Marsh’s section on this sign is excellent, and should be a prime resource for you. I do not propose to reproduce his notes, but to draw together what he says together with C K Barrett and R Bultmann, in their Commentaries on John’s Gospel, to give (a) an overview and (b) some quotes and insights from each author.

Firstly, the discourse is wrapped up in the ‘action, from the initial news of Lazarus’ illness, and Jesus’ exchange with the disciples, to the events by the graveside.

Secondly, there is an ‘I Am’ saying in the discourse, which is directly relevant to the sign itself - ‘I Am the Resurrection and the Life’.

Thirdly, the literary form of the discourse is typically Johannine, taking the form of what Bultmann calls ‘John’s technique of misunderstanding’ on the part of Jesus’ disciples, and Martha, followed by explanation and development of the significance of the sign.

Finally, Marsh describes the miraculous nature of the sign, aptly, as "the crown and interpretative crux of the whole set of Johannine ‘signs’."

All scholars agree that the Raising of Lazarus occupies a unique place in John’s signs, being the clearest possible forerunner of the Resurrection, the beginning of the events that were directly to lead to Jesus’ death (and therefore His Glorification); and an eschatological sign, introducing the nature of the resurrection and the start of the eternal life to be made available to those who believe in Jesus. The Eschatological Significance of the Sign

On this last point, we find that Bultmann wishes to emphasize realized eschatology. (Surprise, surprise) Of Martha’s response to Jesus in vs 27, he comments "The answer of Martha shows the genuine attitude of faith, ….she cannot see the promised life, but she can recognise that in Jesus the eschatological invasion of God into the world has come to pass." (My italics). On the other hand, for Barrett, "The raising of Lazarus ….. is an anticipation of what is to take place at the last day." (Future Eschatology). Marsh (p428) talks of " .. a transference of the future to the present, of the end to the now .." commenting that that this ‘.. is the essence of the Johannine teaching about resurrection and life.’

This question of eschatology and judgement, and whether John’s gospel teaches future, realized or inaugurated eschatology is one I’ll deal with in a later section, dears.

As well as pointing to Jesus as the source of Resurrection from Death and the Giver of Life, Bultmann wishes to emphasize the role of Jesus in ‘manifesting’ the Father to the World. Indeed, he calls this section ‘The Revealer’s Secret Victory over the World’. In the exchange with Martha, Bultmann draws out the point that "He (Jesus) is the Resurrection and the Life since for those who believe in Him … life and death as man know and call them are no longer realities." It is a secret victory over death and the world, since the world cannot recognise this truth. For Bultmann, " … the decisive test for those who belong to Jesus is whether they understand this." Caiaphas represents the World’s point of view when he intervenes in the debate that the Sanhedrin has over what to do with Jesus, with the words ‘You know nothing! Don’t you understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation should not perish?’ In a supreme example of Johannine irony Caiaphas is actually prophesying the outcome of the plotting of the Sanhedrin. Jesus will die, and His death will accomplish life and salvation, but not only for the nation of Israel, but for the whole world. As Barrett comments " … in the light of a tragic irony (Caiaphas) appears as a prophet against his knowledge and intention."

I’m not aware of any commentary really bringing this out, although Marsh comments that her answer to Jesus’ question ‘Do you believe this?’ is "a confession of her belief in the Lord’s special relationship to the Father: (ie His Glory) … Martha had been prepared for a right understanding of the last and greatest sign." (p428)

I’d want to go further than this, and suggest that here, we have a prime example of Johannine use of the physical to illustrate a spiritual parallel. Just as the blind man only truly ‘saw’ when he encountered and believed in the Messiah, Jesus, so Lazarus’ physical resurrection from death parallels, for us, the readers, the entry of Martha into the greater reality of eternal life as she is confronted with, and accepts, the truth of who Jesus is, and what power and authority he wields (am I agreeing with Bultmann dears? Yes, I am!)

I’ve already suggested that the Johannine signs point not only to Jesus, but also to the spiritual state of the onlookers, showing whether they are spiritually blind/alive or in darkness/under judgement. Of this sign, CK Barrett says ‘As usual, the effect of the miracle is to divide the beholders into two groups.’

On one side, we have Martha, who makes a confession of faith in Jesus as Messiah, echoing the very words of Ch 20:30-31. The signs have worked for her alright! Others share her faith to a greater or lesser degree. The disciples, though not fully understanding what Jesus plans to do, are prepared to follow Him into danger, perhaps to death. Mary states that ‘if You had been here, my brother would not have died’. (All of the scholars are agreed that this is not intended as a reproach, but a statement of faith in Jesus. Nevertheless, neither the disciples nor Mary come to that point that Martha does. Her reaction foreshadows the life that will be available to all who put their faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, when ‘his hour’ has come.

On the other, we have the unbelieving Jews, who, faced with the stupendous miracle of the raising of Lazarus, not only refuse to put their faith in Jesus’ claims to Messiahship, but also plot His death as a result. They are led by Caiaphas, the arch politician, who gives as his reason to get rid of Jesus, the fear that the Romans will destroy the nation, - which ought to remind us of the Synoptic tradition. His political astuteness is nevertheless spiritual blindness. Likewise, some of the witnesses to the miracle clearly are more aware of the danger Jesus poses to the status quo than they are of the significance of this astounding miracle. Likewise, in vs 36-38, where Jesus is described as disturbed in spirit and grieved, both Barrett and Bultmann suggest that Jesus emotion could have been triggered by his anger at the unbelief of those around the grave. "We must consider more seriously the suggestion that it was the unbelief of the Jews and Mary that provoked Jesus’ indignation" CK Barrett. Jesus, the Life, is present to give life, and they cannot ‘see’ it.

( Scholars note the variance in the Marcan and Johannine traditions as to the events which cause the plot to kill Jesus. In the Marcan tradition, it is Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem and subsequent cleansing of the Temple that trigger the plot against Him. In John, the cleansing of the Temple happens at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Marsh’s excellent section on this aspect of the sign is on p417, and he suggests that throughout the Fourth Gospel, the evangelist is aiming to "present his own story and their (ie the Synoptics) similar one in the light of his own theological commentary."

In this case, Marsh claims that where the Synoptic narrative "centres on the restoration of the Temple to its divinely intended use as a house of prayer for all peoples, instead of the restricted use to which Jesus’ contemporaries had confined it", and the creation of the "newly constituted people of God in the person of his Son", John’s use of the raising of Lazarus as the catalyst for Jesus’ death suggest that the old Israel has to die and be reborn (Lazarus becomes a symbol of the nation of Israel) and the new Israel be born in Him who is the Resurrection and the Life.)

1. The story is recorded only in John. Why would the Synoptics leave such a splendid miracle out if they knew about it?
2. On the other hand, the Synoptics do record two other ‘raisings from the dead, albeit not as spectacular as this one, Jairus’ daughter in Mark and the Widow of Nain’s son in Luke. This miracle is therefore of the same type as the Synoptics.
3. The possibility that John created the miracle using the parable of the rich man and Lazarus from Luke 16. There are some parallel features, e.g. the name, the general theme of life-giving, and scholars draw attention to the ‘Cursing of the Fig Tree’ in Mk 11:12-14 + 20-25, which some claim is not an actual event, but a dramatized parable.

Barrett comments that it is "…. Possible to take an a priori view of miracle which rules out the possibility of such an event as this. … the chief argument against the historicity of incident appears to be that there is no place for it in the Synoptic Tradition … this, however, need not in itself mean that John created the narrative. There are suggestive parallels between the Johannine narrative and a Lucan Parable." Barrett makes no conclusive statement as to his opinion of the matter, but earlier in the book, whilst acknowledging that "there is no sufficient evidence for the view that John freely created narrative material for allegorical purposes", he is prepared to call the Fourth Gospel "an interpreted history of Jesus", meaning that the Fourth Evangelist could have been creative with the material he had at his disposal. Nevertheless, Barrett can say that "John asserted the primacy of history". There was a real Jesus who lived and died in Palestine, "even though to give an accurate outline of the outstanding events in the career of this person was no part of his purpose. He sought to draw out, using in part the form and style of narrative …. The true meaning of the life and death of one whom he believed to be the Son of God, a being from beyond history."

Return to Signs Base Page