Dying to live. 11:1–12:11

TO RAISE LAZARUS FROM THE DEAD, Jesus would have to go to Judea, the place of hostility, risking (and ultimately encountering) death (11:7–8, 14–16).⁷⁵³⁴ Lazarus was the «friend» of Jesus and the disciples (11: ll),⁷⁵³⁵ and therefore it was appropriate to die for him (15:13–15). Yet once Lazarus receives life, he must likewise share Jesus» death (12:10–11).

This climactic sign of Jesus» ministry joins the opening sign in framing Jesus» public ministry. The opening sign (2:1–11) recounts Jesus» benevolence at a wedding; the last involves it at a funera1. The joy of weddings and mourning of funerals could function as opposites in ancient literature.⁷⁵³⁶ While few of Jesus» signs in John's Gospel specifically parallel Moses» signs, his first and last signs may be exceptions.⁷⁵³⁷ In both cases, the signs may suggest contrasts: whereas Moses» first sign was transforming water to blood, Jesus benevolently transforms it into wine. Likewise, whereas the final plague against Egypt was the death of the firstborn sons, the climax of Jesus» signs is raising a dead brother-provider.

Many are skeptical of pre-Johannine tradition in the narrative about Lazarus's raising, because the story seems too central to Jesus» ministry to have been unknown to the Synoptic writers and, if known, not mentioned by them. Some have even proposed that John composed the story by weaving together various elements of Lukan tradition.⁷⁵³⁸ To be sure, the story has much symbolic significance for the author of the Fourth Gospel;⁷⁵³⁹ proposed external corroborations for the story are weak.⁷⁵⁴⁰

Other scholars have responded that Mark tends to omit much of Jesus» Judean ministry anyway, partly due to a theological emphasis on Galilee.⁷⁵⁴¹ Further, for the Synoptics Jesus» raisings of the dead were simply dramatic healings. Also, whereas John may emphasize Lazarus's restoration to prefigure Jesus» resurrection, Mark may not wish to risk diminishing the appearance of the uniqueness of Jesus» resurrection as an eschatological event.⁷⁵⁴² It is even possible that Mark may have suppressed the story to protect Lazarus and his sisters, who still lived near Jerusalem.⁷⁵⁴³ If the story was originally part of the passion narrative, one might expect protective anonymity, as in the case of some other disciples who figured prominently in it (e.g., Mark 14:51–52);⁷⁵⁴⁴but in this instance the story was well-known enough that drawing attention to it, even anonymously, could have caused trouble for the family (John 12:10–11). By contrast, if the story was not originally part of the passion narrative, Mark is no more obligated to report this event than the resuscitation at Nain (Luke 7:11–17; Q mentioned multiple raisings, Matt 11:5/Luke 7:22) or dramatic healings such as the centurion's servant (Matt 8:5–13/Luke 7:1–10). If the early passion narrative or, alternatively, Mark, suppressed or simply omitted the story, Matthew and Luke may not have known of it or may not have understood it as critical to the movement of the story in the way John does. John's community does seem to have already known of Mary's involvement in the final anointing of Jesus (see comment on 11:2).

A number of scholars have concluded that the story probably has a historical core.⁷⁵⁴⁵ As difficult as it is to distinguish tradition and redaction anywhere in this Gospel, including in this narrative,⁷⁵⁴⁶ Meier provides convincing evidence that the Lazarus story goes back to John's tradition, though it was originally a brief story unrelated to Jesus» passion. Hence he does not regard it as surprising that the Synoptics omit it.⁷⁵⁴⁷ By all critical approaches other than a philosophical predisposition against it, traditions indicate a popular belief that at least on some occasions Jesus raised the dead.⁷⁵⁴⁸ It may be significant that third-century rabbis acknowledged these raisings but attributed them to necromancy;⁷⁵⁴⁹ they may, however, well be responding to later Christian claims from the Gospels rather than to the traditions behind the Gospels. Although some ancients told resuscitation stories with a degree of skepticism, most of the ancient Mediterranean culture, including reports from the Hebrew Bible, accepted that raisings sometimes occurred.⁷⁵⁵⁰ They appear commonly enough in both Greek⁷⁵⁵¹ and Jewish⁷⁵⁵² sources, though the records follow the reported events by a much greater span of time than those in the Gospels.⁷⁵⁵³ Sorcerers might sometimes be thought to resuscitate corpses,⁷⁵⁵⁴ but (apart from lacking modern Western antisupernaturalist sentiments) such accounts have nothing in common with the Gospel reports: they include drilling holes to pour in hot blood, the moon's poison, the froth of dogs, and so forth.⁷⁵⁵⁵ They also worked at night when no one could see them,⁷⁵⁵⁶ for their works were considered impious and worthy of death.⁷⁵⁵⁷ If anything, John's account undercuts accusations of secretive, magical activity (cf. 18:20). The «resurrection» that became a familiar topic in ancient novels was most frequently only apparent resurrection from apparent death (so as not to strain credulity) and seems to have responded especially to the spread of the Christian story.⁷⁵⁵⁸

Whatever its origins, this story is critical for John's plot development. This is the longest single sign account in the Fourth Gospel, and, apart from the Passion Narrative, the longest narrative without a substantial discourse section. In John's schema «it is the climactic and most miraculous episode in the series of signs he presents.»⁷⁵⁵⁹ Whereas in Mark Jesus dies because he challenges the municipal aristocracy of Jerusalem by his prophetic act in the temple, in John Jesus dies most immediately because he has given life to a disciple (11:14–16, 50–52; 12:9–11).⁷⁵⁶⁰ That Jesus dies to give life fits, on a symbolic level, the very heart of John's soteriological message (3:16–17). Historically Jesus was already in trouble, even in the Fourth Gospel, which may have left the significance of the miracle ambiguous enough for some other writers to omit it;⁷⁵⁶¹ but its significance is unmistakable for John.⁷⁵⁶²

In this account Jesus does his Father's will, recognizing what such obedience will cost him; as in previous narratives (e.g., 4:4), Jesus» movements follow divine necessity, and thereby provide a model for the believer (cf. 3:8, though it explicitly refers only to the origin and destination). In 7:1–10 others close to Jesus sought to persuade him to go to Jerusalem, but Jesus objects. In 11:1–16, Jesus announces that he is going in spite of his disciples» objection; the contrast between the narratives stems from the fact that in 7:1–10, Jesus» time had not yet come (7:6); now his «hour» is arriving.⁷⁵⁶³

Ancient writers sometimes assumed knowledge shared by their readers when recounting something commonly known; given the wide circulation of the Synoptics, undoubtedly the anointing at Bethany was such an incident (Mark 14:3, 9).⁷⁵⁶⁴ That Bethany is identified as the village of «Mary and her sister Martha» but that Lazarus's identity must be explained suggests that Mary and Martha are already known to the audience. Further, «Lazarus is wholly passive and silent,» making his sisters the main characters of this narrative and their faith the primary issue.⁷⁵⁶⁵ Martha (11:1,5:12:2) was an uncommon but sufficiently attested Jewish name in this period,⁷⁵⁶⁶ including in the Diaspora;⁷⁵⁶⁷ Eleazar is a more common Jewish name, sometimes occurring in transliteration in Greek⁷⁵⁶⁸ and sometimes occurring in an alternative Greek form, Lazarus (11:1).⁷⁵⁶⁹ Because Mary, Martha, and Eleazar (sometimes «Lazarus» in Greek) appear together among names in a burial cave in Bethany, some suspect that these may be the friends of Jesus mentioned in this narrative.⁷⁵⁷⁰ John shows no clear knowledge of the story in Luke 10:38–42, which independently and earlier attests Mary and Martha as friends of Jesus in a village. lohn also writes about Mary's anointing of Jesus» feet (12:1–8) as if his audience already knows that a particular Mary anointed Jesus» feet (11:2), evidencing pre-Johannine tradition on this count even though that tradition is no longer extant outside this Gospe1.⁷⁵⁷¹

Miracle stories often include messengers sent to request a miracle worker's coming.⁷⁵⁷² It seems to have been customary to report to a rabbi if someone close to him, such as his teacher, was ill, so that the rabbi could visit him.⁷⁵⁷³ The message of Mary and Martha, however, is an implied request (11:3), as in 2:3; in both cases, Jesus fails to act immediately (2:4; 11:6). If Martha presses her request by her mention of «whatever» Jesus «asks» (11:22), she echoes Jesus» mother in 2:5.⁷⁵⁷⁴ Such polite forms of insistence would have been intelligible in an ancient Mediterranean milieu (see comment on 1:37–39). In John 2, Jesus does the sign secretly, so that only his disciples and the servants know (2:9, 11); in ch.ll, however, he does his sign even in front of those who will respond negatively (11:46)–because now his hour has come (2:4).

The purpose of Lazarus's sickness was not «for death» (προς θάνατον, 11:4; applied figuratvely in 1 John 5for spiritual death). Instead, the purpose of the sickness is to provide opportunity for God to manifest his glory (11:4; cf. 11:40),⁷⁵⁷⁵ as in 9:3; John's teaching that suffering can provide the opportunity for divine intervention foreshadows the significance of Jesus» own death and resurrection. Lazarus's sickness and raising also lead to and prefigure Jesus» death and resurrection.⁷⁵⁷⁶ Of course, in John's theology physical death could also bring God glory (12:23–24; 13:31; 21:19), just as Jesus» signs would (2:11). To the informed, repeated reader of this Gospel, the promise of Jesus» glorification through Lazarus's death constitutes a double entendre: Jesus is glorified because Lazarus's raising leads directly to Jesus» arrest and passion, by which he is «glorified» (12:23–24).

Given the urgency of the request for a miracle worker, Jesus» delaying could appear to dishonor the family and trivialize its suffering;⁷⁵⁷⁷ even if Lazarus would have died before his arrival, the family was counting on his rapid arriva1. Lest readers misunderstand the reason for Jesus» delay (11:6), John explicitly emphasizes Jesus» love for the family (11:5; cf. 11:36),⁷⁵⁷⁸ an emphasis that particularizes more general statements about divine love toward humanity or the disciples in the Gospel (3:16; 13:1, 34; 14:21). John's community, like other early Christian communities (cf. 1 Thess 4:13), not unlike Christian communities today, undoubtedly experienced untimely deaths and suffering that on the level of human understanding seemed to conflict with the assurance of God's love (cf. 11:21). Assurance that Jesus did care, that God did have long-range purposes in the suffering, even that Jesus joined in weeping with the bereaved as well as ultimately held power over life and death, would mean much to believers facing that universal human predicament of death, whether or not related to persecution (cf. 1 John 3:16; 2:10, 13). Jesus had been «remaining» in Perea (10:40) and now «remained» two additional days, as he had among the Samaritans (4:40), leaving to raise Lazarus on the third day.

Nevertheless, Jesus» delay (11:6) apparently did not prolong Lazarus's suffering. Bethany was only a single day's journey, so if Jesus delayed two days after receiving the message and arrived to find that Lazarus had been dead four days (11:39),⁷⁵⁷⁹ Lazarus may have been dead by the time the messengers reached Jesus, dying shortly after they left to seek him.⁷⁵⁸⁰ That many members of John's audience would not know the area around Jerusalem suggests that this information is not central to John's point in the narrative; but the information is explicitly there is the text for anyone who did in fact remember Judean geography, which some of John's audience probably did (since some were probably Judeans who left Judea after the war with Rome, although on our dating these would be primarily the older nucleus rather than the majority of the community).

Jesus had had good reason to avoid Judea (cf. 7:1), where his life had been threatened recently (10:31, 39; 11:8). But now Jesus goes to Judea (11:7) at the Father's bidding, providing a model for disciples to walk in the light (11:9–10). The cost of such obedience may be death (11:8), for followers as well as for Jesus (11:16). Not stumbling because one walked in daylight (11:9) was natural wisdom (cf. 9:4; 12:35; 1 John 2:10);⁷⁵⁸¹ but the metaphor would also be transparent. Thus the scribes of the Qumran community claimed that the children of righteousness, ruled by the hand of the Prince of Lights, walk in the ways of light, whereas those ruled by the hand of the Angel of Darkness walk in the ways of darkness (1QS 3.20–21).⁷⁵⁸² Another early Jewish writer could warn that passions blind onés soul, so that one moves in the day as if it were night (έν ημέρα ώς έν νυκτί πορεύεται, T. Jud. 18:6).⁷⁵⁸³ Jesus» metaphor in 11:10, that the light is not «in him,» refers to spiritual light, but may play on an image borrowed from some ancient views of science, that light resided in the eye.⁷⁵⁸⁴ The «light of this world» here is metaphorical (cf. 9:4), but throughout the Gospel refers to Jesus and his mission (1:9; 3:19; 8:12; 9:5; 12:46); perhaps it applies in Jesus» case to light from the Father (cf. 1 John 1:5).

Lazarus was the «friend» of Jesus and the disciples (11:11), and therefore it was appropriate to die for him (15:13–15). That Jesus speaks of Lazarus being asleep (11:11) need not have confused the disciples. «Sleep» usually meant literal sleep,⁷⁵⁸⁵ but the sleep of death was a common usage in the LXX,⁷⁵⁸⁶ Jewish tomb inscriptions in Greek⁷⁵⁸⁷ and Latin,⁷⁵⁸⁸ and literature, both Jewish⁷⁵⁸⁹ and Gentile.⁷⁵⁹⁰ Indeed, because of their resemblance,⁷⁵⁹¹ Sleep and Death were twin brothers in pagan myth (e.g., Homer Il. 14.231; Statius Thebaid 5.197–199). Yet often in literature recounting accurate revelations or prophecies, mortals could interpret a revelation too figuratively or vice versa;⁷⁵⁹² this is the case with Jesus» words elsewhere in the gospel tradition (e.g., Mark 8:15–18) and regularly in John (e.g., 3:4; 6:52). The disciples, taking Jesus too literally (how would Jesus «awaken» Lazarus from death?), appeal to the common observation that sleep helps one recover (11:12).⁷⁵⁹³ That he «may recover» (11:12) employs terminology that in John usually indicates the world's «salvation» (3:17; 5:34; 10:9; 12:47); this language may be significant, even if simply to indicate the inadequacy of their soteriology and the depth of their misunderstanding.⁷⁵⁹⁴ Jesus corrects their misunderstanding by speaking «plainly» (11:14; cf. 16:29; comment on 7:4): he was glad⁷⁵⁹⁵ that he was not there because the sign would deepen their faith (11:15; cf. 2:11; 11:45); the delay would not cause Lazarus's death (see above) but would intensify the public effect of the sign.⁷⁵⁹⁶

In v. 16 Thomas⁷⁵⁹⁷ ironically understands Jesus correctly: for Jesus to raise Lazarus will cost him his life, and Thomas and the other disciples should (though will not) follow him to the cross. The disciples recognized that Jesus had faced most of his opposition in Judea (11:7–8);⁷⁵⁹⁸ the recent stoning attempt to which they refer would be 10:31–32, with 8not far behind, both in Jerusalem. «Going» (11:7–8, 11, 15–16) is often associated with Jesus» death in the Farewell Discourse (13:3, 33, 36; 14:2–5, 28, 31; 16:5); he calls his disciples to follow (14:31). Thomas is thus more courageous than Jesus» brothers (cf. the second person imperative in 7:3), who did not believe in Jesus (7:5). This is surely a positive illustration; some ancient ethicists debated whether one should obey an order when it seems in the better interests of the order's giver not to do so,⁷⁵⁹⁹ but Thomas, like some heroic characters in other works,⁷⁶⁰⁰ is determined to follow.

But Thomas's determination proves ironic in this Gospel and for any readers familiar with the gospel tradition: despite Thomas's apparent willingness to suffer death for the sake of Jesus, Jesus will die alone.⁷⁶⁰¹ Casual oaths were common in the period,⁷⁶⁰² and widely known Jesus tradition elsewhere indicates that the sense of loyalty faded in the face of the horror of arrest and execution (Mark 14:20). Not only was Thomas among those who fled (16:31–32), but he would initially fail to believe the apostolic testimony about Jesus» resurrection (20:25).

John points out Bethany's proximity to Jerusalem (11:18) to underline the risk of hostility Jesus was embracing to serve Lazarus (10:39; 11:8), but also to identify the many «Judeans» who came to visit Martha and Mary as the theological equivalent of Jerusalemites, who will again (7:43; 9:16; 10:19) be divided by Jesus» ministry (11:46–47). Bethany may have been near the Mount of Olives (Luke 19:29; cf. Luke 24with Acts 1:12).⁷⁶⁰³

That many had come to console Martha and Mary (11:19) fits what we know of Judean custom. Because Lazarus has been in the tomb four days (11:17), the most intense mourning period of sitting shiva (i.e., seven days) remains in effect.⁷⁶⁰⁴ Palestinian Judaism required burial of the deceased on the day of death, but six days of mourning (for a total of seven) followed,⁷⁶⁰⁵ in which the bereaved family members would remain at home while others came to supply food and express sympathy.⁷⁶⁰⁶ Such intense mourning for at least a week after death is common to various traditional cultures.⁷⁶⁰⁷ (Probably it is so-called modern cultures, more lacking in grief rituals, that may be less adapted to the needs of the human psyche.)⁷⁶⁰⁸ Probably a significant number of people in Bethany were visiting or had visited the family. More distant relatives might also offer special comfort to the closest relatives.⁷⁶⁰⁹ Anyone who passes a funeral procession should join it and share its lamentation.⁷⁶¹⁰ Visiting the bereaved was an important aspect of piety.⁷⁶¹¹

Normally word would travel ahead of a famous teacher that he was arriving, and this could be the case here; people might know that Jesus had been invited (11:3).⁷⁶¹² Given the need for relative secrecy about his presence again in Judea, however, and the fact that those who had come to comfort the family seemed not to expect him (11:28, 30–31), Jesus may have sent a disciple ahead as a messenger to notify Martha of his arrival, while he waited outside the village (as in 11:30). In any case, she hears of his arrival (11:20). Although it was expected that during mourning Martha should stay in the house and let Jesus come to her, she paid him great respect by going out to meet him (cf. 12:13),⁷⁶¹³ though leaving Mary behind to continue mourning and receive visitors (11:20). Perhaps, too, she knew of the danger Jesus might be in if word spread that he was back in Judea; Jesus delays entering the village as long as possible (11:28, 30). In any case her going forth at such a time shows him special honor. But in the following context Jesus will demand more than such expressions of honor: he will demand faith.

The brief dialogue between Jesus and Martha that ensues (11:21–27) emphasizes for John's audience the symbolic import of the narrative:⁷⁶¹⁴ Christology realizes eschatology, so that Jesus brings resurrection life in the present era. Occasionally in narratives people appear unable to speak because of grief (e.g., Josephus Ant. 6.337; cf. Mark 9:6), but Martha articulates a degree of faith in Jesus» power: his presence could have healed Lazarus (11:21; cf. 11:32). Jesus demands greater faith: he is present now; is his power limited even by death itself (11:23)?⁷⁶¹⁵

When Martha indicates that she trusts that whatever he asks of God, God will give him (11:22), she is probably making an implied, oblique request as in 11(cf. 2:3, 5). Her expression of confidence in Jesus–that God would grant whatever he asked (11:22; cf. 3:35; 13:3)–thus would illustrate the sort of prayer God might hear in Jesus» name (16:24). While this could be a request for comfort, it is more likely a request that Jesus raise her brother. Some suggest that in 11she forgets the request, hence allowing Jesus to articulate more Johannine theology;⁷⁶¹⁶ misunderstanding motifs are common in miracle stories,⁷⁶¹⁷ and it is not unlike John to narrate one of this nature (5:7).

But it is no less possible that she is continuing her insistence by seeking clarification; from the standpoint of Johannine theology, confession in a future resurrection was correct (5:28–29; 6:39) even if not Jesus» point here.⁷⁶¹⁸ The wording of Jesus» response in 11:25–26 would not necessarily resolve any ambiguity in his words for Martha; most Jews believed in the soul's life after death before the resurrection anyway.⁷⁶¹⁹ But the wording of Jesus» response (Jesus as the life, 11:25–26; cf. 1:4; 6:48; 14:6; 1 John 1:2; 5:11–12, 20)⁷⁶²⁰ would encourage John's audience, who might not expect to customarily face immediate physical resuscitations but believed that they possessed eternal life in the present (3:16, 36).⁷⁶²¹ Temporary resuscitations of mortals in history could be understood to prefigure the ultimate future resurrection (e.g., 4and comment),⁷⁶²² so John could make explicit how Jesus» words to Martha applied to his own audience in his own generation.

Marthás confession (11:27) is as firm as Peter's (6:69); the confession of Christ, however, is not Peter's (6:69), but the Baptist's (3:28), Andrew's (1:41), the Samaritan woman's (4:25,29), perhaps a healed man's (9:22,35–38), and now Marthás (11:27). That Jesus was the one «coming into the world» (11:27) is Johannine christological language implying his incarnate status (e.g., 1:9, 27; 3:31), though we need not suppose that Martha understood this point (cf. 6:14; 12:13). Jesus offers private revelations of his identity to the Samaritan woman (4:25–26) and to Martha (11:25), and later reveals himself to Mary Magdalene (20:15–17) after Peter and the beloved disciple have departed (20:10). He seems to have favored women and/or those marginalized from the centers of structural power. Whether John, by the confessions of Martha and Peter, is intentionally balancing gender the way Luke seems to do⁷⁶²³ or (less likely) includes her confession without such considerations, her confession, the climactic confession preceding Jesus» passion, suggests a relatively high role for women's faith vis-à-vis the majority views of John's culture.⁷⁶²⁴

Jesus continues to remain outside the village (11:28, 30), probably for safety (11:8),⁷⁶²⁵ to prolong his «hour» until its appointed moment at the Passover (11:46–47). Martha takes over receiving visitors at the house while Mary slips out to meet with Jesus. That Martha speaks «secretly» (11:28) likely indicates her wish to protect Jesus; his hour had not yet come (7:4, 6, 10). But visitors, naturally supposing that she was going to mourn at the tomb outside the boundaries of Bethany proper,⁷⁶²⁶ followed Mary and found themselves facing Jesus (11:31). Falling to the ground (11:32) was a way to entreat those in authority,⁷⁶²⁷ but also a way to worship God himself (1 Esd 9:47; Rev 4:10; Esth 3:2), which may be significant on the Johannine level, in which the audience recognizes what Mary does not (20:28; see comment on 9:38).

Mary expresses her faith no less forcefully than Martha and in almost identical language (11:32; cf. 11:21). Although Martha is mentioned first in 11and comes first in 11:20, Mary is mentioned first in the opening reference to the two sisters (11:1), as if she is better known to the community (cf. also her role in Luke 10:39,42). Although sequence of names is not always significant,⁷⁶²⁸ it often was.⁷⁶²⁹ It may be that Mary's role in the narrative is second not because it is secondary, but because it is climactic. Then again, Marthás faith seems fundamental to the development of the narrative (11:39–40); each plays a decisive role, Martha perhaps as the elder and leader, Mary perhaps as the more forward and perhaps emotionally closer to Jesus (as in Luke 10:38–42). The faith of both women (11:21, 32) contrasts with the weaker faith of their comforters (11:37).⁷⁶³⁰

Jesus» own spirit was grieved or troubled (11:33), as it would be by his own impending death (12:27; 13:21) but as he warned that his followers need not be (14:1,27).⁷⁶³¹ Another term here depicts his emotion in the strongest possible terms; he was «moved» (έμβριμάομαι, 11:33, 38), an unusually strong term, usually denoting anger, agitation, and typically some physical expression accompanying it (cf. Mark 1:43; 14:5).⁷⁶³² Scholars debate whether he is angry with Mary and Martha for lack of faith (11:32, 40), at the crowds for their unbelief (11:37), or at death itself. On the one hand, the term might be qualified by a parallel expression in 13(cf. 12:27; 14:1), suggesting that John figuratively stretches the sense to include emotional disturbance without anger per se; it may stem from observing Mary's grief and wailing (11:33).⁷⁶³³ Some think that «anger» overstates the case, though «troubled» is too weak.⁷⁶³⁴

But 13may refer to a similar yet different emotion, and the term employed here does indicate anger when applied to humans.⁷⁶³⁵ If Jesus is angry, one may think he is angry at sin, Satan, or death as a consequence of sin.⁷⁶³⁶ While that proposal may be good theology (and may also fit the experience of some subsequent healers and exorcists, and perhaps of Jesus as well, cf. Mark 1:25; 4:39; 9:25; Luke 4:39), it lacks direct support in this text. More likely, he is angry at the lack of faith on the part of those who should be exercising it,⁷⁶³⁷ as God was angry at Israel's unbelief despite his previous signs (e.g., Num 14:11) or Jesus was angry with the unbelief of disciples in Mark (e.g., Mark 4:40; cf. Mark 1:43; 3:5). In both cases (11:33, 38), it occurs immediately after statements that Jesus could have done something before Lazarus died (11:32,37)–perhaps implying disbelief that he could do something now. Jesus is not, however, angry with their grief itself; he seems emotionally moved more by Mary's tears (11:33) than by Marthás words, and responds by weeping himself (11:35).⁷⁶³⁸ In any case, Jesus» internal disturbance over others» pain emphasizes his humanity «and/or the passionate nature of his divinity.»⁷⁶³⁹ It reveals his character, which leads to his suffering on others» behalf (cf. 1:29; cf. Heb 4:15–5:8). By weeping, Jesus shows his solidarity with the mourners (11:35).

That Jesus asked where the burial site was (11:34) would have suggested to his hearers that he wanted to join in mourning at the burial site (cf. 11:31); their invitation to «Come and see» (11:34) is an invitation to join in the mourning.⁷⁶⁴⁰ Perhaps more significantly, his question, «Where have you laid him?» anticipates Mary Magdalenés question about where Jesus has been laid (20:15),⁷⁶⁴¹ underlining the implicit contrast between Lazarus, who awaits Jesus to raise him, and Jesus whose body is already gone (as well as the contrast between Lazarus's burial by his family and Jesus» by two leaders of «the Jews» yet not the expected disciples).

Jesus» tears (11:35) would be considered pious as well as compassionate.⁷⁶⁴² As noted above, Jewish people considered sharing in others» lamentation a religious duty. But showing lavish emotion at the appropriate time, especially grief over bereavement, was considered praiseworthy behavior throughout the ancient Mediterranean world⁷⁶⁴³ and could move an audience.⁷⁶⁴⁴ Ancient writers would describe a herós tears for others» pain as part of his praiseworthy behavior,⁷⁶⁴⁵ or the tears of those who loved and sacrificed themselves for others.⁷⁶⁴⁶ (Many philosophers and moralists, who counseled against the value of grief, proved to be the exception;⁷⁶⁴⁷ some others shared their perspective,⁷⁶⁴⁸ though this was probably more often a stereotypical counsel than a genuine expectation.⁷⁶⁴⁹ Brave heroes might also hold out against tears, refusing to be deterred from a mission.)⁷⁶⁵⁰ One might weep out of sympathy for others» grief, though not grieving for the situation itself (e.g., Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 2.21); thus Moses, initially not mourning over his own imminent death, was said to have been moved to tears by his people weeping so much over it (Josephus Ant. 4.321).⁷⁶⁵¹ That this tradition about Moses was widely known is not likely; that it reflects broader feelings in the milieu about the heroic protagonist's tears is virtually certain. It is thus not surprising that those who have come to mourn with Mary recognize that Jesus cared deeply for Lazarus (11:36; cf. 11:5).

That John contrasts some «others» (11:37) with those who praised his love (11:38) suggests that the latter group, while perhaps recognizing his love, doubted his power to have changed the situation. Some scholars suspect that this is the reason for Jesus» possible «anger» in 11(see comment on 11:33).

Lazarus's rescucitation prefigures Jesus» resurrection for the Fourth Gospel, and parallels of language between the two are more than fortuitous, such as the stone (11:38; 20:1), the essential role of a woman close to the deceased (11:39; 20:1–18), and the wrappings (11:44; 20:6–7). Nevertheless, the primary purpose of the parallels may be to draw attention to the equally explicit contrasts between the two. In Lazarus's case, people must remove the stone (11:39), but Jesus» resurrection produces an immortal body following a different order of existence (cf. 1Cor 15:42–44; Phil 3:21); his resurrection may leave the grave clothes untouched (20:5, 7) and allows him to enter closed rooms (20:19, 26).⁷⁶⁵²

Many private burials employed vertical shaft tombs, but this burial was in a cave, probably oriented horizontally (11:38).⁷⁶⁵³ The stone (11:38) would keep animals from the body.⁷⁶⁵⁴ Marthás objection about the stench (11:39) makes sense on natural human assumptions. Spices could cover the stench for a while,⁷⁶⁵⁵ but after four days the stench of decomposition would be intense.⁷⁶⁵⁶ Unlike ancient Egyptians, Jewish people did not embalm the dead to prevent decomposition⁷⁶⁵⁷ but in this period actually encouraged decomposition to allow for secondary burial a year later.⁷⁶⁵⁸ Yet Jesus challenges her to act in faith in his word, contrary to natural expectations. Although throughout the Gospel seeing signs often provokes the most basic level of faith, Jesus calls Martha, who already has confessed her faith (11:21–22, 27), to a deeper level of faith: if she believes, then she will see. Thus she would see God's glory (11:40) in Jesus» sign (2:11), like Israel in the exodus (Exod 16:7, 10). In this case, the glory was the divine purpose for which Lazarus had died: that Jesus might be glorified (11:4), ultimately by the cross (see comment on 1:14; 11:4).

The Gospel emphasizes Jesus» deity, which might be one reason that prayer preceded the miracles recorded to this point in only one case at most (cf. 6:11).⁷⁶⁵⁹ Nevertheless, Jesus» prayer (11:41–42) would not strike an ancient Jewish-Christian audience as too unexpected; prayers often appear in Israelite and early Jewish healing stories.⁷⁶⁶⁰ In earliest Christian literature public healings usually occurred by commands rather than by prayer (e.g., Mark 5:41; Acts 3:6), but prayer or a lifestyle of prayer often preceded such commands to be healed (Mark 9:29; Acts 3:1; 9:40; 28:8).⁷⁶⁶¹ Lifting onés face toward heaven was a known posture for prayer (11:41; cf. 17:1),⁷⁶⁶² and (especially given some charges that Jesus was a magician) many people in the ancient Mediterranean would have distrusted a silent prayer.⁷⁶⁶³

More important for our consideration is the specific function of this prayer in its Johannine context. Although the Fourth Gospel emphasizes Jesus» deity, it also underlines his obedience to the Father's will and offers significant prayers of Jesus to the Father. Jesus prays in 11:41–42 that the sign may produce faith in his divine mission. Essentially he prays for the Father's glory (11:40), as he will soon offer prayers for the Father to be glorified by his own death and resurrection shortly to follow that prayer (12:27–28; 17:1–5). He expects the crowd to hear the prayer before God acts so that when God does act they may understand why he acted (cf. 14:29). In the same way, God speaks to Jesus in 12for the sake of the crowds (12:30). John may want his audience to understand how important it is to their Lord «that the world may know» that Jesus is the Father's agent in part because, as he will soon inform them, they must share in that mission by their unity (17:23).

Jesus begins with thanks, as in the closest parallel to an earlier pre-miracle prayer in the Gospel (6:11). By emphasizing that the Father has heard him, Jesus reiterates his dependence on the Father, a frequent Johannine theme;⁷⁶⁶⁴ the Father «always» heard him because of his perfect obedience (8:29), a model for John's audience (14:12–15; 15:7). That signs provide an opportunity for faith (11:42)⁷⁶⁶⁵ is also a frequent Johannine motif (2:11), though this context illustrates the increased hostility invited by such signs from those who choose to continue in unbelief (11:45–47).

Jesus spoke loudly to Lazarus (11:43), presumably partly so the crowd could also hear (cf. 7:37; 11:42).⁷⁶⁶⁶ That he calls his name may recall 10:3: Jesus calls his own sheep by name, and leads them forth;⁷⁶⁶⁷ that he raises him with his voice recalls 5:28–29, the future resurrection to which this points on a temporal, symbolic level (cf. 11:24–26).⁷⁶⁶⁸ Unlike in the Synoptics, there is no emphasis on Jesus touching the impure in John; even Lazarus is raised not by a touch (cf. Mark 5:41; Luke 7:14) but by a command.⁷⁶⁶⁹ John would, of course, agree with Mark's perspective that Jesus» signs sometimes challenge purity customs (2:6); but he illustrates the point differently.

Lazarus came forth in his graveclothes, a contrast with Jesus» greater resurrection that left such cloths behind (20:5, 7) made all the more obvious by the parallel description of Jesus» burial (19:40). Jewish sources frequently mention such shrouds for wrapping and binding the corpse.⁷⁶⁷⁰ To prevent premature distortion of tissue, those preparing the body would bind the cheeks to keep the mouth closed; they closed the body's orifices and sometimes placed the body on cold sand to inhibit swelling.⁷⁶⁷¹ If our later sources approximate relevant conditions, as they probably would in this case, the head cloth was about one yard square.⁷⁶⁷²

Some commentators suggest that Jews wrapped corpses less tightly than Greeks did, which would have allowed Lazarus at least to shuffle out under his own power;⁷⁶⁷³ yet such an activity would demand an extraordinary amount of patience from the bystanders, especially once it became evident that he was emerging. That Lazarus could not have physically come out of the tomb by his own power when so wrapped (as most of John's audience should have known) merely contributes to John's portrayal of the sign's magnitude.⁷⁶⁷⁴ But, as noted above, the grave wrappings also contribute to an implicit contrast between Lazarus's restoration to die again and Jesus» resurrection to immortality. Jesus left his garments behind in the tomb, never to need them again.⁷⁶⁷⁵

Not surprisingly, most of those present recognized Jesus» power, but even some of the witnesses became Jesus» betrayers (11:45–46). The Judean elite, already opposed to Jesus (5:18; 8:59; 10:31, 39), now solidify a plan to kill him (11:47–53); Jesus withdraws and the crowds wonder if he will show himself during the Passover (11:54–57). But John also focuses on the consequences of Lazarus's raising for Lazarus and his family, probably paradigmatic in some way for the resurrection life experienced by believers (cf. 14:19). Mary lavishes her devotion on Jesus and provides a radical contrast with Judas (12:1–8); as the price of new life, Lazarus now faces the threat of death from the same people who want to kill Jesus (12:9–11).

Many of the bystanders responded in faith (11:45; cf. 11:15,40); the language suggests that the majority did so.⁷⁶⁷⁶ (On the significance of such signs-faith, see comment on 2and related texts.) That John calls the bystanders «the Jews» indicates his continuing confidence that even among those who constitute the primary opposition (see introduction on «the Jews»), faith remains possible. Although it is not part of his purpose to emphasize it, John may even share the earlier Christian optimism in an eschatological repentance of his Jewish people (Rom 11:26).⁷⁶⁷⁷

But the specter of rejection remains, for some of the bystanders took word to the authorities that Jesus was again in Judea and doing signs that were influencing others» opinions (John 11:46). In an analogous setting in the Fourth Gospel, a report about Jesus» signs directed toward the elite is intended not as witness (as in 7:46; 9:30–33) but as betrayal (5:15–16); given the equally immediate hostile response, such is probably in view here. New Testament miracle stories frequently include rejection, but nearly all other ancient miracle stories lack this element, although its converse, acclamation, is common.⁷⁶⁷⁸ The motif of rejection or persecution after miracles⁷⁶⁷⁹ undoubtedly stems from the ministry of Jesus and/or the experience of his earliest followers.

The plot of the leaders (11:47–53) fittingly follows the Lazarus narrative (11:1–44); Jesus is the resurrection and the life, but to give Lazarus life must set his own in danger (11:8, 16). In this epitome of Johannine irony, Jesus would die on behalf of others (11:50).⁷⁶⁸⁰

Mark also draws on a tradition in an earlier passion narrative in which leaders plot against Jesus (Mark 14:1–2), very likely in response to his demonstration and teaching in the temple earlier that week (Mark 11:15–18). In John, the demonstration in the temple opens Jesus» public ministry, framing it with the ethos of the passion week and the Jerusalem leaders» hostility. In John, the immediate precedent and provocation for the final plotting is Lazarus's resuscitation. Because this was Jesus» climactic sign before the cross, it suggests a rejection of his whole public ministry (1:11).⁷⁶⁸¹

John's account of the plot (11:47–53) fits what we know of the period. Plotting seems to have characterized Jewish as well as Roman aristocratic politics in the first century; thus John of Gischalás allies «took counsel» with him how to undo Josephus (Josephus Life 236).⁷⁶⁸² Jerusalem's leaders were desperate to prevent actions which would provoke the Romans (Josephus War 2.237); Josephus reports that later aristocratic priests and Pharisees desired peace and only feigned to go along with the populace to save their lives (Josephus Life 21–22). Josephus's report of Antipas's reason for mistrusting and executing John the Baptist fits the reasoning of these leaders.⁷⁶⁸³

Further, one would hardly expect Jesus» execution without the cooperation of a council of Jerusalem aristocrats (see comment on the Sanhedrin at the introduction to the Passion Narrative). Local municipal aristocracies normally brought persons to trial before the Romans;⁷⁶⁸⁴ indeed, the Roman legal system as a whole depended heavily on delatores, accusers.⁷⁶⁸⁵ Many are thus inclined to accept a substantial amount of prior tradition in this report.⁷⁶⁸⁶ Though John may add the Pharisees to preserve the unity of opposition in his Gospel,⁷⁶⁸⁷ the spokesman for the opposition is Caiaphas the high priest (11:49), and the high priesthood is the part of the opposition first named (11:47). The Synoptics and Acts suggest that the most brutal opposition came especially from the Sadducean aristocracy.⁷⁶⁸⁸

Such considerations argue for early tradition, not necessarily historicity. A leak from the Jerusalem aristocracy is not at all implausible and happened on other occasions where the object of discussion had allies in the aristocracy (cf., e.g., Josephus Life 204).⁷⁶⁸⁹ If Joseph of Arimathea became an ally of the disciples at some point, his sharing of information with them is more probable than not. Although evidence suggests that the early Christians carefully guarded their traditions, one cannot be certain on purely historical grounds whether the tradition stems from sources like Joseph or from hearsay that a persecuted sect found believable without eyewitness verification.

Caiaphas's⁷⁶⁹⁰ involvement with Jesus» trial makes historical sense.⁷⁶⁹¹ That Caiaphas held power as long as he did (nineteen years) reinforces the suspicion one gets from other nonpriestly sources concerning the character of the high priesthood in this period: he was a skilled but probably often ruthless politician. He kept the public peace in a manner that satisfied both Rome and the populace, and in so doing preserved his own position.⁷⁶⁹² He was well-to-do,⁷⁶⁹³ part of the most hellenized elite,⁷⁶⁹⁴ and hence had much at stake personally in keeping the peace. Yet it is reasonable to suppose that, even given the purest of concern for their peoplés welfare–on which their own rose or fell–the priestly aristocracy would regard unrest, hence the popularity of Jesus, as a threat.⁷⁶⁹⁵

The phrase «high priest for that year» (11:49; cf. 18:13) has produced considerable discussion. Greeks dated years by officials who held office in a particular year; chronological listings included lists of priests and priestesses as well as magistrates, victors in the games, and so forth.⁷⁶⁹⁶ Greeks usually changed priests annually, and in keeping with this custom, chief priests changed each year in Syria and Asia Minor.⁷⁶⁹⁷ Thus some suggest that John, writing in Asia Minor (or perhaps Syria), simply assumed that his local custom applied to pre-70 Jerusalem.⁷⁶⁹⁸ But it is not very likely that John, who reports so much tradition that presupposes a Palestinian Jewish context, would be unaware that high priests did not change annually. He knew the OT; his intimate knowledge of Jerusalem's pre-70 topography makes an ignorance of the more widely known longer-than-annual duration of high priests» offices unlikely.⁷⁶⁹⁹ Likewise it is possible, but not likely, that John simply accommodated the expectations of those familiar with local cults, for he has no apparent reason to mention an annual duration to conform practice with local custom. Further, even some (the minority of) Greek priesthoods were lifelong,⁷⁷⁰⁰ inviting Greeks to distinguish which were which.

More to the point, the Jerusalem high priest no longer held the office for life. Some have suggested that the text could allude «to a Roman insistence on an annual confirmation of the Jerusalem high priest,» though this is unattested elsewhere.⁷⁷⁰¹ Others suggest that it simply means, «the (memorable) year in which Jesus was executed»; this seems the most common position.⁷⁷⁰² This view takes the genitive temporally («in that year»), probably emphasizing especially εκείνου, «that.»⁷⁷⁰³ One may compare «that day» (11:53),⁷⁷⁰⁴ John's words about Jesus» «hour» (e.g., 2:4; 7:30; 8:20) or «time» (7:6, 8), or John's mention of other special moments in revelation (e.g., 4:53). This view accounts for the emphatic, threefold mention of the priesthood «in that year» (11:49, 51; 18:18) better than do proposals that John simply made a mistake⁷⁷⁰⁵ or accommodated audience expectations here.

If, however, John can presuppose some knowledge of Jerusalem politics on the part of transplanted Judeans in his audience, he may strike a note of irony: Rome could depose priests at will; deposed high priests like Caiaphas's father-in-law Annas could still meddle in the city's affairs (cf. 18:13); and only a high priest who cooperated well with Rome could rule so long. Perhaps John even cynically presents the high priest as a Greek-type caretaker, an honorary office, rather than a divine appointment; he recognized that the high priesthood was an honor no one should take to oneself (Heb 5:4). Thus, for example, whereas Egyptians had hereditary priesthoods, Romans allowed Greek temples in Egypt to perpetuate Greek customs, but these temples «had no clergy, only officiators and administrators, a laity that the métropolites selected from their own class, in annual rotation, to see to the physical upkeep and cultic requirements of the shrines.»⁷⁷⁰⁶ He also may link this άρχιερεύς with the other αρχιερείς of which he is a part;⁷⁷⁰⁷ he acts on behalf of the whole corrupt group. John's complaint against the Jerusalem elite, which he believes executed Jesus and prevented a wider acceptance of the Jesus movement among his people, is political as well as religious.⁷⁷⁰⁸

The leaders fear that Jesus» signs (11:47) will produce faith among «all people» (11:48), ironically fulfilling the purpose of Jesus» coming into the world and John's witness (1:7–9), foreshadowing the Gentile mission (12:19–21). Their fear begins to come to pass in 12:18, where even Jerusalem's crowds begin to follow Jesus because of this sign (cf. also 12:11). (In John, unlike the Synoptics, the crowds do not later pass judgment against Jesus; the responsibility for persecution against Jewish Christians lay primarily at the feet of the nation's recognized leaders.) Ultimately, their very plan to have Jesus killed to prevent all from coming to him (11:48–50) will have the opposite result (12:32)–thereby confirming the widely recognized ancient view that even attempts to thwart fate (or God's plan) would simply help fulfill it.⁷⁷⁰⁹ The authorities» frantic question, «What are we doing?» (11:47) is answered in the parallel context in 12:19, when the Pharisees complain that «We are not doing good» (literally, profiting nothing) and that the world is finally going after him (12:19). In a sense, John offers the hostility of such leaders as the reason that the world did not more quickly embrace Jesus.⁷⁷¹⁰

In a document addressing an audience after 70 C.E., the elités fear that the Romans would take away their place and nation if they did not execute Jesus (11:48) is a striking irony.⁷⁷¹¹ If John's audience felt like many other Jewish Christians, they probably viewed Jerusalem's destruction as the direct consequence of Jesus» execution (Matt 23:31–39)! Such irony fits earlier biblical models; thus, for example, the very matter that Egypt feared (Israel's freedom because of their strength–Exod 1:10) the Egyptians provoked by oppressing them (Exod 2:23–25). (The «nation» may mean Judeás freedoms as a national entity in Syria-Palestine; the «place» may refer to Jerusalem but probably refers to the temple.)⁷⁷¹²

Caiaphas's claim that the priests «know nothing at all» (11:49) represents the epitome of Johannine irony, like the Pharisees» admission that they do nothing good (12:19). The informed readers of the Gospel by this point will read such statements on a much more literal level than their speakers in the story world intended them!⁷⁷¹³ (On unintended truth, see comment on 11:51.) But Paul Duke may be right to point out, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, that while it is true that they know nothing (underlined by three negatives), the high priest goes on to show that he knows even less.⁷⁷¹⁴

The high priest's claim that it is better for one to die for the people (11:50) is important enough to John to bear repetition; it is the chief declaration for which John remembers him (18:14). If the texts that report this claim do not simply develop a commonsense tenet based on a community perspective,⁷⁷¹⁵ it might reflect a popular recognition in ancient Jewish ethics,⁷⁷¹⁶ though the Tannaim clearly opposed it under some circumstances.⁷⁷¹⁷ Using different wording, Josephus was willing to suffer more because the multitude of Galileans was so great (Josephus Life 212).⁷⁷¹⁸ Josephus elsewhere assumes this principle of greater and lesser worth when he declares that Agrippa II admonished the crowds not to fight the numerous Romans and invite wholesale slaughter of their people for the sake of a single offender and a few who suffered unjustly (War 2.353, 399); if they do fight, the Romans will burn their city and destroy their nation (War 2.397). At least in the rabbinic stream of tradition, a guilty Israelite may suffer to atone for his own sins as well as to keep Israel from being led astray.⁷⁷¹⁹ Later rabbis continued to debate whether an innocent Israelite should be sacrificed for the rest of Israel, and the view that he should apparently prevailed in the Amoraic period.⁷⁷²⁰

Whether such views were current in the first century, however, Caiaphas's view, as portrayed in John, stems more from «expediency» than from moral principle.⁷⁷²¹ At least sometimes Jerusalem aristocrats reasoned in this manner. For example, Jonathan's allies reportedly reason that four rulers from Jerusalem are better than one (Josephus); by contrast, the masses are unpersuaded, trusting Josephus (Josephus Life 278–279). «Expediency» was a standard tool of moral reasoning among Greek philosophers,⁷⁷²² not surprising given the sort of education John's audience could expect such elite priests to have had. But ironically the priest is quite right: it is better for the people if Jesus dies (cf. 16:7); Jesus had to die «on behalf of» his sheep (υπέρ, 10:15; 11:51–52), the «scattered children of God» (10:16; 11:52).

John declares that the high priest inadvertently uttered truth that differed considerably from the message he intended as truth (11:51). Oracular utterances frequently proved notoriously ambiguous and misinterpreted until their fulfillment,⁷⁷²³ for instance, rulers sometimes understood prophecies as referring to the slaughter of enemies when it referred to their own defeat;⁷⁷²⁴ or a prophecy could be fulfilled by the very attempt to evade its fulfillment.⁷⁷²⁵ Ancients often believed that prophetic frenzy displaced the prophet's mind,⁷⁷²⁶ which is not the case here;⁷⁷²⁷ but a key parallel is the concept that one who prophesied was not responsible for, or the originator of, his or her words.

Josephus, who was a priest and claimed to be a prophet, regarded the Jewish priesthood as particularly prophetically endowed;⁷⁷²⁸ whether or not John regards the priesthood as prophetically endowed,⁷⁷²⁹ he believed that God could arrange for them to speak truth. Perhaps borrowing the Greek conception of ecstatic loss of control in prophecy,⁷⁷³⁰ the rabbis referred to prophecies unintended and unrecognized by the speaker.⁷⁷³¹ Other early Jewish sources⁷⁷³² and Gentile sources, such as (reportedly) the Egyptians,⁷⁷³³ recognized the possibility of unintended prophetic insights. The principle sometimes applied to truth prevailing through speakers» unintended double entendres, even without reference to prophecy. Thus hearers laughed when a speaker said one thing on a literal level in which they heard an unintended play on the accused's behavior; they claimed that truth had prevailed over the speaker's intention.⁷⁷³⁴

When Caiaphas speaks of the «people» (11:50;18:14),he refers to the Jewish people.⁷⁷³⁵ But whereas the «children of God» scattered abroad (11:52) could refer to Diaspora Jews,⁷⁷³⁶ especially if we thought of how Caiaphas would have meant the phrase had he been the one to use it here, the prophetic, hence divine, perspective must agree with the omniscient narrator, and in the context of the Fourth Gospel it refers to believers in Jesus (1:12; 3:3–5).⁷⁷³⁷ That they wouJd be «one» (11:52) reflects Jesus» mission for his followers (10:16; 17:22), after he delivers them from being «scattered» (10:12; 16:32). John might adapt the tenth petition of the Amidah for the regathering of the dispersed, applying it to believers, including Gentiles (cf. 12:20–23).⁷⁷³⁸

Recognizing that the level of threat was no longer that of mob violence (8:59; 10:31, 39) but premeditated and planned violence (11:53), Jesus stopped the «public» ministry he had begun in 7:4–14 (11:54; see comment on παρρησία in 7:4).⁷⁷³⁹ God would protect Jesus until his hour (7:30; 8:20), but Jesus would also cooperate with his Father's plan to do so. In 11Jesus continued to «remain» (cf. 10:40; 11:6; 12:24) in the wilderness (cf. the new exodus theme in 1:23; 3:14; 6:39,49), again no longer walking in Judean territory because of his enemies (as in 7:1).

Some think that «Ephraim» (11:54) was in Samaritan territory, hence that Jesus took refuge there with his friends from Samaria (4:40).⁷⁷⁴⁰ This is possible, though probably only the former Palestinian Jewish Christians in the community would understand the geographical allusion.⁷⁷⁴¹ That Jesus withdrew from «the Judeans» to find refuge in «Ephraim,» often a name for the northern kingdom in the biblical prophets (especially Hosea), may have struck more of them.

That «the Jewish festival of Passover was near» (11:55) recalls the earlier Passovers in the Gospel, announced in almost identical words (2:13; 6:4). Both previous Passovers in the story became occasions for severe conflict (2:15–19; 6:66), and the earlier Gospel tradition reserves the paschal announcement for the passion week (Mark 14:1,12; Matt 26:18). Most significantly, however, the reader knows from previous depictions of feasts that Jesus goes to Jerusalem for such feasts (e.g., 2:13; 5:1; 7:2, 10; 10:22); unless Jesus goes secretly (7:10), he is about to return to the place where Judeans have been wishing to kill him (5:18; 7:1; 8:59; 10:31; 11:8,53). Even if one approached the Gospel unaware of the passion tradition (and most of John's original audience would not), one would recognize that, barring divine intervention (7:30; 8:20), his «hour» was soon at hand (12:23, 27; 13:1).

Many went to Jerusalem early to «purify themselves» before the festival (11:55; cf. 2:6; 3:25). Like other pilgrims, they probably joked and made merry on the way.⁷⁷⁴² But Diaspora Jews in particular would want to arrive early to purify themselves ritually; many could do it nowhere else (cf. Acts 21:24, 26; 24:18).⁷⁷⁴³ Many, especially those with corpse impurity, would need to arrive at least a week early.⁷⁷⁴⁴ Jesus needed no further purification (cf. 10:36), but nevertheless is near Jerusalem several days before the festival (12:1).

Those who were seeking him in the temple (11:56) probably included these Jewish people from outside Jerusalem (11:55) who remembered hearing Jesus at earlier recent feasts (thus presumably they were mostly Galileans rather than distant foreigners, who could make pilgrimage only rarely); in contrast to the leaders mentioned in 11:57, they do not appear uniformly hostile to Jesus. They had good reason to wonder whether he would come to the feast (11:56); although it was considered pious behavior to come, they were also aware that the leaders wanted to kill Jesus (11:57; cf. 8:59; 10:31; 11:8). Thus John again builds suspense as his narrative begins to climax in Jesus» final coming to, and suffering in, Jerusalem.

Even though Jesus» passion overshadows the entire body of the Gospel from ch. 2 on, fully one-third of the Gospel specifically occurs during the week of Jesus» execution, mostly in or near Jerusalem. This reflects and further augments the sort of emphasis on the passion that one finds in Mark. In contrast to most modern biographies, some ancient biographies devoted an extensive proportion of their space to events immediately preceding and surrounding their protagonists» deaths.⁷⁷⁴⁵

R. Alan Culpepper points to structural parallels between John 12 and 13:

As Culpepper notes, this repetition increases pathos.⁷⁷⁴⁶ The repetition also builds toward a climax, the discourse making Jesus» death and departure more explicit.

Most of ch. 12 is transitional, closing Jesus» public ministry and (with 11:45–57) leading into the Passion Narrative.⁷⁷⁴⁷

Mary's anointing at Bethany contrasts starkly with the preceding scene of calculated plans to have Jesus killed: «a supreme act of ignorant unbelief and a supreme act of intelligent faith.»⁷⁷⁴⁸ The smaller units (11:45–46, 54–57; 12:9–11) in this section underline the mixed response to Jesus; the two longest units, however, contrast the high priests (11:47–53) and Mary (12:1–8), while linking Judas with the attitude of the Judean elite (12:4–6).⁷⁷⁴⁹ After the leaders have plotted against Jesus» life (11:47–53), Mary lovingly anoints him for burial, Jesus is acclaimed king of Israel (12:13) as he will be at the cross (18:39; 19:3, 14–15, 19), and Jesus» brief discourse elaborates on his impending death (12:23–33), preparing the way for the Passion Narrative.⁷⁷⁵⁰

Different versions of the anointing story occur in the four canonical gospels. The differences in the accounts of the anointing among the Gospels may have arisen through oral traditions, which developed in different directions; different evangelists may have mixed different strands of the tradition.⁷⁷⁵¹ Similarities do, however, indicate common sources rather than free invention.⁷⁷⁵² Origen improbably suggested three anointings to harmonize the accounts,⁷⁷⁵³ but conflations from two basic anointing stories (which represent either variants of one original incident or a second incident imitating the first) seem far more likely.

The particular mixture of different traits suggests that the various writers may have conflated two different anointing stories, with Lukés story being the most distinctive (and characteristically Lukan). Moule, for instance, provides a basic summary comparison of some key elements:⁷⁷⁵⁴

As E. P. Sanders notes, «These stories probably rest on memories, though details have been exchanged and possibly confused.»⁷⁷⁵⁶ It would have been only natural that in the oral tradition some conflation between two anointing stories would occur; it would be equally natural that each evangelist, reporting only one incident, would employ the most suitable features of the anointings for his own account. Sanders thinks that John 12 may represent a composite between Luke 7 and the accounts in Matt 26/Mark 14, or the traditions associated with them.⁷⁷⁵⁷

The two stories we propose would be either divergent traditions stemming from one event,⁷⁷⁵⁸ or a second event in which a second woman probably followed the example of the first. In view of the likely pre-Markan divergence (except in his programmatic scene at Nazareth, Luke rarely takes such liberties as to rewrite an entire Markan narrative from scratch, and the Johannine account probably confirms the independent antiquity of some of its details), and in view of what most often seems accurate preservation of tradition in the early period (though this pattern would not preclude exceptions transmitted in different circumstances), two distinct anointings eventually conflated in the tradition seem more likely.⁷⁷⁵⁹

John probably reflects accurate and independent tradition here, not mere reliance on the Synoptics.⁷⁷⁶⁰ The specific association of the tradition with Mary sister of Martha almost certainly predates its appearance in the Fourth Gospe1. We know of Mary and Martha from Luke 10:38–42, and they appear to be known to John's audience as well (John 11:1). Further, the manner in which Mary's anointing was introduced in 11(see comment there) suggests that John's audience already knows a form of the tradition in which the person who anointed Jesus was Mary.

Because of the festival crowds (11:55),⁷⁷⁶¹ many pilgrims found overnight accommodation in nearby villages such as Bethany, as here (12:1).⁷⁷⁶² Some more well-to-do pilgrims may have brought their own tents to camp in during Passover,⁷⁷⁶³ but many people showed traveling teachers hospitality in return for teaching,⁷⁷⁶⁴ and Lazarus's family had been close to Jesus even before Lazarus's raising (11:3). The Synoptics also report his lodging in Bethany (Mark 11:11–12; Matt 21:17), but claim that it was in the house of one Simon the leper (Mark 14:3; Matt 26:6). One can debate whether Lazarus was a former leper also named Simon (double names were not uncommon);⁷⁷⁶⁵ Simon was the father of Lazarus, Mary and Martha; «leper» was a nickname (on nicknames see comment on 1:42) or a former state that Jesus had healed; or other possibilities. In any case, John has not likely simply transferred an earlier story to Lazarus and his sisters; as we have noted, his audience already seems to know about Mary as the one who anointed Jesus (11:2). The original source of that tradition may be inaccessible today, but is not simply a matter of John's theological interpretation.

Six days before the Passover (12:1) Jerusalem would already be filling, both for purification (11:55) and for Diaspora Jews making pilgrimage who could neither calculate the exact time of their arrival nor risk arriving late. In John's story world (in which Passover begins Friday evening; see 18:28; 19:14), this timing apparently indicates Saturday evening after sundown, when Martha could serve at table.⁷⁷⁶⁶ Yet Mark strongly implies that the anointing occurred two days before Passover (Mark 14:1–3). Some think that John corrects Mark on the basis of independent tradition;⁷⁷⁶⁷ whether the difference involves a deliberate correction or not, it does emphasize the independence of the tradition. Mark may have moved the anointing closer to Passover to clarify the connection or increase suspense, or to recount it after the fateful meeting of authorities, which he places two days before Passover (Mark 14:1–2) but which John places earlier (John 11:47–53). John may wish to begin passion week with the anointing; having recounted Jesus» conflicts in Jerusalem as early as 2:14–18, he now must bring the passion to an end quickly once Jesus enters the holy city. It is also possible, in view of an early Christian tradition concerning the transfiguration (Mark 9:2; Matt 17:1), that John uses the six days to allude to the waiting period for the revelation of God's glory at Sinai (Exod 24:16); at the Passover Jesus would be «glorified» (12:23–24), and his disciples would behold his glory as Moses had (1:14).⁷⁷⁶⁸ Less likely (though reflecting the Pentateuch's most frequent use of «six days») it refers to the period of work preceding a Sabbath (cf. John 19:14,31,42). The six days might also allow a careful interpreter to note the transition to the next day (12:12) and thus to suggest that Jesus entered Jerusalem on the day the Passover lambs were set aside (Exod 12:3), four days before their offering (Exod 12:6); but the lack of explicit chronological indication at the time of Jesus» entrance, when it would be most helpful to convey this point, renders unlikely the suggestion that John sought to communicate this impression.

The meal setting is probably a banquet celebrating Lazarus's resuscitation,⁷⁷⁶⁹ but may also foreshadow the implied meal setting of Jesus» pre-passion washing of his disciples» feet in ch. 13. Marthás «serving» (12:2) apparently reflects an activity for which Martha was known in the gospel tradition (Luke 10:40). Although the matter is unclear, it might also provide a model for, or a contrast with, the kind of humble service to which Jesus calls his followers (12:26, the Gospel's only other use of διακονέω).⁷⁷⁷⁰ The ultimate symbolic expression of service before the cross, however, is Jesus washing his disciples» feet (13:5, 14); the one disciple to carry this act out in this Gospel, even in advance of Jesus, is emphatically Mary (11:2; 12:3).

The measure of ointment here is a λίτρα, a Roman pound, close to twelve U.S. ounces or 324 grams.⁷⁷⁷¹ To have expended all this on Jesus» feet is an act of lavish devotion (though it contrasts for its simplicity with the sacrifice of a genuinely rich man in 19:39). That such ointment would have been «costly,» as John emphasizes (12:3, 5), would have been obvious. A wealthy person might give perfume at a banquet, poetically boasting that it smells sweeter than love itself so that the recipient will want to consist entirely of nose.⁷⁷⁷²

The term for «myrrh» normally indicates a perfume or ointment of myrrh, whether as a dried powder or liquid, made «from the gummy resin that exudes from a low shrubby balsam tree which grows in west-central South Arabia and in northern Somaliland.»⁷⁷⁷³ But like Mark (Mark 14:3), John uses the term more generically.⁷⁷⁷⁴ «Nard» refers to spikenard, a fragrant oil from the root of the nard plant of the mountains of northern India.⁷⁷⁷⁵ In the Mediterranean world, eastern nard remained the fare of the well-to-do.⁷⁷⁷⁶

A countercultural Cynic might anoint his feet rather than his head, so he could better inhale the unguent;⁷⁷⁷⁷ people also anointed feet on some other occasions, rare as these reports are.⁷⁷⁷⁸ Normally, however, one anointed kings, guests, or others on their heads;⁷⁷⁷⁹ that Mary anoints Jesus» feet (12:3; cf. Luke 7:38, 44–46, 48) indicates an even greater respect for Jesus (cf. Luke 10:39); she takes the posture of a servant (1:27; 13:5). (One may compare a later story in which one who wished to greatly honor R. Jonathan kissed his feet.)⁷⁷⁸⁰ That she also wipes Jesus» feet with her hair (12:3) reinforces this portrait of humble servitude; a woman's hair was her «glory» (1Cor 11:7) .⁷⁷⁸¹ Commentators often observe that it would have violated the Palestinian Jewish custom that required women to keep their heads covered.⁷⁷⁸² This custom obtained only for married women, however, and it is unclear that either Mary or Martha is married; given the nature of ancient sources, one would expect them to report if either was married, but we instead get the impression (though it is never explicit) that Mary and Martha live in their brother's home, and that if either had been married, they were not married now. They appear to be Lazarus's closest relatives (11:19–20), suggesting that all were unmarried (which might suggest their youth, and perhaps that Simon the leper in Mark 14was their deceased father); but John may simply omit extraneous characters and information, so we cannot say for certain.

Whether Mary was single or married, however, to use her prized feminine hair (see above) to wipe Jesus» feet, when normally only servants even touched the master's feet (see comment on 1:27), indicates the depth of her humble submission to and affection for Jesus.⁷⁷⁸³ Banqueters were known to wipe excess water or oil on the head or hair of servants; Mary seeks this servant's role as an expression of devotion to Jesus.⁷⁷⁸⁴ And given the taboos of the very pious against even speaking with women,⁷⁷⁸⁵ and undoubtedly the suspicions of most people when too much cross-gender affection between nonrelatives appeared in public, her action would probably seem immoral to many bystanders if they were present.⁷⁷⁸⁶ That the fragrance of anointing «filled the house» might recall the biblical image of God's glory filling his house when it was consecrated (Exod 40:34–35; 1 Kgs 8:10–11; on Jesus» consecration as a new temple, cf. perhaps John 10:36).

That Judas was already intending to betray Jesus by this point (12:4; 13:2) in the story is not unlikely. In John's story world, the opposition to Jesus is clear by this point, the sides are drawn (11:8), and the price of following Jesus is becoming clear (11:16). Even Paul's passion narrative may recall the act of betrayal (1Cor 11:23); nor is it a datum the early Christians are likely to have invented, shaming as it would be to Jesus in their cultural context.⁷⁷⁸⁷ That a betrayer was necessary suggests that it became difficult to locate Jesus when he was not teaching publicly.⁷⁷⁸⁸

That the ointment would have been expensive, perhaps an heirloom, beyond the means of most people, would have been obvious.⁷⁷⁸⁹ With Mark 14:5, John reports that the ointment's cost would have been nearly a year's wages for an average worker (12:5); it would be more than most women would inherit, and may represent Mary's entire inheritance (though given the fact that it may indicate a well-to-do Bethany family, it may not). Mary's devotion makes sense against the backdrop of her brother's restoration (the cause is less obvious in Matthew and Mark). Tradition assumes that disciples were sometimes entrusted with a rabbís funds.⁷⁷⁹⁰

John's remark that Judas was not concerned for the poor (12:6) underlines Judas's evil character; he employs the same term for «unconcerned» here as he earlier employed for the hirelings who did not care for the shepherd's flock in 10:13⁷⁷⁹¹–a context in which false leaders of the flock also earn the title «thief» (10:1, 8, 10; 12:6). Whereas Mark contrasts the costly devotion of the woman (Mark 14:3–9) with Judas's betrayal for money (Mark 14:10–11) by narrating them in succession, John implies the same contrast simply by transferring the tradition's general distaste of bystanders for the woman's sacrifice (Mark 14:4–5; disciples in Matt 26:8–9) to Judas (John 12:5) and mentioning his plans for betrayal (12:4) and his past theft (12:6).⁷⁷⁹² For Judas's retention of the money (12:6), which some apparently thought was going to the poor (13:29), see comment on 6:5; teachers sometimes assigned their disciples such roles (e.g., 4:8; Pesiq. Rah. 25:2). By the criterion of embarrassment, it is likely that Judas's role as treasurer stems from genuine historical tradition; appointing someone who misadministrated funds could be scandalous, all the more if the one who made the appointment were now claimed to be omniscient.⁷⁷⁹³

Jesus responds by defending Mary (12:7).⁷⁷⁹⁴ She may have intended the anointing as a royal anointing,⁷⁷⁹⁵ which fits the following context (12:13–15). But Jesus is enthroned king of the Jews on the cross (19:19), so a royal anointing is inseparable from an anointing for burial, to which Jesus somehow relates her act (12:7; see below).⁷⁷⁹⁶ People used perfumes to suppress a stench, including for corpses,⁷⁷⁹⁷ and often anointed corpses.⁷⁷⁹⁸ When executed criminals were buried, they usually would have been denied anointing; thus the anointing takes place in advance, by anticipation, in Matthew and Mark (Matt 26:12; Mark 14:8);⁷⁷⁹⁹ John's wording is more ambiguous because of a further anointing in 19:39–40.⁷⁸⁰⁰ The mention of Jesus» impending burial fits the suspense suggested by the hostility of the chief priests in the immediate context (11:57; 12:10).

After explicitly noting that Judas's own concern was nothing so pious as care for the poor (12:6), John cites the same tradition which also appears in Mark (Mark 14:7): they will always have opportunity to serve the poor, but not always to serve Jesus while he is with them in the flesh (12:8). Jewish society did not imagine that it could eliminate poverty, but did stress its relief;⁷⁸⁰¹ Jesus here alludes to Deut 15:11, which in context promises that God will supply the needs of all the people if they cared for the poor; but the poor would never depart from the land.⁷⁸⁰² The context does not permit neglect of the poor, either in Deuteronomy or in John (13:29; cf. 1 John 3:17); but in the gospels which record the saying, the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus and/or the urgency of serving him while he remains with them, since he was soon to depart.

The narrative (12:10–11) rings with irony: Jesus went to Judea, risking his life to give life to Lazarus; now Lazarus's new life may cost him his life. The paradigm for disciples could not be clearer: those who would follow Jesus must be prepared to die (12:25,27), for the world will hate them and wish to kill them (15:18; 16:2). But faith would not be decreased by such martyrdom-producing new life; the sign of Lazarus's new life brought others to faith (12:11; cf. 11:45,48).