Vii.The Purpose Of The Gospel (20:30-31)

Vii.The Purpose Of The Gospel (20:30-31)

JOHN 20

VI. THE RESURRECTION (20:1-29)

All four Gospels come to their climax in the resurrection narratives, but each does it in its own way. They all agree that when the women came to the tomb early on Sunday it was empty, but after that the accounts are very different. John, for example, has none of the stories that the others have.¹ His account is peculiar to himself throughout. He agrees on the fact of the resurrection, and he speaks of the empty tomb as do the others, but he lacks the stories the others tell, and he tells stories that they do not. It is not easy to arrange the details given by the four Evangelists into a connected narrative. But it is not impossible, and Westcott, for example, has drawn up an approximate timetable of the events on that first Easter Day with everything arranged in sequence. We cannot be sure that his account is correct, but it is certainly possible and it shows that the Gospel accounts can be reconciled. The differences between the Gospels amount to no more than a demonstration that in them we have the spontaneous evidence of witnesses, not the stereotyped repetition of an official story.²

A. THE EMPTY TOMB (20:1-10)

1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary of Magdala went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!" 3So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. 8Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9(They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) 10Then the disciples went back to their homes.

The Synoptists inform us that on the first Easter morning a number of women came to the tomb with spices. Matthew speaks of Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" (Matt. 28:1), Mark mentions these two and Salome (Mark 16:1), and Luke the two Marys and Joanna (Luke 24:10). Presumably this means that the burial on the Friday had had to be hurried, and when the Sabbath was over the ladies wished to complete the burial in a seemly manner. John does not speak of any woman as being there other than Mary Magdalene. She is mentioned by the Synoptists, as we have seen, but they do not actuAlly tell us that she saw the risen Lord. It is possible that after the vision of angels mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels she became separated from the others and that the vision of the Lord took place then. It is perhaps surprising that Jesus' first appearance after the resurrection was to Mary who, as far as we know, held no official position. Her only claim was that she was one of those who had served Jesus (Luke 8:2-3).³ We should not miss the implication that God's priorities are not ours. We would have expected one or more of the apostles, or, if a woman, then Jesus' mother.

It is worthy of note that all the Evangelists put some emphasis on the empty tomb. Nowadays some scholars suggest that we should not be too confident in our exposition of the resurrection, for we do not really know what took place. We must agree that there is room for some reverent agnosticism. There is much here of which we must say, "We cannot explain this." But that does not mean that we must surrender the great biblical emphases. Specifically the empty tomb witnesses to the fact that the resurrection of Jesus had physical aspects. Alan Richardson says, "If we truly believe that God performed the stupendous act of raising Jesus from the dead, we will not quibble about how he could or could not have done it. The bodily resurrection of the Lord is theologically very important in shewing that the whole of creation is to be redeemed, the physical no less than the spiritual" (on v. 19).

1 Mary Magdalene came to⁴ the tomb very early⁵ on the first⁶ day of the week,⁷ for John tells us that it was "still dark."⁸ That it was still dark will perhaps explain why Mary did not see the things Peter and John saw later. However, she does not appear to have paused for long enough to see much, whatever the state of the light. Her early arrival is evidence of a determination to get on with the task at the soonest possible moment. It is not clear why John does not mention any woman other than Mary when all the other Gospels tell us that she was not alone. It may be that he knew that she was the first to see the risen Jesus (cf. Mark 16:9) and that he was not concerned accordingly with the others who did not see Jesus at the same time as did Mary.⁹ This is not entirely convincing, but it is difficult to arrive at a better explanation. The Synoptists tell us that the women came with spices to anoint the body. Why this should be done when Nicodemus had brought such a large quantity is not clear. It may be that they were not aware of what Nicodemus had done, but this seems unlikely in the light of the fact that two of them "saw where he was laid" (Mark 15:47). More probably, in view of the lateness of the hour and the nearness of the Sabbath, Nicodemus was not able to use all the spices he had brought to complete the process of burial, and the women came to do this. John proceeds to tell us that Mary saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.¹⁰ The women had been anxious about this, since they knew that they could not roll it away themselves (Mark 16:3).

2 Mary's immediate reaction was to tell the menfolk. She ran off to Simon Peter (who thus appears still to have been recognized as the leading apostle, despite the denials), and to the "the other disciple" (cf. 18:15-16), "the one Jesus loved" (cf. 13:23).¹¹ She had seen that the tomb was empty and concluded that the body had been stolen¹² (what else?). Apparently the thought of a resurrection did not enter her head. So she told the two men that the body had been taken away. Her "they" is not defined, but it can scarcely mean "people in general." It will refer to the enemies of Jesus, perhaps especially the chief priests, or it may be an impersonal plural equivalent to our passive.¹³ She adds, "we don't know where they have put him!"¹⁴ The plural "we" indicates that other women were associated with her in the discovery, though she is the only one John mentions (she uses the singular in v. 13). It is in any case inherently likely, considering that she went to the tomb "while it was still dark" (v. 1), that others were with her. A woman would scarcely have ventured outside the city alone at such an hour with Jerusalem crowded with visitors for the feast, visitors who might be of uncertain character and who might be bivouacking anywhere! For "the Lord" see on 4:1.

3 The disciples apparently wasted no time talking. They set off to see for themselves. Peter is mentioned first as though he took the initiative and set off. The other then decided to come, too. They were going to the tomb.¹⁵

4 The result was that they were both running.¹⁶ The one who started second reached the tomb first. It is often said that he was younger than Peter, and he may have been. But the text does not say so and we must bear in mind that speed and youth are not synonymous. It is not impossible, moreover ,that the Beloved Disciple was more familiar with the area than Peter and took a shortcut to the tomb. We do not know.

5 Apparently the Beloved Disciple was somewhat diffident or hesitant. He seems not to have begun this race to the tomb, but to have followed Peter's initiative. Now, arrived at his destination, he hesitated to go inside the tomb, but contented himself with standing outside and looking in.¹⁷ From this position he could see the "strips of linen." No mention is made of the headcloth; presumably it was not visible from where he stood, though when Peter went into the tomb (v. 6) he would see it immediately.

6-7 It is not said how much later Peter arrived. But when he got there he did not hesitate but went straight into the tomb. He saw the cloths that had been around the body. John specifically mentions that the cloth that had been on Jesus' head was not with the others, but was wrapped up in a place of its own (Berkeley renders "in its particular place," but this seems to go beyond the meaning of the Greek). In recent years this has often been taken to mean that the grave clothes were just as they had been when placed around the body. That is to say, Jesus' body rose through the grave-clothes without disturbing them. This is not inconsistent with the language, but we should bear in mind that John does not say this. That the headcloth¹⁸ was not with the others scarcely supports the view, for had this been the case it would have been right alongside them, with no more than the length of the neck (if that) between them. Moreover, "folded up" does not look like a description of the way it would have appeared if the head had simply passed through it. However, whatever be the truth of this, John is plainly describing an orderly scene, not one of wild confusion. This means that the body had not been taken by grave robbers. They would never have left the cloths wrapped neatly. They would have taken the body, cloths and all, or would have taken the cloths off and dropped them in a heap.¹⁹

8 Emboldened by Peter, the other disciple also entered the tomb. John repeats that he came there first, and goes on to say, "He saw²⁰ and believed." Neither verb has an object. We may fairly conjecture that the object of the first is the grave clothes. These are at the moment, the center of attention. There is no real uncertainty here.²¹ But what did he believe? That Jesus rose is our natural answer, but immediately John goes on to say that they did not yet know the Scripture that Jesus must rise. He may mean that, on the basis of the evidence before his eyes, the Beloved Disciple believed that a resurrection had taken place, even despite his ignorance at this time of the significance of the Scripture bearing on this point. This will be supported by the meaning attaching to "believe" in verses 25, 27 and 29. Hoskyns is in no doubt about this and goes as far as to say, "The pre-eminence of the faith of the Beloved Disciple is the climax of the narrative. His faith was not derived from ancient prophetic texts; the fact of the empty tomb illuminated the sense of scripture."²² The Easter faith means more than the conviction that a re-suscitation has taken place; it includes understanding that the divine purpose revealed in Scripture has now taken place. It seems that John had now come to believe that the resurrection had taken place, but that he did not yet appreciate all that that meant.²³ Some readers have felt that the recording of the fact that he was the first to believe shows a certain pride. In view of verse 29 it is more likely to be humility. "He saw and believed" — and therefore did not attain to the blessing promised to those who believed without seeing. The possibility must also be borne in mind that John's meaning is that, though he did not attain to a knowledge of the resurrection, he did attain some sort of faith. Whatever had happened in the tomb had been wonderful. Or he may simply mean that now he believed Mary's story. It had sounded incredible enough, but now that John saw the tomb he recognized the truth of what she had said. He believed her.²⁴ It is worth noting that John puts some emphasis on the fact of the empty tomb. Not only was it seen to be empty by Mary, but also by Peter and the Beloved Disciple. Michaels adds a comment on the fact that only the Beloved Disciple is said to believe: "The implication is not that Peter saw but did not believe; it is only that the narrator tells Peter's story as an external observer but the beloved disciple's story as his own."

9 "They still did not understand" appears to mean that eventually they did understand.²⁵ But at this time they did not know the scripture that spoke of the resurrection. John's habit is to use "the scripture" as a way of referring to a specific passage rather than to the general tenor of scriptural teaching. This raises the question, Which passage is meant? Paul also tells us that Jesus was raised "on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:4), but he does not say what passage he has in mind either. It is usual to point to Hosea 6:2 or Jonah 1:17 for "the third day." Neither of these sounds convincing to modern ears, but they may well have sounded differently to first-century people. For the idea of resurrection without specification of the day, attention is drawn to Isaiah 53:10-12 (which speaks of the Servant as alive and active subsequent to his death) and Psalm 16:10. It is clear from the New Testament that the early Christians viewed the resurrection as foretold in the Old Testament. But this passage shows plainly that it was belief in the resurrection that came first. Believers did not manufacture a resurrection to agree with their interpretation of prophecy. They were first convinced that Jesus was risen and in the light of that came to see a fuller meaning in some Old Testament passages. "Must" (NIV, "had to") is important (see on 4:4).²⁶ Since they came to see the resurrection in inspired prophecy it was no chance happening. The hand of God was in it. It must happen.

10 John rounds off this section of the narrative by telling us that the disciples went home²⁷ again. They did not figure in the appearance of Jesus to Mary. When they had seen the tomb they went away.

B. THE APPEARANCES (20:11-29)

Each of the four Gospels recounts appearances of Jesus after the resurrection (with the exception of Mark if it really ended originally at 16:8, but resurrection appearances are prophesied in 16:7, and there is good reason for holding that from the beginning that Gospel, like the others, included accounts of appearances of the risen Lord). But the four differ in the appearances they relate. Characteristically John makes his own selection. There is no question of his having derived these stories from any of the other Gospels.²⁸

1. The Appearance to Mary (20:11-18)

11 But Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. 13They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?" "They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him." l4At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. 15 "Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for? " Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him." 16Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher). 17Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' " 18Mary of Mag-dala went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her.

There is something very moving about this first meeting of the risen Lord with any of his followers. There is, moreover, a wonderful condescension involved, for we have no reason for thinking of Mary as being a particularly important person. Yet it was to her and not to any of the outstanding leaders of the apostolic band that the Lord appeared first. The story is told simply and with conviction.²⁹

11 "But" indicates acontrast to the two who went home. Mary was standing just outside the tomb, and weeping.³⁰ John says nothing about her return to the tomb, nor about whether she got there before the two men left. He simply pictures her as standing at the tomb³¹ and weeping. While she continued weeping she stooped down and peeped³² in. Though she had been at the tomb before, this is the first mention of her looking inside it.

12-13 She sees (John uses the present tense for greater vividness) two angels³³ in white sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and the other at the feet. The angels do not play a major part; their one function is to ask Mary why she is crying,³⁴ after which we hear no more of them. For "Woman" as a form of address see on 2:4. It is obvious that in this context there can be nothing harsh about the term. Mary's reply³⁵ is much like her words to the disciples in verse 2, though now she uses the singular "I don't know," No other women are associated with her at this moment. The question concerns her personal grief, and her answer relates to this only. The depth of her grief is perhaps due to the emphasis the Jews of the day placed on correct and seemly burial. They regarded with abhorrence any disrespect paid to a corpse. Uncertainty as to what had happened to Jesus' body was worrying Mary and distressing her deeply.

14 No answer of the angels is recorded. Perhaps Mary withdrew abruptly. She may have heard a movement behind her. Or, as many commentators from Chrysostom down have held, the angels may have made some motion at the sight of the Lord behind Mary. We do not know. But she turned right around³⁶ and saw Jesus standing there. Why she did not recognize him is not said. It is possible that tears were blurring her vision, but tears are not usually a reason for failing to recognize someone well known to us. There seems to have been something different about the risen Jesus so that he was not always recognized. The walk to Emmaus is the outstanding example, but we see the same thing at the miraculous catch of fish (21:4), and Matthew tells us that when the disciples saw Jesus on a mountain in Galilee they worshipped, "but some doubted" (Matt. 28:17). Cf. also Luke 24:37.

15 Jesus repeats the question of the angels, "Woman, why are you crying?" and adds, "Who is it you are looking for?"³⁷ This might have started Mary along the right track. She was looking for a corpse whereas she should have been seeking a person. Why Mary took him for the gardener is not clear. Perhaps it was the only logical thing. Who else would be in the garden so early, and who else would question her as to what she was doing? What is certain is that she did take him for the gardener and she leaped to the conclu-sion that he may well have carried away³⁸ the body she was seeking. So she asks whether this were the case and lets him know that she wants to take the body away. She does not say, "in order to give it decent burial," but that is implied. Interestingly, she says nothing of whose body she meant, nor even that she did mean a body. Her answer presupposes quite a bit of knowledge of the circumstances. But that is quite understandable, given the depths of her grief. A thoroughly grief-stricken person does not make allowances and go into full explanations. She uses "him" three times: it was he who filled her thoughts to the exclusion of all else. It has often been pointed out that Mary unaided would have found it difficult to "get him." So it would. But grief like Mary's does not perform exact calculations as the weight that can be lifted.

16 With a masterly economy of language John tells how Mary came to know that it was Jesus. The risen Christ utters but one word, her name. Mary turns. Evidently, after turning toward Jesus (v. 14) she had turned back to the tomb. This further act of turning indicates that something in the way the name was spoken caught her attention. When the Good Shepherd calls his sheep they know his voice (10:3-4). Immediately she calls out in Aramaic "Rabboni,"³⁹ which John translates for the benefit of his Greek readers. It indicates plainly enough that Mary had come to recognize Jesus. This seems, however, to have been an unusual form of address. In the older Jewish literature it appears to be used, but seldom with reference to men, and as a mode of address it is mostly used of addressing God in prayer.⁴⁰ John may want us to understand Mary's reaction to the presence of the risen Lord as similar to that of Thomas who said, "My Lord and my God" (v. 28). Against this are the facts that "Rabboni" is used by the blind man in Mark 10:51 (where there is no reason to hold that he thought he was addressing God), that the Palestinian Targum may point to a different use,⁴¹ and that John here interprets the word as meaning "Teacher." This last point is probably decisive. We should hold that Mary's understanding of Jesus' person is not complete.

17 This verse presents us with some problems. The first is in the words NIV translates "Do not hold on to me" and which have traditionally been understood as in KJV, "Touch me not." There seems to be no reason why Mary should not touch him, and indeed Matthew tells us that when the women first saw the risen Lord they "came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him" (Matt. 28:9).⁴² Probably we should understand the Greek tense here in the strict sense. The present imperative with a negative means "Stop doing something" rather than "Do not start something."⁴³ Here it will mean "Stop clinging to me" and not, "Do not begin to touch me." Evidently Mary in her joy at seeing the Lord had laid hold on him, possibly in the same way and for the same purpose as the ladies of whom Matthew writes.⁴⁴

The references to ascending are not completely clear. It is not easy to understand what difference the ascension could make to Mary's clinging to Jesus. Some point out that, whereas we use "the Ascension" as a technical term, this was not done in New Testament days. The point may be conceded, but it does not get us far. Whether "ascend" is used in the technical sense in this verse or not, it clearly refers to a decisive parting as Jesus returns to his Father. Part of the thought appears to be that Jesus was not simply returning to the old life. Mary was reacting as though he were. Since he had not yet ascended he could appear to her, but she must not read into this a simple return to the former state of affairs (such as no doubt happened in the case of Lazarus).⁴⁵ But part of the thought also will be concerned with the fact that the ascension was as yet future. Some exegetes maintain that John thought that the ascension took place on the same day as the resurrection and cite this passage as proof. But this is to ignore the subsequent happenings narrated in this very chapter. Verses 26ff., to name no other, show clearly that John thought of Jesus as active here on earth after the day of resurrection. The words we are discussing must be understood in the light of a future ascension. It is as though Jesus were saying, "Stop clinging to me. There is no need for this, for I am not yet at the point of permanent ascension.⁴⁶ You will have, opportunity of seeing me." In the message to the "brothers" the verb "I ascend" (NIV, "I am returning") is in the present tense. This may denote future action, but if so it is with the thought either of imminence or certainty. It is the latter that is required here. We should probably accept Lagrange's suggestion that the adversative conjunction appended to "Go" applies also to "ascend." The words will then mean "Stop clinging to Me. I have not yet ascended to my Father, it is true. But I shall certainly do so. Tell this to My brothers."⁴⁷

A further problem is the meaning to be attached to "my brothers" to whom Mary is to deliver a message. In this context we naturally expect a message to be sent to the disciples, and in fact Mary does go to them (v. 18). But they are not normally called Jesus' "brothers" (though cf. 21:23; Matt. 12:50). His brothers are, of course, referred to with this term (2:12; 7:3, 5, 10), but we are expressly told that they did not believe in him (7:5), so it is not easy to understand why he should be sending a message to them. Yet Luke tells us that from the earliest days after the resurrection the "brothers" of Jesus were found with the disciples (Acts 1:14). Obviously there was a change in them by that time, so it is possible to hold that they are meant in this verse. But on the whole this does seem too soon after the resurrection for a special message to them. After all, they were unbelieving, and a little time seems required for their change of heart. The same problem arises in connection with Matthew 28:10, where the risen Lord gives a message to "my brothers" through the women. All in all it appears that we should understand the term as denoting the disciples. In passing we should not miss the significance of the fact that these important messages were entrusted to women. Among the Jews women were not permitted to bear witness (Mishnah, Rosh Ha-Shanah 1:8).

Finally, we should notice that Jesus refers to God as "my Father and your Father" and as "my God and your God." It seems as though he is of set purpose, placing himself in a different relationship to the Father from that which his followers occupy.⁴⁸ This has important implications for an under-standing of Christ's Person.

18 If Mary was intended to speak to the brothers of Jesus it does not appear that she carried out the instruction. She told the disciples (whom she evidently understood Jesus to mean) that she had seen the Lord and that he had said certain things to her. There is a change from direct speech, "I have seen the Lord," to indirect speech, "that he had said these things." This has the effect of highlighting the significant words and putting emphasis on Mary's experience.

2. The Appearance to the Ten (20:19-23)

19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you! " 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. 21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Luke mentions an appearance of the Lord to the disciples on the evening of that first Easter Day (Luke 24:36ff.). This comes after those who had walked the Emmaus road with Jesus had returned to Jerusalem and had been told by the assembled disciples that Peter had seen Jesus. John's story resembles Luke's in the greeting and in the fact that Jesus showed his friends his hands and his side (in Luke, his hands and his feet). But Luke says nothing about Jesus breathing on the disciples, or about the Holy Spirit, or about forgiving and retaining sins. John, by contrast, does not speak of the disciples' fear at seeing what they thought was a spirit or of Jesus as eating some broiled fish. Though both Evangelists seem to be referring to the same occasion there is no question of John's setting before us a variant of Luke's story. Here, as elsewhere, he is quite independent.

19 This incident is introduced with a typical Johannine note of time (see on 1:39). It was evening on that same day, the first⁴⁹ day of the week. When he tells us that the doors⁵⁰ were "locked" (the Greek means no more than "shut," but NIV seems correct as we see from the following explanation, that this was due to fear of the Jews).⁵¹ The group that met together is called simply "the disciples." This may mean the apostles only (or rather ten of them, for Thomas was not present). But the term is wide enough to include others, and there is no real reason for thinking that apostles only are in mind. Certainly if the occasion is that referred to in Luke 24:33 others were present, for Luke expressly mentions them. It should also be borne in mind that in this very chapter John speaks of "the Twelve" (v. 24), so that presumably he means something different when he says "the disciples." The disciples were afraid (understandably), and they took their precautions. Now Jesus came and stood among them.⁵² This appears to mean that he had not come through the door in the normal fashion (else what is the point of mentioning the shut door?). It has been suggested that Jesus came right through the closed door, or that the door opened of its own accord or the like. But since Scripture says nothing of the mode of Jesus' entry into the room, we do well not to attempt to describe it closely. We can scarcely say more than that the risen Jesus was not limited by closed doors. Miraculously he stood among them, but the precise way he did it is not indicated, "Peace be with you" is the usual Hebrew greeting (e.g., 1 Sam. 25:6). It is likely, however, that on this occasion we should see more in the words than a conventional greeting. After their for-saking Jesus at the time of the arrest the disciples may well have expected rebuke or blame. Instead Jesus pronounces peace on them. For the term "peace" see on 14:27.

20 No reason is given for his showing his hands and side.⁵³ But these were places where he bore the marks of the wounds (John does not mention wounds in the feet), so that this was a means of convincing them that it was he, the same Jesus they had known, however much he might now be transformed. We should probably understand this in the light of what Luke tells us, that when Jesus appeared among the disciples on the evening of the first Easter Day, "They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost" (Luke 24:37). It must have been unnerving for them to have Jesus suddenly appear in the middle of them, though the doors remained fast closed. What could this be other than a spirit? Seeing is not always believing; therefore it must have been very hard for them to credit a resurrection. So Jesus immediately took steps to convince them of his identity and to take away their fear. Tenney remarks, "The resurrection body has properties different from the body of flesh; yet it is not ethereal." The following "therefore" (which NIV omits) shows that the sight of the hands and the side was effective. On account of this they rejoiced,⁵⁴ convinced now that it was Jesus that they saw. We should certainly see in this the fulfillment of our Lord's prophecy that the disciples would have sorrow while the world rejoiced, but that they would see him again and their sorrow would be turned to joy (16:20-22).

21 Now comes Jesus' commissioning of his disciples.⁵⁵ He repeats the greeting, "Peace be with you," the repetition giving it emphasis. It may not be fanciful to think of this peace thus emphasized as the peace that comes as the result of his death and resurrection (cf. 14:27). After all, he has just shown them his hands and side with their marks of his passion. The thought that the Father has sent the Son is one of the master thoughts of this Gospel; it is repeated over and over. Thus it is not surprising that it comes out once more in this solemn moment. Now, as Jesus has brought to its consummation the task that he came to accomplish, the task that the Father laid upon him, he sends his followers into the world.⁵⁶ The charge is given added solemnity from being linked thus to the mission of the Son: their mission proceeds from his. It is only because he has thus accomplished his mission, and indeed precisely because he has accomplished it, that they are sent into the world. The link between his mission and theirs is emphasized. The thought is very similar to that in the prayer of 17:18, though characteristically there are slight changes in the wording.⁵⁷

22 Having commissioned them, Jesus bestowed on them the equipment they would need for the discharge of their commission. He breathed⁵⁸ and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit."⁵⁹ It is perhaps significant that there is no "on them" in most MSS⁶⁰ (cf. Schonfield, "he expelled a deep breath"). John is not writing as though there were a series of gifts made to individuals. Rather he speaks of a collective gift made to the group as a whole. "The gift was once for all, not to individuals but to the abiding body" (Westcott). There is possibly a recollection here that the primary meaning of the word we render "spirit" is "breath" or "wind," but the important thing is not this. It is the presence of the Holy Spirit within them. The relation of this gift to that made on the day of Pentecost is obscure. Some scholars maintain that the two are incompatible. They hold that Luke thought that the Spirit was not bestowed until ten days after the ascension, whereas John thought of this gift as taking place on the evening of the day of resurrection. But this may be going too far too fast. The circumstances of the two gifts are completely different. And, whereas that in Acts 2 is followed immediately by some very effective preaching, no sequel to this gift is narrated. It is the teaching of the New Testament that "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:4), and the problem is probably to be solved along these lines.⁶¹ It is false alike to the New Testament and to Christian experience to maintain that there is but one gift of the Spirit. Rather the Spirit continually manifests himself in new ways. Subsequent to the gift at Pentecost the Spirit fell on all who heard the word in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:44), just as "on us at the beginning" (Acts 11:15). On several occasions believers are said to have been "filled with the Holy Spirit" (e.g., Acts 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9; cf. Rom. 5:5; 1 Cor. 2:12, etc.), where the aorists indicate new activities of the Spirit, rather than a reference to what had always been the case. John tells of one gift of the Spirit and Luke of another.

23 On the basis of the gift of the Spirit whom the Lord Jesus has given to his church, that church is now given authority to declare that certain sins are forgiven⁶² and certain sins are retained.⁶³ This is not to be understood in any mechanical way. It is the result of the indwelling Spirit and takes place only as the Spirit directs.⁶⁴ The verse is sometimes understood as though it gave the apostles, and through them the individual Christian minister, the power to forgive or to withhold forgiveness of the sins of individuals.⁶⁵ There are, however, objections to this. In the first place it overlooks the fact that there were almost certainly others than the apostles present. There seems to be no reason for thinking that this group of Christians was anything other than that mentioned in Luke 24:33ff., and that certainly included Cleopas and the friend who walked with him to Emmaus, The gift Christ made was surely made to the church as a whole. We have no reason at all for thinking that those present formed a "ministry." They were rather the representatives of the whole church. Strachan indeed thinks that the words give the authority in question "to any disciple of Christ." This does not seem correct; the words apply to the church as a whole and not to individuals.⁶⁶ But at least the fact that Strachan can take up this position shows how difficult it is to insist that the words apply only to the ordained ministry. Those who refer the words to the ministry usually concentrate on the power of absolution. They think of the Christian priest as a man with a God-given authority to declare to people that their sins are forgiven. But it ought not to be overlooked that that power to declare sins forgiven is on all fours with the power to declare them retained. I do not think that this verse teaches that any individual Christian ministry has the God-given authority to say to a sinner, "I refuse to forgive your sins. They are retained." But unless this can be said, the words about forgiveness cannot be said. The one goes with the other.⁶⁷

It should also be borne in mind that, according to the best text, the verbs "are forgiven" and "are not forgiven" are in the perfect tense.⁶⁸ The meaning is that the Spirit-filled church can pronounce with authority that the sins of such-and-such people have been forgiven or have been retained. If the church is really acting under the leadership of the Spirit it will be found that her pronouncements in this matter do but reveal what has already been deter-mined in heaven.

Further, it should not be overlooked that the words for "whose" (NIV, "anyone") are plural. It is the sins of whatever⁶⁹ people, not the sins of whatever person, to which this verse refers. Jesus is not speaking of individu-als, but of classes. He is saying that the Spirit-filled church has the authority to declare which sins are forgiven and which sins are retained.⁷⁰ This accords with rabbinical teaching that spoke of certain sins as "bound" and others as "loosed."⁷¹ This referred to classes, not to individuals, and this is surely what Jesus is saying also. Of course, what applies to classes has its application to individual cases. That cannot be denied and should not be overlooked. But it is not the subject of this gift of Christ.

3. The Appearance to Thomas (20:24-29)

24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 When the other disciples told him that they had seen the Lord, he declared, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand in his side, I will not believe it. " 26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"29Then Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

This incident, peculiar to this Gospel, is of the utmost importance for an understanding of the way the first Christians came to know that the resurrection had indeed taken place. Some writers almost give the impression that at first there was no thought of a resurrection, but that bit by bit the apostles became familiar with the thought. Eventually they built up more and more circumstantial tales until the whole church was convinced.⁷² The church at first had no idea of a resurrection. That is plain enough. But there was no gradual acceptance of the idea with more and more "appearances" being manufactured. The plain fact is that all told we read of five appearances on the one day (to Mary Magdalene, to the women, to the two on the way to Emmaus, to Peter, and to the ten). Then there are five more spread out over forty days, and after that no more with the exception of the appearance to Saul of Tarsus.⁷³ This is no gradual building up of "appearances" but rather the reverse. They were progressively restricted, not built up. Moreover, as Thomas makes abundantly clear, the appearances were not at first welcomed. They were resisted as idle talk, and those who had not actually seen Jesus for themselves refused point blank to accept the stories. Only the plainest of evidence could have convinced a skeptic like Thomas. But convinced he was, which shows us that the evidence was incontrovertible.

24 First the scene is set. Thomas is described with some precision as one of the Twelve, and as the one called "Didymus" or "twin" (see on 11:16). He was not with the others when Jesus came. No reason is given, and there is neither praise nor blame for his absence.

25 The others told⁷⁴ Thomas that they had seen Jesus, and found their statement met with blank incredulity. Thomas demands both visual and tactile proof before he will believe. Unless he can both see the nailprints⁷⁵ and put his finger into them,⁷⁶ he will certainly not⁷⁷ believe. No skepticism could be more thoroughgoing than this, and it is perhaps worth noting that nobody else in the New Testament makes demands like these before believing. This is often taken as indicating that Thomas was of a more skeptical turn of mind than the others, and, of course, he may have been. But another possibility is that he was so shocked by the tragedy of the crucifixion that he did not find it easy to think of its consequences as being annulled. In support of this is urged his preoccupation with the wounds of Jesus, as these words of his show.

26 "Eight days" according to the inclusive method of counting signifies "a week" (so NIV). This incident, then, is dated on the Sunday evening after the first Easter Day. The disciples were again gathered indoors, this time with Thomas in the number. As before, the doors were locked (the same expression as in v. 19, where see the note). As before, Jesus came among them and gave them the usual greeting. John seems to be at pains to make clear that all was just as it had been on the first occasion.

27 After the greeting Jesus addressed himself to his hard-headed disciple. With some rather unexpected vocabulary⁷⁸ he invites Thomas to carry out the tests he himself had nominated, to put his finger into the nailprints and his hand into the side. Jesus concludes by urging Thomas to cease being an unbeliever⁷⁹ but⁸⁰ become a believer.

28 But Thomas was not such a skeptic as he thought he was. At the sight of Jesus all his doubts vanished and he did not need to apply any of his tests. It is possible that it was the words of Jesus more than anything that brought conviction, for they showed that Jesus was perfectly aware of what Thomas had laid down as his demands. How did he arrive at this knowledge unless he was there, unseen? Perhaps we should mention that some think that Thomas did actually put his finger into the nailprints and his hand into the spear wound. They hold that if Jesus commanded him he had no choice. But John says nothing of the sort, and it seems very improbable. It is much more likely that Jesus' words reveal the truth of the matter: "Because you have seen me, you have believed" (v. 29). Thomas gave utterance to his newfound faith in the memorable words, "My Lord and my God!"⁸¹ If, as many scholars think, chapter 21 is an appendix and that the original Gospel ended at 20:31, this will be the last statement made by anyone in the Gospel. It is significant that it is an ascription to Jesus of deity,⁸² corresponding to "the Word was God" in 1:1. For the term "Lord" see on 4:1. It is an expression that is used by others of the Master, sometimes with more and sometimes with less content. Here we must clearly give the term all that it will hold. "My God" is a rather new form of address. Nobody has previously addressed Jesus like this. It marks a leap of faith. In the moment that he came to see that Jesus was indeed risen from the dead Thomas came to see something of what that implied. Mere men do not rise from the dead in this fashion. The One who was now so obviously alive, although he had died, could be addressed in the language of adoring worship.

29 Jesus addresses to Thomas a word of approval, but one that goes far beyond Thomas to those who had not required so much before believing. Thomas believed on the basis of sight:⁸³ he saw Jesus and believed.⁸⁴ Some commentators think that Jesus is administering a rebuke to his hard-headed follower. This may be so, but if so it is a very gentle rebuke. We must bear in mind that if it is true that Thomas believed on the basis of what he himself saw, this is also the case with all the others John has so far mentioned. While some may well have believed on the basis of the testimony of Mary Magdalene and others John has not said so. There is possibly significance also in the fact that when Jesus goes on to speak of those who believed without seeing he says they are "blessed" (cf. 13:17), not "more blessed." This does not look like a comparison, with Thomas worse off than the others. But Jesus does pronounce a blessing on those who have believed without seeing. At the time the words were spoken this would not have been a large number, but perhaps not all the first Christians were as skeptical as Thomas. Some had believed Peter and the others (Luke 24:34). These are now said to be blessed. And, of course, the words will refer as well to all those who in the future would follow in the same way. There is a special blessing for those possessed of a faith that can trust absolutely and that does not need to "see" at every turn.

VII. THE PURPOSE OF THE GOSPEL (20:30-31)

30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may^a believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

a. 31 Some manuscripts may continue to

30 In this statement of intention John first makes it clear that in his Gospel he has made a selection. He has not by any means written all that he knows about Jesus.⁸⁵ There were many other "signs" (for this term see on 2:11 and Additional Note G, pp. 607-13) that Jesus did. He has written what served his purpose and has omitted much.⁸⁶ He speaks of the signs as having been done "in the presence of his disciples"; that is to say, the disciples were witnesses of them. This way of putting it reminds us of a characteristic emphasis throughout this Gospel. Though John does not choose to use the term "witness" in this verse, his choice of words reminds us that adequate "witness" is borne to the things of which he writes.

31 Now John gives us the purpose of his book, thepurpose that he has had steadily in mind from the beginning.⁸⁷ He uses the perfect tense in the verb "are written," a tense that perhaps indicates that what he has written stands. There is an air of permanence about it as in Pilate's "What I have written, I have written" (19:22). He tells us that the purpose of his writing is that people may believe. This appears to mean that John has an evangelistic aim, and if the aorist subjunctive of the verb be read, this is beyond reasonable doubt. Some, however, accept the present (which seems not improbable)⁸⁸ and argue from it that the meaning is "that you may continue to believe." They reason that the Gospel is addressed to believers. It appears that this is reading a good deal into the tense, and it is more probable that there is an evangelistic aim whatever the tense.⁸⁹ But we should also discern a pastoral concern. Through the centuries Christian people have nourished their spiritual lives on this Gospel. It is incredible that a man who could write such a Gospel should be unaware of such a possibility. Faith is fundamental, and John longs to see people believe. He has not tried to write an impartial history; he is avowedly out to secure converts. He is bearing witness to those great events in which God has acted for humanity's salvation. For he is sure that God has acted, and that his action is to be seen in Jesus Christ. John does not think of faith as a vague trust, but as something with content (see further Additional Note E, pp. 296-98). Faith means believing that — . Here he singles out two things in faith's content. The one is that Jesus is the Christ, that is, the Messiah, the long-expected one. The other is that he is the Son of God. We take these two as more or less identical, but the Jews of the day did not. The Messiah was not expected to stand in that very close relationship to the Father of which John speaks. John's conception of messiahship is fuller and richer than that of contemporary Judaism⁹⁰ (see the comments on 1:20,41). The combination of terms indicates the very highest view of the Person of Jesus, and one that it must be taken in conjunction with the fact that John has just recorded the confession of Thomas that hails Jesus as "My Lord and my God." There cannot be any doubt but that John conceived of Jesus as the very incarnation of God.

It is only because he has this high dignity that he can be the kind of Savior that John conceives him to be. So John thinks of the faith of which he writes not as an end in itself, but as the means of bringing people life, life in Christ's name. Life is another of John's great themes (see on 1:4; 3:15). He writes of it constantly, and invariably he thinks of real life as something to be had only through Christ. So here life is to be had by believers, and they have it in the "name" of Christ (for "the name" see on 1:12; 14:13). That is to say, the abundant life of which he writes is connected with the very person of Christ. It is his gift.

———————————————

1. Luke 24:12 mentions Peter's visit to the tomb (though the Beloved Disciple is not included). Some regard that verse as inauthentic on the grounds of its omission by certain Western authorities (notably D) and the possibility of its being derived from the present passage. If this were the case, however, it is difficult to understand why John should not be mentioned, nor the appearance to Mary.

2. A more recent study that also shows that the Gospel accounts need not be understood to contradict one another is that by John Wenham, Easter Enigma (Exeter, 1984).

3. It is possible that it was her need that determined our Lord's appearance. Cf. Tasker, "She who owed so much to her Master during His earthly life (see Mk. xvi.9) needed most of all to be reassured at the earliest possible moment that death had not put an end to the benefits she could receive from Him."

4. εἰς is used here in much the sense of πρός. It can scarcely be taken to mean "into." Yet later in this chapter the same expression is used where the meaning must be "into" (vv. 6. 8).

5. For πρωΐ see on 18:27-28.

6. The cardinal number μια is used and not the ordinal. This is not conclusive proof of Semitic influence (see Μ, I, pp. 95-96), but it certainly agrees with a Semitic background, for such a use is found in both Hebrew and Aramaic.

7. σάββατα, though plural in form, is used with the singular meaning. It can signify either "Sabbath" or "week." The plural form appears to be due to the fact that the Aramaic , when transliterated, has the appearance of a Greek neuter plural. This would be helped by the analogy of plurals for festivals such as τὰ έγκαίνια. The meaning "week" would derive from the interval between Sabbath and Sabbath.

8. A problem is posed by the fact that according to Mark 16:2 the sun had risen when the women reached the tomb. Several commentators suggest that the women came in groups, all arriving about sunrise. Those who were a little earlier would have arrived in darkness, those a little later when the sun was up. Another view is that John's statement refers to the time of Mary's departure from her home, Mark's to the time of her arrival at the tomb.

9. Matthew of course tells us that the other women saw Jesus (Matt. 28:9). But this may mean that they saw him after becoming separated from Mary Magdalene.

10. "Removed" is the translation of ήρμένον. The verb has the meaning "lift up," "take up," and is not the word we might have anticipated. When the stone was put in place it was "rolled" (the verb is προσκυλίω, Matt. 27:60; Mark 15:46). John may imply violence, all the more so since the preposition following is έx. This seems to imply that the stone was lifted out of the groove in which it ran (Amplified renders, "lifted out of [the groove across the entrance of] the tomb"). The perfect of this verb is unusual and may be intended to give an air of finality.

11. It is difficult to understand why the preposition πρός is repeated. Perhaps the two disciples were not together at first. The easiest supposition is that the two were lodging in different places and that Mary went to Peter first, then with Peter to the lodgings of the other. But it is difficult to get all this out of one preposition.

12. We might have expected the perfect instead of the aorist ἦραν. But the perfect of this verb is very rare, the only example in John being the participle in v. 1. It appears that the aorist was sometimes used in the sense that we associate with the perfect.

13. This is favored by Black, who sees in it an Aramaism (AA, p. 91).

14. P. S. Minear examines the implications of this statement in Interpretation XXX (1976), pp. 125-39).

15. The imperfect, ἤρχοντο, pictures the action as in progress, "they were com-ing," or perhaps, "they began to come."

16. NRSV reads "The two were running together," but ὁμοῦ here must be taken in the sense "at the same time" rather than "in company with each other," for Peter evidently started out without the other, and the other passed Peter and arrived first.

17. παραχύπτω signifies "bend over (to see someth. better . . .)" (BAGD); it is used again of Mary in v. 11.

18. σουδάριον is a loanword from the Latin sudarium, a cloth for wiping off sweat (sudor); it denotes a cloth more or less like our handkerchief. Here it apparently signifies a jawband, a cloth that went "round the face and over the head" (Robinson, Priority, p. 292) to hold the jaw in position.

19 Long ago Chrysostom remarked: "For neither, if any persons had removed the body, would they before doing so have stripped it; nor if any had stolen it, would they have taken the trouble to remove the napkin, and roll it up, and lay it in a place by itself; but how? they would have taken the body as it was. On this account John tells us by anticipation that it was buried with much myrrh, which glues linen to the body not less firmly than lead ..." (85.4; pp. 320-21). Grave robbing was regarded as a serious offense; Barrett cites an ordinance of Claudius prescribing capital punishment for offenders (The New Testament Background: Selected Documents [London, 1957], p. 15).

20. This is the third different verb for "see" in this chapter, βλέπει is used of Mary in v. 1 and of the Beloved Disciple in v. 5, θεωρεῖ of Peter in v. 6, and now we have εἶδεν. Moffatt has "glanced" in v. 5, "noticed" in v. 6, and "saw" in vv. 1 and 8. But the changes are probably due to John's love of variety (see on 1:32 for words for "see" and on 3:5 for John's variations). It is, however, probable that θεωρεῖ in v. 6 denotes a more prolonged scrutiny than does βλέπει in vv. 1 and 5.

21. Despite Phillips: "saw what had happened." This is an addition to the text and not a translation.

22. Schnackenburg takes the verb as an ingressive aorist meaning "the full faith in the resurrection of Jesus; any kind of diminution, with a view to v. 9, is ruled out." De la Potterie also sees an ingressive aorist, but understands it to signify "he began to believe." He goes on, "This is not yet complete belief in the Resurrection; for that it will be necessary for the mind of the disciple to be opened to the understanding of the Scripture ..." (p. 203).

23. Bultmann says, "The real Easter faith ... consists in understanding the offence of the cross; it is not faith in a palpable demonstration of the Risen Lord within the mundane sphere" (p. 688).

24. G. W. Broomfield strongly urges this explanation: "This interpretation re-moves all difficulties with regard to the story, and it has the great advantage of being the most obvious and natural interpretation of the text as it stands" (John, Peter, and the Fourth Gospel [London, 1934], p. 49).

25. But it probably does not imply that they came to know immediately, as REB appears to mean: "until then they had not understood the scriptures."

26. There is a touch of inevitability about δεῖ. It is not only that he did rise, but that he must rise. Cf. Rieu, "the Scripture where it is ordained that he should die and then come back to life."

27. Some hold that πρòς αὐτούς does not mean "went home," for which εἰς τά ῖδια would be required as in 1:11; 19:27. The expression used here is found, however, in just this sense in Josephus, Ant. 8.124 (where, incidentally, the meaning is not that they all went to the same place, but each to his own home). Black finds evidence of an Aramaic construction, the use of the dativus ethicus. He thinks that the present expression "corre-sponds to Aramaic '^a zal leh, as in the example from the Elephantine Papyrus above, 'took him off', 'went him away' " (AA, p. 77). This must be treated with respect, and the Aramaic may not be altogether out of mind. But in view of the passage in Josephus it is difficult to deny the correctness of NIV.

28. It is manifestly impossible to hold that John derived his story from Luke 24:12.

29. Cf. Dodd, "I cannot for long rid myself of the feeling (it can be no more than a feeling) that this pericopé has something indefinably first-hand about it" (HTFG, p. 148).

30. The verb κλαίω denotes not a quiet, restrained shedding of tears, but the noisy lamentation typical of Easterners of that day. Cf. its use of wailing at the tomb of Lazarus (11:31).

31. πρòς τῷ μνημείῳ. For πρός with the dative see on 18:16. The expression denotes close proximity. Indeed, Twentieth Century renders it here by "close."

32. The verb παραχύπτω is that used of the Beloved Disciple in v. 5 (where see note).

33. We read of one angel in Matt. 28:2ff., of "a young man" in Mark 16:5, and of "two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning" in Luke 24:4ff., these latter being apparently angels (Luke 24:23). On the question of whether there was one angel or two Temple comments: "It is not to be presumed that angels are physical objects reflecting rays of light upon the retina of the eye. When men 'see' or 'hear' angels, it is rather to be supposed that an intense interior awareness of a divine message leads to the projection of an image which is then experienced as an occasion of something seen and heard. That divine messengers were sent and divine messages received we need not doubt; that they took physical form so that all who 'saw' anything must 'see' the same thing we need not suppose."

34. On this question Lenski comments, "Indeed, why does she weep? — when we should all have had cause to weep to all eternity if what she wept for had been given her, the dead body of her Lord!"

35. There is an ambiguity caused by the use of ὅτι. If it is recitative the meaning will be simply "They have taken away my Lord. . . ." But it may mean "Because . . ." as in Cassirer.

36. ἐστράφη εἰς τά ὀπἰσω.

37. Ryle sees an implied rebuke in this question: "Whom seekest thou? Who is this person that thou are seeking among the dead? Hast thou not forgotten that He whom thou seekest is one who has power to take life again, and who predicted that He would rise?"

38. Of the supposed gardener Mary uses the verb βαστάζω; of the supposed grave robbers (vv. 2, 13) and of herself she uses αἴρω. This is probably not meant to denote difference of meaning, but is another example of the slight variation so typical of this Gospel. Tertullian speaks of a view that the gardener stole the body "that his lettuces might come to no harm from the crowd of visitants" (De Spectaculis, 30; p. 91).

39. The Greek is 'Ραββουνι, as in Mark 10:51. Black points out that this is the form in the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum, whereas the later Targum of Onkelos has the form (AA, p. 21). Thus the form is "Rabbouni" rather than "Rabboni."

40. So SBk, II, p. 25; G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus (Edinburgh, 1902), pp. 324ff. It is often said that the word means much the same as "Rabbi." Etymologically this may be so, though we should not overlook the point made by W. F Albright, that the term is a caritative with a meaning like "my (dear [or] little) master" (BNT, p. 158). But the usage is decisive, "Rabbi" is frequently used as a form of address, but "Rabboni" is not cited in this way (other than in prayer, of address to God). Black, however, points to its use in the old Palestinian Pentateuch Targum; he regards this as a much more reliable guide to first-century Aramaic than the Onkelos Targum that is the basis of much of Dalman's argument), which "shows that it cannot have been uncommon in earlier Palestinian Aramaic for a human lord" (AA, p. 21). He does not, however, cite any example of the term as a form of address to a human lord.

41. See the two previous footnotes.

42. That there is no great significance in the use of ἐχράτησαν in Matt. 28:9 and ἅπτου here is shown by the use of both verbs to describe the same action (Matt. 8:15; Mark 1:31).

43. For this use of the present tense in prohibitions see on 2:16. Of the present passage BDF says, "μή μου ἅπτου (which therefore has already happened or has been attempted)" (336 |3|).

44. Bernard favors emending μή μου ἅπτου to μὴ πτόου, largely on the grounds that in the other Gospels people who first saw the angels or the risen Lord usually were afraid and had to be reassured (Matt. 28:5, 10; Mark 16:8; Luke 24:5). Rieu renders "Do not be alarmed," accepting the emendation. The grounds for this, however, seem inade-quate. It is much better to accept the text given in the MSS and to understand the present tense in the normal fashion.

45. Cf. Chrysostom, "To have said, 'Approach Me not as ye did before, for matters are not in the same state, nor shall I henceforth be with you in the same way,' would have been harsh and high-sounding; but the saying, 'I am not yet ascended to the Father,' though not painful to hear, was the saying of One declaring the same thing" (86.2; p. 324).

46. This may be the point of the perfect tense, ἀναβέβχηα. The only other place where John uses the perfect of this verb is in 3:13, where the reference is also to ascending to heaven.

47. Barrett gives the meaning in these terms: "The resurrection has made possible a new and more intimate spiritual union between Jesus and his disciples; the old physical contacts are no longer appropriate, though touch may yet (v. 27) be appealed to in proof that the glorified Lord is none other than he who was crucified."

48. Cf. Lightfoot, "the disciples must never forget that, whereas His Sonship to the Father is by nature and right, theirs is only by adoption and grace, in and through Him; and therefore He speaks of 'my Father and your Father', not of 'our Father'." Long ago Augustine drew attention to the significance of this point: "He saith not, Our Father: in one sense, therefore, is He mine, in another sense, yours; by nature mine, by grace yours . . . my God, under whom I also am as man; your God, between whom and you I am mediator" (121.3; p. 438). C. F. D. Moule disputes this. He says that the expression mustnot be taken as proof of a different relationship, "for this need only mean 'your Father who is also mine . . .' " (Worship in the New Testament [London, 1964], p. 77). Again he says, "it can equally well, or more plausibly, be construed in precisely the opposite sense, to stress the identity of approach between Christ and the disciples: 'my Father who is also your Father, my God who is also yours' " (The Phenomenon of the New Testament [London, 1967], p. 51). This caution must be borne in mind; the words are not proof of a different relationship. But, with all respect, it seems that the most natural way of taking the words is to distinguish between Jesus' relationship to God and that of the disciples. If there is no distinction, it would be much more natural to refer to "our Father" or simply "the Father."

49. For μιᾷ see on v. 1.

50. In view of the fact that John uses the plural of θύρα only here and in v. 26 it seems that more than one door was intended. There may have been double doors, or, perhaps more probably, a door at the entrance to the house and a door into the room.

51. This is supported also by the fact that the verb is perfect, κεκλεισμένων. This is the case also in v. 26.

52. The expression is εἰς τò μέσον. There will be something of the idea of motion toward. He came "into their midst." But εἰς here will not differ greatly from ἐν. Moule sees this as an example of what he calls the "pregnant" use of εἰς, "apparently combining the ideas of motion and rest." He renders the present passage "he came and stood among them" (IBNTG, p. 68).

53. χαὶ. . . χαί (if this is the true reading; many MSS omit the first χαί), "both his hands and his side" puts a certain emphasis on the completeness of the process. John alone of the Evangelists tells us that Jesus showed the disciples his side.

54. The aorist may point to the sudden joy that came over them as they realized that it was Jesus.

55. Bernard maintains that the words apply to the apostles alone and not to any others who may have been present. But he presents no real evidence that this is the case. He argues that in passages like 13:20 the apostles are in mind and that "Language of this kind is addressed in the Fourth Gospel to the apostles alone. "But this is to beg the question. To most readers it seems self-evident that the words of 13:20 are quite general and apply to others than the apostles. The indications are that in this chapter the words are addressed to believers generally (John refers to them as "disciples"). In any case "apostle" is never used of the Twelve in this Gospel.

56. There is a change of verb from ἀπέσταλχεν of the Father's sending of the Son to πέμπω of the Son's sending of the apostles. There is unlikely to be significance in this since John appears to use the verbs without distinction of meaning (see on 3:17). In this passage the improbability of any change of meaning is heightened by the use of καθώς. It is the resemblance that occupies attention, χάγώ (see on 1:31) puts a certain stress on the activity of Christ. It is his commission that they bear. The perfect tense in άπέσταλxεν may have reference to the fact that his mission on earth is now completed.

57. In 17:18 the same verb ἀποστέλλω, and the same tense, the aorist, are used of both sendings. Here we have the perfect of ἀποστέλλω for the Father's sending of the Son and the present of πέμπω for the Son's sending of his followers. In ch. 17 both sendings are explicitly "into the world," whereas here the verbs are left quite general.

58. The verb is ἐνεφύσησεν, used here only in the New Testament. It is the verb used in Gen. 2:7, where God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." There will be the thought that there is now a new creation. The verb is used also in Ezek. 37:9 of the word of the Lord, "Come from the four winds, Ο breath, and breathe into these slain, that they may live." It is not unlikely that both these passages are in mind, the coming of the Spirit bringing both a new creation and life from the dead. Augustine sees in the fact that Christ gave the Spirit by breathing on the apostles evidence that the Spirit is his as well as the Father's.

59. Since Πνεῦμα Άγιοv is anarthrous some scholarshave drawn the conclusion that not the Holy Spirit, but a gift of the Spirit is in mind, but this is very unlikely. The absence of the article may do no more than fasten our attention on the quality of the gift as Holy Spirit rather than on the individuality of the Spirit. But there is no good reason to doubt that what is meant here is "the Holy Spirit."

60. von Soden cites only Tatian's Diatessaron D syr^c for these words. They should not be read.

61. Hoskyns sees in the predictions of 14:16, 26; 16:7, 13 evidence that John thought of a gift of the Spirit that would be given after Jesus' return to the Father. "There is therefore a distinction between the two gifts of the Spirit. The Resurrection scenes in the Fourth Gospel are all preparatory scenes, preparatory for the mission. What the Lord will do invisibly from heaven He here does visibly on earth. The mission is inaugurated, but not actually begun. The disciples still remain in secret, behind closed doors. The actual beginning of the mission lies outside the scope of the Fourth Gospel. There remains, therefore, room for the Pentecostal outpouring. .. ."

62. The word order is interesting: ἅν τιvων ἀφῆτε τἀς ἀμαρτίας. By using άφῆτε to separate τινων from τὰς ἁμαρτίας (which must in any case be taken together), a certain emphasis may be imparted to the verb: "of whomsoever you forgive the sins. . . ." But "if" is much more frequent and is favored by Barrett,

63. The verb xρατέω is an unusual one in such a connection. It signifies "take hold of," "hold," "retain," but in this verse the significance appears to be that of holding sins onto someone else. There does not appear to be a parallel to this. In Matt. 16:19; 18:18 the verb is δέομαι (with λύω in the antithesis). Dodd points out that neither this expression nor ἀφιέναι άμαρτίας is found elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel, which makes it unlikely that the saying is either a free creation of the Evangelist or the result of his editing of Matt. 16:19. It is much more likely that the passage is independent and that John is faithfully transmitting the words as he heard them (HTFG, pp. 348-49).

64. Cf. Filson, "This is no promise of official power which leaders may exercise regardless of whether they are personally true and loyal to Christ; only as Spirit-filled and Spirit-guided men may they thus speak for him with authority, but as Spirit-guided men they need not hesitate to speak and act with assurance."

65. Thus R. E. Brown can say, "The power to absolve and to hold men's sins is explicitly give to (ten of) the Twelve in 20:23" (Interpretation, XXI [1967], p. 391). Despite Brown's "explicitly" it is very difficult to see this. The passage does not mention the Twelve, and I find no evidence that the gift was given to the Ten as such. John speaks of "the disciples" as being present (20:19, 20). Brown admits that John's use of the term "disciples" sometimes at least is a way of indicating that Jesus "is really speaking to all believers" (loc. cit.). He gives no reason for a different usage here. In his commentary he gives the meaning of the words as "When you forgive men's sins, at that moment God forgives those sins," but he does not face the fact that this puts the initiative into the handsof fallible people (nor does he apply the same logic to the power of retaining sins, nor face the fact that the one power goes with the other).

66. Cf. Barclay, "This sentence does not mean that the power to forgive sins was ever entrusted to any man or to any men; it means that the power to proclaim that forgiveness was so entrusted; and it means that the power to warn that that forgiveness is not open to the impenitent was also entrusted to them. This sentence lays down the duty of the Church to convey forgiveness to the penitent in heart, and to warn the impenitent that they are forfeiting the mercy of God."

67. Cf. Westcott: "It is impossible to contemplate an absolute individual exercise of the power of 'retaining'; so far it is contrary to the scope of the passage to seek in it a direct authority for the absolute individual exercise of the 'remitting.' At the same time the exercise of the power must be placed in the closest connexion with the faculty of spiritual discernment consequent upon the gift of the Holy Spirit."

68. In the case of xεxράτηνται this can be taken as beyond doubt. No variantsn are cited and the perfect is universal, ἀφέωνται is read by א^c A D f1 f13 565 al. The late MSS led by W Θ read the present ἀφίενται, while Β has ἀφίονται and א* has the future ἀφεθήσεται. It seems tolerably clear that the perfect is the reading here also.

69. A certain ambiguity is posed by the use of ἄv. It could mean "if" as'in NIV, "If you forgive . . . ," but equally it may be held to be the "-ever" suffix as in ARV, "whososoever sins . . ." (cf. JB, "those whose sins you forgive"), as in 13:20 ("whoever I send"). But "if" is more frequent and is favored, for example, by Barrett.

70. Cf. MiM: "Nor does there seem to be ground for thinking that we have here a special application by one individual, whether minister or not, to another of the remission (or retention) of sin spoken of. The use of 'any' in the plural number appears to be inconsistent with such a view. It is not a direct address by one person to another that is thought of, — 'I declare that thy sins are thus authoritatively remitted or retained.' It is a proclamation from one collective body to another, — from the Church to the world."

71. Among the rabbis the "binding" and the "loosing" referred primarily to forbidding and permitting. But the terms were also used with respect to excommunication, when they signified "excommunicate" and "receive into communion." It is possible that this latter is what is meant in the present passage. But the terms used here are not the natural ones for that process, which would be rather δέομαι and λύω (as in Matt. 16:19; 18:18).

72. Cf. the classical statement of A. Harnack: "The Easter message tells us of that wonderful event in Joseph of Arimathea's garden, which, however, no eye saw; it tells us of the empty grave into which a few women and disciples looked; of the appearance of the Lord in a transfigured form — so glorified that his own could not immediately recognise him; it soon begins to tell us, too, of what the risen one said and did. The reports become more and more complete, and more and more confident" (What is Christianity?5 [London, 1958], pp. 119f.). But this is not what the Gospels tell us.

73. R. H. Kennett puts a great deal of emphasis on Paul. He regards his conversion as having taken place within five years of the crucifixion and points out that "within a very few years of the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus was in the mind of at least one man of education absolutely irrefutable" (The Interpreter, V 1908-9, p. 267).

74. The imperfect ἔλεγον may imply that they "kept saying to him" (C. B. Williams; so also Phillips).

75. Some scholars have suggested that the detail is unhistorical, urging that nails would not support the weight of a body, so that ropes must have been used. J. A. Bailey, however, cites O. Zöckler as showing that the hardness of nails used in crucifixion was proverbial, and that Xenophon of Ephesus mentions the use of ropes in crucifixions in Egypt as though this was unusual (The Traditions Common to the Gospels of Luke and John [Leiden, 1963], p. 101, n. 3). The word "hand" could be used of the wrist or forearm; the nails would have been driven through this part of the body. J. H. Charlesworth reports on the crucified man mentioned in the note on 19:18: "The lower third of his right radial bone contains a groove that was probably caused by the friction between a nail and the bone" (ExT, LXXXIV [1972-73], p. 148).

76. There is a textual problem, whether Thomas speaks of putting his finger into the print, τύπον, or into the place, τόπον, of the nails. The former has the stronger attestation, but it would be easy to corrupt an original τόπον into τύπον, which might reasonably be expected. Not much hinges on the point. NIV, "put my finger where the nails were," assumes τόπον.

77. He uses the emphatic double negative, οὐ μή.

78. φέρε is used of both finger and hand and is not the verb we would expect for this kind of action. Nor do we expect ἴδε for the action of the hands, βάλε was used in v. 25 of putting the finger into the nailprints and now of putting the hand into the wound in the side.

79. The present imperative is used, μή γίνου. For the force of this construction see on 2:16.

80. "But" (NIV, "and") is the strong adversative, ὰλλά, "but, on the contrary ..." (see on 1:8).

81. It is common to take Ό Κύριος μου και ὁ Θεός μου as a form of address, the nominative being used for vocative. Abbott, however, objects that ὁ Κύριος is not so used, though ὁ Θεός is. He cites occurrences of κύριε ὁ θεός that seem to show that a difficulty was felt in taking ὁ xριος as a vocative. If we accept it as a true nominative the meaning will probably be "It is my Lord and my God." Alternatively we could take the expression as a subject with the rest of the clause omitted, such as "My Lord and my God (has indeed risen)." Abbott favors the latter (feeling that ἐστιν could scarcely have been omitted from the former (2049-51). However, it is not to be overlooked that Thomas's words are introduced by εἶπεν αύτῷ, so that in fact Thomas is addressing Jesus. Nor should we forget that the words found here are used (in the reverse order) in an address to God in Ps. 34(35):23. We should take the words as a vocative, albeit an unusual one.

82. B. A. Mastin sees this as "the one verse in the New Testament which does unquestionably describe Christ as God" (NTS, 22 [1975-76], p. 42). We may cavil at his rejection of other passages, but his endorsement of this one is unequivocal.

83. For causal ὅτι see on 1:50.

84. The words to Thomas could, of course, be a question: "Because you have seen me, have you believed?" (cf. ARV mg.). But in this solemn moment it is much more likely that Jesus was stating the truth than that he was asking Thomas a question.

85. This is overlooked by some scholars who appear to think that John was, for example, incapable of supplementing the Synoptists in matter he shares with them. It must never be assumed that John has written all he knows on a given topic. In the light of this plain statement our presumption must always be that John has made a selection, including what he deemed relevant to his purpose and excluding what he deemed of less importance for that purpose.

86. Karl Heim regards this silence about other signs as significant. One collects  everything possible about a dead prophet. It is all one has of him. But one tells only enough of a living person to introduce one's hearers to him. For the disciples, and John in particular, Jesus was alive (Jesus the Lord [London, 1959], p. 182).

87. It is important that this not be overlooked. Dodd's brilliant work, The Inter-pretation of the Fourth Gospel, suffers from its declared purpose. Dodd says, "I shall try to show how the whole shape of the gospel is determined by the idea expressed in the words, ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, with the context of the term λόγος supplied by the Prologue as a whole" (p. 285). But, with all respect, that is not what this Gospel is about. We should not overlook the author's express statement. Elsewhere Dodd in fact recognizes the evan-gelistic purpose (IFG, p. 9).

88. The present is read by p66 (vid) * Β Θ — a strong combination. Since the aorist might well be expected in a sentence like this the present has transcriptional prob-ability and is likely to be correct.

89. Cf. Dodd: "the continuous present could be justified, even as addressed to those who were not yet Christians, if the writer were thinking not so much of the moment of conversion, as of the continuing union with Christ, the condition of which is faith, and which means the perpetual possession of eternal life" (IFG, p. 9). Bultmann denies that the tense has any real significance in this case: "So far as the Evangelist is concerned it is irrelevant whether the possible readers are already 'Christians,' or are not yet such; for to him the faith of 'Christians' is not a conviction that is present once for all, but it must perpetually make sure of itself anew, and therefore must continually hear the word anew" (pp. 698-99). We may certainly agree that faith is an adventure that must be renewed each day, and even that John's words may be used with profit by those who are already Christians. But this does not mean that the words are without meaning for unbelievers. As applied to unbelievers they will mean that John's aim for them is nothing less than a continuing attitude of faith, a constant union with Christ. That is why he wrote.

90. The Qumran scrolls show a great interest in messianism, this being often urged as a point of contact with this Gospel. But there is this decisive difference, that the covenanters looked for a future Messiah or Messiahs, whereas for John the Messiah has already come. That is the point of his whole Gospel.

↑ Back to top