John 20
Joh 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.
All four Gospels record the resurrection of Jesus, but in different ways. The differences ‘amount to no more than a demonstration that here we have the spontaneous evidence of witnesses, not the stereotyped repetition of an official story’ (Morris).
According to Kysar (cited by Carson), each of the resurrection narratives in ch 20 has the following characteristics:-
‘1. The beneficiaries of the appearance are engulfed in a human emotion (Mary, grief; the disciples, fear; and Thomas, doubt).
2. The risen Christ appears to them in the midst of their condition.
3. As a result, their condition is transformed (Mary, mission; the disciples, gladness; Thomas, faith).
Thereby John depicts the appearances as experiences of liberation.’
What is now recounted is no myth. It is something that took place in space and time. ‘The space was the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, the time was “the first day of the week” following passover in the year AD 33.’ (Milne)
Alan Richardson affirms, ‘The bodily resurrection of the Lord is theologically very important in shewing that the whole of creation is to be redeemed, the physical no less than the spiritual.’ (cited by Morris)
Milne points to other historical markers: the fact that it was the women who were the first to discover the empty tomb (no-one would have fabricated that); the mention of the race to the scene (a detail that serves no ulterior purpose other than to record what happened); the fact that no other explanation can credibly be given for the empty tomb; the appearances to Mary and the others.
The first day of the week – Although Jesus habitually said that his resurrection would occur on ‘the third day’, all four Gospels make a point of specifying ‘the first day of the week’. {cf. Mt 28:1 Mr 16:2 Lu 24:1} Noting this, Carson suggests that this may reflect their desire to present the resurrection of Jesus as the beginning of something new.
While it was still dark – For John, the symbolism of darkness/light is powerful, cf. Joh 3:2 13:30, and may be suggestive here of Mary’s darkness of mind. At a more practical level, we can suppose that the burial on the Friday was hurried, and that Mary and the others wished to complete it in a proper and timely manner.
Mary Magdalene went to the tomb – She was not alone, as the “we” of v2 indicates. Mt 28:1 mentions Mary Magdalene and ‘the other Mary’; Mr 16:1 speaks of these two and also Salome; Lu 24:10 names the two Marys and Joanna. The synoptists inform us that the women brought spices with which to anoint the body.
‘It was the custom in Palestine to visit the tomb of a loved one for three days after the body had been laid to rest. It was believed that for three days the spirit of the dead person hovered round the tomb; but then it departed because the body had become unrecognizable through decay. Jesus’ friends could not come to the tomb on the Sabbath, because to make the journey then would have been to break the law. Sabbath is, of course, our Saturday, so it was on Sunday morning that Mary came to the tomb. She came very early. The word used for early is proi which was the technical word for the last of the four watches into which the night was divided, that which ran from 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. It was still grey dark when Mary came, because she could no longer stay away.’ (DSB)
Mary was the last at the cross, and the first at the tomb. She had no official status that might explain why she was the first the see the risen Lord. She was a close follower of Jesus and was one of those who supported him, Lu 8:2-3. But why not appear first to one of the disciples, or, if to a woman, to Jesus’ mother? As Morris says, God’s priorities are not our own. See 1Co 1:26-29.
She saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance – The tomb would have been quarried out of rock, and sealed with a disc-shaped stone which would have been rolled down a sloping groove to seal the door. It was therefore quite easy to close, but would have taken several strong men to open it. The description of the stone as having been ‘removed’ suggests that it has been lifted clear of the doorway and laid flat on the ground. It is not clear how Mary expected to move the stone herself in order to gain access to the tomb, {cf. Mr 16:3} but we already know from comparing the various accounts that other women were with her, and it may also be that Peter, John and other men were intending to come to the tomb themselves.
John had not mentioned the stone being placed across the entrance. The passive tense suggests divine action.
‘When she arrived at the tomb she was amazed and shocked. Tombs in ancient times were not commonly closed by doors. In front of the opening was a groove in the ground; and in the groove ran a stone, circular like a cartwheel; and the stone was wheeled into position to close the opening. Further Matthew tells us that the authorities had actually sealed the stone to make sure that no one would move it. {Mt 27:66} Mary was astonished to find it removed. Two things may have entered her mind. She may have thought that the Jews had taken away Jesus’ body; that, not satisfied with killing him on a cross, they were inflicting further indignities on him. But there were ghoulish creatures who made it their business to rob tombs; and Mary may have thought that this had happened here.’ (DSB) Of course, it was not necessary for the stone to be removed in order for Jesus to vacate his tomb. {cf. Joh 20:26} But it was necessary in order that Peter and John might be able to enter the tomb and in order for everyone to see that the tomb was empty.
The Resurrection of Christ
1. Mary found the stone rolled away and later met the risen Jesus, Joh 20:14-16.
2. Peter and John found the tomb empty.
3. Two disciples on the road to Emmaus met the risen Jesus, Lu 24:13-31.
4. Jesus appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem.
5. Jesus appeared to the disciples beside Lake Galilee.
6. Jesus appeared to Peter, James, and to more than 500 people at once, 1Co 15:6.
7. The tomb was empty.
8. The authorities could not produce the body.
9. The disciples were transformed.
10. Many in Jerusalem believed and the church was born.
Joh 20:2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”
She came running to Simon Peter – Peter is still the acknowledged leader of the disciples. ‘We often talk of Peter’s weakness and instability, but there must have been something outstanding about a man who could face his fellow-men after that disastrous crash into cowardice; there must have been something about a man whom others were prepared to accept as leader even after that. His moment’s weakness must never blind us to the moral strength and stature of Peter, and to the fact that he was a born leader.’ (DSB)
More literally, the text says, ‘she came running to Simon Peter and to the other disciple.’ The implication is that she came to one and then afterwards to the other. The implication is that they lived in different homes, and this is supported by Joh 20:10, which refers to their ‘homes’ (plural).
The other disciple, the one Jesus loved – See Joh 13:23 18:15-16 19:26 21:7,20. Traditionally, and very plausibly, identified with the apostle John.
“They have taken the Lord out of the tomb” – All she knew for the time being was that the stone had been removed, v1. She may have assumed that the body had been stolen. That grave-robbery (a capital offence) was not unknown is indicated by the practice of sealing graves. The thought of resurrection had not occurred to her.
“We don’t know where they have put him!” – The “we” suggest that others were with her. This is confirmed by the Synoptic accounts, Mt 28:1 Mr 16:1 Lu 24:1. However, it may be that Mary was alone when she first came to the tomb, and that the use of ‘we’ is merely a mode of speech (there are parallels in both Aramaic and Greek; cf. our “We don’t want that kind of behaviour around here,” where there may be only one speaker and one hearer).
Mary hoped to see a dead body. Her hopes were dashed, only to be replaced by something far more wonderful.
Joh 20:4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.
There is clear evidence of eyewitness detail in the two disciples ‘running’, in the record of one outrunning the other, and in the reference to the ‘strips of clothing’ in v5.
The other disciple outran Peter – he may have been the younger man, given that he lived on until the end of the century.
Joh 20:5 he bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in.
He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there – The entrance was probably low, as with many Oriental tombs. The body had been wrapped in the strips of linen by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, Joh 19:40.
Joh 20:6 Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there,
Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb This is typical of Peter’s impulsiveness.
‘Had robbers stolen the body (a rare practice) they would have taken it in its wrappings; had they left the wrappings, they would have left them in disarray.’ (The IVP Bible background commentary)
He saw the strips of linen lying there – This made no sense, if the body had simply been taken, either by friends or grave-robbers. ‘The grave-clothes were not dishevelled and disarranged. They were lying there still in their folds-that is what the Greek means-the clothes for the body where the body had been; the napkin where the head had lain. The whole point of the description is that the grave-clothes did not look as if they had been put off or taken off; they were lying there in their regular folds as if the body of Jesus had simply evaporated out of them. The sight suddenly penetrated to John’s mind; he realized what had happened-and he believed.’ (DSB)
‘John is plainly describing an orderly scene, not one of wild confusion. This means that the body had not be taken by grave-robbers. They would never had left the cloths wrapped neatly. They would have taken the body, cloths and all, or would have torn the cloths off and scattered them’ (Morris)
There is a contrast with Lazarus’ restoration to life. In his case, he emerged from his tomb with the strips of linen still about his body, and the cloth around his face, and he had to be released by others, Joh 11:44. In Jesus case, these were just left behind when he rose from the dead.
Joh 20:7 as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.
‘The face cloth separate from the linen is not merely “folded up” (NIV) but “rolled up” (NASB, NRSV, TEV), which could be an indication of neatness, or that it was still rolled the way it had been when it was wrapped around Jesus’ head -that his body had risen straight out of the wrappings and cloth.’ (The IVP Bible background commentary)
‘The skeptic’s proposal that Jesus had only swooned and then recovered would not explain how he could have loosed the strips tied around him or escaped a sealed tomb, but it also ignores the nature of crucifixion: Josephus had three of his friends taken down alive from a cross, but two of them died despite medical attention because their bodies had been so weakened from the crucifixion.’ (The IVP Bible background commentary)
Joh 20:8 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed.
He saw and believed – Cf. v29. This may simply mean that he believed what Mary had said – that the body was missing. Or, it may mean that he believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead. ‘The statement that the other disciple saw and believed (8) must be interpreted against the background of the greater faith that followed the appearance of Jesus to his disciples. It was the dawning of a faith that was to grow.’ (NBC)
Peter, on the other hand, ‘went away, wondering to himself what had happened’. {Lu 24:12}
‘Each of the four episodes in chapter twenty exhibits a crisis of faith, as the participants struggle with the reality of the resurrection. In each the level of faith drops to a lower level, from the beloved disciple with his natural faith {Joh 20:8-9} to Mary’s sorrow (20:11) to the disciples’ fear (20:19) to Thomas’ cynical demand (20:25). Yet with each crisis Jesus meets the need, and the results become increasingly greater, culminating in Thomas’ faith-cry, “My Lord and my God” (20:28), which climaxes the christology of John. As in Luke, the four episodes occur on the same day, two in the morning (20:1-18) and two in the evening (20:19-29).’ (DJG)
The significance of the empty tomb
1. The preaching and the rapid growth of the early church are alike unexplainable apart from an empty tomb.
2. The Jewish authorities, though they had every incentive to do so, could not come up with the body of the man whose execution they had organised.
3. It was Christ’s body that rose from the grave (however transformed it was, 1Co 15:35ff). Much of what the Bible says about the Christian hope is incoherent if this point is not conceded. {see 1Th 4:13-18 1Co 15} (Carson)
Joh 20:9 (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)
It is not that the disciples’ experience of the resurrection led to a new interpretation of the OT scriptures, one which read back foreshadoings of the resurrection after the event. Jesus had been teaching them about this all through his ministry, but had not understood (and still did not). ‘See Lu 24:26,46. The sense or meaning of the various predictions that foretold his death, as, for example, Ps 2:7, compare Ac 13:33 Ps 16:9,10, compare Ac 2:25-32 Ps 110:1 compare Ac 2:34,35.’ (Barnes)
Other candidates for specific OT passages include Le 23:11 Ps 16:10 and Ho 6:2.
They still did not understand – ‘There may be much ignorance even in true believers…For three long years these two leading Apostles had heard our Lord speak of his own resurrection as a fact, and yet they had not understood him. Again and again he had staked the truth of his Messiahship on his rising from the dead, and yet they had never taken in his meaning.’ (Ryle)
That Jesus had to rise from the dead – Note the emphatic ‘had to’ (‘must’). The reusrrection was no chance happening. It had to happen. Cf. Peter’s ‘But God raised him from the dead…because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.’, Ac 2:24.
Joh 20:10 Then the disciples went back to their homes,
Then the disciples went back to their homes – Why? Peter did not yet understand what had happened. But the other disciple did understand what had happened; did he not tell Mary, the mother of Jesus, whom he had taken into his own home, Joh 19:26-27?
Joh 20:11 but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb
Mary stood outside the tomb crying – ‘Jewish people took the first seven days of mourning so seriously that mourners could not wash, work, have intercourse or even study the law. Jewish culture was serious about expressing rather than repressing grief. That the body is missing and thus people are prevented from bestowing final acts of love would be regarded as intolerably tragic; even tomb robbers usually left the body behind.’ (The IVP Bible background commentary)
According to v2, Mary returned to tell Peter and the other disciple that the tomb was empty. The narrative does not record what is now obvious, that she came back to the tomb.
Although for the beloved disciple, faith had begun to dawn, not so yet for Mary. Like Peter, Mary Magdalene did not yet understand. She returned to the tomb, grief-stricken.
‘The loss of the body is the final indignity, the last straw; even her mourning for Jesus is violated. It is not hard to imagine the enormous emotional strain which the last few days had placed on Mary, not least the anguish of having looked on at Calvary. Her tears were more than understandable.’ (Milne)
‘The angels offered her no words of comfort, only of gentle reproof. She should not have been weeping faced with the empty tomb, but she had not advanced beyond the grave-robber theory. In her mind she first thought of the gardener as the culprit (15).’ (NBC)
‘The witness of women was worth little in Judaism; that Jesus first appears to a woman would not have been fabricated and shows us how Jesus? values differ from those of his culture. Even the later church did not always maintain Jesus? countercultural stance, and they would hardly have chosen such initial witnesses in an environment where this account would reinforce pagan prejudices against Christians.’ (IVP Bible background commentary)
Joh 20:12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.
Two angels – Cf. Lu 24:4. Luke says that their clothes ‘gleamed like lightning’: this may explain why the visitors to the tomb could see inside it even though it was ‘still dark’, v1. The presence of angels confirms that the disappearance of Jesus’ body has a supernatural, rather than a natural, explanation: it is God, not a grave-robber, who is at work.
We are tempted to speculate about why the angels appeared to Mary but not to the two disciples. But we really cannot say.
Joh 20:13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?” “They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.”
“Woman, why are you crying?”- Not a question, so much as a gentle rebuke (Carson). ‘From the perspective of heavne, nothing is more inconcruous than tears at the empty tomb of Jesus.’ (Milne)
“They have taken my Lord away” – ‘It is one thing to see the empty tomb and the empty graveclothes, but quite something else to meet the risen Christ.’ (Wiersbe)
The Synoptics tell us that Mary and others had come to the tomb in order to anoint Jesus’ body with spices, Mr 16:1 Lu 23:56 24:1. This would allow them to honour him and express their grief. But even this small comfort had been denied her, since the body had been removed.
Joh 20:14 At this, she turned round and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realise that it was Jesus.
At this, she turned round and saw Jesus standing there – Had the angels made some response to the presence of Jesus behind Mary? We don’t know.
She did not realise that it was Jesus – Why? – She was not expecting to see him. She had tears in her eyes. Moreover, it was early in the morning, and may have still have been quite dark, v1 (but note that since first arriving at the tomb she had returned to Peter and the other disciple, and then come back to the tomb). Then again, there may have been something about Jesus’ resurrection body that prevented immediate recognition. It was often the case in the resurrection narratives that Jesus was not immediatley recognised, cf. Lu 24:16 Mr 16:12 Joh 21:4.
Jesus’ resurrection body
‘The resurrection accounts provide a certain tension. On the one hand, Jesus’ resurrection body can be touched and handled, v27; Lu 24:39, bears the marks of the wounds inflicted on Jesus’ pre-death body, Joh 20:20,25,27, and not only cooks fish, 21:9, but eats it, Lu 24:41-43. On the other hand, Jesus resurrection body apparently rose through the grave-clothes, Joh 20:6-8, appears in a locked room, vv19, 26, and is sometimes not (at least initially) recognised. The closest we are likely to cometo an explanation is 1Co 15:35 ff.’ (Carson)
Joh 20:15 “Woman,” he said, “why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”
“Woman…why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Once again, we notice the kinds of questions that Jesus asked. There is in the first question a gentle rebuke. In the second there is an invitation to reflect on the kind of Messiah Jesus was and is, and to ponder the thought that our devotion to him may be heartfelt, and yet our estimate of him still fall far short of the reality.
She was crying because her Master was dead. Note that Jesus says ‘Who’ (not ‘what’) ‘are you looking for?’ ‘This might have started Mary along the right track. She was looking for a corpse whereas she should have been seeking a person.’ (Morris)
“I will get him” – in order to give him a decent burial. In her grief, she does not seem to have worked out how she will ‘get him’, but she had plenty of others she could call on to help her.
Joh 20:16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned towards him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher).
“Mary” – Probably spoken in its Aramaic form – ‘Miriam’. ‘One word which remade her world and transformed her life for ever after, and the word was her own name!’ (Milne) Mary’s transformation was not due simply to a calm evaluation of the evidence, but to a personal encounter with her risen Lord.
‘The good shepherd {Joh 10:1-18} calls her by name (cf. “calls his sheep by name,” Joh 10:3), and she recognizes him (cf. “his sheep follow him because they know his voice,” Joh 10:4).’ (DJG)
She turned towards him – Evidently she had turned back to look towards the tomb.
“Rabboni!” – Almost identical with ‘Rabbi’, but less common and perhaps more personal.
‘Anguish and despair are instantly swallowed up by astonishment and delight.’ (Carson) Cf. Thomas’s response in a similar situation, Joh 20:28.
Mary, then, was the first person to see the resurrected Jesus. Carson points out that her witness was not as greatly utilized by the early church as that of, say, Peter, because a woman’s evidence was not treated so seriously as a man’s (it was not normally admissible in court). Nevertheless, ‘the Evangelists have nevertheless taken pains to honour her, and thoughtful Christians will remember that God delights to choose what the world deems foolish to shame the wise, so that no-one may boast before him, cf. 1Co 1:27-29).’
Even Dodd exclaims of this scene, ‘There is something indefinably first-hand about it…there is nothing quite like it in the gospels. Is there anything quite like it in all of ancient literature?’ (Quoted by Milne)
Joh 20:17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
“Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father” – Rather, “Stop clinging to me” (RSV, Morris). Mary had probably fallen at Jesus’ feet. She was not to stay and cling to him, but to go and tell the others that the process of his returning to his Father was under way.
It is as though her reaction was, “We thought you were dead, but you’re not! You’re alive, just like before!” Jesus’ response is not a put-down, but a loving re-education. He is indeed alive, but not as before. His rising is not simply a return to the former state of affairs, as it had been with Lazarus. Mary and all who love him must get used to practising fellowship with a Saviour they could not touch or see, for he was soon to withdraw from sight till his second coming.
‘Mary is told to stop clinging to him because her enthusiastic and relieved grasping of Jesus does not really comprehend what is transpiring. She now believes him to be alive, but has understood neither that he is not about to disappear, not that he soon will. Thomas is told to touch, because he has not yet believed that Jesus has risen from the dead.’ (Carson)
Jesus’ first conversation after rising from death was with Mary of Magdala, Joh 20:17; cf. Mt 28:9 “Stop clinging to me, for I am about to ascend,” he says – ‘not a cold-hearted brush-off but a compassionate re-education.’ Mary, and all those who loved him, must get used to practising fellowship with a Saviour they could not touch or see, for he was soon to withdraw from sight till his second coming. (See J.I Packer, ‘The Lamb upon his throne’, in Collected Shorter Writings, Vol I, pp61-64)
Are we, like Mary, too inclined to cling on the Jesus for ourselves, rather than go to others and share the good news with them?
“Go instead to my brothers” – Probably a reference to the disciples (cf v18). Cf. Joh 3:3. Far from clinging to the risen Saviour, Mary has a mission to undertake.
‘When we reflect on the fact that that just a few days previously all these men had left him behind and fled, is is all the more striking that Jesus, in tender mercy, is willing to call them his brothers.’ (Hendriksen)
“I am returning” – Or, rather, ‘ascending’ (Carson). ‘I ascend’ (Hendriksen) – indicating that it is about to happen, and it is certain to happen. Jesus was in the process of ascending. Although after his resurrection he appeared many times to his disciples, he was not continually with them as before. This earth was no longer his abode; his body was no longer constrained as in the days of his flesh. Then would come the final farewell, after which he would continually reside at his Father’s right hand, and from there prepare a place for them, Joh 14:2, send the promised Paraclete, Joh 16:7, and ultimately return to take them to be with him, Joh 14:3. (Carson)
‘Where the Lord went after appearing to Mary has not been recorded…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 the coming and going.’ (Hendriksen)
“My Father and your Faith…my God and your God” – ‘The distinction between my and your in this verse is significant because it sets the sonship of Jesus on a different level from the sonship of the disciples.’ (NBC)
‘The disciples must never forget that, whereas his Sonship to the Father is by nature and right, theirs is only by adoption and grace, in and through him.’ (R.H. Lightfoot)
Joh 20:18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.
Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news – According to Mr 16:10-11 Lu 24:9-11, they did not believe her.
Joh 20:19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”
JESUS APPEARS TO THE DISCIPLES
This is probably the same incident as that recorded by Luke, {Lu 24:36 ff} but is an independent account, with a number of differences (Luke says nothing about Jesus breathing on the disciples, nothing about the Holy Spirit, and nothing about forgiving and retaining sins.)
The disciples – Possibly just the ten (Thomas not being present, although the term is broad enough to include other followers of Jesus. If this is the same incident as that recorded by Luke, then we know that others were present, Lu 24:33.
Jesus came and stood among them – A miraculous appearance is implied, especially in view of the fact that the door was locked.
“Peace be with you!” – This is a usual mode of address, yet made unusual by the solemn circumstances. Think of the recent events – the trial, the crucifiction, and the burial. Think of the state of mind of the disciples – grief-stricken, confused, and afraid. Think of how they might have expected Jesus to rebuke and blame them for their lack of faith and courage. Think, in short, of the joy and the comfort which thiis greeting much have brought to their hearts. Prophets had called him ‘the Prince of Peace’. Angels had sung “Peace on earth” when they heralded his birth. Peace of soul had been a major theme of his teaching. And now, his first word to his disciples when he visits them after his resurrection is, “Peace.” And their mission will shortly be to take that peace to the four corners of the earth: peace between God and man through the atonement Jesus himself has wrought, and peace between one person and another through the infusion of divine grace and love. Any form of Christianity which does not tend towards peace in the soul, and peace on earth, is a pretence.
Joh 20:20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
He showed them his hands and his side – presumably to assure them that it really was him. After all, they had scarcely been expecting a resurrection, his method of appearance was mysterious, and his body was no doubt very transformed from what it had been just a few days previously.
It is an example of great condescension on the part of our Lord, that he gave such a demonstration of his resurrection to his disciples. We do well to remember ourselves, that he asks us to believe nothing that is contrary to our sense and senses. ‘Things above our reason we must expect to find in a religion that comes from God, but not things contrary to reason’ (Ryle).
The disciples were overjoyed – in fulfilment of the Lord’s prediction, Joh 16:20-22.
Joh 20:21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”
“As the Father has sent me, I am sending you” – The idea of the Father sending the Son is one of the leading themes of this Gospel. Now it is the Son who does the sending – he sends his disciples on a mission which will prove to be world-wide. Cf Joh 17:18.
‘The commission of Joh 20:21-23 is especially rich theologically. After the repeated “peace is yours,” Jesus in a sense graduates the disciples and gives them the degree of “sent ones” (fulfilling 17:18). One of the pre-eminent concepts in Johannine christology is that of Jesus as “sent” by the Father. Based on the Jewish institution of a, a messenger or envoy authorized to carry out functions on behalf of another (see APOSTLE), Jesus as the sent one is presented as the living representative who reveals the Father to the world. In the Farewell Discourse the Spirit/Paraclete is “sent” by the Father (14:16, 26) and the Son (15:26; 16:7). Yet this chain of revelation is not complete, for now in a sense the entire godhead is involved in “sending” the disciples. the place of the Spirit is seen in the “Johannine Pentecost” of 20:22.’ (DJG)
So send I you to labour unrewarded,
To serve unpaid, unloved, unsought, unknown,
To bear rebuke, to suffer scorn and scoffing -
So send I you to toil for me alone.
So send I you to bind the bruised and broken,
O’er wand’ring souls to work, to weep, to wake,
To bear the burdens of a world aweary -
So send I you to suffer for my sake.
So send I you to loneliness and longing,
With heart a-hung’ring for the loved and known,
Forsaking home and kindred, friend and dear one -
So send I you to know my love alone.
So send I you to hearts made hard by hatred,
To eyes made blind because they will not see,
To spend, though it be blood, to spend and spare not -
So send I you to taste of Calvary.
(E. Margaret Clarkson, Q by Carson)
Joh 20:22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”
Jesus has commissioned them; now he empowers them for their mission.
He breathed on them – ‘On them’ is absent from most manuscripts, and probably should not be read. This is perhaps significant: the gift of the Holy Spirit is made not just to the the disciples, but to the church as a whole. ‘The gift was once for all, not to individuals but to the abiding body’ (Westcott).
“Receive the Holy Spirit” – The relationship between this gift of the Spirit and the Pentecostal outpouring is not obvious.
In this verse ‘the language deliberately echoes Ge 2:7; the Spirit is the breath of the life of the new creation.’ (NBD)
‘Jesus’ giving of the Spirit during a postresurrection appearance {Joh 20:22} is best understood as an acted parable. It foreshadows Pentecost and reinforces the truth that the Spirit is Christ’s gift to his church.’ (IVP Commentary on Ac 2:1-4)
‘In fulfillment of Joh 7:39 15:26 and Joh 16:7, Jesus now “breathes” the Spirit into the disciples, enabling them to bear witness to the sin-sick world. {cf. Joh 14:16-17 15:26-27 16:7-11} In comparison with Acts 2, this is a private in-filling of the disciples while the later event at Pentecost is a public empowering which launches the church’s mission.’ (DJG)
The doctrine of apostolic succession. A classic statement of this (erroneous) doctrine was made by J.H. Newman at the commencement of the Tractarian Movement: ‘The Lord Jesus Christ gave his Spirit to his Apostles; they in turn laid their hands on those who should succeed them; and these again on others; and so the sacred gift had been handed down to our present Bishops…We must necessarily consider none to be really ordained who have not thus been ordained.’ (Newman, Tracts for the Times, I) However, the apostolicity of the Christian ministry does not so much concern a channel of transmission, so much as a test of doctrinal orthodoxy. There is no indication in the NT of an apostolic succession in the sense that an apostle could appoint a person to succeed him and thus continue the line.
Joh 20:23 “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
As we have seen, there were probably others present beside the ten disciples, and if so this weakens the claim that the authority in relation to the forgiveness of sins was given exclusively to the apostles and their successors in the Christian ministry.
This is a statement, ‘which like its counterpart in Mt 16:19, has occasioned great debate. The power to bind/retain and loose/forgive sins is a legal authority and depicts the disciples as full-fledged ambassadors of the new age dispensing judgment or salvation, depending on people’s acceptance or rejection of their message (cf. Jesus’ authority as judge in Joh 5:22,27 8:15-16 9:39). In Matthew this saying deals with church discipline while here it centers on mission evangelism.’ (DJG)
The construction of the sentence suggests that it is classes of sinners, rather than individual sinners, which are in mind: ‘Whoever’s sins you forgive..’. ‘He is saying that the Spirit-filled church has the authority to declare which are the sins that are forgiven and which are the sins that are retained.’ This is rather similar to the Rabbinic teaching which spoke of some sins being ‘bound’ and others ‘loosed’.
Again, this verse, when taken with other Scriptures, should be understood as teaching that the disciples, and those who follow after them, have the power to state the terms of God’s forgiveness, and to declare who satisfies, and who does not satisfy, these terms. It was a true assertion of the Jews, that only God can forgive sin. But Christians, who have the mind of Christ and are indwelt by the Spirit of Christ, can pronounce divine forgiveness and divine condemnation. Ac 5:1-11 is a remarkable example of the latter.
Ryle sounds a note of caution: ‘No higher honour can be imagined than that of being Christ’s ambassadors, and proclaiming in Christ’s name the forgiveness of sins to a lost world. But let us ever beware of investing the ministerial office with one jot more of power and authority that Christ conferred upon it. To treat ministers as being in any sense mediators between God and man, is to rob Christ of his prerogative, to hide saving truth from sinners, and to exalt ordained men to a position which they are totally unqualified to fill.’
Joh 20:24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.
Why had Thomas not been present with the other disciples? Had he overslept? Had family responsibilities detained him? Had he been unwell? Had he become completely disillusioned? We don’t know, although the passage hints that his absence was linked with his attitude. What we do know is that he missed a blessing by not being there.
‘Was he so disappointed that he did not want to be with his friends? But when we are discouraged and defeated, we need our friends all the more! Solitude only feeds discouragement and helps it grow into self-pity, which is even worse.’ (Wiersbe)
Thomas appears also in Joh 11:16, where he expresses ‘a resigned but impressive loyalty’, and Joh 14:5, where he articulates the disciples’ slowness of understanding. This is thin evidence on which to base a character assessment, but in all three places Thomas comes across as rather fearful and gloomy. His cup is half-empty rather than half-full; he sees the clouds rather than the blue sky.’
‘The modern theory that Thomas was a man of free thought and wisde range of intellect, who wisely required reasonable evidence of everything in religion, and properly dreaded taking anything on trust, is a theory which I believe to be utterly without foundation, and I cannot receive it for a moment. He was simply a good man with a very doubting and gloomy turn of mind; – a man that really loved Jesus and was willing to die with him, but a man who saw little but the dangers attending everything that a disciple had to believe. There are many like him. It is a very useful picture. John Bunyan’s “FEaring,” £Despondency,” and “Much afraid,” in Pilgrim’s Progress, are types of a large class of Christians, who are successors of the Apostle Thomas.’ (Ryle)
Joh 20:25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.”
The other disicples told him – or, ‘kept on saying to him’.
“Unless I see the nail marks in his hands…” – The other disciples had seen the risen Lord’s hands and side, so Thomas made this his test. How many are apt to lay down the conditions on which they will believe? Just think of what it would mean if we always insisted on seeing the evidence for ourselves, and refused the testimony of credible witnesses?
But was Thomas more unbelieving than the other disciples? Possibly not. They had refused to believe Mary Magdalene when she said that she had seen the Lord, and it was not until Jesus actually appeared to them that they believed. (Kruse) Mr 16:14 indicates that our Lord rebuked ‘the eleven’ (not just Thomas) for their lack of faith and refusal to believe the first witnesses of his resurrection.
Kruse comments that Thomas’ statement here indicates that the whole issue here for Thomas, John and the other disciples is about physical resurrection, not some kind of ‘spiritual’ survival beyond death.
‘Were the biblical miracles magic tricks which fooled the simple, primitive people? It is often contended that people who lived during biblical times were more simple minded and superstitious than modern man, and could be tricked into believing the miraculous stories contained in the Bible.
Today it is claimed we live in a scientific age and have outgrown these superstitions, since we have developed the mental capacity to see these miracles as being superstitious myths rather than paranormal phenomena. A close study of the evidence will show that these accounts are not a superstitious reaction to some clever trickster. The response to the miraculous acts of God show the same surprise and anxiety that modern man would have if he were placed in the same situation.
The people living at the time of Jesus certainly knew that men born blind do not immediately receive their sight, {Joh 9:32} that five loaves and a few fish would not feed 5,000 people, {Joh 6:14} or that men do not walk on water. {Mt 14:26}
Doubting Thomas said, “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe.” {Joh 20:25, RSV} he refused to accept the testimony of the unbelievable event of the resurrection, but changed his mind when confronted face-to-face with the resurrected Christ. Thus we are not expected to believe the ridiculous, and neither were the people of biblical times.
‘He refused to believe the testimony of ten competent witnesses, who had seen Christ in the body with their own eyes. He refused to believe the testimony of ten true friends and brethren, who could have no object in deceiving him…He presumes to prescribe certain conditions, which must be fulfilled before he can credit the report of his brethren…Thomas might have remembered that at this rate nothing could ever be proved by witnesses; and that he himself, as a teacher, could never expect men to believe it.’ (Ryle, who adds that there are people like Thomas, ‘and it is almost ludicrous to observe how entirely they forget that the business of daily life could never go on, if we were always doubting everything which we could not see for ourselves.’)
The people living in those times were no less skeptical than we are today. It was the unavoidable, the inescapable, the irrefutable fact that caused them to believe.’ (Answers to Tough Quesitons)
It is strong evidence for the truthfulness of the Gospel writers that they are prepared to record the weaknesses of the apostles.
A Christian mind asks question, probes problems, confesses ignorance, feels perplexity, but does these things within the context of a profound and growing confidence of the reality of God and of his Christ. We should not acquiesce in a condition of basis and chronic doubt, as if it were characteristic of Christian normality. It is not. It is rather a symptom of spiritual sickness in our spiritually sick age. (John Stott)
Although we shouldn’t admire Thomas for his doubts, neither should we be too critical of him. One important fact is that he did not isolate himself rom those who already believed, but met up with them again. ‘He was a doubter, but his doubts had a purpose-he wanted to know the truth. Thomas did not idolize his doubts; he gladly believed when given reasons to do so.’ (Life Application)
Joh 20:26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”
A week later – literally, ‘eight days later’, but it was usual to use the inclusive approach to refer to a week.
The doors were locked – Presumably because they were stil afraid of ‘the Jews’.
Jesus came – when Thomas was with them. ‘That means that he times his visit, so that not one of the Apostles was missing. He knew exactly who were assembled, and where they were assembled, and he ordered his apperance accordingly. It should be a great comfort to believers to remember that their Lord’s eye is always upon them, and that he knows exactly in what place and in what company they are.’ (Ryle)
Ryle notes from this passage, ‘how kind and merciful Christ is to dull and slow believers…It is hard to imagine anything more tiresome and provoking than the conduct of Thomas, when even the testimony of ten faithful brethren had no effect on him, and he doggedly declared, “Except I see with my own eyes and touch with my own hands, I will not believe.” But it is impossible to imagine anything more patient and compassionate, than our Lord’s treatment of this weak disciple. He does not reject him, or dismiss him, or excommunicate him. He comes again at the end of a week, and apparently for the special benefit of Thomas. He deals with him according to his weakness, like a gentle nurse with a froward child…If nothing but the grossest, coarsest, most material evidence could satisfay him, even that evidence was supplied. Surely this was a love that passeth knowledge, and a patience that passeth understanding.’
And again, ‘Our Lord has many weak children in his family, many dull pupils in his school, many raw soldiers in his army, many lame sheep in his flock. Happy is that Christian who has learned to deal likewise with his brethren.’
‘The loving dealing of the Lord with Thomas teaches us this comfortable lesson. The Lord marks not narrowly the infirmities and wants that are in his own. He looks not narrowly to the weakness of their faith, to the imperfections and wants of their prayers and requests, for they prayers are full of imperfections. But he passes by their imperfections, he oversees their infirmities, he misknows the corruption wherein their faith and prayers and desires are involved, and hath a regard to their faith, albeit they have it in small measure.’ (Rollock, quoted by Ryle)
Joh 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
‘Here are two wonders for Thomas. The first is that Jesus is truly raised from the dead and now meets him. But secondly, Thomas’ stated conditions for faith are explicitly met in language which proved that Jesus had clearly “overheard” his earlier stipulations. The “other world” of the Spirit is not beyond earshot.’ (Milne)
In graciously condescending to deal with Thomas on his (Thomas’s) own terms, Jesus is here giving an example of ‘bearing with the weak’ that the apostle would later urge upon us all, Rom 15:1f.
Hendriksen notes how close the response of Jesus is to the demand of Thomas:-
“Unless I see the nail marks in his hands” – “See my hands” “and put my finger where the nails were” – “Put your finder here” “and put my hand into his side” – “Reach out your hand and put it into my side” “I will not believe it” – “Stop doubting and believe”
We don’t know whether Thomas accepted Jesus’ offer, but the assumption is that he didn’t, because he didn’t need to.
“Stop doubting and believe” – Although Jesus graciously condescends the meet Thomas’ stipulations, there is clearly a note of rebuke in Jesus’s words. Thomas could have, and should have, believed on the testimony of his friends, v29. {cf Joh 4:48}
Jesus’ words are literally, “Stop being an unbeliever; be a believer.” ‘It is not merely a reproof to Thomas for his scepticism on this particular occasion, but an urgent counsel to be of a more beleiving turn of mind for time to come…No doubt the primary object of the sentence was to correct and chastise Thomas for his sceptical declaration on the precedig Sunday. But I believe our Lord had in view the further object of correcting Thomas’ whole character, and directing his attention to his besetting sin. How many there are among us who ought to take to themselves our Lord’s words! How faithless we often are, and how slow to believe!’ (Ryle)
We are not told whether Thomas did as Jesus bade him. Hendriksen thinks that he was ‘obliged to do as instructed’. But others take the more plausible view that the sight of the risen Jesus and his wounds would have been quite sufficient to evoke the response that follows. Note too that Jesus in v29 refers to ‘sight’, not ‘touch’.
‘May we not well believe that he discovery of our Lord’s perfect acquaintance with every word that he had said on the previous Sunday, combined with the evidence of his own eyes that he say before him a material body, and not a spirit, would be enough to convince him?’ (Ryle)
Joh 20:28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
Here is the language ‘of amazement, delight, repentance, faith and adoration, all combined in one sentence.’ (Ryle)
We can suppose that Thomas fell on his knees, or even on his face. Thomas’ attitude was not one of mere intellectual curiosity. As soon as his doubts were answered, he responded in the only appropriate way – worship of Jesus as Lord and God.
It is impossible to read Thomas’ words as an expletive of surprise (similar to “O my God” in much popular culture today). No devout Jew would ever have taken God’s name in vain, thus breaking the 3rd Commandment, in that way. In any case, the words are addressed to Jesus, and (as is hugely significant) Jesus accepts Thomas’ worship.
‘Thomas’ response is a confession of Jesus’ deity; cf. Re 4:11. Pliny, a governor writing near the probable location of John’s readers two or three decades after John, reports that Christians sing hymns to Christ “as to a god.”‘ (NT Background Commentary)
‘If we compare Thomas with the other Apostles, we shall see that as he surpassed them all in unbelief, so he surpassed them far in believing and confessing the Lord.’ (Rollock, quoted by Ryle)
This is the last of the great confessions of Christ in John’s Gospel. The others are:-
- John the Baptist, Joh 1:34
- Nathanael, Joh 1:49
- the Samaritans, Joh 4:42
- the man born blind, Joh 9:33,35-38
- Martha, Joh 11:27
- the disciples, Joh 16:30
It is also significant that John records this great confession here, near the close of his Gospel. It, and the statement in Joh 1:1, bracket off everything in between as an inclusio, informing us that the purpose of the whole Gospel is to establish Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God (as is made plain in v31). ‘Now that original confession of the Godhead of the pre-incarnate Lord is echoed by a mortal sinner’. (Milne)
‘It has been noted that the emperor Domitian required worship of himself as Lord and God (Domine et Deus). Readers of the Gospel may have recognised a polemic against such demands in Thomas’ confession of Jesus as his “Lord and God”.’ (Kruse)
‘Gregory well says, “The incredulity of Thomas has done us more good than the faith of Mary.” He means that if Thomas had never doubted, we should not have had such full proof that Christ rose from the dead.’ (Ryle)
‘Great mountains of unbelief, which seem insuperable unto saints, will easily flow down and evanish at Christ’s presence; for Thomas’s wilfulness is now cured without making use (as appeareth) of all that he required.’ (Hutcheson)
Joh 20:29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Jesus accepts Thomas’s confession without rebuke. Contrast with the ways in which Peter, Ac 10:26, and Paul and Barnabas, Ac 14:14 refused such honour. Jesus’ acceptance of Thomas’s worship also contrast sharply with the angels who were mistakenly worshiped in Re 19:10 22:9.
Note, the issue is not belief without evidence, but belief without sight.
In recording this, John has in mind on future hearers of the gospel, who will believe without seeing, cf 1Pe 1:8.
On the excellence of faith which results from hearing, rather than seeing, see Mt 8:5-10 Joh 4:48 Ro 10:14 1Pe 1:8.
Jesus says to Thomas, in effect, “If you had not seen me alive, you would not have believed.” ‘But if no evidence must be admitted but that of our own senses, and we must believe nothing but what we ourselves are eye-witnesses of, farewell all commerce and conversation. If this must be the only method of proof, how must the world be converted to the faith of Christ?’ (MHC)
I don’t agree with Wiersbe when he says that Thomas represents the ‘scientific’ approach to life. It is not scientific to reject to testimony of credible witnesses, and it is not scientific to insist on observing all the phenomena for oneself. Thomas’s attitude was not scientific, but sceptical.
Joh 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
Jesus did many other miraculous signs – John makes it clear that his account has been selective. He has omitted much. We should therefore not be surprised to find many differences between what John and the Synoptists cover. Indeed, John may be assuming that his readers were already acquainted with the other Gospels.
In the presence of his disciples – they were witnesses – an idea which John strongly emphasises.
Joh 20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
These – again, we have to ask whether this refers to the account of Jesus post-resurrection appearances or to the whole of the Gospel.
That you may believe that… – Some commentators think that the meaning here is, ‘…that you may continue to believe’, in which case John’s main purpose is a discipling one. However, some of the best manuscripts imply, “that you may come to believe…,” in which the main purpose is evangelistic. The latter option is probably to be favoured, although, as more than one commentator points out, it doesn’t exclude the former.
Christian belief is not some vague trust. It has content. It entails belief that Jesus is the Messiah, and that he is the Son of God.
The Christ – the Messiah who had been longed for by Simeon, Anna, and all who looked for redemption in Jerusalem. This is Jesus’ official title, indicating his divine authority for his work.
The Son of God – This is Jesus’ personal title and expresses his relationship with the Father. The Jews had sought to kill him precisely because he claimed this title for himself. See Joh 8:24 ff.
‘Son of God’ was not a common designation for the Messiah at that time. Its use here is the last of many in John’s Gospel.
It is because Jesus is ‘the Christ, the Son of God’ that faith in him leads to life in his name. This life is another favourite theme of John, and carries ideas of abundance, Joh 10:10, and relationship, Joh 17:3.
Note the order of things in this verse: from evidence to faith, and from faith to life.
‘From this statement we can draw certain conclusions which are amply attested by the substance of the Gospel. First, it is basically an evangelistic document. Second, its explicit method is to present the work and words of Jesus in such a way as to show the nature of his person. Third, the description of this person as Messiah indicates that a Jewish audience is probably in mind…This main purpose does not exclude other, subordinate aims. Thus, first, John consciously stresses points which would refute the false or antagonistic views about Jesus held by Jews in his time. There may also be an attempt to correct an over-zealous veneration for John the Baptist. Second, particularly in 13-17, John addresses Christians and gives teaching about life in the church. But the view that a principal aim of John was to correct the church’s eschatology (so C. K. Barrett) is not tenable, although this is not to deny that the Gospel contains eschatological teaching. Third, it is often alleged that John was written as a polemic against Gnosticism. This view gains some plausibility from the purpose of 1 John, but is not so self-evident as is sometimes supposed; nevertheless, John was no doubt aware of the danger of Gnosticism while he wrote, and his Gospel is in fact an excellent weapon against Gnosticism.’ (NBD)
‘Some write books for their diversion, and publish them for their profit or applause, others to oblige the Athenian humour, others to instruct the world in arts and sciences for their secular advantage; but the evangelists wrote without any view of temporal benefit to themselves or others, but to bring men to Christ and heaven, and, in order to this, to persuade men to believe; and for this they took the most fitting methods, they brought to the world a divine revelation, supported with its due evidences.’ (MHC)
Life in his name – ‘”Eternal life” means the very life of God experienced today. It is a quality of life, not a quantity of time. It is the spiritual experience of “heaven on earth” today. The Christian does not have to die to have this eternal life; he possesses it in Christ today.’ (Wiersbe)
This point would form an appropriate end to John’s Gospel. The Gospel may indeed have originally ended here, with ch. 21 being added later as an epilogue.
‘John could not end his book without bringing the Resurrection miracle to his own readers. We must not look at Thomas and the other disciples and envy them, as though the power of Christ’s resurrection could never be experienced in our lives today. That was why John wrote this Gospel-so that people in every age could know that Jesus is God and that faith in him brings everlasting life. It is not necessary to “see” Jesus Christ in order to believe. Yes, it was a blessing for the early Christians to see their Lord and know that he was alive; but that is not what saved them. They were saved, not by seeing, but by believing. The emphasis throughout the Gospel of John is on believing. There are nearly 100 references in this Gospel to believing on Jesus Christ. You and I today cannot see Christ, nor can we see him perform the miracles (signs) that John wrote about in this book. But the record is there, and that is all that we need. “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Ro 10:17; and note 1Jo 5:9-13). As you read John’s record, you come face to face with Jesus Christ, how he lived, what he said, and what he did. All of the evidence points to the conclusion that he is indeed God come in the flesh, the Saviour of the world.’ (Wiersbe)
‘The signs that John selected and described in this book are proof of the deity of Christ. They are important. But sinners are not saved by believing in miracles; they are saved by believing on Jesus Christ. Many of the Jews in Jerusalem believed on Jesus because of his miracles, but he did not believe in them! {Joh 2:23-25} Great crowds followed him because of his miracles; {Joh 6:2} but in the end, most of them left him for good. {Joh 6:66} Even the religious leaders who plotted his death believed that he did miracles, but this “faith” did not save them. {Joh 11:47ff} Faith in his miracles should lead to faith in his Word, and to personal faith in Jesus as Saviour and Lord. Jesus himself pointed out that faith in his works (miracles) was but the first step toward faith in the Word of God.’ {Joh 5:36-40} (Wiersbe)
