Bible Devotion

Meditative Reflection
Hypocrisy is Destructive

“Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.” (Jn. 19:31)

The Roman custom was to leave the bodies of the crucified on their crosses as a warning to others, so it would be rather unusual to remove the body of Jesus immediately from the cross. However, the Jews were so pious that they did not wish to desecrate their land by having these crucified bodies hanging overnight on the cross, because Deuteronomy 21:22-23 clearly commands:

“If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole, you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.”

As it turned out, Jesus’ crucifixion did signify that He was under God’s curse, but not for His own sin but the sin of the people. Leon Morris is right on when he says, “The Jews did not want their land defiled by the dead, but they were not concerned that they themselves were defiled by their deeds.”(NICNT, John, 723)

Their hypocrisy almost caused the breaking of Jesus’ legs which would have nullified the prophetic words concerning the Lamb of God (see Ps. 34:20; Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12), if not for God’s intervention. Unfortunately, such hypocrisy continues today even within the church of God, and we should subject ourselves to constant self-examination, lest we inadvertently conspire with the evil one to destroy the work of God.

Meditative Reflection
Christ is Risen!

“Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)” (Jn. 20:8-9)

While the four Gospel accounts give varying details of the events of that Easter Sunday morning, these accounts are far from conflicting; in fact, they are complementary, and many scholars have drawn up approximate timetables of the events of that first Easter Day (see Note on today’s Scriptural Reflection). They show that the Gospel accounts can be reconciled.

While some scholars note that some of the events of that morning “cannot be explained”, that does not mean that these accounts are not true. In fact, all four Gospel accounts affirm that the tomb was empty as solid evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is also noteworthy that John, in particular, writes the bulk of chapter twenty (up to verse 29) in the present tense, which, in my opinion, is his way of emphasizing the fact that he is giving his first-hand eye-witness account. Indeed, he has heard with his own ears, seen with his own eyes, touched with his own hands, the Risen Lord — the Word of life (1 Jn. 1:1).

This is John’s way of answering all the critics of his days (including those of our time) who seek to deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Meditative Reflection
Showing Himself to Those Who Love Him

“Jesus said to her, ‘Mary.’ She turned toward Him and cried out in Aramaic, ‘Rabboni!’ (which means Teacher).” (Jn. 20:16)

Of all the events that are described by the four Gospel accounts, the encounter by Mary Magdalene of Jesus touches me most.

Although John only mentions Mary Magdalene in his Gospel account, it is clear from the Synoptics that she was going to the tomb together with the other women (Mk. 16:1 and Lk. 24:10). This is further affirmed by her report to Peter and John saying, “we don’t know where they have put Him” (Jn. 20:2; italics mine.)

However, John singles her out in his account for a reason. She was the one who ran to tell John and Peter of the empty tomb, and she was the one who stayed behind alone afterwards at the tomb.

Her action shows both her courage and her love for the Lord and she was awarded with likely being the first one who saw the Risen Lord that morning.

There are several points in the description by John of Mary that are worth-noting:

(1) After the departure of John and Peter who did not offer comfort or help to her, Mary was left alone standing outside the tomb crying. Lenski remarks that it denotes “unrestrained weeping”: The death of Jesus was already traumatic enough to her, and now even the body was missing. Maybe, all she wanted was to see the body of Jesus just for the last time, and even that was deprived of her!

(2) Even at the sight of angels, there was neither shock nor fear: One has to wonder why, and Luther provides us with his insight. “No man is so brave-hearted but what he would be terrified if unexpectedly he should behold an angel; and she even a woman. Yet she moves about so that she neither sees nor hears nor inquires about anything; so complete her heart is elsewhere.” Indeed, there was only one thing her heart focused on — Jesus!

(3) However, when Jesus appeared to her, she couldn’t recognize Him: The sorrow was so deep that she was not really looking at Jesus. While the angels and Jesus called her “woman” at first, the Lord now called her, “Mary”; she instantly recognized this familiar address by the Lord — so loving and tender. And, she responded also with her usual loving and tender address to the Lord by saying, “Rabboni!”.

Frankly, from a tactical point of view, it would have been far more important for the Lord to appear to the eleven disciples who needed to be commissioned to be witnesses for the Lord. However, the Lord chose to appear first to Mary Magdalene and it reminds me of two sayings by the Lord:

“Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven — as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.” (Lk. 7:47)

No, I am not saying that Mary Magdalene was that prostitute in Simon’s house, but just the same, the driving out of seven demons by the Lord from her marked such a great forgiveness that evoked even greater love from her (Lk. 8:2); and

“Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.” (Jn. 14:21).

Indeed, true to His promise, the Lord is obliged to show Himself to those who love Him, and certainly Mary Magdalene showed greater love for Jesus than the others that He would not bear to have her grieve unnecessarily for an extra second. He showed Himself to her at the soonest possible moment — even before His return to the Father (Jn. 20:17)!

Meditative Reflection
In Defense of Doubting Thomas

“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.’” (Jn. 20:25)

Although, Thomas is often portrayed as one who had the least faith among the eleven disciples and was dubbed, “Doubting Thomas”, I do not think that he was necessarily of less faith than the other ten disciples, and for that matter, you and me.

All eleven disciples were hiding in fear after the crucifixion of Jesus, thinking that they might be next. In addition to fear, it is not too far-fetched to say that their faith in Christ was greatly shaken, if not shattered:

- They had devoted three years of their lives following Jesus; and in their words they had given up everything to follow Him (Matt. 19:27) — now with His cowardly death, their Messianic dream was shattered and they had now become a laughingstock of their friends and loved ones.

- As much as they had been warned by Jesus of His suffering and had been told ahead of His resurrection, the suffering of Jesus, and especially His crucifixion just did not and could not befit the Messiah, let alone the Son of God — they were totally thrown into confusion.

- They truly loved the Lord — the arrest, the kangaroo court, the beating, the spitting and finally the nailing to the cross — It all was just too horrific and they were heart-broken.

As a result, although they had heard from the women about the empty tomb, which was verified by even John and Peter, their sorrow, their bewilderment, and their shattered dreams (not to mention a sense of betrayal by Jesus, perhaps) — all prevented them from entertaining the idea that perhaps, Jesus had really risen just as He said!

If Jesus did not show Himself to them that first Sunday evening, they would not have believed any report of Jesus’ resurrection. The fact that Thomas was not hiding with them that first evening might suggest that he had given up on the Lord and on himself, and had decided to part company with these disciples. So, he must have laughed at the words of these ten disciples of having seen Jesus. At best, in his mind, they had seen a ghost and that was why he sneered at them and said,

“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.” (Jn. 20:25)

In fact, I admire his honesty. At the same time, I also admire his instant repentance. I do not believe he dared put his fingers to touch the Lords’ scars. All it took was the Lord’s appearance, and his repentance was complete and total as he said, “My Lord and my God!” (Jn. 20:28).

According to church traditions, Thomas was the one who brought the gospel to India and died as a martyr.

Meditative Reflection
Reclaiming First Love for Christ

“But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first” (NASB) (Rev. 2:4-5).

As John draws his Gospel account to a conclusion, he purposely adds an account of their fishing in the Sea of Tiberias as a finale. To me, this account must have been very significant to John himself.

As much as the Lord has appeared to them twice already (and this would be the third time according to 21:14) and they appeared to have recovered from their disbelief, a sense of failure must have lingered among them. All of them, and not just Peter, had pledged to die with Jesus and not to disown Him (Matt. 26:35).  Then at the time of His arrest, all, not just Peter, deserted Him (Matt. 26:56). It was the worst possible moment when Jesus needed them most.

In order that they could be fully restored to Him, the Lord knows that first and foremost, they needed to restore their “first love” for Him. For at least Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, it was theirs at the time they decided to leave their boat, the huge catch, and their family (see Lk. 5).

As a result, the Lord re-created the same scene all over again:

- At the sea of Tiberias (or Gennesaret);

- After a night of futile effort when they caught nothing;

- Of only listening to Jesus and casting the net on the side of the boat; and

- Having the result of catching a load of fish!

That “déjà vu” feeling must have caused John to cry out, “It is the Lord” and Peter to jump into the water, because it served as a powerful reminder to them of how determined they were to love and follow the Lord. As a result, the subsequent reiteration of His calling to Peter to “follow me” (21:19) was certainly meant not just for Peter, but for all of them!

Indeed, no matter how far we think we have fallen from grace, the Lord asks us to “remember” and to reclaim our “first love” for Him, and He extends to us the same reiteration, “Follow me”.

Meditative Reflection
Agape or Phileo

“When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?’ ‘Yes, Lord,’ he said, ‘you know that I love you.’” (Jn. 21:15)

As much as one of my beloved professors once remarked, “It is absurd to dwell on the different meanings of love used in this dialogue between Jesus and Peter because they were speaking in Aramaic”, and one New Testament scholar also remarked directly to me that, “Modern scholarship has ruled out the difference between the two words (i.e. agape and phileo)”, I think the following words of Lenski are still valid and I truly believe that the use of the words by John was not accidental, but inspired:

“Jesus asks, ‘ ἀγαπᾷς με’ (Do you love me?); and Peter answers, ‘φιλῶ σε.’ To this day, despite the information long available regarding these two words, some reverse the meaning of these two verbs and let ἀγαπᾷv refer to the lower form of love (the English “like”) and φιλεiv to the higher form. And they confuse the true ideas, for they think of ἀγαπᾷv only as love for a benefactor and of φιλεiv as love for the person himself. Older commentators think that the two verbs show no difference. An appeal to the Aramaic is beside the mark. While Jesus here spoke this language, the narrative is recorded in Greek. The Aramaic may or may not have two verbs that are the exact counterpart of these used in the Greek; every language has means at hand besides bare verbs for indicating desired differences of thought, such as are most decidedly indicated in this entire section (v. 15-17). The verb ἀγαπᾷv is the love of intelligence, reason, and comprehension, coupled with corresponding purpose; in this its content vastly outranks the other type of love. And φιλεiv expresses the love of mere personal affection or liking, including even the passions where the context requires, and no intelligence or high purpose is involved; this content places the verb on a low level. It could never be said of God that He φιλεi the sinful world; as far as φιλεiv is concerned, He could only abominate the foul world. Jesus never asked us to love our enemies in the sense of φιλεiv; He never Himself loved His enemies in this way. But ἀγαπᾷv — yes, with this love God did love the world, and we can love our enemies, comprehending all that is wrong with them and reaching out with the mighty purpose of removing that wrong, sanctifying the world, converting our enemies. Compare 3:16, and every other passage in which either of the verbs is used in this Gospel. Only in a few cases, where either type of love would apply, either verb might be used; but even then the great distinction would remain – the two are never equal.”
(Lenski, John, 1418-9)

Meditative Reflection
Can John’s Gospel be Trusted?

“This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.” (Jn. 21:24)

“There are obvious and striking differences between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels (Mt., Mk. and Lk.). These include:

• John contains no narrative parables, no account of the transfiguration, no record of the Lord’s Supper, no mention of Jesus’ temptation and no report of Jesus casting out demons.

• John includes a vast amount of material not found in the synoptic tradition, such as the records of extended conversations with Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman and the disciples, as well as of significant miracles (e.g., the turning of water into wine and the resurrection of Lazarus).

• John recounts an extensive Judean ministry for Jesus, including several visits to Jerusalem, whereas the Synoptic Gospels focus on His Galilean ministry.

• Certain features of John’s presentation also raise chronological difficulties for understanding Jesus’ action in the temple (Jn. 2) and the precise sequence of events during Passion Week.

• Perhaps most significant, notable stylistic differences emerge between John’s Jesus, who discourses poetically on themes of light, life, witness and truth, and the synoptic Jesus, who argues forcefully and consistently on the theme of the kingdom of God.

"The accumulation of these differences has generated speculation regarding the historical reliability of this document as a testimony concerning Jesus (20:31). There are, however, significant reasons for believing John to be historically accurate:

• In any attempt to assess the reliability of John, pride of place should be given to John’s own testimony about the nature of his literary endeavor. John alone among the Gospels provides an explicit statement of purpose (see 20:30-31). This purpose statement reflects the writer’s intention to present selective accounts of Jesus’ ministry, aimed at persuading the reader that Jesus of Nazareth really is the promised Messiah. The apostle was well aware that Jesus did many other things, commenting at the close of his Gospel account, “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” (21:25). Many of the apparent Johannine omissions are thus essentially acknowledged by John and, therefore, are not to be considered as evidence against historicity.

• No other Gospel addresses the theme of truth as frequently as John’s. He used a series of signs and a parade of witnesses to reinforce the main thesis of his work. The trustworthiness of these witnesses, including John’s own explicit claim to have been an eyewitness (19:35), is integral to his purpose and should remind the reader that accuracy was deeply important to this apostle and author.

• This concern for accurate reporting is reflected in the exact recording of numbers (2:20; 21:11); the translation of foreign terms (1:38, 41; 20:16); and the precise depictions of persons, places and customs (2:6; 4:20; 5:2; 19:40).

• A close reading of John reveals numerous agreements with the Synoptic Gospels, in terms both of broad themes and of specific details.

"Modern readers of John are wise to refrain both from overstating the apparent contradictions and from excessive efforts at harmonizing John with the other Gospels. John successfully accomplished his stated aim: To present an eloquent, accurate and persuasive testimony that Jesus is indeed the Messiah, the Son of God (20:31).”
(Archaeological Study Bible, p.1761)