18. Exegetical Commentary on John 15

OUTLINE:

[4 A The Book of Glory: Jesus accomplishes his return to the Father (13:1-20:31)]

[2 B The Last Supper: Jesus prepares his disciples for his departure (13:2-17:26)]

[2 C The Last Discourse (13:31-17:26)]

2 D The relationship of the disciples to Jesus and to the world after his departure (15:1-16:33)

1 E Jesus exhorts his disciples to remain in him as the True Vine (15:1-17)

1 F The Vine and the branches (15:1-10)

2 F The elevation in status of the disciples: from slaves to friends (15:11-17)

2 E The hatred of the world for Jesus and his disciples (15:18-16:4a)

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Brown, R. E., “‘Other Sheep not of this Fold’: The Johannine Perspective on Christian Diversity in the Late First Century,” Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978): 5-22.

Dillow, J. C., “Abiding is Remaining in Fellowship: Another Look at John 15:1-6,” Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (1990): 44-53.

Hawkin, D. J., “Orthodoxy and Heresy in John 10:1-21 and 15:1-17,” Evangelical Quarterly 47 (1975): 208-13.

Jacobs, L., “‘Greater Love Hath No Man…’ The Jewish Point of View of Self-Sacrifice,” Judaism 6 (1957): 41-47.

Johnston, G., “The Allegory of the Vine,” Canadian Journal of Theology 3 (1957): 150-58.

Laney, J. C., “Abiding is Believing: The Analogy of the Vine in John 15:1-6,” Bibliotheca Sacra 146 (1989): 55-66.

Lee, G. M., “John 15,14: ‘Ye are my friends’,” Novum Testamentum 15 (1973): 260.

O’Grady, J. F., “The Good Shepherd and the Vine of the Branches,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 8 (1978): 86-89.

Rosscup, J. E., Abiding in Christ: Studies in John 15 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973).

Smith, C. R., “The Unfruitful Branches in John 15,” Grace Journal 9 (1968): 3-22.

Stanley, D. M., “‘I Am the Genuine Vine,’ (John 15:1),” Bible Today 8 (1963): 484-91.

DETAILED EXEGETICAL NOTES:

2 D The relationship of the disciples to Jesus and to the world after his departure (15:1-16:33)

1 E Jesus exhorts his disciples to remain in him as the True Vine (15:1-17)

A Note on the Background of the Vine and Branches Imagery:

There are numerous Old Testament passages which refer to Israel as a vine: Ps 80:8-16, Isa 5:1-7, Jer 2:21, Ezek 15:1-8, 17:5-10, 19:10-14, and Hos 10:1. The vine became symbolic of Israel, and even appeared on some coins issued by the Maccabees.

The Old Testament passages which use this symbol appear to regard Israel as faithless to Yahweh and/or the object of severe punishment. Ezek 15:1-8 in particular talks about the worthlessness of wood from a vine (in relation to disobedient Judah). A branch cut from a vine is worthless except to be burned as fuel. This appears to fit more with the statements about the disciples than with Jesus’ description of himself as the vine.

Ezek 17:5-10 contains vine imagery which refers to a king of the house of David, Zedekiah, who was set up as king in Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah allied himself to Egypt and broke his covenant with Nebuchadnezzar (and therefore also with God), which would ultimately result in his downfall (17:20-21). Ezek 17:22-24 then describes the planting of a cedar sprig which grows into a lofty tree, a figurative description of Messiah. But it is significant that Messiah himself is not described in Ezekiel 17 as a vine, but as a cedar tree. The vine imagery here applies to Zedekiah’s disobedience.

1 F The Vine and the branches (15:1-10)

15:1 =Egwv eijmi hJ a[mpelo" hJ ajlhqinhV Jesus’ description of himself as the “true Vine” in John 15:1 ff. is to be seen against this background, but it differs significantly from the imagery we have surveyed above. It represents new imagery which differs significantly from OT concepts; it appears to be original with Jesus. The imagery of the vine underscores the importance of fruitfulness in the Christian life and the truth that this results not from human achievement, but from one’s position in Christ. Jesus is not just giving some comforting advice, but portraying to the disciples the difficult path of faithful service. To some degree the figure is similar to the Head-Body metaphor used by Paul, with Christ as Head and believers as members of the Body. Both metaphors bring out the vital and necessary connection which exists between Christ and believers.

oJ pathvr mou oJ gewrgov" ejstin Notice Jesus’ characteristic reference to the Father. Jesus is never portrayed as independent from his Father in the Gospel of John; they are always co-operating in every activity (cf. 5:19-23).

A Note on the Use of =Egwv eijmi in 15:1 and 15:5:

Once again we have another of the ejgwv eijmi statements of the Fourth Gospel. It occurs with a predicate as also in 6:35 and 6:48 (“I am the Bread of Life”), 8:12 (“I am the Light of the world”), 10:7 and 10:9 (“I am the Door”), 10:11 and 10:14 (“I am the Good Shepherd”), 11:25 (“I am the Resurrection and the Life”), 14:6 (“I am the Way”), and here and 15:5 (“I am the Vine”). Only in the last two uses (here in chapter 15) is there further development of the affirmation by additional predication: “my Father is the gardener” in 15:1 and “you are the branches” in 15:5. The stress in all these statements where predicates are included is not solely on the “I,” because the predicate in each instance tells something about what Jesus is in relation to mankind. Each affirmation tells something of what was involved in the Father’s sending of the Son into the world. Jesus appears in these statements as the source of eternal life (resurrection, life, vine), as the means of entry into life (door, way), as the guide who leads people to life (shepherd), as the source of nourishment for eternal life (bread), and as the illumination which lights the way in the darkness (light).¹³¹

15:2 pa'n klh'ma…mhV fevron karpoVn ai[rei aujtov The verb ai[rw can mean “lift up” as well as “take away,” and it is sometimes argued that here it is a reference to the gardener “lifting up” (i.e., propping up) a weak branch so that it bears fruit again. In Johannine usage the word occurs in the sense of “lift up” in 8:59 and 5:8-12, but in the sense of “remove” it is found in 11:39, 11:48, 16:22, and 17:15. In context (theological presuppositions aside for the moment) the meaning “remove” does seem more natural and less forced (particularly in light of verse 6, where worthless branches are described as being “cast out”—an image that seems incompatible with restoration).

One option, therefore, would be to understand the branches which are taken away (verse 2) and thrown out (verse 6) as believers who forfeit their salvation because of unfruitfulness. This interpretation encounters problems with the Johannine teaching on the security of the believer, however, especially 10:28-29. Thus it is appropriate to turn to other possibilities for the meaning of the removal of branches.

This leaves two basic ways of understanding Jesus’ statements in 15:2 and 15:6 :

These statements may refer to an unfaithful (disobedient) Christian, who is judged at the judgment seat of Christ “through fire” (cf. 1 Cor 3:11-15). In this case the “removal” of 15:2 may refer (in an extreme case) to the physical death of a disobedient Christian.
These statements may refer to someone who was never a genuine believer in the first place (e.g., Judas and the Jews who withdrew after Jesus’ difficult teaching in 6:66), in which case 15:6 refers to eternal judgment.

Evaluation:

In either instance it is clear that 15:6 refers to the fires of judgment (cf. OT imagery in Ps 80:16 and Ezek 15:1-8). But view (1) requires us to understand this in terms of the judgment of believers at the judgment seat of Christ. This concept does not appear in the Fourth Gospel, because from the perspective of the Evangelist, the believer does not come under judgment: note especially 3:18, 5:24, 5:29. The first reference (3:18) is especially important because it occurs in the context of 3:16-21, the section which is key to the framework of the entire Fourth Gospel and which is repeatedly alluded to throughout.
A similar image to this one is used by John the Baptist in Matt 3:10— “And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” Since this is being addressed to the Pharisees and Sadducees who were coming to John for baptism, it almost certainly represents a call to initial repentence. More importantly, however, the imagery of being cast into the fire constitutes a reference to eternal judgment, a use of imagery which is much nearer to the Johannine imagery in 15:6 than the Pauline concept of the judgment seat of Christ (a judgment for believers) mentioned in point [a].
The use of mevnw in 15:6 also supports view (2). When used of the relationship between Jesus and the disciple and/or Jesus and the Father, it emphasizes the permanence of the relationship (6:56, 8:31, 8:35, 14:10). The branch who has not remained is Judas, who departed in 13:30. He did not bear fruit, and is now in the realm of darkness, a mere tool of Satan. His eternal destiny, being cast into the fire of eternal judgment, is still to come.

We conclude, therefore, that the branches who do not bear fruit and are taken away and burned are not genuine believers. They are those who profess some sort of allegiance to Jesus but who in reality do not belong to him. In the Gospel of John, the primary example of this category is Judas. In 1 John 2:18-19 the “antichrists” fall into the same category; they too may be thought of as branches that did not bear fruit. They departed from the ranks of the Christians because they never did really belong, and their departure shows that they did not belong.

pa'n toV karpoVn fevron kaqaivrei aujtoV Consistent with our conclusions above, this statement would then refer to the Father’s work in the lives of believers to make them more “productive.” Kaqaivrei is not the word we would have expected here, but it provides the transition from the vine imagery to the disciples—there is a word-play (not reproduceable in English) between ai[rei and kaqaivrei in this verse. While the purpose of the Father in cleansing his people is clear, the precise means by which he does so is not immediately obvious. This will become clearer, however, in the following verse.

15:3 h[dh uJmei'" kaqaroiv ejste Now it becomes clear what kaqaivrei in the preceding verse means: it refers to cleansing from sin. This phrase occurs elsewhere in the Gospel of John only at the washing of the disciples’ feet in 13:10, where Jesus has used it of the disciples being cleansed from sin. There we also find further confirmation for our understanding of 15:2 and 6 (discussed above) since Judas is specifically excluded from this statement.

15:4 meivnate ejn ejmoiv How are we to understand the imperative and the statement by Jesus about himself which follows it? Morris takes the following statement as a continuation of the command: “Remain in me, and see that I remain in you.”¹³² However, the Evangelist has used a conditional imperative in a similar construction before, in 2:19: “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” It seems best to understand the same conditional force here: “If you remain in me, then I also will remain in you.” The point is that the relationship between Jesus and the disciple is reciprocal: if as genuine believers they remain in him, then he promises to remain in them also.

toV klh'ma ouj duvnatai karpoVn fevrein ajf= eJautou' The branches will produce nothing unless they remain connected to the vine, from which their life and sustenance flows. As far as the disciples are concerned, they will produce no fruit from themselves if they do not remain in their relationship to Jesus, because the eternal life which a disciple must possess if he is to bear fruit originates with him; he is the source of all life and productivity for the disciple.

15:5 ou|to" fevrei karpoVn poluvn What is the fruit mentioned here and in 15:2, 4, and 8? One’s initial impression is to interpret the imagery in terms of good deeds or character qualities, relating it to passages elsewhere in the NT like Matt 3:8 and 7:20, Rom 6:22, Gal 5:22, etc. This is not necessarily inaccurate, but we must remember that for John, to have life at all is to bear fruit, while one who does not bear fruit shows that he does not have the life (once again, conduct is the clue to paternity, as in 8:41; compare also 1 John 4:20— “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen”).

15:6 sunavgousin…bavllousin The general meaning of this verse was discussed under verse 2 above. We are not told who it is who does the gathering and casting into the fire, but it is probable in light of the passives ejblhvqh and ejxhravnqh that sunavgousin and bavllousin are actives substituted for passives. Although some claim that realized eschatology is so prevalent in the Fourth Gospel that no references to final eschatology appear at all, the fate of these branches seems to point to the opposite. The imagery is almost certainly that of eschatological judgment, and recalls some of the OT vine imagery which involves divine rejection and judgment of disobedient Israel (Ezek 15:4-6, 19:12).

15:7 o} ejaVn qevlhte aijthvsasqe Jesus is addressing his own again, the disciples from whom the traitor Judas has already departed (13:30). They are already clean (cf. 13:10). Thus there is a change to a more positive note from the “if anyone” (ejaVn…ti") of verse 6 to “if you” (ejaVn meivnhte) in the present verse. Once again Jesus promises the disciples that they may ask whatever they will, and it will be done for them. This recalls 14:13-14, where the disciples were promised that if they asked anything in Jesus’ name it would be done for them. The two thoughts are really quite similar, since here it is conditioned upon the disciples’ remaining in Jesus and his words remaining in them. According to our understanding of mevnw in the Gospel of John and the Johannine Epistles (see the discussion under verse 2 above) the first phrase relates to the genuineness of their relationship with Jesus. The second phrase relates to their obedience. When both of these qualifications are met, the disciples would in fact be asking in Jesus’ name and therefore according to his will.

15:8 i{na karpoVn poluVn fevrhte How are we to understand the i{na-clause? It is best to take it as substantival in apposition to ejn touvtw/ at the beginning of the verse. The Father is glorified when the disciples bring forth abundant fruit. Just as Jesus has done the works which he has seen his Father doing (5:19-29) so also will his disciples.

gevnhsqe [genhvsesqe] The original reading is difficult to determine, because the external evidence is rather evenly divided. The aorist subjunctive gevnhsqe is supported by most Alexandrian manuscripts including (apparently) 66, along with the Western uncial D. The future indicative genhvsesqe is supported by and the majority of manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type (). On the basis of the external evidence alone the second reading has some credibility because of the unusual alliance between and the Byzantine text. Some who accept the future indicative see a consecutive (or resultative) sequence between fevrhte in the i{na-clause and genhvsesqe, so that the disciples’ bearing much fruit results in their becoming disciples. It seems more likely, however, that the second verb (regardless of whether it is read as aorist or future) is to be understood as coordinate in meaning with the previous verb fevrhte.¹³³ Thus the two actions are really one and the same: bearing fruit and being Jesus’ disciple are not two different actions, but a single action. The first is the outward sign or proof of the second—in bearing fruit the disciples show themselves to be disciples indeed (cf. 15:5). As far as the textual reading is concerned, it appears preferable to accept the aorist subjunctive reading (gevnhsqe).

15:9-10 meivna'te ejn th'/ ajgavph/ th'/ ejmh'/ Jesus begins in verse 9 by affirming his love for the disciples (comparing it to the Father’s love for him). He then commands the disciples to remain (meivnate) in his love (cf. 15:4). In verse 10 Jesus goes on to explain what he means by remaining in his love: it is indicated by obedience to his commands. Obedience and love are inseparably linked and are mutually dependent upon one another. A similar idea may be seen in 1 John 4:20 (“If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen”), when we realize that loving one’s brother involves obeying the command to “love one another” (John 13:34, 15:12, 17). Thus 1 John 4:20 is really addressing an attempt to separate obedience to God’s commands and love for God, much as Jesus is talking about keeping his commandments and remaining in his love being interrelated here.

kaqwV" ejgwV taV" ejntola'" tou' patrov" mou tethvrhka… Jesus illustrates his statements to the disciples about the interrelationship of love and obedience by comparing their love for him and obedience to his commands to his love for the Father and his obedience to the Father’s commands.

2 F The elevation in status of the disciples: from slaves to friends (15:11-17)

15:11 i{na hJ caraV hJ ejmhV ejn uJmi'n h/ The purpose for Jesus saying these things to the disciples is so that his joy may reside in them and their joy may be complete. Although it is mentioned only in passing here, the theme of joy will be resumed again at greater length in 16:20-24.

15:12 Au{th ejstiVn hJ ejntolhV hJ ejmhv Now the reference to the commandments (plural) in 15:10 have been reduced to a singular commandment: the disciples are to love one another, just as Jesus has loved them. This is the new commandment of 13:34, and it is repeated in 15:17. The disciples’ love for one another is compared to Jesus’ love for them. How has Jesus shown his love for the disciples? This was illustrated in 13:1-20 in the washing of the disciples’ feet, introduced by the statement in 13:1 that Jesus loved them to the end (eij" tevlo" hjgavphsen). In the Notes on 13:1 it was explained how in context this constitutes a reference to Jesus’ self-sacrificial death on the cross on their behalf; the love they are to have for one another is so great that it must include a self-sacrificial willingness to die for one another if necessary. This is exactly what Jesus is discussing here, because he introduces the theme of his sacrificial death in the following verse. In 10:18 and 14:31 Jesus spoke of his death on the cross as a commandment he had received from his Father, which also links the idea of commandment and love as they are linked here.

One final note: it is not just the degree or intensity of the disciples’ love for one another that Jesus is referring to when he introduces by comparison his own death on the cross (that they must love one another enough to die for one another) but the very means of expressing that love: it is to express itself in self-sacrifice for one another, sacrifice up to the point of death, which is what Jesus himself did on the cross (cf. 1 John 3:16).

15:13 i{na ti" thVn yuchVn aujtou' qh'/ In the context this must refer primarily to Jesus’ own self-sacrificial death on the cross on behalf of his followers, whom he will describe in the next verse as his friends. Some have questioned whether love for enemies is not greater than love for friends, but that is not the point here, since in the context in which Jesus is speaking these words only friends are present (recall that Judas departed in 13:30).

15:14 uJmei'" fivloi mouv ejste This verse really explains 15:10 in another way. Those who keep Jesus’ commandments are called his friends, those friends for whom he lays down his life (verse 13). It is possible to understand this verse as referring to a smaller group within Christianity as a whole, perhaps only the apostles who were present when Jesus spoke these words. Some have supported this by comparing it to the small group of associates and advisors to the Roman Emperor who were called “Friends of the Emperor.” Others would see these words as addressed only to those Christians who as disciples were obedient to Jesus. In either case the result would be to create a sort of “inner circle” of Christians who are more privileged than mere “believers” or average Christians. In context, it seems clear that Jesus’ words must be addressed to all true Christians, not just some narrower category of believers, because Jesus’ sacrificial death, which is his act of love toward his friends (verse 13) applies to all Christians equally (cf. 13:1).

15:15 oujkevti levgw uJma'" douvlou" There is a sense in which the follower of Jesus may legitimately be thought of as a servant (dou'lo"); this is what Jesus in Luke 17:10 taught the disciples to call themselves, and this is a term which Paul commonly applies to himself and to others in his letters. But here Jesus is talking about more than just service rendered; here he is talking about intimacy with God. From this perspective the Christian is far more than just a servant, because he has been taken into God’s confidence in an intimate relationship (cf. 1:12 in the Prologue, along with 1:18). Everything Jesus has heard from his Father he has passed along to the disciples. Thus they have a privileged relationship with him and with the Father; they are no longer servants but friends (see the note above on the previous verse).

15:16 ajll= ejgwV ejxelexavmhn uJma'" If the disciples are now elevated in status from servants to friends, they are friends who have been chosen by Jesus, rather than the opposite way round. Again this is true of all Christians, not just the Twelve, and the theme that Christians are “chosen” by God appears frequently in other NT texts (e.g., Rom 8:33; Eph 1:4ff.; Col 3:12; and 1 Peter 2:4). Putting this together with the comments on 15:14 we may ask whether the Evangelist sees any special significance at all for the Twelve. Jesus has said in 6:70 and 13:18 that he chose them, and 15:27 makes clear that Jesus in the immediate context is addressing those who have been with him from the beginning. It seems most probable that in the Fourth Gospel the Twelve, as the most intimate and most committed followers of Jesus, are presented as the models for all Christians, both in terms of their election and their mission.

i{na uJmei'" uJpavghte kaiV karpoVn fevrhte The purpose for which the disciples were appointed (“commissioned”) is that they go and bear fruit, fruit which remains. The introduction of the idea of “going” at this point suggests that the fruit is something more than just character qualities in the disciples’ own lives, involving fruit in the lives of others, i.e., Christian converts. There is a mission involved (cf. 4:36). The idea that their fruit is permanent, however, relates back to verses 7 and 8, as does the reference to asking the Father in Jesus’ name. It appears that as the imagery of the Vine and the branches develops, the “fruit” which the branches produce shifts in emphasis from qualities in the disciples’ own lives in 15:2, 4, 5 to the idea of a mission which affects the lives of others in 15:16. The point of transition would be the reference to fruit in 15:8.

15:17 i{na ajgapa'te ajllhvlou" This verse is a restatement of the idea of 15:12 (see discussion above). This brings to a close the parable of the Vine and the branches.

2 E The hatred of the world for Jesus and his disciples (15:18-16:4a)

15:18 Eij oJ kovsmo" uJma'" misei' In contrast to Jesus’ love for his disciples is the world’s hatred for them. There is no doubt at all that the world will hate the disciples of Jesus; as E. Hoskyns states, “The implacable hatred of the World for the friends of Jesus is the sign of the verity of that friendship.”¹³⁴ Or as R. Brown states, “To belong to Jesus is not to belong to the world, and the world can love only what belongs to it.”¹³⁵ There will be a point at which the disciples’ loving obedience to Jesus makes them so much like him, that the world will respond to them just as it responded to Jesus himself. This will mean persecution. As L. Morris states, “It is not without its significance that the disciples are to be known by their love, the world by its hatred.”¹³⁶

This same theme (the world’s hatred for Jesus, and because of their likeness to him, for his disciples as well) was foreshadowed by Jesus’ words to his unbelieving brothers in 7:7.

15:19 ajll= ejgwV ejxelexavmhn uJma'" ejk tou' kovsmou Two themes are brought together here. In 8:23 Jesus had distinguished himself from the world in addressing his Jewish opponents: “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.” In 15:16 Jesus told the disciples “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you…”. Now Jesus has united these two ideas as he informs the disciples that he has chosen them out of the world. While the disciples will still be “in” the world after Jesus has departed, they will not belong to it, and Jesus prays later in 17:15-16 to the Father, “I do not ask you to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” The same theme also occurs in 1 John 4:5-6: “They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us”.

Thus the basic reason why the world hates the disciples (as it hated Jesus before them) is because they are not of the world. They are born from above, and are not of the world. For this reason the world hates them.

15:20 oujk e[stin dou'lo" meivzwn tou' kurivou aujtou' Jesus now recalls a statement he has made to the disciples before, in 13:16. As the master has been treated, so will the servants be treated also. If the world has persecuted Jesus, then it will also persecute the disciples. If the world has kept Jesus’ word, it will likewise keep the word of the disciples. In this statement there is the implication that the disciples will carry on the ministry of Jesus after his departure; they will in their preaching and teaching continue to spread the message which Jesus himself had taught while he was with them. And they will meet with the same response, by and large, that he encountered.

15:21 o{ti oujk oi[dasin toVn pevmyantav me Now the reason for the world’s rejection of the disciples’ message and its persecution of them becomes clear: it is because they do not know the one who sent Jesus into the world. In the final analysis it is the world’s ignorance of God that causes them to respond to Jesus and to his followers so. Jesus came into the world to reveal the Father to men (1:18, 14:9); in rejecting him they have rejected the Father also. But had they known the Father (had they been open to revelation from God—had “the Jews” in 8:42 been true sons of Abraham—) then they would have received Jesus and his revelation of what God is like gladly. Instead they rejected him, and in so doing showed that they did not know the one who sent him. Here Jesus has extended to “the world” the same charge he made against “the Jews” in 5:37 and 7:28: they are ignorant of God.

15:22 nu'n deV provfasin oujk e[cousin periV th'" aJmartiva" aujtw'n' Jesus now describes the guilt of the world. He came to these people with both words (15:22) and sign-miracles (15:24), yet they have remained obstinate in their unbelief, and this sin of unbelief is without excuse. Jesus is not saying that if he had not come and spoken to these people they would be sinless; rather he is saying that if he had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of the sin of rejecting him and the Father he came to reveal. Rejecting Jesus is the one ultimate sin for which there can be no forgiveness, because the one who has committed this sin has at the same time rejected the only cure that exists. Jesus spoke similarly to the Pharisees in 9:41—”If you were blind, you would have no sin [same phrase as here], but now you say ‘We see’ your sin remains.”

15:23 oJ ejmeV misw'n… Hatred of Jesus amounts to hatred of his Father as well. The opposite was stated positively in 13:20.

15:24 eij taV e[rga mhV ejpoivhsa ejn aujtou'" a} oujdeiV" a[llo" ejpoivhsen Jesus continues his description of the world’s guilt for its rejection of him and the One who sent him. It seems that the sign-miracles he performed are particularly in view here. Had Jesus not done these things, which testified to who he was, the world would again not be guilty of rejecting him and the Father who sent him. But now they have seen and rejected, and their sin remains upon them unatoned. The world has both seen and hated Jesus, and in him it has seen (and hated) the Father too.

15:25 i{na plhrwqh'/ oJ lovgo" oJ ejn tw'/ novmw/ aujtw'n gegrammevno"… The ultimate reason for the world’s rejection of Jesus and his revelation of the Father is found in the OT scriptures: the word which is written in their law must be fulfilled. As a technical term novmo" is usually restricted to the Pentateuch, but here it must have a broader reference, since the quotation is from Ps 35:19 or Ps 69:4. The latter is the more likely source for the quoted words, since it is cited elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel (2:17 and 19:29, in both instances in contexts associated with Jesus’ suffering and death).

15:26-27 oJ paravklhto"…ejkei'no" marturhvsei periV ejmou': The world has rejected Jesus and the one who sent him, even though it has heard his words and seen his works. But when Jesus departs from the world, he will not leave it without a continuing witness. In fact, there will be two: the Paraclete whom Jesus will send will continue to testify concerning him (verse 26), and the disciples will also continue to testify to the world (verse 27). These two witnesses in combination will produce even further hatred and hostility by the world (16:1-4a).

o}n ejgwV pevmyw uJmi'n paraV tou' patro" Jesus said in 14:16 that the Father would send the Paraclete in answer to Jesus’ prayer, and in 14:26 Jesus said that the Father would send the Paraclete in Jesus’ name. Now in 15:26 Jesus says that he himself will send the Paraclete from the Father. What are we to make of these seeming discrepancies in the accounts? They are probably merely indicative of the intimate union between the Father and the Son—the two are so closely identified in their activities in sending the Paraclete that this degree of interchange is possible.

o} paraV tou' patroV" ejkporeuvetai What does this phrase say about the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit? Probably not too much—the context is not concerned with the eternal mutual interrelationships of the persons of the Trinity, but with the continuation of the mission of the Son once he has departed from the world. B. F. Westcott is most likely correct when he states that had the eternal procession of the Spirit been in view here, the preposition used would have been ejk, indicating source, rather than parav, which indicates relationship (cf. 1:1).¹³⁷ The preposition parav is used in 16:27 and 17:8 to describe the mission of the Son.

¹³¹For fuller discussion of the ejgwv eijmi statements of the Fourth Gospel see Brown, The Gospel According to John, Appendix IV, 533-38.

¹³²Morris, The Gospel According to John, 670.

¹³³M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), 342.

¹³⁴E. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, ed. F. N. Davey, 2d ed. (London: Faber, 1947), 479.

¹³⁵Brown, The Gospel According to John, 692.

¹³⁶Morris, The Gospel According to John, 678.

¹³⁷B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, 224-25.

Related Topics: Christology, Spiritual Life

20. Exegetical Commentary on John 17

OUTLINE:

[4 A The Book of Glory: Jesus accomplishes his return to the Father (13:1-20:31)]

[2 B The Last Supper: Jesus prepares his disciples for his departure (13:2-17:26)]

[2 C The Last Discourse (13:31-17:26)]

3 D Jesus’ concluding prayer (17:1-26)

1 E Jesus asks the Father to glorify him (17:1-5)

2 E Jesus prays for the disciples the Father has given him (17:6-19)

3 E Jesus prays for the ones who believe in him on account of the testimony of the disciples (17:20-26)

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Agourides, S. C., “The ‘High Priestly Prayer’ of Jesus,” Studia Evangelica 4 [= Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 102] (Berlin: Akademie, 1968): 137-43.

Appold, M. L., The Oneness Motif in the Fourth Gospel: Motif Analysis and Exegetical Probe into the Theology of John, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2,1 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1976).

Cadier, J., “The Unity of the Church: An Exposition of John 17’, Interpretation 11 (1957): 166-76.

Ksemann, E., The Testament of Jesus According to John 17, trans. G. Krodel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968).

Lloyd-Jones, D. M., The Basis of Christian Unity: An Exposition of John 17 and Ephesians 4 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963).

Malatesta, E., “The Literary Structure of John 17,” Biblica 52 (1971): 190-214.

Minear, P. S., “Evangelism, Ecumenism, and John 17,” Theology Today 35 (1978): 353-60.

Minear, P. S., “John 17:1-11,” Interpretation 32 (1978): 175-79.

Morrison, C. D., “Mission and Ethic: An Interpretation of John 17,” Interpretation 19 (1965): 259-73.

Newman, B. M., “The Case of the Eclectic and the Neglected ejk of John 17,” Bible Translator 29 (1978): 339-41.

Poelman, R., “The Sacerdotal Prayer: John xvii,” Lumen Vitae 20 (1965): 43-66.

Pollard, T. E., “‘That They All May Be One’ (John xvii 21)—and the Unity of the Church,” Expository Times 70 (1958/59): 149-50.

Randall, J. F., “The Theme of Unity in John 17:20-23,” Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 41 (1965): 373-94.

Villain, M., “Those Who Believe: A Meditation on John 17,” One in Christ 6 (1970): 140-45, 547-53.

Wenger, E. L., “‘That They All May Be One’,” Expository Times 70 (1958/59): 333.

DETAILED EXEGETICAL NOTES:

3 D Jesus’ concluding prayer (17:1-26)

Introduction. Jesus’ prayer now marks the conclusion of the Last Discourse. As we noted above at 13:31 in the Note on the literary genre of the Last Discourse it appears to be organized after the pattern of a farewell speech, and it was not uncommon for farewell speeches to include closing prayers. Deuteronomy, for example, contains both a prayer in chapter 32 and a blessing of the people in chapter 33.

It is common to refer to chapter 17 as the High Priestly Prayer of Jesus. C. K. Barrett did not like this designation because it “does not do justice to the full range of the material contained in it.”¹³⁸ Whatever else may be said, such a label does emphasize the consecratory emphasis of the prayer with regard both to the disciples and to Jesus’ own work, which is now accomplished as he looks forward to his impending death on the cross.

Actually John does not used the term “high priest” to describe Jesus. However, in context, Jesus has promised “another Paraclete” (14:16) and since the range of meaning for this word includes “advocate” (cf. 1 John 2:1 and the Notes on 14:16) it may well be that here the Evangelist shows Jesus interceding for his disciples as Advocate/Paraclete.

1 E Jesus asks the Father to glorify him (17:1-5)

17:1 kaiV ejpavra" touV" ojfqalmouV" aujtou' eij" toVn oujranoVn Jesus also did this before his prayer in 11:41. This was probably a common posture in prayer; according to the parable in Luke 18:13 the tax collector did not feel himself worthy to do this.

ejlhvluqen hJ w{ra Jesus has said before that his “hour” had come, both in 12:23 when some Greeks sought to speak with him, and in 13:1 where just before he washed the disciples’ feet he is said to have known that his hour had come. It appears best to understand the “hour” as a period of time starting at the end of Jesus’ public ministry and extending through the passion week, ending with Jesus’ return to the Father through death, resurrection, and exaltation. The “hour” begins as soon as the first events occur which begin the process that leads to Jesus’ death.

dovxasovn sou toVn uiJovn Related to the coming of the “hour” is the glorification of Jesus. In 13:31-32 Jesus had said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him; if God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and immediately he will glorify him.” Now in 17:1ff. Jesus prays for this to be carried out.

i{na oJ oiJoV" doxavsh/ sev The glorification of the Son and the Father are closely related. Jesus’ own glorification (his return to the Father through death, resurrection, and exaltation) is not an end in itself; even this is to the greater glory of the Father, as is everything the Son does.

17:2 e[dwka" aujtw'/ ejxousivan pavsh" sarkov" Jesus has been given authority by the Father over all people. This probably refers to the authority to judge (cf. 5:27) since the next phrase makes it clear that Jesus does not give eternal life to everyone indiscriminately, but only to those whom the Father has given him.

paVn o} devdwka" aujtw'/ Jesus gives the gift of eternal life only to those whom the Father has given him. Once again there is the thought (seen before in 6:44 and 6:65) that although the gift of life is offered freely, a person does not accept it unless the Father has predestined that person to come to Jesus and believe in him.

17:3 au{th dev to introduce an explanation is typical Johannine style; it was used before in 1:19, 3:19, and 15:12. The Evangelist here defines “eternal life” for the readers. It is not just unending life in the sense of prolonged duration. Rather it is a quality of life, with its qualitativeness derived from a relationship with God. Having eternal life is here defined as being in relationship with the Father, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom the Father sent. Cristov" is not characteristically attached to Jesus’ name in the Fourth Gospel; it occurs elsewhere primarily as a title and is used with Jesus’ name only in 1:17. But that is connected to its use here: the statement here in 17:3 enables us to correlate the statement made in 1:18 of the Prologue, that Jesus has fully revealed what God is like, with Jesus’ statement in 10:10 that he has come that people might have life, and have it abundantly. These two purposes are really one, according to 17:3, because (abundant) eternal life is defined as knowing (being in relationship with) the Father and the Son. The only way to gain this eternal life, that is, to obtain this knowledge of the Father, is through the Son (cf. 14:6). Although some have pointed to the use of ginwvskw here as evidence of Gnostic influence in the Gospel, there is a crucial difference: for John this knowledge is not intellectual, but relational. It involves being in relationship.

17:4 ejgwv se ejdovxasa ejpiV th'" gh'" Jesus now states that he has glorified the Father on earth by completing (teleiwvsa" is best understood as a circumstantial participle of means) the work which the Father had given him to do. The idea of Jesus being sent into the world on a mission has been mentioned before, significantly in 3:17. It was even alluded to in the immediately preceding verse here (17:3). The completion of the “work” the Father had sent him to accomplish was mentioned by Jesus in 4:34 and 5:36. What is the nature of the “work” the Father has given the Son to accomplish? It involves the Son’s mission to be the Saviour of the world, as 3:17 indicates. But this is accomplished specifically through Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross (a thought implied by the reference to the Father “giving” the Son in 3:16). It is not without significance that Jesus’ last word from the cross is tetevlestai, “it is completed” (19:30).

Jesus can thus speak proleptically, as if his work (including even the work of the cross) is already completed, since the “hour” has already come and his departure is at hand.

17:5 kaiV nu'n dovxasovn me suv In 17:1 Jesus prays for the Father to glorify him. Now he repeats the request and defines the glory for which he prays more specifically as the glory which he had with the Father before the world existed. The use of parav twice in this verse looks back to the assertion in 1:1 that the Word (the Lovgo", who became Jesus of Nazareth in 1:14) was with God (proV" toVn qeovn). Whatever else may be said, the statement in 17:5 strongly asserts the preexistence of Christ.

2 E Jesus prays for the disciples the Father has given him (17:6-19)

17:6 =Efanevrwsav sou toV o[noma Now Jesus turns his attention to the disciples. He begins by asserting that he manifested the Father’s name to them. The mention of the Father’s name will occur again in chapter 17 in verses 11, 12, and 26, but it is not often mentioned elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel (only in 5:43, 10:25, 12:28). What are we to make of this? In one sense the name represents the person (cf. 1:12) and thus Jesus in saying that he has made known the Father’s name is saying that he has fully revealed who God is and what he is like (cf. 1:18 and 14:9). But there is probably another meaning as well in the Fourth Gospel: Jesus himself is identified with God repeatedly (10:30, 14:11, etc.) and nowhere is this more apparent than in Jesus’ absolute uses of the phrase ejgwv eijmi without a predicate (8:24, 8:28, 8:58, and 13:19). The name of the Father which Jesus has made known to men is thus the Divine Name revealed to Moses in Exod 3:14.

ou}" e[dwkav" moi Once again there is the idea of the Father’s predestination (see 17:2).

toVn lovgon sou tethvrhkan In 8:55 Jesus said that he kept his Father’s word; this is the one time in the Fourth Gospel that the disciples are said to keep it.

17:7 Only now (nu'n) have the disciples begun to understand. The finite verb e[gnwkan is best understood as an ingressive aorist which looks at entry into the state of knowledge or understanding. Previously it has been clear that the disciples did not understand the uniqueness of the relationship between Jesus and the Father (cf. 14:8-10). Now as a result of the coming of Jesus’ “hour” (which includes his exaltation as well as his death and resurrection) Jesus affirms here in his prayer that the disciples are finally beginning to understand.

17:8 o{ti taV rJhvmata a} e[dwkav" moi devdwka aujtoi'" Jesus now explains the reason why the disciples have come to know that the source of everything Jesus has received is the Father: it is because Jesus has faithfully communicated to the disciples the words he has received from his Father. The disciples have received these words and thus have come to know that Jesus has come forth from the Father, who sent him. Jesus, who is himself the Word of God, is also the vehicle for the words of God, that is, divine revelation and communication to men (cf. discussion at 10:34).

If as we have pointed out in verse 6 above the name which Jesus has made known to the disciples is the Divine Name revealed to Moses in Exod 3:14, then we might see here a comparison with Moses, who transmitted the words he received from God (the Torah) to Israel. As a matter of fact, Jesus’ statement here in 17:8 (taV rJhvmata a} e[dwkav" moi devdwka aujtoi'") may be taken as a direct allusion to Deut 18:18—”I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you [Moses], and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.”

17:9 ouj periV tou' kovsmou ejrwtw' Jesus now specifies that his prayer is for the disciples, not for those in the world. Once again there is the note that the disciples “belong” to the Father (cf. 17:6), and he has given them to Jesus (see note on 17:2 for a brief discussion of this theme of predestination, which appears repeatedly in Jesus’ prayer in chapter 17).

17:10 kaiV taV ejmaV pavnta sav ejstin kaiV taV saV ejmav Once again, Jesus affirms that everything that belongs to him also belongs to the Father, and all that belongs to the Father belongs also to him. This theme was mentioned earlier in 16:15.

dedovxasmai The theme of glory with which Jesus began this prayer in 17:1-5 now recurs. Jesus says that he has been glorified in his disciples, but in what sense is this true? Jesus has manifested his glory to them in all of the sign-miracles which he has performed, beginning with the miracle at the wedding-feast in Cana (2:11). He can now say that he has been glorified in them in the light of what he has already said in verses 7-8, that the disciples have come to know that he has come from the Father and been sent by the Father. He will, of course, be glorified in them further after the resurrection, as they carry on his ministry after his departure.

17:11 kaiV oujkevti eijmiV ejn tw'/ kovsmw/ In what sense is Jesus at this point no longer in the world? In verse 13 he seems to speak as if he is still in the world. Yet both here and in verse 13 he says that he is coming to the Father. Jesus’ departure from the world is so near that he can speak here as if he has already left the world, and he does so to contrast his own situation with that of the disciples, who are still in the world.

thvrhson aujtouV" ejn tw'/ ojnovmativ sou In 17:6 Jesus said that the disciples had kept the Father’s word. Now Jesus prays that the Father would keep them during and after his departure from them, since he is coming to the Father.

i{na wsin e}n kaqwV" hJmei'" The ultimate object of Jesus’ request here is the unity of the disciples. He will return to this theme in verses 21-23. This unity is compared to the unity which exists (and has been mentioned frequently in the Fourth Gospel, cf. 10:30) between the Father and the Son.

17:12 ejgwV ejthvroun aujtouV"…kaiV ejfuvlaxa Jesus now mentions that he guarded and protected the disciples while he was with them. The imagery here is suggestive of the Good Shepherd imagery of chapter 10, especially verses 27-30 (10:30 also deals with the theme of the unity between the Father and the Son, and thus relates to the request for the disciples’ unity in the preceding verse). In 10:28 Jesus says that he gives eternal life to his own, and they shall never perish (ajpovlwntai). Here Jesus affirms that indeed none of them have perished (ajpwvleto) except one, the “son destined for destruction” (oJ uiJoV" th'" ajpwleiva"), that is, Judas Iscariot.

i{na hJ grafhV plhrwqh'/ This appears to indicate that some OT passage predicted Judas’ betrayal and defection. The exact passage is not specified here, but in 13:18 Psalm 41:9 is explicitly quoted by Jesus with reference to the traitor, suggesting strongly that this is the passage to which Jesus refers here. The previous mention of Ps 41:9 in 13:18 probably explains why the Evangelist felt no need for an explanatory parenthetical note here.

17:13 proV" se e[rcomai Jesus reiterates that he is coming to the Father, as he had stated before in 17:11. Yet while he is still in the world he is speaking these things for the comfort of his disciples. He has told them these things in order that they might have his joy fulfilled in themselves. This echoes earlier statements about the disciples possessing Jesus’ joy in 15:11 (“These things I have spoken to you that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be made full”) and 16:24 (“Ask, and you will receive, in order that your joy may be fulfilled”).

17:14 kaqwV" ejgwV oujk eijmiV ejk tou' kovsmou Although Jesus is still in the world, preparing to leave it and return to the Father, he is not of the world (ejk tou' kovsmou) as he now makes clear. Once again he returns to the theme of the world’s hatred for the disciples (cf. 15:18-25, 16:1-4a). The reason Jesus gives here for the world’s hatred of the disciples is that they (like he) are not of the world. This was the same reason given for the world’s hatred in 15:19—”If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.”

In the case of Jesus himself it is easy to see how he is not “of the world”: he came down from heaven on a mission from the Father. But in what sense can it be said that the disciples to whom he refers are not “of the world”? They are not of the world in that their allegiance was to Jesus.

17:15 oujk ejrwtw' i{na a[rh/" aujtouV" ejk tou' kovsmou Jesus now clarifies further his request for the disciples: he does not ask the Father to take them out of the world, but rather to protect them as they remain in the world from the evil one.

tou' ponhrou' The genitive noun is ambiguous with regard to gender: it may represent the neuter toV ponhrov", “that which is evil,” or the masculine oJ ponhrov", “the evil one,” i.e., Satan. In view of the frequent use of the masculine in 1 John 2:13-14, 3:12, and 5:18-19 it seems much more probable that the masculine is to be understood here, and that Jesus is praying for his disciples to be protected from Satan.

17:16 ejk tou' kovsmou oujk eijsiVn This is a repetition of the second half of verse 14. The only difference is in word order: verse 14 has oujk eijsiVn ejk tou' kovsmou, while here the prepositional phrase is stated first: ejk tou' kovsmou oujk eijsiVn. This gives additional emphasis to the idea of the prepositional phrase, i.e., origin or source. See the discussion above under verse 14.

17:17 aJgivason aujtouV" Jesus now prays for the disciples’ sanctification. The word translated “sanctification,” aJgiavzw, is used here in its normal sense of being dedicated, consecrated, or set apart. The sphere in which the disciples are to be set apart is in the truth (ejn th'/ ajlhqeiva/). In 3:21 the idea of “practicing” (literally “doing”) the truth was introduced; in 8:32 Jesus told some of his hearers that if they continued in his word they would truly be his disciples, and would know the truth, and the truth would make them free. These disciples who are with Jesus now in the Upper Room have continued in his word (except for Judas Iscariot, who has departed), and they do know the truth about who Jesus is and why he has come into the world (17:8). Thus Jesus can ask the Father to set them apart in this truth as he himself is set apart, so that they might carry on his mission in the world after his departure (note the following verse).

17:18 kaqwV" ejmeV ajpevsteila" Jesus now compares the mission upon which he is sending the disciples to his own mission into the world, upon which he was sent by the Father. As the Father sent Jesus into the world (cf. 3:17), so Jesus is sending the disciples into the world to continue his mission after his departure. The nature of this prayer for the disciples as a consecratory prayer is now emerging: Jesus is setting them apart for the work he has called them to do. They are, in a sense, being commissioned.

17:19 uJpeVr aujtw'n ejgwV aJgiavzw ejmautovn Now Jesus says that on behalf of the disciples he sanctifies himself, in order that the disciples themselves also may be sanctified in the truth (which was Jesus’ request in verse 17). In what sense does Jesus refer to his own sanctification here? In 10:36 Jesus referred to himself as “the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world,” which seems to look at something already accomplished. Here, however, it is something he does on behalf of the disciples (uJpeVr aujtw'n) and this suggests a reference to his impending death on the cross. It seems that there is in fact a Johannine word-play here based on slightly different meanings for aJgiavzw. In the sense it was used in 10:36 of Jesus and in 17:17 and here to refer to the disciples, it means to set apart in the sense that prophets (cf. Jer 1:5) and priests (Exod 40:13, Lev 8:30, and 2 Chr 5:11) were consecrated or set apart to perform their tasks. But when Jesus speaks of consecrating/setting apart/dedicating himself on behalf of the disciples here in 17:19 the meaning is closer to the consecration of a sacrificial animal (Deut 15:19). Jesus is “setting himself apart” to do the will of the Father, that is, to go to the cross on the disciples’ behalf (and of course on behalf of their successors as well).

3 E Jesus prays for the ones who believe in him on account of the testimony of the disciples (17:20-26)

17:20 Ouj periV touvtwn deV ejrwtw' movnon Now as his prayer is drawing to a close Jesus goes on to pray for those who will believe in him on account of the disciples’ testimony. Although pisteuovntwn is a present participle, it must in context carry futuristic force. The disciples whom Jesus is leaving behind will carry on his ministry and in doing so will see others come to trust in him. This will include not only Jewish Christians, but other Gentile Christians who are “not of this fold” (10:16), and thus Jesus’ prayer for unity is especially appropriate in light of the probability that most of the readers of the Gospel are Gentiles (much as Paul stresses unity between Jewish and Gentile Christians in Eph 2:10-22).

17:21 i{na pavnte" e}n wsin The model for this unity is the unity which exists between the Father and the Son, a unity which allows for diversity of persons while maintaining essential unity. The ultimate result of such unity among believers will be that the world comes to believe that the Father sent Jesus (i{na oJ kovsmo" pisteuvh/ o{ti suv me ajpevsteila", compare i{na ginwvskh/ oJ kovsmo" o{ti suv me ajpevsteila" kaiV hjgavphsa" aujtouV" kaqwV" ejmeV hjgavphsa" in verse 23).

A parallel structure may be seen in verses 21-23, as follows:

21a i{na pavnte" e}n wsin

21b kaqwV" suv, pavter, ejn ejmoiV kajgwV ejn soiv

21c i{na kaiV aujtoiV ejn hJmi'n wsin

21d i{na oJ kovsmo" pisteuvh/ o{ti suv me ajpevsteila"

22b i{na wsin e}n

22c-23a kaqwV" hJmei'" e}n: ejgwV ejn aujtoi'" kaiV suV ejn ejmoiv

23b i{na wsin teteleiwmevnoi eij" e{n

23c i{na ginwvskh/ oJ kovsmo" o{ti suv me ajpevsteila" kaiV hjgavphsa" aujtouV" kaqwV" ejmeV hjgavphsa"

The first and second i{na in each case deals with the unity of believers, as illustrated both times by the unity which exists between the Father and the Son (the kaqwvV" clauses). The third i{na in each case looks at the effect of this unity on the world.

17:22 thVn dovxan Jesus now says that he has given to those who believe on account of the disciples’ testimony the glory which the Father had given to him, that they may be one. This again is proleptic, since these people to whom Jesus speaks of giving glory have not even come to believe in him yet. They will do so later on account of his disciples’ continuation of his ministry.

17:23 i{na wsin teteleiwmevnoi eij" e{n Jesus now requests that these people who believe on account of the disciples’ testimony may be completed into one (teteleiwmevnoi eij" e{n) which again (as in verse 21) will result in the world coming to know that Jesus had been sent by the Father.

Thus Jesus’ gift of glory to believers (22a) results in their unity (22b-23a) which has the ultimate result of confronting the world once more with the claims of Jesus (23b).

17:24 i{na o{pou eijmiV ejgwV kajkei'noi wsin met= ejmou' Jesus’ prayer is now reaching its final conclusion. His closing request is that the ones whom the Father has given him be with him, where he is, so that they may see his glory. This glory was given by the Father to Jesus because of the Father’s love for Jesus before the foundation of the world (proV katabolh'" kovsmou). Once again the pre-existence of the Son is mentioned in connection with the relationship he shared with the Father in eternity past (cf. 17:5).

17:25 pavter divkaie Jesus addresses the Father directly again, as he did in 17:11. He states that the world does not know the Father, but he does, and then he affirms that these believers for whom he prays (both the disciples and those later believers who come to trust in Jesus on account of the disciples’ word) have come to know that he was sent by the Father.

17:26 kaiV ejgnwvrisa aujtoi'" toV o[nomav sou kaiV gnwrivsw Jesus now states that he both made known and will make known the Father’s name to these believers, so that the love with which the Father loved Jesus (cf. 17:24) will be in them and in fact Jesus himself will be in them. The theme of the manifestation of the Father’s name is picked up from 17:6 and refers to Jesus’ revelation of the Divine Name of Exod 3:14 in his person (see additional discussion at 17:6).

kajgwV ejn aujtoi'" The concluding statement of the entire prayer appropriately reflects the presence of Jesus dwelling permanently in believers after his resurrection and return to the Father (cf. 14:18, 20). He will not leave them alone and forsaken, but will be in them forever.

21. Exegetical Commentary on John 18

OUTLINE:

3 B The Passion: the arrest, trials, death, and burial of Jesus (18:1-19:42)

1 C Jesus is arrested in the garden (18:1-11)

2 C Jesus is interrogated by Annas (18:12-27)

1 D Jesus is brought before Annas (18:12-14)

2 D Peter gains entry to the courtyard of the high priest and denies Jesus for the first time (18:15-18)

3 D Annas questions Jesus and sends him to Caiaphas (18:19-24)

4 D Peter denies Jesus for the second and third times (18:25-27)

3 C Jesus is brought before Pilate (18:28-19:16a)

1 D The Jewish leaders present their accusation to Pilate (18:28-32)

2 D Pilate questions Jesus concerning his kingship (18:33-38a)

3 D Pilate seeks to release Jesus but the crowd cries out for Barabbas instead (18:38b-40)

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Billings, J. S., “Judas Iscariot in the Fourth Gospel,” Expository Times 51 (1939/40): 156-57.

Bligh, J., The Sign of the Cross: The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus according to St. John (Slough: St. Paul Publications, 1975).

Borgen, P., “John and the Synoptics in the Passion Narrative,” New Testament Studies 5 (1958/59): 246-59.

Brown, R. E., “The Passion According to John: Chapter 18 and 19,” Worship 49 (1975): 126-34.

Buse, I., “St. John and the Marcan Passion Narrative,” New Testament Studies 4 (1957/58): 215-19.

Buse, I., “St. John and the Passion Narratives of St. Matthew and St. Luke,” New Testament Studies 7 (1960/61): 65-76.

Church, W. R., “The Dislocations in the Eighteenth Chapter of John,” Journal of Biblical Literature 49 (1930): 375-83.

Curtis, K. P. G., “Three Points of Contact Between Matthew and John in the Burial and Resurrection Narratives,” Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1972): 440-44.

Daube, D., “Three Notes having to do with Johanan ben Zaccai,” Journal of Theological Studies 11 (1960): 53-62.

Fenton, J. C., The Passion According to John (London: SPCK, 1961).

Fortna, R. T., “Jesus and Peter at the High Priest’s House: A Test Case for the Question of the Relation Between Mark’s and John’s Gospels,” New Testament Studies 24 (1977/78): 371-83.

Harvey, A. E., Jesus on Trial: A Study in the Fourth Gospel (London: SPCK, 1976).

Howard, J. K., “Passover and Eucharist in the Fourth Gospel,” Scottish Journal of Theology 20 (1967);329-37.

Jaubert, A., “The Calendar of Qumran and the Passion-Narrative in John,” in John and Qumran, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (London: Chapman, 1972), 62-75.

Lindars, B., “The Passion in the Fourth Gospel,” in God’s Christ and His People: Studies in Honour of Nils Alstrup Dahl, ed. J. Jervell and W. A. Meeks (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977), 71-86.

Mahoney, A., “A New Look at an Old Problem (John 18, 12-14, 19-24),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27 (1965): 137-44.

Mein, P., “A Note on John xviii. 6,” Expository Times 65 (1953-54): 286-87.

Neirynck, F., “The ‘Other Disciple’ in Jn 18, 15-16,” Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 51 (1975): 113-41.

Robinson, B. P., “Gethsemane: The Synoptic and Johannine Viewpoints,” Church Quarterly Review 167 (1966): 4-11.

Sabbe, M., “The Arrest of Jesus in Jn 18, 1-11 and its Relation to the Synoptic Gospels. A Critical Evaluation of A. Dauer’s Hypothesis,” in L’vangile de Jean. Sources, rdaction, thologie, ed. M. de Jonge, Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 44 (Gembloux: Duculot; Louvain: University Press, 1977): 203-34.

Stanley, D. M., “The Passion according to St. John,” Worship 33 (1959): 210-30.

Winter, P., On the Trial of Jesus, Studia Judaica 1 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1961).

Winter, P., “Marginal Notes on the Trial of Jesus, II,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 50 (1959): 221-51.

Winter, P., “The Trial of Jesus and the Competence of the Sanhedrin,” New Testament Studies 10 (1964): 494-99.

DETAILED EXEGETICAL NOTES:

3 B The Passion: the arrest, trials, death, and burial of Jesus (18:1-19:42)

Introduction. The Johannine Passion narrative is found in chapters 18 and 19. Several matters of emphasis distinguish the account in the Fourth Gospel from the parallels in the synoptics. (1) The complete sovereignty of Jesus as he undergoes these events, his complete control of the situation, is repeatedly evident. Nothing that happens to him happens by accident or outside of his control, and one gets the distinct impression he could put a stop to the process at any moment if he so chose. Jesus comes across not so much the willing victim as the Orchestrator of events. (2) There are many details included in the Johannine account which are not recorded in the synoptics, and this has caused many critical scholars to regard these details as non-historical fabrications of the Evangelist for dramatic effect. Upon closer examination, however, it seems more likely that the purpose of such detail is not so much purely dramatic effect as theological significance. Almost every detail which John records about the crucifixion of Jesus, for example, has some symbolic and theological meaning. If as we believe the Fourth Gospel represents eyewitness testimony, the divergences from the synoptic accounts are better explained as resulting from selectivity than from originality. (3) There is significant emphasis on the role of the Jewish leaders (“the Jews”) as perpetrators of the plot to execute Jesus with less stress on the role of the Roman authorities, which some would attribute to an apologetic tendency on the part of the Evangelist. One’s view of the exact role of the Jewish authorities will be influenced to some extent by one’s understanding of Jesus’ “trial” before Annas in John 18:13-24. This appears to have been more of a preliminary inquiry than an actual trial per se. The more formal trial before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin recorded by Matthew (26:59-68) and Mark (14:55-65) would take place later in the night, between John 18:24 and 28. This trial was probably not strictly legal because it was held at night; such proceedings which involved the death penalty were not permitted to be conducted on a single day under later Mishnaic law. No details of Jesus’ trial before Caiaphas are given in the Fourth Gospel.

1 C Jesus is arrested in the garden (18:1-11)

18:1 Tau'ta eijpwVn =Ihsou'" This appears to be a natural transition from the Last Discourse, the farewell speech of Jesus to his disciples in 13:31-17:26, including the final prayer in 17:1-26. We are told that Jesus “went out” (ejxh'lqen) together with his disciples, a probable reference to their leaving the Upper Room where the meal and discourse described in chapters 13-17 took place (although some have seen this only as a reference to their leaving the city, with the understanding that some of the Last Discourse, including the concluding prayer, was given en route, cf. 14:31). They crossed the wadi Kidron (Kidron Valley; tou' ceimavrrou means “flowing in the winter” and refers to a wadi, a stream bed which contains flowing water only in the rainy season) and came to a garden, identified in Matt 26:36 and Mark 14:32 as Gethsemane. The name is not given in Luke’s or John’s Gospel, but the garden must have been located somewhere on the lower slopes of the Mount of Olives.

18:2 “Hidei deV kaiV =Iouvda" The Evangelist now gives us a parenthetical note to the effect that Judas, the one who was about to betray him, was also familiar with the place. The reason for this familiarity is also given: Jesus came there often with his disciples. This parallels Luke’s statement in 21:37 that by day Jesus taught in the Temple, but by night he would go out to the Mount of Olives.

18:3 oJ ou =Iouvda"…e[rcetai Judas took no chances; he came with a large and well-armed group to arrest Jesus. Accompanying him were soldiers of the Roman cohort and the temple police.

thVn spei'ran This is a technical term for a Roman cohort, normally a force of 600 men (one tenth of a legion). It was under the command of a cilivarco" (verse 12). Because of the improbability of an entire cohort being sent to arrest a single man, some have suggested that spei'ran here refers only to a maniple, a force of 200. But the use of the word here does not necessarily mean the entire cohort was present on this mission, but only that it was the cohort which performed the task (for example, saying the fire department put out the fire does not mean that every fireman belonging to the department was on the scene at the time).

These Roman soldiers must have been ordered to accompany the temple police by Pilate, since they would have been under the direct command of the prefect or procurator. It is not difficult to understand why Pilate would have been willing to assist the Jewish authorities in such a way. With a huge crowd of pilgrims in Jerusalem for the passover, the Romans would have been especially nervous about an uprising of some sort. No doubt the chief priests and Pharisees had informed Pilate that this man Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah, or in the terms Pilate would understand, King of Israel.

ejk tw'n ajrcierevwn kaiV ejk tw'n Farisaivwn uJphrevta" The group which accompanied the Roman soldiers and Judas are literally called “the servants of the chief priests and Pharisees,” but this is a reference to the officers, who were under the orders of the Sanhedrin. In 7:32ff. these officers had made an unsuccessful attempt to arrest Jesus, and perhaps this is part of the reason why their leaders had made sure they were accompanied by Roman soldiers this time. No more mistakes were to be tolerated.

metaV fanw'n kaiV lampavdwn The mention of the lanterns and torches suggests a detail remembered by one who was an eyewitness, but in connection with the light/darkness motif of the Fourth Gospel, it is a vivid reminder that it is night; the darkness has come at last (cf. 13:30).

18:4 =Ihsou'" ou eijdwV" pavnta taV ejrcovmena ejp= aujtoVn Here again Jesus knows all the things which were coming upon him, a reference to his foreknowledge of events, a theme mentioned previously in the Fourth Gospel (6:6, 13:1). He is in complete control of his fate; he does not attempt to run away or hide, but comes forward boldly to meet the soldiers and police, asking whom it is they are seeking.

18:5 ajpekrivqhsan aujtw'/ We are not told precisely who from the group of soldiers and temple police answered Jesus at this point. It may have been the commander of the Roman soldiers, although his presence is not explicitly mentioned until verse 12. It may also have been one of the temple police. To the answer given, “Jesus the Nazarene” Jesus replies “I am” (ejgwv eijmi). Before we are told the response to Jesus’ identification of himself, the Evangelist inserts a parenthetical note that Judas, again identified as “the one who was betraying him” (cf. verse 2), was standing with the group of soldiers and temple police. Many commentators have considered this to be an awkward insertion, but in fact it heightens the dramatic effect of the response to Jesus’ self-identification in the following verse, and has the added effect of informing the reader that along with the others the betrayer himself ironically falls down at Jesus’ feet.

18:6 ajph'lqon eij" taV ojpivsw kaiV e[pesan camaiv Now we are told the response of those who came to arrest Jesus: when he said to them “I am” they retreated backward and fell to the ground. L. Morris says that “it is possible that those in front recoiled from Jesus’ unexpected advance, so that they bumped those behind them, causing them to stumble and fall.”¹³⁹ Perhaps this is what in fact happened on the scene. However, the theological significance given to this event by the Evangelist implies that more is involved. The reaction on the part of those who came to arrest Jesus comes in response to his affirmation that he is indeed the one they are seeking, Jesus of Nazareth. But Jesus makes this affirmation of his identity using a formula which the reader has encountered before in the Fourth Gospel, e.g., 8:24, 28, 58. Jesus has applied to himself the Divine Name of Exod 3:14, “I AM”. This amounts to something of a theophany which causes even his enemies to recoil and prostrate themselves, so that Jesus has to ask a second time, “Whom are you seeking?” This is a vivid reminder that even in this dark hour, Jesus holds ultimate power over his enemies and the powers of darkness, because he is the One who bears the Divine Name.

18:7 pavlin ou ejphrwvthsen aujtouv" Again a second time Jesus asks the soldiers and temple police whom they are seeking, and again they reply, “Jesus of Nazareth”.

18:8 eipon uJmi'n o{ti ejgwv eijmi Again a second time Jesus replies, “I told you that I am he,” identifying himself as the one they are seeking. Jesus also adds, “If then you are seeking me, let these go.” Jesus has successfully diverted attention from his disciples by getting the soldiers and temple police to admit (twice) that it is only him they are after. Even in this hour Jesus still protects and cares for his own, giving himself up on their behalf. By handing himself over to his enemies, Jesus ensures that his disciples go free. From the perspective of the Evangelist, this is an acting out beforehand of what Jesus will actually do for his followers when he goes to the cross.

18:9 i{na plhrwqh'/ oJ lovgo" This action of Jesus on behalf of his disciples is interpreted by the Evangelist as a fulfillment of Jesus’ own word: “From those whom You have given to me I have lost no one.” It is interesting to notice that here it is Jesus’ own words, rather than the OT scriptures, which are being quoted. This same formula will be used by the Evangelist again of Jesus’ words in 18:32, but the verb is used elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel to describe the NT fulfillment of OT passages (12:38, 13:18, 15:25, 17:12, 19:24, and 19:36).

It is a bit difficult to determine the exact referent, since the words of Jesus quoted in this verse are not an exact reproduction of a saying of Jesus elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel. Although some have identified the saying with 6:39, the closest parallel is in 17:12, where the betrayer, Judas, is specifically excluded. The words quoted here in 18:9 appear to be a free rendition of 17:12.

18:10 Sivmwn ou Pevtro"…ei{lkusen aujthVn kaiV e[paisen toVn tou' ajrcierevw" dou'lon kaiV ajpevkoyen aujtou' toV wjtavrion toV dexiovn The incident mentioned in this verse again contains details which imply eyewitness testimony. It is mentioned in all three of the synoptic gospels, but only John records that the disciple involved was Peter, whose impulsive behavior has already been alluded to (13:37). Likewise only John tells us the name of the victim, Malchus, who is described as “the servant of the high priest.” John and Mark (14:47) both use wjtavrion, a double diminutive, to describe what was cut off, and this may indicate only part of the right ear (for example, the earlobe).

18:11 eipen ou oJ =Ihsou'" tw'/ Pevtrw/ Jesus’ immediate response to Peter’s action is to rebuke him: “Put the sword into the sheath!” This was not the time for heroics.

toV pothvrion Jesus then continues with what most would take to be a rhetorical question expecting a positive reply: “The cup which the Father has given me to drink, shall I not drink it?” The cup is also mentioned in Gethsemane in the synoptics (Matt 26:39, Mark 14:36, and Luke 22:42). In connection with the synoptic accounts it is mentioned in Jesus’ prayer; this occurrence certainly complements the synoptic accounts if Jesus had only shortly before finished praying about this. Only here in the Fourth Gospel is it specifically said that the cup is given to Jesus to drink by the Father, but again this is consistent with the synoptic mention of the cup in Jesus’ prayer: it is the cup of suffering which Jesus is about to undergo.

2 C Jesus is interrogated by Annas (18:12-27)

1 D Jesus is brought before Annas (18:12-14)

18:12 sunevlabon toVn =Ihsou'n kaiV e[dhsan aujtoVn We are told that the cohort and the Roman commander and the temple police arrested Jesus and bound him. Why does John mention the binding of Jesus, a detail omitted by the synoptics, especially in light of the Johannine portrayal of the arrest as something that Jesus permits to take place? Surely under these circumstances there was no question of escape; everything in the account suggests that Jesus accompanies his captors willingly. It may well be that the Evangelist is suggesting an allusion to another willing victim: Isaac, who in Gen 22:9 allowed himself to be bound to the altar.

oJ cilivarco" In Greek this term literally describes the “commander of a thousand,” but it was used as the standard translation for the Latin tribunus militum or tribunus militare, the military tribune who commanded a cohort of 600 men.

18:13 proV" ”Annan They took Jesus first to Annas. Only the Gospel of John mentions this pre-trial hearing before Annas, and that Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who is said to be high priest in that year. Caiaphas is also mentioned as being high priest in 11:49. But in 18:15, 16, 19, and 22 Annas is called high priest. Annas is also referred to as high priest by Luke in Acts 4:6. Many scholars have dismissed these references as mistakes on the part of both Luke and John, but as mentioned above, John 11:49 and 18:13 indicate that John knew that Caiaphas was high priest in the year that Jesus was crucified. This has led others to suggest that Annas and Caiaphas shared the high priesthood, but there is no historical evidence to support this view. Annas had been high priest from AD 6 - AD 15 when he was deposed by the Roman prefect Valerius Gratus (according to Josephus, Antiquities 18.2.2). His five sons all eventually became high priests. The family was noted for its greed, wealth and power.

There are a number of ways the references in both Luke and John to Annas being high priest may be explained. Some Jews may have refused to recognize the changes in high priests effected by the Roman authorities, since according to the Torah the high priesthood was a lifetime office (Num 25:25). Another possibility is that it was simply customary to retain the title after a person had left the office as a courtesy, much as we continue to refer to retired ambassadors as “Mr. Ambassador” or ex-presidents as “Mr. President”. Finally, the use of the title by Luke and John may simply be a reflection of the real power behind the high priesthood of the time: although Annas no longer technically held the office, he may well have managed to control those relatives of his who did hold it from behind the scenes. In fact this seems most probable and would also explain why Jesus was brought to him immediately after his arrest for a sort of “pre-trial hearing” before being sent on to the entire Sanhedrin.

18:14 h deV Kai>avfa" This verse is an explanatory note by the Evangelist reminding the reader that Caiaphas is the same Caiaphas who counselled the Jewish authorities in 11:49-50 that it was expedient for one man to die for the nation. His prophecy is about to be fulfilled, but in a way he did not expect.

2 D Peter gains entry to the courtyard of the high priest and denies Jesus for the first time (18:15-18)

18:15 =Hkolouvqei deV tw'/ =Ihsou' Peter and another unnamed disciple followed Jesus after his arrest. Because that disciple was known to the high priest (a reference to Annas, see the note on verse 13 above) he was allowed access to the courtyard of the high priest.

The identity of the unnamed disciple in 18:15. Many have associated this unnamed disciple with the Beloved Disciple, that is, John son of Zebedee, mainly because the phrase a[llo" maqhthv" which occurs here is also used to describe the Beloved Disciple in 20:2, 3, 4, and 8. Peter is also closely associated with the Beloved Disciple in 13:23-26, 20:2-10, 21:7, and 21:20-23. But other identifications have also been proposed, chiefly because verse 16 states that this disciple who was accompanied by Peter was known to the high priest. As Barrett points out, the term gnwstovV" is used in the LXX to refer to a close friend (Ps 54:14 LXX [55:14 English text]).¹⁴⁰ This raises what for some is an insurmountable difficulty in identifying the “other disciple” as John son of Zebedee, since how could the uneducated son of an obscure Galilean fisherman be known to such a powerful and influential family in Jerusalem? E. A. Abbott proposed that the “other disciple” who accompanied Peter was Judas, since he was the one disciple of whom it is said explicitly (in the synoptic accounts) that he had dealings with the high priest.¹⁴¹ E. A. Tindall suggested the disciple was Nicodemus, who as a member of the Sanhedrin, would have had access to the high priest’s palace.¹⁴² Both of these suggestions, while ingenious, nevertheless lack support from the text of the Fourth Gospel itself or the synoptic accounts. W. Wuellner argued that the common attitude concerning the low social status and ignorance of the disciples from Galilee may in fact be a misconception.¹⁴³ Zebedee is presented in Mark 1:20 as a man wealthy enough to have hired servants, and Mark 10:35-45 presents both of the sons of Zebedee as concerned about status and prestige. John’s mother appears in the same light in Matt 20:20-28. Contact with the high priestly family in Jerusalem might not be so unlikely in such circumstances. Others have noted the possibility that John came from a priestly family, some of which is based upon a statement in Eusebius quoting Polycrates that John son of Zebedee was a priest.¹⁴⁴ For further information on possible priestly connections among members of John’s family see the discussion in L. Morris.¹⁴⁵ None of this can be proven beyond doubt, but on the whole it seems most probable that the disciple who accompanied Peter and gained entry into the courtyard for him was John son of Zebedee.

18:16 oJ deV Pevtro" eiJsthvkei proV" th'/ quvra/ Although the “other disciple” is permitted into the courtyard, Peter was left standing outside. So the “other disciple” came back out and spoke to the servant-girl who kept the gate (the noun qurwrov" may be either masculine or feminine, but the article here indicates that it is feminine). She then permitted Peter to enter the courtyard.

18:17 hJ paidivskh hJ qurwrov" This was the maid servant to whom the “other disciple” spoke when he gained entrance for Peter into the courtyard (18:16). Her question to Peter, “You also are not one of the disciples of this man, are you?” provokes Peter’s first denial of Jesus. Since the question is preceded by mhv it expects a negative answer. Perhaps Peter was caught a bit off guard by the question and, since it was phrased to anticipate a negative answer, he found it easy to give one. But having given this denial, it would be hard to go back and admit the truth. It is very possible that the Evangelist wants us to contrast the response of Peter here and in 18:25, oujk eijmiv, with Jesus’ confession in the garden in 18:5 and 8, ejgwv eijmi. Jesus confessed openly who he was in order to protect his disciples (see above, verse 8), while Peter was not even able to admit openly that he was one of Jesus’ disciples.

18:18 kaiV oJ Pevtro" met= aujtw'n After the first denial Peter remained in the courtyard, warming himself near the charcoal fire with the servants and officers of the chief priests. Some of these latter (oiJ uJphrevtai) would have been members of the party that arrested Jesus and brought him to Annas’ residence. Certainly some of these might have seen Peter in the garden, but the danger might not have been as great as some have supposed, since it was dark and shadowy. Charcoal fires do not give off a great deal of light.

3 D Annas questions Jesus and sends him to Caiaphas (18:19-24)

18:19 'O ou ajrciereuV" hjrwvthsen toVn =Ihsou'n Annas, referred to here as the high priest (cf. note on verse 13; verse 24 implies that Caiaphas was not present), interrogated Jesus in two areas: concerning his disciples and concerning his teaching. The nature of this hearing seems to be more that of a preliminary investigation; certainly normal legal procedure was not followed, for no indication is given that any witnesses were brought forth at this point to testify against Jesus. True to what we know of Annas’ character, he is more interested in Jesus’ disciples than in the precise nature of Jesus’ teaching, since he inquires about the followers first. He really wanted to know just how influential Jesus had become and how large a following he had gathered. This was of more concern to Annas that the truth or falsity of Jesus’ teaching.

18:20 ajpekrivqh aujtw'/ =Ihsou'" Jesus’ reply centered on the second line of Annas’ questioning and ignored the first. Perhaps he was still protecting his own, just as in the garden (cf. 18:8), when he directed the attention of the authorities away from his disciples.

ejjgwV parrhsiva/ lelavlhka tw'/ kovsmw/ Jesus’ reply to Annas that everything he had said had been said openly, not in secret, agrees with previous statements in the Fourth Gospel: in 7:26 the people noted that Jesus spoke openly and wondered if the authorities were giving tacit approval to what he was saying because they did nothing to stop him. 11:54 also seems to imply that Jesus’ normal procedure prior to this point near the end of his public ministry had been to walk openly among the Jews as he taught. This does not mean that there was nothing obscure about Jesus’ teaching (10:24 makes it plain that some of the Jews wished Jesus to speak more plainly about his messianic claims), but simply that Jesus did not attempt to press his messianic claims in secret. Obviously he had private conversations; the Fourth Gospel records two significant ones (with Nicodemus and with the Samaritan woman at the well). It may well be that Annas in his questioning of Jesus was really concerned with whether he was a revolutionary plotting a rebellion against the Romans. In regard to this Jesus could say that he had engaged in no secret plots; his teaching was done openly and in public for the most part, for all to hear.

18:21 tiv me ejrwta'/"… At this point Jesus becomes the questioner: he asks Annas, “Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard what I said to them; behold, these know what I said.” It may well be that Jesus is here refusing to answer a self-incriminating question and instead demanding to be tried with witnesses, as the Law provided. This may be a further indication that the interrogation by Annas was not a formal trial.

18:22 ei|" paresthkwV" tw'n uJphretw'n e[dwken rJavpisma tw'/ =Ihsou' Jesus had taken the initiative in his question to Annas in verse 21, and this was understood by one of the officers of the temple police standing by as an insult to the high priest. The officer responded by slapping Jesus across the face. The force of the officer’s question to Jesus implies a rebuke: “Is that any way to answer the high priest?” Implicit is a reference to Exod 22:28, which states: “You shall not curse God, nor curse (say something wrong about) a ruler of your people.”

18:23 ajpekrivqh aujtw'/ =Ihsou'" Jesus replied to the indignity thus: “If I have spoken wrongly, testify concerning the wrong [say what it is that I have done]; but if [I have spoken] rightly, why do you strike me?” Jesus demonstrated such an attitude toward sin in 8:46: “Which of you convicts me of sin?” Jesus knew that according to the Law he was entitled to have witnesses brought in (Deut 17:6, 19:15), and he had done nothing wrong in insisting that the Law be followed.

18:24 ajpevsteilen ou aujtoVn oJ ”Anna" Perhaps because the preliminary inquiry was getting nowhere, or because Jesus was insisting on a formal hearing with witnesses according to the Law, Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas. Where was Caiaphas located? Did he have a separate palace, or was he somewhere else with the Sanhedrin? Since Augustine a number of scholars have proposed that Annas and Caiaphas resided in different wings of the same palace, which were bound together by a common courtyard through which Jesus would have been led as he was taken from Annas to Caiaphas. This seems a reasonable explanation, although there is no conclusive evidence.

4 D Peter denies Jesus for the second and third times (18:25-27)

18:25 Hn deV Sivmwn Pevtro" Here dev could be translated “meanwhile”—the Evangelist is now returning to the events taking place outside in the courtyard while Jesus was being interrogated inside the palace by Annas. The phrase eJstwV" kaiV qermainovmeno" is repeated from verse 18 and indicates the connection with the scene of the previous denial. This time the questioners are not specified but we may presume from the bystanders mentioned in verse 18 that they were either servants of the high priest’s household or officers of the temple police who had participated in Jesus’ arrest in the garden. Again, as in the previous question by the maidservant which occasioned Peter’s first denial (verse 17), the question to Peter presupposed a negative response, which Peter quickly gave.

18:26 levgei ei|" ejk tw'n douvlwn tou' ajrcierevw" Again a third time a question is raised concerning Peter’s allegiance, and the Evangelist specifies that this time it was a relative of Malchus (whose ear Peter had cut off in the garden, cf. verse 10) who asked. Here was someone who had a real interest in Peter’s identity, since he was related to the man Peter had injured. His question, unlike the first two, is phrased with oujk so as to anticipate a positive response; he is more confident of the charge he is putting forward: “Did I not see you in the garden with him?”

18:27 pavlin ou hjrnhvsato Pevtro" For the third time Peter denies his association with Jesus. This time his words are not recorded by the Evangelist, but only the statement that he denied Jesus. No indication is given of Peter’s emotional state at this third denial (as in Matt 26:74 and Mark 14:71) or that he remembered that Jesus had foretold the denials (Matt 26:75, Mark 14:72 and Luke 22:61), or the bitter remorse Peter felt afterwards (Matt 26:75, Mark 14:72, and Luke 22:62).

eujqevw" ajlevktwr ejfwvnhsen Immediately after Peter’s third denial a cock crowed. It seems most likely that this refers to a real cockcrow, although a number of scholars have suggested that this is a technical term referring to the trumpet call which ended the third watch of the night (from midnight to 3 a.m.). This would then be a reference to the Roman gallicinium (in Greek, ajlektorofwniva) which would have been sounded at 3 a.m.; in this case Jesus would have prophesied a precise time by which the denials would have taken place.¹⁴⁶ In any event natural cockcrow would have occurred at approximately 3:00 a.m. in Palestine at this time of year (March-April) anyway.

3 C Jesus is brought before Pilate (18:28-19:16a)

The Fourth Gospel does not deal at all with the trial of Jesus before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, but alludes to it in 18:24 and 28. Much more attention is devoted to the Roman trial before Pilate. The Evangelist goes to great lengths to point out that Pilate himself testified to Jesus’ innocence (18:38, 19:4, and 19:6) and would have freed him had it not been for the manipulation of the Jewish authorities.

1 D The Jewish leaders present their accusation to Pilate (18:28-32)

18:28 “Agousin ou toVn =Ihsou'n ajpoV tou' Kai>avfa Who are “they” who led Jesus to Pilate from Caiaphas? Some of the officers of the chief priests, certainly; but it also appears likely that some members at least of the Sanhedrin who had been present at Jesus’ trial before Caiaphas must have accompanied him to Pilate to present their charges against him to the Roman governor. Their refusal to enter the praetorium lest they incur ceremonial defilement and Pilate’s accommodation in coming out to meet them both suggest that there were some influential people in the group.

eij" toV praitwvrion The permanent residence of the Roman governor of Palestine was in Caesarea (Acts 23:35). The governor had a residence in Jerusalem which he normally occupied only during principal feasts or in times of political unrest. The location of this building in Jerusalem is uncertain, but is probably one of two locations: either (a) the fortress or tower of Antonia, on the East Hill north of the Temple area, which is the traditional location of the Roman praetorium since the 12th century, or (b) the palace of Herod on the West hill near the present Jaffa Gate. According to Philo Pilate had some golden shields hung there.¹⁴⁷ According to Josephus the later Roman governor Florus stayed there.¹⁴⁸

i{na mhV mianqw'sin It is not precisely clear what type of ceremonial defilement was in view here. Acts 10:28 states that it was “unlawful” for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit such a person, but the exact nature of the defilement is not specified. Some have thought John to be in error here about the statement concerning the eating of the Passover on the next day since the type of ceremonial impurity the Jewish leaders would have incurred here could be removed by a bath at the end of the day. But this presumes to know the exact nature of the defilement; if it was connected to contact with a corpse, it would have lasted seven days. This may indeed by the case, since the Gentiles were suspected of burying their dead in or beneath their houses.¹⁴⁹

18:29 oJ Pila'to" Pilate is not here identified by the Evangelist as the Roman governor for the benefit of the readers. It is reasonable to assume that from the earliest times Christians who had heard the apostolic preaching were familiar with his name.

tivna kathgorivan fevrete Pilate’s first words to Jesus’ accusers were a question: “What acccusation do you bring against this man?” In light of the fact that Pilate had cooperated with them in Jesus’ arrest by providing Roman soldiers, the Jewish authorities were probably expecting Pilate to grant them permission to carry out their sentence on Jesus without resistance (the Jews were not permitted to exercise capital punishment under the Roman occupation without official Roman permission, cf. verse 31). They must have been taken somewhat by surprise by Pilate’s question, because it indicated that he was going to try the prisoner himself. Thus Pilate was regarding the trial before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin as only an inquiry and their decision as merely an accusation.

18:30 h ou|to" kakoVn poiw'n The real charge which the Jewish authorities wanted to bring against Jesus was theological, not political (this comes out finally in 19:7; cf. 10:33). But this would not stand up in a Roman court, and they knew it. (Perhaps they were caught somewhat unprepared by Pilate’s announcement that he intended to try the prisoner himself, see the previous verse.) So the Jewish authorities made a general statement that Jesus was an evildoer (h ou|to" kakoVn poiw'n, a semitic idiom) without mentioning a specific crime.

18:31 lavbete aujtoVn uJmei'" kaiV kataV toVn novmon uJmw'n krivnate aujtovn We may assume that Pilate, as the chief representative of Rome in a troubled area, was in Jerusalem for the passover because of the danger of an uprising (the normal residence for the Roman governor was in Caesarea as mentioned in Acts 23:35). At this time on the eve of the feast he would have been a busy and perhaps even a worried man. It is not surprising that he offered to hand Jesus back over to the Jewish authorities to pass judgment on him. It may well be that Pilate realized when no specific charge was mentioned that he was dealing with an internal dispute over some religious matter. Pilate wanted nothing to do with such matters. As far as the Evangelist is concerned, this points out who was really responsible for Jesus’ death: the Roman governor Pilate would have had nothing to do with it if he had not been pressured by the Jewish authorities, upon whom the real responsibility rested.

hJmi'n oujk e[xestin ajpoktei'nai oujdevna The Jewish authorities raised an objection, however, when Pilate tried to give Jesus back over to them for trial: they were not permitted to carry out the death penalty. The historical background behind this statement is difficult to reconstruct. Scholars are divided over whether this statement in the Fourth Gospel accurately reflects the judicial situation between the Jewish authorities and the Romans in first-century Palestine. It appears that the Roman governor may have given the Jews the power of capital punishment for specific offenses, some of them religious (the death penalty for Gentiles caught trespassing in the inner courts of the Temple, for example). It is also pointed out that the Jewish authorities did carry out a number of executions, some of them specifically pertaining to Christians (Stephen, according to Acts 7:58-60; and James the Just, who was stoned in the 60s according to Josephus).¹⁵⁰ But Stephen’s death may be explained as a result of “mob violence” rather than a formal execution, and as Josephus in the above account goes on to point out, James was executed in the period between two Roman governors, and the high priest at the time was subsequently punished for the action. Two studies by A. N. Sherwin-White have tended to support the accuracy of John’s account.¹⁵¹ He concluded that the Romans kept very close control of the death penalty out of fear that in the hands of rebellious locals such power could be used to eliminate factions favorable or useful to Rome. A province as troublesome as Judea would not have been likely to be made an exception to this.

18:32 i{na oJ lovgo" tou' =Ihsou' plhrwqh'/ Here we have a parenthetical note by the Evangelist, who sees Jesus’ trial and execution by the Romans as a fulfillment of Jesus’ own words concerning the nature of his death. The “word” of Jesus to which the Evangelist refers must be recorded in 12:32, because 12:33 contains exactly the same explanatory phrase found here: tou'to deV e[legen shmaivnwn poivw/ qanavtw/ h[mellen ajpoqnhv/skein. If the Jewish authorities had been able to execute Jesus themselves, they would have done so by stoning. For Jesus’ prophetic words concerning the manner of his death (being lifted up from the earth, 12:32) to be fulfilled, he would have to be executed by the Romans, not by stoning but by crucifixion.

2 D Pilate questions Jesus concerning his kingship (18:33-38a)

18:33 Eijsh'lqen ou pavlin Pilate at this point went back inside the praetorium to question Jesus (it is not clear whether Jesus himself had been brought inside the praetorium prior to this). He asked Jesus, “Are You the King of the Jews?” It is difficult to discern Pilate’s attitude at this point. Some have believed the remark to be sarcastic or incredulous as Pilate looked upon this lowly and humble prisoner: “So You’re the King of the Jews, are You?” Others have thought the Roman governor to have been impressed by Jesus’ regal disposition and dignity, and to have sincerely asked, “Are You really the King of the Jews?” Since it will later become apparent (verse 38) that Pilate considered Jesus innocent (and therefore probably also harmless) an attitude of incredulity is perhaps most likely, but this is far from certain in the absence of clear contextual clues.

18:34 ajpekrivqh =Ihsou'" As with Annas (18:21) Jesus again becomes the Questioner. He asks Pilate, “From yourself do you say this, or have others spoken to you concerning me?” What is the significance of Jesus’ question? It would be important to know whether Pilate was asking from his own initiative or not, because it would determine to some degree how Jesus should reply to his question about being King of the Jews. If Pilate came up with this question on his own initiative, he was probably asking whether Jesus was a political conspirator, to which the answer would be that he was not. But if the question came to Pilate from the Jewish authorities, then it concerned whether or not Jesus was the messianic King, to which the answer would be yes.

18:35 ajpekrivqh oJ Pila'to" Pilate replied to Jesus’ question with another question of his own: “I am not a Jew, am I?” Many have seen in this reply the Roman contempt for the Jewish people. Some of that may indeed be present, but strictly speaking, all Pilate affirms is that he, as a Roman, has no firsthand knowledge of Jewish customs or belief. What he knows of Jesus must have come from the Jewish authorities. They are the ones (“Your own nation and the chief priests”) who have handed Jesus over to Pilate.

tiv ejpoivhsa"… Finally Pilate asks Jesus directly, “What have You done?” in order to get to the bottom of this. Pilate at this point really wants to know whether an offense against Roman law has taken place; then he can proceed to dispose of the case.

18:36 ajpekrivqh =Ihsou'" Jesus does not answer this last question of Pilate, but the former one, “Are You the King of the Jews?” (verse 33). He answers it affirmatively, since he does indeed have a kingdom. But Jesus qualifies his reply to make clear to Pilate that he is no political revolutionary: his kingdom is not of this world. This recalls Jesus’ prayer concerning his disciples in 17:11 and 16: both he and his disciples are in the world, but are not of the world. Jesus’ kingdom is a heavenly kingdom; it does not arise from the world but breaks in from outside the world, just as Jesus himself came down from heaven on a mission from the Father (cf. 1:14, 3:17, 16:28, etc.).

Jesus now supports his statement that his kingdom is not of this world by pointing out that if it were, he would have subjects who would have attempted to fight (hjgwnivzonto, conative imperfect) on his behalf. The absence of military resistance to Jesus’ arrest should indicate to Pilate that Jesus’ kingdom was not from here (ejnteu'qen). Actually Peter did try to resist (18:10-11), but Jesus ordered him to stop.

18:37 oujkou'n basileuV" ei su… Pilate infers on the basis of Jesus’ remarks that he is indeed some sort of king. How then are we to understand Jesus’ reply, “You say that I am a king” (suV levgei" o{ti basileuv" eijmi)? Is it to be understood as affirmative or negative? It seems best to understand it as a qualified affirmative reply. Jesus will not deny the conclusion of Pilate that he is a king, but points out, “It is you who have said it, not I”. Jesus goes on to explain his mission into the world in terms that he would prefer to use: “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, in order that I might bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Jesus had affirmed similar ideas previously in his teaching (8:32, 14:6).

18:38a tiv ejstin ajlhvqeia… With his reply “What is truth?” Pilate dismissed the matter. It is not clear what Pilate’s attitude was at this point, as above at verse 33. He may have been sarcastic, or perhaps somewhat reflective. We do not have enough information in the narrative to be sure.

3 D Pilate seeks to release Jesus but the crowd cries out for Barabbas instead (18:38b-40)

18:38b ejgwV oujdemivan euJrivskw ejn aujtw'/ aijtivan Pilate now makes his first attempt to have Jesus released. The Roman governor had satisfied himself that this man Jesus, whatever strange statements he might make about his origin and purpose, was no dangerous revolutionary. He could be released without further threat to Rome. So Pilate went back outside the praetorium to the Jewish authorities who were waiting and pronounced his judgment: “I find no case [no cause of guilt] against this man.” Pilate’s verdict of “not guilty” will be repeated two more time in 19:4 and 19:6.

18:39 e[stin deV sunhvqeia uJmi'n Pilate then offers to release Jesus, reminding the Jews that they have a custom that he release someone for them at the passover. There is no extra-biblical evidence to support the practice. It is, however, mentioned in all the synoptics, which describe it as a practice of Pilate (Mark 15:6, Luke 23:17) or of the Roman governor (Matt 27:15). These references may explain the lack of extra-biblical attestation: the custom to which Pilate refers here (18:39) is not a permanent one acknowledged by all the Roman governors, but one peculiar to Pilate as a means of appeasement, meant to better relations with his subjects. Such a limited meaning is certainly possible and consistent with the statement here, since Pilate says “You have a custom that I release one [prisoner] for you at the passover”.

18:40 mhV tou'ton ajllaV toVn Barabba'n The crowd outside the praetorium (speaking up for the first time in the context; pavlin may well have a meaning like “thereupon” here) refuse Jesus and ask for Barabbas, described by the Evangelist in a parenthetical note as a “robber” (lh/sthv"). This word is used a number of times by Josephus to describe the revolutionaries or guerrilla fighters who, from mixed motives of nationalism and greed, kept the rural districts of Judea in constant turmoil.¹⁵²

oJ Barabba'" The name Barabbas itself in Aramaic means “son of abba,” that is, “son of the father” and presumably the man in question had another name (it may also have been Jesus, according to the textual variant in Matt 27:16, although this is uncertain). It is probable that for the Evangelist this name held ironic significance: the crowd was asking for the release of a man called Barabbas, “son of the father,” while Jesus, who was truly the Son of the Father, was condemned to die instead.

¹³⁹Morris, The Gospel According to John, 743-44.

¹⁴⁰Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 525.

¹⁴¹E. A. Abbott, Expository Times 25 (1913/14): 149-50.

¹⁴²E. A. Tindall, Expository Times 28 (1916/17): 283-84.

¹⁴³W. Wuellner, The Meaning of “Fishers of Men” (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967).

¹⁴⁴Ecclesiastical History 3.31.3.

¹⁴⁵Morris, The Gospel According to John, 752, n. 32.

¹⁴⁶For more details see J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, 2:604.

¹⁴⁷Embassy to Gaius 38 [299].

¹⁴⁸Jewish War 2.301; 328.

¹⁴⁹This practice is alluded to in the Temple Scroll from Qumran, 1st century BC; cf. Y. Yadin, BA 30 (1967): 137.

¹⁵⁰Antiquities 20.9.1 [200].

¹⁵¹A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 1-47; also “The Trial of Christ” in Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament (London: SPCK, 1965), 97-116.

¹⁵²Jewish War 2.13.2-3 [253-54].

22. Exegetical Commentary on John 19

OUTLINE:

[3 B The Passion: the arrest, trials, death, and burial of Jesus (18:1-19:42)]

[3 C Jesus is brought before Pilate (18:28-19:16a)]

4 D Jesus is scourged and mocked by the Roman soldiers (19:1-3)

5 D Pilate again seeks to release Jesus, but the crowd cries out for crucifixion (19:4-7)

6 D Pilate questions Jesus a second time, concerning his identity and authority (19:8-11)

7 D Pilate yields to the demand of the Jewish leaders to crucify Jesus (19:12-16a)

4 C Jesus is crucified, dies, and is buried (19:16b-42)

1 D The crucifixion of Jesus (19:16b-18)

2 D Pilate and his inscription (19:19-22)

3 D The soldiers divide Jesus’ garments and cast lots for his tunic (19:23-24)

4 D Jesus gives the care of his mother to John (the beloved disciple) (19:25-27)

5 D Jesus cries out in thirst and is given wine (19:28-29)

6 D Jesus gives over the Spirit (19:30)

7 D Jesus’ side is pierced (19:31-37)

8 D Jesus’ body is buried by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus (19:38-42)

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Bampfylde, G., “John XIX. 28, a Case for a Different Translation,” Novum Testamentum 11 (1969): 247-60.

Barton, G. A., “‘A Bone of Him Shall Not Be Broken,’ John 19:36,” Journal of Biblical Literature 49 (1930): 12-18.

Dunlop, L., “The Pierced Side: Focal Point of Johannine Theology,” Bible Today 86 (1976): 960-65.

Fitzmyer, J. A., “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978): 493-513.

Ford, J. M., “‘Mingled Blood’ from the Side of Christ (John xix. 34),” New Testament Studies 15 (1968/69): 337-38.

Hart, H. St. J., “The Crown of Thorns in John 19, 2-5,” Journal of Theological Studies 3 (1952): 66-75.

Kerrigan, A., “John 19, 25-27 in the Light of Johannine Theology and the Old Testament,” Antonianum 35 (1960): 369-416.

Koehler, T., “The Sacramental Theory in Joh 19, 1-27,” University of Dayton Review 5 (1968): 49-58.

Langkammer, H., “Christ’s ‘Last Will and Testament’ (Jn 19, 26-27) in the Interpretation of the Fathers of the Church and the Scholastics,” Antonianum 43 (1968): 99-109.

Michaels, J. R., “The Centurion’s Confession and the Spear Thrust (John 19:34ff),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 29 (1967): 102-9.

Mulder, H., “John 18, 28 and the Date of the Cruxification,” in Miscellanea Neotestamentica 2, ed. T. Baarda, A. F. J. Klijn, and W. C. van Unnik, Novum Testamentum Supplement 48 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978): 87-107.

O’Rourke, J. J., “Two Notes on St. John’s Gospel,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1963): 124-28.

Sava, A. F., “The Wound in the Side of Christ,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 19 (1957): 343-46.

Spurrell, J. M., “An Interpretation of ‘I Thirst’,” Church Quarterly Review 167 (1966): 12-18.

Twomey, J. J., “Barabbas was a Robber,” Scripture 8 (1956): 115-19.

Wead, D. W., “‘We Have a Law’: John 19:7,” Novum Testamentum 11 (1969): 185-89.

Wilkinson, J., “The Incident of the ‘Blood and Water’ in John 19:34,” Scottish Journal of Theology 28 (1975): 149-72.

Zeitlin, S., “The Date of the Crucifixion according to the Fourth Gospel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 51 (1932): 263-71.

Zerwick, M., “The Hour of the Mother—John 19:25-27,” Bible Today 1 (1965): 1187-94.

DETAILED EXEGETICAL NOTES:

4 D Jesus is scourged and mocked by the Roman soldiers (19:1-3)

Introduction. Pilate has failed in his first attempt to free Jesus (18:38b-40). It appears that his actions in having Jesus scourged are best explained as another attempt on his part to release Jesus by giving the authorities the satisfaction of seeing Jesus subjected to flogging and public ridicule. Probably Pilate hoped that this would be enough for them, and they would then consent to Jesus’ release. But Pilate failed to understand the depth of hatred which the authorities had for Jesus or the lengths to which they were willing to go to see him killed.

19:1 ejmastivgwsen Literally, of course, this was not done by Pilate but his officers, who took Jesus at Pilate’s order and scourged him. The Evangelist’s choice of wording here may constitute an allusion to Isa 50:6, “I gave my back to those who scourge me…”.

Three forms of corporal punishment were employed by the Romans, in increasing degree of severity: (1) fustigatio (beating), (2) flagellatio (flogging), and (3) verberatio (scourging). The first could be on occasion a punishment in itself, but the more severe forms were part of the capital sentence as a prelude to crucifixion. The most severe, verberatio, is what is indicated here by the Greek verb mastigovw. Men died on occasion while being scourged; frequently it was severe enough to rip a person’s body open or cut muscle and sinew to the bone.

19:2 plevxante" stevfanon ejx ajkanqw'n After the scourging Jesus was mocked by the Roman soldiers who had scourged him. They wove a crown of thorns and placed it on his head, and cast about him a cloak of royal purple.

stevfanon ejx ajkanqw'n This was a crown plaited of some thorny material, intended as a mockery of Jesus’ “kingship”. Traditionally it has been regarded as an additional instrument of torture, but it seems more probable the purpose of the thorns was not necessarily to inflict more physical suffering but to imitate the spikes of the “radiant corona,” a type of crown portrayed on ruler’s heads on many coins of the period; the spikes on this type of crown represented rays of light pointing outward (the best contemporary illustration is the crown on the head of the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor).

iJmavtion porfurou'n John here specifies only a “purple garment,” but according to Matt 27:28 this was a clamuv", the outer cloak worn by governmental officials and soldiers.

19:3 kaiV h[rconto proV" aujtoVn kaiV e[legon Repeatedly (note the imperfect tense) the soldiers came up to Jesus and mocked him with the exclamation, “Hail, King of the Jews!” and gave him slaps (cf. 18:22).

5 D Pilate again seeks to release Jesus, but the crowd cries out for crucifixion (19:4-7)

19:4 KaiV ejxh'lqen pavlin e[xw It appears that the scourging took place inside the praetorium, since Pilate went out to the Jewish authorities in 18:38 and presumably came inside again in 19:1 for the scourging. Now he went out again. He said to the Jewish authorities, “Behold, I am bringing him outside to you, in order that you may know that I find no case [no cause of guilt] against him.” This is the second time Pilate has proclaimed Jesus “not guilty”; the first was in 18:38.

19:5 ejxh'lqen ou oJ =Ihsou'" e[xw So Pilate had Jesus brought out, still wearing the thorny crown (toVn ajkavnqinon stevfanon, cf. the phrase in 19:2) and the purple cloak. Pilate presented Jesus before the crowd outside the praetorium saying, “Behold the man!” (ijdouV oJ a[nqrwpo"). Pilate may have meant no more than something like “Here is the accused!” or in a contemptous way, “Here is your king!” Others have taken Pilate’s statement as intended to evoke pity from Jesus’ accusers: “Look at this poor fellow!” (Jesus would certainly not have looked very impressive after the scourging). For the Evangelist, however, Pilate’s words may constitute an unconscious allusion to Zech 6:12, “Behold, a man whose name is [the] Branch…”. In this case Pilate was (unknowingly and ironically) presenting Jesus to the nation under a messianic title!

19:6 stauvrwson stauvrwson This time the reaction of the high priests and officers of the temple police is even more hostile than in 18:40, where they cried out for Barabbas. This time they insist that Jesus be crucified. This should come as no surprise to a reader of the Fourth Gospel, since Jesus spoke of his death by crucifixion in 12:32-33; these words of Jesus were alluded to again in 18:32.

levgei aujtoi'" oJ Pila'to" In answer to this call for crucifixion, Pilate said to them, “You take him and crucify him.” How are we to understand Pilate’s words? Was he offering a serious alternative to the priests who wanted Jesus crucified? Was he offering them an exception to the statement in 18:31 that the Jewish authorities did not have the power to carry out a death penalty? Although a few scholars have suggested that the situation was at this point so far out of Pilate’s control that he really was telling the high priests they could go ahead and crucify a man he had found to be innocent, this seems unlikely. It is far more probable that we should understand Pilate’s statement here as one of frustration and perhaps sarcasm. This seems to be supported by the context, for the Jews make no attempt at this point to seize Jesus and crucify him. Rather they continue to pester Pilate to order the crucifixion.

19:7 hJmei'" novmon e[comen Realizing that they must be more direct in their charges against Jesus if they are to succeed in their plan to have Pilate crucify him, the Jewish authorities finally admit their real grievance against Jesus: he was worthy of the death penalty because he had broken the law (i.e., blasphemed) by making himself to be Son of God. The law to which they refer was not the entire Pentateuch, but one specific law, the law against blasphemy (Lev 24:16) which called for the death penalty for offenders.

It is now clear that the real accusation against Jesus was theological: it concerned his claim to be intimately related to God. The Jewish authorities had reacted violently to this claim before (cf. 5:18, 8:59).

6 D Pilate questions Jesus a second time, concerning his identity and authority (19:8-11)

19:8 ”Ote ou h[kousen oJ Pila'to" tou'ton toVn lovgon, ma'llon ejfobhvqh… The Evangelist has not explicitly stated before that Pilate was afraid. But there is a hint of fear in the hesitancy Pilate had already exhibited in dealing with this man whom he thought at first to be just another revolutionary. There are a number of possible explanations for Pilate’s apprehension, but it seems best to regard him as superstituous. He appeared to have been impressed with Jesus when he talked with him earlier (18:33-38), and now when he hears that his prisoner has made claims of divinity, he is really worried.

19:9 kaiV eijsh'lqen eij" toV praitwvrion pavlin… In verses 4 and 5 Pilate had brought Jesus out and presented him before the crowd. No mention is made of Jesus going back inside the praetorium, but it is reasonable to assume that Pilate, in the face of the shouting (verse 6) had him brought back inside.

kaiV levgei tw'/ =Ihsou' Now Pilate began to question the prisoner again. His interest in Jesus’ origin is easily explained by the statement of the Jewish authorities in verse 7 that he made himself to be Son of God. So Pilate asked Jesus, “Where are You from?” For the moment Jesus was silent; he gave Pilate no answer to this question (although he will speak again in verse 11). Had Jesus answered this question of Pilate it is unlikely Pilate could have, or would have, believed it.

19:10 ejmoiV ouj lalei'"… Pilate’s reaction is understandable. He has been frustrated by the Jewish authorities in his attempt to release Jesus; twice he has told them he has found the prisoner “not guilty” and their reaction has become progressively more vehement. Now his prisoner adds to his frustration by what must have appeared to Pilate as a stubborn refusal to reply to a reasonable question. So, not surprisingly, Pilate reminds his prisoner who he is, and that he (Pilate) as the bearer of the imperium (the imperial power of Rome) has the power of life and death over the accused.

19:11 oujk eice" ejxousivan kat= ejmou' oujdemivan eij mhV h dedomevnon soi a[nwqen Pilate has reminded Jesus that he bears the imperium, the imperial power of Rome, on behalf of Caesar. Now Jesus tells Pilate that he would have no authority over him at all unless it came to him not from Caesar but from God. (On the word a[nwqen see the notes on 3:3; note that 3:27 also expresses a very similar thought: “A man can receive nothing, unless it has been given to him from heaven”.)

oJ paradouv" mev soi We might take this as a reference to Judas at first; but Judas did not deliver Jesus up to Pilate, but to the Jewish authorities. The singular may be a reference to Caiaphas, who as high priest was representative of all the Jewish authorities, or it may be a generic singular referring to all the Jewish authorities directly. In either case the end result is more or less the same.

meivzona aJmartivan e[cei Because Pilate has no authority over Jesus except that which has been given to him from God, the one who handed Jesus over to Pilate is guilty of greater sin. This does not absolve Pilate of guilt; it simply means his guilt is less than those who handed Jesus over to him, because he is not acting against Jesus out of deliberate hatred or calculated malice, like the Jewish authorities. These are thereby guilty of greater sin.

7 D Pilate yields to the demand of the Jewish leaders to crucify Jesus (19:12-16a)

19:12 ejk touvtou The meaning of this prepositional phrase is temporal (“from this time”) but may in context have causal or inferential force (cf. 6:66 for a similar use with similar ambiguity). Pilate was further convinced of Jesus’ innocence, and made futher efforts to have him released. He appears to have gone back outside to speak with the Jewish authorities. They would have none of this, however, and began to cry out, “If you release this one, you are no friend of Caesar. Everyone who makes himself to be king opposes Caesar.”

fivlo" tou' Kaivsaro" Is the Evangelist using the phrase in a technical sense, as a title bestowed on people for loyal service to the Emperor, or in a more general sense merely describing a person as loyal to the Emperor? L. Morris thinks it is “unlikely” that the title is used in the technical sense.¹⁵³ Bernard argues that the technical sense of the phrase as an official title was not used before the time of Vespasian (AD 69-79).¹⁵⁴ But there appears to be significant evidence for much earlier usage.¹⁵⁵ E. Bammel listed significant and convincing arguments that the official title was indeed in use at the time.¹⁵⁶

Granting that the title was in use during this period, what is the likelihood that it had been bestowed on Pilate? Pilate was of the equestrian order, that is, of lower nobility as opposed to senatorial rank. As such he would have been eligible to receive such an honor. It also appears that the powerful Sejanus was his patron in Rome, and Sejanus held considerable influence with Tiberius. Tacitus quoted Marcus Terentius in his defense before the Senate as saying that close friendship with Sejanus “was in every case a powerful recommendation to the Emperor’s friendship.”¹⁵⁷ Thus it seems quite likely that Pilate held this honor.

Therefore it appears that the Jewish authorities were putting a good deal of psychological pressure on Pilate to convict Jesus. They had, in effect, finally specified the charge against Jesus as treason: “Everyone who makes himself to be king opposes Caesar”. If Pilate now failed to convict Jesus the Jewish authorities could complain to Rome that Pilate had released a traitor. This possibility carried more weight with Pilate than might at first be evident: (1) Pilate’s record as governor was not entirely above reproach; (2) Tiberius, who lived away from Rome as a virtual recluse on the island of Capri, was known for his suspicious nature, especially toward rivals or those who posed a political threat; and (3) worst of all, Pilate’s patron in Rome, Sejanus, had recently come under suspicion of plotting to seize the imperial succession for himself. Sejanus was deposed in October AD 31. It may have been to Sejanus that Pilate owed his appointment in Judea. Pilate was now in a very delicate position. The Jewish authorities may have known something of this and deliberately used it as leverage against him. Whether or not they knew just how potent their veiled threat was, it had the desired effect. Pilate went directly to the bhvma (bhma, “judgment seat”) to pronounce his judgment.

19:13 oJ ou Pila'to" ajkouvsa" Thus, when Pilate heard that the charge against Jesus was now treason, and realized that if he did not crucify Jesus as the Jewish authorities were wanting him to do, they would report to Rome that he had released a political prisoner who was a traitor, his fear overcame his reservations about Jesus’ innocence. He brought Jesus outside and took his seat on the bhma to pronounce sentence.

Liqovstrwton (Liqostrwton) This is something of a generic term for “stone pavement” (it was used in the LXX of 2 Chr 7:3 to describe the pavement of Solomon’s temple). The precise location is still uncertain, although a paved court on the lower level of the Fortress Antonia has been suggested. It is not certain whether it was laid prior to AD 135, however.

Gabbaqav (Gabbatha) The Evangelist does not say this is the Aramaic (or Hebrew) translation for Liqovstrwton. He simply points out that in Aramaic (or Hebrew) the place had another name. A number of meanings have been suggested, but the most likely appears to mean “elevated place”. It is possible that this was a term used by the common people for the bhvma itself, which always stood on a raised platform.

19:14 h deV paraskeuhV tou' pavsca The term paraskeuhv, “the day of preparation,” appears in all the Gospels as a description of the day on which Jesus died. It could refer to any Friday as the day of preparation for the Sabbath (Saturday), and this is the way the synoptic gospels use the term (Matt 27:62, Mark 15:42, and Luke 23:54). John, however, specifies in addition that this was not only the day of preparation of the Sabbath, but also the day of preparation of the passover, so that the Sabbath on the following day was the passover (cf. 19:31).

For a survey of the various options in reconciling the Johannine account with the synoptics, see L. Morris.¹⁵⁸ It seems that his solution, that different calendrical systems were being followed by John versus the synoptists, is the best, although it is not without problems. A more recent discussion at much greater length which adopts essentially the same solution as Morris is that of I. H. Marshall.¹⁵⁹

h wJ" e{kth John also records that Jesus’ condemnation took place about the sixth hour. It does not appear likely that the Fourth Gospel is reckoning from midnight (Roman legal time) as B. F. Westcott believed (cf. the note on 1:39). Thus, counting from 6:00 a.m., the time would be around noon.

This creates a problem with the time of the crucifixion given in Mark 15:25, which specifies the third hour. Under the same reckoning this would be around 9:00 a.m. A number of proposals have been made which attempt to resolve the difficulty short of dismissing either John’s or Mark’s account. Barrett mentions a possible transcriptional error resulting from confusion of the Greek characters for 3 [G] and 6 [digamma].¹⁶⁰ This is interesting, but obviously there is no way to discover if such a confusion actually took place. (Barrett himself thinks John altered the time for theological reasons.) It seems simplest to say that neither Mark nor John were giving precise time references (such were impossible in a world where time was reckoned by the approximate position of the sun in the sky). John, by the inclusion of wJ" (“about”), makes it clear that his reference is only approximate. The difference between sometime late in the third hour and sometime early in the sixth would be only about 15 of arc. Both expressions could easily refer to sometime later in the morning, just prior to noon.

For John, the time is especially important. When the note concerning the hour is connected with the day, the preparation of the passover, it becomes apparent that Jesus is going to die on the cross at the very time that the passover lambs are being slain in the temple courts. Exod 12:6 required that the passover lamb be kept alive until the 14th Nisan, the eve of the passover, and then slaughtered by the head of the household at twilight (literally, “between the two evenings”). By this time the slaughtering was no longer done by the heads of households, but by the priests in the temple courts. But so many lambs were needed for the tens of thousands of pilgrims who came to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast (some estimates run in excess of 100,000) that the slaughter could not be completed during the evening, and so the rabbis redefined “between the two evenings” as beginning at noon, when the sun began to decline toward the horizon. Thus the priests had the entire afternoon of 14th Nisan in which to complete the slaughter of the passover lambs. According to the Fourth Gospel, this is the time Jesus was dying on the cross.

i[de oJ basileuV" uJmw'n So Pilate spoke once more to the Jewish authorities, saying, “Behold, your King.” Perhaps Pilate was using one last bit of mockery as a final attempt to gain sympathy for Jesus’ release. But for the Evangelist, there is irony in Pilate’s words: Jesus really was their King (cf. 1:11).

19:15 a on a on, stauvrwson aujtovn The crowd’s response was swift and vocal: “Away [with him]! Away [with him]! Crucify him!” The cry for crucifixion is again raised as it was in 19:6. There may be a Johannine word-play in the cry of the crowd, since the verb aijrevw means both “to take away” and “to raise up,” in which case the crowd is crying out for Jesus to be raised up on the cross.

Pilate asked one final question: “Shall I crucify your King?,” to which the Jewish authorities (here specified as the high priests) responded, “We have no King except Caesar,” a reminder to Pilate of the difficult position in which he found himself (see discussion at vv. 12-13).

19:16a Tovte ou parevdwken aujtoVn aujtoi'" So Pilate “handed him over to them in order that he be crucified”. The nearest antecedent of aujtoi'" is the high priests in the preceding verse, but it seems clear that the Jewish authorities did not carry out the sentence. John 19:23 makes it plain that Roman soldiers were involved (as in all three of the synoptic accounts). The point is that Pilate handed Jesus over to their will; that is, the Jewish authorities got what they had wanted all along: the order for Jesus to be crucified.

4 C Jesus is crucified, dies, and is buried (19:16b-42)

1 D The crucifixion of Jesus (19:16b-18)

19:16b-17 Parevlabon ou toVn =Ihsou'n It was the Roman soldiers (and not the high priests, cf. aujtoi'" in the previous verse) who took charge of Jesus at this point, as becomes clear in verse 23.

bastavzwn eJautw'/ toVn stauroVn As was customary practice in a Roman crucifixion, the prisoner was made to carry his own cross. In all probability this was only the crossbeam, called in Latin the patibulum, since the upright beam usually remained in the ground at the place of execution. According to Matt 27:32 and Mark 15:21, the soldiers forced Simon to take the cross; Luke 23:26 states that the cross was placed on Simon so that it might be carried behind Jesus. A reasonable explanation of all this is that Jesus started out carrying the cross until he was no longer able to do so, at which point Simon was forced to take over.

eij" toVn legovmenon Kranivou Tovpon Jesus was led out to that place which is called ‘the Place of the Skull’ where he was to be crucified. It is clear from verse 20 that this was outside the city. The Latin word for kranivon is calvaria, from which the English word ‘Calvary’ comes (cf. Luke 23:33 in the Authorized Version).

o} levgetai 'Ebrai>stiV Golgoqa The Aramaic behind the Greek transliteration would have been atlglg, or the Hebrew tlglg.

19:18 aujtoVn ejstauvrwsan The Evangelist does not elaborate on the details of the crucifixion. For the readers of the first century this would not have been necessary.

kaiV met= aujtou' a[llou" duvo Here the two men who were crucified with Jesus are also mentioned, although John does not tell us anything about them.

2 D Pilate and his inscription (19:19-22)

19:19 e[grayen deV kaiV tivtlon oJ Pila'to" We should probably understand e[grayen in a causative sense, as with Jesus’ scourging in 19:1. Pilate gave orders for this to be done. The inscription read “JESUS THE NAZARENE THE KING OF THE JEWS.” John says simply that it was placed “on the cross” (ejpiV tou' staurou'). Luke 23:38 says the inscription was placed “over him” (Jesus), and Matt 27:37 that it was placed over Jesus’ head. On the basis of Matthew’s statement Jesus’ cross is usually depicted as the crux immissa, the cross which has the crossbeam set below the top of the upright beam. The other commonly used type of cross was the crux commissa, which had the crossbeam atop the upright beam. But Matthew’s statement is not conclusive, since with the crux commissa the body would have sagged downward enough to allow the placard to be placed above Jesus’ head.

The placard with Pilate’s inscription is mentioned in all the gospels, but for John it was certainly ironic. Jesus really was the King of the Jews, although he was a King rejected by his own people (cf. 1:11). What Pilate’s own motivation for placing the title over Jesus was is considerably more obscure. He may have meant this as a final mockery of Jesus himself, but Pilate’s earlier mockery of Jesus seemed to be motivated by a desire to gain pity from the Jewish authorities in order to have him released. More likely Pilate saw this as a subtle way of getting back at the Jewish authorities who had pressured him into the execution of what he considered to be an innocent man.

19:20 toVn tivtlon polloiV ajnevgnwsan tw'n =Ioudaivwn We are told that many of the Jews read the placard that Pilate had written, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city. This seems to indicate clearly, as mentioned above at verse 17, that the site was outside the city walls.

'Ebrai>stiv, 'Rwmai>stiv, 'Ellhnistiv Pilate’s inscription was written in three languages, so that anyone could read it. The Kingship of Jesus, denied so vehemently by the Jewish authorities, was being proclaimed to the entire world. Only John records that the inscription was written in three languages. This eyewitness reminiscence symbolized for the Evangelist the universal scope of Jesus’ reign (cf. 4:42, 12:20-26).

19:21 oiJ ajrcierei'" tw'n =Ioudaivwn Nowhere else in the Fourth Gospel are these two expressions combined. Earlier in 19:15 the chief priests were simply referred to as oiJ ajrcierei'". It seems likely that this is another example of Johannine irony, to be seen in contrast to the inscription on the cross which read “oJ basileuV" tw'n =Ioudaivwn”.

Predictably the chief priests did not like the placard which Pilate had ordered to be written and placed upon the cross. So they were trying to tell Pilate [e[legon, a conative imperfect] to change the inscription from “THE KING OF THE JEWS” to “THIS ONE SAID ‘I AM THE KING OF THE JEWS.’”

19:22 o} gevgrafa, gevgrafa Pilate refused to change the inscription, however, saying with an air of finality indicated by the double use of the perfect tense, “What I have written, I have written.”¹⁶¹ There is probably additional Johannine irony in the fact that Jesus, rejected as King and Messiah by his own people, the Jews, has now been proclaimed to all the world as King by a Gentile. Now that he has been lifted up from the earth, Jesus has begun to draw all men (men from every nation) to himself, just as he predicted in 12:32.

3 D The soldiers divide Jesus’ garments and cast lots for his tunic (19:23-24)

19:23 e[labon taV iJmavtia aujtou' kaiV ejpoivhsan tevssara mevrh The soldiers who had crucified Jesus took his garments and made four shares, one share to each soldier. The Fourth Gospel is the only one to specify the number of soldiers involved in the crucifixion. This was a quaternion, a squad of four soldiers. It was accepted Roman practice for the soldiers who performed a crucifixion to divide the possessions of the person executed among themselves.

kaiV toVn citw'na The outer garments are referred to as taV iJmavtia, which the soldiers divided. But the undergarment, the citwvn, a long tunic worn under the outer clothing, was seamless (a[rafo"), woven from the top down in a single piece.

19:24 lavcwmen periV aujtou' Rather than tear the seamless tunic into four parts, the soldiers cast lots for it. This is interpreted by the Evangelist as a fulfillment of Ps 22:18 [22:19 LXX].

A Note on the significance of the seamless tunic for the Evangelist:

Many interpretations have been proposed, including the completeness or oneness of Jesus’ teaching (Origen), the unity of the church (Cyprian), or the virgin birth of Jesus (Cyril). Several possibilities warrant further consideration: (1) the symbolism may be intended to suggest the clothing of a priest, and thus point out that Jesus died a priest as well as a king. The LXX uses citwvn to translate the Hebrew tntk in Exod 28:4 and Lev 16:4 as a reference to the linen undergarment worn by the high priest. This is not explicitly said to be a seamless garment in Exod 28:4 and Lev 16:4, but Exod 39:27 states that the tunic was woven linen. Josephus, however, describes the tunic of the high priest as one single woven piece of cloth.¹⁶²

(2) This does not explain, however, why the Evangelist makes a point of the soldiers’ decision not to divide the tunic. The verb used by the soldiers to describe the tearing of the tunic is scivzw, and the cognate noun scivsma is used to describe factions or divisions among people in 7:43, 9:16, and 10:19. This has led to the suggestion that the Evangelist wants to stress the unity of Jesus’ followers (cf. 17:21). This is far from certain, however, since the verb used here is the normal verb for tearing something and is so used of the fishermen’s nets in 21:11.

(3) Perhaps it is best to consider this simply an eyewitness recollection, and the mention of the seamless design of the citwvn is an explanation of why the soldiers did not divide it. The fact that they did not divide it, but cast lots instead, is seen as a fulfillment of scripture (Ps 22:18).

4 D Jesus gives the care of his mother to John (the beloved disciple) (19:25-27)

19:25 EiJsthvkeisan deV paraV tw'/ staurw'/ tou' =Ihsou' The Evangelist now shifts the scene to the people present at the foot of the cross. Several women are mentioned, but it is not easy to determine how many. It is not clear whether “his mother’s sister” (hJ ajdelfhV th'" mhtroV" aujtou') and “Mary the wife of Clopas” (Mariva hJ tou' Klwpa') are to be understood as the same individual (in which case only three women are mentioned: Jesus’ mother, her sister Mary, and Mary Magdalene) or as two different individuals (in which case four women are mentioned: Jesus’ mother, her sister, Mary Clopas’ wife, and Mary Magdalene).

It is impossible to be certain, but when John’s account is compared to the synoptics it is easier to reconcile the accounts if four women were present than if there were only three. It also seems that if there were four women present, this would have been seen by the Evangelist to be in juxtaposition to the four soldiers present who performed the crucifixion, and this may explain the transition from the one incident in 23-24 to the other in 25-27. Finally, if only three were present, this would mean that both Jesus’ mother and her sister were named Mary, and this is highly improbable in a Jewish family of that time.

If there were four women present, the name of the second, the sister of Jesus’ mother, is not mentioned. It is entirely possible that the sister of Jesus’ mother mentioned here is to be identified with the woman named Salome mentioned in Mark 15:40 and also with the woman identified as “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” mentioned in Matt 27:56. If so, and if John the Apostle is to be identified as the Beloved Disciple, then the reason for the omission of the second woman’s name becomes clear; she would have been John’s own mother, and he consistently omitted direct reference to himself or his brother James or any other members of his family in the Fourth Gospel.

19:26-27 =Ihsou'" ou ijdwVn thVn mhtevra kaiV toVn maqhthVn parestw'ta From the cross Jesus saw his mother standing nearby, and the Beloved Disciple also standing nearby. He commended his mother to the care of the Beloved Disciple, speaking to both of them directly. The phrase ajp= ejkeivnh" th'" w{ra" might be understood to mean that the Beloved Disciple led Jesus’ mother away so that she did not witness the death of her son, but it does not necessarily have to mean this. More probably all it means is that from that moment own, the Beloved Disciple cared for Jesus’ mother as his own.

5 D Jesus cries out in thirst and is given wine (19:28-29)

19:28 eijdwV"…tetevlestai After the commendation of his mother to the care of the Beloved Disciple, Jesus knew that all things had already been completed (tetevlestai). All the work that the Father had given him to do was now finished (cf. 4:34, 5:36, and 17:4; see especially the Notes on 17:4 for further discussion of this concept).

i{na teleiwqh'/ hJ grafhv But Jesus was still completely in control of the situation, even as he hung upon the cross. In order that the scripture might be fulfilled [teleiwqh'/, a word-play on the previous statement that all things were completed (tetevlestai)], he said, “I thirst”. The scripture referred to is probably Ps 69:21, “They also gave me gall for my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink”. Also suggested, however, is Ps 22:15, “My tongue cleaves to the roof of my mouth, and You [God] lay me in the dust of death”. Psalm 22:1 reads, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?,” a statement Jesus makes from the cross in both Matt 27:46 and Mark 15:34. In light of the connection in the Fourth Gospel between thirst and the living water which Jesus offers, it is highly ironic that here Jesus himself, the source of that living water, expresses his thirst. And since 7:39 associates the living water with the Holy Spirit, Jesus’ statement here in 19:28 amounts to an admission that at this point he has been forsaken by God (cf. Ps 22:1).

19:29 skeu'o" e[keito There was a jar of cheap wine standing nearby, so they put a sponge soaked in the wine on some hyssop, and lifted it up to Jesus’ mouth.

o[xou" The cheap wine was called in Latin posca, and referred to a cheap vinegar wine diluted heavily with water. It was the drink of slaves and soldiers, and was probably there for the soldiers who had performed the crucifixion.

uJsswvpw/ The hyssop used to lift the wet sponge may have been a form of reed (kavlamo" is used in Matt 27:48 and Mark 15:36); the biblical name can refer to several different species of plant (at least eighteen different plants have been suggested).

6 D Jesus gives over the Spirit (19:30)

19:30 o{te ou e[laben toV o[xo"… When Jesus had taken the wine, he said,”It is finished” (tetevlestai). And bowing his head, he gave over his spirit (parevdwken toV pneu'ma). Many of the themes of the Fourth Gospel are summed up here. Jesus has now signified that the work the Father had given him to do has been accomplished (see the Notes on 17:4 for extended discussion of this). He has obediently fulfilled his Father’s will (cf. 18:11). Jesus was in complete control of events up to the very end; not until he indicates by this cry that all is completed does his death come, and it is spoken of as “handing over his spirit,” indicating he voluntarily gave up his life (10:18). Now that Jesus has finished his work and been lifted up from the earth, he will begin to draw all men to himself (12:32).

parevdwken toV pneu'ma suggests also the giving of the Holy Spirit [cf. 7:39], although it does not take place at this very moment. The reference is proleptic, looking ahead to 20:22, which in turn looks ahead to Pentecost.

7 D Jesus’ side is pierced (19:31-37)

19:31 OiJ ou =Ioudai'oi…hjrwvthsan toVn Pila'ton The Jewish authorities, because this was the day of preparation for the Sabbath and the passover (cf. 19:14), requested Pilate to order the legs of the three who had been crucified to be broken. This would hasten their deaths, so that the bodies could be removed before the beginning of the Sabbath at 6:00 p.m. This was based upon the law of Deut 21:22-23 and Josh 8:29 which specified that the bodies of executed criminals who had been hanged on a tree should not remain there overnight. According to Josephus this law was interpreted in the first century to cover the bodies of those who had been crucified.¹⁶³ Philo of Alexandria also mentions that on occasion, especially at festivals, the bodies were taken down and given to relatives to bury.¹⁶⁴ The normal Roman practice would have been to leave the bodies on the crosses, to serve as a warning to other would-be offenders.

19:32 hlqon ou oiJ stratiw'tai Thus the soldiers came and broke the legs of the two men who had been crucified with Jesus. This breaking of the legs was called in Latin the crurifragium, and was done with a heavy mallet.

19:33 ejpiV deV toVn =Ihsou'n ejlqovnte" When the soldiers came to Jesus to carry out the crurifragium, they saw that he was already dead, so they did not break his legs. This will be seen by the Evanglist in verse 36 below as a further fulfillment of scripture.

19:34 lovgch/ aujtou' thVn pleuraVn e[nuxen One of the soldiers thrust his spear into Jesus’ side. If it was obvious to them that the victim was already dead it is difficult to see why one of the soldiers would try to inflict a wound. The verb itself, nuvssw, can indicate anything from a slight prod to a mortal wound. It seems probable that one of the soldiers gave an exploratory stab to see if the body would jerk. If not, it was really dead. We may suppose this thrust was hard enough to penetrate the side, since the Evangelist states that blood and water came out immediately.

A Note on the significance for the Evangelist of the blood and water:

What are we to make of the reference to the blood and water that came forth from Jesus’ side? It seems probable to connect them with the statements in 1 John 5:6-8. In both passages water, blood, and testimony are mentioned. The Spirit is also mentioned in 1 John 5:7 as the source of the testimony, while here it is one of the disciples (v. 35). We have already noted in the preceding context the connection between the Spirit and the living water with Jesus’ statement of thirst just before he died (see the discussion at 19:28 above). It seems most probable to understand the reference to the water which flowed out of Jesus’ side as a symbolic reference to the Holy Spirit who can now be given because Jesus is now glorified (cf. 7:39); he has now departed and returned to that glory which he had with the Father before the creation of the world (cf. 17:5). The mention of blood recalls the motif of the passover lamb as a sacrificial victim (see the discussion at 19:14 above). Later references to sacrificial procedures in the Mishnah appear to support this: m. Pesahim 5.3 and 5.5 state that the blood of the sacrificial animal should not be allowed to congeal but should flow forth freely at the instant of death so that it could be used for sprinkling, and m. Tamid 4.2 actually specifies that the priest is to pierce the heart of the sacrificial victim and cause the blood to come forth.

19:35 kaiV oJ eJwrakwV" memartuvrhken This is a statement confirming that the account of the crucifixion as described above is eyewitness testimony. Thus although the events described have theological significance for the Evangelist, we are to understand that they actually occurred, and were not composed simply to make a theological point.

19:36-37 ejgevneto gaVr tau'ta i{na hJ grafhV plhrwqh'/ The Evangelist now quotes two passages from the OT which he understands to have been fulfilled in the crucifixion.

The first, “Not a bone of him shall be broken,” may be quoted from a number of different OT passages: Exod 12:10 LXX, Exod 12:46, Num 9:12, or Ps 34:20. Of these, the first is the closest in form to the quotation here. The first three are all more likely candidates than the last, since the first three all deal with descriptions of the passover lamb. We have discussed already the significance of this symbolism for the author of the Fourth Gospel (see the extended discussion at 1:29). It seems very probable that this is the symbolism in view here.

The second quotation, “They shall look upon the One whom they have pierced,” is easier to locate; it is a citation of Zech 12:10. Here a single phrase is quoted from Zech 12, but the entire context is associated with the events surrounding the crucifixion. The “Spirit of grace and of supplication” is poured out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the first part of verse 10. A few verses later in 13:1 Yahweh says “In that day a fountain will be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for impurity.” The blood which flowed from Jesus’ pierced side may well be what the Evangelist sees as the connection here, since as the shedding of the blood of the sacrificial victim it represents cleansing from sin.

Although the Jewish authorities and Roman soldiers certainly “looked upon him whom they had pierced” as he hung on the cross, the Evangelist may also have in mind the parousia here. The context in Zech 12-14 is certainly the second advent, so that these who have crucified Jesus will look upon him in another sense when he returns in judgment.

8 D Jesus’ body is buried by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus (19:38-42)

19:38 MetaV deV tau'ta After these events Joseph of Arimathea, described here as a secret follower of Jesus for fear of the Jewish authorities, went to Pilate and asked for permission to remove Jesus’ body from the cross. See the Notes on 19:31 above.

19:39 hlqen deV kaiV Nikovdhmo" With Joseph of Arimathea came Nicodemus. The Evangelist reminds the readers in a parenthetical note that it was the same Nicodemus who had first come to Jesus by night (3:1, see also 7:50). Nicodemus brought a mixture spices for the burial of Jesus’ body. From the extraordinary amount he brought we may assume Nicodemus was a wealthy man. He brought about a hundred pounds of this mixture of spices. This would be about 75 pounds (34 kg) by present standards, since the Roman pound (livtra) weighed about 12 ounces (340.5 grams).

19:40 e[labon ou toV sw'ma tou' =Ihsou' The Evangelist states that Joseph and Nicodemus prepared Jesus’ body for burial according to Jewish custom (they may or may not have been assisted by unmentioned servants from their respective households). Jewish burial custom dictated that the body be washed, anointed with oil, and bound up with the spices.

kaiV e[dhsan aujtoV ojqonivoi" The Fourth Gospel uses ojqonivoi" to describe the wrappings, and this has caused a good deal of debate, since it appears to contradict the synoptic accounts which mention a sindwvn, a large single piece of linen cloth. If one understands ojqonivoi" to refer to smaller strips of cloth, like bandages, there would be a difference, but diminutive forms have often lost their diminutive force in Koin, so there may not be any difference.¹⁶⁵ The plural could refer to the separate headcloth and the main wrapping together.

19:41 kaiV ejn tw'/ khvpw/ mnhmei'on kainoVn Joseph and Nicodemus then placed the body of Jesus in a garden tomb near (ejn) the place where he was crucified. John makes special note of the fact that this was a new tomb, one in which no one had ever been buried before. It is possible that by mentioning this, along with the quantity of spices brought for the burial by Nicodemus, the Evangelist wants us to see the burial of Jesus as a royal burial, one befitting a king.

19:42 o{ti ejgguV" h toV mnhmei'on The reason for choosing this particular tomb is given: it was nearby, and the evening was approaching. The passover and the Sabbath would begin at 6:00 p.m., so those who had come to prepare and bury the body could not afford to waste time.

¹⁵³Morris, The Gospel According to John, 798.

¹⁵⁴Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, 2:621.

¹⁵⁵Some of this evidence is given in BAGD, 395 s.v. Kaivsaro".

¹⁵⁶E. Bammel, Theologische Literatur Zeitung 77 (1952): 205-10.

¹⁵⁷Annals 6.8.

¹⁵⁸Morris, The Gospel According to John, “Additional Note H: The Last Supper and the Passover,” 774-86, which also includes basic bibliographic information on a variety of studies on the problem (785-86).

¹⁵⁹I. Howard Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981).

¹⁶⁰Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 545.

¹⁶¹See BDF 342.4.

¹⁶²Antiquities 3.7.4 [161].

¹⁶³The Jewish War 4.5.2 [317].

¹⁶⁴Flaccus 10 [83].

¹⁶⁵BDF 111.3.

23. Exegetical Commentary on John 20

OUTLINE:

4 B The Resurrection: Jesus conquers death (20:1-29)

1 C The discovery of the resurrection of Jesus by the disciples (20:1-18)

1 D Mary Magdalene discovers the empty tomb and summons Peter and John (20:1-2)

2 D Peter and John visit the empty tomb and find Jesus’ graveclothes (20:3-10)

3 D Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene (20:11-18)

1 E Mary looks into the tomb and sees two angels (20:11-13)

2 E Mary turns and sees Jesus but does not at first recognize him (20:14-17)

3 E Mary goes and informs the disciples (20:18)

2 C The appearances of Jesus to the disciples (20:19-29)

1 D Jesus appears to his disciples, shows his wounds, and commissions them (20:19-23)

2 D Jesus appears to the disciples, including Thomas, and Thomas declares Jesus to be Lord and God (20:24-29)

5 B Conclusion to the Book of Glory: the purpose of the Signs (20:30-31)

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Beare, F. W., “The Risen Jesus Bestows the Spirit: A Study of John 20:19-23,” Canadian Journal of Theology 4 (1958): 95-100.

Bligh, J., The Sign of the Cross: The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus according to St. John (Slough: St. Paul Publications, 1975).

Bode, E. L., The First Easter Morning: The Gospel Accounts of the Women’s Visit to the Tomb of Jesus, Analecta Biblica 45 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970).

Cadbury, H. J., “The Meaning of John 20:23, Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18,” Journal of Biblical Literature 58 (1939): 251-54.

Curtis, K. P. G., “Luke xxiv, 12 and John xx, 3-10,” Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1971): 512-15.

Curtis, K. P. G., “Three Points of Contact Between Matthew and John in the Burial and Resurrection Narratives,” Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1972): 440-44.

Dodd, C. H., “Some Johannine ‘Herrnworte’ with Parallels in the Synoptic Gospels,” New Testament Studies 2 (1955/56): 85-86.

Fowler, D. C., “The Meaning of ‘Touch Me Not’ in John 20:17,” Evangelical Quarterly 47 (1975): 16-25.

Fuller, R. H., “John 20:19-23,” Interpretation 32 (1978): 180-84.

Groenewald, E. P., “The Christological Meaning of John 20:31,” Neotestamentica 2 (1968): 131-40.

Lindars, B., “The Composition of John xx,” New Testament Studies 7 (1960/61): 142-47.

de Kruijf, T. C., “‘Hold the Faith’ or, ‘Come to Believe’? A Note on John 20, 31,” Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor philosophie en theologie 36 (1975): 439-49.

Mahoney, R., Two Disciples at the Tomb: The Background and Message of John 20, 1-10, Theologie und Wirklichkeit 6 (Bern: H. Lang; Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1974).

Mantey, J. R., “The Mistranslation of the Perfect Tense in John 20:23, Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18,” Journal of Biblical Liturature 58 (1939): 243-49.

McNamara, M., “The Ascension and the Exaltation of Christ in the Fourth Gospel,” Scripture 19 (1967): 65-73.

Minear, P. S., “‘We don’t know where…’ John 20, 2,” Interpretation 30 (1976): 125-39.

Osborne, B., “A Folded Napkin in an Empty Tomb: John 11:44 and 20:7 Again,” Heythrop Journal 14 (1973): 437-40.

Salvoni, F., “The So-Called Jesus Resurrection Proof (John 20:7),” Restoration Quarterly 22 (1979): 72-76.

Scholte, F. E., “An Investigation and an Interpretation of John 20:22,” unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1953.

Suggit, J., “The Eucharistic Significance of John 20.19-29,” Journal of Theology of South Africa 16 (1976): 52-59.

Suriano, T., “Doubting Thomas: An Invitation to Belief,” Bible Today 53 (1971): 309-15.

Turner, M. M. B., “The Concept of Receiving the Spirit in John’s Gospel,” Vox Evangelica 10 (1977): 24-42.

DETAILED EXEGETICAL NOTES:

4 B The Resurrection: Jesus conquers death (20:1-29)

1 C The discovery of the resurrection of Jesus by the disciples (20:1-18)

1 D Mary Magdalene discovers the empty tomb and summons Peter and John (20:1-2)

20:1 Mariva hJ MagdalhnhV e[rcetai prwi? We are told that on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early, while it was still dark, to the tomb where Jesus’ body had been buried by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus on the previous Friday evening, just before the beginning of the passover and the Sabbath at 6:00 p.m.

Th'/ deV mia'/ tw'n sabbavtwn This would be early Sunday morning. The Sabbath (and in this year the passover) would have lasted from 6:00 p.m. Friday until 6:00 p.m. Saturday. Sunday would thus mark the first day of the following week.

Mariva hJ MagdalhnhV John does not mention that Mary was accompanied by any of the other women who had been among Jesus’ followers. The synoptic accounts all mention other women who accompanied her (although Mary Magdalene is always mentioned first). Why John does not mention the other women is not clear, but it seems probable that Mary becomes the focus of the Evangelist’s attention because it was she who came and found Peter and the Beloved Disciple (whom we have identified with John son of Zebedee) and informed them of the empty tomb (20:2). Mary’s use of the plural in v. 2 (oujk oi[damen, “we do not know”) indicates there were others present, in indirect agreement with the synoptic accounts.

prwi? skotiva" e[ti ou[sh" This statement appears to conflict with Mark 16:1-2, which states that when the women came to the tomb, the sun had already risen. There are several possible explanations for this which would not be contradictory, however. It is possible that the tomb and the pathway to it were still in darkness for a short while after the sun had actually risen. Some have thought that John’s note refers to the time Mary departed from her house, while Mark’s refers to the time the women actually arrived at the tomb. Perhaps more likely is the suggestion that the women came in groups or individually, not in a single group, all arriving around sunrise.

kaiV blevpei toVn livqon hjrmevnon ejk tou' mnhmeivou Mary Magdalene, when she saw the stone moved away from the tomb, did not wait to investigate further. The obvious conclusion was that the body had been stolen, and she immediately ran off to find Peter and the Beloved Disciple to tell them of this ultimate indignity. It appears that she did not actually look into the tomb at this time, but did so later (20:11).

20:2 proV" Sivmwna Pevtron Peter and the Beloved Disciple were both present during at least part of Jesus’ trials (cf. 18:15-18; 25-27) and the actual crucifixion (19:26-27). While some have thought that Mary sought Peter out because he was the leader of the apostolic band, it may be simply that she knew where to find him, along with the Beloved Disciple, whereas the other disciples had scattered.

kaiV proV" toVn a[llon maqhthVn o}n ejfivlei oJ =Ihsou'" Here for the first time the “other disciple” of 18:15 is identified as the Beloved Disciple (“the disciple whom Jesus loved”) of 13:23-26 and 19:26-27.

han toVn kuvrion Mary does not specify whom she thinks had taken Jesus’ body. han is impersonal (“they”) and may be the equivalent of a passive (“the Lord has been taken”) or it may be a reference to the authorities who had brought about the crucifixion in the first place.

Mary’s use of the plural oujk oi[damen (“we do not know”) indicates that she was not in fact alone when she had gone to the tomb. The Evangelist has not mentioned the other women who accompanied her, but this is probably because she is the focus of the account as she comes to inform Peter and the Beloved Disciple. If we are correct in our identification of the Beloved Disciple with John son of Zebedee as the author of the Fourth Gospel, it is easy to see why Mary Magdalene became the focus of the account, since she is the one who came and told the author for the first time of the empty tomb.

2 D Peter and John visit the empty tomb and find Jesus’ graveclothes (20:3-10)

20:3 =Exh'lqen ou oJ Pevtro" kaiV oJ a[llo" maqhthV" Peter and the Beloved Disciple went out and were coming (h[rconto, imperfect tense) to the tomb. It is not explicitly mentioned here that Mary Magdalene accompanied them back to the tomb (probably because the following verse states that they set out running), but Mary apparently followed along after them. She is back at the tomb in verse 11.

20:4 e[trecondeV oiJ duvo oJmou' Peter and the Beloved Disciple started out running together (oJmou', “at the same time as,” “in company with”). The Beloved Disciple ran on ahead more quickly than Peter, so he arrived at the tomb first. This verse has been a chief factor in depictions of John as a young man (especially combined with traditions that he wrote last of all the evangelists and lived into the reign of Domitian). But the verse does not actually say anything about John’s age, nor is age always directly correlated with running speed.

20:5 parakuvya" The verb parakuvptw means “to bend over (in order to see something better)” and this is what would have been necessary to see into the low opening of the tomb carved into the hillside. In most instances the entrance to such tombs was less than 3 feet (90 cm) high, so that an adult had to bend over and practically crawl inside.

blevpei keivmena taV ojqovnia When the Beloved Disciple bent over and looked into this narrow opening, he saw the linen wrappings (ojqovnia, a general term which might describe several types of wrappings, see 19:40) lying [there]. Presumably by the time the Beloved Disciple reached the tomb there was enough light to penetrate the low opening and illuminate the interior of the tomb sufficiently for him to see the graveclothes. We are not told exactly where the linen wrappings were lying. Sometimes the phrase has been translated “lying on the ground,” but the implication is that the wrappings were lying where the body had been. The most probable configuration for a tomb of this sort would be to have a niche carved in the wall where the body would be laid lengthwise, or a low shelf like a bench running along one side of the tomb, across the back or around all three sides in a U-shape facing the entrance. Thus the graveclothes would have been lying on this shelf or in the niche where the body had been (see below, verse 7).

ouj mevntoi eijsh'lqen The Beloved Disciple, although he reached the tomb ahead of Peter, bent over and looked in and saw the graveclothes lying inside, did not enter the tomb at first. The Evangelist gives no specific reason as to why the Beloved Disciple did not enter the tomb immediately.

20:6-7 kaiV eijsh'lqen eij" toV mnhmei'on When Peter reached the tomb, he (in typical fashion) did not hesitate to enter. When he did so, Peter too saw the linen wrappings that the Beloved Disciple had seen from outside the tomb, but he also saw the soudavrion, the piece of cloth that had covered Jesus’ head, not lying with the other wrappings, but rolled up in one place by itself.

toV soudavrion This is a Latin loanword (sudarium). It was a small towel used to wipe off perspiration (the way we would use a handkerchief today). This particular item was not mentioned in connection with Jesus’ burial in 19:40, probably because this was only a brief summary account. A soudavrion was mentioned in connection with Lazarus’ burial (11:44) and was probably customary. R. Brown speculates that it was wrapped under the chin and tied on top of the head to prevent the mouth of the corpse from falling open.¹⁶⁶

ouj metaV tw'n ojqonivwn keivmenon ajllaV cwriV" ejntetuligmevnon eij" e{na tovpon Much dispute and difficulty surrounds the translation of these words. Basically the issue concerns the positioning of the graveclothes as seen by Peter and the other disciple when they entered the tomb. Some have sought to prove that when the disciples saw the graveclothes they were arranged just as they were when around the body, so that when the resurrection took place the resurrected body of Jesus passed through them without rearranging or disturbing them. In this case the reference to the soudavrion being rolled up does not refer to its being folded, but collapsed in the shape it had when wrapped around the head. Sometimes in defense of this view metav (which normally means “with”) is said to mean “like” so that the comparison with the other graveclothes does not involve the location of the soudavrion but rather its condition (rolled up rather than flattened).

In spite of the intriguing nature of such speculations, it seems more probable that the phrase describing the soudavrion should be understood to mean it was separated from the other graveclothes in a different place inside the tomb. This seems consistent with the different conclusions reached by Peter and the Beloved Disciple (verses 8-10). All that the condition of the graveclothes indicated was that the body of Jesus had not been stolen by thieves. Anyone who had come to remove the body (whether the authorities or anyone else) would not have bothered to unwrap it before carrying it off. And even if one could imagine that they had (perhaps in search of valuables such as rings or jewelry still worn by the corpse) they would certainly not have bothered to take time to roll up the facecloth and leave the other wrappings in an orderly fashion!

20:8 kaiV eiden kaiV ejpivsteusen After Peter went ahead and entered the tomb, the Beloved Disciple, who had arrived there first, also entered. When he saw the graveclothes in the condition described in the previous verse, he saw and believed. What was it that the Beloved Disciple believed (since v. 7 describes what he saw)? Sometimes it is suggested that what he believed was Mary Magdalene’s report that the body had been stolen. But this could hardly be the case; the way the entire scene is narrated such a trivial conclusion would amount to an anti-climax.

It is true that the use of the plural “they” (h[/deisan) in the following verse applied to both Peter and the Beloved Disciple, and this appears to be a difficulty if we understand that the Beloved Disciple believed at this point in Jesus’ resurrection. But it is not an insuperable difficulty, since all it affirms is that at this time neither Peter nor the Beloved Disciple had understood the scripture concerning the resurrection.

Thus it appears the Evangelist intends us to understand that when the Beloved Disciple entered the tomb after Peter and saw the state of the graveclothes, he believed in the resurrection, i.e., that Jesus had risen from the dead.

A Note on the Significance for the Evangelist of the Tidy Tomb:

What was it about the scene which led the Beloved Disciple to believe in the resurrection? Was it simply the presence of the graveclothes combined with the absence of the body, or was it the shape and position of the graveclothes as well, which suggested to the Beloved Disciple that a resurrection had taken place? (See the discussion of the shape and position of the graveclothes in verse 7 above.) We have already concluded in verse 7 that the description of the location and position of the soudavrion indicates that it was in a different place in the tomb, not just rolled up where Jesus’ head would have been. It would seem that if the graveclothes were still arranged in the form of the body (perhaps even preserving that form, something like an empty shell, due to the spices and oils which impregnated them) then Peter could hardly have missed the significance himself. Yet no mention is made in the Fourth Gospel of Peter believing at this point, and Luke 24:12 states that Peter “went away to his own home wondering [qaumavzwn] at what had happened.” In light of all this it seems most likely that it was the presence of the graveclothes, not scattered at random about the tomb but arranged in an orderly manner, which led the Beloved Disciple to realize that a resurrection had taken place.

There may well be an additional theological significance to the presence of the graveclothes in the empty tomb as far as the Evangelist is concerned. When Lazarus came forth from the tomb, he was still wrapped in his graveclothes (11:44). He would need them again, for he would die a second time. When Jesus came forth from the tomb, he left his graveclothes behind, because he would never need them again. Death no longer held any power over him.

20:9 oujdevpw gaVr h[/deisan th'n grafhVn Again we have a parenthetical comment by the Evangelist, explaining that at this time neither Peter nor the Beloved Disciple who accompanied him into the tomb understood the OT scriptures pertaining to Jesus’ resurrection. This agrees with Luke 24:25-27 that only after the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to the disciples did they come to understand the full significance of Christological prophecies in the OT.

The Evangelist does not explicitly mention what OT scriptures are involved (neither does Paul in 1 Cor 15:4, for that matter). The resurrection of the Messiah in general terms may have been seen in Is. 53:10-12 and Ps 16:10. Specific references may have been understood in Jonah 1:17 and Hos 6:2 because of the mention of “the third day”. Beyond this it is not possible to be more specific.

20:10 ajph'lqon ou pavlin After entering the tomb and seeing the graveclothes, both Peter and the Beloved Disciple left and went back to their homes. John makes no comment on their state of mind at this point, but Luke mentions in the parallel account (24:12) that Peter was “wondering [qaumavzwn] at what had happened”. Whether he had any discussion with the Beloved Disciple, who is said to have “believed” in verse 8, is not recorded.

3 D Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene (20:11-18)

1 E Mary looks into the tomb and sees two angels (20:11-13)

20:11 Mariva deV eiJsthvkei By this time, Mary had returned to the tomb herself (cf. the Note on 20:3). Now she was weeping (klaivousa) with the loud lamentations and expressions of grief typical of mourners in the Near East (cf. 11:31, where the same verb is used). Her grief was undoubtedly heightened further by her belief that Jesus’ body had been stolen from the tomb.

parevkuyen Thus Mary bent over and looked into the tomb (the same verb is used to describe the action of the Beloved Disciple in 20:5, see the Note on this verse above).

20:12 kaiV qewrei' duvo ajggevlou" ejn leukoi'" What Mary Magdalene saw when she looked into the tomb was not the graveclothes, but two angels in white, seated one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying.

20:13 kaiV levgousin aujth'/ The angels themselves do not play a major role in the Johannine account of the resurrection of Jesus. They do not explain the significance of the empty tomb, but simply ask Mary the reason why she was weeping.

levgei aujtoi'" Mary replied in words similar to verse 2 with appropriate adjustments: this time it is “my Lord” rather than just “the Lord,” and the plural “we do not know” has now become singular “I do not know”. This is understandable if the other women who were with Mary earlier when the empty tomb was first discovered had now departed. Again, as in verse 2, Mary does not specify whom she thinks has taken the Lord’s body.

2 E Mary turns and sees Jesus but does not at first recognize him (20:14-17)

20:14 ejstravfh eij" taV ojpivsw kaiV qewrei' toVn =Ihsou'n eJstw'ta At this point Mary turned around and saw Jesus himself standing behind her, although she did not recognize him. The text gives no indication why she turned, but she may have heard something, or the angels with whom she had just spoken may have done something which caused Mary to turn and look behind her.

Neither are we told why Mary was unable to recognize Jesus. There appears to have been something different about the resurrected Jesus which resulted in him not being immediately recognized even by those who had known him well. Something similar happens in John 21:4, as well as Luke 24:13-35, Luke 24:36-38, and Matt 28:17.

20:15 levgei aujth'/ =Ihsou'" Jesus asked Mary the same question the angels had just asked her: “Woman, why are you weeping?” but he added another, as if he knew she were looking for someone: “Whom are you seeking?”

oJ khpourov" Mary concluded that it was the gardener who was questioning her. Again we have no way of knowing (since the text gives no clue) what it was that led Mary to conclude that she was speaking with the gardener. Perhaps it was the only logical conclusion under the circumstances. We are not told what Jesus looked like or how he was dressed (some have seen this latter point as a difficulty since he left all the graveclothes in the tomb, but this is not necessarily a problem: the two angels who had appeared in the tomb were both clothed in white, and it is reasonable to suppose that the resurrected Jesus’ appearance was similar).

Mary now drew a second conclusion: if this person was the gardener, perhaps it was he who had carried Jesus’ body away to some other spot. So she asked, “Sir, if you have carried him off, tell me where you have placed him, and I will carry him away.” It is often pointed out that Mary would have had difficulty in doing this alone, but certainly under the circumstances she did not stop to think of the difficulty of carrying out such an action singlehanded. She was speaking under intense emotional pressure.

20:16 levgei aujth'/ =Ihsou'": Mariavm Jesus now spoke Mary’s name, and so she turned to him and answered in Aramaic, 'RJabbouniv, which the Evangelist translates for the benefit of the readers as Didavskale (“Teacher”). Mary had apparently turned away again from Jesus, perhaps after he questioned her, since she had turned toward him previously in verse 14. Now, hearing her name, she turned back, and recognized Jesus. We may assume from Jesus’ words to her in the following verse that her response was to attempt (at least) to embrace him.

20:17 levgei aujth'/ =Ihsou'" There are considerable difficulties raised by Jesus’ statement to Mary in this verse. Mhv mou a{ptou is a prohibition stated with the present imperative. The aorist tense would normally be expected in a specific command; when the present tense is used for a specific command it would have the nuance “Stop clinging to me” with the implication that Mary already was.

ou[pw gaVr ajnabevbhka proV" toVn patevra The reason given by Jesus why Mary should stop holding on to him is because he had not yet ascended to the Father. Many fanciful explanations have been contrived as to why Jesus should say this, especially in light of the fact that he seemingly invites Thomas to touch his wounds in 20:27. The point seems to be that while Thomas was indeed invited to touch the wounds of the resurrected Jesus, Mary here is bent on clinging to him (a completely different verb is used in 20:27). Jesus has, however, by virtue of his resurrection, entered into a new dimension of relationship with all of his followers, and it is now inappropriate that Mary should hold fast to him.

Instead, Jesus has a mission for Mary to perform: she is to go to the other disciples and inform them that she has seen the risen Lord, and he is ascending to the Father.

touV" ajdelfouv" mou probably refers here not just to the half-brothers of Jesus mentioned in 2:12, 7:3, 7:5, and 7:10, but to all the disciples. If Mary was supposed to go to Jesus’ literal brothers then we are not told in verse 18 that she did so.

A Note on 20:17 and the Ascension:

In what sense, however, can Jesus here speak of the ascension in the present tense, since Luke records in Acts 1:3 that after forty days of post-resurrection appearances Jesus was taken up out of the sight of his followers by a cloud? P. Benoit made a useful distinction between the ascension understood as the glorification of Jesus in the presence of the Father, and the ascension understood as a levitation symbolizing the end of the appearances of the resurrected Jesus to the disciples.¹⁶⁷ As we have pointed out many times before, in the Fourth Gospel the death, resurrection, ascension, and exaltation of Jesus to the Father’s right hand are all portrayed as a unit, often under the term “glorification.” This suggests that the Evangelist is thinking of Jesus’ ascension here in 20:17 in the sense of glorification rather than levitation. It is a process begun on the cross and culminating in the presence of the Father. Such an emphasis neither precludes nor contradicts the ascension recorded by Luke in Acts 1.

3 E Mary goes and informs the disciples (20:18)

20:18 e[rcetai MariaVm hJ MagdalhnhV So in obedience to Jesus Mary Magdalene went and found the disciples (we are not told where they were at this time, but presumably they were in the same place mentioned in verse 19). Mary announced to them, “I have seen the Lord,” and told them what he said to her. The first part of her statement, introduced by o{ti, is direct discourse (eJwvraka toVn kuvrion), while the second clause switches to indirect discourse (kaiV tau'ta eipen aujth'/). This has the effect of heightening the emphasis on the first part of the statement.

We are not told in the Fourth Gospel how the disciples responded to this announcement. Mark 16:9-11 (in the disputed longer ending of Mark) records that when Mary announced to the disciples that she had seen the Lord, they refused to believe it. We may well imagine that such a report would be greeted by extreme scepticism if not outright disbelief.

2 C The appearances of Jesus to the disciples (20:19-29)

1 D Jesus appears to his disciples, shows his wounds, and commissions them (20:19-23)

20:19 Ou[sh" ou ojyiva" th'/ hJmevra/ ejkeivnh/ This time reference makes it clear that the first appearance of Jesus to the disciples took place on the evening of the same day that he appeared to Mary Magdalene, the first day of the week (Sunday) following the Sabbath and passover.

tw'n qurw'n kekleismevnwn The Evangelist specifically states that the doors were shut where the disciples were, because of fear of the Jewish authorities. In light of the reason given, we should probably understand this phrase to mean “locked”. This is a perfectly understandable reaction to the events of the past few days. What is the significance of the inclusion of this statement by the Evangelist? It is often taken to mean that Jesus, when he entered the room, passed through the closed doors. This may well be the case, but it may be assuming too much about our knowledge of the mode in which the resurrected body of Jesus exists. The text does not explicitly state how Jesus got through the closed doors. It is possible to assume that the doors opened of their own accord before him, or that he simply appeared in the middle of the room without passing through the doors at all. The point the Evangelist appears to be making here is simply that the closed doors were no obstacle at all to the resurrected Jesus. See also verse 26 for a second similar occurrence.

hlqen oJ =Ihsou'" kaiV e[sth eij" toV mevson The phrases which actually describe Jesus’ arrival are ambiguous, as mentioned above. It cannot be determined with certainty whether he came through the doors, or the doors opened for him, or he simply appeared in the midst of the disciples.

kaiV levgei aujtoi'": eijrhvnh uJmi'n Jesus greeted his disciples with the statement “Peace to you”. In later rabbinic Hebrew this phrase became a standard greeting. It occurs in the OT a few times in such a sense (e.g., 1 Sam 25:6). Here, however, it can hardly be called routine; it bears more similarities to angelic appearances in the OT. When the angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon in Judges 6:22-23 he greeted him with “Peace to you, do not be afraid, you shall not die!” Daniel is similarly reassured in Dan 10:19. The phrase spoken here by the resurrected Jesus to the disciples must surely have been intended to reassure and calm them.

20:20 e[deixen taV" cei'ra" kaiV thVn pleuraVn aujtoi'" After this initial reassurance Jesus showed the disciples his hands and his side. Verse 25 makes it clear that this refers to the nail marks in his hands and the wound from the spear in his side. It is understandable why Jesus needed to do this; it was a positive form of identification which would convince the disciples that it was indeed Jesus who had appeared to them.

When the disciples recognized Jesus they were suddenly overcome with joy. This is a fulfillment of Jesus’ words to the disciples in the Last Discourse (16:20-22) that they would have sorrow while the world rejoiced, but that their sorrow would be turned to lasting joy when they saw him again.

From this point on the Evangelist himself begins to use the title kuvrio" to refer to the resurrected Jesus, as Mary herself did in 20:2, 13, and 18.

20:21 eijrhvnh uJmi'n Again Jesus repeated his reassurance to the disciples, “Peace to you,” but he now added a commission: “just as the Father has sent me, I also send you.” This is similar to 17:18, where Jesus prayed to the Father, “just as you sent me into the world, I also send them [the disciples] into the world.”

Does this commission apply only to the Twelve (minus Judas, of course) or to all the disciples who were present? It is not clear in the context that only the Twelve were present in the room when Jesus appeared to them. We certainly cannot rule out the possibility that others were present, and there is nothing in the context to suggest that we should limit the words of the commission only to the Twelve. In light of the fact that in the Last Discourse the Twelve appear to be models for the experience of all believers, as we have mentioned previously (see the Notes on 15:14 and 15:16), it appears more likely that these words are for all of Jesus’ followers, just as the commission in Matt 28:19-20 is for all Christians.

20:22 ejnefuvshsen kaiV levgei aujtoi'": lavbete pheu'ma a{gion: What are we to make of Jesus’ action here, and how does it relate to the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost described in Acts 2?

In terms of the imagery involved this action on Jesus’ part appears to symbolize the new creation which he himself has inaugurated. The first part of the Prologue (1:1-5) introduced the idea that the preincarnate Word was involved in the original creative act. In the Notes introducing 1:19-51 we suggested the possibility that the opening narrative (1:19-51) of the Gospel itself, following the Prologue, was arranged so as to point to the beginning of a new creation, arranged according to a pattern of seven days. This pointed to the miracle at Cana as occurring on the seventh day and marking the inauguration of the new era. Now at the end of the Fourth Gospel the theme of the new creation emerges again. The use of the verb ejnefuvshsen to describe the action of Jesus here recalls Gen 2:7 in the LXX, where “the LORD God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” This time, however, it is Jesus who is breathing the breath/Spirit of eternal life, life from above, into his disciples. Furthermore there is the imagery of Ezek 37:1-14, the prophecy concerning the resurrection of the dry bones: there in verse 9 the Son of Man is told to prophesy to the “wind/breath/Spirit” to come and breathe on the corpses, so that they will live again. In verse 14 the LORD promises, “I will put my Spirit within you, and you will come to life, and I will place you in your own land…” In terms of ultimate fulfillment the passage in Ezek 37 looks at the regeneration of Israel immediately prior to the establishment of the millennial kingdom. We suggest, however, that the Evangelist saw in what Jesus did for the disciples at this point a partial and symbolic fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy, much as Peter made use of the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2:17-21.

What then did Jesus do for the disciples in John 20:22? It appears that in light of the symbolism of the new creation present here, as well as the regeneration symbolism from the Ezekiel 37 passage, that Jesus at this point breathed into the disciples the breath of eternal life. This was in the form of the Holy Spirit, who was to indwell them. It is instructive to look again at 7:38-38, which states, “the one who believes in me, as the scripture says, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. Now he said this concerning the Spirit which those who believed in him were going to receive. For the Spirit was not yet (operative in the world), because Jesus was not yet glorified”. But now in 20:22 Jesus was glorified, so the Spirit could be given.

Had the disciples not believed in Jesus before? It seems clear that they had, since their belief is repeatedly affirmed, beginning with 2:11. But it also seems clear that even on the eve of the crucifixion, they did not understand the necessity of the cross (16:31-33). And even after the crucifixion, the disciples had not realized that there was going to be a resurrection (20:9). Ultimate recognition of who Jesus was appears to have come to them only after the post-resurrection appearances (note the response of Thomas, who was not present at this incident, in verse 28).

Finally, what is the relation of this incident in 20:22 to the account of the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2? It appears best to view these as two separate events which have two somewhat different purposes. This was the giving of life itself, which flowed out from within (cf. 7:38-39). The giving of power would occur later, on the Day of Pentecost: power to witness and carry out the mission the disciples had been given. [It should be emphasized that in the historical unfolding of God’s program for the Church, these events occurred in a chronological sequence which (after the Church has been established) is non-repeatable today.] On the analogy of the solution we proposed above for the ascension (see 20:17), we would suggest that here in the Fourth Gospel we are looking at the giving of the Spirit that produces life, while in Acts 2 what we have is the giving of the Spirit that produces power. These are not incompatible, but focus on different aspects of the Holy Spirit’s role in relation to the Church.

20:23 a[n tinwn ajfh'te taV" aJmartiva" ajfevwntai aujtoi'"… Jesus’ statement to the disciples here, “If you forgive the sins of any, they have been forgiven them; if you retain [the sins] of any, they have been retained,” finds its closest parallel in Matt 16:19 and 18:18. It is best to understand this not as referring to apostolic power to forgive or retain the sins of individuals (as it is sometimes understood), but to the “power” of proclaiming this forgiveness which was entrusted to the disciples. This is consistent with the idea that the disciples are to carry on the ministry of Jesus after he has departed from the world and returned to the Father, a theme which occurred in the Last Discourse (cf. 15:27, 16:1-4, and 17:18).

2 D Jesus appears to the disciples, including Thomas, and Thomas declares Jesus to be Lord and God (20:24-29)

20:24 Qwma'"…oJ legovmeno" Divdumo", oujk h met= aujtw'n o{te hlqen =Ihsou'" We are now told that Thomas, also called Didymus (meaning “the Twin”) was not with the Twelve when Jesus appeared to them for the first time, in 20:19-23. No explanation for his absence is given by the Evangelist.

20:25 ejaVn mhV i[dw ejn tai'" cersiVn aujtou' toVn tuvpon tw'n h{lwn… The other disciples reported to Thomas what had happened, telling him that they had seen the resurrected Jesus. Thomas does not believe on account of their testimony, however. He flatly refused to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead unless he could see the nail marks in Jesus’ hands and put his hand into the spear wound in Jesus’ side. If Thomas was portrayed as something of a pessimist in his attitude in 11:16, he is certainly portrayed as a sceptic here. In 20:20 Jesus had shown the other disciples his hands and his side, and undoubtedly they had related this to Thomas in their unsuccessful attempt to convince him that they had indeed seen the risen Lord. But Thomas, probably picking up on their words, wanted more: he did not just want to see the wounds, but to touch them as well. Visual proof was not good enough for such an astounding claim; Thomas had to have tactile proof as well.

20:26 KaiV meq= hJmevra" ojktwV pavlin Eight days later the disciples were again together behind closed doors. The setting is identical with the previous incident a week earlier (20:19), and the Evangelist makes a point of repeating the same statement about the doors being shut when Jesus came and stood in their midst and said, “Peace to you.” The only difference was that this time Thomas was present with the other disciples. His scepticism concerning the report of his fellow disciples was about to be put to the test.

20:27 ei a levgei tw'/ Qwma'/ Jesus (who is portrayed as knowing precisely what Thomas had said previously about what it would take to make him believe) now turned to Thomas and offered him the opportunity to touch the nail marks in his hands and the spear wound in his side. Jesus concluded his offer by exhorting Thomas to be “not unbelieving but believing.” There is a more than a little irony (almost sarcasm) here. Note that Jesus’ exhortation gives a clue to the final element which was still lacking in the faith of all the disciples until after the resurrection: it is the element Thomas lacked here, and which he affirms in the following verse.

20:28 oJ kuvriov" mou kaiV oJ qeov" mou Should Thomas’ exclamation be understood as two subjects with the rest of the sentence omitted (“My Lord and my God [has truly risen from the dead]”) as predicate nominatives (“You are my Lord and my God”) or as vocatives (“My Lord and my God”)? Probably the most likely is something between the second and third alternatives. It seems that the second is slightly more likely here, because the context appears confessional. Thomas’ statement, while it may have been an exclamation, does in fact confess the faith which he had previously lacked, and Jesus responds to Thomas’ statement in the following verse as if it were a confession.

A Note on the significance of Thomas’ confession:

With the proclamation by Thomas here, it is difficult to see how any more profound analysis of Jesus’ person could be given. It echoes 1:1 and 1:14 together: the Word was God, and the Word became flesh (Jesus of Nazareth). The Fourth Gospel opened with many other titles for Jesus: the Lamb of God (1:29, 36); the Son of God (1:34, 49); Rabbi (1:38); Messiah (1:41); the King of Israel (1:49); the Son of Man (1:51). Now the climax is reached with the proclamation by Thomas, “My Lord and my God,” and we have come full circle from 1:1, where the Evangelist had introduced the reader to who Jesus was, to 20:28, where the last of the disciples has come to the full realization of who Jesus was. What Jesus had predicted in 8:28 had come to pass: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM…”. By being lifted up in crucifixion (which led in turn to death, resurrection, and exaltation with the Father) Jesus has revealed his true identity as both LORD (kuvrio", used by the LXX to translate hwhy) and GOD (qeov", used by the LXX to translate <hla).

20:29 o{ti eJwvrakav" me pepivsteuka"… It is significant that Jesus does not reject or modify Thomas’ confession. Instead he accepts it approvingly, and goes on to approve as blessed those who believe without the benefit of seeing. With this reference the focus shifts from Thomas and the other disciples, who had both seen and believed, to those yet future disciples who would believe without the benefit of seeing. R. Brown offers a vivid illustration of the point made here:

Throughout the Gospel and more particularly in the Last Discourse, in what the evangelist has been describing on the stage of early 1st-century Palestine, he has had in mind an audience seated in the darkened theater of the future, silently viewing what Jesus was saying and doing. True to the limitations and logic of the stage drama imposed by the Gospel form, the Johannine Jesus could address that audience only indirectly through the disciples who shared the stage and gave voice to sentiments and reactions that were shared by the audience as well. But now, as the curtain is about to fall on the stage drama, the lights in the theater are suddenly turned on. Jesus shifts his attention from the disciples on the stage to the audience that has become visible and makes clear to that his ultimate concern is for them—those who have come to believe in him through the word of his disciples….¹⁶⁸

Now that attention has been shifted to the readers of the Gospel, the Evangelist goes on to indicate in 20:30-31 his purpose for writing the Gospel; and this, too, ultimately has in view those who have not seen, and yet are going to believe.

5 B Conclusion to the Book of Glory: the purpose of the Signs (20:30-31)

20:30 PollaV meVn ou kaiV a[lla shmei'a The Evangelist mentions many other sign-miracles performed by Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in the Gospel. What are these sign-miracles which the author of the Gospel has in mind? We can only speculate. The Evangelist says they were performed in the presence of the disciples, which emphasizes again their role as witnesses (cf. 15:27). The point here is that the Evangelist has been selective in his use of material. He has chosen to record those incidents from the life and ministry of Jesus which support his purpose in writing the Gospel. Much which might be of tremendous interest, but does not directly contribute to that purpose in writing, he has omitted. What the Evangelist’s purpose in writing is, he has explained in the following verse.

20:31 tau'ta deV gevgraptai i{na pisteuvshte… Now, at last, the Evangelist reveals to the readers the purpose of his book: in order that they may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and in order that by believing they may have life in his name.

The question which must still be addressed is whether the Evangelist is writing primarily for an audience of unbelievers, with purely evangelistic emphasis, or whether he envisions an audience of believers, whom he wants to strengthen in their faith. There are several observations that might be helpful here:

(1) in the immediate context (20:30), the other sign-miracles spoken of by the Evangelist were performed in the presence of disciples;

(2) in the case of the first of the sign-miracles, at Cana, the Evangelist makes a point of the effect the miracle had on the disciples (2:11);

(3) if the primary thrust of the Gospel is toward unbelievers, it is difficult to see why so much material in chapters 13-17 (the Last Meal and Last Discourse, concluding with Jesus’ prayer for the disciples), which deals almost exclusively with the disciples, is included;

(4) the disciples themselves were repeatedly said to have believed in Jesus throughout the Gospel, beginning with 2:11, yet they still needed to believe after the resurrection (if Thomas’ experience in 20:27-28 is any indication); and

(5) as we have mentioned before, the Gospel appears to be written with the assumption that the readers are familiar with the basic story (or perhaps with one or more of the synoptic gospel accounts, although this is not certain). Thus no account of the birth of Jesus is given at all, and although he is identified as being from Nazareth, the words of the Pharisees and chief priests to Nicodemus (7:52) are almost certainly to be taken as ironic, assuming the reader knows where Jesus was really from. Likewise, when Mary is identified in 11:2 as the one who anointed Jesus’ feet with oil, it appears to be assumed that the readers are familiar with the story, since the incident involved is not mentioned in the Fourth Gospel until 12:3.

These observations must be set over against the clear statement of purpose in the present verse, 20:31, which seems to have significant evangelistic emphasis. In addition to this there is the repeated emphasis on witness throughout the Fourth Gospel (cf. the witness of John the Baptist in 1:7, 8, 15, 32, and 34, along with 5:33; the Samaritan woman in 4:39; Jesus’ own witness, along with that of the Father who sent him, in 8:14, 18, and 18:37; the disciples themselves in 15:27; and finally the eyewitness testimony of the Evangelist himself in 19:35 and 21:24).

In light of all this evidence it seems best to say that the Evangelist wrote with a dual purpose:

(1) to witness to unbelievers concerning Jesus, in order that they come to believe in him and have eternal life; and

(2) to strengthen the faith of believers, by deepening and expanding their understanding of who Jesus is.

¹⁶⁶Brown, The Gospel According to John, 986.

¹⁶⁷P. Benoit, “L’Ascension,” Revue Biblique 56 (1949): 161-203.

¹⁶⁸Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1048-49.

24. Exegetical Commentary on John 21

OUTLINE:

5 A The Epilogue: further post-resurrection appearances of Jesus (21:1-25)

1 B The risen Jesus appears to the disciples at the Sea of Galilee (Tiberias) (21:1-14)

2 B The risen Jesus speaks to Peter about his ministry and his future (21:15-23)

1 C Jesus restores Peter to fellowship and commissions him (21:15-17)

2 C Jesus tells Peter of his future (21:18-23)

3 B The Conclusion to the Gospel (21:24-25)

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Ackroyd, P. R., “The 153 Fishes in John XXI.11—A Further Note,” Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1959): 94.

Agourides, S., “The Purpose of John 21,” in Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament —in Honor of K.ennethWillis Clark, Ph.D., ed. B. L. Daniels and M. J. Suggs, Studies and Documents 29 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967), 127-32.

Bacon, B. W., “The Motivation of John 21.15-25,” Journal of Biblical Liturature 50 (1931): 71-80.

Besobrasoff, S. [Bishop Cassien], “John xxi,” New Testament Studies 3 (1956/57): 132-36.

Boice, J. M., Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John, Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970).

Camaldolese, T. M., “The First and the Last Encounter (Joh 1 and cap. 21),” Bible Today 42 (1969): 2893-97.

Chapman, J., “‘We Know That His Testimony Is True’,” Journal of Theological Studies 31 (1929/30): 379-87.

Dodd, C. H., “Note on John 21, 24,” Journal of Theological Studies 4 (1953): 212-13.

Emerton, J. A., “The 153 fishes in John XXI, 23-25,” Theology 20 (1930): 229.

Grant, R. M., “One-Hundred-Fifty-Three Large Fishes,” Harvard Theological Review 42 (1949): 273-75.

Lee, G. M., “Joh xxi, 20-23,” Journal of Theological Studies 1 (1950): 62-63.

McDowell, E. A., Jr., “‘Lovest Thou Me?’ A Study of John 21:15-17,” Review and Expositor 32 (1935): 422-41.

McEleney, N. J., “153 Great Fishes (John 21, 11)—Geatriacal Atbash,” Biblica 58 (1977): 411-17.

Marrow, S. B., John 21—An Essay in Johannine Ecclesiology (Rome: Gregorian University, 1968).

Romeo, J. A., “Gematria and John 21:11—The Children of God,” Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978): 263-64.

Scott, J. A., “The Words for ‘Love’ in John 21, 25ff.,” Classical Weekly 39 (1945/46): 71-72; 40 (1946/47): 60-61.

Shaw, A., “The Breakfast by the Shore and the Mary Magdalene Encounter as Eucharistic Narratives,” Journal of Theological Studies 25 (1974): 12-26.

Shaw, A., “Image and Symbol in John 21,” Expository Times 86 (1975): 311.

Sheehan, J. F. X., “‘Feed My Lambs’,” Scripture 16 (1964): 21-27.

Smalley, S. S., “The Sign in John xxi,” New Testament Studies 20 (1973/74): 275-88.

Thomas, W. H. G., “The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 21,” Bibliotheca Sacra 125 (1968): 254-62.

DETAILED EXEGETICAL NOTES:

5 A The Epilogue: further post-resurrection appearances of Jesus (21:1-25)

A Note on the role of chapter 21 within the structure of the Fourth Gospel:

There seems to be a perfectly adequate conclusion to the Gospel in 20:30-31, coming immediately after the confession by Thomas in 20:28, which is the real climax to the narrative. 20:30 even seems to make essentially the same statement as 21:25. Yet on the other hand there is no obvious break in the narrative and no discernable difference in style, vocabulary, or grammar.

These observations have led to three different views on the relationship of chapter 21 to the remainder of the Fourth Gospel:

(1) It was written by the same author as chapters 1-20 (with the possible exception of 21:24, see discussion below on that verse) at the same time as chapters 1-20 were written;

(2) It was written by the same author as chapters 1-20 (again with the possible exception of 21:24) but at a later time (perhaps much later, near the end of the author’s life); or

(3) It was written by someone other than the author of chapters 1-20 and added to chapters 1-20 at some later time.

If chapter 21 was indeed a later addition to the Fourth Gospel by a different author, it must have been added very early, because no extant Greek manuscript lacks the last chapter, and there is no serious evidence in the manuscript tradition for later addition.

As far as stylistic and linguistic evidence is concerned, nothing absolutely conclusive can be said. Some, like Plummer, find similarities which point to identity of authorship. Others, like Moffatt, find indications of divergence of style. Bultmann offers perhaps the strongest argument on the basis of style against identity of authorship between chapters 1-20 and 21. Significantly, however, Barrett is not convinced by these stylistic arguments, although he does not hold to identity of authorship on other grounds. In Barrett’s own words, “These linguistic and stylistic considerations, when weighed against the undoubted resemblances between chs. 1-20 and ch. 21, are not in themselves sufficient to establish the belief that ch. 21 was written by a different author.”¹⁶⁹

Most scholars, including Barrett, make the decision for or against identity of authorship not on the basis of stylistic or linguistic evidence, but content and logical argument flow. S. Smalley demonstrates that chapter 21 is not as much of an addendum as some believe, and that it does in fact provide a necessary conclusion to the Fourth Gospel, which does not merely end with Thomas’ confession, but has repeatedly emphasized that the disciples will continue Jesus’ witness to the world after he has departed (15:27) and will carry on his mission in the world.¹⁷⁰

Although it is impossible to be dogmatic about such a conclusion, it seems best to regard chapter 21 as an integral part of the original composition of the Fourth Gospel in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary.

1 B The risen Jesus appears to the disciples at the Sea of Galilee (Tiberias) (21:1-14)

21:1 MetaV tau'ta The time reference here is indefinite, in comparison with the specific “after eight days” (meq= hJmevra" ojktwV) between the two post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in 20:26.

ejpiV th'" qalavssh" th'" Tiberiavdo" The sea of Tiberias was another name for the sea of Galilee (cf. the Notes on 6:1); this designation occurs only in the Fourth Gospel. We are not told how or why the disciples came to be back in Galilee after the events of the passover week in Jerusalem. In spite of the commissioning of the disciples by Jesus in 20:21-23, they do not appear to have had a clear purpose in mind at this time. This is something that would come after their empowerment by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost some weeks later.

21:2 The disciples who were together in Galilee are specified: Peter, Thomas (whose mention forms a link with the climax of chapter 21, in verse 28), Nathanael (who is said to be from Cana), the sons of Zebedee (James and John), and two unnamed disciples. The two who are not named may have been Andrew and Philip, who are mentioned together in 6:7-8 and 12:22.

21:3 uJpavgw aJlieuvein It is sometimes suggested on the basis of Peter’s comment that he was proposing to return to his former career of fishing. However, this is probably to see too much significance in the present infinitive; all that Peter was proposing was a fishing trip, perhaps out of economic necessity. Peter’s attitude may also have been partly the result of despondency over his threefold denial of Jesus during the trials. In any case, the other disciples who were with him agreed, saying, “we also will come with you.”

kaiV ejn ejkeivnh/ th'/ nuktiV ejpivasan oujdevn Fishing on the Sea of Galilee was often done at night. This night, however, the disciples caught nothing at all. Perhaps we are to understand this as representing the unproductivity of mere human effort apart from Jesus. It is difficult to say with certainty, because when Jesus appears to them he does not explicitly censure their efforts (v. 5).

21:4 prwi?a" deV h[dh genomevnh"… Just as day was breaking, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not recognize him. Jesus’ appearance is somewhat mysterious; the Evangelist does not tell us how he came to be there. Just as in the two previous appearances recorded in chapter 20 (20:19-23 and 20:26-28) Jesus seems to have appeared unexpectedly, but the text here does not explicitly state this.

Some (including R. Brown) see the statement that the disciples did not recognize Jesus as difficult since they had already seen the risen Jesus twice in chapter 20.¹⁷¹ This is understood to indicate that chapter 21 was appended by someone other than the Evangelist, who was not too careful about the internal consistency. But there are other good reasons for the disciples failing to recognize Jesus, one of them mentioned at the beginning of this same verse: dawn was just breaking as the disciples were returning in their boat from the unsuccessful night of fishing, and they were within hearing distance of the shore but in the dim light they would not have been able to recognize the face of an individual at this distance.

21:5 paidiva, mhv ti prosfavgion e[cete… Jesus spoke to the disciples from the shore, asking, “Lads, you haven’t caught any fish to eat, have you?” The question, phrased with mhv in Greek, assumes a negative answer. This is the only time in the Fourth Gospel that paidiva is used as an address for the disciples. The word used in 13:33, tekniva, is sometimes said to be a word indicating more tender affection than paidiva, but in 1 John 2:12 and 14 the two appear to be used interchangeably. Perhaps Jesus used this form of address because he did not yet wish to reveal his identity to the disciples.

prosfavgion This is an unusual word. In Hellenistic Greek it described a side dish to be eaten with bread, and in some contexts was the equivalent of o[yon, “fish.”¹⁷² Used in addressing a group of returning fishermen, it is quite clear that the speaker had fish in mind. Here we have translated it “fish to eat” since some of the species of fish in the Sea of Galilee were not considered edible, and that is the point of Jesus’ question here.

21:6 bavlete eij" taV dexiaV mevrh tou' ploivou toV divktuon, kaiV euJrhvsete After the disciples indicated that they had caught nothing, Jesus instructed them to cast their net to the right side of the boat, and they would find (something). As is often the case the direct object (in this case of euJrhvsete) is omitted in Greek, but is easily supplied from the context. Implicit in Jesus’ directions to the disciples is his supernatural knowledge (here, of the location of the fish) and the importance of obedience on the part of the disciples.

kaiV oujkevti aujtoV eJlkuvsai i[scuon The Evangelist goes on to tell us that the result of the disciples casting their net where Jesus had directed is that they were not able to haul it in because of the size of the catch of fish. In verse 11 we are told the exact number of the fish in the net, one hundred fifty-three.

21:7 oJ kuvriov" ejstin As a result of the tremendous catch of fish, the Beloved Disciple realized that the stranger on the beach who had directed them where to cast the net was Jesus. He then said to Peter, “It is the LORD”. It appears that Peter was still not able to recognize Jesus visually, since his response came when he heard that it was the LORD. In all probability we are to understand that it was spiritual insight into the miracle itself which enabled the Beloved Disciple to recognize the stranger on the shore as Jesus, rather than eyesight superior to Peter’s.

toVn ejpenduvthn diezwvsato, h gaVr gumnov", kaiV e[balen eJautoVn eij" thVn qavlassan Peter’s behavior here has been puzzling to many interpreters. It is generally understood that gumnov" does not refer to complete nudity (as it could), since this would have been offensive to Jewish sensibilities. It is thus commonly understood that the meaning here is “stripped for work,” that is, with one’s outer clothing removed, and Peter was wearing either a loincloth or a loose-fitting tunic (undergarment). Believing himself inadequately clad to greet the Lord, Peter cast his outer garment (toVn ejpenduvthn) around himself and dived into the sea. C. K. Barrett offers the explanation that a greeting was a religious act and thus could not be performed unless one was clothed.¹⁷³ This still leaves one with the improbable picture of a person with much experience on and in the water putting on his outer garment before diving in. R. Brown’s suggestion seems much more probable here: the verb used, diezwvsato, does not necessarily mean putting clothing on, but rather tying the clothing around oneself (the same verb is used in 13:4-5 of Jesus tying the towel around himself).¹⁷⁴ The statement that Peter was naked (h gaVr gumno") could just as well mean that he was naked underneath the outer garment (toVn ejpenduvthn), and thus could not take it off before jumping into the water. But he did pause to tuck it up and tie it with the girdle before jumping in, to allow himself more freedom of movement. Thus the clause that states Peter was naked is explanatory (note the use of gavr), explaining why Peter girded up his outer garment (toVn ejpenduvthn) rather than taking it off: he had nothing on underneath.

Why did Peter respond so quickly by jumping into the water, rather than waiting for the boat to get to shore? Some have suggested that this was the first appearance of the risen Jesus to Peter. This would perhaps explain why Peter did not recognize Jesus until the Beloved Disciple identified him, and might also provide some insight into why Peter had returned to Galilee and begun fishing again. Furthermore it might explain the absence of any mention of Peter in the accounts of the two post-resurrection appearances to the disciples in Jerusalem (20:19-23 and 20:26-28).

In spite of this, however, Paul mentions that Jesus appeared to Peter first (which does not negate the presence of companions, so this may or may not have been a separate appearance) in 1 Cor 15:5, and Luke similarly indicates that Jesus first appeared to Simon (Luke 24:34). The location where this first appearance to Peter took place is difficult to determine; Luke’ evidence would point to Jerusalem, but some have argued the appearance took place on the road from Jerusalem to Galilee.

In any case, a sufficient explanation for Peter’s behavior here can be found in his emotional state resulting from his denials of Jesus. This despondency may have also been behind his proposal to resume fishing (cf. verse 3). It is not necessary to understand this as the first time Jesus had appeared to Peter in order to explain Peter’s behavior.

21:8 tw'/ ploiarivw/ elqon Unlike Peter, the other disciples came with the boat. It appears that the weight of the net loaded with fish was so great that they could not lift it into the boat (or perhaps they feared the net would tear if they lifted it out of the water), for they came towing the net loaded with fish (suvronte" toV divktuon tw'n ijcquvwn).

wJ" ajpoV phcw'n diakosivwn When they made this miraculous catch of fish and Peter lept into the water to swim to shore, they were not far from land. The Evangelist tells us they were about two hundred cubits from the land. A ph'cu" was about 18 inches or .462 meters, so two hundred phcw'n would be about 100 yards (92.4 meters).¹⁷⁵

21:9 blevpousin ajnqrakiaVn keimevnhn kaiV ojyavrion ejpikeivmenon kaiV a[rton When they disembarked on the land they saw a charcoal fire prepared, and [a] fish placed on it, and bread. It is not entirely clear whether ojyavrion is to be read as singular or plural, since it is anarthrous. Some have seen in the mention of only one fish and one loaf a symbol of unity; others have suggested a miraculous feeding in miniature, where Jesus multiplies the one fish and one loaf to feed the seven disciples. The latter explanation seems unlikely, however, since such a miracle, following on the previous one (the catch of fish) would probably not be mentioned so indirectly. In light of the fact that Jesus asks the disciples to bring some of the fish they have just caught in the following verse, it seems that only one may have been on the fire, and more were needed. But these fish the disciples had just caught were just as miraculously provided as the one already on the fire!

21:10 ejnevgkate ajpoV tw'n ojyarivwn w|n ejpiavsate nu'n Jesus said to the disciples, “Bring some of the fish (ajpov is used as a partitive here) which you have just caught.” As mentioned above (in the preceding verse) it seems best to understand this request to mean that some of the fish caught by the disciples were to be used in the meal.

21:11 ajnevbh ou Sivmwn Pevtro" It was Peter who took the initiative in drawing the net to land in response to Jesus’ request. We are not told where he went up to, but the verb ajnabaivnw is used of boarding a ship, and that would be the logical explanation for its use here. Although we may recall that the net full of fish was not pulled into the boat, but towed behind it to land, it may well have been necessary for Peter to go up into the boat to loosen the net where it was fastened in order to bring the net to shore.

mestoVn ijcquvwn megavlwn eJkatoVn penthvkonta triw'n The Evangelist makes two further points about the catch of fish: (1) there were one hundred fifty-three large fish in the net, and (2) even with so many, the net was not torn. Many symbolic interpretations have been proposed for both points (unity, especially, in the case of the second), but we are given no explicit clarification in the text itself.¹⁷⁶ It seems better not to speculate here, but to see these details as indicative of an eyewitness account. Both are the sort of thing that would remain in the mind of a person who had witnessed them firsthand. Perhaps we are simply to understand this as the abundance which results from obedience to Jesus, much as with the amount of wine generated in the water-jars in Cana at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry (2:6).

21:12 deu'te ajristhvsate Jesus said to the disciples, “Come, have breakfast”. The verb ajristavw and the corresponding noun a[riston were normally used for the meal at the beginning of the day, as here. At this time there were usually two main meals per day for laborers; the other meal was the dei'pnon (cf. 12:2).

A Note on the Response of the Disciples to Jesus:

Now none of the disciples dared to ask him, “Who are you?” because they knew that it was the LORD. The response of the disciples in this situation is somewhat puzzling. On the surface it reads like a recognition scene, yet Jesus was already recognized by the Beloved Disciple in verse 7. This apparent awkwardness has led some, like R. Brown, to propose that two separate recognition scenes, one here and one in verse 7, have been blended together imperfectly, so that Jesus in effect is recognized twice in the same account.¹⁷⁷ This is not necessary, however, and it overlooks the explanation given in the present verse for the disciples’ hesitancy in questioning Jesus: “because they knew that it was the LORD”. In verse 7 the Beloved Disciple had recognized from the boat that the stranger on the shore was the risen Jesus, but this appears to be a spiritual insight following the miraculous catch of fish rather than a visual perception based on the appearance of Jesus. In verse 7 Peter plunged into the sea after he heard that it was Jesus, not because of what he could see. It appears that the disciples were not actually able to get a good look at Jesus until they got to shore. We might suppose that this would have been enough to clear up any doubts, although it should be remembered that there was something about the appearance of the risen Jesus which was different enough to make immediate recognition difficult. Mary Magdalene (20:15) did not immediately recognize him, and when he appeared to the disciples (20:19-23) he had to show them his hands and side before they are said to have recognized him.

There is also another factor to consider, however. When the Evangelist gives the reason for the disciples’ hesitancy, he does not say it was because they knew that it was Jesus, but because they knew that it was the LORD. Mary Magdalene had announced to the disciples that she had seen the LORD in 20:18, and when Jesus was recognized by the disciples in 20:20 they rejoiced when they saw the LORD. The climax is reached in the recognition scene with Thomas (20:28) where he exclaims, “My LORD and my GOD”. As pointed out there, kuvrio" was used by the LXX to translate hwhy, and thus Jesus’ prophecy in 8:28 (“When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM”) is being fulfilled in these post-resurrection appearances. The reticence of the disciples is understandable if they knew themselves to be in the presence of Deity.

21:13 kaiV lambavnei toVn a[rton kaiV divdwsin aujtoi'" Jesus came and took the bread and gave [some] to them, and the fish likewise. Is Jesus’ action here to be understood in light of similar actions in 6:11, where he also distributed bread and fish? Many have been led to see verse 13 here as a reference to the Eucharist, mainly in light of the suggested connection with 6:11. But such a conclusion is far from certain, and assumes that 6:11 itself alludes to the Eucharist.

21:14 tou'to h[dh trivton ejfanerwvqh =Ihsou'" The Evangelist has added a note explaining that this was the third time Jesus had manifested himself to the disciples after his resurrection. The first time was described in 20:19-23 and the second in 20:26-29. We should probably understand this as a reference to appearances to the disciples as a group, since at least one additional appearance is mentioned in the Fourth Gospel itself (in 20:14-17, to Mary Magdalene), and Luke and Paul both mention a prior appearance to Peter (which may or may not constitute a separate appearance, see the discussion above in the Notes on 21:7).

2 B The risen Jesus speaks to Peter about his ministry and his future (21:15-23)

1 C Jesus restores Peter to fellowship and commissions him (21:15-17)

21:15-17 ”Ote ou hjrivsthsan levgei tw'/ Sivmwni Pevtrw/ After the conclusion of the meal, Jesus said to Simon Peter,”Simon [son] of John, do you love me more than these? (ajgapa'/" me plevon touvtwn…)” Before considering the implications of the variation in vocabulary between ajgapavw and filevw, we must first attempt to answer the question, to whom (or what) does “these” (touvtwn) refer? Three possibilities are suggested:

(1) touvtwn should be understood as neuter, “these things,” referring to the boats, nets, and fishing gear nearby. In light of Peter’s statement in 21:3, “I am going fishing,” some have understood Peter to have renounced his commission in light of his denials of Jesus. Jesus, as he restores Peter and forgives him for his denials, is asking Peter if he really loves his previous vocation more than he loves Jesus. Three things may be said in evaluation of this view: (a) it is not at all necessary to understand Peter’s statement in 21:3 as a renouncement of his discipleship, as this view of the meaning of touvtwn would imply; (b) it would probably be more likely that the verb would be repeated in such a construction (see 7:31 for an example where the verb is repeated); and (c) as R. Brown has observed, by Johannine standards the choice being offered to Peter between material things and the risen Jesus would seem rather ridiculous, especially after the disciples had realized whom it was they were dealing with (the LORD, see above on verse 12).¹⁷⁸

(2) touvtwn refers to the other disciples, meaning “Do you love me more than you love these other disciples?” The same objection mentioned as (c) under (1) would apply here: could the Evangelist, in light of the realization of who Jesus is which has come to the disciples after the resurrection, and which he has just mentioned in 21:12, seriously present Peter as being offered a choice between the other disciples and the risen Jesus?

This leaves option (3), that touvtwn refers to the other disciples, meaning “Do you love me more than these other disciples do?” It seems likely that there is some irony here: Peter had boasted in 13:37, “I will lay down my life for you,” and the synoptics present Peter as boasting even more explicitly of his loyalty to Jesus (“Even if they all fall away, I will not,” Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29). Thus the semantic force of what Jesus asks Peter here amounts to something like “Now, after you have denied me three times, as I told you you would, can you still affirm that you love me more than these other disciples do?”

ajgapa'/" me plevon thouvtwn… What are we to make of the variation in vocabulary in verses 15-17? The variation between ajgapavw and filevw in these verses is as follows:

21:15	ajgapa'/" me plevon thouvtwn…	naiv, kuvrie, suV oida" o{ti filw' se
21:16	ajgapa'/" me…	naiv, kuvrie, suV oida" o{ti filw' se
21:17	filei'" me…	kuvrie, pavnta suV oida", suV ginwvskei" o{ti filw' se

In summary it should be noted that aside from Origen, who saw a distinction in the meaning of the two words, most of the Greek Fathers like Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, saw no real difference of meaning. Neither did Augustine nor the translators of the Itala (Old Latin). This was also the view of the Reformation Greek scholars Erasmus and Grotius. The suggestion that we should see a distinction in meaning comes primarily from a number of British scholars of the nineteenth century, especially Trench, Westcott, and Plummer. It has been picked up by others such as Spicq, Lenski, and Hendriksen. But most modern scholars decline to see a real difference in the meaning of the two words in this context, among them Bernard, Moffatt, Bonsirven, Bultmann, Barrett, Brown, Morris, Haenchen, and Beasley-Murray.

There are three significant reasons for seeing no real difference in the meaning of ajgapavw and filevw in these verses:

the Evangelist has a habit of introducing slight stylistic variations in repeated material without any significant difference in meaning (compare, for example, 3:3 with 3:5, and 7:34 with 13:33). An examination of the uses of ajgapavw and filevw in the Fourth Gospel seems to indicate a general interchangeability between the two. Both terms are used of God’s love for man (3:16, 16:27); of the Father’s love for the Son (3:35, 5:20); of Jesus’ love for men (11:5, 11:3); of the love of men for men (13:34, 15:19); and of the love of men for Jesus (8:42, 16:27).
If (as seems probable) the original conversation took place in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew), there would not have been any difference expressed because both Aramaic and Hebrew have only one basic word for love, bha. In the LXX both ajgapavw and filevw are used to translate bha, although ajgapavw is more frequent. It is significant that in the Syriac version of the NT only one verb is used to translate verses 15-17 (Syriac is very similar linguistically to Palestinian Aramaic).
Peter’s answers to the questions asked with ajgapavw are ‘yes’ even though he answers using the verb filevw. If he is being asked to love Jesus on a higher or more spiritual level his answers give no indication of this, and we would be forced to say (in order to maintain a consistent distinction between the two verbs) that Jesus finally concedes defeat and accepts only the lower form of love which is all that Peter is capable of offering!

Thus it seems best to regard the interchange between ajgapavw and filevw in these verses as a minor stylistic variation of the Evangelist, consistent with his use of minor variations in repeated material elsewhere, and not indicative of any real difference in meaning.

bovske taV ajrniva mou Again we are faced with a variation in vocabulary in verses 15-17:

21:15 bovske taV ajrniva mou

21:16 poivmaine taV provbatav mou

21:17 bovske taV provbatav mou

There are some textual variants involved; it is understandable in such a case that scribal confusion would occur! The apparatus of the 27th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland) should be consulted for the existing variant readings.

As for the meaning, it is sometimes pointed out that bovskw describes a more restricted activity, that of feeding animals, than poimaivnw, which refers to guiding and protecting the flock as well as feeding it. This may be true, but taken comprehensively both terms form a general description of pastoral care. Again we are probably dealing with stylistic variation here on the part of the Evangelist. The Latin Vulgate translated both verbs with the same verb, pascere. And as for the different words for sheep, it should be noted that there are no less than three different words for fish in verses 5-13.

As for the significance of the entire scene in the narrative, it seems clear that it is intended to indicate Peter’s complete restoration to a position of apostolic leadership after his threefold denial. Three times Peter had denied Jesus; three times Peter now affirms his love for his Lord, and three times Jesus commissions Peter to care for the flock of God. There could be no question on Peter’s part or on the part of the other disciples that he had been completely restored.

2 C Jesus tells Peter of his future (21:18-23)

21:18 ajmhVn ajmhVn levgw soi After restoring Peter to his former position of apostolic leadership, Jesus went on to tell him prophetically something of the fate that awaited him in his old age. Jesus told Peter that when he was young, he tied his own girdle, and went wherever he wished, but when he is old, others will bind him and carry him where does not wish to go. There are four elements that are being compared: (1) young—old; (2) tying his own girdle—being bound by others; (3) going—being taken; and (4) wherever one wishes—where one does not wish to go. For the stretching out of the hands in old age there is no corresponding element in the initial stage.

21:19 tou'to deV eipen shmaivnwn… The Evangelist inserts a parethetical explanation. Jesus’ words to Peter signified the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. This explanation makes it clear that the comparisons of the preceding verse ultimately related to Peter’s death, a meaning which is not immediately obvious without the following explanatory note.

The phrase shmaivnwn poivw/ qanavtw/ /doxavsei toVn qeovn almost certainly indicates martyrdom (cf. 1 Peter 4:16), and it may not predict anything more than that. But the parallelism of this phrase to similar phrases in John 12:33 and 18:32 which describe Jesus’ own death by crucifixion have led many to suggest that the picture Jesus is portraying for Peter looks not just at martyrdom but at death by crucifixion. This seems to be confirmed by the phrase ejktenei'" taV" cei'rav" sou in the preceding verse. There is some evidence that the early church understood this and similar phrases (one of them in Isa 65:2) to refer to crucifixion.¹⁷⁹ Some have objected that if this phrase does indeed refer to crucifixion, the order within verse 18 is wrong, because the stretching out of the hands in crucifixion precedes the binding and leading where one does not wish to go. R. Brown sees this as a deliberate reversal of the normal order (hysteron proteron) intended to emphasize the stretching out of the hands.¹⁸⁰ Another possible explanation for the unusual order is the Roman practice in crucifixions of tying the condemned prisoner’s arms to the crossbeam (patibulum) and forcing him to carry it to the place of execution.¹⁸¹

After these words to Peter concerning his martyrdom, Jesus said to him in summary, “Follow me.” Peter was to follow Jesus first in discipleship and later in death, as Jesus had just foretold.

21:20 =EpistrafeiV" Apparently Jesus had been doing what he had frequently done during his earthly ministry with the disciples: he was walking along as he spoke with them. After Jesus had finished speaking with him, Peter turned and saw the Beloved Disciple following too. The Evangelist adds an explanatory note that this was the disciple who had leaned back on Jesus’ breast at the Last Supper and questioned him about the one who was to betray him (13:25).

21:21 kuvrie, ou|to" deV tiv… Peter thus asked Jesus concerning the future of this other disciple. It is natural to suppose that after Jesus had spoken of Peter’s future, Peter’s curiosity would be aroused concerning his fellow disciples. So Peter asked Jesus, “Lord, but what [about] this one?” The actual question is elliptical; various verbs may be supplied: “what about this one?,” “what is to become of this one?,” “what will this man do?,” etc.

21:22 tiv proV" sev… suv moi ajkolouvqei Jesus replied to Peter, “If I wish him to remain [mevnein] until I come, what is that to you? You follow me.” In the context it seems clear that mevnw means “to remain alive” (cf. the use in 1 Cor 15:6). It seems less likely that we should attach to it the special Johnannine theological sense involving the permanent relationship between Jesus and the believer and/or the Father. Jesus does not answer Peter’s question. The point Jesus makes to Peter is that it is none of Peter’s business what will happen to Peter’s fellow disciples. Peter is rather to concern himself with following Jesus.

21:23 ejxh'lqen ou ou|to" oJ lovgo" eij" touV" ajdelfouV"… The Evangelist adds another parenthetical note to explain Jesus’ saying concerning the Beloved Disciple. This saying of Jesus circulated among the brethren that the Beloved Disciple would not die (but would remain until the Lord’s return). The Evangelist makes it clear, however, that this is not what Jesus had said. Jesus had not said the Beloved Disciple would not die. Jesus had asked a hypothetical question: what did it matter to Peter if Jesus wished this other disciple to remain until his return? The adversative used by the Evangelist (ajllav) indicates the strength of this distinction.

3 B The Conclusion to the Gospel (21:24-25)

21:24 Ou|tov" ejstin oJ maqhthV" oJ marturw'n periV touvtwn kaiV oJ gravya" tau'ta The Fourth Gospel concludes with an authentication of the testimony of the one who both witnessed the events described and wrote them down. Many have understood this to be a conclusion written by someone other than the Evangelist. It is argued that the plural oi[damen indicates more than one person is involved in this statement of authentication, and thus it has been added by others after the completion of the Gospel. This may be so, but several points favoring authorship of these final verses by the Evangelist himself need to be considered:

(1) If this statement of attestation were added by a later writer we would expect it to stand at the very end of the Fourth Gospel, but in fact it is followed by verse 25, which resorts to the first person singular (oimai) again;

(2) Manuscript evidence for treating both verses 24 and 25 as a later addition to the Gospel is so slim as to be virtually nonexistent (verse 25 was omitted by the original copyist of , but the same copyist then added it as a correction; there is no manuscript evidence of any kind for the omission of verse 24);

(3) Jesus in 3:11 uses a plural verb where it is clear in context that only he is speaking;

(4) 1 John 1:1 uses plural verbs in the same way, in a context where authentication of testimony is concerned; and

(5) The author of 3 John, who elsewhere uses the first person singular, uses a plural verb and pronoun to refer to himself in verse 12 in a context where authentication of testimony is concerned: kaiV hJmei'" deV marturou'men, kaiV oida" o{ti hJ marturiva hJmw'n ajlhqhv" ejstin. In light of all this it seems probable that the Evangelist himself is the author of 21:24.

21:25 “Estin deV kaiV a[lla pollaV a} ejpoivhsen oJ =Ihsou'" The Evangelist concludes with a note concerning his selectivity of material. He makes it plain that he has not attempted to write an exhaustive account of the words and works of Jesus, for if one attempted to do so, “the world itself could not contain the books which would be written.” This is clearly hyperbole, and as such bears some similarity to the conclusion of the Book of Ecclesiastes (12:9-12). As it turns out, the statement seems more true of the Fourth Gospel itself, which is the subject of an ever-lengthening bibliography!

The statement in verse 25 serves as a final reminder that our knowledge of Jesus, no matter how well-attested it may be, is still partial. We do not know everything that Jesus did during his three and one-half years of earthly ministry. This supports the major theme of the Fourth Gospel: Jesus is repeatedly identified as God, and although we may know him truly, on the basis of his self-disclosure, we can never know him exhaustively. There is far more to know about Jesus than could ever be written down, or even known. On this appropriate note the Gospel of John ends.

¹⁶⁹Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 577.

¹⁷⁰Stephen S. Smalley, New Testament Studies 20 (1973/74): 275-88.

¹⁷¹Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1070.

¹⁷²BAGD 719, s.v. prosfavgion.

¹⁷³Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 580-81.

¹⁷⁴Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1072.

¹⁷⁵BAGD 657, s.v. ph'cu".

¹⁷⁶For a summary of the symbolic interpretations proposed for the number of fish in the net, see Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1074-75, where a number are discussed at length.

¹⁷⁷Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1077.

¹⁷⁸Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1103.

¹⁷⁹For a detailed discussion of the evidence see Morris, The Gospel According to John, 876, n. 52.

¹⁸⁰Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1108.

¹⁸¹W. Bauer as cited by O. Cullmann in Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 88.

Related Topics: Christology, Spiritual Life

6. Amy Carmichael—A Portrait of Sacrifice

Related Media

This article is an edited transcript of Susie Hawkins’ audio message on Passionate Faith. Appreciation for the transcription work goes to Marilyn Fine.

We are in our sixth lesson in our series on Women in Church History, portraits of significant women in church history.

We have used the metaphor of an art gallery in this tour. Today, we are walking past the portrait of a woman of whom I hope many of you have heard. Perhaps you have read one of her many devotionals. Her name is Amy Carmichael, a well known devotional writer. A woman whose main work was rescuing children in India where she spent 56 years of her life. She is probably one of the most influential women that has ever lived in church history.

If you have been watching any of the news, we are having some political things going on in our country. I vacillate between being interested and disgusted. I am little bit of a political junkie but then I get so disgusted with all of it that I just say, “Jesus is my savior and that’s all I know and I don’t care about anything else.” Then I am drawn back into it. It is really interesting right now. As you well know, we have this presidential drama shaping up. We have what looks like Obama as the Democratic nominee. Obama who does not look a day over 17. Then, we have John McCain, Republican, who does not look a day over 100. Then, we have the Hillary factor, and do not ever rule her out, people. It is just getting more and more interesting.

As I was watching this the other night I was sitting in bed and I was surrounded by several of these devotional books of Amy Carmichael’s. I could not help but think of the contrast between her and what we hear and see every day about “ the important people that are going to change history.” These are the people who will determine the direction of a nation and be the leaders of the free world. I am not disparaging any of that. It is absolutely true and it is a huge, huge decision that our nation will make. But, you know what? As I sat there I thought, “these people get all the national and world attention and a woman like Amy Carmichael can come on the scene of the world and live a portrait of sacrifice.” What a contrast. So this is our portrait today: Amy Carmichael, a Portrait of Sacrifice.

Now she has faded off the scene and millions of people have never heard her name. However, what she did for the kingdom of God and the cause of Christ is so far reaching that a presidential candidate, a president, a world leader, cannot even begin to touch that kind of influence. Leaders come and go. Do they not? They are seen as the salvation, as the change agents that are all fixing. No, they will not fix everything. Nobody here can fix everything in this world. It is really true that many of those whose influence lasted throughout history are those who have lived quiet, sacrificial lives for the cause of Christ. Amy is one of those.

Amy Carmichael personifies the spirit of missions and of rescuing helpless people. She was a woman missionary with a social conscience. Amy was born in 1867. She died in 1951. Interestingly, she was the spiritual mentor of Elisabeth Elliot. Now, they did not know each other, but she is the woman whom Elisabeth Elliot looked to as her spiritual director. That is why she wrote a very, very thick biography on Amy Carmichael called, “A Chance to Die.” This is a very, very detailed story of Amy’s life. Amy had a call to ministry, but it was all encompassing in a way that few other women in the time she lived had experienced. She was part of a modern mission spirit which swept the world in the late 19th and 20th century.

Now, let’s get a context for a minute of Christian history at this particular time. Remember we had the Reformation with Katie Luther and all of that. We had Susanna Wesley in the 1700s. She was an eighteenth century England woman with a hard life. I am sure you remember her. Then, we have Amy who comes along around the middle of the 19th century, born in 1867. Amy was part of the second wave of the modern mission movement that really began in late 1700 with William Carey. He was a very famous missionary to India. There is a very famous incident where he was at a church meeting in England and they were talking about the need for missionaries to go take the gospel to the east, in particular to India and China. William Carey said that we need to do this. A man stood up and challenged him and said that if God wants to save the heathen He can do it without us. In a way, that statement produced such a backlash that many Christians began to say that is just not what the Great Commission says. It was kind of the statement of the philosophy of the day. “If God wants to save the heathen, well He will do it His own way.” But, there were many other people who did not really agree with that philosophy. So this was the beginning of the modern mission movement.

These early missionaries went to these foreign lands really believing that once they went they would never return. Once they left the shores of their home, England for example, they knew they would never again return. Amy was one of those. Once she left, she never returned.

Now, there are many other. It is hard to pick just one woman out of this group because there are so many. Adoniram and Ann Judson were the first American missionaries to a foreign country. They went to Burma. It took them four months to get there. I just could not even begin to tell you all the things they went through. Physical hardship was just the first thing, because, of course, this is before penicillin. This is before modern medicine. These women who were married had to endure childbirth, losing children, tropical fevers, just everything you can imagine. Yet the Judson’s took the gospel to Burma.

Hudson Taylor, I am sure you have heard of him, a missionary who took the gospel to China. Lottie Moon, our own little Lottie Moon, our little patron saint in the Baptist world, went to China. David Livingston went to Africa. There is a whole line of pioneer missionaries who literally gave their lives to take the gospel into these nations and to establish a presence. Now, it is interesting. Not all of them expected mass conversations when they got there. They were taking the gospel to a certain place and they would begin to pray and bring the work of God into that particular geographical area. Many of them went years and years. The Judson’s went something like nine years before they even saw one convert. At the end of his life, he had buried two wives and three children. I could read you these stories of what he says sitting under the tree where he buried his wife and children. I am telling you, you would all be sobbing. It is just heartbreaking these things, but they stood by their call. They endured unbelievable hardship.

Now, what is interesting is that the cause of missions captured the imaginations of single women. Outside of the Catholic church, where you could go into the convent and find service and education and all of that there, there were not a lot of opportunities for single women. If you were Protestant there really was not an official place where you could serve outside of wife and motherhood. There was really no role for you. Here is where a call to single women began to gather momentum.

Many of these married women missionaries needed help on the mission field. They had domestic duties. They were having babies every ten months. They were having sick children and they were trying to translate the word. Can you imagine having babies, trying to take care of children with tropical fevers, and trying to translate the gospel into a language that did not have the words for heaven, hell, spirit, angels, etc.? So, not only in these languages do you have to learn the language, define an alphabet, put it all together, you also have to come up with a whole new vocabulary. Now, these are just some of the challenges that they had. So, single women began to become interested in this call to missions. Lottie Moon was one of those. Her sister was also. At the same time as all this, an idea gained prevalence that if one could win women to Christ those women were the ones who would Christianize that culture. It is the idea that the hand that rocks the cradle […rules the world]. So they were the ones who could Christianize the culture. Thus their thrust was for women to be reached in missions.

So, that was when mission support groups began. Almost every denomination had some kind of circle, mission group, or missionary union where people would pray for these missionaries. They would support them, take up offerings, and get them money. Mission support was born.

Now, Amy Carmichael came out of this kind of tradition. Amy was born in a seaport town, Millisle, in northern Ireland to a very strong Christian family. They were Presbyterian, and she was raised in a large family. By all accounts she had a very happy childhood. She had a father who was very active in her life. He taught her to ride horses. He gave her education in the classics, in literature, and in language. In reminiscing about her childhood she talked about her father taking all of the children swimming. People, it is so cold up there I can hardly imagine going swimming! Yet he taught them how to swim in the freezing waters of the ocean just in case they ever needed to know how to swim. I picture her as typically British with a stiff upper lip—though she was a blend of Irish and English. If you read her story, yes, she could take it! She could take the hardship. She was not a sissy by any stretch of the imagination. She endured abuse on the mission field, sickness, all kinds of administrative problems, and harassment from local authorities. I am telling you she somehow was able to keep her perspective about all of the hassles and tribulations she had to deal with in order to fulfill her call.

She had spiritual interests from an early age. There is a famous story that at age three her mother had taught her a Bible story that anything you ask God to do, just take it in prayer in believing that it will be done. So, she decided in looking in the mirror that she had brown eyes and she did not want brown eyes. I never wanted brown eyes either. You like what you do not have, right? She wanted blue eyes so she prayed diligently one night and she was so sure the next morning when she woke up that when she went to the mirror she would have great big blue eyes. It did not happen. She was quite disappointed, but somehow she continued on. Later on, she would recount that story with some degree of amusement. Years later, when she was in India rescuing young girls from temple prostitution, she would disguise herself. She would put dirt on her skin to make her skin darker. She would wrap herself in a sari and go into these areas where these young children were brought into prostitution for the temple gods. She and her little team of rescuers would literally pull them out of these temples. She often said were it not for those brown eyes she would have immediately been given away as a foreigner. The brown eyes enabled her to pass through the crowds and to become at one in the Indian’s mind with them. This was another way she knew that God was directing her life from the very beginning.

She went to boarding school as a young person, as many English did, to a Wesleyan school. Remember we talked about the Wesley brothers, with the spirit of revival and holiness. That was their whole emphasis. So, she was taught about a spiritual call on her life in following Christ. One morning, coming home from church with her brothers and sisters, there was a little old woman who was struggling carrying her bags. She fell down on the street and Amy noticed the church people all walked around her. Nobody would stop and help her. So, Amy elicited the help of her brothers and sisters and they stopped and they helped this woman up and carried her bags home for her. She always recounts that story as the beginning of the time when God would put in her mind that her call, her ministry, was to reach out to the needy. She said that “from this pool flowed the stream that is my story.” She had very poetic words and she loved Victorian English. Some of her writings are little bit harder to read. You have to work a little bit to understand them, but she was so poetic.

She began a ministry in Ireland where she would go into these streets, into the ghetto areas, into the poor parts of town, and gather children to come to another area for Bible stories. After Bible stories, they would have tea. You know, you have to give it to the British, don’t you? They are so civilized. They may be in the ghetto, but they are having tea. She would serve them tea. Monday nights or a certain time she would just teach girls. Other times she would teach boys. She began to notice that the lowest of the low class in her town in northern Ireland was a group of women who worked in the factories. They were called the “shawlies.” The reason they were called shawlies is that they were so poor they could not afford hats, which were the fashion of the day. They would just wear shawls over their heads. This is where she found her most meaningful work. She began to meet with them, work with them, pray with them, teach them the Bible, teach them how to read, and how to write. Everyone kind of turned up their nose at her working with these people. She met two women through a “chance” meeting. They had some resources. She told them about her work. Then she challenged them to donate a hall for her Bible studies to meet in for her shawlies and other groups. Lo and behold they did, much to everyone’s amazement. She organized all this by herself. She did not have anybody helping her. She just went to these women and they got it done. She had an amazing ability to persuade people to do things for the gospel.

When I was reading this about her, knowing what I know about her in her later life, it was such an example that as you are faithful in small things, God will give you bigger opportunities. She pursued with all her heart her calling to the shawlies and to the poor children in northern Ireland. Then, God began to give her greater opportunities as He called her in the ministry. She met a man that she worked with for a while who was active in the Keswick movement. He was a big influence to her. She worked for him like a personal secretary for a while and learned a lot about administration.

She was struggling with her call to missions because she knew how difficult it was to go alone. That is what one would often hear from missionaries writing letters back on how difficult and how lonely it was— even for married couples. How lonely it is to be so isolated from family, friends, and from your culture. This is what she said, “One day, many years ago, I went alone to a cave in the mountains, called Arima.” (This is when she was for a short time in Japan.) “I have feelings of fear about the future. That is why I went there to be alone with God. The devil kept whispering ‘it’s was all right now, but what about afterward? You are going to be so very, very lonely.’ He painted pictures of loneliness. I can see them still. And, I turned to my God in a kind of desperation and said, Lord, what can I do? How can I go on to the end? And, the Lord said, Amy, none of them that trust in Me shall be desolate. That word has been with me ever since.” This is the word that she carried with her: I will see that none that trust in me will ever be desolate or alone.

She had a few false starts. First she went to Ceylon (Sri Lanka today). Then she went to Japan. Japan was a disappointment to her. She learned that there was a lot of discontent among missionaries. There was a lot of tension on the mission field. She resolved then and there that if God gave her a place of ministry that she would do everything within her power to promote good will and harmony among the missionaries at her mission station. She found that to be a difficult time in her life.

She was such a writer. She wrote something like 35 books. I could not even begin to share with you all the things that she would write. But, she would write her prayers. Here is one of the prayers she wrote while she was in Japan as she was praying for God to use her and to give her a passion for these people. She write, “Oh, for a passionate passion for souls. Oh, for a pity that yearns. Oh, for the love that loves them to death. Oh, for the fire that burns.” She was constantly seeking that passionate faith.

She became ill with neuralgia. I am not sure exactly what that is, but she had a lot of muscle pain. She had to return home for convalescence and it was during that time that she decided that her call was to India. So, she went to southern India, south of Bangalore, and joined up with a missionary couple there. They begin to tutor her in the language. She began to learn and serve as an itinerant missionary. She would go out into the country, into the villages, and bring the gospel. She would teach and share. This is where she saw first-hand everything that was happening in the Indian culture. She would write letters back home to these mission support societies and tell them what was happening. She was their eyes to see what was going on in the mission field. She began to disciple a group of young girls who were converts. She called them the Starry Cluster. They felt as they prayed that God wanted them to move to another area where there was a greater need and establish a community. They did this and they called it the Dohnavur Fellowship. This is what she is known for now, the Dohnavur Fellowship. This was the name of her ministry.

Interesting enough, all these missionaries that I have mentioned had some kind of social cause that they worked at within the country they were ministering. Do you remember what Lottie Moon worked on? She worked to banish foot binding. This ancient Chinese practice of binding women’s feet until they were literally crushed. It was the most painful thing. If you ever read about it, you know what I am talking about. The Chinese had in their mind that tiny feet were a sign of beauty. It was the upper class women who would bind their feet and it was so painful they could not even walk at the end of their lives. It would cripple them. The Judson’s worked to banish widow burning, which was the practice that if a man died his widow would be burned with him. They did this because when he went on to the after-life, who would be there serve him if she was not there?! We cannot have men serving themselves in the after-life! So the widow would be burned in order to go be with her husband in the after-life. They were diligently working to abolish the practice of widow burning. These are the kinds of social issues that these missionaries worked against.

Amy really found her true calling in this particular area. She had heard about these young girls who were sold by poor families. They were sold to the temples in order to get money for the temple priests through prostitution in Hindu worship. Sometimes they were kidnapped and indeed they were kept there for the rest of their lives. They could never leave. Some young boys were also dealt with this way.

So, they began to pray and ask God, “How can we help these girls?” One day, a woman literally came to her doorstep with a young seven-year-old-girl named Preena. It is a famous story of Amy Carmichael’s. This woman said, “This is Preena. This is her second attempt to escape from the temple. Her mother sold her into prostitution. She escaped from the temple and I found her on the streets. I took her home and her mother returned her again to the temple. As punishment, they branded and burned her palms to where they were just black. They punished her for leaving, for running away.” This little girl must have been a spunky little thing. She ran away again the second time and this woman said, “I found her again and I did not know what to do with her. I know that you want to help us. Maybe you could help this little girl?”

Amy was sitting down when this woman was talking to her, and this little girl walked right over to Amy. She climbed up on her lap, and called her “alma,” which was the word in that language for “mommy.” Well, you can imagine that dramatic event. What is interesting is that Amy instantly fell in love with this little girl and said “I will take her. We will care for her no matter what.” She began to think, “Is there something here? In that language, there is a little proverb that says “children tie the mother’s feet.” This means, as you probably well know, that children limit a woman’s opportunity as far as traveling and being involved in different activities. Amy had been this itinerant ministry person. So, she felt because of this that she had to limit herself to staying home in her area. She began to take in other young girls. Dozens of young girls were rescued from temple prostitution and hundreds of others from poverty and neglect.

She established an orphanage. She eventually established a medical clinic for them. She established a school for the girls, and she also ended up establishing a school for young boys. Her ministry call, was to rescue these girls, to redeem them, to win them to Christ, to give them a Christian upbringing, and to help them to fulfill their calling in the world.

Now, what she endured. It is just unbelievable the difficulties she endured. When she was doing this activities, do you think the temple priests just sat around and said, “darn we lost another one”? No, they harassed her. They burned down buildings. They called her demon woman. They started all kinds of rumors about her. They abused her. She constantly had the harassment of temple officials around her. They were always reporting her to the government or to authorities. She was having to explain herself to the government. Really, I do not know of any other person I have read about that had to endure so much mean treatment all of the time in her life! I think about that little girl learning to swim in the ocean. I think there was something so steely in her, so strong. Her backbone was so strong. Somehow she could deal with the infinite issues that were there every day and stay focused on her call to rescue these young girls. She stayed focused to take the light of the gospel to this foreign land. She was really gifted in that way.

She also learned first hand the results of the devastating caste system. She learned that a mother, even if her child was at the point of death, would not take the child to a doctor if that doctor was of a lower caste. She worked diligently to dispel this kind of viewpoint.

When she was 64, she experienced a fall and it was the downfall of her health. For 20 years, she was a semi-invalid there in India. She wrote 35 books, poems, songs. She was a prolific writer. Anybody hear the little devotional book, “If”? It is a very small little book. She wrote the book after feeling like she was dealt with by the Holy Spirit about Calvary’s sacrificial love. She is a portrait in sacrifice: sacrificial love. She wrote this little book called, “If,” and it is a lot of little sayings. Here are two of them:

“If I cannot in honest happiness take the second place or the twentieth, if I cannot take the first place without making a fuss about my own worthiness, then I know nothing of Calvary love.”

“If I can speak casually of the misdoings of a child, then I know nothing of Calvary love. If in dealing with one who does not respond, I weary of the strain and sweat from the burden, then I know nothing of Calvary love.”

It is the most convicting thing you will ever read. It is so convicting. With her challenges, and her clear sight, what she held on to was Calvary love. She focused on the sacrificial agape love of Christ and then living that out in her life.

She spent 56 years in India. She is buried there today. She never went home. She never returned to her family. At the end of her life, she had a lot of sorrows. A lot of her close workers had died, some had left the fellowship. Yet she died in her sleep in her beloved Dohnavur, surrounded by the girls and her workers.

There are so many analogies here in Amy’s life. Remember how Paul was in prison at the end of his life? I have often thought how the early church must have said to God, “What are you doing letting him be in prison? We need him. He is the one taking the gospel to the Gentiles. He is our spokesman. He is our main man.” We know now in retrospect if Paul had not been sitting in prison, we would not have all those epistles. There was a purpose in that. Likewise, we have Amy’s writings today. It reminds me of Paul in that way. Because of her invalid state, she could still write up until the last month of her life. We have her writings, her devotionals, her thoughts. I encourage you just go online. Google “Amy Carmichael” and you will see a million things that she wrote. But, I think I would best describe her life in the scripture of John 12:24 where Jesus essentially said, “I must fall and die like a kernel of wheat that falls into the furrows of the earth. Unless I die, I will be alone, a single seed, but my death will produce many new wheat kernels, a plentiful harvest of new lives. If you love your life here, you will lose it. If you despise your life here, you will exchange it for eternal glory.” Surely, she was one of those seeds that was planted in the ground and then it began to take root.

Now, here is the thing. You know, when you look back at ministries, churches, and missionaries, they come and go as far as earthly view. The churches of the Revelation for example, were all in modern day Turkey. They are just ruins now. It is not the place. It is not even the actual church. It is the lives that are touched that go on for the influence of Christ. Dohnavur Fellowship was that time for her. It has gone down. It is going to come back. It struggles. Now, all of these ministries do. My husband always says that churches and ministries are a snapshot in time. For that moment, God uses them, but He does his own thing, as we might say. We are not always sure why He does what He does, but He uses people, their words, their influence. I think it is interesting Amy is really the epitome of Jim Elliot’s (Elisabeth’s martyred first husband) saying, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.” That is Amy Carmichael.

There is a scripture in Revelation 14:13 that I love. You know of wonderful Christian people who have given their lives to Christ and have gone on through death. We have a great saint at First Baptist Church, Esther Beth Rogers. She was a true saint if there ever was one. I thought about her when I read this verse the other day. In Revelation 14:13 I love this,

“And I heard a voice from heaven saying Write. Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Yes,” says his spirit, “That they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them.”

Amy Carmichael died in 1951, the year I was born. We have been talking about her life, her deeds, her work, her words, her portrait of sacrifice. I pray that it would encourage you as much as it has encouraged me. Go online. Read some of her words. Read some of her poems. It may be a little hard to understand her words at times. It will not hurt you to figure it out. It did not hurt me. It will not hurt you to read something a little out of the ordinary and to understand what some people have done.

When I was in China several years ago, I was visiting with a group of women in the area where Lottie Moon (who I mentioned before) had gone taking the gospel for the first time. One of the women there was sharing that she worked at the university. She said to Gene, “I have students in my apartment every night wanting to know about the Bible. Every night they are wanting to know about Christianity.” She said, “I believe the sinner’s prayer. I have to just lock my door some nights because I have to get some sleep. I then have to turn them over to Christ. I cannot direct them to churches because there is no freedom of religions, supposedly.” She said that the interesting thing is she read a scripture out of John 4:38 where essentially Jesus says, “You have not done the hardest work. You are simply here to reap that which was already worked on by others.” I think of that with Amy. There is a thriving Christian community in India. Granted, it is not all truly Christian, but there is a thriving Christian community. Everywhere these missionaries went, today the ministries do not look the same and they may have different names, but is it not interesting how they have thrived? I am talking about China and Africa and India. Any historian will tell you Christianity has shifted from Western Europe and Northern America east towards China and Korea. Why? You just have to wonder. Is it not because these people, these women, these men buried their lives for the sake of the gospel? One little seed sacrificed now sprouts up a huge crop. Now, they are the ones leading the way in Christian commitment and missions.

Not too long ago, we were in a closed Muslim country, and we were talking with some of our people who were there. They said it is interesting that the people who have the strongest calling to the Muslim world are the Asians. That is because they know nobody is going to listen to the Americans or Europeans. You know, we are the evil empire to many of them. Many there are anti west, but they know that Asians do not have that stigma. They do not have that particular connotation and so they feel like they are the ones God has called to minister to the Muslims. Is that not interesting? You know, God just does what He wants. He uses people who are willing to say like Amy, “Lord, this is my story. I will follow you. I will give my life in this way.”

Let me read you this and then we will be finished. On her deathbed, she wrote this,

One thing have I desired, my God of thee,
that will I seek Thine house be home to me.
I would not breathe in alien air.
I want to be with Thee,
oh Thou fairest of fair.

For I would see the beauty of my Lord
And hear Him speak who is my hearts adored.
A love of love can such wonder dwell in Thy great name of names, Emmanuel,
For Thou with Thy child, Thy child at home with thee.
Oh, Lord, my God, I love. I worship Thee.

Amy Carmichael, a true portrait of sacrifice.

1. I Am the Bread of Life

Related Media

John uses various metaphors to describe the relationship of Jesus to the spiritual needs of humanity. As bread gives us physical life, Christ gives us spiritual life.

Related Topics: Christology, Character of God, Women's Articles

2. I Am the Light of the World

Related Media

Darkness and light are familiar metaphors in Scripture. Jesus brings spiritual illumination into each believer, enabling our own light “to shine before men.”

Related Topics: Christology, Character of God, Women's Articles

3. I Am the Good Shepherd

Related Media

John uses the familiar image of the shepherd in order for his readers to fully comprehend the love and guidance of Christ for mankind. He is the Divine Shepherd who knows His sheep and gave His life for them.

Related Topics: Christology, Character of God, Women's Articles

You are here

From the series: Commentary on the Gospel of John PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

18. Exegetical Commentary on John 15

OUTLINE:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

DETAILED EXEGETICAL NOTES:

From the series: Commentary on the Gospel of John PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Commentary on the Gospel of John PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

20. Exegetical Commentary on John 17

OUTLINE:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

DETAILED EXEGETICAL NOTES:

From the series: Commentary on the Gospel of John PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Commentary on the Gospel of John PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

21. Exegetical Commentary on John 18

OUTLINE:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

DETAILED EXEGETICAL NOTES:

From the series: Commentary on the Gospel of John PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Commentary on the Gospel of John PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

22. Exegetical Commentary on John 19

OUTLINE:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

DETAILED EXEGETICAL NOTES:

From the series: Commentary on the Gospel of John PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Commentary on the Gospel of John PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

23. Exegetical Commentary on John 20

OUTLINE:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

DETAILED EXEGETICAL NOTES:

From the series: Commentary on the Gospel of John PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Commentary on the Gospel of John PREVIOUS PAGE

24. Exegetical Commentary on John 21

OUTLINE:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

DETAILED EXEGETICAL NOTES:

From the series: Commentary on the Gospel of John PREVIOUS PAGE

From the series: Passionate Faith on Display: Portraits of Significant Women in Church History PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

6. Amy Carmichael—A Portrait of Sacrifice

From the series: Passionate Faith on Display: Portraits of Significant Women in Church History PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: I AM PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

1. I Am the Bread of Life

From the series: I AM PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: I AM PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

2. I Am the Light of the World

From the series: I AM PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: I AM PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

3. I Am the Good Shepherd

From the series: I AM PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

Pages