empathy

Raising someone from the dead is a big deal. I think that if it happened today there would be an article in the newspaper about it. I don't mean those newspapers by the checkout stands of the grocery store like the Weekly World News. I mean big time papers like the New York Times and the Daily Oklahoman. Okay, maybe I should have said USA Today instead of Daily Oklahoman. But seriously, We would hear about if it were to happen.

In Jesus' time it was a big deal too. In fact, according to John, Jesus' raising of Lazarus was the straw that broke the camel's back for the Jews. After this, the Jews were dedicated to making Jesus' crucifixion happen. One of them said, "This is not working, look how the whole world follows after him." In fact getting rid of Jesus was not going to be enough. Lazarus had to go as well.

In John's gospel, this story and the implications of it are almost a chapter and a half and it flows seamlessly right into the triumphal entry and the passion. It seems to me that John wants us to know that this story is a very big deal. I agree. It is a big deal. But I am troubled about part of it.
Why is it that this story is only in John? I don't think that we can say that the other disciples were not present at the time because John records that Thomas said, "Well lets follow Jesus back to Bethany so that we can die with him." It definitely appears that they were all at the meal where Mary poured the nard on Jesus' feet out of thankfulness for what she did for her brother. So why is it that the other gospel's don't record this? They all record the feeding of the 5000 and they have varying accounts of Mary's tearful cleansing of Jesus' feet, but they do not have the story of Lazarus.

I know that John's gospel is quite different from the others in terms of style and purpose, but I am still surprised that this big big thing would not be in there. When read in John it provides and excellent understanding about what was going on during the passion.

I can understand why maybe Luke and Mark don't include this story. For them it would have been written second hand. Maybe they thought that this story is too incredible for anyone to believe from anyone except an eyewitness.

Matthew's reason for leaving it out? Maybe it did not fit into his purpose for the book. I don't know.

I am glad it was recorded by John though. It is almost like John was some little middle school brother to the high school star Jesus. No matter how hard Jesus tries, he cannot shake the little pest. John is right there wherever Jesus is. He hears the little things that the others might miss. He sees the tears of Jesus when he is talking to the sisters of Lazarus. John nails it.

I think the thing I like most about this passage is the message of hope that it gives me. I don't mean the resurrection or anything, but instead it is the tears of Jesus that give me hope. You see, Jesus delayed his travel to Lazarus on purpose. He could have gone to help him immediately, but he did not. Jesus could have healed Lazarus from a distance like he did with the official's son, but he did not. Instead he waited till Lazarus was dead and gone. He did it for our own good, so we could see the amazing power of God. He did it to begin the process for which he came, to redeem us.

But, in spite of how good it was for us for him to wait, Jesus understood the pain that this caused Mary and Martha. He knew that their grief was real. He understood them and their loss. Because of that I can believe that he understands me when His will hurts.