Living Stones (1 Peter 2:4-8)

In August 2016, the 31^st Summer Olympic games took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. One of the first games to launch the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics was cycling. Early on in the cycling route, one of the struggles the cyclists had to deal with was cobblestones. The cobblestones caused quite the havoc. They were breaking bikes. They made the water bottles fall out of their holders, giving the cyclists additional obstacles to dodge. The cobblestones caused such a hassle that when a stretch of the cobblestone part had pavement, a majority of the cyclist went out of their way to bike on the paved part than to continue on the cobblestone part. The Bible doesn’t talk about cobblestones, but it talks about another stone that starts with a c: the cornerstone. If you’re not on the right side, the cornerstone will cause you trouble, just like bikers on cobblestone, but if you’re on the right side, you’ll find attitudes and behaviors worth imitating.

I invite everyone to turn in their Bibles to 1 Peter. You’ll find 1 Peter near the end of your Bibles. In fact, it’s the 7^th to last book of the Bible. It is an epistle, meaning it’s a letter, and it’s a general epistle, which simply means this epistle is not written by Paul. It’s written by Peter to churches in what they knew back then as northern Asia Minor, but today we know as northern Turkey. Peter was probably a bishop, or overseer, of these churches. To set the scene, a new emperor has come into power, and he’s not too fond of Christians. A new persecution has broken out across the land. Peter provides hope so the Christians in northern Asia Minor can stay strong, and he also gives them instruction how to behave in such a time. Let’s look at 1 Peter 2:4-8.

While I have much to disagree with when it comes to the theology of John Calvin, one thing I do appreciate about his hermeneutics, or the process he interpreted Scripture, is that he always put God first. It’s a hermeneutic I have adopted myself, but I give it an Anabaptist-Mennonite twist. I believe the best application starts with understanding what the passage teaches about Jesus, and then to apply it, I ask myself, “How do I respond to that?” I believe Peter is thinking the same way. Peter wants all who are reading his letter to understand they are living stones. In order to understand what it means to be a living stone, Peter first wants us to understand that Jesus Christ himself was the ultimate living stone. To prove Jesus is the living stone, Peter does not turn to the life of Jesus, but rather the Old Testament. After looking at these 3 proof texts from the Old Testament, you too will believe Jesus is the living stone.

Before we get into any of proof texts, we need to talk about cornerstones, for the cornerstone are found in both texts. The cornerstone typically was a big stone that supported two walls coming together to form an angle. And when I say big, I mean big. Archaeologists found cornerstones of public buildings measuring up to 37 feet long and weighing over one hundred pounds! The whole foundation rested on the cornerstone. The whole building’s strength and stability relied on a strong, durable cornerstone. The building’s structure and design started at its cornerstone, and it worked around the cornerstone. With that in mind, let’s take a look at the 2 proof texts.

This is the Western Wall inside of the tunnels. The Wailing Wall you are familiar with are in the southern part of the Western Wall. This is more of the northern part. This specific part, the lower part of the walk on the picture, is believed to be the cornerstone of Western Wall. It is the biggest stone on the Western Wall. It is 40 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 15 feet deep. It is estimate to weigh 570 tons. Not only in this the biggest stone on the temple mount, but the biggest stone in Israel.

As a proof text that Jesus is indeed the living stone, Peter quotes Isaiah 28:16. I’m going to turn to the actual Isaiah 28:16, for the wording a little bit different. I’m not going into all the details of textual criticism, but let’s just say that Peter is most likely quoting the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament, which might have paraphrased and abridged this passage. Since our English Bibles looked at the Hebrew manuscripts first, it has the full text, so I’m going to read out of that one. In Isaiah 28, Yahweh, through the prophet Isaiah, pronounces judgment on the nation of Israel in order to warn Judah they could face the same impending doom. Assyria was on its way to conquer Israel, and Judah would be next on the hit list if they too did not turn back to the Lord. Of course, the response God wanted was a response of repentance and obedience. Instead, Judah turns to making alliances, from alliances to the foreign nations to alliances with the foreign gods. Their latest alliance was with a foreign god, the god of the death. The people of Judah believed that their alliance with the god of death would hold off their time with death. Yahweh informs Judah, through the prophet Isaiah, that if anything, by turning to the god of death, they have hurried along their own death. Rather, the Lord God calls on Judah to trust him instead of trusting in foreign nations or foreign gods. The Lord assures Judah that Judah can trust in him because he has laid a stone which will become the cornerstone and foundation. Those who believe in it, God promises, will not be in haste. Whereas the god of death will hasten Judah’s death, the living God, who has the laid the foundational cornerstone will bring salvation and not hasten death.

Now this is the part where I’d like to pause and tell you what the cornerstone is in original context (that is, how the Jews living in Judah during Isaiah’s lifetime would have understood the cornerstone to mean), but to be honest with you, no one knows! Jewish and Christian scholars alike have debate what it means. They have hypothesized the cornerstone refers to the temple, the Law, the covenant, the city of Jerusalem, the nation of Judah, faithful Jews, the Davidic king, or even Yahweh himself, but no hypothesis has brought up enough proof or evidence to stand out as the leading theory. Yet when Peter quotes in 1 Peter 2:6, and Paul quotes it in Romans 9:33, they declare, without batting an eye or breaking a sweat, “This is about the Messiah, Jesus Christ.” Therefore, many Christian scholars have sided, stating this text to be purely messianic, simply because Peter and Paul said so.

When Peter reads Isaiah 28:16 and he quotes it 1 Peter 2:6, Peter only mentions certain parts of the verse because he wants to highlight those certain parts. Peter chooses to focus on the two words used to scribed this stone: chosen (or elect) and precious (or honored). The Greek word for chosen more specifically refers to a specific one chosen out of many because it is special. The Greek word for precious means to be held in high honor. Together, the emphasis is on God’s master plan. God’s master plan always had Jesus chosen as Messiah, and his death and resurrection honors him as precious. God’s actions also differed from that of the Jewish religious leader. Where God chose Jesus and held him in honor as precious, the Jewish religious leaders of the day rejected Jesus and declared him worthless. More on that later. Instead of closing with the believers “not being in haste,” Peter closes with the phrase “will never be put to shame” as the NIV puts it (I prefer the NIV here. The Greek uses a double negative of the word “no,” which in English, best translates to “never”). The Septuagint chose a more generic word for “haste,” kataischunthēi It best translates to the word “shame,” but it could also mean disappointed, dishonored or humiliated. Put it all together, Peter makes a strong theological statement. Never has the cornerstone brought shame, disappointment or humiliation in the past, and the cornerstone will never do so in the future. God has always been victorious in the past, and so he will be in the future. Therefore, the believer will never be disappointed or ashamed for having faith in the cornerstone. The believer has nothing to fear, for security in Jesus is secured.

As another proof text, Peter quotes Psalm 118:22. From a plain reading of the verse alone, the verse already carries a great irony. The word “rejected,” used here to describe the stone, carries this idea that builders saw it and decided it was useless and good for nothing. What a twist of fate that the stone would go on to become the cornerstone, a very important and significant stone.

Let’s talk about Psalm 118:22 in its original context. Psalm 118 is what Bible scholars call a “declarative praise psalm,” meaning that the psalm is praising and thanking God for his rescuing. Both Jewish and Christian tradition states the psalm was written after the Jews returned from exile, and it was written for the first Jewish holiday the Jews could celebrate back in their home land. How fitting that holiday was the Feast of Tabernacles! Not only does the Feast of Tabernacles celebrate God’s provision of a bountiful harvest, but it also celebrates God rescuing Israel from Egypt, pulling them out of wandering in the desert and putting them in a land of their own, where they could go from hunting and gathering to growing crops, from living in tents to living in houses, and from worshipping in a tabernacle to worshipping in a temple. The Jews returning from the exile must have felt the same way. Coming out of Babylon and coming back into Israel, the Jews had many reasons to celebrate God giving them a home of their own. Coming down to Psalm 118:22 specifically, the worship leader (probably a prophet, priest or king/governor) marvels at the Lord’s decision for a people of his own. Of the great nations and empires of the world, the Lord picked the smallest. While so many of those great empires have dismissed Israel as a bunch of useless people wasting a good land (or maybe won’t even recognize them as a sovereign country!), God has made that nation the foundation of history.

When Peter reads Psalm 118:22, he reads it as if the Psalm 118:22 is looking forward to Jesus Christ, what later theologians would call reading it cristocentrically. So when Peter reads Psalm 118:22, he’s not just thinking about Israel in general, but he’s think about a specific part of Israel, specifically the Davidic king. While the foreign nations and empires rejected Israel as a nation in general, they have also rejected its Davidic king, not seeing him as a legitimate ruler. Centuries later, during Peter’s lifetime, even the rejected nation of Israel would reject their own Davidic king, the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Instead of the foreign rulers rejecting the Davidic king, now the Jewish religious leaders reject him. Little they know that the man they rejected as useless and good for nothing would become the king of the kingdom of God. On the flip side, we know Jesus ministered to Gentiles: a Syrophoenician woman, a Roman centurion, even some Greeks, just to name a few. Therefore, Peter concludes the issue no longer lies in the nationality of the person, but rather in their faith. In fact, I believe a better translation of the Greek should start out 1 Peter 2:7 by saying, “It is precious to the believer, but to the unbeliever…” Those who believe will find Jesus, as the living stone, as precious. Those who do not believe, the like foreign rulers and the Jewish Sanhedrin, will find themselves in the same judgment.

For a third proof text, Peter goes back to Isaiah, but this time, he goes to Isaiah 8:14. Once again, Peter uses only the part of the verse relevant to him, so let’s read the passage in its original location, and let’s look at it in its original context. Remember that Israel has chosen to side with foreign nations and foreign gods over the true living God. By doing so, they have made themselves enemies of the Lord. So many Jews have done so, even the prophet Isaiah needs a reminder from God himself not to fall into peer pressure and do the same. In Isaiah 8:14, Isaiah describes the Lord using the metaphor of a rock, and he uses it both ways. When a rock or stone come together to make a sanctuary, that sanctuary can become a fortress of protection and security for someone. On the flip side, a rock or stone can also bring harm to a person when used as a weapon or a trap. Those who side with the Lord find themselves protected, while those who side against the Lord find themselves in danger.

Peter links the stone or rock mentioned in Isaiah 8:14 to the cornerstone mentioned in Psalm 118:22. Not only has the stone builders rejected become cornerstone, but it has also become the stumbling stone and the rock of offense. Not only has the Jesus that the religious leaders rejected become the foundation of the faith, the Jewish religious leaders’ disbelief and disobedience towards will be their downfall, just like the Jews disbelief and disobedience in the Old Testament led them to exile in Babylon.

Now it’s time to put our 3 proof texts together. Remember our hermeneutic process. We start by asking “What does this passage teach me about Jesus?” and we end by asking, “How do I respond to that truth?” What did we learn about Jesus from 1 Peter 2:4-8? Overall, we learn that Jesus is chosen and precious, or elect and honored. Yahweh chose/elected Jesus as Messiah and King of the kingdom of God, so Yahweh held Jesus as precious and honored. No shame, disappointment, dishonor or humiliation can fall on Jesus. Even when governors, kings, emperors or rulers reject Jesus, Jesus will always have the victory. All 3 proof texts defend Peter’s position that Jesus Christ is the Living Stone.

How do we respond to this truth that Jesus is the Living Stone? 1 Peter 2:5 makes it clear. If Jesus Christ is the ultimate Living Stone, then if we as Christians believe in Jesus, we too are living stones. We are precious and honored in sight of God. God holds us in high esteem. We too have been chosen and elect. God has big plans for us, better than the best we could have ever imagined. But that means we have to take the good with the bad. Just as Jesus faced rejection as the Living Stone, so we too, as Christians and living stones, must also face rejection, persecution and maybe even martyrdom. But that bad side even had a good side on the flip side. By believing and trusting in Jesus as the Living Stone, we find our protection in Him. The enemies of Jesus, however, will find themselves in harm’s way.

How do we act in response to this truth that we, as Christians, are living stones? Once again, I point you to 1 Peter 2:5. The only active verb in 1 Peter 2:5 is “offer” as in “offer living sacrifices.” How do we live as spiritual sacrifices? The other place that mentions spiritual sacrifices in the New Testament is Romans 12:1, so I suppose we go could there for more instructions, but I believe a more immediate context gives better instructions. Just look up at 1 Peter 2:1. The verse reads, “So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.” Then 1 Peter 2:2 goes on to say, “Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation.” All those words in 1 Peter 2:1 have a negative tone to them, but the word “salvation” in 1 Peter 2:2 associates with the gospel, or the good news. Put it all together. The Christian, as a living stone, offers a spiritual sacrifice by rejecting all evil and other bad things, while growing in the gospel, or good things.

While a plain reading of the text of 1 Peter 2:4-8 might have realized the same answer as looking deeper into the 3 Old Testament passages, the 3 proof texts give us an extra enlightenment. The Jews, God’s chosen people of the Old Testament, failed to live up to their role as livings stone. Not until Jesus came to this earth did God’s chosen one succeed and to live up that role. Let us, as Christians, not fail God again, but let us live up to that role as living stone.

John 21: The Epilogue

I know this is going to sound a lot like the conclusion to the last chapter, but it really is the best way to transition the chapters. By the time the reader gets to the end of chapter 20, at John 20:31, it would seem as if the book of John has come to its end. Everything has finished fully and completely. Jesus finished His ministry, died to pay for the sins of the world, and then rose again 3 days late to defeat sin, evil and death. Many witnesses saw and heard Jesus, coming to faith in Him. There are no loose ends, plot holes or cliff hangers. John has both inductively and deductively brought the reader to the conclusion that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. He even states in the last verse of John 20. You almost even want to put a big “THE END” at the end of the chapter to give it that complete fulfillment feeling. But that’s not the end. John has one more story to give the reader. After going through the story, hopefully we’ll be able to see why John included with that chapter.

Before we go into the story itself, let’s go into a little textual criticism. I’m not the only one who thinks that John 20 ends well. A lot of scholars believe it’s a good ending for the chapter. But some scholars say it ends too well. They believe that was the intended ending, and John 21 was attached to the book later. This isn’t the first time we’ve encountered that problem. We encountered with the first 11 verses of John 8. If you read my overview of the whole book of Mark, the same problem was encountered with the last chapter. Sometimes these accusations come up because the text doesn’t seem to fit. But most of the time, the reason the accusations come up is because the earliest manuscripts of the book do not have the section, or the ancient witnesses do not attest to it (that pretty much means the 2nd and 3rd century church fathers do not quote it). This is not true for John 21. All the manuscripts, even the earliest manuscripts, have John 21 in it. There have been writings from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century that have quoted this story. So both the manuscripts and ancient witnesses support this story. On top of that, it has the same writing style as all the other 20 chapters of John. There is enough proof to say John wrote this chapter and fully intended it to be the last chapter of his Gospel.

Let’s set the scene. The book opens with the Greek words Meta tauta, which, when literally translated, is “after these things,” but dynamically translated “afterwards.” There is no clear time frame on how much time as past since Jesus appeared the 11 disciples, including Thomas, on that second Sunday. But I believe a good amount of time has passed, and I’ll explain that later. The location is a beach on the Sea of Tiberias, or as we know it better, the Sea of Galilee. Our list of characters are Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, John, James, and 2 other disciples. The book of John does not mention who these two disciples were, but if I had to take a guess, it would be Andrew and Philip. Why? Well, Andrew would could simply say that it would make sense he stayed with his brother Peter. But I think there’s a bigger picture to look at. The technical term is chiasmus, but it has also been called mirror imaging and reflective parallelism. In a chiasmus, a story ends in a reflective or opposite way, kind of like a mirror reflects the opposite of what you actually see. If this is true, I see John 21 as a chiasmus to John 1. John 21 is going to parallel John 1. We already see it in the setting. John 1 takes place in Galilee, and John 21 takes place in Galilee. In John 1, Jesus called 5 disciples: John, James, Andrew, Simon Peter and Philip. All 5 of those disciples are there (if you go along with my assumption the other 2 are Andrew and Philip). If John 1 was the calling of the disciples, this is the “re-calling” of the disciples. Some Bible translations even call the second half of John 21 “The Reinstating of Peter.” I also believe that is why Thomas is there, too. Thomas doubted that the Lord Jesus was alive. He needs continual proof and forgiveness to get him back on track. Also, notice Nathanael is there. Yes, this is the same Nathanael as in John 1, once more, showing the chiasmus. Although it can’t be found in the Bible, I believe that Nathanael must have been one of the greater crowd of followers. After all, he’s still hanging around with the disciples. So the setting has 6 disciples and 1 follower at the Sea of Tiberius at an unknown time.

While we don’t know the time frame exactly, I do believe that a good amount of time has passed. Why? Just look at the disciples’ situation. They went back to their hometown in Galilee, and they went back to their old occupations of being fishermen (I do believe those 6 disciples were all fishermen). Enough time went by since the last resurrection appearance, they must have said to one another, “Well those years following Jesus around on His ministry was a fun learning experience. And I’m glad we got to see he survived that whole crucifixion thing. But he’s probably moving on to bigger and greater things. So we better stop slacking off and get back to our homes, our families and our jobs.” That must have been what they thought because that’s what they did. But still, after reading the first 3 verses of John 21, I almost feel like the men are still daydreaming about that life, because to me, they seem bored to death. They have nothing better to do with their lives but to fish. Oh how they should have remembered what Jesus taught them. Luckily, Jesus is there to remind them.

Out of boredom, Peter decides to pass the time by fishing. The other disciples, and Nathanael, with nothing better to do, decide to join Peter out on the boat fishing. They sit there all morning (and possibly the night before) and they catch nothing. In the morning, Jesus appears out of nowhere. At first, they do not recognize Jesus. Perhaps they thought Jesus was just another fisherman. Maybe it was just an issue of bad lighting or he was too far away. Or, as we kind of understand from other resurrection accounts, it’s possible the disciples still had problems recognizing Jesus in His resurrected form. Jesus calls out to the men on the boat, “Friends, do you have any fish. The NIV chooses to use the word “Friends,” but a more literal translation of the Greek word is more like “children” or “little ones.” It is suggested Jesus is using a term here to show the close love between and teacher and his followers. I can imagine all the disciples giving each other a stupid look, and then pulling a Bill Engvall “Here’s your sign” moment, like, “No, Jesus, we thought we would just hang our nets over into the sea to give them a good washing. Here’s your sign!”

Jesus then instructs the disciples to throw their nets on the other side. Now it doesn’t matter if you are a career fisherman who goes out on a big ship and catches fish with a large net, or if you are a fisherman by hobby who goes out on a small fishing boat and catches fish with a fishing pole. Either way, you know it’s not going to make a big difference what side you are fishing on. Those disciples on the boat were professional fisherman, and they knew with both their “book smarts” and their “street smarts” (or should I say “sea smarts”) that it didn’t matter either way. But they decide to throw their nets on the other side anyway. I don’t know if they did it as an act of faith, or if it was just a “why not?” move. The Bible doesn’t explain. It’s a good thing they did, for when they did, they got fish, a lot of them! 153 to be exact (please don’t try to give it an allegorical meaning; it’s a detail in a historical fact, that’s all). And these weren’t small, measly fish. These 153 fish were so large and heavy that the men could not bring the nets up into the boat. What a miracle!

Indeed, it was a miracle. Once again, I apologize for not being more specific when I said there was only 7 miracles. There were only 7 miracles during Christ’s ministry. If we count Christ’s own resurrection as a miracle (and a lot of people do) and we were to count this large catching of fish as a miracle, this is the 9th miracle. It is another miracle where Jesus shows his authority over nature. It clearly reveals Jesus to be the Son of God, for only God could manipulate nature like that. Indeed, it was enough proof for John. When John realizes this is a miracle, he knows the only man to have miraculous power like that is the Lord. So with a cheerful cry, John explains, “It’s the Lord!” Everyone is excited to see Jesus again, especially Peter. Peter is so excited that he jumps from the boat and swims a hundred yards to see Jesus. The rest of the men follow behind in the boat, going slowly because of all the fish.

When Peter and the rest of the men reach shore, they see Jesus has prepared a fire and some bread. Jesus asks for some fish to cook so they can have breakfast together. John 21:12-14 paints a beautiful picture of fellowship between friends. Over a breakfast meal, the disciples and Nathanael enjoy eating and chatting it up with their Lord and friend Jesus. There was no need to question who the man was or to question Jesus about any teaching. With absolute certainty, they were assured they were eating with Jesus, and this allowed them to eat in peaceful, friendly fellowship with their God. John records this as Christ’s third appearance after dying on the cross (at least recorded in the book of John).

Before we move onto the second half, I want to throw in an application piece here. I drew up the picture painted in John 21:12-14 because I want it to teach a lesson on fellowship with God. I think a lot of Christians think that appearing in the presence of God is one of solemn and reverent worship. When they worship God in His presence, they are to be bowed down, softly speaking in fear, as God talks to them in a monotone and boring voice. Or maybe Christians picture it like a traditional church worship, where we orderly sing hymns, chant liturgy and pray, and then quietly leave. I do believe that there is time and place for that. It shows our reverence and admiration for a holy God, who is willing to extend his love to a sinner. But I also believe that if we do that too much, we lose that picture of Jesus as our brother and our friend. I truly believe there are sometimes that Jesus just wants to sit down with us and be our friend. Sometimes Jesus wants to go on a walk with us and have a good conversation. Say, that’s a perfect segway into the second half of John…

Even though this isn’t written down in John, I think what Jesus said to Peter after breakfast was, “Hey, Peter, let’s go for a walk and talk.” Peter answers, “Um, sure Lord. Where are we going?” Jesus answers, “Oh, just around the sea.” Peter replies, “Yeah, sure, Lord, let’s go.” And the two get up and begin walking. Now John knows what’s going on. Remember, John was 1 of the 3 disciples who Jesus pulled aside for special events, such as special miracles and special teachings. So when John sees Jesus pull Peter aside, he can’t help but wonder what’s going on and what Jesus might be telling Him. So he follows close behind to eavesdrop. I know this won’t make sense as of now, but this will make more sense as of verse 20.

As Jesus and Peter are on their walk, Jesus asks Peter 3 times, “Do you love me?” Each time, Jesus starts with the phrase, “Simon, son of John…” Remember back in Bible times, especially among the Jewish custom, your last name was “Ben-[Father’s name]” or “Bar-[Father’s name],” “Ben” and “Bar” both being suffixes for “Son.” In short, your last name was pretty much. “Son of [Father’s name].” Remember when you were a kid, and you really knew you were in trouble when your parents called you by your full name? I think that’s what Jesus is doing here. Jesus is trying to get Peter’s attention and draw him to the seriousness of the conversation.

In between the 10 verse of John 21:15-25, Jesus asks 3 times if Peter loves him, and Peter 3 replies 3 times that he does love him. In English, this looks like a perfect parallel, but not so in the Greek. The Ancient Greek language had 3-4 words for love. In this passage, Jesus uses two of them. The first and second time, Jesus uses the Greek word agape. The third time, Jesus uses the Greek word phileo. All 3 times Peter uses the word phileo. Some scholars have tried to argue there is theological significance in the choosing of the different words for love, but other scholars have simply dismissed it by saying in this context they are synonyms. I would have to agree with the other scholars. To understand, I will have to state the difference between the two words. The Greek word agape is most of the time meant to mean a love that unconditional, sacrificial, and devoted, as between a God and his worshipper. The Greek word phileo is love that is emotional drive and is just as conditional as it is unconditional, like the love between brothers or other family members. If there was a deep significance in the difference, it would seem as if Peter was dodging the question by offering a weaker answer. It would be like Peter saying, “Well, Lord, I don’t love that much, but I do love you.” If you look at the way Jesus responds, I don’t think Jesus took it that way. If Jesus did take it that way, He would be the one getting more upset every time Peter replied with his answer, not vice versa. On that note, if there was a difference, it would not Jesus who would go from agape to phileo, but rather Peter. Jesus would keep asking Peter “Do you love [agape] me?” until Peter stopped saying “I love [phileo] you” and started saying “I love [agape] you.” Instead, the opposite happens. So I must conclude that there is no difference, but they are all synonyms.

On the same note, do not try to make any specific theological differences between “sheep” and “lambs.” Although they are two different Greek words, they are to be treated like synonyms. Also, do not try to make any specific theological differences between “feed” and “take care” of my sheep. They too are synonyms. In fact, the Greek word that the NIV translates into “take care” is a verb form of the noun “pasture.” Why does a shepherd take his sheep out to pasture? The number one reason is to give it fresh grass to eat, which is feeding it.

But all my ranting about making the differences in language a difference in theology should not make you think there is some good exegesis we can pull out of this passage. First of all, what does Jesus mean by “these” when he says to Peter “Do you love me more than these?” I think “These” incorporates his occupation of fishing, his friendship with the other disciples, his family, his hometown, and everything that use to be dear to Peter. Once Jesus went out of Peter’s presence, Peter went back to his old life. Jesus wanted to know if Peter loved his old life better or if he loved the life Jesus gave him better. For if Peter loved his old life better, he wasn’t really fit to become the church leader Jesus wanted him to be. It’s a good thing Peter said he loved Jesus more! Indeed, Jesus did need Peter to love him more than family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, his home and his job for the mission He was to call Peter into (see Luke 14:25-27).

While I am not one for trying to distinguish theological differences between synonyms, and I am usually oppose unnecessary numerology (trying to find allegorical significance of numbers) in the Bible, I do believe there is a significance in why Jesus asked Peter 3 times if Peter loved Him. It does have to do with how many times Peter denied Jesus. If you remember correctly, I proposed in John 13 that a possible reason Peter denied Jesus 3 times was because Peter said 3 times that he would stick up for Jesus. Now in a bigger picture, the 3s are bunched up to make a bigger 3. Peter first says he will stick up for Jesus 3 times, then Peter denies him 3 times, so Peter has to confess his love 3 times. It’s like Jesus is saying, “Just making sure you love me, Peter. Because last time I checked, you pretended like you didn’t even know me.”

Like I said, Jesus really needed to know Peter loved him, and the prophecy about Peter in John 21:18 explains it. If I may take I guess at what the Bible doesn’t have written down, I think Jesus said something to Peter along of the lines of, “Peter, I just really needed to know that you love me. Because, Peter, you will face the same persecution I faced. You too will be falsely accused and falsely condemned. You too will be thrown into prison. You too will be persecuted and tortured, and you too will be martyred for your beliefs. And when you go through all this, I can’t have you doubting me, I can’t have you denying me, I can’t have you disowning me, and I can’t have you recanting. For I want you to be the leader of the church. If you’re the leader, they are going to look up to you, as they look up to me now. And when they look up to you, they need to see Me. I need you evangelize to the non-believers and disciples the believers at any cost, and the only way to do that is to love Me and My will for you more than anything in the world. Can you do that for Me?”

That’s just my paraphrasing. If we were to look at the text, Jesus prophecies Peter’s fate by using an analogy between a young man and an old man. A young man is independent enough to dress himself and go wherever he wants, but an old man is dependant on everyone for everything, from getting dressed to moving about. Jesus predicts that Peter in the near future will still have his independence to go and preach wherever the Holy Spirit leads him. But in the distant future, Peter will be arrested, and an arrested man is dragged to where his captors want him to go. Ultimiately, this prophecy talks about his death of crucifixion, where the crucified person’s hands were stretched across the beam. Early church tradition states that Peter was arrested in 64 A.D. and later crucified within the same year. In one way, we can see Peter’s death glorifying Jesus by dying by the exact same method. In another way, Peter’s death glorifying Jesus because, like Jesus, He was willing to die for the exact same gospel message his Lord died for.

Jesus closes this section in John 21:19 by giving the command, “Follow me!” Once again, we see another parallel back to John 1, as this book began with Jesus calling disciples, including Peter, to follow him (John 1:43, cf. Matthew 4:18-20 & Mark 1:16-18). The NIV calls this section “Jesus Reinstates Peter.” In one sense, we can see Christ’s command to Peter to follow him as making him a disciple again. If Peter legitimately recanted being a disciple by disowning Jesus, he needed to be made a disciple again. In another sense, maybe Christ’s command for Peter to follow him was a greater calling than when Jesus first called Peter to follow Him. The first time, Jesus called Peter to be His disciple, His student. Now Jesus was calling Peter to a greater mission. Peter was now called to be His apostle, His messenger of the good news and a leader to His believers. Either way, Peter is being called to stick with Jesus, even when Jesus is not present with Him.

By this time on their walk, Jesus and Peter know John is following close behind. While Jesus is giving prophecies about the future, Peter might as well ask about John. I don’t see this as Peter being nosy into the life of other people. Think all the way back to my introduction on John. In my introduction, I talked a little about the character of John, who he was. Remember that I said it’s possible that John’s father Zebedee and Simon Peter’s father John were partners in fishing, so it’s possible that Peter and John were co-workers all their adult life, and maybe even childhood friends. During the ministry of Jesus, Peter and John were 2 of the inner 3 disciples, so they had unique bonding time with Jesus. Even after this book, John is always seen with Peter in Acts. When you put all this evidence together, I really think Peter and John were best friends. Being best friends, naturally Peter wants to know what happens to his best friend.

Before we get into what Jesus didn’t mean, let’s talk about what Jesus did mean. I think it would be helpful to put another paraphrase of mine. Pretty much, Jesus said, “Don’t worry about it. Don’t focus on what’s going to happen to him or my relationship with him. You need to focus on your relationship with me and what I called you do. Focus on that.” There’s some good application there. Too often Christians will meddle into other people’s spiritual life before they take care of their own. They will call out other people’s sins before confessing or repenting of their own sins. They will try to spiritually discipline someone while their spiritual walk is far from disciplined. They compare and contrast their spiritual life with others, only to come out feeling that they are better than everyone else. The worse part is when they think they are in the right to do so, even calling it accountability! The problem is they end up doing what Jesus warned us no to do: we try to take the speck out of someone else’s eye before taking the plank out of our own eye! Now Jesus doesn’t say to leave the speck in their eye and leave the plank in our own eye, but simply that we should make sure we remove our own plank first before removing the speck. Before we meddle into other spiritual lives, we need to straighten out our own lives.

Now onto what Jesus didn’t mean. Apparently the witnesses who heard this took the words “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” to mean that John was going to live until Jesus came again (and I can see that mistake even being made in the modern era, if it wasn’t for the following verses). The thought Jesus was saying, “He will remain alive until I return.” John clearly understands Jesus to mean, “Even if I suggest something as crazy as him living on earth until I return, that shouldn’t affect you.” Context also helps the misunderstanding. First of all, a lot of 1st century Christians, including the Twelve Apostles (especially them) really thought that Christ’s second return would happen within their lifetime. So at first, this idea wasn’t too far-fetched. This idea meant Jesus was coming back in half a century, and all 12 of the Apostles would escape martyrdom until Christ’s return. The idea was quickly shot down by the time John wrote his Gospel. If John truly wrote the book of John either in the late 80s or early 90s AD, most of the Twelve Apostles have died martyred deaths. It’s even possible John is the only original Apostle still alive. Yet some of the 1st century Christians are holding on to this idea that Jesus was returning soon. Why? They remembered the words Jesus spoke to Peter in John 21:22. John was still alive. He was even dodging persecution pretty when. When tried for his faith, he was not martyred, but exiled to the island of Patmos. Even then, John finished his sentence and left the island. He was still alive. So some Christians still thought Jesus was coming very soon because Jesus promised that John would not die. John quickly kills the rumor and gets everything straightened out. Indeed, tradition states John simply died of old age.

The real, true last 2 verses of the book do not parallel any passage in John 1, but I do kind of see them parallel the last 2 verses of the previous chapter, John 20. Let’s put them both up.

John 20:30–31-
30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John 21:24–25-
24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

The overall message both pairs of verses have is that the book of John is just a sampling of what Jesus. But even adding the Synoptic Gospels, that too only seems like a sampling of what Jesus did. It may seem like John is using a hyperbole in John 21:25, but maybe it’s really an understatement. Jesus did do a lot in his 35 years of life on earth as a human being. Heck, Jesus did a lot in just the 3-4 years of his ministry. If ever single second, or every single minute of the life of Jesus was recorded, it would take a lot of books and scrolls to get it all down. But it brings up a good point. Why didn’t the Gospel writers put more down than just the 89 chapters written between the 4 Gospel writers? It goes back to the purpose statement in John 20:31. The Gospel writers only wrote down the information that proved their message. And that’s why the last 2 verses of John 21 (which are the last 2 verses of the book) also carry the overall purpose in them. Jesus did many other things as well, and John witnessed a lot of them, but John only wrote down 21 chapters worth because that’s all needed to prove Jesus was the Christ and the Son of God.

One more thing to note about these 2 conclusions. Both conclusions mention one or more disciples present to bear witness. John 21 says it explicitly in verse 24, and John 20 says it implicitly in verse 30. Simply put, John is saying that the reader can be sure all of the recorded events are true because there was at least one disciple who saw them all, and that disciple was John. I do find comfort that this Gospel is not merely an editor putting together an anthology of stories, or an interviewer writing down a news report from witnesses. Rather, this information is first hand from John himself. (Maybe that’s why John didn’t put down a birth story. He wasn’t there to witness it.)

This is really and truly the end of the Gospel of John. Yet I just don’t feel right ending my commentary here. Even though this chapter can be seen as an epilogue to the book of John, for my devotional commentary, I’m going to write my own epilogue. My epilogue will be like an overall summary of the book. I plan to try to find some way to outline the book, as well as connect all the chapters to show you how John in consistent in carrying out the theme of Jesus as Christ and God the Son.

John 20: Easter Sunday

I want you to think about the events that happen at a typical modern-day American home on Easter. Since this is one of those holidays where the mythological holiday creature comes during the night (or really early in the morning), children wake up their parents at the crack of dawn so they can see what the Easter bunny brought them. So much for sleeping in on a holiday. At best, parents can delay this up to 8 AM. At 8 AM, parents watch their children go on an Easter egg hunt and go through their Easter baskets. In the 9 o’clock hour, it’s Sunday School, and in the 10 o’clock hour, it’s church. Even if this family doesn’t usually go to church, if they have to go at least twice a year, this holiday is one of them (Christmas being the other). After church, the family goes home to a traditional Easter dinner for lunch. Usually the main platter is ham (after all, thanks to Jesus setting up the New Covenant, we can now eat pork!). Then the day is pretty much done. Easter is over. And it’s only an hour or two into the afternoon. This may be the reality for many modern-day American families, but it wasn’t the reality for the Disciples in the 1st century A.D. For them, the resurrection wasn’t just an event that happened in the morning and bit in the afternoon. It was an event that happened over 40 days! Not even the initial first day was just a morning event. The disciples struggled with probability, questions, and even doubt that lasted all day John chapter 20 reveals how Easter Sunday was all-day event, and a day was very eventful from sunrise to sunset.

Before I go any further, once again I will remind you that the resurrection appears in all 4 Gospel accounts. All 4 Gospel accounts tell the story differently, and to the untrained eye, it may seem like they contradict. So I will mention the other Gospel passages if there seems to be contradiction or if it needs some further explaining. If it does not correlate with the message John is speaking in John 20, I will breeze over it or skip it altogether.

For example, I’ve heard an atheist complain about the contradiction of the number of women and which women went to the tomb on that Sunday morning. Matthew has 2 women: Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” (most likely the mother of James). Mark has 3 women: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. Luke has Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna, and then he tags “others” on at the end, which could be an indefinite amount. John just mentions 1 woman: Mary Magdalene. Surely all 4 Gospels writers can’t be right, can they? Surely this is a contradiction…right? Well, consider this conversation between a mother and her high school son…

Mom: “Son, why were you home so late from school? Did you get another detention?”
Son: “No, mom. I went to the high school basketball game. It was a playoff game against our rival school to decide who got to play in the championship, I thought it would be an interesting game to stay and watch.”
Mom: “Oh. So who else was there watching the game?”

Now let’s stop the conversation and contemplate what the son’s answer might be. Obviously the mom asked this simply for an alibi. So how is the son going to answer this answer? Is he literally going to name everyone who was there? This would be almost an impossible feat, unless he was the guy working at ticket booth or taking attendance. It’s a playoff game, it’s possible over a hundred people are there. He’s not going to mention every single person. So who will he mention? At the most, he’ll mention everyone that he knows. He’s not going to talk about people who he can’t identify. Furthermore, he’s only going to mention the people he knows and who he noticed. There might have been people at the game that he did know, but he didn’t know they were there. He might only mention the people he knows and the people his mom knows. After all, he mentions people he knows but his mom doesn’t know, she’s going to ask, “Who’s that?” every time, and the son wants to avoid explaining who every person is. Also, if the son knows his mom just wants an alibi, he might only mention the people sitting next to him or the people who he was hanging out with at the game. This small group might be less than 10% of the people that was there, but it’s enough to prove that he was really at the game. Same goes with the Gospel writers. The Gospel writers aren’t going to name every single person who saw the empty tomb that morning. They are only going to mention the ones that pertain to the story. If there is any overall unity the Gospel writers are trying to get across, is that there was early witnesses to the resurrection, and all 4 Gospel writers show that, no matter how many or which ones.

On that same note, the fact that there are female witnesses to be the first to witness the resurrection is an excellent apologetic to both the resurrection itself and the inerrancy of the Scriptures. In the 1st century A.D., a woman’s testimony was not considered legitimate in a legal court. In short, you could not call a woman to the stand because her testimony was not accepted. In fact, if there was a 1st century trial on the resurrection, the woman’s testimony would have been thrown out. Thus, if the disciples were making up the resurrection, they would have either said that the disciples, or maybe even the Pharisee followers (like Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea), found the empty tomb first. But the true truth was that it was the women found it first, and to stick to the truth of the Scriptures, that’s all 4 Gospel writers recorded it.

If you remember, Jewish law and Jewish custom does not allow a Jew to go near a dead body during the Sabbath or during holiday, since it would make them unclean. That’s why the Jews demanded that the crucified men be removed from the crosses so quickly. Now if it wasn’t for this Jewish law, I bet the women would have gone the next day to the tomb, but because of the Sabbath, they had to wait. The women were forced to be patient, but still, they made plans to go to the tomb first thing in the morning. Mary Magdalene was the most impatient of them all. She doesn’t want to even wait until sunrise; she’s willing to go in the morning while it’s still dark. Perhaps she thought the women were taking too long to get themselves ready to go to the tomb, so she went ahead of them. The other woman might have just shook their head, thinking to themselves, “Silly Mary, how’s she going to roll away the stone in front of the tomb all by herself?”

As Mary approaches the tomb, she seems something out of place. The stone has been rolled away! Now it’s debatable how close Mary got. From John’s account, one could easily say that Mary didn’t peek her head in the tomb, or even got close. All she saw was the stone rolled away. The accounts from the Synoptic Gospels give more of an idea that she actually looked in. Now, in my mind, the most logical thing to do if I was Mary would be to run back to my female friends and tell them the news. I have no idea why Mary got the idea to run to Peter and John and tell them. Perhaps she figured that Peter and John, being the closest 2 disciples, might have a better knowledge of what’s happened to Jesus. After all, Mary was with the women all day and all night, so she knows they don’t know. Maybe Mary just thought it made the most sense to report it the 2 closest disciples. Whatever the case, Mary Magdalene runs to where Peter and John are to report that the body isn’t there.

During the time Mary Magdalene has embarked to the tomb, found the tomb empty, and ran to where Peter and John are residing, the rest of the women (at least 3 of them), begin their journey to the tomb. The Synoptic Gospels fill us in on what happens there. As I said, I’m not going to go into that too deeply. If you want to go into it deeply, read the Synoptic Gospels. But in short, the women see the empty tomb, they see angels dressed in white telling them Jesus rose from the dead, and then they are given instructions to the disciples. So these women also run off to find Peter and John.

For this next scene, let’s picture the scene from the viewpoint of Peter and John. It’s early morning, around sunrise. Peter and John are fast asleep. All of a sudden, they hear a vicious knock on the door. They are scared, not only because they’ve been startled from your sleep, but they fear that it’s the Jewish leaders and Roman leaders, preparing to arrest the Disciples on the same charges as Jesus. As they walk closer to the door, they feel a bit better recognizing the voice as Mary’s, but they still feel a bit uneasy due to the frantic sound her voice, sounding concerned. They open the door to Mary, babbling away at a mile a minute. Somehow, they are able to pull out, “They have taken the body away!” As Peter and John try to beckon Mary, “Who, Mary? Who took the body?” all of a sudden, Mary the mother of James, Salome and Joanna come running up to Peter and John. They start babbling on and on about seeing an empty tomb, seeing angels, and claiming Jesus rose from the dead. Now Peter and John are really confused. Last time they checked, all the women went together to the tomb. Then how can the woman have different stories? Peter and John conclude the best way is to just go down themselves and look at the scene.

Both Peter and John, concerned about the whereabouts of the body, run down to the tomb. I like how John mentions that he outran Peter (although he mentions it humbly because he still does not refer to himself by name). Mary Magdalene, now herself confused (because she knows what she saw, but the other women say something different), runs behind the two disciples to see if anything has changed. Now as they are running, let’s pause for another good apologetic. Some opponents of the Bible have suggested that the women went to the wrong tomb, and when they saw that this tomb was empty, they concluded Jesus rose from the dead. I think John 20 proves that to be not true. I do think a bit that maybe Peter and John thought that themselves. They might have thought, “Maybe Mary Magdalene went to the wrong tomb. Let’s make sure she went to the right tomb.” So Peter and John went to make sure Mary Magdalene went to the right tomb, and sure enough, she did. While I’m at it, let me continue to debunk the “wrong tomb theory.” If Mary Magdalene did go to the wrong, she would not have concluded that Jesus rose from the dead. From verse 9 (as well as other verses in John the Synoptic Gospels), we know the disciples and other followers of Jesus still had yet to grasp the whole idea of resurrection. If Mary did go to the wrong tomb, she would have concluded that the body was stolen, as seen in verses 2 and 13. And if it was truly the wrong tomb, it would have been only a matter of minutes for someone to find the right tomb. The tomb was clearly marked, with a garden, with one spot for a body (the sign of a rich tomb), a sealed stone, and Roman guards. It’s kind of a hard to mix up a clearly marked tomb with a generic tomb.

So John gets to the tomb first, Peter comes in second, and Mary arrives third. All 3 of them see a tomb with no body and neatly folded linen cloths. They don’t even see the angels the other women talked about (I don’t know, maybe they went on coffee break). John 20:8 says that John went in, saw, and “believed.” What did John believe? Remember John was confronted with 2 different stories: Christ’s body was stolen and Christ had risen from the dead. Which story did John believe? What makes this question interesting is John 20:9, which says that the disciples did not understand that the Scriptures said the Christ must rise from the dead. Some people have suggested that John saw the scene, realized it couldn’t have been a robbery, and thus believed Jesus rose from the dead. If this is the case, then John 20:9 has to be interpreted that John simply did not comprehend the full picture of resurrection. But the Greek word used for “believed” here has to do with a full perception of the subject. Besides, looking John 20:19-25 and Luke 24:36-43 (the parallel passage), there seems to be this idea that all disciples present totally forgot Christ’s teachings of resurrection, including John. So when I see “believed” in John 20:8, I take it to mean, “He believe Mary Magdalene’s story,” which is the body was stolen. But Peter and John have no leads on who took the body, so they just go back home sad and defeated.

Before I go on, I want to pause to look at a certain verse. Look at John 20:7b with me

John 20:7b-
The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

When I first saw this verse, it stood out to me as something that didn’t belong. Why would John go out of his way to mention such a detail? I know John is trying to be detailed, but this is ridiculous. I was always trained that if the Bible points out a descriptive detail, there’s always some symbolic or theological meaning behind it. So what’s the meaning behind this descriptive detail? Some scholars have drawn this back to the idea of the master and the servants at a dinner table. When it came time for dinner, the servants would cook the food and set the table. When master would enter the dining room, the master would eat by himself (or with his family), and the servants would just stand back against the wall, just in case the master would need anything. If the master was done his meal, he would get up, crumple up the linen napkin, and throw it on the table. This was a sign to the servants to clean up the table because the master was done. But if the master wasn’t done, but needed to get up (to go to the bathroom, for example), he would fold his napkin and place it neatly back on its plate. This was a sign to the servants that said, “Don’t touch anything. I’m coming back to finish.” Thus, some people have interpreted this line from John 20:7 as Jesus saying, “I’m coming back to finish what I started.” Let’s continue on with the story in John.

While Peter and John have gone back defeated, Mary Magdalene can’t stand it anymore. She just breaks down in front of the tomb, bawling. In between the tears, Mary looks over to see 2 angels, just like the other women said. When she makes eye contact with the angels, the angels ask her, “Why are you crying?” I like how Mary answers without really reacting to the angels. Most people who encounter angels usually have a fear reaction, but not Mary. She just answers them. “They have taken my Lord away, and I don’t know where they have put him.” Mary turns her head once more, and she sees another man. Through her tears, she can’t tell it’s Jesus. She just suspects it’s the gardener. So Mary may have supposed that the gardener might have temporarily moved the body to clean the garden and tomb. So Mary kindly asks the gardener where he placed the body so she can see it. Jesus simply replies, “Mary.” Now the Greek language did not have exclamation marks, but if they did, I think they would have put one here. Jesus is saying to her “Mary! It’s me!” The Bible Knowledge Commentary connects this back to Christ’s preaching of the Good Shepherd, when Jesus says, “I call the sheep by name, and the sheep know my voice.” Once Mary heard Jesus call her by name, she recognized it was Jesus calling her. Mary replies, “Rabboni!” Now there is some debate on whether or not “Rabboni” differs from “Rabbi.” Perhaps “Rabboni” is a higher ranked teacher than a “Rabbi,” or maybe “Rabboni” shows a more intimate relationship with the teacher than “Rabbi.” Whether the case may be, Mary Magdalene recognized this as the Jesus she knew for so long, and she embraced him. That is why Jesus says in John 20:17 not to hold on to him. It’s not that Mary touching Jesus makes him unclean, but rather, Jesus doesn’t want Mary to get too attached to the thought that Jesus will be hanging around for a while. Jesus still intends to go back to the Father. Christ’s last words to Mary are to tell his brothers, the disciples, that Jesus is going back to the Father God. Mary reports more than that to the disciples. She retells the whole story on how she saw the Lord Jesus.

Now here’s what I believe happened after Mary Magdalene reported to the disciples what Jesus had told her to report. Even though none of the Gospels record this story, both Luke 24:34 and 1 Corinthians 15:5a record that there is a private appearance between Jesus and Simon Peter. Thomas and Gundry’s The NIV Harmony of the Gospels states it has to happen after the appearance to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9-11 refers to Mary Magdalene as the first person to see the resurrected Jesus), but before the two men on the road to Emmaus. I say that after Mary Magdalene reported back to Peter what happened, Peter headed off to the tomb for a second time. What would drive Peter to go back to the tomb a second time? One would think Peter would see Mary as the girl “who cried wolf.” I think Peter saw something different in Mary that would make Mary change her story. Something must have happened. Now Peter has at least 4 women telling him Jesus had raised from the dead, so he had to listen. Also, I think Peter hoping so much that the “stolen body” theory wasn’t true, and that Jesus really did raise from the dead. I even think that he himself pondered about the evidence. The scene Peter saw didn’t look like a thief came in. So Peter went back a second time, and I believe that second time Peter went back, he found everything just as Mary Magdalene saw: two angels in the tomb and Jesus in the garden. Thus, Simon Peter became the first man to see the resurrected Jesus.

In the paragraph above, I said one of my reasons to believe Peter went back a second time was that the evidence at the scene did not appear to look like a robbery. Why doesn’t John 20:6,7 look the scene of a robbery case? Now’s the perfect time to give a defense on the claim that the body of Jesus was stolen by thieves. The tomb Jesus laid in would be a target for thieves because it was the tomb of a rich man. But grave robbers rarely to never stole the body because the body would have little to no value. Instead, the grave robbers would take whatever the body was buried with that had value. The only thing worth value in the tomb (and this especially the case for the poor) would be the expensive fine linen the burial clothes were made out of. If the grave of Jesus was really the robbed, the thieves would have taken his clothes and left a naked, dead body in the tomb. The only way the thieves would have stolen the body is if they knew they could get a price out of it. The only ones who would be interested in the body would be the Jewish leaders. But that’s exactly why the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to put guards at the tomb. They wanted to make sure no one left with the body. So the Jewish leaders wouldn’t pay robbers to steal the body because they knew it was well guarded at the tomb. Speaking of which, it could not have been thieves because that tomb was well guarded by soldiers. Those soldiers were so strong; a few mere men could not have fought them off. Between the guards and the seal on the stone, thieves could have not gotten to the body. I have one more piece of evidence to give to you to prove it can’t be thieves. Even if thieves did steal the body and leave behind the expensive clothes, they would not have taken the time to fold the clothes up nicely and neatly. Therefore, I conclude all this proof shows the body was not stolen by grave robbers. Even Simon Peter concluded that, and that’s why he was the first man to see the risen Jesus.

All the events I have spoken about so far have all happened before noon on that first Easter morning. Within that time, Jesus has appeared to at least 4 women, as well as Simon Peter. When we celebrate Easter, our celebrations end a little after 12, but the events on the first Easter did not end a little after 12. John’s story of the resurrection will pick up again in the evening of the day. Until then, Luke says that Jesus appears to 2 of His followers (these 2 men are not among the 12 Disciples Jesus chose) on the road to Emmaus in the afternoon. I’m not going into Luke’s story, but it does kind of help set the scene, as these 2 men cancel their trip to Emmaus to head back to Jerusalem and report to the disciples what they have seen.

Picking up in John 20:19, evening has fallen on that Sunday. The scene is a room in Jerusalem, with all the doors locked tight. The disciples are still afraid that the Jewish leaders are going to come after Christ’s Disciples next, so they are being very cautious. The characters are the 10 disciples. Obviously, we know Judas Iscariot isn’t there because he betrayed Jesus and then hanged himself. We don’t know where Thomas is, but we know Thomas is not there. For all we know, they sent Thomas out to get dinner. Out of nowhere, Jesus appears to the 10 Disciples are says, “Peace be with you!” Even though in Greek, this goes back to a Hebrew greeting, almost similar to “hello.” But this might have been a more real greeting, one with a deeper meaning. Before Jesus left, during the Last Supper, Jesus constantly reminded His disciples that he was going to give them peace. His presence there was another ounce of peace for them. I’m not sure if it really did give the disciples peace at first. According to Luke, their first reaction was that it was a ghost, or that they were having a vision or hallucination. But Jesus quickly debunks this theory as he shows the disciples the holes in his hands and the stab wound in his side.

This debunking is one needed for both the past and the present. Let’s start in the past since that is the original context. Within 100 years of Jesus rising again, false theories about the resurrection were already floating around. The most popular one was that Jesus just raised from the dead in spirit, not body. This was started by the Gnostics, who claimed the body was bad. So in the Gnostic mindset, a bodily resurrection would not make sense. What made sense to them was a spirit resurrection only. Jesus debunks that by showing the wounds in His body. Those wounds were the same that a human body would have, making the conclusion it was a human body. So that debunks the Gnostics’ conclusion, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ conclusion, and the disciples’ first incorrect conclusion. Well, what about the disciples’ second incorrect conclusion, that this is a hallucination or a dream. This is a common belief of skeptics today, who will insist that wishful thinking led the disciples to hallucinate or dream that Jesus had come back to life. Last time I checked, hallucinations, dreams, and visions were hard to feel. The disciples actually could touch and feel Jesus. Still, if that is not enough proof, I would keep saying to go back to the witnesses. By now, at least 4 female witnesses and 12 male witnesses (10 disciples plus 2 followers) saw Jesus. By the time this is all done, over 500 people will see Jesus in this time period of 40 days. It’s hard for over 500 people to hallucinate the same thing. In my book, there is enough to evidence to prove that seeing Jesus alive was not a dream, a vision, or a hallucination, but what really happened.

After Jesus wishes peace on the 10 Disciples a second time, John records Jesus breathing on the disciples and telling them to receive the Holy Spirit. Here is another beautiful word play. The Greek word pnema can be translated “spirit,” “wind,” or “breath.” This is also true in the Hebrew. In Genesis, Moses uses the Hebrew word ruah to draw the connection of breathing on the newly-made man and giving him life. Jesus “breathing” on the disciples was a symbol of them receiving the Holy Spirit. Once the received the Holy Spirit, they would became new creation and have a new life. Once again, parallels to the creation story in Genesis 2. Many people try to understand what Jesus is saying in John 20:22. Some have even theorized that the disciples received a piece of the Holy Spirit then and there to understand the resurrection (see Luke 24:45). I think it simply is another command from Jesus to receive the Holy Spirit when he comes on Pentecost.

As I mentioned before, at this setting, Thomas is not present, for one reason or another. When Thomas does get back, Jesus is already gone. They all report gladly to him that Jesus has come back from the dead and they all saw it. And this is where Thomas gets the nickname “Doubting Thomas.” Thomas refuses to believe until Jesus has appeared to him and also shown him the holes in his hands, feet and side. Do not blame Thomas for doubting. As we discussed above, all the other 10 disciples doubted Jesus had risen from the dead, even when they saw him. It wasn’t until the felt the flesh of Jesus that they believed. Thomas was simply asking to do the same. Also, do not see this as John picking on Thomas. This is just John’s way of showing character development. After all, John as shown us positive qualities of Thomas, such as willingness to follow Jesus to the death (John 11:16) and seeking to follow Jesus closer (John 14:5).

John picks up with the story again in John 20:26, telling the reader that a whole week has past. It’s already the next Sunday. From what we’ve read in the Bible, both Synoptic Gospels and John’s Gospel, Jesus has not made any more appearances. I wonder how Thomas felt all this past week. Was he upset that his fellow disciples kept insisting that Jesus rose from the dead, without any evidence? Was he annoyed, seeing this a cruel practical joke? The scene this following Sunday is a lot like the scene the past Sunday. It’s behind locked door in a large room in Jerusalem. The only difference is this time Thomas was with them. Jesus comes again, even greeting them with the same greeting: “Peace be with you!” Jesus goes right to Thomas and gives him the same treatment as the rest of the disciples a week earlier. He asks Thomas to put his fingers and hands into the holes in his hands and his sides to see they are real. I love Thomas’s reaction: “My Lord and My God.” It connects exactly with John 20:31, the theme verse for this Gospel.

John 20:31-
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

In the previous verse, John 20:30, John says that Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples. When I told you that Jesus only performed 7 miracles in the whole book, I meant John only records 7 miracles in the book during the ministry of Jesus. Indeed, Jesus rising from the dead is a miracle. And if the raising of Lazarus was the greatest miracle during the ministry of Jesus, then Jesus rising up would be the greatest miracle of His whole earthly life. It is the miracle that defines our faith, for without His resurrection, our faith is false, empty and futile (1 Corinthians 15:14,17). If all of Christ’s miracles were signs that He was God, then this miracle was the greatest sign that proved once and for all Jesus was God. Notice Thomas’s reaction. He didn’t say “My Teacher!” or “My Rabbi!” He said, “My Lord and My God!” All the disciples and followers of Jesus after the resurrection had the same reaction. Those who had yet to call Jesus “Christ,” “Lord,” or “God” all of a sudden did start giving him these titles. The disciples and followers who were already calling Jesus by those titles were not starting to call him by those titles more. If they were unsure before Jesus died, they were sure after Jesus came back to life. If they were sure when before Jesus died, now they were very sure after Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus rising up again was the icing on the cake that sealed the deal. It is the final, grand conclusion that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and God the Son.

Since you know that I like ending each chapter with both an application within the chapter as much as an application to the grander theme of the chapter, I’m going to turn to John 21:29 for our application verse of the chapter.

John 20:29-
Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

I think sometimes Christian get into their head that the Disciples were the most blessed people on the earth because they got to see Jesus through the few years of ministry, the saw the Passion Week for Jesus, and they saw the resurrected Jesus. Therefore, we seem them as higher Christians than we are. This is simply not true. The disciples came to belief because they saw the ministry of Jesus, the Passion Week of the Christ, and the resurrected Son of Man. Christians who believe today believe even thought they did not see the life, death or resurrection of Jesus. Jesus says that takes much more faith for a non observer to believe (some translations have “more blessed are those have not seen…”). I believe this to be true, especially today, when we live in a world that claims, Jesus never rose, Jesus never died on the cross, and some even go as far as say Jesus never lived or existed period. In summer of 2009, I went down to Israel, and I spent a whole week in Jerusalem. While in Jerusalem, I went to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the traditional and most likely site of the crucifixion and burial of Jesus. Within the church was smaller cathedral which held the tomb where Jesus was laid. A line wrapped around it a couple times. Waiting in line would take a couple to a few hours. I was advised not to waste my free day in Jerusalem to do so, but some of my friends did. I’m glad I took the advice. Just like John 20:29 says, I can still say I believe, even though I didn’t see the empty tomb.

Once you get to the bottom of John 20, at verse 31, you’d think you hit the grand and final conclusion. The book could end there, and it would be a good ending. No open end, no cliffhanger, nothing of the sort. John comes to full conclusion and ending in John 20. But that’s not the end. You don’t have to look too far to see there is one last chapter to John, the 21st chapter of John. I see John 21 as an epilogue to John. It can be understood as part of the resurrection account, but it also can be seen as smooth transition into the church age, as seen in Acts, the Pauline Epistles and the General Epistles, especially John’s 3 epistles. So stay tuned for one more chapter of John. Perhaps we can see the Son of God one more time in it.

John 13: A Betrayer and A Denier

Last chapter focused around the events of Palm Sunday, as well as other surrounding events. John does not see any important events happening in the Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday following, so he skips right to Thursday evening, in which traditional Christians call Maundy Thursday or Holy Thursday. The Jews know this meal to be Passover, but Christians know it to be the Lord’s Supper or the Last Supper. Interesting enough, John does not mention the Last Supper at all. He must have assumed his readers read about it in the Synoptic Gospels, and with nothing more to add, he leaves it out. Instead, John decides to add a lot of the last teachings of Jesus, which the Synoptic Gospels do not give. John 13-17 are all the last teachings of Jesus, given at the Last Supper. Right now we’ll just focus on John 13, and I want to focus in on Jesus predicting both his betrayer and denier.

Since Jesus talks about the betrayer before the denier, let’s start off with the betrayer, since that’s who Jesus started off with. There’s no need to be hidden with the identity of the betrayer in John. It’s clearly Judas Iscariot. John has been foreshadowing a lot. In John 6:70,71, Jesus calls one of the disciples the devil, which John reveals to be Judas Iscariot. In John 12:4-6, Judas calls out Mary for wasting money. John interprets this to be Judas Iscariot exposing his evil heart. In John 13:2, John tells the reader the devil had prompted Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus. This could simply be interpreted as Judas Iscariot making the deal with the Jewish leaders to betray Jesus. Even in John 13:10, while John does not specifically mark Judas as the betrayer, John remembers Jesus saying not everyone was clean, and John interprets it to mean that the betrayer, Judas Iscariot, was not the clean one. So clearly both Jesus and John have been foreshadowing what Judas Iscariot will do in the whole book, but now it will come fully out in a prediction in John 13:18-30. Interesting enough, John, along with Matthew, are the only 2 who specifically and explicitly mention Judas Iscariot as the betrayer by name. Mark and Luke do not mention Judas Iscariot by name in the prediction. Only when he actually betrays Jesus is his name used. Between Matthew and John, Matthew is more specific and more explicit, as Matthew records Judas Iscariot asking if he’s the betrayer, to which Jesus affirms.

It might be obvious to us, but it wasn’t obvious to the disciples. The only reason John makes it so obvious is because he is writing this after the events went down (also, since he’s assumed his readers has read the Synoptic Gospels and know who the betrayer is, instead of keeping a surprise, he shows how it could have been foreshadowed). But John, as well as the rest of the disciples, has no clue. They are lacking a clue so much, that in the synoptic Gospels, each disciple asks Jesus if he himself is the betrayer. Yes, each disciple accused himself before anyone else. Despite all the foreshadowing that made it obvious to the reader, in the mind of the disciples, Judas Iscariot is probably the least likely candidate. He was the treasurer of the group, and a treasurer is a highly valued position in any group. The job, in theory, shows that the group trusts you with their money and their finances. If the disciples were mostly unaware of the embezzlement Judas Iscariot was guilty of, they trusted him with their money and finances, so they saw Judas Iscariot as a trustworthy man. Later on, the text will show the reader that Judas Iscariot was within arm’s reach of Jesus. When it came to seating guests at the table during Bible times, the closer the person was to the host, the more honored the guest was. If Judas was within arm reach of Jesus, he was one of the higher up guests. The disciples must have thought Judas Iscariot was an honorable man. Already we have described (at least, by outward appearances) Judas Iscariot as trustworthy and honorable, which are not the qualities of a betrayer. Although a weak argument, we can even use an argument from the silence to show Judas wasn’t a suspect. Quickly skim through all your Synoptic Gospels. Besides when the Twelve Disciples are called, you’ll notice Judas isn’t mentioned until the Last Supper or the Betrayal. From the Gospels, he doesn’t seem to have an active role in the ministry of Jesus. Besides the words of Jesus, which are only mentioned in John, nothing seems to stick out with him. If you were one of Twelve Disciples in the 1st century, you wouldn’t have suspected Judas Iscariot either. The disciples are so unaware, they have to ask Jesus who it is.

To reveal the identity of the betrayer, Jesus dips a piece of bread in a dish and gives it to the betrayer. This was to fulfill the Scriptures, but also in irony of the custom of the day. In Biblical times, “sharing bread” or “breaking bread” (better translation) was an act done between two close people, like family or best friends. When it was done among 2 strangers, it was to acceptance and welcoming. It’s so ironic because here it represents the opposite. Jesus is not saying Judas Iscariot is a friend or a brother to him. Jesus is not welcoming Judas Iscariot, nor is He showing acceptance of Him. Instead, Jesus breaks breads with him to reveal a betrayer, a enemy or an antagonist. The action of breaking bread also fits very well with the context of the fulfilled Scriptures. Most Bibles will say that the Scripture Jesus is referring is Psalm 41:9. Most scholars will tell you that Psalm 41:9 is about Ahithophel, David’s trustworthy and honorable table companion, who betrayed David and then hanged himself for doing so. The parallels fit very well between Ahithophel and Judas Iscariot. Both betrayed a close companion, and both committed suicide over the guilt of the betrayal.

At the sign, John 13:27 tells the reader that Satan entered Judas Iscariot. Now most scholars will agree (although a few have said differently) that the bread that Jesus gave Judas Iscariot is not what caused Satan to enter Judas Iscariot. The issue is how to define “Satan entered.” The question is how much control Judas Iscariot had. Was Judas Isacariot possessed by Satan, or was he acting upon his own free will, but being tempted by Satan? Scholars have been split 50/50 on the two. A few liberal scholars have taken this metaphorically, simply stating it means that from this point on Judas Iscariot was no longer a disciple of Jesus. While in some contexts it fits, it really denies the evil present in this situation. We can’t go to the Greek, for the best literal translation of the Greek is “Satan entered.” Let’s try the other Gospels. Luke 22:3 does also say that Satan entered Judas Iscariot, but the Matthew and Mark passages paralleling the Luke passage do not mention Satan. In fact, Luke and John seem to be the only ones suggesting that Satan had any kind of hand on this. Since Matthew and Mark do not mention the devil with Judas Iscariot, it would almost seem like the Devil has no role at all. On top of that, in Matthew chapter 26, Jesus calls Judas Iscariot “friend.” It would be odd to call a Satan-possessed person “friend.” Possibly the best answer we can get it combining all the answers in harmony. Yes, Satan did play a role. Yes, Satan did enter him. Yet Satan did not have to put up a fight with Judas Iscariot’s free will. Judas Iscariot did not resist the temptations to betray Jesus. In fact, he entertained them. I think James 1:14 accurately describes what happened to Judas Iscariot. Judas entertained his own evil desires, he was enticed by his evil desires, and his evil desires dragged him into sin. Whether Judas Iscariot intended it or not, I think Judas virtually allowed Satan (“handed over the keys of his body” to Satan, if you will) by giving into sin. Judas Iscariot allowed Satan to use him as a tool, and Satan took full control of the opportunity. Even if Judas wanted to change his mind, it was too late, he was stooped into sin.

But our conversation doesn’t end there. Our next prompt is to ask why. Why would Judas do such a thing? Why would Judas betray a close friend and his messiah and savior? I think this is why many people would simply say “Satan entered him.” Their answer to the question would be, “He wouldn’t and he didn’t. Satan did.” Yet that denies Judas Iscariot’s free will. In the paragraph above, we decided Judas Iscariot’s free will to sin that led him to be controlled by Satan. So now we have to ask what would cause Judas to sin and betray Jesus. There’s been lots of theories on why Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus, beside that he was Satan-possessed. First, it could be the sin coveting money. John 12 already revealed Judas Iscariot was concerned about his own personal wealth, so much he would steal from the disciples’ money bag. When the chief priests put a price on Jesus, Judas Iscariot was more than willing to hand Jesus over to get richer. Second, Judas Iscariot might simply have been a good Jew, respecting the Jewish leaders. Judas might have believed that Messiah and the Sanhedrin would get along in perfect harmony. When Judas saw Jesus, who he believed was the Messiah, disagreeing with the Jewish leaders, he had to decide whether the Jewish leaders were wrong or Jesus was wrong. He would decide Jesus was wrong. So when the Jewish leaders requested that anyone with information about Jesus should report it to them, Judas, being the good Jew, followed his leaders and handed Jesus over. Third, Judas Iscariot might have been a zealot, disappointed that Jesus was not the warrior Messiah he was expecting, which in turn could 2 results: either Judas handed over Jesus because Judas saw his an antichrist (false Christ), which is blasphemy, or Judas was trying to force the hand of Jesus, hoping to force him to violence. The last option is not a fourth option, but a combination of all of them. Maybe it was multiple reasons, such as the ones above, that led Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus. Yet I can hear people saying that these all excuses to take the blame off of Judas Iscariot and say it’s not his fault.

That leads us to an even bigger question: How much responsibility does Judas Iscariot assume in the betrayal of Jesus? This question is usually put in the form of asking about Judas Iscariot’s eternal whereabouts. Most people have put Judas in Hell. In Dante’s Inferno, Judas is put in the center and worst part of hell. Very few people will say Judas Iscariot is in heaven. I had a friend who did believe and he explained it to me quite well. To believe Judas is in heaven, you have to have a belief somewhere between Calvinist and fatalist. Judas Iscariot destined, even predestined to be the one to betray Jesus. He had to betray Jesus, for it was the only way for Scripture to be fulfilled and for salvation to be brought along properly. If Judas didn’t do this, then salvation would never come. So why should Judas Iscariot be punished for fulfilling Scripture and helping to bring salvation? Why should Judas be punished for a will predestined to him? He should be rewarded because he did what he was destined to do. May I also add to believe this, you have to have a strong belief in double predestination, the belief that not only does God select people for heaven, but also selects people for hell. While I understand their logic, there is holes in their logic that the Scriptures point out. In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus proclaims woe on him, saying it would be better for him to not be born. Some scholars have further contested this view, claiming that while Scripture does say there needs to be a betrayer, it didn’t have to be Judas Iscariot. Other scholars say the sin of betraying Jesus is not an unforgivable sin. What got Judas Iscariot in trouble was that he did not seek repentance, forgiveness or reconciliation. He instead committed suicide. That is why Judas is in hell, not because he betrayed Jesus, but because he did not seek repentance, forgiveness or reconciliation. While I’m satisfied with the Biblical proof, I am not fully satisfied with the logic the scholars give either. I’ll play along with the scholars who say it didn’t have to be Judas, but if it was any of the other 11 disciples, would they have been off the hook for betraying Jesus? And if you ask me, if you read Matthew 27:3-10, Judas does try to seek repentance and forgiveness. When the chief priests do a bad job and condemn him, he believes he is condemned and hangs himself in remorse. I’ve heard a lot of Calvinist scholars, both single and double predestination, say Judas was predestined to betray Jesus, but he still was accountable to his sin of betrayal, so he is in hell. On the other side, Armenian scholars will say that Jesus foreknew Judas Iscariot as the traitor, but he did not predestine him as the traitor. Thus, Judas Iscariot is guilty for his own sin, and thus in hell. Both views seem to be compromising, and I’m not comfortable with either.

There are other questions we do have concerning Judas Iscariot. I don’t have the time or space to go over every option, but one more I will throw out is “When Jesus selected Judas Iscariot as a disciple, did he truly select him as a disciple, or did he merely select Judas Iscariot be the betrayer?” I remember a while back watching a movie made for TV on Jesus from the eyes of Judas Iscariot. When it came time for the calling of the disciples, Jesus cheerfully called each disciple by name, giving them a hug. Last, he called Judas Iscariot, in a solemn tone, merely giving him a pat on the back. Did it go down like that? Did Jesus merely drag Judas along to fulfill Scripture, keeping an emotionless relationship with him? (Interesting note: According to this movie, Judas Iscariot could not perform the miraculous the disciples did when sent out. I believe they did the further the idea Judas was not a legitimate disciple.). The New Bible Dictionary suggests that Jesus did choose legitimately choose Judas Iscariot as a real disciple, yet Judas Iscariot never really met the title of disciple and apostle. For example, Judas Iscariot never called Jesus “Lord” but only “Rabbi.” Judas never saw Jesus as anything more than a teacher. Therefore, Judas was never really saved in the first place. For the most part, I like what they are saying, but they do seem to bounce back and forth between Calvinistic and Armenian, predestination and free will.

Here’s my grand conclusion. Judas Iscariot was legitimately chosen as a disciple by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, being God, was just like God and gave Judas Iscariot a fair and honest chance to do the right thing. Judas Iscariot, however, did not meet the expectation of a disciple of Jesus. He got caught up in his own selfish and sinful desires, whether those selfish and sinful desires be coveting money or overthrowing the political system. In accordance to James 1:14, those selfish and sinful desires enticed Judas Iscariot to sin and dragged Judas Iscariot into sin on his own free will. In accordance to Romans 1:24,26, God handed Judas Iscariot over to his own sinful desires and his own sin. Judas Iscariot got so caught up in his sin that no longer he controlled himself, but he was a slave to sin and a slave to Satan. He got in too deep, so deep, it led him to betraying Jesus Christ. But it didn’t stop there. Judas Iscariot was so steeped into sin that even after betraying Jesus, he could not fully repent or forgive himself. He instead committed suicide. Sin left unforgiving only led him to hell.

Back to the Judas Iscariot in the story. After Jesus gives Judas Iscariot the bread, he gives Judas the nod to do whatever he needs to do. Many scholars believe this is Jesus giving Judas Iscariot permission to excuse himself to set up to betray Jesus. Notice how Jesus excuses Judas Iscariot before any of Christ’s last teachings. If you have a Harmony of the Gospels, you’ll notice Jesus excuses Judas Iscariot even before Communion happens. I do believe these are signs that go back to our questions about Judas Iscariot, mainly his end whereabouts. Jesus excuses Judas Iscariot before Communion or the last teachings because Jesus knows Judas Iscariot will have no part in either of them. This time of communion and teaching is just for the true disciples of Jesus. What do the rest of the disciples think about this? They think Jesus is excusing their treasurer to do something with the money, either buy more food for the Passover Feast or give money to the poor. Both would fit the customs of the day. It was the treasurer’s job to make sure there was enough food and supplies for everyone at the Feast. To fail to do so would bring embarrassment upon the host and the treasurer. The disciples might have thought perhaps Judas Iscariot had to go pick up more food in case they ran out. Also, it was custom to give money to the poor during the Passover feast. The disciples might have thought that maybe Jesus was giving Judas Iscariot permission to leave the Feast to perform that task. Judas Iscariot’s part of the chapter ends with the sentence, “And it was night.” Scholars think John puts this in here for metaphorical purposes, although the Feast did happen during the dinner hours of the evening. Remember that both John and Jesus called Jesus “the [true] light” and call the ways of the world and the ways of sin “darkness.” John is stating that Judas Iscariot went from the light of Jesus Christ into the darkness of sin.

Now Judas Iscariot isn’t the only bad example among the disciples. There’s another highlighted in John 13. Believe it or not, it’s Simon Peter. Let’s take a quick look at him.

Now that Judas Iscariot has exited the building, Jesus wants to get more intimate in his conversation with his disciples. Now Jesus wants to reveal personal and deep secrets about Him and His Kingdom. Jesus makes His disciples aware that He is leaving soon, so he wants to also pass on new, important instruction, as well as remind them of old, important instruction. Jesus emphasizes all important teachings because He knows He will not be with the disciples for much longer, and he needs the disciples to keep following His teachings.

Right here, in John 13:36, I believe is one of those moments where all the disciples are thinking about it, but only one gets the nerve to say it out loud. All the disciples are not listening to the instruction, but rather, they are caught up on the sentence, “Where I am going, you cannot come.” They are in great distress because of this, and if you understand the context, you’ll understand why. These men have left their whole lives behind them 3 or 4 years ago to follow Jesus. They banked their whole lives on following Jesus for the rest of their lives. Most of them have nothing to go back to. If they tried to go back, they’d start all over again. So when Jesus says He is leaving, there is much reason for distress. Some of them might have felt like they threw their whole lives away for nothing. So Simon Peter, as concerned as everyone, speaks up, “Where are you going?” From his tone (as well as verse 37), you can tell he’s trying to figure out a way to go with Jesus.

Now if you have a Harmony of the Gospels, here’s where it gets interesting. Harmony of the Gospel books can be helpful tools to compare parallel passages in the Gospels, however, they are far from inerrant. There is no one right Harmony of the Gospel. All these books will have their own interpretation on the order of events and which passages parallel one another. Such is Peter’s denial. Each Gospel has a prediction of Peter’s Denial: Matthew 26:31-35, Mark 14:27-31, Luke 22:31-38, and John 13:37-38. These books will disagree whether they parallel one another. There are 2 main camps of thought. The first is all 4 Gospel writers are telling the same story from 4 different points of view. The second is that Matthew and Mark are telling about one prediction, while Luke and John are talking about another prediction. Let’s examine each camp closely, first the one that puts them all together, then the one that separates Matthew and Mark from Luke and John.

The first camp does have good evidence to put all 4 together. All 4 have Peter making a pledge of allegiance to Jesus. All 4 Gospel accounts have Jesus saying that Peter will disown or deny him. All 4 Gospel narratives have Jesus telling the reader the denial will happen before the rooster crows. With so many parallels, it’s easy to see why all 4 described as retelling the same exact event.

The second camp also has good evidence to bunch Matthew and Mark together and bunch Luke and John as a separate bunch. Read Matthew 26:31-35 and Mark 14:27-31 together. They are about 98% to 99% the same thing, even down to Zechariah prophecy. Both Luke and John are nowhere near the same wording. Where they do talk about the same things, notice the small detail differences. In Matthew and Mark, Peter simply says he will never fall away. In Luke, Peter tells Jesus he will go to prison and death for Jesus. In John, Peter claims he will lay down his life for Jesus. While you might say they are small details, I see big differences. In both Matthew and Mark, Peter denies Christ’s prediction, while in Luke and John, Peter does no such thing. Context also helps. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus seems to be talking to all the disciples (minus Judas Iscariot). In Luke and John, Jesus seems to be talking directly to Peter. The biggest evidence, though, would be the location. Matthew and Mark record the events happening at the Mount of Olives, before going into the Garden of Gethsemane. Luke and John record the events happening in the upper room during the Last Supper.

Therefore, despite the parallels in all 4 Gospel stories, the best view is to say they happened at 2 different times. This is not a contradiction, but rather a repeat. Jesus predicted Peter’s denial first in the upper room, when Peter claimed that he would go wherever Jesus went, even if it meant giving up his life. The second time Jesus predicted Peter’s denial was on the Mount of Olives, before the Garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus told the disciples they will all scatter. In response to the second accusation of denial, Peter once again claims he will never disown Jesus, even if it means giving up his life for him. Perhaps there’s a parallel happening there: Peter declares 3 times he will stick with Jesus, Peter denies Jesus 3 times. Maybe Peter denied Jesus for each time he said he would stick up for Jesus. We’ll talk about that more when we get to the actual event.

In closing this chapter, we know there is a betrayer and a denier among the Twelve Disciples. The betrayer is Judas Iscariot and the denier is Simon Peter. This was no new news to Jesus, as Jesus foreknew Judas Iscariot would betray him and Simon Peter would deny him. But Jesus, being the all-knowing God, knew more than just that. Imagine Jesus at the dinner table of the Last Supper. He looks at Judas Iscariot, and He knows Judas will betray Him. He looks at Simon Peter, and He knows Peter will deny him 3 times before the rooster crows twice. He looks at Thomas (called Didymus), and He knows that Thomas will doubt Him when He rises from the dead. Then Jesus looks at all the rest of disciples, and He knows they will all scatter when He gets arrested. In a sense, they will all betray him, they will all deny him, and they will all doubt him. I wonder if Jesus ever questioned himself to why He was sticking with this sad, sorry bunch. Yet Jesus knew that this was totally worth it, for His disciples, and for all mankind. So He stayed true for His disciples, as well as mankind, to bring everyone salvation.