Ten of the eleven were shown Jesus’ hands and sides, so maybe Thomas’ request does not seem so extreme.
If we forgive somebody his sins, it must mean that the sins are forgiven as far as we are concerned. It certainly cannot be that we have control over whether there is Divine forgiveness. And if we are truly forgiving we don’t have to do it again, they are indeed gone for good as far as we are concerned.
The origin if the phrase “doubting Thomas” clearly comes from the gospel passage.
When Thomas does see the Savior his does not insist on inserting his hand into the wounds. The presence of Jesus was enough to sway him.
Wouldn’t it have seemed so much simpler to us if more of the miraculous signs and wonders were recorded? But on second thought, would we accept things better? Yet the Acts passage would seem to tell us that even after Pentecost the disciples were wanting more miraculous signs.
The epistle seems to fit in. The writer discusses revelation and personal experiences with it [“We saw it, we heard it, and now we’re telling you . . . (The Message)] While the gospel text talks of the ability to forgive, this passage discusses the need for and availability of forgiveness. [If we claim that we're free of sin, we're only fooling ourselves. A claim like that is errant nonsense. On the other hand, if we admit our sins—make a clean breast of them—he won't let us down; he'll be true to himself. He'll forgive our sins and purge us of all wrongdoing. (Message)]
People have used the part of the Acts text after v. 32 as a basis for forming utopian communal societies. It does seem ideal, but even before the Acts were over that people in the church did indeed have private property, apparently without shame. I guess I had never made the connection between the shaking of the meeting place and trembling of the believers [v.31].
No comments:
Post a Comment