One More Look at Martha’s “Perfect” Statement in John 11:27

by Francis M. Macatangay

University of St. Thomas, School of Theology

In the paradigmatic story of the raising of Lazarus, Martha declares that Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God, the one who is coming into the world.” This response concludes the exchange between Jesus and Martha in the context of the death of Lazarus. Earlier on in the proceedings, having heard that Jesus has arrived after some delay, Martha expresses, with some bitterness, her conviction that had Jesus been around when her brother Lazarus was ill, he would not have died. But she slowly enters into the realm of faith by acknowledging that Jesus can do whatever he asks of God. Indeed, Jesus assures her that Lazarus will rise again. Martha however seems to have understood Jesus’ words as referring to the general resurrection on the last day. Jesus clarifies and corrects Martha. He tells her that the life he offers is both a here-and-now and a hereafter reality realized in his own person since he is the resurrection and the life and that anyone who believes in him even if he dies will live and never die.[1] Jesus directly asks Martha if she believes this. Martha responds by saying, “Yes Lord, I have come to believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one who is coming into the world” (11:27).

Some scholars have characterized Martha’s response negatively, claiming that Martha’s confession of belief is inadequate or less than perfect.[2] Others have claimed that Martha has movingly made a full-blown and complete Johannine Christological confession without necessarily knowing the full implications of her confession.[3] Using the perfect tense of the verb πιστεύειν (“to believe”), she demonstrates ideal faith and shows her settled and enduring conviction, thereby giving voice to the theological emphasis of John 11.[4] Martha’s words therefore reflect early creedal statements concerning Jesus. Put differently, one interpretation is that her declaration is composed of an ideal language of an in-group, or an “expression of unique information reserved for elites in the group.”[5] In any case, belief is pivotal in this encounter between Jesus and Martha.

More than any other commentator, Francis Moloney has explored the force and value of the perfect tense in Martha’s statement. With the narrative context in mind, he considers it to be a genuine perfect tense that indicates Martha’s arrogance as she tells Jesus in effect that she has held the belief that Jesus fulfills her messianic hopes for a long time before Jesus even declares that he is the resurrection and the life. Her faith precedes the invitation of Jesus to believe his word. In other words, Martha seems to have missed the self-disclosure of Jesus as she “boasts of having already arrived at faith” and thus fails to comprehend Jesus.[6] Such a judgment is perhaps a bit harsh, if not downright unfair.

Does Martha’s statement indicate her firm conviction and perfect faith or does it betray a lack of true faith and thus arrogance on her part? The answer lies in her use of the verb πιστεύειν (“to believe”). When Jesus questions Martha, he uses the present tense of the verb πιστεύεις. But Martha responds by using πεπίστευκα, the perfect, active indicative. The writer seems to have made a deliberate choice to employ the perfect tense of the verb since prima facie the present tense might seem more logical for her reply. Many English translations (NRSV, RSV, NIV, NJB) and commentators sweep this grammatical jolt aside. Typically, they render Martha’s response in the present. Although such a translation move allows for the story to flow more smoothly, it nonetheless conceals the significance of Martha’s use of the perfect tense. In light of how the gospel reveals who Jesus is and how various characters perceive him, expressing Martha’s statement in the perfect is an effective way to come to a narrative convergence of and eventual resolution to Johannine Christological claims.

It is the thesis of this essay that Martha’s “perfect” statement is better appreciated if it is put in the context of John’s story of how Jesus fulfills his role to reveal the Father.[7] On the eve of the passion as the public ministry of Jesus nears its end, Martha uses the titles “Messiah,” “Son of God” and the “One coming into the world” in their traditional senses as other characters have done before her. At this point in the story, various characters have encountered the words and accompanying works of Jesus but the titles they have used for him have yet to be expanded and ultimately transformed. The raising of Lazarus is the seventh and last sign for belief in the Book of Signs. By asserting the traditional titles at this narrative juncture, the dramatic exchange makes it possible for these titles while Martha is in the state of believing to absorb the self-disclosure of Jesus as the conqueror of death and the agent of life, later to be hinted at by the raising of Lazarus and ultimately to be fully revealed at the hour of his lifting up. It is at this point when the narrator, with the aid of Martha, redefines these traditional titles in terms of John’s main Christological claim, allowing them to converge just before the fullest revelation of Jesus as resurrection and life at his hour. At the end of the gospel, as the evangelist states his purpose (cf. 20:30–31), it is precisely this revelation that invites a personal response.

The Perfect

The perfect indicative active tense in Greek traditionally connotes past or completed action that has consequences in the present. In Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, Daniel B. Wallace claims that in the case of intensive or resultative perfect, the stress falls on the resultant state generated by a past action. With its emphasis on the present result or existing state, an intensive perfect is best rendered in English as a present tense. In the case of the extensive or consummative perfect, the emphasis is on the completed action in the past instead of the present state produced by the action. An extensive perfect is best translated into English as a present perfect.

Wallace lists Martha’s use of the perfect tense as an instance of intensive perfect.[8] In this case, the English translations that render Martha’s πεπίστευκα in the present tense understand it as an intensive perfect, accenting the fact that Martha’s belief is an existing conviction.[9] Moloney, however, seems to claim that this perfect is an extensive perfect stressing a completed event in the past and which should be translated in English as a present perfect. Moloney’s reading of the perfect of Martha’s reply as extensive stresses Martha’s completed past act of believing that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God. In this reading, Martha brims with pride as she expresses her long-held convictions about Jesus without taking his self-disclosure into account.[10] It is quite difficult however to conclude tone from tense. Whether it displays Martha’s arrogance is quite another matter.

The English verb “to believe” can be both transitive and intransitive. When it is used transitively, the meaning conveys the idea of “accepting something or the statement of someone as true.” When it is used intransitively, the verb means “to have faith.” When Jesus asks Martha[11] if she believes what Jesus has just revealed to her, the verb is transitive. As Rudolf Schnackenburg observed, the statement πιστεύεις τουτο is the only instance in the gospel of John where the verb “to believe” takes an object expressed in this case in the accusative.[12] This means that Jesus is asking Martha to believe as true his statement of self-revelation; he challenges Martha to accept as true the staggering word that he is the resurrection and the life.[13] That Jesus is both the light as he reveals in the healing of the man born blind and the life as he practically demonstrates in raising Lazarus from the dead are central Christological claims in John.[14] In other words, he is asking Martha to believe the content of his self-revelation. When Martha responds with her “perfect” statement, she also employs the verb transitively. She produces another statement as the direct object of her belief, a statement that identifies Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God who is coming into the world.

It is instructive to look at Martha’s use of the perfect of the verb “to believe” in terms of verbal aspect. Aspect is a semantic category that deals with the focus or the point of view of the action, either internal or external, which the writer or speaker wishes to present.[15] Stanley Porter claims that the perfect has a stative aspect. Martha says in effect, “I am in a state of believing.” This means that Martha views or depicts her action of believing as reflecting a given state of affairs without any reference to its beginning or end. Instead, Martha as the grammatical subject of the verb is the reference of the occurring action or the focus of the state of believing to which the evangelist wishes to draw the reader’s attention.[16] In this seventh and last sign, which in the Fourth Gospel is always associated with belief, Martha becomes the prominent Johannine character whose act and state of believing is given a sharpened and close-up view.

With the perfect, Martha’s action of believing is presented from an internal viewpoint. Certainly, Martha’s act of believing has a beginning point in the past prior to the questioning of Jesus and antecedent to the time of her speaking, but as to when that state of believing began or when it will end is unspecified as this is not the primary concern. The use of the perfect in Martha’s response to Jesus gives her state of believing that Jesus is Messiah and Son of God a heightened immediacy. This is due to the fact that the perfect presents her act of believing from the inside as though it is unfolding with a view of the details. Indeed, the specifics of the content which is the object of Martha’s act of believing are clarified and expanded.

To summarize, the perfect in Martha’s response is stative as it denotes her state of believing. In another sense, the verb which is in the perfect implies an action that is transitive in this particular case. Martha’s ὃτι (“that”) statement grammatically corresponds to the accusative τοῦτο of Jesus’ question. Her indirect statement is the direct object of the verb “to believe” in the perfect; she declares this propositional content as the specific object of her action of believing. Yet, the τοῦτο of Jesus, which contains his self-revelation as master of life and death, precedes her confession. This gives precision and expansion to the unfolding content of Martha’s belief as she uses the titles to respond to Jesus while she is in a state of believing.

Martha’s Response

At first sight it might be said that Martha’s response to Jesus seems slightly off, as if she lost the flow of the argument before replying. One would expect Martha to say in response, “Yes Lord, I do believe that you are the resurrection and the life”[17] since this is the statement to which Jesus asks Martha to give her assent. Martha does not use the present tense and she does not affirm Jesus’ statement about life and resurrection and so she does not respond to the question Jesus poses. As noted above, Martha declares another statement using three titles for Jesus. Perhaps Martha, who has a predilection for using the perfect tense in this episode (cf. 11:22, 24, 27) is yet to grasp the novelty of Jesus’ self-disclosing word and does not know how to deal with it, declaring instead that she has believed perfectly that Jesus is the Anointed and Son of God coming to the world.

Martha’s act of believing has an object or propositional content since ὃτι is a conjunction that introduces the indirect statement that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God who is coming into the world. Martha has held and accepted this statement as true. Most likely, her statement reflects traditional messianic expectations; it is a statement that she has believed concerning Jesus for some time up to this point in this story of revelation. Since the understanding of these titles has developed according to the revelation of Jesus’ identity, Martha’s use of the perfect underscores her state of believing which she knows to express thus far only in terms of traditional titles that other characters have used to show belief in Jesus, however imperfect. How the titles have been employed in the narrative up to this point influences Martha’s situation of believing when she declares them as a response to Jesus. Martha’s state of believing is invited however to open out to the self-disclosure of Jesus as resurrection and life.

Is it legitimate to say, though, that Martha has made an “act of trust in Jesus personally, using a series of three messianic titles,” as Barnabas Lindars and some others have claimed?[18] From narrative indications, the reader can be sure that Martha does have every confidence in the person of Jesus, since in 11:22 she says that God would grant whatever he asked.[19] This is not however what Jesus is asking Martha. Had Jesus wanted Martha to believe in his person, Jesus would have used the expression πιστεύεις είς ἐμέ which he just used in 11:26 (cf. also 9:35–38; 12:44, 46). To pin her hopes and faith in the person of Jesus is not the point here, as this is already presumed in her earlier description as a loved follower (cf. 11:5). Why else would Martha bother the Lord if she did not have faith and confidence in the person of Jesus? Her response dramatizes rather how the self-disclosure of Jesus illuminates these titles. Martha echoes the titles various characters in the gospel have ascribed to Jesus, lending her voice to all the previous but necessarily incomplete knowledge of Jesus who is often referred to as the Messiah and the Christ coming into the world.[20] For the many characters that have declared Jesus as such thus far, these titles are not necessarily related to life and resurrection. On the eve of his hour, as the story of revelation unfolds and Jesus concludes his mission and three-year public ministry, the narrative time has come for these traditional titles to acquire a new sense by letting the light of Jesus’ self-revelation clarify and illuminate them.

Jesus therefore is introducing Martha to a more profound meaning of her belief, inviting her in fact to make the leap that he as the Anointed and Son of God is God’s agent of life and resurrection. To bring his friends to authentic belief in him as the Sent One by seeing the glory of God in him is after all the stated reason for the raising of Lazarus (11:14–15; 39). The existing state of Martha’s belief and knowledge of Jesus needs to expand and grow, but up to this point in the narrative, this is all Martha knows to say of Jesus, and who could fault her for declaring what she knows? Martha, who has a discerning and open-ended faith (cf.11:22), has always believed in Jesus, but she is yet to let Jesus’ personal disclosure redefine the way she employs these titles presumably after the accompanying sign. Martha’s “perfect” statement of belief is meant to show story-wise that the use of such titles is yet to catch up with the self-revelation of Jesus as to what the Christ truly is. That Jesus’ self-disclosing word and his glory-revealing work sandwich Martha’s “perfect” and bold confession is a strong indication of this dramatic unfolding and process of revelatory illumination.

It is often said that Martha shows lack of belief before the tomb of Lazarus as the odor of death confronts her (11:39). Whereas Jesus uses πιστεύεις, the indicative present active of the verb πιστεύω, to ask Martha earlier to believe his revelation in 11:26b, he now uses πιστεύσης, the aorist subjunctive of the same verb, to challenge Martha to believe, saying “Did I not tell you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?” (11:40).This does not imply Martha’s lack of faith.[21] Rather, Jesus’ use of the aorist subjunctive of the verb “to believe” means that Jesus is projecting a possible state of believing for Martha that may obtain at some time and may even now exist.[22] In other words, Martha already believes but her current state of believing will come to a later point at which a new situation of believing that the Messiah and Son of God is life-giver and agent of resurrection begins. The obedience to the word of Jesus, manifest in the taking away of the stone (cf. 11:41), either by Martha and Mary or by others with their permission, is a pointer to this state of belief. Indeed, with the sign of raising Lazarus to life, Martha’s state of believing that Jesus is the Anointed and Son of God coming into the world fully deepens and opens out now to embrace the claim that Jesus is the agent of resurrection and life. There is then a possible state of believing in which the self-revelation of Jesus as giver of life and victor over death expands, revolutionizes even, the senses of the traditional titles. The widened and enriched space of believing seen in the complete realization of what it means to call Jesus the Christ and Son of God coming into the world is the kind of faith to which the Fourth Gospel invites its readers.

Johannine Characters and Titles for Jesus

Martha’s confession of Jesus using three titles bears some resemblance to Peter’s confession in 6:69. Both ascribe to Jesus a particular title, and both use the perfect to express their statements. At the conclusion of the bread of life discourse, Jesus challenges the twelve and asks them if they too wish to go away. Peter responds on behalf of the twelve by saying that “we have believed and we have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.” The object of the verbs in the perfect “to believe” and “to know” taken as one expression, a hendiadys to convey certainty of conviction, is the statement that Jesus is the Holy One of God. The use of the perfects indicates that their Jewish expectations had been surpassed and that they now have a “firmly established attitude of faith”[23] and an intensified insight into Jesus. They know this of Jesus, and for them, this fact remains known. After being with Jesus, witnessing his works and hearing his words along the journey for some time, Peter and the disciples may have intuited that Jesus enjoys a unique relationship with God the Father (cf. 5:19–30). Since Jesus has already been confessed as the Messiah in the presence of Peter (1:41), Peter declares his firm knowledge that Jesus is the Holy One, the one set apart for and sent by God (cf. 10:36; 17:19). Since the essence of God is holiness, the title suggests Jesus’ closeness and intimacy with God.[24] But what this description of messianic identity exactly implies at this point in the story, the disciples can only gather from the sign of the feeding of the multitude and the consequent bread of life discourse of Jesus. Peter’s response can only hint at how Jesus’ intimacy with God relates to Jesus’ words of eternal life.

Nathanael is the first character in the gospel to declare that Jesus is the Son of God (1:49). His understanding of Jesus as the Son of God, however, is tied to the notion of kingship. In the Old Testament, the king of Israel is considered a son of God (cf. Ps 110:3). That Nathanael would call Jesus “Rabbi,” “Son of God” and “King of Israel” implies that he does not have an adequate understanding of Jesus as the Son of God. Nathanael equates the sonship of Jesus with kingship. This is unlike Jesus’ appropriation of the title for himself when he talks about the power of the Son to give life to the dead who hear the voice of the Son of God (5:20–26). With this title, Jesus expresses a unique relationship with God, a relationship such that Jesus can do what God alone has the prerogative to do, namely the raising of the dead and the granting of life (cf. 17:1–3). Unlike Nathanael who speaks from a human perspective, Jesus understands that he has a divine mission and so operates from a divine perspective.[25]

Andrew is the first character in the fourth gospel to use the title Messiah or Christ when describing Jesus to his brother Simon Peter (1:41). John the Baptist indirectly refers to Jesus as the Anointed when he clarifies his identity as the one sent before the Christ in 3:28. The Samaritan woman, despite Jesus’ assurance to her that he is the Christ, still wonders whether Jesus is indeed the Christ (4:25–29), understanding the title in its traditional sense. It is also likely that the man born blind confesses that Jesus is the Christ (9:22; 35–38). Martha is the last in the line of believing characters in the Book of Signs to declare the content of her belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God coming into the world. Many of the friends of Jesus who have encountered him up to this point in the narrative seem aware that Jesus fits the Jewish category of Messiah and Son of God. Certainly, their understanding of these titles as applied to Jesus has to evolve and mature. These titles, valid as they are, will acquire new meaning. Their lack of understanding (cf. 4:33; 6:60–66) is due to no fault of their own, since a new insight into the identity of Jesus as Christ and Son of God will come only from Jesus’ self-disclosure.

However incomplete the characters’ understanding of Christ, he is “One who is to come into the world,” a title that encompasses both the Christological titles of Messiah and Son of God taken as one unit.[26] Martha’s use of such a title or description for Jesus has already been employed earlier in the gospel. In the prologue, the true light is described as one who is coming into the world (1:9). The Samaritan woman speaks of Jesus as the Messiah who is coming (4:25). After witnessing the sign of the feeding of the five thousand, the people mistakenly declare that Jesus is truly the prophet who is to come into the world (6:14). Later in the Book of Glory, Jesus categorically declares and identifies himself as that one who has come into the world as light (12:46) and who bears witness to the truth (18:37). Jesus also claims that his coming into the world also means leaving the world to go to the Father (16:28). There are hints throughout the gospel as to what the title “One coming into the world” is about; it of course alludes to the motif of descent, which is a Johannine way of describing Jesus’ origin and mission. It also looks forward to the crowd’s greeting in 12:13 and relates to the prayer of Jesus in 11:42 where he claims that the object of belief is that God has sent him. To comprehend completely the title requires waiting until the hour of full revelation and glorification of Jesus on the cross. It is only then that the one who is coming into the world will be known fully as the Sent one who ushers in the “inbreaking of the beyond into this life”[27] and who brings life and resurrection.

This short survey of the titles that Martha ascribes to Jesus simply shows that these titles have been employed in the gospel before her statement of confession. The use of the perfect in her response despite Jesus’ question employing the present tense implies that prior to her speech, this is how the believing characters have so far understood or defined who Jesus is for them. Their understanding of the identity of Jesus is partial and lacking; they are limited in their comprehension. Martha’s response recapitulates what the characters have so far expressed regarding who Jesus is.[28] With the perfect, the stress falls on Martha’s state of believing, that is, what she and other characters have known and believed about Jesus. Of course, such a state of believing evolves, expands and matures as Jesus discloses who he is and what he is for in this drama of revelation.

Jesus has of course claimed the titles Messiah and Son of God for himself. In his dialogue with the Samaritan woman, Jesus identified himself as the Christ (4:25–26) who is the source of a spring of water that wells up to eternal life (4:14). In the discourse that functions as a response to the controversy provoked by the Sabbath healing of a man who has been ill for 38 years, Jesus claims that the time is coming when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and that those who hear will live (5:25), an association with life that Nathanael who used the same title for Jesus would have missed. On the lips of Jesus, “Messiah” and “Son of God” are defined in terms of his power to give life, an insight that will find dramatic convergence in Martha’s confession and Jesus’ self-revelation in the last sign in the Book of Signs.

In other words, facile affirmations of Jesus’ identity using these titles will undergo a process of deepening. In keeping with the narrative unfolding of revelation, these traditional titles are yet to be exploded and expanded so as to incorporate a deeper and newer understanding of Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God, one who has come into the world to bring light, life and resurrection. The final repetition of the titles on the lips of Martha who is in a state of believing that is as though unfolding makes a point, as it allows the revelation of a propositional truth to become personal in the process of convergence as John’s story of Jesus progresses.

It is interesting to note that Martha’s statement that Jesus is Messiah and Son of God and Jesus’ statement that he is the resurrection and life are juxtaposed. Jesus asserts that he is life and resurrection while Martha asserts that he is the Messiah and Son of God. No matter, the two affirmations are brought together, the one qualifying the other. To Jesus’ claim of “I am,” Martha responds with a “You are.” The “I am” of Jesus in fact subsumes the “You are” of Martha. The difference lies in the predicates of the two statements but identification is being asserted; the identification of the subject implies also the functional identification of the predicates. In the reader’s mind, Jesus’ statement of self-revelation now colors or shadows Martha’s response that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God,[29] something that is fully confirmed as both assertions converge in the sign of raising Lazarus back to life. Jesus’ self-disclosure redefines the titles and links a new meaning to them. In other words, the identity of Jesus whose word and work revealed him as the divine agent of life and resurrection is integrated into Martha’s claim that he is the Christ and the Messiah. Through Jesus’ revelation and Martha’s “perfect” confession, these traditional titles – taken together – acquire a new content that specifies a personal, Christological and soteriological conviction.

A beloved of Jesus (cf. 11:5), Martha receives Jesus’ self-revelation, giving her high status and making her a member of the elite flock whose sheep hear the words of Jesus.[30] After witnessing the culminating sign (cf. 12:18) in the raising of Lazarus, Martha glimpses the glory of God,[31] inviting her to incorporate fully into her belief the eschatological role of the Messiah, namely that the Anointed is indeed the giver of present and future life. Certainly, a full comprehension of what this means is possible only after the hour of Jesus’ lifting up is finished at his glorification and resurrection, to which the raising of Lazarus points.

Far from being arrogant, Martha’s knowledge of Jesus as Messiah is limited but open-ended, and from her limited knowledge, she can only acclaim and express her belief in Jesus as other characters have so far done. In other words, Martha’s “perfect” statement implicitly continues the belief in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God but transforms at the same time that which has been completed in the narrative, implying that the present and implicit consequence and content of such a belief continues to unfurl in light of Jesus self-disclosure. Martha comprehends the full weight of the words of Jesus as the story of revelation unfolds. The dramatic exchange has provided a way for these titles to be affirmed and redefined at the same time.

The identity of Jesus, who he is, is one of the major preoccupations of John’s gospel. Jesus as a character in the fourth gospel is endowed with an aura of mystery.[32] Many characters desire to know who he is (cf. 6:25). The response to the invitation “what are you seeking?” which are the very first words of Jesus in the Gospel (1:38), is for them to come and see, to experience Jesus (cf. 1:46; 12:20). They look for him but they cannot find him (cf. 7:10–11, 34–35). When they do find him, they realize that there is a “more” quality about him. He is elusive and often escapes their notice even when he is in their midst. His disciples often lack the correct understanding of who he is. Various characters have a notion of him but Jesus corrects these notions with his self-revelation along the way if they persevere in following him. He cannot be tied to their fixed ideas of Messiah and Son of God. His self-revealing word facilitates the developing or ascending process of grasping his identity, implying that to have a proper Christological knowledge involves abiding in and staying with Jesus (cf. 15:7–8).

The pattern of Martha’s coming into fuller understanding of these titles as applied to Jesus and what they mean for human life is also the pattern for the post-Easter community’s comprehension of the identity of Jesus.[33] The circle of friends of Jesus undergoes a process of coming to a faith that reaches mature expression in the resurrection of Jesus and the sending of the Spirit. So for those outside of the narrative, it means relying on the work of the Spirit who reveals and communicates the truths about Jesus and his words and works in light of the community’s situation (cf. 16:12–15). Consecrated in the truth, the Spirit penetrates and changes them inwardly with the truth that is the revelation Christ has brought (17:17). Jesus has revealed all truths about himself, but his friends grasp them in a limited way. When the Spirit “who brings the true glory of Jesus to light”[34] comes, the friends of Jesus will be led “to comprehend the depths and heights of the revelation as yet unperceived by them.”[35]

The Self-Revelation of Jesus

The revealing word “I am the resurrection and the life,” (cf. also 5:21–30), which is the center that draws the Lazarus narrative in,[36] is a novel understanding of messiahship and sonship. Like Martha, any believer to whom it is revealed has the task of integrating this startling revelatory claim into their idea of the Messiah. Martha’s coming to full insight concerning Jesus and how these titles bear on the life of the believer reaches a high point in the raising of her brother Lazarus since this sign confirms, concretizes and dramatizes the life-giving work of Jesus showing him to be God’s agent of resurrection and life.[37] The raising of Lazarus hints likewise at the unfolding extension and expansion of Martha’s comprehension and knowledge of these titles as objects of belief. The various instances of Jesus’ “I am” disclosure in terms “that designate basic and universal human needs and desires”[38] (cf. 6:35; 8:12; 10:11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1) help define the contours of his messiahship and sonship.[39] In fact, layers of meaning are revealed and his identity becomes clearer as the story moves along towards the great unveiling which is the hour of Jesus’ lifting up and the manifestation of his glory. As C.H. Dodd observed, the story is more than simply about the raising of Lazarus; it is actually a “story of Jesus going to face death in order to conquer death,” a pattern earlier alluded to in the Good Shepherd discourse in 10:10–11.[40] Jesus meets the universal human longing for life since this conquest of death reveals Jesus as the giver of life and resurrection, expanding what it means to call Jesus the Messiah and the Son of God who has come into the world.

At the end of the gospel, the writer states that his purpose for its writing is to elicit belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (20:30–31), the self-same titles Martha used to identify Jesus in her response to Jesus’ challenge to believe that he is the resurrection and the life.[41] The goal of the gospel is to confess Jesus as such. The narrator’s ideal Johannine confession, however, links the titles to life, claiming that believing in the name of Jesus produces life, a connection that is now made abundantly clear. To understand fully such a claim is made possible only after the drama of revelation has unfolded.

The episode with Jesus and Martha in John 11 previews what comes later in the gospel. Hence, the notion of Jesus as the agent of life now and in the next is a revelatory element that unfolds before Martha in this encounter; it becomes a vital part of her conviction as she sees the glory of God manifested in the raising of Lazarus, which is but a pointer to the hour of Jesus’ glory. As the period of signs and coming to belief fades on the eve of Jesus’ lifting up, Martha who is in a state of believing serves as a narrative catalyst who facilitates the dramatic convergence of these traditional titles and Jesus’ self-disclosure as the giver of life and resurrection. Her “perfect” statement of belief participates in the narrative unfolding of the real meaning of these titles.

Now equipped with the knowledge and the experience that Jesus is indeed life and resurrection, it comes as no surprise to the reader to find at the close of the gospel that the traditional titles “Christ” and “Son of God” are intimately tied to the Johannine theme of life, understanding them in terms of the power of Jesus to bestow life here and the hereafter.[42] In the end, the seeming disconnect in Martha’s understanding of Jesus functions as a road sign for the reader to make the necessary connections along the journey of revelation. It has in fact allowed the reader to come to a fuller comprehension of what it means to believe and confess that Jesus is truly the Christ and the Son of God who has come into the world.[43]

Notes

1. Commentators widely discuss this statement of Jesus. For the proposal that the two seemingly contradictory statements are in fact elucidations of the earlier claim of Jesus that he is the resurrection and the life, see C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. repr. 1965), p. 365. According to Harold S. Songer, “John 5-12: Opposition to the Giving of True Life,” Review and Expositor 85 (1988), p. 467: “The response of Jesus is an egō eimi statement and defines who Jesus is in relation to persons: the dead who believe in Jesus will rise, and the living who believe will never die spiritually.” See also C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text Second Edition (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1978), pp. 395-96; George R. Beasley-Murray, John WBC 36 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), pp. 190-91; Andreas J. Köstenberger, John (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), pp. 335-36; Philip F. Esler and Ronald A. Piper, Lazarus, Mary & Martha A Social-Scientific and Theological Reading of John (London: SCM, 2006), pp. 123-25; Marianne Meye Thompson, “The Raising of Lazarus in John 11: A Theological Reading,” in The Gospel of John and Christian Theology (eds. Richard Bauckham and Carl Mosser; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), pp. 239-41.
2. See for instance, R.H. Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel A Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), p. 222; Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary AB 29 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1966), 1: p. 434; Brendan Byrne, Lazarus: A Contemporary Reading of John 11:1-46 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991), pp. 53-54; Ben Witherington III, John’s Wisdom A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: WJK, 1995), p. 203. Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1979), pp. 190-91, seemed to have changed his opinion regarding Martha’s confession. Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998), p. 330, claims that “Mary is the character in the story reflecting true faith.”
3. Juan Manuel Martín-Moreno, Personajes del Cuarto Evangelio (Bilbao: Desclée De Brouwer, 2002), p. 183, notes that despite not fully understanding Jesus’ revelatory statement, Martha makes a true Johannine confession of faith. See also Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John (New York: Hendrickson, 2005), p. 325.
4. See for instance Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John A Commentary (trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray, R.W.N. Hoare, J.K. Riches; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971), p. 404; Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (London: Oliphants, 1972), p. 396; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John Volume 2 Commentary on Chapters 5-12 (New York: Seabury Press, 1980), p. 332; R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), p. 142; Ernst Haenchen, John 2 A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 7-21 (trans. Robert W. Funk; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), p. 144; Beasley-Murray, John, p. 192; Raymond F. Collins, These Things Have Been Written: Studies on the Fourth Gospel (Louvain: Peeters, 1990), p. 27; Sandra M. Schneiders, Written that You May Believe: Encountering Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1999), p. 158; Wendy E. Sproston North, The Lazarus Story within the Johannine Tradition (JSNTSup 212; Sheffield: Academic Press, 2001), p. 143-44; Cornelis Bennema, Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009),p. 149. John Painter, The Quest for the Messiah The History, Literature and Theology of the Johannine Community Second Edition (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), p. 372, calls Martha’s declaration “the climactic confession of faith in this chapter” while John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel Second Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 332, notes its creedal character. Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John Volume 2 Commentary on the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), p. 494, p. 501, considers Martha’s response an ideal and fully adequate confession, noting that internal inconsistencies in the story are due to the various editions of the gospel. It is noted however that future and present eschatology (cf. also 5:21-30) found in this statement of Jesus is neither a contradiction nor a sign of redaction but a way to show that all eschatological hopes are realized in Jesus. See for instance George W. MacRae, “The Fourth Gospel and Religionsgeschichte,” CBQ 32 (1970), pp. 18-19. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John A Commentary Volume 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), pp. 844-45, suggests that by placing the confession on Martha’s lips as well as on Peter’s in 6:69, John is “intentionally balancing gender,” suggesting a high regard for women’s faith in the community. Brown, Community of Beloved Disciple, pp. 190-92, made similar comments earlier.
5. Jerome H. Neyrey, The Gospel of John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 196. See also Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), p. 199.
6. Moloney, The Gospel of John, p. 328, p. 339. See also his “Can Everyone be Wrong? A Reading of John 11.1-12.8,” NTS 49 (2003), pp. 513-15; Signs and Shadows Reading John 5-12 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), pp. 162-63; and his “The Faith of Martha and Mary A Narrative Approach to John 11, 17-40,” Bib 75 (1994), pp. 473-79.
7. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 86-99, notes that the plot of the gospel revolves around the task of Jesus to reveal the Father. The recognition or non-recognition of Jesus’ identity with the consequent belief or non-belief is pivotal to the plot.
8. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), p. 576.
9. F.F. Bruce, The Gospel of John Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), p. 245, notes that “the perfect tense (pepisteuka) differs little in force from the present (pisteuō): ‘I have come to believe’, she means, ‘and now, as a settled attitude of soul, I believe.” Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John A Theological Commentary (trans. John Vriend; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 399, also thinks that the perfect is used here to express “the continuation of what has been completed.” Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971; repr. 1989), p. 551, claims that the force of the perfect indicates a “faith once given and permanently remaining.” Edwin A. Abbot, Johannine Grammar (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006, orig. 1906), p. 345, says that Martha’s statement “I have believed” can mean “perfect conviction” or “firmness of conviction,” in the words of Colleen M. Conway, Men and Women in the Fourth Gospel Gender and Johannine Characterization (Atlanta: SBL, 1999), p. 141.
10. Moloney, Gospel of John, p. 328.
11. Neyrey, The Gospel of John, p. 197, n. 314, considers Martha the central character in this episode because of her extended exchange with Jesus.
12. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John 2: p. 332.
13. See Robert Kysar, John The Maverick Gospel Revised Edition (Louisville: WJK, 1993), p. 93. Von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, p. 494, observes that this identification of Jesus as the resurrection and the life “implies the highest level of Christology in the Gospel.”Andrew T. Lincoln, “The Lazarus Story: A Literary Perspective,” in Richard Bauckham and Carl Mosser, The Gospel of John and Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), pp. 217-23, notes that this divine claim and characterization of Jesus is balanced in John 11 by a strong stress on human elements not necessarily found in the rest of the gospel.
14. See Dorothy A. Lee, The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel The Interplay of Form and Meaning (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), p. 190, claiming that John 9 and 11 are “a narrative diptych” that expresses the main Christological claim of the gospel. Margaret M. Beirne, Women and Men in the Fourth Gospel A Genuine Discipleship of Equals (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), pp. 115-39, regards the Man Born Blind and Martha as “a Johannine gender pair,” the response of each to Jesus’ self-revelation portrays the stages of growth in faith.
15. Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (New York: Peter Lang, 1989), p. xi, p. 88, defines verbal aspect as a semantic category which “grammaticalizes the author’s reasoned subjective choice of conception of a process.” Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), p. 85, states that “aspect is concerned with the speaker’s viewpoint concerning the action in the sense that it implicitly sets up a relationship from which the action is viewed. The crucial aspectual distinction is whether this reference point is internal or external to the action.”
16. See the discussion of the stative aspect of the perfect in Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), pp. 20-21, pp. 39-40. See also Stanley E. Porter, Jeffrey T. Reed and Matthew Brook O’Donnell, Fundamentals of New Testament Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), p. 319. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, pp. 116-17, however, considers stativity as a kind of action or Aktionsart value rather than aspect.
17. Thomas L. Brodie, The Gospel According to John A Literary and Theological Commentary (Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 394.
18. See for instance Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 396; Bruce, The Gospel of John, p. 245; Schneiders, Written that You May Believe, p. 158. D.A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), p. 414, suggests that Martha’s response to Jesus reflects confident trust that involves “a mixture of personal trust (fiducia) and of confidence that certain things about Jesus are true (assensus).”
19. For Sproston North, The Lazarus Story, p. 114, Martha’s response is a version of the “ask, and it will be given” logion, which “serves to focus attention on Jesus’ God-given powers and so provides a point of entry into the teaching on Jesus as life-giver and agent of resurrection…”
20. Conway, Men and Women in the Fourth Gospel, p. 141, claims that “Martha, like the Samaritan woman, gains additional insight from Jesus’ clarification.
21. Esler and Piper, Lazarus, Mary & Martha, p. 120, claim that it is Martha’s lack of understanding of Jesus’ intention, not her lack of faith that is at issue here. In addition, Martha’s statement could be viewed as giving voice to the indubitable reality of Lazarus’ death. Beirne, Women and Men in the Fourth Gospel, p. 134, notes that “the ‘sign’ which will confirm that Jesus does indeed have the power over life and death becomes for her the means by which the faith she already possesses will be perfected…”
22. For a discussion of the aorist subjunctive, see Porter, Reed and O’Donnell, Fundamentals of New Testament Greek, p. 155.
23. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, p. 76; Ridderbos, The Gospel of John, p. 249, n.177. See also Moloney, Gospel of John, p. 229; Keener, Gospel of John, p. 697.
24. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, p. 77. See also Neyrey, Gospel of John, p. 134.
25. See David Mark Ball, ‘I Am’ in John’s Gospel Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications JSNTSup 124 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), pp. 276-83.
26. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, p. 332. See also Painter, The Quest for the Messiah, n. 19, p. 372.
27. Bultmann, Gospel of John, p. 404.
28. As D. Moody Smith, John (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1999), p. 223, has stated, “Martha has gone about as far as anyone can go.” Conway, Men and Women in the Fourth Gospel, p. 143, observes that unlike the other characters’ confessions, Martha’s is allowed to stand on its own.
29. As David Mark Ball, ‘I Am’ in John’s Gospel, p. 106, observes, “Martha serves as a foil to the characterization of Jesus, enabling the writer to draw out in relief his conviction concerning Jesus.”
30. Neyrey, Gospel of John, p. 196; Beirne, Women and Men in the Fourth Gospel, pp. 123-37.
31. Beasley-Murray, John, p. 194. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 429, says that the miracles of Jesus are “signs of what he is and what he has come to give man, but in none of them does the sign more closely approach the reality than in the gift of life.”
32. See M.W.G. Stibbe, “The Elusive Christ: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel,” JSNT 44 (1991), pp. 19-38.
33. It is often pointed out that Martha is a representative or a prototype figure. See for instance, Collins, These Things Have Been Written, p. 27; Esler and Piper, Lazarus, Mary & Martha, pp. 86-103; Craig R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel Meaning, Mystery, Community Second Edition (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003), pp. 65-66. Lincoln, “The Lazarus Story,” pp. 229-30, claims that if Martha is a representative figure, then the question of Jesus – Do you believe this? – is also posed to the reader. For a discussion of the historicity of the family at Bethany based on the idea of “protective anonymity,” see Richard Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), pp. 173-89.
34. Haenchen, John 2, p. 144. As Neyrey, The Gospel of John, p. 270, also observes, the Spirit for the most part “brings nothing new nor speaks independently of Jesus.” See also Francis J. Moloney, Glory not Dishonor Reading John 13-21 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), pp. 87-88.
35. Beasley-Murray, John, p. 283.
36. See Peter F. Ellis, The Genius of John A Composition-Critical Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1984), p. 184; David Mark Ball, ‘I Am’ in John’s Gospel, p. 103. As Lincoln, Gospel according to John, p. 324, also notes, Jesus’ question to Martha “underlines both that belief is essential and that Jesus’ preceding words are the key to a true understanding of the episode.”
37. According to Carson, The Gospel according to John, p. 414, the raising of Lazarus is a “paradigm, an acted parable of the life-giving power of Jesus.” Bruce, The Gospel of John, p. 244, also calls it “a paradigm of the grant of eternal life to all believers in Jesus.” Haenchen, John 2, p. 64, claims that the raising alludes to “the bestowal of new existence in fellowship with the Father and with the Son.” Barrett, Gospel according to St John, pp. 395-96, considers it an action with symbolic significance as it shows Jesus’ life-giving power. See also Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 400.
38. Moody Smith Jr, John, p. 118.
39. Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 2: p. 89, notes that the main purpose of these self-disclosures is to illustrate in a positive way John’s revelation of Christ.
40. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 367. See also Lincoln, “The Lazarus Story,” p. 215, pp. 223-24.
41. Many commentators have pointed out that Martha’s confession and the gospel statement of purpose are parallel. See for instance Schnackenburg, Gospel According to St John, 2: p. 332; Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, p. 141; Byrne, Lazarus, p. 53; Beirne, Women and Men in the Fourth Gospel, pp. 130-31; Köstenberger, John, p. 336; Bennema, Encountering Jesus, p. 147. Painter, The Quest for the Messiah, pp. 465-66, claims that the Johannine Christology expressed in John 20:30-31 fulfills the messianic confessions and quests for the identity of Jesus.
42. See Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1: pp. 434-35.
43. I would like to thank the Southeastern Theological Review peer blind reviewers for their helpful suggestions as well as Andrew Robinson, Peter Groody, Teresa Stevenson and Elise Garrison for their help.