Jesus’ Emotions at the Tomb of Lazarus - Grace …€¦ · · 2013-12-01Jesus’ Emotions at...

1 Geoff Macpherson, Auckland, November 2013

Jesus Emotions at the Tomb of Lazarus

A study of John 11:33, 38 in order to determine Jesus emotional state at Lazarus tomb

Geoff Macpherson

Auckland, NZ.

November, 2013


Synopsis:

This essay looks at the Greek text of the Gospel according to John 11:33, 38 to discover the

true nature of Jesus emotional state that John describes. To properly analyse the verses, it

places them in the wider context of Johns narrative in general, and the Lazarus story in

particular. It then looks at the text itself with a particular focus on the key term

which has been at the centre of a long debate about its exact

meaning. By looking at the use of the term in the biblical and extra-biblical

settings, we see it has the meaning of anger rather than sadness. This

interpretation is also sustained both by the historical and religious setting of the

Hellenised Judaism of Johns day. Furthermore, it fits the overall history of

Johannine interpretation over the centuries. Most modern scholars now support

the view that Jesus was angry, and not sad. Furthermore, the revised

interpretation fits the context of the passage, especially when exegeted in the

light of an orthodox Christology that views Jesus as being both human and

divine.


1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4

2. The text ............................................................................................................................. 4

Textual .................................................................................................................................. 7

Grammatical ......................................................................................................................... 8

................................................................................................................................ 9

E ....................................................................................................................... 10

3. Biblical parallels ............................................................................................................. 12

4. Extra-biblical usage ........................................................................................................ 14

5. Possible cultural & religious influences on the passage .............................................. 18

Johns messianism .............................................................................................................. 19

A response to other faith questions .................................................................................. 21

6. Dealing with the anger .................................................................................................. 22

7. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 28

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 30


1. Introduction

In 1912 Princeton professor, Benjamin Warfield wrote, It belongs to the truth of

our Lords humanity, that, he was subject to all sinless human emotions.1 While a

person may feel angry thoughts standing at the grave of a friend, giving expression

to that anger is something that most people would find inappropriate and strange.

In John 11:33, 38 we read of the emotional reaction of Jesus to the death of Lazarus,

the grief of Mary and Martha, and the questioning of the Jews. Traditionally the

passage has been translated into English as if Jesus is saddened and upset. This

appears to fit well with the shortest verse (35), Jesus wept. The problem is that

this translation seems to contradict a proper translation of the original.

To discover the actual emotional state of Jesus requires a careful study of key

phrases in verse 33 ( and ), and verse 38

( ) in the context of the Gospel of John. We will need to pay

particular attention to the meaning of the verb as it is used in other

biblical and extra-biblical settings. One also needs to briefly factor in the religious

and cultural influences of the Hellenised Judaism of the day as that was the original

setting that John wrote for.

Furthermore, Johannine Christology is traditionally recognised for its heightened

sense of divinity and emphatic monotheism. That being the case, we will consider

how the interpretation of these verses has influenced the churchs understanding of

Jesus nature, and how traditional Chalcedonian Christology led to efforts to

determine if it is his deity or his humanity represented in this passage. Therefore,

are the emotions of Jesus in 11:33, 38 expressive of his humanity or divinity (or

both?)?

2. The text

In this final and grandest of the Lords miracles in John we encounter a compelling

extended narrative. The Lazarus story is the great sign that serves as the start of the

1 Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ (Philadelphia,: Presbyterian and

Reformed Pub. Co., 1950).93.


transition from what is commonly called the book of signs (1:19-12:50) to the

book of passion (13:1-20:31).2 To quote I. Howard Marshall:

The catalogue of signs reaches its climax with an event that exceeds all

the others in that it brings back to life a man who was indisputably dead

and so brings glory to God through whom the man is raised from

deathThe incident also forms the climax of the story so far in another

sense, namely, that it is the event that finally leads the growing unbelief

and hostility of the Jewish authorities into action against Jesus by

resolving to put him to death.3

While there is no doubt that the whole of chapter 11 is the Lazarus story (1-53), if

we follow the narrative flow it helps to define the limits of the passage so that we

can deal with it in a proper context. Some, like Rudolf Bultmann4 and Don Carson5,

narrow this down to vv.1-44.6 According to this demarcation, Jesus hears that

Lazarus is sick but delays his trip to Bethany (1-16); he travels to Bethany and

meets Martha and Mary (17-37); then arriving at the tomb raises Lazarus (38-44)

end of story.7

Stephen Voorwinde considers this arrangement dubious, primarily because it fails

to take into account the response of the witnesses to the miracle, an integral

2 George Raymond Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 36 (Dallas, Texas: Word

Books, 1989).vii. for example

3I. Howard Marshall, A Concise New Testament Theology (Downers Grove, Ill./ Nottingham, England: IVP

Academic ; Inter-Varsity Press, 2008)., 504

4 Rudolf Bultmann et al., The Gospel of John; a Commentary (Oxford Eng.: B. Blackwell, 1971). 400.

5 D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester, England: Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press

; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991). 414.

6 Ibid. 106

7 Mark. W. G. Stibbe, A tomb with a view: John 11.1-44 in narrative-critical perspective, NTS 40 (1994):

38-54, cited in Stephen Voorwinde, Jesus' Emotions in the Fourth Gospel : Human or Divine?, Journal for

the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series (London ; New York: T & T Clark International,

2005).141


element in Johns approach.8 Voorwinde prefers to define the account by 10:40-

11:54 with the close of the narrative signalled by the withdrawal of Jesus beyond

the Jordan River.9 Raymond Brown too presents this as a neat narrative cycle of:

- Jesus deciding to leave his place beyond the Jordan to give a man life, and

- The Jews deciding in Jerusalem to put Jesus to death so that he has to retire

back to Ephraim. 10

This structure can be woven into geographical locations of this narrative to help

highlight some of the tension points. Jesus in Jerusalem hears the news about

Lazarus (1-16); Jesus encounters Martha and Mary outside Bethany (17-37); Jesus

comes to the tomb (38-44); the Jews in Jerusalem plot against Jesus (45-53);

finally, Jesus withdraws to Ephraim (54). The tension and conflict in the story

appears to revolve around these locations or scenes.

The narrative tension rises in 11:7-8 when Jesus determination to proceed to

Bethany (Judea) is met with horror by the disciples. Why go to the place where the

Jews are waiting to stone Jesus? What then ensues is a discussion with the disciples

about Jesus going to Lazarus to resurrect him, and the disciples going with Jesus

to die with him. Going to Judea will bring death to Jesus, but life to Lazarus. As

Barrett observes, The disciples perceive that to return to Judea would bring the

ministry of Jesus to a close; they do not perceive that to do so would bring its

intended consummation.11

The story, then, comes to a heightened intensity in v.32 as Mary enters centre stage

and repeats almost word-for-word what Martha had said, yet without the words of

8 Ibid.143.

9 Ibid.145.

10 Raymond Edward Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1st ed., 2 vols., The Anchor Bible, (Garden

City, N.Y.,: Doubleday, 1966). 466.

11 C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John : An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the

Greek Text, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978).391.


messianic affirmation.12 Because of this, Bultmann refers to v.32 as the decisive

verse as the tension is suddenly ratcheted up. 13 She does this not only with the

repeated accusation, but also with the omission of the words of affirmation. As

Voorwinde notes, Marys reactions seem to arouse very deep feelings in Jesus.14

It is the presence of the crowd of mourners that adds further pressure to the

encounter of v.32, and which marks it off as the beginning of Jesus emotional

response to the death and resurrection of Lazarus. J. H. Bernard15 and Leon Morris

therefore make a good case to take vv.28-32 as the part of the narrative about Mary

hearing about Jesus and rushing to meet him, and vv.33-38 as describing Jesus

emotional arrival at the tomb of his dead friend.16 Jesus weeps, and, being directed

by the mourners, goes to the tomb, says Bernard.17

Textual

Although the text of 11:33-38 is well established,18 it is only fair to note the reading

adopted by several witnesses (P45 P66* D Q f1 22 131 660 1582 2193) which has

(he was shaken in spirit as if/ as one who

was angry)19. Beasley-Murray believes that this was an attempt by early copyists to

12

J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament

(Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2010). 636.

13 Bultmann et al. John, 405.

14 Voorwinde. Jesus Emotions in the Fourth Gospel, 148.

15 J. H. Bernard and A. H. McNeile, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St.

John, 2 vols., The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New

Testaments V 29 (New York,: C. Scribner' Sons, 1929).390

16 Ibid. 390. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John; the English Text with Introduction, Exposition

and Notes, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids,: Eerdmans,

1971). 492.

17 Bernard and McNeile. John, 392

18 Cullen I. K. Story, "The Mental Attitude of Jesus at Bethany: John 11. 33, 38," New Testament Studies

37, no. 01 (1991).51-66.51

19 Brown. John, 426; and, Carson. John, 415.


weaken the intensity of the emotions attributed to Christ in the passage.20 Since the

latter is the easier reading (it softens the statement by inserting ) a majority of

the UBS Committee regarded it as a secondary improvement, introduced from a

sense of reverence for the person of Jesus.21 It should also be noted that the earliest

witness, Papyrus 45, is variously described as liberal and a copy made phrase by

phrase and clause by clause, rather than word for word,22 and Papyrus 66* is a

scribal alteration to the text proper.

Grammatical

In v.33 is aorist middle deponent form of with the dative

( ) being a dative of respect, that is, in his spirit.23 Andreas K stenberger

notes that the form of the verb used here, although middle deponent, may favour

an active translation, as in he bristled instead of the usual passive he was

moved/angered.24 This is a view shared by Story who comes to the conclusion that

it should be translated he rebuked his spirit.25 We will come back that

interpretation later.

Similarly is a dative clause with the active indicative of , to

agitate or trouble. Coupled with the reflexive pronoun we have a translation

20

Beasley-Murray. John, 183. cf., Barrett. John, 399; and Brown. John, 426.

21 Bruce M. Metzger and United Bible Societies., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament; a

Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (3d Ed.) (London, New York,:

United Bible Societies, 1971). 235.

22 Charles Hill & Michael J. Kruger, The Early Text of the New Testament, 1 vols. (Great Clarendon Street,

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).150.

23 Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome:

Biblical Institute Press, 1974, 1981).321. Story and Lindars argue against this.

24 Andreas J. stenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids,

Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004).339. cf. Joseph Henry Thayer, The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of

the New Testament: Being the Clavis Novi Testamenti Philologica of C. L. W. Grimm & C. G.. Wilke,

Translated and Revised, ed. Joseph Henry Thayer, 1 vols. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers,

1889, 1981).207.

25 Story, "The Mental Attitude of Jesus at Bethany: John 11. 33, 38."64.


that means that Jesus troubled himself. Typically used to refer to water (5:4)26 it is

an important term in Johns passion narrative (11:33; 12:27; 13:21; 14:1, 27). Jesus

is shaken in his soul (12:27) and spirit (13:21), but tells his disciples not to be

shaken themselves (14:1,27).

Verse 38 has the phrase is . Daniel Wallace

determines that is a verbal participal of cause that gives the reason

why Jesus came to the tomb ( ), thus: Then Jesus, because he

was deeply moved in himself, came to the tomb. 27

When we look at the wording of vv.33 and 38, it is useful to take time to examine

the lexical date surrounding the terms ( and ).

This verb occurring in v.33 ( ) is less disputed, so we will look at it

first. As noted above it is used of water and commonly amongst classical Greek

tragedians like Aeschylus as a metaphor of an agitated or disturbed mind, and with

the comic Aristophanes, of an upset stomach.28 In John it is used as a metaphor of

Christs spiritual and psychological struggle as he pursued his love for the Father

on the Cross (14:31). In the synoptic gospels, the term usually has the meaning of

uneasiness mixed with fear, such as the disciples experienced when they saw Jesus

walking on the water (Matt.14:26 in which their response is actually one of

terror). Spicq links this to usage in the LXX where it is used in the Old Testament

of trembling, dread, and shuddering (Ps.18:8) with the sense in the Johannine

26

Ceslas Spicq and James D. Ernest, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, 3 vols. (Peabody, Mass.:

Hendrickson, 1994).375.

27 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics : An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996). 631. He also states; The perfect participle () has several competing variants. Chief among them are in C* (K) 892

s 1241 1424 et pauci

(and few) and in A V 296 429 1525 1933.

28 Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, Rev. and augm. throughout ed. (Oxford,:

Clarendon Press, 1968).1602.


writings of intense emotion and confusion at Lazarus tomb, and at the prospect of

the Cross.29

E

While the meaning of receives close attention in most modern

commentators30, we will look at the dictionaries first. Lexicons like BDAG refer the

student to the only pre-Biblical occurrence in a play by ancient Athenian father of

tragedy Aeschylus (5-6 B.C.) called The Seven Against Thebes. Here is

used to describe the snorting of the mares as they are led to their ambush position

out the city gates ( ).31 However, as Lindars

correctly points out, contrary to some linguistic studies, the connotation is one of

excitement and not anger on the part of the horses.32 Nevertheless, where the word

is used with respect to a person, anger is the most logical intended meaning.33

It is a curious fact that while almost all English versions translate the verb as if

Jesus is more sad upset, modern English commentators Beasley-Murray34,

Carson35, and Michaels36 (with the exception of Morris37 and Hendriksen38)

disagree. The Vulgate (infremuit spiritu) and German translations also agree with 29

Spicq and Ernest. Theological Lexicon, 374-375.

30 See: Bultmann, Brunner, Barrett, Ridderbos, Morris, Brown, Keener, Carson, K stenberger, Lincoln

31 Liddell et al. 476. See also, William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and

Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979). 254.

32 Barnabas Lindars, "Rebuking the Spirit a New Analysis of the Lazarus Story of John 11," New

Testament Studies 38, no. 01 (1992).92. Contra., Fritz Rienecker and Cleon L. Rogers, A Linguistic Key to

the Greek New Testament, 1 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1976). 244, and J. Harold Greenlee,

A New Testament Greek Morpheme Lexicon (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1983). .

33 Carson. John, 415.

34 Beasley-Murray. John, 192ff.

35 Carson. John, 415-416.

36 Michaels. John, 636-640.

37 Morris. John, 494.

38 William Hendriksen and Simon Kistemaker, The Gospel of John, New Testament Commentary (Grand

Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953).155.


the commentators. The Zurich Bible (1931 revision) has: He became angry in

spirit and was disgusted and the Heitmuller New Testament (1917) has: He was

inwardly angry and became enraged.39 Despite this, it is almost as if there is an

English conspiracy to silence any hint at anger. Beasley-Murray makes the point,

that, even the English translation of Bauers Lexicon of the Greek New Testament

inexplicably changes the German translation of from indignant/ angry

to deeply moved in its reference to this passage.40 The entry for in the

NIV Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words, is another case in point. It

reads: Jesus too is at times troubled. At Jn.11.33 tarasso, together with

embrimaomai (be deeply moved), denotes the wave of anger that came over him

when confronted with so much lack of faith and hope.41 Leaving aside for the

moment the interpretation for the cause of Jesus anger, it is interesting to note

how the English translation tradition takes over the meaning of to

render it deeply moved.

Other lexicons are more honest. J. H. Thayers revision of Grim and Wilkes

German work while only referencing v.38 gives the meaning: to be very angry,

moved with indignation.42 The Abbott-Smith Greek Lexicon gives the meaning to

be moved with anger and cites both vv.33 and 38 amongst the occurrences.43 The

Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic

Domains gives three meanings under two different categories, feel strongly

(attitudes and emotions), insist sternly and scold (communication).44

39

Beasley-Murray.192.

40 Ibid.193. cf. Arndt et al.254.

41 s.v. "The Niv Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words: An Abridgment of New International

Dictionary of New Testament Theology."1232.

42 Thayer.Lexicon, 207.

43 G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd ed., 1 vols. (Edinburgh: T&T

Clark, 1921, 1937).148.

44 J.P. Louw and E. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New

York: United Bible Societies, 1988-89). www.laparola.net/greco/louwnida.php. Accessed 1/11/13


3. Biblical parallels

Usage of is very scarce, and after Aeschylus, the next occurrences of

the word are to be found in biblical literature. We see that occurs three

times in the LXX, in Lamentations 2:6; Daniel 11:30, and in Sirach 13:3.

Lamentations 2:6 has:

(= In his fierce anger he has rejected both king and priest). It is a text that

was revised by Aquila (AD 130) who, according to Lindars, opted for

for the Hebrew (denounce, be angry).45 In the translation of Theodotian of

Daniel 11:30 the Hebrew word (sad, disheartened) is translated 46

which most English Versions translate as disheartened, afraid (cf. Ez.13:22

Because you have disheartened the righteous falsely)47 which aligns with the Old

Greek . However, as the Greek does not correctly correspond to the

Hebrew text, Lindars suggests that it is possibly a mistranslation influenced by

later in the verse.48 Sirachs (The rich man was wrong, yet he was angry... =

) use conforms to the more common translation of angry.49

In his helpful look at in the rest of the New Testament, Stephen

Voorwinde points out that the only other usages are found in Matthew 9:30 (Jesus

sternly warning the two blind men he has healed), Mark 1:43 (Jesus strong

warning to the healed leper) and 14:5 (the onlookers rebuked harshly the woman

who anointed Jesus feet with the expensive ointment).50 The use of in

Matthew and Mark 1:43 by Jesus carry the same import and meaning (of

45

Lindars, "Rebuking the Spirit a New Analysis of the Lazarus Story of John 11." 94.

46 The Old Greek reads, = he shall be humiliated. Lancelot C.L. Brenton, The Septuagint

with Apocrypha: Greek and English (Peabody, Ma.: Hendriksen Publishers, 1851,1992).

47 Crossway Bibles., English Standard Version (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Bibles, 2008).

48 Lindars, "Rebuking the Spirit a New Analysis of the Lazarus Story of John 11." 94.

49 Benjamin G. Wright, A New English Translation of the Septuagint, 1 vols. (Maddison Avenue, New

York: Oxford University Press, 2007).729.

50 Voorwinde.170. English translations used here are from the New International Version, 1978.


commanding sternly), and is a usage largely unknown to other authors.51

According to Cranfield, in Mark 1:43 and Matthew 9:30:

Some have seen here a reference to Jesus anger at the lepers infringement of

the law; others a reference to the deep emotion he felt toward the leper

(connected with his warfare with Satan and reflecting the great strain of the

conflict and costliness of the miracle); others connect the word closely with

the injunction to silence. Perhaps the last is the most probable.52

Robert Guelich mentions the suggestion of E.E. Bishop that here

represents oriental sign-language for silence which consisted of puffing air

through teeth.53 While the idea has the merit of connecting back to Aeschylus

imagery of the snorting horses, it lacks further support from any other contexts.

Despite the fact that the use of in Mark 14:5 ties in with the emotion of

anger in John 11, its usage in the Synoptics can be confusing judging from the

attempts by some commentators to make sense of it. Why would Jesus be angry or

upset at those he has healed of blindness or leprosy? It is easy to understand the

hostile crowd reacting angrily to the womans wasteful anointing of the

controversial young rabbi (Mk.14:5), but the rabbi himself?

The best suggestion is that Jesus would have wanted the people to understand the

importance of maintaining the messianic secret of his identity until it could be

revealed at the right time. Even if that is so, emotions stronger than sternness

seem incongruous, as Bernard observes.54 While on the one hand it seems to be a

stretch to say that Jesus was angry at the leper and the blind men, yet on the other

hand the common translation of strictly charged seems an insufficient

51

A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (New York,: R. R. Smith, inc., 1930). TheWord

Bible Software.

52 C.E.B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, The

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1966).94.

53 Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1989). 75.

54 Bernard and McNeile. John, 392.


translation.55 Leon Morris reflects this when he comments on how hard it is to find

a good translation to fit the context.56

This calls for a better contextual explanation of this usage of in

Matthew and Mark. Such an explanation is given by Voorwinde who explains that

the notion of anger in the emotional reaction of Jesus should be allowed to show

through. This is because the men in Matthew and in Mark 1:43 address Jesus as the

Messiah, but then go on to disregard their own confession which would require

that they recognise him as Lord and King. By spreading the news everywhere

(Matt.9.31) they demonstrate disrespect. Jesus response is one of anger because

they are going to make his mission dangerous and ministry difficult.57 On this

reading, the anger of Christ isnt so much connected to them as people with

disabilities who have been physically healed, but as moral and spiritual beings who

ought to recognise their Creator and covenant Lord and submit fully to his

authoritative rule. This, we will see, is important when making sense of Jesus

emotions in 11:33, 38.

4. Extra-biblical usage

In their papers that survey the use of in early Christian writers Cullen

Story and Barnabas Lindars come to different conclusions. Story reports that the

verb may indicate emotions as strong as wrath (Eusebius), curse (Hermias, 2nd-

3rd cent. ), threat (Basil, 4th cent.), or exasperate (Aquila of Sinope, 2nd cent.) in

early Christian literature.58 In pursuit of his interpretation that Jesus rebuked his

spirit, Story argues that amongst the early commentators Origen (3rd cent.) wrote

55

Ibid. John, 392.

56 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Mich./ Leicester, England: W.B.

Eerdmans / Inter-Varsity Press, 1992).235.

57 Stephen Voorwinde, Jesus' Emotions in the Gospels (London ; New York: T&T Clark, 2011).23.

58 Story, "The Mental Attitude of Jesus at Bethany: John 11. 33, 38." 54.


of Jesus rebuking his spirit and that John Chrysostom (4th cent. ) agrees that Jesus

censured his spirit.59 Lindars, pursuing his thesis that is about a

dramatic emotional display, cites an example from Eusebius that means strongly

aggressive behaviour (towards martyrs), and from the Gospel of Bartholomew

where Jesus threatened the angels of the underworld.60

In his helpful collection of ancient commentators, Joel Elowsky shows that

Hippolytus (3rd cent.) understood Christ to have troubled himself, while at the

other extreme, Diodochus of Photice (5th cent.) speaks of Jesus being incensed and

deeply angered (in a controlled way!) at sin as well as feeling indignant at

death.61 Interestingly, when commenting on v.38 Peter Chrysologus (5th cent.),

Origen, Cyril of Alexandria and Augustine (4-5th cent.) all speak of Jesus groaning

as he comes to the tomb. However, both Origen and Cyril also connect the

groaning to a conflict, that Jesus also rebuked his human feelings of grief.62

Mediaeval scholars followed Augustine of Hippo in interpreting as

troubled, although Rupert of Deutz (12th cent.) says: Divine courage, though

threatened by everlasting death, like a lion raging and roaring towards the prey, has

ascended and plundered the netherworld. Thus, according to Rupert, Jesus roared

in spirit and troubled himself.63 This interpretation likely influenced Calvin, and as

we will see later, has regained popularity today.

The reformers too tend to be influenced by Augustine, yet some like Luther are

more comfortable with the notion of anger. Luther reflects this in his translation

(he was angry in the spirit and distressed)64, possibly influenced by the Vulgates

59

Ibid.


61 Joel C. Elowsky, John 11-21, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture New Testament (Downers

Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2007).19.

62 Ibid. 23.


64 Lindars, "Rebuking the Spirit a New Analysis of the Lazarus Story of John 11."90.


Fremuit spiritu et turbavit se ipsum in v.33 and Iesus ergo rursum fremens in

semet in v.38.65 Story claims that Calvin wrote of Christs anger at the tyranny of

death as he approached the tomb in v.38.66 However, what Calvin actually wrote is

less clear. He says: Christ does not approach the tomb as an idle spectator, but as a

champion who prepares for a contest; and therefore we do not wonder that he

again groans; for the violent tyranny of deathis placed before his eyes.67 In fact,

with regard to v.33 Calvin speaks of Christ conforming to the mourners, so far as

to weep with them because he saw the others weeping, and by his strong feeling of

grief, and by tears Christ accommodates himself to the gathered crowd.68 As we

shall see further on, rather than being interested in the interpretation of the words

in the text, Calvin occupies his commentary on the puzzle of how the Son of God

could experience the sinful emotions of men. For Calvin, all emotion attributed to

the divine is simply accommodation on the part of God to his fallen creatures.

Others, such as the Swiss reformer Johan Bullinger and the Germans, Martin Bucer

and Oecolampidius all interpret the verses as Jesus demonstrating his humanity by

experiencing grief. Although they are familiar with the possibility that the words

mean Jesus was angry, they choose to reject it. 69 Less well-known German scholar,

Wolfgang Musculus, believed that Jesus was angry at Satan, although his anger was

also mixed with grief.70

65

www.latinvulgate.com/ accessed 1/11/2013. Cf. Job Fervens et fremens sorbet terram = Chasing

and raging he swallowed the ground.


67 Jean Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 3 vols. (Grand

Rapids,: W.B. Erdmans Pub. Co., 1949).442.

68 Ibid.439.

69 Craig S. Farmer, The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century : The Johannine Exegesis of Wolfgang

Musculus, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (Maddison Avenue, New York: Oxford University Press,

1997). 164.

70 Ibid.


Amongst English translations in the post-reformation period, the consensus is that

in vv.33 and 38 means to groan or at least murmur.71 As Lindars

points out, the accepted Tyndale-KJV tradition fits in with v.35 better, even though

it has next to no lexical support.72 It needs to be noted, however, that even the

understanding of groan as used by William Tyndale and his successors appears to

be different to the way we understand its meaning today. Thus, when Scottish

Puritan George Hutcheson (1615-74) wrote: The word rendered groaning doth

properly signify to have indignation, and consequently, strictly to charge under

pain of displeasure73 he is reflecting the synoptic usage of the word. And on v.38

he states: A declaration of his exercise in coming to the grave: he again groaned in

himself, partly out of indignation at their unbelieving cavils74 Hutcheson is

mixing sadness and anger into his reading of the context.

Contrary to Story, it would seem that the sad-upset translation of the phrases is

more of a modern phenomenon and possibly tied to the twentieth century

translations opting for phrases like deeply moved. (cf. NIV,1978; ESV, 2001).

Yet, it must also be noted that it was the American Standard Version of 1901 that

introduced the marginal reading: or, was moved with indignation. While the New

American Standard Bible failed to build on that translation, the New Revised

Standard Version (1989) has, with its: (He) was greatly disturbed in spirit and

deeply moved. The New Living Bible (1996) goes further with: He was moved

with indignation and was deeply troubled. And, it is only when one picks up less

well-known translations like the Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004) that we

get: He was angry in His spirit and deeply moved.

71

See Tyndales version, 1525, Jesus groned in ye sprete. Likewise, Myles Coverdales Translation of

1535, and The Bishops Bible , 1568. TheWord Bible Software.


73 George Hutcheson, An Exposition of the Gospel of Jesus Christ According to John (London: Printed for

Ralph Smith. Reprinted by Kregel Publications, 1657, 1959).231.

74 Ibid. 233.


Therefore, with Bishop Westcott, we can set aside those interpretations of the

word which represent the emotion as grief only.75 As we have seen, there is no

good reason or authority to understand

or in that sense, although it may be

nuanced with different elements. All the evidence; the grammatical structure, the

lexical data, the biblical witness as well as the extra-biblical uses point to a

translation of the passage that points to anger, indignation, or at the least

irritation.

5. Possible cultural & religious influences on the passage

Are there things that we know about the cultural and religious background of the

writing of John that would influence the way we understand the depiction of the

emotions of Jesus in these passages? Of particular relevance is the early Jewish

expectation of the Messiah as well as other religious or cultural issues current at the

time of the writing of the Fourth Gospel.

Traditionally Johns use of the metaphor, Johannine dualism, and his

frequent referencing of the Lords opponents as the Jews, led many to infer that

Johns original audience was at the least mainly Gentile and definitely Hellenized76

However, as Carson and Moo point out, all influences but the first, are to be

attributed to a much later date than the writing of John, if we take Papyrus 52 to

have been written before mid-second century.77

David DeSilva makes the helpful observation that rather than existing in parallel

spheres, Jewish culture was used to interacting with Hellenistic culture centuries

well before Jesus was born (from the time of Alexander III), with the result that

the churchs Jewish roots already drew the nutrients of Greek culture into the

75

Brooke Foss Westcott and Arthur Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John; the Greek Text with

Introduction and Notes, 2 vols. (London,: J. Murray, 1908). 171.

76 Beasley-Murray. John, liii lxvi.

77 D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids,

Mich.: Zondervan, 2005).255. The P52

fragment is conservatively thought to have been written before

AD 150.


sapling Christian communities in Palestine and throughout the Diaspora.78

DeSilva writes: We only need look at the writings of Josephus (a Palestinian Jew)

and Philo (an Alexandrian Jew) to see how fully enculturated into Hellenism Jews

could be both in the ancestral land of Israel and in the lands of exile.79 The

traditional view was also radically challenged in 1924 by Israel Abrahams, rabbinics

scholar and Orthodox Jew, who stated: To us Jews, the Fourth Gospel is the most

Jewish of the four.80

One must see that, when John refers to the Jews he is speaking of them as a subset

of others who are obviously Jewish. It indicates those who do not believe in Jesus as

the Messiah. Therefore Jews are set over against Christians, not Gentiles, and the

term is not used simply as an ethnic or racial characterisation.81 These polemical

views may be a reaction to Jewish antagonism of the early church and subsequent

expulsion from the synagogues a mirroring of the so-called Blessing Against the

Heretics ( - cf. Jn.9:22; 12:42; 16:2). Therefore, at the tomb, it would be

easier to understand Jesus emotional state as one of anger as some of the Jews

marvel at the depth of the Lords love for Lazarus (v.36), while others question his

ability to have kept the ill man from death (v.37).

Johns messianism

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 opened wide the study of Jewish

messianic beliefs at the time of John. One result is that many see a much closer

alignment of first century Christianity with the many messianic movements like the

Essenes.82 On the other hand, according to Richard Bauckham, while the discovery

78

David Arthur DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament : Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation

(Downers Grove, Ill. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press ; Apollos, 2004).36.

79 Ibid. 37

80 Gary M. Burge, Interpreting the Gospel of John, ed. Scot McKnight, Guides to New Testament Exegesis

(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992).20.

81 Daniel G. Reid, The Ivp Dictionary of the New Testament : A One-Volume Compendium of

Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004). 566-583.

82 Carson and Moo. Introduction to the New Testament, 257.


of the writings of the Qumran community made scholars see the thorough-going

Jewishness of Johns theology, it also showed that such connections should have

been made with other Jewish sources available before the discovery of the Dead Sea

Scrolls.83

As has been observed, much of the Christian thinking about the Messiah is post-

AD 70 and unique to the New Testament.84 Belief in a pre-existent and divine

Messiah has often been anachronistically read back into the Jewish mindset of the

day and is not a dominant feature of Qumranic writings.85

Despite this, of particular relevance to the Lazarus story is the understanding of

Old Testament and Qumranic laws on purity, and the uncleanness contracted

through contact with the dead (Lev.21.1; 24.4). Pollution and defilement are

undesirable because they disqualify persons from entering the presence and

fellowship of God. Jesus interaction with the dead Lazarus would have placed a

question over his suitability as a reputable teacher of the Torah. As noted above,

such thinking was not limited to Judaism, as similar taboos existed in Greek culture

also.86 Anyone looking to fault Jesus piety, whether Jew or Gentile, would have

disapproved of his proximity to the grave of Lazarus.

The Lazarus affair also contributes to the messianic theme of opposition and

conflict. While in the Synoptics it is the temple incident where Jesus speaks of the

destruction and resurrection of the temple (Matt.24; Mk.13; Lk.21) which leads to

the plotting of the high priests to execute Jesus, in John it is this story that serves as

the trigger for his enemies to act (45-53). As Andrew Lincoln points out, while the

temple incident of the Synoptics is a clear challenge on the part of Jesus to the

83

Richard Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple : Narrative, History, and Theology in the

Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007).136.

84 Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove, Ill.:

InterVarsity Press, 2000). Messianism, 698-707.

85 Messianism in, ibid.698-707.

86 Ibid, 114


religious establishment, the raising of Lazarus brings the Christological claims of

Christ explicitly and dramatically to the foreground.87 It is his exchange with

Martha outside Bethany that results in her climactic messianic confession (v.27). As

Michael Bird observes, Marthas shift from resurrection to Messiah is based on

her understanding of the Messiah as the life-giver.88 Such interaction heightens

the tension and puts Jesus on a veritable warpath against the Jews as well as other

Greco-Roman religions. Anger in this context is also understandable, as the blind

leaders of the blind refuse to see or allow others to see.

A response to other faith questions

As devotional commentators over the years have observed, the story also provides a

pastoral response to human frailty and mortality. How does a Christian deal with

death, burial, and respect for the dead, the resurrection and glorification? As we

have seen, Calvin sees Jesus groaning at the tomb as a response to the challenge of

death.89 Others see the response of Jesus as his reaction to the grief of the sisters he

loves. As Chrysostom wrote: Why does the evangelist carefully mention that he

wept and that he groaned? He mentions these so that you may learn that he had

truly put on our nature.90 For Chrysostom and others, the mention made of the

emotions of Christ at Lazarus tomb tell us something about his nature, both

human and divine. In this there may be an implicit challenge to early docetic

christologies similar to that taught by Cerinthus (c.100) which denied the reality of

his psychological and physical humanity.91 Not only does John have to counter

embryonic Gnosticism, but any Greek-influenced religious thinking which

87

Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. ed., Black's New

Testament Commentaries (Peabody, Mass., London ; New York: Hendrickson Publishers/ Continuum,

2005).334.

88 Michael F. Bird, Jesus Is the Christ : The Messianic Testimony of the Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill.:

InterVarsity Press, 2012).129.

89 Calvin. Harmony, 443.

90 Elowsky. The Ancient Congregation, 20.

91 Udo Schnelle, Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John : An Investigation of the Place of the Fourth

Gospel in the Johannine School (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992). 68.


undervalued the physical realm. It shows a concern for second-generation and

subsequent believers who were not eye-witnesses (20.26-31), including Jews and

Gentiles (7.35), the other sheep not of this fold (10.16).92 In other words, these

are questions common to all people, whether Jew or Gentile. As I. Howard Marshall

states:

Throughout the gospel there is a palpable background in the Old

Testament and Judaism, where most of the ideas expressed are at home

or can be seen as providing the source of thought. Yet, although the

framework of thought appears to be fundamentally Jewish, the Gospel

would also have been comprehensible to people of a more Hellenistic

outlook. 93

While it is far from certain, it is likely that the Lazarus story addresses consciously

or unconsciously both the Jewish expectations of the Messiah, as well as questions

common to both Jews and Gentile Christians about the nature of life, sickness,

death and the resurrection. Jesus anger, trouble, and grief (v.35) tells the reader

that Jesus the Christ engages in the issues of life and death as God and man.

6. Dealing with the anger

As we bring together the results of our study of the text and the background

information that we have gleaned, we are left with the challenge of finding an

interpretation that makes sense of the context. Traditionally, as people read

passages like John 11:35, for example, they conclude that Jesus weeping was due to

his human nature. If his emotions in vv.33, 38 are anger, are they human or divine?

Our presuppositions about the person of Jesus here are determinative of what

conclusions we will at arrive about his emotional state at Bethany. For example, the

suggestions given over the centuries, such as, Jesus is upset because everyone else

92

Marshall. 511.

93 Ibid.511


is upset, that Jesus is angered by the weeping of the sisters and the crowd94, that he

is angry at death, or that he is angry at the unbelief of the Jews95 are largely

influenced by our Christology. Chalcedonian Christology argues for a separation

between the divine and human natures in Christ who is perfect in Godhood and

perfect in manhood and that these two natures in the one person exist

inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably, but in hypostatic union (

)96 Unfortunately for the expositor, the

understanding of perfect in manhood ( ) has meant

different things to different people. The stoical Christian of the past has little in

common with the sensitivities of Twenty-First century people. Pre-reformation

commentators like Chrysostom, Theophylact of Constantinople (11th cent.), and

Euthymius Zigabenus (11/12th cent.) understood these verses to show Jesus divine

nature restraining his human emotions, and in so doing becoming disturbed.97 Or,

according to Thomas Aquinas, Jesus human anger was held in check by divine

reason.98 However, as the lexical data has shown, there is little evidence to interpret

Jesus as being upset in vv.33, 38, but rather that he was angry.

At what was Jesus angry? Other less common suggestions are, according to Ramsey

Michaels, Jesus was angry at the invasion of his privacy by the Jews99, or from

Story that he rebuked his spirit for coming too late to save Lazarus100 , and

Lindars that based on an exorcism source his behaviour was aggressively

94

Ernst Haenchen, Robert Walter Funk, and Ulrich Busse, John : A Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2

vols., Hermeneia--a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,

1984).66.


96 "Http://Www.Theopedia.Com/Chalcedonian_Creed". Cited: 17/11/2013

97 J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: John, 3 vols., vol. 2 (Cambridge, London: James Clarke &

Co., 1869).308.

98 Voorwinde, Jesus' Emotions in the Fourth Gospel : Human or Divine? 185.

99 Michaels. John, 638.



demonstrative style that doesnt reveal the inner emotion of the person in

question.101 Another theory suggested by Bultmann and supported by Ernst

Haenchen, is that John is drawing on stories of pagan miracle workers and depicts

Jesus in a state of spirit-inspired excitement,102 though this idea doesnt appear to

be taken up seriously by other commentators.

Voorwinde points out that Lindars attempt to reconstruct a source behind v.33 is

entirely based on conjecture, and must be dismissed.103 Storys theory that Jesus is

angry and rebukes his spirit because he regrets his delay in arriving at Bethany

clashes with the overall theme of the story.104 As He explains to his disciples when

he received the news Lazarus was sick, it was to be for the glory of God, so that the

Son of God may be glorified through it (11:4). John, in fact, tells us that although

he loved the family in Bethany, he stayed where he was two more days (v.6).

Furthermore, as Lindars observes, under this interpretation, the tears of Jesus in

v.35 would then be tears of regret, and not love as the Jews (vv.35-36) understood

them.105

The more recent suggestion by Michaels, that Jesus anger was directed at the Jews

who rob him and the bereaved family of their privacy, is worth consideration. As

he points out, the other two instances of the verb being used of Jesus are in

connection with the secrecy phenomena of the gospels in which the leper and the

blind men are forbidden to tell anyone of their healing. Although William Wredes

messianic secret ideas has since been questioned, there is something about the

demand for privacy that Jesus made, that when deliberately ignored provoked him

101

Lindars, "Rebuking the Spirit a New Analysis of the Lazarus Story of John 11." 103.

102 Haenchen et al. 65. Bultmann et al. 406. See also, Voorwinde, Jesus Emotions in the Fourth Gospel:

Human or Divine? 173.

103 Voorwinde, Jesus' Emotions in the Fourth Gospel : Human or Divine? 171.




to anger.106 We see the same thing in other passages that involved miracles like the

raising of Jairus daughter (Mk.5:21-43). Here the crowd that follow Jairus back to

his house mock Jesus (v.40) when he, as with Lazarus, declares the girl to be asleep

rather than dead. At that point Jesus has them removed from the room so that he

can restore the dead girl to her parents alive. According to Michaels, Jesus was

looking for a similar kind of intimacy as he came to the tomb of Lazarus whom he

loved, and with Mary and Martha whom he loved also. Because he was unable to

gain this intimacy, he became angry in the spirit and shook himself.107

The problem with this explanation of Jesus anger, is that, by itself it seems a rather

immature emotional response by Jesus. Taken as a reason in and of itself, it could

easily be construed as a kind of childish jealousy that he doesnt have the Bethany

family to himself, but has to share them with the family and friends who have come

to share their time of grief. This is a Jesus with a small vision and little patience for

the frailty of others, something out of tune with the rest of Johns Christology.

Furthermore, that view requires that we attribute bad motives to all of the

mourners, something that cannot be sustained by the text. Barretts suggestion that

the presence of the crowd makes Jesus feel forced to perform a miracle, would be a

more legitimate variation on a similar theme,108 if it wasnt for the fact that, as

Carson points out, Jesus has already told his disciples that he is going to Bethany to

perform the miracle in verse 11.109

The idea that our Lord is angry at death has appealed to Calvin,110 Warfield111, and

Herman Ridderbos.112 This theme of anger at death is especially compelling when

106

Bird. Jesus is the Christ, 7.

107 Michaels. John, 639.

108 Barrett. John, 399.

109 Carson. John, 416.

110 Calvin.Harmony, 443.

111 Warfield. The Person of Christ, 117. Also cited in Voorwinde, Jesus' Emotions in the Fourth Gospel :

Human or Divine? 176.


we make the thematic connections in the book. Here is Jesus confronted by death

and resurrection as he moves to prepare his disciples (and self) for his own death

and resurrection. As noted earlier, this connection is especially evident when we

trace Johns use of the verb . Is Jesus anger stirred as he is shaken deeply

in his own spirit, and battles the power of Satan to keep those whom he loves from

being shaken at his coming passion? As Voorwinde puts it: It is not just death in

general that disturbs him. His emotions are also prompted by the prospect of his

own death. As he contemplates this, however, he is not only enraged but also

deeply troubled.113 It is also helpful to remember that after this he asks after the

location of his loved friend, and that he bursts into tears. Death stalks the whole

emotional state of Jesus, and his responses are indicative of the state of his heart.

Andreas K stenberger takes this notion and develops the idea that Calvin

introduces, that of the picture of a fighter preparing for battle. Going back to the

metaphor of the snorting war-horses, he sees neither grief nor anger, but an

excited sense of anticipation on behalf of Jesus as he bristles and braces for his

impending assault on death.114 Jesus is taking on Satans power and assailing his

stronghold on death, and he does this as a king coming into his rightful realm to

wrest back control from the forces of darkness.

This interpretation can be further developed by pressing home the search for the

cause of Jesus anger. As Lincoln reminds the reader, John tells us that it is the

weeping of Mary (on top of the grief of Martha) and the gathered mourners that

that triggers his emotions.115 The text says:

(When Jesus saw her crying, and the

Jews with her also crying...). Despite the testimony of the Bible, despite the signs

112

Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John : A Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids,

Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1997).402.

113 Voorwinde, Jesus' Emotions in the Fourth Gospel : Human or Divine? 177,

114 stenberger. John, 340.

115 Lincoln. John, 326.


of Jesus wrought among themthey mourned like the rest of men.116 Or as

Bultmann simply states: The wailing of Mary and of the Jews provokes the height

of agitation in Jesus (v.33).117 Verse 38 furthers this idea as it is here, after the

reported comments of those who both admired his love and questioned his power,

that Jesus is again angered in himself ( ).

When this line of thinking is developed, the tears of Jesus (v.35) are not tears of

grief, but an emotional response to the unbelief of the crowd, and the havoc caused

by death to a loved family member.

If at this point we reintroduce our Chalcedonian hypostasis, it may help us to

clarify what is happening. While it is unlikely that a human being would be

angered by the weeping of other human beings, they would be troubled in

themselves. Furthermore, it is fully within our understanding of the biblical picture

of God who takes no pleasure in death (Ez.18:23, 32) and considers it an enemy to

be destroyed (1 Cor.15:26).

Most emotional references in the Old Testament are to God, with anger being the

most common, followed by compassion.118 As has been ably shown by others,119

rather than simply being divine accommodation to human understanding, Gods

emotional expressions in Scripture are revelations of divine character within a

covenantal framework.120 The Bethany family are beloved of the Lord, and

therefore to see them in such grief provokes the spirit of their covenant Lord. As

Lord he is able to do something about it, and so he proceeds to the tomb of the one

he loves. As Voorwinde observes, unlike other verbs expressing emotion, the use of

cannot be adequately understood without attributing a degree of

116

Beasley-Murray. John, 193.


118 Stephen Voorwinde, "Does God Have Real Feelings?," Vox Reformata 67, no. November (2002).1

119 Ibid.

120 Ibid.27. Voorwinde here cites, Michael Flinn, The Pathos of God in Relation to the Concept of

Covenant (unpublished Th.D. dissertation., University of South Africa, 1999)


divine foreknowledge to Jesus.121 Or, to quote Lincoln: As the divine Logos, he

displays sovereignty in the face of death, but, as the incarnate Logos, he also shows

human anger and sorrow when presented with the consequences of deaths

disruptive power in the case of this one whom he loves and, by extension, in his

own case.122

7. Conclusion

It is right to understand vv.33, 38 to mean that Jesus was angry. In fact, it is only

right to understand that his primary emotion was anger. However, this does not

mean that we should automatically exclude any other emotional states.

His weeping in verse 35 clearly indicated to those present that Jesus was also

saddened at the passing of his dear friend Lazarus. Yet, even that wasnt purely

sorrow, as we have seen. Tears would have filled his eyes as he looked at the whole

scene death, grief, unbelief and decay. As a human like us he would have been

deeply touched. He would have felt the raw, visceral force of being in the company

of those he knew who were recently bereaved. Why? Because Jesus was fully and

perfectly human.

As has been already noted, this is only part of this picture. The Lord would have

also viewed all this from a perspective very different from anyone else there. As the

Son of God, Sovereign and Saviour, he would see the tears of his people, and the

body in the tomb as symbols of the far-reaching effects of sin. Sin has brought

death into his creation, and as Creator he has come to commence deaths demise.

He would view with anger the destruction of Satan, with hostility his presence

among those he loves, and as a champion ready to dislodge the Prince of the power

of the air.

Finally, as the prescient Suffering Servant, he would realise the beginning of the

end has come. Now his enemies have the excuse they needed to plot his execution.

121

Voorwinde, Jesus' Emotions in the Fourth Gospel : Human or Divine? 186.

122 Lincoln. John, 327.


Aware of this, Jesus came to the tomb of one he loved and must have contemplated

his own tomb, and seeing this would have been greatly troubled (). But,

more than that, as he sees Mary weeping at his feet, as she will soon weep at his

own tomb, he is angry, indignant, and even furious that it has come to this. To

quote Warfield: The spectacle of the distress of Mary and her companions enraged

Jesus because it brought home to his consciousness the evil of death, its

unnaturalness, its violent tyranny, as Calvin phrases it.123 His anger strengthens

his soul because it is righteous indignation, and as the divine Son his whole being

is completely at one with the Fathers perfect justice and truth.124 His anger turned

back the betrayal of the garden when the Serpent was welcomed rather than

rebuked. So, in full control of his mind, he directs his anger at death, the final

enemy to be overthrown.

.

123

Warfield. The Person, 116.

124 Diadochus of Photice, in, Elowsky. John, 19.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

"Http://Www.Theopedia.Com/Chalcedonian_Creed".

Abbott-Smith, G. A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. 1 vols. 3rd ed. Edinburgh:

T&T Clark, 1921, 1937.

Arndt, William, F. Wilbur Gingrich, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer. A Greek-English

Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2d ed. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John : An Introduction with Commentary and Notes

on the Greek Text. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978.

Bauckham, Richard. The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple : Narrative, History, and Theology in

the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007.

Beasley-Murray, George Raymond. John. Vol. 36 Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, Texas:

Word Books, 1989.

Bernard, J. H. and A. H. McNeile. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel

According to St. John. 2 vols. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy

Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments V 29. New York,: C. Scribner' Sons, 1929.

Bird, Michael F. Jesus Is the Christ : The Messianic Testimony of the Gospels. Downers Grove,

Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2012.

Brenton, Lancelot C.L. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. Peabody, Ma.:

Hendriksen Publishers, 1851,1992.


Brown, Raymond Edward. The Gospel According to John. 2 vols. 1st ed. The Anchor Bible,.

Garden City, N.Y.,: Doubleday, 1966.

Bultmann, Rudolf, George Raymond Beasley-Murray, Rupert William Noel Hoare and John

Kenneth Riches. The Gospel of John; a Commentary. Oxford Eng.: B. Blackwell, 1971.

Burge, Gary M. Interpreting the Gospel of John Guides to New Testament Exegesis, Edited by

Scot McKnight. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992.

Calvin, Jean. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 3 vols.

Grand Rapids,: W.B. Erdmans Pub. Co., 1949.

Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England: Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-

Varsity Press ; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991.

Carson, D. A. and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand

Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005.

Cranfield, C.E.B. The Gospel According to Saint Mark: An Introduction and Commentary The

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

Press, 1966.

Crossway Bibles. English Standard Version. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Bibles, 2008.

DeSilva, David Arthur. An Introduction to the New Testament : Contexts, Methods & Ministry

Formation. Downers Grove, Ill. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press ; Apollos, 2004.

Elowsky, Joel C. John 11-21 Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture New Testament.

Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2007.


Evans, Craig A. and Stanley E. Porter. Dictionary of New Testament Background. Downers

Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Farmer, Craig S. The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century : The Johannine Exegesis of

Wolfgang Musculus Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. Maddison Avenue, New

York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Greenlee, J. Harold. A New Testament Greek Morpheme Lexicon. Grand Rapids, Mich.:

Zondervan, 1983.

Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1-8:26 Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1989.

Haenchen, Ernst, Robert Walter Funk and Ulrich Busse. John : A Commentary on the Gospel of

John. 2 vols. Hermeneia--a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible.

Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Hendriksen, William and Simon Kistemaker. The Gospel of John, New Testament Commentary.

Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953.

Hutcheson, George. An Exposition of the Gospel of Jesus Christ According to John. London:

Printed for Ralph Smith. Reprinted by Kregel Publications, 1657, 1959.

stenberger, Andreas J. John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand

Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004.

Kruger, Charles Hill & Michael J. The Early Text of the New Testament. 1 vols. Great Clarendon

Street, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, Roderick McKenzie and E. A. Barber. A

Greek-English Lexicon. Rev. and augm. throughout ed. Oxford,: Clarendon Press, 1968.


Lincoln, Andrew T. The Gospel According to Saint John. Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. ed. Black's

New Testament Commentaries. Peabody, Mass., London ; New York: Hendrickson

Publishers/ Continuum, 2005.

Lindars, Barnabas. "Rebuking the Spirit a New Analysis of the Lazarus Story of John 11." New

Testament Studies 38, no. 01 (1992): 89-104.

Marshall, I. Howard. A Concise New Testament Theology. Downers Grove, Ill./ Nottingham,

England: IVP Academic ; Inter-Varsity Press, 2008.

Metzger, Bruce M. and United Bible Societies. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New

Testament; a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament

(3d Ed.). London, New York,: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. The Gospel of John The New International Commentary on the New

Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2010.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John; the English Text with Introduction, Exposition and

Notes The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids,:

Eerdmans, 1971.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids, Mich./ Leicester, England: W.B.

Eerdmans / Inter-Varsity Press, 1992.

Nida, E. and Louw, J.P. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic

Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988-89.

Reid, Daniel G. The IVP Dictionary of the New Testament : A One-Volume Compendium of

Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004.


Ridderbos, Herman N. The Gospel According to John : A Theological Commentary. Grand

Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1997.

Rienecker, Fritz and Cleon L. Rogers. A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament. 1 vols.

Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1976.

Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. New York,: R. R. Smith, inc., 1930.

Ryle, J. C. Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: John. Vol. 2. 3 vols. Cambridge, London: James

Clarke & Co., 1869.

Schnelle, Udo. Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John : An Investigation of the Place of

the Fourth Gospel in the Johannine School. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

Spicq, Ceslas and James D. Ernest. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. 3 vols. Peabody,

Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994.

Story, Cullen I. K. "The Mental Attitude of Jesus at Bethany: John 11. 33, 38." New Testament

Studies 37, no. 01 (1991): 51-66.

Thayer, Joseph Henry. The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being

the Clavis Novi Testamenti Philologica of C. L. W. Grimm & C. G.. Wilke, Translated and

Revised. 1 vols., Edited by Joseph Henry Thayer. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson

Publishers, 1889, 1981.

Voorwinde, Stephen. "Does God Have Real Feelings?" Vox Reformata , no.67, (2002): 28.


Voorwinde, Stephen. Jesus' Emotions in the Fourth Gospel : Human or Divine? Journal for the

Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. London ; New York: T & T Clark

International, 2005.

Voorwinde, Stephen. Jesus' Emotions in the Gospels. London ; New York: T&T Clark, 2011.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics : An Exegetical Syntax of the New

Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996.

Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. The Person and Work of Christ. Philadelphia,: Presbyterian

and Reformed Pub. Co., 1950.

Westcott, Brooke Foss and Arthur Westcott. The Gospel According to St. John; the Greek Text

with Introduction and Notes. 2 vols. London,: J. Murray, 1908.

Wright, Benjamin G. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. 1 vols. Maddison Avenue,

New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Zerwick, Max and Mary Grosvenor. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament.

Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974, 1981.

Jesus’ Emotions at the Tomb of Lazarus - Grace …€¦ · · 2013-12-01Jesus’ Emotions at...

Documents

Transcript of Jesus’ Emotions at the Tomb of Lazarus - Grace …€¦ · · 2013-12-01Jesus’ Emotions at...