Discipleship: Incomprehension versus Memory
A Commentary on the Sabbath School Lesson for March 8-14, 2008, “More Lessons in Discipleship”
The resurrection of Lazarus
(Translated by Carlos Enrique Espinosa)
How many times, as we look back on the past, have we heard ourselves say, “Now I understand”? We have all gone through such experiences, not understanding some words and facts at the outset. Given time…sometimes after a long, long time, the experience makes sense, as if we have a revelation.
The words are the same, the facts are unchanged, but with the passage of time the experience starts to take on new meaning, and it occupies a significant place in our lives. Those words, those isolated events that may not have meaning at first—along with many others that occur throughout life—form a chain of events. As we look back, we can draw a line in which each word and event takes its proper place. Everything fits.
After the death and resurrection of their Master, the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth—better prepared to understand his mission because he had chosen them— began to remember Jesus. His words, his deeds, and what the disciples did not understand at the time, began to come back to their memories. Jesus walking on water, the five loaves and two fishes he used to feed thousands of people…the death and resurrection of Jesus…it was then, with these memories, that the disciples begin to fit together the pieces of the puzzle.
The Gospel of John, the last of the Gospels and probably the testament of the last of the disciples alive, is an exercise in memory, a reflection on what had happened. In this Gospel, we find more evidence that the disciples needed to remember their past with Jesus to understand what had been incomprehensible.
The book of signs—John’s Gospel describes as signs (semeia) those acts of Jesus that the Synoptic Gospels call miracles (dynameis)—shows that from the very start the disciples needed to remember:
His disciples remembered that it is written: ‘Zeal for your house will consume me.’ Then the Jews demanded of him:
‘What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?’
Jesus answered them:
‘Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.’ (John 2:17–19 NIV)
A few days earlier, in Cana of Galilee, Jesus had transformed water into “wine-blood” using jars used for purification. This was the first of Jesus’ signs—like the first of the ten “signs” of Moses before the king of Egypt—which was to turn water into blood. A few days later, during the Passover feast, Jesus “purified” the temple at Jerusalem. The disciples needed to remember a few words: “They recalled…that it is written.”
After reporting signs of Jesus, the Gospel of John begins a new section: the book of glory. This section also states from the beginning that the disciples needed to remember:
‘Hosanna!’
‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’
‘Blessed is the King of Israel!’
Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written:
‘Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion;
see, your king is coming,
seated on a donkey’s colt’
At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him.… (John 12:13–16 NIV)
A few days before, in Bethany, Jesus had resurrected Lazarus. This was the last of the series of seven signs (or miracles) that the Gospel of John recounts, like the last of the “signs” Moses gave to Pharaoh in Egypt, which was to preserve the life of Israel’s firstborn males.
Jesus returned to Jerusalem for the feast of Passover, this time triumphant. The disciples again remembered: “They recalled that this was written.”
When we go back to recall, words and facts, and ultimately history and our own lives, become clear. At birth, we are like a book of blank sheets—physically and spiritually—that the ups and downs of our lives will fill. Only at the end of life, well into our journey, will it be possible for us to see the whole picture. That's when we will know better who we are or who we have been.
Only at the end of Jesus’ story were the disciples in a position to know the meaning of events related to Jesus’ life and who he really was:
Why do you look for the living among the dead?
He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’
Then they remembered his words. (Luke 24:5–8 NIV)
Only at the end of his life was it possible for the disciples to begin to understand Jesus’ accomplishments. Today, we need to be mindful that our understanding of who Jesus was continues to unfold—just as with any historical event. The Roman Empire, the French Revolution, and the 1929 stock market crash continue to challenge those who seek understanding of the past. Much of human history is concealed, which leaves us with partial sketches of the past. Only at the end will it be possible for us to understand the their ultimate meaning.
For Wolfhart Pannenberg—who is aligned with the new quest for the historical Jesus, a reaction against the period called by some authors of “no quest,” whose head was Rudolf Bultmann—God is revealed in the events of history, but he may not be fully known until human history ends. The resurrection of Christ is the anticipation of the end of time, gives full meaning to history, and therefore is the final and definite revelation of God.
Jürgen Moltmann goes further. Although the resurrection of Christ participated in and confirmed in advance God's promise, it doest not exhaust the promise, but takes us to the future. This future opens to the Parousia of Christ, when we will see the ultimate realization of God’s promise. Although the glorious ascension of Jesus realizes the promise of God’s justice, this will not be fulfilled in its entirety until all are resurrected from the dead, just as Jesus was.
Until the resurrection of Christ, the disciples could not have set out on the path to understand him more fully. This understanding has been growing throughout the history of the church. We are participating in and enhancing it as we await the fulfillment of history, when the final revelation of God will take place.
The meaning of events is revealed after they take place. For that reason, we lack comprehension until we reach the end of history. Meanwhile, by faith, we recognize that God’s acts in the course of history reveal something about him.
Sources
Charpentier, Etienne. Cristo ha resucitado [Christ has risen]. Estella (Navarra): Verbo Divino, 1983. (Cuadernos bíblicos, 4).
Moltmann, Jürgen. Teología de la esperanza [Theology of hope]. Salamanca: Sígueme, 1968.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Fundamentos de Cristología [Fundamentals on Christology]. Salamanca: Sígueme, 1974.
Ramon-Carles Gelabert is a physician and founding member of the Adventist Association of University Students of Spain (AEGUAE), whose publishing arm Aula7activa runs Café Hispano in partnership with Adventist Forum/ Spectrum. He currently lives in Barcelona, Spain, where he writes on theology, health, science, and religion.
Search
NEW CONTENT
Recent Comments
- frank7 on In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God
- Johnny A. Ramirez on Report from the San Diego Adventist Forum Conference: Creation Care and Sustainability
- Chuck Poole on The Challenge of His Sayings
- pat travis on The Challenge of His Sayings
- Alexander Carpenter on In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God
- Alexander Carpenter on Report from the San Diego Adventist Forum Conference: Creation Care and Sustainability
- Lucian on ¿Todavía comes carne?
- rendalen on The Challenge of His Sayings
- Samuel Clarke on In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God
- Gavin Greenwalt on The Challenge of His Sayings
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
Thank you for showing us how remembering becomes an act of spiritual discipline, and also reminding us that we always have more to learn.
Is there some reason that of all the Gospel writers, John is the only one who remembered the raising of Lazarus? Did it make no impression on his disciples? Being the latest, why did none of the earlier writers show no recollection of it?
Elaine
The synoptic Gospels were telling a story. John was making an argument. John was answering the Gnostics with the reality of the Christ event. That is at least how I read the differing Gospel accounts. Tom
Tom, I am familiar with the reason for John's Gospel, however, for the other three to completely ignore or overlook a momentous event such as Lazarus' resurrection, doesn't seem to me, to obviate their mentioning it at all. For them, it did not occur.
Elaine,
All the other gospels, save Luke, omit the raising of the widow of Nain's son...another spectacular resurrection story. Why did no one else record this? John alone recounts the changing of the water into wine, the miraculous opening salvo of Jesus' public ministry.
The omission of the seemingly significant by the majority cannot necessarily be equated with non occurence...unless of course one believes that these other instances are also ficticious.
Frank
Its non-reporting would indicate its non-importance. The Gospels are NOT a biological or historical record but written with a theological agenda. Nevertheless, if these miraculous events were not considered of theologial import, should we today give them an importance beyond what was writen then? IOW, what use do we make of these Bible stories today in light of their apparent insignificance by those writers who chose not to include them?
Elaine
If you read John 20:30,31 and John 21: 25 you may find the answer. The final scenes of the Christ event so over powered the resurrection of Lazarsus that It may have been left out. It wasn't until the questions of the nature of the incarnation and resurrection became apparent that John felt compelled to included it. I am glad we have the record of the Christ Event as fragmented as it is. It gives me the foundation for my faith, confidence, and love. Tom
Elaine,
You switched the issue from your earlier post from, "for them it did not occur," to now saying it was " its non-reporting indicates non-importance." I feel like this is a bit of a shell game.
I'm quite aware that the gospels are theological and not simply biographical pieces. But, do you believe that they are merely theological tracts that include merely mythical stories? Or are they grounded in historical fact?
Is the issue in your mind merely a theological problem, or factual, or both?
Frank
"for them it did not occur" is similar to saying "to them, it was of no importance." If I see something and choose not to report on it, it reflects that in my mind, it was of insufficent importance to report.
A slight difference perhaps, in other's minds.
There is much reason to believe that the Gospels were written primarily as theological treatises, not historically accurate. There is no evidence, outside the Bible, that they were grounded in historical evidence as we have no sources other than what is in the Bible. Internal consistency (which is not always there) is certainly not proof of historical evidence.
Otherwise, if a resurrection was nothing unusual, then it wouldn't be reported by other sources.
Presuming that it was most extraordinary and yet unreported elsewhere is most suspect; e.g., can you conceive of such a story being unreported by any major news source today? Neither all the Gospel writers nor Philo or Josephus, two contemporary Jewish writers ever mentioned a resurrection. So, yes, I cannot accept such resurrections as logically having ococurred. Faith needs no evidence, only belief.
Elaine
Your arguments seem to be confused. One blog you reject the Old Testament and insist on following what Jesus said and did. Now you question the historical accuracy of the Four Gospels. Where else do you get what Jesus said and did? Tom
In light of this little discussion, I thought that this cartoon might shed some light. . .heartedness.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/issuecartoons/2008/03/10/cartoons_2008030...
Alex,
The cartoon was a creative,clever convolution!
Alex, I loved that appropriateness of that cartoon. Now I must learn how to scan and send such pictures. Glad you showed it.
Elaine,
Tacitus refers to Christ as "Christus...suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate..."
Josephus also makes reference to the historical figure of Jesus who was called the Christ in an undisputed passage referring to the execution of James, the brother of Jesus.
Jewish traditional literature, such as the Talmud, although it does not make much mention of Jesus, supports the gospel claim that Jesus was a healer and a miracle worker, though it attributes these activities to sorcery. They certainly were not referring to Jesus miraculous activity to build faith in him...and they had every reason to deny that any such activity ever took place if indeed it didn't.
Also, the internal and external documentation of Jesus and what he did is unique among ancient religious figures. The scriptures of Buddha were put into writing over six centuries after his death, and the first biography of Buddha wasn't written until the first century. Although the sayings of Muhammed were preserved in the Quran, his biography wasn't written until A.D. 767, over a century after his death.
However, the written documentation of the historical Jesus, both biblical and extra-biblical began taking shape within the first generation after Jesus' death and resurrection. Thus, unlike other ancient religious leaders, Jesus' contemporaries and near contemporaries were weighing in on his significance, the significance of what he did, and the significance of the movement he spawned, from a largely eye-witness or close historical perspective.
Also, the lack of abundant extra biblical corroberation could work two ways. It could, as you say undermine the NT claims and accounts of Jesus; or, it could reveal a lack of credible eye-witnesses that could come forward to soundly refute what was recorded and preached by his followers without being exposed as fraudulent.
An argument from silence (although I do not believe that history is totaly silent) cannot be used for or against the historical basis of the gospels. Theology grounded in, but not slavishly recording history is where, to me, the evidence seems to point.
Frank
To suggest that Lazarus' resurrection didnt happen because Matt Luke and Mark didnt record the event is at best a supposition. To suggest that why they didnt was because it was unimportant is an even wilder notion.
Historically and currently we all know of examples of people trying to prove/disprove events today. Even more current ones.
Apollo moon landings, Nazi concentration camps ect.With or without documentaion some consipicy theorists and/or apolgists refuse believe.
Documentaion in itself has never resolved anything to a person "disinclined to aquiess" in the first place.
For those who need no evidence, faith is all that is required. What is disconcerting is that for those who claim to have faith, also want to offer evidence. Why the necessity for both? Faith makes evidence unnecessary, doesn't it?
For a major supernatural event (doesn't resurrection fit that description?) to go unrecorded and unreported by early New Testament writers, at least raises questions, if it is truly the cornerstone and raison de etre of the Christian faith. Suppositions work both ways: it could mean either of two things: Those writers who did report it, heard about it later, or the earlier writers felt it insignificant. What other explanation is offered? Either it happened, or wasn't reported by those closest in time to the event. But for those with faith, all things are possible.
Elaine,
You are still arguing from silence to assume motive. I don't see the soundness of this line.
In addition, who has determined the pre-condition that faith can only be faith if it operates totally apart from evidence? The Bible to me, gives the idea that faith, in order to be faith, can but does not necessarily have to exsist apart from evidence. Creation displays evidence, history diplays evidence, the biblical record displays evidence, archaeology displays evidence. Faith may influence how one interprets the evidence, but need not always operate in a vacuum, isolated from it. Faith need not be blind to always be faith.
Nor is faith the only biased point of view when engaging the evidence. Everyone comes to the table with their own pre-suppositions and biases.
Frank
" Creation displays evidence, history diplays evidence, the biblical record displays evidence, archaeology displays evidence."
It does so to the true believer; it does not to those who believe in evolution. It requires a priori acceptance. What a believer sees as evidence for God, an evolutionist sees as confirming evolution.
"Now faith is the assurance of things HOPED for, the conviction of THINGS NOT SEEN: NASB).
"Only faith cfan guarantee the blessings that we hope for, or prove the existence of realities that at present remain unseen" (Jerusalem).
The writer of Hebrews acknowledged that faith has no evidence, it is a hope, not realized or seen now.
Elaine,
Evolutionists are also not immune to holding a priori assumptions. It cuts both ways, because human beings are on both sides of the argument.
To demand that people of faith can never make any appeal to evidence because of one text of scripture and because of the assumption that they are the only ones to come with pre bias is: a)using that one text to define the entire parameters of faith (a fundamentalist usage of the text), and b) to unfairly load the deck in favor of an evolutionist view.
Frank
Elaine,
Your last post is my point. Documentation plays a very small role since anyone inclined to disagree would not be convinced by the documentaion anyway.
So why, knowing that principal, would one assume it didnt occur and further attribute motive for Matt, Mark and Luke?
There is an impirical truth there, by that I mean, God knows what actually happened there and every nuance about it.
So, why seek that truth through broad supposition?
Shouldnt we just say, "We will find out when we get to heaven." and not interject so much of ourselves and our bents into it?
If we cant, then why read the bible if in the end it is a story we interpit to our satisfaction?
Elaine,
Isn't "faith" both a noun and a verb? "The Faith" offers objective truths and evidences, many by the mouth of two or three witnesses to be accepted by Christians by "faith."
Granted, we can not prove God, creation, or the resurrection except through the witnesses of scripture that testify of it.
Neither Can you prove the present "created order" came from the big bang through evidence?
Fair enough?
There is a Scripture the puts the proposition squarely: "Come now let us reason together, though you sins be as scarlet they shall be white a snow!" The Christ event is the assurance of that promise. What we know for sure is that our sins are as scarlet. There is no other rational resolution to that dilemma, than the Christ Event. The minor differences between story tellers is minor compared with the significance of the rescue mission of the Godhead. Since I came of age, the Gospel of John, his letters, and his assurances in the Book of Revelation have been a pillor of strength to me. The embarassment is the use of Revelation to "pove" vagrant doctrines. The book of Revelation has been the devil's playground since E.G. White and Schofield. All it says is that God will take charge of what He won on Calvary. I intend that that included me on the winning side. Even so come Lord Jesus. Tom
The resurrection was/is unreported?? Isn't it the most reported event of all time? I recall reading that there are more old manuscripts of the gospels still in existance than any other ancient text, and, what we now call The Bible, continues to be printed and sold more than any other book in history? Why would we put more faith in Philo than in Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, James, Jude or Peter? Besides, wasn't Philo on the payroll of the Jewish government?
Gerhard, please do us all a favor and give any other sources outside the Bible of the Resurrection, other than having heard about it.
You infer that Mark, Paul, James, and Jude reported on the Resurrection; however, please give texts for that assertion. It is not necessarily more faith in Philo (or Josephus) but it is obvious they had no theological reason to "realize" the Resurrection. Even the addition of the last verses (9-20) of Mark is omitt4ed from other manuscripts, and it says that Jesus "showed himself under another form" which seems to imply that it was a spiritual form, not physical. Was he with them for eight days afterward--in the evening of the first day? Or was it at Tiberias that he again showed himself? Or was it on the road to Emmaus that he suddenly appeared, unknown to them (another form?) and then to near Bethany where he ascended?
There is no consistent picture from the Gospels, which makes it rather difficult to place too much emphasis on any particular story.
While Philo may have been on the Jewish payroll, the Gospel writers also had their biases, so is the pot clean and the kettle black?
Elaine,
Again, people on both sides of any argument come with their biases. In this case...not just the gospel writers.
The other point is once again, silence cannot be used to prove or disprove an argument. Gerhard's point is well taken...Philo's silence might very well have been motivated by his pocketbook.
And consider, what motivated the apostles? The prospect of rejection? Being ostricized from the Jewish community? Persecution and the prospect of physical harm, even death? The loss of all their wordly possessions? Would they endure this for a lie? Didn't seem that way before Pentecost! What caused such a drastic change? A collective self delusionary religious episode?
Maybe what Paul wrote is true, " Why would we be fighting wild dogs in Ephesus if there is no resurrection from the dead?" "If there is no resurrection, then we are to be pitied more than all men."
Maybe Paul was that delusional. Or, just maybe...it's all true!
Frank
But we should never forget that in the first centuries, and for many centuries after, people believed in all sorts of supernatural events. One only need read history before the Renaissance and even later. People believed in demons, a literal Hell (which was reinforced by the contemporary writers and clergy), and other assorted supernatural occurrences which we would reject out of hand if someone were to tell us these same stories today. Why don't we believe today that someone can be raised from the dead after being dead several days (Lazarus and others). Can you recount any contemporary accounts that you would readily believe?
That their worldview was easily convinced of such things, does not, nor should it demand the same acceptance, even gullibility today. Why do you not believe the Lady of Guadalupe? The vision of Fatima? The miracles of Lourdes, and many more later miraclous events. Have you seen the Madonna? Millions of sincere Roman Catholics are convinced that they have. When was the last time you had such a vision? Do such miracles occur frequently, or at all, today?
Why not? Is it a matter of belief, or lack of?
It does seem to me that the gospels treat resurrection as a not so uncommon occurrence. The disciples were given the power to raise the dead when they were sent out by Jesus before his death. There was the raising of the dead that Jesus did personally. And, to me, the most strange of all, is the story in Matthew of how, at the moment of Jesus' death, the tombs of the saints were opened and the bodies were raised. Then at Jesus' resurrection they came out of the tombs and walked around Jerusalem and appeared to many (Matt 27: 52, 53). I'm not exactly sure of the timing of all that (were the bodies raised at Jesus' death but they weren't exactly alive until the resurrection?) but regardless of the exact timing, that is really an incredible claim. Personally I find it much more dumbfounding than Jesus' resurrection. And it would seem to me that something like that would attract attention.
The resurrection of one man (Jesus) among all sorts of resurrection stories wouldn't necessarily make the papers so to speak but wouldn't having a whole bunch of previously dead people walking around cause some outside person to take note? It wouldn't even have to be connected to Jesus, just someone noting that, "Hey here in Jerusalem there are a whole bunch of people that used to be dead and now they aren't." I don't know how to interpret that it isn't brought up anywhere else. Either resurrection really was happening all around and another story was no big deal, or it didn't really happen but people believed it did. To me, it is important that it's not just Jesus we're talking about but all sorts of people coming back to life with no one, beside the author of Matthew thinking that was something special. And that is hard for my little mind to get around.
We focus on Jesus' resurrection but I'm not sure why it is considered such a big deal when it was one of many. I should say, I understand the importance from a theological view but from a "that's hard to believe" view, there is a lot more in the story that stretches the mind.
I should put in a disclaimer that I am not trying at all to argue that Jesus' resurrection didn't happen. I'm just puzzling out loud here.
Previous Christians, and even the Jews did not look to Scripture as literally historical, but as theological resource to reinforce and tell the story of their heritage to successive generations. It is a recent concept to accept the Scripture as a literal history. No other ancient tales of origins and events were told to represent facts, but to glorify their past history (emphasis on glorify).
This attempt by literalists demand that they "prove" the stories as being factual and true in every detail. Compared to contemporary
stories Sargon's was very similar and preceded Moses by many centuries; the flood story resembles very closely earlier pagan flood stories; even the Babylonian creation days are identical to Genesis 1 and in the same order. However, the Babylonian story was recorded many centuries earlier. The Bible is far from an original book of stories.
As for the New Testament, pagan stories relate virgin conceptions and births, and much more very similar to the Gospels.
We would do much better by accepting the principles and "truths" from Scripture and cease from the attempt to make everything literal. How important is it? Or, does the Bible contain much more importance if we fulfill Jesus' teachings? Truth does not depend on any individual saying it, but because it has proved to be true. Is the Golden Rule true only because it is found in the Bible? It is found in a dozen or more cultures.
John 4:48 "Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders, you will never believe."
Christs rebuke laments the educated and learned nobelman comming to him as a last resort.
Arent we lucky to serve a God who deals with us according to his mercy and not our pre-modern (In the case of the nobelman) or post-modern views of spiritual things?
Very interesting discussions... A bit like percussion disscussion at times, but I thank you all, for the fascinating rays of light you shine on this many faceted diamond we call "the truth". Difficult work, in trying to elucidate the issue of the miracles, ressurection of Jesus etc. Ambiguity is quite ok with me, not everything has to be sorted out. Not immediately anyway. Ah, but I still love the discussion, it is fascinating... Yes, I am confused.
By the way, I am reminded of a philosopher's saying (Petre Tutea), that "God has not given people a brain in order to strive to find or understand the truth... but merely to recognise it."
I think that is all I am capable off right now: "I am the truth..."
Post new comment