Believing is Seeing

by Rev. Dr. J. Travis Moger

[Posted on his behalf by Jeremy]

Our text for this Sunday relates the story of Doubting Thomas, found only in John 20:19-31. The first three Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—tell us nothing about this obscure apostle. I don’t really like the epithet “doubting” Thomas. I think a better one would be “honest” Thomas, because he admitted his doubts, or “believing” Thomas, since he came to believe. Church tradition tells us that after Pentecost he preached the Gospel in India. When the first European missionaries arrived on the Indian subcontinent in the sixteenth century, they were surprised to find thriving indigenous churches full of “Thomas Christians.” But before Thomas could be used so mightily by God, he had to overcome his doubts.

The central miracle of our Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus. It’s the main theme of theapostles’ preaching in the book of Acts and is included in all Christian creeds and confessions.Paul even says, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins”(1 Cor. 15:17). But that doesn’t make it easy to believe. The idea of a bodily resurrection goes against all of our experience. Dead people stay dead.

We don’t know why Thomas wasn’t with his fellow disciples when Jesus appeared to them postmortem, but we do know he wasn’t convinced by their story about seeing Jesus. He told them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe” (John 20:25). Thomas wanted proof, empirical proof,that it was really Jesus and not a ghost. And he got it. Jesus appeared again to the disciples, this time with Thomas present, but instead of rebuking Thomas for his unbelief, Jesus offered Thomas the tactile evidence he had demanded: “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe” (20:27).

This offer for Thomas to touch Jesus is all the more surprising because just a few verses earlierJesus says to Mary Magdalene, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my father”(20:17). (The NRSV translates the command, “Do not hold on to me.”) Although Jesus forbids Mary to touch him in his resurrected state, he gives Thomas permission. Immediately upon seeing Jesus, however, the former doubter immediately blurts out, “My Lord and my God!” It was enough to see Jesus is his resurrected form. The Bible doesn’t say Thomas manually inspected the wounds as he had said he wanted to. This fact is all the more interesting since so many artistic interpretations, like Caravaggio’s The Incredulity of Saint Thomas (above), show the apostle inserting his finger in Jesus’ side. For Thomas and the other disciples seeing is believing.

The experience of seeing the resurrected Jesus was so important and exclusive that it became a prerequisite for apostleship. At least that’s how I read Paul’s statement, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Cor. 9:1). The rest of us don’t get to see the proof with our own eyes. We have to be satisfied with historical evidence: “These [things] are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). Thankfully the Gospels give us reliable evidence based on eyewitness testimony. The lack of firsthand proof doesn’t make our faith weak or defective. In fact, Jesus praised those who believe without visual proof: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe” (20:29). The writer of Hebrews says, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (11:1). For us seeing isn’t believing. For us, believing is seeing.

Faith comes naturally to some but not to others. The story of Thomas—believing Thomas—teaches us that God can handle our doubts and wants to help us when we are struggling with our faith.

The Rebellious Child and the New Church

Note: While Abby is away this week, you get me (Jeremy). Don't worry - it's only temporary and I'll keep it brief! http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif


A Bible study brunch at Broadneck is a lively thing. Lots of good questions, thoughtful folks sharing ideas, and (of course) plenty of tasty food to help fuel all of this. Maybe it is these things which made me think of Passover and the Seder - a time of re-living faith stories and questions around a shared meal. As we looked at this week's passages (John 20:19-31 and Acts 2:14-32), Abby invited us to think about how these visits from the resurrected Jesus and Peter's speech to a mocking crowd might have influenced the development of the early church. Paraphrasing the rebellious child (one of the four children used as symbolic questioners during the Seder), I wondered, "What's this mean to all of you?" Or, as Jolly put it last week, "What's it to ya, bub?"

I think this is a great question that Abby raises, and it's one that Stephen (our former interim and member) raised, and I think it should be in our thoughts anytime we try to think about our life together as community. By looking at the diversity and challenges within early faith communities and churches (!) and how they were addressed, there is a lot we can/should learn and ideas that we should continue to reflect on if we are to embody Jesus in the world.

So, what do I sense in these passages about the disciples, community, and following Jesus? Quite a few things, actually, some of which might be interesting to you, some of which probably aren't, and some that might be useful in a broader context. Briefly:

1. Just as we see his humanity throughout Jesus' life, we see honesty in emotional reactions in both the Easter scriptures and in this passage in John. Joy, fear, apprehension, awe, guilt, anger, relief, and a dozen other feelings are expressed here. Everyone involved - even the initially mocking crowds - illustrates how diverse reactions were to this new angle of relationship with God. In the passage from John (and in the resurrection texts), Jesus spends quite a bit of time just trying to calm folks down and get them to really see a new reality. Peter seems to attempt to do something similiar, illustrating that Jesus is trying to free us from fear of death. Just as God didn't abandon Jesus to the Pit/Sheol/Hades, neither will God abandon you. For all our supposed enlightenment and rationality and logic, seems to me that we are just as driven by our emotions and still in need of peace in order to begin to understand the reality of life around us.

2. Connected with these emotions, we see a spectrum of faith. In my reading and experience, there's a tension between faith and a "need" for proof that, it would appear, has been pretty consistent through quite a bit of human history. Jesus appears (at least twice) in a locked room next to some already freaked out disciples and has to show them his wounds. Hearing about this from people he trusted with other vital things wasn't enough for Thomas - he has to touch to believe. Where are you on this spectrum? How and why does it change from time to time? Why are some things so easy to take "on faith," but others require tangible evidence? I don't think this tension is a bad thing, entirely - just a part of being human. But how to live with it? Last point on this issue: Not one disciple called Thomas a jerk/heathen/unbeliever for expressing his honest doubts, or kicked him out of the group. Interesting, no?

3. Peter's speech wasn't just for the culturally recognized leaders (elder men). He addressed slaves, women, men of Judea and all the various peoples of Jerusalem. This supports Jesus' message and actions of equality and of changing how we perceive and interact with and value others.

4. When Jesus' empowers the disciples here in John to forgive, is this really a new thing, or just drawing attention to the power we all hold? I invite you to read the different translations side by side of John 20:23 here. The question isn't what is retained or held, but who does the holding. The Greek tenses and words used seem to indicate a duality between continual retention and instant release (as well as who does the retaining) that isn't exactly clear in most translations. In any case, it doesn't seem to say that God cedes power of ultimate forgiveness to the disciples, and instead points out that it's up to them if they want to carry around another person's sins. Obvious a statement it may be, but I think it shows a struggle that we experience daily in how we approach forgiveness. How much do we hold onto the wrongs of others, and why? Are we going to approach forgiveness as a transaction, a "gift" that must be reciprocated, and which isn't truly a gift? (see Miroslav Volf and his book "Free of Charge" on this one, if you like, or some Marcel Mauss on "The Gift")


What's all this to you, oh rebellious child? What's this to you, oh church?



Peace to you all from a rebellious child,

Jeremy