The Empty Tomb

[James248]

In the Ignatius Study Bible, the note at this point says “it is corroborating evidence of the resurrection” concerning the neatly rolled up linens, “[because] no thief would have taken the time [to do this].”

The Note seems to be addressed to the Faithful of today, and not that this was the thought of St. John, as it would belie the rest of that sentence (although the next verse) “For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.” These are St. John’s words. IOW, he feels it is necessary to mention this to further clarify to his early Christian readers, who already firmly believe in the Resurrection, that this was not yet understood. It also further clarifies, that what he believed, was what Mary Magdalene had told him and Peter; i.e. that someone had moved the body of the Lord.

It is also very likely, that St. John, seeing the linens carefully laid up, thought it was some disciple that had carefully moved the Body of Jesus.

The Navarre Study Bible’s note by the faculty of the University of Navarre is a little more troubling in this place. They reach some conclusions not actually evidenced by the text of Scripture. For example it says the reason John “saw” and “believed” was because the state of the linen cloths “shows that no human hands could have been responsible.” Even though Scripture says the Holy Women were coming to the tomb for that very purpose! IOW, it would have been possible for human hands to have carefully laid the linens aside, just as WOULD have been done, had the body of Jesus still been there, when the women arrived. The faculty further surmise that St. John realized (by this evidence) that Jesus had not risen in the way Lazarus did. I have much difficulty in following their logic here. It is strange that, with the opinion they hold, they don’t try to reconcile it with the statement by St. John in the text itself, “for as yet they did not know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.” At least they might explain why this was said, if St. John “saw” and “believed” in the resurrection.

But why would a robber go through all that trouble to steal a body? Wouldn’t a robber have taken the shroud as well?

The Greek word we translate as “saw” means “saw
with understanding.”

 

[AmbroseSJ]

But why would a robber go through all that trouble to steal a body? Wouldn’t a robber have taken the shroud as well?

The Greek word we translate as “saw” means “saw
with understanding.”

Firstly, in re: robber theory. That is more an argument for unbelievers in this age of skepticism. I don’t think John thought of robbers at all. I believe he “saw with understanding” what Mary Magdalen had told them: viz: that some disciples had come and carefully removed the body of Jesus.

IMO, Even Mary Magdalen never considered the robber theory. The text seems to say that the body was moved (for whatever reason) by caring disciples, but that no one knew for sure who or why.

This theory is wholly supported by the text, and by St. Augustine. The Haydock Bible in this place says:

Ver. 8. He saw and believed. He did not yet believe that Jesus was risen from the dead, because he was still ignorant that he was to rise from the dead. For although the apostles had so often heard their divine Master speak in the most plain terms of his resurrection, still being so much accustomed to parables, they did not understand, and imagined something else was meant by these words. (St. Augustine, tract. 120. in Joan.)

All of the theorists that suppose that John understood this to be evidence of the Resurrection never have an explanation for the end of the sentence: “for as yet they did not know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.” It’s as if they are blind to its existence.

 

[James248]

Firstly, in re: robber theory. That is more an argument for unbelievers in this age of skepticism. I don’t think John thought of robbers at all. I believe he “saw with understanding” what Mary Magdalen had told them: viz: that some disciples had come and carefully removed the body of Jesus.

IMO, Even Mary Magdalen never considered the robber theory. The text seems to say that the body was moved (for whatever reason) by caring disciples, but that no one knew for sure who or why.

This theory is wholly supported by the text, and by St. Augustine. The Haydock Bible in this place says:

All of the theorists that suppose that John understood this to be evidence of the Resurrection never have an explanation for the end of the sentence: “for as yet they did not know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.” It’s as if they are blind to its existence.

All the next verse says is that they didn’t understand the Scripture that He would rise from death, not that they didn’t understand that he rose from the dead. But, looking at the empty tomb, one can see the truth of the Ressurection, which is what John did. Chrysostom read the text like this as well.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

All the next verse says is that they didn’t understand the Scripture that He would rise from death, not that they didn’t understand that he rose from the dead. But, looking at the empty tomb, one can see the truth of the Ressurection, which is what John did. Chrysostom read the text like this as well.

I think there is a significant difference in saying “they didn’t understand the Scripture that He would rise from death” (your words) and "they didn’t understand the Scripture that He must rise from the dead. (the words of Scripture) IOW, that does not explain why John says it at all, if in fact he DID believe that Jesus had risen. Not to put too fine a point on it, John was not saying that they (himself included) were unaware of the Scriptural prophecies regarding the Resurrection, yet believed anyway. That would be doing violence to the text IMO. As for St. J. Chrysostom, the Haydock Bible takes note that he says the way the body of Jesus was wrapped, it would have been impossible to remove the shroud, thereby eliminating the grave robber theory or that anyone could move the body without taking the wrappings, not that St. John believed in the Resurrection upon seeing the empty tomb.

IOW, if St. John truly believed in the resurrection at the first sight of the empty tomb, it would have only obscured his point to then go on to say “they didn’t understand the Scripture that He must rise from the dead.” The only rational reason IMO, for adding this, was to clarify that he was speaking of believing what Mary Magdalen had told them.

I think we know from Scripture that none of the Apostles believed until they actually saw the living Jesus, when he appeared to them. I can’t honestly believe that John in his Gospel was ranking himself better than all of the other Apostles, because he believed before Jesus was seen by him, unlike all the rest of his fellow Apostles. It just doesn’t fit John’s humble self-effacing style in his Gospel, where he only refers to himself as the disciple that Jesus loved.

 

[James248]

I think there is a significant difference in saying “they didn’t understand the Scripture that He would rise from death” (your words) and "they didn’t understand the Scripture that He must rise from the dead. (the words of Scripture) IOW, that does not explain why John says it at all, if in fact he DID believe that Jesus had risen. Not to put too fine a point on it, John was not saying that they (himself included) were unaware of the Scriptural prophecies regarding the Resurrection, yet believed anyway. That would be doing violence to the text IMO. As for St. J. Chrysostom, the Haydock Bible takes note that he says the way the body of Jesus was wrapped, it would have been impossible to remove the shroud, thereby eliminating the grave robber theory or that anyone could move the body without taking the wrappings, not that St. John believed in the Resurrection upon seeing the empty tomb.

IOW, if St. John truly believed in the resurrection at the first sight of the empty tomb, it would have only obscured his point to then go on to say “they didn’t understand the Scripture that He must rise from the dead.” The only rational reason IMO, for adding this, was to clarify that he was speaking of believing what Mary Magdalen had told them.

I think we know from Scripture that none of the Apostles believed until they actually saw the living Jesus, when he appeared to them. I can’t honestly believe that John in his Gospel was ranking himself better than all of the other Apostles, because he believed before Jesus was seen by him, unlike all the rest of his fellow Apostles. It just doesn’t fit John’s humble self-effacing style in his Gospel, where he only refers to himself as the disciple that Jesus loved.

Aquinas answers your concerns:

Or, according to Chrysostom’s understanding, he saw the linen cloths so folded and arranged which would not have been the case if the body had been furtively snatched away; and believed, with a true faith, that Christ had risen from the dead.[5] What follows, for as yet they did not know the scripture, refers to the statement, he saw and believed. It was like saying: before he saw these things he did not understand the scripture that he must rise from the dead; but when he saw he believed that he had risen from the dead.

And after they left the sepulchre, Jesus appeared to Peter. I think this was when Peter and John both were returning to the Cenacle.

 

[rstrats]

Tha fact remains that any identity assigned to the disciple mentioned in John 19:26 can only be surmised through guess work. The only thing actually known is that regardless of who it was, it was one of Mary’s sons and thus one of the Messiah’s brothers.

 

[James248]

Tha fact remains that any identity assigned to the disciple mentioned in John 19:26 can only be surmised through guess work. The only thing actually known is that regardless of who it was, it was one of Mary’s sons and thus one of the Messiah’s brothers.

This guesswork has basis throughout all of Church tradition. Every ECF affirms John is the disciple whom Jesus loved.

 

[abucs]

Tha fact remains that any identity assigned to the disciple mentioned in John 19:26 can only be surmised through guess work. The only thing actually known is that regardless of who it was, it was one of Mary’s sons and thus one of the Messiah’s brothers.

A very big no, but I expect you are either trolling or under the influence of the insanity of feminist ‘theology’.

 

[rstrats]

abucs,
re: “A very big no…”

I don’t see how you can say no. The verse clearly says: “Woman, behold your son!”

 

[Usagi]

abucs,
re: “A very big no…”

I don’t see how you can say no. The verse clearly says: “Woman, behold your son!”

And, as I’m sure you know, the universal understanding of that statement and the following one is that Jesus was “assigning” Mary and the disciple to each other, since He would not be able to care for His mother as she got older – not that they were already mother and son.

 

[rstrats]

Usagi,

What scriptural reason is there for making it necessary to not take the Messiah’s statement at face value?

 

[James248]

Usagi,

What scriptural reason is there for making it necessary to not take the Messiah’s statement at face value?

It comes from the next verse: “And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.”

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Aquinas answers your concerns:

And after they left the sepulchre, Jesus appeared to Peter. I think this was when Peter and John both were returning to the Cenacle.

I CAN follow the logic used by some of the ECFs supporting your position. However, I just don’t think it is the best (or should I say most obvious) interpretation (as St. Augustine has given us.) It is apparent that there has never been unanimous agreement on this going back to the ECFs, and continuing to this day.

 

[rstrats]

Usagi,
re: “…not that they were already mother and son.”

Why not? What is there in scripture that absolutely prevents the disciple in question from being her son?

 

[James248]

I CAN follow the logic used by some of the ECFs supporting your position. However, I just don’t think it is the best (or should I say most obvious) interpretation (as St. Augustine has given us.) It is apparent that there has never been unanimous agreement on this going back to the ECFs, and continuing to this day.

We will never truly know until we meet John and Peter in Heaven.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

We will never truly know until we meet John and Peter in Heaven.

Just St. John, since they are his words.

Although Incidentally, the commentators who suppose that the “saw and believed” means the Resurrection, do NOT include Peter, but just John.

In any event, in Heaven, I suppose we will wonder why it even mattered!