why did our Lord weep? — Martyn Lloyd-Jones

"We are modern people, are we not, men and women of great understanding? So I am going to ask you the question that Philip put to the Ethiopian eunuch. I am going to test your understanding. The poor eunuch was dealing with Isaiah 53, which all expositors agree is an extremely difficult passage to expound. So we have every sympathy with him. But here is a very simple problem. I am asking you to expound a verse of two words, the shortest verse in the whole Bible: "Jesus wept" (John 11:35). Do you understand it?

"Oh, yes," you say, "it's quite simple."

All right, what does it mean?

"Well," you say, "this happened at the grave of a man called Lazarus, a friend of the Lord Jesus Christ, who had been dead for four days. And it was there, standing by that grave, that Jesus wept. Next to him were Lazarus's two sisters-Martha and Mary-and other people were also weeping and bewailing their loss. So the reason Jesus wept was because He had lost a great friend. It is very natural that when one loses a close friend one is filled with sorrow; and He was but a man, after all, and He wept as others weep."

 Yes, that is one suggested explanation.

"Not only that," says somebody else, "He wept also because of His sympathy with the sisters. They had lost their darling brother, and it was only natural that He should be sympathetic toward them."

I believe those explanations are all wrong. I can prove that to you quite simply from John 11. The first reason I would give is that when our Lord was first told about the illness of His friend Lazarus, instead of at once setting off to heal him, He delayed going-deliberately. Check the account for yourselves. He even gave the reason for not going. When the message of Lazarus's illness reached Him, He said, "This sickness is . . . for the glory of God" (v. 4). So He deliberately did not go to save the man's life. And John says, "When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was. Then after that said he to his disciples, Let us go into Judaea again. His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee" (vv. 6-8), and so on. So there is the first answer.

But there is a greater answer, of course, which is this: when our Lord did go to the grave, He knew perfectly well that He was going to raise this man Lazarus. This is what we read: "Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him" (vv. 14-15). He went in order to raise Lazarus from the dead. So if He knew He was going to raise him from the dead, why waste time weeping because he was dead? Why waste tears in sympathy with the sisters when He knew that in the next moment He would restore Lazarus to them? That is not why Jesus wept!

So why did our Lord weep? It is the reason why he was "a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief." It was not natural human sympathy or concern about the loss of His friend. It was this terrible thing called death, this thing that comes in and robs a man of his friend and sisters of their brother, this thing that breaks people's hearts and spoils life-this horrible thing! What causes death? Is it the course of nature? No, it is sin, it is evil, it is hell, it is the devil; it is this thing that is fighting His Father. He saw it there, and it made Him weep. Not only that, He realized that before He could deal with it He had to die Himself.

So never interpret "Jesus wept" sentimentally. I say again that it was this horror of sin, this horror of evil, this terrible problem of the human race that made Him cry. It is there in the shortest verse in the Bible: "Jesus wept." And that was not the only time. I read in John 12, the very next chapter, that when He was dealing with the whole question of His death, He said, "Now is my soul troubled" (v. 27). Indeed, I should have pointed out to you that over this very question of the resurrection of Lazarus we read, "When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled" (John 11:33). Why? Because He knew He was going to raise him? No. Again it was because of this terrible, evil problem of sin, the thing that gets us down and makes us fools and the slaves of sin and causes death. It is this thing that has raised itself up against God and brought about the ruination of God's universe. He saw it, and knowing that He had to die, He said again, "Now is my soul troubled."

Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Compelling Christianity (Studies in the Book of Acts)

kerygma, that is, basic gospel facts — James Montgomery Boice

"Peter had a chance to give a brief sermon in his defense before the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:29-32). The sermon contains what in formal New Testament studies has come to be called the kerygma, the fixed structure to almost all New Testament presentations of the gospel message.

C. H. Dodd distinguished kerygma from didachē, which means “teaching.” 

The latter word refers mostly to ethical instruction, the kind of thing we find in the Sermon on the Mount and large portions of the New Testament letters. 

Kerygma, by contrast, refers to the basic gospel facts. These facts include: Christ’s death for sins, his burial, his resurrection, his ascension to heaven, and his appearance in his resurrected form to chosen witnesses. We find perhaps the clearest example of this proclamation pattern in 1 Corinthians 15. But it is also found elsewhere and is the basic structure for the four Gospels. It is precisely what we find in Peter’s short sermon to the Sanhedrin:

  •      The crucifixion: “whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree” (Acts 5:30)
  •      The resurrection: “God … raised Jesus from the dead” (v. 30)
  •      The ascension: “God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior” (v. 31)
  •      The witnesses: “We are witnesses of these things” (v. 32)

Where is the ethical teaching of the New Testament? It is not present. Most of what Jesus taught in the Gospels was ethical teaching—sometimes in the form of parables, sometimes in more formal discourses. But when we come to this early Christian preaching we find that the apostles did not do as he did. Why not? Did they consider Jesus’ ethical teaching unimportant?

Obviously, the reason the disciples began with the kerygma is that they knew, as we should also know, that a person must first come to Jesus Christ as Savior before he or she can take on the burden of his teachings. It is true that we cannot have one without the other. But unless a person first believes on Jesus as his or her Savior and thus has the new life of Christ within, that person cannot even begin to live the life Christ commanded. As a matter of fact, unless you first confess your sin and find forgiveness, you only go on into increasing sin, which is what these leaders did.

The apostles did not tell the Sadducees to “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” Instead they told them to repent of their sin and come to Jesus Christ for cleansing from it. That is the message we have been given for a perishing world today."

— James Montgomery Boice, Acts: An expositional commentary (108–109). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

The testimony of the evangelists — Dr. Simon Greenleaf

“Let the evangelists be tried by these tests. And first, as to their honesty. Here they are entitled to the benefit of the general course of human experience, that men ordinarily speak the truth, when they have no prevailing motive or inducement to the contrary. This presumption, to which we have before alluded, is applied in courts of justice, even to witnesses whose integrity is not wholly free from suspicion; much more is it applicable to the evangelists, whose testimony went against all their worldly interests.

The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling terrors that can be presented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of his disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them.

Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigour and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency.

It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt, with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honour or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come. 



Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact, that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication.”

— Dr. Simon Greenleaf, Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University;
this excerpt is taken from his book entitled The Testimony of the Evangelists, Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice