Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 11:43 - 11:46
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_11:43-46. With a loud voice, He cried out; this was the vigorous medium through which He caused His miraculous power to operate.
The expression δεῦρο ἔξω (hither out! huc foras! without verb; comp. Hom. Od. θ . 192; Plat. Pol. iv. p. 445 D, v. p. 477; D. Stallb. ad Plat. Apol. p. 24 C) includes in itself the resurrection-call, but does not imply that the act of reawakening has been already performed (Origen). Nonnus correctly remarks: ἄπνοον ἐψύχωσε δέμας νεκυοσσόος ἠχώ . Jesus did not here call out ἐγείρου or ἐγέρθητι (as in the case of the daughter of Jairus, and of the son of the widow of Nain, Luk_8:54; Luk_7:15), because the words δεῦρο ἔξω seemed the most natural to employ in the case of a dead man already lying in the tomb.
δεδεμ . τ . μόδ . κ . τ . χεῖρ . κειρίαις ] By Basil ( θαύμαζε θαῦμα ἐν θαύματι ), Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus, Augustine, Ruperti, Aretius, Lightfoot, Lampe, and several others, this is regarded as a new miracle, to which is reckoned, besides, even the covering up of the countenance. An arbitrary disfiguration of the fact to the point of introducing apocryphal elements. It is not necessary, with the purpose of escaping from this view, that the aor. ἐξῆλθε should be understood de conatu (Kuinoel); nor to assume that each limb was enwrapped by itself, as was the custom in Egypt (Olshausen, De Wette, B. Crusius, Maier); but the winding-sheet in which the corpse was wound from head to foot (Mat_26:59), thus embracing the entire body (see Jahn, Arch. I. 2, p. 424), might, especially as it had to hold no spices (Joh_11:39), be slack and loose enough to render it possible, after it had been loosened by his movements, for the awakened man to come forth. He was not completely freed from the grave-clothes, till the command λύσατε αὐτόν had been given.
κειρία ] Girdle, bandage; in the N. T. it occurs only here, but see Pro_7:16; Aristoph. Av. 817; Plut. Alc. 16.
καὶ ἡ ὄψις αὐτοῦ σουδ . περιεδ .] special mention is here added of the last part of the complete death-dress in which he issued forth from the tomb, not, however, in the participial form (Kühner, II. p. 423). His face was bound about with a napkin. On περιεδ . comp. Job_12:8; Plut. Mor. p. 825 E.
λέγει αὐτοῖς ] to those who were present in general, as in Joh_11:39. Let him go away (comp. Joh_18:8). With strength so completely restored had he risen again. But any further excitement was now to be avoided.
OBSERVATION.
On the history of the resurrection of Lazarus, which constitutes the culminating point of the miraculous activity of our Lord, we have to remark: (1) The assumption of a merely apparent death (Paulus, Gabler in his Journ. für auserl. theol. Lit. III. p. 235 ff.; Ammon, Leben Jesu, III. p. 128; Kern in the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1839, I. p. 182; Schweizer, p. 153 ff.) is decidedly opposed, both to the character of Jesus Himself, and to the style and purpose of the narrative, which is distinguished for its thoughtful tenderness, certainty, and truthfulness. (2) To reduce the account to a strange misunderstanding, according to which, either a conversation between Christ and the two sisters, on the occasion of the death of Lazarus, regarding the resurrection, led to the rise of the story of the miracle (Weisse, II. p. 260 ff.); or, the latter has been confounded with the account of the awakening of the (only apparently dead) youth of Nain,
Nain being an abridgment of the name Bethany, as Gfrörer, Heiligth. und Wahrh. p. 311 ff., thinks; as also to suppose that the Lazarus of the parable in Luke 16 has been converted, in the tradition prevailing at Ephesus, into a Lazarus raised from the dead by Jesus (Schenkel), is an arbitrary and violent procedure, simply incompatible with the genuineness of the Gospels. (3) The complete annihilation of the history into a myth (Strauss) is a consequence of presuppositions which, just in connection with so detailed and unique a narrative as this,[90] reach the very acme of boldness and arbitrariness, in order to demonstrate by misrepresentation of individual features the existence of internal improbabilities, and the want of external evidence for the credibility of the narrative. (4) The subjective theory of the occurrence, according to which it is said to be a form created[91] by the writer himself for the purpose of setting forth the idea of the ΔΌΞΑ of Christ (Baur, p. 191 ff.), which then first rightly yields itself to recognition, when it demonstrates itself in its death-denying power (comp. Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 132), makes out of the miracle of the history a miracle which is the production of the second century, a creation of the idea in a time which bore within itself the conditions for productions of quite a different kind. That very artistic style of representation which, in the account of this last and greatest miracle, is most strikingly prominent, is only comprehensible from the personal, profound, and sympathizing recollection which had preserved and cherished, even in its finest traits, the truth and reality of the event with quite peculiar vivacity, fidelity, and inspiration. No narrative of the N. T. bears so completely the stamp of being the opposite of a later invention. But in none, again, was the glow of the hope of the Messianic fulfilment so immediately operative, in order to preserve and animate each feature of the reminiscence. This also in answer to Weizsäcker, p. 528, who leaves it undecided how far the allegorical moment of the narrative assumed by him—the setting forth, namely, of the doctrine that believers have everlasting life—is attached to actual facts. But in this way, with ideal assumptions, even the best attested history would fall into the dead condition of à priori doubt. And what an incredible height of art in the allegorical construction of history must we ascribe to the composer! Yet Holtzmann also (Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 657) appears to think only of an allegory (“living hieroglyph”). (5) It certainly appears surprising that the Synoptics are silent concerning the raising of Lazarus, since it was an event in itself so powerful to produce conviction,[92] and so influential in its operation on the last development of the life of Jesus. However, this is not inexplicable (Brückner), but is connected with the entire distinguishing peculiarity of John; and the argumentum e silentio employed against the latter must—the genuineness of the Gospel being granted—rather turn against the Synoptics if their silence were conceivable only as the consequence of their want of acquaintance with the history (Lücke, De Wette, Baur). But this silence is intelligible, not on the supposition of tender considerateness towards the family at Bethany (Epiphanius, Grotius, Wetstein on Joh_12:10, Herder, Schulthess, Olshausen, Baeumlein, Godet; so also with pictorial fancifulness, Lange, L. J. II. 2, p. 1133 f.), whereby—even setting aside the fact that Luke also wrote only a few years earlier than John, and not before the destruction of Jerusalem—there is suggested something that is altogether arbitrary,[93] and in unparalleled contradiction to the feeling and spirit of that early Christian time. Just as little is it to be explained from the fact that the deep and mysterious character of the history placed it in the class of what belonged to the special mission of that evangelist who had been in most confidential relations with Jesus (Hengstenberg),[94]—a view which is not to be adopted, for the reason that the synoptical raisings from the dead also are not less profound and mysterious, as lies, indeed, in the facts themselves. Rather is that silence of the Synoptics only comprehensible when we consider that the latter keep within a circle of their notices, so limited in extent that, before they open, with the entrance of Christ into Jerusalem (Matthew 21 and parall.)—and thus with the so-called Passion-week—the scene of the last development, they have not introduced any part at all of the Lord’s ministry in the metropolis and its immediate neighbourhood; but up to that point confine themselves absolutely to the proceedings of Jesus in Galilee, and generally to those which took place at a remote distance from Jerusalem (the geographically nearest miraculous work is the healing of the blind men at Jericho, Mat_20:29 ff.). This, as their Gospels actually prove, is the allotted province to which the older evangelistic historical writings confined their task and performance, and this task included the Galilean raisings from the dead, but excluded that of Lazarus. John, on the other hand, conversely, choosing from the different classes of miracles, selected one from the raisings from the dead, not a Galilean one, but that which lay beyond that older theatre of history, and was most closely connected with the last great period of the history. In this way he has hereby certainly supplied—as he has done in general by his notices from the Judaean ministry of the Lord—an essential defect of the older evangelical narrative. The acquaintance of the Synoptics, which is undoubtedly to be assumed, with the raising of Lazarus, makes their silence regarding it appear not inexcusable (Baur’s objection), but simply a consequence of that limitation which the older evangelistic historical writings had prescribed to themselves, so that the latter neither contain any mention of the stay of Jesus in Bethany at that time, nor of His subsequent sojourn in Ephraim, but make the Messianic entrance of Jesus to proceed from Jericho onwards, excluding any lodging in the family of Bethany; comp. on Mat_21:1, note. (6) The fact that in the accusation and condemnation of Jesus no use was made of this miracle, neither against nor for Him (employed by Strauss, and especially by Weiss), cannot be evidence against its historical character, since the Jews were prudent enough to give a political colour to their accusation, and since the disciples could not appear in favour of Jesus, and He Himself would not enter upon a more minute defence of Himself; while Pilate, as judge, even if he had heard of the act, and had interested himself about it, yet was not warranted to introduce it into the examination, because it was not brought forward either as a confirmation or as a refutation of the charge. Moreover, had the evangelist set down this history only as an introduction to the entry which follows, etc. (Keim), he would have had least occasion to leave the further development without any reference to it. (7) The impossibility of an actual awakening from the dead is relative, not absolute (as Jesus’ own resurrection shows), and cannot yield a counter-proof à, priori, even setting aside the fact that the ἤδη ὌΖΕΙ rests on an inference only, however probable—where, as here, the worker is the bearer of the divine ζωή . He entirely ascribes the result to God; but this applies to all His miracles, which were indeed ἔργα τοῦ πατρός , and Christ was the Fulfiller through the power of God. Hence Schleiermacher’s proposal (L. J. p. 233) to put Christ—with the exception of the firm persuasion, that that which He prayed for is also done by God—outside the realm of miracle, erroneously puts aside the question. It is Christ who raised Lazarus, Joh_11:11, but therein also was to be seen an ἔργον ἐκ τοῦ τατρός , Joh_10:33.
[90] Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 484. “No narrative of this apostle is pervaded by so intense a glow and rapid liveliness of description as this, in which he undertakes to set forth, in one great picture, the trembling of Jesus for the life of His friend, the attendant struggle with the darkness of the world, and the calmness and joy of victory, prominent over all, and undisturbed from first to last; while these pierce in between the still higher tones of the consciousness of His Messianic glory and of its confirmation in power.”
[91] This self-creation is said to be, according to Baur, p. 247, an intensification of the (two) synoptical raisings from the dead (comp. Scholten): “the superlative to the lower degrees, on which the Synoptics remained stationary.” The name Lazarus is significantly taken from the parable, Luke 16. The substantial contents of the narrative are in ver. 25, and all else unsubstantial form.
[92] It is well known what Spinoza himself (according to Bayle, Dict.), is said to have confessed: “that could he have persuaded himself of the truth of the raising of Lazarus, he would have broken in pieces his whole system, and would have embraced without repugnance the ordinary faith of Christians.”
[93] It would have certainly sufficed, instead of passing over the entire history in silence, simply not to have mentioned the names, as in the case of Peter’s smiting with the sword. And is it supposed, then, that when the synoptists wrote (thirty years and more after the Lazarus incident), the resolution to put him to death, Joh_12:10, was still to be feared! Is it known that at so late a period Lazarus and his sisters were still alive?
[94] So also Philippi, der Eingang des Joh. Ev. 1866, p. 11 f. He thinks that Matthew related nothing of that which was reserved for John; that he knew that the latter also would write his Gospel. A classified distribution of the material of this kind is in itself very improbable when compared with the spirit of the apostolic time, even irrespective of the fact that the first Gospel, in its present form, cannot have proceeded from the hands of the apostle.