The Raising of Lazarus

[Michelle]

I believe it is possible that Lazarus was actually the writer of what is commonly called the gospel of john. The writing is attributed to john assuming he was that disciple that Jesus loved, but there is no real evidence otherwise. So if Lazarus was the writer then this could be one of the reasons.

For me it wouldn't make much difference who wrote the Gospel, as long as the author didn't try to pass it off as being written by John to gain legitimacy. If, on the other hand, it just got misnamed, I guess it doesn't really matter.

I'd like to interrupt the discussion about the authorship, however, to ask you, Allyn, if you could elaborate on your original answer. Sometimes - well often - I completely miss the obvious. You said that if Lazarus was the author then this could be one of the reasons why it was included in this Gospel only. What do you mean?

Do you think that only he remembered it? That doesn't seem likely because it caused the Pharisees and the chief priests to council together and plot Jesus' death, and the word of Lazarus' raising attracted so much attention that they plotted his death as well.

Or, could it be that since Lazarus was the author, doggone it, he was going to get his story in there — somehow, somewhere, no matter what. That raises questions in my mind because most of the details he included were conversations and actions that take place while he's in the tomb, which he couldn't have known about except by asking those who were there. It's not that I doubt that he did that, of course whoever wrote the Gospel, if he wasn't present himself, would have to interview people who were; it's just that I really wish that he would have included something from his perspective. I would like to know how he got out of the tomb with the grave clothes still on, and, once and for all, I would LOVE to know what he was experiencing for those four days he was dead.

This story seems significant and takes up quite a few verses to tell the whole thing. What other reasons do you suppose there are for it being only in this Gospel?

[Michelle]

I was listening to Steve's lectures on the Gospel of John and a question came to mind.

Why does only John's gospel mention the raising of Lazarus from the dead? I guess the same could be said about the miracle at Cana, but this one really stands out as a biggie. It is certainly understanable that John wanted to include it since the other gospels did not, but this begs the question: why didn't the other gospels include this spectacular miracle?

TK

Maybe the earlier gospels suppressed the raising to protect Lazarus from possible reprisals? But it didn't matter so much to John because he wrote later. Perhaps he also knew Lazarus, just as he knew the high priest and Nicodemus (i.e. was from Jerusalem).

I didn't see this post when I asked my question above. So, Dean, what kind of reprisals do you have in mind? Are you thinking they were afraid of renewed threats to Lazarus' life?

[dean198]

Are you thinking they were afraid of renewed threats to Lazarus' life?

Yeah, well I'm not sure. Just throwing it out as a possibility!

[Allyn]

Michelle, only guessing here but it seems to me that if Lazuras was the writer that his personal story and given in the humble way he gave it was twofold. It spoke of the truth of the resurrection in which he himself was used as the example of the ones who died and yet rose again, and the example of Martha as one who lives and never dies. Second, and least in the order, I would think Lazuras was very secure with the fact that he, himself, had now experienced such an important miracle and now nothing man could do could overcome him. He faced death and died and was raised. This was not worded well, but I hope it makes a little sense.

[Michelle]

Michelle, only guessing here but it seems to me that if Lazuras was the writer that his personal story and given in the humble way he gave it was twofold. It spoke of the truth of the resurrection in which he himself was used as the example of the ones who died and yet rose again, and the example of Martha as one who lives and never dies. Second, and least in the order, I would think Lazuras was very secure with the fact that he, himself, had now experienced such an important miracle and now nothing man could do could overcome him. He faced death and died and was raised. This was not worded well, but I hope it makes a little sense.

What you wrote makes sense. I think you're saying it's like his testimony. I'm not sure that answers the question about why the other gospels didn't include that story. My thoughts this morning are that the author of this book, whoever it is, was making a point and used this particular raising because it was the most apt illustration. After all, he wasn't the only one raised from the dead, but those other miracles were used to make other points, I believe.

Allyn, I'm just curious and I don't mean to offend or put you on the spot, but could you expound on your thinking a little bit more for me? Why do you believe that being raised from the dead would have been so life changing for Lazarus? You don't believe in the physical resurrection of the body, and so it seems to me (but of course I don't share your view and therefore might not share your insights into this) that Lazarus might be disappointed to be raised from the dead since that deprived him for the time being of his spiritual resurrection, which I suppose would've happened for him in a matter of days, or weeks, at the most. It seems to me that Lazarus would have been freed from his body, spent four days where ever pre-cross saints spent their after-life, only to be stuffed back into his body — the second-rate existence on this planet. Why would that make him so bold? Me? I would've been a bit depressed.

[steve7150]

Hey Steve,
Just wondering, can you list some other expressions unique to John which show up in both Revelation and the Gospel of John?


Hi Allyn, Only John's gospel and Revelation refer to Jesus as the Word (19.13, John 1.1). Rev 1.7 and John 19.37 translate Zech 12.10 differently from the Septuagint but in agreement with each other. Only Rev and John's Gospel desribe Jesus as the Lamb (5.6, 5.8) (John 1.29) and as a witness (1.5 & John 5.31-32).
Also if you believe Rev was written before John it sounds like John got the revelation that Jesus was the Word late in Revelation and then opened his next book with that theme.

[Allyn]

Allyn, I'm just curious and I don't mean to offend or put you on the spot,

No problem, Michelle - I have always respected your questions.

but could you expound on your thinking a little bit more for me?

I'll try.

Why do you believe that being raised from the dead would have been so life changing for Lazarus?

Just putting myself in the sandals of Lazuras and I having had a near death experience and speaking from the frail human nature, I feel that I understand what lazuras must have felt once the realization struck him that he had been made alive again. For me it was both a relief and a feeling of being cheated. It was easy to almost die and a sort of comfortable feeling even though I was being strangled by my jacket which was caught in a farm auger. It was as though I just departed like walking casually through a door. Lazuras may have had this same sensation. It was done - over with. And then to come back and find that you really do have a life worth living and glorifying in God that He restored what could have been totally gone but yet the unknown was visited and now holds a different conotation then before.

I may be way off in thinking I can relate to Lazuras, but I think I am pretty close. What joy there is now in having tasted death and yet now able to relate that it is not to be feared when in Christ and that this journey we are now in is continued after death.

You don't believe in the physical resurrection of the body, and so it seems to me (but of course I don't share your view and therefore might not share your insights into this) that Lazarus might be disappointed to be raised from the dead since that deprived him for the time being of his spiritual resurrection, which I suppose would've happened for him in a matter of days, or weeks, at the most. It seems to me that Lazarus would have been freed from his body, spent four days where ever pre-cross saints spent their after-life, only to be stuffed back into his body — the second-rate existence on this planet. Why would that make him so bold? Me? I would've been a bit depressed.

I have partly answered this in my answer above, but there is or was one major difference between we who die today and those who died then. We are instantaneously changed when we die. Then it was a sleep or some kind of rest. I'm not sure of the awareness one had but maybe it was just as related in the story Jesus gave concerning the rich man and another Lazuras. The rich man was already in torment but Lazuras seemed to be resting and unaware of the rich man. Since I believe that the Old Covenant dead are now raised and the separation of the sheep and goats is done concerning them (Matthew 25), then now it is all acedemic. They have preceeded us all and are in their heavenly reward. We each in our own turn will now expeience our "coming of Jesus" when we each die. I believe this is what is meant by the statement of Jesus when He said "You will see me no longer" but yet every eye will see Him. We each will see Him face to face upon each death and we all will bow before Him whether saved or lost.

[Allyn]

Hey Steve,
Just wondering, can you list some other expressions unique to John which show up in both Revelation and the Gospel of John?


Hi Allyn, Only John's gospel and Revelation refer to Jesus as the Word (19.13, John 1.1). Rev 1.7 and John 19.37 translate Zech 12.10 differently from the Septuagint but in agreement with each other. Only Rev and John's Gospel desribe Jesus as the Lamb (5.6, 5.8) (John 1.29) and as a witness (1.5 & John 5.31-32).
Also if you believe Rev was written before John it sounds like John got the revelation that Jesus was the Word late in Revelation and then opened his next book with that theme.

Gotcha - thanks.

[Michelle]

Thanks for your reply, Allyn, I appreciate that you shared from your own personal experience as well as your understanding of scripture.

[Paidion]

As for the early evidence - one or two speak of an apostle named John (not 'the apostle John'). Most though speak of 'the disciple John', even when they speak at the very same time of others as 'Andrew one of the apostles' (the Muratorian canon) or 'Philip, one of the apostles' (Polycrates).

Is it that significant that the Muratorian canon speaks of "the disciple John" and immediately afterward speaks of "Andrew one of the apostles"?

Even Matthew uses "disciples" and "apostles" interchangeably when he speaks of the twelve. As learners from Christ, they were called "disciples"; as persons sent by Christ with a commission, they were called "apostles":

And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity. The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. Matthew 10:1-4 RSV

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