Master 231: Seeing and believing

It might be a bit early for an Easter blog. But I was recently looking at John 20 in connection with my Sunday school class, so I figured I would blog on it. It also might seem a bit ambitious to take up the topic of 'seeing' and 'believing'. Hopefully the title caught your attention, but I won't be taking up the philosophical issues in this blog. Instead, I want to look mainly at the text of John 20.

Clearly the doctrine of the resurrection is extremely important for Christianity. Paul articulated the basic point quite forcefully: "For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." (1 Corinthians 15:16-17) And the historical fact of the resurrection carries enormous weight and significance for all peoples--past, present, and future. For that reason, a great deal of attention has been given, not inappropriately, to the task of establishing the historicity of the resurrection and to establishing the reasonableness of belief in an historical resurrection. In a famous biblical passage, that is believed by many to draw from a still-earlier Christian creed, Paul writes to the Corinthian church:

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas [that is, the Apostle Peter], then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James [Jesus' brother, who had opposed His ministry during it's three-years duration], then to all the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also." (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

Here Paul emphasizes two key points: the first is the number of eye-witnesses who could attest to having seen the resurrected Christ. The second is the the fact that Christ's resurrection was in accordance with the Scriptures. In Acts 17, we are told, "Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, 'This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.'" (vv. 1-3) The point is emphasized, in several places, that Jesus' life, death, and resurrection were part of an unfolding plan and trajectory that could be traced back to the Old Testament--to the Law and the Prophets.

Evidence for, and the reasonableness and intelligibility of the resurrection are clearly concerns of the early Christians. But they are not the only concerns. And one of the dangers of focusing on evidence is just that we'll lose sight of the Savior whose resurrection you are trying to demonstrate. The apostles seem to have balanced this well. One place this shows up is in John's account of the resurrection. When you read it, at first, it might seem like a mere delineation of facts. The unaffected way in which John relates the sequence of events might strike us as puzzling given their significance. But John has a purpose in writing and in arranging the facts in the way that he does. I'll try to bring that out in what follows. Let's begin by looking at the first nine verses of the chapter:

"Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. And so she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they were going to the tomb. And the two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter, and came to the tomb first; and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. Simon Peter therefore also came, following him, entered the tomb; and he beheld the linen wrappings lying there, and the face-cloth, which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb entered then also, and he saw and believed. For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead." (John 20:1-9)

We won't focus on all the details of this passage--why, for instance, John feels the need to comment about how he was able to run faster than Peter--but instead on a four-stage progression that develops over these nine verses.

(I) Who is the first person to encounter the empty tomb? Mary Magdalene. New Testament scholars point out that this detail of the story counts in favor of its veridicality. Women in first-century Jewish culture were not considered to be reliable witnesses. The weren't allowed to offer testimony in a court of law. A legal case built on a woman's testimony was a non-starter. Yet Mary Magdalene is reported to have been the first person to bear witness to the empty tomb. Certainly if the early Christians had been trying to invent or fabricate a resurrection narrative, if they had been trying to come up with a story intended just to convince people, they would not have made a woman the first witness.

Yet even as her bearing witness to the empty tomb is recorded, it's not accorded much weight. In fact, her testimony seems to be undermined by certain facts. She came to the tomb early in the morning, while it was still dark. On her running back to Peter and John (the "disciple whom Jesus loved"), one can very easily imagine them asking, "Are you sure the stone was rolled away? Did you really get a good look inside?--I mean, after all, it was dark outside too. Are you sure the body wasn't there? And so they proceed to investigate--which moves us to the second stage in the progression.

(II) John is the second person to see the open tomb. By the time he gets there, the sun must have risen. But when he gets to the tomb, he doesn't go inside. Instead he stoops down and looks in. From his vantage point, he's able to see--probably more and better than Mary did--the linen wrappings lying inside.

(III) Peter arrives next, but he doesn't wait outside the tomb. Instead he goes right in. He gets an even better view than John did. He observes the same linen wrappings that John had seen and he sees the face-cloth lying rolled up in a place by itself.

(IV) Finally John enters the tomb. He sees everything that Peter sees, but he carries it still a step further. "He saw and believed." Notice the progression: from dim and obscured sight to clearer and clearer sight. And finally to belief. But what, you might wonder, does John come to believe? Does he just come to believe that Jesus is actually gone? Does he come to believe that Jesus has risen from the dead? The next sentence reads, "For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead." But does that mean that John came to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead? Keep that question in mind. We'll come back to it later--because the progression doesn't end there.

(V) We're next told: "So the disciples went away again to their own homes. But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping; and so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb; and she beheld two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. And they said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where the have laid Him." (20:10-13)

Mary looks again into the tomb, and this time she sees a pair of angels sitting at the place where Jesus' body had been. This encounter is curious because it is described so matter-of-factly. Nothing is said about Mary being startled or fearful--which is the normal reaction associated with an angelic visitation. It's as if she just notices them and so begins to talk to them. Given the way the passage is structured--it's almost as if they have been sitting there all along, and Mary and Peter and John have simply not noticed them until this moment. Perhaps the reason this interaction is so understated is that the interaction is not what's important. What's important is the progression. And so John doesn't even record the angels' response, as some of the other gospel writers do. Instead, he moves right to the sixth stage:

(VI) "When she had said this, she turned around, and beheld Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?" Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, "Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away." Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, "Rabboni!" (which means, Teacher). Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren, and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.' " Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord," and that He had said these things to her. (20:14-18)

Here she finally meets with Jesus Himself. Again, it's so understated. We're not told why she didn't recognize Him. We're not told where Jesus came from--whether He had been there all along just waiting for someone to see Him. Mary's feelings are not described. It's not completely clear what Jesus' words mean. Yet, one need only reflect for a moment to begin to appreciate what an incredible moment this was for Mary. The first one to bear witness to the empty tomb is now the first one to bear witness to the risen and living Christ; and she goes and reports this good news to the rest of the disciples.

(VII) The next event takes place that evening, on the same day. We're told: 'When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and said to them, "Peace be with you." And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jesus therefore said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."' (20:19-23)

How is this encounter different from the one with Mary. Here we have a group of disciples whereas before Jesus met with Mary alone. There's the opportunity here for people to assess their own experience based on that of others, whereas Mary was the sole witness in that earlier encounter. Here, Jesus miraculously enters a locked room while before He simply came alongside Mary in the garden. And here, we are told, the disciples saw both His hands and His side. Do you get the sense that the evidence is accumulating? John is very open about the fact that when Mary Magdalene first saw the empty tomb, it was dark. It was dark outside and she was trying to look inside a cave. Not very reliable testimony this. But by stages, he shows how the evidence and support for believing that Jesus really had risen from the dead gradually increased. And with that in mind, we now turn to the climax of this sequence.

(VIII) 'But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe." And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, "Peace be with you." Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing." Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"' (20:24-28)

Here we have the ultimate example of clear and convincing evidence for the resurrection. Thomas is able to touch Jesus' pierced hands and pierced side. And he is convinced. He acknowledges Jesus as, "My Lord and my God!"

And then Jesus makes a very interesting remark. We're told: 'Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have your believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."' (20:29) To understand and appreciate what Jesus is saying here, we have to keep in mind what has gone before. The entire chapter has been presenting us, by gradual steps, with more and more evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. It's been recording the experiences of these men and women, and the progression through which they journeyed, toward greater and greater conviction. And right after he's presented us with the most convincing evidence that anyone could have--Jesus' resurrected body right in front of us with the pierced hands and side right there for us to touch-- he records Jesus saying, "Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

Now I think that he's not rebuking Thomas in this case, as many believe. A person isn't better if she believes based on less evidence. If that were the case, then John ought not to have recorded the sequence of events in this chapter. If believing based on less evidence was better, then John should have given us Mary Magdalene's early morning impressions and left it at that. I think it's an unfortunate trend in Christian thought and culture that has led us to the conclusion that it's better to believe based on less evidence. That's not the point that Jesus is making.

The point that He is making is that one is not worse off for having believed based on less evidence. "Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." Who's He talking out? Who's the person who did not see, and yet believed? It's John--the author of the book. Remember what he said about himself back in v. 8: "So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb entered then also, and he saw and believed." What did John see? He saw the empty tomb, and the linens and face-cloth. What did John believe? It seems that He believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead--that Jesus was "Lord" and "God," as Thomas confessed after seeing Jesus. John is using Himself as an example of someone who saw the empty tomb, remembered the words of Jesus, and came to believe that He had risen--that He had done what He said He would do. He's not claiming to be better than Thomas because he believed in this way. But he's reminding his reader that the person who believes without seeing is also not worse off.

Why is John making this point? Just because he knows that his audience will be full of people who don't have Thomas' kind of direct access to the glorified body of Jesus. He knows that his audience will be full of people who say things like, "If only I could have seen the body. If only I could have touched his hands and side. If only Jesus appeared to me now in the same way that He appeared to Thomas." So John uses his own case to illustrate the point that those who don't have Thomas' kind of direct access aren't at any disadvantage. An adequate ground for belief has been provided. John has seen to that. That ground consists not only of the eye-witness testimonies, but also the historical-contextual facts that apologists have focused on and the Old Testament writings that outlined the trajectory and significance of Jesus' actions and ministry up to and including His death and resurrection. But, again, it's important not to lose sight of the goal of the evidence. The evidence is not there just so that we can have lots of evidence. The evidence is intended to lead to belief.

All the evidence in the world is, in one important sense, worthless if it does not lead to belief. And those who are postponing belief until they have "enough" evidence maybe need to consider just what would qualify and whether their standards and expectations are appropriate. Though I don't think Jesus was primarily concerned to rebuke Thomas, we might wonder about Him: Was he being appropriately circumspect or obstinately recalcitrant? This gets into some hard questions. (We philosophers can have a field day debating the ethics of belief.) But my goal, in this blog, is not to take up those issues but simply to invite you to reflect on John 20--on John's words and John's purpose in writing.

It was interesting for me, reading this passage and thinking about these things. I took note of the progression within the chapter and thought I saw how it might fit together. And then I got around to reading the last two verses, and they summed everything up so nicely: the progression that John presents, the connection between evidence and belief, John's purpose in writing. I wonder what you'll think, now as you read it:

"Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." (20:30-31)

--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.