Christian Evidence; Faith isn't Irrational'; John 20

John 20:30 ^nasb "Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; [31] but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

John is talking specifically here about the sign of the resurrection. The immediate context is what happened in relationship to Thomas. In verse 25 he said: ^NASB "…"Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe." Believe is the key word in this context. We are talking about what is saving faith? He is saying he is not going to believe until he has the hard empirical data in front him. Empiricism is the idea that knowledge ultimate derives from what we perceive with our senses.

John 20:26 ^NASB "After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, 'Peace {be} with you.' [27] Then He said to Thomas, 'Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.' [28] Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'" Notice it doesn't say Thomas did what he was told, he didn't finger the wounds, he just immediately believed. [28] "Jesus said to him, 'Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed {are} they who did not see, and {yet} believed'." That draws a distinction between faith based on empiricism and faith based on a witness, an eye-witness account.

What is the relationship of faith to evidence? What is the role of Christian evidences in the development of our faith? Psalm 36:9b ^NASB "In Your light we see light." What the Psalmist is saying is that the first "light" here is divine revelation.  It is on the basis of divine revelation, then, that we are able to correctly understand and interpret the data of light and the details of life, so that any fact is not just a raw brute fact, it is neutral. As soon as we see any fact our minds are automatically interpreting that fact. The revelation of God, then, gives us the category for how to rightly interpret the empirical data.

Modern man comes along and says that faith is inherently irrational, it is not on the basis of evidence because the evidence is flawed because there is no evidence. This is just something that was made up, the resurrection of Christ is just some idea that occurs to the disciples or they had some sort of a psychological experience because of the trauma of these events. Because of their attraction to the Lord or their love of the Lord they just imagined He was still alive, or it was a subjective, personal, mystical experience and there is no physical resurrection of the Lord. That is how modern man seeks to explain the resurrection. So faith then becomes, despite the evidence, mysticism as opposed to something that is based on evidence. 

What we see in Scripture is that the Christian is not a person who has put his mind in neutral but the Christian is a person who has engaged his mind in the fullest. Never does the New Testament ask the believer to trust God in spite of evidence, to trust God without providing evidence. There is a proper role for evidence. The problem with Thomas is, like a lot of unbelievers, he wants a inordinate amount of evidence. As soon as the Lord appears he believes the Lord, he doesn't go to the extreme because he recognises the inadequacy of that.

Faith in Scripture is not divorced from historical, rational evidence and observation. Luke addresses his Gospel to a Gentile unbeliever by the name of Theophilus.

Luke 1:1-4 ^NASB "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses…" Notice how he brings it back to empirical observation. These were eye-witnesses, they saw these events, they were present, there was more than one. "… and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning…" Luke this didn't just accept this apart from evidence. He investigates carefully, he interviews eye-witnesses, he writes down information from everyone that had been involved with Christ. Then on the basis of all of that collated information he wrote his Gospel. It is inspired by the Holy Spirit but in the process of using Luke's personality and talents and skills. Luke functions as a historian and collects all of the objective data on which to base his Gospel.  "… to write {it} out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught." There is no concept of relativism here, there is an absolute understanding of truth. He is confident that the data supports the conclusion. Biblical faith for Luke means that there is content, that there are facts that must be understood and evaluated, and that before there is faith the person must consider the facts and engage his intellect and believe on that. It is not despite the evidence or contrary to reason but on the basis of the right use of reason and empirical data under the umbrella of God's revelation. The problem with empiricism and rationalism is that it is the independent or autonomous use of empirical data and reason independent from God rather than using it under the umbrella of God. God's Word gives us the framework for interpreting the data and then we use our minds consistent with that revelation. 

In Acts chapter one we see the same emphasis on historical, verifiable information. Acts 1:1-3 ^NASB " The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up {to heaven,} after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over {a period of} forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God." So Jesus never expected anyone to believe in Him apart from the use of verifiable evidence. The Greek word there is tekmerion [tekmhrion] which has the idea of that which causes something to be known as verified or confirmed. It is translated as evidence, proof, and in legal documents it indicates legal proof, convincing proof and evidence that something is true. So what this indicates is that Jesus did not want the apostles just to put their brains into neutral and accept His resurrection in some kind of vacuum.

1 Corinthians 15:4 ^NASB "and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, [5] and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." That would be when Peter realised his forgiveness for the betrayal prior to the cross. It was a private meeting between Jesus and Peter that occurred on that resurrection Sunday, sometime before Jesus appeared to the remainder of the disciples. [6] "After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;  [7] then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; [8] and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also." This isn't just some sort of subjective, psychological or religious experience. There were over 500 people who saw the physical resurrected Jesus, and Paul is saying these people are still alive and you can go down to Jerusalem and interview them. This is historical, verifiable information. Then in vv. 14-17 Paul gives his argument on the importance of the resurrection: "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." That is, it is false, meaningless. Christianity has no foundation if Jesus Christ did not rise physically, bodily from the grave. [15] "Moreover we are even found {to be} false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised." Paul's point is that if there is no resurrection of Christ there is no Christianity. [16] "For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; [17] and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins."

Paul's whole point is that if the historical factuality of Christ's resurrection is false then Christianity is false. Christianity is founded and grounded in a historical event that is confirmed by witnesses. This is why history is such a critical part of Christianity.

Peter 1:16 ^NASB "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty." In other words, we saw this.

Then John substantiates this at the beginning of his epistle, 1 John 1:1-13 ^NASB "1 John 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ." Notice: Our fellowship with the Father is based on the veracity of the empirical data and their correct interpretation of it. It is not going on some sort of an emotional, subjective impression of truth, it is coming along and saying on the basis of historical and verifiable data I can have a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ because of the resurrection and the ascension. That is exactly a sub-theme of John chapter 20.

The post-resurrection appearances of the Lord Jesus Christ. The resurrection was something that radically transformed everyone who saw the Lord Jesus Christ. First we are introduced to Mary Magdalene, John 20:11 ^NASB "But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping; and so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb." According to Luke 24:5, 6 when she arrived at the tomb early in the morning the angels there had already announced to her the resurrection. But she is not buying it yet, she is too emotional to operate on thinking and to believe. She is still weeping. The word is klaio [klaiw] which means uncontrollable grief. It sometimes has the idea of weeping and wailing and is the same word used of the masses that were grieving over the death of Lazarus. Mary is deeply immersed in her grief and the loss of the Lord. [12] "and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. [13] And they said to her, 'Woman, why are you weeping?' She said to them, 'Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him'." Notice that the angels and Jesus both ask her the same question. Why? Because they are trying to get her to stop weeping and start thinking; to quit emoting and start thinking. She has already been told that He rose from he dead. She doesn't understand the resurrection yet. [14] "When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing {there,} and did not know that it was Jesus. [15] Jesus said to her, 'Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?' Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, 'Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away'." Stop and think; what have you been told? Let's focus on facts. Doctrine always brings stability to our emotions.

John 20:16 ^NASB "Jesus said to her, 'Mary!" She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, 'Rabboni!' (which means, Teacher)." He simply calls her by name and it reminds us of the fact that He knows His sheep by name and they know His voice. [17] "Jesus said to her, 'Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'" She had apparently thrown her arms around Him and grabbed hold of Him for dear life because she doesn't want to lose this relationship again. This is bringing in the idea of 1^st John, the idea of fellowship. She wants to maintain the close intimate fellowship that she has had. This is the idea of, Don't hold on to me, that is not the way to maintain the fellowship now. The crucifixion has occurred, He has to ascend to the Father. The point is that if you want the kind of fellowship with Me that you had before you are going to get a greater fellowship. But before you can have that greater fellowship I have to ascend to the Father so the Holy Spirit can come. It is the Holy Spirit who is going to enable you to have this closer fellowship, this intimate relationship, with me that is what you truly want and truly desire. We remember that in the upper room discourse Jesus said He must go to the Father so He can send the Holy Spirit to them.

John 20:18 ^NASB "Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, 'I have seen the Lord,' and {that} He had said these things to her." So this is the first appearance that John emphasises here, that faith is not apart from evidence but it is based on evidence, and this is the first witness that he marshals for the evidence of the resurrection. There are other appearances that take place that John doesn't mention. We know from Matthew 28:9, 10 then appears to the other women. Then He appeared to Peter, 1 Corinthians 15:5. The fourth appearance is to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, Mark 16:12, 13; Luke 24:13-32. It is later that evening when the events of v. 19 come into play. So during that day Jesus has made various appearances and John is going to use this as his second evidence.

John 20:19 ^NASB "So when it was evening on that day, the first {day} of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, 'Peace {be} with you'." Mary is emotionally grieving, in deep, profound grief, and her mentality is changed. Only the realisation that he is still alive physically and bodily could pull her out of that pit of sorrow. Now we are going to see in the second evidence that these disciples who are left in Jerusalem are scared to death, frightened that they are going to be arrested at any minute and crucified as well, and John is showing that their whole attitude was transformed 180 degrees, and nothing less than the real appearance of Christ is strong enough to generate this kind of shift. [20] "And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord." He gave them empirical data; it confirmed what they believed in. He is not opposed to showing it. What Thomas is asking for is not simply empirical data, he wants an inordinate display of empirical data. [21] "So Jesus said to them again, 'Peace {be} with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.' [22] And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'." So here is the connection. He has to leave and go to the Father so we can have an intimate level of fellowship. This reception of the Holy Spirit here is temporary; it is not Acts 2. This is a temporary filling of the Holy Spirit given to the apostles to get them through the next fifty days until the day of Pentecost.

He gives them their marching orders. John 20:23 ^NASB "If you forgive the sins of any, {their sins} have been forgiven them; if you retain the {sins} of any, they have been retained." This is not a statement of apostolic authority, it is a recognition that they are announcing the forgiveness of sins and condemnation. If someone believes in Christ on that basis you can say their sins are forgiven. If they do not believe in Christ then their sins have not been forgiven. The authority lies in their message that Christ has paid the penalty for our sins.

The conclusion of all this that John wants us to pay attention to is that this is more than sufficient evidence that Christ was raised physically and bodily from the grave, and that faith is not contradictory to evidence, not despite evidence, but it is based on a historical event that took place in space-time history and is therefore valid and true. And we base our faith not on some subjective impression but on something that actually happened. So that our faith is reasonable, it is rational, and it is based on evidence.