Among all the miracles which our Lord performed, the resurrection of Lazarus is especially proclaimed. Augustine [In Ioannis Evangelium Tractatus] says: "Above, the Lord showed His life-giving power by His word; here He confirms it by a miracle, raising a certain dead man, Lazarus." Thomas [Aquinas] and Salmeron note that although the healing of the man born blind was a great sign, nevertheless the miracle of Lazarus, dead for four days and already decaying, is much greater and more excellent. For it is a greater thing to restore life with all the senses than to restore the single sense of sight. For the Lord, in His wisdom, the more He approached death, the greater signs of His power and more admirable testimonies of the mission entrusted to Him by the Father He produced, so that no one might be offended by the weakness of human nature declared on the cross and in death, or be able to consider Him as having succumbed to death as if powerless. Moreover, from the life bestowed upon Lazarus, He wished His followers to gather that He could recall Himself from death after three days. Augustine, Tractate 43.
Moreover, the Evangelist hands down a very accurate narration concerning this matter, describing the individual conditions most diligently, so that the truth of the matter may shine forth from the very form of the narration. Some have called this into doubt because the Synoptics report nothing concerning this matter. But chiefly it ought to be considered that the Synoptics are occupied especially with relating those things which were done in Galilee; concerning things done in the city [Jerusalem], they touch only upon those which happened in the last week of the Lord's life. Even Luke, who makes mention of three journeys to the city, nevertheless is silent concerning things done in the city. In addition, the Synoptics had already reported that Christ also recalled the dead to life (Matthew 9:25; Mark 5:41; Luke 7:14; 8:54), but by no means do they indicate that they wish to consign all Christ's deeds to writing; from various kinds of miracles they commit one or another to memory. Hence this omission cannot be an offense.
Of how much importance this miracle is for the evangelical history itself is indicated in verse 4 and verse 47 following. For it is a certain greatest glorification of Christ, and as we have often already noted, the greater light that shines upon the Sanhedrin by the manifestation of Jesus, the greater darkness they are involved in. With this miracle performed, the High Priest with the Sanhedrin decrees that Christ must be killed forthwith.
On the Sickness of Lazarus. Chrysostom, Thomas [Aquinas], and others note regarding the sickness of Lazarus how the friends of God are also afflicted in various ways.
Verse 1: Now there was a certain man sick, Lazarus of Bethany (cf. v. 18), of the castle (ἐκ τῆς κώμης, from the village/town) of Mary and Martha, his sister. αὐτῆς, i.e., of Mary. Bethany is called their village because they had a stable dwelling there, in the same way that in 1:44 Bethsaida is called the city of Andrew and Peter. Therefore, that question of some, whether they were the mistresses of the village, ought not to be raised. Concerning these sisters, he speaks as if supposing them to be already known. They are known, moreover, from Luke 10:38, 42. Lazarus (לעזר) is also in the Talmud a shorter form for אלעזר (Eleazar), God helps. The name Martha (מרתא) also occurs most frequently among the Talmudists (Lightfoot, Horae hebr. ad h. 1.).
In the first place, he names Mary because she was famous in the Gospel history more than Martha, as is immediately indicated in Verse 2: Mary, however, was she who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. ἡ ἀλείψασα (the one who anointed). Note here the manner of speaking which is found in the Evangelist. In 6:72 he says concerning Judas: οὗτος ἔμελλεν παραδιδόναι αὐτόν (this one was about to betray Him), because at the time about which he writes there, the betrayal was future. In 7:50: Νικόδημος ὁ ἐλθὼν πρὸς αὐτόν (Nicodemus, who came to Him), because at that time this had already happened. And in the same way 18:14: ὁ συμβουλεύσας (who had given counsel, cf. 11:49), and 21:20: ὃς καὶ ἀνέπεσεν (who also had reclined), because it had happened before. Therefore, in the same way, ἡ ἀλείψασа (the one who anointed) seems to refer not to an anointing future at the time about which he now writes, but past, and consequently to Luke 7:37, etc., so that John may reveal to us the name of that woman which Luke left silent. Augustine considers the matter thus, saying: "John bears witness to Luke; therefore Mary had already done this" (De Consensu Evangelistarum 2, 79, n. 154; Migne 34, 1155). And in the same way, Baradius, Rupert, Caietanus, Toletus, Maldonatus, Sa, Lapide, Baronius, Natalis, Corluy, Schegg, and others conceive the matter, judging that by that expression the anointing is anticipated and designated concerning which he is about to narrate shortly in 12:3. Theodoret, Thomas [Aquinas], Calmet, Scholz, Fillion, Weiss, Keil [hold the latter view].
But the former opinion seems preferable. For the Evangelist certainly wishes to consign to writing something which those to whom he writes did not know. Now he immediately adds that anointing in 12:2, and there he designates Mary in such a way that it cannot be ignored. Therefore, that anointing and the anointing woman became known to all. But who had anointed [Him] in Luke 7:37 was unknown. Why, therefore, should he write anticipatorily? There is no reason. But there is a reason why he adds to an event already known from elsewhere that which was ignored by others (cf. Schegg). And rightly Baradius says: "For to what end would he anticipate in chapter 11 that which he was about to commit to writing shortly?" Therefore, he wished to indicate that anointing of which Luke makes mention, and which had been very famous. And well too Caietanus [notes]: he does not say "who afterwards anointed" or "who was about to anoint," but "anointed," so that we may understand Mary to have been she who had anointed. And if we join to this description that description is commonly made from better known things, and that no other is found concerning which it was true then that she anointed the feet of Jesus, it will appear that he says that Mary is she who is described in Luke 7 without a name as having anointed the feet of the Lord. Indeed, John, having read the Gospel of Luke, explains intentionally that this is that one.
Not only does the plain and smooth sense according to the letter attest to this meaning, but also the custom of this Evangelist, who in the same way describes both Caiaphas and Nicodemus from past actions below. Nor does it fit that this was said anticipatively by the Evangelist, because anticipation has place when a thing done is not narrated in its own place, or the occasion for anticipating urges. In the present case, however, the Evangelist himself narrates the subsequent anointing in its proper time, and no occasion offered itself for anticipating a future anointing, as is clear. Therefore, the letter seems to be wrested by a hasty anticipation of this kind. And Toletus similarly [argues]: those also ought to think Mary to be that one of whom Luke 7 [speaks], who think that only one anointing is narrated among the Evangelists, which indeed is a great enough error (see what I said in Commentary on Luke, p. 270).
Thus already Origen reports: "Many think that the four Evangelists have set forth concerning one and the same woman." So Eusebius, whose canons admit only one anointing. Ephraem, Apollinarius, Theodoret [in the so-called Concord of Ammonius found by Victor of Capua] designate Mary as that sinful woman. Tertullian, Andrew of Crete, Paulinus, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory the Great, Peter Chrysologus (cf. De Pudicitia c. 11; Migne Gr. 97, 984; Migne Lat. 61, 279; 25, 817; Ambrose Vol. 1 in Luc. p. 1387, 1539; De Poenit. 2, 7, 62; Chrysologus Serm. 93; see Corluy p. 274 seq.). Albizzi brings forward both opinions, that she is and that she is not that sinful Mary, and concludes: "Nor is it great if doctors feel differently concerning the names and qualities of persons."
Jn 11:3: His sisters therefore sent to Him, namely on account of the sickness (v. 2), saying by messengers: Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick. They did not say "come." For to one loving, it only needed to be announced; "It suffices that You know." For "You do not love and desert" (Augustine). "For it was enough for one loving to have been notified; they did not ask that He come and heal the sick man" (Rupert).
Jn 11:4: But Jesus hearing, said to them: This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified by it. Chrysostom, Caietanus, Toletus, Scholz think these words were spoken to the messengers so that they might be reported to the sisters. Cyril denies [this]. Jesus speaks thus to show that the sickness was already known to Him beforehand. Not unto death, namely in the way in which sickness otherwise is wont to be unto death. For Lazarus was about to die, so that shortly he was about to return to life, not to remain in death. Therefore, He calls his death sleep (cf. Matthew 9:24). For, as Toletus notes, death itself was not unto death. For death separates the soul from the body and dissolves the composite and imposes an end on this life; formerly indeed, not the latter happened in Lazarus. He does not assign a natural cause of the sickness, but says to what end divine providence directs it: ὑπὲρ τῆς δόξης (for the glory), namely so that the glory of God may be manifested and revealed in a distinguished way (cf. Thomas). And by what reason this glory is revealed is declared when it is added more explicitly: that the Son of God may be glorified by it, namely by his sickness, on the occasion of which, by its natural force, it brings death, which He conquers. God the Father, therefore, wills the manifestation of His glory in that sickness in such a way that it shines forth in the glory of the Son, and consequently also is recognized and celebrated by men in the glory of the Son. Therefore, the mode of the manifestation of the glory of God is had in the glory of the Son. Caietanus, Toletus, Jansenius, Baronius [hold] that one and the same glory of the Father and of the Son is announced by these statements, and the Son is declared God. Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius, Augustine, Caietanus, Jansenius, Maldonatus, Baronius teach this.
This glory is seen in the resuscitation of him who, now four days dead, had begun to corrupt in the sepulcher. Whence Jesus, by the will of the Father who willed that manifestation, remained beyond the Jordan until that time was completed. If those words were reported to the sisters, certainly they were for consolation, but at the same time a great trial existed for them in the very death of Lazarus, which seemed to have happened contrary to the words. As in v. 2, so here the Evangelist notes those things which to know is as grateful as it is useful for understanding the deed done better.
Jn 11:5: Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister Mary, and Lazarus. ἠγάπα (loved). The Evangelist uses this voice optimally, not φιλεῖν (to love with affection), which signifies an inclination stirred by sense. Some ask why this mention of love is inserted. Some refer it to v. 3, so that it may complete as it were that which was said: he whom You love. Better it pertains to the subsequent things, as that therefore in v. 6 also indicates. There are those who think He wished to occupy the suspicion of the reader, lest anyone think that Jesus did not betake Himself immediately to heal Lazarus on account of a defect of love (Toletus, Jansenius). But better with Maldonatus, Lapide, it looks more closely at the following things and signifies that Jesus, having received the message, had fixed the illness plainly in mind and soul, nor could He forget those whom He loved, and therefore at the time appointed by the Father for greater glory, He most willingly girded Himself to bring help.
Jn 11:6: When therefore He had heard that he was sick, then indeed He remained in the same place two days. He remained so that he might expire and be buried, lest anyone say: "He raised him not yet dead; he was only asleep" (Chrysostom). Lazarus seems to have died on that day on which the message was brought to Jesus. For having accepted it, He remained in the same place two days; on the third day He undertakes the journey to Bethany; arriving, He hears that Lazarus died four days before (Patrizi, cf. Thomas, Schegg).
Jn 11:7-8: Then after this, He said to His disciples: Let us go into Judea again. When Jesus had said that the sickness was not unto death, and had remained in the same place for two days, now the disciples wonder all the more. Whence in Verse 8 the disciples say to Him: Rabbi, now (i.e., most recently, with emphasis) they seek to stone You, the Jews (10:31), and again You go there? See how terrified the disciples were (Augustine). But Jesus declares to them by a parabolic speech that He will suffer nothing from the Jews before the appointed time. For by supernal counsel He wills to suffer or not to suffer, just as it depends on the presence or absence of light that men see or do not see (Apollinarius in cat. Cord.).
Jn 11:9-10: Jesus answered: Are there not twelve hours of the day? From sunrise to sunset twelve hours were numbered, of various duration according to the various time of year. If a man walk in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. Verse 10: But if he walk in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him. To walk by day is safe (Rupert). Whence, "as long as it is day for Me, as long as by divine counsel and My will I must live, nothing is to be feared on the part of adversaries, even if they plot snares. For as long as light is present, an obstacle can be seen and avoided, lest he who walks impinge upon it. At night, indeed, he offends his foot against an obstacle." So Jesus also, at the time of passion and death, gives Himself into the power of adversaries; in the past time of His life, He does not avoid danger threatening Himself, just as he who walks in the night offends his foot because the light is not in him. The light of the sun has ceased; he does not have in himself light by which he may make the way bright for himself. For man is not to himself a source, as it were, and cause of light. Just as, therefore, the light of day will not fail unless first the appointed time be fulfilled, so it cannot happen that My light be taken away or obscured by the Jews before I have come to the suitable and due mode of humanity (Cyril).
The disciples speak concerning the instant danger of Jesus. To this, therefore, it is answered. They intimate nothing concerning His danger. Therefore, there is no need to explain: "I am the day/light; as long as I am with you, you will be safe; you will not stumble. But with Me taken away, indeed you will stumble, exposed to danger" (Chrysostom, Cyril, Rupert). The prior explanation suffices (cf. Toletus, Maldonatus, Patrizi, Corluy, Schegg). See various interpretations at Jansenius, Lapide, Baronius, which it is not necessary to report. Thus, with the disciples' objection as it were removed, He opens to them why He is about to go into the region of Judea from Perea.
Jn 11:11-12: These things He said, and after this He said to them: Lazarus our friend sleeps. κεκοίμηται (has slept), and is held sunk in sleep. But I go that I may awaken him from sleep. The disciples seem not to have attended to anything except the first member of the speech and only the sound of the word, and, seized by desire lest the Lord again go into Judea, immediately they warn that now there is no need to undertake that journey to heal him. Verse 12: The disciples therefore said to Him: Lord, if he sleeps, he will be safe. For sleep is wont to be an indication of safety for the sick (Augustine). Therefore, no danger is present, but truly hope of recovering health, and therefore there is no reason that Jesus insert Himself into danger (Rupert). And thus they strive to hinder Jesus from the journey (Chrysostom, Thomas, etc.). Fixed on that one thought expressed in v. 8, the disciples do not perceive that which was nevertheless plain enough, that Jesus could not speak of sleep. They do not hear the other member on account of that preoccupation. Otherwise, they ought to have seen that no one undertakes so long a journey (Patrizi reckons about sixteen miles), but where Jesus had been in Perea we do not know so accurately, merely to awaken someone from sleep.
Jn 11:13: But Jesus had spoken of his death (cf. Matthew 9:24). Thence also the dead are called οἱ κοιμώμενοι, κεκοιμημένοι, κοιμηθέντες (those sleeping, having slept, having been laid to sleep) (Matthew 27:52; 1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Thessalonians 4:13 seq.). But they thought that He spoke of the repose of sleep. Whence it can hardly stand that they understood an awakening from sleep concerning a perfect healing which He wished to effect. Whether, therefore, they are to be accused of excessive dullness, there is no need. Hold that they stick fixed on that one thought of v. 8, nor will you judge the response so foolish, but easy to explain. Nor does Jesus, as at other times, reprove them for slowness.
Jn 11:14-15: Then Jesus said to them manifestly (παρρησίᾳ, boldly/freely), so that now nothing is held back, dissimulated, or concealed: Lazarus is dead. By which word the disciples certainly were stupefied. For they had heard: This sickness is not unto death (v. 4). Wherefore Christ immediately signifies that nothing had happened unexpectedly to Him, but truly that which He had willed and concerning which He was to rejoice. Verse 15: And I rejoice for your sakes, that you may believe, that you may believe more fully and robustly (Augustine). Therefore, He says the faith of the disciples will be increased on the occasion of the absence of Christ: because I was not there, that therefore you may believe because I was not there, which you were not about to believe if I had been there. For if He had been there, either conquered by mercy or by the prayers of the sisters, He would have healed him from the sickness or raised him recently dead, not bearing the so long-lasting grief of the sisters. But since He had not been there, it was necessary now to raise him already dead, already buried, already four days dead and stinking, which all the more increased the faith of the disciples, the greater the miracle was (Maldonatus). Similarly Theodoret (in cat. Cord.).
Commonly they refer that because I was not there to I rejoice: "I rejoice for your sakes that I was not there, because if I had been there I would have healed him" (cf. Cyril, Rupert, Thomas, Jansenius, Toletus, Lapide, Schegg, Scholz, Fillion). He therefore designates the fruit which was about to arise from that manifestation of the glory of God (v. 4). But let us go to him. Now by the will of the Father, that the Son may be glorified, His presence is necessary. Thomas, however, is not able to shake off that fear on account of the Jews who are about to stone Jesus. He did not understand the words of Christ in v. 9-10, nor does he recall those of 10:18, nor is he mindful, on account of his slowness in faith, how many times Christ has already eluded the snares of the Jews. Wherefore he addresses both himself and others, exhorting that because they could not retain Jesus, they go to meet death with Him.
Jn 11:16: Thomas therefore said, who is called Didymus (cf. Genesis 38:27; Canticles 4:5; 7:4), is explained by the Greek voice δίδυμος (twin), by which Greek name he was known among the Hellenists and among ethnic Christians: Let us also go, that we may die with him. Some accuse him of excessive timidity and infidelity (cf. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Salmeron, Jansenius). Cyril judges better concerning him, showing him to possess a prompt will but also timidity, a mind loving God but moderate faith. Ammonius: "It would indeed be good if, believing us, He remained here and avoided the snares of enemies. But since it is altogether determined for Him to go there, let us accompany Him. For it is better for us to die together with Him dying than, consulting for our own life, to be abandoned by the Master" (cat. Cord.). So likewise Origen praises him as a faithful disciple (cat. Cord.). Rupert praises him because he preferred life to the command and will of the Lord, and thinks this mind is praised by the Lord Himself when afterwards He said: "You are those who have remained with Me in My temptations" (Luke 22:28). Caietanus says those words are of great fervor and an intrepid mind, arisen from fortitude. Bonaventure reckons them to be of love and ardor. Baronius judges [them to pertain] to love and fortitude, but to imperfect faith. Toletus refers [them] to the words indicating a bold man; he judges the love without doubt great. Maldonatus, who also wishes them not to look to a defect of faith, but to be brought forth because he had not sufficiently understood the parabolic speech of Christ, and thinks the Evangelist wished to praise his charity toward Jesus, whose incredulity he was about to reprove later.
C. Jesus Comforts the Sisters (Jn 11:17-37)
If Lazarus died on the day on which the message concerning the sickness was brought to Jesus, and was buried, it is easily seen how Jesus found him having been in the monument for four days. For He remained in the same place for two days after the message having been accepted; then indeed on the third day He speaks to the disciples, He undertakes the journey either on the same day or on the fourth. But the matter will have to be considered otherwise if that which He said in v. 4 was to be reported to the sisters by the messenger. For then it seems to be fitting that those words be reported to them with Lazarus not yet dead. Whence some think that Lazarus died only then when Christ made mention of his death among the disciples (v. 7); then indeed He performed that journey very slowly (Caietanus, Baronius, Calmet). And the four days will be computed in the Jewish manner, similarly just as the three days of Jesus in the sepulcher. In the former way, Chrysostom, Euthymius, and others propose the matter.
Jn 11:17: Jesus therefore came, and found him having been in the monument now four days. Concerning the locution cf. 5:5. When it is said concerning him now he stinks (v. 39), these four days will be retained in the obvious sense, nor are they to be narrowed according to the rule any part of the day is computed for a day. The miracle of the resuscitation also is the more apt for generating admiration and faith, the more certain it is concerning the corruption already begun.
From verse 4 this miracle ought to have become most famous. For the village itself near the city was suitable for this.
Jn 11:18-19: Now Bethany was near Jerusalem about fifteen stadia towards the eastern part of Mount Olivet. A stadium is an eighth part of a Roman mile (cf. 6:19). 15 stadia are nearly 3 kilometers. ἀπὸ σταδίων (from the stadia) is a construction from the usage of later Greek, similar to that which is found among the Latins, e.g., "Fabius cum a quingentis fere passibus castra posuisset" (Livy 24, 46; Winer 61, 5). This however is noted so that what follows may be explained. Verse 19: Many however from the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them concerning their brother. πρὸς τὰς περὶ... Euthymius notes τουτέστι πρὸς Μάρθαν καὶ Μαρίαν (i.e., to Martha and Mary), "for this is an idiom of speech." The family of Lazarus therefore was numbered among the nobler ones; it was known in the neighboring city; therefore the miracle also had many witnesses, distinguished, learned, not credulous, and occupied with contrary prejudices against Jesus, all which concur to establish the sum of credibility of the testimony (Corluy). Mourning for the dead was instituted for seven days (cf. Gen 50:10; 1 Reg 31:13; Judith 16:29; and Eccli 22:13): "the mourning of the dead is seven days," as Josephus also testifies: "Archelaus instituted a mourning of seven days in honor of his father; for so many days does the custom of the country demand" (Antiq. 17, 8, 4). And the first three days according to the rabbis were destined for weeping, the rest for mourning, and for thirty days the washing of garments and shaving was intermitted (Lightfoot, Hor. hebr. ad h. 1.). Hence perhaps that custom arose among Christians to offer mass for the deceased on the 3rd, 7th, 30th day. Augustine also wishes Christians to be prohibited from celebrating a mourning of nine days, which among the Latins they call a novendial; "for this number is in the custom of gentiles, the seventh day however has authority in the Scriptures" (Questions 172 on Genesis; cf. Schegg, Scholz). Since Martha is named here in the first place, she seems to be designated as mistress of the house and administrator; therefore she could hear the announcement of the Lord's arrival first (Toletus, Maldonatus), and perhaps she had gone out of the house for the sake of some business when the announcement of the arrival was brought to her as head of the family (Maldonatus).
Jn 11:20-22: Martha therefore when she heard that Jesus was coming, went to meet Him. Mary however sat at home. To Martha alone the announcement was brought; without her sister as companion she wishes to approach Him separately and announce the matter; after however Christ had instilled good hope, then she goes away and calls Mary (Chrysostom). Verse 21: Martha therefore said to Jesus: Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died (cf. v. 32). She immediately utters that which the sisters had often discussed among themselves during the sickness and after death. They had wished most of all that He come; they had certainly hoped this; they were stupefied at the delay; they complained friendly among themselves. This complaint... how modest, how simple, how native, how apt for expressing the present affect of the mind, as reflecting the soul itself (Patrizi). Nor is it a reproach but a signification of sorrow; she did not dare complain why He had not been here or why He had not come as soon as it was announced to her, but preserving reverence for the Lord and 小心 not to wound love, she confesses the power of the loving one only with humble faith in the contrition of heart (Rupert). Not without merit however they note that in this very confession of faith she confesses her faith imperfect; it did not come to her mind that Jesus could have healed even absent if He had willed (cf. Thomas, Toletus, Jansenius, Maldonatus). Here also avails: "I have not found such great faith in Israel" (Matt 8:10). But the words can also be conceived so that she is absolved from this imperfection of faith. For she can wish to say only this: "If you had been here, by our prayers and entreaties for your clemency you could not have resisted; certainly we would have impetrated from you the healing of our brother; you would not have denied us what you most liberally granted to so many others." Thus indeed she does not deny that He could have healed absent, and in that way she could have spoken even if she most certainly believed His presence not to be necessary. She openly enunciates her faith and confidence concerning Christ's power which extends even beyond death. Verse 22: but even now I know. καὶ νῦν (even now), with the death of the brother having been made, the brother already buried, because whatever you shall have asked from God, God will give you. Martha had certainly heard concerning the raising of the dead effected by Christ; for concerning that at Naim Luke testifies: "this report went out into all Judea and into all the region around" (Luke 7:17; cf. Matt 9:26); and since Christ says to the disciples of John "the dead rise again," He seems to have already edited more miracles of this sort. Therefore it would be a wonder if Martha by these words did not insinuate her desire and petition that He raise her brother also, just as He recalled others to life. She does not ask directly and immediately; she did not dare ask so great a thing, but by expressing her faith she insinuated the desire. Bonaventure and Cyril say: "to say 'whatever you shall have asked from God He will give' is of one blushing to ask openly what she wishes," and Augustine: "she did not say 'but now I ask you that you raise my brother'... she said only 'I know that you can; if you will, you do; whether you do is of your judgment, not of my presumption'." What hope she could also conceive if the words of Christ v. 4 were reported to her, although it appears also that hope not to have been firm (v. 40). Corluy thinks Martha by these words does not ask for the raising of the brother (Euthymius, Caietanus, Schegg), but meritously the majority hold that such a petition is insinuated (Toletus, Maldonatus, Jansenius, Baronius, Lapide, Calmet, Natalis, Scholz, Fillion); for what else would those words uttered in condition sound? But rightly they also note in them imperfect faith; both sisters believed indeed in Christ, but not as was fitting; not yet perfectly did they know neither that He was God nor that by His own power and authority He did these things; they speak as concerning one endowed with virtue and conspicuous (Chrysostom), as concerning some great prophet and friend of God who by asking from God can impetrate all things (cf. Cyril, Albizzi, Thomas, Caietanus, Salmeron, Jansenius, Toletus, Maldonatus, Baronius, Calmet, Corluy, Scholz).
Jn 11:23-27: Moreover the progress of Martha's instruction is placed when Thomas adds. Verse 23: Jesus says to her: Your brother shall rise again. He does not say when he is about to rise, nor does He say that He wishes to ask from God that he rise; therefore Martha could not consider these words as favoring her desire; to one little breathing and sighing at the fountain of mercy in great thirst, little indeed is said (Rupert). Verse 24: Martha says to Him: I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection in the last day (cf. Dan 12:2). "You say, Lord, that the brother will rise again; this I already know, but I would wish that by your prayers he rise now" (Baronius). She shows by her response "I know" that she expected another answer, and at the same time indicates by such an assertion "I know" that she can hardly persuade herself that Christ wishes to offer no other solace. Her mind expressed by these words Maldonatus seems to delineate well: "It seems to me an artifice by which she wished to elicit from Christ whether He had determined to raise her brother; for it is probable and altogether similar to the truth that she had conceived some hope in her mind concerning the brother's raising; she wished therefore to know certainly whether He spoke concerning only the resurrection on the last day; therefore she so speaks that it may appear that no private benefit is conferred to her or her brother by that resurrection." Similarly Rupert conceives the words: "the sister doubting and hastening and intending to know the will of the compassionate one... she wishes indeed to induce Jesus to speak openly" (Lapide, Patrizi, Scholz, Fillion). Jesus so responds that He strives to render Martha's faith more perfect. Verse 25: Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life. Now who is such does not have need to ask from God the raising; for He has by proper and innate virtue whence He may grant life to all and grant resurrection. The locution is causal, as if to say: I am the cause of resurrection; all this that they rise, all this that they live, all therefore in souls and bodies will be through me (Thomas). "I am therefore not precariously, not by alien virtue, but through myself I am," and signifies not only that He can raise but no one else can except Himself or through Himself; for no one can rise except through resurrection, no one live except through life (Maldonatus). Whence Christ insinuates to Martha, as Augustine says: "You say 'my brother shall rise in the last day'; it is true, but through whom does he rise then? He can also now because I am the resurrection." He enunciates therefore Christ His virtue and power; then He subjoins the effect of power (Thomas). who believes in me even if he shall have been dead, namely in body, as the majority conceive; concerning the death of the soul they explain (Rupert, Patrizi), but concerning such death of sin here, when concerning the resurrection of the dead the speech is had, there can be no speech; he shall live again, namely through resurrection; by these He declares that which He had said "I am the resurrection." Then He declares the other "I am the life." Verse 26: and everyone who lives and believes in me shall not die in eternity. Even if he shall die for a time on account of the death of the flesh, he shall not die in eternity on account of the life of the spirit and the immortality of the resurrection (Augustine). "For this is the will of my Father that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life" (cf. 6:40; Thomas). He demands faith that He may perfect it (Thomas). Do you believe this? Verse 27: She says to Him: Yes, Lord, I have believed. πεπίστευκα (I have had faith), and this faith endures remaining, because you are the Christ, the Son of the living God who into this world have come. ὁ ἐρχόμενος... whose namely is the office and destination to come into this world, who is ὁ ἐρχόμενος (He who ought to come). She professes Jesus the Messiah and indeed with emphasis; ναί (yes), profecto, which particle, as Maldonatus says, is of one affirming vehemently and with admiration, so that Martha indicates she wonders that Christ questions her as if He doubts concerning her faith in Him. But in what sense does she say Messiah Son of God? There are those who think the divine nature to be expressed by it (Thomas, Bonaventure, Maldonatus, Salmeron, Lapide); if this is assumed then it ought to be said with Lapide that she was interiorly illustrated and illuminated by Jesus when He called Himself the resurrection and life, so that now she might break forth into a perfect act of faith. But this cannot be said. For Martha professes that which she already believed before. But before she believed that which she enunciates in v. 22. Therefore the majority rightly estimate that Son of God is said here of the Messiah on account of the excellent excellence of Himself above the remaining men (Jansenius... Son of God above all prophets and just men; Toletus similarly, Caietanus, Baronius, Scholz, Fillion). This response to the interrogation of Jesus does not seem to satisfy sufficiently. Whence Chrysostom thinks she did not understand the words of Christ; she knows certainly it is some great thing but she does not understand the whole; therefore questioned concerning another thing she responds concerning another; she makes therefore, since she did not fully perceive the sense of the words, an act of faith by which she confesses Jesus the Messiah sent from God, whose words consequently truth cannot not be in (Corluy). So Augustine understands her confession: "when I believed this, I believed that you are the resurrection, I believed that you are the life etc."
Jn 11:28-31: And when she had said these things, she went away and called Mary her sister in silence. λάθρα (secretly), and very prudently; she signified the arrival of the master secretly, nor did she say the cause of rising; otherwise many would have receded; now however all follow her as if going out to mourning (Chrysostom), and thus the multitude of witnesses is present for the miracle (Theophylact), saying the master is present and calls you. It can be said with Caietanus that the very arrival of the Lord is as it were the voice by which He orders Mary also to come to Him, or with Augustine that the Evangelist does not say where or when the Lord called Mary, so that this is rather to be understood in the words of Martha, the brevity of the narration being preserved. Verse 29: She when she heard rises quickly and comes to Him. Verse 30: For Jesus had not yet come into the castle but was still in that place where Martha had met Him (cf. v. 20). Note how accurately the Evangelist narrates each single thing; for thus he is wont to narrate who himself was present and beheld all things. Verse 31: The Jews therefore who were with her in the house and were comforting her, when they saw Mary because she rose quickly and went out, followed her, saying that she goes to the monument to weep there. See what was said to v. 28. Mary was more fervent (θερμοτέρα) than her sister (Chrysostom).
Jn 11:32-37: Mary therefore when she had come where Jesus was, seeing Him fell at His feet and says to Him: Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died (cf. v. 21). She fell at the feet of Jesus, wounded by the sorrow of the brother equally and the love of Christ, and speaking briefly the tongue was silent; the rest she accomplished more abundantly with tears (Rupert). Mary recognized the proper place, the feet of Jesus, and so recognized that she might fall as if unable to contain herself near the feet of Jesus from which she had obtained pardon (Caietanus). She pours forth a common complaint also: "would that you had been present... sorrow would never have occupied our house." Verse 33: Jesus therefore when He saw her weeping and the Jews who had come with her weeping, He groaned in spirit and troubled Himself. ἐνεβριμήσατο τῷ πνεύματι... the Greek word signifies to be angry, to be indignant, to threaten; it is read Matt 9:30 and Mark 1:43; to groan, to be indignant (Mark 14:5). τῷ πνεύματι... certainly it says the same which is had in v. 38 ἐν ἑαυτῷ (in Himself). Jesus therefore again groaning in Himself. This affect of the mind was excited by Jesus spontaneously; is indicated also by the other member: ἐτάραξεν ἑαυτόν (He moved Himself). For all affects of the mind and passions He had in His most full power; they arose when He willed, nor did they anticipate His will as happens to us. That He was moved by an affect of commiseration and excited Himself to this affect is indicated sufficiently by the very words; for seeing all weeping He moved Himself, and this mercy and compassion immediately He testified by tears. For He exhibits human nature; indeed sorrow is wont to excite human affect (Chrysostom; cf. Bonaventure, Albizzi, Corluy). But to commiseration indeed the other word "troubled" or "moved Himself" can be drawn, but with difficulty the former, provided the proper notion be retained. Therefore it must be asked why Jesus was indignant within Himself seeing the tears of others. They respond variously: seeing what misery and ruin death effects, He is indignant at death, at the devil who by his seduction introduced death, on account of the sins of men by which they are obnoxious to death (cf. Augustine, Bede, Thomas, Salmeron, Baronius). He is indignant against the infidelity of the Jews on account of which Lazarus died and affliction was given as a cause to the sisters; for this death had happened so that the Son of God might be manifested, which manifestation was not necessary if the Jews converted by so many already signs and miracles, nor would Lazarus have died if they had already believed (Toletus). He is indignant on account of that which He foresaw to be future after the miracle; for from this miracle they will receive occasion that they lead Him to the cross (Rupert, Lapide, Baronius, Schegg). It will not be out of place nor alien from the dignity of Jesus to assume a multiple cause of indignation, which contemplated ruin of death, seen sorrow, foresight had of the malice of the Jews was obversant to His mind. It can be added with Jansenius that Christ excited Himself to such affections in a human manner as it were to attack the arduous work, to storm death and the emperor of death the devil, just as some friend seeing the sorrow of a friend is moved with indignation and rages against him who is the author of such sorrow, and by such indignation and rage is excited and armed against him, striving to vindicate him and remove the occasion of sorrow. To this understanding, says Jansenius, well fits that the Lord by groaning and troubling Himself as if now enkindled and fervent for the resuscitation... Verse 34: and He said: Where have you laid him? He did not ignore where he was, who absent knew him to be dead (Theodoret, Cyril, Toletus etc.). He asks so that He may make all present more attentive to that which He is about to do (Rupert), and that by the occasion of the place many may be moved to accompany, so that the miracle might be known by the testimony of more (Ammonius, Cyril). They say to Him: Lord, come and see. While they proceed to the place of the sepulcher Jesus unfolds the affect of commiseration. Verse 35: and Jesus wept. δακρύειν... to pour forth tears in silence, while κλαίειν is said rather concerning weeping joined with clamor and wailing. By the sorrow of others beheld He Himself also mourns, showing a mind which is seized by the misery and lament of others vehemently and with great sorrow even to tears. He pours forth tears having beheld man made to the image of God to be the prey of death, and not only Lazarus He wept for but touched by commiseration for all human nature (Cyril). Moreover they warn that by these tears we are taught concerning the moderate mourning to be impended to the dead (cf. Euthymius). He shows also that he whom He pursues with tears is truly dead; He exhibits that He singularly loved that one and the sisters (Maldonatus). Why those tears who is about to raise this one shortly? Jesus weeps that He may teach you to condole with others and love neighbors; Jesus weeps that He may teach not by words but by deeds to weep with those weeping; Jesus weeps who was not without weeping or unable to be moved; He endured to weep and taught us as if inhuman; Jesus weeps that the love of dear ones may be in order (St. Hippolytus on the resurrection of Lazarus, Pitra Analecta sacra II p. 230). That Christ poured forth tears moved by the love of Lazarus the Jews meritously conclude from that because on the way to the sepulcher He weeps. Verse 36: The Jews therefore said: Behold how He loved him. How great a sign of love are His tears. Others seeing this signification of great love wonder why He whom He so loved He did not save from death. Verse 37: Certain however from themselves said: Could not this one who opened the eyes of the blind born make that this one not die? They recognize the miracle in the blind born effected (9:7), whence they wonder with themselves how He could not have saved this one, as if they had said: "It is a wonder that He could not" (Caietanus, Toletus, Baronius, Lapide, Scholz... those speaking doubtingly). Bonaventure says others however them to reprehend; Jesus to speak with offended mind; as envious to calumniate they think (cf. Chrysostom, Cyril, Thomas, Salmeron, Calmet, Corluy, Fillion... both Jansenius proposes... them either to calumniate or to admire). But it does not seem probable them to have been with offended mind against Jesus; for from the words it is not necessarily gathered; for in that way they are wont to speak who wonder concerning some event, if e.g. he who perfected a great business failed in a lesser; these were friends of the family of Lazarus, which they could not ignore to be well affected towards Jesus; whence already it is rendered probable themselves also not to have borne a hostile mind towards Jesus; they themselves in lament pour forth tears; why into Jesus who together with them weeps now they should be considered to cast darts of words? Nor ought hatred in Jesus of some at least to be gathered necessarily from v. 46. We know from 12:42 and from the princes many believed in Him, and many from the seen miracle conceived faith; therefore altogether it is licit to suppose that those who had come to console the family of Jesus friendly were not from the adversaries of Jesus.
d. Jesus Raises Lazarus (Jn 11:38-44)
Jesus approaches to storm death: "O death, I will be thy death" (Hosea 13:14); whence again by indignation He as it were arms Himself, girding Himself for the work which is about to stir up adversaries into lethal hatred and into slaughter of Himself. Verse 38: Jesus therefore again groaning in Himself (cf. v. 33) came to the monument. Now it was a cave and a stone was superposed to it. The Jews were wont to place cadavers in caverns, dens, made by nature or art (cf. Matt 27:60; Mark 5:3); the opening of the cave was closed by a stone rolled to it. ἐπέκειτο ἐπ ̓ αὐτῷ... it seems to indicate the cave into which it was necessary to descend, as superposed is also said, although ἐπὶ can also say the stone to be placed before the cave, so that by a straight way the entrance lay open. Into the sepulcher of Lazarus which is shown today one descends through 26 steps. First mention of it is made in the Itinerary of Bordeaux year 333: "thence from Mount Olivet to the east 1500 paces and the villa which is called Bethany; there is the crypt where Lazarus was placed whom the Lord raised" (Tobler, Molinier, Itinera hieros I p. 18, Geneva 1879). Verse 39: Jesus says: Take away the stone. His sister says to Him who had been dead: Lord, already he stinks; for he is four days (cf. v. 17). From a sudden impulse of natural horror which arises spontaneously anticipating all deliberation, Martha warns concerning the cadaver already stinking with corruption begun, and she concludes this because he died already four days ago. For on the fourth day corruption was commonly thought to begin (Edersheim II p. 324). Since so explicitly is added "his sister," although Martha had already been designated (v. 1, 2, 21, 23), it is probable that Cyril has, that to be warned by her in a certain sense of modesty; for the cognates of the dead hurry to hide the bodies in the earth before they begin to smell bad, revering the living and pertaining to the infamy of the one lying down if certain ones shun him. Concerning the resuscitation she does not think, nor is that a wonder, for Christ seemed to her to have promised it by no means; then by the voice of Christ "take away the stone" suddenly her mind is so struck by the image of the putrescent cadaver that all other thought is absorbed. He orders them to take away the stone so that they taking it away may see the dead man by their own senses and feel his stench, and by eyes and senses acknowledge the virtue of so great a miracle (Toletus, Maldonatus), and well note Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius: all senses are called into testimony of the miracle. Jesus however restrains the impulse of Martha and recalls her mind to higher things. Verse 40: Jesus says to her: Did I not say to you that if you shall have believed you shall see the glory of God? Where He said this in so many words is not read in the antecedents. Therefore Toletus thinks as in v. 28 so here also by the brevity of the narration the words are commemorated which were indeed said but in their place were not related. Others think them to be contained implicitly in v. 25, 26 (Thomas, Maldonatus, Patrizi, Scholz... ad v. 4), whose opinion by the messenger was reported to the sisters (Rupert). He strives to excite faith by these words, and certainly by this suave reprehension of Christ, Martha resipiscing was recalled to that sense of mind which she unfolded in v. 22, 27, and with most entire faith she plainly acquiesced to Christ. Verse 41: They took away therefore the stone. Jesus however having lifted up His eyes upwards said: Father, I give thanks to you because you have heard me. For His benignity towards all He wished and desired by an eximious miracle to prove His mission, that more easily they might arrive at faith; He gives thanks to the Father that He assented to this desire. Verse 42: But I knew that you always hear me. He excludes two errors which they could conceive from v. 41: that He did not know whether He was to be heard by the Father, because He gave thanks concerning the hearing; and that He was not always heard by the Father, because He gave thanks concerning the thing now prestated. The former error is excluded by "I knew", the latter by "always" (Toletus). This miracle is also commended by this especially, because before it is perpetrated, to it as to a document of His mission He appeals publicly before all: but on account of the people who stand around I said it that they may believe that you sent me. The salvation of His people He has before His eyes; this however salvation is concluded by faith in Christ (5:40; 6:40 seq; 8:24); He exhibits the love of the people, the good shepherd. The mission however which He attributes to Himself and which He proposes to be believed was not of any divine legate whatever or prophet, but of the Son from the Father, with whom He had asserted Himself to be one in nature and power (10:30), and this in this place also He hints, addressing God as Father (Corluy). He indicated why He was about to act. Verse 43: When He had said these things, with a loud voice He cried out, lest anyone of those standing around could ignore: Lazarus, come forth. δεῦρο ἔξω... hither... out. He proves that which He said "I am the resurrection and the life"; He said and things were done; now He shows that to be true which He had said: "those who are in the monuments shall hear the voice of the Son of God." Verse 44: And immediately he came forth who had been dead, bound feet and hands with bands. κειρίαις... with bands by which the members wrapped with linen were bound; for indeed single members, arms, feet, were wrapped with linens with aromatics, and were bound with bands, and his face was bound with a sudarium. Jesus says to them: Loose him and let him go. So that they may not only see the miracle but as it were palpate with hands and most openly perceive him to be the same whom dead they had bound and enclosed in the monument, and allow him to go away so that he may be seen by all alive and sane. But he goes away; he withdraws himself from the multitude, so that for the new gift of life he may give thanks to God, and the benefit received he may ponder with silent consideration, as it is licit to piously meditate.
The ancients are wont to add to the literal explanation a symbolic or allegorical one. It will be enough to hint at a few things. Meritoriously someone would say Mary to be a symbol of those from the gentiles, Martha of those from the circumcision, the brother however of them raised from the dead to hint at him who on account of some sins had descended into hell (Cyril, Origen in cat. Cord.). A comparison also is instituted between the three whom we read to have been raised by the Lord. By those are understood three genera of sinners: for some sin by consent of mortal sin in the heart, and these are signified by the girl dead in the house. Others however are they who sin by exterior signs and acts, and are signified by the dead man who is carried out outside the gate. But when by custom they are strengthened in sin, then they are closed in the monument. And nevertheless the Lord raises all. But they who sin by consent only and dying by sinning mortally are raised more easily. And because it is secret therefore by secret emendation it is cured. When however sin proceeds outside, then it needs public remedy. So Thomas briefly comprehends those things which Augustine pursues more widely (tract. 49 n. 3). In which application it is a wonder that Lazarus the friend of Christ (v. 11) represents the sinner hardened by the worst custom of sinning. Also Salmeron in the corporeal raising of Lazarus says to be seen according to the spirit the spiritual resurrection of the soul from sin, and especially of some great and distinguished sinner, on account of the magnitude and multitude of crimes already despaired of (t. 6 tract. 44). Rather let us see a prelude of the resurrection of bodies and the manifestation of the glory of Christ; concerning the raising of the daughter of Jairus and the youth of Naim; moreover from those things which are read at Luke concerning Martha and Mary and concerning Lazarus the poor man who died (Luke 10:38; 16:19, 31). In that parable Lazarus does not rise from the dead because Abraham foresees it to be that those who do not believe Moses and the prophets neither will believe if one shall have risen from the dead. To which opinion confirming already is exhibited to us Lazarus going out from the monument and Jesus to prest that which to Abraham Himself it seemed not to be able to be done. To these things drawn from the synoptics to access others from the old testament, especially from the book of Job and Psalms. Moreover in the very narration they find a very great copy of difficulties, especially in v. 12, 34, 37, 39, 44, and they say it to be plainly impossible that this narration be inserted among the synoptics, who namely from Jericho even to Golgotha so strictly report the deeds done without any gap, that such an event plainly can find no place. How false that is see e.g. in the chronological synopsis of the four gospels (Cornely, Introd. III p. 294); although indeed from Jericho the narration of the synoptics is continuous, what thence... the raising of Lazarus was done before. How greatly this narration differs from those of the synoptics everyone sees. Whence that which they gratuitously assert from those this to be formed, gratuitously is denied. By what difficulties however in v. 12, 34 etc. the narration labors, certainly it is a wonder: v. 12 too puerile; v. 34 Jesus to interrogate although He knows where he is placed; is not that which in v. 37 they say plainly made to the manners of men? And to v. 34 Barhebraeus notes also God sought Adam "where are you" and "where is Abel your brother".
After the Evangelist has placed the death and resurrection of Lazarus here consequently he places the effect of the resurrection, and first he places the effect of it in the crowd, secondly he places the effect of it in the princes (Thomas). This miracle having been perpetrated the synedrists firmly decree the death of Christ. The maximum miracle to them becomes the occasion of maximum obcaecation. They confirm excellently that word of Christ: "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe if one shall have risen from the dead" (Luke 16:31; Caietanus, Jansenius). Now it is shown how that sickness of Lazarus was for the glory of God, that the Son of God be glorified by it (v. 4).
Jn 11:45: Many therefore from the Jews who had come to Mary and Martha and had seen those things which Jesus did believed in Him. πολλοί οἱ ἐλθόντες καὶ θεασάμενοι... whence it is clear that as many as were witnesses believed, and they were many. And thus is fulfilled that which Jesus in prayer said, that they may believe that you sent me (v. 42). From the Latin version indeed that sense can be elicited which e.g. Maldonatus elicits: from those Jews who had come many believed; but not so from the Greek; for οἱ ἐλθόντες ought to be referred to πολλοί, and as already Origen has: πάντες οἱ θεασάμενοι (all those having seen), i.e. θεωρήσαντες καὶ συνιέντες (having contemplated and understood), they believed; therefore in the Latin version that "who" is to be referred to "many" not to "from the Jews"; that indeed D has τῶν ἐλθόντων καὶ θεασαμένων, which reading Origen explicitly rejects; it is not said τῶν. In the voice θεασάμενοι there is a certain emphasis: to look attentively, to contemplate
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment