CHAPTER XX

CHAPTER XX

Outline of Chapters 20, 21

Theme: Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God

During His Private Ministry Triumphing Gloriously: Resurrection and Appearances 

I.

20:1–10     

The Visit of Peter and John to the Tomb. Within the Tomb the Evidences of the Resurrection

II.

20:11–18     

Appearance to Mary Magdalene

III.

20:19–23     

Appearance to the Disciples except Thomas

IV.

20:24–31     

Appearance to the Disciples, Thomas Also Present; Conclusion: Statement of the Purpose of the Gospel

V.

    ch. 21 

Appearance at the Sea of Tiberias

A. The Miraculous Catch of Fishes and the Breakfast on the Beach (verses 1–14) 

B. Peter’s “Reinstatement”; Prediction concerning Peter; Correction of a Misunderstanding regarding Jesus’ Statement about John; Concluding Testimonial (verses 15–25) 

20:1–10

20 1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and noticed the stone removed from the tomb. 2 So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and she said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” 3 Then Peter came out and that other disciple, and they were coming toward the tomb. Now these two came running side by side. 4 But that other disciple started to run ahead, faster than Peter, and arrived at the tomb first. 5 And as he stooped, he noticed the linen bandages lying (there); however, he did not go inside. 6 Then Simon Peter also came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he observed the linen bandages lying (there), 7 and the sweat-band, which had been around his head, not lying with the linen bandages but folded up in a place by itself. 8 So then the other disciple, who had arrived at the tomb first, also went inside, and he saw and believed; 9 for they had not previously understood the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 10 Then the disciples went back again to their homes. 

20:1. Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and noticed the stone removed from the tomb. 

It is Sunday-morning, the first day of the week. While it is still dark some women leave their homes (or temporary lodgings) “bringing the spices which they had prepared” (Luke 24:1). They came in order that they might anoint the corpse (Mark 16:1). Compare 12:1–8; contrast 19:38–40. 

Who were these women? Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James (or simply “the other Mary”) are mentioned by name in the other Gospels (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10). Mark adds Salome (Mark 16:1). Luke adds Joanna, and seems to indicate that there were others (Luke 24:10; cf. also Luke 23:55 and 24:1). See on 19:25. 

John probably assumes that the readers are acquainted with the other Gospels and confines his story to Mary Magdalene. See Vol. I, pp. 31, 32. However, he implies that other women had accompanied Mary (20:2: “we do not know”). 

Although it was still dark when the women started out, the sun had risen when they arrived at the tomb.

As they trudged sorrowfully out of Jerusalem’s gate, they were worried about the huge stone (Mark 16:3) which had been placed at the tomb’s entrance. For the appearance and location of the tomb see on 19:41, 42. But suddenly they saw — probably at a turn in the path — that the heavy slab had been turned away already; no, not merely turned away but actually removed (lifted out of its groove), sothat it was lying flat on the ground! 

Nowhere is it stated that this stone had to be removed in order that Jesus might arise from the grave. That the resurrection-body of the Lord was such that he was able to leave the tomb even though the stone was not removed seems to be clearly implied in 20:26; see on that verse. Nevertheless, the stone had to be removed. This was necessary for two reasons: 1. In order to indicate that the grave had been conquered, that the victory had been achieved. 2. In order that Peter and John might be able to enter (see on 20:6, 8), and that everyone might be able to see that the tomb was empty! 

While the mother of James the Less, the mother of James and John, Joanna, and the other women entered the tomb but did not find the body of the Lord Jesus (Luke 24:3), Mary Magdalene started to run away in order to get help in this terrible situation. She was convinced that the tomb had been rifled by enemies. For Mary Magdalene see on 19:25. 

2. So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and she said to them, They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him. 

It is not at all surprising that Mary, greatly alarmed (cf. Mark 16:8), ran to Peter and to John. These two were probably regarded as the chief apostles. They were often seen together (see on 21:7). Nevertheless, although it is grammatically possible that they were lodging at the same address, the more natural interpretation of the original is that each had his own home in Jerusalem. See also 19:27 and 20:10. Both would be deeply concerned about Mary’s baffling report. John was, moreover, the disciple whom Jesus loved. For the meaning of this expression see on 13:23, 24; for the identity of this apostle see Vol. I, pp. 3–31; and for the verb (loved; here in 20:2 the original employs the less usual verb, as is indicated in the Chart in footnote ) see on 21:15–17, especially footnote 306. 

In terrified distress Mary exclaims, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” For Mary’s state of mind see p. 470. The opened tomb was to Mary a reason for alarmed dismay. She thinks, “The enemies have been busy again. Having murdered the Lord, they have added to their crimes by rifling the tomb. Now not even the body of Jesus is left.” It is interesting, nevertheless, that Mary is still calling Jesus “the Lord.” See on 1:38 and on 12:21. This indicates at least that she had learned to regard him as her great Benefactor. This is not surprising; see on 19:25. 

3, 4. Then Peter came out and that other disciple, and they were coming toward the tomb. Now these two came running side by side. But that other disciple started to run ahead, faster than Peter, and arrived at the tomb first. 

Peter and John, perplexed by Mary’s report, start out at once toward the tomb. At first they are pictured as merely walking; then as running side by side; finally, as still running, but now John is outdistancing Peter and therefore arrives at the tomb first. John in his old age recalls the scene as if it had happened yesterday. That is why the description is so lively. 

Two questions are asked. The first is, “What caused these two men to change from walking to running? Was it, perhaps, a message of the women who by this time had left the tomb and had something very startling to say to the apostles?” See Matt. 28:1, 5–8 and parallels. We do not know. 

The next question is, “What caused John to outrun Peter?” The answer could be: he has youth in his favor. But again, we do not know. It is useless to speculate.

5. And as he stooped, he noticed the linen bandages lying (there); however, he did not go inside. 

Some prefer a different translation here. But the rendering “Having glanced he saw,” sounds awkward. It may be granted that the verb employed in the original does not always and necessarily mean to stoop. Nevertheless, when it is used in connection with saw (or noticed), this is surely the most natural meaning. The entrance, as in many similar Oriental tombs today, was probably low. Hence, two actions were necessary: first, one had to stoop. Having stooped, one was able to look inside. It is not true that stooping would have made it impossible to see the linen bands in the declivity in which the body of Jesus had been placed. That would have been true only if the place for the body had been very deep. 

As John stooped and looked, he saw the linen bandages. See on 19:40; also on 11:44 (where a synonym is used). The significance of these bandages lying there is discussed in connection with verses 6 and 7. 

John did not go inside. He was filled with alarm. Any idea of a resurrection is completely absent from his mind.

6, 7. Then Simon Peter also came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he observed the linen bandages lying (there), and the sweat-band, which had been around his head, not lying with the linen bandages but folded up in a place by itself. 

It is entirely in line with Peter’s usual conduct that although he has been outdistanced by John, once at the tomb he enters before John does. See on 13:9. What John, from the outside looking in, had merely noticed, Peter, once inside, observed. He naturally saw more than John, and saw more clearly. And what he saw was truly marvelous. Here were the linen bandages lying very orderly, and the sweat-band, which had been around Christ’s head, lying in a place by itself. For the bandages see on 19:40; also on 11:44 (the synonym). For the sweat-band see on 11:44. (In countries where the climate is hot even a handkerchief used by the living is called a sweat-band.) 

Just what did all this mean? It is necessary to stress at this point that not more must be read into the text than is actually there. Ideas such as these, namely, that the headband was lying there as if it had not been removed from the head, and that the bandages were lying there just as if the limbs of Jesus were still enclosed by them, or as if the body had been abstracted from them, are foreign to the text. We do not even know exactly where the linen bandages and the sweat-band were lying. Neither John nor Luke (in his Gospel, 24:12) says anything about such matters. What Luke emphasizes is that the bandages were lying there by themselves, which, again, does not mean that they were being held in position mysteriously and in violation of the laws of gravity; but simply indicates that they were lying there without the body. 

The facts which are actually related are wonderful enough without exegetical (?) embellishments. What they indicate is this: everything was orderly in the tomb. The body of the Lord was no longer there. No disciple had been there to remove it, nor had any enemy visited the tomb in order to pillage it. In either case the bandages would no longer have been present. Could it be that the Lord had himself removed the bandages and the sweat-band, had provided for himself a garment such as is worn by the living, had calmly and majestically “put everything in its place” in the tomb, putting the bandages here and the sweat-band there (neatly folded or rolled up in a place by itself), and had then departed from the tomb, gloriously alive? 

It is not stated in so many words that Peter immediately drew this conclusion, namely, that Jesus was risen from the grave. It would seem, nevertheless, that he did soon reach this level of faith. He reached it a little later than John, perhaps after the two had discussed the matter together. See verse 9. 

8, 9. So then the other disciple, who had arrived at the tomb first, also went inside, and he saw and believed; for they had not previously understood the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 

John now also enters the tomb. For a description of the tomb see on 19:41, 42. He saw and believed. What did he see? Exactly what Peter had seen. What did he believe? That Jesus was actually risen from the dead, and was the real Messiah, the Lord of Glory, the Son of God in the most exalted sense. This is nothing less than living faith in the act of embracing the truth of the resurrection. 

At this point some commentators seem to think that the purpose of the text is to emphasize the weakness of the apostles’ faith, as if the meaning were on this order: the faith of these men was but a step removed from unbelief, for they needed to see before they were willing to believe. — However, that is probably not the sense of the words. What is meant is this: they now saw and believed. They saw the things which the Lord had arranged in such a manner as to arouse and strengthen faith. Scripture also began to take on a new meaning now. Previously such beautiful passages as Ps. 16:10, 11; Ps. 110:1, 4; Ps. 118:22–24; and Is. 53:11, 12 — passages which referred to Christ’s resurrection — had meant very little to them. Now these same passages were beginning to assume significance! They now understood that Christ’s glorious resurrection was a divine must. Cf. Luke 24:26. On and after Pentecost all this would become even clearer. 

10. Then the disciples went back again to their homes. The climax has been reached. In the heart of John there is rejoicing, and this is (or is soon to be) true also with respect to Peter, as he himself testifies (I Pet. 1:3). So each goes to his respective lodging-place. At the home of John there is someone who must have been overjoyed to hear the story. That “someone” was the apostle’s aunt, namely, Mary, the mother of Jesus. See on 19:27; then on 19:25. 

20:11–18

11 But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping. Then as she was weeping, she stooped to look into the tomb, 12 and she saw two angels sitting (there) in white garments, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. 13 And they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” 14 On saying this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing (there), but she did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping, for whom are you looking?” Thinking that he was the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will remove him.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Miriam.” She turned and said to him in Aramaic, “Rabboni” (which means “Teacher”). 17 Jesus said to her, “Do not keep clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.’ ” 18 Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and (she told them) that he had said these things to her 

20:11, 12. But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping. Then as she was weeping, she stooped to look into the tomb and she saw two angels sitting (there) in white garments, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. 

The story now returns to Mary Magdalene. See on 19:25 and on 20:1, 2. It is reasonable to suppose that she was a little slower in arriving at the tomb than were Peter and John. There are those who think that on her way back to Joseph’s garden Mary met the two apostles, who related to her what they had seen in the tomb; and that, as a result, Mary’s fear that robbers had stolen the body of Jesus vanished, sothat she now imagined that friendly hands had removed it. However, if such a meeting took place, we would be forced to conclude that the thrilling conviction, which had been instilled in the hearts of Peter and John as a result of what they had seen, had made little impression on Mary. This, of course, is possible. Nevertheless, since nothing in the record suggests a conversation between the apostles, on the one had, after they had been in the tomb, and Mary, on the other hand, it is better to abandon this theory entirely. It is probably safe to state that Mary returned to the tomb all alone, and that on the way she did not stop to engage in conversation with anyone. 

So Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping. For the meaning of this verb see on 11:31, 32 (and compare with the verb used in 11:35; see also on that verse). Her poignant grief expressed itself in constant, unrestrained sobbing. While she was giving vent to her bitter sorrow, she stooped to peer into the tomb (see on verse 5). She saw two angels sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. 

It must be deemed probable that these two angels appeared in the form of young me (cf. Mark 16:5). Their white garments indicated holiness (perhaps also joy and victory). They symbolized the triumph of life over death, of light over darkness, of grace over sin. For the general appearance of the tomb and the place where the angels sat see on 19:41, 42. 

But why did these angels appear to the women and not to Peter and John? Was it because the faith of the women was so much weaker than that of the men that it was in need of the extra support of the ministry of angels? This answer has been suggested, but we find nothing in the record to prove it. One might, in fact, go in the opposite direction and say that the appearance of these angels and the message which they brought (first to the other women, Matt. 28:5–7; then, to Mary, John 20:13) was a special reward for the singular ministry of love in which these women, including Mary, had been engaged. But the best answer is the simple admission that we do not know why the angels appeared to the women (in the present instance, to Mary) and not to the men. 

Heaven takes a vital interest in Christ’s resurrection. The absence of angels would have been surprising. 

13. And they said to her, Woman, why are you weeping? Implied in the question which the angels ask is a message: “This is the time for joy, not for weeping.” May we not add that the question is a tenderly-phrased expression of disapproval, as if the angels meant to say, “Has the Lord’s teaching with respect to his approaching death and resurrection been entirely in vain? Mary, are you not ashamed of your unbelief?” 

But so completely has sorrow and grief captured the soul of Mary that she is not frightened, no, not even startled by these angels or by their question. She seems to be even more at ease in their presence than, for example, in a recent book “Jacobus” is in the presence of “Gabriel.” 

In the tempest-tossed mind of Mary there is room for only one thought which she expresses by answering, They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him. 

One might also render this, “My Lord has been taken away,” etc. Note: Mary still speaks of Jesus as her Lord (see on 20:2). Oh, if she only knew where the body was, she could carry out the purpose for which she had come to the tomb. Besides, just to be near him — even if it means no more than being near his dead body — will give a measure of satisfaction. 

14. On saying this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing (there), but she did not know that it was Jesus. Mary has been peering into the tomb (20:11, 12). Now she turns around and looks in the opposite direction. Why? Here again there is room for theorizing. A few samples are: a. because Jesus had suddenly made his appearance, and the angels who saw him from their position in the tomb bowed in adoration, causing Mary to turn around in order to see why the angels did this; b. because the angels, beholding Jesus, pointed to him, hinting that Mary should look away from the tomb; c. because Mary heard someone approaching; d. because the angels suddenly vanished out of sight; etc. It has not pleased the Lord to answer. The one important fact is that Mary is now facing a person whom she does not recognize. See on the next verse: 

15. Jesus said to her, Woman, why are you weeping, for whom are you looking? Again Mary hears the same question as was asked her a moment ago: “Woman, why are you weeping?” See on verse 13. Notice a very similar correspondence between the words of the angel to the women (Matt. 28:5, 7) and the words which they heard from the lips of the Lord himself a little later (Matt. 28:10). In the perfect kingdom there is perfect harmony. The angels say what their Lord says. And the question was most timely and appropriate, for surely this was not the proper time for weeping! The Stranger adds, “For whom are you looking?” Notice whom, not what. Although in her reply to the angels Mary had spoken about her Lord, she had not been looking for him but for his corpse. She had been looking for something, not for someone. When the One who addresses Mary now asks, “For whom are you looking,” he is beginning to turn her thoughts in another and better direction. She must begin to look for a person, not a thing. 

Thinking that he was the gardener she said to him, Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will remove him.

Why did Mary think that this person who addressed her was the man who took care of Joseph’s garden? We answer:

1. Because, due to her unbelief, she was not looking for the resurrected Savior.

2. Perhaps, because Jesus looked different than before (see Mark 16:12; cf. 9:3). Yet, the fact that she took him to be the gardener proves that he had the common human form. 

3. Because in the garden she expected to see a gardener or care-taker.

To this supposed gardener Mary says, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will remove him.”

“Sir” is here the correct translation of the original; not “Lord.” See Vol. I, p. 103, footnote . Mary now asks this person a favor: if he, for reasons of his own, has transferred the corpse, will he please tell Mary where he has laid it, sothat she may have it removed to some convenient place where she can bestow further care upon it? It is true that Mary actually says, “him,” not “it,” but it is clear that she is thinking of Christ’s body. In connection with funerals similar language (personal instead of impersonal) is used even today. 

Verse 16 probably implies that having said this, Mary, despairing perhaps of a satisfactory reply, turned around, sothat she was again looking toward the open tomb. This, after all, in a despondent woman, would not be strange. This interpretation of what happened is probably better than to assign a rather unusual meaning to the participle στραφε ῖσα (for example, having leaned forward) as used in that verse. 

16. Jesus said to her, Miriam. With infinite tenderness and warmth, in a tone which resembled that of former days, Jesus now addresses Mary by using just one word, “Miriam.” The original Aramaic name by which her parents and friends must have addressed her many a time, the name which Jesus had always used in speaking to her, is employed also in this instance. Jesus addresses her by her native name, in her native tongue! 

She turned and said to him in Aramaic, Rabboni (which means Teacher). When Mary hears this word — her own name in her own language — spoken in that familiar way as only One person could ever pronounce it, she quickly turns away from the tomb and toward the speaker (see on verse 15) and with a word of dramatic surprise, glad recognition, and humble reverence exclaims, “Rabboni.” Though this word (which originally meant “my master or my teacher) has a meaning which closely approaches (and may even be identical with) that of “Rabbi,” and is so translated by John (“Teacher”) for the benefit of his non-Aramaic speaking readers in Asia Minor, in actual usage it was far less common than Rabbi. For the use of Rabbi see Vol. I, p. 103, footnote 44. The title Rabboni was given to only a few rabbis, for example, to Gamaliel I and Gamaliel II. It was often used with reference to God. 

17. Jesus said to her, Do not keep clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. What Jesus probably means is this: “Do not think, Mary, that by grasping hold of me so firmly (cf. Matt. 28:9), you can keep me always with you. That uninterruptible fellowship for which you yearn must wait until I have ascended to be forever with the Father.” Jesus did not object to being touched. Otherwise, how can we explain his word to Thomas? See on 20:27. What he condemned was Mary’s mistaken notion that the former mode of fellowship was going to be resumed, in other words, that Jesus would once again live in daily visible association with his disciples, both men and women. The fellowship, to be sure, would be resumed; but it would be far richer and more blessed. It would be the communion of the ascended Lord in the Spirit with his Church. 

But go to my brothers and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. 

Both Mary Magdalene and the other women receive a message to be conveyed to the eleven. But while the other women must tell the men what has happened (“He is risen from the dead”) and where Jesus will meet them (“He is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him”), Mary must announce to them what great even in the history of redemption is about to take place (“I ascend to my Father,” etc.). 

Jesus now calls his disciples by a new name: “brothers.” (Cf. Ps. 22:23; 122:8; Heb. 2:11.) A new relationship — fellowship in the Spirit, about to be poured out — requires a new name, a name even more intimate than the very beautiful name “friends.” 

Brothers belong to one and the same family. They possess much in common. They share in the same inheritance. Thus every true believer is a joint-heir with Christ (Rom. 8:17). Thus, also, in the spiritual sense, God is not the Father of all men but only of those who, having been chosen from eternity, have embraced the Son by a living faith. These — these all, these alone — are Christ’s brothers. 

When we reflect on the fact that just a few days previously all these men had “left him and fled,” it is all the more striking that Jesus, in tender mercy, is willing to call them his brothers. 

What Mary must say to them as Christ’s message for them is this, “I ascend (it is about to happen; it is certain to happen; hence present tense) to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” Jesus makes a distinction here, and at the same time emphasizes the closeness of fellowship between himself, his Father, and the disciples. The distinction is clearly evident from this, that he does not say, “I am ascending to our Father.” His sonship differs from theirs; hence, he says, “to my Father and to your Father.” See on 1:14 for this distinction. He is Son by nature; they are sons by adoption. Hence, also “and to my God and your God.” Nevertheless, the closeness of fellowship is also stressed: the same God who is the Father of Jesus is also the Father of the disciples! 

It is to this God and Father that Jesus is ascending. That is the message which must be transmitted to the disciples. It is at the same time the lesson which Mary needs to learn.

18. Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, I have seen the Lord, and (she told them) that he had said these things to her. 

Where the Lord went after appearing to Mary has not been recorded. Moreover, it is even a question whether, had it been recorded, we would have been able to grasp it, for it must be borne in mind that the period of his day-by-day visible association with his disciples is over. He simply appears, now to this one, then to that one; and we must not ask, “Where was he in the time which intervened between any two appearances?” We know very little about the character of the resurrection-body and about its coming and going. 

With Mary the case is different. We learn that she did as she had been told. Mary must have been a deeply emotional woman. In a way, she reminds us of Peter. One moment you see her weeping profusely. Her whole heart is in these tears, so much so that even the presence of angels hardly registers. But the next moment — the moment of joyful recognition, when the resurrected Lord pronounced her name — all has changed. “Rabboni,” she exclaims; and, arrived in the company of the disciples, she can hardly wait to shout, “I have seen the Lord.” (For Lord see on 20:2, 13). No longer was she thinking about a corpse now. No, this was the living Lord, gloriously risen from the grave! — Mary conveyed her message, word for word, exactly as the Lord had told her to do. And these words must have been like apples of gold in a framework of silver. 

20:19–23

19 Now when it was evening on that day, the first of the week, and out of fear for the Jews the doors were locked where the disciples were, there came Jesus, and he stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace to you.” 20 And on saying this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore rejoiced over seeing their Lord. 

21 Then Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you. Just as the Father commissioned me, so I am sending you.” 22 And on saying this, he blew and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain (those) of any, they are retained.” 

20:19. Now when it was evening on that day, the first of the week, and out of fear for the Jews the doors were locked where the disciples were, there came Jesus, and he stood in their midst and said to them, Peace to you. 

Note the stress that is laid on the specific day when Jesus appeared to the disciples with the exception of Thomas. John might have written, “Now when it was the evening of the first day.” But he is far more definite. It is clear that he wants to emphasize that this was none other than the first day of the week. So he begins by saying, “Now when it was evening of that day.” That already marks the day as the first day, in the light of the context (20:1). But he is not satisfied with this. So he continues, “that day, the first of the week.” 

The New Testament everywhere singles out the day of Christ’s resurrection as chief among the days of the week. See Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19, 26; Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10. 

For the meaning of “the first of the week” see on 20:1. It was evening. In the light of Luke 24:29, 33, 36 we have a right to conclude that it was no longer early in the evening when the great event recorded in the present paragraph took place. As the Jews compute the days it was no longer the first day of the week. But John, though a Jew, is writing much later than Matthew and Mark, and does not seem to concern himself with Jewish time-reckoning. See on 1:39. 

Out of fear for the Jews (or for fear of the Jews) the disciples had locked the doors. For this fear inspired by the Jewish authorities (we think especially of the Sanhedrin) see on 7:13; 9:22; 14:27; 19:38. The rulers had brought about the death of Jesus. Were the apostles going to be next on the program of destruction? The exact place where the disciples gathered is not indicated. See, however, Acts 12:12. 

It is not difficult to understand what had brought them together. There had been so many strange happenings and marvelous experiences that day that a meeting was in order. Jesus had already appeared to Mary Magdalene, to the women, to Cleopas and his companion, and to Peter. See on 21:1. Peter and John and also the women had been inside the tomb. What they had seen was just too wonderful for words. Indeed, it is not surprising that the disciples found each other’s company this Sunday-evening. 

Of a sudden, there came Jesus, and he stood in their midst! But how was that possible, with the doors locked? (The doors — plural — refers, perhaps, to the gate of the house and the door of the room in which they were; but may also indicate the two folding doors which formed the gate.) 

To the question how this sudden appearance of Jesus was possible all kinds of answers have been given. Some of these answers must be rejected immediately; for example, Jesus had been hiding in the room; he “sneaked in” with the men of Emmaus; he entered through the (Oriental substitute for our) window; he descended from the roof; etc. Those who believe that the human nature of Christ was now in possession of the qualities of the divine nature answer that this human nature had now become omnipresent. We have high respect for the faith and the scholarship of those who are inclined to accept this last view. Along with us they worship Jesus as the Son of God, and along with us they accept his Word as being infallible. In the battle against liberalism of every description they put many to shame. Nevertheless, we cannot accept this solution. We believe that neither in the state of humiliation nor in that of exaltation are the two natures ever confused or blended, sothat one partakes of the qualities of the other. We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is to be acknowledged “in two natures inconfusedly and unchangeably, as well as indivisibly and inseparably” (Symbol of Chalcedon). 

Moreover, we believe that the words “There came Jesus” are best interpreted literally. He not only suddenly stood in their midst, but he actually came and stood! Had his human nature been omnipresent, he would not have to come (unless this coming be taken in a metaphorical sense). To the question, “But how was it possible for Jesus, who was not a mere phantom but had a real body (though a resurrection-body) to come and stand, when the doors were locked?” Scripture gives no answer. Some day we’ll understand. Stating it differently, one might also say, “The resurrection-body has different qualities than the pre-resurrection body” (I Cor. 15:42–44; cf. Phil. 3:21). But that is not really answering the question. 

Jesus speaks peace to the surprised disciples. He said, “Peace to you.” For explanation see on 14:27; 16:33; 20:21, 26. He said it now as the One who has actually merited this peace for them. 

20. And on saying this, he showed them his hands and his side. 

Much, very much, is implied in this statement:

1. The person standing in the midst of the little circle is really Jesus. He is not someone else. The marks in his hands (where the nails have been) and the wound in his side identify him.

2. This person has a real body. He has hands. He shows his side (probably the left side). He is not a phantom. Let all docetics take note. In John’s day there were many.

3. It was not only the spirit of Christ that had arisen from the grave — as the liberals teach — but the body also! This was really a bodily resurrection. 

4. The peace pronounced on the disciples — pronounced not only but actually given — was real; it had been bought at such a price! Let the disciples look at his hands and at his side. Then let them meditate and adore. 

The disciples therefore rejoiced over seeing their Lord. Luke supplies the best commentary on this passage in John. Not immediately did the disciples rejoice. First, when they saw him standing there so suddenly, they were frightened. They thought that they were looking at a spirit or ghost. Then Jesus, in tender love, said, “Why are you troubled? And why do questionings arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me and see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me having.” They rejoiced. Nevertheless, “they still disbelieved for joy.” Jesus then said, “Do you have anything to eat here?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish. He took it and ate in their presence. Jesus then repeated words which he had formerly spoken. See Luke 24:36–49. When they finally believed without doubting any longer, it was because they could not do anything else. Note that according to John here in 20:20 — and bear in mind that John was there when it happened! — the disciples at last saw in Jesus their exalted Lord. For the term see on 1:38; 12:21; cf. also 20:2, 13, 18. 

21. Then Jesus said to them again, Peace to you. Just as the Father commissioned me, so I am sending you. 

To all those present (the ten, the men from Emmaus, and others) Jesus repeats, “Peace to you.” For the meaning see on 20:19. It is not strange that he repeated this word. His sudden appearance had caused instant alarm. Even though that fear had been largely allayed, and rejoicing had taken its place, the gracious words, bestowing peace on those present, could stand repetition. 

By adding, “Just as the Father,” etc., Jesus says in substance what he had said before. Hence, see on 17:18 for the explanation. There is, however, one important difference. In the former passage these words were addressed to the Father (“Just as thou didst send me into the world, so have I also sent them into the world”); now they are addressed to the disciples themselves (with a change of verb, which is, however, not very important): “Just as the Father commissioned (one might also translate sent) me, so I am sending you.” 

From the fact that there were others in the room besides the ten (Luke 24:33) — the ten had some welcome visitors who were with them (Luke 24:33) — some have concluded that there is nothing official about this sending. But though the words were meant for the entire Church, is it not true that the task of proclaiming the Gospel to the world is, nevertheless, carried out chiefly by means of those who were specially chosen? Through them the entire Church brings God’s message to the world. Needless to say, every believer also has an important duty, namely, the duty of bearing witness joyfully and incessantly. 

That Jesus has the ten (and in a sense also the absent apostle, Thomas; hence, the eleven) in mind follows also from the very similar or parallel passage in 17:18, 20. Note: “Just as thou didst send me into the world, so have I also sent them into the world … Neither concerning these only do I make request, but concerning those also who believe in me through their word.” One might paraphrase this: “Just as thou didst send me into the world, so have I also sent these eleven men into the world … Neither concerning these eleven men only do I make request, but concerning those also who believe in me through their word.” 

The analogy between the sending of the Son as Mediator and the sending of the apostles has been explained in connection with 17:18. The commissioning authority is the same; the message is the same (nevertheless, there is this difference: Jesus through his atonement makes the message possible; the apostles simply proclaim it!); and the men to whom it is proclaimed are the same. Hence, “just as … so.” 

22, 23. And having said this, he blew, and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain (those) of any, they are retained. 

Having reminded his disciples of the fact that his resurrection in no sense relieved them of their divinely ordained task, Jesus blew. The best text does not read, “He blew upon them,” but simply “He blew.” This blowing (cf. on 3:8) had symbolic significance. It symbolized a particular gift of the Holy Spirit. In a sense, that gift is given to the entire Church. Nevertheless — see also on verse 21 — it is to be exercised by the officers, by them alone, by them corporately. This particular gift which is here indicated is that of forgiving or retaining sins, which in this connection must mean, declaring that someone’s sins are either forgiven or retained (unforgiven). 

That the apostles cannot act independently, that is, apart from the Spirit who speaks in the Word, is already evident from the fact that the gift is linked with the Spirit! “Receive the Holy Spirit … If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven,” etc. Absolutions pronounced arbitrarily have no standing in heaven. Only then has the Church, acting through its officers, the right to declare sins forgiven or retained when it acts in harmony with the Spirit-inspired Word. 

But when its actions are in conformity with the Word (which demands that discipline be exercised in the spirit of love), then this power is very real, and has reference to anyone (whoever he may be) whose sins are declared to be either forgiven or retained. 

But since the Church can only declare that which God has already done (cf. Mark 2:7), we read, “If you forgive the sins of any, they have been (and continue to be; hence, are) forgiven them; if you retain (those) of any, they have been (and continue to be; hence, are) retained.” 

This passage certainly suggests Matt. 16:19; 18:18. It is clear that the Matthew passages refer to the authority which the Church exercises by means of the apostolic office. It would, therefore, seem logical that here in John 20:33 the meaning is the same. But by many writers any notion of office is being rejected vigorously. 

Office implies a divinely appointed task with authority (given to certain men and not to others) to carry it out. This authority has reference to life and doctrine. That it was established by Christ and exercised by the apostles is clear from such passages as Matt. 16:18, 19 (does not the very idea of a key — to open and to close — imply authority? and does not binding and loosening — whatever be its meaning — do the same?) 18:18; 28:18; I Cor. 5:3, 4; II Cor. 10:8. That this authority was through their meditation laid upon ministers and elders sothat these also have an office and are clothed with authority is clear from the following: Acts 14:23; 20:28; I Tim. 1:18; 3:1, 5; 4:14; 5:17; II Tim. 4:1, 2; Tit. 1:5–9; 3:10; Rev. 2:20. 

This authority — which according to John 20:23 implies the right of expelling from the Church and of restoring the sinner to its fellowship — must ever be exercised in the spirit of love. It has as its purpose “the perfecting of the saints, the work of ministering, the building up of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12); and its ultimate goal may be expressed in these beautiful words: “until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a fullgrown man, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13). 

The apostles who were gathered in this room on this glorious Easter day needed this comfort. In themselves they were weak and sinful. This had been demonstrated again and again, also during the last few days. Did they still have the right to call themselves apostles, Christ’s official representatives, chosen to bring his message to the children of men and to exercise authority in the company of believers? The risen Savior speaks this word of encouragement. Without authority, chaos reigns supreme! 

20:24–31

24 But Thomas, one of the Twelve, the one called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord.” He, however, said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hands into his side, I definitely will not believe.” 

26 And eight days later his disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, though the doors had been locked, and he stood in the midst and said, “Peace to you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Bring here your finger, and see my hands; and bring your hand, and put it into my side; and no longer be unbelieving but believing.” 28 Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God.” 29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are they who, though not seeing, are yet believing.” 

30 Now Jesus, to be sure in the presence of the disciples also performed many other signs, which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written in order that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and in order that believing you may continue to have life in his name. 

20:24, 25. But Thomas, one of the Twelve, the one called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples were saying to him, We have seen the Lord. — He, however, said to them, Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I definitely will not believe. 

For Thomas, his name, and his character see on 11:16; 14:5. There had been a meeting of “the Twelve.” Actually only ten had been present (plus some welcome visitors), but the little company is still technically called “the Twelve,” just as among us when fifteen of the seventeen consistory-members are present, we still speak of those who are present as “the consistory.” Moreover, Thomas was one of the twelve apostles as originally chosen. He should have been there. By not being present he had missed the joy of seeing the risen Lord, and of hearing him speak words of peace. Indeed, he had missed the peace itself. It is evident from verse 25 that he had no peace. He was wretched, nervous, restless. 

But the other disciples took pity on him. Besides, when the heart is full, the mouth will speak. So the other disciples — the ten (and probably also the two from Emmaus and others who had been present) — kept saying to him, “We have seen the Lord.” See on 20:18. Although the immediate reference here is to the apostles who had been present in the room on Easter-evening, it is entirely probable that also others (who may or may not have been present), for example, Mary Magdalene and the other women, kept on giving gladsome testimony of that which they had seen. There had been several “appearances” before Easter evening. See on 21:1. 

Thomas, however, remained stubborn. He was a very devoted disciple. He was also very despondent. Hence, for him the universe collapsed when Jesus was crucified. He was “of all men most pitiable” (I Cor. 15:19). 

When the others continued to din their wonderful story into his ears, he finally protested, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails and put my finger into the place of the nails, I definitely will not believe,” that is, “I definitely will not believe that Jesus is the risen Lord.”

Thomas is willing to believe … that is, on certain conditions! And he himself will lay down these conditions. The mysterious person about whom the others have been saying so much must measure up to certain standards which Thomas will establish; he must submit to certain tests which Thomas will apply. Hearing about him, (even from those who have both seen and heard him) is not enough. Thomas has heard too much already. Thomas wants to see. He also wants to feel! He wants to see the mark of the nails, and he wants to put his finger into the place of the nails. In the original there is an interesting alliteration here: the words for mark and place are almost identical (τύπος and τόπος), somewhat like our imprint and impress. Thomas will not be satisfied if he merely sees the marks which the nails have left on the surface of the hands of the One who had been crucified; no, he must also actually run his finger into the nail-holes! And even that will not be sufficient. Thomas must be permitted to put his hand into the horrible gash left by the spear. Now, if the mysterious character about whom Thomas has heard so much will satisfy all these demands, then … and not until then … Thomas will believe; but if not, he will definitely not (οὐ μή) believe. For discussion of nails and spear-thrust see on 19:23, 24. 

26, 27, 28. And eight days later his disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, though the doors had been locked, and he stood in the midst and said, Peace to you. Then he said to Thomas, Bring here your finger, and see my hands; and bring your hand, and put it into my side; and no longer be unbelieving but believing. Thomas answered and said to him, My Lord and my God. 

For the expression “eight days later” see also on 12:1. Employing the inclusive method of time-computation — the method according to which, for example, Tuesday would be three days later than Sunday — John states that eight days later the event of the preceding Sunday-evening was repeated. The time and the place were, in all probability, the same. Did the Lord wait until Sunday-evening in order to encourage his disciples to observe that day — and not some other day — as the day of rest and worship? That would seem probable. 

This time Thomas is present. It is probably correct to say that his presence at this occasion was the result of the work of witnessing in which the others had been engaged. Of course, this is not certain. It is also possible that Thomas rejoined the group for the simple reason that he had no other friends, no other place to go.

The rest of verse 26 is almost a word-for-word repetition of verse 19. See on that verse. Again, though the doors are locked, Jesus suddenly appears. He comes. He stands in the midst of the group. He speaks peace to (and bestows peace upon) them. Then he addresses Thomas. In the spirit of gentle condescension to the conditions laid down by Thomas, Jesus admonishes his erring disciple. In order to see how precisely and fully the demands of Thomas are met, we must place the words of Thomas and those of Jesus next to each other. Notice: 

The Demands of Thomas

The Commands of Jesus

1     Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, 

2     And put my finger into the place of the nails, 

3     And put my hand into his side, 

4     I definitely will not believe 

2     See my hands 

1     Bring here your finger. 

3     And bring your hand, and put it into my side. 

4     And no longer be unbelieving but believing. 

For each demand of Thomas there is a command of Christ, though the order in which the commands are uttered is not exactly the same as that in which the demands were made.

The condescending manner in which Jesus dealt with Thomas certainly indicates that he is still the same Jesus. His love has not lessened. He might have rebuked Thomas sharply, but he deals very gently with him.

The question has been asked, “Did Thomas actually do as Christ commanded him?” Though the answer is not specifically stated, it is probable that he did. In fact, the question might be asked, “Did he have any choice in the matter?” Was he not obliged to do as instructed? Besides, there is Luke 24:39 and especially I John 1:1. 

Having heard the words of Jesus — those words which were so wonderful because they corresponded in every detail with the words of Thomas —, having probably also seen his hands, and felt his wounds, Thomas exclaims, “My Lord and my God.” This confession must be understood in the light of Thomas’ immediately preceding experience; better still, it must be understood in the light of the immediately preceding self-disclosure of Jesus. Jesus had revealed himself as being (with respect to his divine nature) the Omniscient One. It is in that exalted sense that Thomas now calls Jesus his Lord and his God. He who a little while ago was trying “to lord it over the Lord” (laying down conditions for him to meet), has become submissive. No longer does Thomas wish to rule supreme. In Jesus he recognizes his sovereign, yes even his God! For a Jew that was a remarkable confession. 

29. Jesus said to him, Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are they who, though not seeing, are yet believing. There was nothing wrong with the words of the confession which Thomas uttered. There was something wrong with the manner in which he reached this level of faith. He should have believed even apart from sight. For the benefit of those who would come to believe in him in the years that were to follow, Jesus now says, “Blessed are they who, though not seeing, are yet believing.” Faith which results from seeing is good; but faith which results from hearing is more excellent. This is the clear lesson of Scripture throughout; see, for example, Matt. 8:5–10; John 4:48; Rom. 10:14; and I Peter 1:8. 

30. Now Jesus, to be sure, in the presence of the disciples, also performed many other signs, which are not written in this book. But these are written in order that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and in order that believing you may continue to have life in his name. 

With the glorious confession of Thomas, “My Lord and my God,” the author has achieved his purpose. One should compare this confession with the sublime declaration in 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God.” The purpose of the evangelist has all along been this: to show that Jesus is really God (or, if one prefers, the Son of God; hence, of the very essence of God). The resurrection and particularly the appearance to the disciples, including Thomas, has had the effect of eliciting this confession from the heart and mouth of “the despondent and devoted one.” 

The resurrection was the greatest sign of all. For the meaning of the term sign see Vol. I, p. 117. There had been many signs. They were performed in the presence of the disciples, sothat these men might be qualified witnesses, that is, sothat they might be able to give competent testimony concerning that which they themselves had seen, heard, or experienced. See on 1:7, 8. It is true that no one actually saw the resurrection. But the disciples saw the resurrected Christ, and that certainly implied the reality of the resurrection. John does not “demythologize.” (Contrast R. Bultmann.) 

In addition to the great sign of the resurrection, those signs which are recorded in the Fourth Gospel are: the changing of the water into wine, the healing of the courtier’s son, the cure of the “withered” man at the pool of Bethzatha, the miraculous feeding of the five thousand, the opening of the eyes of the man born blind, and the resurrection of Lazarus. But that is by no means all. One might ask, “Was not the cleansing of the temple a sign? Was not the triumphal entrance into Jerusalem another sign?” Besides, as has been pointed out in connection with 2:11, the sign never stands alone. It is not only a work of power. There is always a plus: the miracle introduces teaching with reference to Christ. Sometimes that teaching is implied; often it is expressed, at times in lengthy discourses. Hence, we arrive at the conclusion that from start to finish the Fourth Gospel is a book of signs. It records Christ’s wonderful deeds and their meaning! 

Now John has not recorded all the deeds and teachings of Christ. He has been selective. He probably took for granted that the readers had already studied the earlier Gospels; see Vol. I, pp. 31, 32. Besides, in some of these deeds the full deity of Christ was not as clearly revealed as in others. And finally, to record all significant deeds and words would have been impossible. But this last point is brought out not here in 20:30, 31 but in 21:25. See on that passage. 

What then was John’s purpose in recording the signs which he did record? The answer is expressed in these words, “But these are written in order that you may continue to believe …” Note: continue to believe. Remember Cerinthus, who was trying to undermine the faith of the Church in the deity of Christ! That faith must be strengthened. The enemy must be repulsed. For a further commentary on this aspect of John’s purpose we refer to Vol. I, pp. 33–35. For Jesus as the Son of God see also on 1:1, 14. 

When the Church continues to accept Jesus as the divinely appointed and qualified (hence, as the divinely anointed) One, that is, as the Christ, the fulfilment of all the Old Testament hopes and promises; when it continues to recognize him as the Son of God, in the most exalted sense of the term, it will continue to have life — everlasting life; see on 1:4; 3:16 — in his name, that is, in and by means of the blessed acceptance of his revelation in the sphere of redemption. 

Synthesis of Chapter 20 

See the Outline on p. 446. The Son of God Triumphing Gloriously. Resurrection and Appearances 

1. The Visit of Peter and John to the Tomb

When Mary Magdalene, greatly alarmed because the stone had been removed from the tomb’s entrance, rushed to Peter and to John for help, these men responded immediately. In order to get the real picture of Peter and John’s walking and then running to the tomb, one should study Burnand’s famous painting. Artists so often disregard the data of Scripture, but here is a picture which, as far as I can judge, is faithful to Scripture in every respect. Note how in this picture (the original is in the Luxembourg Museum, Paris) the illusion of motion is produced by John’s hair rippling backward, the forward bending of the body, Peter’s long locks flaring in the wind, etc. It is evident that “the other disciple” is even now beginning to outrun Peter.

Though John arrived first, Peter first entered the tomb. Then entered John also. The orderly arrangement of everything within the tomb, the absence of the body, the recalling of Old Testament passages which they now saw in a new light, caused these men (first John, then Peter also) to believe that Jesus was actually risen.

II. The Appearance to Mary Magdalene.

Mary’s weeping, her distraught behavior even in the presence of angels (so great was her grief), her conversation with the angels, and finally her conversation with the person whom she considered to be the care-taker, are described very vividly. One word “Miriam” pronounced in the most “familiar” and tenderly loving manner, changed everything for Mary. She replied, “Rabboni.” Jesus then gave her a lesson in the manner in which continued fellowship with him could be attained. She reported her experience to the disciples.

III. The Appearance to the Disciples Except Thomas.

This sudden appearance of Jesus when the doors were closed cannot be explained in such a manner that human minds will be able to grasp it. Not only did the Lord prove his resurrection (even showing the disciples his side and his hands), but he also gave them a much-needed blessing, that of peace, a peace obtained by means of the cross. He further comforted them by informing them that their task, as his official representatives, would continue. Though they had all left him and fled, he still considers them to be his apostles with authority to rule the Church.

IV. The Appearance to the Disciples, Thomas Being Also Present.

The beauty of this story becomes evident especially in this particular, that Jesus meets all of the demands of his erring (but devoted) disciple. Thomas is permitted (commanded even!) to see and to feel the wounds in the body of Christ. The loving treatment which Thomas received evoked from his lips the glorious exclamation (a confession which would have been even more glorious had Thomas not laid down his conditions), “My Lord and my God.” 

With this the Gospel has returned to its starting point, namely, the deity of Christ (see on 1:1). Hence, here (with the exception of a Supplement, chapter 21) it closes. Its purpose is stated in verses 30, 31 (see the exegesis). 

Reflection on Christ’s Resurrection

Darkness at Noontime

A darkness that smothered sun and moon. A darker day there never was. Jesus of Nazareth is hanging on the cross between two thieves. Hear his cry: 

“It is finished … Father into thy hands I commend my spirit.” 

Out, out are the lights, out all! Just take a look at the little band of followers.

The Eleven

Their Master … gone. Their friend — and what a Friend! — departed. Their plans wrecked. Their hopes shattered. They are perplexed, baffled. They despair. Like men whose none too sturdy vessel is frozen solid in the Arctic ice-pack, with ice, ice, ice, cold bleak, barren stretching in every direction for hundreds of miles. Ice, screeching, roaring, grinding. Will they ever see their dear ones again? Abandon hope, all ye who enter here! Or — to change the figure — they resemble individuals who have been condemned to die and are pining away in some gloomy, dreadful prison-hole, knowing that the “best” they can expect is the arrival of the executioner. See John 20:19, their “doors were shut for fear of the Jews.” Jesus of Nazareth … Crucified … that was the Farewell to Hope! 

Am I exaggerating? Was there not so much as a ray of hope shining through the clouds of gloom and despair? A half-conscious expectation that somehow light would arise out of darkness, that the night would make room for the dawn, that … perhaps … the Master might even … rise again? Read the account for yourself:

“And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved.” Mark 16:11. 

“And they went away and told it unto the rest. Neither believed they them.” Mark 16:13. 

“And the … women … told these things unto the apostles. And these words appeared in their sight as idle talk; and they disbelieved them.” Luke 24:10, 11. 

“And he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.” Mark 16:14. 

“The other disciples therefore said unto him (Thomas), We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” 

Not one of the Eleven expected Jesus to arise from the grave. That thought was farthest removed from their minds. Jesus was dead. He was gone! These happy days of close fellowship and intimate association with the Great Prophet of Nazareth would never return. 

Cleopas and His Companion

These two friends of Jesus are returning to Emmaus. It is Spring-time. Yet they hear not the singing of birds. They see not the awakening of Nature. With lagging feet, under leaden skies they continue on their way home … home from a funeral! A dear one has been buried. Jesus of Nazareth. “Yes, stranger, we hoped that he was the One who would redeem Israel.” “We hoped — past tense — but now all hope is gone. The Cross and the Grave have blasted every last remnant of hope. Eternal despair reigns supreme in our hearts.” 

Mary, the Mother of the Lord

She, too, was in the grip of cold winter. A sword was piercing through her own soul, Luke 2:35, as she saw her own son, her first-born, dying the death of a condemned criminal. A feeling of overwhelming sadness takes possession of me whenever I read the lines of that ancient hymn, describing Mary’s tears: 

“Stabat mater dolorosa 

juxta crucem lacrimosa …”

For her, too, the Cross was the Farewell to Hope.

The Women

See these women trudging sorrowfully through the streets of Jerusalem very early, Sunday morning. While the Eleven are in deep mourning and despair, Thomas resembling a man who is caught in the midst of an earthquake, the very ground under his feet caving in; Peter overwhelmed with remorse; John tenderly caring for the woman with the tempest-tossed soul (Mary); while night has settled upon these Eleven men, what are these women going to do? Is it their design to welcome the Risen Lord? Not in the least. The cross has blasted their hopes. The grave has buried them forever. They come … to anoint a dead body, the corpse of Jesus of Nazareth, their Friend and Helper.

Never was there a more dejected, disappointed, crushed group of men and women! Their own experience is, perhaps, best described in that well-known poem:

“Now he is dead, far hence he lies 

In that lorn Syrian town;

And on his grave with shining eyes

The Syrian stars look down.”

When the Master died, the disciples, too, died. Their hopes, their aspirations, their deepest affections and fondest anticipations were buried with their Lord. If ever hope was to be revived in their hearts, their souls would have to be rescued from the grip of death. There would have to be a new beginning … and that … by all the laws of human logic … was impossible!

And then … the Glorious Easter Message

A new beginning! Light in the darkness! Life conquering death! The Lord is risen indeed! Here all changes. The Cross, the very instrument of despair, becomes an object of glory. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the source of a living hope. Listen to the message of exuberant joy, praise, and thanksgiving. Hear it from the lips of one who experienced the deepest darkness of despair and remorse. Says Peter:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” 

“Begat us again unto a living hope.” Now Peter can smile again. We can all be happy once more. A living hope, living, real, a desire plus expectation plus conviction that our lives here are not in vain. A hope not based upon legend or fancy but upon the immovable Rock of Christ’s resurrection from the grave. The apostles proclaim the resurrection because they cannot do anything else. The proof was too clear! 

He lives. Hence, life is worth living. Hence, all things work together for good to them that love God. Hence, we too shall live. Hence, the curse is going to be removed from the universe and we expect a new heaven and a new earth. All the darkness is dispelled. Hope lives again. 

A stream of light descends from veiled skies: an angel mighty and terrible arrives. His appearance is as lightning and his garments white as snow. And the angel says:

“Fear not ye. I know that ye seek Jesus, the crucified. He is not here. He is risen as he told you.” He is risen … and hope is revived. 

It makes little difference whether one conceives of the Greek plural for sabbath as referring to the day or to an entire week (the time from one day of rest to another). If the first is meant, then the idea is that this was the first day counting from the sabbath-day; hence, the first day after the sabbath-day. If the second is meant, the result is still the same: the day indicated is then not the last of the week but the first. In either case Sunday is meant. The plural noun used in the original may mean either sabbath-day or week. 

I. The Question Formulated 

The question should be carefully formulated. It is not: “Are ἀγαπάω and φιλέω at times used interchangeably? Is there an area of agreement between them?” That the verbs have much in common and that ἀγαπάω is more and more encroaching upon the territory of φιλέω is well-known. We do not agree with those who believe that there is “a great distinction” (R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 1393) in meaning between the two verbs. But though the area of agreement may be very wide, this still leaves room for the question, “Is there any distinction, at least in certain contexts?” 

Nor is the question this: “Was it possible for these two men (Jesus and Peter), who conversed with each other in Aramaic, to choose synonyms with delicate distinction, in such a manner that the exact shade of meaning for each verb could be preserved when the story was translated into Greek; and have the precise Aramaic equivalents for ἀγαπάω and φιλέω been found?” We simply do not have the Aramaic written text, if there ever was one. And we do not know enough to be able to affirm categorically that in no possible way could such fine distinctions have been conveyed by means of the Aramaic of that day. We are compelled to proceed on the basis of the Greek text as it lies before us, in the conviction that it is fully inspired; hence, accurate in every way. 

The question, then, is this: “Here in 21:15–17 are the two verbs ἀγαπάω and φιλέω identical in meaning, sothat the variation in their use is merely stylistic; or do the two verbs as here employed convey meanings which differ to a certain extent, and does the point of the story hinge on this difference?” 

II. Those Who Accept the Former Alternative (Identity in Meaning) 

Among the translators who see no difference and therefore use the same verb seven times in their translation of 21:15–17 are the following: 

Wycliffe (1380), Tyndale (1534), “Cranmer” (The Great Bible, 1539), Geneva (1557), Rheims (1582), and A.V. (1611). For these six, in parallel columns, see The English Hexapla, London, 1841. Other English renderings that do not bring out any difference are: Coverdale (1535), John Rogers (1537), Taverner (1539), Bishops (1568), Al. Campbell (1826), Norton (1855), Anderson (1864), Noyes (1869), English Revised (1881), A.R.V. (1901) — see, however, its footnote —, Moffatt (1913), Ballantine (1923), Torrey (1933), Spencer (1937), New Catholic Authorized (1941), and R.S.V. (1946) without even a footnote to indicate that the original uses two different verbs. 

To this list should be added such translations into other languages as Syriac Peshitta (see the edition published by the American Bible Society, 1932, and also the one published by the British and Foreign Bible Society, 1950), Dutch (Statenvertaling, 1619), French (D’ Ostervald, 1917), German (e.g., Luther 1522, and later translations), Danish (see the Danish-English New Testament published by the American Bible Society, 1914), etc.

Among commentators, to mention only a few, M. Dods (in Expositor’s Greek Testament, on this verse) believes that the verbs were interchanged merely for the sake of euphony; W. F. Howard (in Interpreters Bible) sees no distinction; The Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible, in its comments, sees only stylistic variation, and a good many of the older commentators (including Calvin) are either entirely silent on this point or express it as their opinion that the two words are identical in meaning. 

G. Abbott-Smith, Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, entry ἀγαπάω, leaves the matter undecided (“If this distinction holds,” etc.); “Bauer and Kittel in their lexicons have thrown no fresh light upon the problem” (thus, E. G. Goodspeed, Problems of New Testament Translation. Chicago, 1945, pp. 117, 118; I agree.) 

John A. Scott, in an article, “The Words for Love in John xxi.15 ff,” CLW, 39 (1945–1946), 71, 72, defends the position that there is no distinction whatever between the two verbs, and that the author “regarded them as the very same word.” 

III. Those Who Accept the Latter Alternative (Difference in Meaning) 

The list of names on the other side is just as formidable. Jerome (383 a.d.) detected a distinction here, and he has had his followers throughout the centuries, even to the present. A few of these will now be listed, together with the rendering which they propose: 

“Diligis? … Amo” (Jerome in Vulgate, 383). 

“Do you love me? … you are dear to me” (Weymouth, 1903, and Montgomery, 1923). 

“Do you love me? … I am your friend” (The Twentieth Century, 1940). 

“Are you my friend? … I love you” (Ferrar Fenton, 1905). 

“Are you devoted to me? … I love you” (Goodspeed, 1923; again, 1945). 

“Dost thou love me? … I am fond of thee” (Concordant, 1927). 

“Dost thou love me? … I have affection for thee” (Lenski, 1931). 

“Dost thou care for me? … I love thee” (Ronald Knox, 1944). 

“Do you prize me dearly? … I love thee” (Verkuyl, Berkeley Version, 1945). 

“Are you devoted to me? … I tenderly love you” (Williams, 1949). 

“Hebt gij mij waarlijk lief? … (Gij weet dat) ik u liefheb” (Dutch, 1951, Nieuwe Vertaling). 

“Hastu my ljeaf? … (jo witte dat) ik fen jo hald” (Frisian, 1946). 

“Alskar du mig? … (du vet, att), jag har dig kär (Swedish, 1917). 

In support of this position there is a long list of commentators; e.g., C. Bouma, C. R. Erdman, F. W. Grosheide (though with commendable caution), R. C. H. Lenski, A. T. Robertson, Th. Zahn, etc.

J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan in their Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated From the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1952 (reprint of the 1930 edition), state (on p. 2), “In so severely simple a writer as John it is extremely hard to reconcile ourselves to the meaningless use of synonyms, where the point would seem to lie in the identity of the word employed.” R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 1948 (reprint of the 1880 edition) devotes a section to these two words, and is clearly on the side of those who see a distinction in meaning here (see pp. 42, 43). L. Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1950, defends the same view (pp. 72, 73), as does also Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, New York, 1889, p. 653. 

One of the most scholarly and comprehensive articles written in favor of the distinction is that by B. B. Warfield, in PThR, XVI (1918), 153–203. He states: “That anyone should doubt that the words are used here (in John 21:15–17) in distinctive senses would seem incredible prior to experience.” 

With such a manifest division of opinion on this subject we deem it proper to present the pertinent facts, in order that the reader may get a clear picture of the manner in which the two verbs in question are used in the Four Gospels. Hence, we now present

IV. A Chart Indicating the Meaning of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in the Gospels. 

The meaning of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in The Gospels. 

References printed in italics indicate that φιλέω is used. The others have ἀγαπάω. 

MATTHEW

MARK

LUKE

JOHN

Quotation from Deut. 6:6 “love God” 

22:37

12:30; 12:33a 

10:27a

Quotation from Lev. 19:18 “love your neighbor.” 

5:34; 19:19; 22:39 

12:31; 12:33b 

10:27b (implied) 

The Father loving the Son

3:35; 10:17; 15:9a; 17:23b; 17:24; 17:26 

5:20

The Father loving the disciples

14:21c; 14:23b; 17:23a 

16:27a

God loving the world

3:16

Jesus loving the Father

14:31

Jesus loving his disciples (& loving the r.y. ruler)

10:21

11:5; 13:1a; 13:1b; 13:34b; 14:21d; 15:9b; 15:12b 

11:3; 11:36 

The disciple whom Jesus loved

13:23; 19:26; 21:7; 21:20 

20:2

Jesus issuing the precept: Love one another

13:34a; 13:34c; 15:12a; 15:17 

Jesus issuing the precept: Love your enemies 

5:44

6:27; 6:35 

The disciples loving Jesus

14:15; 14:21a; 14:21b; 14:23a; 21:15; 21:16

16:27b; 21:15; 21:16; 21:17a; 21:17b; 21:17c 

Sinful or very imperfect love; lack of love

5:46a; 5:46b 

7:6

6:32a; 6:32b; 6:32c; 6:32d 

3:19; 8:42; 12:43; 14:24; 14:28 

12:25; 15:19 

The Pharisees loving honor

6:5; 23:6 

11:43

20:46

Loving “our nation”

7:5

Loving father, mother, son, daughter

10:37a; 10:37b 

Loving the money-lender who cancels the debt

7:42

Loving much and loving little

7:47a; 7:47b 

Loving one’s master

6:24

16:13

Kissing

26:48

14:44

22:47

V. Results of the Study of the Chart

From a close study of the Chart the following becomes clear:

(1) By far the most prevalent word for love is ἀγαπάω. It is used in order to indicate almost every shade or variety of love. 

(2) Both verbs are used with respect to: 

a. The love of the Father for the Son.

b. The love of the Father for his disciples.

c. The love of Jesus for his disciples (the verb φιλέω being reserved for the love of Jesus toward Lazarus; while the verb ἀγαπάω is employed with respect to the love of Jesus for Martha, Mary, and Lazarus and for the Twelve). 

d. The love of Jesus for the apostle John.

e. The love of the disciples for Jesus.

f. Sinful love.

g. The love of the Pharisees for honor and public display.

Though this does not necessarily prove that the two verbs have identical meanings, it does indicate that the meanings in such contexts approach each other very closely. The verb ἀγαπάω is pushing out the verb φιλέω. 

(3) That there is, nevertheless, a difference — however slight and fading — between the two verbs (at least, in certain contexts) is evident from the following considerations:

a. Whenever a command or precept is issued (whether it be an Old Testament command or a New Testament precept makes no difference in this connection), the verb is always ἀγαπάω; never φιλέω. Thus “Love God,” “Love your neighbor,” “Love one another,” and “Love your enemies,” all require the verb ἀγαπάω (e.g., ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους). 

b. Love within the family-circle is indicated by φιλέω. 

c. Kissing (an outward sign of love) requires the verb φιλέω. 

All this certainly points in the direction of the conclusion that although the two verbs are very close together in meaning, so close that in certain connections they may be used interchangeably, a difference can still be detected. There are contexts in which ἀγαπάω is the right word, and φιλέω will not do; others where the opposite is true. 

Moreover, the area in which this difference in meaning must be sought is also clear from a study of the Chart. I can be ordered to seek (what I consider) someone’s good, and to do so from a high and idealistic motive, or/and out of devotion to a principle (whether good or bad). I cannot be ordered to have affection for a person. Devotion and emotion are not the same. Emotions do not permit themselves to be “ordered around.” Also, since φιλέω is the verb used in connection with family-ties and kissing it would seem that it implies and brings into prominence an element of subjective feeling which is not (at least not necessarily) stressed by the verb ἀγαπάω. 

The conclusions to which we have arrived on the basis of a study of the use of these two verbs in the Gospels (conclusions both as to closeness in meaning and as to probable difference in certain contexts) are fully confirmed by the rest of the New Testament. Paul uses φιλέω only twice (I Cor. 16:22 and Titus 3:15). Revelation has it twice (3:19; 22:15). For the rest it disappears completely. 

On the other hand, the noun kiss (φίλημα cf. φιλέω) occurs frequently (Rom. 16:16; I Cor. 16:20; II Cor. 13:12; I Thess. 5:26; I Peter 5:14 and also in Luke 7:45; 22:48). Note also “lovers of pleasure” (φιλήδονοι) rather than “lovers of God” (φίλόθεοι) in II Tim. 3:4. The verb ἀγαπάω is employed more than thirty times by Paul; about the same number of times by John in his epistles; and about half as many times in the other New Testament books. 

In present-day Greek φιλῶ is defined as meaning: “to kiss, to love”; ἀγαπῶ: “to love, to like, to be fond of.” Note that today ἀγαπῶ is very wide in meaning; yet the outward expression of affection in kissing is still φίλημα. Used widely is φίλος and φιλ— in combinations; cf. N.T. 

VI. Reasons Why We Agree With Those Who See A Distinction in The Meaning of These Two Verbs Here in 21:15–17 

(1) It has not been shown that these two verbs are completely identical in meaning everywhere else in the Gospels. Then why must they be completely identical here? The possibility of a distinction should, at least, be granted. 

(2) Would an author who usually carefully distinguishes between one verb and another verb for praying, cf. 11:22; 14:16; between one verb and another verb for knowing, 1:10, 31; 3:11; 8:28; and between several verbs for seeing, cf. 20:5–8, place next to each other two verbs for loving without any distinction in meaning, and would he do that in this context? This seems hardly probable. 

(3) Verse 17 does not say that Peter was grieved because Jesus had asked the very same question three times (or the same question for the third time), which, as a matter of fact, would not have been true even if we disregard the disputed difference in meaning between the two verbs, but that he was grieved because the third time (note the definite article here, and its absence in verse 16: “a second time”) he asked: φιλεῖς με;  

(4) By translating the two verbs exactly alike, the conversation is reduced to mere repetition. There is then no progress between questions two and three. Jesus once again asks the question which Peter has just answered. We grant that a reason can be suggested for this procedure, but it is hard to believe that Jesus would do this.

(5) The very fact that Peter in his answer chooses a different word than the one employed by Jesus in his question, and that he does this not once but twice in succession, points in the direction of a difference in meaning (be it ever so small) between the two words. It would be difficult — and perhaps impossible — to give an up-to-date illustration of the use of two synonyms thus employed, and not produce the same effect, namely, that of difference in meaning. For example: 

Q. “You have recommended this person, but do you actually know him?”

A. “Yes, I am acquainted with him.”

Q. “Do you know him?”

A. “I am acquainted with him.”

Q. “Are you acquainted with him?” 

The man frowned when this third time he was asked, “Are you acquainted with him?” He answered, “Now, listen! You know us well enough to realize that he and I are really acquainted with each other.”

To really know a person is one thing; to be acquainted with that person is not quite so strong, does not necessarily imply such a high degree of intimacy or familiarity. Synonyms are hardly ever (if ever!) exactly alike in meaning in every context. Hence also ἀγαπάῶ and φιλέω are not “the same word.” 

For the reasons indicated we believe that ἀγαπάω in this story (and generally throughout the Gospels, though with varying degree of distinctness in meaning) indicates love, deep-seated, thorough-going, intelligent and purposeful, a love in which the entire personality (not only the emotions, but also the mind and the will) plays a prominent part, which is based on esteem for the object loved or else on reasons which lie wholly outside of this object; while φιλέῶ indicates (or at least tends in the direction of) spontaneous natural affection, in which the emotions play a more prominent role than either the intellect or the will. 

Note on John 3:13b: “Who is in heaven.” 

By some this phrase is retained (Zahn, Lenski, Burgon, etc.). Impassioned pleas are made for its retention. Whether these arguments will convince even the majority of conservative scholars who have made a special study of textual criticism is doubtful.

The following should be consulted: N.N., textual apparatus, A. T. Robertson, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, New York, 1925, p. 111 (but cf. his remark with textual app. in N.N.); A. W. Argyle, “The Elements of New Testament Textual Criticism” in Bible Translator, July, 1953, p. 23; Grosheide, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 226, footnote 1; R.S.V. on this passage; the Dutch translation (Nieuwe Vertaling). 

A. T. Robertson states as his opinion that the phrase is “probably a gloss” (Word Pictures, Vol. V, p. 49). Grosheide adheres to Nestle’s text, and omits the phrase in his comments. Argyle states that the combined attestation of B,S,L is so strong that the words should probably be rejected.

Dr. B. M. Metzger of Princeton Seminary, who is known as an expert in textual criticism and has performed much valuable work in this field, has kindly furnished me with information to some of which at the moment I did not have access. He has also stated his own definite conclusion, which is that the phrase is not to be considered as authentic.

From his letter I quote the following:

“The clause is lacking in the following witnesses: Aleph B L W 083 33 1241 1293 and 1010; sahidic, some mss. of the bohairic, and the subachmimic Coptic (according to Sir Herbert Thompson …); Tatian (according to Ephraim and the medieval Italian Harmony in the Venetian Dialect); Didymus and Cyril of Alexandria. In the editions of Westcott and Hort, B. Weiss, H. von Soden, and A. Merk the clause is not printed as part of the original text; it is doubtless to be understood as interpretive gloss which crept into various types of N.T. text at an early date, the Neutral … text alone remaining without accepting this fundamentally ‘Western’ reading.” 

Further Dr. Metzger points out that in the set of Tischendorf’s 8th ed. of the N.T. which Hort owned and on which the latter (together with Westcott) worked in preparation of his own text, Hort has added various patristic evidences for the shorter text of John 3:13, and has corrected two errors in Tischendorf’s apparatus (where the latter cited patristic evidence in favor of the addition). Dr. Metzger accordingly states, “Thus there is less evidence in its favor and more evidence against the reading than the ordinary user of Tischendorf would surmise.” 

It is my own opinion that stronger internal-evidence arguments will have to be presented than have been presented thus far, before the majority of experts in the field of Textual Criticism will be convinced that these arguments are of sufficient weight to offset the textual evidence.

I am also of the opinion that if the words be retained, the example of the A.S.V. should be followed; that is, a note should indicate the fact that “many ancient authorities omit who is in heaven.” In fact, in that case, it might even be better, if space allows, to state precisely which texts retain and which omit these words. 

With respect to the question, “Does 3:13b express a truth?” the answer is very easy. It certainly does give expression to a sublime and most glorious Scriptural truth: Jesus Christ, the only begotten, is ever in the bosom of the Father (1:18). Jesus Christ (according to his divine nature) is present in heaven even while (according to his divine and human nature) he is present on earth. 

I D; see Vol. I, pp. 40, 41. 

Arjen Miedema, Talks With Gabriel (translated from the Dutch by Henry Zylstra), Grand Rapids, Mich., 1950. 

The manner in which the author of the Fourth Gospel uses the term is interesting. It shows that also in this respect there is a degree of progress in his book, and this for the simple reason that there was a degree of progress in the disciples’ reverence for Jesus. At first the Twelve (also Nicodemus) are represented as saying, “Rabbi,” while others (the woman of Samaria, the nobleman of Capernaum, the sick man at Bethzatha, the man who was born blind) say κύριε. For “Rabbi” see 1:38, 49; 3:2; 4:31. For κύριε in the sense of “Sir” see 4:11–19, 49; 5:7; 9:36. Many translators prefer “Lord” or “Master” for κύριε in 9:38. At the conclusion of Christ’s discourse on The Bread of Life — delivered at the close of the Great Galilean Ministry, — we hear Peter address Jesus as κύριε; here generally translated “Lord” (6:68). The multitude has also changed its “Rabbi” to κύριε (6:25; cf. 6:34). Only twice after this — namely, in 9:2 and 11:8; but see also 20:16 — do we hear the disciples use the term “Rabbi.” After 11:8 the disciples of Jesus — i.e., the Twelve and also such friends as Martha and Mary — are introduced as saying κύριε which in the following passages is generally translated “Lord”: 11:12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5, 8, 22; 20:2, 13, 18, 20, 25, 28; 21:7, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21. They use this term both in addressing Jesus and in referring to him in the third person. However, we cannot build too much on these statistics. It is, perhaps, correct to say that a general trend is here indicated, pointing in the direction of increased reverence and of a gradual substitution of κύριε in the sense of “Lord” for “Rabbi.” This, however, does not mean that except in the two passages indicated (9:2; 11:8) the disciples actually never again used the term “Rabbi” in addressing Jesus. A comparison of 13:13 with 1:38 shows that, at least for a considerable time, the two terms — “Rabbi” and κύριε — must have been used interchangeably. If this is borne in mind, it again becomes apparent that also on this minor point — contrary to the opinion of some — there is really no basic difference between the Synoptics and John. 

After Christ’s resurrection ραββί disappears completely and, as already indicated, κύριε is used with great regularity. Also, the latter term has gained in significance. When after 11:8 this title is used, by those who know him, with reference to him whom they know to be Jesus, the translation “Lord” is generally found in our versions, both old and new. The words in italics also indicate why in 12:21 and in 20:15 the translation “Sir” is required: the Greeks did not know Jesus; Mary did not know that she was addressing him. (See further on the meaning of κύριος G. Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus, New York, 1926, pp. 117–139; and G. J. Machen, The Origin of Paul’s Religion, pp. 293–317.) 

The Aramaic form is better attested than is the Greek here in 20:16. 

This rather common interpretation which is found in several of the commentaries is better, it seems to me, than the one according to which Jesus is telling Mary, “Do not stop me, for I’m in a hurry; I am on my way to heaven.” Somewhat related ideas, for example, that John means to convey the thought that Jesus ascended that very day, or that only one week intervened between resurrection and ascension, hardly deserve discussion. John’s Gospel clearly teaches three subsequent appearances; one that very evening (20:19–23); another, a week later (20:24–29); and a third “after these things,” how long afterward we are not told (chapter 21). On the entire subject of Christ’s ascension see also C. Stam, De Hemelvaart Des Heren (doctoral dissertation submitted to the Free University at Amsterdam), Kampen, 1950. 

IIIA3; see Vol. I, pp. 42, 43. 

IIIB3; see Vol. I, p. 44. 

So, for example, R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 1340. 

Much has been written, especially during the last few years, concerning the exact meaning of the perfect tense in the case of both of these verbs which appear in the apodoses; for example, W. T. Dayton, Greek Perfect Tense in Relation to John 20:23, Matt. 16:19, and Matt. 18:18 (unpublished Th.D. dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago, Ill. 1945); R. A. Baker, “The Forgiveness of Sin: An Interpretation of Matt. 16:19; 18:18; and John 20:23, “Review and Expositor, 41 (1944), 224–235; see also H. J. Cadbury’s article on this subject in JBL 58 (Sept., 1939). 

We read such statements as the following: “The rise of ecclesiastical law and the constitution of the Church is an apostasy from the conditions intended by Jesus himself and originally realized” (Sohm’s statement quoted with approval by A. Harnack, The Constitution and Law of the Church, New York, 1910, p. 5); “There is no trace in Scripture of a formal commission of authority for government from Christ himself” (F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, London, 1897, p. 84); “The apostolate was founded by Jesus himself, not as an ecclesiastical office, but as a preaching ministry” (Carl von Weiszäcker, The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church, London, 1894); and “The authority of the apostolate was of a spiritual, ethical, or personal kind. It was not official” (J. C. Lambert, art. “Apostle” I.S.B.E.). 

O. Linton, who defends the idea of the apostolic office, summarizes the views of those who oppose it as follows: “Alles amtliche wird ängstlichst vermieden. Diese Lehr ist der gerade Gegenpol zu der Katholischen Ansicht. Nach dieser war der Apostel der von Jesus selbst zur Regierung der Kirche Bevollmachtigte.” And again: “Jesus habe die Apostel nur zum Predigen und sum Dienst an der Gemeinde bestellt, nicht zum Regieren über die Kirche.” Similarly C. B. Bavinck, another defender of the reality and originality of the apostolic office, states, “Van een ambt moet men maar niet spreken” (art. “Apostel” Christelijke Encyclopaedie). 

IIIA1; see Vol. I, pp. 42, 43. 

See H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York, 1950, p. 255; and cf. Dr. Mantey’s doctor’s thesis “The Meaning of οὖν in John’s Writings.” 

↑ Back to top