Chapter 46

John 20:24–31

Literary Context

This pericope is the fourth of four sections of the final section of the narrative proper, which brings climactic resolution to the story told by the Gospel proper. This chapter has announced that Jesus has been raised from the dead (20:1–10), that the “garden” tomb has been changed from a place of grief to a place of grace (20:11–18), and that the fear of the disciples has been transformed into the mission of the church (20:19–23). The resurrected Lord has initiated his new-creational reign in the world, beginning with the disciples themselves. What about the future disciples of Jesus, those to whom the apostles will be sent? In this pericope the reader is exhorted to grasp the manner in which a disciple relates to Jesus and is guided to understand how the Gospel’s purpose has been to testify to and to present Jesus to the reader.

  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 Gospel of John is an apostolic testimony of the gospel, entrusted to the disciples of Jesus who are eyewitnesses of his person and work and the approved witnesses for the church. The Gospel was written to serve as a textually mediated encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ, so that the reader may come to believe in Jesus and participate in the life of God.

Translation

Structure and Literary Form

This pericope corresponds to the basic story form (see Introduction). The introduction/setting is established in v. 24, explaining the location and people around whom the plot’s conflict will focus. In v. 25 the conflict of the pericope is presented, directed by Thomas’s rejection of the witness of the other disciples. The resolution of the plot is explained in vv. 26–27, with Jesus addressing Thomas and giving insight into the manner in which he is to be encountered by his disciples. Finally, the pericope concludes with a two-part interpretive conclusion/interpretation. The first is in vv. 28–29, ending the pericope proper, where Thomas’s reaction to Jesus provides for a significant exhortation by Jesus to future disciples regarding belief not based upon physical sight. The second is in vv. 30–31, ending the Gospel proper, where in collaboration with the message of the pericope the narrator provides the first of a two-part conclusion to the Gospel as a whole (20:30–31; 21:24–25), explaining the purpose for which the Gospel was written.

Exegetical Outline

  1. D. The Appearance to Thomas and the Purpose of the Gospel (20:24–31)
    1. 1. The “Absent Thomas” (v. 24)
    2. 2. The Witness of the Disciples (v. 25)
    3. 3. Not Unbelieving but Believing (vv. 26–27)
    4. 4. Belief in Testimony (vv. 28–29)
    5. 5. The Purpose of the Gospel (vv. 30–31)

Explanation of the Text

The last two verses of this pericope, vv. 30–31, are considered by a majority of scholars to be the original ending of the Gospel. It is commonly argued that chapter 21 is an appendix added later, so that the original Gospel consisted of merely chapters 1–20. We will argue, however, that chapter 21 is original to the Gospel as a formal epilogue, performing a balancing function with the prologue (1:1–18). Its relation to 20:30–31 demands that we explain the literary conclusion of the Gospel, with a full discussion of the epilogue to be addressed in the next pericope (see comments before 21:1).

20:24 Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, the one called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came (Θωμᾶς δὲ εἷς ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα, ὁ λεγόμενος Δίδυμος, οὐκ ἦν μετ’ αὐτῶν ὅτε ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς). The pericope is introduced by identifying the main character, Thomas, but also by explaining what becomes important for the pericope’s plot, namely, that he “was not with them” (οὐκ ἦν μετ’ αὐτῶν) when Jesus first appeared to the disciples (20:19–23). The designation “one of the Twelve” (εἷς ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα) is important because it highlights Thomas’s role as a member of the (apostolic) Twelve. The reason for Thomas’s absence is not provided to the reader, though in the circumstances to follow it serves an obvious and significant purpose.

For many contemporary readers, the focus of this pericope is eclipsed by the long-established popularity of the “Thomas” character, commonly known as “doubting Thomas.”10 In fact, in two established dictionaries a “doubting Thomas” is “a person who refuses to believe something without proof”11 and a person “who is habitually doubtful.”12 Since Thomas is given the most personal focus in this pericope, it is this pericope alone that is used to define him as this kind of character. All four Gospels and Acts mention Thomas, but only in lists of the Twelve (cf. Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; John 21:2; Acts 1:13), except in the Gospel of John, where Thomas plays a much more prominent role. In 11:16, for example, Thomas exhorts his disciples to follow Jesus even unto death; in 14:5, Thomas’s question to the cryptic teaching of Jesus provides the opportunity for Jesus’s sixth “I am” statement in the Gospel. This pericope is the only place in the NT where Thomas the disciple is given any explanation.

There are two ways in which this focus on Thomas is misguided. First, a focus on Thomas often moves inappropriately beyond the narrative to the historically reconstructed event behind it. Beyond the methodological concerns of such an approach (see Introduction), it is often done in distinction from the portrait of Thomas provided earlier in the Gospel, especially the much more positive response of Thomas in 11:16. Second, a focus on Thomas can eclipse the pericope’s intentional focus beyond his person to the persons he represents: the readers who also have not seen or touched Jesus. If the appearance to Mary (20:11–18) functions for the Gospel as an explanation of how Jesus is to be related to physically, that is, where the Lord is encountered (see comments on 20:17, 19), then the appearance to Thomas (20:24–31), as we will argue below, functions for the Gospel as an explanation of how Jesus is to be related to textually, that is, how the Lord is encountered. This is made especially clear by occurring just before and in collaboration with the Gospel’s purpose statement (vv. 30–31).

20:25 Now the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and I put my finger in the place of the nails and I put my hand in his side, I will not believe” (ἔλεγον οὖν αὐτῷ οἱ ἄλλοι μαθηταί, Ἑωράκαμεν τὸν κύριον. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Ἐὰν μὴ ἴδω ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων καὶ βάλω τὸν δάκτυλόν μου εἰς τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων καὶ βάλω μου τὴν χεῖρα εἰς τὴν πλευρὰν αὐτοῦ, οὐ μὴ πιστεύσω.). The conflict of the pericope stems from the absence of Thomas, who was not present when the risen Jesus first appeared to the disciples. Although the disciples provide a unified and emphatic witness to what they have seen, denoted by the first-person plural and perfect tense verb “we have seen (the Lord)” (Ἑωράκαμεν [τὸν κύριον]), Thomas claims he will not believe without physical evidence that is particularly concrete. He needs to see and touch the wounds from the crucifixion. While Thomas’s request might seem absurd for its detail, it also serves to declare the eyewitness account of the disciples as absurd. The very disciples who had just been sent with the Spirit-empowered authority of the Lord to announce his person and work to the world (20:21–23) were immediately rejected by one of their own—indeed, by one who had already exhibited belief in Jesus. The conflict presented here, therefore, is not primarily about what Thomas believes but about the warrant Thomas requires to believe. The question the Gospel now poses to the reader is how is the Lord encountered in his physical absence?

20:26 After eight days the disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came to them and stood in their midst and said, “Peace to you” (Καὶ μεθ’ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ πάλιν ἦσαν ἔσω οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ Θωμᾶς μετ’ αὐτῶν. ἔρχεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων, καὶ ἔστη εἰς τὸ μέσον καὶ εἶπεν, Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν). The resolution of the pericope begins the moment Jesus arrives in a manner identical to his first postresurrection appearance to his disciples (see comments on 20:19). There is something else that is identical: the day of this appearance is also the Lord’s Day, just one week later. For, according to the Jewish mode of reckoning time, with both the first and last day being counted, this appearance was exactly seven days after the first appearance to the disciples, which occurred on “the first day of the week” (20:19).

The silence of the narrator on so many other issues (e.g., Why were the doors locked again, even after the first appearance? Why did Jesus appear and greet in exactly the same manner?) emphasizes the mentioning of the specific day of the appearance. It is as if the narrator magnifies the importance of this day, the Lord’s Day, imaging in his account what all Christians receive when they gather on Sunday, the presence of the Lord with his people, the church. Although this is impossible to know, it is almost as if the disciples had decided to meet again on the next Lord’s Day, one week later, starting what would become the customary day of gathering for the church. In any case, Jesus appeared a second time to them (cf. Rev 1:10).13

20:27 Then he said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not be unbelieving but believing” (εἶτα λέγει τῷ Θωμᾷ, Φέρε τὸν δάκτυλόν σου ὧδε καὶ ἴδε τὰς χεῖράς μου, καὶ φέρε τὴν χεῖρά σου καὶ βάλε εἰς τὴν πλευράν μου, καὶ μὴ γίνου ἄπιστος ἀλλὰ πιστός). Following the same order of events as his earlier appearance to the disciples, after his symbol-laden greeting Jesus displays his crucifixion wounds. But this time he shows them specifically to Thomas, whom he commands to “reach” (Φέρε) and touch the physical markings on his body derived from the cross. It is as if Jesus had heard Thomas’s comment in v. 25, for Jesus commands Thomas to do exactly what he had demanded when presented with the witness of the disciples. The narrative does not reveal if he does touch Jesus’s wounds, and that may be precisely the point.14 Based upon what the text reveals, the issue is less the physical experience of Jesus and more the nature of a legitimate witness to him. For while Thomas may not have touched Jesus, he certainly did see him, just like the rest of the disciples had the Sunday before and declared afterward to Thomas (v. 25). Part of the resolution of this pericope, then, is not merely the “touching,” which can only be implied from the text, but the “seeing,” which the text makes explicit. And this is confirmed in v. 29 when Jesus says that Thomas’s belief stems from seeing him; touching is not mentioned.

But Jesus gives a further command to Thomas: “Do not be unbelieving but believing” (μὴ γίνου ἄπιστος ἀλλὰ πιστός). This is an awkward expression that could be rendered in several ways.15 The terms “unbelieving” (ἄπιστος) and “believing” (πιστός) are the same Greek work except for the former having the negating prefix; thus they are antitheses. Although our translation understands the words to be functioning adjectively, they could also be functioning substantively (“Do not be an unbeliever but a believer”), which is how they more commonly function in the NT (cf. 1 Cor 6:6; 7:12). But nothing in the Gospel suggests that Thomas is less than a believer (cf. 11:16). That is, the actions of Thomas suggest that he is acting in an unbelieving manner, not that he is an unbeliever. He is willing (and able) to believe, as he himself confessed (v. 25), but only on his own terms. Thomas wants to return to his preresurrection faith relationship with Jesus, the Jesus in the flesh. “He is demanding that Jesus be for him as he had been prior to the glorification.”16 This is not doubt, as it is often interpreted; this is rebellion, a refusal to relate to God on his own terms.17 It is no less prideful than what the Jewish authorities displayed, who would not relate to God through Jesus but demanded the former mode of mediation—their temple and their laws. Thomas likewise pits life with Jesus against life in the Spirit and chooses only to relate to the former. He was not rejecting the disciples when he denied their witness, he was rejecting God.

Ridderbos is almost certainly right when he suggests that Jesus’s first command, his offer for Thomas to touch his wounds, was intended to shame him.18 Just as he did with Nicodemus (3:1–15), Jesus took on Thomas’s challenge in every way—literally to the smallest detail—and presented his crucified form as his forceful rebuke. This helps explain the certain force and tone of Thomas’s words to follow (v. 28). Thomas is not in need of a conversion (from unbeliever to believer) but a transition from the old to the new covenant now mediated by the crucified Lord and his Spirit.19

20:28 Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God” (ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου). The conclusion of the pericope brings closure to the encounter between Thomas and Jesus (vv. 28–29) but also—as discussed above (see comments before v. 24)—between the reader and the author of the Gospel (vv. 30–31). Thomas does not extend himself toward Jesus with his touch but with his words, for God in the person and work of Jesus can only be grasped fully by faith, by the words of a prayer or confession, and by statements of adoration. The last pericope of chapter 20, the resurrection chapter, guides the reader to understand and appropriate the fullness of the incarnate presence of God-with-us by means of the death and resurrection of Jesus. And it is this climactic confession by Thomas that serves as “a narrative bridge between Easter Sunday and the life of the believing community.”20 It is fitting that the last word of the Gospel proper by a character other than Jesus is a confession of his identity as Lord.

Thomas declares, “My Lord and my God” (Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου). While the titles could be functioning as true nominatives and thus be translated more as a statement of recognition—“It is my Lord and my God”—the context also suggests that the titles are in the form of an address, with the nominatives functioning as vocatives. The latter sense, though more likely here, is also more unusual and therefore emphatic. But that is because Thomas speaks not to Jesus but about him in the manner of a true confession: “You are my Lord and my God.”21 As much as Jesus is the Lord and God, he is at the same time fittingly described by Thomas as “my Lord and my God.” In this way, Thomas not only acknowledges the identity of Jesus but also his personal relationship to him.

Thomas’s ascription of these two titles to Jesus are a fitting conclusion to the Gospel. A character in the narrative comes to complete agreement with the opening declaration of the narrator that “the Word was God” (1:1), forming an inclusio between the beginning and end of the Gospel proper. Thomas’s statement speaks beyond the confirmation of the resurrection and addresses the meaning of the resurrection. The resurrection reveals who Jesus truly is! Yet it is not an abstract theological definition concerning the person of Christ, for at the same time Thomas speaks of the Lord as “my Lord” and of God as “my God.”22 By this the uniqueness of the Christian faith is made clear. The God of creation can be claimed by the believer as “my God” and even “my Father.” The Gospel is the declaration that all the cosmological purposes of God and his grand love for the world through the person and work of Jesus Christ are ultimately applied to specific individuals. The good news is not only universal but also particular; it is for Thomas and therefore also for the individual reader.

20:29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed” (λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ὅτι ἑώρακάς με πεπίστευκας; μακάριοι οἱ μὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες). Jesus offers the final word when he responds to the confession of Thomas. Jesus makes two statements. The first is concluded with a question mark by NA28, but because early manuscripts rarely have punctuation, the context suggests this sentence makes more sense as a statement.23 Even if Jesus is asking a question, it is certainly rhetorical and therefore functions as an emphatic statement. But is the statement a rebuke of Thomas, continuing the rebuke that began in v. 27? If it is a rebuke, it is certainly a gentle one.24 But it appears to be a rebuke nonetheless.

Because Jesus’s first statement is directly related to his second statement, with the two statements serving to form some sort of comparison between Thomas and future believers, we must be clear regarding the meaning of the first statement. The first statement provides the cause for Thomas’s belief, denoted by “because” (Ὅτι). The comparison is not between seeing and touching (cf. v. 27) but between seeing and believing. Or more specifically, the comparison is between the fact that Thomas was able to see Jesus but later believers will not be given such an opportunity. It is common for interpreters to suggest that all sight is inappropriate and unrelated to faith, but this is to misunderstand the Gospel, which used seven signs (with six being explicit) to signify something beyond the mere miracle.25 Even if the statement is a rebuke, which we suggest it is, it cannot be a rebuke of Thomas’s demand for physical proof. The Gospel as a whole prohibits such an interpretation. The rebuke would have to stem from the fact that Thomas did not believe the signs already presented or the witness of the disciples.

In this way then, besides the historical location of Thomas in relation to the occurrence of the signs (which includes the resurrection of Jesus), there is less difference between the experience of Thomas and future believers than normally assumed. If we can refer to the disciples and the signs as two kinds of witnesses, then Jesus’s rebuke of Thomas was in reference only to the former. He failed to trust those to whom the mission of God had been entrusted (20:21). But Jesus does not rebuke Thomas for the latter, for he had not yet seen for himself the full seventh sign, the resurrection. In fact, Jesus’s appearance here to Thomas provides him with nothing beyond what the other disciples received earlier; the exactness in appearance and presentation supports this observation (cf. v. 26). Carson suggests the rebuke (or the accusation of “doubt”) is unfair since Thomas was not present with the disciples at the first appearance.26 But that only excuses him from being accountable to the second witness (the final and climactic sign); it does not excuse him from disbelieving the witness of his fellow disciples. Our interpretation must account for this pericope’s emphatic presentation of Thomas’s rejection of the disciples’ declaration, “We have seen the Lord” (v. 25). Jesus’s rebuke of Thomas is not for what he had yet to see but for what he had already seen (and yet failed to believe) through them (cf. 4:48).27 And in this way the reader is given a comparable analogy for their own belief and reception of the apostolic witness.

The second statement of Jesus uses the disbelieving rebellion of Thomas (cf. v. 27) as a platform from which to exhort future believers—the readers. Jesus’s second statement is the last word from its main character in the Gospel proper: “Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed” (μακάριοι οἱ μὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες). This statement is a beatitude, the only true beatitude in the Gospel, and is related in form (and therefore function) to the well-known beatitudes in Matthew 5:3–12, which also each begin with “blessed” (μακάριοι). A beatitude is essentially “an expression of praise of congratulations.”28 Rooted in its use in both testaments, the term “blessed” means more than good fortune (i.e., happiness) or even good fortune in the future, but something very present—“that an eschatological state has been made possible” (cf. 13:17).29 The kind of blessedness Jesus is declaring is “a divine gift,”30 and in the immediate context this “eschatological state” is available to those who follow Thomas in belief. This beatitude serves as a perfect conclusion to the Gospel proper and transition to the Gospel’s purpose statement.

Jesus’s appearance to Thomas, therefore, is to confirm the original testimony of the disciples. In the providence of God, Thomas’s absence allowed him to function as an example of a future believer, who had to rely on the testimony of the disciples—one of whom wrote this Gospel!—as eyewitnesses to the person and work of Jesus Christ. Although the physical appearance to Thomas confirmed his own role as an apostle and personal eyewitness, the repetition of the appearance with all the disciples was intended to rebuke Thomas for disbelieving the witness and to confirm for the disciples that their testimony is both valid and authoritative. By his dismissal of the disciples’ testimony, Thomas undercut his own role as an apostolic witness.31 For this reason Jesus reestablishes it, giving freight to the apostolic mission in the previous pericope (20:19–23) and making clear that the apostolic ministry is a necessary ground upon which the mission of God will continue. The body of Christ is to declare the resurrection of the body of Christ and therefore both his lordship and participation in the divine identity of God. In a similar but not identical manner, just as Jesus is the representative of God (1:18), the disciples (as the apostles) are the representatives of Jesus, and the church, having been “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph 2:20), continues this representation to the world.

What, then, is the significance of “sight?” In light of the importance of “seeing” in the Gospel, Jesus certainly does not deny its place. “Seeing” in the Gospel can refer to physical observation or perception, but it can also be used metaphorically. “Seeing” can refer “to the insight to perceive or understand the significance or truth about a person or thing.”32 Only this explains what the disciples can claim to have seen in the prologue: “We saw his glory” (1:14). Therefore, just as Jesus mediates the presence of the Father and is the one through whom the Father is “revealed,” in a similar manner the disciples mediate the presence of the Lord, made possible by the Spirit, who as we argued earlier is the source of the disciples’ sight, a cosmological vision (see comments on 16:16). “Seeing” in the Gospel therefore is both “sight” and “insight,” and the belief exhorted by this Gospel requires them both.33

20:30 So Jesus also performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book (Πολλὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ ἄλλα σημεῖα ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐνώπιον τῶν μαθητῶν [αὐτοῦ], ἃ οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ). Although vv. 28–29 could independently function as the fourth scene of the pericope, offering its own conclusion and interpretation, vv. 30–31 clearly function in an intentional partnership with it. It is common for vv. 30–31 to be interpreted as an independent conclusion, especially when chapter 21 is deemed a later addition and therefore not the original conclusion to the Gospel. If chapter 21 is considered unoriginal, then the weight of the Gospel’s closing statement is forcefully placed upon these final two verses, forcing them to serve the entire Gospel and not merely vv. 24–29.

These two verses, however, are connected to the preceding scene in that they are an explanatory intrusion by the narrator, not uncommon in John (cf. 3:16), in which the reader is given key information for interpreting the previous encounter. Nothing in the grammar separates v. 29 from v. 30. Even the particles, which are often left untranslated, which we translated as “so . . . also” (μὲν οὖν καὶ),34 serve not to redirect the reader to a new topic or section but to connect vv. 30–31 logically with what precedes.35 This is especially clear when one of the particles in v. 30 (μὲν) is seen to be connected to another particle in v. 31 (δὲ), creating an often untranslated construction that implies, “on the one hand . . . on the other.”36 In this way then Jesus’s appearance to Thomas serves as “an illustration of the reception of testimony.”37 While vv. 24–29 could function as their own complete pericope, they are developed by the inclusion and placement of vv. 30–31.

This is not to deny, however, that these two verses have an “air of finality” to them, in that they look right past Thomas to address a new character to whom Jesus is now also appearing: the reader.38 These verses not only provide the purpose of the Gospel but speak of its selective character, almost as if the narrative is speaking about itself in the third person (i.e., “this book”). Its selectivity was always directed toward the reader, for whom it (or he, the author) had been making a presentation—a witness, beginning from the first verse. By these verses the narrator makes clear that the ministry of Jesus was intended from its very “beginning” to be inclusive of the (most contemporary) reader of the Gospel. This Gospel is an extension of Jesus’s ministry, declared by “those approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel” (1 Thess 2:4). The reader should hardly be surprised at the intentionality with which the Gospel is now to conclude. Just as the content of the entire Gospel is described by the prologue, the purpose of the entire Gospel is prescribed by the epilogue, including this first stage of a two-part conclusion.

The narrator provides the first stage of the Gospel’s conclusion by explaining its locution and illocution—its content and force (v. 30)—and then its perlocution—its purpose (v. 31). The narrator reveals that the form of the Gospel was selective in content and that the (seven) signs it presented to the reader were appropriate for the task. There were other signs which could have been included in the Gospel that were also performed by Jesus and were “witnessed” by the disciples, who function as eyewitnesses and apostolic representatives (cf. 20:21–23). In the least this suggests that the signs chosen were done so with interpretive intention, giving credence to the expectation of seven signs (see comments before 20:1).

20:31 For these things have been written in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται ἵνα πιστεύσητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ). The narrator concludes the purpose statement by explaining the Gospel’s intended response from the readers (its perlocution). The narrator plainly states the twofold purpose for which the Gospel was written. Both aspects emphasize that the expected response is “belief,” the single word that can alone express the purpose of the entire Gospel, used nearly a hundred times. The twofold purpose of the Gospel involves belief in the Gospel’s twofold subject matter: the person (v. 31a) and work (v. 31b) of Jesus Christ.

The first of the two-part purpose statement is “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (ἵνα πιστεύσητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ). The statement is clouded by the text-critical uncertainty regarding the verb “believe,” which occurs in two different tense forms in the manuscript tradition: (1) a present subjunctive, which may emphasize the continuous aspect of belief—“in order that you continue to believe” (πιστεύητε); and (2) an aorist subjunctive, which may emphasize the initiation of belief—“in order that you may come to believe” (πιστεύσητε). While the former might suggest that the Gospel was written for Christians and therefore was written to direct and encourage their already existing faith, the latter might suggest that the Gospel was written to bring unbelievers to faith.39

While there is a text-critical issue that warrants resolution (i.e., there is an original reading), for two reasons a resolution is not essential for understanding the purpose of the Gospel. First, the evidence from textual criticism is unable to resolve the issue.40 While the present subjunctive, option (1), can be taken as having a greater claim to being the original reading with a reasonably high probability, there is still nothing close to certainty. Thus, the form of the verb (present or aorist) cannot be clearly determined. Second, it is just as difficult to determine the difference in function between the options. Even if one knew the present subjunctive was the original reading, Fee is correct when he admits a reluctance “to press for that much intent in the use of tense alone.”41 Here Carson agrees: “This is not because no legitimate distinction can be made between the semantics of the aorist and the semantics of the present, but because the present tense forms, in this ἵνα construction, can be clearly applied to believers and unbelievers alike.”42 The multiform and complex sense of “believe” in the Gospel must be held in tension, which engages all readers with the identity of God in the person and work of Jesus Christ. This certainly matches the use of the Gospel in Christian history.

The object of belief, not just the act of belief, is also in question. Is “Jesus” the subject of the predicate nominative, which would seek to answer the question, “Who is Jesus?” Or is “Christ” the subject, which would seek to answer the question, “Who is the Christ/Messiah?” Related to the previous issue, Carson suggests that Christians would not be interested in the latter question, because they already knew the answer.43 While grammatical arguments have been made to suggest that the subject of the predicate nominative usually has the article (“the Christ”), this rule is made complex by the use of a proper name (“Jesus”), which at times also functions as the subject, especially (in both John and the whole NT) when functioning in ἵνα-clauses and ὅτι-clauses.44 Even more, the directional force of the entire Gospel has made Jesus the subject of its message and purpose (see 1:17). If anything, it is Jesus who is needed not only to explain Judaism but also to complete it. What is clear is that Jesus is the appropriate content of belief.

The purpose of the Gospel was to explain Jesus to the reader. Who is Jesus? He is “the Christ, the Son of God” (ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ), two apposite titles that in relation to Jesus become functionally similar.45 As much as these titles might be helpfully defined by the first-century (and Jewish) context of the Gospel, that is, the Gospel’s historical plot, the reader has now been advantaged to see through the cosmological plot of the Gospel the fuller significance of the terms in relation to the purposes and plans of God. The first title, “the Christ,” speaks of the Messiah or the Anointed One of God. “Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, but in a way that can no longer be expressed in the traditional messianic categories and far exceeds them in content.”46 The Baptist declared that he was not the Christ at the very beginning of the Gospel proper, and the narrator applies it to Jesus at its very end (see comments on 1:20). Serving like a frame, then, the entire Gospel has been explaining how Jesus alone fulfills the role of the Christ, the one sent by God to do his work and to make him known. As the Christ, Jesus is intimately related to everything that God does. All the plans of God—past, present, and future—are made manifest in the work of Christ.

The second title, “the Son of God,” speaks of the intimate and lofty relationship between Jesus and God, that is, between God the Father and God the Son. In this Gospel it is the most exalted Christological expression, matching the prologue’s section of Jesus as “the unique Son” (see comments on 1:14) and as the one who is in intimate union with the Father (see comments on 1:18).47 Again, like a frame around the Gospel, the actions of Jesus throughout the Gospel are best viewed as depicting the very presence and purpose of God through Jesus. As the Son of God, Jesus is intimately related to everything that God is. By making Jesus the subject matter of the Gospel and the object of faith, the Gospel of John has confronted the reader with God himself through the person and work of Jesus Christ. This God can only be accessed and understood through Jesus and by faith. In short, as the “Christ” Jesus is the powerful expression of God, the king and judge of the saving sovereignty of God, who has enacted the new creation; as “the Son of God” Jesus is the personal expression of God, who makes God known and accessible to humanity.48 God has established his rule and relationship to the world through Jesus Christ.

The second of the two-part purpose statement is “that by believing you may have life in his name” (ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ). Again the purpose statement is using language that has been given in-depth definition throughout the Gospel.49 The “life” (ζωὴν) Jesus offers the reader is eternal life, an eschatological life in which the reader is invited to participate in the cosmological plot to which the Gospel has been pointing. This life is both provided by Jesus and grounded in him (1:4; 14:6). What Jesus offers therefore is all-embracing, extending beyond what any person can grasp about physical and spiritual life (even the afterlife). The “life” is rooted “in his name,” that is, in the character of his person—his power, authority, and love (see comments on 1:12). This Gospel was never “merely a recollection of things past but a proclamation addressing the present.”50 The author of the Gospel has witnessed to this reality and, like Thomas did ultimately, the reader is exhorted to believe his testimony. The message of the Gospel has become part of “the gift of God” to the reader (4:10).

Theology in Application

Beginning a pattern that continues to this day, the disciples met on the second Lord’s Day only to have Jesus appear again in their midst, declaring again the completion of his work and the continuation of his mission through them. This time, however, the focus was on one disciple, Thomas, who became representative of all future disciples who are to believe in the apostolic witness of Jesus’s disciples. In this pericope the narrative instructs the reader how the Lord is encountered through the mediated witness of the apostles in general, and specifically this Gospel’s author, the Beloved Disciple, exhorts the reader to “see” and “believe” and receive “life” through Jesus Christ.

The Apostolic Witness of Thomas to the Reader

Jesus’s rebuke of Thomas not only directs the reader to see what Thomas failed to do but also to see what he has been reinstated to become. In the Gospel’s opening chapter, John the Baptist was positioned in redemptive history to be the voice of both an OT prophet and an apostle, for he transitioned from looking for him to looking at him (see comments on 1:15). In the final chapter of the Gospel proper, Thomas was also positioned by God in redemptive history to be the voice of both a disciple and an apostle, for he transitioned from being a witness of him to a witness for him. This Gospel is established upon this witness. To read this Gospel is to see both the historical and cosmological realities of God, for it serves as an apostolic testimony of Jesus, who himself was sent to make God known. In this way the concluding statement of Jesus places the readers within the historical and cosmological strands of the Gospel’s plot, making them participants in its authoritative and living witness. “From this moment the company no longer consists solely of eleven disciples gathered at that particular time and place; every reader of the Gospel who has faith, to the end of time, is included in Christ’s final beatitude.”51

Signs . . . Written in This Book

The story a narrative (or a Gospel) tells is an illocution, something which makes assertions, yet it is also something more, for “a narrative displays an interpreted world.”52 Even more, a narrative not only displays a world but communicates a way of viewing it. Its “basic illocutionary activity is ideological instruction; its basic plea: hear my word, believe and understand.”53 The Gospel’s “signs,” therefore, were never intended to be an illustration, but are “a symbolical anticipation or showing forth of a greater reality of which [the sign] is nevertheless itself a part.”54 In light of the biblical sense of the term, the “signs” about which the narrator speaks are innately eschatological (cf. 2:11), for they declare to the historically located world the cosmological reality now made manifest, expressing what the prologue and introduction foretold: “We beheld his glory” (1:14) and “you will see heaven open . . . upon the Son of Man” (1:51). These signs, then, are the aftershock of “God with us.” Their purpose is fulfilled in the disciples, who believed not in the signs themselves but in the one to whom they pointed (see 2:11). The “signs” ultimately declare the cosmological narrative of God and his work in the world, a world defined entirely by the person and work of Jesus Christ, whose actions make God redemptively present in word and deed. And the reader is presented with this same “sign”-declared reality by means of this Gospel.

The Purpose of the Gospel

The Gospel of John has one goal—that the reader would believe in Jesus Christ. Everything written in the Gospel has this as its goal. Any other use of the Gospel (e.g., as a historical source for the life of Jesus or as guidelines for moral living) would be secondary at best. Its stated purpose is to invite the reader to participate in God, now made possible through Jesus Christ, by becoming members of his family and participants in his ongoing mission to the world (20:21–23). The Gospel’s intention is ultimately to invite and instruct the reader to live in, with, and for God in all things. In every way, then, this Gospel speaks about Jesus (and God) in a manner inclusive of the reader. This was never a story of something past; it has always been a story about the present—and even the future. To read the Gospel in any other way is a misinterpretation. And not to respond to the Gospel is a form of rebellion, a rejection of the living voice of God.

Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God

This “biography” of Jesus (see Introduction) is clear regarding his person and work: “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (v. 31). By this statement the Gospel declares that Jesus is the perfect agent of God and representative of God. There is nothing that God does or is that is not made manifest and accessible through Jesus Christ. To be “in Christ,” to use the favorite expression of the apostle Paul, is to have received by faith the person and work of God in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has become for the world everything God does and is. A “Christian” is a recipient of Christ and therefore a child of God. To speak of God without Christ is not to speak of God at all. If denying Christ is denying God, believing in Christ is to receive the fullness of God. The Gospel of John was written to explain that Jesus is the powerful and personal expression of God and to invite the reader to share in God’s love for the world through Jesus Christ. This Gospel is therefore a witness to the gospel.