# Why did Lazarus have to die again? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [October 21, 2009, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593 "2009-10-21T11:54:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/21 "2009-10-22T00:24:17Z")
> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > But it _does_ have an express statement that Jesus has risen and departed the tomb. That’s debatable. > [@](#): > > That “most” is by no means universally accepted. Yes, it pretty much is, at least in mainstream Biblical scholarship. To put it another way, there are only 7 Epistles that are “universally” accepoted as authentic. The overwhelming consensus (and for good reason) is that all of the others are second centuries pseudoepigraphs. > [@](#): > > He _does_ say “resurrection” and “risen from the dead”. That’s actually the same word in Greek, _anastasis_, “raising up,” but it’s not clear at all that Paul intends to imply a physical resurrection, especially since he explicitly says in 1 Cor. 15 that physical resurrections are impossible, calls people “fools,” for believing otherwise and says that all resurrections are spiritual. > [@](#): > > And the accounts are not “mutually contradictory”, they are merely different; they can _all_ be wrapped up in a consistent story if you just imagine a number of frightened apostles and women running around in the early dawn. The accounts are wildly divergent, and they all diverge right at the point where Mark’s account (a mutual source for the others) leaves off. They are not divergent in a way that can be explained by normal inconsistencies among witnesses (and the Gospel accounts did not come from witnesses anyway). For instance, where did Jesus first appear to a disciple – is it in Galilee, or Jerusalem or on the road to Emmaus? Where was the _last_ place the disciples ever saw him? Was it on a mountain in Galilee, ascending to the sky in Bethany (which was in Judea, not in Galilee) or on the shore of the Sea of Galilee helping Peter catch fish? These are not details that witnesses would get muddled or confused. These are also far from the only contradictions. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/22 "2009-10-22T00:28:28Z")
> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > That would seem to contradict the statement that the Beloved Disciple is the source of the 4th Gospel within the Gospel itself. That statement does not actually name the Beloved Disciple (and is an appendix to the original book, not something actually written by the author(s)). Not that I give the Lazarus = BD theory any credit. I don’t believe there was any Lazarus. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/23 "2009-10-22T02:15:00Z")
Presumably Lazarus was a double miracle: 1- Jesus restored him to life- 2- At the exact same time Jesus healed whatever it was he had died of in the first place. So if Lazarus died of, let’s say, heart disease (the Bible doesn’t say what he died of, just that he’d been ill) Jesus also cured the heart disease. Otherwise Lazarus would have walked outside and clutched his chest and keeled over (especially upon realizing “Hey I’ve been decomposing for a few days”), something like PUSHING DAISIES Israel style. So it would seem to depend on whether Jesus just kinda cured what ailed him (“Ch’presto ch’chango, clogged arteries be gone”) or gave a whole “Ch’blammo: whatever was wrong with you two days ago is now all healed up”. If it was the former then I suppose he would have lived until the “you’ve gotta die of something” stage- infirmities of old age if nothing else. If it was the latter then perhaps he could have lived for hundreds of years since his body has essentially been jumpstarted and rewritten. Something I’ve wondered about is the issue of faith and its ramifications. Christ’s miracles seem to have relied on faith to work. In some cases- the blind, the lepers, etc., it was their own faith that made them well. In other cases- the Roman centurion with the ill servant, Jairus’s daughter, etc., it was the faith of others that brought about the healing. Peter walks on water because of his faith, then sinks when for some reason he loses faith. Demons flee a woman out of fear/respect for Jesus so there’s an explanation there. The Lazarus story doesn’t jibe with these though, which makes me wonder if it was added later. Lazarus certainly didn’t have faith- he was dead- so his did not make him rise. His sisters didn’t have faith either- they fussed at Jesus for not coming earlier and when Jesus personally said “roll back the stone” they basically said “won’t do any good, he stinketh”- it almost seems Jesus raised Lazarus to spite them (“sometimes dead is bettah”). So this is not faith but flat out magic. I suppose the loaves and fishes/calming the sea/filling the nets with fish were also magic, but are there any other miracles that involve healing people but not faith? So unlike most of the miracles, this was evidently pure-magic. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/24 "2009-10-22T02:48:19Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s debatable. What’s “debatable” about “But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he said to you.”? > [@](#): > > That’s actually the same word in Greek, _anastasis_, “raising up,” but it’s not clear at all that Paul intends to imply a physical resurrection, especially since he explicitly says in 1 Cor. 15 that physical resurrections are impossible, calls people “fools,” for believing otherwise and says that all resurrections are spiritual. He says “spritual body [σωμα]”, in fact. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/25 "2009-10-22T04:11:07Z")
> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > What’s “debatable” about “But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he said to you.”? It’s debatable whether it’s a physical or spiritual resurrection, but I’m going to let this go. It’s not terribly important anyway. Even if you want to count Mark as an explicit claim for a physical resurrection, it’s still 40 years after the crucifixion. > [@](#): > > He says “spritual body [σωμα]”, in fact. Which he takes pains to distinguish from a physical body: _…ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικόν καὶ ἔστιν σῶμα πνευματικόν_ “…There is a physical body and there is a spiritual body.” He says that the physical body goes into the earth and the spiritual body comes out. He He uses the metaphor of sowing a seed. Add to this the fact that he does not give any details as to the nature of Jesus’ “appearances” to the Apostles, and does not draw any distinction between the nature of those appearances and the appearances to himself. Add in also that he appears to be unaware of any empty tomb tradition (or at least makes no mention of it), and we cannot make a solid case that Paul thought of the resurrection as necessarily being a physical event. That’s not to say the possibility can be ruled out, but the claim of a physical resurrection does not become explicit and unambiguous in Christian literature until the Synoptic Gospels. It’s also notable that the empty tomb (or any resurrection claim at all, for that matter) is absent from the earlier, embedded Q material in Matthew and Luke, as well as from the early sayings tradition preserved in Thomas. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/26 "2009-10-22T04:21:49Z")
Incidentally, as it pertains to the OP, one has to wonder whether Paul thought Lazarus (along with the other two people the Gospels say Jesus raised from the dead) was raised in a _σῶμα ψυχικός_ or a _σῶμα πνευματικός_. If Lazarus was raised in a physical body, then why did Paul say people couldn’t be resurrected in physical bodies? If Lazarus was raised in a spiritual body, what does that mean, exactly? Was he a disembodied spirit? Or maybe Paul just had no awareness at all of the physical resurrections that Jesus himself was supposed to have performed. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/27 "2009-10-22T07:03:21Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Incidentally, as it pertains to the OP, one has to wonder whether Paul thought Lazarus (along with the other two people the Gospels say Jesus raised from the dead) was raised in a _σῶμα ψυχικός_ or a _σῶμα πνευματικός_. > > If Lazarus was raised in a physical body, then why did Paul say people couldn’t be resurrected in physical bodies? If Lazarus was raised in a spiritual body, what does that mean, exactly? Was he a disembodied spirit? > > Or maybe Paul just had no awareness at all of the physical resurrections that Jesus himself was supposed to have performed. The problem I see with that is that raising the dead is something that happens in the Old Testament, as well. Paul considers himself a Pharisee even after his conversion. The idea that he would not believe in the authenticity of those earlier resurrections seems odd. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/28 "2009-10-22T14:21:16Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > I suppose the loaves and fishes/calming the sea/filling the nets with fish were also magic The loaves and fishes wasn’t magic. It just hinges on the fact that the two fishes were a tuna and a whale shark. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/29 "2009-10-22T19:25:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If Lazarus was raised in a physical body, then why did Paul say people couldn’t be resurrected in physical bodies? Actually, in context, it’s not all that clear that he means exactly that. His subject veers between the Resurrection of Jesus and the General Resurrection. He seems to follow here Jesus’ own argument that life after the General Resurrection is something unlike our present life, even taking the same jumping-off point about marriage. (In truth, the Gospel accounts seem to suggest, though not quite explicitly, that there was something a little eerie about the resurrected Jesus, appearing in closed rooms, not being recognized until He felt like being recognized, _etc._) ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/30 "2009-10-22T19:41:49Z")
> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > (In truth, the Gospel accounts seem to suggest, though not quite explicitly, that there was something a little eerie about the resurrected Jesus, appearing in closed rooms, not being recognized until He felt like being recognized, _etc._) Which is why I’ve heard people differentiate between Jesus’ _resurrection_ (to a spritiual body) and Lasarus’ _resuscitation_, which simply brought his physical body back to life and eventually, death again. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/31 "2009-10-22T23:58:17Z")
> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > That would seem to contradict the statement that the Beloved Disciple is the source of the 4th Gospel within the Gospel itself. How so? It’s Witherington’s theory that Lazarus, not John, is the actual source for the Fourth Gospel. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/32 "2009-10-23T22:37:22Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > How so? It’s Witherington’s theory that Lazarus, not John, is the actual source for the Fourth Gospel. That sounds a great deal like two-thirds of a circular argument. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/33 "2009-10-28T12:05:00Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > As to the question of why Lazarus was never mentioned again, or used more widely as an example of Jesus’ power, there is an interesting parable told by Jesus in Luke chapter 19 about a rich man and a begger named (probably coincidentally) Lazarus. They both die at the same time; the rich man finds himself in torment while Lazarus rests in the bosom of Abraham. The rich man, after being told that neither can cross over the gulf between them, asks to have Lazarus sent back to warn the rich man’s family. The parable ends (emphasis mine): > Another thing to point out is that Lazarus is not the only person Jesus apparently raised from the dead, but the others had not been dead nearly as long and had not yet been entombed. Yes, according to the NT, after Jesus resurrection many of the dead were supposed to have been seen walking around. It makes no sense to me to have some one die again once they were resurrected. Of course I do not believe anyone was resurrected (unless when my heart stopped while having a test in the hospital I am also resurrected). For me it just doesn’t ring true. I can’t imagine the people living in the time this was supposed ot happen why they (all) that witnessed the resurrection of their loved ones didn’t have more to say about it and why they and their loved ones wouldn’t be out preaching. My mother used to tell us outlandish stories (that we later learned was not true) to try to get us to believe. I imagine the followers of Jesus (hoping he was the Messiah) did the same thing. Catholics believe that Mary didn’t die but was assumed in to heaven, I often wondered how long it took her to get out of the Universe and into heaven which would seem to me to be out side the universe. She must still be traveling at the speed of light! Or why one would want to inherit the earth if they could live in Heaven! Human nature seems to thrive on such things, look at how Elvis, and Now Michael Jackson are being used by the promoters; and in reality they did not warrant the adulation any more than, (rather even less than), the soldiers who gave their lives for us. How many of their names do we remember? It seems to some that wiggling one’s rear or wearing one glove while doing a moon dance and holding one’s crotch is worthy of hanging on to for ever like some one is above all others!! ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/34 "2009-10-28T14:39:03Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Yes, according to the NT, after Jesus resurrection many of the dead were supposed to have been seen walking around. Where in the New Testament is that? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/35 "2009-10-28T14:52:50Z")
_And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many._ ( **Matthew 27: 52-53** ) ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/36 "2009-10-28T14:56:17Z")
simulpost ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/37 "2009-10-28T15:15:19Z")
Yeah, that’s a weird little aside in Matthew’s gospel. I’m a believer in Jesus and the resurrection, but I don’t know what to make of Matt. 27:52-53. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/38 "2009-10-28T16:28:41Z")
**John W. Kennedy** said: > [@](#): > > That sounds a great deal like two-thirds of a circular argument. How so? Witherington does not claim that the Beloved Disciple is not the author of the work, but that the work has incorrectly been attributed to John Zebedee. If you follow the link provided by **jmatrixrenegade** , he has several lines of reasoning to back that up. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/39 "2009-10-28T21:05:44Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > How so? Witherington does not claim that the Beloved Disciple is not the author of the work, but that the work has incorrectly been attributed to John Zebedee. If you follow the link provided by **jmatrixrenegade** , he has several lines of reasoning to back that up. A. His “reasoning” is pathological – standard conspiracy-theory junk. In one paragraph, “Perhaps X might conceivably be true;” in the next, “Since we know that X is true, perhaps that might imply Y,” and so the chain continues. Pfaugh! B. And he calls Irenaeus of Lyons a “heresiarch”, which is like calling Thomas Paine a monarchist. C. By his own confession, he’s not so much interested in truth as in messing with people’s minds. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593/40 "2009-10-28T21:09:10Z")
Be that as it may (and Witherington’s hypothesis is certainly not one that I give any credence to), it’s still not correct to say that it’s a _per se_ contradiction of the claim in the gospel’s appendix that it was based on the memoir’s of the “beloved disciple,” since the Gospel never says which disciple that was. The attribution of that appelation specifically to John is not in the Gospel. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-lazarus-have-to-die-again/514593.md?page=3)