The Raising of Lazarus

[SteveF]

It's interesting to note that Ben Witherington, who think Lazarus wrote it, doesn’t think John 13 is speaking of the Passover exclusively. He writes:

"John does not recount the Lord's Supper at all, simply the earlier meal, but he does indeed add the end of the last supper meal story about Judas going out and betraying Jesus here which is necessary to the plot line continuing. This is rather typical of the editing of the day, blending several accounts of similar content together."

Maybe you've already given this possibility serious thought Paidion. I need to look into this some more. This would likely be a topic for another thread, that is, if someone sees merit in this argument and wants to present a case.

I think Ben's position is difficult to maintain in the context. Ben's final statement which you quoted seems a desparate attempt to explain why this cannot be the Lord's supper prior to His institution of the communion, "This is rather typical of the editing of the day, blending several accounts of similar content together."

Luke 22:11-16 makes it clear that it was the Passover supper which they were eating, prior to the institution of the Communion (sharing) of the bread and wine or the Eucharist (thanksgiving) for the bread and wine, in remembrance of our Lord.

John 13:1 reads as follows:

Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus perceived that his time had come to step out of the world system to the Father. Having loved His own, the ones in the world system, he loved them to the end. PT

This verse does not state that the supper of verse 2 occurred before the Feast of the Passover. So what event does it state which occurred before the Passover Feast? Just this --- that Jesus perceived that his time had come to step out of the world system to the Father.

The same verse also states that Jesus, having loved His own, the ones in the world system, loved them to the end. To the end of what? Most likely to the end of His time in this world system --- and that end did not come before the Passover Feast. So why should it be
presumed that the Supper mentioned in the next verse took place before the Passover Feast?

The details of the supper correspond in several respects to those of the other gospels. For
example, all four gospels record the announcing of Judas' betrayal: Mt 26:21, Mk14:18, Lk22:21, and Jn13:2.

The fact that John 13 describes feet washing after the meal, while the other gospels describe a sharing of bread and wine after the meal does not, in my view, provide clear evidence that the meal was not a celebration of the passover. For much in John's gospel differs from the synoptic gospels. Jesus may have both instituted the communion and feetwashing. There are numerous churches even in our day who practise a feetwashing ceremony as part of their communion.

Thanks for your response Paidion, I'm going to take some time to look at what you've writen.

[dean198]

Steve, am I missing something here? I can't see how matters either way whether it was all the same meal or not (and I take it to be the same meal as the Last Supper mentioned everywhere else). How does this effect who wrote John?

[dean198]

You folks might find this article pertinent. There is a detailed summary of the internal and external evidence for the authorship of the Gospel of John:

Gospel of John

In John 19:25-27, the author identifies "the disciple whom he [Jesus] loved" as the one whose testimony is true and worthy of belief. When Jesus was dying on the cross, around him stood four women and one man, identified as the one whom Jesus loved.

Agreed, but right away we have problems for the son of Zebedee. The twelve scattered and forsook Jesus. I guess one of them could have returned, but I get the impression from Jesus' words that they all were gone during his time of greatest need:

“All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night ... But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee” (Matt. 26:31-32).

“Indeed the hour is coming, yes, has now come, that you will be scattered, each to his own, and will leave Me alone” (Jn 16:32).

[SteveF]

Steve, am I missing something here? I can't see how matters either way whether it was all the same meal or not (and I take it to be the same meal as the Last Supper mentioned everywhere else). How does this effect who wrote John?

Hi Dean, Paidion wrote the following;

Further, Matthew records that the Jesus sat at table to eat the passover with the 12 disciples. There is no mention that anyone else sat with him on that occasion --- and Lazarus certainly wasn't one of the twelve! Matthew made clear in the passage above who the 12 were.

And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the passover. When it was evening, he sat at table with the twelve disciples. Matthew 26:19,10

If John 13 is not talking about the same event as Mat 26, but is merely a compilation of more than one event (as Witheringtion argues….he thinks it’s referring to a meal that happened earlier in the week) then it takes teeth out of Paidion's point .....or at least that's how I see it. Let me know if I'm overlooking something.

Thanks
Steve

[dean198]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Allyn gave what I thought was a better response than Witherington:

A misperception about Jesus’ last Passover has tended to give credence to the idea that John was the author of this Gospel. John 21:20 tells us, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was the one who “leaned on his (Jesus) breast at supper and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?” (Also see, John. 13:23-25.)

However, because Mark 14:17 states, Jesus “cometh with the twelve” and Matthew 26:20 says, Jesus “sat down with the twelve” some presume that the “other disciple” has to be one of “the twelve”. There are also many ‘Last Supper’ paintings that help instill an image in our mind of Jesus sitting with “the twelve” at a table having a private supper together with no one else in the room. However, these artist renditions and an erroneous assumption have led many people to accept a faulty conclusion.

Note that the Bible does not say that “the twelve” were the only ones present with Jesus at that Passover. Nowhere are we told that they dined alone. Nor will you find any verse that indicates that other disciples could not participate. Is there any reason to believe that they dined alone that last Passover? Not unless you read a constraint into Matthew 26:20 and Mark 14:17 that isn’t in the text.

Remember that it is wrong to assume that someone is not present at an event simply because a passage of scripture doesn’t mention their presence!

This is demonstrated by contrasting Luke 24:10-12 with John 20:2-10. If someone had only the passage from Luke, they might jump to the conclusion that Peter was alone when he went to the tomb on resurrection morning. However, Peter was not alone when he visited Jesus’ vacant tomb with the “other disciple” that morning. What’s more, the person that Luke left out wasn’t some bit player! “The disciple whom Jesus loved” was a key figure in the life of Jesus.

If Jesus and “the twelve” were the only ones at that last Passover, then why would Jesus need to include the stipulation “one of the twelve” in his answer? The term “the twelve” is a limiting phrase, used to specifically refer to those “chosen” disciples. And yet, Jesus used this phrase at the ‘Last Supper’ (Mk. 14:20). But if “the twelve” were the only ones present, wouldn’t Jesus have said, ‘One of you’?

In fact Jesus does exactly that in John 6:70, which is the only other verse where Jesus used the phrase “the twelve”. In John 6:66-69 many disciples abandoned Jesus. He then challenged “the twelve”, who declared their devotion. In reply he said, “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” (Jn. 6:70). [“You twelve” in the Greek reads, “you the twelve”.] Consequently, at the ‘Last Supper’ when Jesus said the traitor was “one of the twelve” (instead of saying “one of you”), it indicates that he and “the twelve” were not the only ones present.

Notice too, that the author didn’t call himself ‘one of the twelve whom Jesus loved’. [An indication that he wasn’t one of “the twelve”?] If Jesus sat down to supper with “the twelve” and then later they were joined by “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, then naturally this person wasn’t one of “the twelve”.

[SteveF]

Hi Dean, I think Witherington’s found his theory necessary because he thinks Lazarus’ wrote it (which is not your view). The following challenge was presented to Witheringtion:

In Chapter 12, there is a mention of a meal at the house of Lazarus. In Chapter 13, the Beloved Disciple is said to recline against Jesus at a meal. This last description is significant, because it "was the custom in this sort of dining that the host would recline with or next to the chief guest. The story as we have it told in Jn. 13 likely implies that the Beloved Disciple is the host then." This suggests that the Beloved Disciple owned a house in or near Jerusalem, just as Lazarus did. Moreover, according to Witherington, the step-by-step progression from Lazarus being loved by Jesus, to hosting him at a meal, to the Beloved Disciple reclining against Jesus during a meal he was hosting serves as a clear marker that Lazarus is the Beloved Disciple.

For Witherington's theory to be true, however, the meal described in Jn. 13 must have taken place in Bethany rather than Jerusalem (where it is traditionally held to have occurred). Since Jn. 13 is widely accepted as referring to the Last Supper, in the comments, I asked Witherington whether he still believed that Jn. 13 described the Last Supper as recounted in Matt. 26, Luke 24, and Mark 14. It seems to be the same meal, though John lacks the Eucharist. Both have Jesus speaking of his betrayal, have Judas leaving to betray Jesus, and have Jesus leaving for the Garden where the arrest occurred.

And if Jn. 13 describes a Last Supper in Bethany, does this complicate his theory? On one hand, if the Last Supper occurred in Bethany, at only two miles outside of Jerusalem it is still close enough for the events of that night to transpire in Jerusalem. On the other hand, do not the Gospels suggest that the Last Supper took place in Jerusalem? The Synoptics record that Jesus had his disciples go to "a certain man" who was "in the city" to ask about accommodations for the Last Supper. (Luke 22:10; Mark 14:3-13; Matt. 26:3-18). While it is possible that the "city" mentioned is Bethany rather than Jerusalem, is that the most natural reading? In his Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on The Gospel of Mark, Witherington envisions the meeting with "a certain man" as occurring in Jerusalem. Ibid., page 370.

Additionally, because according to Witherington Simon the Leper was Lazarus' father and they shared a home, if Jn. 13 is the location of the Last Supper then the combined narratives of Matthew, Mark, and John, appear to have Jesus sending his disciples out from Lazarus' home to find a "certain man" that ends up being Lazarus himself who then provides them a place for the Last Supper in Lazarus' home. (Mark 14:3-13; Matt. 26:3-18; John 12 and 13). Against this, I suppose, it could be argued that Jesus was no longer at Simon the Leper's (and therefore Lazarus') house when he asked his disciples to meet the man about finding a place for the Last Supper. Such locational details can be tricky, especially in the Synoptics. The commentaries I have consulted so far do not really address the issue, so I would be interested in any informed input about it. Still, even if the location is not odd, why is Lazarus/Beloved Disciple called "a certain man" rather than identified?

It was in responce to this challenge that he stated they were different events.

If Jesus and “the twelve” were the only ones at that last Passover, then why would Jesus need to include the stipulation “one of the twelve” in his answer? The term “the twelve” is a limiting phrase, used to specifically refer to those “chosen” disciples. And yet, Jesus used this phrase at the ‘Last Supper’ (Mk. 14:20). But if “the twelve” were the only ones present, wouldn’t Jesus have said, ‘One of you’?

It seems quite likely to me that Jesus was simply reiterating an incredible statement. Something like "Yes it's really is one of the 12". Also Mk 14:20 seems to indicate that only 12 were eating (dipping their bread) with him. You're familar with the Greek so maybe you can confirm if it reads different than the following translation:

20And He said to them, "It is one of the twelve, one who dips with Me in the bowl.

[dean198]

Hi Dean, I think Witherington’s found his theory necessary because he thinks Lazarus’ wrote it (which is not your view). The following challenge was presented to Witheringtion:

In Chapter 12, there is a mention of a meal at the house of Lazarus. In Chapter 13, the Beloved Disciple is said to recline against Jesus at a meal. This last description is significant, because it "was the custom in this sort of dining that the host would recline with or next to the chief guest. The story as we have it told in Jn. 13 likely implies that the Beloved Disciple is the host then." This suggests that the Beloved Disciple owned a house in or near Jerusalem, just as Lazarus did.

Now I understand and see the problem. Thanks for the clarification Steve.

Additionally, because according to Witherington Simon the Leper was Lazarus' father and they shared a home, if Jn. 13 is the location of the Last Supper then the combined narratives of Matthew, Mark, and John, appear to have Jesus sending his disciples out from Lazarus' home to find a "certain man" that ends up being Lazarus himself who then provides them a place for the Last Supper in Lazarus' home. (Mark 14:3-13; Matt. 26:3-18; John 12 and 13).

I'd never noticed the likelihood that Simon the Leper was Lazarus' father - that is very interesting. And I agree that in Matt. 26, Jesus is already staying at Bethany, in Simon's house, but yet he sends his disciple to the city to make ready a room.

[SteveF]

Literally it reads:
Jesus, answering, said: 'one out of the twelve, the one dipping with me in the dish'.
So the Greek is only saying that one of the twelve is dipping - it isn't saying all of the twelve are necessarily dipping - lit. 'the one dipping' not 'one of those dipping'.

Thanks Dean, that's an important distinction to consider.

[Homer]

John Peter Lange, in his commentary on John, stated that "the Gospel of John, the Revelation, and the epistles of John stand or fall together (and they will stand), as the productions of one clearly distinct mind". Further, "So as early as Ignatius, in his epistle to the Romans, chap. vii, we find distinct allusions to the Gospel" and "In Polycarp, too, appears proof of intimacy with John." Polycarp quotes from 1 John iv. 3.

So if Ignatius and Polycarp, both said to have known the Apostle John, also were familiar with his writings, how is it explained that this supposed fraud was accepted by the church? And a fraud it is absent apostolic authority!

[steve7150]

So if Ignatius and Polycarp, both said to have known the Apostle John, also were familiar with his writings, how is it explained that this supposed fraud was accepted by the church? And a fraud it is absent apostolic authority.






I agree that John wrote his gospel,epistles and Revelation but re apostolic authority , how do the following writings have that?
Hebrews
Luke
Acts
Mark

Luke was'nt an apostle just an interviewer, why should he be trusted? We really don't know who wrote Hebrews and Mark was not an apostle.
Now just for the record i think Peter helped with Mark and Paul was involved with Hebrews and Luke was a friend of Paul but even so , how did these writings get apostolic authority?