Let Go of Lazarus
So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upward and said, “Father, I thank you for having heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.” When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.” (John 11:41-44; NRSV).
INTRO
When I was very young, I had a stuffed toy dog named Spot. I loved Spot; kept him with me all of the time. Spot was my ‘go-to’ guy. When I drooled in my sleep, Spot was there. When I had a runny nose, Spot was there. Suffice it to say whatever was going on with me or out of me, Spot was a friend that was closer than a brother.
One day, Spot was suddenly taken away from me by my mother. She did not use terms such as putrid, noxious or malodorous, but she kindly informed me that Spot was in a state of hygienic confusion; Spot had been removed so that he could take a bath in the washing machine.
Unfortunately, this temporary separation became permanent. Spot was not machine washable and did not survive the washing machine agitator. This was a catastrophic event for Spot, me and my mother – especially for my mother because she had to manually fish out the stuffing, so that it would not clog the drain.
However, the day came when I realized that I no longer needed a stuffed toy for comfort and security. It gradually dawned on me that comfort and security came from the God that my mother told me about. Saying grace reaffirmed that God put food on table. Saying bedtime prayers, reaffirmed that God oversaw my welfare. Singing “Yes - Jesus loves me” – reaffirmed that I was loved, based on the authority of God’s word. Having Spot was fine at a certain age and stage of life. But my spiritual maturation required that I let go of Spot, and place my faith in the God who created me. Losing Spot was a painful but teachable moment. It taught me that in order to grow, I had to let go.
TEXTUAL EXPOSITION
Today’s text also describes a painful, but teachable moment on letting go. If we review verses 1 through 43, we see that Mary and Martha, two friends of Jesus, sent word to Jesus, that their brother Lazarus was gravely ill. We also see that Jesus intentionally delayed visiting Lazarus. Jesus began his journey to Bethany after Lazarus died.
When Jesus arrived at the home of Mary and Martha, each sister counterfactually declared to Jesus “If you had been here, our brother would not have died”. Jesus is taken to the tomb. Then in our text, Jesus prays and commands Lazarus to come out of the tomb. Upon Lazarus’ exit from the tomb, Jesus commands the bystanders to unbind/loose Lazarus and let him go.
ANALYSIS
In general, this text is a prime example of the theme of John’s gospel – that Jesus is the son of God, and those who believe this will have life through his name. In a discussion with Martha about seeing Lazarus again in the resurrection, Jesus makes clear in verse 25, that he is the resurrection. But there is something else going on here. Jesus could have stayed where he was, and resurrected anyone from the local cemetery to prove this point. Why come to Bethany to do this? Why Lazarus and not someone else?
Moreover, if we compare this text to Luke chapter 7, it appears that Jesus is engaged in a behavior, which Mr. Spock from Star Trek would describe as ‘highly illogical’. Specifically, in the Luke passage, Jesus healed a centurion’s servant without going to see him; Jesus simply spoke the word and it was so. But while Jesus remotely healed a gentile, he did not remotely heal a fellow Jew. Jesus remotely healed a stranger, but did not remotely heal a friend. Jesus let the centurion’s servant live, but let Lazarus die. This does not make sense.
If we view this text through the lens of skepticism, we would conclude that this is just another example, of how the bible is an ancient book of inconsistent myths. But, if we view this text through the lens of trust, then we would conclude, that we are playing checkers, while God is playing chess. God has a purpose, for everything he does. Let’s look at this text with some additional lenses.
If we examine this text through the lenses of the social sciences, philosophy and feminist biblical criticism, we see that these events occurred in a traditional Jewish cultural context. Specifically, these conversations and actions happened in a social ecology that was: (1) patriarchal, (2) patrilineal and (3) androcentric. Patriarchal means that the decision making processes of the family units and the community were controlled by the men. Patrilineal means that the Jewish genealogy and inheritance laws were traced through the men. Androcentrism was the practice of placing a masculine point of view at the center of one's world view. Basically, men held the positions of authority in the Jewish community. Academically, this situation is known as the ‘feminization of poverty’; poverty in terms of wealth, identity and power. For women, a household without a man, was a household at risk.
Think of all of the biblical episodes that described women at risk, because no man was there. The story of Ruth, Elisha and the Widow’s Oil, the Widow’s mite, the parable of the Unjust Judge, the widow of Nain, and John the beloved disciple, becoming the caregiver of Jesus’ mother – all of these events speak to the fact that, for women, a household without a man, was a household at risk.
And, sometimes for women, a household with a man, was also a household at risk. For example, if we examine what Dr. Phyllis Trible refers to as ‘Texts of Tyranny’, we see that:
TEXT SAYS THAT:
Genesis 19:8 Lot offered his daughters to the men of Sodom to protect a male guest.
Judges 11:29 Jephthah sacrificed his daughter to remain faithful to a foolish vow.
Judges 19 The Levite’s concubine was raped, murdered and dismembered.
2nd Samuel 13 David’s daughter was raped by her brother.
Moreover:
TEXT SAYS THAT:
Genesis 12 & 20 Abraham twice passed Sarah off as his sister, to save his own life.
Genesis 26 Isaac passed Rebekah off as his sister, to save his own life.
Exodus 20:17 A wife was an extension of a man’s property.
Deuteronomy 22 A woman could be executed in front of her father’s home, if she was not a virgin prior to being married. That’s one reason why Joseph wanted to divorce Mary quietly; there wasn’t an immaculate conception clause in the law. On the other hand, premarital virginity was not required for men.
Feminist theologian, Dr. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, refers to this social ecology as a ‘kyriarchy’. Using the Greek word kurios (??????) – which means ‘lord/master’ – she uses kyriarchy to refer to the multiplicative, interlocking, male-dominant, social structures that stratified women by wealth, identity and power.
In effect, the sitz im leben – the setting in life – for Mary and Martha, was likely similar to that of the other women in that part of the world. They lived in what psychiatrist Franz Fanon called ‘the zone of nonbeing’. For example, Leviticus 27:1-7 suggests that women had 50% - 60% of the economic value of men. Hence, women were not 100% human; at the most, they were legally 3/5ths of a person. It was a self-evident truth, that all men were created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among those were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But women were stigmatized and regarded ontological anomalies; women were ‘other’. To use the language of algebraic inequality, men were greater than women and women were less than men. To use the language of Cartesian Duality – the relationship between men and women, was a function of ‘mind over matter’ – the men did not mind that the women did not matter. To use the language of Newtonian Mechanics, androcentrism ‘forced’ women to experience ‘centrifugal suffering’; having men in the middle, pushed pain out to the marginalized. To use the language of accounting, women were born on the wrong side of the disparity leger, in terms of wealth, identity and power.
Therefore if we look at this text from the perspective of its cultural context, we can see that Lazarus’ illness and death had significant implications. Mary and Martha not only wanted Lazarus back, but they very likely needed him back. The scriptures are silent about the degree of Mary and Martha’s dependency on Lazarus. But based upon what we know about the norms of that society, some level of dependency is a reasonable interpretive assumption. Lazarus, as best as we can tell, was the main male figure of that family unit. Hence, his sickness and death were traumatic enough, for each sister to immediately remind Jesus, that his absence was the catalyst for their pain.
But, since Jesus could have remotely healed Lazarus or resurrected anyone to prove that he was the resurrection, then why come to Bethany? Simple. Jesus came to Bethany, to teach Mary and Martha, that they should focus their attention on God. Jesus came to Bethany, to teach Mary and Martha, that their attention should not be on the one who was limited by time, but on the one who could outlive time. Jesus came to Bethany, to teach Mary and Martha, that as women in a “man’s world”, they could let go of Lazarus, and stand on their own, as long as they had faith in him.
Yes, Jesus’ intentional delay, forced Mary and Martha to experience Lazarus’ death. But when all was said and done, we see that Jesus had a purpose for their pain. The objective was not to make Mary and Martha bitter, but to make them better. Or to use the liberatory conceptual framework of Dr. Schussler Fiorenza, Jesus was preparing Mary and Martha for induction into the ‘Discipleship of Equals’; the formation and declaration of their independence was predicated upon letting go of Lazarus.
Let’s think about this for a moment. Let go of Lazarus – that’s a call for theological maturation. That’s a call for a shift, from androcentrism to Christocentrism. That’s a call, to shift the focus of faith, from earth to heaven-from dust to divinity-from Lazarus to Jesus.
Let go of Lazarus – that’s a call to see Jesus, not only as a friend of the family, but as an agent of liberation. If we dissect this text with an emancipatory hermeneutic, we can see that Jesus facilitated: (1) freedom from the grave, (2) freedom from the burial clothes and (3) freedom from dependency.
Let go of Lazarus – That’s a reminder that following Christ is a dynamic process, which requires leaving your comfort zone. That’s a reminder that a journey with Jesus goes through green pastures, still waters and the valley of the shadow of death; that’s a reminder that a journey with Jesus may go through multiple zip codes. That’s a reminder that a journey with Jesus, will move us from what is good, to what is better, to what is best.
Let go of Lazarus – that’s a command to eliminate the noise of selfishness, and to follow the signals of surrender. For example – ‘thy kingdom come/thy will be done; for thine is the kingdom, power and glory; let this cup pass, but nevertheless, not my will, but thy will be done; it is finished-into thy hands I commend my spirit’ – those are signals of surrender.
Let go of Lazarus – That’s a reminder, that all of us, must go through the painful experience, of saying a final goodbye to some person, place or thing. You see, this text was not a scene from the movie ‘Groundhog Day’; Mary and Martha could not expect Jesus to keep returning to Bethany, to resurrect Lazarus, every time he died. Think about it - even Lazarus would eventually get tired of the cycles of organ failure. And at some point, Lazarus would get sued for insurance fraud. You see, after your family receives your death benefit, you are supposed to remain dead; you cannot legally collect your own death benefit. And so, for Mary and Martha to grow, they had to let Lazarus go. Letting Lazarus go would allow everyone to rest in peace.
SCRIPTURAL ECHOES - INTERTEXTUALITY
If we search the scriptures, we see that refusing to ‘let go’ carried negative consequences. For example:
TEXT SAYS THAT:
Genesis 19:26 Lot’s wife died, because she did not emotionally let go of the old neighborhood.
Joshua 7:1 Israel was severely punished, because Achan did not let go of his greed for pagan idols.
Acts 5 Ananias and Sapphira died because they did not let go of their selfishness.
APPLICATION
So, synchronically, we know what ‘letting go’ meant for Mary and Martha, and diachronically, we understand what it meant throughout the scriptures. But existentially, what does it mean for us? Well, it means that we should let go of the ‘counterproductive nouns’ in our lives; we should let go of the:
• People, places and things that divert our faith from Christ
• Relationships, locations and possessions that divert our focus from Christ
Why? – Because if we want to grow (teleios/te?e???/become mature), then we must let go.
You see, growing old does not mean that you automatically grow up; maturation is a function of intentional separation. If you want to be a butterfly, then you have to let go of being a caterpillar. If you want to be married, then you have to let go of being single. If you want to be an adult, then you have to let go of your mother’s apron strings and your father’s wallet. If you want to get to the Promised Land, then you have to let go of Egypt. In the 3rd chapter of Philippians, Paul puts it this way:
… forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal, for the prize of the heavenly call of God, in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us then, who are mature (te?e???), be of the same mind;
Thus, the man who let go of his history as Saul, to embrace his destiny as Paul, tells us, that if we want move on to maturity, if we want to grow, then we must let go.
Mind you, letting go of Lazarus is much easier said than done. The reason why middle-aged men comb their hair in creative ways, is because it is hard to let go of Lazarus. The reason why we all have a junk drawer at home, filled with useless items, is because it is hard to let go of Lazarus. The reason why some people refuse to evacuate their homes in the face of a hurricane, is because it is hard to let go of Lazarus.
You know, in that light, we are Mary and Martha; we all have a person, place or thing, which we believe is essential to our lives. We all have a relationship, a special space or an inanimate entity, which defines who we are, shapes how we think, and guides what we do. We all have a Lazarus. But Jesus says to us, that no matter how much we love Lazarus, we must see that Lazarus is a station and not our destination. If we want to grow, then we must obey Christ’s command to let go. And please know, that Jesus practiced what he preached. First, he:
Let go of his Glory And embraced Bethlehem, then he
Let go of Bethlehem And embraced Egypt, then he
Let go of Egypt And embraced Nazareth, then he
Let go of Nazareth And embraced greater-Galilee, then he
Let go of greater-Galilee And embraced the Cross, then he
Let go of the Cross And embraced the Grave, then he
Let go of the Grave And embraced his Glory
Jesus came full circle and accomplished his eternal purposes, because he was willing to ‘let go’.
REFLECTION
So, we have critiqued the text; now let’s have the text critique us. First, let’s ask ourselves 8 personal reflective questions:
8 PERSONAL REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS
1. Are there people in my life that I allow to exploit, manipulate or abuse me, just because I am afraid to face life without them? Am I keeping myself in bondage just because I am afraid to let them go?
2. Am I afraid to let go of my family members or pets? Am I afraid to let go of my neighborhood and live elsewhere? Am I afraid to change careers, schools, my appearance, or my significant other? Am I afraid to let go of every person, everyplace and everything to which I am accustomed? Does fear have me wrapped up in the burial clothes of Lazarus?
3. Am I holding on to attitudes and behaviors that please me, but don’t please God? Do I want to let them go, or maintain the status quo? When I pray about them, do I ask God for deliverance or discretion? Do I want to be made whole or not get caught? Do I want to walk uprightly before God or ‘keep it on the down-low’ among people? Am I a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God? Can I surrender all?
4. Am I holding on to grudges, guilt, or bitterness? Am I holding on to these feelings, to punish myself for making bad decisions and poor choices? Do I feel unworthy to embrace God’s love, and thus hold on to self-hatred? Can I Iet go of my past, and learn to love myself, as much as God loves me?
5. Proverbs 21:17 says ‘Whoever loves pleasure, will suffer want; whoever loves wine and oil, will not be rich’. Can I let go of poor financial choices and spending habits, and embrace God’s guidance for the management of my resources? What do I need to release, in order to rest in financial peace?
6. In thinking about ‘letting go’, I wonder – do I have control issues? Am I one of those people, who believes that God cannot run the universe, without me guiding his decisions? Is my desire for control, really a sign, that I don’t trust God enough to let him guide my life? Is it obvious to everyone except me, that my need for control is greater than my faith? Can I let go – and let God?
7. In 1st Kings 3:16, Solomon oversees a custody battle between two mothers. One mother is willing to let go of her custody rights, to save the life of the baby. The other mother is willing to let go of the life of the baby, to save her right to be spiteful. In thinking about ‘letting go’, do I typically sacrifice what I want, to help others, or do I sacrifice others, to help myself? Am I like the Good Shepherd, willing to give my life for the sheep, or do I enjoy lamb chops? If the baby in the text were to look at me, would it see the face of self-sacrifice or the face of selfishness? When others look at me, do I remind them of the Good Shepherd or their local butcher?
8. The synoptic gospels speak of an episode, where Jesus told a rich young ruler that he had to liquidate his assets to be his disciple. This request makes sense because anatomically, the average person’s back is: (1) not wide enough to carry the cross and their possessions; (2) not wide enough to carry the cross and their personal ambitions; (3) not wide enough to carry their cross and the favorable opinions of other people - so something would have to go. Moreover, the sheer weight of carrying the cross and other stuff, would make one tired and limit progress. I wonder, do I have room on my back to carry my cross and my stuff? If my journey is exhausting with limited progress, then am I carrying too much stuff? Am I willing to let go of whatever gets in the way of the cross, or will I, like the rich young ruler, dump the cross and walk away from Jesus?
Now let’s ask ourselves 8 church-wide reflective questions:
8 CHURCH-WIDE REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS
1. Mary and Martha were desperately concerned about the survival of Lazarus. Lazarus died and Jesus resurrected him. However, Lazarus was not raised unto eternal life, and at some point, died again. In like manner, many Christians are desperately concerned about the survival of their churches. I wonder, should Christians depend upon repeated resurrections to sustain their fellowships, or, let go and trust God for the outcomes, whatever they may be? Are Christians today willing to be faithful unto death? Which approach would demonstrate maturity?
2. In the Book of Job, we see that the second half of Job’s life was better than the first half. However, Job had to let go of the first half of his life, to obtain a better second half. In this nascent second century of UBC, is there anything from the first century, of which we need to let go? Like Job, are we willing to experience a season of suffering, if it results in us being a better church?
3. Imagine that God had a ruler, which was incremented from 1 to 10, with 10 meaning ‘willing to let go of everything and die for our faith’ and 1 meaning ‘willing to go one Sunday without cream at the coffee bar’. Where would our church rank on this ruler? Modern-day martyrs or bourgeois-believers; the people of persecution or the people of entitlement; saints willing to suffer or Sunday morning social club – where on this continuum would we rank? How willing are we to deny ourselves, take up the cross and follow Christ?
4. In Luke 19 and Matthew 21, Jesus tells his disciples to find a specific colt and untie it. And that if anyone should ask, tell them that the Lord needs it. In thinking about the idea of ‘letting go’, have we as a church, untied and deployed resources to every person, place and thing that has meaning and purpose to Christ? What do we need to untie that the Lord needs?
5. Over 55 years ago, I let go of Spot. But 15 years ago, I made a decision to let go of my birth church and join UBC. That was a very tough decision, because I had been there my whole life. But I had to let go because, being in a loving, familiar and comfortable place, was not as important, as being in the will of God. Likewise, many of you have also let go of your former churches to come here. I wonder, if we had the opportunity to do exponentially more for Christ, but it required relocating outside of Baltimore, then could we let go of everything that we have established here? Would we adopt the ‘Field of Dreams’ strategy and stay here, believing that ‘If we build it, they will come’, or could we trust God, to send us to the people who needed us? If Christ said to us ‘let go’, would we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’?
6. In Revelation 2:8, Jesus informs the Church at Smyrna, that they will face persecution, suffering and death. Acts 7:54 tells us that Stephen was stoned to death. Likewise Hebrews 11:35 says that believers suffered imprisonment, torture, homelessness and death. In thinking about ‘letting go’, which is more important to us – preservation or sacrifice? During Communion, we partake of bread, but are we willing to be broken loaves? We partake of grape juice, but are we willing to be dripping crushed grapes? We take communion together, but do we allow Christ to suffer alone? Preservation or sacrifice – we know what Jesus chose; which is our choice?
7. Does the church have any person, place, or thing more valuable than Jesus? I ask because: (1) the crowd said that Barabbas’ life was worth more than Jesus; (2) Peter said three times, that avoiding jail was worth more than Jesus; (3) Judas said that 30 pieces of silver was worth more than Jesus. So since the crowd, Peter and Judas let go of Jesus, in exchange for some person, place or thing, I ask, ‘Do we have a price point for Christ?’ Would it be the guarantee of 1,000 people in service each week? Would it be the guarantee of a $1 billion dollar endowment? Would it be the guarantee of a 20 year baby boom? What would cause us to keep Lazarus and let go of Jesus? Is our relationship with Christ transformational or transactional? Is Jesus our God or a tradable economic good?
8. Which sounds better to us: (1) Jesus is the way, the truth and the life or (2) Jesus is a way, a truth and a life? If we say a way, truth and life, then does it mean that fungibility is a divine attribute? Does it mean that we are holding on to Lazarus as an equitable substitute, just in case Jesus needs a sick day? Should we hold on to Lazarus or is Jesus enough?
CONCLUSION
Hopefully by now, you can see that this text is a teachable moment that has lasted 2000 years. This text teaches us that letting go is a part of life. This text also teaches us that Christian maturity is not measured by what we seek to gain, but, by what we are willing to lose. Jesus says in Matthew 16:25 and in Luke 17:33 – ‘For those who want to save their life, will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, will find it’. Letting go of your life for a higher purpose is seldom done. Someone asked Rev. Jesse Jackson how he was able, as a young outsider, to come into the inner circle of Dr. Martin Luther King. Rev. Jackson said that it was easy, because the line to die with Dr. King was a short line. Think about it – the lines were long when Jesus sacrificed for others, but the lines were short for those who would sacrifice for him; letting go is not natural for us. But if we are to be mature (te?e???) followers of Jesus Christ, if we are to be people who will ‘stand in the short line of self-sacrifice’, then we have to learn, to let go of those people, places and things that we love; let go of the attitudes and behaviors that tarnish our witness; let go of the need to control, exploit and manipulate other people; let go of the doubts, fears and self-loathing than imprison us; let go of ‘the good old days’ that prevent us from looking ahead, and put our faith in Jesus Christ. In 1950, Ira Stanphill expressed it this way:
I don't know about tomorrow; I just live from day to day. I don't borrow from its sunshine, For its skies may turn to grey. I don't worry o'er the future, For I know what Jesus said. And today I'll walk beside Him, For He knows what is ahead.
I don't know about tomorrow; It may bring me poverty. But the one who feeds the sparrow, Is the one who stands by me. And the path that is my portion, May be through the flame or flood; But His presence goes before me, And I'm covered with His blood.
Many things about tomorrow I don't seem to understand, But I know who holds tomorrow, And I know who holds my hand.
Let Go of Lazarus (3X) - Amen
