (The Miraculous
Element in the Gospels, pp.
151-2). This does not altogether
relieve the difficulty. We must
seek further explanation.
Probably the evangelist
understood the utterance in
verse 4 as showing the
supernatural foresight of Jesus
into what He was about to do in
raising Lazarus from the dead;
but we can interpret the saying
otherwise. Jesus may simply be
expressing the absolute
confidence in His Father that
the issue would further God's
purpose in Him,
while at the time not knowing
exactly how. His delay in going
to Bethany may be another
instance of His constant habit
of waiting upon God for
direction. He did not and could
not act till assured of God's
will. We may accept verse 4 as
an authentic utterance, although
we may doubt whether Jesus did
call Himself the Son of God.
Verse 15 presents more
difficulty. After learning that
Lazarus was dead, and realizing
as He must have done by His
intense sympathy the desolation
which the sisters were
experiencing, could He, however
confident of a happy issue out
of this affliction by the
Father's answer to His prayer,
have said that He was glad He
was not there? Did the
disciples' faith need such
confirmation? Was not the price
of suffering paid by the sisters
too high for even such an end?
Would not restoration from
sickness have served the purpose
? This utterance breathes the
theological pragmatism of the
evangelist rather than the
divine humanity of Jesus. If, as
has been already suggested, the
evangelist remained in
Jerusalem, and did not
accompany Jesus in His
wanderings, the account from vv.
4 to 16 may be at second-hand;
and so verse 15 may be the
evangelist's modification of an
utterance of different import
imperfectly communicated to him.
(ii) A similar difficulty
presents itself in verse 42.
While it is altogether probable
that Jesus uttered the words,
"Father, I think Thee that Thou
heardest Me" (v. 41), and they
afford a most significant
indication that He exercised.
His supernatural power in
dependence on God through
constant prayer, is it credible
that addressing His Father He
would add the explanation that
He thanked God for answered
prayer, not because He Himself
had any doubt of an answer, but
that His mission might be
divinely confirmed for the
multitude? The writer cannot
bring himself to believe that
the saying in its present form
is authentic. Possibly the
evangelist had added to the
prayer his own
explanation of its purpose, and
gradually the third person was
changed to the first, and a
reflexion assumed the form of a
reminiscence. At least this
seems much more probable than
that Jesus could have used the
words just as reported.
(5)
The account in vv. 47-53 has the
marks of historical probability.
The connexion of the evangelist
with the high priest will be
afterwards discussed in the more
appropriate context (xviii. 15).
Whatever it was it placed him in
a position to know the plans of
the enemies of Jesus. The phrase
" high priest that year " cannot
be regarded as a proof of his
ignorance of Jewish affairs in
view of all the other evidence
the Gospel contains of intimate
acquaintance with the national
conditions. It is adequately
explained by many scholars as
referring, not to the length of
Caiaphas' tenure of office, but
to the significance of the year
of the crucifixion of Jesus in
human history. Probably the
counsel of expediency given by
Caiaphas has without any
deliberate intention been so
modified as to make it appear
more obviously a prophecy.
Verse 51 belongs to the
evangelist's theology rather
than to history. So uncertain is
the Synoptic account of the last
stage of the ministry, that it
affords no good reason for
challenging the substantial
accuracy at the evangelist's
representation of the historical
situation at the moment when the
Synoptic and Johannine streams
of narrative begin to flow in
one channel.
XV. THE WEEK BEFORE THE PASSION
(John xii.).
(1)
Mark (xiv. 3-9) places the
anointing in Bethany in
immediate connexion with the
treachery of Judas (10-11), and,
if the note of time in verse 1,
" after two days," applies to
this incident also, on Wednesday
evening. Matthew (xxvi. 6-16)
gives the incident a similar
position. Both may have intended
to throw into bold relief the
contrast
between Mary's devotion and
Judas' treachery. And it is not
at all improbable that the
chronology of the fourth
evangelist is to be preferred,
and that it was on the Sabbath
evening that the feast was
given. There is no serious
difficulty about harmonising
the Johannine and the Synoptic
accounts. The murmuring that is
ascribed by Matthew
(v. 8) to the disciples is by
the fourth evangelist limited to
Judas (vv. 4-5). The charge
against Judas in verse 6 may be
justified; but it may also be
due to the evangelist's
detestation, elsewhere shown in
the Gospel, for the traitor, of
whom he would on very slight
evidence be ready to believe the
very worst. The explanation of
Mary's action by Jesus,
according to the Synoptists, is
much more intelligible than the
saying reported in the Fourth
Gospel (v. 7), although the
import is similar. While the Synoptists pass at once to
record the treachery of Judas,
the fourth evangelist, with his
interest in every detail of the
growing hatred of the Jewish
rulers which at last resulted in
the condemnation of Jesus,
turns aside to deal again with
their machinations (vv. 9-11).
(2) The account of the triumphal
entry (oo. 12-19) is told with
less detail than by the
Synoptists. How the young ass
was found (v. 14) the evangelist
does not tell us. Either he did
not know, not being one of the
twelve, or he himself was the
citizen of Jerusalem who
rendered the Master this
service. Characteristic of the
evangelist is the reference to
the lack of understanding of the
disciples till after the
resurrection (v. 16). But did
not the twelve and the multitude
alike intend a Messianic
demonstration, even although the
prophecy was not in their mind? Characteristic too is the connexion indicated between the
demonstration and the raising of
Lazarus from the dead (vv. 17,
18). If some of the crowd from
Jerusalem were so influenced,
the multitude from Galilee were
moved to their enthusiasm by
their knowledge of the Galilean
ministry. Here again is the
evangelist's one-sided Judean
interest. A familiar trait in
the Gospel meets us in the
account of the effect of the
demonstration on the Pharisees
(v. 19). The cleansing of the
Temple, recorded by the
Synoptists, is not mentioned
here, as the evangelist had
already recorded a similar
action at the beginning of the
ministry. We need not assume
that he has violently
transferred an event at the
close to the beginning of the
ministry, and reason has been
shown in a previous article why
the act may have been repeated.
Knowing as he did the grounds of
the hostility to Jesus, he
probably did not assign to this
single event the importance
given to it by the Synoptists.
(3) The next section (vv. 20-36)
presents considerable difficulty
; the request of the Greeks is
reported, and the response of
Jesus; but there is no record of
the interview if it did take
place. Instead we have a
discourse in which distinctively
Johannine ideas and phrases are
blended with what seem to be
indistinct reproductions of
Synoptic material. Probably the
evangelist was not here an
eye-witness, but heard from
Philip or Andrew about the
incident; and having a less
distinct memory of what he had
heard from others than of what
he himself witnessed there
gathered around it in his memory
other sayings of Jesus which
also had come to him
second-hand. Is it not probable
that he would in old age better
remember what he had himself
seen and heard than what had
been reported to him by others?
Verse 23 is characteristically Johannine in form, but may be a
genuine saying; while verse 24
sounds an authentic utterance
of Jesus, suitable to the
occasion. The possibility of the
wider ministry among the
Gentiles suggested by the
request of the Greeks is set
aside in view of the necessity
of His death. He must die as
Jewish Messiah before He can
become the world's Saviour. Do
not vv. 25 and 26 recall
Mark viii. 34-38 with such
modifications as the words might
undergo in the evangelist's mind? We cannot but think of
Gethsemane, of the agony in
which the Fourth Gospel has no
record, as we read vv. 27 and
28a. The voice from heaven 28b
recalls the experiences of the
Baptism and the
Transfiguration, although the
possibility of some unusual
manifestation during Passion
week cannot be excluded. But
verse 30 must make us hesitate.
It was not the method of Jesus
to give signs from heaven; and
does not the verse, as recorded
in verse 28, give the response
to the prayer? In his
pragmatism the evangelist
contradicts himself. If we
compare these verses with the
Synoptic record of Gethsemane,
when Jesus left all but three
chosen disciples behind, and
even withdrew a little from them
(Mark xiv. 32-35) when He
prayed, it will seem incredible
that He should have laid bare
His soul before the multitude.
Surely the sacred intimacies of
Father and Son were not for
profane ears to hear. The
theologian's ardour in the
evangelist overcomes love's
insight here. Verse 32 links
itself to verse 24 as part of
the reply to the Greeks'
request, and is suited to the
occasion. Probably Jesus
Himself intended a wider
reference here as in
iii. 14 than the evangelist
discovers (v. 33), and is it not
probable that iii. 14, which,
as has been indicated already,
is out of its proper context,
belongs here? The verses that
follow (34-37) are a probable
sequel to these utterances. The
evangelist's confirmation from
prophecy of the necessity of the
people's unbelief (vv. 37-40)
is entirely in accord with the
common interpretation of the Old
Testament in the early church.
The following statement (vv.
41-42) again indicates one who
was in close contact with the
ruling classes in Jerusalem and
not a Galilean fisherman. The
next paragraph (vv. 44-50)
is manifestly displaced, as this
final appeal of Jesus to the
Jewish multitude must have
preceded the evangelist'2
summing up of the results of the
ministry as regards
the Jewish people; and Dr.
Moffatt, in his New Translation,
seems entirely justified in
placing these verses between the
two sentences in verse 36. It is
perplexing to find at how few
points the Synoptic and the Johannine tradition of Passion
week coincide. Different
interests in the witnesses
afford only partial relief to
the mind. We must add that
probably the fourth evangelist,
whose home was in Jerusalem,
went to and fro as the service
of the Master required, and that
his influential position, of
which more must be said
afterwards, gave him access
where the twelve were excluded.
|
|