The Gospel according to Saint John, commented on verse by verse

CHAPTER 11

John 11.¹ There was a sick man, Lazarus, from Bethany, a village of Married and of Martha, his sister. – The resurrection of Lazarus. (11, 1-56): if the changing of water into wine at the wedding in Cana deserved the name of "miracle of filial piety", this one has been called the "miracle of friendship", cf. verses 3, 5, 36. The resurrection Lazarus is, everyone agrees, the most brilliant of miracles of Jesus as recounted in the Holy Gospels. A man who had been dead for four days was brought back to life by a single word. The event took place at the gates of Jerusalem and was witnessed by numerous people, most of whom were hostile to the miracle worker; it immediately had serious consequences: on the one hand, the "glory" of Jesus was manifested, and many Jews believed in him (cf. 11:46-53; 12:10-11). No other miracle, not even that of chapter 9, has been recounted so completely, with all its principal and incidental details. Even some of the most rationalist writers were struck by it. This was not the case with Keim: "Artificial history, walking on stilts, and bombastic Christology that confuses God and man" (Gesch. Jesu von Nazara, vol. 3, p. 71). Twenty meticulous details demonstrate that the narrator is a trustworthy eyewitness, recounting what he saw with his own eyes, heard with his own ears, and nothing else. Many years had passed since then; but St. John had a memory of the heart, which forgets nothing. «Every step and every movement of the Son of God, his words, his shudder, his emotion, his tears, everything most intimate to him… remained indelible in St. John.» Spinoza had not concealed from himself the exceptional importance of this miracle, and he confessed, according to Bayle (Dictionnaire encyclopédique, 1740 edition, vol. 4, p. 964, note), «that if he could have persuaded himself…» the resurrection "Lazarus, he would have shattered his entire system and embraced without repugnance the ordinary faith of Christians." It is precisely because of its importance that the miracle of Bethany was, at the end of the 19th century, more than ever, the target of very sharp attacks from all unbelievers. But, says Mr. Reuss, who is himself such a strong rationalist, "it must be recognized that all attempts to dismiss the miracle are arbitrary… None of the explanations that have been proposed possesses such a character of plausibility and simplicity that one would be tempted to substitute it, without more or less, for the traditional form of the narrative" (Johannine Theology, p. 251). And one understands why Reuss thus throws his friends overboard when one studies the astonishing systems by which they hope to tear apart this entirely divine page of the fourth Gospel. Lazarus's simple lethargy (Paulus, von Ammon, Schweizer, etc.), the "pious fraud" of the brother and two sisters to silence those who outrageously denied their friend's divine mission (Renan), the imposture of Jesus himself, a complete myth (Strauss), the legendary transformation of a conversation Our Lord supposedly had with Martha and Married on the resurrection general, some time after the death of their brother (Weisse), analogous transformation of the parable of the poor Lazarus (Schenkel): these are some examples of the weaknesses, the implausibilities, the contradictions, let us say the word following Keil, the "monstrosities", which one dares to oppose, invoking the name of criticism, to the luminous account of St. John. Dr. Keil rightly adds that such systems need not be refuted, since simply mentioning them is sufficient to judge them (Commentar über das Evang. des Johannes, p. 356 ff. See also Corluy, Commentarius in Evangel. S. Joannis, 2nd ed., p. 290 ff.; Meyer, Evang. des Johannes, 6th ed., p. 452 ff.; Godet, Comment. sur l'Evang. de S. Jean, 2nd ed., p. 238 ff., and an eloquent page by Bishop Guiol, Démonstration philosophique de la divinité de Jésus-Christ, Paris 1856, pp. 244-245). In reality, only one argument has any semblance of value, and that is merely a negative one, drawn from the silence of the first three Gospels. Yet it can easily be "neutralized" by considering the numerous gaps in the Synoptic Gospels' accounts" (Reuss, 111). St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke almost completely omit the events in the Savior's biography that are unrelated to his Galilean ministry; they only show us Jesus in Jerusalem during the last week of his life. St. John, on the other hand, describes Our Lord's ministry in Jerusalem and Judea; he largely neglects the other events. In both cases, it is the evangelists' plan that determined the choice of narratives; the silence of the Synoptics regarding the resurrection The story of Lazarus, therefore, proves no more against the veracity of the fourth Gospel than the silence of St. John proves against the veracity of the resurrections recounted by the Synoptic Gospels and omitted by him. We prefer this answer to the one frequently proposed, according to Grotius: that St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke deliberately avoided mentioning the great miracle of Bethany for fear of drawing the persecutions of the Jews upon Lazarus and his sisters. But was the miracle not immediately known in Jerusalem? And what was there to fear twenty, thirty, or forty years later? By comparing 10:22 with 11:55, we see that the resurrection The feast of Lazarus took place between the Feast of Tabernacles and the Passover of the last year of Jesus. There was…This segment serves as a transition to the new episode. We will first introduce the hero of the miracle. A sick person. This detail is highlighted as being of great importance for the rest of the narrative. Nothing is said about the specific nature of the illness; it is evident from the context that it was serious (see also Acts 9:37; Philippians 2:26-27). The touching simplicity of this beginning is noteworthy. Lazarus.It's exactly the same name as that of the poor man made famous by one of the most beautiful parables of Jesus; see Luke 16:20 and the commentary. It is still quite often worn by Jews (Hebrew word, Lazar, abbreviation of אלעזר Elazar, or Eleazar, «God helps»). On the improbable identification of Lazarus with the young man clothed in the «sindôn,» see our explanation of the Gospel according to St. Mark, 14:51-52. From Bethany, Bethany, or, as it is called in Arabic, El-Azariyeh (the land of Lazarus), is located on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, 5 km from Jerusalem. Village of Married and of Martha, his sister.Married is named first, as being the most well-known due to her famous anointing (cf. verses 2 and 12:3). Martha was probably the elder of the two sisters; this is usually assumed based on verses 5:19 and Luke 10:38ff. Several details in this account (verse 38, the tomb hewn from the rock; verses 31 and 45, the high-ranking visitors who come to comfort Martha) suggest this. Married ; compare 12, 2 and 3, the anointing) that the family was rich and respected. 

John 11.² Married She was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair, and it was her brother Lazarus who was sick. – Married was…Advance intelligence to better demonstrate what Married This was the case, since the Gospels mention several holy women of that name. The story of the anointing itself will only come a little later (12:1-8). Here, as in many other passages, it is clear that St. John presupposes in his readers prior knowledge (through catechesis and the Synoptic Gospels) of a great many facts belonging to the biography of Jesus. – Qui anointed with scent. We have just spoken of anticipation, following the common and more probable opinion; but various renowned commentators (Maldonat, Corluy, Hengstenberg, etc.) believe that these two aorists in Greek allude rather to an earlier episode, the anointing of the sinner recounted by St. Luke 7:37: from which they infer that St. John provides us here with a very strong argument for the identification of this sinner and of Married, sister of Lazarus. Although we support the idea of identity (cf. commentary on Luke 7:37 ff.), we would have difficulty accepting the allusion and, consequently, the reasoning. His brother… After attaching Lazarus to Martha and especially to Married, The narrator returns to the main circumstance: who was ill.

John 11.³ The sisters sent word to Jesus: «Lord, the one you love is sick.» – Her sisters sent… In this moment of terrible anguish, on the verge of losing their only brother, Martha and Married They naturally thought of Jesus. They knew the place of his retreat beyond the Jordan. sayis a Hebraism (לאםר); the message is, moreover, reported literally, as the two sisters formulated it to their messenger. The one you love is sick. This simple phrase is exquisitely delicate in every respect. First, the supplicants merely convey the painful news to Jesus. «They did not dare to say to him, »Come and heal him’; they did not dare to say to him, ‘Command from where you are, and it shall be done here as you command…’ They said nothing of the sort to him, but only this: ‘Lord, the one you love is sick.’ It is enough for you to know this, for those you love you do not abandon.” (St. Augustine, Treatise on St. John, 49). And yet, what a powerful appeal they were not tacitly making to kindness all-powerful of their divine friend. Compare, 2, 3, the analogous conduct of the Blessed Virgin. Moreover, the words "the one you love" contained a pressing motive: what would one not do, especially what Jesus was incapable of, for a very dear friend?

John 11.⁴ Having heard this, Jesus said, «This sickness will not lead to death, but it is for God’s glory so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.» – Jesus' reply, addressed to the messenger in the presence of the disciples, was intended to encourage Martha and Married, to maintain their faith, even when all human hope had vanished for them (cf. verse 40, where Our Lord gently reminds Martha of his prediction). It was, however, an ambiguous statement, which must have caused the two sisters a severe trial upon the death of their brother. This disease does not lead to death., Didn't this seem to mean, in the present circumstance: He will not die? But Jesus, as he is about to say, saw beyond this temporary death, which was in truth for Lazarus only a kind of sleep (cf. verse 11); he was speaking of the definitive result, which astonishingly surpassed an ordinary healing. – The adversative particle but introduces the true and ultimate purpose of Lazarus's illness. This purpose is immediately twofold: it consists first, in a general way, in the glory of God (cf. 9:3); then, more specifically, in that of Jesus himself in his capacity as a miracle worker (so that the Son of God may be glorified). We will soon see this noble prophecy fulfilled (cf. verse 45; 12:9-11). The title of Son of Goddraws a particular force in this place from the name of God, mentioned in the previous line; it certainly designates more than the Messiah. 

John 11.⁵ Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister Married and Lazarus.– But Jesus loved…The evangelist's reflection, intended to prepare the way for the details of verse 6. But it is noteworthy that the expression used to describe Jesus' affection is not the same as in verse 3. There we read φιλεῖς; here we have Ἠγάπα. The first denotes a more natural inclination, a more instinctive attachment, a relationship that often belongs to the realm of feeling; the second denotes a friendship where reason has guided the choice. The first of these two terms is therefore more tender, the second calmer and usually has something nobler about it, cf. 21:15, 17 and the commentary. This sudden change in phrasing has been explained in two ways: 1) by the difference in the speakers. In verse 3, it is Lazarus' sisters (cf. verse 36, where the Jews also use the verb φιλεω, and it is natural that they should employ the expression that best highlights Jesus' tenderness for their brother); in verse 5, it is the sacred writer, and he very naturally also uses the most elevated term, the one most worthy of his Master. 2. By the difference in the persons spoken of. There (verse 3) it is only Lazarus who is mentioned; here (verse 5) Martha and Married are named with him, and it was more appropriate in this second case to designate Jesus' friendship by ἀναπάω: a delicate nuance, which the English can express with the verbs "to love" and "to like". Martha, and Married his sister…This time St. Martha is mentioned in the first rank (cf. verse 19), according to her very likely right of primogeniture.

John 11.⁶ Having learned that he was ill, he stayed two more days in the place where he was. – Having therefore learned…The narrator returns to his "hearing" from verse 4, to add another effect of the news (Jesus' conduct after his words). He remained…Jesus loved Lazarus, and yet he did not hurry to go to Bethany. But by delaying his departure, he intended to demonstrate his friendship more clearly. Besides, it was his custom to always wait for the precise moment indicated to him by the will of his Heavenly Father. This is the best explanation for this delay, which at first seems strange from a purely human point of view. Two days.The messenger had needed a full day's walk to reach Our Lord; Jesus himself waited two days before setting out, then traveled for a whole day and arrived in Bethany on the evening of the fourth day. Combining these details with verses 17 and 39, we see that the messenger must have found Lazarus dead when he came to report on his mission. 

John 11.⁷ He then said to his disciples, "Let us return to Judea."«– Let's go back to Judea.Bethany was in the very heart of this province. It is not without reason, as the objection of the apostles proves (verse 8), that Jesus names Judea instead of Bethany: he contrasted the tranquil Perea (cf. 10, 40) with the hostile region from whose dangers he had recently fled. 

John 11.⁸ The disciples said to him, "Teacher, the Jews were just now trying to stone you, and you're going back there?"«The disciples told him.They are naturally horrified at the mere mention of Judea, and they respectfully remonstrate with their Master. The Jews wanted to stone you earlier., cf. 8:59, and especially 10:31. The disciples had not forgotten these terrible scenes. It is touching to see them show so much interest in Jesus. And you go back there The sentence is full of energy. But isn't it exposing yourself to certain death? 

John 11.⁹ Jesus answered, «Are there not twelve hours in a day? If anyone walks during the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. ¹⁰ But if he walks at night, he stumbles because he lacks light.» – The Savior tries, through a few figurative words that bear a strong resemblance to 9:4 (see the commentary), to calm the troubled minds of his friends. "Your fears are exaggerated," he replies to them by means of this little parable, "for, at present, I am in no danger." Doesn't the day have twelve hours?He starts from the obvious fact of the division of the day into twelve hours, then he considers the case of a traveler walking to reach his destination. As long as the day lasts, he continues (If someone walks during the day), This man easily overcomes the obstacles of the road; and God knows what the roads of the East have always been like. It does not offend(προσκόπτει, a picturesque verb, "it does not strike against," the equivalent of the Hebrew word בשל): it will not painfully stumble at every step, because it is indeed illuminated by the sun because he sees the light of this world ; (expression noted to designate the sun). At night, it is different (But if he,antithesis), for the opposite reason: It lacks light; ; The traveler is plunged into darkness, and everything becomes a difficulty, a painful burden. – The application to Jesus now becomes self-evident. The twelve hours represent the entirety of his life, more specifically the duration of his public ministry. Currently, although the day is drawing to a close for him, he still walks in full light; therefore, he has no need to fear the snares of his enemies, for God is with him and protects him.

John 11.¹¹ He spoke thus and added: "Our friend Lazarus is asleep, but I am going to wake him up."« –  He spoke thus and added, (See verse 7.) This turn of phrase indicates a slight pause; note how the smallest details are indicated in this extremely detailed narrative. Jesus reveals to the disciples the reason for his return to Judea. His divine wisdom shines wonderfully throughout this first part of the story: he knows that the illness came only for the glory of God and his own, that he is in no immediate personal danger, and that Lazarus is already dead. It is entirely gratuitous and unnecessary for various authors to have him receive a second message from Bethany at this time. – Our friend Lazarus.This "our" is very touching. The friends of Jesus are the friends of his apostles, so closely are the latter associated with him; and by the same token, reciprocally, his disciples cannot help but be fond of those he loves. Sleeps(in Greek, in the perfect tense: he fell asleep); ; but I set off to wake him up.Who better than Jesus could use this metaphor? «But the Lord raised him from the tomb more easily than you raise a sleeping man from his bed. It is therefore in view of his power that he said that Lazarus was asleep,» St. Augustine, Treatise on St. John, 49, 9. See the note on verse 13. 

John 11.¹² His disciples told him, "If he sleeps, he will get better."«–The apostles took verse 4 literally; they also interpreted Jesus' last words literally and concluded that a fortunate crisis, a sign of a swift recovery, had occurred in Lazarus' condition. They believed that the return of sleep was an excellent omen of healing. The old rabbis, who sometimes practiced medicine, mentioned sleep as one of the ten favorable symptoms. It is quite possible that the disciples immediately seized upon this circumstance to prevent the Savior's departure. Master, why risk your life now that his is safe? 

John 11.¹³ But Jesus had spoken of his death and they thought it was rest from sleep. – St. John explains the misunderstanding in which he himself had participated. of his death and they thought that…Not that the image was obscure in itself, for it already appears in the Old Testament (cf. Ecclesiasticus 43:23); moreover, Jesus had used it in a similar circumstance, Matthew 9:24, and it was then in frequent use, as can be seen from rabbinic and Christian literature (cf. also Matthew 27:52; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1 Thessalonians 4:13ff.): but the minds of the apostles at that moment were directed in another direction. The evangelist recounts this with admirable candor. See 4:33; 14:5, 8, 22; and Matthew 16:7, for other similar episodes. 

John 11.¹⁴ Then Jesus told them plainly, «Lazarus is dead.” ¹⁵ And I am glad for your sake that I was not there, so that you may believe; but let us go to him.» – Jesus told them clearly. So, because they had misinterpreted his words; παρρησίᾳ, says the Greek (cf. 7, 13; 10, 24; 16, 25, 29), openly, without metaphor or ambiguity. – I rejoice because of you.Jesus joyfully contemplates a happy consequence for his disciples: so that you might believe(ἵνα πιστεύσητε, this word ἵνα -so that- so frequent in the fourth Gospel; see the Introduction, § 6, 2). They already believed, but "their faith needed to be strengthened further, and the increase it will receive at the tomb of Lazarus will soon be very necessary for them, when they find themselves before that of their Master" (Godet, hl). Dof not having been there. As if death were impossible in the presence of Christ. But (however; abrupt transition) let's go(ἄγωμεν as in verse 7; likewise in verse 16)... This too is an extraordinary expression, and undoubtedly intentional on the part of Our Lord: he speaks of the dead as if they were a living person (verse him). 

John 11.¹⁶ And Thomas, called Didymus, said to the other disciples, «Let us also go, that we may die with him.»– Thomas…dit(seeing Jesus' decision to leave, and responding in a way to his invitation). Not only did no one object to the immediate departure (cf. verse 8), but one of the disciples spoke up to encourage the others (to the other disciples, τοῖς συμμαθηταῖς, an expression not found elsewhere in the New Testament). – Thomas, called Didymus.The first of these names comes from תומא (Thoma), an Aramaic form derived from the Hebrew תאס (Theom); the second is simply the Greek translation of the first. The first Hebrew word, like Δίδυμος, which the Latins rendered as "Didymus," therefore means "twin" (cf. the Hebrew text of Genesis 25:24), and this name undoubtedly contained an allusion to the birth of St. Thomas ("who was born simultaneously with his other brother, as Euthymius says," Maldonatus). It is likely that the Greek name had become more common by the time St. John was writing: this is why it is added either here or further down, 20:24; 21:2, to the Hebrew name, which is the only one mentioned in the lists of the apostles according to the Synoptic Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. See the note under Matthew 10:2-4. . – Let's go too, in order to die with him.Not with Lazarus, according to the strange interpretation of some authors, but with Jesus (see verse 8). The disciples knew perfectly well that the Jews' hatred for their Master would rebound upon them, and that they would hardly be spared if his life were threatened. This statement of St. Thomas is therefore marked by true courage and generous love. However, the apostle already appears to us with his somber temperament, seeing things in a negative light and hesitating before believing. Jesus' clear assertion in verses 9 and 10 did not reassure him; he doubts and sees himself inevitably destined for imminent martyrdom.

John 11.¹⁷ So Jesus came and found Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. – So Jesus came…According to verse 30, he stopped near the entrance to the village. – The phrase he foundThis clearly highlights the purpose of his journey: Lazarus. For four days.See the note to verse 6. The mention of this circumstance is clearly intended to highlight the splendor of the miracle. In the tomb, cf. 5:5. In accordance with Eastern customs, Lazarus was placed in the tomb soon after his death. See Acts 5:6-10.

John 11.¹⁸ Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about fifteen stadia away. – A topographical detail to explain to non-Jewish readers the event recounted below, verse 19: the proximity of Jerusalem brought many visitors to Martha and to Married. – The imperfect tense was does not necessarily prove, as has sometimes been believed, that Bethany had ceased to exist (as a result of the war of the Romans), when St. John was writing his account; the use of this tense is very common to designate something that still lasts, but which the narrator associates with the story of a completely past event, cf. 18:1; 19:41; Acts 17:21, etc. – At about fifteen stages.The stadium, σταδίων, was a unit of length comprising 185 meters. This is indeed the distance that separates Bethany from Jerusalem today (a little less than three kilometers); it can be covered in 35 minutes.

John 11.¹⁹ Many Jews had come to Martha and Married to console them about their brother. – Many Jews.Before the arrival of the true Comforter, other comforters, relatives and friends of the family, came from Jerusalem to Bethany. The word "Jews" here represents the party of opposition against Jesus, cf. verse 37 and 1:19, etc. Near Martha and Married.The Greek phrase is noteworthy, literally: towards those who surrounded Martha and Married. This is not an idle turn of phrase. One does not often encounter this expression, except in the case of illustrious figures or those who were part of their circle of friends or ministers. We can therefore deduce that Martha and Married were members of high Jewish society. This conclusion is all the more legitimate since, as we have seen, other considerations also support it. To console them.Jews, formalists like many Orientals, have always had their own mourning etiquette, rigorously followed (see Genesis 50:11; 1 Samuel 31:13; Judith 16:14; Ecclesiasticus 22:10; Josephus, Antiquities 17:8:4). Upon returning from the funeral procession, Martha and Married, Once home, they sat on the ground, barefoot and with their heads veiled, and the visits of condolence began. Their friends, seated beside them, expressed their sympathy with deep sighs, but said nothing unless they themselves uttered the first words; such was the custom. The first seven days especially were devoted to visits and considered a time of more solemn mourning. Moreover, some of these rites survive in modern Judaism. Clearly, in this particular circumstance, it was Providence that had led all these Jews to Bethany to make them witnesses—hostile witnesses, forced witnesses—of the miracle of Jesus.

John 11.²⁰ As soon as Martha learned that Jesus was coming, she went to meet him, while Married stood seat at home. – As soon as Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went to meet him. This is indeed Martha, as St. Luke described her to us, 10:40-42 (see the note below). Luke 10, 38.) with its feverish activity, its more outward nature. She had scarcely learned, and she must have been the first to learn it in her capacity as mistress of the house, this happy news, Jesus was coming, that she rushes to meet him and joins him at the place where he had stopped, cf. verse 30. While Married stood seat at home.Married She is also the same as in Luke 10:38, with her calm, inward, contemplative character. The coincidence is truly striking, and it is clear that each evangelist described real, historical figures. However, if the younger sister does not immediately go to meet the Savior, "it is not," as St. John Chrysostom so aptly puts it in his Homily in 11, "that Martha was at that moment more zealous, but Married "had not heard." Martha, overcome by emotion, had forgotten to warn him that the Master was there. We mentioned earlier that mourners received visits from their friends while seated; this is picturesquely expressed by the imperfect tense "was seated" (Erasmus, "remained seated"), which denotes a habitual posture, cf. Job 2:8, 13; Ezekiel 8:14; Nehemiah 1:4. 

John 11.²¹ Martha then said to Jesus, «Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.– Martha spoke first, a natural trait in such an encounter, and perfectly in keeping with Martha's character. Lord, if you had been here.This is not a complaint, but simply the observation of a fact, a painful reflection no doubt, but full of delicacy, on what certainly could not have taken place in the presence of Jesus. See in verse 15 a similar supposition by Our Lord. Moreover, Martha does not say: If you had come sooner, which would have sounded like a reproach, but: If you had been here. Fr. Patrizi, explaining this statement, says excellently: "She behaved like a modest, simple, spontaneous person, capable of expressing the feeling she was experiencing at that moment, and putting her whole soul into it." My brother would not have died.

John 11.²² But even now, I know that whatever you ask of God, God will grant it to you.»– Martha develops and makes even more complete the act of faith that she has so well begun. – But Even now, I know that(even now that my brother is dead). I know and I believe. What she knows, she emphasizes forcefully in the rest of the sentence: anything you ask of God…All things without exception; therefore, as is insinuated with new delicacy beneath this general formula, even the resurrection of Lazarus. – God will grant it to you.The repetition of God's name is remarkable and shows that Martha assumed Jesus was united to the Lord by very intimate bonds. And yet, might one not say at the same time, as ancient and modern exegetes have suggested, that her idea of Our Lord Jesus Christ is not without imperfections? She seems to assume that he has an absolute need to ask God for miraculous power, that he has strength only through intercession, and, to designate the prayer to which he should resort in this case, she uses an expression of a lower order, αἰτήσῃ, which is nowhere else in the Gospel used to represent the supplications of the God-Man. Indeed, the sacred writers, and the Savior himself, then resort to nobler terms, which better mark the request of the Son to his divine father: ἐρωτᾶν (14, 16; 16, 26; 17, 9, 15, 20), δεῖσθαι (Luke, 22, 32), θέλω (John 17, 24), προσεύχεσθαι (Matt. 26, 36, 39, 42, 44; Mark. 32, 35, 39; Luke, 3, 21; 5, 16; 6, 12; 9, 18, 28, 29; 11, 1; 22, 41, 44).

John 11.²³ Jesus said to him, «Your brother will rise again.» – What follows (verses 23-27) is exquisitely subtle, a subtlety that is felt far better than can be expressed. The two interlocutors are, in a way, struggling—if we may use this human term regarding Jesus—to evade each other's thoughts and to lead each other to the end they are pursuing. Martha would like, though not explicitly, to let the Savior know that he might well raise her brother from the dead; Jesus seems not to grasp this particular perspective, for he wants, as is his custom, to prepare the way for the miracle by increasing faith. They therefore speak to each other in general terms, which Martha, despite all her feminine delicacy, fails to make specific. See Maldonat, Commentary on John 11:24. Your brother will rise again.A word of hope certainly, but very ambiguous in the circumstance; for Ἀναστήσεται can refer to both the resurrection general at the end of times, than a miraculous and imminent resurrection. 

John 11.²⁴ «I know,” Martha replied, “that he will rise again when…” the resurrection, "On the last day."» – Martha, in her reply, adopts the first of the two meanings; she doubtless hoped that Jesus would thus be forced to clarify his thought further, and would move of his own accord to the second interpretation. During the resurrection, on the last day.All ambiguity disappears in the face of this brief commentary on the verb He will rise again.He will rise again; yes, I know it, but like all other men, and so late. The expression ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ is unique to St. John in the Gospel, and he always uses it to designate the resurrection The final and the Last Judgment. It very clearly represents the hour when time will cease, giving way to eternity. On the belief in the resurrection general at that time, see Daniel 12, 2; 2 Maccabees 6, 9, 14.

John 11.²⁵ Jesus said to him, «I am the resurrection And life, he who believes in me, though he die, shall live, – The Savior responds this time with a purely divine revelation, which truly forms the central point of the narrative. It is a great and solemn testimony that he gives to himself, and whose truth he will attest to by his next miracle. - I am the resurrection and life… Me, me personally. Jesus thus draws Martha's attention to himself, to his nature, to his own powers. No, this is not merely a distant hope; no, the resurrection is not a favor for which I would depend on another: indeed, I am not only able to perform it, to give it to the dead, so I am truly the resurrection personified (ἡ ἀνάστασις) and life (καὶ ἡ ζωή, life par excellence). This says even more; because the resurrection Restored life implies a transitory death, whereas simple, absolute life knows no failure and constantly triumphs over death and the tomb. Jesus manifests himself very clearly here as the living God (cf. 1:4). Compare also the similar titles he receives with other passages in the New Testament: Romans 4, 17, Colossians 3, (4, 1 Timothy 6:16, Revelation 1:8), etc. – The two preceding words were like a magnificent theme; Jesus will now develop them in turn, applying them in the most comforting way. Two hypotheses could indeed arise: among those who had the good fortune to believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, some had died like Lazarus, others were still alive. The Savior examines, with regard to his sacred person, the case of both: for the former, he is the resurrection, For the latter, he is life itself. In short, this will be his thought: death has no real power over those who believe in me; whoever has lost life will find it again through me, whoever possesses it will never lose it. – First hypothesis: the one who believes in me…Faith in Christ is obviously the condition without which one cannot share in the precious advantages mentioned below. even if he were dead(physically, from an external death), will live(spiritually and forever). Death therefore does not disappear in an absolute way; but, even where it manifests itself, it is only relative, thanks to the Messiah. The wounds it inflicts are immediately healed; the life of the faithful, which seemed interrupted, broken, suddenly blossoms again in a better world, and it is more life than ever: "life is changed, but not taken away," cf. Isaiah 25, 8 ; 26, 19.

John 11.²⁶ And whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe that?»– Second hypothesis : And whoever lives (physically) and believes…«"Anyone" was missing from the previous sentence, although it was the intended meaning; here it adds "broadness to the promise," Westcott. Will not die not forever.Great energy of assertion. The doubling of the negative particle in the Greek text further amplifies this. Thus, faith becomes the element of perpetual life, which cannot be harmed even by death. We see in what a strong and delicate way Jesus raises Martha's spirit and heart, which had fallen too much toward the earth, to the higher realms of life. Do you believe it?By this sudden question, he provokes her to make an explicit confession of faith in the imposing truth he has just revealed to her. 

John 11.²⁷ «Yes, Lord,» she told him, «I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into this world.» – Yes, Lord.She responds firmly, without hesitation, with a noble confession similar to that of St. Peter, Matthew 16:16. I(me, to whom you are addressing this question)believe.It expresses a perfectly established conviction, one that had already existed for some time. You are the Christ,Martha recognizes Jesus as the Messiah promised to her people. The Son of the living God. The epithet alive, so expressive because it contains a striking allusion to the words of Jesus: «I am the resurrection and life.» What theological idea did Martha associate with the title Son of God? Her answer is insufficient to determine this (with certainty)... This title at least expressed the conviction that Jesus possessed a superhuman being. It was always on solemn occasions, and when they wished to express their highest conceptions regarding their Master, that the disciples called him Son of God, cf. 1:49; Matt. 14:33; 26:54, etc. Nevertheless, they did not always take these words in the metaphysical sense to which they are ascribed today, cf. Tolet, hl – Who was to come into this world.On this Jewish qualification of the Messiah, see Matthew 11:3; Luke 7:19-20, and the commentaries. The expression "coming into the world" is frequent in the writings of St. John (1:9; 3:19; 6:14; 9:39; 12:46; 16:28; 18:37). Applied to Christ, it designates his heavenly mission and represents the world as the stage for his ministry. – Euthymius unjustly accuses S^you Martha, for not having fully grasped the Savior's thoughts, and for responding to one thing with another. In truth, the inconsistency exists only on the surface. Martha "believes that Jesus is the resurrection and life, since she believes that he is the Christ,» Luthardt. These two dogmas were, moreover, very closely united in the theology of the ancient Jews. «The Messiah will raise those who sleep in the dust,» we read in the Midrash Tillin, f. 42, 1, and, even today, the article of the Israelite creed affirms the resurrection The story of the dead immediately follows the one about the coming of the Messiah. 

John 11.²⁸ When she had finished speaking, she left and called in secret Married, His sister said, "The Master is here and he is calling you."« – Jesus and Married, verses 28-32. When she had thus spoken, She left.After this beautiful confession, Martha had nothing more to add; leaving Jesus for a moment, she returned home to tell her sister. And called in secret Married, speaking in a low voice and whispering in his ear. This word is used in only three other places in the New Testament (Matthew 1:19; 2:7; Acts 16:37), and it is always associated with the verb "to call." Martha knew that several of the visitors from Jerusalem harbored hostile feelings toward Jesus; therefore, she did not want to let them know of his presence. Or, more simply, she wanted her sister and herself to be alone with him. The Master. The well-known Master. That was the familiar term used in the family. He's calling you.Jesus had therefore directly expressed his desire to see Married, although the evangelist, in his intention to be brief, had not yet said anything about it.

John 11.²⁹ As soon as she heard him, she quickly got up and went towards him. – The description is quite vivid. How revered Jesus was in that house in Bethany! Cf. 4:30 and the commentary. Martha returned to Jesus with her sister, cf. verse 39. 

John 11.³⁰ For Jesus had not yet entered the village; he had not left the place where Martha had met him. – Retrospective note, intended to prepare for the following detail, verse 31. Jesus probably wanted the first moments of his interview with Martha and Married would have been unpleasant without witnesses; that is why he did not go to their homes directly. 

John 11.³¹ The Jews who were with Married And they comforted her, seeing her rise quickly and leave, and followed her, thinking, "She is going to the tomb to weep there."«– The Jews…See verse 19. Having seen her get up quickly and leave.The evangelist repeats this detail to better show how struck the visitors were by the sudden emotion of Married and his hasty departure. They followed her, thinking… Believing that, overcome by a paroxysm of grief, she was about to weep at her brother's tomb, they followed her to offer her a few words of sympathy. She is going to her grave…Visiting tombs, especially in the early days of mourning, was no less a custom among the ancient Jews than among us. These are more commonly women who practice it in the East. They sometimes spend long hours in the cemetery, and at the graves of their loved ones, they give themselves over to all the expressions inspired by intense grief. To cry there:An expression that denotes loud weeping, sobbing, cf. 16:20; 20:11 ff.; Matt. 2:18; Mark 5:38; Luke 7:13; Acts 9:39, etc. We will have another verb in verse 35. – The Jews had not thought to make the same assumption when Martha left them; it immediately comes to mind for Mary: this too is characteristic.

John 11.³² When Married She arrived at the place where Jesus was, and seeing him, she fell at his feet and said to him, «Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.» – Arriving near Jesus, Married She throws herself at his feet: Martha had remained standing; but her sister is more passionate, more ardent, as we have further proof in this picturesque gesture. Lord, if you had been here…Martha had already made the same observation to Jesus, verse 1. It's easy to imagine the two sisters having exchanged it many times during Lazarus's illness. However, we must point out a significant reversal here: the pronoun emphasizes the personal loss more than Married had done so, and consequently, the very intense pain she felt. "It was as if a part of herself" (Godet) had disappeared. Married She said nothing different to Jesus; her sister, less impressionable, had been able to converse with the Master: for her, she suddenly burst into tears (cf. verse 33). It was, moreover, a powerful prayer. «What she could not ask for with words, she asked for with tears,» Maldonatus. Compare this famous passage from the prince of Roman orators, which describes the grief of a poor mother whose son had been killed by a cruel official: «She came to me, and, calling for her salvation and imploring the name of her son, she threw herself at my feet, the unfortunate woman, as if I could call her son back from hell» (In Verr. 5, 39). But Married will not have groaned in vain at the feet of the Savior. 

John 11.³³ When Jesus saw her weeping, along with the Jews who were with her, he was deeply moved in spirit and gave in to his emotion. – Jesus, seeing her weeping,as in verse 31. …And the Jews who accompanied him.The same expression again. The Jews, too, weep aloud, overcome by the contagion of tears. A very simple scene, but infinitely touching. – At this sight, Jesus himself is seized by a violent emotion, which the evangelist tried to capture with the phrase ἐνεβριμήσατο τῷ πνεύματι, shuddered in his mind. The verb ἐνεβριμᾶσθαι (root: to hum, to snore, with imitative harmony) is used only five times in the New Testament: John 11:33, 38; Matthew 9:30; Mark 1:43; 14:5 (see our commentaries on these last three passages), and always, as in the classical texts and the Septuagint translation, it expresses discontent, even anger and indignation. To tremble, to experience violent anger, and to be indignant. Grotius, Lücke, Tholuck, and Ewald weaken its meaning considerably, when they use it here to express only an outburst of intense sympathy and sorrow. in his mind localizes, so to speak, and restricts to the soul of Our Lord Jesus Christ the movement of the passion, cf. verse 38. And gave in to his emotionis not a mere periphrasis for «was troubled,» 13:21: it is an expression of perfect theological precision, deliberately chosen by the narrator to show that there was nothing purely passive in the holy soul of the Savior, but that all his emotions remained constantly under his control (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 3, q. 18, a. 6). According to some exegetes, this voluntary turmoil should not be confused with the feeling of indignation mentioned above; it would have been a physical shock, a passing shudder (cf. Euthymius, Meyer, etc., h. 1). But for what specific reason does Jesus become indignant? Opinions vary. Our Lord, it has been said, was angered by the tears of Married, in which he saw a sign of unbelief (Lampe, etc.); or because of the affected and hypocritical grief of the Jews (Meyer, Watkins, Plummer, etc.); or because he saw himself as an object of hatred for many, and that his best friends did not understand him well enough (Brückner); more specifically, in anticipation of the redoubled rage that the resurrection The miracle of Lazarus, the most glorious of his miracles, would stir up in the hearts of his enemies (Godet, Abbott, etc.), or even because of his own human emotion, which his divinity could not experience (Origen and other ancient and modern authors). We prefer to say, with St. Augustine, Nicholas of Lyra, Cornelius a Lap., Tolet, Luke of Bruges, and a great number of commentators, that Jesus, moved by the grief that erupted around him, was indignant at that moment against the powers, whether infernal or natural (the devil, sin, death), that bring so much evil and sorrow to earth, the worst of which are damnation. St. Augustine: "In the voice of the one who trembles appears the hope of the one who comes back to life." To console Martha, he had resorted to words; he will console her again. Married through action. 

John 11.³⁴ And he said, «Where have you put it?» “Lord,” they replied, “come and see.” – Where did you put it?Addressing the two sisters, he asks to be led to the tomb. If we are not mistaken, this is the only question that the evangelists attribute to Our Lord Jesus Christ. – Come and see.The answer, like the request, is expressed with as few words as possible. That's how one speaks in pain.

John 11.³⁵ And Jesus wept. —A truly divine line, so difficult to read without shedding a few tears oneself. It deserved to be set apart in a verse that is both one of the shortest and perhaps the most moving in the Holy Scriptures. The dramatic and solemn brevity of the style enhances it admirably. The Greek verb expresses mute and silent tears, in contrast to the sobs of Married and the Jews (verses 31 and 33). Yet Jesus himself once wept aloud, on the occasion of the moral death, the impending ruin of his homeland (cf. Luke 19:41 and the commentary). Some rationalists are scandalized by Jesus' tears (Baur, Strauss, Keim): they would undoubtedly prefer a Son of Man apathetic and cold like the gods of paganism, who did not know how to weep. In Euripides' Hippolytus, the hero says sadly to Artemisia: "Do you see, my queen, the deplorable state I am in?"... And Diana replies: "I see it, but it is not permitted for my eyes to shed tears" (Hippolytus, v. 1395). But the Word made flesh was not above tears, which, after all, manifest one of the noblest aspects of human nature. "By giving tears, nature affirms that she has given humankind very tender hearts. This is the best part of our feelings." Juvenal, Sat. 15, 131 ff.

John 11.³⁶ The Jews said, "See how he loved her."« The congregation, too, held two very different opinions about Jesus' conduct. Everywhere, moreover, since the birth of Our Lord, we have observed in the Gospels a twofold current of opinion concerning him. See the note under Luke 2:34-35. Look how much he loved her…In Greek, we similarly have the expression of tenderness used by Lazarus' sisters, verse 3, cf. verse 5 and the commentary. 

John 11.³⁷ But some of them said, "Could not he, who opened the eyes of a man born blind, have also prevented this man from dying?"« – But some…These men make a harsh and hateful suggestion: He is crying, so be it. But what good are a few pointless tears? Wouldn't he have been better off healing his friend in time? We will encounter these heartless men again in verse 46, as the accusers of Jesus to the Pharisees. – At least they make an important admission. (He who opened the eyes of the man born blind), because they presuppose the absolute reality of the healing of the man born blind, a miracle that had, moreover, been fully and officially recognized in Jerusalem, and which still held public attention, so great had its brilliance been. See chapter 9. At first glance, it would seem more natural for these critics to mention the other resurrections performed by Jesus; but these dated back to an earlier period and had taken place in Galilee; for this twofold reason, they were of less interest to the inhabitants of the capital, who, moreover, might very well have been unaware of them. This detail has therefore been rightly regarded as a guarantee of the narrator's veracity. – It is quite in vain that several recent exegetes (Lücke, Tholuck, de Wette, A. Maier, Brückner, Ewald, etc.) have tried to contest the malicious and sarcastic nature of the reflection contained in this verse.

John 11.³⁸ Jesus, therefore, being deeply moved again, went to the tomb: it was a burial chamber with a stone laid over it.– Jesus, trembling again : same expression as in verse 33, with the slight variation in itselfinstead of in his mind. This time, in addition to the aforementioned cause for the stirring of indignation, there were the murmurs of the Jews (therefore), which denoted an implacable hatred, misinterpreting even the most delicate feelings. In this chapter, where the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ is so brilliantly manifested, the Savior's human feelings are no less clearly marked: friendship, verse 5; sympathy and tears, verse 35; anger, verses 33 and 38. Compare the following passages from the fourth Gospel, where we encounter the description of similar feelings: 4:6 (weariness); 4:7; 19:28 (thirst); 13:2, 23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20 (affection). At the tomb(In Greek, literally: a memory, a memorial, cf. verse 31). This funerary monument, which, according to the narrative as a whole, was a family property, is then quickly described so that the reader can easily follow the entire scene of the miracle. It was a burial vault.The Greek word σπήλαιον specifically designates a vault dug by human hands. These artificial caves, serving as tombs for the wealthy, were abundant in the vicinity of Jerusalem. They were entered at ground level, through a horizontal opening, or sometimes by a vertically constructed staircase. And a stone was placed on itThis could happen in two ways, depending on whether the entrance to the tomb was at the top or to the side; the expression doesn't specify anything on this point. The stone was usually very large (cf. Mark 16:4), and its purpose was to prevent nighttime robbers from stripping the corpses and wild animals from devouring them. Behind it, there was most often a large chamber, the walls of which had lateral niches for the bodies. When the family was large, there were sometimes several adjoining chambers, connected by underground corridors. The tomb of St. Lazarus is still venerated today in Bethany, just as it has been throughout the centuries. Christianity. The pilgrim from Bordeaux mentions it in 333, St. Jerome in the following century (cf. Onomasticon, under the word Bethania).

John 11.³⁹ «Take away the stone,» Jesus said. Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, «Lord, by this time there is a stench, for he has been dead four days.»– Remove the stone.The command was forceful in its brevity: already the master of life could be heard. The minds and eyes of all present were suspended. – Martha, the sister of the one who had died…The words added to Martha's name are not a mere formality here: rather, they are a remarkably subtle touch, intended to prepare and explain the momentary opposition of "the dead man's sister" to the removal of the stone. A sister would surely feel a particular sense of repugnance and sorrow at seeing herself, and allowing many witnesses to contemplate, the hideous mark of death imprinted on her brother's face. She even anticipates more than that, as she expresses it. But it is also quite telling that this thought first occurs to Martha and not to that of Married. – Lord : Out of respect, to ask, in a way, for permission to oppose Jesus' order. He can already smell it.Martha describes in all its horror what appears to her, given the circumstances, to be a very real fact; for, she adds, because four days ago… It is worth noting here a strange Jewish tradition: «It is especially on the third day that mourning reaches its peak. Indeed, for three days the spirit (of the deceased) wanders around the tomb, waiting to see if it can reunite with the body. But when it perceives that the appearance of the face has changed, it departs and abandons the corpse to its fate. Now, after three days, the appearance of the face is changed.» According to some ancient authors, by the words He can already smell it.,Martha would not have merely stated a presumption, however legitimate, but the result of an experience anyone could have. («They smelled of infection,» says St. Ambrose, De Fide resurrect., 2, 80. «An infectious disease gave off a putrid odor,» Sedulius… cf. Prudentius, Apotheosis, 759-766; St. Augustine, Treatise 49 on St. John, etc. The apocryphal letter from Pilate to the Emperor Tiberius (ap. Thilo, Codex apocryph. NT p. 807) also mentions this circumstance, with details whose crudity reveals its legendary nature. The body had undoubtedly been embalmed according to custom, but using the Jewish method, which consisted simply of perfuming the dead with precious oil and surrounding them with aromatics, thus delaying decay only for a time. 

John 11.⁴⁰ Jesus said to him, «Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?» – Martha, as we understand, did not suspect Jesus' intention; she thought he only wanted to take one last look at her friend: that is why she had tried to dissuade him. The Savior revived her with a powerful word, this time faltering.Didn't I tell you...?He had told him so, if not in his own words, at least in an equivalent way, either through the messenger, verse 4, or by himself a few moments before, verses 23-26 – You will see the glory of God : the glory of God manifested by the resurrection of your brother. A magnificent spectacle that Jesus promises Martha, and which he contrasts with the distressing impressions she fears for the onlookers and for herself once the stone has been removed. You will seeis correlated with if you believe. Ordinarily, man likes to contemplate things before believing: Jesus asks for the opposite.

John 11.⁴¹ So they took away the stone and Jesus looked up and said, «Father, I thank you that you have heard me.– So they removed the stonewithout waiting for a new order. The Savior, when he so willed, exercised an irresistible power by his sheer majesty. Jesus, look up… The miracle worker establishes intimate communication with his father, and he prays. And said:aloud, so that he could be perfectly heard. What emotion must have surrounded him! Father…It begins with this solemn and tender appeal to God the Father, whom he calls upon as witness to his mission and his sonship. I thank you…It is indeed a prayer that he addresses to his heavenly Father, but a prayer of thanksgiving, not of supplication. He is not like Elisha, who was only able to restore life through prolonged supplication (2 Kings 4:33 ff., cf. Acts 9:40). For him, his prayer was answered long ago (you have granted), and this is the reason for his thanksgiving. As he is sure of his powers, he affirms them publicly, without fear of being contradicted by the facts. 

John 11.⁴² »For my part, I knew that you always answer my prayers, but I said this because of the crowd around me, so that they would believe that you had sent me.”– As for me, I knew…The imperfect tense, a tense of duration: I always knew. The pronoun is emphatic. I, who know our reciprocal relationship. Jesus explains further: he doesn't want it to enter anyone's mind for a single moment that their previous prayers might not have always been well received by God. YOU grant my wish always.This is an ordinary and common fact (the emphasized adverb reinforces the idea). Jesus "is not an occasional miracle worker, but the permanent repository of divine forces" (Reuss). But I said that because of the crowd surrounding me.(He said, "I thank you for what you have granted »), so that they will believe… Herein lies the very clearly emphasized purpose of the miracle. After this, «if Lazarus remains in the tomb, let Jesus be recognized as an imposter, and let all his other miracles be attributed to Beelzebub. If God, solemnly invoked, extends his arm, let Jesus be recognized as his envoy, «his own Son.» Thus, this anticipated thanksgiving, before this still-inhabited tomb, makes this moment a decisive test… and gives this miracle, in the whole of Jesus« life, a unique and supreme character… Jesus positively involves God in the work that is about to be done; this work thereby becomes God’s own. God, the God of Israel, will henceforth be the guarantor of his mission, or the accomplice in his imposture.» Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 2nd ed., vol. 2, p. 225. – When, despite the beauty of this invocation of Jesus, the rationalists (determined to condemn even the most magnificent passages of this scene) dismiss it as a «showpiece» (Baur, Strauss, etc.), it suffices, to refute them, to reply with Dr. Stier: “You are incompetent judges when it comes to prayer.” Reden des Herrn Jesu, hl.

John 11.⁴³ Having spoken thus, he shouted in a loud voice: – He shouted : energetic expression, which is further reinforced by the words in a loud voice, cf. 12, 13; 18, 6, 15; v. 28. 

John 11.⁴⁴ «Lazarus, come out.» And the dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with strips of linen, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, «Take off the grave clothes and let him go.»– Lazarus… Our Lord personally addresses this word of authority to the dead, as he had already done in the previous resurrections (Mark 5:41; Luke 7:14; 8:54) – Go out, out of the tomb. The phrase is even more forceful in the Greek thanks to an ellipsis of the verb: "here outside!" We read above, 5:25, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear it will live." This prophecy of Jesus is now fulfilled.And the dead man came out, immediately: a picturesque trait. «Without interval between voice and life» (St. Hilary, on the Trinity 6, § 43). The dead manThis contrasts sharply with the life that suddenly fills Lazarus. Feet and hands bound with strips (here only in the New Testament). These strips of cloth were usually made of linen. It is possible that they wrapped each limb separately, according to Egyptian custom, or perhaps they were simply wrapped around the body: in either case, it is understandable that Lazarus could have taken, with some difficulty, the few steps necessary to leave the tomb (and he did). Moreover, Jesus will come to his aid again: Untie him. It is therefore unnecessary to admit here a new miracle, a "miracle within a miracle," as St. Basil says, cf. St. Augustine, Second Discourse on Psalm 101, 3: "He did not come forth by the strength of his own feet, but by the power of him who raised him from the dead." And the face(ὄψις, here only and Revelation 1:16) wrapped in a shroud.Another graphic detail that struck the eyewitness. No one in the crowd could forget the outward appearance of Lazarus emerging from the tomb. The "sudarium" (from which we derive "shroud") served, in its use as a burial cloth, to veil the faces of the dead; perhaps it was also placed under their chin to prevent the lower jaw from falling (cf. 20:7; Luke 19:20; Acts 19:12). Untie it and let it go…A delicate touch on the part of the miracle worker. He had behaved similarly toward Jairus' daughter (Mark 5:43). It's understandable that the onlookers, frightened and amazed, didn't think of doing this service for Lazarus on their own. Let us admire the narrator's restraint: he remains silent on the matter. joy of Martha and Married, ...on the ovation given to Jesus, on Lazarus himself, and on his subsequent life. This is yet another mark of authenticity, of veracity. A legend or a myth would not have been so restrained. Compare the apocryphal accounts. Yet, in these pages where exaggeration abounds, one finds a few details worthy of mention. For example, according to the Letter of Pontius Pilate (see the note on verse 30), Lazarus came out of the tomb. According to one legend, Lazarus, barely resurrected, asked Jesus if he should die a second time; having received an affirmative answer, he was so struck by it that he was never seen to smile again. – A tradition otherwise worthy of belief tells us that later the Jews, filled with hatred for the holy friend of Jesus, placed him, his sisters, and other disciples on an old, unrigged boat, which they launched into the Mediterranean. «But the ship, under God’s guidance, reached port safely after preserving the lives of all its passengers. It was there that Lazarus was consecrated Bishop of Marseille, and converted a great many of them through the preaching of the Word and the heavenly example of his life. He lived for about thirty years after his resurrection (cf. St. Epiphanius, Haeres, 56, 34), and had the glory of suffering martyrdom in Marseille at the age of sixty. His sacred body, buried in Marseille with the honors befitting such a great man, remained there until the tenth century. Then, for fear of Muslim invasions, it was moved to Autun. It is there still that it is preserved in the cathedral… and that he is commemorated in the most solemn veneration. Christian art could not fail to express in its own way and nobly adorn this great miracle.« For ancient representations, see Rohault de Fleury, L'Évangile, études iconographiques, vol. 2, p. 112 ff.; Grimouard de S. Laurent, Guide de l'Art chrétien, vol. 4, p. 230 ff. The most famous of the more recent paintings are those by Giotto, Pordenone, Fra Angelico, Michelangelo and Sebastiano del Piombo (associated for the same painting), Girofalo, Bonifazzio, Barbieri, Jouvenet, and Overbeck. Also noteworthy are a striking sculpture by Ghiberti and a truly admirable etching by Rembrandt. From a musical point of view, we know only of Rolle's lyric drama, performed in Leipzig in 1777. For poetry, see M. de Laprade, Poèmes évangéliques, p. 169 and following, and Victor Hugo's play entitled: Christ's First Encounter with the Tomb. Finally, Massillon has a beautiful sermon, in his Lenten sermon, on the resurrection of Lazarus. 

John 11.⁴⁵ Many of the Jews who had come near Married and of Martha, and who had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. – In this verse and the next, we see the twofold result manifested in the eyewitnesses of the miracle. – The words many of the Jews…which brings us back to verses 19 and 31. Those who had seen what… This detail was deliberately noted. The men in question were not just anyone: they had witnessed the miracle with their own eyes. They believed in him.Was doubt still possible? (See verses 41-42.) The purpose of the resurrection The prophecy of Lazarus (verses 4 and 42) was therefore partly fulfilled, since there were immediately many believers. 

John 11.⁴⁶ But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. – But some of them(that is, witnesses to the miracle). The contrast is as striking as it is painful; thus, it is incomprehensible how various exegetes could have supposed that the witnesses thus designated would have gone without the slightest malice to find the Pharisees,solely to recount the case to them, and to obtain from them, as doctors of the law, a solution regarding the character and role of Jesus. No, their approach is clearly hostile; it is a hateful denunciation: but again the evangelist presents things with restraint. In passage 9:13, the situation was not the same. 

John 11.⁴⁷ The pontiffs and the Pharisees then assembled the Sanhedrin and said, «What shall we do? For this man performs many miracles. – As a result of this news,The Pontiffs… so they assembled…The shock produced among the hierarchs and the Pharisees—that is, among the two ruling classes of Judaism at that time—was immense. The Sanhedrin, or great council (mentioned here only in the fourth Gospel, and without an article), was hastily convened to decide what to do. On the composition of this assembly, see the note under Matthew 2:4. The alliance of the chief priests and the Pharisees seems strange at first glance (cf. 7:45); they were, in fact, two rival parties, constantly at war with each other, each seeking to wrest from one another the authority, the political and religious leadership of the country. But the desire to overthrow a common enemy has often produced the most disparate alliances: this is what united the pontiffs and the Pharisees against Jesus. And said(the imperfect tense of continuity) : What will we do?, The Sanhedrin believes they must act promptly and decisively. Becauseannounces the reason that inspires this change in behavior: this man(disdainful, cf. 9, 16, 24, etc.) operates Many miracles?This is the whole crime they accuse Jesus of: his miracles, which rise up like an innumerable multitude before their memories, on the occasion of the last one he performed. A striking fact: despite the intensity of their hatred, they do not consider denying the reality of the Savior's miracles, and this is an extremely powerful testimony; but they also do not consider, so blind are they, to seek their meaning. Thus, their language is a singular contradiction. What shall we do? But, if you admit his miracles, you have only one thing to do: believe in him. Note the antithesis: He performs countless miracles, and we remain inactive. 

John 11.⁴⁸ If we let him continue, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy our city and our nation.»Growing increasingly alarmed and heated, as easily happens in deliberative assemblies, they elaborate on the dangers of their inaction and point out the terrible consequences that will inevitably occur if they do not find a prompt remedy to the situation. If we let him do it,tWe will believe in him.They were right. Yes, without them, the nation en masse would have converted to Jesus; the entire Gospel narrative testifies to this. And the Romans will come…From their point of view, it must be acknowledged, this fear was by no means unfounded. It was not, therefore, as has sometimes been said, a hypocritical cry of alarm they were raising here to later justify their cruelty toward Jesus; they genuinely believed they were expressing a serious and real concern. They knew Rome, and they knew their people. Rome was fiercely protective of its rights over the provinces it had conquered, and previous uprisings, mercilessly crushed, instilled in it feelings of great mistrust toward the Jews (cf. 18:33; Acts 16:21; 17:7, 8, etc.). At the slightest provocation, its anger would erupt, violent and irresistible. On the other hand, the mass of the Jewish people, filled with prejudice, conceived of the Messiah as a powerful liberator who would first shake off the yoke of Rome and rule the world as king; they awaited only his appearance to rush to his banners and march with him to victory and vengeance. The hierarchs knew this, and the future perfectly justified their grim predictions. It was the rebellion of the Jews that brought about the ruin of their state and their capital. However, they knew very little about Jesus, the true Messiah, whose kingdom was entirely heavenly, and who desired only the conquest of souls. Under his peaceful rule, had the Jews proclaimed him, the disastrous consequences feared by the Pharisees would have had no reason to exist. "They feared losing earthly goods, and they did not care about eternal life. Thus they lost both," St. Augustine. The Romans will come.They were already in Judea, as conquerors; but they had left the Jews certain freedoms, thanks to which the latter could assume, love—thanks to their own patriotic sentiments, Rome had not yet established a foothold in Jerusalem. Destroy our city and our nation. Notice this OUR presented in the most magnificent way, as if the things named afterwards were the exclusive property of the Sanhedrin. «τόπον» can refer to the city of Jerusalem, or the temple (cf. 2 Maccabees 5:19), or the whole of Palestine. 

John 11.⁴⁹ One of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them:- L'’one of them:Therefore, a member, like them, of the Grand Council. Caiaphas (Kaiaphas). On this name, or rather this nickname, since Caiaphas's real name was Joseph, see Matthew 26:3 and our commentary. Who was high priest that year… This turn of phrase is noteworthy: the evangelist already shows that Caiaphas will speak as the supreme High Priest of Judaism, cf. verse 51. The words that yearrepeated in the same way in verse 51 and 18:13, have often puzzled exegetes and delighted rationalists. It is well known, firstly, that the high priesthood was for life among the Jews, and by no means annual; secondly, that Caiaphas held this office for eleven consecutive years (25-36 AD): the narrator would thus be guilty of two major inaccuracies; therefore, it was not a Jew, nor St. John, who composed our Gospel (Strauss, etc.). Three main solutions to this difficulty have been offered. We have cited and rejected elsewhere (see notes under Luke 3:1-2) the first, according to which Caiaphas and Annas, his father-in-law, served as high priests in turn, each for one year. According to the second, the phrase high priest of this yearThis should not be taken literally or strictly: it is justified by the frequent succession of high priests since the Roman conquest of Judea (St. John knew 20 to 30). The third solution, which seems to us the best and is quite commonly accepted, consists of emphasizing the pronoun "this": "this famous year," the remarkable year of Christ's death. It is now understandable that the evangelist highlighted this significant circumstance. Caiaphas was high priest, not in this or that particular year, which was of little importance, but in the year in which Jesus died. 

John 11.⁵⁰ «"You understand nothing about it; you don't realize that it is in your interest that one man die for the people and that the whole nation not perish."»– YOU don't understand anything.This is the language of proud disdain. Caiaphas, moreover, knew that he did not need to please his current audience to achieve his ends: he therefore did not bother to lower his Sadducean pride. «The manners of the Sadducees are very harsh,» we read in the historian Josephus, Jewish War 2.8.14, “both among themselves and towards other men, whom they treat as if they were strangers.” And you don't think.Continuing his sentence, he casually suggested a quick and brutal, but ultimately effective, method that would avert all danger. That he is in your interest that only one man…The assembly understood, without being told, who this man was who, according to Caiaphas's motion, was to serve as a scapegoat. Die for the peopleIn the Bible, this is a specific designation for the Jews, insofar as they formed the theocratic nation; the people par excellence. the entire nation.«"All" as opposed to "only one" (both expressions are emphatic). The word "people" (nation) corresponds to ἔθνος, which simply represents the Jews as one of the peoples of the world. Perisse: In the manner and for the reason previously discussed, verse 48. The death of one instead of universal ruin. Wasn't that an admirable expedient? It was, regardless of Jesus' divine nature, an abominable sophism, used to legitimize a crime. As if reasons of state could justify everything, permit everything. But Caiaphas, before and after so many others, was a politician unburdened by any scruples. 

John 11.⁵¹ He did not say this of his own accord, but as high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation ⁵² and not only for the nation, but also to gather into one body the children of God who are scattered abroad.– This dreadful saying of Caiaphas, St. John "sees it all illuminated by a prophetic ray," Bougaud, Jesus Christ, 3^e ed., p. 485. Uttered by the high priest, it seems to him to be "one of those involuntary prophecies that the Holy Spirit "They were rescued more than once from the wicked." He doesn't say that about himselfThat is to say, as an ordinary man. These were not the words of Caiaphas, but the words of the High Priest, the official, albeit unworthy, representative of God on earth. Being high priest…; ; The main idea lies in this reflection by the sacred writer. He prophesied This must be taken in its strictest sense: Caiaphas spoke, though unconsciously, by virtue of genuine divine inspiration. In ancient times, the Jewish high priests had the privilege of prophecy, consulting God through the Urim and Thummim (cf. Exodus 28:30; Numbers 28:19; 1 Samuel 28:6). The Lord, in a way, revived this marvelous power for Caiaphas. Compare Philo, De Creat. princ., 8, 11, where it is stated that every true priest is a prophet. Jesus had to die for the nation(ἔθνος, a general expression, but referring to the Jewish people). This had been, in essence, the meaning of Caiaphas's speech: only, the high priest had remained on the surface of the idea; the prophetic Spirit had seen far beyond, and St. John expresses in its name the complete meaning. – And not only for the nation (still ἔθνος). The word λαος ceases to be used, the Jews, not deserving to be the chosen nation, or any such favor, henceforth disappearing. The narrator corrects himself, so to speak: it is not only Israel that will benefit from the death of Jesus, but the whole world. in order to gather into one body the children of God who.A beautiful name given to the pagans in anticipation. They are the children of God in potential, until they become so in reality. Who are scatteredis a picturesque feature. The pagans were indeed scattered across the entire surface of the globe. However, the good shepherd will surely bring them back to one single fold: in order to unite into a single body(10, 16, cf. 17, 21). See below, 18, 51, an allusion to this important saying of Caiaphas. 

John 11.⁵³ From that day on, they deliberated on how to kill him. – From this day forward, then… The high priest's proposal was immediately adopted, and from that moment it was a settled matter for the members of the Sanhedrin, a plan finalized, for to kill him.In the Greek text, the verb does not indicate a formal, official sentence, but at least a fully adopted plan, beyond any possibility of reversal. Thus, according to Cornelius de la Pierre's observation, "The life of Lazarus is the death of Christ." See, 5:16 ff.; 7:32, 45 ff.; 8:59; 9:22; 10:39, the various and ever-increasing phases of Jewish hostility toward Our Lord Jesus Christ. 

John 11.⁵⁴ That is why Jesus no longer appeared in public among the Jews, but withdrew to the region near the desert, to a town called Ephrem, and there he stayed with his disciples. – After the conduct of the immediate witnesses to the miracle and that of the Jewish authorities, we see that of Jesus, verses 54-56. That is why Jesus no longer appeared in public..., cf. 7, 1, 10, 13, on these picturesque expressions. The divine Master withdraws from before his enemies, according to his custom in such cases; he has never exposed himself to danger unnecessarily, nor before the time appointed by God. In the region neighbor of the desert. To determine this region and this desert, one would need to know the city. named Ephrem ; However, much uncertainty surrounds it. Eusebius and St. Jerome, in their Onomasticon, identify it with Ephron (cf. 2 Chronicles 13:19; 1 Maccabees 5:46; 2 Maccabees 12:27), without agreeing on the location of this place, one placing it 5 km, the other 12.5 km north of Jerusalem. According to the most probable opinion, it would not differ from Ophrah, which is mentioned. Joshua 18:23; Judges 6:15; 1 Samuel 16:13-18, nor Ephron (Ephrain in the Hebrew of Chronicles), nor finally Ephrem mentioned by Josephus, The Jewish War 4:9, 9, on the occasion of the war Roman, and located, he says, in the Judean mountains, near Bethel, at the place now called Thayibeh. Since the "desert" par excellence for the area around Jerusalem is the Judean desert, these different notions would harmonize quite well. He he stayed there with his disciples.In this small, peaceful, and secluded town, perfectly suited to his plan of retreat, Jesus "remained"; he stayed there for some time, not alone, however, but with his disciples.

John 11.⁵⁵ However, the Jewish Passover was near, and many went up from that region to Jerusalem before Passover to purify themselves.– The Jewish Passover was near.The last Passover of the Savior's life. It is undoubtedly in contrast to the Christian Passover that St. John calls it Passover. – And many went up(the technical term for trips to the Jewish capital) from this region to Jerusalem: of the countryside surrounding Jerusalem. – To purify oneself.Those Jews who had contracted some ritual impurity could not participate in the great Passover sacrifice (cf. 18:28 and the commentary). Therefore, they went to Jerusalem before the festival. before Easterin order to be purified by the priests. Some of these legal defilements required specific expiations, which could only take place in the temple and had to last several days, cf. Numbers 6:1-21; 2 Chronicles 30:16-20; Acts 21:24. As has been rightly observed, only a Jew could point out such a detail. 

John 11.⁵⁶ They were looking for Jesus and were saying to one another, standing in the temple, «What do you think? Do you think he will not come to the festival?» Now the pontiffs and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where he was, he should report it, so that they might arrest him. – They were looking for Jesus.All the pilgrims who had arrived in Jerusalem early were looking for Jesus, who had long since become the object of universal interest. He had often been encountered and heard in the temple courts, cf. 10:12 ff., etc. And they were saying to each other…Two imperfect tenses, which, according to custom, denote continuity and the repetition of actions. standing in the templeIt's a painting done from life. What do you think?It is generally accepted that there are two distinct questions: What do you think? That he won't come to the party? – They had given the order… Retrospective details to explain these discussions and the pilgrims' doubts: everyone knew that there was an arrest warrant issued by the Sanhedrin against Jesus. THE Pontiffs and the Pharisees.... The same association as in verse 47, cf. Matthew 27:62. But, from now on, it is the priests who will take the lead in the movement hostile to Our Lord, cf. 12:10; 18:3, 35; 19:6, 15, 21; Matthew 26:3, 14, etc.; Acts 4:1; 5:17; 22:30; 23:14, etc. They had given the order.... This implies very specific, special instructions given by the authorities to their agents. A crisis is now imminent, and the Sanhedrin will soon have their wishes fulfilled.