Why does Jesus grieve for Lazarus’s death?

[Ruth Harris]

But in John, Jesus is god. John is the source for the doctrine of the trinity. In Mark, Jesus explicitly denies being god. If the story appeared in Mark, I might understand it. But why would any god weep? Immortality and omnipotence would imply no need for such an emotion. Thus Jesus is faking it. He’s basically lying to them instead of cheering them up. Hundreds of millions if not billions had died since Adam was thrown out of Paradise 4000 years prior. Billions more if you are an old earth creationist. Does god weep for them? Were none worth weeping for? Not even the great prophets and kings of Israel? If god weeps for the dead, why did he create death? If there is eternal life in heaven, there‘s no need for a god to weep, and on the contrary, he should rejoice and be happy about it.

If you’re saying that this just shows Jesus’s humanity, I’d be OK with it, but then you are denying one of the major tenets of Christianity, i.e. his divinity. Maybe that‘s a good UU argument against the Trinity. Jesus is just another great prophet like Elijah.

Okay, I will try one more time to explain what I meant.

Jesus was NOT crying because Lazarus was dead. He was showing empathy for the pain of Martha, Mary and the others. Just like my sister showed her empathy for my pain when my son moved out.

You seem to be trying to focus this story on a single thing, Jesus crying. That was not the intended focus when it was written.

As for your statement that I am denying a major tenet of Christianity – not so. I am a Baptist. Part of our basic faith and practice states Jesus was “fully human and fully divine”. Ergo, showing grief or any other emotion is perfectly natural for the incarnate Jesus.

Ruth

 

[Ruth Harris]

So Jesus' weeping has nothing to do with the greater lesson of the Lazarus story? That's an interesting contention.

You have lost me here; why would my reasoning for Jesus crying be an "interesting contention"? It is a fairly widely held viewpoint in Christianity.

Ruth

 

[SLD]

But in John, Jesus is god. John is the source for the doctrine of the trinity. In Mark, Jesus explicitly denies being god. If the story appeared in Mark, I might understand it. But why would any god weep? Immortality and omnipotence would imply no need for such an emotion. Thus Jesus is faking it. He’s basically lying to them instead of cheering them up. Hundreds of millions if not billions had died since Adam was thrown out of Paradise 4000 years prior. Billions more if you are an old earth creationist. Does god weep for them? Were none worth weeping for? Not even the great prophets and kings of Israel? If god weeps for the dead, why did he create death? If there is eternal life in heaven, there‘s no need for a god to weep, and on the contrary, he should rejoice and be happy about it.

If you’re saying that this just shows Jesus’s humanity, I’d be OK with it, but then you are denying one of the major tenets of Christianity, i.e. his divinity. Maybe that‘s a good UU argument against the Trinity. Jesus is just another great prophet like Elijah.

Okay, I will try one more time to explain what I meant.

Jesus was NOT crying because Lazarus was dead. He was showing empathy for the pain of Martha, Mary and the others. Just like my sister showed her empathy for my pain when my son moved out.

You seem to be trying to focus this story on a single thing, Jesus crying. That was not the intended focus when it was written.

As for your statement that I am denying a major tenet of Christianity – not so. I am a Baptist. Part of our basic faith and practice states Jesus was “fully human and fully divine”. Ergo, showing grief or any other emotion is perfectly natural for the incarnate Jesus.

Ruth

If Jesus was crying, he is not a god. That's the point. Empathetic crying is not appropriate for a god either. He's confirming their grief and making them suffer. He knows he's going to raise him from the dead (something that also contradicts the very foundations of Christianity, but that's a whole 'nother problem) so he should've said to them. Relax, I'm here. I'm the doctor and I'm going to save him. Or something like that. Cheer them up.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If Jesus was crying, he is not a god. That's the point. Empathetic crying is not appropriate for a god either. He's confirming their grief and making them suffer. He knows he's going to raise him from the dead (something that also contradicts the very foundations of Christianity, but that's a whole 'nother problem) so he should've said to them. Relax, I'm here. I'm the doctor and I'm going to save him. Or something like that. Cheer them up.

Which is why christians insist that the gospel protagonist is both fully man and fully god. He's frail and human like us but perfect unlike us. I guess it makes him folksy and likeable. You get to rap with Jesus and worship him too. He is all things to all people apparently. Strange, no?

But not all christians believe the same thing so that isn't intended to speak for Ruth Harris, but I hope it answered her "interesting contention" question.

Why didn't Jesus just fix the problem? Why the melodrama? Maybe Ruth has some thoughts.

 

[Politesse]

But in John, Jesus is god. John is the source for the doctrine of the trinity. In Mark, Jesus explicitly denies being god. If the story appeared in Mark, I might understand it. But why would any god weep? Immortality and omnipotence would imply no need for such an emotion. Thus Jesus is faking it. He’s basically lying to them instead of cheering them up. Hundreds of millions if not billions had died since Adam was thrown out of Paradise 4000 years prior. Billions more if you are an old earth creationist. Does god weep for them? Were none worth weeping for? Not even the great prophets and kings of Israel? If god weeps for the dead, why did he create death? If there is eternal life in heaven, there‘s no need for a god to weep, and on the contrary, he should rejoice and be happy about it.

If you’re saying that this just shows Jesus’s humanity, I’d be OK with it, but then you are denying one of the major tenets of Christianity, i.e. his divinity. Maybe that‘s a good UU argument against the Trinity. Jesus is just another great prophet like Elijah.

Okay, I will try one more time to explain what I meant.

Jesus was NOT crying because Lazarus was dead. He was showing empathy for the pain of Martha, Mary and the others. Just like my sister showed her empathy for my pain when my son moved out.

You seem to be trying to focus this story on a single thing, Jesus crying. That was not the intended focus when it was written.

As for your statement that I am denying a major tenet of Christianity – not so. I am a Baptist. Part of our basic faith and practice states Jesus was “fully human and fully divine”. Ergo, showing grief or any other emotion is perfectly natural for the incarnate Jesus.

Ruth

If Jesus was crying, he is not a god. That's the point. Empathetic crying is not appropriate for a god either. He's confirming their grief and making them suffer. He knows he's going to raise him from the dead (something that also contradicts the very foundations of Christianity, but that's a whole 'nother problem) so he should've said to them. Relax, I'm here. I'm the doctor and I'm going to save him. Or something like that. Cheer them up.

Well, you're certainly making me feel grateful that you aren't a deity! What an anti-human perspective.

 

[Ruth Harris]

This is my final attempt to explain. Let me make it clear; I have no intention to debate whether Jesus is God or not so I won’t be addressing any “not a real god” statements. SLD, I do find it amusing that you think your definition of how a god should act is the only possible viewpoint.

The Christians I know all accept the “fully human and fully divine” description for Jesus. I am not personally aware of any major Christian faith that does not believe this. I do exclude Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses from the “Christian” classification since they have many beliefs incompatible with mainstream Christianity (such as the Mormon belief in Joseph Smith’s revelations, and their belief that we become gods after dying; the Jehovah Witness beliefs that Jesus is not God but a created being, and rejection of the trinity). UU does not consider itself a Christian denomination; there are some Christian UU congregations but they are few and far between.

SLD, you put it this way: “I’m the doctor and I’m going to save him”. So think back to your last visit to a doctor; did he just barge in and say “Okay, I’m the doctor and I’m going to fix you”? Or did he offer some sympathy and small talk before telling you what he was going to do? Most doctors start with that, unless the issue is serious and time critical. There are very few doctors who don’t at least offer pleasantries upon seeing a patient, and those that don’t are usually not in general practice.

Lazarus was dead and buried – and a little time for sympathy was not going to make him any deader or more buried, so to speak. Once again, Jesus was NOT grieving the death of Lazarus. He was showing sympathy to those who grieved him. I don’t consider empathizing with friends “melodrama”. You seem to expect Jesus to act like a magician – show up and do the trick! Don’t pay any attention to people who are distracted! To me, that would be just about the most uncaring thing Jesus could have done in these particular circumstances.

Ruth

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Sympathy does not require weeping. We're to believe that sympathetic doctors that do not weep are inhuman. Okay then. Every doctor I've ever known is inhuman. Good stuff.

But thanks for the responses.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Sympathy does not require weeping. We're to believe that sympathetic doctors that do not weep are inhuman. Okay then. Every doctor I've ever known is inhuman. Good stuff.

You know better than that; I was not equating the doctor's visit with a patient to Jesus' visit with friends. I was simply answering SLD's equating the two.

This is very simple! Jesus as a human being was empathizing with friends who were in grief. Nothing more, nothing less. Why are you trying to make it so difficult?

Ruth

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You know better than that; I was not equating the doctor's visit with a patient to Jesus' visit with friends. I was simply answering SLD's equating the two.

This is very simple! Jesus as a human being was empathizing with friends who were in grief. Nothing more, nothing less. Why are you trying to make it so difficult?

Ruth

The story is what is difficult to reconcile, not my discussion of it. We have a god/man/demigod weeping out of sympathy and then bringing the dead person back to life so that they can die later. Did the soul come back from heaven too? What else had to happen? What about the smell? Did Lazarus head for the river? How literally do people take such fables?

The story is clearly metaphorical and meant to teach, like when jesus said to let the dead bury their dead. It only makes sense if you interpret it non-literally.

 

[Ruth Harris]

I was not discussing the overall story. The only thing I was addressing was the contention that if Jesus was actually God, he would not have wept but instead just waved his hands and raised Lazarus from the dead with no other actions relating to the mourners.

Ruth

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I was not discussing the overall story. The only thing I was addressing was the contention that if Jesus was actually God, he would not have wept but instead just waved his hands and raised Lazarus from the dead with no other actions relating to the mourners.

Ruth

Now, now, now. Jesus certainly possessed other options. He could certainly have been most sympathetic, understanding and convincing and still not wept, just like every doctor that has ever treated me. He didn't have to go full Jimmy Swaggart.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Well, bless your little pea-pickin' heart son.

(Yes, irony for irony.....)

Ruth

 

[Politesse]

Sympathy does not require weeping. We're to believe that sympathetic doctors that do not weep are inhuman. Okay then. Every doctor I've ever known is inhuman. Good stuff.

But thanks for the responses.

What you are saying here is that if a doctor does cry when they learn of a close friend's severe illness, it proves that they don't believe in the power of medicine and must therefore be a fraud.

 

[SLD]

Sympathy does not require weeping. We're to believe that sympathetic doctors that do not weep are inhuman. Okay then. Every doctor I've ever known is inhuman. Good stuff.

But thanks for the responses.

What you are saying here is that if a doctor does cry when they learn of a close friend's severe illness, it proves that they don't believe in the power of medicine and must therefore be a fraud.

It would depend on the illness. Doctors know the limits of medicine. But there are no limits to the power of a god. And thus nothing to weep about.

 

[Politesse]

Sympathy does not require weeping. We're to believe that sympathetic doctors that do not weep are inhuman. Okay then. Every doctor I've ever known is inhuman. Good stuff.

But thanks for the responses.

What you are saying here is that if a doctor does cry when they learn of a close friend's severe illness, it proves that they don't believe in the power of medicine and must therefore be a fraud.

It would depend on the illness. Doctors know the limits of medicine. But there are no limits to the power of a god. And thus nothing to weep about.

Are you promoting a particular theology of God, here?

And it seems irrelevant to me, in any case. I think the claim that crying with someone makes you a fraud is absurd whether or not you have any personal knowledge about their situation.

 

[SLD]

This is my final attempt to explain. Let me make it clear; I have no intention to debate whether Jesus is God or not so I won’t be addressing any “not a real god” statements. SLD, I do find it amusing that you think your definition of how a god should act is the only possible viewpoint.

The Christians I know all accept the “fully human and fully divine” description for Jesus. I am not personally aware of any major Christian faith that does not believe this. I do exclude Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses from the “Christian” classification since they have many beliefs incompatible with mainstream Christianity (such as the Mormon belief in Joseph Smith’s revelations, and their belief that we become gods after dying; the Jehovah Witness beliefs that Jesus is not God but a created being, and rejection of the trinity). UU does not consider itself a Christian denomination; there are some Christian UU congregations but they are few and far between.

SLD, you put it this way: “I’m the doctor and I’m going to save him”. So think back to your last visit to a doctor; did he just barge in and say “Okay, I’m the doctor and I’m going to fix you”? Or did he offer some sympathy and small talk before telling you what he was going to do? Most doctors start with that, unless the issue is serious and time critical. There are very few doctors who don’t at least offer pleasantries upon seeing a patient, and those that don’t are usually not in general practice.

Lazarus was dead and buried – and a little time for sympathy was not going to make him any deader or more buried, so to speak. Once again, Jesus was NOT grieving the death of Lazarus. He was showing sympathy to those who grieved him. I don’t consider empathizing with friends “melodrama”. You seem to expect Jesus to act like a magician – show up and do the trick! Don’t pay any attention to people who are distracted! To me, that would be just about the most uncaring thing Jesus could have done in these particular circumstances.

Ruth

Sympathy is fine. But that’s not the same thing as weeping. A doctor is a good analogy, but this doctor is omnipotent. The death of Lazarus is nothing to him. It’s as if you went to the doctor with a routine cut requiring stitches. You wouldn’t expect the doctor to weep, even if they were also your best friend. He’d smile, and sew your cut up, give you some antibiotics and send you home. Indeed, weeping would give you the very much the opposite perspective. You’re gonna die! It’s frickin’ serious. You’ve got MRSA and not likely to survive Or something. That’s what Jesus did. He weeps. Like it’s too late. But he’s both omnipotent and omniscient, he can easily solve this problem. He should’ve just smiled at them, told them everything is going to be OK, and then go raise Lazarus. Furthermore, the gospel doesn’t say why Jesus wept. You have an interpretation, but it’s only made in reaction to my objection. It might be plausible, but it’s not necessarily true. The gospels,could’ve explained that. But they didn’t.

 

[Ruth Harris]

You are perfectly welcome to make your own interpretation of this, BUT

You have an interpretation, but it’s only made in reaction to my objection.

Wrong. My understanding of this occurrence is a long standing belief of mine, and also happens to be a common belief among the Christian community. I didn't change anything to react to your statements. Please don't assign a motive to me when you don't know me or what I believed previously.

I hardly think that my interpretations are going to change because of something said by a random atheist on a message board when I have no problem disagreeing with pastors I know very well in real life. Not on this particular interpretation, but on others where I don't necessarily follow the mainstream point of view. I am not trying to be hateful towards you, just honest.

Ruth

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So, I am instructed to believe that in this story Jesus is at least two things, an everyday human being like you and me, and also an alien of fantastic reputation and infinite power. Do you think that was the original author's intent?

 

[Ruth Harris]

I personally do believe that Jesus was “fully human and fully divine”. I have no way of knowing the original author’s intent – but this story as it currently exists would appear to promote that view.

Before you say I am trying to weasel out of something, I should tell you that I am not convinced that this occurrence actually happened as it is written here. My primary objection to it is the fact that Jesus was supposed to be the first person raised from the dead according to 1 Corinthians 15. Modern biblical scholars claim that Jesus’ resurrection was different because he returned in a “new body”. I find that less than believable too since that “new body” bore the physical marks of the crucifixion, and the “new body” is supposed to be perfect according to those same scholars.

I think that this is quite possibly one of those stories blown into mythological status by a scribe/rabbi for the purposes of keeping their students interest while teaching a principle. That principle would be the divinity of Jesus, since the students would have considered the Messiah to have been just a man according to Jewish tradition.

Ruth

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Thanks, Ruth.

You don't think we're just reading about another super hero, all of whom seem to possess those same qualities we possess as humans but also possess superpowers? Our superhero friends weep and cry and feel pain and empathize with us and are regularly tested by the great forces of evil that allegedly infest all our lives. But then our favorite fantastic superhero uses his or her super powers to saves us from that. He or she endures our pain and triumphs in the end. Of course it all happens in pretend, not in reality.