Let us thank God, as we turn from this passage, that Christianity has such abundant evidence that it is a religion from God. Whether we appeal to the internal evidence of the Bible, or to the lives of the first Christians, or to prophecy, or to miracles, or to histor}^, we get one and the same answer. All say with one voice, " Jesus is the Son of God, and believers have life through His name"
81. — \Then the Jews took tip stones, etc.~] The conduct of the Jews is just the same as it was when our Lord said, " Before Abrahas was I am." (John viii. 59.) They regarded His words as blasphemy, and proceeded to take the law in their own hands, as they did in Stephen's case, and to inflict the punishment due to blasphemy. (See Lev. xxiv. 14—16.) " He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him." (So Num. xv. 36; 1 Kings xxi. 13.) The Jews of course had no power to put any man to death, being under the dominion of the Romans, and if they did stone any one it would have been a sudden tumultuary proceeding, or act of Lyneh-law.
Let it be noted that the Greek word for " took up " here, is not the same that is used at viii. 59. Here it rather means " they carried." Parkhurst thinks this implies the great size of the s.tones they brought. No doubt the stones used in stoning to death, were not pebbles, but large stones. Yet 1 rather incline to think that it shows that they had to carry stones from some little distance for their murderous purpose. We can hardly suppose there were suitable stones lying about within an old finished building like Solomon's porch, though there might be stones at a little distance on account of the repairs of the temple.
82.— lJesus...ma7iy good works...shewed...Father, etc.~\ Our Lord here appeals to the many miracles He had publicly wrought before the Jews, in discharging His commission as sent by the Father to be the Messiah, all good and excellent works, in which none could find any fault, and lie asks whether they proposed to stone Him for any of them. They had often asked for signs and proofs of His being the Messiah. Well, He had wrought many such signs. Did they really mean to kill Him for His works? He had gone about only doing good. Did they intend to stone him for this?
The expression, " I have shewed," is curious, and we should have expected rather, "I have worked." It probably means, " I have publicly exhibited before your eyes, and not in a corner, but in such a manner as to court the fullest public observation, many wonderful proofs of my Messiahship." (Compare John ii. 18: " What sign shewest Thou?") So St. Paul says that " God shall in His own time shew the appearing of Jesus Christ." (1 Tim. vi. 15.) The expression is probably a Hebraism. (Compare Psalm iv. 6; lx. 3; lxxi. 20; Exod. vii. 9.)
The expression, "from my Father," points to the great truth continually brought forward by our Lord in this Gospel: viz., that all His works as well as words were given to Him by the Father, to be worked and spoken in the world, and ought therefore to be held in special reverence.
Hengstenberg observes, that the expression, " many good works," evidently supposes that John knew of many other miracles which he does not record, and that many had been done at Jerusalem beside the few that are recorded.
[For which...works...stone me.'] This could be literally rendered, " On account of which work of all these are you stoning Me? " Some, as Gualter and Tholuck, have thought that there is a slight tinge of sarcasm about the question. "Is it so that you are actually going to stone Me for good actions? Are not men generally stoned for evil doings? " Yet this seems an unlikely idea, and is needless. Is not the meaning made clear by simply inverting the order of words? "For what work or action are you going to stone Me? Justice requires that criminals should be punished for doing evil works; but all the many wonderful works I have done among you have been good, and not evil. You surely will not stone me for any of these; reason and your laws teach that this would be wrong. It is not therefore for my works and life that you are going to stone Me. I challenge you to prove that I have done evil. Which of you convicteth'Me of sin? "
Taken in this view, the verse is simply a strong assertion, made by our Lord, of His own entire innocence of any crime for which He could be stoned.
Hutchesou thinks that " some stones were already cast at Christ, and therefore He says, Do you stone Me?" Yet this seems needless. The present tense here implies only, Are ye on the point of stoning Me?
33. — [The Jews answered, etc.] Our Lord's confident challenge, as in chap. viii. 46, seems to have been found unanswerable by the Jews. They could not prove any evil work against Him. They therefore reply that they do not propose to stone Him for His works, but for having spoken blasphemous icords. The precise nature of the blasphemy they say is, that " being nothing but a mere man, He made Himself God, or spoke of Himself in such a way as showed that He claimed to be God."
This is a very remarkable verse. It is like chap. v. 18: " The Jews sought to kill Him, because He said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." It shows clearly that the Jews in our Lord's time attached a much higher and deeper sense to our Lord's frequently used language about God being His Father than modern readers are apt to do. In fact they regarded it as nothing less than a claim to equality with God. Modern Arians and Socinians, who profess to see nothing in our Lord's Sonship but a higher degree of that relationship which exists* between all believers and God, would do well to mark this verse. What they say they cannot see, the Jews who hated Christ could see. This " cotemporaneous exposition," to use a legal phrase, of our Lord's words, deserves great respect, and carries with it great weight and authority. As a man, our Lord was a Jew, educated and trained among Jews. Common sense points out that the Jews who lived in His time were more likely to put correct sense on His words than modern Socinians.
Gualter observes, how frequently wicked men and persecutors of Christ's people have affected a zeal for God's glory and pretended a horror of blasphemy. The accusers of Naboth and Stephen are examples: so also the Spanish Inquisition.
A. Clarke observes: " That had the Jews, as many called Christians do, understood our Lord only to mean, by being * one with the Father,' that He had unity of sentiment with the Father, they would not have attempted to treat Him as a blasphemer. In this sense Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, and all the prophets were one with God. But what irritated them was that they understood him to speak of unity of nature. Therefore they say, ' Thou makest Thyself God.' "
S4, — [Jesus answered them, etc.'] Our Lord's defence of his own language against the charge of blasphemy is very remarkable. It is an argument from a lesser to a greater. If princes, who are merely men, are called gods, He who was the eternal Son of the Father could surely not be justly chargeable with blasphemy for calling Himself the " Son of God."
The expression, " your law," means the Scriptures. Sometimes our Lord speaks of two great divisions into which the Jews divided the Old Testament: viz., the law and the prophets. (As Matt. xxii. 40.) The ';law" then included not the books of Moses only, but everything clown to the end of the Song of Solomon. Sometimes He distributes the Scriptures into three parts: the law, the psalms, and the prophets. (As in Luke xxii. 44.) Here He uses one word for all the Old Testament, and calls it "the law." By saying "your law," ouf Lord reminds His hearers that He appeals to their own honoured sacred writings.
The expression, " I said ye are gods," is drawn from the 82d Psalm, in which Asaph is speaking of princes and rulers, and their position and duties. Their elevation above other men was so great, and their consequent responsibility for the state of nations so great, that compared to other men, it might be said, " You are as gods." A king is called " the Lord's anointed. " (2 Sam. i. 14.) So " Ye judge not for man, but for the Lord." (2 Chron. xix. G.) Princes and magistrates are ordained of God, derive their power from God, act for God, and stand between the people and God. Hence, in a sense, they are called " gods." Those who wish to see this subject fully worked out, will see it in Hall and Swinuock's Exposition of the 82d Psalm.
We should observe how our Lord appeals to Scripture as the judge of controversy: " Is it not written? " A plaiu text ought to settle every disputed point. He might have argued: He simply quotes a text. By so doing He puts peculiar honour on Scripture.
It is worth noticing that the Hebrew word rendered "judges" in our version of Exodus xxii. 8, 9, might have been rendered " gods." (Compare Exodus xxii. 28; xxi. 6.)
35. — [If he called them gods.~] Here our Lord proceeds to show what was the edge and point of His argument. All turned on the use of the single word "gods" in one single verse of a Psalm.
It is not very clear what governs the word we render " called,' in this sentence. Our translators evidently thought it meant " God." But why should it not refer direct to "your law " in the last verse: " If your own book of the law in the Psalm has called certain persons gods."
Chrysostom observes: " What He saith is of this kind: ' If those who have received this honour by grace are not found fault with for calling themselves gods, how can He deserve to be rebuked who hath this by nature.' " Theophylact says the
\To whom the word of God came.,] This is a rather difficult expression. Some, as Bullinger and B'irgon, think that it refers to the commission from God, which rulers receive: "they are persons to whom God has spoken, and commanded them to rule for Him." — Some, as Alford, think it simply means, "if He called them gods, to whom God spake in these passages." But it may justly be replied that it does not say " God spake; " but, " There was the word of God." Of the two views the former seems best. The Greek is almost the same as that of Luke iii. 2: " The word of God came to John," — meaning a special commission.
Heinsius suggests that the sentence means t( against whom the word of God was " spoken in the 82d Psalm: that Psalm containing a rebuke of princes. But this seems doubtful.
Pearce thinks that it means "with whom was the word of judgment," and refers to the Septuagint version of 2 Chron. xix. 6.
It deserves notice that it is never said of Christ Himself, that the " Word of God came to Him." He was above all other commissioned judges.
[And the Scripture cannot be broken.] In this remarkable parenthesis our Lord reminds His Jewish hearers of their own acknowledged principle, that the " Scripture cannot be annulled or broken: " that is, that everything which it says must be received reverently and unhesitatingly, and that not one jot. or tittle of it ought to be disregarded. Every word of Scripture must be allowed its full weight, and must neither be clipped, passed over, nor evaded. If the 82d Psalm calls princes who are mere men "gods," there cannot be any impropriety in applying the expression to persons commissioned by God. The expression may seem strange at first. Never mind, it is in the Scripture and it must be right.
Few passages appear to me to prove so incontrovertibly the plenary inspiration and divine authority of every word in the original text of the Bible. The whole point of our Lord's argument hinges on the divine authority of a single word. Was that word in the Psalms? Then it justified the application of the expression " gods " to men. Scripture cannot be broken. The theories of those who say that the writers of the Bible were inspired, but not all their writings, — or the ideas of the Bible inspired, but not all the language in which these ideas are conveyed,— appear to be totally irreconcilable with our Lord's use of the sentence before us. There is no other standing ground, I believe about inspiration, excepting the principle that it is plenary, and reaches to every syllable. Once leaving that ground, we are plunged in a sea of uncertainties. Like the carefully composed language of wills, settlements, and conveyances, every word of the Bible must be held sacred, and not a single flaw or slip of the pen admitted.
Let it be noted that the literal meaning of the word rendered " broken " is loosed or untied.
Gill observes: " This is a Jewish way of speaking, much used in the Talmud. When one doctor has produced an argument, another says, * It may be broken,' or objected to, or refuted. But the Scripture cannot be broken."
Hengstenberg says: " It cannot be doubted that the Scripture is broken by those Who assert that the Psalms breathe a spirit of revenge— that Solomon's song is a common Oriental love song— that there are in the Prophets predictions never to be fulfilled— or by those who deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch."
86.— [Say ye of him, etc.'] Our Lord in this verse presses home on the Jews the force of the expression in the 82d Psalm. "If princes are called gods, do ye mean to call Me whom the Father sanctified from eternity to be Messiah, and sent into the world in due time, a blasphemer, because I have said, I am the Son of God?"
" Say ye of him " would have been better rendered, " Say ye of Me." The Greek leaves it open.
The expression, " whom the Father hath sanctified," must mean, "whom the Father hath set apart, and appointed from all eternity in the covenant of grace, as a priest is sanctified and set apart for the service of the temple." It cannot mean literally " made holy." It implies eternal dedication and appointment to a certain office. This is one of the places which teach the eternal generation of Christ. Long before He came into the world, " the Father" (not God, observe) had sanctified and appointed the Son. He did not become the Son when He entered the world: He was the Son from all eternity.
The expression, " sent into the world," means that mission of Christ's to be the Saviour, which took place when he became incarnate, and came among us in the form of a man. He was the Father's " sent One," the " Apostle " of our profession. (See Heb. iii. 1; John iii. 17; and 1 John iv. 14.) He that was so " sanctified " and " sent," might well speak of Himself as the Son of God, and equal with God.
Calvin remarks: " There is a sauctification that is common to all believers. But here Christ claims for Himself something far more excellent: namely, that He alone was separated from all others, that the grace of the Spirit and majesty of God might be displayed in Him; as He said formerly, 'Him hath God the Father sealed.' " (John vi. 27.)
87. — [If I do not the works, etc.] Here our Lord once more appeals to the evidence of His miracles, and challenges attention to them. " I do not ask you to believe that I am the Son of God and the Messiah, if I do not prove it by my works. If I did no miracles, you might be justified in not believing Me to be the Messiah, and in calling Me a blasphemer."
Here, again, we should observe how our Lord calls His miracles the " works of His Father." They were works given to Him by His Father to do. They were such works as none but God the Father could possibly perform.
Gualter observes, what a proof this verse indirectly supplies of the nullity of the Pope's claim to be God's vicegerent and head of the Church! What are r is works? What evidence of « divine mission does he give?
Musculus also remarks that the Pope's high claims and great sounding titles are useless, so long as his works contradict his words.
38.— [But if I do though, etc.'] Our Lord here concludes His reply to the Jews: " If I do the works of my Father, then, though ye may not be convinced by what I say, be convinced by what I do. Though ye resist the evidence of my words, yield to the evidence of my works. In this way learn to know and believe that I and my Father are indeed one, He in Me, and I in Him, and that in claiming to be His $on I speak no blasphemy."
We should note here, as elsewhere, our Lord's strong and repeated appeals to the evidence of His miracles. He sent to John the Baptist, and desired him to mark His works, if He would know whether He was " the coming One," — " Go and tell John what ye have seen and heard, the blind receive their sight," etc. Just so He argues here. (Matt. xi. 4.)
Let us note the close and intimate union that exists between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity: " The Father is in Me, and I in Him." Such language can never be reconciled with the views of Socinians.
" By these words," says Bloomfield, "our Lord meant communion of mind and equality of power. It is plain that the Jews clearly understood that He claimed and ascribed to Himself the attributes of Godhead, and made Himself equal with the Father."
Chrysostom remarks, that our Lord seems to say, " I am
nothing different from what the Father is, so however as that I remain Son; and the Father is nothing different from what I am, so however as that He remains Father. He that knows Me has known the Father, and learned the Son."
89.—[Therefore...sought...take him.'] Here we see the utter insensibility of our Lord's hardened enemies to any argument or appeal to their reason. In spite of what He had now said, they showed a determination to go on with their wicked designs, and tried again to lay violent hands on Him. Nothing seems to harden the heart, and take away the reasoning faculty, so completely as obstinate resistance to plain evidence.
! [But he escaped...hand.] This would be literally rendered, "And He came forth out of their hand," as in Luke iv. 30; and at viii. 59 of this Gospel. The escape seems to have been effected by miracle. A restraint was put on the hands of His enemies, and their eyes were temporarily blinded.
40. — [And went... again...Jordan...John...baptized.] I know not to what the expression " again " can refer here, except to the time when our Lord began His ministry by coming to be baptized by John at Bethabara, beyond Jordan. (See John i. 28.) I do not find that He had been there again during the three years oi Bis» ministry. There is something touching and instructive in the choice of this place. Where our Lord began His ministry, there He resolved to enter it. It would remind His Jewish hearers that John the Baptist had repeatedly proclaimed Him as " the Lamb of God," and they could not deny John's Divine mission. It would remind His own disciples of the iirst lessons which they learned under their Master's teaching, and recall old things to their minds. It is good to revisit old scenes sometimes. The flesh needs many helps to memory.
Henry makes the quaint remark, " The Bishop of our souls came not to be fixed in one See, but to go about from place to \>lace doing good."
[And there he abode.'] Our Lord must evidently have remained here between three and four months, — from the feast of dedication to the last passover when he was crucified; that is from winter to Easter. Where precisely, and with whom he stayed, we do not know. It must have been a solemn and quiet season to Himself and His disciples.
Musculus observes that this verse teaches us that it is lawful to regard localities in which great spiritual works have been done with more than ordinary reverence and affection.
II. — [And many resorted, etc.'] Our Lord's choice of an abode seems to have had an excellent effect. It was not so far from Jerusalem but that "many" could come to hear Him. as they did to hear John the Baptist. There on the very spot where John, now no longer living, used to preach to enormous crowds, and baptize, they could not help being reminded of John's repeated testimony to Christ. And the consequence was, that they said, " John, whom we believe to have been a prophet, certainly did no miracles, but everything that he said of this Jesus as the coming One, whose shoes he was not worthy to wear, was true. We believed John to be a prophet sent of God. Much more ought this man to be believed."
Let us observe that John's preaching was not forgotten after his death, though it seemed to produce little effect during his life. Herod could cut short his ministry, put him in prison, and have him beheaded; but he could not prevent his words being remembered. Sermons never die. The Word of God is not bound. (2 Tim. ii. 9.)
We never read of any miracle or mighty work being performed by John. He was only " a voice." Like all other ministers, he had one great work, — to preach, and prepare the way for Christ. To do this is more lasting work than to perform miracles, though it does not make so much outward show.
Besser remarks: " John is a type of every servant of Christ. The gift of working miracles, imparted but to few, we can do without, if only one hearer testify of us, 'All things that they spake of Christ are true.' If only our preaching, though it may
last longer than three years, is sealed ts the tifie witness of Christ, through the experience of those who believe and are saved, then we shall have done miracles enough."
42. — [And many believed... there.'] Whether this was; head belief, the faith of intellectual conviction,— or heart belief, the faith of reception of Christ as a Saviour, — we are left in doubt. We have the same expression viii. 30 and xi. 45. Yet we need not doubt that very many Jews, both here and elsewhere, were secretly couvinced of our Lord's Messiahship, and after His resurrection came forward and confessed their faith, and were baptized. It seems highly probable that this accounts for the great number converted at once on the day of Pentecost and at other times. (See Acts iv. 4; vi. 7; and xxi. 20.) The way had been prepared in their hearts long before, by our Lord's own preaching, though at the time they had not courage to avow it. The good that is done by preaching is not always seen immediately. Our Lord sowed, and His Apostles reaped all over Palestine.
Chrysostom has a long and curious comment on this verse. He draws from it the great advantage of privacy and quiet to the soul, and the benefit that women especially derive from living a retired life at home, compared to men. His exhortation to wives to use their advantages in this respect, and to help their husbands' souls, is very singular, when we consider the times he wrote in, and the state of society at Constantinople.
"Nothing," he says, " is more powerful than a pious and sensible woman, to bring a man into proper order, and to mould his soul as she will."
Henry observes: " Where the preaching of repentance has had success, there the preaching of reconciliation and Gospel grace is most likely to be prosperous. Where John has been acceptable, Jesus will not be unacceptable. The jubilee trumpet sounds sweetest in the ears of those who, in the day of atonement, have afflicted their souls for sin."
1 Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.
2 (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)
3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, 6aying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.
4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.
6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was.
The chapter we have now begun is one of the most remarkable in the New Testament. For grandeur and simplicity, for pathos and solemnity, nothing was ever written like it. It describes a miracle which is not recorded in the other Gospels, — the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Nowhere shall we find such convincing proofs of our Lord's Divine power. As God, He makes the grave itself yield up its tenants* — Nowhere shall we find such striking illustrations of our Lord's ability to sympathize with His people. As man, He can be touched with the feelings of our infirmities.— Such a miracle well became the end of such a ministry. It was meet and right that the victory of Bethany should closely precede the crucifixion at Calvary.
These verses teach us that true Christians may be sick and ill as well as others. We read that Lazarus of Bethany was one " whom Jesus loved," and a brother of two wellknown holy women. Yet Lazarus was sick, even unto death! The Lord Jesus, who had power over all diseases, could no doubt have prevented this illness, if He had thought fit. But He did not do so. He allowed Lazarus to be sick, and in pain, and weary, and to languish and suffer like any other man.
The lesson is one which ought to be deeply graven in our memories. Living in a world full of disease and death, we are sure to need it some day. Sickness, in the veiy nature of things, can never be anything but trying to flesh and blood. Our bodies and souls are strangely linked together, and that which vexes and weakens the body can hardly fail to vex the mind and soul. But sickness, we must always remember, is no sign that God is displeased with us; nay, more, it is generally sent for the good of our souls. It tends to draw our affections away from this world, and to direct them to things above. It sends us to our Bibles, and teaches us to pray better. It helps to prove our faith and patience, and shows us the real value of our hope in Christ. It reminds us betimes that we are not to live always, and tunes and trains our hearts for our great change. Then let us be patient and cheerful when we are laid aside by illness. Let us believe that the Lord Jesus loves us when we are sick no less than when we are well.
These verses teach us, secondly, that Jesus Clirist is the Christian's best Friend in the time of need. We read that when Lazarus was sick, his sisters at once sent to Jesus, and laid the matter before Him. Beautiful, touching, and simple was the message they sent. They did not ask Him to come at once, or to work a miracle, and command the disease to depart. They only said, " Lord, he whom Thou lovest is sick," and left the matter there, in the full belief that He would do what was best. Here was the true faith and humility of saints! Here was gracious submission of will!
The servants of Christ, in every age and climate, will do well to follow this excellent example. No doubt when those whom we love are sick, we are to use diligently every reasonable means for their recovery. We must spare no pains to obtain the best medical advice. We must assist nature in every possible manner to fight a good fight against its enemy. But in all our doing, we must never forget that the best and ablest and wisest Helper is in heaven, at God's right hand. Like afflicted Job our first action must be to fall on our knees and worship. Like Hezekiah, we must spread our matters before the Lord. Like the holy sisters at Bethany, we must send up a prayer to Christ. Let us not forget, in the hurry and excitement of our feelings, that none can help like Him, and that He is merciful, loving, and gracious.
These verses teach us, thirdly, that Christ loves all who are true Christians. We read that " Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus." The characters of these three good people seem to have been somewhat difFerent. Of Martha, we are told in a certain place, that she was " careful and troubled about many things/' while Mary " sat at Jesus' feet, and heard His word." Of Lazarus we are told nothing distinctive at all. Yet all these were loved by the Lord Jesus. They all belonged to His family, and He loved them all.
We must carefully bear this in mind in forming our estimate of Christians. ' We must never forget that there are varieties in character, and that the grace of God does not cast all believers into one and the same mould. Admitting fully that the foundations of Christian character are always the same, and that all God's children repent, believe, are hoty, prayerful, and Scripture-loving, we must make allowances for wide varieties in their temperaments and habits of mind. We must not undervalue others because they are not exactly like ourselves. The flowers in a garden may differ widely, and yet the gardener feels interest in all. The children of a family may be curiously unlike one another, and yet the parents care for all. It is just so with the Church of Christ.) There are degrees of grace, and varieties of grace; but the least, the weakest, the feeblest disciples are all loved by the Lord Jesus. Then let no believer's heart fail because of his infirmities; and, above all, let no believer dare to despise and undervalue a brother.
These verses teach us, lastly, that Christ knows best at what time to do anything for His people. We read that " when He had heard that Lazarus was sick, He abode twTo days still in the same place where He was." In fact, He purposely delayed His journey, and did not come to Bethany till Lazarus had been four days in the grave. No doubt He knew well what was going on; but He never moved till the time came which He saw was best. For the sake of the Church and the world, for the good of friends and enemies, He kept away.
The chilrden of God must constantly school their minds to learn the great lesson now before us. Nothing so helps us to bear patiently the trials of life as an abiding conviction of the perfect wisdom by which everything around us is managed. Let us try to believe not only that all that happens to us is well done, but that it is done in the best manner, by the right instrument, and at the right time. We are all naturally impatient in the day of trial. Wa are apt to say, like Moses, when beloved ones are sick, " Heal her now, Lord, we beseech thee." (Num. xii. 13.) We forget that Christ is too wise a Physician to make any mistakes. It is the duty of faith to say, "My times are in Thy hand. Do with me as Thou wilt, how Thou wilt, what Thou wilt, and when Thou wilt. Not my will, but Thine be done." The highest degree of faith is to be able to wait, sit still, and not complain.
Let us turn from the passage with a settled determination to trust Christ entirely with all the concerns of this world, both public and private. Let us believe that He by whom all things were made at first is He who is managing all with perfect wisdom. The affairs of kingdoms, families, and private individuals are all alike overruled by Him. He chooses all the portions of His people. When we are sick, it is because He knows it to be for our good; when He delays coming to help us, it is for some wise reason. The hand that was nailed to the cross is too wise and loving to smite without a needs-be, or to keep us waiting for relief without a cause.
The raising of Lazarus, described in this chapter, is one of the most wonderful events recorded in the Gospels, and demands more than ordirary attention. In no part of our Lord's history do we see Ilim so distinctly both man and God at the same time, man in sympathy, and God in power. Like each of the few incidents in our Lord's ministry related by St. John, it is placed before us with peculiar minuteness and particularity. The story is singularly rich in delicate, tender, and beautiful expressions. Before entering upon it, I venture to offer the following preliminary remarks.
(a) The raising of Lazarus was manifestly intended to supply the Jews with one more incontrovertible proof that Jesus was the Christ of God, the promised Messiah. In the tenth chapter, at the feast of dedication, Our Lord had been asked, "If Thou be the Christ, tell us plainly." (John x. 24.) In reply He had distinctly appealed to His " works," as the best evidence of His Messiahship. He had deliberately challenged attention to those works as witnesses to His commission. And now, after a short interval, we find Him for the last time, within two miles of Jerusalem before many eye-witnesses, doing such a stupendous work of Divine power that a man might have thought any sceptic would have been silenced forever. After the raising of Lazarus, the Jews of Jerusalem at any rate could never say that they were left destitute of proofs of Christ's Messiahship.
(b) The raising of Lazarus was meant to prepare the minds of the Jews for our Lord's own resurrection. It took place between Christmas and Easter, and probably within two months of His own crucifixion. It proved incontrovertibly that a person dead four days could be raised again by Divine power, and that the restoration to life of a corpse was not an impossibility with God. I think it impossible not to see in this a latent design to prepare the minds of the Jews for our Lord's own resurrection. At any rate it paved the way for men believing the event to be not incredible. No one could say on Easter Sunday, when the grave of Jesus was found empty, and the body of Jesus was gone, that His resurrection was an impossibility. The mere fact that between winter and Easter in that very year a man dead four days had been restored to life within two miles of Jerusalem would silence such remarks. Though improbable, it could not be called impossible.
(c) The raising of Lazarus is of all our Lord's miracles the one which is most thoroughly credible, and supported by most incontrovertible evidence. The man who disbelieves it may as well say plainly that he does not believe anything in the New Testament, and does not allow that a miracle is possible. Of course there is no standing-ground between denying the possibility of miracles, and denying the existence of a creating God. If God made the world, surely He can change the course of nature at any time, if He thinks fit.
The famous sceptic, Spiuosa, declared that if he could be persuaded of the truth of the miracle before us, he would forsake his own system, and embrace Christianity. Yet it is extremely difficult to see what evidence of a fact a man can desire.
If he is not satislied with the evidence that Lazarus really was raised from the dead. But, unhappily, none are so blind as those who will not see.
The following passage from Tittman, the German Commentator, is so sensible that I make no apology for giving it at length, though somewhat condensed: "The whole story," he
says, "is of a nature calculated to exclude all suspicion of imposture, and to confirm the truth of the miracle. A wellknown person of Bethany, named Lazarus, falls sick in the absence of Jesus. His sisters send a message to Jesus, announcing it; but while He is yet absent Lazarus dies, is buried, and kept in the tomb for four days, during which Jesus is still absent. Martha, Mary, and all his friends are convinced of his death. Our Lord, while yet remaining in the place where He had been staying, tells His disciples in plain terms that He means to go to Bethany, to raise Lazarus from the dead, that the glory of God may be illustrated, and their faith confirmed. At our Lord's approach, Martha goes to meet Him, and announces her brother's death, laments the absence of Jesus before the event took place, and yet expresses a faint hope that by some means Jesus might yet render help. Our Lord declares that her brother shall be raised again, and assures her that He has the power of granting life to the dead. Mary approaches, accompanied by weeping friends from Jerusalem. Our Lord Himself is moved, and weeps, and goes to the sepulchre, attended by a crowd. The stone is removed. The stench of the corpse is perceived. Our Lord, after pouring forth audible prayer to His Father, calls forth Lazarus from the grave, in the hearing of all. The dead man obeys the call, comes forth to public view in the same dress that he was buried in, alive and well, and returns home without assistance. All persons present agree that Lazarus is raised to life, and that a great miracle has been worked, though not all believe the person who worked it to be the Messiah. Some go away and tell the rulers at Jerusalem what Jesus has done. Even these do not doubt the truth of the fact; on the contrary, they confess that our Lord by His works is becoming every day more famous, and that He would probably be soon received as Messiah by the whole nation. And therefore the rulers at once take counsel how they may put to death both Jesus and Lazarus. The people, in the mean time hearing of this prodigious transaction, flock in multitudes to Bethany, partly to see Jesus, and partly to view Lazarus. And the consequence is that by and by, when our Lord comes to Jerusalem, the population goes forth in crowds to meet Him and show Him honour, and chiefly because of His work at Bethany. Now, if all these circumstances do not establish the truth of the miracle, there is no truth in his-
tory."— I only add the remark, that when we consider the place, the time, the circumstances, and the singular publicity, of the raising of Lazarus, it really seems to require more credulity to deny it than to believe it. It is the unbeliever, and not the believer of this miracle, who seems to me the credulous man. The difficulties of disbelieving it are far greater than those of believing it.
(d) The raising of Lazarus is not mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This has stumbled many persons. Yet the omission of the story is not hard to explain. Some have said that Matthew, Mark, and Ltke purposely confine themselves to miracles done in Galilee. — Some have said that when they wrote their Gospels Lazarus was yet alive, and the mention of his name would have endangered his safety. — Some have said that it was thought better for the soul of Lazarus not to draw attention to him and surround him with an unhealthy celebrity till after he left the world. — In each and all of these reasons there is some weight. But the best and simplest explanation probably is, that each Evangelist was inspired to record what God saw to be best and most suitable. No one, I suppose, imagines that the Evangelists record a tenth part of our Lord's miracles, or that there were not other dead persons raised to life, of whom we know nothing at all. " The dead are raised up," was our Lord's own message, at an early period of His ministry, to John the Baptist. (Matt. xi. 5.) " If the works that Jesus did should be written every one," says John, " the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (Johnxxi. 25.) Let it suffice us to believe that each Evangelist was inspired to record exactly those events which were most likely to be profitable for the Church in studying his Gospel. Our Lord's ministry and say ings at Jerusalem were specially assigned to John. What wonder, then, that he was appointed to record the mighty miracle which took place within two miles of Jerusalem, and proved incontrovertibly the guilt of the Jerusalem Jews in not receiving Jesus as the Messiah?
Bucer remarks that there is a continually ascending greatness and splendour in those miracles which John was inspired to record in his Gospel, and that the raising of Lazarus was the most illustrious of all. He also observes that our Lord specially chose the great feasts at Jerusalem as occasions of working miracles.
Chemnitius remarks: " There is not in the whole Evangelical narrative a more delightful history, and one more abundant both in doctrine and consolation, than this of the raising of Lazarus. It therefore ought to be studied most closely and minutely by all pious minds."
1. — [JVbio a certainman...sick...Lazarus.~\ These simple words are the key-note to the whole chapter. All turns on the bodily illness of an obscure disciple of Christ. How much in the history of our lives hinges on little events, and specially on illnesses I Sickness is a sacred thing, and one of God's great ordinances.
This illness took place between winter and Easter, during the time that our Lord was at Bethabara, beyond Jordan. The nature of the disease we are not told; but irom its rapid course, it is not unlikely it was a fever, such as is common even now in Palestine.
This is the first time that Lazarus is mentioned in the New Testament, and we know nothing certain of his history. Some have conjectured that he was the young ruler who came to our Lord, asking what he must do to obtain eternal life, — and went away sorrowful at the time, but was afterwards converted. — Some have conjectured that he is the young man who followed our Lord when he was taken prisoner, mentioned by St. Mark, and fled away naked.— But these are mere guesses', and there is really no solid foundation for them. That he was not a poor man, but comparatively rich, seems highly probable from the " feast " in John xii., the number of friends who came to mourn him, the alabaster box of precious ointment used by his sister, and the sepulchre hewn out of rock. But even this is only a conjecture.
The name "Lazarus "no doubt is a Greek form of the Hebrew name " Eleazer." It is worth noticing, that it survives to this day in the modern name of Bethany, " El-Azarizeh." {See Smith's Biblical Dictionary.)
[Of Bethany...town...Mary...Martha."] The word "town" in this sentence would have been better translated " village," as it is in sixteen other texts in the New Testament. Bethany, in truth, was only a small village, a short two miles from Jerusalem, on the east side; and its situation is perfectly known now. It lies on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, on the road to Jericho. It is not once mentioned in the Old Testament, and owes its fame to its being the place where Lazarus was raised, — the place where our Lord rested at night just before the passion,— the place from which He commenced His triumphant entry into Jerusalem, — the place from which He finally ascended into heaven, (Luke xxiv. 10,) and the dwelling-place of Mary and Martha.
Let it be noted that the presence of God's elect children is the one thing which makes towns and countries famous in God's sight. The village of Martha and Mary is noticed, while Memphis and Thebes are not named in the New Testament. A cottage where there is grace, is more pleasant in God's sight than a cathedral town where there is none.
Let it be noted that this" verse supplies internal evidence that St. John's Gospel was written long after the other historical parts of the New Testament. He speaks of Martha and Mary as persons whose names and history would be familiar to all Christian readers.
There is a peculiarity in the Greek of this verse, which is hardly conveyed in our English translation. Literally it would be rendered, " Lazarus from Bethany, out of the town of Mary," etc. That " from " Bethany means exactly what we render it, is clear from Acts xvii. 13; Heb. xiii. 24. But why " out of the village, or town of Mary," is said, is not quite so clear. It is open to the conjecture that it means " Lazarus was now a man of Bethany, but "was originally out of the town of Mary and Martha;" viz., some other place. But this seems unlikely. — Webster suggests that "out of" is added by way of emphasis, to show that Lazarus not only lived there, but that it was also the place of his nativity. Greswell says much the same. It is noteworthy that John i. 44 contains exactly the same form of expression about Philip and Bethsaida.
It is noteworthy that Mary is named before Martha, though Martha was evidently the older sister, and head of the house. The reason, I suppose, is that Mary's name and character were better known of the two.
Chemnitius thinks it possible that all Bethany belonged to Martha and Mary, and that this accounts for the consideration in which they were held, and the number of mourners, etc. It is worth remembering that Bethany was a very small place. Yet Bethsaida was called the " town of Andrew and Peter," (John i. 44,) and clearly did not belong to two poor fishermen.
2. — [It was that Mary, etc.~] This verse is a parenthetical explanation inserted by St. John after his manner, to make it certain what Mary he refers to, as the sister of Lazarus. Christians knew there were in our Lord's time no less than four Maries: (1) The virgin mother of our Lord, (2) the wife of Cleophas, (3) Mary Magdalene, (4) Mary the sister of Martha. To prevent, therefore, any mistake, John says," It was that Mary who anointed our Lord, whose brother Lazarus was dead."
Simple as these words seem, there is a singular diversity of opinion as to the question who Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus was, and how many times our Lord was anointed.
(a) Some, as Chrysostom, Origen, and Chemnitius, maiutain that the anointing took place three times: once, in Luke vii., at the house of Simon the Pharisee; once in Bethany, at the house of Simon the leper; and once in Bethany, at the house of Martha and Mary. Others, as Ferus, while agreeing with Chrysostom that our Lord was anointed three times, think Mary was the woman who twice did it.
(6) Some maintain that our Lord was anointed twice: once at the Pharisee's house, (in Luke vii.,) and once at Bethany, at the house of Simon the leper, where Martha and Mary and Lazarus lived, for some cause which we do not know.
(c) Some, as Augustine, Bede, Toletus, Right foot, Maldonatus, Cornelius a Lapide, and Hengsteuberg, maintain that our Lord was only once anointed, — that the narrative in Luke vii. was inserted out of chronological order, — that Simon the Pharisee and Simon the leper were the same person, and that the one anointing took place at Bethany. Hengsteuberg supports his theory very ingenious!}7, and boldly suggests that Simon the Pharisee was also called Simon the leper, was the husband of Martha, and not friendly to Clirist: — that this accounts for Martha being more " careful and troubled," in Luke x. 41, than Mary, and for unfriendly Pharisees being present at the raising of Lazarus; — that Mary Magdalene was the same as Mary of Bethany, and that Mary of Bethany was the " sinner," in Luke vii.
Toletus frankly admits that the Romish Church holds that there was only one anointing by one person, as it is plainly declared in one of her formularies: viz., the Breviary.
My own opinion is decidedlyagainst the last of these views. I hold that there were at least two anointings, — one at a comparatively early period of our Lord's ministry, and another at the close of it, — one in the house of an unfriendly Pharisee named Simon, and another at the house of Simon the leper, in Bethany, — one by a woman who had been pre-eminently a sinner, another by Mary the sister of Martha, against whose moral character we know nothing. — Why the house of Martha and Mary at Bethany is called the house of Simon the leper, I admit I cannot explain. I can only surmise that there was some relationship of which we know nothing. But this difficulty is nothing in my eyes compared to that of supposing, with Augustine and his followers, that the event described in Luke vii. took place just at the end of our Lord's ministry. There is strong internal evidence that it did not, to my mind. Surely at the end of our Lord's ministry, people wOuld not have said with wonder, " Who is this that forgiveth sins? " Surely Mary would not be spoken of as a notorious " sinner."
On the other hand, if we hold the view that our Lord was only anointed twice, once at the house of Simon the Pharisee, and once at Bethany, it must be frankly admitted that there is a very grave difficulty to be got over. That difficulty is that St. Mark says that a woman anointed our Lord " two days " before the Passover, and poured the ointment on His "head" while John says He was anointed " six days before the passover," and the ointment poured on His " feet." — I do not see how this difficulty can be got over. If, however, we hold that our Lord was anointed twice in the last week before He was crucified, once " six days " before, and once " two days " before, and on each occasion by a woman, the whole thing is clear. That such a thing should be done more than once, in those days, does not strike me as any objection, considering the customs of the age. That our Lord's language in defence of the woman should on each occasion be the same is somewhat remarkable. But it is only a minor difficulty. On the whole, therefore, if I must give an opinion, I incline to agree with Chrysostom, that there were three anointings. I also think there is something in the view, of Ferus, that Mary, sister of Lazarus, anointed our Lord twice, once six days before the passover, and once again two days before.
The use of the past participle in the verse before us seems to me no difficulty at all. It is of course true that at this time Mary had not anointed our Lord. But it is no less true that John evidently mentions it by anticipation, as an historical fact long past and well known in the Church when he wrote his Gospel, which his readers would understand. " It was that Mary which afterwards anointed Christ's feet."
Let us note in this verse, that the good deeds of all Christ's saints are carefully recorded in God's book of remembrance. Men are forgetful and ungrateful. Nothing done for Christ is ever forgotten.
Let us note that sickness comes to Christ's people as well as to the wicked and worldly. Grace does not exempt us from trial. Sickuess, on the contrary, is one of God's most useful instruments for sanctifying His saints, and making them bear fruit of patience, and for showing the world that His people do not serve Him merely for what they get of bodily ease and comfort iu this life. "Job does not serve God for nought," was the devil's sneer, in the days when Job prospered. "Lazarus and his sisters make a good thing of their religion," — might have been said if they had had no trials.
Brentius remarks: " God does not go away when bodily health goes away. Christ does not depart when life departs."
S.— [Therefore his sisters sent... saying.] This is an example of what all Christians should do in trouble. Like Mary aud Martha, we should first send a message to Christ. By prayer we can do it as really as they did. This is what Job did in his trouble: he first of all "worshipped," and said, " Blessed be the name of the Lord." This is what Asa did not do: " He sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians." (Job i. 20; 2 Chron. xv. 12.)
Let it be noted that the Greek would be more literally rendered " the sisters," and not " his." This message, from the expression in next verse, " heard," would seem to have been a verbal and not a written one.
[Lord...he whom thou lovest is sick.] This is a very touching and beautiful little message. — Its humble and respectful confidence is noteworthy, " He whom Thou lovest is sick." They do not say, " do something," or-" heal him," or " come at once." They simply spread the case before the Lord, and leave Him to do what He thinks wisest and best. It is like Hezekiah spreading Sennacherib's letter before God. (2 Kings xix. 14.)— The name given to Lazarus is noteworthy: they do not say "our brother," or "thy disciple," or even "one who loves Thee," but simply " he whom Thou lovest," one whom Thou hast been pleased to treat graciously and kindly as a beloved friend. Christ's love to us, and not our love to Christ, is the blessed truth which we ought continually to keep before our minds. His love never chances: ours is wavering and uncertain.
The idea of some, that sending a message to Christ was a mark of weak faith in the two sisters, as if it showed doubt of Christ's omniscience, is absurd. At this rate we might never pray, and might say there is no need, because God knows all!
The word " behold " seems either to indicate something " sudden " in the illness of Lazarus, like Mark ii. 21, and to be used adverbially; or else we must take it as an imperative verb. " Behold a case of great affliction: look upon it and see: he whom Thou lovest is sick." This would be like Hezekiah's prayer: " Open Thine eyes and see." (2 Kings xix. 16.) We can hardly suppose that such disciples as Martha and Mary would think it a strange or surprising thing that a disciple of Christ should be ill; yet it is possible they did. However, Theophylact and Ferus suppose that "Behold" implies a degree of wonder and surprise.
Rupertus remarks, on the message containing no request: " To a loving Mend it was quite enough to announce the fact that Lazarus was sick." Affectionate friends are not verbose or lengthy in descriptions.
Brentius remarks that the message is like all true prayer: it does not consist in much speaking, and fine long sentences.
Musculus and Chemnitius both remark, that when a man's child falls into a well or pit, it is enough to tell a loving father the simple fact, in the shortest manner possible, without dwell' ing on it verbosely and rhetorically.
Let us note that Christ's friends may be sick and ill, just like other people. It is no proof that they are not beloved, and specially preserved and cared for by God. " Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth." The purest gold is most in the fire; the most useful tools are oftenest ground. Epaphroditus and Timothy were both of weak health, and Paul could not prevent it.
4. — [When Jesus heard that, he said.'] This verse seems to contain the reply which our Lord gave to the messenger. It was to him probably, though in the hearing of all His disciples, that He addressed the words which follow. It is as though He said, " Go, return to thy mistress and say as follows."
[This sickness is not unto death, etc.'] The meaning of this sentence must evidently be taken with qualification. Our Lord did not mean that Lazarus would not in any sense die. It is as though He said, " The end of this sickness is not Lazarus' death and entire removal from this world, but generally the glory of God, and specially the glorifying of Me, His Son, which will be effected by my raising him again." Death's temporary victory over us is not complete till our bodies perish and return to dust. This was not allowed in the case of Lazarus, and hence death had not full dominion over him, though he ceased to breathe and became unconscious.
It is undeniable that there was something dark and mysterious about our Lord's message. He might of course have said plainly, "Lazarus will die, and then I will raise him again." Yet there is a wonderful likeness between the style of his message and many an unfulfilled prophecy. He said enough to excite hope, and encourage faith and patience and prayer, but not enough to make Mary and Martha leave off praying and seeking God. And is not this exactly what we should feel about many an unfulfilled prediction of things to come? Men complain that prophecies are not so literally fulfilled as to exclude doubt and uncertainty. But they forget that God wisely permits a degree of uncertainty in order to keep us watching and praying. It is just what He did with Martha and Mary here.
Let us remember that the final result of Lazarus' sickness is what we should desire as the result of any sickness that comes on us and our families: viz., that God and Christ may be glorified in us. We cannot say, " It shall not end in death: " but we can say, "By God's help, it shall be for God's glory."
Chrysostom observes: " The expression that in this passage denotes not cause, but consequence. The sickness happened from other causes. Christ used it for the glory of God."
Calvin remarks, that God wishes to be honoured by Christ being glorified. " He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father." (John v. 23.)
, — [Now Jesus loved Martha, etc.~\ This verse is meant to show that all the members of the family at Bethany were disciples of Jesus and beloved by Him, the brother as well as the sisters, and one sister as well as the other. A happy family, Lampe remarks, in which all the members were objects of Christ's special love.
We know not where Lazarus was at the time when Jesus stopped at Martha's house, in Luke x.: perhaps he was not converted at that time. But this is only conjecture.
We are generally apt to undervalue the grace of Martha and overvalue that of Mary, because of what happened when Jesus was at Martha's house before. Many foolish things are sometimes lightly said against mothers and mistresses as being Marthas, "careful and troubled about many things." Yet people should remember that different positions call out different phases of character. Mary certainly shines more brightly than Martha in the 10th of Luke; but it is a grave question whether Martha did not outshine her in the 11th of John. Active-minded Christians come out better under some circumstances; quietminded Christians, in others. Our Lord teaches us here that He loves all who have grace, though their temperaments differ/ Let us learn not to judge others rashly, and not to form hasty estimates of Christians, until we have seen them under every sort of circumstances, in winter as well as summer, in dark days as well as bright.
Let it be noted that the Greek word here rendered " loved,'* is not the same that is rendered " lovest," in the 3d verse. The word describing the love of Jesus to the three in this verse is a word expressing a high, deep, excellent, and noble affection. It is the same as Mark x. 21, and John iii. 16. — The word used in the message of the sisters is a lower word, such as is used to describe the affection between a parent and child, or husband and wife. It is the word used for "kiss" in Matt. xxvi. 48; Markxiv. 44; and Luke xxii. 47. It is very noticeable that this word is carefully avoided here, when the two sisters are mentioned. The Holy Ghost inspired John to abstain even from the appearance of evil. What a lesson this ought to be to us!
Let it be noted that we see here an example of the broad distinction that ought to be drawn between Christ's general love of compassion which He feels towards all mankind, and His special love of election which He feels towards His own members. He loved all sinners to whom He came to preach the Gospel, and He wept over unbelieving Jerusalem. But He specially loved those who believed on Him.
,— [When he had heard therefore, etc.~] It is impossible not to remark an intentional and most instructive connection between this verse and the preceding one. Our Lord loved the family of Bethany, all three of them; and yet when He heard Lazarus was sick, instead of hastening at once to Bethany to heal him, He quietly remained at Bethabara for two days, without moving.
We cannot doubt that this delay was intentional and of pur pose, and it throws immense light on many of God's providential dealings with His people. We know that the delay caused immense mental pain and suffering to Martha and Mary, and obliged Lazarus to go through all the agony of death, and the sorrow of parting. We can easily imagine the grief and suspense and perplexity in which the household at Bethany must have been kept for four days, when their loving Master did not appear; and we know that our Lord could have prevented it all, but did not. But we know also that if He had at once hurried to Bethany and healed Lazarus, or spoken a word from a distance at Bethabara and commanded his healing, as in John iv. 50, the mighty miracle of raising him would never have been wrought, and the wonderful sayings of Bethany would never have been spoken. In short the pain of a few was permitted for the benefit of the whole Church of Christ.
We have here the simplest and best account of the permission of evil and suffering. God could prevent it. God does not love to make his creatures suffer. But God sees there are lessons which mankind could not learn unless evil was permitted; therefore God permits it. The suffering of some tends to the good of many. "He that believech shall not make haste." We shall see at the last day that all was well done. Even the delays and long intervals which puzzle us in God's dealings, are wisely ordered, and are working for good. Like children, we are poor judges of half-fiuished work.
Chrysostom says: "Christ tarried that none might be able to assert that He restored Lazarus when not yet dead, saying it was a lethargy, a fainting, a fit, but not death. He therefore tarried so long that corruption began."
Calvin observes: " Let believers learn to suspend their desires, if God does not stretch out His hand to help as soon as they think necessity requires. Whatever may be His delays, he never sleeps and never forgets His people/'
Quesnel remarks: "God permits evil, that He may make the power of His grace and the might of His love more conspicuous in the conversion of a sinner."
Poole remarks: " We must not judge of Christ's love to us by His mere external dispensations of providence, nor judge that He doth not love us, because He doth not presently come in to our help at our time, and in such ways and methods as we think reasonable."
7 Then after that saith he to his disciples, Let us go into Judaea again.
8 His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?
9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
10 But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.
11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
13 llowbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that ho had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
15 And I am glad for your sakcs that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto
16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow-disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.
We should notice, in this passage, how mysterious are the ways in which Christ sometimes leads His people. We are told that when He talked of going back to Judaea, His disciples were perplexed. It was the very place where the Jews had lately tried to stone their Master: to return thither was to plunge into the midst of danger. These timid Galileans could not see the necessity or prudence of such a step. " Goest Thou thither again? " they cried.
Things such as these are often going on around us. The servants of Christ are often placed in circumstances just as puzzling and perplexing as those of the disciples. They are led in ways of which they cannot see the purpose and object; they are called to fill positions from which they naturally shrink, and which they would never have chosen for themselves. Thousands in every age are continually learning this by their own experience. The path they are obliged to walk in is not the path of their own choice. At present they cannot see its usefulness or wisdom.
At times like these a Christian must call into exercise his faith and patience. He must believe that his Master knows best by what road His servant ought to travel, and that He is leading him, by the right wajr, to a city of habitation. He may rest assured that the circumstances in which he is placed are precisely those which are most likely to promote his graces and to check his besetting sins. He need not doubt that what he cannot see now he will understand hereafter. He will find one day that there was wisdom in every step of his journey, though flesh and blood could not see it at the time. If the twelve disciples had not been taken back into Judaea, they would not have seen the glorious miracle of Bethany. If Christians were allowed to choose their own course through life, they would never learn hundreds of lessons about Christ and His grace, which they are now taught in God's ways. Let us remember these things. The time may come when we shall be called to take some journey in life which we greatly dislike. When that time comes, let us set out cheerfully, and believe that all is right.
We should notice, secondly, in this passage, how tenderly Christ speaks of the death of believers. He announces the fact of Lazarus being dead in language of singular beauty and gentleness: " Our friend Lazarus sleepeth."
Every true Christian has a Friend in heaven, of almighty power and boundless love. He is thought of, cared for, provided for, defended by God's eternal Son. He has an unfailing Protector, who never slumbers or sleeps, and watches continually over his interests. The world may despise him, but he has no cause to be ashamed. Father and mother even may cast him out, but Christ having once taken him up will never let him go. He is the "friend of Christ " even after he is dead! The friendships of this world are often fair-weather friendships, and fail us like summer-dried fountains, when our need is the sorest; but the friendship of the Son of God is stronger than death, and goes beyond the grave. The Friend of sinners is a Friend that sticketh closer than a brother.
The death of true Christians is " sleep," and not annihilation. It is a solemn and miraculous change, no doubt, but not a change to be regarded with alarm. They have nothing to fear for their souls in the change, for their sins are washed away in Christ's blood. The sharpest sting of death is the sense of unpardoned sin. Christians have nothing to fear for their bodies in the change; they will rise again by and b}7, refreshed and renewed, after the image of the Lord. The grave itself is a conquered enenry. It must render back its tenants safe and sound, the very moment that Christ calls for them at the last clay.
Let us remember these things when those whom we love fall asleep in Christ, or when we ourselves receive our notice to quit this world. Let us call to mind, in such an hour, that our great Friend takes thought for our bodies as well as for our souls, and that He will not allow one hair of our heads to perish. Let us never forget that the grave is the place where the Lord Himself lay, and that as He rose again triumphant from that cold bed, so also shall all
His people. To a mere worldly man death must needs be a terrible thing; but he that has Christian faith may boldly say, as he lays down life, " I will lay me down in peace, and take my rest: for it is Thou, Lord, that makest me dwell in safety."
We should notice, lastly, in this passage, lioiv much of natural temperament clings to a believer even after conversion. We read that when Thomas saw that Lazarus was dead, and that Jesus was determined, in spite of all danger, to return into Judaea, he said, " Let us also go, that we may die with Him." There can only be one meaning in that expression: it was the language of a despairing and desponding mind, which could see nothing but dark clouds in the picture. The very man who afterwards could not believe that his Master had risen again, and thought the news too good to be true, is just the one of the twelve who thinks that if they go back to Judaea they must all die!
Things such as these are deeply instructive, and are doubtless recorded for our learning. They show us that the grace of God in conversion does not so re-mould a man as to leave no trace of his natural bent of character. The sanguine do not altogether cease to be sanguine, nor the desponding to be desponding, when they pass from death to life, and become true Christians. They show us that we must make large allowances for natural temperament, in forming our estimate of individual Christians. We must not expect all God's children to be exactly one and the same. Each tree in a forest has its own peculiarities of shape and growth, and yet all at a distance look one mass of leaf and verdure. Each member of Christ's body has his own distinctive bias, and yet all in the main are led by one Spirit, and love one Lord. The two sisters Martha and Mary, the apostles Peter and John and Thomas, were certainly very unlike one another in many respects. But they bad all one point in common: they loved Christ, and were His friends.
Let ns take heed that we really belong to Christ. This is the one thing needful. If this is made sure, we shall be led by the right wa}T, and end well at last. We may not have the cheerfulness of one brother, or the fiery zeal of another, or the gentleness of another. But if grace reigns within us, and we know what repentance and faith are by experience, we shall stand on the right hand in the great day. Happy is the man of whom, with all his defects, Christ says to saints and angels, " This is our friend."