We are told that ἤδη ὄζει (11%) expresses, not merely Martha’s expectation, but a fact. d are we prepared to maintain that Christ restored a putrid corpse to life? The reply to which is, that we have no right to dogmatize, but that we have full right to believe that God, who had determined that L. should be raised, had preserved his body from corruption.
When the stone was raised, Jesus lifted up His eyes to heaven and said, ‘Father, I thank thee that thou didst hear me’ (11*). It is maintained that such words on the lips of the God-Man are unreal. Only those who think that the incarnation involves the extinction of the human nature by the divine can so think. Christ here intimates whom they have to thank for the immense mercy that is before them. The Son can do nothing of Himself; His power is from the Father (5°°) The words are parallel to ‘declare how great things God hath done for thee’ (Lk 8%).
Our intellectual difficulties would not be at an end if we were to admit that no such miracle ever took place. The hypothesis that the story is a fiction is quite incredible. The narrative holds together with the closest consistency (11'° and 17-38 with 9-4) ; and the story as a whole not only harmonizes with what follows, but explains it section by section (1145 55: 54-87 ]91-8. 9-11. 12°19), 9 The people who take part in it are intensely real, and
uite beyond the evangelist’s powers of invention. n particular, the characters of the two sisters are not only very true to life, but receive remarkable confirmation from the entirely independent sketch of them by St. Luke (10%8-#*), There, in utterly different circumstances, the practical Martha and contemplative Mary are as real as in St. John’s narrative. The only reasonable explanation of the harmony between the two pictures is that both are taken from life (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 38; Fairbairn, Lxpositor, 1st series, ix. p. 189).
The narrative with its evidence of the miracle is there, and must be explained. How did the report of such an event arise? We have our choice of various suggestions, (1) The old Ration- alism oflers us a remarkable coincidence. L. was in a trance, from which he was recovering just as Jesus reached the tomb. When the stone was removed, Jesus perceived that he was not dead, and eried, ‘Lazarus, come forth.’ (2) Renan sees clearly that something really did take place at Bethany which was looked upon as a resurrection ; but he rejects the idea of mere coincidence. The
family of devoted disciples arranged that L. should pretend to be dead, in order that Jesus might
LAZARUS OF BETHANY 87
overwhelm His foes by seeming to restore him to life: and Jesus allowed Himself to take poe in this imposture. (3) Keim regards the whole as undoubtedly a fiction, made up largely of Synoptic materials, and composed partly as a great final picture of Christ’s powers, partly as an exposition of His saying that Jews who did not listen to Moses and the prophets would not be persuaded though L. rose from the dead (Lk 16%). It is a parable translated into fact. (4) Others take a similar view, but differ as to the central germ. These make the whole story an allegorical illus- tration of Christ’s declaration, ‘I am the Resur- rection and the Life,’ etc. (Jn 11%), which is the one substantial factor in the composition. (5) Strauss falls back on his usual expedient of treating the narrative as a myth. There are many variations in explaining details, but these five are typical of the expedients employed by those who regard a miracle as ey. incredible. Each person must judge for himself whether any of these explana- tions is more satisfactory than a belief in the reality of the miracle. The first two are revolting even to those who hold that Jesus was only the best man who ever lived, and they entirely fail to explain either 11'16 or 17-8, The others ascribe to the evangelist a creative power which would be a miracle in the literature of that age. For, even if he got some ideas from the other Gospels or from popular imagination, the form of the nar- rative, with its impressive reality and vividness, its internal consistency and its harmony with the rest of the Gospel and with St. Luke, is his own. The ho Gospels show us what kind of stories early Christians could invent, when they tried to add to what was known about Christ. ‘No narrative of NT bears so completely the stamp of being the very opposite of a later invention’ (Meyer, ad /oc.). ‘The Johannine narrative is both unexplained and inexplicable, unless its historical character be accepted’ (B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, bk. vi. § 6). In particular, the silence of the narrative is as impressive as its contents, and is in marked con- trast to fiction. Nothing is told us of the emotions or experiences of Lazarus. No word of his is recorded. Not even his amazement, or joy, or trouble at being restored to life is described ; and he makes no revelations about the other world. Would a writer of romance have denied himself this attractive theme? Would he have been thus careful to avoid gratifying unhealthy curiosity? See art. JESUS CHRIST, vol. ii. p. 625.