Showing posts with label doubt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label doubt. Show all posts

Thursday, January 24, 2013

1 Samuel 21: Just In Case

What does the phrase “just in case” mean? You’re not going to be able to find a definition in a typical dictionary, for a typical diction defines words, not phrases. But the Free Dictionary by Farlex (thefreedictionary.com) does have definitions for phrases, and even idioms, such as the idiom “just in case.” The Free Dictionary defines the idiom “just in case” to mean “in the event that…” or “only if something happens.” These definitions are quite true, but to me, they seem a bit broad. I thought about the phrase myself. I realized that a lot of time I hear or say the phrase “just in case” it’s a back plan. I bring an umbrella just in case it rains. I buy extra batteries just in case the batteries I’m using die. I pack a snack just in case I have to skip lunch. See what I mean? I plan to have lunch, but if something were to come up, my back up plan is to snack while working. I plan to have a dry walk back and forth from my classrooms to my car, but if it were to rain, my backup plan is to use an umbrella to keep me dry. Then I thought about it more, and I started to think that the phrase “just in case” does subtly and subconsciously reflects doubt. I might not see a cloud in the sky in the sky, and the weatherman could report a clear day, but I doubt both the weather report and my vision, it will be reflected in grabbing an umbrella. The phrase “just in case” could display how much you trust something or someone.

When you grew up in church and heard the stories of David, it’s very possible you were told that, besides David’s 2 sins (Bathsheba and the census), David was a righteous and upright man, always pleasing God. But that’s just not human. In our human nature, we don’t just sin, get over it and move on. Some of the “worst” sins to get over are the ones that habitual and addicting, the ones the sinful nature wants to keep going back to. Such examples would be envy, wrath, pride, lust and doubt. That last one, doubt, is the key one when it comes to David. I am going to argue that in 1 Samuel 22, David doubts God by not trusting God for help in his time of need. Instead of going to God, he goes after material possessions for help. I am going show that David does this at least 5 times in this chapter: 3 times in Nob and 2 times in Gath. I also know that this viewpoint isn’t the most popular viewpoint, although there are scholars who do agree with me. So at the end, I will show an alternative interpretation to the events of 1 Samuel 21.

Let’s set the scene before we go into these doubts. After saying goodbye to Jonathan, David heads to Nob, a Levitical city just northeast of Jerusalem, where priests and Levites lived and worshipped. There David meets Ahimelech. From the context of 1 Samuel 21-22, the readers gets the idea that Ahimelech is the priest running worship at Nob. When Ahimelech sees David, the Bible says Ahimelech trembles in fear. Perhaps Ahimelech knows that Saul considers David and enemy and Saul is hunting down David and anyone in between. Maybe Ahimelech is think about how David went to Naioth, the home of the prophets, and almost endangered the prophets there. Surely Ahimelech doesn’t want David bringing the same danger to the priests. So Ahimelech asks David why he’s alone with no company. On the surface, it seems to be a simple question. But rhetorically, Ahimelech asks, “What sneaky business are you here to do if you don’t want any witnesses around?”

Doubt #1: Lying about his purpose. The first instance of doubt we see is right away in 1 Samuel 21:2. David creates this deceptive lie, in which he claims that the king sent him on a secret mission, and he is meeting with his men at a secret place. This is clearly a lie, for it is quite opposite of the truth. King Saul did not send David to do anything. If anything, Saul sent men on a mission for David. Saul and David could not be any further apart socially. Why couldn’t David tell the truth and say, “I am running away, for I am hiding from Saul.” David’s lie shows David’s distrust. David did not trust the priest, not even a holy priest. He must have been afraid that the priest would report to Saul his whereabouts if he told the priest where he was hiding, or he might have thought the priest would not help if he was fugitive of the king. What makes this lie so bad, the worst, is that he isn’t just lying to anyone, but a priest, who is a holy man working for a holy God. It’s almost as bad as lying to God Himself. Maybe David lying to the priest demonstrates that David not only doesn’t trust the priest, but doesn’t trust God.

Doubt #2: Food Provisions. After stating his purpose, David quickly asks for five loaves of bread, and if the priest doesn’t have that, whatever food he can scramble together will do. Ahimelech replies that he does not have any household bread, but it does have the consecrated bread. Every week the priests were to offer 12 loaves of unleavened, fine flour bread. A fresh batch of bread was placed on the table of showbread at the beginning of the week, and it would remain there until the end of the week. At the end of the week, the priests would come together to eat the bread together, and a new batch of bread would be put in its place. This bread was to be only eaten by the priest, for it symbolically represented the fellowship God had with the priests. David was well aware of this. David should have said (all of it or some of it), “Far be it from me to take the consecrated bread that is meant only for the Lord and his priests! To take that bread would be like stealing from the Lord Himself! I will not take the bread because I know that the Lord will provide food along the way. And if he does not, then he will give me the strength to not feel the pains of hunger.” But that’s not what David said. Instead, David pretty much says, “That’ll work. Good enough.” Then he proceeds to take the bread. Why does David take the bread? Doubt. David does not trust the Lord will provide food for him, so he’s got to fetch his own food. Even if he does believe God will provide the food, he takes the bread, just in case God doesn’t. Not the best of faith.

Now before you get to the bottom, both you and I can already suspect what my opponents would say. They would bring up that Jesus used this story, in Matthew 12:3,4 and in Mark 2:25,26, to explain that the disciples aren’t breaking God’s Law by picking wheat on the Sabbath. I’m not going to give details on how my opponents would use this passage to defend their view, but I will take the time to use this story to defend my point. Actually, I’m not going to use it to defend my point, but I will use it to counter-argue the typical defense we might be expecting. Simply, I will say that David is not sinning when he takes the bread. That’s the point Jesus is making, and I will also make the same point: David is not sinning. But on the same subject on the opposite end, I’m not ready to say David is making a great act of faith either. A great act of faith would be turning down the consecrated bread and depending on God and His promises to sustain you (see Deut. 8:9. It is repeated by Jesus in Matt 4:4 and Luke 4:4, but David would have only known the Deut 8:9 passage). In a way, what I’m saying is David didn’t do anything wrong, but David didn’t do the right thing either. The space between the wrong thing and the right thing is doubt.

Before we move on any further, pay attention to verse 7. In the English language and literature, it’s known as an aside, but in the Hebrew language and literature it’s known as a parenthetical clause. It’s when the author wants to put information into the narrative that doesn’t belong in any special place in the narrative. This parenthetical clause mentions there’s a witness to all this. His name is Doeg. Doeg is an Edomite. Edomites are the descendants of Edom, better known to us as Esau, the brother Jacob/Israel. So you’d think the Edomites would see Israel as their cousins. Actually, you’d be wrong. Since Israelites wandering in the desert, as recorded by Numbers, the Israelites and Edomites have been enemies. We even see them battling each other in 1 Samuel 14. Now 1 Samuel 21:7 tells us that Doeg the Edomite was detained. Now the Hebrew word is netsar, and scholars debate what do with the word in both Hebrew and English. What does netsar mean and what does detain mean? Some scholars think that Doeg is an Edomite whose converted to the Israelite’s religion and become a legal immigrant to Israel. Other scholars believe that Saul captured Doeg as a prisoner of war in the Israelites’ battle in 1 Samuel 14. I personally believe the second to be the more plausible answer. The aside also tells us that Doeg was the head shepherd of Saul’s flocks. In those days, it was naturally for kings to own large flocks of animals to tailor to their personal needs. Of course, the king himself would not take care of them, so he would hire shepherds to take care of the animals. Doeg was the head of the shepherds, so he had close ties to Saul. What’s Saul doing trusting an Edomite, no one knows. This could be a sign of Saul falling even further away from God. But the text wants us to know that he was witnessing the exchange between David and Ahimelech. That’s going to be important for the next chapter, for there we will find out Doeg is a bad egg.

Doubt #3: Protection. Next David asks for some kind of weapon to protect him. Ahimelech informs David that there are no weapons there but the sword of Goliath, which David had placed there himself. David quickly takes it. Once again, I ask, “Where is David’s faith?” Remember we said that in 1 Samuel 17 David clearly demonstrates that victory is given through the Lord and not through earthly weapons. David even supports that himself when he turns down the king’s armor (which probably also included a sword) for his regular clothes because He is confident that the Lord will bring him victory. The fact that David insists he needs a sword shows that David doesn’t have that confidence that he had when he face Goliath. He needs a sword, just in case the Lord doesn’t protect.

Doubt #4: Fleeing to Gath. This doesn’t take much explanation if you know the geography and the history. Israel is God’s chosen people in the Promised Land. Gath is the land of the Philistines, the enemy of God’s people who keep invading the Promised Land. Gath is also the hometown of Goliath, and even might be a capital of Philistia. No good, God-fearing Israelite would dare leave Israel for that land. That’s exactly what David does. He leaves the Promised Land, God’s land, for a foreign land. To me, this shows doubt. To me, it seems like David does not trust God to provide him protection in the kingdom that has been promised to him. So he leaves everyone and everything behind to tread in the enemies territory.

Doubt #5: Acting insane. David goes to Gath, hoping that no one will notice him and that everyone will leave him alone. It’s hard, though, to try to keep yourself hidden in the hometown of the champion you just slaughtered. Everyone immediately recognizes David as the one the sing about in Israel. So much for leaving your past life behind. Now David fears that the Philistines will also seek to kill David in order to avenge Goliath. So David comes up with a brilliant plan: to act like an insane madman. In Bible times, if someone were to act like an insane madman, people would automatically assume he’s demon-possessed and would want to avoid such evil. David acts insane so people think he’s demon-possessed and will leave him alone. I hope that you see where this is going. This cannot be the godly response to danger. Instead of trusting in God, David relies in a deceptive act to keep him safe. What makes it even worse is that David acts like there’s demons inside of him, not the Holy Spirit. David should be living a life that lets the Holy Spirit shine, not hide it.

Alright, as promised, now I will quickly give my opponents objections to my 5 doubts that David has. Their objections will be followed by what they see in those 5 sections.

#1: Lying about his purpose. While David may not have told the full truth, he did not lie. He was generic. David doesn’t say “King Saul” or even “Saul,” David just says “king.” Many times in the psalms David refers to the Lord God as king. So David might be saying he’s sent on a secret mission from King Yahweh because many times in the Bible both Yahweh and Jesus have asked people to keep secrets to themselves.

#2: Food provisions. David was not sinning by taking the bread. The bread had already completed its week-long life cycle as an offering to God, and now it’s up to the priests to decide what to do with it. The priest Ahimelech decides it’s alright for David and his men to eat of it as long as they act like priests; they must be ceremonially clean. Just as God used this bread to provide food to the priests, so God used this bread to provide food to David. Besides, Jesus mentions this story in Matthew 12:3,4 and Mark 2:25,26. If David had done something wrong, would Jesus really use this story as part of an argument? Speaking of Jesus, these few verses provide foreshadowing. Remember that Jesus was prophet, priest and king. If Jesus is to be the second, last and final David, David needs to foreshadow Jesus as prophet, priest and king. This is the priest part, as David acts like a priest.

#3: Protection. When Goliath’s sword enters the holy sanctuary, the sword becomes God’s property. Thus the priest giving David the sword is God’s way of providing protection of David. God provides protection by giving David the sword of Goliath. (Something similar to that could be said for point 2 on food provisions.

#4: Fleeing to Gath. This is just common sense. King Saul only has control over Israel; he does not have control in Philistia. If David goes to Philistia, he doesn’t have to worry about Saul because Saul does not reach him. Besides, leaving the Promise Land does not mean leaving God or leaving His will. Even Abraham and Jacob, with their families, left the Promised Land for Egypt when things got bad.

#5: Acting insane. A deceptive act is nothing new for the Israelites. We see the Israelite forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob deceiving left and right. Just like David deceived Achish to keep himself safe, so Abraham and Isaac deceived the king of Gerar, telling the king their wife was their sister, in order to keep themselves safe.

Now you’ve heard both sides, and both have given their reasons. With the reasons, you can choose which one to believe. But let me give you a few more reasons why I believe it’s best to see them as doubts. First, I want to remind you that I’m not suggesting that David sinned or is doing anything sinful. But at the same, it’s not that David’s doing the right thing or the good thing. He’s somewhere in the middle, struggling with doubts, having backup plans, just in case God doesn’t come through. So it doesn’t mess with the character of David, being a man after God’s heart. Second, there are application reasons. If you believe David was doing the good, right thing, then David’s example is to be followed: it’s ok to lie and deceive, take from God when he doesn’t provide, and flee from all danger. Those applications don’t seem Biblical. In fact, God seems to want the opposite from us. Third, take into consideration discourse analysis. Think about where we are in David narrative part of 1 Samuel. Some scholars seem 1 Samuel 21:10-15 and 1 Samuel 22:1-5 as a pivotal turning point in David’s story in 1 Samuel. David is faced with the question “In what or whom am I trusting in?” and he makes the pivotal change for the better. You’ll just have to wait for 1 Samuel 22 to see how David does that.

Monday, March 19, 2012

John 20: Easter Sunday

I want you to think about the events that happen at a typical modern-day American home on Easter. Since this is one of those holidays where the mythological holiday creature comes during the night (or really early in the morning), children wake up their parents at the crack of dawn so they can see what the Easter bunny brought them. So much for sleeping in on a holiday. At best, parents can delay this up to 8 AM. At 8 AM, parents watch their children go on an Easter egg hunt and go through their Easter baskets. In the 9 o’clock hour, it’s Sunday School, and in the 10 o’clock hour, it’s church. Even if this family doesn’t usually go to church, if they have to go at least twice a year, this holiday is one of them (Christmas being the other). After church, the family goes home to a traditional Easter dinner for lunch. Usually the main platter is ham (after all, thanks to Jesus setting up the New Covenant, we can now eat pork!). Then the day is pretty much done. Easter is over. And it’s only an hour or two into the afternoon. This may be the reality for many modern-day American families, but it wasn’t the reality for the Disciples in the 1st century A.D. For them, the resurrection wasn’t just an event that happened in the morning and bit in the afternoon. It was an event that happened over 40 days! Not even the initial first day was just a morning event. The disciples struggled with probability, questions, and even doubt that lasted all day John chapter 20 reveals how Easter Sunday was all-day event, and a day was very eventful from sunrise to sunset.

Before I go any further, once again I will remind you that the resurrection appears in all 4 Gospel accounts. All 4 Gospel accounts tell the story differently, and to the untrained eye, it may seem like they contradict. So I will mention the other Gospel passages if there seems to be contradiction or if it needs some further explaining. If it does not correlate with the message John is speaking in John 20, I will breeze over it or skip it altogether.

For example, I’ve heard an atheist complain about the contradiction of the number of women and which women went to the tomb on that Sunday morning. Matthew has 2 women: Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” (most likely the mother of James). Mark has 3 women: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. Luke has Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna, and then he tags “others” on at the end, which could be an indefinite amount. John just mentions 1 woman: Mary Magdalene. Surely all 4 Gospels writers can’t be right, can they? Surely this is a contradiction…right? Well, consider this conversation between a mother and her high school son…

Mom: “Son, why were you home so late from school? Did you get another detention?”
Son: “No, mom. I went to the high school basketball game. It was a playoff game against our rival school to decide who got to play in the championship, I thought it would be an interesting game to stay and watch.”
Mom: “Oh. So who else was there watching the game?”

Now let’s stop the conversation and contemplate what the son’s answer might be. Obviously the mom asked this simply for an alibi. So how is the son going to answer this answer? Is he literally going to name everyone who was there? This would be almost an impossible feat, unless he was the guy working at ticket booth or taking attendance. It’s a playoff game, it’s possible over a hundred people are there. He’s not going to mention every single person. So who will he mention? At the most, he’ll mention everyone that he knows. He’s not going to talk about people who he can’t identify. Furthermore, he’s only going to mention the people he knows and who he noticed. There might have been people at the game that he did know, but he didn’t know they were there. He might only mention the people he knows and the people his mom knows. After all, he mentions people he knows but his mom doesn’t know, she’s going to ask, “Who’s that?” every time, and the son wants to avoid explaining who every person is. Also, if the son knows his mom just wants an alibi, he might only mention the people sitting next to him or the people who he was hanging out with at the game. This small group might be less than 10% of the people that was there, but it’s enough to prove that he was really at the game. Same goes with the Gospel writers. The Gospel writers aren’t going to name every single person who saw the empty tomb that morning. They are only going to mention the ones that pertain to the story. If there is any overall unity the Gospel writers are trying to get across, is that there was early witnesses to the resurrection, and all 4 Gospel writers show that, no matter how many or which ones.

On that same note, the fact that there are female witnesses to be the first to witness the resurrection is an excellent apologetic to both the resurrection itself and the inerrancy of the Scriptures. In the 1st century A.D., a woman’s testimony was not considered legitimate in a legal court. In short, you could not call a woman to the stand because her testimony was not accepted. In fact, if there was a 1st century trial on the resurrection, the woman’s testimony would have been thrown out. Thus, if the disciples were making up the resurrection, they would have either said that the disciples, or maybe even the Pharisee followers (like Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea), found the empty tomb first. But the true truth was that it was the women found it first, and to stick to the truth of the Scriptures, that’s all 4 Gospel writers recorded it.

If you remember, Jewish law and Jewish custom does not allow a Jew to go near a dead body during the Sabbath or during holiday, since it would make them unclean. That’s why the Jews demanded that the crucified men be removed from the crosses so quickly. Now if it wasn’t for this Jewish law, I bet the women would have gone the next day to the tomb, but because of the Sabbath, they had to wait. The women were forced to be patient, but still, they made plans to go to the tomb first thing in the morning. Mary Magdalene was the most impatient of them all. She doesn’t want to even wait until sunrise; she’s willing to go in the morning while it’s still dark. Perhaps she thought the women were taking too long to get themselves ready to go to the tomb, so she went ahead of them. The other woman might have just shook their head, thinking to themselves, “Silly Mary, how’s she going to roll away the stone in front of the tomb all by herself?”

As Mary approaches the tomb, she seems something out of place. The stone has been rolled away! Now it’s debatable how close Mary got. From John’s account, one could easily say that Mary didn’t peek her head in the tomb, or even got close. All she saw was the stone rolled away. The accounts from the Synoptic Gospels give more of an idea that she actually looked in. Now, in my mind, the most logical thing to do if I was Mary would be to run back to my female friends and tell them the news. I have no idea why Mary got the idea to run to Peter and John and tell them. Perhaps she figured that Peter and John, being the closest 2 disciples, might have a better knowledge of what’s happened to Jesus. After all, Mary was with the women all day and all night, so she knows they don’t know. Maybe Mary just thought it made the most sense to report it the 2 closest disciples. Whatever the case, Mary Magdalene runs to where Peter and John are to report that the body isn’t there.

During the time Mary Magdalene has embarked to the tomb, found the tomb empty, and ran to where Peter and John are residing, the rest of the women (at least 3 of them), begin their journey to the tomb. The Synoptic Gospels fill us in on what happens there. As I said, I’m not going to go into that too deeply. If you want to go into it deeply, read the Synoptic Gospels. But in short, the women see the empty tomb, they see angels dressed in white telling them Jesus rose from the dead, and then they are given instructions to the disciples. So these women also run off to find Peter and John.

For this next scene, let’s picture the scene from the viewpoint of Peter and John. It’s early morning, around sunrise. Peter and John are fast asleep. All of a sudden, they hear a vicious knock on the door. They are scared, not only because they’ve been startled from your sleep, but they fear that it’s the Jewish leaders and Roman leaders, preparing to arrest the Disciples on the same charges as Jesus. As they walk closer to the door, they feel a bit better recognizing the voice as Mary’s, but they still feel a bit uneasy due to the frantic sound her voice, sounding concerned. They open the door to Mary, babbling away at a mile a minute. Somehow, they are able to pull out, “They have taken the body away!” As Peter and John try to beckon Mary, “Who, Mary? Who took the body?” all of a sudden, Mary the mother of James, Salome and Joanna come running up to Peter and John. They start babbling on and on about seeing an empty tomb, seeing angels, and claiming Jesus rose from the dead. Now Peter and John are really confused. Last time they checked, all the women went together to the tomb. Then how can the woman have different stories? Peter and John conclude the best way is to just go down themselves and look at the scene.

Both Peter and John, concerned about the whereabouts of the body, run down to the tomb. I like how John mentions that he outran Peter (although he mentions it humbly because he still does not refer to himself by name). Mary Magdalene, now herself confused (because she knows what she saw, but the other women say something different), runs behind the two disciples to see if anything has changed. Now as they are running, let’s pause for another good apologetic. Some opponents of the Bible have suggested that the women went to the wrong tomb, and when they saw that this tomb was empty, they concluded Jesus rose from the dead. I think John 20 proves that to be not true. I do think a bit that maybe Peter and John thought that themselves. They might have thought, “Maybe Mary Magdalene went to the wrong tomb. Let’s make sure she went to the right tomb.” So Peter and John went to make sure Mary Magdalene went to the right tomb, and sure enough, she did. While I’m at it, let me continue to debunk the “wrong tomb theory.” If Mary Magdalene did go to the wrong, she would not have concluded that Jesus rose from the dead. From verse 9 (as well as other verses in John the Synoptic Gospels), we know the disciples and other followers of Jesus still had yet to grasp the whole idea of resurrection. If Mary did go to the wrong tomb, she would have concluded that the body was stolen, as seen in verses 2 and 13. And if it was truly the wrong tomb, it would have been only a matter of minutes for someone to find the right tomb. The tomb was clearly marked, with a garden, with one spot for a body (the sign of a rich tomb), a sealed stone, and Roman guards. It’s kind of a hard to mix up a clearly marked tomb with a generic tomb.

So John gets to the tomb first, Peter comes in second, and Mary arrives third. All 3 of them see a tomb with no body and neatly folded linen cloths. They don’t even see the angels the other women talked about (I don’t know, maybe they went on coffee break). John 20:8 says that John went in, saw, and “believed.” What did John believe? Remember John was confronted with 2 different stories: Christ’s body was stolen and Christ had risen from the dead. Which story did John believe? What makes this question interesting is John 20:9, which says that the disciples did not understand that the Scriptures said the Christ must rise from the dead. Some people have suggested that John saw the scene, realized it couldn’t have been a robbery, and thus believed Jesus rose from the dead. If this is the case, then John 20:9 has to be interpreted that John simply did not comprehend the full picture of resurrection. But the Greek word used for “believed” here has to do with a full perception of the subject. Besides, looking John 20:19-25 and Luke 24:36-43 (the parallel passage), there seems to be this idea that all disciples present totally forgot Christ’s teachings of resurrection, including John. So when I see “believed” in John 20:8, I take it to mean, “He believe Mary Magdalene’s story,” which is the body was stolen. But Peter and John have no leads on who took the body, so they just go back home sad and defeated.

Before I go on, I want to pause to look at a certain verse. Look at John 20:7b with me

John 20:7b-
The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

When I first saw this verse, it stood out to me as something that didn’t belong. Why would John go out of his way to mention such a detail? I know John is trying to be detailed, but this is ridiculous. I was always trained that if the Bible points out a descriptive detail, there’s always some symbolic or theological meaning behind it. So what’s the meaning behind this descriptive detail? Some scholars have drawn this back to the idea of the master and the servants at a dinner table. When it came time for dinner, the servants would cook the food and set the table. When master would enter the dining room, the master would eat by himself (or with his family), and the servants would just stand back against the wall, just in case the master would need anything. If the master was done his meal, he would get up, crumple up the linen napkin, and throw it on the table. This was a sign to the servants to clean up the table because the master was done. But if the master wasn’t done, but needed to get up (to go to the bathroom, for example), he would fold his napkin and place it neatly back on its plate. This was a sign to the servants that said, “Don’t touch anything. I’m coming back to finish.” Thus, some people have interpreted this line from John 20:7 as Jesus saying, “I’m coming back to finish what I started.” Let’s continue on with the story in John.

While Peter and John have gone back defeated, Mary Magdalene can’t stand it anymore. She just breaks down in front of the tomb, bawling. In between the tears, Mary looks over to see 2 angels, just like the other women said. When she makes eye contact with the angels, the angels ask her, “Why are you crying?” I like how Mary answers without really reacting to the angels. Most people who encounter angels usually have a fear reaction, but not Mary. She just answers them. “They have taken my Lord away, and I don’t know where they have put him.” Mary turns her head once more, and she sees another man. Through her tears, she can’t tell it’s Jesus. She just suspects it’s the gardener. So Mary may have supposed that the gardener might have temporarily moved the body to clean the garden and tomb. So Mary kindly asks the gardener where he placed the body so she can see it. Jesus simply replies, “Mary.” Now the Greek language did not have exclamation marks, but if they did, I think they would have put one here. Jesus is saying to her “Mary! It’s me!” The Bible Knowledge Commentary connects this back to Christ’s preaching of the Good Shepherd, when Jesus says, “I call the sheep by name, and the sheep know my voice.” Once Mary heard Jesus call her by name, she recognized it was Jesus calling her. Mary replies, “Rabboni!” Now there is some debate on whether or not “Rabboni” differs from “Rabbi.” Perhaps “Rabboni” is a higher ranked teacher than a “Rabbi,” or maybe “Rabboni” shows a more intimate relationship with the teacher than “Rabbi.” Whether the case may be, Mary Magdalene recognized this as the Jesus she knew for so long, and she embraced him. That is why Jesus says in John 20:17 not to hold on to him. It’s not that Mary touching Jesus makes him unclean, but rather, Jesus doesn’t want Mary to get too attached to the thought that Jesus will be hanging around for a while. Jesus still intends to go back to the Father. Christ’s last words to Mary are to tell his brothers, the disciples, that Jesus is going back to the Father God. Mary reports more than that to the disciples. She retells the whole story on how she saw the Lord Jesus.

Now here’s what I believe happened after Mary Magdalene reported to the disciples what Jesus had told her to report. Even though none of the Gospels record this story, both Luke 24:34 and 1 Corinthians 15:5a record that there is a private appearance between Jesus and Simon Peter. Thomas and Gundry’s The NIV Harmony of the Gospels states it has to happen after the appearance to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9-11 refers to Mary Magdalene as the first person to see the resurrected Jesus), but before the two men on the road to Emmaus. I say that after Mary Magdalene reported back to Peter what happened, Peter headed off to the tomb for a second time. What would drive Peter to go back to the tomb a second time? One would think Peter would see Mary as the girl “who cried wolf.” I think Peter saw something different in Mary that would make Mary change her story. Something must have happened. Now Peter has at least 4 women telling him Jesus had raised from the dead, so he had to listen. Also, I think Peter hoping so much that the “stolen body” theory wasn’t true, and that Jesus really did raise from the dead. I even think that he himself pondered about the evidence. The scene Peter saw didn’t look like a thief came in. So Peter went back a second time, and I believe that second time Peter went back, he found everything just as Mary Magdalene saw: two angels in the tomb and Jesus in the garden. Thus, Simon Peter became the first man to see the resurrected Jesus.

In the paragraph above, I said one of my reasons to believe Peter went back a second time was that the evidence at the scene did not appear to look like a robbery. Why doesn’t John 20:6,7 look the scene of a robbery case? Now’s the perfect time to give a defense on the claim that the body of Jesus was stolen by thieves. The tomb Jesus laid in would be a target for thieves because it was the tomb of a rich man. But grave robbers rarely to never stole the body because the body would have little to no value. Instead, the grave robbers would take whatever the body was buried with that had value. The only thing worth value in the tomb (and this especially the case for the poor) would be the expensive fine linen the burial clothes were made out of. If the grave of Jesus was really the robbed, the thieves would have taken his clothes and left a naked, dead body in the tomb. The only way the thieves would have stolen the body is if they knew they could get a price out of it. The only ones who would be interested in the body would be the Jewish leaders. But that’s exactly why the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to put guards at the tomb. They wanted to make sure no one left with the body. So the Jewish leaders wouldn’t pay robbers to steal the body because they knew it was well guarded at the tomb. Speaking of which, it could not have been thieves because that tomb was well guarded by soldiers. Those soldiers were so strong; a few mere men could not have fought them off. Between the guards and the seal on the stone, thieves could have not gotten to the body. I have one more piece of evidence to give to you to prove it can’t be thieves. Even if thieves did steal the body and leave behind the expensive clothes, they would not have taken the time to fold the clothes up nicely and neatly. Therefore, I conclude all this proof shows the body was not stolen by grave robbers. Even Simon Peter concluded that, and that’s why he was the first man to see the risen Jesus.

All the events I have spoken about so far have all happened before noon on that first Easter morning. Within that time, Jesus has appeared to at least 4 women, as well as Simon Peter. When we celebrate Easter, our celebrations end a little after 12, but the events on the first Easter did not end a little after 12. John’s story of the resurrection will pick up again in the evening of the day. Until then, Luke says that Jesus appears to 2 of His followers (these 2 men are not among the 12 Disciples Jesus chose) on the road to Emmaus in the afternoon. I’m not going into Luke’s story, but it does kind of help set the scene, as these 2 men cancel their trip to Emmaus to head back to Jerusalem and report to the disciples what they have seen.

Picking up in John 20:19, evening has fallen on that Sunday. The scene is a room in Jerusalem, with all the doors locked tight. The disciples are still afraid that the Jewish leaders are going to come after Christ’s Disciples next, so they are being very cautious. The characters are the 10 disciples. Obviously, we know Judas Iscariot isn’t there because he betrayed Jesus and then hanged himself. We don’t know where Thomas is, but we know Thomas is not there. For all we know, they sent Thomas out to get dinner. Out of nowhere, Jesus appears to the 10 Disciples are says, “Peace be with you!” Even though in Greek, this goes back to a Hebrew greeting, almost similar to “hello.” But this might have been a more real greeting, one with a deeper meaning. Before Jesus left, during the Last Supper, Jesus constantly reminded His disciples that he was going to give them peace. His presence there was another ounce of peace for them. I’m not sure if it really did give the disciples peace at first. According to Luke, their first reaction was that it was a ghost, or that they were having a vision or hallucination. But Jesus quickly debunks this theory as he shows the disciples the holes in his hands and the stab wound in his side.

This debunking is one needed for both the past and the present. Let’s start in the past since that is the original context. Within 100 years of Jesus rising again, false theories about the resurrection were already floating around. The most popular one was that Jesus just raised from the dead in spirit, not body. This was started by the Gnostics, who claimed the body was bad. So in the Gnostic mindset, a bodily resurrection would not make sense. What made sense to them was a spirit resurrection only. Jesus debunks that by showing the wounds in His body. Those wounds were the same that a human body would have, making the conclusion it was a human body. So that debunks the Gnostics’ conclusion, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ conclusion, and the disciples’ first incorrect conclusion. Well, what about the disciples’ second incorrect conclusion, that this is a hallucination or a dream. This is a common belief of skeptics today, who will insist that wishful thinking led the disciples to hallucinate or dream that Jesus had come back to life. Last time I checked, hallucinations, dreams, and visions were hard to feel. The disciples actually could touch and feel Jesus. Still, if that is not enough proof, I would keep saying to go back to the witnesses. By now, at least 4 female witnesses and 12 male witnesses (10 disciples plus 2 followers) saw Jesus. By the time this is all done, over 500 people will see Jesus in this time period of 40 days. It’s hard for over 500 people to hallucinate the same thing. In my book, there is enough to evidence to prove that seeing Jesus alive was not a dream, a vision, or a hallucination, but what really happened.

After Jesus wishes peace on the 10 Disciples a second time, John records Jesus breathing on the disciples and telling them to receive the Holy Spirit. Here is another beautiful word play. The Greek word pnema can be translated “spirit,” “wind,” or “breath.” This is also true in the Hebrew. In Genesis, Moses uses the Hebrew word ruah to draw the connection of breathing on the newly-made man and giving him life. Jesus “breathing” on the disciples was a symbol of them receiving the Holy Spirit. Once the received the Holy Spirit, they would became new creation and have a new life. Once again, parallels to the creation story in Genesis 2. Many people try to understand what Jesus is saying in John 20:22. Some have even theorized that the disciples received a piece of the Holy Spirit then and there to understand the resurrection (see Luke 24:45). I think it simply is another command from Jesus to receive the Holy Spirit when he comes on Pentecost.

As I mentioned before, at this setting, Thomas is not present, for one reason or another. When Thomas does get back, Jesus is already gone. They all report gladly to him that Jesus has come back from the dead and they all saw it. And this is where Thomas gets the nickname “Doubting Thomas.” Thomas refuses to believe until Jesus has appeared to him and also shown him the holes in his hands, feet and side. Do not blame Thomas for doubting. As we discussed above, all the other 10 disciples doubted Jesus had risen from the dead, even when they saw him. It wasn’t until the felt the flesh of Jesus that they believed. Thomas was simply asking to do the same. Also, do not see this as John picking on Thomas. This is just John’s way of showing character development. After all, John as shown us positive qualities of Thomas, such as willingness to follow Jesus to the death (John 11:16) and seeking to follow Jesus closer (John 14:5).

John picks up with the story again in John 20:26, telling the reader that a whole week has past. It’s already the next Sunday. From what we’ve read in the Bible, both Synoptic Gospels and John’s Gospel, Jesus has not made any more appearances. I wonder how Thomas felt all this past week. Was he upset that his fellow disciples kept insisting that Jesus rose from the dead, without any evidence? Was he annoyed, seeing this a cruel practical joke? The scene this following Sunday is a lot like the scene the past Sunday. It’s behind locked door in a large room in Jerusalem. The only difference is this time Thomas was with them. Jesus comes again, even greeting them with the same greeting: “Peace be with you!” Jesus goes right to Thomas and gives him the same treatment as the rest of the disciples a week earlier. He asks Thomas to put his fingers and hands into the holes in his hands and his sides to see they are real. I love Thomas’s reaction: “My Lord and My God.” It connects exactly with John 20:31, the theme verse for this Gospel.

John 20:31-
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

In the previous verse, John 20:30, John says that Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples. When I told you that Jesus only performed 7 miracles in the whole book, I meant John only records 7 miracles in the book during the ministry of Jesus. Indeed, Jesus rising from the dead is a miracle. And if the raising of Lazarus was the greatest miracle during the ministry of Jesus, then Jesus rising up would be the greatest miracle of His whole earthly life. It is the miracle that defines our faith, for without His resurrection, our faith is false, empty and futile (1 Corinthians 15:14,17). If all of Christ’s miracles were signs that He was God, then this miracle was the greatest sign that proved once and for all Jesus was God. Notice Thomas’s reaction. He didn’t say “My Teacher!” or “My Rabbi!” He said, “My Lord and My God!” All the disciples and followers of Jesus after the resurrection had the same reaction. Those who had yet to call Jesus “Christ,” “Lord,” or “God” all of a sudden did start giving him these titles. The disciples and followers who were already calling Jesus by those titles were not starting to call him by those titles more. If they were unsure before Jesus died, they were sure after Jesus came back to life. If they were sure when before Jesus died, now they were very sure after Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus rising up again was the icing on the cake that sealed the deal. It is the final, grand conclusion that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and God the Son.

Since you know that I like ending each chapter with both an application within the chapter as much as an application to the grander theme of the chapter, I’m going to turn to John 21:29 for our application verse of the chapter.

John 20:29-
Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

I think sometimes Christian get into their head that the Disciples were the most blessed people on the earth because they got to see Jesus through the few years of ministry, the saw the Passion Week for Jesus, and they saw the resurrected Jesus. Therefore, we seem them as higher Christians than we are. This is simply not true. The disciples came to belief because they saw the ministry of Jesus, the Passion Week of the Christ, and the resurrected Son of Man. Christians who believe today believe even thought they did not see the life, death or resurrection of Jesus. Jesus says that takes much more faith for a non observer to believe (some translations have “more blessed are those have not seen…”). I believe this to be true, especially today, when we live in a world that claims, Jesus never rose, Jesus never died on the cross, and some even go as far as say Jesus never lived or existed period. In summer of 2009, I went down to Israel, and I spent a whole week in Jerusalem. While in Jerusalem, I went to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the traditional and most likely site of the crucifixion and burial of Jesus. Within the church was smaller cathedral which held the tomb where Jesus was laid. A line wrapped around it a couple times. Waiting in line would take a couple to a few hours. I was advised not to waste my free day in Jerusalem to do so, but some of my friends did. I’m glad I took the advice. Just like John 20:29 says, I can still say I believe, even though I didn’t see the empty tomb.

Once you get to the bottom of John 20, at verse 31, you’d think you hit the grand and final conclusion. The book could end there, and it would be a good ending. No open end, no cliffhanger, nothing of the sort. John comes to full conclusion and ending in John 20. But that’s not the end. You don’t have to look too far to see there is one last chapter to John, the 21st chapter of John. I see John 21 as an epilogue to John. It can be understood as part of the resurrection account, but it also can be seen as smooth transition into the church age, as seen in Acts, the Pauline Epistles and the General Epistles, especially John’s 3 epistles. So stay tuned for one more chapter of John. Perhaps we can see the Son of God one more time in it.

Top 5 Best ACC/AMEC Bible Quizzing Quizzers (of the 21st century)

This past Bible quizzing year, 2025, AMEC Bible Quizzing witnessed the end of an era. The longest quiz out streak (that is,  season quiz out...