The Best of John Chapter Eleven

 

It seems likely that Jesus resided, at least some of the time, in one or more of the nearby towns. How long did he stay? Did he perform any miracles during his time there? Did he teach in their Synagogues? It was during his residence in this area that Jesus received word from Martha and Mary, the sisters of his friend, Lazarus. We find this in the beginning verses of chapter eleven. I get the impression that servants were sent with the message. Jesus gave a response that was likely conveyed back to the sisters. The distance was approximately sixty miles, so, the travel time for the message bearers would have been nearly a week if on foot. After receiving the message, Jesus and his disciples remained where they were for two more days. Lazarus was in a bad way at the first step of the messenger's journey. It was about six or seven days after that when Jesus began his two to three-day journey to Bethany.

The disciples were concerned about the safety of Jesus. Perhaps their efforts in the near stoning of their master seemed threatened by his return to Judaea. They might have been thinking, 'we just barely got you out the last time. And now you want to go again?' Jesus first alluded to the death of Lazarus, then told his disciples plainly. They just couldn't get the gist of things. Who knew what he meant when he said something? Jesus was still in the process of getting them to 'believe.' By that, I don't mean believe as the multitudes believed but, rather, in a way or to the degree required to serve the will of God.

When Jesus was near to Bethany, Lazarus had been dead for four days. He had died at the beginning of Jesus' journey or during the first leg of his journey. It is also mentioned that Bethany was about fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem – it was barely more than a mile away. This was said to bring in the fact that many of the Jews had gone to mourn the death of Lazarus. They were still present four days after the fact attempting to comfort the sisters. What does it say that many of the Jews were there? Was Lazarus a prominent or wealthy landowner, an important businessman? Did he have close ties to the religious elite? Was he one of the Jews who had become a follower of Jesus?

It was pointed out that Jesus not only loved Lazarus but Martha and Mary, as well. Jesus' feelings for others are not often mentioned. When it is, I think we should sit up and pay attention. Before his return to Bethany, Jesus was staying with someone else, likely in a home he had stayed at before. How did he feel about those people? We may never know. However, the author thought that Jesus' love for the Lazarus family was important enough to mention. He also mentioned that the sister of Lazarus, Mary, was the same woman that anointed his feet with expensive ointment.

If this particular Mary, out of many, was important enough to write about, why was she not present at the crucifixion? The most plausible location for the crucifixion is now considered by some to be on the Mount of Olives on which also was the third altar of the temple 'outside the camp.' There was a large cemetery there and Bethany rested on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. This particular Mary was certainly close enough but is not mentioned as present at the crucifixion. Three Marys were listed. They were Jesus' mother, her sister, and Mary Magdalene.

Historically, Magdalene has been thought of only as the one who was possessed with seven demons or as a prostitute and, by some, as the woman caught in adultery. There were many Marys, it was a common name. There were only a few Marys who were important in Jesus' life. Magdalene is mentioned as one of Jesus' financial supporters from the beginning of his ministry. If she had access to resources, she might also have had access to expensive ointment. It is said that he loved her but the connection is only made by a few.

The whole family believed in Jesus. When Jesus was a short way from their home, possibly on the Mount of Olives, both sisters came to him in the same spirit of belief. Martha came first, Mary came second. Now, pay attention, this is important. When Martha went back home, Mary was sitting. She did not know that Jesus was almost there. Mary sat among the Jews. They were trying to comfort her. We can imagine their attempts were the usual pronouncements and scripture quotes that simply did not reach the core of grief the sisters felt. Possibly under a ruse, Martha separates Mary from the Jews. She has a secret.

Secrets are not normally a part of the Jesus story. If, as some people believe, the gospels were edited by the church toward political ends, this may be a part the editors overlooked. Check out verse twenty-eight, “and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, the Master is come, and calleth for thee.” Look closely at the wording. The family considered Jesus their Master, as did his twelve disciples. When Jesus said to his twelve, let's go to Bethany, he hailed Lazarus as “our friend.” The link is there for all to see. It was not easy to be a follower or supporter of Jesus with the Jews so eager to bring him down. We have already seen that even the common people when speaking of Jesus, kept a closed mouth around the Jews for fear of the fallout.

So, Martha came to Jesus without being called but Jesus specifically asked to see Mary. Martha set her sister apart from the Jews and whispered into her ear that Jesus wanted to see her. At the news, Mary became excited. She practically flew out of the house. That caught the eye of the Jews who thought she ran to the grave in her agony. They followed close on her heels only to find that they had been led to Jesus. Mary pretty much said the same thing as her sister but since Martha's visit, Jesus remained in the same spot, unmoved.

Maybe Jesus wanted to see Mary alone, the Jews put the Kibosh on that. Maybe Jesus had special words for Mary's ear alone but it all played out another way because the Jews were also there. Both sisters wept and mourned bitterly the loss of their brother, even after so many days. That might be expected from women but the Jews also wept for Lazarus, even after so many days. I think that fact hints at the social prominence of the man. Jesus also wept for Lazarus but notice when, notice where, and especially notice why. It was not recorded that Jesus wept for Lazarus before his journey to Bethany. It was not recorded that Jesus wept as he spoke to Martha. It was when he saw Mary weeping that he wept. This may indicate, along with the fact that he had called specifically to see Mary, that there was a greater bond between the two of them than between himself and Martha. Moreover, it was when he saw the Jews weeping for Lazarus that Jesus was moved. He groaned in his spirit, he wept. This may indicate a bond with Lazarus that both Jesus and the Jews shared in common.

Notes about the raising of Lazarus: Mary wept, the Jews wept, Jesus wept. The meeting between Mary and Jesus, which, though initiated in secrecy, failed to be a secret meeting. The Jews were present. I assert that these were the chief priests and Rabbis and other church leaders that the author of this book always identified as “the Jews.” One might be tempted to think, due to cultural standards of that day, that the people trying to comfort the sisters were female Jewish mourners. It was a common practice to have women brought in for that purpose. Neither women nor mourners are specifically mentioned at this event four days after the death of Lazarus. Only the Jews are mentioned.

Word had gone ahead of Jesus' arrival and Martha received it. Martha left immediately upon hearing the news but no one followed her as they did Mary. Perhaps the message to Martha was also secretive. Perhaps the Jews remained with Mary because she remained. Maybe Mary was beside herself. However, when Mary raced from the house, Martha may have followed after her and since neither of the women were in the house, that was why the Jews followed.

What I find interesting is that, when Jesus asked, where have you laid him? It was not so much Mary who answered. Verse thirty-four informs us that the Jews answered, “They said unto him, Lord, come and see.” If these were chief priests and Rabbis and such, some of whom later went to snitch on him, their use of the title, 'Lord' is significant. If these were the chief priests that later blabbed to the Pharisees, then Jesus was a Rabbi of no mean rank.

At the gravesite, the grave is described as a cave with a rock on top. Wikipedia says this about the area, The Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives, including the Silwan necropolis, is the most ancient and most important Jewish cemetery in Jerusalem. Burial on the Mount of Olives started some 3,000 years ago in the days of the First Temple, and continues to this day. The cemetery contains anywhere between 70,000 and 150,000 tombs from various periods, including the tombs of famous figures in Jewish history. During the First and Second Temple Periods the Jews of Jerusalem were buried in burial caves scattered on the slopes of the Mount.

The gravesite was near the home of Martha and Mary. What does it mean that the stone was removed from the grave? When Jesus asked to have the stone removed, that would have been a job for men. Neither Martha nor Mary would have done it. Neither would have any female mourners done such a thing. If Jesus did not do it himself, that would leave us with only two choices for the ones who did the work. Did the Jews remove the stone? If Jesus was so highly ranked that chief priests called him Lord, then perhaps they were duty-bound to obey. Yet, there was a legal restriction for the Jews when it came to death. They were not allowed to touch dead people. It may well be that the thinking extended to objects in contact with dead bodies. The covering stone may have been considered such an object. If it was not the Jews, then who?

It is possible that the Lazarus family was prominent enough and influential enough to have servants. It seems more likely that such a job would have fallen to servants. Were they present on the road with Jesus, Mary, and the Jews, or were they called from the Lazarus home after Jesus asked to have the stone removed? A small crowd may be seen to have gathered. There were Jesus and his followers, there were the sisters of Lazarus, there were the Jews, and there were the servants. There may have been twenty to thirty people present at the raising of Lazarus.

Perhaps Jesus stood near the grave. I imagine others would have stepped back and held their collective breath. Before Jesus raised the dead, he prayed loudly. It is important to note that Jesus wanted those standing near to believe that God had actually sent him – that the work, the will, the power came from God. His main audience was not so much the disciples or the believing sisters but the Jews. When they saw a man come out of a grave, still tightly bound in burial cloth, having been dead four days, many of those chief priests and Rabbis gladly believed. Some, however, were not persuaded. Another matter weighed on their hearts – the Roman occupation.

When the meeting was called, in verse forty-seven of chapter eleven, that was the topic. What to do about this Rabbi who can raise the dead? We should wonder which of the Jews were responsible for the information from the meeting. There was a mole in the ranks of the Jews, a double agent who leaked the information of a closed-door session. It was a purely political meeting, a purely political topic of discussion. There was a balance of power under the occupation which the Jews hoped to maintain while they sought an answer to their dilemma. The mindset of that day longed for the revelation of a messiah who would free their nation from the yoke of Roman occupation. Rather than seeming to be the answer to their problem, Jesus, and perhaps for the very fact of his miracle-making power, seemed to them the very opposite. Jesus was a force to be reckoned with but to the Romans, force would always be a thing they sought to crush. If the Romans perceived the power of Jesus as a Jewish threat, not only the existence of 'the Jews' was imperiled but the existence of the Jewish nation.

From that day forth, the Pharisees and the chief priests made a pact to destroy Jesus as a means of national preservation. A key player in this pact was Caiaphas, that year's High Priest. As such, he was the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin. Having just taken the reigns, he may have had a chip on his shoulder, a pet peeve he sought to address, or a self-image of authority he wished to justify.

The prophecy of the High Priest and mention of the lost ten tribes of Israel are seen in verses fifty-one and fifty-two. The author ascribes to the words of Caiaphas an air of prophecy that Caiaphas was unaware of. It was the case of his being used by God, as a tool is used. It was a case of the High Priest's heart being hardened as was Pharoah's heart in the old testament. In this regard, the author added the addendum that it was not only for the nation of gathered Israel but also for those scattered among the gentiles. This is a theme that comes up from time to time in new testament writings. It is a theme of scattered or lost tribes. As for Caiaphas, what he thought he was saying was more on the lines of, 'Oh, yes, Jesus will die; I will make sure of it.'

Verse forty-five is a telling verse. It is said that the Jews present on that day went there for “Mary.” It is not said they sought to comfort Martha. This may be the author's way of expressing the bond that existed between those particular Jews and Jesus. Was Mary more special to them because she was special to Jesus? We have seen that there were already factions among the Jews.

After the raising of Lazarus, Jesus went into hiding. A particular area is mentioned in verse fifty-four. It was a country near the wilderness and, specifically, a city called Ephraim. He stayed there with his main disciples until the next Passover. The time frame, here, is obvious. Jesus had left Jerusalem after the Feast of Dedication in the winter and moved to the cities near the spot where he was baptized by John. Then he traveled to Bethany and from Bethany to Ephraim, where he stayed put until the next Passover. It was approximately four months between the feast of Dedication in the winter and the Passover feast in March or April.

Where exactly is Ephraim and why does the author specify that it was near the wilderness? Wikipedia says this about the place – Ephraim was located in the wild, uncultivated hill-country thirteen miles to the northeast of Jerusalem, "perched on a conspicuous eminence and with an extensive view" between the central towns and the Jordan valley. It is probably the same place as Ophrah (Joshua 18:23), Ephron (2 Chronicles 13:19) and the modern Palestinian-Christian city of Taybeh.

It was high country. You could see someone coming. For those months the disciples were away from their homes on the sea of Galilee. They were not fishing and were, perhaps, apart from their families. Nothing is recorded of Jesus' stay in Ephraim. There are no miracles, no sermons, no teaching in synagogues, no connection to any of the Jews, believing or otherwise. There is no mention of the Lazarus family or Mary Magdalene. It is all a big blank. All we know is that the bad guys are waiting for Jesus to show up at the Passover.

The Best of Romans Chapter Sixteen

 

The final chapter of the book of Romans. Who are the people mentioned in this chapter? The information that is to follow has been pulled from https://margmowczko.com/list-of-people-in-romans-16_1-16/

Phoebe was a minister in Cenchrea, a port town of Corinth. She had travelled to Rome where one of her tasks was to deliver Paul’s letter. Paul introduces her to the Romans in terms of her ministry.

Prisca and Aquila were a married couple. They were friends of Paul, and the three had lived, worked, travelled and ministered together. Prisca’s name is listed before her husband’s in four of the six times their names are mentioned in the New Testament. This may indicate that Prisca was more prominent in ministry than Aquila. The couple hosted and led a house church in Rome which is also greeted.

There is no specific information about Epaenetus in Romans Sixteen but Marg tells us: This is the only Bible verse that mentions Epaenetus. He was a friend (literally, “beloved”) of Paul, but we know nothing about him apart from Paul’s claim that he was the first person in Asia Minor who became a Christian.

There is no specific information about Mary in Romans Sixteen but Marg says this: Note that these four labouring women in Romans 16 are not mentioned with a man. Many of the women Paul names in his letters seem to be acting independently of husbands or fathers.

Andronicus and Junia were a missionary couple who had been persecuted for their faith. They had been Christians longer than Paul, perhaps they had even been disciples when Jesus was alive. The couple is described in terms of their relationship with Paul (and other apostles) and their ministry.

Ampliatus was a common male name, especially of slaves in the imperial household, but we know nothing about this man except that he was a friend (“beloved”) of Paul.

Just like Prisca and Aquila, Urbanus, a man, is described using Paul’s favourite word for a fellow minister: coworker.

Stachys is the third person in this list who Paul describes as his friend (“beloved”).

Apelles is a man whose faith in Christ had been tested in some way, and proven.

Literally “those from/of Aristobulus” probably refers to the family and/or the slaves of a man named Aristobulus. It may also refer to a congregation (or, house church) hosted by Aristobulus, but it is odd that Aristobulus himself is not explicitly greeted.

Herodion. Paul makes a point of highlighting the ethnicity of some of his fellow Jews. This is significant as there were tensions between the Jews and Gentiles in the Roman Church at the time Paul wrote his letter.

Literally “those from/of Narcissus.” Narcissus is a male name, and like Aristobulus, he may have been the host of a house church, or it may only have been family members and/or his slaves who belonged to the church.

Tryphaena and Tryphosa. These women, most likely sisters or even twins, ministered “in the Lord.” Despite the senses of daintiness and of luxurious living that the etymology of their names conveys, these women were hard workers.

Like Epaenetus, Ampliatus and Stachys (three men mentioned above), Paul refers to Persis, a woman, as a dear friend (“beloved”). The apostle regarded these four people with warm affection. But in the greeting to Persis, Paul uses a definite article instead of the pronoun equivalent to “my” Persis was not just loved by Paul, she was also loved by the church. Furthermore, Paul refers to the ministry of Persis, something he doesn’t do for the three men.

Rufus may be a son of Simon of Cyrene, the man who was forced to carry Jesus’s cross. Paul describes Rufus as “chosen,” or “elect.” (This is the same word used to describe the lady addressed in 2 John and her sister). Rufus’ mother is the eighth woman listed in Romans 16:1-16. Paul says nothing about her ministry except that she acted (ministered?) in a maternal way towards him. The fact that she is not named may be a mark of respect and perhaps indicates she is an older person. Was she Simon of Cyrene’s widow?

Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas. Say hello to Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brothers and sisters who are with them. The first four are male names. It’s not totally clear if Herma(s) is a male name. These people probably all belong to the same house church in Rome.

Philologus, Julia, Nereus, Nereus’s sister, Olympas. Say hello to Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them. The Greek grammar shows that Philologus and Julia are a couple. Along with Nereus and his sister, as well as Olympas (which may be a contraction of the male name Olympiodorus—or is it a female name?), these five are probably all prominent members of a house church. Or perhaps they are the hosts and leaders of three different house churches in Rome.

Of the twenty-nine people, ten are women. What is especially interesting, however, is that seven of the ten women are described in terms of their ministry (Phoebe, Prisca, Mary, Junia, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis). By comparison, only three men are described in terms of their ministry (Aquila, Andronicus, Urbanus), and two of these men are ministering alongside a female partner (Aquila with Prisca, Andronicus with Junia). These are numbers worth remembering.

Other names mentioned, which Marg did not go into, are Timotheus, Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater. They are found listed under “my kinsmen” in verse twenty-one. I take the following information from Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.

(21-23) The companions of St. Paul add their own greetings to the Roman Church.

Timotheus.—Timothy had been sent on in advance from Ephesus (Acts 20:22). He would seem to have gone on into Greece and to Corinth itself (1Corinthians 4:17; 1Corinthians 16:10). He had thence rejoined St. Paul on his way through Macedonia (2Corinthians 1:1), and he was now with him again in Greece.

In the other Epistles (2 Cor., Phil., Colossians, 1 and 2 Thess., and Philem.), when Timothy was present with St. Paul at the time of his writing, he is joined with him in the salutation at the outset. Why his name does not appear in the heading of the present letter we can hardly say. Perhaps he happened to be away at the time when it was begun; or, St. Paul may have thought it well that a church which was entirely strange to him, and to which Timothy too was a stranger, should be addressed in his own name alone.

Lucius.—This may, perhaps, be the Lucius of Cyrene mentioned in Acts 13:1; but the name is too common for anything to be asserted positively.

Jason.—A Jason is mentioned as having received St. Paul and his companions on their first visit to Thessalonica, and getting himself into trouble in consequence (Acts 17:5-9). It would be some slight argument for this identification if the word “kinsmen” were taken in its narrower sense; there would then be a reason why St. Paul should have found hospitality in the house of Jason.

Sosipater.—Possibly “Sopater, the son of Pyrrhus, of Berœa,” mentioned in Acts 20:4 (corrected reading).

Tertius is the letter writer and he adds his small part to the letter but is there a take-away from this chapter? The answer is yes. It is found in verses seventeen through twenty and verses twenty-four through twenty-seven.

17 “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”

18 “For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”

19 “For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.”

20 “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.”

24 “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.”

25 “Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,”

26 “But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:”

27 “To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.”

I wish to narrow the focus, here, and deal with what I consider to be the more telling of the closing comments. In verses seventeen, eighteen, and nineteen, there is a warning against contamination. The church and the faith of each individual believer was at peril from rogue members who espoused a less rigid doctrine than the one Paul considered needful to the growth of the body. It was advised that these rogue members be identified and avoided. Their main purpose was in securing personal gain and not in the growth of the body or the doctrine of the gospel of Jesus. There were, of course, newbies among the ranks who were easy pickings for those devious individuals. If they were swayed toward other definitions and other doctrines, divisions and offenses could occur that would only benefit those who sought personal gain.

It was that whole 'house divided cannot stand' thing. Some who attached themselves to the church were of a more base nature, being more catholic and profane in their attitudes toward what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Paul's approach, here, was black and white. Indeed, the only outcome from a 'gray area' is offense and division. In our modern experience, we see the effects of such a gray area between the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and non-believers. A body that fights its own immune system is not very healthy. Paul wanted the church to be healthy, to grow. He wanted the members to clearly see the good and avoid the ill, as he stated in verse nineteen, “I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.”

The author mentioned, in verse twenty-five, “my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ.” I think he saw both as the same. When he said 'my gospel,' it was in regard to gospels contrary to the preaching of Jesus Christ. Those other gospels were the dangers he perceived in the church. In a strict sense of black versus white, those other gospels always took the spirit away from faith, love, and forgiveness. They set boundaries and incited conflict through disaffection. For a seed to grow and produce fruit, many elements must come into play. There must be a concert of growth-oriented influences that are allowed to do their respective works without interruption or degraded force. There are conditions that apply specifically to early formation which is clearly seen in the extreme care taken with babies. What is common or popular for those already in advanced maturity is a detriment to early growth. We see those in a position of care for the young to both provide what nourishes and shield from dangerous influences.

The closing statements are key to understanding Paul's mission. He was sent to the faithful among all the nations. That is to say, his care for the church was toward all God fearing men and women among the monotheistic ranks. He was a preacher of Christ to all the monotheistic faithful. His take on that matter is clearly seen in his summation. The one and only God, in his wisdom, set the parameters so that he would receive glory through Jesus Christ. This is not just a Christian thing – it applies, across the board, to all monotheism. Whereas it was formerly hidden from the world, the mystery was revealed and made manifest through the prophets shared in common between all three arms of the truth. Jesus Christ is the commandment of the one true everlasting God and made known to all nations for the sole benefit of those faithful who are willing to take their faith to the obedience level.

End.