body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.7; margin: 2em; max-width: 900px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.8em; }
h2 { font-size: 1.8em; }
h3 { font-size: 1.4em; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }
blockquote { background: #f9f9f9; border-left: 4px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 0; padding: 0.5em 1.2em; font-style: italic; color: #555; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 2em; padding-left: 0; }
li { margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
span.small-caps { font-variant: small-caps; }
An Exegetical Study of John 11:35: The Nature of Jesus’ Tears
This exegetical study of John 11:35 is based on a b-greek discussion from June 17, 1998.
The initial inquiry concerned the motivation behind Jesus’ tears at Lazarus’s tomb. While the TEB suggests compassion for the weeping Martha, Mary, and accompanying Jews, other scholars such as Murray and Borchert propose that Jesus’ tears stemmed from anger. This divergence in interpretation highlights the significance of contextual verses, particularly John 11:33 and 38, which describe Jesus’ deep emotional agitation.
The central exegetical issue lies in discerning the precise nature and underlying motivation of Jesus’ emotional response in John 11:35. Specifically, understanding the nuance of the verb ἐδάκρυσεν (‘wept’) in relation to the broader narrative context, especially the more intense emotional descriptions in John 11:33 and 38 (ἐνεβριμήσατο τῷ πνεύματι καὶ ἐταράχθη, ‘he was deeply moved in his spirit and troubled’), is crucial. This involves exploring whether Jesus’ tears signify sorrow, compassion, indignation, or a complex interplay of these emotions, thereby impacting how we understand both his human and divine attributes within the Johannine framework.
Ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς. (Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- No significant differences. The SBLGNT (2010) reads Ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς.
Textual criticism (NA28), lexical notes (KITTEL, BDAG):
The NA28 critical apparatus for John 11:35 reveals no textual variants for Ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, indicating a high degree of textual stability for this concise verse. Lexical analysis, however, offers crucial insights into the verb δάκρυω (dakryō). According to BDAG, δάκρυω means “to weep, shed tears, cry,” often denoting silent or gentle weeping, distinct from κλαίω (klaiō), which implies loud lamentation or wailing. The use of δάκρυω here is notable because, as some scholars point out, the evangelist might be signaling a specific kind of weeping. KITTEL’s TDNT entry for δάκρυω also emphasizes its use for shedding tears, often silently, and contrasts it with more overt expressions of grief. This distinction is particularly relevant when considering the preceding and subsequent verses in John 11 where Jesus is described with the stronger verb ἐμβριμάομαι (embrimaomai). BDAG defines ἐμβριμάομαι as “to have an intense, strong feeling of concern, often with the implication of indignation,” or “to scold, rebuke.” KITTEL further elaborates that ἐμβριμάομαι can imply an ‘outburst of anger’ or ‘deep indignation’, or even ‘to snort/growl’ in a figurative sense of deep inner agitation. This lexical contrast between the gentle δάκρυω and the indignant ἐμβριμάομαι forms the core of the exegetical challenge.
Translation Variants
The grammatical form ἐδάκρυσεν is an aorist active indicative, third person singular. The discussion highlights various interpretations of the aorist aspect:
- Some scholars interpret it as an ingressive or inceptive aorist, emphasizing the beginning of the action. This leads to translations such as “Jesus burst into tears” or “Jesus started crying.” While A. T. Robertson famously advocated for “burst into tears,” some contributors found it overly melodramatic or too specific in its inception. The nuanced debate centers on whether the aorist primarily denotes the onset or simply presents the action as a completed, unanalyzed whole.
- Others view it as a constative or historical aorist, simply stating a past fact. This supports the traditional and succinct “Jesus wept.” This rendering focuses on the event itself without specifying its duration or inception, thereby allowing for broader interpretive scope regarding Jesus’ underlying emotion.
- A less common suggestion was the use of the English historical present, “Jesus weeps,” intended to bridge the historical fact with a mentally present event for the reader. However, this was largely contested as diverging from the aorist’s typical function in historical narrative.
Rhetorically, the extreme brevity of the verse (two words in Greek, three if the article is included: Ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς) lends it profound weight and ambiguity. This succinctness, particularly in contrast to the more elaborate descriptions of Jesus’ inner turmoil in verses 33 and 38 (ἐνεβριμήσατο τῷ πνεύματι καὶ ἐταράχθη, “he was deeply moved in his spirit and troubled,” and πάλιν ἐμβριμώμενος, “again deeply moved”), creates a Johannine ‘enigma.’ This enigma encourages readers to delve deeper into the narrative context and theological implications. The discussion further connected ἐμβριμάομαι with Mark 8:12 (ἀναστενάξας τῷ πνεύματι αὐτοῦ, “groaned deeply in his spirit”), suggesting a similar expression of profound distress or dismay rather than mere anger, though anger remains a strong interpretive option for ἐμβριμάομαι, especially when directed outwards. The contrast between δάκρυω (tears of sorrow/compassion) and ἐμβριμάομαι (snorting/indignation) suggests a complex emotional state in Jesus, rather than a singular, easily categorized one.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The exegesis of John 11:35 highlights the interpretive richness embedded in the seemingly simple statement, “Jesus wept.” While the verb ἐδάκρυσεν itself points to the shedding of tears, the surrounding narrative context, particularly John 11:33 and 38, complicates a singular understanding of Jesus’ emotional state. The lexical distinction between δάκρυω (shedding tears) and ἐμβριμάομαι (deep indignation or agitation) suggests that Jesus’ experience was multifaceted, encompassing elements of sorrow, compassion for the mourners, frustration at their unbelief, and profound dismay at the destructive power of death in a world he was sent to redeem. The aorist aspect, while allowing for an ingressive sense, primarily functions here to state the event as a fact, leaving the precise nuance of its initiation and duration to contextual inference. Ultimately, John’s concise phrasing serves to underscore Jesus’ full humanity while simultaneously inviting deeper theological reflection on his mission and authority over death.
- Jesus wept. This remains the most traditional and textually faithful translation, rendering the constative aorist without imposing a specific nuance of inception or duration, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of Jesus’ complex emotions.
- Jesus began to weep. This translation emphasizes the ingressive aspect of the aorist, suggesting a sudden onset of tears, which aligns with interpretations highlighting a poignant or emphatic initial emotional reaction.
- Jesus gave way to tears. This phrasing, suggested in the discussion, provides a nuanced interpretation of the aorist, conveying both the initiation of weeping and a sense of relinquishing control to profound emotion, without the potential melodrama of “burst into tears.”