Johannine Resurrection Narratives

Of course, we know that the events happened early on the Sunday morning, but we could have known that for the 4th Evangelist, it would have to be 'dark'. Jesus' followers have not yet understood that the Resurrection must happen to fulfil the Scriptures. They have not yet encountered the Risen Jesus, and their understanding is darkened. Also, light symbolises the presence of Jesus, the day, when, He says, He can work. By the end of the Garden scene, the day has come, both the natural day, and what the Benedictus (Luke Ch 1) calls 'The Dayspring from on High', the Risen Jesus Himself. From now on , the light will always be in the world, for the Holy Spirit within the community of the Church will continue the enlightening work of Jesus.

John's gospel has a series of appearances which are focussed upon encounters with individuals. This, it seems to me is a characteristic of John's gospel throughout. It is John's gospel that most clearly emphasises the interest that the Father has in each person, and the necessity for each individual to respond to Jesus. In the resurrection narratives, the evangelist makes it clear that whether one has been in the physical presence of Jesus or not the same relationship of personal calling and personal response is available to all.

Mary Magdalene - my personal favourite. We've already met her mourning her brother, anointing the feet and head of Jesus with oil of nard, which may well have been her marriage dowry. She is a friend of Jesus, and portrayed as bereft at His death. The loss of the body is the final twist of the knife, and not even the appearance of two angels assuring her of the Resurrection is enough to stem her tears. Only Jesus Himself can comfort her, and in her grief, she fails to recognise Him. Only when he calls her by name does she understand to whom she speaks. I am grateful to my friend, Louise for the insight that for Mary, only Jesus Himself would do, and it is a mark of the love that He has for her that He halts on the way to His Father, to comfort and reassure her. It is when He calls her by her name that she recognises Him and comes to faith. This reminds me, anyway, of Isa 43 vs 1. 'I have called you by your name, you are Mine'.

Thomas - good old Thomas, the doubter's friend. The disciple for all of us of a more 'I'll believe it when I see it.' disposition. In fact, he does believe when he sees. (So few people who make this boast actually do believe evidence when it's really presented to them. They continue to find excuses not to believe). However, this story is really a vehicle for the saying of Jesus, addressed to all the readers of John's Gospel "Blessed are they who have not seen and still believe!" The need for faith, and the promise that those who have not had a bodily encounter with Jesus can still share the same relationship with Him as His disciples, is typified in the Resurrection account by ...

The Beloved Disciple - who accompanies Peter to the tomb, sees that the body has gone, and, we are told, 'believes'. He is the example for all readers who 'have not seen and yet have believed'. His faith is commended and rewarded.

Peter, appropriately enough, has his encounter last of all in Chapter 21, which was probably added after the gospel was originally finished. The reasons for the addition to the Gospel may be twofold. Firstly, Peter's reinstatement to discipleship is symbolised by his 'baptism' in the lake of Galilee, when he outruns the Beloved Disciple this time, to swim through the lake to reach Jesus, who welcomes him back to table fellowship. (There's a lovely reference to this passage right at the end of The Voyage of the DawnTreader, one of the Narnia books.) Peter, having denied knowing Jesus three times, is now asked whether he loves Him three times - and commissioned to feed Jesus' flock of sheep. Once again, though, the 4th Evangelist uses this encounter as a vehicle, this time for correcting a misunderstanding about the Beloved Disciple. Apparently, it has been widely believed within the community reading the Gospel that this disciple would still be alive when the Parousia occurred. The evangelist, or possibly his scribe, seems anxious to establish that this was not what Jesus said.

An interesting statement, the command given to Mary Magdalene, in the garden, particularly in the context of Jesus' later encouragement of Thomas to touch Him in order to prove to himself the reality of the physical resurrection. Earlier in the Gospel, the disciples have been told that 'it is good that I go away. If I do not go away, then the Paraclete will not come to you.' The coming of the Paraclete, then, is dependent on Jesus' going away, or ascending to His Father. However, this need not preclude Mary's touching Jesus.

Probably the best explanation is to be found as the passage is translated 'Do not cling on to me!' This, in fact would tie in with the previous passage about the Holy Spirit - the disciples were not to cling on to the physical presence of Jesus because only as if He departed could His presence be with them always in the Person of the Paraclete

Jesus, furthermore, indicates the nature of the relationship which is now available to those who have faith in Him. Relationship, dears, as I have always said, is the very essence of Christianity precisely because the Godhead himself is in relationship, in the person of The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (The Holy Trinity). This relationship of love, obedience, mission and joy is the one to which Christians believe that God calls every human being. Jesus demonstrates this by proclaiming (I suspect with a huge beaming smile on His face), that He is returning to 'My God and your God, My Father and your Father' The relationship that the Only Begotten has with His children is now open to all those who 'know' Him and 'believe' in Him. Perhaps those old Pentecostals were right after all, when they sang 'Blessed Assurance, Jesus is Mine! Oh, what a foretaste of Glory Divine!'

The gathering described here seems to correspond to the encounter with the disciples recounted in Luke 24, on Easter Evening, in the Jerusalem room where they have all been gathered, locked in for fear that the Jewish Authorities will come after them next. Carson, however notes that "the function of the locked doors in John's narrative ... is to stress the miraculous nature of Jesus' appearance amongst his followers." This is not to suggest that His resurrection was non-corporeal. On the contrary, Jesus shows them the wounds in his hands and side. "The risen Lord is the crucified sacrifice." (Carson)

In three of the gospels, Jesus commissions his disciples to go. In John's gospel, Jesus links their 'sending' to His 'sending' "As the Father sent Me, so I send you." He has promised earlier that His followers will do as He does "and greater works than this". Presumably these works refer to the work of manifesting the 'Glory' of the Son, that is, His relationship with the Father, and drawing the world to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, so that those who believe might have 'Life' in His Name. Thus the disciples of Jesus are to share His mission and purpose.

As part of this sending, Jesus breathes on his disciples and bestows upon them the Holy Spirit. And here a problem arises. Luke's Gospel, with which John may well have had some acquaintance, insists that the Holy Spirit was bestowed upon the disciples after Jesus' ascension. Luke emphasises the instruction of Jesus to wait in the city until My Father sends the promised gift of the Holy Spirit. This happens of course, at Pentecost. Can John deliberately have placed the bestowal of the Holy Spirit on the Community at a different time, in different circumstances, and by a different person, ie Jesus?

The impersonal energy of the Holy Spirit was bestowed as an emblem of the later fuller blessing of the Paraclete. (Johnston). But in order to sustain this, Johnston has to 'separate out' the 'personal' and 'impersonal' aspects of the third person of the Trinity, whose unified ministry the 4th evangelist has worked really hard to establish.

The Holy Spirit was given at this stage, but room is left for a greater impartation, a sort of second blessing received at Pentecost. (Calvin, Westcott, Bruce etc) Roughly speaking, scholars who espouse this theory suggest that one bestowal was the power of new life, and the other the power for ministry. There is some disagreement about which bestowal was which. The problem with this view, is that as both John and Luke seem clear that it is important that Jesus had returned to His father before the Holy Spirit could be given to the Community, in what sense, in John's Gospel, can Jesus have been said to have returned to the Father in John's gospel? Were there two 'returns'? Or two bestowals? Or a 'divorce' in ministry between the power of renewed life and the power for ministry?

The view most commonly held amongst scholars today, particularly those who feel no need to insist upon the verbal inerrancy of the Bible, is that this episode is, in fact John's Pentecost, and that he either does not know, or does not hint, at another event in Jerusalem. (eg Barrett, Burge, Bultmann). This view has the merit of linking up all of the ministry of Jesus in terms of His mission from the Father. He has created the world, been sent to redeem it, to give life to all who believe, and never again to leave it. The central theme of the 'glorification of the Father through the Son' is brought full circle in this way. It also has the merit of not requiring a harmonization of accounts which might be ultimately irreconcileable.

You might already see the objections that a scholar like Carson would bring to this interpretation. It calls into question the reliability, accuracy, inerrancy even, of the gospel accounts. Personally, I feel that this is the root of objections to solution number 3, but there are grounds for supporting these objections.

Carson wants to follow Theodore of Mopuestia, in suggesting that the 'breathing' on the disciples was emblematic of the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, rather than the reality. He supports this with the following points. Firstly, Carson questions the word used for 'breathe' in v22. Traditionally, this passage has been associated with the passage in Genesis 2 where God breathed into Adam to bestow new life. Here, Jesus appears to be breathing new life into the Community, creating a new order of humanity. Carson appears to want to make a break from that interpration, so Jesus simply breathes out, and the 'breathing' act does not have that Genesis significance of giving divine life. (A bit tenuous, this objection, I think)

Secondly he suggests that as there was no noticeable change in the behaviour and attitude of the disciples, therefore, the Holy Spirit could not have been given. For example, they do not begin a preaching ministry, they still stay in Jerusalem behind locked doors. There is no hint of the tremendous triumphal difference that the enduing of the Holy Spirit appears to have given in Acts 2. Carson observes "If John 20:22 is understood to be the Johannine Pentecost, it must be frankly admitted that the results are desperately disappointing.... The alternative is surely preferable. The episode in 20:22, ... is best understood as symbolic of the enduement that is still to come."

For these, and other reasons, not least, the witness of present day charistmatic Christians to the reality of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit AFTER conversion, and the adoption of Pentecost as a Christian feast very early on, Carson is deeply reluctant to set the Lucan and Johannine accounts against each other as telling the same story - the bestowal of the Holy Spirit on the Church.

The final point in this section concerns the authority of the Church to forgive or to retain sins. This appears to parallel Mt 16:19 and 18:18, although the Matthaen passage may well refer to the internal discipline of the Church Community, and this passage is set firmly within the context of mission. Traditionally the Church Catholic has seen this passage as their authority to define mortal and venial sin. Naturally, Protestant commentators would suggest that the Paraclete within the Body of the Church is actively convicting of sin, righteousness and judgement, and therefore this passage refers not to the Church pronouncing judgement on sin, but to its very presence as the vessel of the Paraclete, who is pronouncing God's judgement always on sin.