Where was Jesus when he received word of Lazarus’ illness?

Where was Jesus when he received word of Lazarus’ illness?

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

| PentecostalTheology.com

The eleventh chapter of the Gospel of John presents a pivotal narrative concerning the illness and resurrection of Lazarus, yet it simultaneously introduces a set of chronological and geographical questions that invite careful exegetical analysis. Upon receiving word of Lazarus’s critical condition (John 11:6), Jesus deliberately delays his departure for two days. Subsequently, when he finally arrives in Bethany, Lazarus is explicitly stated to have been dead for four days (John 11:17). This temporal sequence necessitates an examination of the implied travel times and their bearing on Jesus’ initial location. An analysis of these four days reveals a compelling deduction about the duration of travel involved. Assuming Lazarus died at or immediately after the messengers left Bethany, the four-day period can be broken down: two days for Jesus’ intentional delay, and the remaining two days accounting for the combined travel time—one day for the messengers to reach Jesus and another for Jesus to return to Bethany. This calculation implies that Jesus must have been at least one full day’s journey, approximately twenty miles, away from Bethany when he first received news of Lazarus’s illness. Furthermore, if Lazarus’s death occurred *after* the messengers had already departed, the geographical distance separating Jesus from Bethany would necessarily have been even greater, pushing the implied location further afield. However, the narrative introduces a geographical complication in John 10:40, which states that Jesus was “at the place where John had been baptizing in the early days.” This reference is commonly understood, based on John 1:28, to denote “Bethany beyond the Jordan” (or Bethabara in some textual traditions), a site geographically distinct from the Bethany where Lazarus resided, which was near Jerusalem. This raises a crucial question: Is the “Bethany” of John 10:40 to be conflated with Lazarus’s home village, or are these two entirely separate locations? The ambiguity directly impacts any attempt to precisely pinpoint Jesus’ whereabouts at the moment the critical news arrived in John 11:6. Consequently, the textual evidence prompts scholarly inquiry into the feasibility of accurately determining Jesus’ precise location at the time he received the message concerning Lazarus’s illness. The interplay of chronological deductions regarding travel time and the potential ambiguity of geographical references within the Johannine narrative underscores the complexities inherent in reconstructing the exact spatial and temporal dimensions of this pivotal event. The primary challenge lies in reconciling these textual clues to establish a confident and intelligent hypothesis regarding Jesus’ specific geographical position at the time of John 11:6.

1 Comment

  • Reply August 14, 2025

    Dr. Finley

    The analysis presented raises significant questions about the narrative in John 11 regarding Lazarus’s resurrection, particularly concerning travel times and geographical references. However, it is essential to approach these interpretations with caution. The assumption that Jesus was at least one full day’s journey away may overlook the theological implications of his actions. According to Pew Research, interpretations of biblical events must consider their spiritual significance alongside historical context (Pew Research Center, 2018). Furthermore, conflating Bethany beyond the Jordan with Lazarus’s home near Jerusalem lacks textual support and can lead to misleading conclusions about Jesus’ ministry and its timing (Christianity.com). The complexities of this narrative do not inherently suggest inaccuracies but rather highlight the multifaceted nature of scriptural interpretation. By focusing solely on chronological discrepancies, we risk reducing profound theological truths to mere logistical calculations. Therefore, while the inquiry into travel times is interesting, it should not detract from the core message of faith in Jesus’s power over life and death. Thus, asserting that these observations constitute ‘false news’ or ‘gnostic theology’ undermines both scholarly rigor and faith-based understanding. Instead of declaring heresy where there may be interpretative diversity, we should embrace the richness of theological discourse that allows for varying perspectives on such narratives.

Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply.

Leave a Reply to Dr. Finley Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.