John 11 - Introduction

CHAP. 11. CHRIST IS LOVE ILLUSTRATED BY A SIGN

Christ’s love for His friends brings about His own death and shews the voluntariness (John 11:8) of His death, as declared John 10:18. Expressions of affection and tenderness abound in the chapter; comp. John 11:3; John 11:5; John 11:11; John 11:15; John 11:35-36.

We have now reached ‘the culminating point of the miraculous activity of our Lord,’ and at the same time the ‘crucial question’ of this Gospel—the Raising of Lazarus. Various objections have been urged against it, and through it against the Fourth Gospel as a whole. The principal objections require notice. They are based (1) on the extraordinary character of the miracle itself; (2) on the silence of the Synoptists; (3) on the fact that in spite of what is narrated John 11:47-53, no mention is made of the miracle in the accusation of Jesus.

(1) The extraordinary character of the miracle is a difficulty of modern growth. By the writers of N.T. raising the dead was regarded as on the same level with other miracles, not as something quite apart from all others. And surely the ancient view is both more reverent and more philosophical than the modern one. Only from a purely human standpoint can one miracle be regarded as more wonderful, i.e. more difficult of performance, than another. To Omnipotence all miracles, as indeed all works, are equal: distinctions of difficult and easy as applied to the Almighty are meaningless.
(2) It is certainly surprising that the Synoptists do not mention this miracle, all the more so because S. John tells us that it was the proximate cause of Christ’s arrest and condemnation. But this surprising circumstance has been exaggerated. It seems too much to say that “it must always remain a mystery why this miracle, transcending as it does all other miracles which the Lord wrought, … should have been passed over by the three earlier Evangelists.” Two considerations go a long way towards explaining the mystery. (i) The Synoptical Gospels, though three in number, in the main represent only one tradition, and that a very fragmentary tradition. That fragmentary testimony should omit important facts is not surprising; and that out of three writers who make use of this defective evidence not one should in this important instance have supplied the deficiency, is not more than surprising. (ii) The Synoptists, until they reach the last Passover, omit almost all events in or near Jerusalem: the ministry in Galilee is their province. The omission of this raising by them is very little more strange than the omission of the other raisings by John. Each side keeps to its own scheme of narration.

To explain that the Synoptists were silent in order not to draw attention, and perhaps persecution (John 12:10-11), on Lazarus and his sisters, whereas when S. John wrote they were dead (just as S. John alone records that it was S. Peter who cut off the high-priest’s servant’s ear), is not very satisfactory. There is no evidence that Lazarus and his sisters were living when the first Gospel was written, still less when S. Luke wrote. And if they were alive, were the chief priests alive, and their animosity still alive also?

(3) This last objection really tells in favour of the narrative. The hierarchy would have stood self-condemned if they had made His raising the dead a formal charge against Christ. The disciples had fled, and could not urge the miracle in His favour; and Christ Himself would not break the majestic silence which He maintained before His accusers to mention such a detail.
There are those who assume that miracles are impossible, and that no amount of evidence can render a miracle credible. This miracle is therefore dismissed, and we are to believe either that (1) Lazarus was only apparently dead, i.e. that Christ was an impostor and S. John a dupe or an accomplice; or that (2) the parable of Lazarus and Dives has been transformed into a miracle; or that (3) the narrative is a myth, or (4) an allegory. (1) and (2) only need to be stated: of (3) and (4) we may say with Meyer, “No narrative of the N.T. bears so completely the stamp of being the very opposite of a later invention … And what an incredible height of art in the allegorical construction of history must we ascribe to the composer!” Instead of an historical miracle we have a literary miracle of the second century. Contrast this chapter with the miracles of the Apocryphal Gospels, and it will seem impossible that both can have come from the same source. To tear out this or any other page from S. John, and retain the rest, is quite inadmissible. “The Gospel is like that sacred coat ‘without seam woven from the top throughout:’ it is either all real and true or all fictitious and illusory; and the latter alternative is more difficult to accept than the miracle” (Sanday).