Historical problem.

But even in this case, chapters XI and XII, filled with anticipation of the Passion, constitute a transition to the narrative of the Passion in the proper sense.

There are very great difficulties associated with the interpretation of the Resurrection of Lazarus. It has been said above that the reproduction of history was not the last goal of the evangelist, but that at the same time he reported only those facts about which he had no doubt that they really took place. This fully applies to the Resurrection of Lazarus.

John's account of the Resurrection of Lazarus has no parallel in the Synoptic tradition. Yet as a miracle it has no equal in the Gospel. Not only is it a question of resurrecting a decaying dead man who had been lying in the grave for four days, but the resurrection of Lazarus also affected the course of history. For the Jewish leaders hostile to Jesus, it was the final impulse that led them to make the decision to eliminate Jesus (cf. XI. 46-57). The silence of the synoptics would seem all the more surprising since the synoptic history is also constructed sub specie of the Passion. This is not the case only with Luke, who devotes a good half of his story (cf. IX. 51-XIX. 28) to Jesus' final journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, which is the path to the Passion. Matthew himself, who gave in a systematic review not only the teaching, but also the facts of the Gospel history, as he approached the Passion, departed more and more from the system. And so the question inevitably arises: what explains their silence about Lazarus, if their interest in the Passion was a historical interest, and in the Johannine narrative the Resurrection of Lazarus was the final impulse that led to the Passion? This question deserves the fullest attention. But the interpretation must be warned, against any exaggeration in one direction or another.

Of course, the miracles of resurrection are more significant and greater than all other miracles. But if it is still possible to reinterpret in some sense the miracle of the resurrection of Jairus' daughter (cf. "the child did not die, but sleeps", Mark V. 39 and parallels), then there remains in the Gospel history, apart from the Resurrection of Lazarus, the resurrection of the child of Nain, which does not admit of reinterpretation (Luke VII. 11-17). He was already dead and was being carried to burial when Jesus met the procession.

The political significance of the miracle should not be exaggerated either. It had it. However, the attempts of the Jews on the life of Jesus are recorded by the Evangelist very early: beginning with Jesus' healing of the sick man at the Sheep's font (cf. V. 18). All of them took place in Jerusalem. And I, in connection with the commentary, inevitably drew the reader's attention to them. In XI. 46 pp. it is either a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin or a partial meeting of its influential members. Be that as it may, the subject of the conference was the Resurrection of Lazarus, but the question raised at the meeting read: "... What shall we do, because this man does many signs?" (v. 47). It was about signs in general. To them was added the Resurrection of Lazarus, as the last push or the last straw. If there had been no earlier signs, the Resurrection of Lazarus might have remained without a decisive influence on the course of events. All these observations, if they do not remove the difficulty associated with the Resurrection of Lazarus, then in any case significantly reduce it.

But this does not say it all. The resurrection of Lazarus, for all its historical accuracy, required, according to John, an interpretation not historical, but spiritual, in this case not only symbolic, but also typological. This interpretation is given by the Evangelist.

In what sense, then, is the Resurrection of Lazarus to be understood as a symbol or a type?

XI. 1-16.

The story of the Resurrection of Lazarus is preceded by a lengthy introduction that deals with Lazarus' illness. His sister notifies the Lord about her. And to the very first news Jesus answered: "... this sickness is not unto death, but to the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it" (v. 4). He remains two days in the place where the news found him, v. 6. After that, He tells His disciples about the death of Lazarus. But they cannot understand His words, "Lazarus our friend is asleep" (v. 11). This is the same method of misunderstanding that we observe throughout Jn. But also something more. Of Jairus's daughter, too, the Lord said, according to the testimony of all three synoptics (cf. Matt. IX. 24; Mk. V. 29-30; Lk. VIII. 52-53), that she is not dead, but is asleep. This means that in the face of Divine omnipotence and love, death is not an impassable border. Sleep is an image of death. But for God, death is also a dream. Thomas calls his disciples to go to Jerusalem with Jesus: "... we also go to die with Him" (v. 16)—not with Lazarus, of course, but with Jesus.

XI. 17-40. The resurrection of Lazarus as a symbol.

The whole passage can be said to be under the sign of death: the death of Lazarus, the mortal danger facing Jesus, Thomas's willingness to die with Him. And against this background, the teaching of the Resurrection and Life unfolds in the dialogue of the Lord with Martha. It begins with her silent plea: "Even now I know that whatever you ask of God, God will give you" (v. 22). The Lord says to her, "Your brother shall rise again" (v. 23). But she does not dare to understand this word except for the coming resurrection on the last day (v. 24). The Lord answers: "I am the resurrection and the life" (v. 25) and says of Himself as the beginning of life for the one who believes in Him: "He who believes in Me will never die" (vv. 25-26). Lazarus is no longer mentioned, and Martha, in response to Jesus' question about faith in Him as the beginning of life and resurrection, confesses Him as the Messiah. He confesses with extraordinary force. Πεπίστευκα is rendered in the new Russian translation, "I have believed and believe" (v. 27), but its confession has no direct relation to the resurrection of Lazarus: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world." And yet Lazarus was the one who died and was resurrected by the Lord. It turns out to be a symbol of the future general resurrection through faith in Jesus. Jesus' words about death and resurrection, spoken by Him before the resurrection of Lazarus, are often striking in resemblance to what He said after He had healed the sick man at the Sheep's Font (Chapter V) and in the Capernaum Synagogue (Chapter VI). This coincidence allows us to understand the Resurrection of Lazarus as a symbol, or more precisely, as the symbolic act that encapsulates the Lord's teaching, just as the healing of the king's servant's son in Capernaum (cf. IV. 46-54) also symbolically contains the earliest teaching. We have seen that the symbolic act in Jn. has the significance of either the prelude to the teaching or its conclusion. Such a conclusive meaning is in Jn. and the Resurrection of Lazarus in the context of the Gospel. But the significance of the Resurrection of Lazarus is not limited to this.

The resurrection of Lazarus as a type.

The resurrection of Lazarus was a manifestation of Glory. This is what the Lord says at the very beginning of the narrative, when he receives the first news of Lazarus' illness (cf. v. 4). He repeats this at the moment of the miracle, in response to Martha's timidity at the stench of her decaying body (cf. vv. 39-40). At this point, the story of the Resurrection of Lazarus requires comparison with the story of the healing of the man born blind. And there the Lord speaks of the manifestation of the works of God (cf. XI. 3-4), the accomplishment of which is limited to the short hours of the day that is ending. In the narrative of the Resurrection of Lazarus, instead of the works of God, the Glory of God is spoken of (cf. XI. 4 and 40). More importantly, the glory of God, as opposed to death, is expressed in the glorification of the Son of God (cf. v. 4). Dogmatically, the manifestation of the Glory of God through the glorification of the Son of God explains the union of the Father and the Son, of which the Son testifies for all to hear in a prayerful appeal to the Father at the tomb of Lazarus (cf. vv. 41-42). But we have already seen that throughout Jn. The Passion of Christ is interpreted as His Glory (cf. VII. 39 et al.). We also remember that in the sacrificial death of the Shepherd-Son the Father's love for Him is expressed (cf. X. 17). The reference to the glorification of the Son of God inevitably directs the reader's thought to the Passion. The expected denouement is also justified by the course of events. As we have seen, the entire introductory passage XI. 1-16 is marked by death, and the danger facing Jesus in Jerusalem is strongly emphasized (cf. vv. 7-9 and 16). It is foreseen by the disciples (cf. vv. 8-10 and 16). And the direct consequence of the resurrection of Lazarus is the decision of the Jewish leaders to kill Jesus (cf. vv. 46-53). Jesus withdraws with his disciples "to a country near the wilderness, to a city called Ephraim" (v. 54). Easter was approaching. There is an influx of pilgrims in Jerusalem. And "the chief priests and the Pharisees gave orders that, if any man knew where he was, he should report him, that he might seize him" (v. 57). The decision of the leaders to kill Jesus is obvious. Jesus Himself reckons with him.