João 20
Marvin Vincent · Citado em PreceptAustin
João 20
Vincent explains "(theoreo) was more than simple seeing. The verb means looking steadfastly, as one who has an interest in the object, and with a view to search into and understand it: to look inquiringly and intently. (Ed Note: And even with a sense of amazement.)" James Butler - RESURRECTION PROOF John 20:6 - Sermon Starters “Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie” (John 20:6). The resurrection of Christ makes Easter the triumphant occasion that it is. As the Apostle Paul said, “If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain” (1 Corinthians 15:17). Satan attacks the resurrection doctrine unlike any other doctrine, for it is the key to our faith. One of the attacks which our text really refutes is that thieves stole the body and that is why folk found the tomb empty on that first Easter Sunday. Such a story has been believed by many folk since it was first perpetrated by religious leaders who paid off the guards of the tomb with big money to keep the truth quiet (Matthew 28:12–15). But our text clearly and forcefully refutes that story. FIRST—THE MINUTES FOR STEALING Thieves do not do things leisurely. They do things quickly, lest they be caught. For Peter to find the grave clothes as they were in the tomb says no thieves stole the body because they would not take the time to remove the grave clothes nor would they leave them in such good order as they were. If they had removed the grave clothes, it would have taken too much time and they would have simply tossed them in a pile. But that is not how Peter found the grave clothes. They were lying in the tomb like a balloon with the air gone out of it. SECOND—THE MESS FOR STEALING To steal the body from the grave without clothes is a ridiculous fable. The custom in those days was to wrap a dead body in many yards of linen material and mix the wrapping with spices to delay the terrible smell of a decaying body. This was done for Jesus by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea (John 19:38). They would not scrimp in this work because Joseph of Arimathea especially was a wealthy man (Matthew 27:57) and would not hold back in preparing Jesus body for burial. Thieves would not take the time or endure the mess of removing the sticky grave clothes. Furthermore, thieves would not want the body of Christ naked, it was a slimy mess and they would not want to carry a slimy mess which would be starting to smell. Thieves are not smart people, but they aren’t that dumb. THIRD—THE MEN FOR STEALING Who would steal the body. The tomb was sealed (Matthew 27:66). and there was a guard at the tomb of soldiers—no one would want to encounter them. The disciples were to scared to steal the body or to venture close to the tomb. The ladies did not come to steal the body either, for they came to add spices to the linen wrapping. They evidently did not trust Joseph and Nicodemus to do a good job of wrapping the body. The idea of stealing the body was perpetrated by the enemies of Christ (Matthew 27:64) in their attempt to prevent the resurrection news. Those who oppose the resurrection today are also the enemies of Christ and will embrace many stupid theories. John 20:7 and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. THE NEATLY ROLLED UP FACE CLOTH and the face-cloth (soudarion) which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings (othonion), but rolled up in a place by itself - Note the evidence mounting in support of a resurrection. Why do I say that? If the body had been stolen it is very unlikely the thieves would have unwound the linen wrappings. It is also unlikely the scene would have appeared orderly. It is interesting that when Jesus revived Lazarus, he emerged from the tomb still bound hand and foot with wrapping so that Jesus had to command them to "Unbind him and let him go." (Jn 11:44+) Brian Bell - John perceived that the missing body and the position of the grave clothes was not due to a robbery. His eyes adjusted & noticed the burial wrappings made rigid by the resin from the spices. The linen cocoon lays intact on the stone slab. Intact, but hollow. He realized that Jesus had risen from the dead and had gone through the grave clothes (ED: SOME MIGHT ARGUE WITH THIS CONCLUSION). The butterfly was free! 3. “The tomb was open, not to let Jesus’ body out, but to let the disciples and the world see that He rose.” NET NOTE - The word translated face cloth is a Latin loanword (sudarium). It was a small towel used to wipe off perspiration (the way a handkerchief would be used today). This particular item was not mentioned in connection with Jesus’ burial in John 19:40, probably because this was only a brief summary account. A face cloth was mentioned in connection with Lazarus’ burial (John 11:44) and was probably customary. R. E. Brown speculates that it was wrapped under the chin and tied on top of the head to prevent the mouth of the corpse from falling open (John [AB], 2:986), but this is not certain. Much dispute and difficulty surrounds the translation of the words not lying with the strips of linen cloth but rolled up in a place by itself. Basically the issue concerns the positioning of the grave clothes as seen by Peter and the other disciple when they entered the tomb. Some have sought to prove that when the disciples saw the grave clothes they were arranged just as they were when around the body, so that when the resurrection took place the resurrected body of Jesus passed through them without rearranging or disturbing them. In this case the reference to the face cloth being rolled up does not refer to its being folded, but collapsed in the shape it had when wrapped around the head. Sometimes in defense of this view the Greek preposition μετά (meta, which normally means “with”) is said to mean “like” so that the comparison with the other grave clothes does not involve the location of the face cloth but rather its condition (rolled up rather than flattened). In spite of the intriguing nature of such speculations, it seems more probable that the phrase describing the face cloth should be understood to mean it was separated from the other grave clothes in a different place inside the tomb. This seems consistent with the different conclusions reached by Peter and the beloved disciple (Jn 20:8–10). All that the condition of the grave clothes indicated was that the body of Jesus had not been stolen by thieves. Anyone who had come to remove the body (whether the authorities or anyone else) would not have bothered to unwrap it before carrying it off. And even if one could imagine that they had (perhaps in search of valuables such as rings or jewelry still worn by the corpse) they would certainly not have bothered to take time to roll up the face cloth and leave the other wrappings in an orderly fashion. Face-cloth (napkin)(4676) soudarion is from a Latin loan word sudarium from sudor (sweat) transliterated into Greek soudarion which is a sweatcloth handkerchief or napkin. (Luke 19:20; Acts 19:12). In Acts 19:12 the sweatcloths (“handkerchiefs,” KJV, NIV, NASB) Paul apparently tied around his head while making tents were taken to heal the sick (Bruce, New International Commentary on the New Testament, Acts, p.384). In John 11:44 and 20:7 the “cloths” were used, according to Jewish custom, to cover the faces of the corpses of Lazarus and Jesus (cf the "Shroud of Turin"). Soudarion is found in papyrus marriage contracts as part of the dowry. Soudarion is used only 4 times in the NT - Lk. 19:20; Jn. 11:44; 20:7; Acts 19:12 and there are no uses in the Septuagint. QUESTION - What is the significance of the folded napkin in Christ’s tomb after the resurrection? ANSWER - The detail of the folded napkin is found in the account of Jesus’ resurrection in John 20:7, “And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself” (KJV). Different respected translations of the Bible handle this verse differently. Three of them translate the verse with the word napkin (KJV, AS, RSV). Others translate it with “burial cloth” (NIV), “handkerchief” (NKJV), or “face-cloth” (NASB). The Greek word is saudarion, which comes from a Latin word for “sweat.” It can refer to a towel for wiping sweat from one’s face. It is used in the Greek to denote a towel or cloth, but not specifically a table napkin. The other key word is folded. Was the burial cloth or napkin left folded in the tomb? Two of the translations use the word folded (NIV, NKJV). Others translate the word as “rolled up” (NASB, ASV, RSV) or “wrapped together” (KJV). The Greek word is entulisso, which is from words that may mean “to twist” or “to entwine.” The bottom line is that there is no agreement that it was a table napkin and no agreement that it was neatly folded in any meaningful way. The primary meaning of John 20:7 is that the cloth, which was placed over Jesus’ head or face at burial, was separate from the rest of His grave clothes. The significance of that, if there is any, is unknown. It has been rumored that folding the napkin at the table is a Jewish custom that means the person folding the napkin intends to return. Numerous Bible study sources have been checked, but there is nothing about this alleged Jewish custom of the folded napkins. The only references to this story seem to be from internet postings and emails that appear to have originated in 2007. Many Bible commentators and authors have used this creative illustration to make specific application to the resurrection and return of Jesus Christ. The truth is that table napkins, such as we use today, were not used in Jesus’ day. Jews would do an after-meal hand washing as part of the eating ritual. Washing of the hands before a meal was mandatory according to rabbinic injunction, but after washing their hands, did people dry them with a cloth? Apparently, there is no early rabbinic source that discusses how the hands were dried after washing them. The folding of the napkin as a sign that a dinner guest is not finished may be good European custom, but it appears this custom was unknown in the land of Israel in the time of Jesus. QUESTION - Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? | GotQuestions.org "Shroud of Turin" ANSWER - The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth that some believe to have been the cloth that Jesus Christ was buried in. Each of the three Synoptic Gospels mentions Jesus being wrapped in a cloth when He was taken down from the cross (Matthew 27:59; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53). The Shroud of Turin was “discovered,” or at least made public, in the 14th century AD. The Shroud of Turin is named for the city where it is kept, Turin, Italy. Here is a webpage that contains some pictures / images of the Shroud of Turin: http://www.shroud.com/examine.htm. Upon examination, the Shroud of Turin appears to be that of a man who was crucified. There are markings in the hands and feet that are consistent with the wounds inflicted by crucifixion. There also appear to be wounds indicative of torture similar to what is described in the Gospels, around the head, back, and legs. Is the Shroud of Turin truly the cloth Jesus Christ was buried in? There is much debate on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. Some are absolutely convinced that it is the burial cloth of Christ. Others believe it to be a fabrication or a work of art. There have been some dating tests that date the Shroud of Turin to the 10th century BC or later. Other tests have found pollen spores that are common to Israel and that could be dated to the 1st century AD. But there is no conclusive date either way. Arguing against the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin is the Bible’s complete lack of evidence for such a burial shroud. As mentioned earlier, the Bible mentions a whole piece of linen that was used to take Jesus’ body from the cross. This linen was probably also used to transport the body to Joseph of Arimathea’s nearby tomb. At the tomb hasty preparations for burial were made; these would have included washing the body and rewrapping it. Luke 24:12 mentions “the strips of linen.” These same strips (plural) are mentioned twice in John 20:5–6. And John 20:7 says there was a “cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head.” This description of the actual burial clothes—“strips” of linen, rather than one large piece; and a separate cloth to cover the head—seems to negate the claim that the Shroud of Turin is the burial shroud of Christ. So, what are we to make of the Shroud of Turin? It might have been the burial shroud for some crucified man, but it is not likely to have any association with the death of Christ. Even if it were the authentic burial cloth of Christ, the Shroud of Turin is not to be worshiped or adored. Because of the doubtful nature of the Shroud of Turin, it cannot be used as proof for the resurrection of Christ. Our faith does not rely on the Shroud of Turin but on the written Word of God. Related Resource: Wikipedia Shroud of Turin John 20:8 So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw and believed. and he: John 20:25,29 1:50 FOR JOHN SEEING IS BELIEVING So (oun - term of conclusion) the other disciple (mathetes) who had first come to the tomb (mnemeion) then also entered - John goes into the empty tomb and beholds the orderly arrangement of the grave clothes which prompted his belief. And he saw and believed (pisteuo) - John saw with understanding. He realized what had transpired. So while Peter had more sight, John more insight and was the first to believe that Jesus had truly risen from the dead. John's apprehension contrasted with that of doubting Thomas. In Jn 20:29 "Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed (AND THE FIRST OF THIS "TRIBE" WAS JOHN!).” NET NOTE - What was it that the beloved disciple believed (since Jn 20:7 describes what he saw)? Sometimes it is suggested that what he believed was Mary Magdalene’s report that the body had been stolen. But this could hardly be the case; the way the entire scene is narrated such a trivial conclusion would amount to an anticlimax. It is true that the use of the plural “they” in the following verse applied to both Peter and the beloved disciple, and this appears to be a difficulty if one understands that the beloved disciple believed at this point in Jesus’ resurrection. But it is not an insuperable difficulty, since all it affirms is that at this time neither Peter nor the beloved disciple had understood the Scripture concerning the resurrection. Thus it appears the author intends his reader to understand that when the beloved disciple entered the tomb after Peter and saw the state of the graveclothes, he believed in the resurrection, i.e., that Jesus had risen from the dead. Believed (4100) pisteuo from pistis; pistos; related studies the faith, the obedience of faith) means to consider something to be true and therefore worthy of one’s trust. To accept as true, genuine, or real. To have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something or someone. To consider to be true. To accept the word or evidence of. Pisteuo means to entrust oneself to an entity in complete confidence. To believe in with the implication of total commitment to the one who is trusted. As discussed below Christ is the object of this type of faith that relies on His power and nearness to help, in addition to being convinced that His revelations or disclosures are true. Depending on the context Pisteuo can refer to an "heart belief" (saving faith, genuine belief that leads to salvation, this believing involves not only the consent of the mind, but an act of the heart and will of the subject) or an intellectual belief (mental assent, "head" knowledge, not associated with bringing salvation if it is by itself). Vincent notes that pisteuo "means to persuade, to cause belief, to induce one to do something by persuading, and so runs into the meaning of to obey, properly as the result of persuasion PISTEUO IN JOHN Jn. 1:7; Jn. 1:12; Jn. 1:50; Jn. 2:11; Jn. 2:22; Jn. 2:23; Jn. 2:24; Jn. 3:12; Jn. 3:15; Jn. 3:16; Jn. 3:18; Jn. 3:36; Jn. 4:21; Jn. 4:39; Jn. 4:41; Jn. 4:42; Jn. 4:48; Jn. 4:50; Jn. 4:53; Jn. 5:24; Jn. 5:38; Jn. 5:44; Jn. 5:46; Jn. 5:47; Jn. 6:29; Jn. 6:30; Jn. 6:35; Jn. 6:36; Jn. 6:40; Jn. 6:47; Jn. 6:64; Jn. 6:69; Jn. 7:5; Jn. 7:31; Jn. 7:38; Jn. 7:39; Jn. 7:48; Jn. 8:24; Jn. 8:30; Jn. 8:31; Jn. 8:45; Jn. 8:46; Jn. 9:18; Jn. 9:35; Jn. 9:36; Jn. 9:38; Jn. 10:25; Jn. 10:26; Jn. 10:37; Jn. 10:38; Jn. 10:42; Jn. 11:15; Jn. 11:25; Jn. 11:26; Jn. 11:27; Jn. 11:40; Jn. 11:42; Jn. 11:45; Jn. 11:48; Jn. 12:11; Jn. 12:36; Jn. 12:37; Jn. 12:38; Jn. 12:39; Jn. 12:42; Jn. 12:44; Jn. 12:46; Jn. 13:19; Jn. 14:1; Jn. 14:10; Jn. 14:11; Jn. 14:12; Jn. 14:29; Jn. 16:9; Jn. 16:27; Jn. 16:30; Jn. 16:31; Jn. 17:8; Jn. 17:20; Jn. 17:21; Jn. 19:35; Jn. 20:8; Jn. 20:25; Jn. 20:29; Jn. 20:31 John 20:9 For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. they: Mt 16:21,22 Mk 8:31-33 9:9,10,31,32 Lu 9:45 18:33,34 24:26 Lu 24:44-46 that: Ps 16:10 Ps 22:15,22-31 Isa 25:8 26:19 53:10-12 Ho 13:14 Ac 2:25-32 13:29-37 1Co 15:4 BELIEF BUT WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING For as yet they did not understand (eido/oida) the Scripture (graphe), that He must (dei) rise again (anistemi) from the dead (nekros) - John believed that Jesus had been resurrected but neither John or Peter grasp that the resurrection had been foretold in the Scripture, the Old Testament. Almost 1000 years before David had penned these prophetic words... Psalm 16:10+ For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.
João 20
Vincent adds that pistos used of God describes Him as "True to his own nature and promises; keeping faith with Himself and with man." Paul writes that even "if we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself. (2Ti 2:13+) PISTOS - 62V - believe(2), believer(4), believers(5), believing(1), faithful(44), faithful one(1), faithfully(1), sure(1), trustworthy(7), who believe(1). Matt. 24:45; Matt. 25:21; Matt. 25:23; Lk. 12:42; Lk. 16:10; Lk. 16:11; Lk. 16:12; Lk. 19:17; Jn. 20:27; Acts 10:45; Acts 13:34; Acts 16:1; Acts 16:15; 1 Co. 1:9; 1 Co. 4:2; 1 Co. 4:17; 1 Co. 7:25; 1 Co. 10:13; 2 Co. 1:18; 2 Co. 6:15; Gal. 3:9; Eph. 1:1; Eph. 6:21; Col. 1:2; Col. 1:7; Col. 4:7; Col. 4:9; 1 Thess. 5:24; 2 Thess. 3:3; 1 Tim. 1:12; 1 Tim. 1:15; 1 Tim. 3:1; 1 Tim. 3:11; 1 Tim. 4:3; 1 Tim. 4:9; 1 Tim. 4:10; 1 Tim. 4:12; 1 Tim. 5:16; 1 Tim. 6:2; 2 Tim. 2:2; 2 Tim. 2:11; 2 Tim. 2:13; Tit. 1:6; Tit. 1:9; Tit. 3:8; Heb. 2:17; Heb. 3:2; Heb. 3:5; Heb. 10:23; Heb. 11:11; 1 Pet. 4:19; 1 Pet. 5:12; 1 Jn. 1:9; 3 Jn. 1:5; Rev. 1:5; Rev. 2:10; Rev. 2:13; Rev. 3:14; Rev. 17:14; Rev. 19:11; Rev. 21:5; Rev. 22:6 ILLUSTRATION - Color Blind - The famous agnostic Thomas Huxley was once lovingly confronted by a very sincere Christian. This believer stressed to Huxley that he was not in any way impugning Huxley’s sincerity. Nevertheless, might it not be possible that mentally the great scientist was color blind? That is, some people cannot see traces of green where other people cannot help but see it. Could it be that this was Huxley’s problem—that he was simply blind to truth that was quite evident to others? Huxley, being a man of integrity, admitted that this was possible, and added that if it were, he himself, of course, could not know or recognize it. Henry Drummond (See full sermon Dealing with Doubt) Relates to Thomas Doubting There is a subject which I think workers amongst young men cannot afford to keep out of sight--I mean the subject of "Doubt." We are forced to face that subject. We have no choice. I would rather let it alone; but every day of my life I meet men who doubt, and I am quite sure that most Christian workers among men have innumerable interviews every year with men who raise skeptical difficulties about religion. Now it becomes a matter of great practical importance that we should know how to deal wisely with these. Upon the whole, I think these are the best men in the country. I speak of my own country. I speak of the universities with which I am familiar, and I say that the men who are perplexed,--the men who come to you with serious and honest difficulties,--are the best men. They are men of intellectual honesty, and cannot allow themselves to be put to rest by words, or phrases, or traditions, or theologies, but who must get to the bottom of things for themselves. And if I am not mistaken, CHRIST WAS VERY FOND of these men. The outsiders always interested Him, and touched Him. The orthodox people--the Pharisees--He was much less interested in. He went with publicans and sinners--with people who were in revolt against the respectability, intellectual and religious, of the day. And following Him, we are entitled to give sympathetic consideration to those whom He loved and took trouble with. First, let me speak for a moment or two about THE ORIGIN OF DOUBT. In the first place, we are born questioners. Look at the wonderment of a little child in its eyes before it can speak. The child's great word when it begins to speak is, "Why?" Every child is full of every kind of question, about every kind of thing, that moves, and shines, and changes, in the little world in which it lives. That is the incipient doubt in the nature of man. Respect doubt for its origin. It is an inevitable thing. It is not a thing to be crushed. It is a part of man as God made him. Heresy is truth in the making, and doubt is the prelude of knowledge. Secondly: The world is a Sphinx. It is a vast riddle--an unfathomable mystery; and on every side there is temptation to questioning. In every leaf, in every cell of every leaf, there are a hundred problems. There are ten good years of a man's life in investigating what is in a leaf, and there are five good years more in investigating the things that are in the things that are in the leaf. God has planned the world to incite men to intellectual activity. Thirdly: The instrument with which we attempt to investigate truth is impaired. Some say it fell, and the glass is broken. Some say prejudice, heredity, or sin, have spoiled its sight, and have blinded our eyes and deadened our ears. In any case the instruments with which we work upon truth, even in the strongest men, are feeble and inadequate to their tremendous task. And in the fourth place, all religious truths are doubtable. There is no absolute truth for any one of them. Even that fundamental truth--the existence of a God--no man can prove by reason. The ordinary proof for the existence of God involves either an assumption, argument in a circle, or a contradiction. The impression of God is kept up by experience, not by logic. And hence, when the experimental religion of a man, of a community, or of a nation wanes, religion wanes--their idea of God grows indistinct, and that man, community or nation becomes infidel. Bear in mind, then, that all religious truths are doubtable--even those which we hold most strongly. What does this brief account of the origin of doubt teach us? It teaches us GREAT INTELLECTUAL HUMILITY. It teaches us sympathy and toleration with all men who venture upon the ocean of truth to find out a path through it for themselves. Do you sometimes feel yourself thinking unkind things about your fellow-students who have intellectual difficulty? I know how hard it is always to feel sympathy and toleration for them; but we must address ourselves to that most carefully and most religiously. If my brother is shortsighted I must not abuse him or speak against him; I must pity him, and if possible try to improve his sight, or to make things that he is to look at so bright that he cannot help seeing. But never let us think evil of men who do not see as we do. From the bottom of our hearts let us pity them, and let us take them by the hand and spend time and thought over them, and try to lead them to the true light. What has been THE CHURCH'S TREATMENT OF DOUBT in the past? It has been very simple. "There is a heretic. Burn him!" That is all. "There is a man who has gone off the road. Bring him back and torture him!" We have got past that physically; have we got past it morally? What does the modern Church say to a man who is skeptical? Not "Burn him!" but "Brand him!" "Brand him!"--call him a bad name. And in many countries at the present time, a man who is branded as a heretic is despised, tabooed and put out of religious society, much more than if he had gone wrong in morals. I think I am speaking within the facts when I say that a man who is unsound is looked upon in many communities with more suspicion and with more pious horror than a man who now and then gets drunk. "Burn him!" "Brand him!" "Excommunicate him!" That has been the Church's treatment of doubt, and that is perhaps to some extent the treatment which we ourselves are inclined to give to the men who cannot see the truths of Christianity as we see them. Contrast CHRIST'S TREATMENT of doubt. I have spoken already of His strange partiality for the outsiders--for the scattered heretics up and down the country; of the care with which He loved to deal with them, and of the respect in which He held their intellectual difficulties. Christ never failed to distinguish between doubt and unbelief. Doubt is "can't believe"; unbelief is "won't believe." Doubt is honesty; unbelief is obstinacy. Doubt is looking for light; unbelief is content with darkness. Loving darkness rather than light--that is what Christ attacked, and attacked unsparingly. But for the intellectual questioning of Thomas, and Philip, and Nicodemus, and the many others who came to Him to have their great problems solved, He was respectful and generous and tolerant. And how did He meet their doubts? The Church, as I have said, says, "Brand him!" Christ said, "Teach him." He destroyed by fulfilling. When Thomas came to Him and denied His very resurrection, and stood before Him waiting for the scathing words and lashing for his unbelief, they never came. They never came! Christ gave him facts--facts! No man can go around facts. Christ said, "Behold My hands and My feet." The great god of science at the present time is a fact. It works with facts. Its cry is, "Give me facts. Found anything you like upon facts and we will believe it." The spirit of Christ was the scientific spirit. He founded His religion upon facts; and He asked all men to found their religion upon facts. Now, get up the facts of Christianity, and take men to the facts. Theologies--and I am not speaking disrespectfully of theology; theology is as scientific a thing as any other science of facts--but theologies are HUMAN VERSIONS of Divine truths, and hence the varieties of the versions and the inconsistencies of them. I would allow a man to select whichever version of this truth he liked afterwards; but I would ask him to begin with no version, but go back to the facts and base his Christian life upon these. That is the great lesson of the New Testament way of looking at doubt--of Christ's treatment of doubt. It is not "Brand him!"--but lovingly, wisely and tenderly to teach him. Faith is never opposed to reason in the New Testament; it is opposed to sight. You will find that a principle worth thinking over. Faith is never opposed to reason in the New Testament, but to sight. With these principles in mind as to the origin of doubt, and as to Christ's treatment of it, how are we ourselves to deal with those who are in intellectual difficulty? In the first place, I think we must make all the concessions to them that we conscientiously can. When a doubter first encounters you, he pours out a deluge of abuse of churches, and ministers, and creeds, and Christians. Nine-tenths of what he says is probably true. Make concessions. Agree with him. It does him good to unburden himself of these things. He has been cherishing them for years--laying them up against Christians, against the Church, and against Christianity; and now he is startled to find the first Christian with whom he has talked over the thing almost entirely agrees with him. We are, of course, not responsible for everything that is said in the name of Christianity; but a man does not give up medicine because there are quack doctors, and no man has a right to give up his Christianity because there are spurious or inconsistent Christians. Then, as I already said, creeds are human versions of Divine truths; and we do not ask a man to accept all the creeds, any more than we ask him to accept all the Christians. We ask him to accept Christ, and the facts about Christ and the words of Christ. You will find the battle is half won when you have endorsed the man's objections, and possibly added a great many more to the charges which he has against ourselves. These men are IN REVOLT against the kind of religion which we exhibit to the world--against the cant that is taught in the name of Christianity. And if the men that have never seen the real thing--if you could show them that, they would receive it as eagerly as you do. They are merely in revolt against the imperfections and inconsistencies of those who represent Christ to the world. Second: Beg them to set aside, by an act of will, all unsolved problems: such as the problem of the origin of evil, the problem of the Trinity, the problem of the relation of human will and predestination, and so on--problems which have been investigated for thousands of years without result--ask them to set those problems aside as insoluble. In the meantime, just as a man who is studying mathematics may be asked to set aside the problem of squaring the circle, let him go on with what can be done, and what has been done, and leave out of sight the impossible. You will find that will relieve the skeptic's mind of a great deal of UNNECESSARY CARGO that has been in his way. Thirdly: Talking about difficulties, as a rule, only aggravates them. Entire satisfaction to the intellect is unattainable about any of the greater problems, and if you try to get to the bottom of them by argument, there is no bottom there; and therefore you make the matter worse. But I would say what is known, and what can be honestly and philosophically and scientifically said about one or two of the difficulties that the doubter raises, just to show him that you can do it--to show him that you are not a fool--that you are not merely groping in the dark yourself, but you have found whatever basis is possible. But I would not go around all the doctrines. I would simply do that with one or two; because the moment you cut off one, a hundred other heads will grow in its place. It would be a pity if all these problems could be solved. The joy of the intellectual life would be largely gone. I would not rob a man of his problems, nor would I have another man rob me of my problems. They are the delight of life, and the whole intellectual world would be stale and unprofitable if we knew everything. Fourthly--and this is the great point: Turn away from the reason and go into the man's moral life. I don't mean, go into his moral life and see if the man is living in conscious sin, which is the great blinder of the eyes--I am speaking now of honest doubt; but open a new door into THE PRACTICAL SIDE OF MAN'S NATURE. Entreat him not to postpone life and his life's usefulness until he has settled the problems of the universe. Tell him those problems will never all be settled; that his life will be done before he has begun to settle them; and ask him what he is doing with his life meantime. Charge him with wasting his life and his usefulness; and invite him to deal with the moral and practical difficulties of the world, and leave the intellectual difficulties as he goes along. To spend time upon these is proving the less important before the more important; and, as the French say, "The good is the enemy of the best." It is a good thing to think; it is a better thing to work--it is a better thing to do good. And you have him there, you see. He can't get beyond that. You have to tell him, in fact, that there are two organs of knowledge: the one reason, the other obedience. And now tell him, as he has tried the first and found the little in it, just for a moment or two to join you in trying the second. And when he asks whom he is to obey, you tell him there is but One, and lead him to the great historical figure who calls all men to Him: the one perfect life--the one Savior of mankind--the one Light of the world. Ask him to begin to OBEY CHRIST; and, doing His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God. That, I think, is about the only thing you can do with a man: to get him into practical contact with the needs of the world, and to let him lose his intellectual difficulties meantime. Don't ask him to give them up altogether. Tell him to solve them afterward one by one if he can, but meantime to give his life to Christ and his time to the kingdom of God. You fetch him completely around when you do that. You have taken him away from the false side of his nature, and to the practical and moral side of his nature; and for the first time in his life, perhaps, he puts things in their true place. He puts his nature in the relations in which it ought to be, and he then only begins to live. And by obedience he will soon become a learner and pupil for himself, and Christ will teach him things, and he will find whatever problems are solvable gradually solved as he goes along the path of practical duty. Now, let me, in closing, give an instance of how to deal with specific points. The question of miracles is thrown at my head every second day: "What do you say to a man when he says to you, 'Why do you believe in miracles?'" I say, "Because I have seen them." He asks, "When?" I say, "Yesterday." "Where?" "Down such-and-such a street I saw a man who was a drunkard redeemed by the power of an unseen Christ and saved from sin. That is a miracle." The best apologetic for Christianity is a Christian. That is a fact which the man cannot get over. There are fifty other arguments for miracles, but none so good as that you have seen them. Perhaps you are one yourself. But take a man and show him a miracle with his own eyes. Then he will believe. John 20:28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” My Lord: John 20:16,31 5:23 9:35-38 Ps 45:6,11 102:24-28 118:24-28 Isa 7:14 9:6 Isa 25:9 40:9-11 Jer 23:5,6 Mal 3:1 Mt 14:33 Lu 24:52 Ac 7:59,60 1Ti 3:16 Rev 5:9-14 THOMAS RECOGNIZES JESUS' DIVINITY Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord (kurios) and my God (theos) - It is interesting Thomas did not say "My Savior" or "My Redeemer," which He certainly is. He focused on the supremacy of Jesus as the Lord of his life, the One Who rightfully owns him, the One to which he has a sinful, saved man should bow. Notice the two possessive pronouns "my" leaving no doubt about Thomas having come to fully understand that the privilege of personal relationship with Jesus truly belonged to him. "He acknowledged the divinity he did not see by the wounds he did see." --John Boys
João 20:30
Vincent - As applied to the miracles of our Lord, this word emphasizes their ethical purport, as declaring that the miraculous act points back of itself to the grace and power or divine character or authority of the doer. Mark 13:4 "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?" 22 for false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect. Mark 16:17 "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 20 And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed. [And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Luke 2:12 "This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger." 34 And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary His mother, "Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed-- Luke 11:16 Others, to test Him, were demanding of Him a sign from heaven. 29 As the crowds were increasing, He began to say, "This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign, and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah. 30 "For just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so will the Son of Man be to this generation. Comment: Jonah was in a sense a sign because of his miraculous deliverance from certain death. This is an interesting comparison with Nineveh for this pagan city appears to have completely "received" the sign and repented. What a contrast with the religious Jews who did not receive Jesus (nor the signs that pointed to Him being the Messiah, the Son of God - John 1:11, John 20:31, cp "The Great Pause" in Jn 12:36-37 where John records "though He had performed so many signs before them, [yet] they were not believing in Him." What a tragedy! Luke 21:7 They questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?" 11 and there will be great earthquakes, and in various places plagues and famines; and there will be terrors and great signs from heaven. 25 "There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, Comment: How fascinating that signs pointed to Jesus in John but to those who reject Him, the signs point to God's judgment! Luke 23:8 Now Herod was very glad when he saw Jesus; for he had wanted to see Him for a long time, because he had been hearing about Him and was hoping to see some sign performed by Him. John 2:11 This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him. John 2:18 The Jews then said to Him, "What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?"
João 20:31
Vincent says call on the NAME - "is used of worship, and here implies prayer to Christ. The first Christian prayer recorded as heard by Saul of Tarsus, was Stephen’s prayer to Christ, Acts 7:59." 10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 1 Corinthians 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 1 Corinthians 6:11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. Ephesians 1:21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. Comment from Believer's Church Bible Commentary - Modern readers may find name out of place in a list of powers. And indeed, it may be no more than making sure no potency is left out (Best, 1998:173; Wink, 1984:22). But name equaled “potency” in the ancient world, as in many places today (cf. Phil. 2:9; Rev. 6:8; 13:1, 17; 14:1; and frequently in Gnostic literature). Ephesians 5:20 always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; Philippians 2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,