The Sunday gospel lectionary reading for the Second Sunday in Easter is John 20.19–31, which includes Jesus’ encounter with so-called ‘doubting Thomas’. It is the set reading for this week in all three years of the lectionary, so we know it well—and need to reflect on it if we are going to preach effectively on this well-trodden ground.
In 2013 we moved to our current home, which was built in 1850 as a square farmhouse in what was then part of a rural village outside Nottingham. One of the changes we made quite soon after moving in was to restore the historic kitchen garden, which had been planted over for the previous 20 or 30 years with trees and shrubs. The soil in the area is heavy clay, and in one flower bed it feels as though you can actually dig up red lumps and start making a pot straight away! But I have had no trouble growing all manner of fruit and vegetables in the kitchen garden, since the area had cows and horses on it for a hundred years, and they have clearly made their contribution! In addition, there was an enormous well-rotted compost heap, and digging it out gave the whole area a three- or four-inch covering. It is very fertile ground.
It feels as though this reading is similarly rich, fertile and multi-layered, the historical base overlaid with the author’s reflections on the theological importance of what happened. Any number of theological reflections will quickly grow up in this fertile ground—and hopefully bear fruit.
There seem to be two major changes of gear in this passage from what has gone before. The first relates to time: in the first part of the chapter, narrative time slows down so much that we are told who is running to the tomb fastest, and who enters in first, followed by the poignant account of Mary’s encounter with Jesus. Here you can almost count the passing seconds; it is all marked by the slowness and stillness of the early morning. By contrast, the second half of the chapter appears to be highly compressed, with a summary of Jesus’ giving of the Spirit and commissioning the disciples, and a week skipping past in a moment. It is, once again, worth noting that this corresponds very well with the way that we remember important experiences; the key moments are often slowed down in our memory, and details remain vivid, long after we have forgotten other details, perhaps even including what would otherwise be important details of chronology. (I can remember the colour of the car I was following on my bike as a teenager when it crashed head-on with one coming the other way; I can see the glass showering across the road and the noise, but I am blowed if I can tell you the month or even (reliably) the year.)
The second change of gear relates to the symbolic and theological meaning of this section. In the preceding passage, the typical symbolic double-meaning of much of the Fourth Gospel has fallen away. Where Nicodemus’ twilight of understanding matches the time of his visit to Jesus in John 3, and the bright noonday light of John 4 expresses the Samaritan woman’s recognition of Jesus, the actions of Simon Peter and the other disciple don’t appear to have any such significance. The disciple’s bending over to look in the tomb simply happens because that is what is required by the low entrance of any similar first-century rock-cut tomb, as we know well from archaeology. The separation of the sidarion that was wrapped around Jesus’ head from the othonia, the strips of linen wrapped around his body (John 20.6–7), is what you would only find if the body had passed through the material and left them in their place—assuming you understood how bodies were prepared for burial in the first century.
Verse 19 begins with one of the Fourth Gospel’s customary mentions of timing, locating the encounter of the Ten (the Twelve without Judas or, on this occasion, Thomas) in the early moments of their receiving the news from Mary (John 20.18) and the other women. The news has not yet sunk in; they still remain behind locked doors for fear of the Iudaioi, best translated here as ‘the Jewish [or Judean] leaders’, since they still believe that they were next in line for the chop, as those whose power is threatened seek to snuff out this dangerous new movement. Some versions (like the NIV) describe the disciples as being ‘together’, but there is no such word in the text; it is far from clear that they are, as a group, any less fragmented than when they were scattered by the crisis of Jesus’ arrest (else why would Thomas be missing?). They are, mostly, in one physical place but (in contrast to later occasions like Pentecost) it is far from clear that they are ‘together’.
Despite the doors being locked, Jesus comes and stands ‘in their midst’, a phrase which has a curious parallel with the vision in Revelation 1 of the Son of Man ‘in the midst’ of the lamp stands (Rev 1.13). In this passage, Jesus is both clearly corporeal (bodily) but in a transformed way so that he is unconstrained by the limits of the physical world, and can come and go as he pleases. As in the parallel account in Luke 24.36, Jesus greets them and shows them his wounds; in that gospel, this everyday greeting becomes part of Luke’s interest in the theme of the peace of the gospel. But in the Fourth Gospel, the language of peace specifically reminds us of the Last Supper discourse, in which Jesus offers peace in contrast with the ‘trouble’ his disciples will have in the world (John 14.27, 16.33). On saying this, he immediately shows them not his ‘hands and feet’ as in Luke, but his ‘hands and side’. This confirms that it is the same Jesus they knew before, but also that it is these wounds that bring about the peace that he has promised. The springs of living water that Ezekiel anticipated flowing from the side of the renewed temple (Ezekiel 47.1) actually flowed from the side of Jesus (John 19.34), who is the true temple (John 2.19–21), in fulfilment of Jesus’ own teaching (John 7.38). Joy comes to the disciples as they begin to recognise who Jesus really is, and what his death and resurrection really mean.
The second of three greetings of ‘Peace…’ moves the encounter on to its next stage. Jesus has not come simply to minister to them, but to commission them to minister to others in the same way he has ministered to them. ‘As the Father has sent me, so I send you’. There are two different words used here for ‘send’, apostello and pempo respectively, but there is no sense of different meaning. (The Fourth Gospel often uses synonyms with no differentiation of meaning, the most celebrated and debated example being the different words for ‘love’ in John 21.) We then are offered a concise ‘Johannine Pentecost’ as Jesus breathes on the disciples and invites them to ‘receive the Spirit’. I don’t think there is any easy way to resolve the chronological differences between this and Luke-Acts; for the possible options see Craig Keener’s extended discussion in his commentary on John, pp 1196–1200. But theologically the Fourth Gospel says something very similar to Luke:
Christology: As Jesus’ breathing illustrates, Jesus is the one who dispenses the Spirit of God, a claim that thus enfolds Jesus within the Godhead (as Max Turner has argued in relation to Luke’s account of the ascension and Pentecost).
Missiology: their apostolic ministry, sent to continue the work that ‘Jesus began to do’ (Acts 1.1), can only be effective when empowered by the Spirit. Luke expresses this in the close linking of the Spirit, power, and testimony both in the ministry of Jesus and throughout Acts.
Ecclesiology: the realisation of the forgiveness that comes from Jesus’ death and resurrection only takes place in the context of this Spirit-filled resurrection community. Jo-Ann Brant (Paideia commentary, p 276–7) argues against the traditional understanding of John 20.23 as an ‘antithetical parallelism’, contrasting the forgiveness of sins with their ‘retention’, is mistaken, not least because the word ‘sins’ is not repeated and the term krateo (‘retain’) does not usually have such a negative connotation. A better way of understanding the second phrase is the ‘grasping’ or ‘retaining’ of someone in the community, thus forming a synthetic parallelism between the forgiveness of sins and the building of community: ‘Whosoever’s sins you forgive they are forgiven; and whosever you keep, they are kept.’ (The verb krateo is used of Jesus’ grasp of the ekklesiae, the believing communities, in Rev 2.1.)
There are objections to Brant’s reading in this way; with the exception of Matt 9.25 (which is paralleled in Mark 1.31), the verb krateo takes the accusative case, so it would not be possible to translate this directly as ‘whosoever you keep’ since τινων is in the genitive plural. And, though the language of ‘keeping sins’ is unusual, and a unique use of krateo, the Fourth Gospel does indeed talk of sins ‘remaining’, for example when the Pharisees question Jesus in relation to the man born blind in John 9.41. Most commentators connect this saying with Matt 16.19, and Peter having the ‘keys’ to the kingdom. But we noted that this is about being steward of the household, rather than being the one who grants permission to enter, and both there and here (by means of the ‘divine passive’) the emphasis is on the power of God to forgive, not the disciples. However you read it, there is a strong focus on belonging to the community of forgiveness.
It is within the broad context of this rich tapestry of ideas that the narrative about Thomas comes. The others greet Thomas just the same way Mary had greeted them ‘We have seen the Lord!’, using exactly the same words—but the effect is quite different. Thomas’ response is not rational but emotional; it is full of repetition (nails/nails, put my finger/put my hand) and drama, as he demands to merely to touch but to ‘thrust’ (ballo) his finger and hands in the gaping wounds. What was the reason for this bitter response?
A number of years ago, I was taking an assembly in a primary school, and asking the group to name some of their heroes. As each one was mentioned, I exclaimed dramatically that I had only recently seen these people—some of them on the way to school that morning—and if only I had known I could have brought them along or introduced them! There was growing incredulity in the group, and rightly so. But when I asked how they would feel if this had really happened—and so how Thomas might be feeling having missed out on the encounter—a hand at the back shot up. ‘I would be very angry!’ It was an amazing insight into the things that hold us back from believing, and anger at what has happened to us and the way life has turned out seems to me to be far more common than an actual lack of evidence, even if it is evidential language that we naturally reach for. (And I have ever since called the Twin ‘Angry Thomas’ rather than ‘Doubting Thomas’.)
Jesus’ next appearance takes place ‘after eight days’, which perhaps, by counting the days inclusively (that is, including the first and last within the number) means ‘one week later’ as many English translations have it. This second encounter at first exactly mirrors the first: the door are locked; Jesus stands in their midst; he greets them a third time ‘Peace be with you!’ Then his attention is turned to Thomas, with two remarkable features. First, the risen Jesus completely accepts Thomas’ demands of proof, so that his invitation repeats exactly the language of finger and nails and hand and side that Thomas himself used. There is no sense in which Jesus requires belief as something contrary to or lacking in evidence. The second remarkable thing (contrary to Caravaggio’s famous painting above) is that there is no suggestion that Thomas takes him up on the offer; seeing Jesus for himself is enough, as Jesus’ following saying emphasises. Whatever Thomas’ sin is (if that is what it be) is immediately forgiven, and he is once more incorporated into the apostolic community.
This then leads into Jesus’ saying itself, and the first concluding statement that the writer adds at the end of the chapter (the second concluding statement coming in John 21.24–25). Although in the narrative, Jesus is speaking to Thomas, in recording it the gospel writer is speaking to his audience, since ‘those who have not seen, yet believe’ are precisely the first generation of readers of this gospel—especially if it was written at the end of the apostolic era, when the first generation of eye-witnesses are passing away.
And we need to note that those ‘who have not seen’ are not in any sense inferior to those who ‘have seen and believed’; it is the shared reality of belief that matters. Where Thomas had the visual evidence of the Living Word before him, we now have the evidence of the written word, the testimony of the beloved disciple, and both are equally sufficient evidence for placing our trust in Jesus. In reflecting on our relationship to Thomas, we might want to borrow the language of the following chapter. ‘Never mind about what I want for him—what matters is that you follow me.’
For video discussion of this passage and all these questions, join James and Ian here:
There is no sense in which Jesus requires belief as something contrary to or lacking in evidence.
Hear hear. I saw someone point out on the Tweeter recently that ‘The only times Jesus directly mentions doubt is to rebuke it. Jude commands us to be merciful to those who doubt, yes, but it is never treated as a neutral — much less, good — thing.’
Jesus’s reaction to Thomas shows us that, on the other hand, wanting evidence is a good thing. Because the things we believe in are facts, real true facts — they aren’t mere abstract propositions beyond logic, reason or rationality that require a ‘leap of faith’ to accept.
(In case it’s not clear — I agree absolutely with the Tweeter. Doubt is not good. Skepticism — the demand for proof — is good. Thomas wasn’t a doubter; he was a skeptic. The difference is that a skeptic demands proof and, when proof is given, accepts it. A skeptic seeks truth. A doubter, on the other hand, wants to live in the comfort of ‘maybe’.)
” The heart has it’s reasons, that reason knows nothing of. ” (Pascal)
The heart is deceitful above all things. The Bible.
Our hearts are also an idol factories. Chauvin, Jean.
Our hearts are restless till they find rest in thee. Augustine.
So what exactly are our hearts in the context of the whole of scripture?
They are beyond, more than feelings, affections? Edwards, J.
Our primary purpose?
Our primary purpose is to love and so be at one with God, who is love.
That eternal love is beyond reason, as Pascal expressed so well.
Our primary purpose is to love and so be at one with God, who is love.
Wrong. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy Him for ever.
It is not beyond reason, reason set out in scripture and doctrine and evidence of the love of our Triune God supremely in the incarnation, life, crucifixion, bodily resurrection and ascension of the Son and believers indwelling of God the Holy Spirit.
Even the why question is answered.
Happy Easter to you both.
Glorifying God is expressed by loving God and loving our neighbour as ourselves – the summary of the law. That is how we enjoy God for ever.
Geoff, I am more in agreement with Pascal than with you. The divine mystery of the trinity does not readily yield to reason – thank God.
Glorifying God is expressed by loving God and loving our neighbour as ourselves – the summary of the law.
Summaries can be misleading, you know. By their very nature they leave out a lot of vital context.
The divine mystery of the trinity does not readily yield to reason
Nonsense. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost.
Nothing unreasonable about it.
I’m not in agreement with you Andrew. Shame it seems that Christian orthodoxy of the Trinity seems to be beyond you, your understanding, and outside your understanding and relationship with the God of Christianity, even while you have held a position of influence in the CoE.
Perhaps, there is Skeptic (Unthink/ Unbelief) Tank in the CoE.
But, it is the bodily resurrection of Jesu that for another year seems to bring you out in an uncomfortable rash, even while you take extreme care to avoid commenting with anything of substance on the scripture or article.
” .. without love, I am nowt “.
1 Cor. 13:2.
The Yorkshire Version.
Oh dear Geoff you have made this kind of claim before and had to apologise and withdraw it. Please be a little more mature.
For the record, I have no doubt about the bodily resurrection – which is why I began with an Easter greeting.
And calling the Holy Trinity a divine mystery is probably the most orthodox approach of all. You seem to want to explain it away, rather than worship and adore.
As to the summary of the law: that was Jesus’ and not mine. If you find it lacking, then I can’t do much about that.
Andrew,
1 On what basis do you believe in the bodily resurrection?
2 On what evidence is it based?
3 what is the source?
4 Who, which God raised Jesus. God’s Son, Saviour?
5 Why was Jesus raised?
6 Which God do you worship? And why?
7 As a disciple of John T Robinson?
8 The songs my friends sang at the death of their -gone-to-glory- dad (below), were not from the pen of
songsters Abba, your preference to Kendrick. Nor were they songs I, my wife, and sister in the Lord were singing in worship, as I was wheeled to the operating theatre for a life saving operation.
10 You have no God of Good News to offer to me. For all I’ve read of your comments here over the years, my conclusion is that you worship a different God from my family, church, and me.
Bye.
Please be a little more mature.
Well, I mean, you spent a long time insisting that you didn’t believe that men had walked on the moon until you realised how silly it was making you sound and reverse ferreted, so I’m not sure how much of authority on maturity you can be.
Please be a little more mature.
Well, I mean, you spent a long time insisting that you didn’t believe that men had walked on the moon until you realised how silly it was making you sound and reverse ferreted, so I’m not sure how much of authority on maturity you can be.
For the record, I have no doubt about the bodily resurrection
Interesting. How can you possibly square that with your belief that God cannot affect the natural world in order to send a storm (cf https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/what-are-paul-bayes-goals-for-the-church-on-sexuality/#comment-396074)?
Surely the level of control over the natural world required to raise Jesus bodily from the dead is far greater than that required to call up, or still, a storm?
For that matter, how do you square it with your denial of the virgin birth? You think that Jesus must have had a human father; but surely if God was capable of raising Jesus bodily from the dead, then He must have been equally capable of causing Jesus to come into the world without needing a human sperm? The ability and willingness to suspend the operation of the natural world is exactly the same in both cases. So why do you accept one and not the other?
You seem to want to demythologise, but keep the bodily resurrection. But you can’t do that. The demythologised worldview cannot contain the bodily resurrection; and if you accept the bodily resurrection, that means you accept the principle of the miraculous and so blow a hole in the single premise of the whole demythologisation project.
You have to pick one or the other. Demythologisation, and no bodily resurrection; or a bodily resurrection and all that implies in terms of a God who is able and willing to both suspend and guide the laws of nature in ways both spectacular and subtle.
And if you go the demythologisation route, you’re not a Christian, you’re a Deist.
So which is it?
Geoff – you claim to be a lawyer but certainly bring that profession into very poor repute.
Your questions here have been answered countless times before, as have those of your friend S, and are off topic. They have no need to be answered again.
Your questions here have been answered countless times before, as have those of your friend S
Narrator: They hadn’t been answered before.
” God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit which is given unto us “.
(Romans 5:5).
What are the true facts ?
Jesus claimed that the Father is ” the only true God ” (John 17:3).
[‘Only’ = Greek : monos = ”remaining sole or single”; “solitary”; alone (without a companion)”.
Jesus told Thomas and Philip, that the Father indwelt Him to such an extent, that to “see” Jesus, was to “see” the Father [‘the only true God’]; cf. John 14:3-11.
The Jews misunderstood Jesus, and believed He was claiming to be ‘God’. Jesus refuted them, and declared that He was ‘the Son of God’ (John 10: 31-36).
The resurrected Jesus informed Mary to tell His brothers that ;
“I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.” (John 20:17)
When Thomas saw the resurrected Messiah Jesus, He came to full faith and realization, and Thomas ‘saw’ the Father (‘the only true God’) Who indwelt within Jesus – cf. John 20:28; John 14:3-11; and 2 Cor. 5:19 – “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself”.
The conclusion (chapter 21 is a later appendix) to John’s Gospel is :
” But these things are written in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this faith you may have life by His name.” (John 20:31).
For first century Christians, there was only one God, Who is the Father ; and there is one Messianic lord, Jesus (John 20:31; Eph. 4:4:5-6; 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Tim. 2:5; Rev. 11:15). Similarly, in Psalm 110:1 (M.T. Text), ‘adoni’ (‘lord’; ‘master’) is distinguished from ‘YHWH’ [GOD]. Hence :
“The LORD [YHWH] says to my lord”; Ps. 110:1; RSV.
Have you read the first chapter of John’s Gospel?
Absolutely, David B.
This is what Bishop J.B. Lightfoot said about the ‘Logos’ :
” ‘The word ‘logos’ then, denoting both ‘reason’ and ‘speech,’ was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Judaism before St. Paul wrote, to express the manifestation of the Unseen God, the Absolute Being, in the creation and government of the world. It included all modes by which God makes Himself known to man. As His [God’s] reason, it denoted His purpose or design [Plan]; as His speech, it implied His revelation.”
Gods ‘Logos’ is God’s ‘Self- revelation’, ‘Self manifestation’ and ‘Self expression’ – which was evident in His powerful, creative activity in the Genesis Creation (cf. Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, et al; Ps. 33:6; Isa. 55:11), and in the New Creation, when God’s ‘Logos’ (His Self- Expressive activity) became incarnated within a human being (John 1:1-14).
Praise God, for Jesus!
Thomas: an ad mixture of fear and not knowing.
Fear of missing out, of not being there; fear of false hope; fear of his absence, of separation, grief manifested.
Not knowing who Jesus really is; not grasping the the truth, reality, of his teaching and miracles and promises, of his continuing presence.
This morning the dad of our midweek group friends died in hospital. They were singing at the point of death and see him as being promoted to glory.
Two days ago a friend’s funeral was more sombre. I’ll miss him.
What is a human life worth? And to whom?
Where is true hope of substance to be found?
And where is false hope lurking?
If Jesus were not raised we are all self-deceived no hopers. Meaningless, meaningless and the triumph of transience.
Subject skepticism to skepticism; doubt your doubts. Don’t miss out, don’t miss Him. He is alive, and we in Him.
“Behold the throne of God above…”
Arrving in the UK after years of being in South Asia I was struggling to grasp the rise of “new atheism” and its ilk. So I spent time engaging with people, mostly men. I found that behind their rationality most had a sense of hurt, and anger, at something Christian that occured in the past. I think Thomas’ response chimes with this. I would nuance this as being indignant at being unfairly treated, unfairly judged or unfairly passed over.
In other words, Colin, they have a grudge against God.
Romans 1:18 seems to suggest that deep down in the human psyche, everyone knows that there is a God.
I doubt that’s true for many. The majority of people in the UK are no longer brought up in Christian families, so with having so little contact with Christianity they have nothing to be hurt by. Rather what they see is, for example, a contradiction between the apparent teaching of the Bible – special creation, not evolution; rejection of gay sexual relationships etc – and what they believe to be true.
The majority of people in the UK are no longer brought up in Christian families, so with having so little contact with Christianity they have nothing to be hurt by.
You missed that the observation was about ‘new atheism’. The ‘new atheist’ movement was popular among people in their twenties/thirties in the early years of the twenty-first century — exactly the age to have been brought up in the last years when ‘Christian families’ were widespread. And indeed a lot of them clearly did not (and do not) get on with their parents.
The current generation indeed have little contact with Christianity, and as a result they are a lot less vociferous and angry about Christianity than the ‘new atheists’. Rather their general reaction to Christianity is curiosity and bemusement.
P.C. (Peter) :
The Genesis Creation may be partially parabolic, but still essentially true (as with Christ’s parables).
Your other points seem explicable by the concept of ‘unregenerate human nature’.
I think it is theologically true, not literally as in if you had had a video camera at the time that is what you would have recorded.
Peter
I haven’t the faintest idea what ‘theologically true’ means.
Who decides what is theologically true?
Is the phrase coherent?
What would count as evidence?
Theologically true means (to me) that the overlapping Vens of prophesy , type and allusion produce a coherent pattern in my spirit. like this!:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/mathematicians-discovered-einstein-tile
😉
Theologically true means (to me) that the overlapping Vens of prophesy , type and allusion produce a coherent pattern in my spirit
Does that have anything to do with being — you know — true ?
S, the scriptures that Jesus unpacked for the disciples must have been percieved by them to be like an unfolding ven diagram. Each truth in itself vague and nebulous but put together revealing a small bright spotlight in the centre. Jesus Himself. He is the ‘Truth’. …just an analogy!
S, the scriptures that Jesus unpacked for the disciples must have been percieved by them to be like an unfolding ven diagram.
A what? Venn (two ns, after John Venn) diagrams don’t unfold. You must be thinking of some other kind of diagram but I have no idea what kind of diagram unfolds.
Each truth in itself vague and nebulous but put together revealing a small bright spotlight in the centre. Jesus Himself.
I don’t think a truth can be vague. To the extent that something is vague its meaning is imprecise, and to the extent that something’s meaning is imprecise it is impossible to say whether or not it is true. Do you have any examples of these ‘vague and nebulous’ truths? Because I’m afraid you seem to be talking nonsense (as John Venn, an eminent logician, would no doubt have pointed out).
Venn,
OK
Sorry S.
I mean the unfolding of the prophesies in Scripture. On their own they seem isolated points of truth but brought together they achieved an “ahha” moment. Much the way a Venn diagram highlights the shared data between disparate sets.
I’m trying to fathom what went on during the walk to Emmaus. Why the breaking of bread tipped the ‘strangely warmed’ hearts. But that’s the other blog!
Much the way a Venn diagram highlights the shared data between disparate sets.
What? There is no shared data between disparate (or more usually’disjoint’) sets. That’s what ‘disaprate’ means. What Venn diagrams present visually is the intersections of sets which are not disjoint. ‘The shared data between disparate sets’ is just meaningless nonsense. On a Venn diagram two disparate sets would be represented as two non-overlapping circles, ie, there can be nothing shared between them (because if they did overlap then they wouldn’t be disparate, would they?)
But from this:
On their own they seem isolated points of truth but brought together they achieved an “ahha” moment.
… you seem to mean something like how truths can build upon each other in order to give a fuller picture (which is almost precisely the opposite of a Venn diagram illustrating set intersections, as the Venn diagram is subtractive rather than additive. And still doesn’t ‘unfold’).
Okay, that idea at least makes sense: you can learn more of a fuller picture of the truth by piecing together smaller truths, like a detective piecing together clues to solve a crime.
But I still don’t see how this has to do with what ‘theologically true’ means. The clues to be put together aren’t ‘theologically true’, they just are true. And the answer to the question of who committed the crime and how isn’t ‘theologically true’ it again is just simply true.
So to get back to the point, what does ‘theologically true’ mean? Does it mean anything? What would be an example of something that is ‘theologically true’ but not ‘non-theologically true’? Can something be ‘theologically true’ and ‘non-theologically false’? Or is this just meaningless nonsense like the idea of ‘shared data between disparate sets)?
S,
just back from my evening meal…
oh dear, I’ve been trapped like a Treen in a disabled space ship!
So, what is a theological truth by your definition?
So, what is a theological truth by your definition?
Well, I don’t think there’s any such thing. There are propositions that are true and propositions that are false. There’s no such thing as a proposition that is ‘theologically true’. Either it is simply true or it is simply false.
A Simple Question concerning Truth :
When Jesus, Who is ‘the Truth’ (John 14:6), said that the Father is ” the ONLY TRUE GOD”,
was Jesus right, or was He wrong ?
(cf. John 17:1-3; 20:17).
S, and Christopher
thanks for indulging me.
When we say Jesus is The Truth, what are we saying?
All ‘truth’ is like an address in pencil on the back of an envelope. It only has value if it takes you to your destination. You are very hot on truth. Where does it take you?
When we say Jesus is The Truth, what are we saying?
That Jesus is God — the only thing whose existence is not dependent on anything else but is logically necessary, that is does not have the quality of being true but is truth itself.
All ‘truth’ is like an address in pencil on the back of an envelope. It only has value if it takes you to your destination.
Rubbish. Truth is valuable in itself — is the only valuable thing — because it is true. Because it is real. Anything untrue is valueless. Truth is not valuable because it is useful; quite the reverse, things which are useful are only useful insofar as they get us closer to the truth. We do not seek truth as some kind of decide to get us to a goal; discovering the truth, facing up to it, and discarding lies, is the goal of life.
S,
once we ‘face up to’ truth… then what?
I’ve lost the plot, to be honest S. Thanks for your time.
If Jesus is the Truth, he is the right orientation, the one that fits the way things are and were designed to be.
once we ‘face up to’ truth… then what?
Then we do what the truth requires of us.
I’ve lost the plot, to be honest
A long time ago, I think. I hope you find it.
Why isn’t eight days later a week and a day?
It could be in your New Testament Version, Dexey – according to translational philosophy of Dynamic Equivalence.
Because of inclusive counting of days.
‘After eight days’ obviously means after eight days, counting ‘inclusively’ or not. However one counts, ‘after one day’ means the following day, not the same day, ‘after two days’ means two days later, not the same thing as ‘after one day’. And so on.
The answer to your question is that, if ‘eight days’ really meant eight days, then ‘three days’ would have to mean three days, and that cannot be right because then Jesus would have to have been crucified on the Thursday (cf. Matt 27:63, Mark 8:31). Theologians ‘know’ from tradition that he was crucified on the Friday; the myth of ‘inclusive’ counting is an attempt to deal with the contradiction.
See also https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/are-the-gospel-accounts-of-holy-week-contradictory/#comment-422658
Until pigs can fly, there’s no way ‘three days and three nights’ (Matt 12:40) will ever mean ‘two days and two nights’.
After 3 days and nights does not automatically mean LITERALLY AFTER 3 days and nights.
Esther 4:16 says that they were to fast for 3 days and 3 nights. THEN Esther would go to the king. By your understanding that means AFTER 3 days and 3 nights ie on the 4th day would Esther go to the king. But we are then told that Esther went to see the king ON THE 3rd day. A full 3 days and 3 nights could not have literally passed if Esther saw the king on the 3rd day. Unless you believe she went against her own instructions and saw the king early!
This is similar to Jesus saying he would be raised on the 3rd day.
We also know from Jewish writings that they could consider part of a day or part of a day/night as being treated as a whole. Hence part of Friday, Saturday and Sunday are viewed as ‘days’, and hence Jesus rose on the 3rd day.
Hi Peter,
What do you think of my idea that the Genesis “evening-morning” division is definitive of what a ‘day’ is. That Thursday evening to Sunday morning is the three ‘days’ of Christ’s passion.
Also, thinking about Mathew 12:40. I think the ‘days’ are when God works and the ‘nights’ are our perception of the same event. The days and nights are the same thing, from both God’s and our point of view. Between evening and morning is night when no man can work…but to God darkness is as light.
You mean the ‘day’ when the sun didnt even exist? lol
We’ve had this discussion before. See my reply at
https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/what-actually-happened-in-holy-week-2/#comment-392479
You remain unconvinced. OK.
Thank you for that explanation. It makes sense to me.
I will give up reading this blog. It is much too clever for me.
No dont give up, it can be very useful!
You have to balance Matt 12:40 with the large number of references to “on the third day”. Dick France in his commentary on Matthew suggests that the reason why Luke does not include this particular part of what Jesus said, assuming that the two evangelists are drawing on the same tradition, is that Luke wanted to avoid the conflict between this period and his references to “on the third day” (e.g. Luke 9:22). Matthew also has references to “on the third day” – Matt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64. His comment is:
“The different phrasing of the three-day period compared with the “third day”… is due to the LXX wording, but in the Semitic inclusive time-reckoning these do not denote different time periods as a pedantic Western reading would suggest.” (France, p491)
In short, I’m not sure the reference in Matt 12:40 is strong enough to insist of Jesus being in the tomb over three nights, so that you need to make everything else fit this.
Peter,
‘Day’ is an event in which God acts miraculously, between evening and morning, bringing something to an end and creating something new. When we hear about 3 ‘days’ we should refer back to the prototype.
BTW, I imagine the room filled with the male apostles only. This is so that Jesus can show his wounded side to Thomas. Locker room stuff.
One last thing I’d like to say again; Jesus showed his wounded side to Thomas. It seems he was still in the process of healing, the wound was still raw. The resurrection brought Him bAck from the dead but He still needed a few weeks to heal, grow a beard, etc., before ascending. As did the ambassadors wait at Jericho before ascending to David in Jerusalem.
In other words, Thomas saw the real wound, not a fine white scar left behind as a token but a real throbbing , swollen gash.
Hi Steve
Yes you said it again and again I disagree! I think youre downplaying Jesus’ new body which was quite different from his original body yet similar. A new dimension. I see no evidence this was not an instantaneous change from the old to the new, occurring at his raising from the dead. A ‘real throbbing, swollen gash’ implies he would have still felt the pain from that and I just dont accept he felt such pain in his resurrected body. Neither will we (if we’re included).
But if you remain unconvinced thats ok.
Peter
Perhaps he didn’t want to be embraced by Mary for the simple reason it would hurt!?
The ambassadors had to wait for their beards to grow. I think Jesus human body had to heal over time. Only after the ascension did the process get taken to the next level…so to speak. See Revelation for a description of the ascended Christ.
You disagree, oh well, you’re in the majority. But thanks for engaging !
Steve;
Do you believe that Jesus was NOT raised with a supernatural body (a ‘soma pneumatikon’ ), but with just a re-animated, physical body (like the son of the widow of Nain, in Luke 7:14-15) – before His eventual immortalization?
P.C. (Peter);
It’s difficult to understand how Jesus, apparently, could instantaneously disappear from people’s sight (Luke 24:31); and go through solid walls (John 20:19-20), without Him having some form of supernatural embodiment – like a ‘soma pneumatikon’ (cf. 1 Cor. 15:44).
I dont disagree. I dont think I was downplaying either the physicality nor supernaturalness of his resurrected body. It is beyond our understanding so we are all just grasping at explanations. Though it’s not as if even in the physical world reality cannot be weird, eg quantum mechanics.
Peter
Jesus could walk on water in His human body. He was raised to life again with the ability to do more, like walk through walls. I believe he could also be in more than one place at a time or manipulate time so as to do the same.
All these things seem to be cumulative a building up from glory to glory until the Asuncion was inevitable and necessary. The world could not contain Him. So, at first, he wished not to be embraced, then He revealed the wounds still raw, then He walked through walls etc. The prophetic model He used to fulfil was the ambassadors who had to remain in Jerecho until their beards
Again, if Jesus emerged from the tomb perfect what happened within? Did it happen instantly, or did it take time? If He emerged perfect, why the stigmata? If perfect why had He not blazing eyes of fire and skin like molten bronze?
Last message to both Pelegrino and Peter.
The son of Nain, Peter’s Mother inlaw and Lazarus had died and needed to be revived, we don’t hear about convalescence. Jesus had been crucified and speared.
Pps
A grain of wheat sprouting from the ground is of a different order to a dry grain but it slowly grows in splendour.Just so the resurrection.
You do know what ‘last’ means lol.
You seem to have a thing about beards?
Me? Beards?
Jesus had it pulled out. He would need to grow it again to an acceptable length before ascending to the New Jerusalem 40 days or so would do it.
define ‘acceptable’. Then again maybe not.
Between meh and okay.
γόον according to the Greek translator doodah.
Thank you, Steve. You might be right – however :
In Mark 16:12, it says that Jesus “appeared in a different form” to two individuals, which sound like Cleopas, and his colleague (from Luke 24:13-18). This resurrection “form” had to have been different to Christ’s earlier appearance to Mary Magdalene, mentioned in Mark 16:9. This suggests that Christ’s resurrection body had abilities of diverse manifestation, according to the different times and contexts. Consequently, just because Jesus appeared to Thomas and the core disciples, with crucifixion injuries (John 20:19-29), doesn’t necessarily entail that He may have always appeared in that particular form, to others.
Yes, I see. Thanks. All I want to believe is that Jesus is the same person as he was, not some magical, spiritual manifestation. I want to cling to the idea that he rose again with the same body, slowly healed as a real body would and then continued to grow until the ascension was inevitable and necessary. As the parable of the grain dying and growing . I just can’t accept the Hollywood version of instant perfection. It feels wrong. …even a butterfly has to wait for its wings to pump up and dry. Only fairy godmothers can wave a wand and turn mice into footmen. Does the same God who patiently worked on the patriarchs for years suddenly wave a wand over a crucified corps and instantly…. oh well… of course He can….It just seems odd to me
Does the same God who patiently worked on the patriarchs for years suddenly wave a wand over a crucified corps and instantly…. oh well… of course He can….It just seems odd to me
Odd? Imagine someone who has been dead since the first century, and whose body has long since decomposed. On the Day of Judgement, they will raised into their resurrection body, won’t they? And it won’t take months and months — years? Centuries? — for all the scattered molecules of their body to be gathered together again. they wont be raised as a single speck of dust and have to spend all that time slowly glowing particle by particle. Now that would be odd.
No, that person will be instantly raised into their resurrection body, won’t they?
Or consider the other extreme: someone who hasn’t yet died when the Day of Judgement comes. They won’t be raised — they’re already alive — but their body will be transformed. Again, it makes no sense — it would be odd — to think of this happening over a period of time, doesn’t it?
So given that Jesus’ resurrection is the model, the prototype, the original of these resurrections which are still to happen, and given that it would be odd for those resurrections to take place anything other than instantaneously, surely it would be odd for Jesus’ resurrection to be anything other than instantaneous?
Also consider that it was a resurrection not a resuscitation. Jesus wasn’t restored to life, he was raised into a new form of body — but still a physical body, not some magical, spiritual manifestation. So there cannot have been any need for ‘healing’. You need ‘healing’ when somebody is resuscitated, like a cardiac arrest victim whose heart is shocked into beating again. But that’s not resurrection; you don’t need healing after you’ve been resurrected, because you weren’t just resuscitated, you were raised.
The question of whether resurrection bodies are permutable or fixed — ie, do their beards grow — is quite another one of course. I’m not sure we have enoguh information to say one way or the other. But I think it makes sense that even if they can change the can’t be damaged, and that they won’t have to heal any damage sustained during life (or death): they will start off perfect.
Good . That’s more like a proper theologically r3asoned response. Then why the wound in His side ? Is it in the order of a fossil, just there as if healing needs to take place, as if millions of years have elapsed?
Then why the wound in His side ? Is it in the order of a fossil, just there as if healing needs to take place, as if millions of years have elapsed?
I’m speculating here, but I would guess that the crucifixion, as an event which transcends time and space, leaves its mark forever on the Son’s resurrection body, for ever and through all eternity reminding us what He did for us.
Could it, as such, be for ever raw, gaping and bloody? Maybe… though none of the witnesses describe it like that (or give any description).
Anyway… we’ll each see soon enough, won’t we?
S, thinking about the wounds, I may have mentioned this a couple of years ago, I wonder what Moses saw when God revealed His back? Was Moses shocked to see a beaten back? That is, if it transcends time and space, as you say?
Was Moses shocked to see a beaten back?
I guess it’s not impossible.
Per ‘theologically true’ above I thought it would have been obvious what I was referring to so I was surprised to see hands flung into the air (not literally!). In my view Genesis 1 & 2 express truths about God (hence theologically), the creation in relation to God and particularly humans in relation to God.
Leaving Venn diagrams aside (thanks Steve but that confused me too!), I tend to think the creation story in Genesis was written, at least partially, to negate some of the false ideas in other Near Eastern creation stories.
I recently watched a youtube video of a Christian evangelist who openly told someone who claimed to be a Christian that they werent a Christian because they believed evolution and not the Bible. Sadly quite a few have that mindset, but in reality what he really meant was they didnt agree with his literal understanding of Genesis. Quite a few genuine Christians strongly disagree with him.
But as this is off-topic, Ill leave it there.
Peter
Evolutionist Christian : “I believe in Evolution !”
Fundamentalist Christian : “Prove it !”
Evolutionist Christian : “I don’t have ‘prove’ it, if you can’t disprove it !”
So, who do you think ‘Adam’ may have been, Peter ?
Have you got any interesting ideas ?
Sorry. Me again. It seems to me , after reviewing the reports of the risen Christ, this:
Jesus is like a real person on a stage made of cardboard. Everything that looked so firm and realistic is now obviously flimsy. What we percieve as the long view is in fact just scenic layers of painted board, no deeper than 20 feet. Some view the stage as millions of years deep , others only 6 or 7 yards. Both are correct as long as one remembers that it is just the backdrop for the greatest show. Yes, Jesus really suffered at the hands of the actors gone amock but now He is risen we are shocked to find that reality is not quite what we think it is. Steven Robinson is correct about creation. The scenes got built and wheeled on in 6 days. Jock is also right to get into the performance and observe the effect of perspective the stage furniture produces. Jesus disruption of and renewal of our 2D theatre out into the real 3D world is amazing.
S, I hope you can go with me on this. The logic of the theatre no longer applies. We are on the threshold of true reality.
Steve –
The best is yet to come ! (Cf. 1 Cor. 2:9)
Keep going. (cf. Gal. 6:9-10)
God bless you, Steve, and God bless us all.
Thank you .
I tend to think of him as a ‘man’ in a story with theological purpose.
Dear PC (Peter);
Could you please elaborate just a little further, so as to give ‘S’ (et al), something more palpable to work on ?
No.
Per ‘theologically true’ above I thought it would have been obvious what I was referring to so I was surprised to see hands flung into the air (not literally!). In my view Genesis 1 & 2 express truths about God (hence theologically), the creation in relation to God and particularly humans in relation to God.
No, I’m still confused. Truths about God would be ‘theological truths’, ie, they would be true in the way that ‘Paris is the capital of France’ is true or ‘the inner angles of a triangle add up to a straight line’ is true, but the former is a geographical truth and the latter a mathematical truth: the adjective indicates the domain to which the truth relates.
But ‘theologically true’ implies not that it’s just a standard truth relating to the domain of theology but that it’s true in a specific way, ie, ‘theologically’.
I mean would you say ‘Paris is the capital if France’ is ‘geographically true’? What would that mean? If you wouldn’t (I wouldn’t) then how do you say something is ‘theologically true’? What would that mean?
Can you give a specific example of a truth that is ‘theologically true’? Perhaps one relating to Genesis 1? All the propositions I can think of relating to Genesis 1 that are true (eg ‘God created the world’, ‘God created human male and female in His image’) are not ‘theologically true’, they’re just, well, true.
Praps theological truth is the whole spectrum of light. What is generally regarded as facts or truth is only the visible bit.
Praps a theological truth is a double positive, if such a thing in the English language exists, I.e. unnecessary, but poetic.?
Crumbs I’m bored… will it stop raining is the thing that really filly my thoughts
Praps theological truth is the whole spectrum of light. What is generally regarded as facts or truth is only the visible bit.
Praps a theological truth is a double positive, if such a thing in the English language exists, I.e. unnecessary, but poetic.?
I have no idea what any of that might mean. Could you explain what on Earth you are on about?
God is light. And like light we only see the visible part. If Jesus is light then he is the visible part. If God is truth then we only see part of it. Truth isn’t an assembly of facts about stuff because that is about the created order. Revealed truth leads us to have a relationship with God. Jesus is where all truths go in phase together. The Tree of knowledge is a truth which may be off centre to the comfortable , in phase, zone of reality we know .
The reason we are discussing this is to try and understand the resurrection nature . Everything Jesus did after the resurrection and before the ascension is , to me, going out of phase on the other end of the spectrum of reality.
God is light.
No, God isn’t electromagnetic radiation.
If God is truth then we only see part of it.
Okay, yes, I follow that.
Truth isn’t an assembly of facts about stuff because that is about the created order.
Now you’ve lost me. What do you mean by ‘truth’ here? If ‘truth’ in whatever sense you’re using it here isn’t ‘an assembly of facts’ then what is it?
Define your terms!
Revealed truth leads us to have a relationship with God.
Well, it can do. On the other hand it pushes some people away from a relationship with God because their sinful hearts don’t like the truth which is revealled. Simply knowing the truth about God isn’t enough to have a relationship with God — the Devil knows the truth — you also need either to be effectually called (if the Calvinists are right) or to respond to prevenient grace (if the Calvinists are wrong).
Either way it doesn’t get us any closer to what you mean by ‘truth’.
Jesus is where all truths go in phase together.
No, you’ve lost me again here. What on Earth does it mean for ‘truths go in phase’? Truths don’t have a ‘phase’. A truth is simply a proposition which is true. I don’t understand where you get this ‘phase’ terminology or what you could possibly mean by it, please explain.
The Tree of knowledge is a truth which may be off centre to the comfortable , in phase, zone of reality we know .
No this is just nonsense. What’s a ‘zone of reality’? How does it have a ‘centre’? How can a truth, which, remember, is simply a proposition which happens to be true, be ‘off centre’ to a ‘zone of reality’?
It’s like you’re just putting words together because you like the sound of them but with no actual meaning.
The reason we are discussing this is to try and understand the resurrection nature .
The reason I’m discussing this is to try to work out what the heck you’re on about!
Everything Jesus did after the resurrection and before the ascension is , to me, going out of phase on the other end of the spectrum of reality.
What does that even mean in physics terms? How could something go ‘out of phase on the other end of the spectrum’? A spectrum doesn’t have a phase. It certainly doesn’t have different phases at each end.
What on Earth are you talking about? You’re just putting words together in ways that make no sense and joining together concepts that have nothing to do with each other as if you don’t understand them but just think they sound nice and mysterious.
I’ve had time to sleep before replying.
All the different metaphors used in the Bible to describe God come together , as if in phase, perhaps, in Christ. For a time God was visible to us as light on the spectrum. A spectrum of types, anti types, metaphors, prophets, you name it.
Thanks for being you S!
Sorry to be so vague and annoying.
John 1:1 :
” Before time itself was measured , the Voice [God’s Self-revealing and Creative Utterance] was speaking.
The Voice was God, and the Voice expressed God. ”
John 1:14a :
“And God’s Self-revelation became Incarnated [in a Son]” .
Hi Pelegrino,
In Revelation Jesus is clothed in a robe but it doesn’t give any details about its colour. So when I made an image of Jesus amongst the lamp stands I created a waterfall robe. The Voice is also His robe.