Chapter 43

John 20:1–10

Literary Context

This pericope is the first of four sections of the final section of the narrative proper, “The Resurrection” (20:1–31), which brings climactic resolution to the Gospel story. Jesus has been crucified and buried just as he foretold, and the narrative was careful to depict the full significance of his death. But the death of Jesus is not the end of his person or work, for as Jesus also foretold the Jewish authorities, using a metaphor for his body, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it” (2:19). As the Gospel will now make clear, the third day has now arrived. In this pericope the reader is exhorted to believe that Jesus has been raised from the dead and is guided to see how the resurrection of Jesus is the completion and restoration of the person and work of Jesus and the inauguration of the restoration of all things.

  1. IX. The Resurrection (20:1–31)
    1. A. The Empty Tomb (20:1–10)
    2. B. The Appearance to Mary Magdalene (20:11–18)
    3. C. The Appearance to the Disciples (20:19–23)
    4. D. The Appearance to Thomas and the Purpose of the Gospel (20:24–31)

Main Idea

The empty tomb declares that Jesus has risen from the dead. He is no corpse; he is Christ the Lord, whose resurrection is the defeat of sin and death and the declaration that the renewal of creation has begun.

Translation

Structure and Literary Form

This pericope corresponds to the basic story form (see Introduction). The introduction/setting is established in vv. 1–2, explaining the location and people around whom the plot’s conflict will focus. In vv. 3–7 the conflict of the pericope is dramatically displayed by the race between Peter and the Beloved Disciple, which depicts their different approaches and responses to the empty tomb. The resolution of the plot is explained in vv. 8–9, with the narrator offering further insight into the full nature of the conflict. Finally, a brief but significant conclusion/interpretation closes the pericope in v. 10.

Exegetical Outline

  1. A. The Empty Tomb (20:1–10)
    1. 1. The Location of Jesus (vv. 1–2)
    2. 2. Run to the Tomb (vv. 3–7)
    3. 3. Belief in the Resurrection (vv. 8–9)
    4. 4. The Location of the Disciples (v. 10)

Explanation of the Text

20:1 On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw the stone had been taken away from the tomb (Τῇ δὲ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ ἔρχεται πρωῒ σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον, καὶ βλέπει τὸν λίθον ἠρμένον ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου). The first section of the pericope (vv. 1–2) introduces the characters of the story (Mary, Peter, and the Beloved Disciple) and the issue the conflict centers upon: the body of Jesus. The Gospel moves quickly from the death of Jesus on Friday to the resurrection of Jesus three days later on Sunday. No time is spent depicting the reaction of the family of Jesus as they left the site of the crucifixion or the disciples as they are confronted with what just occurred. Perhaps even more significant, the great day of the Passover is not even mentioned; what took place on the day of preparation consumed all the attention.4 For the Gospel it is almost as if the sun itself was controlled by the body of Christ, descending below the horizon just after Jesus gave his life and waiting until Jesus had risen from the dead before rising (in narrative time) above the horizon. Thus, “early” (πρωῒ) in the morning, with the “dark” (σκοτίας) still present but fading, Mary Magdalene arrives at the tomb of Jesus. The pervasively negative use of “darkness/night” in the Gospel (see 1:5; 13:30) makes its use in this context potent. The darkness that had for so long “overcome” (cf. 1:5) the world and had tried to do the same to the Son of Man was here taking its last breath before the Son—the light of the world—arose to claim his victory on the third day!

The narrative explains that Mary Magdalene was the person who arrived early at the tomb. Although only she is mentioned, the first-person plural verb in v. 2 “we do not know” (οἴδαμεν) suggests she came with others (cf. the Synoptics: Matt 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10). But the narrative focuses all its attention upon Mary. Mary Magdalene first appeared in the Gospel as the only woman not related to Jesus standing the before the cross (see comments on 19:25). Her appearance at the cross and the resurrection of Jesus makes her a primary witness of these foundational set of events. Upon her arrival at the tomb, she discovers it in an unusual condition—the stone covering the front of Jesus’s tomb had been removed. She infers (or looks inside to see) that the body of Jesus had been removed (see v. 2), since the removal of such stones was neither easy nor expected.5

The Gospel has so clearly applied a Genesis lens to the story it tells that it is difficult not to see the opening phrase “on the first day of the week” (Τῇ δὲ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων) in light of the Gospel’s creation motif.6 The anonymous “garden” (see comments on 18:1) and the second Adam theme (see comments on 19:5) direct the reader to hear with these words the announcement of the first week of the new creation. The entire Gospel has been crafted within a “creation week” structure (see comments before 2:1 and on 12:1; cf. comments before 1:19). The creation of man was literally renewed at the incarnation (1:14). The focus of the majority of John was on the sixth day, the creation of the God-man, awaiting the seventh day, the day of rest, to arrive. But the seventh day has now come and gone! Jesus, “the man” (19:5), has completed his work (see 19:30), ceasing from all his activities. The biblical irony is stark: the Son of God rested from his creative work in a new tomb located in a garden (19:41). In this one statement the entire biblical story is summarized, for all of creation has been reborn. From this garden tomb life (eternal) was recreated. Thus, as the sun rose on this new “day,” so did the unique Son, for whom this day would henceforth be named “the Lord’s Day.”7

20:2 So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and she said to them, “They have taken the Lord from the tomb and we do not know where they have placed him” (τρέχει οὖν καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς Σίμωνα Πέτρον καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄλλον μαθητὴν ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ἦραν τὸν κύριον ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου, καὶ οὐκ οἴδαμεν ποῦ ἔθηκαν αὐτόν). The narrator does not spend much time depicting what Mary saw at the tomb; it is her reaction to the tomb that is stressed. It is notable that the narrator explains that Mary “ran” (τρέχει) to the disciples, specifically to Peter and the “Beloved Disciple” (see v. 3), to share the state in which she found Jesus’s tomb, for the narrator will describe how they also will “run” as they go to the tomb (see v. 4). Nothing is revealed regarding Mary’s observation inside the tomb. The reader is expected to assume what Mary likely inferred, that an opened tomb suggested foul play of some sort.8 Her message to the disciples suggests as much.

Mary’s announcement to the disciples—though only two are mentioned—describes what she understood (assumed?) from her observation of the tomb of Jesus. Two aspects of her statement need to be addressed. First, Mary explains, “They have taken the Lord from the tomb” (Ἦραν τὸν κύριον ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου). But who does Mary believe “they” are? While grave robbers were not unknown, they were quite rare and the text does not give even a hint in this direction.9 The only contextual evidence in John, though not overt, points in another direction: “the Jews.”10 The evidence includes the following: the Jews had been complainants at the trial (19:7), the Jews wanted proof of his death by the breaking of his legs (19:31), Joseph of Arimathea had already acted in fear of the Jews (19:38), and the disciples would later act according to a similar fear (20:19; cf. 20:26). While Mary’s assumed antecedent for “they” cannot be determined from the text, her stated concern notably places emphasis on the body of Jesus (see comments on 20:17).

Second, Mary adds, “And we do not know where they have placed him” (καὶ οὐκ οἴδαμεν ποῦ ἔθηκαν αὐτόν). Again the antecedent of another pronoun is often noted as significant: Who does Mary include with her when she says “we?” There is no need to assume Mary came alone simply because the narrator mentions only her, just as there is no need to assume Mary’s announcement regarding the Lord’s tomb was only spoken to Peter and the Beloved Disciple.11 The Gospel has often focused scenes on individual characters (e.g., 3:1–9; 4:7–26; 5:1–9; 9:1–7; 11:20–37), for all accounts are interpretive in their selectivity and emphasis.

The issue that should not be missed, however, is Mary’s concern regarding the location of Jesus’s body. The implied antecedents of “they” and “we” are eclipsed by the clear antecedent of “him,” that is “the Lord” (τὸν κύριον), an important christological title (see 20:18, 28) that occurs with the definite article here for the first time in the Gospel (the anarthrous “Lord/sir” has occurred several times). The connection between “the Lord” and his location is important in the Gospel as a whole. Moreover, Mary’s question reflects the topic raised several times by the Gospel regarding the location of Jesus. The entire Gospel message is supported by Christ’s identity as the one who came (“from above”) and the one who goes (to the Father).12 Not only has Jesus rebuked his accusers with this premise (8:14; cf. 6:62; 7:32–36), but the Gospel has continually made Jesus’s location a point of emphasis, often at the expense of the crowd, the Jews, and even the disciples (e.g., 7:11; 12:35–36; 13:1–3, 33–38; 14:28; 16:5, 16, 18, 28). Although this theme will come to a climax in the next pericope—again involving Mary Magdalene (see 20:17), its importance is here introduced.

20:3 Then Peter departed, and the other disciple, and they set off for the tomb (Ἐξῆλθεν οὖν ὁ Πέτρος καὶ ὁ ἄλλος μαθητής, καὶ ἤρχοντο εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον). The second section of the pericope (vv. 3–7) introduces the conflict of the pericope. The narrative turns now to the two disciples who received Mary’s announcement. According to the narrator, Peter and the Beloved Disciple begin making their way to the tomb where Jesus had been buried. This is the third pericope that mentions the Beloved Disciple (for an overview of the “Beloved Disciple,” see comments on 13:23), but it is the first time that the “Beloved Disciple” is directly connected with the less common but significant occurrences of the anonymous “other/another disciple” (for an overview of the “other” disciple, see comments on 1:40). This anonymous disciple has not only become an “ideal author” as one who has been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry and an “ideal disciple” as one who has special access and intimate relationship with Jesus (see 13:25), but he also serves as an “ideal witness” as one who will see the empty tomb with his own eyes and come to understand its true significance (see v. 8).

20:4 The two were running together, and the other disciple ran ahead more quickly than Peter and came first to the tomb (ἔτρεχον δὲ οἱ δύο ὁμοῦ· καὶ ὁ ἄλλος μαθητὴς προέδραμεν τάχιον τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ ἦλθεν πρῶτος εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον). Just as Mary “ran” to tell the disciples about the tomb (v. 2), so the two disciples ran to the tomb, though the Beloved Disciple ran faster than Peter. It is difficult to know what the narrator intends to communicate by comparing the pace of the two disciples. The narrator certainly does not intend to communicate that “the faster running of the Beloved Disciple shows . . . his greater degree of love and . . . keener predisposition to faith.”13 The ancient explanation might still be best: the Beloved Disciple was simply a younger man than Peter. This is not to deny, however, that some level of conflict or dissonance is in view (see 21:15–25).

This is the second of four comparison-like depictions of Peter and the Beloved Disciple (13:22–25; 20:3–9; 21:7; 21:20–23). The first occurrence, however, depicts not competition but unity (cf. 13:24), and the last is raised by Peter (not the narrator) and sharply rebuked by Jesus (cf. 21:21–22). Even here the narrator carefully describes them as running “together” (ὁμοῦ). And although the Beloved Disciple arrives at the tomb first, it is Peter who first enters the tomb—again carefully described by the narrator (v. 6). In fact, the so-called race might be intended merely to set the context for another comparison: the order of their entrance into the tomb.14 Comparison was a standard rhetorical technique, employing comparison of characters in ways useful to the point of the narrative.15 For this reason the point of comparison must involve not only the running but also the entrance into the tomb. And since the narrator in v. 9 compares the response of both disciples to the message of Scripture, it is likely that neither disciple is intended to serve as the paradigm.

20:5 Kneeling to look, he saw the linen clothes lying there, but he did not enter (καὶ παρακύψας βλέπει κείμενα τὰ ὀθόνια, οὐ μέντοι εἰσῆλθεν). Although the Beloved Disciple arrived at the tomb first, the narrator is careful to note that he was not quick to enter. He did, however, look into the tomb. The participle translated as “kneeling to look” (παρακύψας) can be used to depict more metaphorical “looking” or intellectually trying to figure something out, but here probably only suggests that the Beloved Disciple looked into the tomb with curiosity or great interest.16 The Beloved Disciple knelt because the tomb like most ancient tombs “had a low entrance and a step down into the central, rectangular pit, with shelves cut into the rock around the pit” (cf. 11:38).17 The fact that “he saw the linen clothes lying there” (βλέπει κείμενα τὰ ὀθόνια) is given importance, since Peter will also be described as seeing the exact same thing.

20:6 Then Simon Peter who was behind him also came and he went into the tomb; he also saw the linen clothes lying there (ἔρχεται οὖν καὶ Σίμων Πέτρος ἀκολουθῶν αὐτῷ, καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον· καὶ θεωρεῖ τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα). Although second to the tomb, Peter was the first to enter it, apparently moving right past the Beloved Disciple, who remained at the entrance. If the Beloved Disciple was the first to the tomb, Peter was the first in the tomb. Our analysis above in v. 4 is important here. What is the point of such details? Why does the narrator make such comparison-like depictions of the disciples? Our goal is to discover the narrative’s rhetorical point expressed by the comparison technique. Several points need to be made.

First, clearly the comparison is not simply concerned with foot speed. The narrative is more concerned with what is inside the tomb than with its exterior. Thus, for the Gospel this could not have been a “race” to the tomb.18 Even more, there are several aspects of the narrative that place the so-called competitors in an equivalent position. In the greater context of chapter 20, Mary, Peter, and the Beloved Disciple all have some privileged position in relation to the tomb’s exterior, interior, and belief that separates them from the other two, yet not one of them can be clearly distinguished as more significant than the others. Even further, each of them is rebuked for their understanding or belief either by the narrator (20:9) or Jesus himself (20:17) in a manner that recontextualizes their particular positions of privilege. That is, the Gospel interprets their interpretations. Their privileged places are not enough; more sight and belief are needed.

Second, the narrative gives emphasis to “seeing and believing” in this pericope (20:8) and the one to follow (20:18) These two acts are best taken as a unified whole, first introduced by the words of the Beloved Disciple and presented to all the disciples by Jesus’s own initiative. The Gospel proper will end with this emphasis, with Thomas serving for the reader less as “the doubter” and more as the final disciple to come to an understanding of the relationship between sight and belief in Jesus (see 20:24–29).19

For these reasons, the relation of all three disciples to the tomb or the body of Jesus is intended to create a greater (cumulative) comparison. The rhetorical technique of comparison intends to point the reader away from a tomb or a corpse and direct it to the resurrected Lord himself. The point of the narrative then was not between the disciples at all—no race (v. 4), no superior belief (v. 8)—but between the “flesh” the disciples had known and the Word they were from this point on to know by faith and through the Spirit. Jesus had spoken to the disciples about this in the farewell discourse, but the reality of the resurrection and shortly thereafter the gift of the Spirit would have to drive it home. It is ultimately the resurrection of Jesus that becomes the hinge that unites the cosmological and historical strands of the plot of John—the full understanding of the person and work of Jesus (see comments on 2:22). The depth of this transition, however, would need to be explained over several pericopae; the whole of chapter 20 will be needed to convey this new reality of the immediate access of the children of God to God the Father by means of the risen Lord and in the Spirit.20

20:7 And the face cloth, which was placed upon his head; it was not lying with the linen clothes but was folded in one place by itself (καὶ τὸ σουδάριον, ὃ ἦν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ, οὐ μετὰ τῶν ὀθονίων κείμενον ἀλλὰ χωρὶς ἐντετυλιγμένον εἰς ἕνα τόπον). The narrator now goes into great detail describing all that Peter “saw.” Between vv. 6–7, two items are mentioned as having been seen by Peter. The first item (v. 6) is “the linen clothes” (τὰ ὀθόνια). Befitting Jewish customs, a corpse would be wrapped tightly with shrouds of cloth from head to toe, including the tight wrap around the head and face to keep the mouth closed (cf. 11:44; 19:40).21 The second item is “the face cloth” (τὸ σουδάριον), separate from the linen clothes; it is a term borrowed from Latin which can refer to “a napkin,” or “a cloth for wiping off perspiration.”22 The face cloth was tied around the head of the corpse in order to keep the mouth closed, usually placed on the outside of the linen clothes and therefore detached from them. “The napkin (a square) was so folded so as to make a triangle putting an angle upon the opposite angle of the napkin. Then the large side of the triangle was rolled [folded] around the head . . . and finally its two opposite angles tied together.”23

The narrative’s description of the face cloth is difficult to interpret, but clearly the specific focus gives it emphasis. Much of the meaning is based upon the Greek phrase that explains that the face cloth was “folded in one place by itself” (χωρὶς ἐντετυλιγμένον εἰς ἕνα τόπον). In the context the phrase explains that the face cloth was located in a different location, “by itself” (χωρὶς), and not in the “same place” as the linen clothes. By explaining that the face cloth was folded and placed to the side away from the rest of the shrouds of linen, the narrative implies that after rising from the dead, Jesus removed the cloth from his face and folded it nicely to the side of the stone slab upon which he had just been lying.

The imagery created by the depiction of the grave clothes is stark. A couple observations are warranted. First, the neatness and placement of the grave clothes is evidence that grave robbers had not stolen the body of Jesus. In fact, if the body had been taken at all, why would someone remove such elaborate shrouds of linen (covered with a hundred pounds of perfume and spices; cf. 19:39) and neatly fold a face cloth and place it to the side? This evidence was famously described by Chrysostom as a proof or “a sign of the resurrection.”24

Second, the imagery of Jesus’s grave clothes is intended to serve as a stark contrast to the grave clothes of Lazarus, who was depicted as coming out of the tomb with both the linen clothes and face cloth still tightly wound about him, needing to be freed from the chains of the grave. Even more, the folded face cloth serves as a sign of his triumph over death.

Third, the term “face cloth” (τὸ σουδάριον) is semantically related to the Greek translation of the Hebrew word for the veil covering the face of Moses in Exodus 34:33–35. Although this Greek term is close in meaning to the term for the veil used to cover the face of Moses, this Latin-based word speaks more specifically to a “covering for the face” (cf. 11:44).25 In light of the OT context, this term would have recalled the face veil of Moses. The fact that Jesus did not merely drop the face cloth or veil but carefully removed, folded, and placed it to the side is telling. “Like Moses, who put aside the veil when he ascended to meet God in glory, Jesus, the New Moses, has put aside the veil of his flesh as he ascends into the presence of God to receive from him the glory which he had with the Father before the world was made” (cf. 17:5).26

The second section of the pericope (vv. 3–7) concludes with a powerful presentation of the pericope’s conflict. The conflict has nothing to do with a race to the tomb, the courage needed to enter it, or grave robbers, or even the Jewish authorities. The conflict of this pericope, rather, is the understanding of the disciples regarding the location and body of Jesus, that is, the meaning of the completion of his work and the nature of their new relationship with him. As much as this conflict will require all of chapter 20 to come to a full resolution, it begins in the very next verse.

20:8 So then the other disciple, who had come first to the tomb, entered also; and he saw and began to believe (τότε οὖν εἰσῆλθεν καὶ ὁ ἄλλος μαθητὴς ὁ ἐλθὼν πρῶτος εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον, καὶ εἶδεν καὶ ἐπίστευσεν). In the third section of the pericope (vv. 8–9), the resolution of the pericope’s plot is presented through a cryptic statement regarding the Beloved Disciple, followed by an important explanation by the narrator. The narrator emphasizes the temporal connection between the entrance of Peter into the tomb and the delayed entrance by the Beloved Disciple with the emphatic connective “so then” (τότε οὖν), which presents a “fuller sense” of “now” (in contrast to the preceding time).27 Although the Beloved Disciple initially only looked into the tomb from the outside, he now enters it for himself.

The narrator gives a two-verb commentary on the reaction of the Beloved Disciple that is climactic and yet difficult to interpret in the immediate context: “And he saw and began to believe” (καὶ εἶδεν καὶ ἐπίστευσεν). The importance of “seeing and believing” has a unified and thematic importance in this pericope (see v. 6) and the one to follow (20:18)—and in the Gospel as a whole (cf. 20:30–31)—so that its occurrence here is significant and foundational. It is important to note that the two verbs do not have an object. The first verb is the third occurrence of three synonymous verbs used to depict the fact that the disciples “saw” (εἶδεν), making emphatic this particular “seeing” (see v. 6). The object of sight may be absent, but the narrative could not have been clearer about the object in view. The immense detail about the seemingly unimportant articles of grave clothes, both their folding and location, makes clear that these are the objects the Beloved Disciple “saw.”28

But what is the object of the Beloved Disciple’s belief? This is the more difficult question to answer, for it must assume something about the nature of the Beloved Disciple’s belief—his understanding of the person and work of Jesus. What also makes the nature of the Beloved Disciple’s belief difficult to interpret is v. 9, which explains that the disciples were lacking in understanding about the resurrection. It has long been argued that the object of belief was the announcement of the empty tomb made to them by Mary (v. 2).29 The warrant for this interpretation, however, is strongly challenged by the force of “believe” in the Gospel as a whole. When used absolutely, as it may be intended by the narrator here, the term refers to genuine faith (e.g., 5:44; 6:47; 19:35; 20:29).30 The more likely object of belief is the resurrection itself. The preceding context certainly favors this, with such a dramatic buildup of detailed, tangible evidence. And Mary’s announcement seems to have served more to raise their concerns and direct them to the tomb than to serve as a statement worthy of belief.

It is important to note, however, that while the preceding context seems to demand that the object in view is the resurrection, the subsequent context explains that the object believed was not fully grasped and that there was still some misunderstanding, similar to the earlier presentation of Mary (v. 2). There is warrant to suggest therefore that the aorist-tense verb often translated more generically as “believed” functions as an ingressive aorist, which stresses the beginning of an action or the entrance into a state: “He began to believe.”31 Rather than assuming the verb is, for example, a constative aorist, which views the action as a whole, in the developing context of chapter 20 the objectless verb is intended to make a counterannouncement to Mary’s that a real and greater clarity was being perceived by the Beloved Disciple. “It was like a new certainty that took hold of this disciple while understanding was still lacking.”32 The irony of this pericope is that the resolution of its conflict is provided more for the reader than the disciples themselves, as the next verse will make clear.33

20:9 For they did not yet know the Scripture that it was necessary for him to be raised from the dead (οὐδέπω γὰρ ᾔδεισαν τὴν γραφὴν ὅτι δεῖ αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῆναι). The resolution of the conflict (vv. 8–9) is so significant (and complex) that the narrator interjects the necessary explanation (cf. 2:21). Comments by the narrator that provide necessary insight are common in John; in every instance they serve to add insight to the scene at hand, even to the historical details. This is precisely how this comment by the narrator functions. The narrator explains the nature of the object believed by the Beloved Disciple—and Peter, for the verb is plural. The plural verb guarantees that the Gospel has no intentions of pitting one disciple against the other.

It is surprising that the narrator begins his explanation with “for” (γὰρ) and not “but” (δὲ), a contrastive conjunction, although “for” can function as a “marker of clarification” for the purpose of explanation, even in a manner that parallels “but” (δὲ).34 The narrator makes an important clarification that “they did not yet know the Scripture” (οὐδέπω γὰρ ᾔδεισαν τὴν γραφὴν). While the verb “know” (ᾔδεισαν) might be better translated as “understand,” in the context the important word is the negated adverb translated as “not yet” (οὐδέπω), which is used for “the negation of extending time up to and beyond an expected point.”35 Without v. 8, the statement here would suggest that (without the Scripture) the disciples did not know at all about the resurrection, but v. 8 demands that they did know or understand something, just not everything. Thus, the narrator offers insight regarding the disciples, that they were limited in their understanding, but also regarding “the Scripture” (τὴν γραφὴν), that it serves as a fuller, even explanatory, testimony to the fact and meaning of the resurrection of Jesus. The Scripture would reveal that the resurrection was “necessary” (δεῖ), divinely ordained and willed by God.

This statement conjoins two important aspects of belief for the Gospel of John: the resurrection and Scripture. As Jesus explained to the Jewish authorities in 2:22, the resurrection explains the Scripture (what is read), and the Scripture explains the resurrection (what is seen and experienced) in a manner similar to how bifocals serve as correctives for both nearsightedness and farsightedness. While any number of particular Scriptures might fit the subject matter, the singular “the Scripture,” which the Gospel has used before (cf. 2:22; 10:35), suggests the whole is in view.36 This passage even implies that belief in the resurrection came before it was interpreted as being foretold in the OT. This is not to suggest that the first Christians manufactured a resurrection in their interpretation of OT prophecy; rather, the fact of the resurrection facilitated a fuller meaning in their reading of the same OT.37 The resolution this pericope provides is grounded not only in what the disciples have already seen in the tomb but what they are still to see in the word of God—and even shortly from the Word of God himself. The ultimate resolution of this pericope and all chapter 20, then, is true belief (20:30–31).

20:10 Then the disciples went again to their homes (ἀπῆλθον οὖν πάλιν πρὸς αὑτοὺς οἱ μαθηταί). After such dramatic detail of running to and from the tomb and the various ways the disciples entered into it, the conclusion is quite unremarkable. The narrator briefly explains that the disciples left the tomb and returned to where they had been before. The verse serves as a transition, bringing this pericope (vv. 1–10) to a conclusion and setting up the context for the next pericope (20:11–18), in which Mary is alone at the tomb.

The phrase we translated as “to their homes” (πρὸς αὑτοὺς) is likely an abbreviated form of the phrase used earlier, “to their own homes” (εἰς τὰ ἴδια), in two significant passages: 1:11 and 16:32. It could be argued that the earlier phrase (used in 1:11; 16:32) is a prophetic statement that is fulfilled by this statement: “You will be scattered, each to his own home.” The incomplete understanding of the disciples is likely revealed by this verse, so unlike the response to come (20:18, 25; 21:7). For this reason, Jesus will be the one to pursue them. Just as he came to the world (to “his own”; cf. 1:11), so also will he come to his disciples, even “to their homes” to which they returned; not even closed doors can hinder his mission to them (see 20:19, 26). At this point the disciples have not fully understood the meaning of his death or the power of his life, let alone the truth that their life finds its meaning in him (14:19).

Theology in Application

The Jews with the help of the Romans destroyed the temple—the body of Jesus—fulfilling in their own actions the first part of Jesus’s prophecy in 2:19. Here Jesus completes the prophecy by raising it—himself—on the third day. This pericope begins on the third day since his crucifixion, and it serves to announce to the reader the fact and reality of the resurrection of the Lord. This pericope begins a chapter-long explanation of the meaning of the resurrection. The narrative testifies to the reader that Jesus has been raised from the dead and guides the reader to understand how the resurrection of Jesus is the inauguration of the restoration of all things.

The Fact of the Empty Tomb

This pericope goes to great lengths to testify to the fact of the empty tomb. In these ten verses, the Gospel of John proclaims to the reader that Jesus has risen from the dead. The detail with which the narrative explains the empty and forsaken grave clothes is intended to serve as a witness for the reader (vv. 5–6), explaining that such garments had never been in command of this body but were simply used like a garment for sleep, soon to be folded and prepared for a person who would actually use it (v. 7).

The message of this passage is clear: “Christ is risen!” The church has used this Easter greeting for centuries. It serves as a declaration that the work of Jesus has been accomplished and fulfilled and serves as a promise that the restoration of all things has now been guaranteed.38 The resurrection is the foundation of the Christian faith, as the apostle Paul also makes clear (see 1 Cor 15:14). And as Paul explains, the fact of the empty tomb declares that all people who believe in him shall be resurrected to life eternal.

The Location of the Lord

None of the followers of Jesus—Mary, Peter, or the Beloved Disciple—grasped the full reality of the empty tomb. Mary’s concerned statement regarding the location of “the Lord” was especially revealing. Yet when she speaks of the Lord she attempts to define him by the location of his body. It has been the primary thrust of the entire Gospel from the start that the Lord was before he “became flesh” (1:14), for he was in the beginning with God (1:1–2). How then could his body be misplaced or taken? How could the Lord be defined or confined by his body? Moreover, when we think of the location of the Lord, the only place that defines him is God himself—the Trinitarian God—for the entire Gospel message defines his location by his movement. Jesus is the one who came (“from above”) and the one who goes (to the Father).

The disciples, evidenced by Mary, misunderstood that this (mis)location was actually a “sign” that he was closer than he had ever been. For he had now destroyed all things separating himself from them—even death itself—and was fully able to do what he promised them in his farewell discourse: “I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you . . . the world will no longer see me but you will see me, because I live you also will live. On that day you will know that I am in the Father and you are in me and I am in you” (14:18–20). That day has come. It is resurrection Sunday, known henceforth as “the Lord’s Day.”

The Testimony of Scripture

The primary importance given to historical evidence regarding the resurrection of Jesus does not in any way minimize the primary importance also given in v. 9 to Scripture as a witness to the resurrection of Jesus. Without in any way denying the absolute historical fact of the resurrection, a fact supported by verifiable historical evidence seen and recounted by the disciples and many others (see 1 Cor 15:3–8), the narrator’s commentary on the nature of the disciples’ belief makes clear that the testimony of Scripture is itself an essential and irreplaceable piece of evidence for the resurrection. In fact, the narrative suggests that without the testimony of Scripture, the disciples would have been unable to believe that Christ had risen from the dead. The Christian must ensure that the greatest testimony to God and his work—even his historical works—is the Bible.39 While there is a place for apologetics that relies on historical and philosophical proofs, one must be careful not to avoid or deny the primacy of Scripture for securing belief and its certainties.

Death, Life, and Creation Renewed

This pericope brings together several Genesis-creation motifs that have been central in the progressive unfolding of the Gospel narrative. It is no surprise that the “seventh sign” of the second Adam (cf. 19:5) takes place in a garden (cf. 18:1) on “the first day of the week” (v. 1). In light of the rest of the Gospel, this pericope offers a climactic summary of the whole biblical story. The reader is directed to understand that Jesus Christ has completed his mission from the Father and has inaugurated the new creation, with the empty tomb declaring that death itself has been defeated and all creation has been offered new life. The apostle Paul makes a similar declaration, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22). It is because “he is risen!” that death itself has been defeated. This is more than just a fact of this life, for it is also what gives this life its meaning and purpose. He is risen indeed!