by Msgr. Charles Pope

The gospels of the Easter Octave describe not just an event, but even more so, a journey. We are tempted to think that the disciples and apostles, having seen the risen Lord, were immediately confirmed in their faith and stripped of all doubt.

But that is not the case. Nearly all of the resurrection accounts make it clear that although seeing the risen Lord was "mind-blowing," it was still only a beginning. As it is with any human experience, no matter how intense, encountering the risen Lord was something that the disciples needed to process. They needed to come to live its implications in stages.

This description of a journey, of a coming to resurrection faith in stages, is presented in the resurrection accounts. We notice that the first awareness occurred "when it was still dark" and "at the rising of the sun." But as we know, it does not suddenly become fully light at dawn. Rather, the light manifests itself and increases over time. And so it is with the awareness of the resurrection. It begins to "dawn" on the disciples that He is Risen, truly; He has appeared to Simon.

The first reports are murky and there is a lot of running around: Mary Magdalene to Peter and John, Peter and John to the tomb, the women to the rest of the apostles. Yes, there is an awful lot of running about! It is still dark and the "cobwebs" of recent sleep aren't completely gone; the light is just dawning, not at full-noon strength.

The disciples wonder what it all means and how it has changed/will change their lives. The answers to questions like this will require a journey; they are not to be answered in a mere moment.

In one Gospel there is a beautiful line that describes the experience well:

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went away quickly from the tomb, fearful yet overjoyed (Matt 28:8).

Yes, such a beautiful description: fearful yet overjoyed (φόβου καὶ χαρᾶς μεγάλης (phobou kai charas megans = fearful and of great joy))!

What is one to make of all this? He is alive! Yet what does this mean? One's life is changed, but how? One is filled with joy, yet draws back in a kind of reverential fear at the unknown, the unexperienced.

And so we see the women, encountering the risen Jesus on the road and they are fearful yet overjoyed. And again, while we might suppose that such an appearance would "seal the deal," it is not that simple. Consider the following occurrences in the aftermath of the resurrection appearances and notice that a journey of sorts is required to make sense of it all.

Mary Magdalene doesn't even recognize Jesus at first, but has to have her eyes adjusted by the faith that comes from hearing - in this case hearing her name, Mary, spoken by Jesus.

She also has to make the journey from merely clinging to Jesus as "Rabboni" and running to others to proclaim Him by saying, "I have seen The LORD."

The disciples on the road to Emmaus don't recognize Jesus at all until their eyes are opened in the Breaking of the Bread.

When the Apostles first see Jesus they draw back and think that they are seeing a ghost. He has to reassure them and clarify things for them.

Simon Peter, even after seeing the Lord several times, falls away from his mission and announces to the others that he is going back to fishing. The Lord has to stand on the shore and call him anew from his commercial nets to the sacred shepherding of the Petrine Ministry.

Even after witnessing forty days of appearances by Jesus and having been summoned to the mountain of the ascension, some see and believe but others still doubt.

And after the ascension, the day of Pentecost still finds the apostles and disciples huddled behind closed doors. Only after the coming of the Holy Spirit are they really empowered to go forth.

Yes, there is more to experiencing the resurrection than mere sight. Faith comes by hearing and deepens by experience. They have to make a journey to resurrection life and so must we.

Even for us, who were born in the teaching of the resurrection, the truer and deeper meaning of it all is not something that can be supplied simply by the reading the Catechism; it is grasped through a journey we must make.

As a priest and disciple, I have both observed and experienced that Good Friday is powerful and moving for many people. Most of us know the cross; we have experienced its blows and its presence is quite real and plain to us. On Good Friday there are often tears at the Stations of the Cross, the Trae Horae, and the evening service of the Lord's Passion.

But come Easter Sunday morning the experience seems less certain. People are joyful, but somewhat unsure of why or how. The joy of Easter seems more remote than the brooding presence of Good Friday or the gloomy silence of Holy Saturday. Though those days are unpleasant, they are familiar. But Easter Sunday is different. What does it mean to rise from the dead? What are we to do in response? During Lent we fasted and undertook practices to focus us. But Easter is more open and vacuous: Joy! Alleluia! Now what?

It remains for us to lay hold of this new life that the Lord is offering to us. It is not enough to think of or see the resurrection as an event of two millennia ago. It is that, but it is so much more. It is new life for us. We rise with Christ.

How and what does this mean? That is discovered through the journey. It is the deeper and more personal experience of the historical event that the Lord accomplished for us. He has raised us to new life.

In my own journey I have had to move from the event itself to a deeper, personal, true experience of that event. I have come to experience the new life that Jesus died and rose to give me. I have seen sins put death and new graces come alive. I am more chaste, generous, joyful, hopeful, serene, and zealous. My mind is clearer; it is new. My priorities are in better order and I have clearer vision. My heart is more spacious. I have learned more deeply of God's love and mercy for me, and can thus show it more to others.

Yes, this is the journey to the new life that the Lord died and rose to give me. Good Friday and the cross are rather obvious to most of us, but Easter Sunday takes more time to fully comprehend. It requires a journey through which we, like the early disciples, progress from fear to faith, from darkness to light, from the sleepiness of the early morning to the alert faith of midday.

It is the journey toward a true and lasting Easter. We never cease to be overjoyed, but our awe deepens from one that is bewildered in the face of the unknown to one that bespeaks knowing wonder at what the risen Lord is doing in our life. Our previously cringing fear becomes the holier fear of reverence and love.

Yes, Easter is an event, but it is also a journey. The faint light of early dawn gives way in stages to ever brighter awareness as we lay hold of the new life that Christ died and rose to give us. There is a beautiful line in the King James translation of the Bible that captures Simon Peter's journey, which at that time was only just beginning:

Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulcher; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass (Luke 24:12).

Peter now knows, even as he is known. For you and me, the journey of wonder, awe, and experience continues to unfold. I know more today than ever before (thank you, Lord), but so much more needs to unfold. It will, by God's grace and in God's time.

by David Hilfiker

Gospel: John 20:19-31
Acts 4:32-35

This week's Gospel reading is from John. It's a week after the Resurrection. All the other apostles have already experienced the risen Jesus except Thomas who's told the others he simply won't believe it until he sees the nail holes. The Gospel emphasizes that all the doors are shut tight, but Jesus appears among the disciples, anyway, and Thomas "sees for himself" … and confesses his faith: "My Lord and my God!" But Jesus then says, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

The reading this week from Acts is about the economic sharing of the early Christian community - actually of many of the early Christian communities: "The whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common." I'd like to suggest that one way those two passages are linked is that the presence of the "risen Jesus" - whatever that means - is at the center of the "one heart and soul" that makes radical Christian community possible. In the language of Fred's sermon last week, Jesus is "massively present" in the church.

So, I'd like to talk this morning about the Resurrection, about Jesus' presence, and about this community.

It will come as no surprise to most of you that I've always been a doubting Thomas … only I probably wouldn't even have believed my own eyes (figuring, perhaps, it was hypnosis or something). I have enough scientist in me that I don't believe in miracles, that is, if you define a miracle as an event that contradicts the known laws of science. After the death of a physical body, for instance, countless different protein enzymes, most of which are necessary for life, quickly denature into useless molecular fragments. For a body actually dead for almost forty-eight hours to come to life would defy known fundamental laws of science. I don't believe that the physical body of Jesus was resuscitated at Easter.

I doubt that that's shocking to anyone in this community anymore.

But there's a big difference between believing that life doesn't contradict science and believing that science is an adequate explanation for everything. I'm enough of a scientist to know that science understands only a minuscule part of reality. Our Biblical accounts make it very clear that something quite amazing happened on that first Easter Sunday. The disciples felt the "massive presence" of Jesus among them. This was so real, so powerful, so joyful, so liberating that they could describe it only with words that sound very much like physical resuscitation … although when Jesus just appears inside a locked room we're obviously not talking about a physical body in the usual sense. So what "actually happened" there? If by "actually happened," one means what a video recorder and microphone would have picked up, well, we can't say. But to define reality in terms of what video and sound recording could reproduce would be silly … as well as unscientific. The essence of science is to recognize when we don't understand something and allow its mystery to energize us.

What "actually happened" at the Resurrection is that the disciples experienced the presence of Jesus in a way that utterly transformed them from a bunch of sniveling whiners into healers, preachers, organizers and powerful advocates for justice and compassion. They stood up to their culture - some at the cost of their lives - welcoming and equalizing slave and free, Jew and Gentile, poor and rich. They created communities of economic sharing, as difficult and counter cultural then as they are now. They stood up to the power of Rome. Just because we don't know how to describe scientifically what happened at the Resurrection, doesn't mean that we don't know what happened: The disciples experienced Jesus amazingly among them and were transformed.

For most of the time since Marja and I came to the Church of the Saviour in 1983, I've been reluctant to call myself a "Christian." While at Potter's House Church, I twice dropped out of covenant membership because I felt hypocritical professing the commitment. At one point, I actually went around to each of the covenant members, outlined my beliefs, and asked them if my beliefs "qualified" me to be a member. Two of my good friends said they probably did not. But Mary Cosby told me not to listen to them. Actually, it was Mary's faith in me that first rooted me in this community. I would waiver as to my belonging, but Mary was always certain. Somehow, she knew that Jesus was at the center of my life even if I didn't.

Think of that! Here's Mary Cosby - one of the rocks on which Jesus' church is founded - and she's telling someone that even if he can't see it or understand it, Jesus is at the center of his life. Now it's true that Mary could always find some positive word about anybody, but I doubt that she'd speak loosely about something as important as this. Clearly this concept of Jesus-as-the-center-of-one's-life is bigger and less specific than it first appears.

In preparing for this teaching, I've thought a lot about why I've wanted to be part of this community. We moved to DC for just that purpose, and the only reason I still put up with living in a city is to be a part of this community. After conversations with Fred over the past several weeks, I'm beginning to think that my desire to belong here has much to do with that "massive presence" of Jesus in this community. In fact, I want to be a part of this community in part precisely because some of you experience Christ so deeply and personally. I don't want to be in a church with people like me. I need you others whose beliefs may be different.

The language that Fred uses to express his Christian faith differs significantly from mine. He's a Southern Baptist preacher, reared in that evangelical tradition. I'm a product of the Social Gospel where your commitment to compassion and justice are considerably more important than your doctrine (and we didn't worry much about prayer or inner life). Fred and I have each moved some distance in the direction of the other, but in some ways he and I are still representative of some of the differences in belief here at Eighth Day. But as we've wrestled with those differences, we've come to the common conclusion that neither his language nor mine is really adequate to express Christian faith today. We need something new.

The old religious language of voices from Heaven and magical healings and resuscitation of Jesus' body no longer makes sense but humanistic activism devoid of deeper meaning doesn't begin to be an adequate expression of what we know, either.

Sixty-five years ago, while Dietrich Bonhoeffer was awaiting execution in a Nazi prison, his letters to a friend several times spoke tantalizingly of "religionless Christianity." It's not completely clear what this man of deep, Christ-centered faith meant by the term, but it seems to be what Christianity might look like if it were shorn of all its culturally conditioned presuppositions about the nature of reality and if Christ moved away from "religion" and into the very midst of our daily lives. Among the "culturally conditioned presuppositions" that Bonhoeffer mentioned were the supernatural metaphysics of the pre-scientific age, the belief that we Christians are specially favored by God because of our belief, even the importance of the interior, "spiritual" life.

I think we in this community are caught up in something like that religionless Christianity. It's not even just the language. The old concepts - faith rooted in the supernatural, the nature of God's judgment, the doctrine of the atonement, Jesus as the exclusive way to salvation, indeed, even the meaning of salvation, itself - don't work for many of us anymore. The ways of speaking that have for two millennia expressed the massive presence of God in Jesus and the massive presence of Jesus in the church now, for many of us, get in the way of our experience of Jesus. And we don't yet have even the concepts - much less the language - to articulate what we really mean.

One approach we've tried has been to use the old language of supernatural healing, divinity, resurrection, Heaven & Hell, judgment and so on but intend them as metaphors. To some extent that's worked. But the language of metaphor is both inadequate and something of a problem.

First, it's confusing to people who aren't in on the code. So many contemporary discussions of Christianity seem grounded in the literal reading of the Bible. On the one side are the fundamentalists defending it; on the other side is a brand of assertive atheism attacking it. But both sides seem to agree that Christianity is about belief in things that science knows to be false. So, when we in our liturgy talk about, say, Jesus as "God's son," how's the newcomer to our community to know that we're speaking metaphorically?

But the bigger problem, it seems to me, is the inadequacy of metaphor: I, at least, actually mean more than metaphor. The early church expressed their experience in the language and concepts of the supernatural because they'd experienced something so astonishing that only that language was sufficient. But we, too, experience a "presence" in this faith community for which metaphor seems inadequate. It's metaphor when I say that my love is a red, red rose: I know Marja's not a flower. But when we say that there's a presence here in this community, we (or at least I) mean that there's something more really here, even if I can't begin to explain what that means.

It's sort of like our personal experience of our own soul. Whatever we call it, most of us know in our deepest selves that we're not just a mass of complex molecular reactions. We know that we're more than a set of behavioral responses that could be programmed into a computer. It's what makes love more than lust; what makes vocation more than "making a living;" what makes us willing to sacrifice our lives for our children. There's no way, scientifically, to prove the presence of the soul, but we all know there's something more within us that can't be explained in a scientific model.

The presence that most of us know here at Eighth Day is something like that. We know there's something very real here, something that binds us together, something we might call the presence of Jesus. We can't prove it, but we know it.

The disciples experienced God as massively present in Jesus. What might that have meant in language and concepts that make sense to us moderns? In Jesus they experienced absolute nonviolence, unconditional forgiveness, pure love, passion for justice, and deep compassion for the suffering of the world. It wasn't just that Jesus believed in these things or had decided that life was to be lived according to them. Jesus wasn't recommending them as effective ways of being in the world (although they're much more effective than people think). He'd experienced them in the bedrock of his being. When the disciples were with Jesus, they experiencedlove, forgiveness, nonviolence, justice and compassion as the most fundamental realities of human life. Jesus was those things.

And those same realities are here in this church, too. Like the disciples, we're sometimes in touch with them (and, fairly often, not), but I suspect we've all experienced them here. This presence of Jesus in our community is not just our deciding to adopt particular values; rather, it's our experiencing life that way, our knowing those attributes written into the deepest reality.

I used to experience something like this at Joseph's House during our community meetings with those men who were dying of AIDS. All of them had lived on the street, most had been addicted, some had lived very violent lives, and yet the depth of the love, sharing and forgiveness that I often experienced in those meetings was miraculous. There was something "more" there - a holiness - that I don't have language for.

Now, if you'd ask me why I've done what I've done, my immediate answer would not be to point at Jesus. I'd give you all sorts of reasons that have to do with my upbringing, my insecurities, my intellect, my privilege, my depression, my outrage and so on. I wouldn't identify Jesus as the center of my life because I don't experience Jesus that way. But enough people like Mary have said that they've experienced Jesus through me that my own explanations have come to seem incomplete … even to me.

Let me tell a brief story. When the idea for creating and then living at Joseph's House was first arising in our hearts, I knew myself well enough to know that - living in that environment - I probably wouldn't survive emotionally for long. I had a sense for the severity of my depression, I'd lived enough in previous communities to know its stresses, and I was aware that many of the residents coming into the house would be addicted and difficult. I doubted that I'd last long living in Joseph's House and would crack up just as I had under the stress of country-doctoring in Minnesota.

But we were living at Christ House and in a mission group with Janelle Goetcheus. I'd seen up close what this soft-spoken, timid, almost mousey middle-aged woman could do in the face of the power and brutality of Washington, and it was clear to me that - whatever it means - her capacity came from centering her life in Jesus. Perhaps, I thought, if I stepped out in something like that faith, I, too, might be given what I needed in order to make Joseph's House possible. And I have no rational explanation for the various highly unlikely coincidences that made (and continue to make) Joseph's House possible.

Now, in fact, after three years at Joseph's House I did crack up emotionally, and it was awful. But I'd experienced so much love, so much forgiveness, so much passion for justice, so much compassion in the community that it was okay. Even in the suffering something accompanied me that made it the right thing to have done. That's about as close as I get to the experience of Jesus.

Another way of asking about the Resurrection is to ask whether Christ is at the center of this church. Obviously, I'm not the best one to answer that question, but I do know that the love, forgiveness, nonviolence, justice and compassion of Jesus are here.

I could point to almost any one of you. Why does Eve show up to get busted every time or go traipsing across the desert? Why is Sadie risking her life to go back to Zimbabwe? Why do Wendy and Dave have this community in their home? Why did Carol Bullard-Bates fight for years against impossible odds to build Bethany while also advocating for peace and justice in Palestine? Why does Dottie live at L'Arche and do so much to welcome strangers into Eighth Day? Why is Michael Schaff so faithful and so genuinely concerned with our families? And on and on around this room. The answers that most (although probably not all) of you would give would have something to do with the presence of Jesus in your life. So when I experience the nonviolence, the love, the forgiveness, the passion for justice, and the compassion in you here, that's close enough for me to experiencing Jesus as our center. I experience a goodness, a power, a love that I don't really understand. Now, I also know enough of you well enough to have experienced your pettiness, your self-centeredness, your screwed-up-ness, too. We're far from perfect. But doesn't that make it all the more amazing? We're just normal people, who've somehow been transformed by something we can't fully explain.

And that's the Resurrection.

Christ is risen!

by His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios Trakatellis

Gospel: John 20:24-29

The four Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - include in their Passion/Resurrection narratives a series of episodes related to the appearances of the risen Christ to his disciples. In these episodes the disciples, after passing through a phase of doubt, unbelief, trouble, confusion and astonishment, come to the point of believing that Jesus has been risen indeed.

There is, however, a special episode preserved by the Gospel of John that stands out from among the post-resurrection scenes. This is the incident of the appearance of the risen Lord to Thomas, brilliantly narrated by John (Jn. 20:24-29). The specialty and the importance of this event lie in the fact that it presents the relation between seeing and believing in a splendid, superbly formulated manner. More specifically, it shows the significance of believing after, or because of, having seen the risen Christ, and believing without having seen him. Therefore, the Thomas incident as it is reported in John 20:24-29, is worth investigating and discussing. This precisely will be our task in the present paper, a paper dedicated to the memory of Bishop Gerasimos of Abydos, the erudite and humble Hierarch, insightful thinker, researcher of the Scriptures, and indefatigable student of Christology.

THE APPEARANCE OF THE RISEN CHRIST TO HIS DISCIPLES

John is the only Evangelist who has preserved the story in which Thomas is depicted as moving from unbelief to belief after his encounter with the risen Lord (Jn. 20:24-29).[1] The episode took place one week after Jesus had appeared to the disciples in the absence of Thomas (Jn. 20:19-23). In the above mentioned appearance of Jesus to his disciples, he showed them his hands and his side (edeixen autois tas cheiras kai ten pleuran autou), and the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord (idontes ton Kyrion) (Jn. 20:20).[2] What we have here, despite the brevity of the description, is the emphasis on the visible aspect of the appearance, even to the very specific mentioning of the hands and of the side. The two main verbs at the center of the narrative are verbs of optical impression, of seeing: Jesus showed … The disciples saw (edeixen … idontes).

In the scene that immediately follows, namely John 20:24-26, the disciples tell Thomas, "We have seen the Lord" (eorakamen ton Kyrion) (Jn. 20:25).[3] Here again a basic verb of seeing (eorakamen) is employed by the Evangelist as an expression of the experience of the disciples' encounter with Christ and of their faith in him.

Thomas' response to the information/witness offered by the other disciples, includes in an emphatic way the very same verb of sight: "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails … I will not believe" (ean me idon ... ou me pisteuso) (Jn. 20:25). Thomas without "explicitly dismissing out of hand the other disciples' confession,"[4] refuses, nonetheless, to believe that Jesus is risen, unless he sees him with his own eyes.[5] The condition imposed by Thomas is clear and absolute: personal verification by sight, direct access by eye contact and nothing less.[6] Thomas even intensifies his terms by adding the need not only to see but also to touch Jesus at the very marks of his crucifixion: "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe" (Jn. 20:25)[7]

Thus, Thomas makes his own individual test, his personal direct seeing of the visible marks of the crucifixion and even the touching of these marks, the absolute condition and the non-negotiable term for believing. Any other evidence is inadmissible. The disciples' affirmation that they have seen the Lord is treated with utter skepticism that borders on rejection. An unyielding attitude is described here, a situation where believing seems to be unthinkable without seeing, without direct physical evidence and verification.[8]

Having thus prepared the ground, John continues now with the description of the main part of Thomas' episode.

THE APPEARANCE OF THE RISEN CHRIST TO THOMAS

The event occurred eight days after the appearance of Jesus to the other disciples. As they were gathered in the house, behind closed doors, the risen Christ came and stood among them (Jn. 20:27). This time Thomas was with them. Jesus, after greeting them with the traditional, "Peace be with you," without any delay turns to Thomas and addresses him: "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand and place it in my side, and do not be unbelieving but believing" (kai me ginou apistos alla pistos)[9] (Jn. 20:27). Obviously, Jesus accepts the challenge, if not the provocation, of Thomas and invites him to proceed with the demanded test. The unbelieving disciple already sees Christ, but he is now asked to complete the test by adding the touching of the hands and of the side.

He does not, however, complete the test.[10] With a giant step he moves from the state of unbelieving to the state of believing. Suddenly he is convinced that the one whom he sees, is the risen Lord, the very same Jesus whom he knew, after having been with him for three years. Unhesitatingly, without any other words, explanations or apologies, he responds with an astonishing confession of faith: "Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God'" (o Kyrios mou kai o Theos mou) (Jn. 20:28). This declaration of faith is unique. No other disciple in the Gospel narratives has used such an advanced creedal formula for expressing his faith in Christ who is now called Lord and God.

It has been pointed out that Thomas' confession of faith assigns to Jesus the attributes of Lord and God used in the Old Testament for Yahweh, for the one and only God. Thus now Jesus is addressed in the way Yahweh has been addressed by Israel.[11] The change is radical. It is interesting to note that Thomas, the skeptical, unbelieving and tough disciple, utters at the very end of the Gospel of John a superb declaration of faith which reflects in a variation the majestic opening lines of the same Gospel: "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" (Jn. 1:1).[12] This Logos became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn. 1:14), was crucified and risen, and now in John 20:28 is acknowledged Lord and God. With the confession of Thomas we have a supreme christological pronouncement, a tremendously advanced expression of faith which, despite its utter brevity, constitutes the ultimate statement in high Christology.[13]

Thomas' exclamatory statement is followed by a very important response from Jesus. Upon hearing his believing words, Christ addresses him with a remark and a beatitude: Thomas, "Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and (yet) have believed (Jn. 20:29)."

The first part of the statement, taken either as a question or as a recognition of a fact,[14] speaks of believing in the risen Lord as a result of seeing him. There is no doubt that Jesus clearly speaks here of an undeniable phenomenon of faith, a faith which is the consequence of a visual, a sight experience. As several exegetes[15] have pointed out, there is no need to discern in this instance an implied diminished value of such a way of arriving at the state of believing.

The second part of Jesus' statement is a beatitude which presents a different type of faith, namely a faith not depending on visual experiences: "Blessed are those who have not seen and (yet) have believed" (Makarioi oi me idontes kai pisteusantes).[16] Who are the recipients of such a blessing? Probably a number of the larger circle of the disciples who have not seen the risen Lord with their own eyes but relied on the eyewitness of the other disciples. But most certainly, they are the Christians living around the end of the first century AD for whom John the Evangelist writes his Gospel. The majority of these people were born years after the resurrection and the ascension of Christ, therefore they could not have seen him. They are proclaimed blessed because they have arrived at the state of believing in the risen Lord without the assistance or proof of immediate, direct and personal ocular experience.

Having run quickly through the pericope John 20:24-29, we can now proceed with the discussion of the most important points related to the question of seeing and believing which constitutes the essence of Thomas' episode.

SEEING AS A CAUSE FOR BELIEVING

There is no doubt that seeing the risen Christ as a basic way of believing in him, is not rejected or downgraded in the whole chapter 20 of John and more specifically in John 20:24-29. Not only is it not rejected, it is, on the contrary, presupposed and considered indispensable as a way leading to faith.[17]

In John 20:1-10, for instance, in the case of Peter and John, the two disciples enter the empty tomb of Jesus and see his burial cloths and his face napkin neatly folded. This sight then becomes instrumental in generating faith as it is reported by the Evangelist: "Then the other disciple (i.e. John) who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed" (kai eiden kai episteusen) (Jn. 20:8). Here the connection between seeing and believing is not only direct but also etiologic. In this case believing is based on seeing or, to put it differently, seeing becomes a cause for believing.

There is an intriguing note attached by the Evangelist to the description of the above mentioned episode: For as yet they (i.e. John and Peter) did not know the Scripture that he (i.e. Jesus) must rise from the dead (Jn. 20:9). The note possibly suggests that the disciples, because of their ignorance or lack of understanding of the Scriptures, did not actually expect the resurrection of Jesus. Under the circumstances, they obviously needed strong, unambiguous evidence in order to understand what really happened, namely, in order to believe that Jesus was truly risen. They needed visible, sense verifiable data.[18] Seeing then the risen Jesus appeared to be indispensable as a way leading to believing in him.

In the incident with Mary Magdalene (Jn. 20:11-18), seeing seems not to be an adequate condition: Mary in the garden next to the burial place of Jesus, turned round and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus (Jn. 20:14).[19] Only when Christ called her by her name she recognized him (Jn. 20:16). Hearing, not simply the voice, which happened before (Jn. 20:15), but the special tone in pronouncing her name, was necessary in this case, which may be a subtle hint that seeing and even hearing, as such, cannot be sufficient all the time. At the very end of the pericope, however, when Mary Magdalene comes to the disciples, she announces (or proclaims, apaggelousa), "I have seen the Lord" (eoraka ton Kyrion) (Jn. 20:18). The verb to see is the core of the announcement, and this verb is indicative of a visual experience.

It is also characteristic, as we explained before, that in the episode of the appearance of the risen Lord to the disciples inside the house (Jn. 20:19-23), the factor of seeing is prominent. After greeting them, Jesus "showed them (edeixen autois) his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord" (idontes ton Kyrion) (Jn. 20:20). Afterwards, when the disciples met Thomas who was not present[20] when the risen Jesus came, they told him, "We have seen the Lord" (eorakamen ton Kyrion) (Jn. 20:25). The verbs to show and to see, that is verbs related to direct optical contact and visual experience, are key words and concepts in the new condition of post-resurrection faith engendered in the hearts of the disciples.

Thus, when we come to the Thomas event described in John 20:24-29, we are already aware of the decisive significance of seeing related to believing.[21] The risen Lord does not discard the seemingly inappropriate request of Thomas. He appears when Thomas is present among the disciples, and directly invites him to put his finger into the prints of the nails and of the spear and to see his hands (ide tas cheiras mou) (Jn. 20:27).[22] Seeing is again absolutely important here, and this time is directly proposed by Jesus as a means proving the veracity of his resurrection and as a way of passing from unbelieving to believing.

All the episodes with the risen Lord in John 20, the episode with Thomas included, project in a crystal clear manner the notion that the post-resurrection experiences with Christ were real, visible, and accessible through the bodily senses. Not only Thomas, but the other disciples as well, have believed because they have seen the risen Jesus. This is a fundamental truth which makes the resurrection a firm reality, established on pragmatic and verifiable data, on plenty of eyewitnesses who were people difficult and slow of heart to believe (Lk. 24:25). A few decades before John, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, had already presented in a masterful way the same idea, i.e. the veracity and facticity of Christ's bodily resurrection based on a large number of eyewitnesses. There, Paul repetitively uses for the risen Lord the verb "of the" (he was seen), namely the basic verb for seeing. The important thing is that Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, considers the visual direct evidence an indispensable component of the Gospel, an essential article of the real Christian faith.

At the same time, the insistence on the visual experience as an undeniable evidence for the veracity and facticity of the resurrection, emphasizes the fact that the risen Lord is not a bodiless spirit but a complete human being. Perhaps this is the reason why John proceeds in chapter 21 of his Gospel with the narration of the lengthy story of the meeting between the risen Christ and his disciples by the Sea of Tiberias (Jn. 21:1-22), a meeting involving talking, fishing, eating and walking. Here at the very end of his Gospel, John is eager to maintain what he has declared at its very beginning: The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth (Jn. 1:14). Christ being a full and whole human being, being in the flesh even after his resurrection, is for John a fundamental christological truth.[23] This truth reveals the necessity for visual contact, optical evidence, direct seeing. Thus the inseparable connection between seeing and believing proclaims the reality of Jesus' resurrection and, at the same time, his true, full, undeniable humanity.

An echo of the idea of seeing and being in sense-contact with Christ as a firm basis for truly believing in him, we encounter in the inspiring opening lines of the First Epistle of John:

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands concerning the word of life ­ the life was made manifest and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us -­ that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you ..." (1 Jn. 1:1-3).

In just three lines we encounter six verbs of seeing (eorakamen, etheasametha, efanerothe, eorakamen) and another three verbs of sense contact (akekoamen, epselafesan, akekoamen ).

Of course, the above cited passage from 1 John refers basically to the reality of Christ's incarnation and does not mention the risen Lord. Nonetheless, the significant aspect here is the tremendous emphasis on sense experience and direct eye witness as a basis for the proclamation of faith.

A few years after the writing of the Gospel of John, Ignatios of Antioch in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (3:1-3), returned to the idea expressed in chapters 20 and 21 of the Gospel of John with an overt reference to the resurrection:

"For I know and I believe that he (i.e. Jesus) was in the flesh even after his resurrection. And when he came to those about Peter, he said to them: ‘Take, handle me and see that I am not a bodiless demon.' And immediately they touched him and believed ... And after the resurrection he ate and drank with them as a being of flesh, although spiritually united with the Father."

Ignatios' reason for his statement is his anti-docetic polemic as it becomes obvious from Smyrnaeans 2.[24] Nonetheless, the passage is indicative of the paramount importance of understanding the resurrection of Christ as an event verifiable through sight, hearing or touching. Sense perception and direct optical access were decisive factors for believing in the risen Lord. At the same time, this type of believing after seeing the risen Christ, became a solid basis and unbeatable evidence for projecting the truth and the facticity of his resurrection.

BELIEVING WITHOUT HAVING SEEN THE LORD

Seeing as leading to believing is central in John 20:24-29 within the larger unit of John 20-21, and is accompanied by joy, an indispensable component of blessedness. But then we also have the crystal clear declaration/beatitude, "Blessed are those who have not seen and (yet) have believed." This beatitude introduces in a drastic manner the great importance of believing in the risen Jesus without having seen him.[25] In fact this declaration places the believers involved in this case in a special position and makes them "blessed" (makarioi), worthy of a special beatitude.[26] But what are the reasons for the inclusion of such a declaration in the pericope John 20:24-29 and what is its meaning?

a) The Gospel of John, as it is generally assumed, has been written during the last decade of the first century AD. By that time, as we already pointed out, more than fifty years had elapsed since the events described in the Gospel, and as a consequence, very few of the original eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection were still alive. The big majority, if not all, of John's readers were born after the time of the resurrection. Technically speaking, therefore, these people were excluded from the possibility of seeing the risen Lord. They had to rely on the testimony of the preceding generation, of the apostolic witnesses who have seen the risen Jesus. Personal eye witnessing for the readers of John's Gospel was simply impossible, and was replaced by the very alive apostolic tradition preserved in the Church and by the Church.

Paul has saved for posterity a magnificent text in which we see exactly the description of the phenomenon we are talking about. It comes from chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians, which we already have quoted:

"Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold fast ­ unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received (paredoka hymin en protois, o kai parelabon), that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all he appeared also to me" (1 Cor. 15:1-8).

What we see here is the fact that the long list of the original eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection has become an indispensable and an inseparable part of the basic tradition of the Gospel and of the essential proclamation of the Christian faith.[27] Paul the Apostle himself has received this tradition and transmitted it to the new believers, who have to accept the resurrection as a fact on the basis of the apostolic eyewitness and tradition, and not on their own eye witnessing. And if this is so for Paul, it is even more so for John, who writes almost forty years later to an even younger generation.

The people then of the time of John's Gospel, if they decide to join the Church and believe in Christ as Lord and God, have to rely on and fully accept the apostolic eyewitness and tradition about him. They have to follow a way very different from the way of Thomas as presented in John 20:24-29. Thomas, because he saw the risen Jesus, believed. The Christians of the time of John's Gospel, and of the years and centuries to follow, are those who have not seen and (yet) believed (Jn. 20:29). The Evangelist has included the Thomas incident, with its concluding beatitude, in his Gospel, obviously in order to encourage all those people of the present and of the future who had to believe in the Lord without seeing him.[28] And what would be more encouraging than a beatitude coming from the mouth of the risen Lord?

b) The beatitude[29] encountered in John 20:29, however, is not there just for reasons of encouragement. It certainly has a much deeper meaning. What is this meaning? Why are the believers involved in this case called blessed (makarioi)? The answer seems to be twofold.

First, moving from the state of unbelieving to the state of believing, not through seeing but through relying on the apostolic eyewitness, seems to imply an increased amount of faith.[30] Seeing produces a degree of compulsion,[31] somehow diminishes the risk and makes believing easier. Not seeing yet believing, on the other hand, involves more willingness, more decisiveness, more readiness for exposure to all kinds of probable dangers. In this case, believing seems to acquire a high quality indeed,[32] and to engage more profoundly the whole human being. The people of this category are called blessed, because they have reached an enhanced spiritual level, simply by following a very demanding path on their way towards faith.

Secondly, the beatitude in this case might be understood with the assistance of another passage from the Gospel of John, namely, John 1:50.[33] This passage reads:

"Jesus answered and said to him (i.e. to Nathanael), 'Because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You shall see greater things than these.'"

This text, in terms of formation and syntax, presents strong similarities to the passage John 20:29: (Thomas) "because you have seen me, you believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and (yet) believe." Both passages have a first part dealing with believing after sense related evidence. The second part of John 20:29 is a beatitude, and the second part of John 1:50 is a promise of astonishing things to come.[34] An aspect then, of the blessedness of the believers in John 20:29 could be the experience of the greater things promised in 1:50. These greater things were fully manifested in the post-resurrection time, more specifically in the time after Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came to the Church and endowed her and the believers with extraordinary gifts and amazing experiences.[35] The Christians who at the time of John's Gospel have believed without, of course, having seen the risen Christ, were truly blessed, because through their faith, they enjoyed in full all the promised experiences of greater things.

c) There might be another significant reason which explains why John mentioned the Thomas incident and concluded it with the beatitude, "Blessed are those who have not seen and (yet) believed." This additional reason could be the liturgical orientation and content of the Gospel of John.

Because of its liturgical orientation the Gospel of John offers a very important presentation of the Eucharist. The magnificent chapter 6, stands out as a tremendously impressive text on the Eucharist. Just a few verses of that chapter will help us to see the connection with the beatitude of John 20:29:

"So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me'" (Jn. 6:53-57).

When John writes the Gospel, he is well aware that he is addressing Christians, members of the Church, members of an alive liturgical community, participants in the eucharistic celebration, people who have experienced a union with Christ through the communion of his blood and his body. For those people, seeing the Lord the way Thomas did, is no longer needed. They have believed, and as a result they have been given a tremendous experience of the presence of Christ. In a sense, such an experience contains elements of a visual nature, but is much more rich and multifaceted.[36] The senses are included in the said experience, and ineffable joy is its predominant characteristic. Communion of the body and the blood of the risen Christ which occurs after believing, has become now the amazing alternative to seeing him before believing. "Blessed are those who have not seen and (yet) believed," because they have an immediate, palpable, all-encompassing experience. The new experience of believing and being united with Christ, which constitutes the main characteristic of the post-apostolic christian generations, is an event of heavenly bliss, of utter and ineffable joy.

This truth has been handsomely formulated in 1 Peter 1:8:

"Without having seen him (i.e. Christ), you love him; though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy unutterable and full of glory."

The passage by the repetition of the verb to see in a negative grammatical construction (ouk idontes, me orontes) underlines the fact that there is no seeing involved here. On the other hand, the predominant feeling in terms of post-believing experience, is real jubilation, chara aneklaletos, which could certainly be considered a manifestation of true blessedness.

d) John might have one more reason, not strictly referring to the relation between seeing and believing, for including the Thomas incident in his Gospel. This reason is perhaps the person of Thomas himself. Let me briefly explain this assumption.

John is the only Evangelist among the four who speaks about Thomas. He mentioned him in John 11:16 in conjunction with the resurrection of Lazaros, and again in John 14:5-6. In both instances Thomas appears as a person loyal to Jesus and ready to die with him, but, at the same time, skeptical, stubborn, and realist in a somehow negative way. The same picture, intensified to be sure, is sketched in John 20:24-29. Thomas is depicted here as a stubborn realist, as an unbelieving and skeptical individual who needs crude evidence in order to believe that Jesus is risen. However, when he believes, he offers a terrific confession of faith, a really unique, "My Lord and my God."

John presents this picture of Thomas, having perhaps in mind the place of Thomas in the christian communities of Syria and the neighboring areas.[37] Especially in Syria, as we know at least from the Gospel of Thomas, Thomas appears as an extremely important person, a confidant of Jesus, receiving from him advanced esoteric and mystical knowledge which no other disciple shared. John, with the story in John 20:24-27, might well be offering a corrective. Certainly Thomas produced an extraordinary confession of faith. At the same time, however, he showed a pronounced skepticism and a crude realism which were not at all compatible with all the esoteric and mystical experiences, sometimes Gnosticizing, ascribed to him by the so-called Thomas tradition. The Evangelist in John 20:24-29 shows what the real Thomas was like, and without diminishing his importance and stature, aptly closes the door to all sorts of Gnosticizing and esoteric speculations wrongly associated with him. Thus the Thomas event in John 20:24-29, beyond contributing to the very significant topic of seeing and believing, seems to be functioning as a critique to the possible speculation about Thomas, which was in circulation mainly in Syria but also in the neighboring areas, a speculation particularly dangerous as it was later shown in the course of the developing Gnosticism.

CONCLUDING NOTES

There is no doubt that John's central theme in the Thomas incident (Jn. 20:24-29), is the relation between seeing and believing. This theme seems to run through the two final chapters of the Fourth Gospel (Jn. 20 and 21). It is, however, in the splendid narrative of Christ's appearance to Thomas that the question of the relation between seeing and believing receives its definitive answer.

Believing after seeing the risen Christ was, according to John, the way of the disciples and apostles who have been with Jesus throughout his ministry. This truth has been convincingly demonstrated in John 20 (also in John 21). The Thomas episode eloquently attests to that truth. Thomas was not denied his request to see the risen Lord in order to believe. In his case, even touching and handling were added to seeing. And after the meeting with him and Thomas' astonishing confession of faith, Jesus unequivocally states that the previously unbelieving disciple has seen him and, as a consequence, has now believed. Both in his case and in the case of the other apostles, seeing was instrumental in leading to the faith that the crucified and buried Lord has risen indeed.

If John presents in such a masterful manner the various post-resurrection meetings of Christ with his disciples and especially with Thomas, he does so in order to establish once and for all Christ's resurrection as a fundamental and undeniable fact. The disciples, including the unbelieving Thomas, saw and believed that Jesus was risen indeed and that he truly is their Lord and God.

Believing after seeing the risen Christ, however, was a way limited only to the apostolic generation. John was fully aware of this fact, thus subtly and powerfully projected another way, namely the way of believing without previously seeing, and more specifically of believing on the basis of the testimony of the apostolic eyewitnesses. For such a way of arriving at the state of faith in Christ as Lord and God, John has preserved, as we have seen, the masterpiece of narrative art and sophisticated theology which is the story of Thomas: A story deeply human and divine, strategically placed within a superbly articulated context, and culminating in the supreme dominical proclamation/beatitude, "Blessed are those who have not seen and (yet) believed."

The Evangelist did not add anything beyond that. Probably he did not have to. He knew extremely well that the people who have believed without having seen the Lord, were already experiencing the blessedness about which John 20:29 speaks. In a paradoxical reversal of terms, these people probably were now enjoying a most unexpected state of faith and existence: the state of seeing after having believed.

Notes:

[1] In fact John is the only Evangelist who in addition to John 20.24-29 has two more episodes with Thomas as the central person (Jn. 11:16 and 14:5-6). This might well be an indication of the significance ascribed to Thomas by John.

[2] The phrase, The disciples were glad when they saw the Lord (Jn. 20:20), probably is an implicit reference to Jesus' promise at the Last Supper, "You have sorrow now, but I will see you again and your heart will rejoice" (John 16:22).

[3] It should be noted that in John 20.24, Thomas is mentioned as one of the twelve (eis ek ton dodeka). Rudolf Bultmann (Das Evangelium des Johannes [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck, 171964] 537), sees here a possible connection with Q. More significant, however, is the possibility that the mentioning of the twelve aims at stressing the importance of Thomas and of his witness that follows in John 20:24-29.

[4] See Stanley Marrow, The Gospel of John (New York: Paulist, 1995) 363. Cf. Chrysostom (Commentary on John, PG 59,473): "It was not so much (on Thomas' part) a refusal to believe the other apostles as it was more a conviction that resurrection from the dead is an impossible thing."

[5] Nicholaos Damalas (To Kata Ioannen Euaggelion [Athens: Myrtides, 1940] 720), thinks that Thomas' request has to do with his claim to his right to be granted a direct sight of the risen Jesus as it happened with the other disciples. This is an interesting but rather untenable idea, in view of the context. Raymond Brown (The Gospel according to John [Garden City: Doubleday, 1970] 1045), correctly notes here that "Thomas is asking more than was offered to the other disciples."

[6] Origen in his Commentary on John (Exegetika eis to kata Ioannen) (Fragments from Catenae, Fragm. 106), notes that Thomas, motivated by a desire for precision and proof after scrutiny (akribes kai exetasmenon), is not so much rejecting the evidence of the other apostles as he is eager to make sure that what they have seen is not a ghost (fantasma) in the sense of Mark 6:49-50 and Luke 24:37-38. Theophylact of Bulgaria on the other hand, in his Commentary on John (Ermhneia eis to kata Ioannen Euaggelion, PG 124,301), has a very different opinion and sees here not a desire for precision but a crude unbelief.

[7] John Chrysostom in his Commentary on John (Hypomnema eis ton Agion Ioannen ton Apostolon kai Euaggelisten, PG 59,473), observes that Thomas' inquisitive attitude here, goes beyond the limits (peran tou metrou periergazesthai kai polypragmonein), and this shows a dull mind (pachytate dianoian). Hence, continues Chrysostom, Thomas would not trust even his own eyes and would look for evidence through the most crass of the senses (pachytate aisthesis), namely, touching and handling. Similarly Theophylact (Commentary on John, PG 124,300), and Euthymios Zigabenos (Commentary on John, Ermeneia eis to kata Ioannen Euaggelion , PG 129,1488).

[8] For an insightful presentation of Thomas' attitude see Panagiotis Trembelas, Hypomnema eis tonkata Ioannen Euaggelion (Athens: Zoe, 1954) 708-709.

[9] As Rudolf Schnackenburg (Das Johannesevangelium, 3. Teil [Freiburg: Herder, 1976] 391) notes, this is the only instance in his entire Gospel where the Evangelist uses the two words apistos and pistos. The uniqueness of the appearance of these two words and their connection through the antithetical conjunction alla (but), emphasizes the importance of believing and unbelieving in the Thomas incident.

[10] The Evangelist says nothing about Thomas proceeding with the touching of the body of the risen Lord. Cf. Brown, Gospel of John, 1046. Some ancient exegetes, like Origen (Commentary on John, Vol. 13,30) and Cyril of Alexandria (Commentary on John, Hermeneia e Hypomnema eis tonkata Ioannen Euaggelion, PG 74,728), thought that Thomas actually put his hands on the marks of the nails and of the spear, whereas others like Augustin (In Johannis Evangelium, Tract. CXXI,5), claim that Thomas did not touch the risen Christ. Cf. Zigabenos, Commentary on John, PG 129,1489. Marrow (The Gospel of John, 363), appropriately notes that Thomas' confession of faith "is not a reaction to a conclusive and successful scientific experiment."

[11] See more in Brown, The Gospel of John, 1047. Cf. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, 538, Trembelas, Hypomnema eis tonkata Ioannen,712.

[12] As C. H. Dodd (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963] 430-31) notes, Thomas' confession "links up with the opening of the Prologue. Thus the identity of Jesus with the incarnate Logos is finally affirmed on the testimony of the disciple who having seen Him after His resurrection became not faithless but believing." Cf. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, 539.

[13] It should not pass unnoticed that the observation made by Cyril (Commentary on John, PG 74,733), that Thomas' confession of faith uses the definitive article o (the) before the words Lord and God (o Kyrios mou kai o Theos mou), which gives to the statement a characteristic of absoluteness. Brown (The Gospel of John, 1047), considers Thomas' confession "the supreme christological pronouncement of the Fourth Gospel." The addition of the personal pronoun my (My Lord and my God) gives a strongpersonal tone without detracting anything from the solemnity of the pronouncement.

[14] Some codices, and in addition Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact and Zigabenos, read the statement as a fact; some other codices read it as a question. Nestle-Aland (27th edition, 1993) prefer the question variant. Among modern commentators there is no agreement on the subject. Cf. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, 398, Bultmann, Das Evengelium des Johannes, 539.

[15] For instance Origen (Commentary on John, Vol. 10,43), Chrysostom (Commentary on John, PG 59, 473-74), Brown (The Gospel of John, 1050). On the other hand, Bultmann (Das Evangelium des Johannes, 539), argues for the opposite by insisting on the "adversative relation" between v.29a and 29b.

[16] In the English translation of the second part of v.29, I put the word yet in parenthesis: … (yet) they believed. The reason is that there is no antithetical conjunction in the Greek original, hence even a translation completely omitting the yet could be legitimate. I retained, however, the yet in parenthesis, because there is a possibility that the participle me idontes might be construed as being an antithetical participle.

[17] Cf. Cyril, Commentary on John, PG 74,756. Cf. also Brown, The Gospel of John, 1046.

[18] A characteristic text, indicative of the situation of the disciples is the passage Luke 24:36-43: "As they (i.e. the disciples) were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them. But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit. And hesaid to them, ‘Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see, for a spirit has no flesh and bones as you see that I have.' And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them, ‘Have you anything here to eat?' They gave him a piece of broiled fish and some honeycomb. And he took it and ate in their presence."

[19] Cf. Marrow (The Gospel of John, 359): "To recognize Jesus of Nazareth as Lord, ocular vision alone is not enough. Divine revelation is necessary." An analogous case we encounter in the incident with the disciples in John 21:4-5, and with the two disciples going to Emmaus (Lk. 24:13-35).

[20] There has been a number of suggestions related to the reasons of Thomas' absence from the scene described in John 20:19-23. Cf. Trembelas, Hypomnema eis tonkata Ioannen, 708. We do not have, however, any data on the subject.

[21] Attention should be drawn, however, to the fact that seeing as such and by itself does not automatically lead to believing. John is emphatic on this subject. In John 6.36, for instance, Jesus says to the Jews, "But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe." And in John 14:8-11, in the episode with Philip, when he asks Jesus to show them the Father, Christ responds, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father?'"

[22] Schnackenburg (Das Johannesevangelium, 394-95, 396), has pointed out the interesting similarities between John 20:27 and John 1:47-50 (the episode with Nathanael), especially in terms of Christ's supernatural knowledge and its connection to significant christological confessions. Cf. Trembelas, Hypomnema eis tonkata Ioannen, 711.

[23] Cyril (Commentary on John, PG 74,724 and 732), underlines the fact that Thomas' believing after seeing and touching is used by John for posterity, as unshakable evidence that the risen Jesus had the very flesh that suffered and died on the Cross.

[24] It should be noted, however, that as Schnackenburg (Das Johannesevangelium, 391, 393) has argued, anti-docetism is not the main concern of the Evangelist in the Thomas incident.

[25] Origen in his comments on this passage (Commentary on John, Vol. 10,43), insists that this beatitude should not be interpreted as meaning that those who believed without having seen are more blessed than those who believed after having seen the risen Lord. If this were the case, then the apostles who have seen and believed, would have been less blessed than the Christians of the succeeding generations, a thing totally absurd (oper esti panton eliothitaton). Damalas on the other hand (To kata Ioannen Euaggelion , 723), claims the opposite, namely, that here a pronounced difference in blessedness is clearly projected.

[26] It is interesting to note that exegetes like Theophylact, were very careful in applying this beatitude only to the believers who have not seen the risen Lord. As Theophylact remarks (Commentary on John, PG 124,301), Christ issued the beatitude not in order to exclude Thomas from it but in order to give comfort to those who have not seen Jesus. Cf. Zigabenos, Commentary on John, PG 129,1489, Trembelas, Hypomnema eis tonkata Ioannen, 713. Brown (The Gospel of John, 1049), justifiably insists that in John 20:29 the contrast is "between two types of blessedness, not between blessedness (v.29b) and an inferior state (v.29a)." Cf. Marrow, The Gospel of John, 364.

[27] As C.K. Barrett (The Gospel According to St. John [London: SPCK, 1956] 477) put it, "but for the fact that Thomas and the other Apostles saw the incarnate Christ there would have been no Christian faith at all" (Cited by Brown, The Gospel of John, 1050).

[28] The Evangelist here, as Schnackenburg (Das Johannesevangelium, 391) pointed out, aims at addressing the question of believing without seeing related to the believers of the later times who, in contradistinction to the disciples, have no experience of any appearance of the risen Lord but who have to share the same faith with them. Marrow (The Gospel of John, 364), notes characteristically that "it is for those who have not seen and yet believe that the whole Gospel was written."

[29] It should he underlined again that this is not a simple, somehow limited beatitude, but a beatitude with a tremendous significance. Dodd (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 443), is right when he says that "this is the true climax of the Gospel, the rest, however true and however moving is mere postscript."

[30] "This is really faith," observes Chrysostom at this point (Commentary on John, PG 59,473-74), "to accept and believe things that are not visible (Touto gar esti pisteos to ta me oromena dexasthai). "For faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Heb. 11:1).

[31] Cf. Cyril (Commentary on John, PG 74,721): "Sight . . . pulls to consent, somehow through necessity and force (e thea … ex anagkes kai bias elkousa pros sunainesin)."

[32] Cyril (Commentary on John, PG 74,735-36), characterizes this kind of believing as pistin axiologotaten , i.e. "a most remarkable faith."

[33] Marrow (The Gospel of John, 25), offers an insightful note that connects John 1:50 to John 20:29.

[34] Cf. Chrysostom, Commentary on John, PG 59,129.

[35] As Brown remarks (The Gospel of John, 1048), Jesus here "praises the majority of the people of the new Covenant who, though they have not seen him, through the Spirit proclaim him as Lord and God. He assures these followers of all times and places that he foresees their situation and counts them as sharing in the joy heralded by his resurrection."

[36] Cyril (Commentary on John, PG 74,725) in his exegesis of John 20:29, offers an extensive passage, in which he handsomely connects the participation in the Eucharist with the question of seeing and of not seeing and believing.

[37] Cf. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, 399.

Copyright: 1998, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, Brookline, MA

by Ramon A. Evangelista

Gospel: John 20:19-31

Mention the name Hitler and immediately the words Nazi and Holocaust come to mind, mention Mother Teresa and the association is with the poor, the sick and the dying of India. Mention the name of Saint Thomas, one of the disciples of Jesus, and the association is with needing facts in order to believe. We know him as doubting Thomas. I grew up hearing people proudly saying; I am like Saint Thomas, I need to see to believe. But is that a fair assessment of the life and ministry of Brother Thomas? We do not see much of Thomas in the gospel, in fact besides the listing of the disciples that appear in the gospel we only see Thomas three times and only in the gospel of John.

The gospel of John closes with the words: "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." In verses 30 and 31 of the text that we read this morning John states that: "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples; which are not recorded in this book. 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." Working under this idea, that you can have life in the name of Jesus; John wrote a gospel to inform his reader what they needed to believe.

So when you read the gospel of John you know that every detail there has the purpose of helping us believe in Jesus; including the three times that we encounter Thomas. The first time that we see Thomas in action is when Mary and Martha sent word to Jesus that their brother is sick and Jesus decides to stay two more days. After which he tells his disciples that he wanted to go back to Judea, and the disciples protest saying: "But Rabbi, a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?" After some more arguing by the disciples trying to persuade Jesus not to go back to Judea, we are told that "Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him." Thomas is one who is ready to face the consequences of discipleship, he is ready to pay the cost of discipleship.

Jesus said to all who followed him to come take up their cross and follow him. Taking up the cross means different things to different people. To the German Lutheran pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer it was a call to die for Christ. Bonhoeffer joined in the political resistance to Hitler that led to his imprisonment in April 1943 in Berlin and his death at the Nazi concentration camp at Flossenbürg on April 9, 1945. To the Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero it was not joining a political group, but preaching about the exploitation of the poor in El Salvador. His preaching cost him his life. To mother Theresa taking the cross meant; not preaching about the condition of the poor, but ministering to them; risking her health and life to serve the poorest of the poor. What does taking Christ cross means to you in 2008?

The second time that Thomas is seen in the gospel is when Jesus is talking about his certain death and he tries to comfort his disciples. Jesus said to them, "Do not let your hearts be troubled. You trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going." Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

This is another belief of John; that Jesus is the only open door to God the Father. John expend some time showing his readers that Jesus is unique. This statement is one of the most offensive to those people that want to be open to other religions and faith. It sounds exclusive, unacceptable in a day in which we want to live in peace with members of other faith, with the Muslins, Jewish, Buddhist, and others. We may reject John's claim about the uniqueness of Jesus in salvation history. John continuously claims that his witness is true, we must judge whether that is true or not.

The last time we see Thomas is in the text that we read this morning. The gospel of John tell us that "On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord." They have heard from Mary Magdalene, from the other women, and from the two disciples that were on the road to Emmaus about seeing the Lord alive and they did not believe; now finally they get to see Jesus for themselves and they are overjoyed. Jesus has the power over life and death; they do not need to fear anything again.

When Jesus appeared to the disciples, Thomas was not with them. So as soon as he joined the group they reported to him, "We have seen the Lord!" "But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." John tells us that "A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" It is important to note that the week following their encounter with the living Christ, they are again on Sunday behind lock doors. After his greeting, Jesus said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus accepts both titles and do not attempt to correct Thomas. Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

So here it is, is this really about the unbelieving Thomas? I doubt it, because all the disciples were guilty of not believing the report that Jesus was alive. So them what is this all about? If you read the gospel of John and compare it with the other three you immediately notice how different John is from Matthew, Mark and Luke. John tell us that he is not telling us everything he knows, what he is telling fit with his purpose. So this story about Thomas is written that we may believe. In this last scene John is trying to show us the identity of Jesus through the response of Thomas.

Most of us have made his statement about needing to put his finger where the nails were and put his hand into his side as the parts we remembered but John's intention in using this story is mostly for his response to seeing Jesus alive; "my Lord and my God!" We have to notice that Jesus does not correct Thomas in calling him Lord and God. John is the one that also wrote the book of Revelation. In this book an angel is showing him the things that will happen at the time of the end. John writes: "Then the angel said to me, "Write: ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!' " And he added, "These are the true words of God." At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

John uses the declaration of Thomas as the closing in his gospel because it ends the way that his gospel begins. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only Begotten, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." John thesis is that Jesus is the Son of God, that he is God. He begins with that statement and ends with that statement. In John's mind all that counts is what you believe, if you trust Jesus like you trust God. In the third chapter of his gospel, John recalls the words of John the Baptist: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him"