Jesus’ Passion and Resurrection
John’s narrative of the Passion starts with the Last Supper. This differs quite substantially from the Synoptic accounts in that Jesus’ last meal takes place before the Passover (13.1) and contains no words of interpretation over the bread and wine, which go unmentioned. Instead John focuses on Jesus’ washing of the disciples’ feet. This depicts in a strikingly vivid manner his role as servant, featured verbally in the Synoptics (e.g. Mark 10.45; Luke 22.24−27, at the Last Supper), and is explicitly given as a lesson in humility to the disciples: ‘If I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you ought also to wash one another’s feet; for I have given you an example …’ (13.14f.). The unusual vocabulary used for Jesus laying aside his garments (tithēmi) and resuming them again (lambanō) recalls that used for the Good Shepherd laying down his life for the sheep and having power to resume it (10.15, 17f.). Many scholars see here a pointer to Jesus’ death and Resurrection (details in Edwards, 1994), especially following mention of the ‘hour’ coming for Jesus’ ‘departure’ and his loving his disciples ‘to the end’ (13.1). The atmosphere is sombre, with Jesus being ‘disturbed in spirit’ (13.21) and with repeated allusions forward to Judas’ betrayal, seen as the work of the devil (13.2, 10f., 18, 21−30), climaxing in the phrase ‘it was night’ as Judas leaves to betray his master.
All the Gospels devote generous space to Jesus’ Passion, but John’s account is especially full because he includes a long farewell to the disciples (John 14—16) and the ‘High-Priestly Prayer’, a final prayer of self-consecration and intercession for them. This prayer, occupying the whole of John 17, has been treasured by Christians: John Knox asked his wife to read it to him on his deathbed (Bruce, 1983, p. 328); William Temple believed it to be, perhaps, ‘the most sacred passage even in the four Gospels’ (1940, p. 307). Older scholars often took it and chapters 14—16 as recording Jesus’ actual words; today they are widely recognized as belonging to the genre of ‘last testament’ or ‘farewell’ of a great figure, paralleled in the Hebrew Bible by Moses’ farewell in Deuteronomy 33, Jacob’s in Genesis 49, in Jewish literature by the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and in the New Testament by Paul’s speech to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20.17−38); several of these ‘farewells’ also include prayer (see further Brown, 1966, pp. 597−601; Käsemann, 1968; Blomberg, 2001, pp. 195f.; Lincoln, 2005, pp. 383−6). John’s ‘farewell’ is unusual in that it includes occasional questions from the disciples (e.g. Thomas, Philip); these have the function of breaking up Jesus’ long discourse and serving as triggers for fresh teaching. One may compare the interlocutors in Plato’s dialogues, including the Phaedo, which serves as a ‘farewell’ for Socrates (cf. also 1 Chron. 28—29, where David’s ‘last testament’ is similarly broken up. Kennedy (1984, ch. 3) sees John 14—17 as belonging to a consolatory form of ‘epideictic rhetoric’.
Jesus’ ‘farewell’ in John is especially important for its rich christological content and depiction of Jesus’ loving concern for his disciples after his ‘departure’. The main discourse falls into two parts (John 14 and John 15—16), which contain overlaps of material, leading to the conjecture that these chapters contain two different versions of Jesus’ farewell (for a range of theories see Brown, 1966, pp. 582−97; for two recent analyses, see Schleritt, 2000; von Wahlde, 2010). Our concern here is not their composition history, but their content. They pick up themes heralded at the Last Supper (esp. 13.1, 3, 31−36), notably Jesus’ death as ‘departure’ to the Father and ‘glorification’, his love for ‘his own’, his love command (repeated in different ways: 14.15, 21; 15.12f., 17) and the future role of the disciples. The ‘farewell’ discourse and prayer reinforce John’s presentation of Jesus earlier in the Gospel as the one who reveals God’s nature (1.18) and accomplishes God’s work (4.34); as life-giver (e.g. 1.4; 10.10; 11.25), sent to bring people to God (e.g. 3.16f.; 6.44). They highlight Jesus’ love of the Father (14.31) and complete dependence on the Father. Jesus acknowledges that the Father is greater than himself (14.28), but also stresses his unity with God (17.11, 21; cf. 16.27), creating a theological tension which caused much discussion among patristic and later interpreters. Jesus’ final prayer has been seen as balancing the Prologue, as Jesus speaks of his power to give life (17.2), of God’s word as truth (17.17), and of the glory God gave him in love before the foundation of the world (17.24).
Important new themes are also developed, such as the allegory of the vine (15.1−8), and the mutual ‘abiding’ or indwelling of Jesus, God and believers (14.10f.; 17.21, etc.; full discussions in Jerumanis, 1996; Scholtissek, 2000; see also Coloe, 2001), and the role of the Spirit as ‘paraclete’. The Paraclete (Greek, paraklētos, variously translated ‘advocate’, ‘comforter’, ‘counsellor’, ‘champion’ or ‘helper’), also called ‘the spirit of truth’, will be Jesus’ successor, encouraging the disciples, bringing into remembrance what Jesus taught them, and leading them into all truth (14.16f., 26f.; 15.26; 16.12f.). He also has a forensic role, to prove ‘the world’ wrong about sin, justice and judgement (16.7–15). He is significantly described as ‘another paraclete’ (14.16), implying that Jesus himself has similar roles (cf. 1 John 2.1). Jesus promises that the Paraclete will abide with the disciples always, another allusion to the fact that he will soon be leaving them.
Though generally considered largely the Evangelist’s creation, the Farewell Discourses and Prayer contain echoes of Jesus’ teaching in the Synoptics, including the Lord’s Prayer (see, e.g., Lincoln, 2005, pp. 432f.). Its ethical or moral content (love command, teaching on discipleship and the need to ‘bear fruit’) is intensified by its position in John’s story at this key moment before Jesus goes to his death. Emotionally Jesus’ ‘farewell’ in John prepares readers for his painful suffering and death, and offers them encouragement in their own lives (these chapters are often used to reconstruct the hypothetical situation in John’s ‘community’). Particularly powerful, for many people, are Jesus’ promises (14.18) not to leave the disciples bereft (orphanous) and of answered prayer in his name (14.13f.; 15.16; 16.23f., 26; his identification of himself as the way, truth and life (14.6); his calling the disciples ‘friends’ (15.14f.); his prayer (17.20f.) for the unity of those who will believe through the witness of the disciples; and his promises of peace (14.27) and joy (15.11; 16.20−22) despite future persecution. Jesus’ last words of his second discourse, before his final dedicatory prayer, are: ‘In the world you have affliction. But be encouraged; I have defeated the world’ (16.33).
The Farewell Discourses and Prayer serve as an interlude between the Last Supper and the tense narrative of Jesus’ arrest, ‘trials’, crucifixion and death, which are fraught with symbolism and christological significance. One striking feature is John’s perception of Jesus’ Passion as something that Jesus actively undertakes rather than as something he passively endures. A basic theme in the Synoptics is that Jesus is a suffering messiah. In Mark he teaches his disciples that the Son of Man must suffer grievously, be rejected by the elders, High Priests and scribes, and be killed, and rise again three days later (8.31; cf. 9.12, 31; 10.33f.). Matthew and Luke have similar predictions, and Luke has the risen Jesus specifically explain that this suffering was foretold by the prophets (24.26f.). But although John presents Jesus as rejected by his own people (1.11; 12.37; 18.40; etc.), he never once uses paschō, ‘suffer’, of Jesus. Rather he depicts him as giving his life voluntarily, in obedience to the Father, knowing that he will rise again: as he says in a passage mentioned earlier, ‘I have power to lay [my life] down, and I have power to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord’ (10.17f.; cf. 10.11, 15). In describing Jesus’ Passion John stresses his autonomy: he knows beforehand who will betray him, and tells Judas to do quickly what he has to do (13.11, 18, 26f.; cf. 6.70f.). When the soldiers come to arrest Jesus, Judas does not need to identify him with a kiss, for he identifies himself with the words ‘I am [he]’ (18.5f.) – possibly a divine ‘epiphany’ (discussed below, Ch. 12). Jesus takes the initiative in bidding them let his disciples go (18.8f.), fulfilling words from his Farewell Prayer, ‘I have guarded them, and none of them perished, except the son of perdition, that Scripture might be fulfilled’ (17.12).
Trial and ‘glorification’
When brought before Pilate, Jesus questions the governor in a way that would be impertinent for an ordinary prisoner (18.34–37), speaking of truth, and of his own kingship, ‘not of this world’ – hardly the conduct of someone on trial for his life. He even tells Pilate that he would have no authority over him if it had not been given him ‘from above’ (19.11). This contrasts with his silence in the Synoptics before both the High Priest and Pilate (Mark 14.60f.; 15.4f.; Matt. 26.62f.; 27.14; Luke 23.9; cf. 1 Pet. 2.23). In John, Jesus carries his own cross (19.17); contrast Mark (15.21 par.), where it is carried by Simon of Cyrene. John’s trial and crucifixion narratives are full of symbolic allusions to Jesus’ kingship, including his crowning with thorns, being arrayed in purple, and mockingly acclaimed king (19.1–3). His dying cry, ‘It is accomplished’ (tetelestai), echoes words from his Farewell Prayer, when he spoke proleptically of having completed (teleiōsas) the work God gave him to do (17.4); cf. 13.1: ‘he loved them to the end’ (eis telos). Then ‘he bowed his head and handed over his spirit’ (19.30), words bringing out the voluntary nature of his death.1 The purpose of all this is to show that, far from being passive, Jesus consents to and controls what happens to him: he dies so that God may be glorified, and in so doing is himself glorified (17.1–5). He willingly drinks the cup that the Father has given him (18.11), and reigns from the cross (19.19–22). This is John’s solution to the problem of a crucified messiah, ‘a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles’ (1 Cor. 1.23; cf. Gal. 5.11; Heb. 12.2).2
This image of the Passion as Jesus’ triumph rather than humiliation is borne out by earlier references which carefully prepare the way for John’s presentation of Jesus’ death. In his Passion predictions Jesus speaks of being ‘lifted up’ or ‘exalted’ (Greek hypsoō) rather than of suffering (e.g. 3.14; 8.28; 12.32f.). He repeatedly refers to his ‘hour’ (e.g. 7.30; 8.20), when he will be ‘glorified’ (doxazō: 12.23f.; 17.1; cf. 12.16; 13.31f.), a theme already obliquely heralded by the references to his ‘glory’ in the Prologue (1.14) and the wine miracle (2.11). In this understanding John was probably influenced by Isaiah’s picture of the Lord’s despised and rejected Servant (52.13—53.12), who bore his people’s iniquities and was vindicated by God. The coincidences of language are striking: in Isaiah (52.13, Hebrew text) God promises: ‘My servant … shall be high [yarum], and lifted up [niśśa’], and exceedingly exalted [gabah]’ (Septuagint, hypsōthēsetai kai doxasthēsetai sphodra); in John (12.23, 32), Jesus is ‘lifted up’ (hypsoomai) and ‘glorified’ (doxazomai). In Isaiah the Servant ‘pours out his soul to death’ (53.12, Hebrew text); in John, Jesus ‘hands over’ his spirit, using paradidōmi (cf. Isa. 53.12 Septuagint, with the same verb in the passive).3 John’s knowledge of this part of Isaiah is shown by his direct quotation in 12.38 of Isaiah 53.1. He also refers to Isaiah’s call vision (12.40f., citing Isa. 6.10); he says that Isaiah ‘saw’ Jesus’ glory and spoke of him. Presumably he understood Isaiah as seeing the pre-existent Word, identified with YHWH’s glorious presence.4
But Jesus’ ‘glorification’ in John does not just encompass his death; it also involves his Resurrection, seen as part of one movement with his exaltation. At the ‘triumphal entry’ when the crowds acclaim Jesus as ‘King of Israel’, John quotes Zechariah (9.9), ‘Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion; behold, your king comes, seated on the foal of an ass.’ He explains that the disciples did not understand at first, ‘but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that this had been written of him’ (12.16). The phrase italicized corresponds to ‘when he was raised [ēgerthē] from the dead’ in a parallel passage in 2.22, where the disciples understand Jesus’ enigmatic Temple saying only after his Resurrection.5 ‘Glorify’ is also used in 7.39 when it is explained that the Spirit had not yet been given ‘because he was not yet glorified’.
Departure, ascent and return
John also has Jesus regularly speak of his death as his ‘departure’ to the Father.6 In 7.33 he warns officers sent to arrest him, ‘For yet a little while I am with you, and [then] I depart to him who sent me.’ ‘The Jews’ misunderstand him, and wonder whether he is going to teach the Greeks; but Jesus is speaking of his going to God when he has fulfilled his mission. In 8.21f. Jesus again speaks to ‘the Jews’ of his departure, and this time they think that he may be intending to kill himself. In the Farewell Discourses ‘departure’ is a prominent theme: Jesus tells the disciples that he goes to prepare a place for them (14.2f.). Because he is going to the Father, they will be able to do even greater works than he has (14.12). He promises not to leave them desolate, but to come again and take them to him (14.3, 18). The climax comes in his ‘High-Priestly’ (or dedicatory) Prayer, when he says to his Father, God: ‘Now I am coming to you’ (17.13).
There is an ambiguity in Jesus’ promise to ‘come again’: is he speaking of his parousia, ‘[second] coming’, as predicted in the Synoptics and in John’s Epilogue (21.22), or the Resurrection appearances? In general, the hope of an imminent apocalyptic parousia has faded in John, in favour of what is now called ‘realized’ eschatology. John presents the ‘last days’ or ‘messianic age’ as already present in Jesus’ ministry, and judgement as happening here and now as people make decisions for or against him (3.18, 36; 8.24; etc.). Many scholars therefore see Jesus’ promised ‘coming’ as his Resurrection, with his gift of Spirit as a continuation of his presence, fulfilling his promises to send the Paraclete (16.7) to guide the disciples and remind them of his teaching (14.26; 15.26; 16.13). However, John’s eschatology is not entirely ‘realized’: he refers repeatedly to ‘the last day’ (6.39, 40, 44, 54; 11.24; 12.48) and to the future resurrection of believers (5.25, 28f.). It is therefore likely that in passages like 14.3 there is at least an indirect allusion to the parousia (cf. 1 John 2.28).7 In other words, present and future eschatology are held together in creative tension: cf. 4.23, ‘The hour is coming and now is …’
As well as speaking of Jesus’ ‘lifting up’ and ‘departure’, John uses the language of ‘ascent’, referring, for example, to ‘the Son of Man ascending to where he was before’ (6.62). This raises the question of how he understood the Ascension, pictured traditionally in the Church as a physical return to heaven 40 days after the Resurrection (cf. Acts 1.1–11).8 John never describes Jesus’ ascent as an event, but sees it as an integral part of his ‘glorification’, the process by which he returns to the Father through death and Resurrection. He regularly uses spatial, ‘up–down’ language in talking of Jesus’ earthly life and his presence with God. Thus in the Nicodemus episode, immediately before mentioning his ‘lifting up’, Jesus says, ‘Nobody has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man’ (3.13).9 Jesus ‘comes down’ from heaven to fulfil God’s will (6.38) and bring life to the world (6.33; cf. 6.41, 50f., 58); when this is accomplished he goes back to God. He also speaks of himself as being ‘from above’ and ‘not of this world’, in contrast to those who are ‘from below’ and ‘of this world’ (8.23; cf. 17.11, 14). And he refers to his ‘coming’ or being ‘sent’ into the world (3.17, 19; 10.36; 12.46; 17.18; etc.) like ‘an embassage from without’ (Bultmann, 1955, p. 33).
Passion and death
Because John understands Jesus’ teaching as life-giving, and speaks of the disciples being ‘clean’ through his word (15.3), some scholars have suggested that Jesus’ death has no soteriological significance for him. In a much quoted passage Bultmann wrote, ‘In John, Jesus’ death has no pre-eminent importance for salvation, but is the accomplishment of the “work” which began with the incarnation: the last demonstration of the obedience (14.31) which governs the whole life of Jesus’ (1955, p. 52). Käsemann similarly argued that Jesus’ glory so thoroughly determines John’s whole presentation that his Passion Narrative becomes problematic. He is tempted to regard it as ‘a mere postscript which had to be included because John could not ignore this tradition nor yet could he fit it organically into his work’ (1968, p. 7). Ashton (2007, p. 460) finds Käsemann’s arguments as ‘having a certain force’ and thinks an even more persuasive case can be made for the ‘superfluousness’ of the Resurrection stories in John.
Such views underestimate the significance of Jesus’ Passion, death and Resurrection in John, and the degree to which they are integrated into the Gospel’s structure. If the Passion was only a ‘postscript’, why did John spend so long describing Jesus’ last days on earth (John 12—19)? Why did John prepare so carefully for his death? Jesus’ ‘hour’ and his ‘glory’ are already mentioned in the Cana narrative (2.4, 11), and John’s Temple ‘cleansing’ story contains more than one allusion to his death. When Jesus bids the pigeon-sellers, ‘Take these things away’, the disciples remember Psalm 69.9, ‘Zeal for your house shall consume me’ (2.17). The verb translated ‘consume’ means to eat up in the sense of ‘destroy’; in its original context it described, in a past tense, the pains, anguish and insults which the Psalmist had to bear because of his loyalty to Israel’s God. But John cites it in the future tense as a prophecy of how Jesus’ loyalty to his Father will lead to his own destruction. His Resurrection, as well as his death, is predicted in his words, ‘Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it’ (2.19, 22). This saying must relate in some way to the Synoptic accusations at Jesus’ trial (Mark 14.57f.; Matt. 26.61), and the taunts of the bystanders at the crucifixion: ‘Ah! You that destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself and come down from the cross’ (Mark 15.29; Matt. 27.40; cf. Acts 6.14). To anyone who knew these texts, John’s Temple saying would certainly point forward to the Passion.
There are also references to Jesus’ death in the reflections following the Nicodemus dialogue (3.12–21), in the sequel to the feeding miracle (6.51c; cf. 6.70–71), and at numerous points in John 7 and 8. References forward are prominent in the Good Shepherd Discourse (John 10) and in the aftermath of the raising of Lazarus, when the Jewish authorities resolve that Jesus must die (11.50–53). Merely as part of John’s storyline, Jesus’ death is necessary as the climax to the machinations attributed to ‘the Jews’ to arrest or destroy him (7.30f.; 8.59; 10.31, 39; 11.53).
John 12 is particularly important as a preparation for Jesus’ Passion. It begins with his anointing at Bethany by Mary, Martha’s sister (12.1–8). In Mark’s and Matthew’s parallel a woman anoints Jesus’ head, possibly a royal ‘messianic’ anointing (Hooker, 1991, p. 328); but that is not John’s emphasis. He has Mary anoint Jesus’ feet (cf. Luke 7.38), and she is told to keep the ointment for his burial. The mention of Judas’ betrayal (12.4) strengthens the sense that Mary’s act points forward to his death. Jesus’ glorification is mentioned in John’s comment on the ‘triumphal entry’ (12.16); his death is further interpreted in the saying about a grain of wheat needing to ‘die’ before it can bear fruit (12.24). Thereupon Jesus is troubled in his soul, and wonders whether he should ask God to save him from ‘this hour’, but concludes that God’s Name must be glorified (12.27f.). This is the nearest one gets to the Synoptic agony at Gethsemane (Mark 14.32–42 par.), with which John seems to be familiar (cf. 18.11), but the scene is much less poignant. Jesus is vindicated by a voice from heaven saying, ‘I have glorified [my Name] and I will glorify [it] again’ (12.28), and he goes on to speak of his ‘lifting up’, explicitly explained as his death (12.32f.). John’s account of the foot-washing is marked by a clear reference to Jesus’ forthcoming betrayal (13.18–30) and allusions to his death (13.1, 31–33). The Farewell Discourses are replete with allusions to his death and Resurrection under the scarcely veiled terminology of ‘departure’, ‘going to the Father’, ‘being glorified’ and ‘coming again’. The ‘High-Priestly Prayer’ not only echoes earlier themes, but also serves as a powerful interpretation of the events that are to follow.
Jesus’ Passion and death, then, are no mere ‘postscript’, but an essential part of John’s story and theological message. They illustrate Jesus’ kingship and autonomy, and victory over evil; they demonstrate his obedience to his Father, who loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that those who have faith in him may have eternal life (3.16). Thus Jesus’ Passion and death, like his teaching, are life-giving: they reveal not just God’s love, but also Jesus’ own love expressed through the ultimate gift of his life: ‘Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end’ (13.1). On Jesus’ death as a demonstration of love see further Koester (2008, pp. 110−12).
Atonement and salvation
But did John see Jesus’ death as atonement for sin? Bultmann’s words about it having ‘no pre-eminent importance for salvation’ have triggered considerable scholarly controversy (e.g. Forestell, 1974; Turner, 1990). The problem is that for many centuries Christian scholars have sought to harmonize the various New Testament writings in an attempt to discover a consistent theology of sin and redemption. All too often it has been assumed that John must have the same message as other Scripture writers. There is no doubt that Paul’s writings, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation all interpret Jesus’ death as a sacrifice for sin. This is illustrated by their use of such terms as hilastērion and hilasmos (‘propitiation’ or ‘expiation’), lutroō and lutrōsis (‘redeem’, ‘redemption’), and the image of Jesus as a slain lamb. The same is probably true of the Synoptics though their theology in this respect is less developed and less explicit.10 In interpreting Jesus’ death in this way the New Testament writers were applying to the Christian faith the idea common to Judaism and many ancient religions that blood-sacrifice is necessary as a means of reconciling humanity to God (see the sensitive discussion in Bradley, 1995, chs 3–4).
John’s Gospel does not use the language of ‘redemption’ or expiation/propitiation (though 1 John does: 1.7, 9; 2.2); it is, however, beyond doubt that its author is familiar with such ideas. Jesus is ‘the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world’ (1.29); he dies on the day of preparation for Passover (19.14). During the crucifixion he is given a drink ‘on hyssop’ (19.29), recalling the original Passover ritual when hyssop (a leafy plant) was used to sprinkle blood on the Hebrews’ doorposts (Exod. 12.22). Furthermore, when the soldiers refrain from breaking Jesus’ legs (because he is already dead), John refers explicitly to the Scripture that no bone of the Passover lamb should be broken (19.33–36; cf. Exod. 12.46; Num. 9.12). He also tells of blood and water flowing from the spear-wound in Jesus’ side (19.34). While many different interpretations of this have been offered, the most probable is that the blood represents Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, and the water new life (cf. Lindars, 1972, p. 587; cf. Lincoln, 2005, p. 479). All this strongly argues for a sacrificial understanding of Jesus’ death.
This idea is supported by a series of texts involving the preposition hyper (‘for’ or ‘on behalf of’) where Jesus speaks of giving his flesh for the life of the world (6.51), of laying down his life for the sheep (10.11, 15) or for his friends (15.13), of consecrating himself for the disciples (17.19); cf. Caiaphas’ reference to his dying for the nation (11.50f.; 18.14). Although the word ‘sin’ is not mentioned, such texts seem to suggest that Jesus’ death somehow enabled the forgiveness of sins, not only of his friends, but also of the whole world (cf. 1.29; 1 John 2.2). To say this is not to insist that John’s theology must be harmonized with that of the rest of the New Testament; it is merely to point out that such an explanation would make sense. The idea that Jesus’ death is merely an example of obedience or only a demonstration of love seems inadequate to explain both the ‘hyper’ texts, and the underlying paschal symbolism of the Passion Narrative.
Jesus’ death in John is also seen as attracting humanity to Jesus: ‘When I am lifted up, I will draw all people to me’ (12.32). It will enable people to know who Jesus truly is (8.28), and through knowing him, and God who sent him, they will be able to attain eternal life (17.3; cf. 3.14f.). His Passion and death, as well as his teaching, are the means of conquering evil: immediately after his agony over his ‘hour’, he says (in anticipation of his death), ‘Now is the judgement of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out’ (12.31). Similarly at the end of his second Supper Discourse he says, ‘Take courage; I have overcome the world’ (16.33). Though couched in a perfect tense these words again look forward to his victory on the cross, where he is both priest and victim (so Bruce, 1983, p. 328).
Yet, for John, the interpretation of Jesus’ death cannot be separated from that of his life. Jesus comes as a light shining in the darkness (3.19; 9.5; etc.). Through his life and his death he is indeed ‘the Saviour of the World’ (4.42). In everything he says and does he opposes evil, falsehood and hypocrisy. His words convey life (6.68) – they are ‘spirit and life’ (6.63) – precisely because they reveal the true nature of God. In his own person he has revealed the character of God (14.9), because he came from him and lived his whole earthly life in unity with his will (cf. 10.30; 14.10; 15.10; etc.). Seen this way, there is no conflict between the concept of Jesus bringing salvation through his words, and that of his bringing it through his death.
Resurrection and commissioning
Nor can the understanding of Jesus’ death be separated from that of his Resurrection. Bultmann suggested that if Jesus’ death on the cross is already his exaltation, his Resurrection cannot have special significance: ‘No resurrection is needed to destroy the triumph which death might be supposed to have gained in the crucifixion. For the cross itself was already triumph over the world and its ruler’ (1955, p. 56). There is a logic about this comment; but an even stronger logic required John to include the Resurrection. If Jesus embodies the divine Word that existed from eternity, if he is the source of life for others, if he can claim to be ‘the Resurrection and the Life’ (11.25), then it is incomprehensible that his own life could be ended by human actions. As the Prologue states, ‘The light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness has not extinguished it’ (1.5). The Resurrection is part of ‘exaltation’ and glorification as much as the cross.
Stories of the empty tomb and of Resurrection appearances were already part of the Christian tradition when John wrote, and could not be ignored. If the Resurrection ‘cannot be an event of special significance’ and the Easter stories are ‘not indispensable’ for John’s theology, as Bultmann claims, one might expect him to relate them briefly and sketchily. In fact, John narrates more Resurrection appearances than the other Evangelists, and does so with exceptional skill. He describes Jesus’ appearance to Mary Magdalene (20.1f., 11–18) so vividly that many think he must be drawing on eyewitness experience (cf. Dodd’s comment, 1963, p. 148, that there is something ‘indefinably first-hand’ about the account).11 He also tells of Peter and the ‘beloved disciple’ at the tomb (20.2–10), of an appearance in Jerusalem on the same day (20.19–23), and of a third appearance a week later to the disciples with Thomas (20.24–29). Then there is the meeting with seven disciples by the lake and the final conversations with Peter and the ‘beloved disciple’ (John 21). The sheer amount of space and care devoted to the Resurrection demonstrates its importance for John.
Much scholarly energy has been expended on comparing the various Resurrection accounts with a view to harmonizing them, or in an attempt to trace the development and interrelationship of the traditions. John shares key elements with the Synoptics (see Table 2, pp. 172f.): Jesus’ body is laid in a new/rock-cut tomb; very early on Easter morning it is found empty by a woman or group of women, who see angelic figure(s) and tell the disciples (except in Mark). That evening Jesus appears to the assembled disciples in Jerusalem, and commissions them (John; Luke). He later appears in Galilee (John; Matthew). At the same time the accounts reveal substantial differences. John has Jesus’ body buried with a large quantity of scented oils and spices, while in Mark’s account the women go to the tomb on Easter Day ‘to anoint the body’ (as if it had not been done previously). In all the Synoptics Jesus’ body is wrapped in a shroud (sindōn);12 in John, it is bound with bandage-like cloths (othonia) with a separate head napkin, as was Lazarus’ body (11.44, keiriai – another word for bandages).
The other Evangelists all have three women (including Mary Magdalene and another Mary) go to the tomb; John has only Mary Magdalene. He may be adapting tradition here so that he can focus on her personal encounter with her Lord. Only John describes Peter and the ‘beloved disciple’ as going to the tomb. Paul knows a tradition of Peter as the first Resurrection witness (1 Cor. 15.5; cf. Luke 24.34, where ‘Simon’ may be Peter), but it is not clear whether John draws on this; he describes Peter seeing the tomb empty, but not seeing the risen Jesus. Some regard John’s episode of Peter and the ‘beloved disciple’ as created by him for theological purposes.
In both Matthew and John the risen Jesus meets the women/Mary. Matthew’s narrative (28.9f.) is very brief, with Jesus giving the same message as the angel; some consider this secondary to the women’s encounter with the angel. By contrast, John’s account of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is full and detailed, and includes her moving recognition of Jesus as she utters the word ‘Rabboni’ (cf. above, p. 74). Interestingly, in Matthew the women grasp Jesus’ feet, but in John Mary is told not to touch him (haptomai), ‘for I have not yet ascended to the Father’ (20.17). Most scholars believe that haptomai is used here in the sense of ‘cling to’. There is a strange contrast with 20.27, where Jesus bids Thomas put his fingers into his wounds.
Both Luke and John describe an appearance to disciples in Jerusalem on Easter Day (cf. his appearance to ‘the Twelve’ in 1 Cor. 15.5). In Luke it follows the Emmaus episode, not found in the other Gospels (see Table 2); John alone says that the doors were shut ‘for fear of the Jews’. In both, Jesus shows his wounds as a means of identification – his hands and feet in Luke (24.39); in John his hands and side (20.27; cf. 19.34). Luke stresses the physicality of the Resurrection: Jesus explicitly says that he is not a ghost, and eats in front of the disciples (Luke 24.39, 43; cf. Acts 1.4; 10.41). In John Jesus apparently passes through locked doors (suggesting a non-physical body),13 but his breathing into the disciples (20.22) and his invitation to Thomas to touch him (20.27) – both unique to John – imply a physical body. The insufflation (breathing) is the gift of the Paraclete, equipping the disciples for their future work. Some also see it as a symbol of a new Creation: the verb used for ‘breathe into’ (or ‘on’), emphysaō, is comparatively rare, being found only here in the New Testament. But it occurs in Genesis 2.7 (Septuagint), for the Lord’s breathing into Adam’s nostrils the breath of life, so that he becomes a living being (cf. Wisd. 15.11), and in Ezekiel’s vision, when the wind/spirit brings life to the dry bones (37.9f.). The new Creation would be the Church, brought to life by Jesus’ symbolic action and his ‘sending’ of the disciples. This is surely John’s equivalent of Luke’s Pentecost (Acts 2).14
All the Gospels conclude with a commissioning of the disciples (except Mark’s, where the end may be lost).15 In Luke and John the commission takes place in Jerusalem on Easter Day, but in Matthew it occurs, at an unspecified time, on a mountain in Galilee (28.16–20). The accounts differ in the manner of Jesus’ final leaving. In Luke (24.50–52) he leads the disciples out to Bethany, blesses them, and is carried up to heaven; but in Acts (1.2–11) he presents himself alive to them over a period of 40 days before ascending, and the Spirit is given ten days later (contrast John 20.19–22). John nowhere describes any physical departure: Jesus simply bids Mary tell ‘his brothers’ (presumably the male disciples), ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God’ (20.17). Does he picture Jesus as ascending immediately? If he does, the subsequent appearances to disciples would presumably be of a different character, perhaps comparable to Paul’s vision on the Damascus road – well after the Ascension on Luke’s chronology – which Paul describes as if it were on a par with the others (1 Cor. 15.8). But we cannot be sure of this point.
The differences between the Gospel accounts, and the problems of reconciling their testimony with 1 Corinthians, make one doubt the wisdom of trying to reconstruct precisely what happened (as in Wenham, 1984). There are similar problems in reconciling the various trial narratives, but the situation is especially acute with the Resurrection, which is not the sort of happening that can be recovered by painstaking source-analysis or other tools of historical enquiry.16 Each Evangelist presents his own understanding in a way that he thinks will convince readers. Other New Testament writers add their conviction that the same Jesus who died on the cross is alive and has returned to be with God (cf. Heb. 1.3; 2.9; 13.20; 1 Pet. 3.18–22; 1 Tim. 3.16; Eph. 4.10). This is the historic faith of the Church. Yet the Resurrection is beyond normal human experience – to be apprehended by living faith (or not at all). A fascinating aspect of John’s presentation is the stress placed not on physical viewing and touching (which Thomas demanded), but on the need to be ‘believing’ (pistos: 20.27). The climax of this episode is Jesus’ beatitude: ‘Blessed are those who do not see, and [yet] believe’ (20.29), leading beautifully into John’s conclusion on the Gospel’s purpose (20.30f.). The Epilogue (John 21) offers further evidence for the Resurrection and deals with other issues (discussed above, pp. 25; 70f.).
Conclusion
Thus John’s achievement in his Passion and Resurrection Narratives is his presentation of the cross not as a humiliation inflicted on Jesus, but as something voluntarily undertaken and the means of his ‘glorification’, through which he returned to the Father having brought life to the world. His Resurrection appearances reassure the disciples that he is alive, demonstrate his continuing care for them, and make possible their commissioning to act by his authority; but they are not essential for faith.