THE LAZARUS MIRACLE
Amongst the "miracles" attributed to Jesus, very special importance
must be attached to the raising of Lazarus at Bethany. Everything
combines to assign a prominent position in the New Testament to that
which is here related by the Evangelist. We must bear in mind that St. John alone relates it, the Evangelist who by the weighty words with which he opens his Gospel claims for it a very definite interpretation.
St. John begins with these sentences: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was a God.... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, a glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."
One who places such words at the beginning of his narrative is
plainly indicating that he wishes it to be interpreted in a very deep
sense. The man who approaches it with merely intellectual
explanations, or otherwise in a superficial way, is like one who
thinks that Othello on the stage really murders Desdemona. What then
is it that St. John means to say in his introductory words? He plainly
says that he is speaking of something eternal, which existed at the
beginning of things. He relates facts, but they are not to be taken as
facts observed by the eye and ear, and upon which logical reason
exercises its skill. He hides behind facts the "Word" which is in the
Cosmic Spirit. For him, the facts are the medium in which a higher
meaning is expressed. And we may therefore assume that in the fact of
a man being raised from the dead, a fact which offers the greatest
difficulties to the eye, ear, and logical reason, the very deepest
meaning lies concealed.
Another thing has to be taken into consideration. Renan, in his Life
of Jesus, has pointed out that the raising of Lazarus undoubtedly had
a decisive influence on the end of the life of Jesus. Such a thought
appears impossible from the point of view which Renan takes. For why
should the fact that the belief was being circulated amongst the
populace that Jesus had raised a man from the dead appear to his
opponents so dangerous that they asked the question, "Can Jesus and
Judaism exist side by side?" It does not do to assert with Renan: "The
other miracles of Jesus were passing events, repeated in good faith and
exaggerated by popular report, and they were thought no more of after
they had happened. But this one was a real event, publicly known, and
by means of which it was sought to silence the Pharisees. All the
enemies of Jesus were exasperated by the sensation it caused. It is
related that they sought to kill Lazarus." It is incomprehensible why
this should be if Renan were right in his opinion that all that
happened at Bethany was the getting up of a mock scene, intended to
strengthen belief in Jesus. "Perhaps Lazarus, still pale from his
illness, had himself wrapped in a shroud and laid in the family grave. These tombs were large rooms hewn out of the rock, and entered by a square opening which was closed by an immense slab. Martha and Mary hastened to meet Jesus, and brought him to the grave before he had entered Bethany. The painful emotion felt by Jesus at the grave of the friend whom he believed to be dead (John xi. 33, 38) might be taken by those present for the agitation and tremors which were wont to accompany miracles. According to popular belief, divine power in a man was like an epileptic and convulsive element. Continuing the above hypothesis, Jesus wished to see once more the man he had loved, and the stone having been rolled away, Lazarus came forth in his grave-clothes, his head bound with a napkin. This apparition naturally was looked upon by every one as a resurrection. Faith knows no other law than the interest of what it holds to be true." Does not such an explanation appear absolutely naïve, when Renan adds the following opinion: "Everything seems to suggest that the miracle of Bethany materially contributed to hasten the death of Jesus"? Yet there is undoubtedly an accurate perception underlying this last assertion of Renan. But with the means at his disposal he is not able to interpret or justify his opinion.