John 20:11-19 Bible Teaching

WELCOME
PRAYER
SONGS
SILENCE

Okay we left off last week with John and Peter running to the tomb. John stood looking in but Peter crawled right on inside.

We read at verse 8 through 10

Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.

I want to talk about this for a moment because last week I mentioned how I did not understand how Jesus could have told the disciples over and over again that He would rise from the dead but that they did not believe in this but that the chief priests went to Pilate and asked for a watch over the grave because they remembered Jesus saying He would rise.

This is important. And when things are important I dig a little deeper to understand and so I consulted the thinking of William Lane Craig, a great mind out of Biola.

This is what I learned.
When we ask, “What Scriptures is John speaking of when he says that they knew not the scriptures?”
Listen – NOT very many – if any at all.
Hosea 6.2 is one. Psalm 16:10 is another and of course the story of Jonah and the great fish is another.
Hosea 6:2 says
“After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him”
It has been suggested that because this passage mentions the “third day” it is prophetic of His resurrection.
But Hosea 6.2 is never explicitly cited by any New Testament author, much less applied to Jesus’ resurrection.
Fact of the matter is Hosea 6.2 has nothing to do with resurrection of the dead but with the restoration of the national fortunes of Israel.
In Acts we find Psalm 16.10 interpreted to apply to Jesus’ resurrection. It says:
“For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit.”
But at the time Psalm 16.10 had to do with David’s confidence that God will not allow him to see defeat and death.
The principal Old Testament passage cited in the Gospels with respect to Jesus’ resurrection is the story of Jonah and the whale.
Matthew has Jesus say:
“For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”
The problem however is that nobody, especially a first century Jew (reading the story of Jonah and the whale) would think that this has anything whatsoever to do with Jesus’ burial and resurrection!
This includes the disciples. They did NOT yet believe He would rise from the dead and so therefore they could NOT see the passages in the Old Testament that pictured Him doing so!
The point is that no one who did not already have a belief in Jesus’ resurrection would find in these Scriptures any impetus to think that Jesus had been raised from the dead.
Add in the fact that in Jewish belief the resurrection of the dead was always an event at the end of the world involving all the people, an event which obviously had not yet taken place.
The problem we face is we fail to put ourselves in the shoes of a first century Jew when confronted with Jesus’ crucifixion.
Instead we tend to look at the disciples’ situation through the rearview mirror of 2,000 years of Christian theology which is anachronistic.
Here’s the deal:
The Chief priests did not believe that Christ was going to rise from the dead. The story of Jonah and other allusions in the Old Testament didn’t move them to guard the tomb.
They feared the followers of Jesus were going to steal their master’s body and did not want another deception.
But the disciples, though they were taught that He would rise after three days didn’t believe Him.
Listen – HAD they believed Him they would have been able to understand the Old Testament scriptures that scantly relate or picture His resurrection.
But John says it was only when they saw the empty tomb and grave clothes that they believed and adds
Because we knew not the scripture – another way for saying, we could not see His resurrection pictured in the OT – yet.
One more point – all aimed at truth.
The idea that Elaine presented last week that His grave clothes were in the shape of His body has a lot of logical support.
First, if Jesus resurrected body was able to move in and out of rooms with the doors closed there would be no need for the wrapping that surrounded His body to be unwrapped.
Also if the aloe and myrhh were used to coat the linen it could have created a shell that once the body was changed it could have retained its shape.
I looked into the suggesting and found that it has commonly been taught that the linens did retain their shape and seeing them without a body John said, “I do believe.”
However, this is conjecture. Neither the Greek nor the language itself suggests that the linens retained the shape of His body.
They only intimate that the linens were left there in one place and the fact that they were there signaled to John that His body had not been stolen (because if it was the linens would have gone with it) but instead right there in the tomb his body exited the confines of the linen.
I like the story that the linens made a cocoon. It’s logical and I don’t discount it. But it is a suppositional claim not historical or biblical.
One final note. I find John and Peter’s response to the empty tomb intriguing – how verse 10 says:
“Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.”

In my estimation it proves that they really did not understand what resurrection meant. It seems they knew He rose from the grave or tomb or linens, but maybe they supposed He was risen into the heavens.

They certainly didn’t expect Him to be hanging around the area. Not so with Mary Magdalene – let’s pick it up at verse 11 and read through to verse 25:

John 20:19
Milk
June 14th 2015

John 20:11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,
12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whomseekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.
19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Alright back to verse 11.
Peter and John were outta there.

11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,

Apparently when she saw the stone rolled away when she first arrived she assumed His body had been taken – and ran off to tell the apostles.

This time, after the apostles had been inside, she too decided to take a peek inside.

12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

Now Mark and Matthew both mention angels but they only speak of one. The way this is explained is that there were two but only one spoke.

Additionally the fact that John describes these angels as “one at the head and the other at the feet” where the body of Jesus laid is apparently a picture hearkening back to the Mercy Seat that sat in the Holy of Holies of the temple.

So let me explain.

God had Moses create a sacred cabinet or chest which was called the ark of God or ark of the Covenant.

It was made of acacia (or shittim) wood and was a cubit and a half wide (and high) and two cubits long.

It was also covered with the purest gold.

Inside of it were the two tables of stone which constituted the “testimony” or evidence of God’s covenant with the people (Deuteronomy 31:26), the “pot of manna” (Exodus 16:33), and “Aaron’s rod that budded” (Numbers 17:10).

This ark had a lid which was called the Mercy Seat and it had a rim of gold around it with two gold rings on each side so they could slide the poles through the rings to carry it around.

Then attached to each end of the ark were two cherubim figures with their faces turned toward each other and they had wings that flipped over their shoulders (so to speak) and met in the middle.

This platform (formed of angel wings) was called “the throne of God” while the ark itself was referred to as “His footstool.”

This elaborate piece of furniture was set in the “holy of holies,” and was placed in such a way that one end of the poles by which it was carried touched the veil – a thick hanging carpet like wall that separated the two apartments of the tabernacle (1 Kings 8:8).

Well once a year the High Priest on Yom Kippur or the Day of Atonement would go into the holy of holies and sprinkle blood upon it.

Now think about this – the seat was the place where the blood of a slaughtered animal for the sins of the people. Life laid out between the cheribum, right?

This is what it says in Exodus 25:18-20

“And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.”

And one thousand five hundred years later Mary Magdalene stoops down and looks inside a tomb Peter and John had just entered and exited and what does she see?

All the symbolism culminating together in living color – except now – the sacrifice rose up off the place he was laid dead – to new eternal life.

13 And the angels said unto her, “Woman, why weepest thou?” She saith unto them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.”

Mary could have meant the Jews but I think she was speaking of others – like Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus or others.

She obviously was not under the impression that He had risen from the dead.

Maybe there was a general understanding among those who were at the crucifixion that His body would lie in that tomb only until after the Sabbath and the intention was then to come to the tomb on the first day of the week and move Him somewhere else – which is why she and the other women showed up early with spices.

And maybe Mary supposed they had arrived before her and had taken him away without teller her where.

This seems to explain her language and reaction to the empty tomb.

I find it fascinating that Mary does not seem shocked by the angels and seems to speak to them plainly. (verse 14)

14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

It could have been it was still dark. It could have been because He was somehow transformed which seems likely when we take into account that others who met Him as a resurrected being had trouble identifying Him.

15 Jesus saith unto her,” Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou?” She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, “Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.”

Again, it is obvious that she was not thinking resurrection. Now, because Peter and John had both been there we would think that resurrection was somehow discussed but this does not seem to be the case.

Mary was still under the impression that He had merely been moved. So, if we have a real chronology here, and if Peter and John were there at the same time Mary Magdalene was there, they must have left NOT thinking He was risen because if they were under the impression that He was risen at that point surely they would have conveyed that to Mary.

No such luck. So, assuming that Jesus was a gardener, she asks him if he took the Lord away. If he had, she says, tell me where and I will take Him away – obviously believing that He was still dead.

16 Jesus saith unto her, “Mary.” She turned herself, and saith unto him, “Rabboni;” which is to say, “Master.”

Jesus saith unto her, Mary. This was probably spoken in a tone of voice or a delivery that she recognized.

The Jews have three titles they apply to teachers.

(1) Rab, means master and is the lowest degree of honor yet still honorable.

(2) Rabbi, means, my master and is obviously a title of higher dignity. And then

(3) Rabboni, which means my great master and is the most honorable of all.

Rabboni was given to seven people historically and so to use it was a sign of the greatest respect.

Obviously it was used by Mary with the greatest esteem and in acknowledging Him as her Lord and Master she was probably moving to throw herself down at His feet but

17 Jesus saith unto her, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”

The Greek word used here for touch is haptomahee and it means . . . touch.

Everytime touch or touched is used in the New Testament Haptomahee is used. It means touch.

I say this because in the religious tradition I came out of this verse was translated by the founder as hold with the implication being marital intimacy being conveyed.

Unfortunately the Greek does not support this uninspired translation.

However, this passage has given rise to a number of different interpretations.

One of the problems is Jesus will tell Thomas to touch him in just a few verses so its difficult to understand why Jesus told Mary to avoid doing so.

Another thing is when Jesus meets the other women in Matthew 28:9 they held Him by the feet.

What are we to conclude?

One thought is that Jesus had Thomas touch Him to increase his belief. Mary didn’t need this but that reason is sort of anemic.

Another reason suggests that Mary was going to impede His forward progress and at this point He wanted her to go and tell the others that He really had risen – in other words she had something He wanted her to do and when He says,

“Touch me not I have not yet ascended unto my Father” it was like He was saying, “Don’t take the time now. I’ve not ascended to my Father yet and there will be time to touch me later.”

Finally, and this is the view most people take when they read this, Jesus had to go before the Father clean and to be touched prior to that would have made Him unclean.

Why? Especially since the other women and Thomas did touch Him?

Maybe Mary was unclean according to the Law relative to her cycle and for this reason, prior to ascending she was forbidden but others were not.

But then we have to ask, “Wasn’t the Law nailed to the cross, along with all of its tenets?” So why would her cycle make her unclean to touch.

Finally, as long as we’re on the subject, the LDS view (from the past) was that Jesus was married to Mary and there would have been some sort of special defilement that would have occurred had she touched or held Him.

So easy to come up with stuff in the gaps, right?

Jesus also says something extremely important here. He says

“but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”

First of all, Jesus does refer to God as His Father and your Father in other parts of the Gospels.

He speaks of your Father which is in heaven giving good gifts etc.

God is the Father of all life, and so we might see how referring to God as their Father works.

But never does Jesus refer to God as “your God.”

He speaks to the Pharisees god being Satan but this combo description is amazing and telling. It says:

“Now that I have reconciled the world, He is my Father and your Father and my God and your God.”

Some suggest that when He says, “My Father,” He is speaking of His literal Father and when He says, “Your Father” He is speaking of whom He becomes for those who receive Him by faith. And when He says, “My God,” he is speaking of God as a Man and your God in the same way.

We do run into trouble when we read these lines and take them literally. The reason is IF Jesus was saying that as a resurrected being God was “His God” we find ourselves in a real paradox relative to His nature as God in the flesh.

I do not know how to respond to this.

Paul plainly writes in 2nd Corinthians 11:31

“The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.”

He opens Ephesians 1:3 saying:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,”

And then 14 verses later says:

Ephesians 1:17 “That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.”

Peter wrote in 1Peter 1:3 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

I would say that God is God and the Father and Jesus is Lord and Savior in whom the fullness of God dwelled bodily. And becoming flesh He represents all of humanity then and forevermore.

Too big a subject to solve here – or maybe anywhere else while we abide on earth.
(verse 18 takes us off now to Mary Magdalene and her assignment, saying)

18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.

So, according to John’s account, Mary Magdalene was the first eye witness of the resurrected Lord – and she came and explained to them He was around.

What occurred between the hours she told them this and what happens next is unknown but I bet it was a beehive of activity.

19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, “Peace be unto you.”

So it’s the same day but now approaching dusk. And this day was the first day of the week, the day of the resurrection of Christ.

The apostles were gathered together and they were unquestionably agitated. The report from Mary that she had seen the Lord in all probability did not convince them He was really back from the dead.

It was common among the Jews to claim to see the departed.

So they are assembled together in a room John where John says the doors were shut.

I think he adds this to show that Jesus was transmitting Himself here and there without the inhibition of walls and doors.

But admittedly it could have just been an added fact to describe the scene and convey their fears.

I mean they had seen Jesus taken away and put to death but they also had the very interesting news that some of their group had claimed to have seen Him alive – and not only seen but talked to and touched.

So they were gathered in what seems to have been a place of security.

John here notes that this was the first day of the week – or Sunday.

Why don’t we wrap today up with a little chat on Sunday, Saturday, the third commandment and the biblical understanding of it.

Let’s start with some basics – the Sabbath day is from Friday at dusk to Saturday at dusk.

It’s not – cannot be – never was and never will be on a Sunday.

Secondly the covenant under the Law was for the House of Israel to obey the tenets of that day – no one else.

There are no laws or tenets to be obeyed or observed on Sunday because Sunday is NOT the Sabbath and the demands for Sabbath observance applied only to the Jews.

Some people try and say that the day of rest was established by God before Moses and the law and therefore Sabbath observance is mandatory I would reply, (without taking the time to supply sound biblical proofs (which are there) that all the Law and the Prophets pointed to Christ and Sabbath observance is no exception.

Was Sabbath observance a commandment? Of course. But since Christ we read in Hebrews that there is a

“new covenant, (and) he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

But didn’t Jesus observe the Sabbath (Friday to Saturday?)

He did – to fulfill the Law.

Galatians 4:4-5 says:

“But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.”

So there are four reasons why Sunday is not a Sabbath and the Sabbath is done.

One, the Sabbath is Saturday.
Two it was a covenant with the House of Israel
Three, Jesus fulfilled the old Covenant, and
Four, there is a new covenant now written on our hearts.

Huh?

How is the Sabbath – the day of rest – now abiding in our hearts rather than in what our hands and feet do on a certain day of the week?

Prior to Jesus arrival God’s people, the house of Israel had their rest on the last day of the week – the Sabbath.

But remember what Jesus said:

“Come to me all you who are heavy laden and I will give you rest?”

This is the concept – we find our rest with Him abiding in us every day of the week, not just on one day – and one day that isn’t even the biblical definition of Sabbath.

Well isn’t it significant that Jesus was raised from the tomb on the first day of the week? Doesn’t that make Sunday the Christian Sabbath? A lot of people suggest that this is so.

Certainly the Christians gathered on the first day of the week in the Bible. But they gathered on other days to and the fact that the chose to meet on the first day of the week could be emblematic of starting the week out in worship of Him rather than laboring under the law all week only to end in exhaustion on a mandated day of rest.

So while we do not read about Christians obeying the real Sabbath after the ascension of Christ (in fact Paul wrote Colossians 2:16)

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days . . . “

We do read of them gathering together on the first day of the week.

Is this mandatory?

Nothing is mandatory. It’s all by the Spirit. Traditionally Christians gather on Sunday but it’s not a Sabbath, it’s a the Lord’s day where we congregate to START our week off looking to glorify and study about Him.

But it in no way is a new or another Sabbath.

Let’s stop here in the room with the apostles. Well pick it up next week.

Q and A

PRAYER

1 or 2 Paragraph Synopsis of Sermon:

In today’s sermon Shawn talks about whether or not the disciples and Mary Magdalene were aware that Jesus had resurrected when they first encountered the empty tomb. We also discuss Mary’s prohibition from touching the Lord but Thomas’s invitation. Finally we wrap it up talking about what Jesus meant when He said, “My God and your God.”