2 Kings 6:15-17

Background: The king of Syria intended to put Elisha, the prophet of God to death. He surrounded the place where Elisha and his servant were staying. The servant was stricken with fear. Elisha, however, responded,

"Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them." Then Elisha prayed and said, 'O LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.' And the LORD opened the servant's eyes, and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha (2 Ki. 6:15-17).

2 Kings 2:9-12

Background: Elijah, the prophet of God was about to depart, and Elisha, his servant who was to take his place, knew it, and so he would not leave him. Finally Elijah gave Elisha one last request, to which he responded,

"Please, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me." And he said, "You have asked a hard thing. Nevertheless, if you see me when I am taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if not, it shall not be so." Then it came about as they were going along and talking, that behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven. And Elisha saw it and cried out, "My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!" And he saw him no more (2 Ki. 2:9b-12a).

These two passages remind us of a very important truth. There are things going on around us, which are normally not visible to us. In the case of the horsemen and chariots of fire which Elisha's servant was enabled to see, in answer to the prophet's prayer, these were angelic hosts, assigned to protect God's prophet. The servant's fear was based upon his lack of awareness of all that was taking place around him. We are thus all reminded that God's angels are all about us, and that nothing can harm us apart from the permission and will of God.

The chariot and horses of fire which took Elijah into heaven remind us of another fact. While it is not normally visible to us, I believe that the angels are also employed in "escorting" the spirits of those who have died "in the Lord" into God's presence. I know that apart from divine enablement, Mr. Smith's departure was not at all glorious. But I believe that this text assures us that there was much more to be seen, just as was the case with Elisha's servant in chapter 6.

We have come here to lay Mr. Smith's body in the ground, but his entrance into heaven took place on Sunday, in a much more glorious way than our eyes can behold. The apostle Paul reminds us in the New Testament that the depositing of the physical body in the ground is necessary, since mortal bodies must be exchanged for those which are immortal. He also tells us that placing this body in the soil is like the planting of a seed in the soil. Thus, we do so looking forward to the time of the resurrection and transformation of this body.

1 Cor. 15:35-58.

These are promises for the Christian, for those who have trusted in the Great Shepherd, Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of their sins. Let us find hope in them as those who trust in Him.

Closing Prayer

Luke 16

There are certain texts which are traditionally read at the graveside, but I would like to read a text that is not often used as the body is committed to the ground. It is recorded in the 16th chapter of the Gospel of Luke:

19 "Now there was a certain rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, gaily living in splendor every day. 20 "And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, 21 and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. 22 "Now it came about that the poor man died and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 "And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 "And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue; for I am in agony in this flame'" (Luke 16:19-24).

As you know, the story goes on, and the rich man receives no comfort or privileges, but only eternal torment. The point which I wish to make from this text has to do with the dramatic contrast which our Lord makes in this story between appearances and reality. To some, the rich man appeared to be right with God, and assured of a place in heaven. His funeral must have been extravagant, in contrast with that of Lazarus. And yet while this man's body went into the ground, his eternal soul went into torment.

The poor man, Lazarus, did not look like a true saint. His clothing was ragged. He ate scraps from the rich man's garbage. The dogs licked his sores. His death and burial were surely ugly. In fact, he may not have had a funeral at all. His body may have been cast onto the garbage heap. But in spite of all the appearances to the contrary, we are told something which no one saw, but which we are to believe as true. When Lazarus died, "he was carried away to Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22a). Sue's death was probably more like that of Lazarus. It was not a pretty sight. But what we should find comfort in as we place her body in the ground is that her soul has already been escorted into the presence of God by the angels. This body, which we commit to the ground, is going to be raised up, transformed, and joined once again to her spirit.

We who are Christian should look at the burial of this earthly body as Paul instructs us in 1 Corinthians chapter 15--as the planting of a seed. Sue's body will be raised, but it will not be a body like the one we leave here today. We should gladly set this body aside, looking forward to that day when our bodies will be transformed, like the body of our Lord. What a comfort! What hope! May this comfort and hope be yours as you trust in Jesus Christ.

A Test Case for Harmonization
Between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel¹

T. E. Pollard writes, “St. John’s narrative of the raising of Lazarus raises in an acute form some of the most perplexing problems of his gospel, both internally and externally in relation to the synoptics.”³ The problem presented by the raising of Lazarus is two fold: first, it is staggeringly supernatural; second, the raising of Lazarus appears to be the trigger-event for the crucifixion in John’s narrative. The absence of the raising of Lazarus from the Synoptics has resulted in doubts and denials of its historicity. As John A. T. Robinson says, “If the Synoptic sequence of events is the true one, then the Lazarus incident, or at any rate the key role which it occupies in John, cannot, it is held, be historical.… For the Lazarus incident and its attendant publicity are in John the trigger which sets the legal process in motion.”⁴

The difficulty of reconciling the Johannine account with the Synoptic narrative is in some respects more formidable than the fact that a supernatural occurrence is recorded. This problem, for many, is the crucial issue in this discussion, for as Professor C. K. Barrett states, “If a priori opinions, whether negative or positive, be set aside, the chief argument against the historicity of the incident appears to be that there is no place for it in the Synoptic tradition.”⁵ Because of time and space limitations, this article will set aside a priori opinions and concern itself with the perception that there is no place for the raising of Lazarus in the Synoptic tradition.

Many scholars have noted the parallels between the miracle story in John 11:1-44 and the parable in Luke 16:19-31.⁶ Some have proposed that the account of the raising of Lazarus in John is a “conflation of various material in Luke, particularly the parable of Luke 16:19-31 and the Martha and Mary story of Luke 10:38-42, along with the stories of the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:40-56…) and the son of the widow of Nain (7:11-17),” or “that there is a common tradition behind the Lazarus story in John and the various other NT accounts of raisings from the dead.”⁷

As stated above, the line of reasoning is apparently that if an event this significant had happened, the Synoptics would have included it. The Synoptics do not include the raising of Lazarus, and there appears to be no place for it in their narratives; therefore it could not have happened as John records it. This is not the best approach to history, and we classify such unnecessary exclusions as false dichotomies. We are helped at this point by the admonition of historian David Hackett Fischer. In his book, Historical Fallacies, he says,

What can a student do, in the face of a false dichotomy? He can try several stratagems. First, he might attempt to show that the dichotomous terms can coexist. Second, he might demonstrate a third possibility. Third, he might repudiate one or the other or both alternatives. All of these devices will work, in a limited way. But all of them will have the effect of shackling the student’s answer to the fallacious conceptualization he is attempting to correct…In this question, as in so many others, one can only endorse the sensible observation of Reuben Abel: “The continuum in which we live is not the kind of place in which middles can be unambiguously excluded.”⁸

I hope to show that these “dichotomous terms” can coexist, that there are several third possibilities, and that one or other or both alternatives can be repudiated. The two possible trigger events given are: (1) either the raising of Lazarus; (2) or the temple cleansing. One, not the other and not both, must be the true catalyst for the crucifixion. This appears to be strikingly simplistic, but it seems to merely push this strand of the argument against the historicity of the raising of Lazarus to its logical ends.

I begin with an attempt to repudiate the possibilities as overly simplistic options. It appears that by stating the argument in these terms, those who suggest that one of these two events is the catalyst of the crucifixion are forcing us to make a false choice. In all four gospels the Jewish religious leaders are characterized as jealously seeking to snuff out Jesus so that their own authority will not be threatened. This characterization is one which each evangelist makes explicit early in his respective narrative. In Mark 3:6 the reader is told, “The Pharisees went out and counseled together with the Herodians as to how they might destroy him.” In Matthew a very similar statement is made at 12:14. The first episode of the preaching of Jesus that Luke relates results in the crowd rising up against him, casting him out of the synagogue, and leading him to the brow of the hill in order to throw him down the cliff (Luke 4:29). In John, the reader is told as early as 5:18 that in response to the words of Jesus “the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him.”

These statements all come very early in the respective narratives. There are nearly twelve chapters between Mark’s first statement that the Pharisees and the Herodians are plotting to destroy Jesus and the account of when they actually arrest Jesus. Likewise in Matthew and Luke there is a great deal of material between the first time the reader is notified that Jesus’ life is imperiled and the actual arrest, trial, and crucifixion. Rather than showing confusion on the part of the evangelist, this is a deliberate technique whereby the reader is alerted to the fact that throughout his ministry Jesus experienced opposition from the Jewish religious leaders.

In their accounts of the trial, Matthew and Mark both relate that the Jews were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might have grounds to execute him (Matt. 26:59; Mark 14:56). This seems to indicate that the Jews are intent on killing Jesus. The gospels do not present this resolution on the part of the Jews as stemming from one event but from an extended period of conflict. The point is that when dealing with history, it is dangerous to speak of any one event as the “catalyst” of another. We must bear in mind that no account of history can be exhaustive, and, as Leo Tolstoy says,

The combination of causes of phenomena is beyond the grasp of human intellect. But the impulse to seek causes is innate in the soul of man. And the human intellect, with no inkling of the immense variety and complexity of circumstances conditioning a phenomenon, any one of which may be separately conceived of as the cause of it, snatches at the first and most easily understood approximation, and says here is the cause… Causes of historical events—there are not and cannot be, save the one cause of all causes.⁹

There is a sense in which the issues in a discussion of events that cause other events are far too complex for us to ever delineate them all; this is Tolstoy’s point and it is well taken. No account of history can begin to account for all the fluctuation and variety in the ebb and flow of humanity (which is one of the main thrusts of what may be the greatest historical novel ever written, Tolstoy’s War and Peace).

In the Gospel of John the Jews are presented as clearly catalyzed against Jesus very early in his ministry, and they are ready to act against him with violence on numerous occasions. Aside from 5:16, we see the Jews seeking to kill Jesus in 7:1, later they pick up stones to stone him in 8:59, and again in 10:31 they pick up stones to stone him. It seems fundamentally inaccurate, therefore, to speak of an event—be it the temple cleansing or the raising of Lazarus—which ignites the Jews against Jesus. All four gospels may be understood to be presenting them as ignited all along. What is being argued here is that exclusionistic “catalyst” language does not adequately deal with the evidence in the text. R. Dunkerley cautions us in our understanding of the raising of Lazarus, saying,

It is spoken of as one of ‘many miracles’ which greatly disturbed the council (xi. 47), and on several occasions attempts were made to destroy him (vii. 32; viii. 40, 59; x. 31, 39). We must not speak as though Jesus would not have been in peril if he had not done this thing; the authorities may have regarded it as the last straw, but they still had to wait for the right opportunity, and this came of course with the Entry and the purging of the Temple.¹⁰

With this, it must be understood that the argument of the Gospel of John is not that the Jews, after the raising of Lazarus, begin to seek the death of Jesus, but that after the raising of Lazarus Jesus’ time has come. The Fourth Gospel presents the situation as one wherein the Jews, though they would very much like to terminate Jesus, are unable to do so because his hour has not yet come.¹¹ As John presents the matter, it is not the Jews who are in control, but Jesus. Raymond Brown says that the failed attempt on Jesus’ life recorded in John 7:30 “betrays Jesus’ sovereign power.” Further, “Even when his hour has come, John will still show that no one can lay a hand on Jesus until he permits it (xviii 6-8).”¹² In this vein, John tells his readers that Jesus said, “No one has taken my life from me, I lay it down on my own initiative. I have authority to lay it down and I have authority to take it up again” (John 10:18).

Evidence such as this makes questionable any statement regarding the Fourth Gospel’s presentation of the catalyst for the crucifixion which does not amount to: The Gospel of John presents a Jesus who will not be crucified until his hour has come—and when his hour has come—he is in absolute control of the situation. One may believe that this is not the way that the events were played out in history, but based on the narrative presented in the Fourth Gospel, one is hard-pressed to argue that this is not the way that John presents the situation. In John, the reader is presented with a Jesus who has come as “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29) by laying down his life for the sheep (10:11). John presents a Jesus who has come to die. Along the way, John gives his readers plenty of evidence that the Jews will gladly kill Jesus as soon as he will allow them to do so.

The conclusion that these considerations lead us to is that to claim that the Gospel of John presents the raising of Lazarus as the catalyst of the crucifixion is a statement that is acceptable so long as it is not made to be exhaustive. We must not speak as though this is the ultimate cause of the crucifixion—for there is evidence in John’s Gospel that something else is the ultimate catalyst of the crucifixion—more on this shortly.

We now turn our attention to the coexistence of these “dichotomous terms” and to the several “third possibilities” which have been proposed. For this, we should consider the possible explanations as to why Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not to record this miracle, which is “for the glory of God” (John 11:4). The reason for this synoptic omission would appear to fall under one of two headings. Either the event did not happen, and is in some measure a Johannine creation (the raising of the dead man being either wholly fictional/mythical or an imaginative conflation of various details recorded in the Synoptic Gospels), or the event did happen and the Synoptic Gospels do not include it for some other reason.

Some have proposed that John has performed a bit of creative midrash on the parable of Lazarus and the rich man recorded in Luke 16:19-31 and placed this “historicized parable” in chapter eleven of his gospel.¹³ This position offers an explanation for the absence of the account in John 11 from the Synoptics, but the evidence points us away from categorizing the gospels as midrashic. That evidence (the difficulty in finding midrashic literary activity that clearly took place prior to the fourth century, the consonance of the Johannine and Synoptic miracles, the diversity of Jewish approaches to historiography, the Christian emphasis on history—eyewitness testimony witnessing to truth, and the evidence that those who got their history wrong were indicted and refuted) all indicates that it is unlikely that the fourth evangelist is offering midrash to his readers.

Placing John 11 in the category of midrash is an explanation laden with difficulty. Therefore, we must ask ourselves if it is indeed possible that the raising of Lazarus did happen and might its absence from the Synoptics be explained in some other way? Among those who allow for the possibility that the event happened there seem to be two basic approaches to reconciling the historicity of the account with its absence from the Synoptics. One way to handle this perceived difficulty is to propose, as Brown does, that “A miracle story that was once transmitted without fixed context or chronological sequence has been used in one of the later stages in Johannine editing as an ending to the public ministry of Jesus.”¹⁴ This seems to be an attempt to maintain the historicity of the event and at the same time affirm that it is not necessary to hold that the events happened in the sequence related in the Fourth Gospel. Such suggestions require the belief that many of the details recorded in John are merely literary touches provided by the fourth evangelist in an effort to make the event do what he needs it to do in his narrative. As Lesslie Newbigin says, “It is reasonable to think that the traditions regarding the ministry of Jesus included other cases of the raising of the dead besides the two recorded in the synoptics, that one of these concerned a man named Lazarus, and that John has placed this incident at such a point in his account of the ministry and told it in such a way as to bring to a climax his treatment of Jesus’ ‘sings’ [sic]”¹⁵

The second way to reconcile the event’s absence from the Synoptics is to somehow harmonize the Johannine and Synoptic accounts. Some offer a reconstruction whereby Peter might not have been personally present when Jesus raised Lazarus;¹⁶ others point to the chronological and geographical restrictions of the Synoptic narratives and note that in the Synoptic account Jesus’ ministry is collapsed into a year and he does not go to the environs of Jerusalem until the final week of his life. For them to have included the account of the raising of Lazarus would have compromised their assumed intention of creating a geographical climax as they finally bring Jesus to Jerusalem for the passion week.¹⁷ Yet another way to harmonize John with the Synoptics is to surmise that the Synoptics were written while Lazarus was alive. We have no evidence as to when Lazarus might have died, but this view suggests that the first three evangelists were sensitive to the safety of the one whom Jesus loved, thus they do not publicize the restoration of Lazarus to life and the hostile reaction from the Jews. This view is plausible if one holds (or if evidence somehow comes to light) that the Fourth Gospel was written after Lazarus died.¹⁸

Suggestions such as the one offered by Brown—that the story had no fixed context and that at some stage the evangelist adapted this element of the tradition to his purposes—are difficult for those who reject the authenticity of the narrative to refute because there is such little hard evidence regarding what the tradition was like before the evangelists shaped it. We do have the rudiments of the Petrine proclamation in Acts 10:34-43 where Peter declares “the gospel” to Cornelius’ household. These rudiments generally give the outline of the Synoptic Gospels: beginning with John the Baptist and starting in Galilee (10:37); then recounting that Jesus was anointed and went healing and delivering (10:38); that his actions were witnessed both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, and that he was put to death on a cross (10:39); then, that he was raised and fellowshipped with his followers (10:40-41); and finally that he commissioned his followers to declare the good news (10:42). Beyond this sermon, and possibly others like it, we are left to speculate on the contents of the tradition.

For this reason, we will accept Brown’s suggestion as plausible, and turn to the other suggested explanations of the Synoptic omission of the raising of Lazarus. The remainder of this study will concern itself with whether or not the chronologies as they stand in the Synoptic and Johannine narratives can be harmonized. The question that we turn to is whether or not the account as it stands has integrity—are the chronologies in the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel reconcilable at this point?

From what is found in the Gospel of John, it does seem possible that there would be time for both the Synoptic accounts and the account of the Fourth Gospel to have taken place. As Jesus sets off for Bethany with the disciples, they say to him, “Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?” (John 11:8).¹⁹ The “just now” is apparently a reference to the events of chapter 10 (cf. v. 31, “The Jews took up stones again to stone him”),²⁰ which was set at the Feast of Dedication (10:22). Leon Morris writes,

This was the 25^th of Chisleu [sic] (November-December). Thus the events of ch. 11 took place close to the Feast of Dedication (even allowing for the stay in Perea, 10:40), and hence at some distance from Passover. It accords with this that John says, ‘from that day on they plotted to take his life’ (v. 53). This does not appear to mean that the Passion followed within a few days. It suggests rather that there was plotting over a period.²¹

In this way, the raising of Lazarus would have taken place sometime in the winter, perhaps three months or more before the final entry into Jerusalem at the feast of Passover when Jesus was arrested and crucified. Certainly in those intervening days there is room for all the events recorded both in John and the Synoptics. This understanding allows Jesus time to withdraw to a region near the desert, to Ephraim, where he stayed with his disciples, as described in John 11:54.²² A significant period of time has passed when the next chronological marker is given in John 11:55. Then, as the Passover (14 Nisan—March/April) drew near, Jesus returned to Judea and Jerusalem. This final trip to the sacred city is the one recorded by the Synoptics.

This understanding of the chronology also serves (with the considerations above regarding the readiness of the Jewish leaders and Jesus’ control of his own destiny) to guard us against giving the raising of Lazarus a too prominent position in the precipitation of the crucifixion. Dunkerley writes,

The fact that their [the Jewish leaders] discussion about the matter and their decision that the time had come for action against Jesus follows immediately on the story (xi. 47-53) may easily mislead us into forgetting this interval and into allowing the miracle too large a place in the events which led to the arrest of Jesus and his death. He continued some time at Ephraim, then went on to Jericho, and presently to Bethany again; it is impossible to say what time was involved in this but it may have been weeks or even months.

Now the importance of this point lies here, that it helps to explain the silence of the Synoptics about the raising of Lazarus.²³

Within the chronological framework given in the Fourth Gospel there would certainly appear to be time for all the events recorded in both John and the Synoptics to have taken place.

Not only does the chronology allow for reconciliation of the accounts, the possibility of Peter’s absence on this occasion would possibly explain the absence of the event from the Synoptics. Leon Morris fills in the details of this view, saying,

If the traditional view that the reminiscences of Peter lie behind the Second Gospel is true, the silence of the Synoptists may be explicable. Peter is not mentioned in John between 6:68 and 13:6, and there is a similar, though not so pronounced a gap in Matthew (19:27 and 26:33) and Luke (18:28 and 22:8). The gap in Mark is between 10:28 and 11:21, but there is nothing in that Gospel against the view that Peter remained (in Galilee?) when the others went up to Jerusalem, and that he came up to the capital city only for the week prior to Passover. If so, the reason he said nothing about the raising of Lazarus was that he did not see it. It did not belong to his personal reminiscences. All the more is this possible in that it does not seem that this miracle took place immediately before the events leading to the Passion. One small piece of evidence supporting the view that Peter is absent is the fact that Thomas is the spokesman for the Twelve in verse 16. Normally we would expect Peter to fill that role. Since Matthew seems dependent on Mark at this stage in his narrative, the absence of the story from the First Gospel follows from its absence from the Second…We must also remember that the miracles in Jerusalem form no part of the Synoptic tradition. Not only this one, but those concerning the lame man at Bethesda and the blind man at Siloam are not mentioned in the Synoptists. For whatever reason they deal only with the last week at Jerusalem and omit all that goes before. Since this miracle must apparently be dated an appreciable time before that week, they naturally do not mention it.²⁴

Thus, it is at least possible to harmonize the events recorded in the Gospel of John with the events recorded in the Synoptics.

Whether Peter was present or not, we must recognize that the Gospels are not—and cannot be—comprehensive records of the life of Jesus (John 21:25). Even if the life and activities being described were not those of a figure as peerless as Jesus of Nazareth, a complete account of the life of a human being is impossible. Some things must be omitted. Further, what should surprise us about the Gospels is not that they are significantly different in content from one another, but that four men of varied background and complex personality could compose four accounts which are so similar and open to even the possibility of reconciliation. One might even say that this in itself is supernatural.

We may fairly anticipate the objection that the raising of Lazarus is of such significance for John, that had it happened the Synoptists would not have failed to include it in their narratives. But, as suggested above, the significance of the raising of Lazarus in relation to the crucifixion may be exaggerated. This is not to say that it is insignificant—no miracle of this magnitude could be insignificant—and it has a major role as John’s seventh and climactic sign.²⁵ But, the Synoptics do record other raisings,²⁶ and there is the possibility of as much as three months time between the raising of Lazarus and the final trip to Jerusalem. Thus, while the account related in John 11:1-44 makes a significant statement in John’s Gospel—it is my conviction that for the fourth evangelist, the real catalyst of the crucifixion is not the raising of Lazarus.

While the Jewish religious leaders do react vehemently to this event (when in the Gospels do they not react vehemently to Jesus?), and while we could perhaps understand them to at this time begin a more concentrated effort to kill Jesus (John 11:53), we have seen that this was not the only time they were ready to kill Jesus (cf. John 5:18; 7:1; 8:59; 10:31), nor was it the only time they began to plot his death (John 7:1, 32, 45; Mark 3:6). The seeming inability of the Jews, in spite of their readiness and regular vehemence, leads us to suspect that the argument of the Fourth Gospel is not that a certain event serves as the proverbial “last straw” that spurs the Jews to action.

It should not be thought that the notation in John 11:53, “from that day on the Jews planned together to kill him,” signals a significant difference because the previous statements of their readiness to kill Jesus were spontaneous reactions to something he said (cf. 8:59; 10:31), whereas now they deliberately resolutely begin to prosecute their desires.²⁷ We must note that John 7 clearly portrays the Jews as having counseled together and attempted to carry out their designs on Jesus’ life. That they are planning his death is even plain to Jesus, and so “he was unwilling to walk in Judea” (7:1). They even send soldiers to arrest him at the feast (7:30), and are angry that the mission fails (7:45). This is clearly not spontaneous. This is not a few Pharisees reacting violently and picking up stones. It is, rather, a premeditated plan that has been sanctioned by the authorities. They could not take him, according to John, because “his time had not yet come” (7:30).

The unfolding of events at the end of John 11 is remarkably similar to what is described in John 7. In John 7, Jesus is walking in Galilee, “for he was unwilling to walk in Judea” (7:1). In the same way, after we are given the episode of the Jewish leaders counseling together to kill Jesus, John 11:54 reads, “Jesus therefore no longer continued to walk publicly among the Jews, but went away from there to the country near the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim; and there he stayed with the disciples.” If the reader of the Gospel of John is looking for patterns, the echo of John 7:1 in John 11:54 might indicate that the evangelist is about to again tell his readers, as he had done in 7:30, that Jesus’ time had not yet come. Instead, the pattern is reversed, and the next time Jesus enters Jerusalem (as he had done in 7:10), the fourth evangelist records Jesus himself announcing, “The hour has come” (12:23).

The question now becomes, If the raising of Lazarus is not the trigger-event of the crucifixion in the Fourth Gospel, what is? The answer to this question is found in the oft noted theology of the fourth evangelist. John tells us that Jesus is God (e.g. 1:1; 10:30), and that as God, Jesus possesses and exercises sovereign control over his own death. John records Jesus saying, “I lay down my life that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from me, but I lay it down on my own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again” (John 10:17-18). In the Gospel of John, when the time comes for Jesus to lay down his own life, John quotes the high priest Caiaphas saying, “It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish” (John 11:50). John then makes it explicitly clear that the declaration made by the high priest does not come from the high priest himself. John tells his readers, “Now this he did not say on his own initiative; but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation” (John 11:51). This key statement is immediately followed by the words, “So from that day on they planned together to kill him” (John 11:53).

In the Gospel of John, the catalyst of the crucifixion is the Triune God that John proclaims. It is Jesus who is God, and yet He is with God and thus John is not a modalist (John 1:1, “the Word was with God and what God was, the Word was” [NEB]). It is Jesus who has authority to lay down and take up his own life (John 10:18). It is God who has established when Jesus will die (thus the many notations to his “time”). It is God who causes Caiaphas to prophesy that Jesus is to die (John 11:51). When John records the arrest of Jesus, he portrays Jesus as being in control. John tells his readers that a Roman cohort (usually consisting of 400 to 600 men) comes to arrest Jesus. Jesus declares his identity, and John says, “When he said to them, ‘I am,’ they drew back and fell to the ground” (John 18:6). And when all is accomplished and it is time for Jesus to die, John does not present Jesus as a pitifully crucified wretch whose life has been taken. Rather, John tells his readers, “He said, ‘It is finished!’ And he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit” (John 19:30). In the Gospel of John, the life of Jesus is not taken. In the Gospel of John, Jesus lays down his life. In the Gospel of John, it is God, not a particular event that the Synoptics choose not to record, which serves as “The Catalyst of the Crucifixion in the Gospel of John.”

The purpose of this study has been to honor the all important God—who exists eternally as three persons, one in substance, equal in power and beauty—by seeking to determine whether the account recorded in the eleventh chapter of the Gospel of John can be read as an occurrence that took place in time-space history. To this end, I have sought to seriously address the question. Not wanting to merely dismiss the questions raised by the perceived incongruity between the Johannine and Synoptic catalysts for the crucifixion, this study has intended to explore evidence that seemed both overlooked and pertinent. This has not been done in an effort to prove a presupposition that the event did take place exactly as it is recorded in the Fourth Gospel. It has, however, been an attempt to discern whether the evidence available makes that position plausible.

It was observed that all four gospels introduce tension between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders very early in their accounts. We suggested that the argument of the Fourth Gospel is not that after the raising of Lazarus the Jews began to seek his death, any more than the argument of Matthew is that after the sayings of Jesus recorded in chapters 23-25 the Jews began to seek his death—even though Matthew 26:3-4 says, “Then the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered together… and they plotted together to seize Jesus by stealth and kill him.” A more plausible suggestion would be that each gospel presents the crucifixion as the culmination of an extended period of antagonization, in which Jesus demonstrates greater wit, wisdom, popularity, and power than the Jewish religious leaders. Further, the gospels seem to indicate that Jesus is the Messiah of God and that the Jewish religious leaders are going to kill him because God has not given them ears to hear the message proclaimed by Jesus (see, e.g., Matt. 11:25-27; John 6:44, 65). At any rate, it seems clear that the Fourth Gospel does offer sufficient cause for the effect of the crucifixion, part of which is the raising of Lazarus.

We suggested that what we know of the literary milieu in which John was written, coupled with what he seems to say about what he is doing, would point us away from explaining John 11 as a midrashic creation—such as a historicization of the parable recorded in Luke 16:19-31. We did not prove that John 11 is not midrash, but the evidence does not seem to lead us in that direction. It was further observed that the suggestion that the raising of Lazarus was an event that came to John in the tradition which he then gave the setting it enjoys in his eleventh chapter is feasible, though difficult to either confirm or refute.

We then turned our attention to the possibilities of harmonizing the Synoptic and Johannine material, and found that reconciliation is possible. This does not mean that the explanation offered as to how the chronology might have fit together is the way that the events played themselves out, but it is a possible way to reconcile the material. It was suggested that too much emphasis should not be placed on the raising of Lazarus, seeing that the reader of the Fourth Gospel would not be surprised by the crucifixion even if he or she were not given chapter eleven.

With these considerations before us it appears to be at least possible that the raising of Lazarus is historical and took place in just the way John has recorded it. From what has been examined in this study, the historicity of the event is by no means conclusively proven, but neither has it been shown that the event is irreconcilable with the Synoptic narratives. What has been established in this study is that should one choose to regard the raising of Lazarus recorded in John 11 as an event which actually happened in time-space history, the testimony of the fourth evangelist, the literary milieu, and the Synoptic narratives all allow that choice as an acceptable, perhaps even likely, option. We are by no means obligated to reject the historicity of the raising of Lazarus as recorded in John 11 because the event is not recorded in the Synoptic Gospels.

1 This is a revision of a paper read at the Southwest Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Ft. Worth, Texas on April 7, 2000, and a summary of the findings of my Th.M. thesis, “The Catalyst of the Crucifixion in the Gospel of John,” accepted by the faculty of the Department of New Testament Studies of Dallas Theological Seminary, April, 2000. Thanks are due to Daniel B. Wallace and W. Hall Harris III for carefully reading this material and making many helpful suggestions.

3 T. E. Pollard, “The Raising of Lazarus (John xi),” SE 6 (1973): 434.

4 John A. T. Robinson, The Priority of John, ed. J. F. Coakley (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1985), 222-23.

5 C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John. 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 388.

6 Luke 16:19-31 is the only one of Jesus’ parables in which a character bears a proper name. That name, of course, is Lazarus. In Luke 16 the rich man asks that someone be raised from the dead to warn his brothers. In John 11 Lazarus is raised from the dead. In Luke 16 Abraham declares that even if someone were to rise from the dead the rich man's brothers would not believe. In John 11 Lazarus is raised from the dead and the Jewish religious leaders do not believe.

7 Raymond F. Collins, “Lazarus,” ABD, IV: 265. See also Keith Pearce, “The Lucan Origins of the Raising of Lazarus,” ExpTim 96 (1985): 359. Speaking of the way that John has produced a “synthesis of prior units,” he writes,

I am convinced that the pivotal eleventh chapter [of John] is such a composite, and that it operates on a metaphorical level rather than on a circumstantial and historical one. John knew and used the Gospel of Luke as a major source of inspiration both here and more extensively in his Passion Narrative.… The Lucan strands which lie behind this extended parable in no way operate as a blueprint for John, and his use of them cannot be regarded as pastiche or plagiarism, but rather he derives certain circumstantial details and ideas from them.

8 David Hackett Fischer, Historical Fallacies (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 11-12.

9 Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace (New York: The Modern Library, 1994; orig. published 1869), 1123.

10 R. Dunkerley, “Lazarus,” NTS 5 (1958/9): 326. Note that Dunkerley seems to harmonize these two purportedly ‘dichotomous’ elements.

11 Cf. John 7:30, “and no one laid hands on him because his hour had not yet come;” 8:20, “no one seized him because his hour had not yet come;” and 12:23, “the hour has come that the Son of Man might be glorified.”

12 Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1:318.

13 Cf. Keith Pearce, “The Lucan Origins of the Raising of Lazarus,” ExpTim 96 (1985): 359-61. This view is expressed by Robert H. Gundry, in an email to James M. Hamilton Jr. dated 11 January 2000. C. K. Barrett, listing a flurry of possible explanations, suggestively asks if John 11 might not have grown out of Luke 16 (The Gospel according to St. John, 2d. ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978], 389). E. C. Hoskyns acknowledges that this view is a possible explanation of the story, but refuses to come to a definitive conclusion (The Fourth Gospel, ed. F. N. Davey [London: Faber and Faber, 1947] 396-97).

14 Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, AB, 2vols (New York: Doubleday, 1966), 1:430. For an attempt to "Unfold in a systematic way Bultmann's many-faceted theses regarding the composition and order of John in order to make clear the issues raised and to draw some conclusions which [it is hoped] will be helpful for further research," see D. Moody Smith, The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1965, [quotation from the preface, vii]).

15 Lesslie Newbigin, The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 139.

16 Cf. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, Revised ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 475-76.

17 This was first suggested to me in a stimulating conversation with professor Daniel B. Wallace. It seems that any interpreter who understands the Synoptics to be bringing their readers to a geographical climax could subscribe to this view.

18 Cf. Philip W. Comfort and Wendell C. Hawley, Opening the Gospel of John, 179-180. It should be noted that this suggestion does not necessitate that the Fourth Gospel was written in A.D. 85, but that it was written after the death of Lazarus. If the last of the Synoptics was completed in, say, 62, and John is written in 65 it is entirely plausible that Lazarus could have died in the intervening years.

19 Raymond E. Brown suggests, “These verses in xi, expecially 7-8, were added as part of an editorial attempt to make the Lazarus story fit into its present sequence” (1:432). But after evaluating the hypothesis that a written tradition lies behind the narrative, Brian H. Henneberry writes, “Any attempts to uphold a distinction between a written tradition and the redaction of the evangelist on that tradition seem doomed to end in failure. At most, if there was a written tradition behind the story, it would have to have been one which was read earlier by the evangelist and was used so completely in his composition of the story that it is now impossible to identify it or even to be certain of its existence” (“The Raising of Lazarus [John 11:1-44]: An Evaluation of the Hypothesis that a Written Tradition Lies Behind the Narrative,” [Ph.D. diss., University of Louvain, 1983], 208). In light of Heneberry's study, suggestions as to which portions of the Gospel were original and which were added later are at best dubious.

20 Heneberry writes, “The use of nu'n points to a stoning which has happened very recently, and is a classical usage. It is probably intended to draw the reader's attention primarily to the most recent attempts of the Jews to stone Jesus at the Feast of Dedication (10:31-39)” (“The Raising of Lazarus”, 92).

21 Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, 475 n. 6.

22 Morris is not alone in seeing this possibility. R. Dunkerley writes, "I see no reason to doubt this statement of John (xi. 54) which sounds like a very true reminiscence. And it has a real significance for the story… For it means that a considerable time must have elapsed after the raising and before the clash with the authorities developed" (“Lazarus,” NTS 5 [1958/9]: 326).

23 Dunkerley, “Lazarus,” 326.

24 Morris, The Gospel according to John, 475-76.

25 Cf. Andreas J. Kstenberger, "The Seventh Johannine Sign: A Study in John's Christology" BBR 5 (1995): 87-103.

26 See the raising of the widow's son at Nain (Luke 7:11-17), and the raising of Jairus' daughter (Matt. 9:1-18; Mark 5:21-33; Luke 8:40-56).

27 The use of the conjunction ou at the beginning of verse 53 should probably not be taken to be communicating a strongly inferential or causal connection. John uses ou some 201 times in his gospel, 19 times in the eleventh chapter. If the Gospel were a textbook on logic we might expect 19 logical conclusions introduced by ou in a chapter that is 57 verses long, but because the Gospel is a narrative, we should probably understand John to be using ou in senses other than as a uniformly inferential conjunction. The fourth evangelist apparently uses ou as both an inferential conjunction and as a connective which signals development. As stated by BAGD, ou is used, “to indicate a transition to something new. So especially in the Fourth Gospel now, then” (BAGD, 593).

The options seem to be that we can take ou in 11:53 inferentially, resulting in a translation such as, “Therefore, from that day they counseled together in order to destroy him.” But no major translation that I surveyed translates ou in verse 53 with therefore. KJV, NKJV, and Phillips use then, while NAS, NET, NIV, NLT, and NRSV, use so. That those who translate ou here as so mean it in the sense of, subsequently, is witnessed to by the way that they translate the usage of ou in the very next verse. The ou in verse 54 is translated therefore by KJV, NAS, NIV, NKJV, and NRSV; As a result by NLT; and Thus by NET. This would seem to indicate that while these translators are taking the ou to be strongly inferential in verse 54, they are taking it to be perhaps less inferential and more sequential or developmentary in verse 53.

If we take ou in 11:53 to be signaling development or sequentiality, the resulting translation is something like, “So from that day (or, then from that day) they planned together to kill him.” This sequential understanding recognizes a qualitative difference between the use of ou in verses 53 and 54. This view is corroborated by the recognition that there is an inferential use of ou in the Fourth Gospel where it is communicated that on account of the doings of Jesus, therefore, the Jews were seeking to kill him. This inferential usage is found at 5:18, diaV tou'to ou ma'llon ejzhvtoun aujtoVn oiJ jIoudai'oi ajpoktei'nai (On account of this, therefore, the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him). In this statement (5:18), the ou sets the context for a logical conclusion. By contrast, in 11:53, the context is temporal, not logical (ajp j ejkeivnh" ou th'" hJmevra" then from that day).

I. Context and Setting

John was very selective in recording the words and works of Jesus Christ in order to achieve the goal that his readers might, by reflecting on his account, come to express faith in Christ and have life in His name (John 20:30, 31). In general, the gospel has four major movements beyond the theological prologue (1:1-18) which are tailored according to John's purpose: 1) Jesus' interaction with individuals (1:19-4); 2) Jesus' sayings and resultant opposition from religious leaders (5-12); 3) Jesus' personal instruction to the twelve (13-17); 4) Jesus' passion (18- 21).¹

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the personal instruction of Jesus to his disciples, in particular John 14:15-31. These words appear to have been spoken by our Lord in the upper room as he ate a meal with his disciples (13:1, 2). For their part, the disciples are grieving and anxious about the thought of being separated from Jesus (cf. Jesus' need to encourage their hearts with peace 14:1, 27, 28). Indeed, the whole section from 13:36-14:31 is concerned with the departure of Jesus and the response of the disciples. In light of this and other factors it has commonly been referred to as a "farewell discourse."²

II. Relation to the Synoptic Gospels

The sayings of Jesus as found in John 14:15-31 do not appear in any of the Synoptics in the form found here.³

III. Exposition

15 Love for Christ on the part of believers is to be manifested in obedience to his commands (14:21; 15:10). This is a reoccurring theme in Johannine writings (cf.1 John 5:3). The commands (entolas) of Jesus, in light of the term logos in verses 23 and 24, may be expanded to include the teaching of Jesus in its totality, not simply ethical precepts per se (cf. 8:31, 32; 12:47-49 [rhema and entolas]; 15:20; 17:6). And, while the commands of Jesus and his teachings may be many, for John they are carried out ultimately in the context of a single command, that is, to love one another as Jesus himself loved us (13:34, 35; 15:12, 17). Therefore, love for Jesus reaches its fullest expression as we love our brothers and sisters as He commanded.⁴ Then,⁵ says Jesus, He will make a request of the Father.⁶

16 In typical fashion in John Jesus expresses his subordination to the Father (cf. 4:34; 5:30, 36; 7:16, 18; 8:26; 10:18), in this case by asking His Father for the gift of the Paraclete. The term allon suggests that Jesus himself had been a Paraclete for the disciples as well as the fact that this new Paraclete will be like Jesus. The idea of Jesus being a Paraclete does not look ahead to Jesus' intercessory prayer on behalf of the disciples (John 17) or the fact that He will indeed intercede on the disciples' behalf from heaven (1 John 2:1). The passage is looking back during the earthly ministry of Jesus and no doubt refers to all the acts of helping, ministering to and aiding the disciples that Jesus performed as he loved those whom the Father had given him (cf. John 13:1a; 17:12).⁷

This is one of the five Paraclete passages in John 14-17 ( cf. 14:26; 15:26; 16:7-11 and 13, 14 [cf. Philo Som. II:252]). The term parakletos, a passive verbal adjective,⁸ has undergone much study and there is no little disagreement on its meaning here.⁹ Barrett¹⁰ suggests that its meaning should be sought in a study of its cognates, parakalein and paraklesis for example. But, Turner¹¹ disagrees with this claiming that John does not use the verb and this etymology requires an active not a passive adjective. In common Greek outside the N. T. the word was used generally of a "helper" or "one who appears in another's behalf" and the technical use of the term for a "lawyer" or "attorney" was rare.¹²

John appears to use the term in both a negative and positive light. With reference to the world the Paraclete has a negative function; to expose (eglecko) the guilt thereof for sin, etc (16:7-11). This context is somewhat forensic and like a courtroom. But, such is not the case in the other passages. In these, the Paraclete performs several essential functions: 1) teaching and reminding (14:26); 2) testifying about Christ (15:26); 3) guiding into all truth; revealing the future and making the things of Christ known to the disciples as well as glorifying Christ (16:13, 14). With this in mind and since all these functions can be summarized out of helping type role, parakletos is best understood as a "helper" in terms of whatever the disciples need in God's plan. In this sense He will do what Christ did for them, but He will also do it differently, that is, from within (cf. v. 17).

17 Jesus says that the Paraclete will be with them forever, which no doubt would have brought a great deal of comfort to these anxious men and would have guaranteed their permanent relationship to Him. Jesus also refers to the Paraclete as the Spirit of truth (15:26; 16:13). The Holy Spirit, in intertestamental Judaism, was often times viewed as the Spirit of Prophecy:

Charismatic Revelation and Guidance

By his dauntless spirit he saw the future, and comforted the mourners in Zion (Sirach 48:24).

Wisdom

And the Lord gave Joseph favor and mercy in the sight of the Pharaoh. And the Pharaoh said to his servants, "We will not find a man wise and knowledgeable as this man because of the spirit of the Lord is with him" (Jub. 40:5).

However, John's reference to the Spirit of truth is paralleled in Jewish materials:

And at that time, when a spirit of truth descended upon her mouth, she placed her two hands on the upon the head of Jacob and said... (Jub. 25:14)

And these are the ways of these (Spirits) in the world. It is of the Spirit of truth to enlighten the heart of man, 1QS IV. 2.

Here the role of the Spirit is not unlike that found in John, though it is difficult to say that John's use has it's antecedents at Qumran.

The world (kosmos) in John's gospel is painted as a dark place (1:5) where troubles are numerous (16:33) and ignorance of God and His ways prevail (1:10). The world did not understand Christ (1:5, 10) and indeed were intent on hating him to the point of killing him (cf. 7:7) because He told the truth. It is clear from this that the world is spiritually dead (cf. Eph. 2:1) and it comes as no surprise that they do not receive or accept (labein) the Spirit. They have only earthly faculties, i.e. human sight, and are therefore unable to penetrate into spiritual realities (cf. theoreo, and the fact that the Spirit is non corporeal) and thus they fail to know (ginosko) the Spirit. In short the world is as unable to comprehend the second Paraclete (cf. 3:8) as they were to comprehend the first. We see the same today as men grope about for answers and seek for reality, missing God at every turn. They are the world of today.

But not so with the disciples. They knew (ginosko) the Holy Spirit for He had abided or lived with them and will be (estai) in (en) them.¹³ The presence of the Holy Spirit with believers is not uncommon in the O. T., but that He would permanently indwell is a distinct shift in God's dealings with man (cf. 7:39; 1 Cor. 2:12; 3:16). As those who stand in the line of the disciples we too are able, by the Spirit who communicates the truth, to know God and His ways (cf. 1 Cor. 2:12). We need not grope around in the dark and live as men who have no hope.

18, 19 Jesus promised his disciples that He would return and not leave them as orphans. To a person who is an orphan or who has been one, the coming of someone to take care of them is an incredibly happy experience. The disciples must have been encouraged to hear this again. But of which coming is here referred? Some say that this return is the coming of Christ in the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.¹⁴ They cite the fact that the verse is embedded between passages on the coming of the Spirit. But, this does not seem to appear anywhere else in John or other biblical writers. Some say it refers to the parousia because of the repetition of erchomai taking us back to 14:3 which refers to the parousia. However, the fact that the world would not see him tends to rule out the parousia (v. 19). It seems best to take this as a reference to his resurrection and appearances to them which the world had not seen. The other possibility which Barrett and Bruce suggest is that John deliberately used language applicable to the resurrection and the parousia.¹⁵

The fact that Jesus will be raised from the dead and alive will be the basis for the spiritual life He will give to His disciples and indeed to all those who trust him as they did (cf. John 11:25, 26; Rom. 5:10; 1 Cor. 15:22).¹⁶ The mediator of Christ's life to the disciples and believers is the Holy Spirit.¹⁷

20, 21 On the day¹⁸ they partake of Christ's resurrection life through the Spirit (Acts 2:1ff) the disciples will come to understand (gnosesthe) the nature of Christ's relation to His Father and their relation to both Christ and the Father (cf. 10:38). And they will live in this relationship loving one another. And the person (notice that the text says o echon. . . as referring to anyone not just the disciples per se) so invited into the relationship with Christ and his Father will demonstrate their love by obeying Christ's commands (cf. v. 15). The Father in turn will love the obedient believer and Christ too will love him and manifest himself to them. The term emfanizo ("manifest") and its cognates is used in the N.T. to refer to resurrection appearances (Mt 27:53; Acts 10:40); to the exposing of people's motives and intentions (Acts 23:15) and to refer to making something known to someone (Acts 23:22). It is used in the O.T. in Ex. 33:13, 18 where God makes Himself known to Moses according to Moses's request. Philo also uses the term:

Now to what soul could it have happened to conceal vice and to put it out of the way, except to that soul to which God was revealed, and which he considered worthy to receive the revelation of his unspeakable mysteries. Legum Allegorie III, 27.

Since the passage says that Christ will reveal Himself to everyone who keeps his commands, it is perhaps best to refer to the "manifesting" as a spiritual manifestation and not to a physical appearance of the risen Lord to the disciples before His ascension. This also seems consistent with Exodus 33. Therefore, as any believer obeys Christ, He will make Himself known to him (i.e. through the Holy Spirit). This seems to be further amplified in the following two verses in light of Judas's question.¹⁹

22-24 Judas may well be Judas, the son of James, the eleventh apostle in Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13.²⁰ Apparently Judas thought that the Messiah ought show himself to the entire world. Perhaps, as Brown²¹ suggests, Judas is connecting Jesus' use of emfanizo with Exodus 33:13, 18 and expecting another theophany, but to the whole world.²² In any case He is confused about what Jesus means. All of us get confused at times with what God is doing and get discouraged because we cannot seem to grasp Him and His ways. Such is the case with the disciples here and we can be sure that Judas' question was not his alone, but indeed that of the whole group. Jesus responds by saying that essentially the manifestation of He and His father will take place, not visibly, but invisibly to those who obey His commands. It is a spiritual manifestation in which the Father and the Son come and make their home with the one who loves them.

The term mone ("home") links us back to 14:2 where Jesus says that there are many rooms in my Father's house. The emphasis here however, is that God will come to make His home in believers on earth, where 14:2 suggests that in eternity believers will make their home with God in heaven. The point of the connection is to emphasize the presence of God and the relationally, warm nature of the family ties between the Father, Son and believers. No verse could more fully announce the relational nature of Christianity and that good relations in the household are based upon the believers obedience to the Son's commands. As Royce Gruenler²³ has said, "The family circle is defined in terms of fidelity to what is spoken by father and Son."

As the silence of verse 24 implies, for those who do not love the Son as evidenced by a lack of obedience to His teachings, there is no such entrance into the family nor enjoyment of it. The fact that Jesus points out that His words are not His own but belong to the Father who sent Him is common in John (8:26, 38, 40; 12:49; 15:15) and enjoins an air of authority to what He has just said.²⁴ Anyone listening needs to respond!

25, 26 Again Jesus picks up the theme of His departure. Though He has spoken all these things while still with the disciples, His time with them is drawing to a close. For that reason He once again speaks of the continuance of His relationship with the them through the parakletos, who is called the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send (as He sent the Son; cf. 4:34; 5:23, 24, 30; 6:38-40; 7:16; 8:16; 12:44-49) in His name and who will teach the disciples all things and remind them of what He has said while with them.

The special function of the Paraclete in this verse is to teach and remind the disciples. These two functions are similar in nature.²⁵ To what does the panta ("all things") refer here? It undoubtedly refers to the teaching of Jesus throughout His ministry among the disciples. The content of that teaching, as seen in the gospels and later in the N.T. seems to refer particularly to all things concerning the Messiah; i.e. the meaning of His Person, His death, resurrection, the establishment of His church and His future coming and how one ought to live in view of that.

27 Jesus, fully aware of their distress, turns again to encourage the disciples with His farewell word of peace. "Shalom (erene) is the usual Jewish greeting when friends met and parted."²⁶ Jesus has confidence in God's plan and power (13:3) and knows that God is in control. Full of peace in the face of tremendous suffering He offers His peace to His disciples; a peace that is unlike the world in that it is grounded in God's sovereignty and is genuine, given without ever being retracted, present in the worst of trials. Since He was so confident in the outworking of God's plan, the disciples ought not let their hearts be troubled or become afraid. We too must remember that when we become fearful in the course of doing God's will that there is One who offers His peace to us (cf. Phil. 4:6, 7).

28, 29 As Jesus once again picks up the theme of His going and coming (cf. 14:3), He tells the disciples that if they loved him (that is, desired what was truly good for Him) they would be glad for His return to the Father. The disciples should have expressed their love for Christ in rejoicing over the fact that Christ was soon to be reunited to His Father. Instead they were still anxious and focused upon their grief.²⁷

The question is posed with regards to verse 28: "In what way is the Father greater than the Son?" How does such a statement compare to 10:30 where Jesus says, "I and the Father are one?" Apparently the Arians used this verse often in defining their Christology wherein they held the Son to be something less than the Father, a created being of the Father.²⁸ The basic problem with an Arian view is that it requires that one understand passages such as 8:58 and 20:28 as supporting something other than Jesus' essential deity. This is difficult to imagine.

Within more orthodox ranks in the history of the church, there has been a tendency, according to Beasley and Brown, to treat the statement in one of two ways: 1) as a reference to the fact that the Son is generated and the Father is not, thus making the Father greater; 2) as a reference to the Son's humanity and as a man he was less than God the Father. The first option hardly seems to be in the mind of the apostle as he writes this,²⁹ but the second seems to be more in line with the fact that as a man, He was not equal to God the Father.³⁰ But, the context seems to point in a direction different than these explanations. The very fact that Jesus is sent by Father (as John repeatedly makes reference) may indicate in a Jewish mind that the Father as the sender is the greater party.³¹ Therefore, the Father seems to have the greater role to play in redemption in that He is the One who sends the Son and commands Him what to say. Perhaps it is in this sense that Tenney can say that the statement refers to position and not essence.³²

The reason Jesus told them these things concerning His death, resurrection and the coming of the Spirit was so that it when it happened they might believe that He is indeed the Messiah He claimed to be (cf. 13:19). The aorist subjunctive pisteuvshte would seem to indicate that they would enter into belief at that time, but 1:50; 2:11 and 6:69 seem to indicate that they had already believed in Him. But the difficulty can be solved if we see that the post resurrection setting allows for a faith that is complete and full as opposed to a lesser, gradually developing faith exhibited by the disciples during the earthly ministry of Christ.

30, 31 The fact that Jesus is going to allow Himself to be arrested, tried and crucified is not because the prince of this world (i.e. the devil; cf. 12:31) had anything in Christ, that is to say any point of control due to sin or fear in the Savior. No, there was nothing the Devil had in Christ, but it was of His love for the Father that He willingly gave up His life (10:17, 18).³³ This is a truth which the world, as it wanders in darkness and rebellion against the Father (cf. Rom. 5:10), needs to understand and which the Paraclete will make evident (16:8-11).

The last phrase of verse 31, namely, egeiresthe, agomen enteuthen, has caused problems for many interpreters. It appears that the discourse has ended, yet 14:31 is followed by chs. 15 and 16. Dodd, (cited in Brown³⁴) understands the phrase to refer to no spatial movement, but simply Jesus' resolve to go and meet the prince of this world. But Barret³⁵ et al. cast considerable doubt on such a interpretation, pointing to the fact that chs. 15 and 16 follow and enteuthen means "away from here" not "to meet him." Barrett poses the idea that the difficulty might be solved on the basis of scribal error in an underlying Aramaic text. But, it appears that it is difficult to support the thesis that there was an Aramaic text underlying John. And others have suggested rearranging the text to make it fit, for example, putting 14:31b near the end after chapter 16. Still others have suggested that the discourse of 15 and 16 took place en route to the garden. Barrett³⁶ thinks that chs. 14 and 15- 16 form two distinct versions of the last discourse. He supports this through the probability that oral sources lay behind the gospel and the numerous parallels between 14 and 15, 16.

At the present time I am not sure why the words of chapters 15-16 could not have been spoken en route to the garden as they went through Jerusalem. I see no need to rearrange the text since there is no manuscript evidence to support such a process. There may be some value however, in understanding chapter 14 and chapters 15-16 as two versions of the same discourse. The parallels may lend themselves to such a reading, but not all agree.

IV. Preaching/Homiletical Ideas and Applications

A. Love Jesus by Obeying His teaching (14:15)

1. His number one command is to love others believers.

2. His commands do include all his teaching

B. Understand the Work of The Holy Spirit (14:17; 14:26; 15:26; 16:8-11; 16:13, 14)

1. He comes from the Father to stay forever within the believer

2. He mediates the life of Christ to the believer

3. He teaches us all things concerning Christ and reminds of biblical truth

4. He focuses His ministry to believers on the Person of Christ

C. Trust God even When You're Unsure as to What He's Doing (14:18, 22)

1. Because He is in control

2. Because He loves those who love Christ

D. Understand that Christianity is about Relationships (14:20, 21, 23)

1. With God and His Son

2. With other believers

3. With the World

E. Accept the Peace that Christ Offers (14:27)

1. It is Christ's peace

2. Don't let your heart be troubled and afraid

1 Cf. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983): 24-27. He has four basic movements, but organized slightly different.

2 Cf. Raymond Brown, "The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI," in The Anchor Bible, vol. 29a, (New York: Doubleday, 1970): 597, 98. After citing several examples of O.T. farewell speeches, Brown considers that the book of Deuteronomy, as one grand farewell speech by Moses, most closely parallels John 13-17. Intertestamental literature provides examples of this literary genre as well: cf. The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs; The Book of Jubilees and even in the N.T. (Acts 20:17-38).

3 Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, 445, 46. The Synoptics mention the work of the Spirit (Luke 11:13), the various struggles of the disciples with fear, etc., but in quite distinct contexts from John.

4 John's teaching here resembles the Great Commandment as found in the Synoptics (Matt 22:37-40 and Mark 12:30, 31), namely, to love God and neighbor, but it is conceived in a narrower sense focusing primarily upon Christ and fellow believers in Christ.

5 The ean sets up the protasis: ean agapate me with the apodosis being twofold: tas entolas. . . and kago. . . humin.

6 Cf. 4 Ezra 14:22: "If then I have found in favor before you, send the Holy Spirit to me."

7 Cf. George R. Beasley-Murray, "John" in the Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 36, (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publishers, 1987):256. He has a nice discussion of the issue wherein he counters the idea that history in the gospel of John has been swallowed up in light of a post-Easter setting.

8 BAGD, 618.

9 For detailed study of the Paraclete in John see Brown, 1135-44.

10 C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd. ed. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1978): 461-63.

11 M.M.B. Turner, "Holy Spirit," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, eds. Joel B. Green, Scott McKnight and I Howard Marshall, (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992): 341-351.

12 BAGD, 618.

13 There is debate over the tenses of the two verbs meno and eimi. Murray (John, 242, 43) thinks that they ought both be taken as futures. External criteria are fairly evenly balanced, but it would seem that the present reading adopted by the NA26 is to be preferred. In this way we do not have to read ginoskete as a future (as Murray suggests) and the future of eimi makes clear what the passage has been emphasizing the whole way through, namely, the new indwelling role of the Spirit as opposed to the older economy. cf. Merrill C. Tenney, "The Gospel of John" in The Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 9, Gen ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1981):146, 47.

14 Cf. Beasley, 258 who cites this as an increasingly common interpetation and the reasons why. cf. also Barrett, 464.

15 C. K. Barrett, 464 and F. F. Bruce, 303.

16 Cf. the emphatic use of the pronouns: because I live, you also will live. The connection is unmistakable. Christ is the basis for their spiritual life and by implication ours also (Eph. 2:1-10). cf. also R. E. Brown, 646.

17 Cf. Bruce, 303.

18 The phrase en ekeine te hemera appears to be eschatalogical; cf. Is 11:10, 11; 26:1-4 which would seem to lend support to the idea that John sees the resurrection in an eschatalogical framework, perhaps as the basis of the blessing God will bring about for Israel and the entire world (John 4:42).

19 Cf. v. 21 with Wisdom 1:2; 6:12, 18.

20 Cf. Bruce, 304 and 307 note 13.

21 Brown, 647.

22 Judas thought that Jesus was to show himself to the world. Perhaps he got that from Jesus' teaching or from passages in the O.T. such as Is. 11:4, 9, or both. Further, according to F. F. Bruce, New Testament History, no particular conception of the Messiah dominated Jesus' day, but perhaps the idea of a military Messiah was the thought in Judas's mind. cf. Acts 1:6.

23 Royce G. Gruenler, The Trinity in the Gospel of John: A Thematic Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1986): 103.

24 Beasley, 260.

25 Cf. Beasley, 261.

26 Bruce, 305.

27 Cf. Brown, 654.

28 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1985): 696.

29 The idea that Jesus has come from God seems to be related in John as a statement of subordination to authority, not the derivation of his essence.

30 Cf. Brown, 654, 55.

31 Ibid, 632. see Brown for a defense of this thesis.

32 Tenney, 148.

33 Brown, 656 suggests that the text refers not to Jesus willingly offering up His life, but to His confidence that no one will be given power over Him except by permission of the Father. But, the fact that the next verse refers to Jesus doing exactly whatsoever His father commands Him, seems to fit better with His giving of His life, rather than someone gaining power over Him.

34 Brown, 656.

35 Barrett, 469, 70.

36 Ibid, 454.