BOOK IV In the earlier editions of his Vie de Jésus of Miracles, ultimately involves a denial of a Living, Reigning God. For, the existence of a God implies at least the possibility, in certain circumstances it may be the rational necessity, of Miracles. And the same grounds of experience, which tell against the occurrence of a Miracle, would equally apply against belief in a God. We have as little ground in experience (of a physical kind) for the one as for the other. This is not said to deter inquiry, but for the sake of our argument. For, we confidently assert and challenge experiment of it, that disbelief in a God, or Materialism, involves infinitely more difficulties, and that at every step and in regard to all things, than the faith of the Christian. But we instinctively feel that such a Miracle as the raising of Lazarus calls for more than merely logical formulas. Heart and mind crave for higher than questions of what may be logically possible or impossible. We want, so to speak, living evidence, and we have it. We have it, first of all, in the Person of the Incarnate God, Who not only came to abolish death, but in Whose Presence the continuance of disease and death was impossible. And we have it also in the narrative of the event itself. It were, indeed, an absurd demand to prove a Miracle, since to do so were to show that it was not a Miracle. But we may be rationally asked these three things: first, to show, that no other explanation is rationally possible than that which proceeds on the ground of its being a Miracle; secondly, to show, that such a view of it is consistent with itself and all the details of the narrative; and, thirdly, that it is harmonious with what precedes and what follows the narrative. The second and third of these arguments will be the outcome of our later study of the history of this event; the first, that no other explanation of the narrative is rationally possible, must now be briefly attempted. We may here dismiss, as what would not be entertained by any one familiar with historical inquiries, the idea that such a narrative could be an absolute invention, ungrounded on any fact. Again, we may put aside as repugnant to, at least English, common sense, the theory that the narrative is consistent with the idea that Lazarus was not really dead (the Rationalists). Nor would any one, who had the faintest sympathy with the moral standpoint of the Gospels, entertain the view of M. Renan, that it was all a 'pious fraud' concocted between all parties, and that, in order to convert Jerusalem by a signal miracle, Lazarus had himself dressed up as a dead body and laid in the family tomb. Scarcely more rational is M. Renan's latest suggestion, that it was all a misunderstanding: Martha and a VARIOUS VIEWS IN REGARD TO THE RAISING OF LAZARUS. Mary having told Jesus the wish of friends, that He should do some notable miracle to convince the Jews, suggesting that they would believe if one rose from the dead, when He had replied, that they would not believe even if Lazarus rose from his grave—and that tradition had transformed this conversation into an actual event! Nor, finally, would English common sense readily believe (with Baur), that the whole narrative was an ideal composition to illustrate what must be regarded as the metaphysical statement: 'I am the Resurrection and the Life.' Among ourselves, at least, no serious refutation of these and similar views can be necessary. Nor do the other theories advanced require lengthened discussion. The mythical explanation of Strauss is, that as the Old Testament had recorded instances of raising from the dead, so Christian tradition must needs ascribe the same to the Messiah. To this (without repeating the detailed refutation made by Renan and Baur), it is sufficient to reply: The previous history of Christ had already offered such instances, why needlessly multiply them? Besides, if it had been 'a legend,' such full and minute details would not have been introduced, and while the human element would have been suppressed, the miraculous would have been far more accentuated. Only one other theory on the subject requires notice: that the writer of the Fourth Gospel, or rather early tradition, had transformed the Parable of Dives and Lazarus into an actual event. In answer, it is sufficient to say: first, that (as previously shown) there is no connection between the Lazarus of the Parable and him of Bethany; secondly, that, if it had been a Parable transformed, the characters chosen would not have been real persons, and that they were such is evident from the mention of the family in different circumstances in the three Synoptic Gospels, of which the writer of the Fourth Gospel was fully aware. Lastly, as Godet remarks, whereas the Parable closes by declaring that the Jews would not believe even if one rose from the dead, the Narrative closes on this wise: Many therefore of the Jews, which came to Mary and beheld that which He did, believed on Him.'' a I do not quite understand, whether or not Dr. Abbott (Encycl. Brit., Art. 'Gospels,' pp. 837, 838) holds the 'historical accuracy' of this narrative. Nor yet do I understand such commentation of it as he gives. In a foot-note he disclaims its 'complete discussion' as foreign to the purpose of his essay. He refers us, however, to the Parable of Dives and C6 Lazarus, together with the comments on BOOK IV In view of these proposed explanations, we appeal to the impartial reader, whether any of them rationally accounts for the origin and existence of this history in Apostolic tradition? On the other hand, everything is clear and consistent on the supposition of the historical truth of this narrative: the minuteness of details; the vividness and pictorialness of the narrative; the characteristic manner in which Thomas, Martha, and Mary speak and act, in accordance with what we read of them in the other Gospels or in other parts of this Gospel; the Human affection of the Christ; the sublime simplicity and majesty of the manner of the Miracle; and the effects of it on friend and foe. There is, indeed, this one difficulty (not objection), that the event is not mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels. But we know too little of the plan on which the Gospels, viewed as Lives of Christ, were constructed, to allow us to draw any sufficient inference from the silence of the Synoptists, whilst we do know that the Judæan and Jerusalem Ministry of Christ, except so far as it was absolutely necessary to refer to it, lay outside the plan of the Synoptic Gospels, and formed the special subject of that by St. John. Lastly, we should remember, that in the then state of thought the introduction of another narrative of raising from the dead could not have seemed to them of such importance as it appears to us in the present state of controversy-more especially, since it was so soon to be followed. by another Resurrection the importance and evidential value of which far overshadowed such an event as the raising of Lazarus. Their Galilean readers had the story of the raising of the widow's son at Nain, and of Jairus' daughter at Capernaum; and the Roman world had not only all this, but the preaching of the Resurrection, and of pardon and life in the Name of the Risen One, together with ocular demonstration of the miraculous power of those who preached it. It remained for the beloved disciple, who alone stood under the Cross, alone to stand on that height from which he had first and intense outlook upon His Death, and the Life which sprang from it, and flowed into all the world. We may now, undisturbed by objections, surrender ourselves to the sublimeness and solemnity of this narrative. Perhaps the more briefly we comment on it the better. It was while in Peræa, that this message suddenly reached the Master from the well-remembered home at Bethany, 'the village of Mary'-for obvious reasons, although the younger, she is first mentioned in this history- and her sister Martha,' concerning their (younger) brother Lazarus: Lord, behold he whom Thou lovest is 313 CHAP. XXI 38 &c. DEATH OF LAZARUS AND ITS IMPRESSION ON THE SISTERS. sick! They are apparently the very words which the sisters' bade their messenger tell. We note as an important fact to be stored in our memory, that the Lazarus, who had not even been mentioned in the only account preserved to us of a previous visit of Christ to Bethany, is described as 'he whom Christ loved.' What a gap of St. Luke x. untold events between the two visits of Christ to Bethany-and what modesty should it teach us as regards inferences from what is not recorded in the Gospels! The messenger was apparently dismissed with this reply: "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, in order that the Son of God may be glorified thereby.' We must here bear in mind, that this answer was heard by such of the Apostles as were present at the time.' They would naturally infer from it that Lazarus would not die, and that his restoration would glorify Christ, either as having foretold it, or prayed for it, or effected it by His Will. Yet its true meaning, even, as we now see, its literal interpretation was, that its final upshot was not to be the death of Lazarus, but that it was to be for the glory of God, in order that Christ as the Son of God might be made manifest. And we learn, how much more full are the Words of Christ than they often appear to us; and how truly, and even literally, they may bear quite another meaning than appears to our honest misapprehension of thema meaning which only the event, the future, will disclose. 2 And yet, probably at the very time when the messenger received his answer, and ere he could have brought it to the sisters, Lazarus was already dead! Nor-and this should be specially marked-did this awaken doubt in the minds of the sisters. We seem to hear the very words which at the time they said to each other, when each of them afterwards repeated it to the Lord: Lord, if Thou hadst been here, my brother would not have died.' They probably thought the message had reached Him too late, that Lazarus would have lived if Christ had been appealed to in time, or had been able to come at any rate, if He had been there. Even in their keenest pang, there was no failure of trust, no doubt, no close weighing of words on their part-only the confidence of love. Yet all this while Christ knew that Lazarus had died, and still He continued two whole days where He was, finishing His work. And yet-and this is significantly noted before anything else, alike in regard to His delay From the non-mention of Peter and the prominence of Thomas it seems at least doubtful, whether all the Apostles were there. 2 According to the best reading, the words are the same, but the position of BOOK IV and to His after-conduct-He loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.' Had there been no after-history, or had it not been known to us, or before it became known, it might have seemed otherwise and in similar circumstances it often does seem to us otherwise. And again, what majestic calm, what self-restraint of Human affections and sublime consciousness of Divine Power in this delay: it is Christ once more asleep, while the disciples are despairing, in the bark almost swamped in the storm! Christ is never in haste: least of all, on His errands of love. And He is never in haste, because He is always sure. It was only after these two days that Christ broke silence as to His purposes and as to Lazarus. Though thoughts of him must have been present with the disciples, none dared ask aught, although not from misgiving, nor yet from fear. This also of faith and of confidence. At last, when His work in that part had been completed, He spoke of leaving, but even so not of going to Bethany, but into Judæa. For, in truth, His work in Bethany was not only geographically, but really, part of His work in Judæa; and He told the disciples of His purpose, just because He knew their fears and would teach them, not only for this but for every future occasion, what principle applied to them. For when, in their care and affection, they reminded the 'Rabbi'—and the expression here almost jars on us— that the Jews were even now seeking to stone' Him, He replied by telling them, in figurative language, that we have each our working day from God, and that while it lasts no foe can shorten it or break up our work. The day had twelve hours, and while these lasted no mishap would befall him that walked in the way [he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world]. It was otherwise when the day was past and the night had come. When our God-given day has set, and with it the light been withdrawn which hitherto prevented our stumbling-then, if a man went in his own way and at his own time, might such mishap befall him, 'because,' figuratively as to light in the night-time, and really as to guidance and direction in the way, 'the light is not in him.' But this was only part of what Jesus said to His disciples in preparation for a journey that would issue in such tremendous consequences. He next spoke of Lazarus, their 'friend,' as 'fallen asleep'in the frequent Jewish (as well as Christian) figurative sense of it,' and of His going there to wake him out of sleep. The disciples would naturally connect this mention of His going to As to the Jewish usus of the expression 'sleep' for death, see Book III. chap. xxvi. |