Seeing as Believing: the Faith of "Doubting" Thomas
Second Sunday of
Easter, Year A,B,C
Acts
5:27-32
Revelation
5:11-14
John
20:19-31
John
20:19-31[1]
Exegetical and Translation Notes (plus a little bit of commentary)
When it was evening on that day,[2] the first day of the week,[3] and the doors of the house where the disciples[4] had met were locked for fear of the Jews,[5] Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace
be with you.”[6] 20 After he said this, he showed[7] them his hands and his side. Then the disciples
rejoiced[8] when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said
to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”[9] 22 When he had said this, he breathed
on them[10] and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.[11] 23 If you forgive the sins of any,
they are forgiven them;[12] if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
24 But Thomas[14] (who was called the Twin[15]), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus
came. 25 So the other disciples told him,[16] “We have seen the Lord.”[17] But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark[18] of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in
the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.” 26 A
week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them.
Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace
be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas,[19] “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out
your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.”[20] 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”[21] 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed
because you have seen me?[22] Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have
come to believe.”
30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of
his[24] disciples, which are not written in this book. 31
But these are written so that you may come to believe[25] that Jesus is the Messiah,[26] the Son of God, and that through believing you
may have life in his name.
Notes and thoughts on Preaching this Text
T
|
his passage represents
the second and third of the four resurrection appearances in John. The first
was in the garden and the fourth is on the beach in chapter 21. (John calls
that one the third appearance. Either
he can’t count or he can’t count women.)
There are dozens of interesting directions that this
story could take you in this week. I’ll try to keep my comments down to just three.
Saving
or strengthening?
The first one has to do with a very interesting
textual problem in verse 31, that might give you a two (or three) point sermon
and an opportunity for a teachable moment with your congregations about the
methods and history of translations.
Verse 20:31 reads “But these are written so that you
may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through
believing you may have life in his name” (NRSV). However, “come to believe” in
most of our translations has a footnote. The NRSV’s says, “Other ancient
authorities read may continue to believe.”
What is behind that qualifier is that the phrase in
Greek has a slight, slight variant that can dramatically alter the meaning of
the whole, so the translation committees decided to offer them both. A thin
majority of ancient texts have hina pisteuēste,
which is in the aorist tense and means “come to believe.” However, a slight but
significant minority, have hina
pisteuēte, which is present tense and means “continue to believe.” The
difference is one letter. The USB critical edition of the Greek New Testament (1972,
2nd ed.) has the word with a bracket around that one letter, like
this hina pisteuē[s]te.
Now, the significance of this is that the slight-majority reading says the gospel was written
so that you will change and become a believer in Jesus as the Messiah. In that
case it is meant as an evangelical statement. But the slight-minority texts say it was written so
that you (who are already believers) will continue to believe, in which case it
is meant as a support or strengthening statement. One wants you to become a
believer, the other wants you to put that belief into practice. Translators are
not settled on this, and the difference is not minor.
It seems to me that as a preacher/interpreter one
could either throw ones hands up and choose according to theology (Leon
Morris’s conservative commentary claims John clearly means it as an evangelical
statement, and Bultmann’s “liberal” commentary [which avoids the notion of
Christ’s expiation] says it clearly is an existential statement), or one can
use it as an opportunity to teach average church goers about the difficulties
of translation and then preach a mini sermon based on both.
I could envision a Fred Craddock-style “Not this, not
this, but this” sermon in which you tell of the conflict, wax a few minutes
about what it could mean for you and me if translated one way and then a few
minutes on what it would mean if it was translated the other way, and then have
an inclusive conclusion based on both.
Suffered like
me?
The second has to do with Jesus identifying with our
wounds. Usually when we read that Thomas wants to see Jesus’ wounds we are
saying that he wants tangible evidence of the existence of the risen lord. But
maybe what Thomas is saying is that he refuses to follow a savior who does not
have wounds. “Unless I see the wounds in his side I will not believe in him. I
will not follow a savior who has not suffered like the rest of us.
Does this hearken back to the image in Isaiah of the
suffering servant? Is Thomas saying that he can’t follow someone who has not
borne the wounds of humanity? Or not suffered like other humans? Is he saying,
“What good is a savior who has not suffered like I have?” This sounds similar
to what Jesus was saying when he said that before he would be the Christ he
would have to be arrested, tried, and executed. And similar to what the letter
to the Hebrews meant when saying that to be our savior he must be tempted in
every way, just like we were.
Hebrews 2:18: “Because he
himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being
tested.”
Imagine going to see a
doctor and you said, “I have a pain here and there and I’m worried about it,”
and the doctor said nothing but gave you a prescription? Compare that with a doctor
who might say, “yeah, I’ve had that and I know exactly what you mean,” and then gave you a prescription. Which one would
you be most likely to bond with?
In my own preaching I have
on occasion told a story here and there about women who were battered or abused
in their relationships. Usually people sympathize and then yawn. But I once had
a female guest pastor preach for me and she told her own story of abuse, and
after the service five women came up and said they wanted to talk. Unless they
saw that she had been wounded like they had, they wouldn’t trust the speaker.
On
Seeing and Believing
Finally, quick word on seeing, but not really seeing. Thomas was a follower of Jesus
and certainly would have wanted to believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead.
But for whatever reason (redaction critics have had a field day trying to guess
why John portrayed him this way) he seems to not want to believe based on the
testimony of others, but only on the trustworthiness of his own eyes. In the
end Jesus allows that to happen, but adds, “Have you believed because you have seen me?[27] Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have
come to believe.” Believing through seeing is fine, but sometimes conviction
empowers understanding in a way that facts cannot.
Do you remember the old Ted Dansen and Joley
Richardson movie, “Loch Ness” of the mid-nineties? It’s about a lonely,
discredited, anthropologist, who goes to Scotland to see if he can prove the
story of the Loch Ness Monster. He rents
a room from a widow and her daughter, and, of course, by the end of the movie
they spark a relationship. At one point in the movie he has a talk with the
daughter, played by Kirsty Graham, about the reality of the animal that no one
has yet successfully proven the existence of. He tells her that he just can’t
believe in something until he sees it (sound like Thomas?) and she responds
that he’s got it all wrong. You really can’t see it until you believe in it
(sound like Jesus?).
[1] 20:19-23 “Jesus’ first appearance to the disciples
brings his bestowal of peace and of the Spirit, with assurance of his commissioning
them to carry forward the work God gave to him, and the right to forgive or
retain (hold them blameworthy for) the sins of members of the community”
(Keck). “This appearance is astounding
because Jesus apparently penetrated the closed room and manifested himself in
their midst. He could do this because resurrection and the subsequent
glorification had altered his form. In resurrection, he had become life-giving
spirit (1 Cor. 15:42-45). At the same time, he still retained his humanity—but
a glorified one. In resurrection, he was the same person in a different form
(see Mark 16:12). In this new spiritual form, he was able to transcend all
physical barriers. He was able to penetrate matter and even penetrate men.” New Commentary on the Whole Bible,
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, General Editor: J. D. Douglas New Testament
Editor: Philip W. Comfort (1995).
[2] That day, may have eschatological implications. In the OT,
occasionally the term refers to the “day of the Lord.” Cf. Isaiah 52:6, “My
people shall know my name; on that day they shall know it is I who speak.” John often uses this note of time (1:39; 5:9; 11:53;
14:20; 16:23, 26). John is using Roman time, not Jewish, for here evening
follows day instead of preceding it. Note that NIB makes no reference to the eschatological possibilities, but instead
says that its purpose here is to connect it with the previous story of the
empty tomb where it is also used. Are these two theories mutually
contradictory?
[3] First day of the week. John puts this event on the first day of the
week, and the appearance to Thomas on the first day of the week, suggesting
that the chronology may have been influenced by later Christian custom of
celebrating the Lord's supper on the first day of the week. See Acts 22:7, 1
Cor. 16:2.
[4] “Disciples” (μαθητής/mathētḗs) masc. noun from manthánō, to learn, to understand. A
learner, pupil. It certainly included his disciples, but not necessarily only them, and may have included the
women followers as well. “Though in the NT μαθητής generally refers to men, it
is neutral as to sex distinction, and thus in a few instances in the NT also
includes women (as in Ac 6.1, πληθυνόντων τῶν μαθητῶν ‘the number of disciples
kept growing’).” Louw and Nida, Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd edition. (New
York: United Bible societies, 1989), 1:470.
[6] Peace be with you (eirēnē humin).
The usual salutation as in verses 21, 26; Luke 24:36. However, here it probably
also is the fulfillment of with John 14:27, where Christ promised them his
peace. Stoffregen says that it is usually used in John as a relational term,
i.e. “may a peaceful relationship exist among you.” It doesn’t mean be calm, or
have world peace. It means get along. “Whenever I see this word in the NT, I
begin by defining it as a description of a type of relationship between people
rather than a personal inner tranquility. The verbal form [ειρηνεύω - eirēneuō]
always refers to relationships between people in the NT (Mk 9:50; Ro 12:18; 2C
13:11; 1Th 5:13). Given John’s emphasis on the disciples’ love for one another
(13:35), I think it highly possible that it has a communal meaning. It is clear
in 16:33 that peace does not mean “not having troubles in the world” -- which
would tend to rule out the meanings eirene adopted from the Hebrew shalom.”
[7] “Showed” (edeixen,
εδειξεν). First aorist active indicative of deiknumi, “This body, not yet glorified,
retained the marks of the nails and of the soldier’s spear, ample proof of the
bodily resurrection against the modern view that only Christ’s “spirit” arose
and against the Docetic notion that Jesus had no actual human body. Luke
(24:39f.) adds feet to hands and side.” (Word
Pictures of the Greek New Testament)
[8] Rejoiced (echarēsan). Second aorist passive indicative of chairō.
Thayer’s has rejoice, be exceedingly glad, to be well, and thrive. Strong’s adds “be full of cheer.”
[9] This is one of the three “commissions” given by the
Risen Christ (another on the mountain in Galilee (Matt 28:16-20; 1 Cor
15:6), another on the Mount of Olives (Luke 24:44-51; Acts 1:3-11).
[10] He breathed on them (enephusēsen,
first aorist active indicative of emphusaō).
“Here only in N.T., though eleven times in the LXX
and in the papyri” (Word Pictures in the
Greek New Testament). “In Greek, pneuma means both
breath and spirit. In Genesis 2:7, God breathes into the nostrils of Adam,
giving him earthly life; the Septuagint translation uses pneuma here” (Haslem). “It
occurs also in Ezek 37:9. See Christ’s promise in John 16:23. Jesus gives the
disciples a foretaste of the great Pentecost” (Word Pictures). “Jesus’ breathing into them recapitulates God’s
breathing into Adam (see Gen. 2:7, LXX, where enephusÎsen is used) and thus denotes that Jesus’ infusion inspired
a new genesis, in which he regenerated the disciples (see 1 Peter 1:3)” (New Commentary on the Whole Bible). Compare Ezekiel 37:5.
[11] There is an article that is
missing here. The gift bestowed was not that of the personal Holy
Spirit, but rather an earnest of that gift; an effusion of
the Spirit.
[12] “They are forgiven them”
(ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς). “Despite the present and the future tenses in
many MSS, the variant apheōntai (perfect
passive, ‘they are forgiven’) is probably original” (Barton, John and John
Muddiman, The Oxford Bible Commentary, (London: Oxford University Press)
2001).
[13] 20:24-29 “Thomas, the absentee among the disciples, is
first dubious about the resurrection claim, but then through a second appearance
to the disciples he is shown the pierced hands and side of Jesus, and acclaims
him as Lord and God” (Leander Keck).
[15] “Twin” (Didymus).
From äßò (twice); means double,
that is, twin old Greek word. Note
that the term “twelve” is still applied to the group, though Judas is dead. The
same expression applied to Thomas in 11:16; 21:2, but nowhere else in N.T. (Robinson,
Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament).
[16] “The other disciples told him.” Note that it is the imperfect
that is actually used here, “The other disciples kept telling him
that ‘We have seen the Lord’.” The implication is clearly that they have
repeatedly spoken to Thomas several time throughout the week.
[17] “We have seen the Lord” (heōrakamen ton kurion).
This is the very language in the plural that Mary Magdalene had used (20:18)
when no one believed her.
[18] “The mark” (τὸν
τύπον). The print or stamp made by the nails. The fact that he wants to see it
implies the disciples had told him that they had seen the typon of the nails in his hands and the spear in his side.
[19] “Then he said to Thomas” (eita legei tōi Thomāi
). Jesus turns directly to Thomas. The impression is given that the purpose for
this visit is to speak to Thomas. He lists the very tests that Thomas had named
(verse 25).
[20] “Do not doubt, but believe”(
mē ginou apistos). “Although many translations include “doubt” in v. 27 -- and
thus lead to the phrase “Doubting Thomas”, there is no Greek word for “doubt”
in the verse. The contrast is between apistos and pistos—the only
occurrence of both these words in John” (Brian
Stoffregen). The word play is between apistos/ἄπιστος (disbelieving) and pistos/πιστός (believing), but not
between doubting and believing. The KJV has “Be not faithless” (KJV), which means something like,
“stop disbelieving; start believing.”
[21] “My Lord and My God” C.K.
Barrett sees in this phrase a portion of “the Jesus of History and the Christ
of Faith.” A literal translation might be, “Lord of me (i.e. Jesus of history), God of me (i.e. Christ of faith).” “In 13:13–14 Jesus used ‘teacher’ and ‘lord’
as synonyms, but now ‘my Lord’ designates the risen Christ. ‘My God’ resumes
the description of Jesus in the Prologue as ‘God’ (1:1, 18). In the OT Lord and
God are associated terms (e.g. Ps 7:2–3; 30:3). This is more likely to be the
background than the pagan acclamation of the emperor as Lord and God (but see
Suetonius, Dom. 13: ‘dominus et
deus noster’) (Oxford Bible Commentary).
[22] “Have you believed because you have seen me?” “Both
verbs are perfect tense, which implies …a past action with continued effect in
the present. This sentence also poses a punctuation problem: Is it a question
as the nrsv translates it or a
declaration as the niv translates
it (“‘Because you have seen, you have
believed’”)? We have the declaration: “Seeing is believing.” It’s not always
true, but we say it” (Brian Stoffregen).
[23] 20:30-31 “The original conclusion of John's Gospel.
The author indicates that he has chosen to report this group of Jesus' signs in
order to persuade his readers that Jesus is the Messiah and to show them that
through trust in him they may obtain life as God intended it to be” (Keck) .
[24] “Although most MSS,
including several important ones (𝔓66
א C D L W Θ Ψ f1,
13 33 𝔐 lat), read αὐτοῦ (autou, “his”) after τῶν μαθητῶν (tōn mathētōn, “the disciples”), the pronoun is lacking in A B K Δ 0250 al. The weight of the witnesses for the inclusion is somewhat
stronger than that for the exclusion. However, the addition of “his” to
“disciples” is a frequent scribal emendation and as such is a predictable
variant. It is thus most likely that the shorter reading is authentic. NA27
puts the pronoun in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.” NET Bible: First Edition (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).
[25] “Come to believe.” nrsv note: Other ancient authorities
read may continue to believe. A thin majority of ancient texts have hina pisteuēste,
which is in the aorist tense and means “come to believe.” However, a smaller
but significant minority, have hina pisteuēte,
which is present tense and means “continue to believe.” The difference is one
letter. Most critical editions of the Greek New Testaments (mine is UBS 1972,
2nd ed.) have the word with a bracket around that one letter, like this hina
pisteuē[s]te. The
significance is that the slight-majority
reading says the Gospel was written so that you will change and become a believer in Jesus as the
Messiah. In that case it is meant as an evangelical statement. The slight-minority texts say it was written so
that you (who are already believers) will continue
to believe, in which case it is meant as a support or strengthening statement.
One wants you to become a believer, the other wants you to put that belief into
practice. One is written to bring you into the community, and the other is
written be the community, that is,
live up to what the community was meant to be.
[26] nrsv Note: Or the
Christ
[27] It doesn’t change the
overall meaning much, but the phrase “Have you believed because you have seen me?” (NRSV) could also be
punctuated as a declarative statement, not as a question which would give, “Because you have seen, you have believed” (NIV).
