20:30, 31 Epilogue
20
The Empty Tomb and the Appearances of the Risen One
20:1-10
Two Disciples Visit the Tomb
From the manner in which the Fourth Evangelist describes events on “the first day of the week” (20:1ff.) and thereafter we again see the extent to which, as a transmitter and interpreter of the tradition and as a narrator, he goes his own way, one that differs from that of the Synoptics. To some degree he describes the same events (Jesus’ appearance to Mary Magdalene, vss. 11-18; to the assembled disciples, vss. 19-23), but does so in a way uniquely his own. And he relates other events not found elsewhere, in which Peter and “the disciple whom Jesus loved” appear (vss. 1-10; ch. 21).
This independent presentation is immediately recognized from the opening of the resurrection narrative. Like the Synoptics the Fourth Evangelist begins in vs. 1 with the report of the women going to the tomb early on that first day of the week, but here it is only one woman, Mary Magdalene. Before Jesus appears to her (vss. 11ff.) she goes to the two disciples because she has discovered that the stone has been removed from the tomb. The report of the two disciples going to the tomb (vss. 3-10) is thus an interlude in which the Evangelist lets his readers know that, within the general framework of the events of that morning, which were undoubtedly familiar to them, something else took place that, as the sequel will show (see comments on vss. 9, 10), is of special significance for an understanding of everything that happened that morning. This interlude is characteristically graphic (vss. 3-6) and realistically precise (vss. 6-7), as is the case whenever “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is present as a witness (cf. 1:37-39; 13:23-25; 18:15, 16; 19:35; 21:7). All this clearly indicates the independent knowledge—knowledge closely associated with the disciple whom Jesus loved (cf. 19:35)—of the author in the presentation and structure of his narrative.
Those who deny to the author of the Fourth Gospel all independent knowledge of what he writes about, particularly those who ascribe to the conduct of the beloved disciple a nonhistorical, symbolic meaning, can only view this narrative as a theological redaction of a written source. “The historical question must recede into the background.”1 Bultmann, for example, believes that the Evangelist has inserted the narrative of the two disciples, by means of vs. 2, into a report, known to him from elsewhere, of Mary going to the tomb. The intention of this insertion is to represent Peter and the beloved disciple, the symbolic representatives of Jewish and Gentile Christianity, in a competitive relationship: though Peter, the Jew, enters first, the beloved disciple, a Gentile, shows the greatest readiness to believe.2 Most proponents of the symbolic interpretation reject this interpretation as unprovable and limit the symbolism to the figure of the beloved disciple. In his race with Peter, he leaves Peter behind and is thus the first to believe and therefore, again, the “ideal disciple.”3 This symbolic role of the figure of the beloved disciple is said to have been introduced by the Evangelist into the resurrection narrative as he received it from his sources.4
Even apart from the dubious character of the view that the activity of the beloved disciple in the Gospel has no historical basis but only symbolic meaning, this view cannot be applied to the present narrative. As will be evident from what follows, this disciple does not represent true post-Easter discipleship over against Peter (the “race” with Peter) but rather acts in conjunction with Peter as a fellow witness of the empty tomb before Jesus has appeared to anyone and before even these two disciples have come to understand that Jesus must rise from the dead. The narrative here is a preliminary and therefore a “not-yet” narrative (cf. vs. 9). It is the narrative of the empty tomb and as such the basis for what follows. The real resurrection narrative is still to come. In it the first post-Easter testimony is accorded not to the beloved (“ideal”) disciple but to Mary Magdalene, while the beloved disciple and Peter were still “at home” (vs. 10).5
Therefore, along with many other interpreters, we believe that the narrative in 20:1-10 as we have it is an independent and original unit. The Evangelist tells what happened that morning, on the basis of his own knowledge, but links it with the familiar story of the women who went to the tomb. His own account is of how, before any appearance of Jesus, two supremely reliable witnesses went to the tomb. He tells of this to establish that the tomb was empty, what state it was in, and to make clear that not the empty tomb but only the appearance of the risen Lord is the basis of the church’s faith.6
1, 2 The Johannine resurrection narrative begins with traditional material: the women walking to the tomb. The Evangelist took for granted that his readers knew of this story. He mentions only one woman, but has her speak in the plural: “we do not know …” (vs. 2). He focuses completely, nonetheless, on the special role that Mary Magdalene plays in all the events of that morning of “the first day of the week” (of which we find a weak but clear echo in Mk. 16:9). He does not say why she went to the tomb (see the comments on 19:40). All attention is immediately focused on the fact that when she arrived she found the stone, which was there to seal off the tomb, removed. This discovery is reported also by the other Gospels, but they have the women come closer and encounter angels. Here Mary immediately—apparently without entering the open tomb or looking inside—concludes that Jesus’ body has been taken away and runs off to Peter and the beloved disciple to tell them this shocking news. She says more than she can prove; her entire conduct betrays the special ties she has with Jesus (cf. also vs. 17; Mk. 16:9; Lk. 8:2). What she has seen makes her fear that some have not been able to leave Jesus’ dead body alone but have removed it from the care of his own.
She goes to Peter and to “the other disciple” (cf. 18:15), “the one whom Jesus loved” (cf. 13:23),7 undoubtedly on account of their special position among the disciples. Some think that the repetition of the preposition (“to Peter and to …”) might already indicate that the activity of the beloved disciple has been inserted into the narrative (see above) others, on better grounds, that Peter and the other disciple were not together and that Mary ran first to Peter and then to the other disciple. We are not told where they went after 18:15, 27; 19:27. But they went to the tomb together.8
3-8 It is, indeed, remarkable how graphically the Evangelist describes the two disciples going together and then being together at the tomb. Recent exegetes have made much of this, especially focusing on the difference between the two disciples’ approach to the tomb. “The other disciple ran ahead of Peter and reached the tomb first” (vs. 4); this is said to indicate his “priority” in the narrative and, especially in connection with the conclusion in vs. 8 (“he saw and believed”), to mark him here as well as the ideal disciple.9 This does not take into account that Peter is the first to enter the tomb and takes careful note of the situation there (vss. 5-7), which is of no less importance for the intent of the narrative. Perhaps the “other disciple” even waited for Peter to give him the priority or at least not to enter the tomb without him. Something is repeated here that can be observed over and over in the relationship between the two men: the beloved disciple has a unique position alongside that of Peter, and in some respects he stays a step ahead of him, but without in any way diminishing Peter’s special place among the disciples.10
However one wants to judge this matter, here the dominant emphasis is not on the differences in the conduct of the two men11 but—and this was of far greater importance for the church—on what they saw together as two important witnesses (cf. 8:17) that early that morning Jesus’ tomb was empty. For that reason, after “they went toward the tomb” (vs. 3) we read the emphatic addition: “and those two went together” (vs. 4). The statement that the other disciple walked faster (perhaps he was in a greater hurry?) may be striking, but it can hardly mean that already (before he had seen anything, vs. 8) he knew or suspected more than Peter. The detailed manner in which they went to the tomb is described (it was not a “race”) is rather designed to put all the stress on the reliability of their testimony.
The same precision also applies to their observation of the linen cloths.12 The “other disciple” came first, stooped down, and saw them lying in the tomb, but he did not enter. Peter, on the other hand, immediately—in character!—went in and saw not only the linen cloths lying there but also “the cloth13 that had been on Jesus’ head,” though it was “not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself.”14 At the entombment these cloths served to keep the hands and feet of the body together and to hold the head in the desired position. Now they lay there, left behind in good order, each in its own place, as discarded attributes that were no longer of any use and also, with the stone that had been rolled away, as silent witnesses of Jesus’ victory not only over death but also over the grave in which his body had been laid.
Of no less importance for the understanding of the whole, further, is the manner in which the Evangelist, in just a few sober words, describes and judges the reaction of the beloved disciples. After Peter had gone in and carefully surveyed everything, “Then [the beloved disciple] also went in, and he saw and believed.” Not only the emptiness of the grave but above all the sight of the cloths and the witness borne by this whole scene aroused faith in him. The form of the verb15 indicates the breakthrough of a new beginning. Unlike Mary, who from the removal of the stone and the open tomb could only conclude that “people” had taken Jesus away, in the beloved disciple, at sight of all this, a sense arose that something else must have happened with Jesus’ body, that another hand, God’s hand, had been at work here. With this one sober statement the Evangelist leaves the matter. He does not define this faith. It was like a new certainty that took hold of this disciple while understanding was still lacking. One cannot, therefore, speak of the “clear and strong faith of the beloved disciple,” marking him as the ideal disciple.16 The way in which the Evangelist arranges and continues the narrative contradicts this. It is striking here (unlike 21:7) that this disciple does not say a word about his faith to Peter.17
The Evangelist does not speak at all of Peter’s reaction to the discovery, which was, though, shocking to him as well (cf. Lk. 24:12). Some interpreters regard this as an indication that his experience was the same as that of the other disciple and that he too “believed.”18 Others hold to precisely the opposite opinion.19 Neither view has sufficient support. The Evangelist intentionally keeps silent on the subject in order to describe a situation that is unclear to both disciples. And he concludes his narrative by stressing what the two had in common: he explains their conduct (“for”) by saying that they did not yet understand the Scripture and adds, “Then the disciples went back to their homes.” Evidently they saw no alternative to being by themselves again.
9, 10 With this last point we have in a sense been given the point of the narrative. The two disciples have seen the empty tomb with their own eyes and, unlike Mary, have understood that it was not the hands of desecrators but the hand of Another that has been at work there. At the same time they have not yet understood the essence of the matter, namely that Jesus “had to rise from the dead.” Often this statement has been interpreted as finding fault with them.20 But though this motif, which comes to the fore elsewhere (cf. Lk. 24:25ff.), may also be a factor here, the emphasis here lies rather on the words (which appear here for the first time) “rise from the dead” as a description of the manner of Jesus’ being lifted up. Jesus has repeatedly spoken of “going” to the Father and of “returning” to his own. And he added: “because I live, you also will live” (14:19). But that this departure could occur by way of his death and grave and that he would come back to them not only as the Living One but as the Living One who had risen from the dead and the grave—that had remained foreign to them, and now the two disciples have yet to understand it.
The Evangelist, from his post-Easter viewpoint, refers to “the Scripture” as the recorded redemptive promise and counsel of God that it had to happen that way.21 Here again the reference is clearly not to a specific text that the disciples had not yet thought of but rather (as in 1 Co. 15:3, 4) to the whole of Scripture, against the background of which Jesus had to rise from the dead if God’s saving counsel with the sending of his Son, the Messiah of Israel and the Savior of the world, was to be fully realized. Peter and the other disciple “did not yet understand,” as they would later, when the Spirit would guide them into all the truth (cf. 2:22; 16:12ff., etc.). At Pentecost Peter, as the spokesman for Jesus’ apostles, would, in the light of the Scriptures, explain that God had raised Jesus from the dead “because it was impossible for him to be held by it [death], for him to be abandoned to Hades, or for his flesh to see corruption” (Ac. 2:24-31). The church would learn to see with increasing clarity that in his suffering and death Jesus had taken on himself the distress and death of his own, which from ancient times they had plaintively voiced to God in their psalms and prayers. Thus Jesus fulfilled the Scriptures. He did not suffer his own suffering and did not die his own death. Therefore, he also “had to” rise from the dead, according to the Scriptures, thus fulfilling all God’s promises to his people. In the same way, in his words to Mary in vs. 17, he would now ascend, in that same solidarity with his brothers, to his Father and their Father, to his God and their God—or, in Paul’s words, as the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18) and as the firstfruits of those who had fallen asleep (1 Co. 15:20, 23).
Accordingly, what the Evangelist has in mind with this interlude about the two disciples, which precedes all the appearances of the resurrected Jesus, is to highlight this unique character of the Easter event in the whole framework of Jesus’ departure and ascension to his Father (cf. vs. 17). One cannot, as many do, eliminate the empty tomb and what the tomb did contain from the resurrection narrative as unessential elements. It is precisely the emptiness of the tomb in which the specific meaning of Easter as Jesus’ rising from the dead manifests itself most unambiguously and constitutes the (negative) presupposition of everything that will occur from this point on. This is what these two reliable witnesses first had to ascertain before the actual narrative of Jesus’ return and self-revelation as the Living One could begin. The Evangelist hands us the key to understanding this with “for they did not yet understand the Scripture.” Of course we are not told what happened to Jesus’ body in the tomb. That belongs, as part of the absolutely unique resurrection event itself, among the unwritten and indescribable components in all the canonical resurrection narratives. Jesus’ resurrection—unlike the raising of Lazarus, for example—was not a return to Jesus’ earlier earthly life but an “ascent” (vs. 17) to a heavenly mode of existence veiled from the earthly eyes, ears, and imaginations even of the most reliable witnesses. Of this, in close conjunction with vss. 1-10, the next pericope speaks. Here again the Evangelist tells his story from step to step, not in a series of narratives that are originally unrelated to each other but in a masterfully selected succession of “signs that Jesus did in the presence of his disciples” (20:30, 31).
20:11-18
Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene
11-13 The narrative that began with Mary Magdalene in vs. 1 but was interrupted in vss. 3-10 is from this point on focused on her experiences at the tomb. The transition is somewhat abrupt in that her return to the tomb with, or at some distance from, the two disciples is not mentioned but simply assumed. The opening words of vs. 11, “But Mary stood22 … outside the tomb,” do, however, clearly tie in with what precedes. She did not go home, as the two disciples did. In her grief—twice expressed here by her continued weeping23—she could not take leave, however purposelessly she might seem to be walking around. Everything here points to the special ties that bound her to Jesus (cf. Mark 16:9).
In that state she (again?) bent forward to look into the tomb and saw two angels clothed in white,24 one sitting at the head and the other at the foot of the place where Jesus’ body had been, again, as in vs. 7, to mark the emptiness of that space. The other Gospels also mention Mary encountering angels at the tomb (Mk. 16:1, 5; Mt. 28:1, 5). But there, as messengers of salvation, they play a central role. Here the role they play is totally subordinate to the appearance of Jesus himself. They do ask Mary, “Why are you weeping?” This is the question posed again and again “from above,” from the perspective of the resurrection, to those who in their grief and uncertainty still judge everything from the perspective of death.25 But Mary’s grief is so intense that even the presence of angels in the tomb can spark no other answer than the complaint with which she earlier turned to the two disciples, this time—with Mary speaking to figures who were unfamiliar to her—entirely in the first person: “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” Could they perhaps tell her more about this?
14, 15 But all at once Jesus himself is there. He, as it were, takes over the angels’ side in the conversation. How he came to be there is not described. Suddenly Mary is conscious of the presence of someone behind her. Without waiting for the angels to speak she “turned around and saw Jesus standing,” without, however, recognizing him. Her failure to recognize him has been explained in a number of ways: it was still somewhat dark (?) or, given her state of mind, she could not have expected him there. But the real reason is that she thought she was still dealing with someone else, perhaps the gardener, who could answer her question: “If you have taken him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away” (vs. 15).
All this is designed to bring out something more than Mary’s state of mind as still groping in the dark. We should rather think of the supernatural character of Jesus’ coming as the Risen One, as a result of which contact with him was unlike a natural encounter with the senses. So it was with the disciples going to Emmaus (Luke 24), who also failed to recognize Jesus in the traveler who joined them on the road, and in the story of the miraculous catch of fish, in which the disciples standing on the shore “did not know that it was Jesus” (Jn. 21:4).26
Mary does recognize Jesus until he calls her out of the spell of her confused cares over his dead body by simply but emphatically addressing her by name: “Mary.”27 He approaches her as one who knows her and wants her to recognize him (cf. 10:3, 4). The Risen One is none other than the earthly Jesus, who has known her and whom she has known. At the sound of his voice calling her name she recognizes him, now turning to him with the name in which her belonging to him finds expression: “Rabbouni.” The Evangelist puts that “Hebrew” (Aramaic) name on her lips as the name of her past connection with Jesus, explaining it for his Greek readers as “Teacher.” “Rabbouni” literally means “my teacher” or “my master,” but it is used elsewhere simply as an equivalent to the common word “Rabbi.”28 Nevertheless, in this description of Jesus’ appearance to Mary there is undeniably something very personal. Unlike his other resurrection appearances, here Jesus simply calls her by name and she recognizes him as she hears him. So the way in which she turns to him and answers him with “Rabbouni” does have a strong personal and affective component (see also “my Lord” in vs. 13). All this is easy to link with her prehistory as a woman saved by Jesus from great distress (Mk. 16:9), but the Evangelist does not mention this. Jesus reveals himself first to her, but then distances himself somewhat in what he says to her (vs. 17), from which we may perhaps infer that even in this encounter with Mary we are shown that with Jesus’ resurrection a new era and another kind of relationship between Jesus and his own were inaugurated. In this respect, then, this reunion with Mary Magdalene, the woman who felt so much personal affection for Jesus, is strongly reminiscent of Jesus’ farewell to his mother (19:26). For what was true when Jesus addressed his last word to his mother from the cross is also true for Mary Magdalene when he appears to her first: from now on everything will be different.
17 That everything has changed is also conveyed by what Jesus says to Mary next: “Do not hold on to me because I have not yet ascended to the Father.” Both parts of this statement have given interpreters considerable trouble, as is evident from the multiplicity of explanations it has received.29 The two clauses must be understood in close connection with each other. For that reason the common translation “do not touch me” is not satisfactory. Certainly the meaning cannot be that Jesus not yet having ascended stands in the way of touching him or that one could touch him only after he had ascended. What is referred to is not touching but “clutching at” (with the intent or result of) “holding onto,” “holding back” (cf. Lk. 7:14). The “for” linking the second clause to the first leads to a natural explanation why Jesus rejects such “holding on” by Mary: he has not yet arrived at his goal; his “ascent to the Father” has not yet been completed. While he is on that journey Mary must not hold him back or want to keep him with herself. The next statement is entirely congruent with this understanding: “But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ”
These statements refer twice to Jesus’ ascent to his Father. One is inclined to think here of the ascension, forty days after his resurrection, described in Acts 1. But as is evident in vs. 17b, John uses the word in a broader sense. The present tense (“I am ascending”) indicates that Jesus’ ascent to the Father, his “departure from this world” (13:1), has begun and is still being accomplished as an ongoing and still uncompleted event.30 This manner of speaking implies a close link with Jesus’ statements about being “on the way” and going “to the Father” in his farewell discourse, which are also in the present tense (e.g., 14:4, 12, 28; 16:5, 28). Now, however, this “going away” has reached the stage of “ascending,” Jesus’ departure from this earth. Everything is thus rooted in the fundamental statement in 3:13, where Jesus’ entire coming and work is summed up and described as the double movement of the Son of man’s descent from and ascent to heaven.
This is not to say, however, that in the Fourth Gospel Easter and Ascension (and Pentecost; see the comments on vs. 22) coincide. All one can say is that in the one word “ascending” everything is summed up that belongs to Jesus’ passage from this world to the Father (13:1), his resurrection from the dead and his enthronement as the Son of man. But from 20:17 it is clear that this entire salvific process is realized in phases, each with its own meaning. Jesus “is ascending,” but for a long time “has not yet ascended.”
And each phase has its own part in Jesus’ self-revelation. From now on, as the Risen One, Jesus is no longer with his own on earth as before. But at this point the stage of the Spirit’s indwelling in Jesus’ own after his ascension is completed has not yet begun (cf. 14:19f. with 14:23). In the same way, the glory that Jesus exhibited to his own during his earthly life differs from the contemplation that he requests from the Father for their future existence “with him” (17:24; see further below on 20:20).
It is quite another question whether this temporal (and spatial) distinction of the phases in which the one great salvific event of Jesus’ ascent is presented and in which Jesus successively reveals himself (“appears”) to his own can also give us insight into the nature of Jesus’ mode of existence during that ascent. Does Jesus’ statements “I am ascending” and “I have not yet ascended” mean that he is on the boundary between two worlds, no longer on earth and not yet in heaven? Or, to take it another step farther, are there, in the manner in which Jesus revealed himself to his own in that intermediate period (as one who had been crucified and pierced; cf. vss. 20, 27), any indications concerning his mode of existence in the time before his final ascension? We will return to this question in vss. 20 and 27. But here, in Jesus’ self-revelation to Mary, it is already evident that clear boundaries are set around our imagination. Not only is all further description of Jesus’ “coming” and “going” lacking in John (see also the comments on vss. 19, 26, and 30), not only does the manner in which he reveals himself to Mary (calling her by name) differ from what he does later with his disciples (showing them his pierced hands and side), but insight into the nature of Jesus’ mode of existence and the actions belonging to it is also, in the nature of the case, denied to us. Such insight belongs, like Jesus’ resurrection, to another reality and order of communication than those “of this world” (13:1).
Accordingly, 20:17 mentions the phase of Jesus’ (as yet uncompleted) ascent to the Father, but not in an abstract christological sense but in direct connection with what this ascent means in all of its facets for his own—what it means for the process of their coming to understand the great salvific event of Jesus’ resurrection and what it means for Mary as she and through her Jesus’ disciples become aware of their involvement in Jesus’ ascent to the Father and as they are thus prepared for the task Jesus will give them in this involvement. “I have not yet ascended” therefore means something like: My earthly task with respect to you is not yet complete at this stage prior to when I will have permanent fellowship with you from heaven.31
This, then, is how we must also understand the message that Mary is to convey to Jesus’ disciples (“I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God”): it is the good news of his resurrection and a signal of their ongoing involvement in it, a signal that will soon be followed by further manifestations (vss. 19ff.). This meaning also comes out in the remarkable designation of Jesus’ disciples as “my brothers,” which is clearly not a reference to Jesus’ natural brothers and thus occurs only here in the Gospel of John (cf., however, Mt. 28:10), undoubtedly in close connection with the elaborate “to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” Here again we pick up the note—recurrent in Jesus’ farewell words—that his departure is to the advantage of his disciples (14:2; 16:7). It brings them into the closest possible fellowship with the Father (14:28; 16:26f.). Hence the repeated “to my and to your” emphasizes not the difference between Jesus and his disciples but what they have in common. Because God is Jesus’ Father, he is also their Father; because he is Jesus’ God, he is also their God. They are taken up into the fellowship that unites Jesus and the Father (cf. 17:21, 22). Everything he has told and promised them earlier returns, but now in the present reality of his ascent to the Father. Just as the power of his ascent to heaven is his descent from heaven (3:13), so also the secret and basis of their participation in his fellowship with God are the work he has accomplished for them in his descent.
18 The conclusion is typically Johannine, sober as always. We must focus on the core words. Jesus’ departure from Mary is not described, any more than his coming or his miraculous appearance to her. Mary’s full name is given just as at the beginning in vs. 1. Again she seeks out the disciples (cf. vs. 2), but now not in desperation but as the messenger32 of good news. As such, even before she conveys Jesus’ words to his disciples, she speaks of her own liberating experience: “I have seen the Lord!”33 With that the story ends. Now the word is out. It has been spoken not by Peter or by the beloved disciple but by Mary Magdalene. And with that she disappears from the Gospel. The disciples’ reaction is not reported. This is not yet their story. Evening must first come, the evening of that first day of the week, before it becomes also their story.
20:19-23
Jesus Appears to the Disciples
Between this narrative and the preceding there is no verbal connection. But in content there is a very close connection in that the disciples’ involvement in Jesus’ ascent (indicated in vs. 17) is further explicated. While vs. 18 speaks vaguely of “the disciples,” here they have—evidently as the Twelve (cf. vs. 24)—reestablished contact with each other, except of course for Judas and, as vs. 24 tells us, Thomas. The manner in which Jesus now reveals himself to them and as the Risen One gives them directions for the future of the church gives special meaning to this first appearance to them on that first day.34 We also read of this appearance in Lk. 24:36ff. (cf. Mk. 16:14). But for all the agreement in substance, John conveys the story in a form and wording uniquely his own. He does this in a strongly summarizing manner, first by briefly describing the appearance itself (vss. 19b, 20) and then by speaking of, in three main points, the instructions and powers Jesus gives to his disciples (elsewhere distributed over various resurrection stories): their mission (vs. 21), the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (vs. 22), and their authorization to forgive and retain sins (vs. 23).
19 The story begins with a clear time reference that marks the (salvation-) historical character of Jesus’ first meeting with his disciples: “On the evening of that day, the first day of the week.…” That “the doors were shut where the disciples were staying” is explained in part by “their fear of the Jews.” As well-known followers of Jesus they still felt threatened, so that at Jesus’ arrest they all fled and sought shelter, each on his own (cf. 16:32; 18:8, 15). Now they are all together again, but not without taking precautions. Still, the prominent mention of the “closed doors” is undoubtedly also (and primarily; cf. vs. 26) intended to indicate the miraculous character of Jesus’ coming to them. All at once, despite the closed doors, Jesus “came” into their midst and addressed them with his—in these circumstances particularly powerful (cf. 14:7ff.)—greeting: “Peace be with you.”
20 After he greets them Jesus shows his hands and side as a means of self-identification. He has returned to them in his identity as the historic person who before his death gave them the promise of that return (“after a little while”). And to prove who he is he shows them the scars of his suffering and violent death, not just as signs by which to recognize him but also as signs of victory. He shows himself to them as the triumphant one, the one “whom they have pierced,” in keeping with what 19:37 has said about the prophetic-messianic significance of his pierced side. Now he returns to them to enable them to share in his victory over death and the grave and thus to give them the sign by which they will be allowed to continue his work on earth as the secret of their power and the content of their message.
After what we have said about vs. 17 concerning the nature of Jesus’ self-revelation as the Risen One in this period of his ascent, there is nothing here to enable us to draw any further conclusions. It is clear that in rising from the dead Jesus did not return in his earthly corporeal existence. The involvement of his body in the event of resurrection, to which vss. 6ff. give such clear witness, points precisely to the transition to the heavenly body (which Paul describes as “the body of his glory,” Ph. 3:21; cf. 1 Co. 15:44, 49, 53). It is on the basis of this ascent, which began with the resurrection, that here he makes himself known to his own in his victory as the one who was pierced on the cross; just as he made himself known to Mary by calling her by name, to the disciples going to Emmaus by breaking bread (Lk. 24:35; cf. Jn. 21:12), and finally as the one who from then on takes his leave from the earth at his ascension to heaven (Luke 24; Acts 1). Any idea that before his final ascension Jesus still returned for a time in his earthly body in the injured state described here and, unobserved by people, still spent some forty days in that body, only leads to unacceptable speculations. All the text here allows us to say is that during the time of Jesus’ ascent he “revealed” himself and “appeared” to his disciples as they had known him in his earthly body, but no longer as a participant in general human interaction or as one accessible to common human experience (cf. 14:19). We lack adequate words and ideas for this manner of self-revelation. But the Evangelist (immediately after relating Jesus’ appearance to Thomas) mentions this manner of Jesus’ self-revelation after his resurrection among the “signs” that “Jesus did in the presence of his disciples” and that form the content of the apostolic witness and the faith of the community based on that witness (vss. 30f.).
Of the disciples it is then said—and this is their only reaction here—that “they rejoiced when they saw him.” This is not merely a comment in passing but clearly a reflection of “the fulfillment of joy” Jesus promised them especially in 16:20-24 (cf. 15:11; 17:13), where he spoke of the joy of seeing one another again in contrast with the sorrow of farewell.
21 It is that joy of reunion that in part determines and gives content to the repeated benediction, “Peace be with you” (cf. 14:27f.), which in turn forms the transition to the three core statements in vss. 21-23, a summary that is strongly reminiscent of Jesus’ word of farewell in Mt. 28:18-20.
This summary first of all concerns the disciples’ mission, which Jesus has spoken of in his farewell prayer (17:18) but now directly addresses to the disciples. As there, so here, he speaks of their mission in immediate connection with his own mission from the Father, which is again related to the unity of the Father and the Son, a unity in which the disciples participate (cf. 17:21ff.). As the Father, in sending his Son, continues to stand behind him and to take part in his work (cf., e.g., 8:16, 29), so also Jesus’ being sent by the Father remains in force in the mission of his disciples, who continue his work on earth (cf. 14:12ff.). He gives them a part in that work in the sense that—in keeping with the meaning of the Greek word35—they represent him, according to the rule that “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me” (Mt. 10:40; cf. Jn. 13:20).36
The content of their mission is not spelled out here. Also lacking are the words added in 17:18: “into the world.” All the stress here falls on the idea of authorization, not on their being sent into the world.37 Although this last component is undoubtedly included in the calling that the disciples, as apostles of Jesus, must fulfill, their authorization is not limited to their missionary activity, that is, to their activity outside the church. This is also evident from what follows, where this mission coincides with the bestowal of the Holy Spirit and the authorization to forgive and retain sins, which clearly relates also to the ongoing activity of the disciples in the community that takes shape as a result of their labors (cf. 21:15bff.).
Verse 22 speaks of this giving of the Spirit as empowerment for the disciples’ “mission”: “He breathed on them,38 and said to them: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’ ” This breathing on the disciples recalls texts like Gn. 2:7; Ezk. 37:5f.; Wis. 17:11 that mention God’s life-giving breath. If the reference to these texts were direct, then the meaning would be that just as in the beginning God breathed a living spirit into humankind, so in this moment of the new creation Jesus breathes the Holy Spirit into the disciples and so grants them eternal life.39 But this expression can also refer to the transmission of the working of the Spirit in a broader sense, which in the present context, that of the mission and authorization of the disciples, is much more natural. The giving of the Spirit is therefore to be understood as Jesus’ equipping of the disciples for the work assigned to them.
Others see here a reference to the Holy Spirit in general, as in 7:39, which speaks of the “coming” of the Spirit as it is imparted to all believers. This leads to the view that in John Easter and Pentecost coincide. There is nothing in this Gospel to suggest a later outpouring of the Spirit to be distinguished from the one spoken of here.40 But in view of the entire context it is hard to deny that the bestowal of the Spirit referred to here is related particularly to the equipping of Jesus’ disciples for their task as continuers of Jesus’ work and must therefore be distinguished from the outpouring of the Spirit on “all flesh” without distinction that was to take place at Pentecost. Jn. 7:39 speaks of Pentecost, and in a much more general and more exuberant manner than 20:22 speaks of this more limited giving of the Spirit.41 This Gospel is restricted—as are all the others!—to the story of the redemptive dispensation determined by Jesus’ coming on earth. Of that story Easter is the great turning point and end point. But neither that whole story nor the narrative of this appearance excludes any of what could yet be expected from the exalted Lord and the Spirit on the basis of Easter.
23 The last words of Jesus’ address to his disciples are also to be understood in close connection with what precedes: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” This clearly recalls Mt. 16:19 and 18:18. But while those Matthean texts show strong kinship with rabbinic formulations and must be interpreted in that light,42 the meaning of Jesus’ words here is direct and is focused exclusively on the authority given to the disciples by Jesus to forgive or retain sins.43 This saying also conveys the central content of the disciples’ mission, referred to in vs. 21, namely to proclaim with authority, as representatives of the exalted Lord, the remission of sins as the real goal of his mission from the Father and therefore also of their mission from him. In this connection some scholars—with a view to passages like Mt. 28:16ff. and Mk. 16:16—think here of baptism. But the general proclamation of the gospel is no less intended by the second part of the saying (“to retain”).
The main point, however, is the authority given to his disciples: “they are forgiven, they are retained,” that is, by God. Often this is understood as referring to the pronouncement God will make in the final judgment.44 And that is undoubtedly included in these passive expressions (which here as elsewhere are used of God’s actions). Still, “forgiven, retained” cannot be speaking solely of the final judgment. In the proclamation of the gospel in the name and in accordance with the instructions of Jesus, he himself is the speaker. And he came to earth to forgive sins (cf. Mt. 9:6 par.). That forgiveness goes into effect with his word. Here also the disciples are permitted to continue his work.
For that reason it is undoubtedly important that the authority to forgive sins is closely associated here with the reception of the Holy Spirit. By the Spirit, whom Jesus bestows on the apostles for the fulfillment of their task, he shows himself to be present in them as the living Lord who forgives sins on earth.45
This description of the task of the disciples as remission and retention of sins is remarkable as the Fourth Gospel’s only mention of the forgiveness of sins (which makes the Gospel different from 1 John). With this the Evangelist summarizes the content of the preaching of the gospel in traditional terms (cf., e.g., Lk. 24:47; Ac. 2:38; 5:31). In the Fourth Gospel the concept of sin is defined christologically (9:41; 15:22ff.; 16:9), as is doing “the work of God” (6:29). Accordingly, the forgiveness and permanent retention of sins comes as one of an array of images for the saving significance of Jesus’ coming and work: “The Lamb of God, who takes away sin” (1:29), redemption from “the slavery of sin” (8:34-36), movement “from darkness to light” (3:19ff.), not perishing but having “eternal life” (3:16), and “the privilege of becoming children of God” (1:12)—as opposed to “remaining under God’s wrath,” “dying in sin,” or “sin remaining” (8:21, 24; 9:41). Therefore the authority to forgive and to retain the sins of others that Jesus gives his disciples does not consist in the application of moral standards but in placing people before the decisive choice to accept in faith the grace of God manifest in the sending of his Son or to remain in sin and to fall under divine judgment (cf. 1:18; 3:18, 19).
Still left, finally, is the important question whether the powers Jesus confers on his disciples are exclusively or at least primarily for the narrow circle of the twelve chosen disciples (cf. vs. 24; 6:70, 71; 15:16) or apply without distinction to all who believe in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. Many contemporary interpreters assume that the latter is self-evident.46 It is true that John does not draw a sharp line of demarcation between what applies to the Twelve and what applies to the church to come, which is by anticipation represented by the Twelve, as that number symbolizes. But this does not alter the fact that throughout the Gospel the appointment and authorization of these first twelve are foundational for the faith of the church.47 Accordingly, a clear distinction is repeatedly made between the two, as in the statement of this Gospel’s purpose in 20:30, 31 (on the one hand, Jesus’ disciples, vs. 30; on the other, the “you” of the church, vs. 31; cf. “we” and “you” in 1 Jn. 1:1ff.; cf. also Jn. 15:27; 16:4; 17:20; see also the comments on 20:29). This is not to say that the threefold mandate in 20:22 and 23 exclusively concerns the ones Jesus has “sent” (the “apostles,” although this word occurs in this specific sense only in 13:16) and that their powers will find an exclusively hierarchical continuation in the church (cf. Mt. 16:18, 19 with 18:15-18). The work of the apostles will be continued in the church under the banner of the ongoing promises of the Risen One and the Spirit sent by him. But it will continue only on the foundation of those who have been his witnesses from the beginning and in accordance with their standard. In that sense they have a unique standing in the history of the church.
All this, however, gets no further attention in this very brief account of the Risen One’s last disposition. The coming outpouring of the Spirit and questions about the “apostolic church” that arose in history fall outside the boundaries of the Johannine Gospel and its purpose. Negative conclusions drawn from this regarding John’s understanding of the church have no foundation or point of contact in the Gospel itself. Continuation on the road that Jesus points out is subject to the dispensation and guidance of the promised Paraclete, who will announce “the things that are to come” to the disciples, “lead them into all truth,” and “take from what is mine.”
20:24-29
Jesus Appears Again to the Disciples, This Time with Thomas among Them
24, 25 The narrative that begins here is closely tied in with what has preceded in that Jesus appears again under much the same circumstances. But this time he appears in the presence of Thomas and particularly addresses Thomas, who is also called Didymus (“the Twin”; cf. 11:16). Thomas again comes on the scene in a way that can be called characteristic for him, as the disciple who, though evidently genuinely loyal to Jesus, repeatedly gives evidence of his resistance to Jesus’ departure to the Father and his lack of understanding of that departure (11:16; 14:5). That he, though one of the Twelve, was for that very reason not in their company “when Jesus came” is an obvious inference, though not said in so many words. In any case, when the others told him the great news, “We have seen the Lord!” (cf. vs. 18), and apparently spoke to him of Jesus’ pierced hands and feet, he not only did not believe it but did not even take their words seriously. His reaction, “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, place my finger in the mark48 of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe” is undoubtedly not intended to lay down a serious condition for belief but to expose the absurdity of what they tell him: “before I would believe that, I would first …” (cf. 6:52).
Accordingly, Thomas’s unbelief (about which there is much debate in the commentaries) does not mean that he—like the people in Cana (4:48)—wants to see signs and wonders before he believes. It means, rather, that he rejects as impossible the whole idea of the miracle of which his fellow disciples are talking. So it is not as a miracle-hungry Thomas but as the skeptical Thomas that he appears on the scene here again.
26, 27 Verse 26 ties in closely with vs. 19. Eight days later, hence again on the first day of the week, the day of the resurrection, Jesus’ disciples were again together in a closed room,49 but this time with Thomas, who, despite himself, had sought out their company. Again Jesus came “while the doors were shut.” This time that the doors were closed is noted without the explanation “for fear of the Jews” and, therefore, more clearly than in vs. 19, to indicate the miraculous and irresistible character of Jesus’ coming. Again he thus presents himself in their midst with his “peace” greeting.
But then he immediately turns to Thomas and responds directly to the manner in which Thomas has expressed his disbelief: “Put your finger here, and see my hands; reach out your hand, and put50 it in my side; and be no longer unbelieving but believing.” Many interpreters think that Jesus’ “invitation” is intended literally and that Thomas literally complies before making his confession. But it seems rather that Jesus’ offer is meant to shame Thomas with his own words. It certainly seems unlikely that Thomas comes to his confession only on the basis of an examination of Jesus’ body. The confession sounds more like a direct and spontaneous reaction to Jesus’ appearance and words, which totally overwhelm Thomas.
28 The confession “My Lord and my God!” conveys Thomas’s deep shame and reverence at seeing Jesus’ divine glory, a glory surpassing all human standards. It also reflects the strong personal sense with which Thomas yields to Jesus. In the combination of these two titles (sometimes with the addition of the personal pronoun) some scholars refer to passages in which the psalmist similarly turns to God (e.g., Ps. 35:24). Others have viewed the two predicates as descriptive of Jesus’ human and divine modes of being.51 But in Thomas’s spontaneous exclamation we do not have a liturgical or dogmatic formulation. The case was rather that the usual address of respect, “my lord” (cf. 13:13), was not sufficient. For what, at the sight of Jesus, filled Thomas with awe he had only one word left: “my God.” For who could do what Jesus did and thus as the one who was pierced appear in omnipotence but he with whom God had united himself in this manner?
But this does not alter the remarkable fact that here, for the first time in this Gospel, Jesus is addressed in the absolute sense as “my God” and that this lofty word at the end of the Gospel comes from the lips of “unbelieving” Thomas. Here is an important clue to the origin of the high character of the entire Johannine witness to Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God (the character of Johannine “christology,” if you will). In this confession of Thomas, however personally it is formulated, the Fourth Gospel reaches its climax and returns to its starting point in the Prologue: the coming and work of Jesus the Christ, the Word that was from the beginning with God and was God has become flesh and has dwelled among us. Thomas himself is a paradigm for the fact that only the superiority of Jesus’ historical self-revelation, with many a fall, brought the disciples to the confession of Jesus as Lord and God. This constitutes the foundation of the high (“christological”) stakes in this entire Gospel.52 Jesus’ resurrection is the end and climax of that historical self-revelation. It is only in the light of the resurrection and on seeing the Risen One that Thomas surrenders and that the disciples begin to understand who in truth Jesus was in the authority with which he has spoken to them and in the works he has done. This understanding will from now on be deepened by the coming of the Paraclete, who was promised them in order to witness with them to this reality. But all this does not mean that faith in the risen heavenly Lord will cause the image of the earthly Jesus to grow dim and transform it into that of the heavenly Lord. For just as no one ascended to heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man (3:13), so also no one will know the heavenly Lord and Son of God other than in his descent, in the glory of the incarnate Word of God.53 To this Jesus’ last word to Thomas testifies, as do the words with which the Evangelist provisionally concludes his Gospel (vss. 29ff.).
29 Jesus accepts Thomas’s confession: “Because you have seen, you believe.”54 And he also pronounces a blessing on “those who believe without having seen.” Some view this blessing as a timeless statement: faith need not or even ought not be based on sight.55 This is then said to be directed against Thomas, whose faith did rest on sight and was therefore inferior to that of others. But Jesus is speaking here of a transition that will come into effect from this point on. From now on—at least after Jesus’ final departure to the Father—people will have to believe without seeing, simply on the basis of the apostles’ witness (cf. 17:18, 20). And such people—the church of the future—Jesus addresses here, over Thomas’s head as it were, with his last word, a beatitude for them all!
There is undoubtedly present in the contrast here a gentle reproach to Thomas. He has not believed the testimony of his fellow disciples that they have “seen the Lord.” He has dismissed it as absurd, even though as one of Jesus’ designated witnesses he himself will soon have to ask others to have faith without seeing. But believing on the basis of seeing is not thereby degraded as a concession Jesus makes to the weakness of some, a concession that ought not be needed. If it were, all the appearances and miracles in which he has revealed himself in the presence of his disciples (vs. 30) would fall under the same judgment, which is indeed the case according to some interpreters of this last word of Jesus.56 But such a view not only rests on a spiritualizing denial of the reality of the resurrection narratives as signs of Jesus’ glory but also conflicts with the entire import of the Gospel, as is very clear from the summarizing epilogue to the Gospel that now follows.57
20:30, 31
Epilogue
30 Along with vs. 29 (see above), this verse forms the provisional conclusion of the entire Gospel. In this epilogue the Evangelist accounts for his selection of material. “Jesus did many other signs”58 indicates the wealth of materials available to the author and represents a conventional sort of statement used in various forms at the end of many other writings of the time.59 But the reference to “signs” not only has literary or rhetorical significance but also conveys that the Evangelist’s choices of material fit together closely with the purpose of his Gospel (vs. 31). One factor in his sometimes very striking selectivity is the general knowledge of the life of Jesus that he repeatedly presupposes in his readers, though he does not mention that here.60
It is remarkable that the Evangelist summarizes all that precedes as “signs” that “Jesus did” (cf. 12:37). Here again we see the great significance that the Evangelist—unlike many of his interpreters61—attaches to Jesus’ miracles, both with a view to the culpable unbelief of the Jews (10:37ff.), the “they” of 12:37ff., and as the basis of the church’s faith, as here. This Gospel firmly rejects a sensationalist desire for miracles and a superficial faith in miracles (cf. 2:23ff.; 4:48; 6:14, 15). But miracles as media of revelation very clearly belong to the essential content of the Johannine message of salvation,62 not only “spiritually” interpreted, as they often are, but also as signs that Jesus was sent by the Father. In the present passage (vss. 29, 30) this is certainly very clear.
Some scholars have weakened the significance of this statement by assuming that it was taken over from the so-called sēmeia source, from which the Evangelist is also said to have borrowed his miracle stories and which is supposed to have contained a much more positive evaluation of miracles than that of the Evangelist himself.63 But this argument is clearly meant only to save the hypothesis and cannot in any case weaken the Evangelist’s own view as it is expressed in this concluding core statement, or make it a matter of indifference.64 And this the less because he speaks of these “signs” in direct connection with Jesus’ appearances and undoubtedly includes their miraculous character in these words.
Accordingly, the word “signs” refers not only to certain miraculous acts but to any event in which Jesus’ divine glory is manifest (cf. 2:11).65 In that sense we can understand that the word “signs” is used here as a summarizing characterization of Jesus’ self-revelation, which was sometimes experienced and commented on as “no longer human” in his words by those who heard him (cf. 7:46; 18:6). As such the signs eminently belong to the manifestations of Jesus’ “glory in the flesh,” which is posited as central in 1:14.
This is why it is specified here that Jesus did the signs “before” or “in the presence of” his disciples.66 Here again we see the distinction made in vs. 29 between those who have “seen” and those who have not. The disciples constitute the salvation-historical link between Jesus and those who will believe in him through their word, which they speak as those authorized by Jesus to speak it. The Evangelist ascribes this undeniable apostolic character to their witness and thus also to his own reporting. This also comes to expression in the solemn formulas with which he makes his report foundational for the faith of his readers as that which has been written down once for all.67
Verse 31 then further states for what purpose the Evangelist wrote down (precisely) these signs: “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” One may say that all the Evangelists pursued this goal in their writing. But the Fourth Evangelist, more than the others, concentrates everything on the person of Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God and omits much other material that also belongs to the core of the gospel.68 Therefore, when he says that he has written about “these [signs]” “so that you may believe …,” this means that in the way in which he has narrated and interpreted the signs the utterly unique character of Jesus’ mission as Messiah and Son of God comes to the fore, both christologically and soteriologically. The signs thus constitute the content and foundation of the church’s faith.
Among interpreters there is much disagreement—partly as a result of the variant readings of the original text69—concerning the readership whom the Evangelist addresses with “so that you may believe.” Is this those who do not yet believe, whom he seeks to bring them to faith and who, some think, were Jews, either Jews in general70 or specifically Hellenistic Jews living in the Diaspora?71 Or does the Evangelist address people who already believe, with the purpose of strengthening their faith?72 The latter view undoubtedly deserves preference. Even though the text as we now have it cannot settle the issue, the Evangelist elsewhere clearly includes his readers among the “we” who believe (1:16). And the impression made by his Gospel as a whole is certainly not that of a book for beginners73 but rather that of a deeper discussion of the meaning of Jesus’ self-revelation for readers in whom he assumes a long acquaintance with the general picture of the course of Jesus’ life. The Evangelist does, admittedly, strongly stress the signs Jesus did in the presence of “the Jews” and “the multitude,” but he does this especially to demonstrate the incomprehensible character of their unbelief (cf. 12:37-43). The positive manner in which he now addresses his readers with an appeal to Jesus’ signs definitely does not suggest that he has in mind Jews who do not believe in Jesus. It all fits better in a situation of ongoing and deepening confrontation between the church and non-Christian Jews over the person of Jesus, in which the Evangelist seeks to lead the church more fully into the saving significance of Jesus’ coming and work to confirm the faith of Jewish and Gentile Christians alike.
It is hard to say whether some of vs. 31 (and how much) is drawn from a confessional statement, as some interpreters think. It does very succinctly convey the christological content of the Fourth Gospel. The premise of all the narratives is the confession—already uttered by the first disciples—that Jesus is “the Messiah” of Israel (1:41),74 “of whom Moses and the prophets wrote” (1:45), “the Son of God, the king of Israel” (1:49). Jesus accepts that confession but immediately holds out to them the promise of seeing “greater things,” placing his entire mission in the transcendent light of an opened heaven and the Son of man clothed with all power (1:50, 51). As a result the messianic title “Son of God” used in 1:45 acquires a transcendent meaning as that which indicates the preexistent ontological relation to God that underlies this all-embracing function of the Son of man (see the comments on 1:51; 3:13f., 16f.; 5:26, 27).75 One cannot, therefore, simply view “Son of God” in 20:31 as synonymous with “Messiah,” as proof (for the Jews) that Jesus was their promised messianic king. But it is no less true that “the Christ” neither loses its original messianic significance nor is completely overshadowed by “the Son of God.”76 Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, but in a way that can no longer be expressed in the traditional messianic categories and far exceeds them in content. It is that content that prompts “the Jews” to charge Jesus with blasphemy (5:18; 10:33, 36; 19:7), that caused Thomas to confess him as “my God,” and that the Evangelist in his Prologue ascribed to the Word who was in the beginning with God.
Finally, as the object and fruit of that faith the Evangelist mentions: “that believing you may have life in his name,” that is, that all-embracing salvation—which keeps coming back in the Gospel—to which faith in Jesus as the only-begotten of the Father gives access (cf. 3:15, 16, 36; 6:40; 5:24). With that we have a highly concentrated summary of the content and purpose of the Fourth Gospel that, at least initially, concludes all that has preceded. The question that now confronts us is how we must understand the addition of ch. 21, which again begins with “After these things …” (cf. 3:22; 5:1; 6:1; 7:1; 19:38).
1. Schackenburg, Comm. III, p. 310.
2. So Bultmann, Comm., p. 685. For his hypothesis of the Jewish and Gentile Christianity represented respectively by Peter and the beloved disciple, see the comments above on 13:23ff.; 19:26f.
3. As in 13:23; 19:26 (see the comments there).
4. See, e.g., Schnackenburg, Comm. III, p. 304ff.
As for the origin of this narrative in vss. 1-10 itself, which the Evangelist took over from his “source,” some scholars believe that behind it again lies concealed a more deeply layered development. They suggest that we must assume the existence in an earlier stage of two narratives, one that described Mary’s visit to the tomb and another in which Peter was the main figure. The two narratives later merged in the source from which John drew his material. But even behind these two narratives tradition-historical research continues, in a most detailed fashion, e.g., in Becker, Comm., pp. 605-12.
On the origin(s) of 20:1-20 see also Brown, Comm. II, pp. 966f., who, however, with more of a concern for what is historical, sees in these verses a combination of three basic narratives. And G. Hartmann, in “Die Vorlage der Osterberichte in John 20,” ZNW 55 (1964), pp. 197-220, sees in Jn. 20:1-18 the Johannine reworking of a single continuous narrative, a written source that represented an “independent” development of the traditions concerning the Easter event.
All these hypotheses clearly rest on extremely detailed text analyses, of which no two are the same and all of which therefore offer little certainty, even for those who deny to the author all independent knowledge of the events in question. This is admitted—specifically in this case—by the most convinced and experienced practitioners of this method. Schnackenburg recognizes that the assumption of a “source” used by the Evangelist is only “a working hypothesis” and that the distinction between the source and its Johannine reworking remains uncertain in many ways (Comm. III, pp. 304, 307). Becker himself labels his far-reaching and extremely hypothetical reconstruction of the prehistory of Jn. 20:18 as “this laborious walk through tradition history” (Comm., p. 612; cf. pp. 605ff.).
5. Cf. ἀγγέλλουσα in vs. 18.
6. See, beside many others, R. Mahoney, Two Disciples at the Tomb: The Background and Message of John 20,1-10, 1974. Mahoney critically discusses hypotheses like those of Bultmann, Brown, and Hartmann (see above) and concludes that it is impossible to reconstruct precisely the source(s) of John, in fact that there is no proof whatever that the narrative we have before us in 20:1-10 is based on an original narrative of comparable length. The contrary is, rather, the case, and the Johannine narrative, he says, has a much more independent character. In this connection Mahoney thinks of Lk. 24:24 as the starting point and further of the use of elements from the “first narrative” of the women at the tomb (pp. 171ff.). B. Lindars, “The Composition of John XX,” NTS (1960/61), pp. 142-47, expresses a similar view; Lindars believes that as possible sources of John 20 only those can be considered that are also used by one or more of the Synoptics and, further, that “the entirely Johannine vocabulary” of all the remainder makes unlikely the possibility of other sources (p. 147).
7. Here ἐφίλει, with no difference in meaning from ἠγάπα in 13:23; 19:26; 21:20.
8. On this “together” (ὁμοῦ) in vs. 4a (cf. 21:2), see also BAGD s.v., which translates “at the same time (as), in company (with) … the two were running together.”
9. See, e.g., Schnackenburg, who sees in this “the point of the narrative” (Comm. III, p. 310).
10. On this see further the comments on 1:39 and 21:20ff.
11. Which on closer scrutiny can hardly be established as being of any essential importance at all.
12. τὰ ὀθóνια; see the comments above on 19:40.
13. τò σουδάριον; cf. 11:44.
14. χωρίς: “by itself” (cf. BDF §216.2).
15. ἐπίστευσεν, ingressive aorist.
16. So Schnackenburg, Comm. III, p. 312; also Brown, Comm. II, p. 1005.
17. This is noted by others such as M. de Jonge, “The Beloved Disciple and the Date of the Gospel of John,” in Text and Interpretation (Festschrift for M. Black, ed. E. Best and R. M. Wilson), 1979, pp. 99-114, here pp. 102, 107.
18. So, e.g., Zahn, Comm., p. 674; Bultmann, Comm., in loc.
19. So, e.g., Brown, Comm., in loc.
20. See, e.g., Calvin’s comments.
21. Although the words “the Scripture” are lacking in some Latin manuscripts.
22. εἰστήκει, pluperfect.
23. κλαίουσα, ἔκλαιεν.
24. ἐν λευκοῖς, elliptical as in Mt. 11:8. Celestial figures always appear in white (cf. Mt. 17:2 par.; 28:3 par.; Ac. 1:10; Dn. 7:9, etc.).
25. Which on the angels’ part sometimes again leads to astonishment over the lack of understanding for their situation and so to a dialogue of mutual astonishment (cf. Lk. 24:17-25).
26. The same words as in 20:14.
27. Here only spelled Μαριάμ.
28. Some interpreters have, admittedly, seen in it a diminutive term of endearment with a strong charitable sound (“my dear Rabbi”). It has been proven, however, that in the usage of those days “Rabbouni” need not have had any other meaning than the customary “Rabbi” (see E. Lohse, TDNT VI, pp. 964f.; Schnackenburg, Comm. III, p. 317 with n. 50 on p. 470). Accordingly, the Evangelist translates it with the same Greek word with which in 1:38 he translates “Rabbi,” not including “my” in the translation.
29. See, e.g., Brown, who with respect to the first part alone mentions no less than twelve “different types of explanations,” which he discusses in part (Comm. II, pp. 992f.).
30. ἀναβαίνω. Some speak here of a durative present, others of a futuristic use of the present as we see in verbs of coming and going so that the present here means “I am in the process of going/coming up,” with the point of arrival still in the future (cf. BDF §323.3).
31. Among the lengthy disquisitions that interpreters of this passage (“not easy to understand, as all kinds of speculation show,” Schnackenburg, Comm. III, p. 318) devote to it, certain statements of Brown seem, in my estimation, to point in the right direction. On the relation between vs. 17a and 17b he writes (Comm. II, pp. 1014f.):
In our opinion, the statement “I am ascending to my Father” in 17b is not an exact determination of time and has no implication for the state of the risen Jesus previous to that statement. It is a theological statement contrasting the passing nature of Jesus’ presence in his post-resurrectional appearances and the permanent nature of his presence in the Spirit.
32. ἀγγέλουσα.
33. The construction involves a mingling of direct and indirect speech that is hard to convey in translation, in which one would very much like to preserve the lively directness of the statement, “I have seen the Lord!”
34. Cf. Schnackenburg: “It is the appearance which is of decisive importance for the Easter faith, for the life and future of the church” (Comm. III, p. 321).
35. ἀποστέλλειν, here alternating with πέμπειν, which is to be understood as having the same sense (cf. 17:18).
36. On this see at length my study in De apostolische Kerk, 1954, pp. 39-97, and my Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures (revised ed., 1988), pp. 12ff.
37. Cf. De apostolische Kerk, pp. 61ff.
38. It is not certain whether the αὐτοῖς that follows λέγει also goes with ἐνεφύσησεν or that the latter is used absolutely.
39. So, e.g., Brown, with reference to vss. 1-5 of the Prologue (Comm. II, p. 1037).
40. So Schnackenburg, Comm. III, p. 325.
41. See also J. Jeremias, TDNT III, p. 753.
42. On these texts see at length my The Coming of the Kingdom, 1962, pp. 359ff.
43. κρατεῖν is not used elsewhere in this sense (cf. BAGD s.v.), but here clearly is meant as the opposite of ἀφίεναι.
44. The passive perfects ἀφέωνται (other manuscripts have the present ἀφίονται) and κεκράτηνται have a future significance (cf. BDF §323.1); see also J. Jeremias, TDNT III, p. 753: “ ‘God will forgive them,’ i.e. He will confirm the promised remission at the Last Day.” On the future significance of these verbs and their theological implications, see also Brown, Comm. II, pp. 1023ff.
45. See also Jeremias, TDNT III, p. 753: “Through the Spirit whom he sends as his authorising messenger, Christ himself is directly at work as the One who forgives.”
46. Cf. Bultmann: “It is self-evident that it is not a special apostolic authority that is imparted here, but that the community as such is equipped with this authority: for as in chs. 13–16 the μαθηταί represent the community” (Comm., p. 693). Schnackenburg, less forcefully but with equal certainty, writes: “Any restriction to the disciples who are present is not apparent and scarcely intended; John nowhere calls them ‘apostles’ in the specific sense. They represent for him the entire community of believers” (Comm. III, p. 324).
47. See the comments on the history of their calling, above.
48. In the manuscripts there is much confusion over whether vs. 25 has in both cases τύπος (“mark”) or τóπος (“place”) or whether one and then the other. As a rule τύπος is considered original in the first place. In the second place τóπος could be original, with certain later manuscripts adapting it to the preceding τύπος. Certainty, in any case, is hard to achieve.
49. πάλιν ἦσαν ἔσω, “again they were inside,” with no further determination of place that might furnish a geographical connection among the various appearances.
50. For these interjections, “standard imperatives” like ἴδε, φέρε, and βάλε, as also for the adverbs δεῦτε and ὧδε, see BDF §§107; 336.
51. See the citations from Augustine and Aquinas in Schnackenburg, Comm. III, p. 475, n. 106.
52. For this linkage see also 
53. On this see at length above.
54. The statement is sometimes construed as a question, as in 16:31 (so RSV, NRSV, Nestle-Aland). But there is here no doubt concerning the reliability of Thomas’s faith (unlike 16:31). The perfect πεπίστευκας indicates, rather, that Thomas’s unbelief has now been definitively overcome (as is also evident from his inspired confession).
55. The aorists must in that case be taken as gnomic.
56. So, specifically, Bultmann. He writes (Comm., p. 696) that Thomas’s doubt described here is
representative of the common attitude of men, who cannot believe without seeing miracles (4.48). As the miracle is a concession to the weakness of man, so is the appearance of the Risen Jesus a concession to the weakness of the disciples. Fundamentally they ought not to need it! Fundamentally it ought not to be the sight of the Risen Lord that first moves the disciples to believe “the word that Jesus spoke” (2.22), for this word alone should have the power to convince them.
… There is embedded in the narrative of Thomas also a peculiar critique concerning the value of the Easter stories; they can claim only a relative worth. And if this critical saying of Jesus forms the conclusion of the Easter narratives, the hearer or reader is warned not to take them to be more than they can be: not as narrations of events … but as proclaimed word, in which the recounted events have become symbolic pictures for the fellowship which the Lord, who has ascended to the Father, holds with his own.
See also what Bultmann writes about the “superfluity” of the resurrection of Lazarus.
57. Against Bultmann see, among others, Brown, Comm. II, pp. 1050-51. He writes (quoting the first edition of Barrett, Comm. [1955], p. 477) that a really adequate type of belief
does not discard the sign or the appearance of the risen Jesus, for the use of the visible is an indispensable condition of the Word’s have become flesh. As long as Jesus stood among men, one had to come to faith through the visible. Now, at the end of the Gospel, another attitude becomes possible and necessary. This is the era of the Spirit or the invisible presence of Jesus (xiv 17), and the era of signs or appearances is passing away. The transition from 29a to 29b is not merely that one era precedes the other, but that one leads to the other. “But for the fact that Thomas and the other apostles saw the incarnate Christ there would have been no Christian faith at all.” Or as the Evangelist himself phrases it in xx 30-31, he has narrated signs so that people may believe—certainly not a rejection of the value of signs for faith.
58. πολλὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ ἄλλα corresponds with ταῦτα δέ in vs. 31; καί here has a more or less pleonastic sense (cf. BDF §442.11).
59. See examples in Bultmann, Comm., p. 697, n. 2.
60. See at length above.
61. See, e.g., the comments on vs. 29 and on ch. 11.
62. See the far-reaching discussion of the significance of Jesus’ sēmeia by W. Nicol, The Sēmeia in the Fourth Gospel, 1972, esp. pp. 105ff.
63. See above, e.g., on ch. 11.
64. For example, Becker, who writes that it is “utterly inexplicable” how the Evangelist can summarize his Gospel with the word “signs.” The conclusion, therefore, is that the summary was borrowed from the sēmeia source. Thus it was “a matter of indifference to the Evangelist” whether his Gospel could be summarized under the heading of “signs.” What attracted him in the conclusion of the sēmeia source was that by means of it “a literary conclusion was marked, christology was given theological prominence, and the demand of faith … was accentuated” (Comm., pp. 632f.). But the unique significance attributed in this core statement to Jesus’ “signs” can hardly be eliminated from the discussion as a “certain indifference toward such externals.”
65. Nicol speaks of a “widening” of the sēmeion concept “to include the appearances.” He adds: “John never directly says the resurrection is also a sēmeion in 2:18, he answers by referring to his resurrection.… The concept sēmeion has acquired striking elasticity” (Sēmeia, p. 115). Schnackenburg takes over this idea (Comm. III, p. 337), but not where Nicol “in the last analysis” wants to extend the words ποιεῖν σημεῖα to “all that the Gospel of John preaches about Jesus, both the works and the words” (Sēmeia, p. 115).
66. ἐνώπιον τῶν μαθητῶν: “before the eyes of” or “in the presence of” (cf. BAGD s.v. ἐνώπιον).
67. ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται; cf. G. Schrenk, TDNT I, p. 745: “When quoting the OT, John almost always uses the introductory γεγραμμένον … and in 20:31, when speaking of the aim of his own writing, i.e., to awaken faith, he can use a word which elsewhere he reserves for OT Scripture, namely γέγραπται. Indeed, in the previous verse (v. 30) we already find the expression: ὁ οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.” See also my Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, 1988, pp. 22ff.
68. On this see at length above.
69. πιστεύσητε, which as ingressive aorist could mean “begin to believe,” versus present tense πιστεύητε, which points rather to the reinforcement and confirmation of faith. Both readings have support in important textual witnesses, though perhaps the latter has stronger support than the former.
70. Cf. K. Bornhäuser, Das Johannesevangelism. Eine Missionsschrift für Israel, 1928.
71. See especially W. C. van Unnik, “The Purpose of St. John’s Gospel,” in The Gospels Reconsidered, 1960, pp. 166-69; J. A. T. Robinson, “The Destination and Purpose of St. John’s Gospel,” NTS 6 (1959/60), pp. 117-31.
72. So most recent interpreters.
73. The aorist tense of πιστεύειν need not always point to a beginning (cf. 11:40).
74. On this see at greater length
75. Cf. above
76. Against this position see at length van Unnik, “Purpose of St. John’s Gospel,” pp. 174f.