John 20 - Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

20:1 while it was still dark. As in the Nicodemus episode (3:2), darkness here probably symbolizes their lack of understanding, even spiritual blindness (cf. Brown, Schnackenburg). It may even prepare for “the gradual dawning that is to take place in the following verses, culminating in the self-revelation of Jesus in 20:17” (Mahoney 1974:238).

20:12 two white-robed angels. This is not the same scene as the angels appearing to the women in Mark 16:5 and parallels. There the angel gave the women a commission to tell the other disciples, while here the angels have a completely different function. Moreover, Mary had left the rest of the women and run back. So the first appearance is the one reported in Mark 16, while this is a second appearance to Mary alone. The other women were probably on their way back to the disciples at this time (cf. Westcott, Wenham).

20:17 Don’t cling to me. This has perplexed commentators for centuries. Brown lists 12 different interpretations. Here are the main ones: (1) Some take this literally; Jesus was asking her not to “touch” him (mē mou haptou [TG680, ZG721]) because he had risen from the dead but had not yet ascended (Bultmann), but this is unlikely since he did ask Thomas later to touch him. Others (Brown) believe this means Jesus’ ascension occurred between 20:17 and 20:27, so that Thomas might touch him, but there is no hint of that in John or any other Gospel. (2) Mary had perhaps fallen to the ground and was grasping Jesus’ feet, so Jesus was telling her to stop clinging or holding on to him—because it was not necessary, for his ascension was in process, and it was a time for joy (Beasley-Murray, Perkins, Carson, Ridderbos, Michaels, Whitacre). (3) Some (Bernard) emend the text to read, “do not fear” (mē ptoou [TG3361/4422, ZG3590/4765]), but such a change is speculative and unnecessary. (4) Jesus was saying, “Don’t touch me now; instead, take a message to my disciples” (Marxsen), perhaps with an implied, “You will touch me later in eucharistic celebration” (21:11-14, so Hoskyns). This too goes beyond the evidence and ignores the centrality of the Ascension. (5) It means, “Don’t cling to me” and indicates Mary was clinging to the old relationships she had with Jesus, her “rabbi” (Dodd, Sanders, Lindars, Barrett, Morris, Forestell, Osborne 1984, Witherington, Burge). The best is probably some combination of 2 and 5. Mary had tried to embrace Jesus in her joy, but Jesus is saying she cannot “cling” to the earthly but must wait for the new age when he will come in the Spirit (Köstenberger). This was the beginning of a new era, and Mary had to be willing to let Jesus go and enter a new relationship.

20:19 That Sunday evening. This is undoubtedly the same appearance as recorded in Luke 24:36-49. The time note is interesting. It is possible that “day” (lit., “the first day of the week”; cf. also 20:1, 26) refers to the day of individual decision (Bultmann), a clear theme in this Gospel (1:38; 3:3, 15; 4:24-26; 9:36-38), though it is more likely to connote the offer of Kingdom blessings here (note “peace” and “joy” in vv. 20-21). Less likely is the view of some (Lindars, Brown, Barrett) that there is a liturgical or sacramental motif presupposing the living presence of Jesus in the eucharistic celebration (they see this as the same scene as in Mark 16:14).

20:19-26 As some have pointed out (Witherington, Michaels), this scene sums up the promises Jesus made in the farewell discourse: “Jesus was standing there among them” (20:19) fulfills 14:18, 23, 28 (“[I] will come”); “Peace be with you” (20:19, 21, 26) fulfills 14:27; Cf. 16:33 (“the peace I give”); “filled with joy” (20:20) fulfills 16:20-22 (“grief [turned] to wonderful joy”); and “receive the Holy Spirit” (20:22) fulfills 14:16-18, Cf. 14:26; 15:26; 16:7 (“give you another Advocate”).

20:22 Receive the Holy Spirit. The relationship of this giving of the Spirit to the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost in Acts 2 has led to serious debate: (1) Some (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Carson, Witherington, Köstenberger) say there is only one giving of the Spirit (in Acts 2), and so this is a symbol or acted parable pointing forward to that event. Jesus did not give the disciples the Spirit at this time but rather pointed ahead to that future event. This interpretation does not quite fit the text as written, for Jesus said, “Receive the Holy Spirit” rather than “You are going to receive the Spirit.” (2) Since there is no article before the word pneuma [TG4151, ZG4460] (spirit), some think (Westcott, Johnston) this is a gift of an impersonal power rather than the personal Spirit, but that is to read too much into the absence of the article (in the NT the phrase pneuma is found 37 times with the article and 49 times without it; so Comfort). (3) Others simply accept that there are two different early traditions in conflict and that they cannot be reconciled (Bultmann, Marxsen, Lindars, Brown, Barrett), but that is unnecessary, as the following will show. (4) There were two events of sending the Spirit, with the “Johannine Pentecost” here as a private infilling of the Spirit and Acts 2 as a public empowering by the Spirit (Benoit, Osborne 1984, Morris, Beasley-Murray, Comfort, Burge, Blomberg). This last option makes best sense in light of the reality of the event as portrayed by both John and Luke.

20:23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven. Roman Catholics have long used this verse, along with Matt 16:19, to support the authority of the priest in the confession booth to forgive sins. Yet the two great Jesuit scholars who have written commentaries on John, Brown (1970:1030-1031) and Schnackenburg (1982:3.326-328) both admit that the meaning here is the proclamation of the Gospel—that is, the church in mission. In addition, J. P. Meier (1996:397-398) thinks it is the mission of the church as a whole that is described here.

20:26 Eight days later. This would be the following Sunday (in Jewish reckoning the first and last days are both counted). There may also be a theological motif pointing to “the Lord’s Day” (Rev 1:10) as the day of Christian worship (so Plummer, Beasley-Murray, Whitacre).

20:28 My Lord and my God! The question of the historical veracity of this statement has divided scholars. It is common to assume that the early church’s affirmation of deity came later than this; however, a great deal can be said in favor of the historicity of the scene. Carson (1991:658) notes six things: (1) The view that the Christological titles evolved slowly has long been disproven. (2) The Jews had developed a series of intermediaries between God and men, angels and others, so Thomas had plenty of categories in which to understand this. (3) The use of kurios [TG2962, ZG3261] (Lord) for addressing God, as well as a courtesy to others, made this statement possible. (4) kurios was an early post-Resurrection title (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:9-11) and comes close to ascribing deity. (5) Since marana [TG3134, ZG3448] (meaning “our Lord”) was used quite early as a reference to Jesus (1 Cor 16:22), there is no reason why “my Lord” should be rejected. (6) The Evangelist was an eyewitness, and there is no reason to reject his witness here.

20:29 You believe because you have seen me. Some (NA27, RSV, NRSV) take this as a question, which would highlight Thomas’s failure: “Do you believe because you have seen me?” The majority of scholars rightly see this as a direct statement (so NLT). Jesus was simply stating a fact. As Barrett says (1978:573), “In this solemn and impressive pronouncement, Jesus does not ask questions but declares the truth.”

20:31 that you may continue to believe. There is a text-critical question as to whether the verb is aorist tense (pisteusēte [TG4100, ZG4409], “believe”), so א2 A C D W , or whether it’s the present tense of the same word (pisteuēte, “continue to believe”), so 66vid א* B 0250. The stronger mss evidence probably lies with the present tense, but the two have historically become a proving ground for the debate as to whether John was written to evangelize non-believers (aorist tense, “believe”) or strengthen believers (present tense, “continue to believe”). In actuality, either tense can connote each of the two meanings. As said in the Introduction, some scholars think John was mainly evangelistic (Carson), others that he mainly addressed believers (Beasley-Murray, Keener). In reality, John probably wrote with both purposes in mind (Köstenberger).

Unfortunately, many critical scholars have taken the position that the Resurrection accounts are not historical. Through the centuries, several theories have been developed to explain what “really happened” to Jesus (cf. Osborne 1995:34-38): (1) The conspiracy theory: the Jews spread the rumor that the disciples stole Jesus’ body and made up a story of the Resurrection (cf. Matt 28:11-15). Eusebius refuted it, pointing out that the disciples would hardly have been willing to die for a lie. (2) The political theory: H. S. Reimarus in the mid-eighteenth century said the disciples (political opportunists like Jesus was) made up the story in order to gain celebrity and power. Yet again, they would hardly have been willing to die for such a ruse. (3) The swoon theory: The rationalists (e.g., Schleiermacher, Hase) in the nineteenth century (and Muslims too) explained the Resurrection away on the basis of natural causes. Jesus fainted on the cross, recovered in the tomb, and then escaped. For Muslims, he sneaked away to Kashmir, where he preached Islam for 40 years before ascending. This view ignores the fact that Romans were experts at crucifixion; no one survived the experience. (4) The mythical view: D. F. Strauss, in the middle of the nineteenth century (and later Bultmann, Tillich, Crossan), said the Resurrection (like the rest of Jesus’ miracles) was a legend fashioned after the manner of Greco-Roman myths—but no “myth” has ever developed so quickly. Five to seven years after Jesus’ resurrection, Paul made his first trip to Jerusalem (after his conversion), where he undoubtedly received from the apostles the creed of Christ’s death and resurrection (1 Cor 15:3-5). Furthermore, the details of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 differ strongly from any mythical pattern. (5) The subjective vision theory: Some (Renan, Marxsen, Fuller) believe the disciples had dreams that they interpreted as reality—but Jesus appeared to people who were not believers (James, Paul) and appeared to 500 at once (1 Cor 15:6); such a mass hallucination is highly unlikely. (6) The objective vision theory: Others (Moule, Schweizer, Davies, Schillebeeckx) think the appearances were visions sent from God of Jesus in heaven. It is hard to see why such would be likely; the same God could have Jesus appear on earth, and that is exactly how the Gospel passages portray it. (7) The corporeal resurrection: The best solution by far is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead and appear to his followers. Nothing else could have propelled those defeated, innocuous disciples to conquer the world with the gospel message.

There have been several successful attempts to harmonize the Resurrection accounts in plausible ways, (cf., in order of length, Wenham 1984; Harris 1990:157-163; Ladd 1975:91-93; Osborne 1995:39-41). For the historicity of the accounts as a whole, see Craig 1989; Keener 2003:1167-1178, 1185-1188. Comfort and Hawley (1994:311-312) list a total of 10 appearances, combining the four Gospels with 1 Corinthians 15:3-8: (1) to Mary Magdalene and the women (20:14ff; Matt 28:9—but these are probably actually separate appearances); (2) to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5); (3) to two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35); (4) to the disciples in Jerusalem (20:19-23; Luke 24:36-43); (5) to Thomas and the others eight days later (20:26-29); (6) to seven disciples on the Sea of Galilee (21:1-23); (7) to the disciples at the Great Commission appearance on a mountain in Galilee (Matt 28:16-20); (8) to 500 believers (1 Cor 15:6); (9) to James (1 Cor 15:7); (10) to the disciples at the Ascension (Luke 24:44-53; Acts 1:1-12). To some extent, we will place the Johannine story within the larger synoptic framework as we discuss each section.

When we read the resurrection appearances in the four Gospels side-by-side, it is almost as if these are separate stories, for the details are so different. We must understand certain facts, however. First, Jesus appeared to the disciples over a period of 40 days (Acts 1:3), and yet in all four Gospels together, only nine appearances are described. It is doubtful whether Jesus only appeared once every four and a half days during that period. Second, each Gospel writer uses the Resurrection story to sum up the themes of his Gospel. Therefore, they are so different because each writer chose carefully which appearances and details would best summarize and draw to a close his narrative. When we get to heaven, it will be shocking to discover how much was not included in these narratives! John concluded his Gospel with the most detailed narrative of them all. He is the only one to include both Jerusalem appearances (ch 20; parallel accounts in Luke) and Galilee appearances (ch 21; parallel accounts in Matt and Mark).

In keeping with John’s style, chapter 20 is a beautifully dramatic portrayal of the problem of faith, this time in believing Jesus’ promises about his resurrection from the dead. There are four successive vignettes, and in each of them the problem of faith becomes greater, from the beloved disciple’s natural faith to Mary’s sorrow, the disciples’ fear, and Thomas’s doubt. Yet in each case, Jesus meets their need, turns their life around, and guides them into their mission, with the results becoming greater in each scene. Moreover, the chapter also centers upon the Johannine theme of witness, as the empty tomb and then each disciple in turn attest to the reality of the Resurrection as proving the divine nature of Jesus. Köstenberger (2004:558) adds that it centers upon “the commissioning of Jesus’ followers, encircled by narratives focusing on Mary Magdalene and Thomas respectively.”

The race to the tomb and its aftermath (20:3-9) are found only in John, but two aspects of it are corroborated in Luke: Peter’s presence there and his leaving confused (Luke 24:12) and the fact that more than one person had visited the tomb and found it empty (Luke 24:24). Moreover, the vivid, realistic details fit the recollections of the “eyewitness” (19:35, see Ridderbos) and point to historical veracity. The two disciples ran to the tomb, undoubtedly in excitement and anxiety as to what they would find. The fact that the other disciple was faster and arrived first has often been seen as evidence of rivalry between the two, but that is highly unlikely. Both Peter and the beloved disciple are seen as positive figures. John arrived first, but Peter entered the tomb first. The point is their overriding concern for Jesus, in this case for what had happened to his body.

The first thematic emphasis is apologetic (20:5-7). In a series of scenes, the fact that the Lord had risen from the dead is proven. First, John stooped down and saw “the linen wrappings lying there.” If grave robbers had stolen the body, they would never have left the expensive linen wrappings. On the basis of 20:8, it seems that this was the time that John began to understand what had actually happened. This is confirmed in the next scene. Peter rushed right into the tomb and saw not only the linen wrappings but also “the cloth that had covered Jesus’ head . . . folded up and lying apart from the other wrappings” (20:7). It was not visible until Peter had entered the tomb. This probably means that Jesus’ body had been placed on a shelf to the right or left of the tomb entrance with his head toward the entrance wall (so one could not see the cloth from the entrance). Such graphic detail not only points to eyewitness reminiscence on John’s part but also has great emphasis in the scene. The whole developing picture suggests that the grave clothes were in the same position on the shelf that they had been in when the corpse of Jesus was lying there, perhaps even retaining some of their shape due to the spices (so Whitacre, cf. Lazarus who came out of the tomb wearing the linens with the cloth still over his face, 11:44). It is almost as if Jesus came to life, perhaps passed through the garments, and then made sure they were laid neatly in the proper place. This means the body could not have been stolen, for grave robbers would never be so neat or leave the wrappings (Keener, Köstenberger). John will later use the characteristic term “signs” of events like this (20:30-31). In fact, Schneiders (1983) thinks the veil constituted a sign for the beloved disciple reminiscent of the “sign-miracles” in chapters 2–12. Moreover, there were now two legal witnesses (Deut 19:15) to the event (possibly, in John’s mind, for those unwilling to accept the official witness of the women; so Beasley-Murray).

John then entered the tomb (20:8), and the text says simply that “he saw and believed.” It has been debated how much he believed, with some saying he only believed that Mary was correct in saying the tomb was empty (e.g., Augustine). Others say he believed without having knowledge of the Scriptures (Comfort, due to the following 20:9). The conjunction of seeing (see “Salvation” in the Introduction) with believing points to a deep-seated faith and establishes the main theme for the chapter—belief (Cf. 20:25, 29, 31). Seeing the empty tomb was enough for John, who believed even though “they still hadn’t understood the Scriptures that said Jesus must rise from the dead” (20:9).

Although there is no emphasis on the empty tomb as proof for the Resurrection in the preaching of Acts or in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, it was certainly important for the early church, and it was enough for John. Still, the main stress is not upon how he believed but the fact that he did so. John’s faith was truly a leap of faith since it occurred without knowing the scriptural demand for the Resurrection. Various suggestions have been made regarding Old Testament proof texts referred to by “Scriptures” (20:9)—perhaps Psalm 16:10 (Westcott, Sanders) or Hosea 6:2 (Bruce)—yet the term could also refer to Scripture as a whole, as in Luke 24:7, 25-26, 46 or 1 Corinthians 15:4 (Barrett, Carson). Byrne (1985:91-92) thinks the beloved disciple provides a dramatic portrait of the faith of the Johannine community (based on the connection between his faith and the faith of future believers in 20:29b), and the others (Mary, Thomas, the other disciples,) describe the faith journeys that can culminate in that faith. This makes great sense in light of the theme of belief in this chapter.

Peter apparently returned to Jerusalem, confused and puzzled (Luke 24:12), and one would expect John to walk over and share his newfound faith and understanding with Peter. It would also be natural for John to place his arms around Mary and tell her she need not weep so profusely, but he did neither. The first episode ends in anticlimax, as John simply “went home” with Peter (20:10). In short, he had faith but seemingly did nothing with it. It is common to take this as proof of the inadequacy of John’s faith (Schnackenburg, Witherington, Whitacre, Keener), but that is not necessarily the case. There is no real hint that his faith was deficient. John could easily have been so filled with awe that he was dumbstruck. In the narrative, this sets up a contrast with Mary, who did not have this level of faith but who, with the help of Christ, did so much more with it.

Their question (20:13) was probably an implied rebuke similar to the message to the women in Mark 16:6 (“You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified,” meaning, “You are still looking for a corpse?!”). They asked, “Why are you crying?”—implying that there was no longer any need for tears. Mary, however, was so consumed by grief, her eyes so blinded by tears, that she didn’t even recognize the heavenly visitors. She repeated much of what she told the two disciples in 20:2: “They have taken away my Lord, . . . and I don’t know where they have put him.” The lack of spiritual awareness was complete. Her weeping “is an expression of doubt and spiritual ignorance, especially in contrast to the faith of the ‘beloved one’ ” (Osborne 1984:158).

Then Jesus took over and came to her (20:14). Again her blindness kept her from perceiving the truth. She believed he was the gardener and hoped he might have seen what had happened. It was common for the disciples to fail to recognize Jesus or to doubt when he appeared to them (21:4; Matt 28:17; Luke 24:16ff). This may have been due to the ravages of the crucifixion on his appearance, but it may also have been due to their own lack of expectation and understanding. He repeated the rebuke of the angels (“Why are you crying?”) and then asked, “Who are you looking for?” For the third time, Mary repeated her erroneous assumption, this time wondering if perhaps he had something to do with it (“If you have taken him away, tell me where you have put him,” 20:15). She may have been hoping that Joseph had his gardener and other servants move the body somewhere, but she was no closer to the truth. Finally, Jesus called out in great compassion, “Mary!” Jesus is the Good Shepherd, who “calls his own sheep by name,” so that they “recognize his voice and come to him,” 10:3-4.

Mary indeed recognized his voice and cried out “Rabboni”—that is, “My teacher.” At this point, she may have reached out to lay hold of his arm or fell down and grasped his feet (as the women do in Matt 28:9), but Jesus wanted to correct her mistaken desire to return to the previous rabbi/disciple relationship (cf. note on 1:38). He said, “Don’t cling to me”—that is, to the old relationship (cf. note on 20:17). This was a time for joy and the beginning of an entirely new era. Jesus recognized her love but knew this was the time for moving on rather than going back. The reason for prohibiting her was that he hadn’t “yet ascended to the Father.” On the surface, there is a contradiction between “I haven’t yet ascended” (20:17a) and “I am ascending” (20:17b). The best solution is to take Jesus’ ascension in two parts. He ascended to his Father at his resurrection, but the Ascension would not culminate until his physical ascension at the end of his 40 days of appearances. Thus he spoke of being in the process of ascending to his Father (most recent commentators). This was a time of transition, and Mary needed to yield to all the new joyous truths she was about to experience. Köstenberger (2004:569) says that in Mary “the disciples now find themselves in a transition period in which they cannot revert to their familiar pattern of relating to their Master during his earthly ministry; yet at the same time they cannot fully grasp the nature of the new spiritual relationship with their Lord that soon will be mediated to them by the Holy Spirit.” When Jesus was raised, he went home to be with the Father, and his appearances were temporary visits from heaven. This was a critical transition time, and the final ascension was to occur 40 days after the Resurrection (Luke 24:51-53; Acts 1:9-11). At that time, the new age would truly begin, for then the Spirit would be given fully (14:16, 26; 16:7).

In the meantime, Mary had the glorious privilege of being the first ambassador of the Resurrection tidings! She was not just ushered into a new age but already was given one of the privileged parts to play. Note that Jesus said, “Go find my brothers.” In one word, Jesus showed he had already forgiven them and begun the new relationship. In 15:15, Jesus told them, “I no longer call you slaves . . . now you are my friends.” Earlier they had been disciples and servants, but they would become “friends.” Here Jesus went further: they are not just friends but “brothers”! They are “heirs” with Christ of all the glories that God has awaiting his family (Rom 8:17).

Moreover, Jesus was in the process of ascending to “my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” There is no better way of stating the new relationship of the disciples both to Jesus and to God. The deliberate “my . . . your” language elevates the disciples to a position alongside the Son and further cements this new relationship; at the same time, it also stresses Jesus’ unique status as the “Son of God,” while the followers are “sons of God” (so Osborne 1984:164). Mahoney (1974:276) thinks the passages in John on Jesus going to the Father (3:13; 6:62; 20:17) build on the son of man imagery in Daniel 7:13, as well as the glorification theme of Psalm 110:1. The Crucifixion as “glory” or being “lifted up” (e.g., 12:23, 32-33; 13:31; 17:24) is intimately connected with Jesus’ ascension and “hour” (cf. “time,” 7:8; 17:1).

Mary, in obedience to Jesus’ command, took the Good News back to the disciples (20:18). This is the astounding reality of the Resurrection event—God chose not the beloved disciple (who “believed” first) but Mary to be the first herald of the Resurrection tidings. John was the first to believe, but Mary was the first to see the risen Lord. Mary told them, “I have seen the Lord!” Note the progression of titles from “Sir” (20:15) to “Rabboni” (20:16) and then “Lord” (20:18). Her faith had come to full maturity as a Resurrection faith.

Mary needed the voice of the Good Shepherd to overcome her sorrow; the disciples in a sense needed more, and Jesus met their need directly, appealing to their sight by showing them “the wounds in his hands and his side” (the actual spot was the wrist, but that can be included in the word “hands,” so Carson) so as to prove that he was indeed risen (20:20). At that moment, messianic joy (Cf. 16:20-22) was added to their messianic peace. The sacrificial Lamb had become the risen Lord. That is the greatest truth mankind will ever know.

Mary was given a mission (20:17-18), but the disciples were given the very philosophy of mission (20:21-23). This passage culminates John’s whole theology of mission and is one of the truly remarkable passages of Scripture. In fact, this is the Gospel of John’s Great Commission. Jesus a second time said, “Peace be with you,” probably because the disciples were in shock and had not yet experienced that peace. It is the heart filled with God’s peace that can engage in his mission. He then passed on his own commission to them, repeating what he had already said in 17:18, “As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.” It has been said over 30 times in this Gospel that Christ was “sent” by God (see e.g., 3:17; 5:23, 30; 8:16, 18), and both the Father and the Son had sent the Spirit as the Paraclete (14:16; 15:26; 16:7). Now the pattern was complete, for the means by which God reveals his Good News passes from Jesus to the Spirit to the disciples (church) to the world. Jesus’ ongoing mission is acted out and continued by the Spirit’s mission, and the Spirit’s mission is acted out and carried on via the church’s mission (so Westcott, Carson).

In fact, the mission of each one in this drama is ongoing. The Father authorizes the Son, the Father and Son authorize the Spirit, and the whole Godhead authorizes believers in mission! Köstenberger (1998a:191) sums up the implications: “The disciples are not just to represent Jesus (thus the Jewish sending concept is transcended), they are to re-present him, i.e., Jesus will be present in and through them in his Spirit as they fulfill their mission in the world” (italics his). Barrett adds (1978:569), “In the apostolic mission of the church . . . the world is veritably confronted not merely by a human institution but by Jesus the Son of God (13:20; 17:18) . . . the church is the apostolic church, commissioned by Christ, only in virtue of the fact that Jesus sanctified it (17:19) and breathed the Spirit into it (20:22) and only so far as it maintains an attitude of perfect obedience to Jesus.”

There is no way Jesus’ followers in their own strength could fulfill their calling, but Jesus knew that. He gave them the Spirit (the “Johannine Pentecost”) when he “breathed on them” and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” Throughout the farewell discourse, Jesus had promised that he would send the Spirit/Paraclete (14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7), and the Spirit would provide the empowering presence that would enable them to become sent ones. The idea of Jesus breathing on them alludes to God breathing life into Adam at creation (Gen 2:7; cf. Ezek 37:9). Jesus created a new creation by his power to give life (1:3-4; 5:21, 25-26; cf. 1 Cor 15:45, “the last Adam—that is, Christ—is a life-giving Spirit”), and for the disciples that life was manifest not only in eternal life but also in the presence of the Spirit. This is a purification, an empowering, and a prophetic anointing for mission (so Keener), indeed the culmination of John’s theology of the Spirit (so Burge). God gave the Spirit to Jesus “without limit” (3:34); Jesus offered the Samaritan woman “living water” (4:10, 14, cf. “water and the Spirit” in 3:5) and then poured out the Spirit from the depths of his being (7:37-39). As Jesus had been empowered by the Spirit in his work on earth, so the disciples must rely on the Spirit’s power in their mission.

The authority for the mission is spelled out in 20:23. The reception of the Spirit made the disciples God’s agents and bestowed on them the authority to “forgive anyone’s sins” or to retain their sins. This is closely connected to Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, where the disciples were given “the keys of the kingdom” and told, “whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven.” Both in Matthew and here, the actual person doing the forgiving is God (divine passives), and the believers act as his emissaries. While some limit the thrust to forgiveness (and perhaps only within the church community), it is almost certain in this context of sending that it relates to the church’s mission to the world (so Carson, Köstenberger). In this respect also, we carry on the work of Jesus: he came to save (3:17), but in encountering every person, he also became the judge (5:22, 30; 9:39) of those who reject him. This continues in the church’s mission. We, too, encounter people with the demands of God and force them to decision, and their decision determines whether their sins are “forgiven” or retained.

Again, Jesus met his need, but it was eight days later (20:26), and they were still hiding behind closed doors, possibly still afraid (so Carson), though the reason they were in the same place was that they had remained for the weeklong Festival of Unleavened Bread. Mary needed the voice of the Good Shepherd; the Ten needed to see him. Now, Thomas needed to touch him, and as with the others, Jesus accommodated him. Can you imagine the scene? As in 20:19, Jesus miraculously came through the closed door and offered messianic peace. Then he said, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side” (20:27). This is an extraordinary scene, with Jesus pulling back his robe to show the gaping wounds. There is no record that Thomas actually touched the wounds. It is doubtful he would have needed to at this point. Then Jesus exhorted Thomas, “Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!” Thomas had demonstrated that his faith was the lowest of them all.

Thomas was undoubtedly on his knees, tears coursing down his cheeks, as he uttered one of the great confessions of history, “My Lord and my God!” (20:28). Some have taken this as an acclamation, part of the developing understanding of the disciples but not a full-fledged statement of deity. Keener (2003:1211) denies this, saying, “The confession of Jesus’ deity is unmistakable (Rev 4:11).” While 20:21-23 climaxes the mission theme of John, this scene climaxes his Christology. One could say that the fourth Gospel is framed by statements of Jesus’ deity (1:1; 20:28, so Bruce). This affirmation is a high point of the Gospel. It is an astounding utterance; the key is to realize that Thomas was indeed a philosophy major. All the while that he was saying, I won’t believe “unless,” he was also saying “What if?!” By the time Jesus appeared to him, he had thought through the implications more deeply than the others: if Jesus had risen from the dead, then his teaching was literally true, and he had claimed to be both Lord of all and divine (Cf. 10:30, 33). Thomas’s statement does not so much reflect the fact that John was written during the reign of Domitian, who encouraged a similar affirmation of himself (Dominus et deus noster, “our lord and god”), but instead its origin is almost certainly the Old Testament affirmation, “O Yahweh [Lord] our God” (so Blomberg; cf. e.g., 2 Kgs 19:19; Pss 99:8; 106:47; Isa 26:13; Rev 4:11).

Jesus concluded with a message for future readers (20:29). Thomas did believe but had to “see” in order to believe (Köstenberger [2004:580] calls this a “mild rebuke” of Thomas for needing proof and not believing the other disciples). Jesus drew a comparison with those yet to find faith—namely those who would not have the benefit of seeing the risen Lord—and gave future believers a special blessing from God because they would find faith without the incredible experience of physically seeing the risen Lord. This is the second beatitude in John (Cf. 13:17), and interestingly both occur in contexts of admonition. The four episodes leading to belief in chapter 20 have been accompanied by the word “seen” (20:8, 18, 20, 27), but future believers would not have that privilege. Theirs would be a faith engendered by the Good News, and this is perhaps the major theme of the fourth Gospel—the encounter with God in Jesus forces a faith-decision, and that decision brings life. That is the greatest blessing of all. As Peter says so well, “You love him even though you have never seen him. Though you do not see him now, you trust him; and you rejoice with a glorious, inexpressible joy. The reward for trusting him will be the salvation of your souls” (1 Pet 1:8-9).

The purpose of all the choices is clear: “that you may continue to believe” (20:31). John’s Gospel has always been about faith and the life that results from it. This is the core of Johannine theology, the essence of God’s purpose in the world. He “gave his one and only Son” that people might believe and have life (3:16). “No one can come to the Father” any other way (14:6); therefore, those who “listen” and “believe . . . have eternal life” (5:24). John chose the two major titles of Jesus to sum up the focus of faith: “Messiah, the Son of God.” The first means to believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, probably both the Davidic Messiah and Mosaic Messiah since John contains both emphases (the Davidic or royal Messiah from the Davidic covenant of 2 Sam 7:5-16; the Mosaic from the “prophet like Moses” of Deut 18:15). The second refers not just to the special filial relationship between Jesus and his Father but also to Jesus’ complete deity (1:1, 18; 10:30; 20:28) and the fact that he was “sent” by his Father as the divine agent (3:17; 11:42; 16:27; 17:8). The Father-Son relationship in one sense dominates this Gospel. The result of this relationship is that those who believe “will have life by the power of his name.” Throughout John, “life” is both an encounter of the unbeliever and a present possession for those who believe because they are under the power of Jesus’ name (John’s Gospel is intended for both believer and unbeliever).