Origen is very good at telling two stories at the same time. Here is clearly using the familiar story of the raising of Lazarus in the canonical Gospel of John to point to that 'other Lazarus' story that I think is ultimately connected with the Episcopal throne of Alexandria. I hope my readers can be able to get too distracted by Origen's LITERAL references to the material John chapter 11 and see that he is referring to something else in another gospel.
Origen's discussion of material in the Gospel of John begins with the words 'Jesus says, Take away the stone.' (John 11.39) Of course Secret Mark has 'And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb.' Origen goes on to compare the understanding of John (where Jesus gets others to move the rock) with the story in Genesis where Jacob himself moves the stone making clear that Jacob's example is symbolic of the establishment of the nation of Israel. We read:
Here Jesus himself does not take away the stone that lies upon the cave, but says 'Take away the stone.' In Genesis on the other hand, when 'there was a large stone on the mouth of the well, and the custom was to gather all the flocks there and roll back the stone from the mouth of the well, and gather and water all the sheep, and restore the stone to the mouth of the well in the its place,' and this had not taken place because the flocks had not been gathered, Jacob, when he saw 'Rachel, the daughter of Laban his mother's brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother's brother, himself approached and rolled back the stone from the mouth of the well and watered the sheep of Laban his mother's brother.' [cf. Gn 29.10] Inasmuch as there is a difference we wish to examine both stones together so that we may grasp the reason that here Jesus himself did not take away the stone from the cave, but said 'Take away the stone,' yet in Genesis, Jacob himself rolled the stone away from the mouth of the well.
Consider if we can say that, because the cave was a tomb, Jesus himself must not touch the stone upon the cave, but only command those suitable for the work to take the stone away. On the other hand, Jacob himself had to grasp the stone that was lying on the mouth of the well and keeping those sheep, from which would come the spotted sheep, even the portion of Jacob [cf Gn 30.42] from drinking when he approached the stone had to roll it back from the mouth of the well that the sheep of Laban his mother's brother might be watered.
And it was necessary indeed that Jacob himself approach the well, but that Jesus stand outside the cave.
But if you can direct your attention to why, in the case of the cave the stone lying upon it is not rolled away but is taken away but in the case of the well it is not taken away completely but only rolled away. It was fitting by all means that the stone be taken away in the case of the tomb and not rolled back but in the case of the well the stone only be rolled away. For it has been said before that ...
Now it is very unfortunate that forty critical lines of material is lost here but it is hard to believe that Origen is REALLY making a comparison between Genesis chapter nine and John chapter 11. I mean has anyone really looked at what is said there:
When Jacob saw Rachel daughter of Laban, his mother's brother, and Laban's sheep, he went over and rolled the stone away from the mouth of the well and watered his uncle's sheep. Then Jacob kissed Rachel and began to weep aloud. He had told Rachel that he was a relative of her father and a son of Rebekah. So she ran and told her father.
There is absolutely nothing which can possibly connect itself to the raising of Lazarus. I think Origen is referring to a parallel 'resurrection narrative' which was of superior significance. While it is very puzzling to connect Jesus NOT moving the stone in front of the tomb to Jacob's activity in front of the well, compare what is written in Secret Mark:
And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb.
Notice that Origen stresses that 'it was necessary indeed that Jacob himself approach the well, but that Jesus stand outside the cave.' There is no such reference in Genesis. As we shall see it is apparent that Origen has another text in mind.
Origen goes on to tackle the hidden meaning of the next lines:
"But, Lord," said Martha, the sister of the dead man, "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days." Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"
But Origen amazingly argues that Jesus was 'angry' with Martha here and thus brings the text more into line with what appears in Secret Mark viz. 'And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb.'
Origen writes of John's account:
The delay in the removal of the stone lying upon the cave resulted from the dead man's sister, for she hindered as it were, those whom Jesus commanded when he said, 'Take away the stone,' by saying, 'He already stinks for it is the fourth day.'
And if Martha's unbelief had not been checked when Jesus said to her, 'Did not I say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?' those who heard the words, 'Take away the stone,' would not have taken away the stone.
For come, let us suppose that when Jesus said, 'Take away the stone,' the dead man's sister had not responded nor said, 'He already stinks, for it is the fourth day.' What then would have been written subsequent than this, 'Jesus says, 'Take away the stone, therefore, they took away the stone"?
But now between the words, 'Take away the stone,' and, 'therefore, they took away the stone,' the words of the dead man's sister hindered the removal of the stone. And it would not have been taken away at all even later had not Jesus answered and said to her unbelief, 'Did I not say to you that if you believe you will see the glory of God?' It is good then not to intervene between the Lord's command and the action enjoined by his bidding ... We must believe, therefore, that it is a condemnation of Martha ... [Origen Comm. John 28. 13 - 17]
It is impossible in my mind to understand Origen's purpose in connecting all these ideas to John 11 but now read Secret Mark and see if they fit don't perfectly fit the idea that Origen is thinking of another Lazarus narrative while commenting on John:
And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was
I think Morton Smith and others have assumed that Jesus was angered with his disciples for rebuking the sister, but I believe that Origen's words suggest that he knew of an interpretation that Jesus was mad at her for hindering his efforts.
Origen goes on to repeatedly note how this raising of Lazarus narrative was like other resurrection narratives in the gospel noting:
I think something similar happened also when Jesus raised the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue after he prayed about it, for he asked that her soul return and dwell again in her body. And you shall also inquire whether it is the same or not concerning the widow's son who was being carried out, that you may discover the orderly sequence in these accounts in all the passages, for it is not proper that we make such great digression. [ibid 28.45 - 46]
Yet, as any frequent reader of Origen already knows, whenever Origen says that he is not going to something he is actually signaling his initiated readership to pay careful attention to what he is about to say.
Indeed we see a complete a transformation in the discussion in what immediately follows. Origen notes that:
We have explained these words in relation to the literal meaning and the resurrection of Lazarus. On the other hand, the anagogical sense concerning the passage is not difficult in consequence of what we have already explained [i.e. regarding the resurrection of other dead people]. For he asked that the one who had sinned, after becoming his friend, and had become dead to God return to life by divine power. And he obtained it and saw movements of life in such a one for which he gave thanks to the Father. [ibid 28:49 - 50]
Now I defy anyone to connect the idea that Jesus "asked that the one who had sinned, after becoming his friend, and had become dead to God return to life by divine power" to Lazarus. It is impossible.
Heine tries to explain the passage as if it is only pertains to those who have sinned after baptism. This is incorrect as no specific reference is ever made to this effect by Origen. It is an attempt to make sense of a very strange and cryptic interpretation on the part of the Alexandrian master.
Indeed as I noted there is a clear sense throughout the material that Origen is thinking of the discussion of the rich youth (Mark 10:22) whose "face fell and went away sad, because he had great wealth" and who was never baptized. As I noted we will examine this further in subsequent posts.
Let us for the moment notice that these words just cited cannot apply to the raising of Lazarus narrative but strangely appear in a discussion of the raising of Lazarus immediately after Origen makes reference to 'other resurrection narratives' in other gospels which all refer to the same mystical understanding.
So it is that Origen goes on to state that:
We must consider this too, to be a work worthy of Jesus, not only to pray that the dead might live, but also to shout to him and summon the one within the cave and the tomb to the things outside it.
Now we ought to be aware that there are some Lazaruses even now, who, after they have become Jesus' friends, have become sick and died, and as dead persons they have remained in the tomb and the land of the dead with the dead and later they were made alive by Jesus' prayer, and were summoned from the tomb to the things outside it by Jesus with his loud voice. He who trusts in Jesus comes forth wearing bonds worthy of death from his former sins, and still bound around the face, so that he can neither see, nor walk, no do anything because of the bonds of death, until Jesus commands those who are able to loose him and let him go. And let everyone who is able to say, 'or do you seek proof of Christ who speaks in me?' attempt at least to become such that Christ might cry out in a loud voice in him and say to the one who stirred and after he died but not quickly and for this reason need Jesus' cry, 'Lazarus come forth.'
Consider the one who has fallen from Christ and returned to the Gentiles life after he has received knowledge of the truth and been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and become a partaker of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, to be in Hades with the shades and the dead, and to be in the land of the dead or the tombs.
Whenever therefore on behalf of such a person Jesus comes to his tomb and, standing outside it, prays and is heard, he asks that there be power in his voice and words and cries out with a loud voice, and summons him who was his friend to the things outside the life of the Gentiles and their tomb and cave.
Now and then we see someone following Jesus in the following manner. Such a one comes forth because of Jesus' voice, but his is still tied and bound with the cords of his own sins. He is alive because he has repented and has heard Jesus' voice but because he has not yet been released from the bonds of sin, he cannot completely walk with free feet, but neither has be been released to perform the things that excel, his feet and hands being bound with strips of cloth as the bonds of death.
Such a person, because of the death which is in him clinging to the bonds with his hands and feet, has covered his face with ignorance and bound it round himself.
Since then Jesus did not wish that he merely live and remain in the tomb, he has come bound to the things outside of the tomb as was said before. And because he has not been able to come forth from the tomb insofar as he is bound, Jesus says to those who can serve him, 'loose him and let him go.' I think he was not in agreement with the teaching about the conversion afer one has sinned. But such a one has come forth from the tomb still too weak to live by himself and control the active efficient and contemplative powers of his soul. His feet and hands are still bound with bandages, and his face is bound with a napkin.
But because the command of Christ is like that of a master, when Jesus said to those who are able to release him, 'loose and let him go,' his hands and feet were released and the veil lying upon his face was removed and put away. He advances so far that he anticipates that even he himself may become one of those who recline with Jesus. [cf Jn 12.2][Origen Commentary on John Book 28.52 - 60]
Yes it can be argued that Origen is still making period - but ultimately MYSTICAL references to the Johannine raising of Lazarus narrative. The real context however is 'another Lazarus' i.e. "the one who had sinned, after becoming Jesus' friend, and had become dead to God only to return to life by divine power."
There is much more in Origen's account after this which I have to pass on to you even a suggestion that 'the other Lazarus' was baptized. I just have to go get something to eat. Be back shortly ...
If you are interested in reading how this observation fits within my greater understanding of the workings of Secret Mark WITHIN the contemporary Alexandrian Church please go here
If you want to read more about how Alexandrian Christianity was rooted in the Jewish traditions of Alexandria, Philo of Alexandria and more feel free to purchase my new book here
