Resurrection of Lazarus only mentioned by John, not others, why?

by VM44 85 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  PSacramento

  If in the GOJ the disciple whom Jesus loved is Lazarus, we are left to contemplate WHY his name it is not mentioned so, and why his name is not used anywhere else, and how could he know what was going on when he was not there, and a few other points too.

  Of course there is no indication that Jesus loved only ONE disciple and I doubt that he did, though he seemed to have a fondness for Peter, James and John, they were there st his transfiguration. Certianly the writer of the GOJ could be alluding to different people at differen times.

  Where is Lazarus identififed as Simon?
• 

  donuthole

  PSacramento one of the interesting things about the GOJ is that it omits some of the more famous stories of the Zebedee brothers that the other gospels include. It also doesn't include some of the miraculous Galilean stories but instead has some unique Judean stories. Further it provides a more detailed looked at Jesus' dealings with the family of Lazarus in Bethany.

  Certainly Jesus had affection for all of his apostles but there in only one disciple in GOJ that is he is specifically said to have loved and that is Lazarus. If you stripped the book of the title (which was added later) and just read through it you could come to no other conclusion that the disciple who Jesus loved was Lazarus.
• 

  PSacramento

  That would mean that Lazarus was the one at the last supper, that Lazarus was the one at the tomb with Peter and that Lazarus was the one who took care of Jesus's mother.
• 

  PSacramento

  Of course we can keep it simple and suggest that Lzarus was indeed the disciple that Jesus loved and that He AND John were the writers of the GOJ, since Lazarus wasn;t there all the time and John was, but Lazarus was at the crucifiction when the 12 were not and we can also suggest that John, the elder may have been the editor.
• 

  donuthole

  That would mean that Lazarus was the one at the last supper, that Lazarus was the one at the tomb with Peter and that Lazarus was the one who took care of Jesus's mother.

  I don't know if the meal in the GOJ was the "last supper", there is a curious absence of the ceremony involving the bread and wine. I don't know about whether or not it is. When Jesus visited Judea he stayed at Lazarus' house in Bethany. But per the custom of the day the guest of honor, Jesus, would have been seated next to the man of the house, Lazarus.

  I don't find this necessarily a compelling argument, but the other disciple's arrival at the tomb before Peter may indicate that he knew the area better being a resident thereof.

  As said, Lazarus' house in Bethany was where Jesus lay his head. It isn't unreasonable that he would entrust Mary into the care of his dear friends. The account says he took her to his home. In the book of Acts, Mary is in Judea, not Galilee.

  But for the sake of discussion, let's assume that the "other disciple" was John the Apostle. How is it that John was known to the High Priest and had access to his courtyard? Not that likely for a rural fisherman from Galilee but more reasonable for Lazarus that had connections with the priests. He even had some at his burial.
• 

  PSacramento

  I see you are getting your information from Ben Witherington, I have read this also and I can see some of the weight it carries.

  You mention the issue of the High priest, but let us not forget that the last place Lazarus would wan't to be is NEAR the High priest or those looking to kill him, as the very GOJ mentions.

  I think that what we have is a true collaberation of John and Lazarus, which would explain the things that Lazarus wasn't a part of and those that John wasn't, also can explain some omissions too perhaps.

  The issue of whether the supper in John is THE last supper is a tough one since John makes no mention of "bread and wine", Since that was already dealt with before, but it DOES mention Judas' betrayal and the subsequent capture of Jesus.

  Order of progression is something that the writer(s) of the GOJ didn't focus too much on, or [erhaps the editor(s).
• 

  donuthole

  I see you are getting your information from Ben Witherington, I have read this also and I can see some of the weight it carries.

  I found it to be pretty persuasive when I read it last year. However, I held off judgement until I heard from a more authoritative source.

  You mention the issue of the High priest, but let us not forget that the last place Lazarus would wan't to be is NEAR the High priest or those looking to kill him, as the very GOJ mentions.

  To the contrary I think it is perfect. It contrasts Lazarus' bravery with Peter's cowardice. This is further shown when none of the other 12 stay by Jesus side during the execution but Lazarus is there.

  The issue of whether the supper in John is THE last supper is a tough one since John makes no mention of "bread and wine", Since that was already dealt with before, but it DOES mention Judas' betrayal and the subsequent capture of Jesus.

  Yes I agree that the mention of Judas' betrayal does lean toward it being the same the event despite the curious absence of the "bread and wine".

  Order of progression is something that the writer(s) of the GOJ didn't focus too much on, or [erhaps the editor(s).

  Yeah I'm not sure about the order of things. For instance GOJ places the cleansing of the temple at the start of the ministry whereas the other gospels have it at the end. So you either have the same event happening twice or one account is incorrect.

  There are also some weird timing disagreements that I haven't been able to reconcile. GOJ has Jesus being executed before the passover meal while the other gospels have it afterword.
• 

  AGuest

  Greetings, dearest PSacto and Donuthole... and peace to you both! Since you two seem to having a most lively... and kind... discussion between you... I will bow out. I will leave you both with the thought, however, that you don't HAVE to rely on what is written... but can simply go to the One who would know about ALL of these things. Yes? Also, before I go, I would like to address one thing said by each of you, if I may. Dear PSacto, you asked:

  Where is Lazarus identififed as Simon?

  I offer the following:

  1. Simon... the "leper"... lived in Bethany (Mathew 26:6)

  2. Lazarus... who was "sick"... lived in Bethany (John 11:1)

  3. Mary, Lazarus' sister, is the "woman" who wiped the feet of my Lord with her tears and hear... and greased the head of my Lord with expensive/perfumed oil... in "Simon [the leper's]" house (Matthew 26:7; Mark 14:3; John 11:2; John 12:3)

  4. While Matthew and Mark refer to the householder as "Simon"... John makes no mention of this "Simon" but does mention "Lazarus" in the exact same setting (i.e., whose house they were staying in, as evidenced by Martha's "ministering" to them). Why would Martha minister (i.e., prepare and serve the meal, etc.) in another man's house? Why would not THAT man's wife/servants do so? And why would Mary also be there?

  5. Lazarus is the ONLY one who is directly identified as the one who my Lord loved/had affection for (John 11:3, 36)

  6. Would Christ really NOT choose, as his disciple, someone he loved... had affection for... preferred... the one he actually shed tears over?

  I offer to you that Lazarus is the same as Simon, the leper... who is the same as Simon... the Zealot (i.e., which is the English word for the Greek word, "kananios"... which has been mistransliterated into "Canaanite" or "Cananae'an" both of which are errors). I also offer that I have not read Ben Witherington... but share with you what I received from my Lord, after another dear one asked me about it as a result of what HE read by Mr. Witherington.

  Dear Donuthole... you state:

  GOJ has Jesus being executed before the passover meal while the other gospels have it afterword.

  I am not sure I "see" that in the account, dear one. My understanding is that the account recorded at John 13:1-30 corresponds with the account recorded at Matthew 26:17-30, as corroborated by what is recorded at John 13:26, 27 and Matthew 26:21-23. I do believe that what is recorded at John 14:1-16:33 took place DURING the meal, not after... but not the prayer of Chapter 17; my understanding is that that took place AFTER they left the meal and was the prayer he made while he was in Gethsemane.

  In relation to what you state here, though, my Lord was not impaled until AFTER the meal (recorded in Chapter 13), as shown starting at John 19:14. Can you clarify, please? Thank you!

  And, again, peace to you both!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  PSacramento

  Hi Shelby,

  Hmm, interesting view on Lazarus being Simon, thouhg I recall someone mentioning that Simon was his father.

  I am not sure why John would have played fast and lose with Lazarus being a leper, not sure why he wouldn't just say it outright and Lazarus must have ben sick for VERY long to die of leprosy, but if he was cured then he couldn't have died from leporosy anyways, I guess it must have been somehting else ( Poor Lazarus, what a run of bad health).

  It seems to me that, IF Lazarus was the beloved disciple and that is quite the possibility, then he could NOT have been the sole source for the GOJ since he wasn;t with Jesus all the time, far less than the others it seems.

  So it seems that the most plausable explanation is TWO sourse ( at least), the beloved disciple ( Lazarus) and John.
• 

  donuthole

  Interesting discussion, despite my intentions otherwise I can't help but to continue on ... :-) Here is an interesting story:

  Simon the Leper was originally cured of his illness by Jesus. He is the man that leper Jesus had great compassion for. He went and showed himself to the priest per instruction from Jesus, though warned not tell about Jesus. That is how Lazarus originally became known to the priests. At that time he changed him name to Lazarus (God Has Helped). He and his family (Mary & Martha) relocated to nearby Bethany, where the poor and invalid stayed. As PSacremento said, "poor lazarus, had a run of bad health", and he succumbs to another unspecified illness resulting in death. When Jesus arrives to raise him, Mary in her grief says that had Jesus been there he would have been healed. She is well aware of his earlier miracle which resulted in her brother being cleansed of his skin disease. Lazarus is now in "third heaven", "paradise", "abraham's bosom", whatever you want to call it. Jesus resurrects Lazarus and there is much rejoicing. Well not from the Jewish leaders because they now know that Lazarus in league with this Jesus character that is becoming a problem for them. So they opt to kill them both. Jesus is arrested. Lazarus trails him with Peter to the priest's house. Lazarus gains access to the courtyard because the gatekeeper knew of him, the cured leper. The gatekeeper didn't get the memo that Lazarus was a wanted man. Peter runs off and Lazarus stays by his lord, eventually ending up at the execution site. Jesus is raised from the dead and tells Peter that he will have die for his sake. Peter asks about Lazarus. Jesus indicates that if he wants Lazarus to live until he returns what business is to Peter. The rumor starts that Lazarus will not die - why should he? He has already been resurrected once before by Jesus himself. Later Lazarus settles in Asia Minor, he orally provides his personal testimony, maybe he writes it down. He dies and the community is dissapointed because they didn't think he would. Whoever (John the Elder?) compiles Lazarus' memoirs gives testimony to their truthfulness but also seeks to clear up the confusion about their brother's death. The end.

  Peace and love.