Brothers and sisters are not unimportant to us today. But that wasn’t the case at the time of Jesus, at the time of the early church, at the time the New Testament was being written. At that time, in that place, the relationship between husband and wife was important, sure. But it was the relationship between brothers and sisters that was the fundamental, the foundational, the formative relationship that lay at the heart of the family.
Naghmeh Abedini Panahi says the Western church is asleep and in the persecuted home-church movement in Iran, all believers call each other brother and sister — there are no titles like pastor.
What I see here is a train wreck; a failure to consider whether Lazarus had a spouse.
Could John perhaps be emphasising the role of the women as a means of priming the reader in readiness of the role of the fairer sex at the death and resurrection of Jesus?
I'm not sure how you know that I have not considered whether Lazarus had a spouse or not. It would have been very unusual for a Jewish man at that time to have not been married, so it is more likely than not that he was, at least at some point. (And, FWIW, it is highly unlikely both of his sisters would not have been married. For there to have been 3 unmarried sibilings in the one family would have almost certainly been unthinkable). However, we don't know either way because Scripture does not tell us. But whether or not he was married changes nothing about the significance of the sibling relationship on view in Jn 11, nor the historical reality of the sibling relationship as the foundational same-generational relationship of deep intimacy in the 1st C Ancient Mediterranean.
To your second point, Jesus consistently treats women with dignity and significance (both those who are already following him and those are not). So, this passage is not a standalone primer for the role women play in the gospel and its witness in the world. He clearly loves Mary and Martha (just as he loves Lazarus). But again, none of that changes anything about the significance of the sibling bond on view in the passage.
Naghmeh Abedini Panahi says the Western church is asleep and in the persecuted home-church movement in Iran, all believers call each other brother and sister — there are no titles like pastor.
https://julieroys.com/podcast/surviving-persecution-from-the-church-for-exposing-abuse/
Once again, so thankful for your work.
What I see here is a train wreck; a failure to consider whether Lazarus had a spouse.
Could John perhaps be emphasising the role of the women as a means of priming the reader in readiness of the role of the fairer sex at the death and resurrection of Jesus?
I'm not sure how you know that I have not considered whether Lazarus had a spouse or not. It would have been very unusual for a Jewish man at that time to have not been married, so it is more likely than not that he was, at least at some point. (And, FWIW, it is highly unlikely both of his sisters would not have been married. For there to have been 3 unmarried sibilings in the one family would have almost certainly been unthinkable). However, we don't know either way because Scripture does not tell us. But whether or not he was married changes nothing about the significance of the sibling relationship on view in Jn 11, nor the historical reality of the sibling relationship as the foundational same-generational relationship of deep intimacy in the 1st C Ancient Mediterranean.
To your second point, Jesus consistently treats women with dignity and significance (both those who are already following him and those are not). So, this passage is not a standalone primer for the role women play in the gospel and its witness in the world. He clearly loves Mary and Martha (just as he loves Lazarus). But again, none of that changes anything about the significance of the sibling bond on view in the passage.