A little later in the gospel narrative Lazarus' name is again incidentally mentioned, but still in connection with the great miracle. After the miracle Jesus Nvas compelled to retire to the city of Ephraim (John xi. 54), and thence he went to Galilee and Perxa (cf. Matt. xix. ; Mark x. ; Robinson, Harmony of the Gospels). From Perma he returned (six days before the Passover, i.e., on Saturday, John xii. r) to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom he had raised from the dead.' A great supper was there prepared in his honour, and Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him ' (ver. 2). Lazarus was now the en grossing subject of interest to the Jews, and the cause of intense excitement. The minds of the populace were so powerfully influenced by the miracle wrought upon him that the rulers resolved to put him to death as well as Jesus (ver. t). The result of their schemes, so far as Lazarus is concerned, are not recorded, and we hear no more of him.
This is the whole amount of direct information concerning Lazarus contained in the sacred narra tive. There are a few incidental expressions and allusions, however, which when thoughtfully con sidered cannot fail to invest the story with addi tional interest, and to shed upon it new light, Lazarus was of Bethany (a71-5 1.3?)B-avicts), of the village of Mary and Martha ' (ex riis labkoir, Some critics say that the eord signifies present resi.
dence, and nativity. Lazarus was thus a resi dent in I3ethany at the time of the miracle, but a native of the village of Mary, which is supposed to have been in Galilee (Gresswell, Dissertations, 481, seq. ; Wahl, Clavis IV: T.) This distinction has been rejected by the best modern critics (Al ford, Kuinoel, Liicke). Bethany is called the village of Mary and Martha,' who thus appear to have been better known than Lazarus. Probably Martha possessed property (Lampius), and was the proprietor of the house in which Jesus had lodged ; so we might conclude from the statement of Luke, who says she received Jesus, els rap Zan' airrijs, into her house ' (x. 38) ; and Mary had, perhaps, by her devoted attachment to Jesus, ac quired distinction among his followers [MARY]. This view appears to be confirmed by the remark —` It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick ' (John xi. 2). Our Lord had known the family for some time. It is appa rently the first introduction which Luke describes (x. 38-42)—' It came to pass that Ile entered into a certain village, and a certain woman named Martha (Trench suggests perhaps an early widow with whom her sister and Lazarus, a younger brother, resided,' Miracles, p. 391, note, 6th ed ) received him into her house.' Mary sat at bis feet and heard his word ; but Lazarus is not then men tioned at all. From that time Jesus appears to have made the house his home whenever he visited Jerusalem (Mark xi. 11-19 ; Matt. xxi. 17). The
sweet repose he enjoyed there after the exciting and jarring scenes in the city, the delicate atten tions and singular attachment of the gentle Mary, and the warm generous hospitality of Martha, as contrasted with the coldness and scorn of the world, and the unnatural enmity of his own kin dred, touched the heart of the Saviour, and con tributed no doubt to awaken those feelings so simply and yet so beautifully expressed by John, Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus' (xi. 5). These explain, too, that pas sionate burst of grief Weiipti.ojaa-ro irveOp.ari paEcv gaurd," . . . . acikpinrev, Maldonatus and Stier, in toc.) which compelled even the scoff ing Pharisees to exclaim, Behold how he loved him !' (John xi. 33, 35). The family of Lazarus seems to have been rich and influential (see Faber Stapul., Evang. yoan., p. 6o4). The perfume with which Mary anointed Jesus, which is de scribed as iriaruojs roXirriptou, genuine and ex ceeding costly '— value for about ,Cro of our money ; the private rock-hewn sepulchre which none but the wealthy could afford to excavate (Is. xxii. 16) ; and the numbers of Jews who came from Jerusalem to condole with them, were all in dications of wealth anci influence. The family was doubtless among the elite of Bethany, freely asso ciating, too, even with the chief men of Jerusalem.
Lazarus was present at the feast given to our Lord in the house of Simon the Leper. Some critics affirm that the feast mentioned in John xii. 2-8 is not the same as that of which we read in Matt. xxvi. 6-13, and Mark xiv. 3-9 (Origen, Chrysostom, Lightfoot, Wolf, etc.), but the cir cumstances related are too numerous and minute to admit of such a view (Alford, Meyer, Lange). John does not name Simon, nor does he tell us where the feast was :—` There (in Bethany) they made him a supper' Odi. 2). The supper appears to have been given on account of the miracle wrought on Lazarus, and not, as Lange thinks, because Jesus had healed Simon. It is not known who Simon was ; but from the fact that served,' and from the expression they made him a supper' (broinaap al" aeirt,Z,), we might infer that Martha was at home, and that Simon was her hus band, though separated from her and from society on account of his disease. John does not say mho made the supper ; yet the context seems to connect the plural verb with the three parties mentioned, Martha, Mary, and Lazarus (see in Alford ; Gress well, Dissert. ii. 554, seq.; Ellicott, Lectures 011 Life ofour Lord, p. 283). Some suppose that Simon was Lazarus' father, and there was a very old tradition to this effect (Nicephorus, Hist. Ec. i. 27 ; Theo phylact, in Matt. xxxi. ; Ewald, G'esch. Christi's).