John 11:1-16. The Dead are Raised

This story of the raising of Lazarus from the dead is unique. In spite of the few dubious claims made on the internet there are no other substantiated claims of someone who has been dead for four days coming back to life.

A man goes to a cemetery and orders the stone in front of one of the rock-hewn tombs to be removed. No authorities had ordered this. No-one is sure what is going to happen yet there is only one protest, that of the dead man’s sister, who warns that there will be an awful stench. However her protest is not listened to. The stone is rolled back. The man looks upwards and begins to pray. You can imagine the onlookers feeling rather embarrassed. The prayer stops. The man then faces the tomb and calls out loudly in an authoritative way, as if he expects his commands to be obeyed.

“Lazarus, come out!” John 11:43

To everyones utter amazement a corpse, shuffling in its burial clothes, appears at the tomb entrance. The man then says, quite naturally, to the people around who doubtless were standing there gawping,

“Take off the grave clothes and let him go.” John 11:44

We are not told any further details. There is no interview with the family, the onlookers or the man himself for the obvious reason that they are not the focus of the story. The focus is on the man who raised Lazarus from the dead. Who is he?

Did it happen?

During the first half of the twentieth century many theological departments expressed doubts as to whether such an extraordinary event could have happened. The same scholars also tended to deny the physical resurrection of Jesus. Indeed these people were deeply sceptical about the historical validity of much of John’s gospel. However, theological fashions change and the pendulum has now swung back strongly even amongst liberal scholars. The late Dr John A T Robinson, when Bishop of Woolwich, published the infamous book ‘Honest to God’ questioning many traditional Christian beliefs and shocking much of the Christian world. Much later he wrote a book called, ‘Re-dating the New Testament’ which shocked many New Testament scholars. In this, he argued that all the New Testament must have been written before 70AD, with a probable early edition in the 50s AD, and that itself had arisen from oral tradition between 30-50AD. 70AD was when the temple and much of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. Previously scholars had assumed that John’s gospel was the last gospel to be written, possibly in the 90s, some dating it around 130-150AD and a few even later. In his 1984 Bampton Lecture, given in on his behalf posthumously, Robinson claimed that John’s gospel was the earliest of the gospels.

Clearly, if Robinson is right, then there would have been many first hand witnesses around who could, and almost certainly would, have complained if any of the evidence John used was untrue. This would certainly apply to such an astounding sign as the raising of Lazarus.

The accurate details given in the story strongly supports its authenticity. There are none of the marks of a fairy tale. The characters involved, Thomas, Mary and Martha, are characterised in ways that are coherent with the other gospels. The behaviour and sayings of Jesus are so extraordinary as to be unimaginable. The details in the story are precise.

“Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. Yet when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days.” John 11:6

Jesus had gone to the lands east of Bethany which was just under two miles east of Jerusalem.

“ . . . many Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them on the loss of their brother.” John 11:19

“When Martha heard that Jesus was coming she went out to meet him, but Mary stayed at home.” John 11:20

From Luke’s gospel (Luke 10:40) we know that Martha was an active, bustling sort of person who, on hearing of Jesus’ approach, went out to meet him, whereas her sister stayed at home. Mary was the more thoughtful, laid back sister. When Martha met Jesus he asked after Mary, and Martha was then sent home to fetch her. Such detail does sound like an eye-witness account.

The character of Thomas also rings true, to what we read of him in the other gospels. When he heard that Jesus wanted to go back to Judea, where his enemies lived, he said to the other disciples,

“Let us also go, that we may die with him?” John 11:16

Again Thomas comes across as loyal, but with a touch of pessimism

Modern scholars no longer doubt the veracity of these accounts. Even though it is not mentioned in the other three synoptic gospels, almost all with one accord, believe the story because of the internal details and evidence.

Bishop Westcott’s Commentary

Westcott wrote one of the greatest commentaries on John’s gospel that is still available today. He wrote,

“Apart from the antecedent assumption that a miracle is impossible and that the record of a miracle must therefore be explained away, it is not easy to see any ground for questioning the literal exactness of the history. No explanation for the origin of the narrative on the supposition that it is unhistorical has even a show of plausibility.”

H Meyer’s Commentary

“No narrative of the New Testament bears so completely the stamp of being the very opposite of a later invention.”

William Temple

When Temple was a young man he was very sceptical but he later came to believe in the truth of this account.

“The story is singularly vivid. It has all the characteristics of the record of an eyewitness.”

Cambridge University Black series 1989 standard commentary

“If historical evidence can establish the credibility of a miracle, it does here.”

Professor Archibald M Hunter

Professor Hunter was Professor of the New Testament in Aberdeen. At the end of his commentary on John he concluded,

“One thing we ought not to do is dismiss this famous story as a Johannine fiction.”

Such scholars are forced by the evidence to take this story very seriously indeed and as we dig into it deeper its significance becomes abundantly clear.

How could the Messiah be so apparently weak?

Jews found it very hard to accept that their all-conquering Messiah, who would reign for eternity would die on a cross like a common criminal, even though there are strong clues in their Old Testament that this would happen. Jews thought that death by crucifixion surely meant the executed man was eternally cursed by God. Didn’t their Scriptures say,

“If a man guilty of a capital offence is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that s ame day, because anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse. You must not desecrate the land . . .” Deuteronomy 21:22-23

The Jews failed to understand that their Messiah needed to die as a final sacrifice for sin, it is the curse of our sin that he bore on the cross.

Isaiah 53 gives a vivid description of the Messiah who would die for the sins of his people.

4 Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Isaiah 53:4-9

Yet it doesn’t stop there,

“ . . . though it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied.” Isaiah 53:10-11

The Messiah of the Old Testament is more powerful than even death. The effect of the raising of Lazarus must have had a great effect on people in Judea. How could it not? The following verses have the ring of truth about them.

“Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. ‘If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” John 11:45-47

That the miracle of the raising of Lazarus really took place is substantiated by the hostile witnesses. The Jewish authorities had no doubt that this and other miracles were occurring. The opposition to Jesus admitted that, what he was doing, was very convincing, but they were implacably against him both for personal and political reasons.

The following chapter describes how deeply this hatred of Jesus, and what he stood for, went.

“Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well.” John 12:9-11

Why did they hate Jesus so much? Surely it the same reason that people today are so opposed to him. In many nations particularly those under communist or Islamic control there is a deep-rooted antagonism against Jesus and his followers. Surely the reason is not a lack of evidence but a question of authority. Jesus claims to be God and therefore to have authority over everyone and everything. Communist leaders want to retain authority themselves, much as the Pharisees did, and they will suggest political advantages for the ‘status quo’ to continue, even if natural justice is not adhered to. Islamic leaders similarly want to keep authority themselves and can also use very oppressive means to achieve their ends. Significantly, questions about the validity of the Qur’an and the Hadith are rarely talked about, probably because the evidence supporting them is increasingly being seen as spurious.

Those who reject the claims of Jesus should come up with valid explanations to explain Jesus away. The evidence is so strong that he existed and performed these extraordinary miracles, no-one has ever matched them. He was executed and rose again. He fulfilled all the 330 prophecies about the Messiah who was to come into this world, which said he would be a descendant of King David, be born in Bethlehem, be a healer and preacher, be killed as a sacrifice for sin but would rise again. The prime reason all should bend their knee before him is that he truly is the Son of God. The reason people reject Jesus is primarily because of our wanting independence from God. The rebellion of Adam and Eve against God is repeated in every generation.

Bertrand Russell was an opponent of both God and Jesus. When I read his book, ‘Why I am not a Christian,’ it disappointed me greatly. For such a brilliant man his arguments were weak. He spends much of the book questioning philosophical arguments used to prove the existence of God. He then critiques Jesus’ ‘moral character’, on the basis that Jesus believes in hell.

““I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching — an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence.”

Bertrand Russell also criticised Jesus for his “vindictive fury” against any who would not listen to his preaching. Significantly little is made of Jesus’ repeated claim to be God or the evidence for his life, death and resurrection. Like the Pharisees, Russell does not try to explain away the miracles, that Jesus pointed to to substantiate his claims; he fails to deal with the objective evidence that support Jesus’ claims. Clearly if Jesus is the Son of God, then he must know more about hell, the nature of God and the consequences for rejecting our creator, than Bertrand Russell. This is why the raising of Lazarus and the resurrection of Jesus are critical.

We cannot act as judges over God and Jesus as the Pharisees did in Jesus’ day. For most people, the refusal to accept Jesus is because there is a deep-rooted refusal to accept the authority of God in our lives.

An archbishop of Paris was preaching in Notre Dame Cathedral. He told of a priest who was hearing confessions who could hear three boys outside. They were clearly rebels against God, even suggesting that God was dead. The boys decided to see if they could play a joke on the priest in the confessional. They hit upon the idea of one of them making a false confession. They agreed that any one of them who would be brave enough to go in and make a confession would be given five francs.

One boy volunteered and went in and made his confession. The priest, pretending not to know anything about the conversation he had overheard, accepted the confession as if it was genuine, and gave him a penance. The lad was to go up to the Communion rail, kneel down and say,

“God is dead - and I would not want you to help me, even if I needed you.”

The lad came out and asked the others, “Give me the five francs.” However the others said, “Oh no! You must have been given a penance. Go and complete it.”

So he went up to the Communion rail, knelt down and started. He got out the words “God is dead”, but then he choked. He could not finish the words, and he began to cry.

And the archbishop, continuing his sermon, said to his congregation,

“I know this is true. I am that boy!”

Jesus has provided enough objective evidence for everyone to accept his claims, but the stimulus for most of us to turn back to God is seldom primarily intellectual, but comes when our spiritual instincts have been aroused. It was these spiritual instincts that God has implanted into us that led the future archbishop to look to Christ. At some stage we all recognise the need for a purpose in life that survives death, an answer to the question of suffering and of death. For many the longing for forgiveness for wrongs done, and the yearning for a power to live a new life, lead us to look at the claims of Christ. We all need someone to worship, who is outside ourselves and our family. No-one else but Jesus can satisfy all these needs. He claimed,

“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” John 11:25

The Bible is clear that all of us, however pleasant and affable we appear, are spiritually dead until we have been given new life. This life is only given to those committed to Jesus Christ. Paul wrote,

“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of the world . . . the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. . . . But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions.” Ephesians 2:1-4

BVP