Muchacho Polaco

RC Sproul: The Raising of Lazarus (31:36)

Mary says the same thing as Martha, “Lord if you had been here”. This could have been an accusation or a confession. But if an accusation, she is not rebuked (nor was Martha).

We want God to do want we want NOW, not later. Christ is never too late. Not for Mary, not for Martha, not for Lazarus, and not for you.

Jesus is troubled. It’s a poor translation. It should be translated Jesus was irrate. Some commentators conclude that Jesus is fed up with the lack of faith on the part of the people and with the sisters. Didn’t he just tell Martha he was the resurrection? So why is she crying? What do I have to do convince you people?

I think that which would cause the anger of the Son of God to boil up and overflow in his spirit was that he was in the presence of the ravaging destruction of the greatest enemy to mankind: death. This was his enemy. This was the enemy that only in a few days forward he was going to confront head on in the throws he would experience on the cross. Dying that death to conquer death. Jesus entered into the affliction of his people so deeply that he was moved in himself at the travesty of death.

Believing in God is easy, it’s believing God that is the test of the Christian life.

And here we see a friend of Jesus forgetting in an instance the promise of Christ and he has to remind her. Didn’t I say to you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God.

RC Sproul: The Death of Lazarus, John 11.1-27 (28:04)

We glorify God when we praise him, honor him, and all of that, but that’s not what Jesus is talking about here. He’s talking about the revelation of the majesty of God the father. The weightiness of his glory is made manifest to the world when the world sees the glory of his son. In the glorification of Christ comes the glorification of the Father.

Jesus would go (to Judea) at the cost of his own life to give Lazarus life.

If you had been here, my brother would not have died. how do we interpret this? Is she complaining, is she rebuking him, or is it a confession of faith? this is one of those times where we don’t have the tones, the inflections of the voices, it may have been a triumphant statement of confidence in Christ.

Or it could have been an accusation. Some friend you are. Why do you think we sent a message to you? Because I know if you would have been here this wouldn’t have happened.

Your brother will rise again. Martha doesn’t get it. She says I know that he’ll rise again in the resurrection of the last day. Now remember that the Pharisees believed in a resurrection at the end of history, though the Sadducees did not. Martha believed in the future resurrection of the people of God.

That wasn’t what Jesus was speaking about. He didn’t say the last day. I am the resurrection and the life. In ME there is power over death. I hold the keys of life and death. I am the foundation, the power, of life itself. And I have the power to raise dead people from the grave. I am the resurrection. I don’t just teach about the resurrection. I am the very power of it. So if the one who is the resurrection and who is the life shows up at a funeral nobody has to wait for the last day. because the one who is resurrection and life has arrived.

If you believe and me, and die, then you’ll live. Whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this he says. Do you believe this?

The biological death doesn’t disturb in the slightest the continuity of personal existence. This is what Jesus is saying.

Once a person believes in Christ, the life of Christ is poured into the soul of that person. That life is eternal. Everyone in Christ has already begun their eternal life. We’re never going to die. We may go through the transition, but not the death that can destroy the life that Christ has given to us.

She said to him, yes Lord I believe that. And I believe that you are the Christ, you are the Son of God, who is to come into the world. Martha makes a confession of faith. There is no greater confession of faith in Scripture.

Listening to some more sermons today.

RC Sproul: The Son of God, John 10.22-42 (27:57)

Probably the best series on the book of John that I’ve listened to thus far is Sproul’s. I’ve listened to his 3 sermons on John 11 twice now. They’re all very good.

The end of John 10 sets the stage for John 11. Jesus is in Jerusalem for the feast of dedication (Maccabeean in origin) which is called Hanukkah today. This is a winter celebration and John 10.22 even mentions as such.

The Jews in Jerusalem are demanding that Jesus tell them if he is the Christ or not. Their conception of the Christ is distorted, having been separated from the suffering servant language of later Isaiah. They wanted a warrior king to defeat Rome.

Jesus responds that he has told them (but not in the way they want) and they don’t believe because they are not his sheep. Only his sheep hear his voice. Jesus says he gives his sheep eternal life. This is the beginning of the controversy. Only God can give eternal life. But he goes on in 10.30.

I and the Father are one.

As Sproul states, there were no Arians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Mormons in the crowd. They rightly interpreted these things as a claim of divinity and clearly express that in 10.33.

you, being a man, make yourself God.

Jesus responds by pointing out their hypocrisy. Even judges (or perhaps angels) were called gods in the Scriptures. Apparently that’s ok, but when the Son of God (who is God) reveals himself as God, then that’s not ok! Such irony.

They don’t like his response, so we’re told they sought to arrest him. So he went across the Jordan to where John the Baptist had been baptizing (see John 1) and there he remained.

There is some interesting foreshadowing here. Jesus talks of his sheep and giving them life eternal. In John 11, he is going to demonstrate that visually.

Listening to some sermons today on John 11.

A Sympathetic Savior, John Reisinger, Trinity Baptist Church, 59:20

Mr. Reisinger (a reformed baptist), as expected, interprets Martha’s interaction with Jesus as accusatory. Without the prosodic features of language (body language, stress, intonation, basically how Martha was speaking), we really have no way of knowing if Martha was in fact accusatory. That’s certainly one possible explanation, but for Baptists, it seems to be the default interpretation. Sproul is much more gracious in how he sees Martha’s response. He recognizes that she could have been in fact accusatory, but sees the equal possibility that Martha, although justifiably sad, was calmly responding with a confident statement of faith in whom Jesus was and what he is capable of doing.

One observation of Mr. Reisinger’s I thought helpful was the tendency to emphasize God’s sovereignty over his love. That could very well be applicable to this passage, but it is most certainly applicable to every day life. Mary and Martha do seem committed to the belief that Jesus could have saved their brother. They testify to his sovereignty. But it is certainly possible that they questioned his love for their brother (and for them). The text doesn’t demand that conclusion, but it’s entirely possible. What leads me to believe that this was possibly the case is verse three, where Martha and Mary describe their dying brother to Jesus as, “he whom you love”. Jesus obviously knows whom he loves.

The disciples response could have been said to be similar. They certainly could have been questioning Jesus’ intentions when he advised them they would be returning to Judea to Bethany to ‘wake’ Lazarus when such action would inevitably entail their death. In their life experience, they may have believed the maxim: people that love you do not send you to die.

Riesinger states that Martha pointing out the stench of her brother’s dead body (since it had been four days) in verse 39 contradicts her statement in verse 22 which reads:

“But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.”

I suppose that’s a legitimate possibility. It may very well be reading far too much into the text though. There were a lot of things going on at the moment. Does Martha’s pointing out the stench (which normally happens when people are rotting in the grave) mean that she doesn’t believe that whatever Jesus asks he’ll be given? Or perhaps that Jesus isn’t asking for her dead brother to be brought to life? I’d think it would be rather difficult to be dogmatic on the intentions of her statement, especially in light of the lack of all of the details as well as access into her mind. Also, it’s very possible that Lazarus did stink, even when brought back to life. Or maybe he came out smelling like roses. The text doesn’t say.

“His disciples replied, ‘Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.'” (11)

In verse 7 Jesus said to his disciples, “let US go back to Judea”. They respond, but the Jews wanted to kill you and YOU want to go back? Jesus then proceeds into metaphor where life is broken into hours in a day. They were perhaps (understandably) confused. He then tells them that Lazarus has fallen asleep and that he (Jesus) was going to go and wake him (Lazarus) up. Sleep is a common metaphor for death. But the disciples don’t take Jesus to be metaphorical. It may have been the “…I am going there to wake him up.” that threw them off. Dead people didn’t wake up.

If he sleeps, then he will get better. In other words, there’s really no reason to make the trip to Judea at this point. The disciples don’t seem to question Jesus’ ability to see what’s going on in Bethany. But at the same time, I read this text as though they really didn’t want to go back to Bethany as it most assuredly meant trouble.