Angry Jesus and Lazarus the Leader

Re-Reading the Raising of Lazarus, Part 2

This is part 2 of a three-part series on John 11 and the story of Lazarus. In case you missed it, see part 1.

---

Lazarus, by Jacob Epstein, 1948 (Chapel of New College, Oxford)

In defense of the length of this post/newsletter/article, and hopefully to encourage you to persevere, I want to start with a long quote from Wes Howard-Brook, an attorney-turned-theologian/social-activist and one of my favorite interpreters of John. This comes from his lenten study John’s Gospel & the Renewal of the Church:

“The passages we hear proclaimed from the fourth gospel during this season [of lent] veil their wisdom in a thick mist of metaphor and irony. They offer not pithy aphorisms to be printed on prayer cards but the invitation and challenge of following the course of the fourth gospel from beginning to end. In our ‘sound-bite culture’ this can seem like a roundabout, even frustrating process. Can’t we just ‘cut to the chase’ and skip all the narrative nuance and dramatic detail? The attempt to subvert the process of prayerful study and reflection, however, will not bear ‘fruit for eternal life’ (Jn 4:36; cf. 15:16). It merely extends the endless battle of quotations, in which the gospel is used as a weapon to fire at those whom we perceive as the causes of ‘sin.’ The alternative process may require more initial energy but will reward us in the end with the opening of blind eyes and the emergence of life from dark tombs.”¹

This post will require energy, but I trust there is reward in the end: uncovering additional layers in this story that simultaneously comfort spiritual abuse survivors and also challenge oppressive religious leadership.

As explained in part one, the beginning of John 11 links the narrative of 11:1-46 with 12:1-11. This invites readers to reread the Lazarus narrative in light of the narrative of Mary anointing Jesus, which ends with explicit mention of the death warrant placed on Lazarus.² Not only is this rereading, it is intertextual reading: reading separate texts as connected and related, resulting in additional significance and meaning. If you’ve read any of my prior work on John, you’re used to this. We will consider, first, intratextual reading within John, and then intertextual reading with the OT and apocrypha.

Jesus Snorted and Wept

Taking our cue from 11:2 to reread ch. 11 in light 12:1-11, what stands out? How about the powerful emotions that Jesus displays in v. 33, 35, and 38? 11:33 is notoriously difficult to translate and interpret. Here is

Scot McKnight

’s literal translation:

“Therefore, Yēsous, as he saw her wailing and the Youdaians coming with her wailing, he snorted in spirit and agitated himself.”

The CSB translates those emotion words “deeply moved in his spirit and troubled.” Clearly Jesus is experiencing emotion. But what emotion(s)?

John 11:35, famous for being the shortest verse in the Bible (whatever that’s worth), says “Jesus wept.” This is interpreted positively by “the Jews”: “So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” (v. 36). Notably, this is not an omniscient interpretation from the narrator; it is an interpretation from the Ioudaioi, an ambiguous group whose collective identity and characteristics are fluid throughout the Gospel (seen especially at the end of this story, vv. 45-46). Jesus clearly loved Lazarus (v. 3, 5), but can his affective display in vv. 33 and 35 be summed up in one word, love? The subsequent narrative in 11:45-12:11 invites the careful reader to question the interpretation from the Ioudaioi.³

As many scholars note, the word for “deeply moved,” embrimaomai, typically signifies anger. Why would Jesus be angry? Why would he be troubled? Common answers are a) anger at unbelief and/or b) anger at death. But intratextual rereading invites additional options. Edward Wong connects these emotions to the result of Jesus’ miracle:

“It is worth noting that the way that Jesus is “troubled” [etaraksen] in 11:33 may not be directly caused by grievance of Lazarus’ death or sympathy with the mourners, but related to the way that Jesus is aware that he has to raise Lazarus to reveal God’s glory (11:40-41), which will consequently trigger the legitimization of his own death (11:45-53).”⁴

Raising Lazarus leads to Jesus’ death, a prospect which leaves Jesus again “troubled” in 12:27. But raising Lazarus also leads to the death warrant placed on Lazarus (12:10-11). Surely Jesus’ complex emotions also related to that development? I believe Jesus was angry, troubled, and shed tears because (at least in part) he knew that the religious bullies would try to kill Lazarus after and because Jesus raised him from the dead. In other words, Jesus’ troubled anger is especially directed at the Ioudaioi. If that sounds like a stretch, let’s expand our reflection to the OT.

Indignant and Angry

As many of my readers know, John doesn’t just use intertexts within his Gospel (eg, 11:1-57 and 12:1-11, which is technically intratextuality, interrelation between passages in the same book). He also pulls in texts from Jewish Scripture and other sacred texts to illuminate and add additional meaning to his narratives. This is clear in the immediately preceding section of 10:22-39 where he alludes to the festival of Hanukkah and the texts of Maccabees. We’ll explore some potential (likely) Maccabean connections in a minute, but first, there might be an allusion in Jesus’ snorting anger. That verb, embrimaomai, does not occur in the Septuagint (LXX)⁵, but a noun form does, embrimēma, in Lamentations 2:6 (significantly, the only occurrence in the OT). Here is the NETS translation⁶:

And he tore down his covert like a vine;
he ruined his feast;
the Lord made feast and sabbath to be forgotten in Sion,
and he provoked in the indignation [embrimēma] of his anger
king and priest and ruler.

Notice the following connections. The word for “covert” is skēnōma, related to similar key words in John which reference the OT tradition of God tabernacling with his people.⁷ The mention of tabernacle and feast in Lam 2:6 suggests continuity with John 5-10 which is all about Sabbath and the Jewish feasts of Passover, Tabernacles, and Hanukkah. The Jewish leaders were provoked by Jesus multiple times in relation to these feasts, including the most recent feast of Hanukkah/Dedication:

• Again the Jews picked up rocks to stone him. (10:31)

• “We aren’t stoning you for a good work,” the Jews answered, “but for blasphemy, because you-being a man-make yourself God.” (10:33)

• Then they were trying again to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. (10:39)

Lam 2:6 says that the provocation of the rulers was caused by “the indignation of [God’s] anger,” and anger is a pervasive theme all throughout Lam 2. The emphasis on anger and provocation make this a likely allusion through the embrimaomai/embrimēma connection. Jesus, like the Lord of Lamentations, is angry at the ruling class of religious leaders.

Perhaps the reasons for God’s anger in Lamentations also illuminates Jesus’ anger. Lam 2:14 says, “Your prophets saw for you what is worthless and foolishness, and they did not expose your injustice, to turn your captivity around” (NETS). “The Jews” are unrepentantly set on injustice in their persecution of God’s Son. Additionally, consider Lam 2:10: “They sat on the ground; elders of daughter Sion were silent; they brought up dust on their head; they girded themselves with sackcloth; they brought down to the ground leading young women of Jerusalem.” This sounds like “the Jews” who “had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them about their brother” (11:19). Howard-Brook writes,

“Throughout the gospel, as we have seen, Judeans [Ioudaioi] stands for all those who depend upon and support the status quo in Judea, as defined by the Jerusalem elite. The fact that these Judeans are described as having come from the capital city suggests that they are other than simply family and village friends who help grieve the loss of a loved one. Rather, they are professional mourners…What the text alerts us to is not the inappropriateness of these Judeans mourners at the family home but of their inherent resistance to Jesus. The Judean burial ethos has filled the sisters’ home with those who would cause further mourning in the house if they knew that Jesus was nearby. In order to receive the support of their beloved friend [Jesus], the sisters must leave their own home to journey to a different safety zone.”⁸

That’s a long quote. What Howard-Brook is essentially saying is that “the Jews” who cry in alleged support of Martha and Mary are not actually trustworthy. As one scholar suggests, maybe “the Jews” were crying hypocritical crocodile tears.⁹

This focus of God’s anger at religious leaders is also seen in Lam 2:20 where Jeremiah asks God, “Will you kill in your holy precinct of the Lord priest and prophet?” That is exactly what “the Jews” will end up doing to Jesus, the Priest and Prophet of God who is the holy precinct of the Lord.

Another pervasive theme in Lam 2 is grief. Eg:

“They sat on the ground; elders of daughter Sion were silent; they brought up dust on their head; they girded themselves with sackcloth; they brought down to the ground leading young women of Jerusalem. [11] My eyes failed in tears; my stomach churned; my honor was poured out on the ground because of the fracture of the daughter of my people, as infant and suckling fail in city squares.” (Lam 2:10-11)

“Their heart cried out to the Lord: O walls of Sion! Bring down tears like wadis [streams/rivers] day and night! Give yourself no calming down! May your eye not be silent, O daughter!” (Lam 2:18)

These repeated references to “young women” and “daughter Sion” suggest a symbolic connection to Martha and Mary (cf Lam 2:1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21). Perhaps they represent Daughter Zion, weeping and mourning in the face of death and judgment. “The Jews,” the Ioudaioi, who later coalesce into the chief priests and Pharisees (11:47), are the “king and priest and ruler” of Lam 2:6.

What about Lazarus? Does he, like so many figures in John, serve a representative function? I believe so.¹⁰

Lazarus the Leader

Lazarus is a Greek form of the name Eleazar, which was “one of the two most common priestly names in Jewish antiquity.”¹¹ If the name Lazarus is easily associated with priests, then perhaps he represents someone in authority/leadership, providing an ironic contrast to “king and priest and ruler” in Lam 2.¹² The connection between Lazarus and Eleazar also suggests an apocryphal allusion that helps us see additional layers to this story and how John’s audience might have read it.

As mentioned, the section just before ch. 11 in John 10:22-39 used direct allusions to Maccabees (on which, see this post). Because there is a prominent Eleazar in 2 Macc 6, I believe John’s audience would have considered the interplay between the Maccabees text and the Lazarus narrative. There are significant echoes.

In 2 Maccabees 6, Eleazar is a scribe who boldly faced death rather than comply when Antiochus IV forced Jews to eat pork or be tortured and killed. Notably, in his martyrdom speech there is an echo of Jesus’ words in John 13:15, “For I have given you an example [hypodeigma], that you also should do just as I have done for you.” Eleazar says, “and I will leave to the young a noble example [hypodeigma] of how to die a good death willingly and nobly for the revered and holy laws” (2 Macc 6:28). While the literal example Jesus gives is foot washing, that action is symbolic and represents his willing surrender to death.

Additionally, In 11:51 John explains Caiaphas’ prophecy: “He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation.” This echoes 2 Macc 6:31: “So in this way he [Eleazar] died, leaving in his death an example [hypodeigma] of nobility and a memorial of courage, not only to the young but to the great body of his nation.”

John provides another layer of meaning through this connection between Lazarus, the Eleazar of Maccabees, and Jesus. Just as Jesus predicted that his disciples would be persecuted because he chose them (15:19-20), Lazarus was persecuted because Jesus raised him (12:10-11). Naturally, Jesus’ disciples and John’s audience would hear Lazarus’ story and think #metoo. His story likely emboldened the early Johannine community just as Eleazar emboldened his Jewish people.

Just after Eleazar’s death, 2 Macc 7 tells of seven brothers who all faced similar martyrdom, accepting persecution and death rather than caving to empire and violating their religion. Notably, these brothers used the promise of resurrection to face death. This is repeated multiple times, but here’s one example. Before the second brother was killed he said, “you [the Seleucid king] dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life” (2 Macc 7:9; see similar statements in 7:11, 13, 23, 29).¹³

These similar themes between 2 Macc 6-7 and John 11-13, and the connection in Lazarus/Eleazar, make the fact that Lazarus never speaks suggestive. So much of the narrative centers on him, but he has no words. Should we hear the voices of Eleazar and those brothers echoing through him?

Leaders Abused by Leaders

This Lazarus/Eleazar connection also makes me wonder about outspoken teachers and evangelists in the Johannine Community. Like Lazarus, these would be Christians whom the religious establishment surveilled more carefully. If the healed blind man of John 9 naturally represents lay Christians abused by religious leaders, Lazarus might represent Christian leaders abused by other religious leaders. Whether or not Lazarus himself was a leader is less important than the way John has subtly characterized him and the setting in Bethany. The repeated references to “house” in ch. 11-12 suggest symbolic images of an early Christian house church. The house/household of Bethany would have reminded John’s audience of a place where Christians gathered to worship.¹⁴

What does this symbolic interpretation of Lazarus and the Bethany house mean, and why does it matter? I see myself in Lazarus. My wife, too. We have been persecuted by Christians who thought they were “offering service to God” by silencing and erasing us (John 16:2). This has happened three different times in three different Christian institutions, and each time we were in positions of leadership. Like Lazarus, that made us all the more threatening to the status quo and the powers that be.

A close-up of Jacob Epstein’s sculpture.

Intriguingly, Jacob Epstein’s Lazarus doesn’t have the cloth which was wrapped around his head in the tomb (11:44). But again, it is interesting that Lazarus never speaks. This is ironic when viewed through the priest/leader symbol. It’s as if the threat of persecution and death from the Ioudaioi had already silenced him. I identify with this image of Lazarus as a silenced leader. The thing that really got me in trouble at one of those Christian organizations was telling a church elder that the senior pastor and other elders were “unchristlike” in their treatment of my wife (the Director of Women’s and Children’s Ministries). Because of this accusation—and of course, facts and evidence didn’t matter, the accusation itself was criminal—I was removed from my volunteer position leading and teaching an adult Sunday school class. I had no voice in explaining this to my class. The only way to recover the position, and the entrusted authority to speak into these people’s lives every week, was to “obey your leaders and submit to them” (Heb 13:17). In a 90 minute conversation with two elders, that verse was probably quoted and referenced at least 10 times. The message was clear: just shut up and be ok with how my wife was being bullied and abused.

That was three years ago, almost to the day. That season felt like death. We’ll explore more of the death symbolism (as well as the new life Jesus brings) in the last part of this series, just a few days after Lazarus Sunday. But in order to appreciate those, it was important to first slow down and consider how members of the Johannine Community might have resonated with Lazarus’ story. I highlighted Lazarus as a symbol for church leaders, and Jesus as angry at the abusive religious leaders. I highlighted those in part because I’m reading from the perspective of my own story. Symbols and symbolic stories are multifaceted and polyvalent. If you bring your own unique story of religious trauma to John 11-12, you can trust that the Spirit will “guide you into all the truth” (16:13), including the truth of how the story of Lazarus speaks to your story.

Quote from Wes Howard-Brook

“I think the story [of John 11] is there to invite the early community and us to not be afraid of losing our lives…Any part of the world where Christians stand for some kind of relationship that is contrary to the status quo — a violent, repressive one — they’re risking death.”

Question

Where do you see yourself in this story? What might it change for your experience of Lent and Easter if you can see the thread of religious trauma in John 11?

1. Wes Howard-Brook, John’s Gospel & the Renewal of the Church (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1997), x-xi.

2. “John’s story has been constructed for rereading. The inexhaustibility of its literary subtleties can only be appreciated by those who have read the gospel a sufficient number of times to be aware of narrative echo effects with what is to come (prolepses) and with what has already passed (analepses).” Mark W. G. Stibbe, “A Tomb with a View: John 11:1-44 in Narrative-Critical Perspective,” New Testament Studies vol. 40 (1994), 51.

3. Howard-Brook writes, “That the Judeans’ [ie Ioudaioi] response to Jesus’ own tears is to link the tears with the loss of a loved one is a sure sign that this is not the correct interpretation.” John’s Gospel, 83, emphasis original.

4. Wong, “Representations of Trauma,” 156, footnote 87.

5. Well, it does occur in Daniel 11:30 in a later Greek translation by Theodotian around the 2nd century AD. It is not present in the Old Greek text of Daniel which was likely known by John and his audience.

6. Brenton’s 19th century English translation is slightly different and helpful in making the tabernacle connection: “And he has scattered his tabernacle as a vine, he has marred his feast: the Lord has forgotten the feast and the sabbath which he appointed in Sion, and in the fury of his wrath has vexed the king, and priest, and prince.”

7. Eg John 1:14 where Jesus “tabernacled” with us; 7:2 the feast of Tabernacles.

8. Howard-Brook, John’s Gospel, 78.

9. James Douglass, “The Assassinations of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy in the Light of the Fourth Gospel,” Sewanee Theological Review 42:1 (1998).

10. On representative figures in John more generally, see CITE

11. Howard-Brook, Becoming, 250, quoting O. Obery Hendricks, “An Ideology of Domination: A Socio-Rhetorical Study of IOUDAIOS in the Fourth Gospel” PhD Dissertation (Princeton: Princeton University, 1995), 72.

12. Obery Hendricks argues that Lazarus is a Galilean spelling of the more typical Hebrew name Eleazar, and thus sets a contrast between Galilean and Judean (ie Ioudaioi) ideologies. See “A Discourse of Domination: A Socio-Rhetorical Study of the use of Ioudaios in the Fourth Gospel,” PhD dissertation (Princeton University, 1995), 129-130.

Mark Stibbe argues that Lazarus is the Beloved Disciple and thus makes an even more direct case for Lazarus being a leader in the early church. See John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel, esp. 78-82 and 155-157. However, I’m not convinced by the view that Lazarus = Beloved Disciple.

13. For the Bible nerds, see the similarities in the Greek:

John 11:34 ἀναστήσεται ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει “He will rise in the resurrection”

John 11:35 εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωή “I am the resurrection and the life”

2 Macc 7:9 “ὁ δὲ τοῦ κόσμου βασιλεὺς…εἰς αἰώνιον ἀναβίωσιν ζωῆς ἡμᾶς ἀναστήσει “but the King of the World…will raise us into eternal renewal of life”

14. The house (oikos) of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus in Bethany, mentioned in 11:20, picks up on earlier mentions of “house” which referred to God’s temple (2:16-17). Mary Coloe observes a switch from house (oikos) to house/household (oikia) that takes place in John 11-12 and 14 (11:31; 12:3; 14:2). Coloe prefers the translation “household” for oikia, signifying the familial relationships over the physical structure, which is an underlying theme in John. The fact that both oikos and oikia are used to refer to the “house/household” in Bethany suggests that early readers would have associated both senses with that setting. If that is the case, then Martha, Mary, and Lazarus might have all represented early house church leaders like we see in Romans 16:3-5, 1 Corinthians 16:19, and Colossians 4:15. See Mary Coloe, God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MI: Order of Saint Benedict, 2001), 160-162.