History is a funny thing

On the Syracuse forum, a poster raised the question regarding Lazarus and why, after being raised from the dead, disappeared from the pages of history. I'm not sure if the intent of the post was to debunk Christianity or if it was serious historical inquiry.

I gave it some thought from a historical perspective, if somebody was raised from the dead, wouldn't he gain enough attention that his story and continued life would be recorded in the pages of history.

One thing I have come to realize about history is that much of it is forgotten. And what isn't forgotten is challenged. The validity and intent of our founding Fathers is in constent question. And that history is only 220 years old. The impact and genius of John Adams is only now comming to light, 200 years after his death.

We tend to look at those who lived 2000 years ago with modern eyes and we forget that only a fraction of those living were literate.

The story of Lazarus is interesting in that the miracle raised the ire of the chief priests and, set in motion the chain of events that led to Christ's crucifixion. Given that the Easter Season is upon us, it is a relevant topic. It is also interesting that the miracle only resides in John's Gospel. And that it is John's Gospel that really stresses the divinity of Christ.

But, getting back to the topic of history, I am not suprised that things fade so quickly. Even in working I my own personal family history, I have uncovered things that are pretty significant and were forgotten 1 generation ago. I believe this occurs because folks get focused on surviving and raising families or its a matter of leaving something awkward and challeging in the past.

I've also wondered about the Lazarus story--for Pete's sake, what did he TELL people after he was raised? Perhaps it's important to remember that he wasn't, at least according to the Bible, the first person raised--there are a few in the Old Testament. Even given that, though, it had to be a rather astounding occurence. What I think, though, is that by the time the stories were recorde, he was probably dead and gone, and the important fact about him had been retained. I don't think we're supposed to imagine there's anything particularly special about Lazarus--and in fact, his was really a revivification--he still had to die again.

I've always wondered WHY Jesus chose to bring him back--I've never really understood that. It's a material demonstration of what's coming--but I often wondered if he wept not over Lazarus' death, but from the fact that he brought him back into the world.

Like so many miracles, this one troubles me.

I don't dwell on miracles too much. Miracles are messy. But to theorize on the raising of Lazarus; either the story was an alegory (as in he was spiritually dead) or, Jesus knowingly took advantage of the situation to push forward the events that would full fill His sacrifice.

When Jesus arrived in Bethany, Lazarus had been dead for four days. Scriptures say that upon receiving news of Lazarus's illness, He delayed two days before departing. Jesus was located at least 20 miles away. 20 miles is at least a one day walk. I am thinking that Lazarus died the day the messanger left to contact Jesus. Jesus says that Lazarus was dead. Why did he wait the two days? To remove all doubt that Lazarus was dead?

Anyway, I just re-read John 11, it is an interesting and important part of the Bible.