Seeing
and Believing,
the Faith of "Doubting" Thomas
Acts 5:27-32
Revelation 5:11-14
John 20:19-31
Text (with a little exegesis and commentary here and there)
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
There are four resurrection appearances in John. This passage
represents the second and third of those.
The first was in the garden and the fourth is on the beach in chapter
21. (Interestingly, John calls that fourth one the third appearance.
Either he can’t count appearances or he can’t count women.)
There are dozens of interesting directions that this story could
take you 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 your 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 and said “take this”? Compare that with a doctor who might say,
“yeah, I’ve had that too, 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 stories 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 Danson and Joely Richardson movie,
“Loch Ness” that came out in 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, they eventually 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 backwards. The truth is, you
really can’t see it until you believe in it (sound like Jesus?). You can't really "see" truth, until you already "believe" truth. You can't really "see" the presence and actions and deeds and love of God through Jesus Christ, until you already "believe" that those things exist. The believing causes the ability to see. The ability to see doesn't have much effect on your ability to believe.
And after that, I guess, the
pastor says “Amen.”
[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.
[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).
