In the light of this part of the resurrection story it is pertinent to consider whether the following words were written regarding Daniel or concerning Christ:

Daniel 6

v. 3.	An excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm.
v. 4.	Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find none occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him.
v. 10.	He kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God.
v. 14.	Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him: and he laboured till the going down of the sun to deliver him.
v. l 6.	They brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions.
v. 17.	And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that there might be no change of purpose concerning Daniel.
v. 22.	My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lion’s mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt. Also “a vision” of angels (Lk. 24:23) = Dan. 9:21; 10:1,7,8,16 only.
v. 23.	So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, because he believed in his God.
v. 24.	And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, and their children, and their wives.
v. 26.	I make a decree, that in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for he is the living God and steadfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be unto the end.
v. 27.	He delivereth and rescueth, and he worketh signs and wonders in heaven and in earth.
v.28.	So this Daniel prospered.

It was somewhere about mid-afternoon when the risen Jesus next manifested himself to any of his followers — that is, unless the appearance to Peter (1 Corinthians 15:5) came in before this. Perhaps there is something of special significance in the fact that the Lord was seen that day first by a woman – Mary — and then by two disciples neither of whom was an apostle! One is reminded of how the sons of Zebedee sought a promise of chief places in Christ’s kingdom, but the one whom Jesus chose to “set by him” was a little child (Luke 9:47).

What two disciples?

One of the two walking to Emmaus was named Cleopas. If this is the Clopas whose wife Mary was not only at the crucifixion (John 19:25) but who also visited the tomb of Jesus with Mary Magdalene and the others, then it may be inferred that his companion was neither his wife nor his son, the apostle James (James the less, the son of Alphaeus). Mary, the wife of Clopas, is ruled out by the reference to “certain of our company which were early at the sepulchre” (Luke 24.92; The words imply no personal participation in that sublime experience of seeing angels at the empty tomb. And James, son of Alnhaeus, is similarly eliminated bv the fact that these two, returning from Emmaus to Jerusalem, found “the eleven gathered together” and Judas Iscariot for certain would not be one of that number. (For some of the details in this paragraph, see ch. 42.)

Before proceeding with the details of the story it may be useful to consider two alternative suggestions about the identity of the second disciple.

Is this unique record , Luke’s “signature” to his gospel, like Mark’s mention of the young man with the linen wrapping (14:51) , and Matthew’s details of the feast at his house (9:9ff) and John s references to “the disciple Jesus loved. (13:23; 21:7)

Attractive as this idea might be, it is surely vetoed by Luke 1:2 – Luke could not write out of continuous personal experience, but had to depend on those who were ‘eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word.”

It has also been eloquently argued that Cleopas colleague was Peter. This is too much to let go – for these reasons:

1. It depends on a reading in the Greek text which is found in one manuscript only (Codex D), out of hundreds. A theory which picks and chooses the evidence in this way is on a wrong foundation from the start.
2. If Peter were one of the Emmaus two, why should his name be so pointedly excluded?
3. Returning from Emmaus, the two “found the eleven gathered together.” If Peter was one of the two, then the “eleven” must have included Judas Iscariot! is that likely, or even possible?
4. If indeed they were Cleopas and Peter who said to the eleven: “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon,” isn’t that a strange way of telling their experience? Wouldn’t they say: “He hath appeared to us”? Wouldn’t Cleopas think it only right that Peter, chief apostle, should take the lead on this highly important occasion?

The narrative seems to imply that this Cleopas and his companion had their home at Emmaus: “the village, whither they went… Abide with us . . . he went in to tarry with them… as he sat at meat with them…”

Yet since the most probable assumption is that these two were man and wife, and all the apostles (except Judas?) were Galileans (Acts 2:7), it seems most likely that this Cleopas is not to be identified with any other individual of similar name mentioned in the gospels.

Discussion, uncertainty

They had just nice time to reach their destination before sun-down. There was no prospect of boredom as they walked. All the vivid soul-searing sights and experiences of Passover day were still racing through their minds and were still being discussed from every angle even though they had already talked them over all through the Sabbath to the point of weariness and tears. And now, on top of all this nerve-jangling experience, there had come not only the exciting report that the Lord’s tomb had been found empty but also the altogether incredible story that angelic messengers declared their Jesus to be alive again.

What were they to make of it all? Hopes sprang into flame, flickered momentarily, and died. The dependability of the women bringing the news was considered from every angle. Other possible explanations of their strange convictions were coined one otter another. But, alas, one thing was deai enouah — dead men do not come to life again. Even miracies of this sort which Jesus himself had been credited with, somehow began to look less convincing now. Bewilderment reigned in the minds of both — but there was no agreement.

Luke uses three very expressive words about their discussion. One describes the vague murmur of a crowd, thus indicating that their talk never ceased, and maybe that they both talked at once. Another word suggests argument, disputation, whilst a third conveys a vivid impression of assertions and objections thrown backwards and forwards between the two. But blanketing all the vigour of their talk was o dejection of spirit which declared itself in every look and every tone of voice.

An unrecognised stranger

They were so wrapped up in their talk and their sorrow that very soon after leaving Jerusalem, the approach of a stranger along a converging path was not noticed until he invited himself into their confidence. From anyone else the action might have been received as an impertinence, and rebuffed as such, but there was something so sympathetic and helpful about the demeanour of this stranger that, when they had got over their surprise, they were only too glad to tell him everything.

Why was it that Jesus went unrecognized? Even if it be conceded that the risen Master, experiencing all the power and vigour of immortality, was now much changed from the utterly worn-out Jesus they had known in the week before Passover, they must surely have noted much resemblance. And why did they not recognize his voice? The same problem arises regarding the lake-side appearance of Jesus to the seven disciples who were granted a miraculous catch of fish (Jn. 21:4).

Mark explains: “He appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.” But what do the words “another form” really signify? If there was a distinct difference in personal appearance, there must also have been a change of voice. Or were the minds of these two so completely shut to the possibility of their Lord rising again that they were altogether blind and deaf to that which was evident enough?

Instead of the glad amazement of recognition, these two disciples showed a different surprise response to the question: “What words are these ye exchange?”, they first stopped dead in their tracks: “They stood still, looking sad” (RV). Then- ‘You must surely be the most solitary man lodging in Jerusalem, this Passover, not to know what we are talking about!’ The words imply that that week-end Jews in Jerusalem had talked about nothing else but the crucifixion of Jesus and the remarkable events associated with it.

Hope and despair

To their utter astonishment, their new friend — for he already seemed like that — apparently knew nothing of it. Yet the question: “What things?”, did not involve even a white lie! He allowed them to assume his ignorance.

Now with the eagerness which responds to kindly sympathy they told him. First one then the other took up the story. Time and again they interrupted each other in their excited anxiety that the story — the whole story, with all its overtones — should be fully and properly told. It needs no imagination to trace in this section of the record the ports of *he narrative supplied by the down-hearted Cleopas and the interruptions of his more hopeful wife

“Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in word and in deed before God and all the people.” Any confidence in Jesus as their Messiah was now gone. Prophet like unto Moses, no doubt — “mighty in word and in deed” was to be Stephen’s description of Moses (Acts 7:22) – but like Moses his work appeared to have stopped short of giving Israel the kingdom

“But” interrupted the other, “we trusted that it was he which should have redeemed Israel” from the thraldom of Rome. Yet how could he be the Messiah? He was dead and buried, and today the third day since these sickening disappointments broke their spirits. The third day! In the journey up to Jerusalem, Jesus had more than once spoken strangely about what should transpire on the third day. It was a parable, doubtless. How often they had misunderstood the figures of speech he used! Anyway, the third day was now come and almost gone, and they were without help or comfort to their souls

But again there came the more hopeful interruption: “How can you say that? Did not some of the women – disciples – go to his sepulchre early this morning, and then return with the story that angels had told them he was risen again? So perhaps even now they might hope!

“But him they saw not,” came the devastating matter-of-fact rejoinder. Their dejection was not to be dispelled bv absurd stories about angelic appearances, but only by the sight of Jesus himself — that was what their crushed spirits needed.

At last their story was told. It was, in a way, a relief to them to get it all said, yet the telling of it only-served to underscore in their minds the final hopelessness of their cause. What a contrast with the eager expectations created by their Master’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem and by his vigorous cleansing of the Temple courts only a week ago .

“Fools, and slow of heart!”

As their minds dwelt longingly on what might have been, they were brought up short by the stranger’s utterly unexpected reaction *o their story Using perhaps the very reproach which Mary Magdalene and the others had used when their stony was not received, he rounded on them- “O fools and slow of heart to believe! On the basis of all that the prophets have spoken ought not the Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?’ (The form of the Greek expression here suggests a possible re-punctuation. If not this, then the idea is: “slow of heart to rest your faith on all that the prophets have spoken.”)

They stared in amazement. This new-found friend somehow blended a note of sharp authority with his kindliness. And how came it that he had more definite ground for confidence than they had?

They soon found his confidence came from the Scriptures. Quickly, with a rapid allusiveness which was all that was necessary when one devout Jew-spoke to another, he took their minds to the inspired Word – to Joseph, the beloved son, rejected by his brethren, yet exalted to honour before them and before all the world; to David, first outlaw and fugitive, and then royal hero leading the nation in praise of God; to Isaiah’s peerless descriptions of a Suffering Servant of Jehovah who yet must “see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied”; the poignant phrases of Psalm 22 which they themselves had heard on the lips of their Master as he hung on the cross. Why had they been so slow to recognize this double element of suffering and glory in so many of the familiar Scriptures? And all that then Lord had endured in his rejection and death chimed in perfectly with these well-loved parts of their Bible Why had they failed to discern these things? Fools indeed!

But fools no longer. It was as though a mental block had suddenly been taken away. Instead they were all at once like men endowed with a sixth sense. It was as though a new dimension had been added to their living. With almost frantic eagerness they deluged their friend with questions. Hungrily they clamoured for more on the same theme.

Emmaus Bible Class

So in response to their pathetic gladness he began again, this time going through the Scriptures systematically, throwing a searchlight on many an ill-understood phrase and quoting passage after passage with unerring accuracy and emphasis. Often it needed only the stressing of a key phrase and they saw at once the shouting truth of a Scripture they had read a hundred times. Now and then, in response to a look of puzzlement, he settled down to expound in greater detail, linking up with that which was more familiar. Through all the five books of Moses they went. Promise, prophecy, and type all made their heart-warming contribution to a gargantuan feast of divine knowledge. The familiar stories of ancient national heroes were heard again as though for the first time — they were the saviours God had raised up to shadow forth the work of a greater Saviour. Prophets and psalms and even proverbs were combed over. Scores of hitherto unappreciated details turned to pure gold under the skilful touch of this alchemist. Sometimes it needed only the addition of a brief explanatory phrase, sometimes merely a greater stress on a specially significant word, and a Scripture which hitherto had carried only a simple surface meaning was suddenly seen to flash with hidden fire. Never was such a Bible Class. It had begun with an audience of two dispirited bewildered people who would fain believe but couldn’t. It left them eager, hopeful, re-assured.

For over two hours they walked with Jesus in The Way. Little wonder their heart burned within them as he opened to them the Scriptures (Psalm 119:130 RV), for the heart of the modern reader burns within him from the mere reading of it (if he have any imagination at all and any zeal for the Word of God. Thus the opening of their minds to the Old Testament became the best possible preparation for the opening of their eyes. And so, in a sense, it is unto this day.

One may be fairly confident that many of the seemingly unusual (or even unnatural) applications of the Scriptures in the speeches and writings of the Apostles had their roots in that prototype of all Bible Classes. It was in all the Scriptures that Jesus expounded the things concerning himself. And long before he was done, those two disciples would be echoing his reproach of themselves, but with less tolerance or patience: “Fools, fools, fools!”

All too soon they were at their journey’s end. These were the shortest miles they had ever walked. The two paused within sight of their own home whilst their Friend spoke of going further. But neither of the disciples would have it so. At all cost they must retain the company and help of this unknown stranger who could so magically banish their doubts and help them see in Scripture the fullness of God’s Purpose with their Jesus.

So they pressed their humble and not altogether unselfish hospitality upon him with an insistence not to be gainsaid. The sun was already on the horizon, the ways were dangerous by night, the miles already covered must have left him in need of rest — yet how they were hoping secretly that he would not be too tired to talk yet more Bible truth with them by lamplight.

Another ‘Breaking of Bread’

In days to come these two would never cease from gratified satisfaction that they had overborne the expressed intention of their Friend to go on beyond Emmaus. Inevitably they would match this experience with that of the storm-tried disciples to whom Jesus came walking on the water and “would have passed them by,” had not they detained him by their cries. And there was also the brusque reception he had given to the Canaanitish woman desperately pleading on behalf of her stricken daughter. Yet how graciously he had blessed her when she would not be said nay.

To this day he is the same. He comes in to lodge with those who will not let him go. And it is to those who pore long and reverently over the story of his words and works that he most fully reveals himself. “He will ever have us thus restrain him with an effort and an entreaty,- or he will pass on” (Burgon; compare also Genesis 18:1 – 14 and 1 9:1-3; Judges 6:1 7, 1 8 and 13:1 5-20; Acts 16:15,40).

With as little delay as may be, a meal was prepared, but first before they sat down at table together, almost certainly an effort was made to wash the feet of their guest but he discouraged the courtesy— for a very obvious reason. When the host was about to offer thanks for the food, he found himself forestalled. The guest pulled the plate of matzoth, the unleavened Passover cakes, towards him, and himself proceeded to seek the blessing of heaven on their food. The prayer concluded, he broke off pieces from the brittle cake in his hand, and gave to each of them in turn. Then, in a flash, came recognition. Yet, as they instinctively leaned across to grasp his hand or arm, seeking to reinforce one sense with another, he was gone. (The Greek phrase is literally: “he became unmanifest”) — and thus, with every last doubt routed, conviction was turned into certainty.

Recognition

What was it that brought recognition? Four other people sat at another supper table discussing this very question, and in quick succession each propounded his own suggestion.

The first observed: “There must have been something impressive, something unique, about the way in which Jesus gave thanks at the table. It was altogether different from the rather uninspired formality that saying ‘grace’ often is with us”; and this speaker proceeded to cite the way in which the miracle of the multiplying of the loaves and fishes is referred to (John 6:23) as “the place where they did eat bread after that the Lord had given thanks.”

The next suggestion was: “Jesus, although a guest invited to share their meal, assumed the position at the head of the table as though He were the Host. Wouldn’t he immediately be recognized by this?

The third pointed to the deliberate imitation of the Last Supper — “he took bread, and blessed and brake, and gave to them.”

The fourth briefly: “They saw the marks of the nails in his hands, of course.”

Perhaps it was the accumulation of all these facts that brought conviction of the stranger’s identity. The suffering and risen Christ had been made known to them first in the Old Testament Scriptures and now in the Breaking of Bread. The one was the best of all possible preludes to the other, as of course it still is. And both are necessary now as then.

Without a moment’s hesitation or a moment’s delay these privileged two were speedily on the road back to Jerusalem, ejaculating glad self-reproaches at their own incredible blindness. Mark’s explanation on their behalf is that Jesus “appeared to them in another form” — an explanation which itself calls for explanation. Is the reader intended to understand that the Jesus of the Emmaus road bore no physical resemblance at all to the Jesus whom they had followed from Galilee? Today are we as blind as they in our mystification over this detail of the story?

Whilst there may have been differences of outlook when these two set out from Jerusalem, there was certainly none as they hurried back thither by the light of the Passover moon. And again it would be a wondrously short walk. How beautiful upon the mountains were the feet of these that published the gospel of their Lord’s resurrection. And as mile after mile was covered they would comb over yet again the marvellous prophecies concerning Messiah, which Jesus himself had opened their eyes to only an hour or two earlier.

Isaiah and the Emmaus Road.

Isaiah 35 has long been read as a prophecy of the blessings and happiness of Christ’s kingdom — and rightly so. Its vivid figures of speech, which have a surprisingly literal basis in the experience of God’s people in the reign of Hezekiah, are eloquent of the redemption which is yet to be. But when the two Emmaus disciples met their Lord again on the day of his resurrection, that amazing experience was, for them, a rich foretaste of the joys of kingdom happiness. Accordingly, the following phrases from that prophecy take on a new relevance:

v. 8.	And he shall be with them, walking in the way {see RVm), and fools shall not wander (any longer). (O fools, and slow of heart to believe…).
v. 3.	Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees. (Here the Hebrew word for “confirm” sounds almost exactly like “Emmaus.” Accident?)
v. 4.	Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold your God will come raised up (the Hebrew word only needs re-pointing to give this reading), even your God rewarded; he will come and save you.
v. 5.	Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. (First the Lord opened their eyes and ears to the meaning of Scripture and then to recognition of his own person and voice).
v. 6.	Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing.
v. l0.	And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.

What a picture is this of the two disciples returning to tell their story to the rest in Jerusalem!

The future holds a yet greater fulfilment of this prophecy and of the Emmaus experience.

NOTES: Lk. 24:13-33.

13.	Behold. Lk. uses Mt’s great “surprises” ejaculation.
15.	Communed. The talk of a crowd (2 of them!) s.w. Acts 20:1 1; 24:26.
	Reasoned; Argued, disputed; s.w. Acts 6:9; 9:29
16.	Their eyes were holden. A divine control of their perception until the appropriate moment; cp. Dan. 10:7; 2 Kgs. 6: 16,17 (Num. 22:23-27,31); Jn. 20:1 4: This explains Mk. 1 6:1 2. It was because their eyes (and ears) were “held” (kroteo) that he seemed to be “in another form”. Compare the “opening” of eyes; v.31 ,45: Gen 3:7; 21:19; 2 Kgs 6:1 7.
17.	RVm: “Exchange” The word means: throw backwards and forwards.
	and are sad; s.w Ps. 43:2 (and note v.3a).
18.	Cleopas possibly from Hebrew chalaph changed, renewed, as in Is. 40:31; 41:1.
	A stranger- A Diaspora Jew? See on v.20
19.	What things? Jesus wanted their reaction to these events, and this was the only way to get it.
	Before God e.g. nis baptism and transfiguration. Like Elijah, as well as like Moses. 1 Kgs. 1 7.1.
	All the people An inditect testimony to the Lord’s nation-wide campaign
20.	Our rulers. Here our shows that they assumed this “stranger” to be a foreigner. They put the blame on the shoulders of the Jewish rulers and not on Pilate. The Gk. text links this closely with v. 19, as though implying that the Lord’s good works and his preaching were what brought about his crucifixion: the best of men treated as the worst by the self-styled best who were the worst!
21.	But we were hoping. Gk. suggests a sad irony about this contrast – the Hope of Israel brought to nought.
	Should have redeemed Israel could read “he was about to redeem…” (Gk. mello), with reference to the Triumphal Entry; 19:11,35ff.
	Beside all this. The Gk. phrase is untranslatable. Rather like a Scot saying: “But och…!”
	Today is. Gk. ago implies: the day is driving on to its close.
	Today is the third day. By itself this phrase is completely against the popular theory that our Lord was three full days and nights in the tomb.
22.	To some extent they credit what was reported by the women, and by the apostles, and by the angels, but not by the Scriptures!
23.	Saying … angels which said. A double hear-say! Could it be trusted?
	A vision of angels; words chosen to imply the experience was not real.
26.	Ought not: Was it not necessary — because the prophets had so spoken (v. 15).
	Enter surely implies entering into heaven and sharing the glory of the Father as plainly foretold in Dan. 7. This also was necessary.
27.	Expounded. In Acts 9:36; 1 Cor. 12:30, translation from an unknown language.
28.	The Gk. word means ‘a lot further’: Then, where?
29.	Constrained; cp. Gen. 19:3; Acts 16:15 s.w. and see Gen. 18:1-8
	The lateness of the hour was not their real reason.
30.	Gave. The continuous form of the verb, although giving to only two persons. But Luke uses this form of the verb so as to repeat exactly Mt. 26:26 (Lk. 22:19b).
31.	But not in the drinking of the wine. Mt. 26:29.
32.	Did not our heart burn. An emphatic form of the continuous tense. It was a non-stop excitement.
	While he talked with us. Gk: While he was speaking to us. After the opening exchanges, practically all the talking was done by Jesus.
33.	Gathered together. The word has an official or military flavour. Someone among the twelve had taken the initiative in calling the disciples together to pool experiences and sort out truth from rumour. They also had a meal together: v.41,42.

The excited disciples lost no time in setting out to return to Jerusalem. The news the women had brought from the tomb, that they had seen a vision of angels and heard announcement of the Lord’s resurrection, was questioned no longer. But now they themselves had better news to tell, for they had not only seen Jesus but had been in his company for hours. More than this, the meaning of his resurrection had been unfolded to them through incomparable exposition of Holy Scripture. Now they understood why it behoved the Christ—their Jesus—to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day. The sufferings of Christ, which made little sense when considered by themselves, now became the great satisfaction of their souls when seen in conjunction with “the glory that should follow.”

All this was news incomparable. It must be told as speedily and as fully as possible. Always this is the proper reaction when a man leams the truth about Christ. He cannot keep it to himself. He must share it with others. And when, with the passing of time, he learns yet more about Christ, this too he must share with those capable of appreciating it. This is fellowship at its highest and best.

The night walk back to Jerusalem was undertaken without any qualms. They did not fear the dangers from which they had dissuaded Jesus, for now they knew him to be with them, though invisible: “He shall be with them, walking in the way.” (Is. 35:8 RVm) And in the eastern sky the Passover full moon climbed higher to lighten their journey with its soft splendour. Not that they had any eyes for its loveliness. There was far too much of their new knowledge about Jesus to be talked over – one reassuring, pregnant detail after another.

Meanwhile, there was comparable excitement among the disciples back in Jerusalem. They had gathered together in the upper room to discuss with varying degrees of conviction the accumulating evidence that their Lord was risen. Although the story of the women about their encounter with the angels was first written off as delusion and fantasy, the unshakable conviction of Mary that she had seen the Lord, heard him speak, and had handled him, made a deep impression. But then Peter joined them, telling most circumstantially not only his own knowledge of the empty tomb but also that more recently Jesus had appeared to him in person with gracious reassurance e that for a man who loved as Peter loved there was complete forgiveness, even for one who had denied as he so shamefully did on Thursday night.

This latest accession of evidence and especially the complete transformation in Peter (it was almost a transfiguration) was sufficient to satisfy them. Doubts were thrust away. A great surge of gladness swept over them, and they fell to talking excitedly about whether Jesus would manifest himself again to them

The big exception to this conversion of mind was Thomas. He stubbornly refused to credit these stories of the impossible. What had seized them all that they should thus allow themselves to be swept away by a wave of mass hysteria? Only a week before, all that excited enthusiasm over the Lord’s triumphal entry into the city had come to nothing. The coming kingdom of Messiah, son of David, had faded out into a week of futile argument and disputation, with its ghastly anticlimax at Golgotha. Then wasn’t it time they faced facts instead of deluding themselves with their wishful fantasies?

So Thomas doggedly insisted that for his part he would stick to hard facts. Let Jesus appear again and in so real a fashion that Thomas himself could insert a finger into the nail-pierced hands — then, and then only, would he believe these stories about resurrection.

Even as they were arguing there came a frantic beating on the door, and urgent voices clamoured for admission. Every one’s heart stood still with apprehension. The fears, already expressed, that they would be held accountable by the chief priests for the disappearance of their Leader’s body, flashed once again through the minds of all — but only for a brief moment. A second later the voice of Cleopas was recognized and the door thrown open in welcome.

As the two from Emmaus entered, their own message was drowned in a chorus of eager reassurances: “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon.” When their own story was told, and told again, detail by detail, the excitement intensified. Thomas, still unconvinced, lost patience with the rest and went off into the night. (Thomas’ departure is a necessary inference from Luke 24:35 and John 20:24).

Not all whom he left behind were completely convinced, and when the facts were combed over, doubt began to grow afresh. It is possible that Mark’s phrase about disbelief (16:13) is intended to suggest this present division of the disciples into two groups – those who believed and those who didn’t (see ch. 249).

Perhaps their discussion went something like this: (what follows here is, of course, pure imagination).

“At what time, do you say, did you last see Jesus at your meal table?”

“Just as it fell dark. Of this we are sure!”

“Simon, when was it that the Lord appeared to you?”

“Less than an hour after dark.”

“But how can a man be in two places so far apart within so short a time? Consider how long it took these two to come from Emmaus, and they came as fast as their feet would travel.”

“There is something else as well. Cleopas, you say that one moment he was with you at the table breaking bread, and the next moment he was gone?”

“Yes, it was just so. It happened within a second.”

“You saw him get up from his seat and walk out of the house?”

“No, I’m sure he didn’t, for we never took our eyes off him. One moment he was there, the next moment he was gone.”

“But does that make sense? If he was the dead Jesus come to life again, he couldn’t vanish like that. Surely that shows that it was just your imagination playing tricks with you — and all because of your tremendous eagerness to see the Lord again. That must be it. And we were mistaken in thinking that God restored him to us. Your story doesn’t hold water.”

“Neither believed they them,” is Mark’s curt summary of their ultimate attitude.

NOTES: Luke 24:34-35

35.	They told. Not only the detailed story but also its meaning: Jude 7, 15; Acts 15:12,14; 10:8; 21:19.
	Made known in the breaking of bread; which experience would tell the discerning that the Bridegroom was not taken away from them:Mt. 9:15.

Mark 16:12

12.	In another form. A number of passages suggest that this might not mean a different physical appearance, but the change of demeanour and attitude which would be inevitable when the Lord became immortal: Phil. 2:6,7; Dan. 4:33; 5:6,10; 7:28.

Even though the majority opinion of the disciples had settled once again into a mood of scepticism about their Lord’s resurrection, this did not mean an end to discussion about it, for when a man knows the truth about Christ he is not readily silenced concerning it. Especially is this the case when that truth appears to be answered only by blind and seemingly wilful prejudice. Men in this condition cannot appreciate the deep satisfaction and abiding happiness which can be theirs through the knowledge of Christ. They must be shown. For their own sake they must be made to realize how wonderful is the truth they now hold at arm’s length. So the talk went on ceaselessly.

Among them there was now a group of at least three, but maybe as many as eight in number, who were convinced that their Lord was alive. Their persuasions were making but little headway when, suddenly Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, saying: “Peace be unto you.” But there was no peace. Instead, only immediate consternation and confusion. Luke’s words: “they were terrified and affrighted … troubled … thoughts (rationalistic explanations) arising in their minds.”

The door was shut fast—they knew this for certain — and had remained shut. (This is clearly implied by the Greek of John 20:19). Then how could it be their Lord himself, even though they heard his voice! The hypothesis of hallucination, which had seemed adequate enough to explain the stories told by the others, was useless now to discount the evidence of their own senses. So in their bewilderment and panic they fell back on the universal inheritance of stupid tales about ghosts and spirits. That must be it! There were even some people known to assert that Samuel appeared thus to King Saul in ancient days. Then what more likely than a like appearance by their prophet who had been so much greater than Samuel?

Thus they convinced themselves (AV of v.37 is too weak here), and cowered away from this apparition in fear, whilst the few who knew better kept an awed but glad silence, waiting for Jesus to exorcise an unbelief which they had grappled with in vain. “Why have you been troubled, and still continue so?” he chided, with reference to their chaotic confused state of mind all through that day. And why do explanations and arguments even now arise in your minds?” Yet still most of them “believed not for joy.” ‘It’s too good to be true’ was their continuing reaction.

It was Joseph and his brethren over again: “I am Joseph; doth my father yet live? And his brethren could not answer him, for they were troubled at his presence … Behold, your eyes see … it is my mouth that speaketh unto you” (Genesis 45:3,12).

Jesus went on with the most matter-of-fact appeal imaginable: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.” In Eden the instruction had been: “Touch not, lest ye die.” But now it was.-“Handle me, and live!” And in the time of the Patriarchs, Jacob, seeking to be accepted as the first-born, feared that “my father peradventure will feel me” (LXX). But here was “the first-born from the dead” challenging the same test to vindicate his claim to the Promise.

Flesh and bones

From the Lord’s expression “flesh and bones” and Paul’s contrasting phrase: “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” the inference has often been made that the resurrection body was, and will be, devoid of blood, which has ever been the vehicle of mortal, natural life (Leviticus 17:11). This argument is inconclusive. The conclusion drawn maybe correct, but the evidence is inadequate for dogmatism. Paul’s phrase about “flesh and blood” (1 Cor. 15:50) has no reference to the fluid which flows in a man’s veins. It is the familiar Bible expression which indicates mortal human nature. In such passages as Matthew 16:17 and Galatians 1:16 reference to literal blood and literal flesh leads to absurdity. The risen Jesus may have had blood in his veins without that blood being the fundamental principle of his new immortality. But at this time the challenge was that they handle what they could fee/-the flesh of his arm, and the bones of his fingers.

There were also subtle overtones to the use of these words just now. Doubtless they were designed to recall how the first Adam, raised from sleep, greeted the bride whom God had provided to be a helpmeet for him: “this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23).

Again, when David was brought back from his tribulations and ‘death’ after he had been rejected by the nation which should never have ceased to honour him, he greeted those nearest him thus: “Ye are my brethren, ye are my bones and my flesh” (2 Samuel 19:12). Perhaps these were Bible passages which Jesus had already “opened” to the two on the way to Emmaus.

It may safely be assumed that at first none of the disciples was courageous enough to take up the Lord’s challenge. Who was the first to do so? Was it Mary who had handled him already? Or was it Peter, once again the leader in loyalty to the Lord he loved? Almost certainly it was not John, for he had been convinced by the empty tomb, and now he quietly waited for his brethren to join him in a new and higher understanding of their risen Master.

So Jesus “showed them his hands and his feet” – and also his side. (John 20:20).

Even now the majority hesitated to abandon their incredulity. So Jesus seated himself at the table and asked for food. Someone pushed a plate towards him, and slowly, deliberately, whilst every eye in the room was on him, he ate a portion of fish. Then, reaching across, he rounded off a fragmentary meal with a piece of honeycomb. (Half a dozen of the “better” manuscripts omit this detail. But it is so obviously not an invention that those manuscripts censure themselves by the omission).

What more could he do to convince them he was really, truly, bodily, alive? Thus, by “infallible proofs” which he provided for their senses, Jesus swept away all unbelief.

Resurrection and eating

In the New Testament there is a remarkable consistency about the way in which the eating of food is unobtrusively associated with resurrection. When Jairus’s daughter was restored to life, Jesus immediately commanded to give her food (Mark 5:43). Lazarus, raised from corruption, is next mentioned reclining at the meal table in the company of Jesus. The Book of Acts twice emphasizes that Jesus shared meals with his disciples after he was risen (1 :4 RVm; 10:41). This will also be the experience of the saints in Christ in the day of their resurrection: “that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom” (Luke 22:30). “I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me (Revelation 3:20; Luke 12:37 requires a future application for these words) “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life” (Revelation 2:7).

“Then were the disciples glad.” The words must rank as one of the most telling understatements in the whole volume of Scripture. As conviction seeped into their minds, the disciples would be hard put to find adequate expression for their joy. Ejaculations of praise and thanks to God would be instinctive. But soon they would fall to discussing amongst themselves—since they could not al I ta Ik with Jesus at once — the amazing implications behind this resurrection of their Lord. Here was the final proof that he was the Messiah. Their exultant interpretation of his royal entry into Jerusalem only a week earlier had not been far wrong. Now doubtless, at this time, he would restore again the kingdom to Israel. No longer need they fear arrest by the authorities. The future, which only an hour ago had been dark and cheerless, was now dazzlingly bright, full of comfort and promise. Now Jesus repeated to them his “Peace be unto you.” The confusion was stilled. The doubts were gone, it was peace indeed which they now experienced.

But Jesus said nothing to them about establishing the kingdom. Instead he spoke of a mission full of responsibility: “As my Father hath sent me, even so I send you.” As he, anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power, had gone about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, God being with him (Acts 10:38), so now they were to take up the same divine work. They were to be ambassadors for Christ. In his stead they were to beseech men: “Be ye reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:20).

Earlier, during the Lord’s own ministry they had served an apprenticeship to this high calling. Temporarily endowed with the Holy Spirit’s credentials for the work, they had gone forth to welcoming towns and villages, and had returned exultant at the encouraging response they had met with. Now the responsibility was to be vastly greater, the field of activity incomparably wider, but the reception of the message by no means as encouraging. “As my Father hath sent me…”! The Father loved the Son as no son had ever been loved, yet He sent him to suffer and die. “Even so send I you.” Within months they would begin to learn the meaning of the words. No more shut doors to give them secrecy and hiding from the chief priests and rulers. But instead a fearless open witness before all men, whether they listened in sympathy or plotted in resentment.

The Holy Spirit

“And when he had said this, he breathed on them (literally: he in-breathed them; s.w. Gen. 2:7), and said unto them, receive ye the Holy Spirit.” The action was a deliberate reminiscence of Genesis. Like the angel of the Lord in Genesis he was now imparting spiritual life and power to the New Creation which had been hitherto until this moment earthy and lifeless. “Thou sendest forth thy breath (spirit)), they are created; and thou renewest the face of the earth.”

These words of Jesus are usually taken to be a further promise and anticipation of the heavenly gift which came upon them at Pentecost: “You are to receive the Holy Spirit.” Probably, then, Christ’s in-breathing was not only a symbolic “kiss of life” but an immediate imparting of heavenly guidance and wisdom (cp. Acts 1:2). However, it is not to b» assumed that the dramatic powers of the Holy Spirit which they were able to display in later days were now theirs from this moment onwards. This was “in-breathing,” not the “rushing mighty wind” manifest with the flame of fire at Pentecost.

The mysterious commission which accompanied this gift has been gravely misunderstood in Christian orthodoxy: “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” Here, some would claim, is the founding of an episcopacy descending from the apostles. Others with equal confidence make these words the sole basis for the validity of priestly absolution. Yet only ten of the apostles were present. Then was Thomas (and also Matthias and Paul) left without the authority these words imparted? And since the two from Emmaus, and the women, were certainly present, they must have shared whatever special blessing was intended by the Lord’s words and action.

Here, then, was the Lord’s extension to the entire church of a responsibility and authority. It was also a warning deliberately couched in terms which, like his allusion to “flesh and bones” and his breathing on them, was intended to take their minds back to Genesis. When Eve succumbed to temptation and thus brought herself under condemnation, Adam had it in his power to intercede for her or even die for her; but instead he too reached out and grasped the forbidden fruit and shared her sin. Now in the New Creation, the same situation would present its challenge: “Whose soever sins ye remit (through the preaching of the gospel and ministry of the saving grace of Christ), they are remitted unto them. But whose soever sins you hold on to, they are retained —to your account.” Over the ensuing years, the early church taught immense numbers of people – both Jews and ignorant pagans — the gospel of the forgiveness of sins and the hope of life in Christ. But they saw also the onset of spiritual decay; all kinds of false ideas and evil practices were increasingly tolerated. And for such lapses the church was, and today is, held accountable.

Alternatively, there was in these words of Christ that which he had foreshadowed in earlier days: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18). The context of these words concerns decisions made by the Body of Christ. But it is important to note that there the Greek text implies decisions already made in heaven and through the power of the Holy Spirit made operative in the life of the believers: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall have been (already) bound in heaven.”

It seems probable, therefore, that this authority of remitting and retaining sins which Jesus now imparted, covered such powers as the preaching of the gospel (1 Peter 2:5) to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; 18:6; 28:28), decision who should be accepted for baptism (Acts 10:48), and the exercise of discipline in the community (Acts 5:3; 1 Corinthians 5:3).

A wonderful new life, a vitally important work, and a high responsibility were now opening out before these disciples who only a short while before had trembled in fear of a high-priest’s reprisals for the finding of an empty tomb.

MOTES: Luke 24:36-43

37.	Terrified; s.w. Ex. 19:16.
	Supposed, Gk. is stronger than this: they felt sure.
38.	Thoughts. See the use of the same word in 9:46; Rom. 14:1; Phil. 2:14; 1 Tim. 2:8.
39.	Handle me. See on this word in “Bible Studies”, HAW 17.01. Hoskyns observes that neither here nor at Jn. 20:23; 21:23 is there any hint of Jesus leaving the disciples.
	The reader is tempted to continue on with 24:44-49 as though part of the narrative just considered. But there are decisive reasons for believing that these verses belong to the end of the Forty Days.
	See: Behold; a strange word to use regarding flesh and bones.

John 20:19-23

19.	Shut, Gk. pf. implies and stayed shut.
	Lit: into the midst. What does this imply?
21.	Sent… send. Two different Gk. words. Remarkably, the first is apostello (s.w. Heb. 3:1), the other word seems to imply sent, yet in a sense, accompanied.

There is no indication in the gospel when Thomas rejoined the rest of the disciples, but whenever it was, he was still in the same aggressive state of unbelief. Even though they kept on saying (Gk. impf.) to him with all the confidence of an unshakable conviction that they now knew for certain that Jesus was risen from the dead, he stubbornly refused to accept their witness. Why could they not have the grace to believe themselves mistaken? Perhaps someone else had been impersonating Jesus and thus pulled off a remarkable hoax. If so, “Except I see in his hands the print of the nails…” They could and probably did say: “But we have seen the print of the nails, Thomas! Why will you not believe us?” In answer to which this dogged disciple went on inexorably:”… and except I put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will in no wise believe.” And now they had no answer, for this was something they had not done.

Bullinger has very effectively and accurately pointed out that every time in the gospels men are reported as using the specially emphatic negative which Thomas employed here they proved to be wrong. (Mt. 16:22; 26:35;Mk. 14:31;Jn. 11:56;also Ps. 41:8 LXX). Within a week this incredulous disciple was to eat his own words.

Thomas the Twin, the Twice-born

It is in this context that John again (John 11:16) pointedly refers to the meaning of the apostle’s name. For Thomas is Hebrew, and Didymus the Greek equivalent, either for “twin” or for “twice-born”. This, no doubt, was because the evangelist saw special relevance in it to the occasion described here. Perhaps Thomas was a twin (twin to Matthew? p. 162) but here the cognomen went beyond the mere natural fact to the double personality which Thomas exhibited. There was the disciple of tenacious self-sacrificing loyalty who could say: “Let us also go (with Jesus into Judea), that we may die with him” (11:16). And there was also the very different disciple of John (John 14:5). When Jesus spoke to them of going (to Golgotha) to prepare for them a place (an altar, a sanctuary) associated with his Father’s house (the new spiritual temple of believers), Thomas did not again exhort the rest: “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” Instead, in hard-headed fashion he insisted on clarification of this mysterious language: “Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?” It was the expostulation of a man out of tune with his leader.

And now in the upper room the same Thomas still stubbornly refused to accept Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life, until the evidence of his own senses compelled him to it. Soon he was to see and know in a way that his faith had never yet risen to.

Once again, it was the first day of the week, the day when Jesus is specially manifest to his own, when the disciples were assembled together in the upper room. This time Thomas was with them -a fact more remarkable and instructive than it is usually deemed to be. Remarkable, since his disbelief of the Lord’s resurrection had inevitably set a great gulf between himself and the rest. Many who read these words will know from personal experience that differences of conviction regarding Christ nearly always set up intangible yet impermeable barriers to true fellowship. With the best will in the world, such a consequence is hardly to be avoided. So it is a thing to be greatly marvelled at that Thomas continued to assemble with them. That he had not completely surrendered to the scepticism which was natural to him may be inferred from the words of Jesus: “Become not faithless, but believing.”

And what a gain was his from so doing! Earlier his absence from the meeting of the brethren had lost him an incalculable benefit and blessing. Now, doubtless much against his personal inclination, he persisted in seeking the company of the brethren and was rewarded with a renaissance of faith comparable only to that of Peter’s.

There is a salutary lesson of loyalty to be learned here. Most followers of Christ have their bad times when doubts about the soundness of their own faith or about the congruity of their own spiritual lives loosen personal ties with the assembly of the brethren (Jn. 15:4; Acts 11:23; Mt. 11:6). At such times there is little inclination towards sharing the fellowship of the faithful. Indeed it is almost the last thing one desires. The experience of doubting Thomas teaches the sterling value of constant contact with the brethren. Even a half-hearted fellowship with them may be the stepping-stone to a renewed fulness of fellowship with One more vital than they.

Jesus manifest again

So it came about. Once again, though doors were fast shut (and stayed shut: Gk. pf.), Jesus miraculously appeared among them. For the third time they heard his high-priestly blessing: “Peace be unto you” (Compare the triple blessing of the high priest, in Numbers 6:24-26): and now the words had special meaning for doubt-tortured Thomas. Now, “by many infallible proofs,” he was to learn a rock-like confidence in his risen Lord.

Already, it may be safely assumed, the mere sight of Jesus was sufficient for Thomas to know the futility of his resistance. The voice of Jesus stilling the storm of conflict within him was already producing a great calm. But then came the challenge, couched in the very terms which he himself had used: “Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side.” Here was no impersonation of the Master he had followed, for who but Jesus himself could so read the doubts of his own mind, and respond to them so graciously? “There is not a word in my tongue but lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether … thou understandest my thought afar off” (Psalm 139:4,2).

“Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands.” It is only a blind man who sees with his fingers. In this delicate fashion Thomas’ incredulity was reproved. Yet he did not take up his Lord’s challenge. Already doubt was gone, and faith flooded in on his rejoicing contrite soul: “My Lord and my God.” And who can doubt that as these words burst from him, he went on his knees with his face to the ground and found his worship rewarded with the sight of nail-prints in the feet of his Lord?

“My Lord and my God”

The words are not to be read as a pious ejaculation, nor as the beginning of prayer to God in heaven. Either view is forced and unnatural. It is difficult indeed to believe that an orthodox Jew like Thomas, raised from childhood to say the daily prayer: “Hear, O Israel, Adonai is our God; Adonai is One” (Dt. 6:4), would be able to swing within a second to a different concept of the God of Israel.

Then what did he mean? A remarkable passage in Zechariah throws an unexpected light on this incident:

“And I will pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son, and shall be in bitterness as one that is in bitterness for a firstborn” (Zech. 12:10).

That this is a prophecy due for fulfilment in the Last Days when Christ returns, can hardly be doubted. The context is emphatic. But evidently Thomas, with a quick mind familiar with Old Testament Scripture, saw immediately the relevance of this passage to his present experience. There is some evidence that Thomas belonged to “the house of David” (p. 162) and with him at that time were some “inhabitants of Jerusalem.” But it is the switch of pronouns which is most striking – “me… him.” Here “Me” refers back to Jehovah. The context makes this very plain. And the One referred to as “him… an only son… a firstborn” is Jesus. This remarkable prophecy recognizes, long years in advance, the close relationship between Father and Son (cp. Jn. 14:7,11). As with Abraham and Isaac at the time of the sacrifice, so also when Jehovah’s Son was pierced (a prophecy of crucifixion) “they went both of them together.” The rejection of the Son was the rejection of the Father. The torturing death of the Son was the torture of the Father.

Thomas saw all this truth in a flash, and it stands as his everlasting glory that he could immediately express it in one pregnant phrase: “My Lord (Jesus) and my God (his Father).”

One further detail in Zechariah confirms that Thomas’ confession originated here: “I will pour upon the house of David… the Spirit of grace and of supplications” (i.e. intense prayer for forgiveness). In that upper room, when Thomas was not there, Jesus had breathed on them and said, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit”; and he then spoke immediately of sins forgiven. This can hardly be accidental similarity.

In all this Thomas prefigures his own unbelieving nation, who through many centuries have refused to see the Father in His risen Son. Yet the day comes when “they shall look unto me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for the Only Son.” But this mourning and bitterness will not endure any more than did that of Thomas.

Disciples of all later generations have good cause to be thankful for the stubbornness of Thomas. Just as the lack of faith of the Lord’s own family had evoked the wonderful truth: “Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother” (Mark 3:21,32,35), so now Thomas’ resistance has bequeathed another heartening reassurance: “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

The blessing is both present and future, as Peter clearly expounds by his direct allusion to these very words: “Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable (“My lord and my God!”) and having been glorified,” prospectively, with Christ; for Peter goes on to write powerfully about “the sufferings of Christ and the glories that shall follow,” the very theme which the Lord himself expounded repeatedly during the Forty Days (1 Peter 1:8,11; Luke 24:26,46).

There is no greater crescendo of emphasis on the vital importance of believing than this paragraph presents. The sequence is impressive, (as also is the sequence in Mark 16:1 1,13,14,16,17):

v.25:	I will not believe
v.27:	Be not unbelieving;
	but believing.
v.29:	Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed;
	blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
v.31:	that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ…
	and that believing ye might have life.

In John’s Greek, “faith” and “belief” are the same word. Here then is John’s gospel of justification by faith. It is the gospel which was also preached to Gentiles by Paul —those who have not seen and yet have believed – and it stands on the unimpeachable witness of men who knew Christ risen from the dead.

NOTES: John 20:24-29

24.	One of the twelve. In four other places the Gospels use the eleven in their resurrection narratives. Yet it is hardly possible to believe that Judas was present on this occasion.
25.	Except I shall see. Even this obstreperous unbelief adds to the glory of God in v.28.
26.	Although not stated explicitly, it is surely a valid assumption that these meetings took place in the “upper room” of the Last Supper: Note the events associated with the place:
		1. The washing of the disciples’ feet.
		2. The Breaking of Bread.
		3. The discourse of John 14.
		4. The repeated “Peace be unto you”.
		5. The in-breathing of the Spirit.
		6. The manifestation to Thomas.
		7. The appointing of Judas’ successor.
		8. The restoration of imprisoned Peter to his brethren.
	The door being shut. The message of. v.21 not yet appreciated.
	The print of the nails. Without this evidence could it be known that this was the same body? The one who sits on David’s throne must be proved to be Son of David.
	Clement of Alexandria says the apostle’s hand went straight through the Lord’s body. Those early Fathers were good at foolishness of this sort.
27.	How often Jesus read the minds of men! Mt. 12:25; 16:8; 1 7:25; Mk. 2:6, 8: Lk. 5:22; 6:8; 7:39,40; 11:17; Jn. 1:48,49; 6:61,64; 11:14,15; 13:11; 14:19,20: 20:27; 21:17.
	Reach hither thy finger. It looks as though Thomas did not respond to this challenge. He was already convinced. Note seen (v.29).
	Thrust it into my side. Had Thomas done so, would he have found a rib missing? Gen. 2:21.
28.	My Lord and my God. A distinction between the Father and the Son may be inferred from v.31, and also v.l 7: “my God.” Thomas was surely referring to 14:5-7. The language of Theophany:
		(a) Angels referred to as God: Gen. 1 6:1 3; 18:1,3,14; 31:1 1,1 3; 32 30; Hos. 1 2:3,5; Jud. 6:1 2,14; Ps. 8:5 (Heb. 2:7); Zech. 3:2; Acts 12:7,17.
		(b) Rulers referred to as God; Ex. 21:6; 22:8,28; 23:20,21; 7:1; 1 Sam. 2:25; Ps. 82:1,6 (Jn. 10:34); 78:20; 97:7; 138:1.
		(c) Messiah referred to as God: Is. 8:1 3,14; 61:1,6; 64:4, 65:16; Zech. 12:10;Mal. 3:1; Jn. 20:28; Heb. 1:8; Tit. 2:13.
29.	Blessed are they, certainly now, and also hereafter. Believed. Gk. aorist implies decisive change from unbelief.

John’s gospel now tells of a third appearance of Jesus to his disciples — not the third manifestation since his resurrection (see 20:14), but the third to be recorded here, the other two being both of them appearances in the upper room (20:19,26), one on the day of resurrection and the other exactly a week later. So it seems likely that this encounter with their risen Lord now to be narrated was again on the first day of the week, just two weeks after his resurrection.

Was this to teach the disciples that the first day of the week would prove always to be the best time for communion with their risen Lord?

This new phanerosis evidently took place after an interval of some days during which the disciples were left to their own resources. A full week may have elapsed without any further personal fellowship with their beloved Master. And in this time the eleven had apparently become split into two groups. Six of them were with Peter. But what about the other four? It may be (John gives virtually no detail regarding this) that Peter’s leadership had become an issue between them, the four deeming him to be disqualified by his outrageous denials of Jesus on the night of the Lord’s arrest. But what of themselves? Hadn’t they all turned and fled (Mt. 26:56)?

The threat of a rift in the One Body — a thing disciples of Jesus have always been “good” at — would explain the very strong emphasis in this concluding episode in John’s Gospel on Peter and his special responsibilities (see v.7,1 1,15,18,19,22).

Naturally Thomas, the first to be mentioned here among the six, now stood shoulder to shoulder with Peter, for up to a week ago had he not stoutly denied his Master’s resurrection until it was madness to deny any longer?

Again, it may be that, after the Lord’s repeated message on the gathering-in of Gentiles (ch.171) and the resurrection emphasis on Galilee of the Gentiles (see ch. 256) there were some among the eleven who were already making an issue of this principle. The unexpected use of “Tiberias” instead of the much more familiar “Sea of Galilee” might perhaps be intended as a deliberate hint in this direction.

Nor is it unlikely that John’s intensely symbolic mind saw a like meaning behind Peter’s abrupt: “I go a-fishing.” At the time, the apostle doubtless meant no more than the expression of an eagerness to indulge his old enthusiasm. But, with hindsight, John was capable of unique insight into the significance of ordinary events. The “feed my sheep” episode may also be intended to add a Gentile flavour to this narrative.

There are two curious details about this fishing expedition. It included two who go nameless. Why should John make this deliberate omission? One of the two wasalmost certainly Andrew, Peter’s brother and himself a fisherman. Since there is reason to believe that in writing his gospel John had some collaboration from Andrew, it is not unlikely that that apostle insisted: “Keep my name out of this”.

The only plausible guess that can be made as td’ the identity of the other anonymous member of the party is that he was Philip, for had not he and Andrew been already associated earlier with the Lord’s provision of bread and fish (Jn. 6:5-9), and were not he and Nathaniel long-standing friends (1:45fif)?

But why should Nathaniel be included in this fishing expedition? No fisherman he, surely! did he not come from land-locked Cana? Then must not his insistence on joining the rest be read as a declaration of unanimity with them?

But by indulging his enthusiasm for his old trade (see ch.29) Peter was in error here. His Master had called him more than once from his fishing (Jn. 1:41,42 —no longer son of Jonas the fisherman; Lk. 5:8-11; 22:32; cp. Jn. 17:18; 20:21). Peter was giving the wrong lead. The reproof of this retrograde step comes out clearly enough by and by.

Fruitless Toil

In fact, that reproof came, in one sense, right away. It was a dark moonless night, the end of Passover month. Yet when conditions were in that respect ideal, they had no catch at all. Peter, ought you not to have learned something from those long dark discouraging hours?

At last, as the brightness of dawn was spreading across the sky, they headed back to shore. And there at the water’s edge they saw a fire, and by it a stranger who hailed them as though he would purchase a fish out of their catch: be’-‘Boys, you haven’t anything to eat, have you?”

A strange question. Why did he not say:

“Boys, sell me a fish, will you?”

Instead, he seemed to imply a knowledge that they had caught nothing — “not one (fish)”, for themselves, let alone for customers.

The reply came, curt and disconsolate:

“No!”

What fisherman likes to admit to total lack of success? This encounter only served to accentuate their misery.

Why this failure? Was there any stretch of water in the wide world more prolific of fish than Galilee? even a small boy with a stick, a piece of string and a bent pin would have done better? Then, why this failure?

Even whilst a grumbling Peter called to mind the one other occasion (Lk. 5:5) when he had fared so badly, the stranger shouted to them again:

“Try the right side of your boat, and you will find!” Find! It was a strange word to use about fishing; much more suitable to describe finding men.

Now a grumbling Peter had something else to grumble about.

‘What does an amateur like him know about this? ‘”We’re the professionals, aren’t we? If there were a shoal offish alongside, wouldn’t we recognize it in this daylight?’

But there was authority in that voice. So, even though not identifying the speaker, they did as they were bidden, and forthwith (Gk.) their net was loaded (Gk. mestos) with the best fish in Galilee. Six more pairs of hands came to Peter’s assistance, yet all their united straining, as they gasped with both effort and amazement, could not bring that net on board. Two hundred pounds of fish per man was more than they could manage.

Recognition

But now came recognition. Strange that they should have failed to recognize the figure of Jesus. Yet more strange that they failed to identify the voice (Jn. 10:4). But now John, the most discerning of the Twelve when it came to seeing the meaning behind the facts (e.g. 20:8), all at once knew the truth. It is always so. Men whose minds are close to the mind of Christ readily recognize his presence by what he does in their own personal experience.

With a mighty effort of self-discipline John suppressed his excitement and said quietly to Peter at his side:

“It is the Lord!”

Of course, of course! The apostle could scarce hold in a mighty shout of gladness. And then, as on so many other occasions (p.707) he was in the grip of an uncontrollable eagerness to be at his Lord’s side. What cared he now for this abundance of fishes? Was not this a repetition of what the Lord had done for him on a certain much talked-of occasion? So he left the net to the helpless six, and grabbing his heavy fisher’s coat (for he was clad only in swimming trunks), he wrapped the garment round him, and threw himself over the side to get to Jesus.

The others, just as eager as Peter, doubtless, scrambled into the dinghy, now near to capsizing, and rowed the hundred yards to shore, towing the net-full of fishes into shallow water.

Soon they were all gathered round that fire on the beach, and they marvelled that there on the hot embers lay a large fish, cooked, ready for eating.

“Bring some of your catch, too” said Jesus, and forthwith Peter returned to the net and with a mighty effort quite beyond his normal powers, he dragged all the fish ashore and — his ingrained habit asserting itself—he began to lay them out (in fives?) to facilitate the counting of them. How many he now brought, as instructed, to lay before his Master, the record does not say.

Meantime all the apostolic group knew for sure that it was their Lord to whom they owed this astonishing experience. Yet none of them dared to interrogate him in confirmation of what needed no confirmation. In silence or with restrained speech they tried to cover up their shame and excitement and gladness. Thomas, of course, was quietly pointing at the marks in hands and feet.

Now, reclining round the fire, they satisfied their hunger with bread and fish, just as at the Feeding of the Five Thou sand (6:10). But now there was fire also. John’s unusual word for “fish” (opsarion) is the same in both places. And that fish on the coals was sufficient to satisfy the sharp appetites of seven hungry men — and Jesus. They did not eat what they had caught themselves. His provision was adequate, and incomparably appetizing. The words: “he taketh bread, and giveth them” are identical with the Lord’s Last Supper usage (Mk. 14:22); so it may be inferred that he also gave thanks for the God-given meal, as at the Last Supper (Mt. 26:26).

And the intensely symbolic mind of John (App.2) brooded on the extraordinary character of it all, and his soul also was nourished therewith.

Symbolism: Fish and FISH

It is now time to read this remarkable record with a different pair of spectacles. John never calls the Lord’s miracles “miracles”; he calls them “signs”, using a word which bids his reader look for a further meaning than what the superficial details suggest.

The highly symbolic nature of this sign will be the better appreciated when it is set alongside the earlier miraculous catch of fishes in Luke 5. The resemblances and differences between the two are impressive.

Luke 5	John 21
Jesus the teacher	Jesus the absent Lord
Toiling all night	Toiling all night
Not a single fish taken	Not a single fish taken
Peter the leader	Peter the leader
Jesus in the boat	Jesus on the shore — unrecognized
Two boats	One boat
All kind of fishes —	Great fishes —
countless	a precise number
Fish caught from both boats	Fish caught on the right side
Boat sinking	Even the dinghy did not sink
Fish pulled on board	Disciples unable to pull the net in
No fire, no bread	Fire, and bread and one fish shared by all
Nets breaking	Net not broken
“Depart from me”	Peter’s eagerness to be with Jesus
“I am a sinful man”	“Thou knowest that I love thee”
“Follow me”	“Follow me”
“A fisher of men”	“Feed my sheep”

The problems provoked here by correspondence and contrast:

The essential difference between the two is that the first miracle describes in symbol the ministry of the gospel by Jesus and his apostles. (See ch. 29 on this). The second miracle, coming at the beginning of a New Day, foreshadows the fruits of that ministry in the future when Christ is “manifested” (21:1).

Then, he is a Teacher. Now, in his unperceived, unrecognized coming, he is a glorious Lord.

The disciples toil all night. By themselves they have no catch in their gospel net. When Christ comes, all at once their catch is unbelievably great.

In the earlier days of the gospel, the nets were riven and the boat sank — a plain prophecy of division in the church and consequent failure, the two boats representing Jew and Gentile in the same work.

In the earlier phase, all kinds of fishes were caught, good and bad. In the last fishing only “great” fishes are caught; the numbering of them signifies that they are redeemed; their atonement price has been paid (see Ex. 30:12-14). And these are caught on the right side, this keyword recalling those who are set at the Lord’s right hand on Judgment Day. And in that day there will be no pathetic breaking nets. Instead, the glorious idea of one unbroken Body of Christ will be a realized ideal instead of a hypocritical mockery of truth.

For all there will be a relaxed participation in a meal of fulfilled fellowship, and in this meal Christ will also share. He, and not the apostles, is the one who has prepared it.

At that time the disciple, knowing himself to be sinful and unworthy still, will nevertheless once again be bidden: “Follow me”, this time no longer eager to gather fish into the net but instead to minister as a kindly shepherd after the pattern of him who is the Good Shepherd.

One last point: In this pattern Jesus himself is both broken Bread and appetizing fish. Here is the origin of the symbol, very common in the early days of Christian persecution, when Christians silently recognized each other by the wearing of a fish symbol.

The idea went further than that, for here is a mystic anagram, more evocative than any sign of the cross:

In Greek “fish” is:

I	Jesus
Ch	Christ
Th	God’s
U	Son
S	Saviour

NOTES: John 21:1-14

1.	The sea of Tiberias. Why this unusual name? To recall the remarkable symbolic happenings in 6:1,22,23,29?
	Shewed (note the AV italics); literally: he manifested (his glory in a final miracle?}; s.w. 2:1 1.
2.	Peter and Thomas. The two who denied him are set first!
	Nathaniel now experiences the fulfilment of 1:50.
	Two other. Gospel fishing is not restricted to the Twelve.
3.	I go.- Gk. hupago often has a suggestion of curt impatience.
	I go a fishing. The last occasion was Mt. 1 7:27. Contrast Jn. 20:21; 1 7:1 8. From this point on, in the N T fishing is replaced by keeping sheep; v.15ff.
	Caught nothing; cp. Ps. 1 27:1.
4.	On the shore. Mt. 13:48 helps the symbolism here.
	Knew not. The Gk. is emphatic: not one of them at all knew him. Does this verse carry disturbing implications concerning disciples when Jesus is manifest in the Last Day?
5.	Children. Boys. Is there a hint of reproof in the non-use of “brethren”? 20:17.
	Have ye any meat? Rather: You haven’t a thing to eat, have you? More reproof? Note the symbolism behind these happenings, and their appropriateness to the Second Coming:
		a. v.5: no food at all; then (v.6) an abundance.
		b. Jesus not recognized.
		c. The disciple unwilling to come to Christ naked; so he wears his fisher’s coat,
		d. A sudden endowment of superhuman strength.
		e. Christ provides a meal: One Fish for seven men.
		f. The text implies that Jesus knew the answer must be a negative.
6.	Ye shall find. This word is unexpected here. But s.w. 1 :45.
	Multitude of fishes. For interpretation, see Is. 60:5, and perhaps Ez. 47:9.
7.	When Simon heard. His name means ‘one who hears.’
	Why did not the others emulate Peter’s urgent resolution to go to Jesus? (a) non-swimmers? (b) more concerned about the fishes? (c) lacking Peter’s faith? (see next chapter). With reference to the Last Day sign, what is this detail meant to imply?
9.	Bread, fish. Both are symbols of Christ.
10.	In view of v.9, why this instruction? It seems pointless, but certainly isn’t. See note on verse 5.
11.	Went up should surely read went back to the dinghy. This prefix ana often has this meaning.
12.	Come and dine. Here again Jesus was made known to disciples in the Breaking of Bread.
	None durst ask him. Cp. 4:27; 16:23 (B.S. 1.09).
13.	Fish. Definite article: the Fish, the one now cooking on the fire.
14.	The third time. But it was at least the seventh. Then does John mean the third in his record, or the third appearance on the first day of the week (20:19,26)?

Discerning commentators have observed that John not only calls the Lord’s miracles “signs”, but also that the great catch of fishes is the eighth sign, as though suggesting a new Beginning comparable to the Lord’s resurrection on the eighth day. Very discerning!

But why, it may be asked, have they failed to perceive that this last sign was itself a multiplicity of signs? This characteristic almost shouts from John 21, yet its message seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

Then, how complete (how discerning?) is the list which now follows?

The first marvel was, as ch.251 has underlined, that in specially favourable conditions, a full night’s fishing brought the disciples no reward. Was not that an astonishing negative miracle?

Then, by contrast, there came such a mighty catch that seven men could not bring the full net on board. But, writes John with an amazement which had lasted for years, “for all there were so many, yet the net was not broken!” — and it was a professional fisherman who wrote those words. It has to be remembered, too, that in those days the fishers of Galilee did not have nylon or steel mesh for their trade. Another negative miracle, but not so negative as the other.

Although the weight of the fish was more than the entire group of men could handle (v.6,8), only a few minutes later Peter coped single-handed (v.l1).

Nor was this the only way in which the presence of Jesus made Peter superhuman. To go to his Lord, the apostle “did cast himself info the sea.” Certainly the commonest meaning of this preposition eis is “into”. Yet, strangely enough, in this short narrative John three times uses the same word with one of its less common meanings:

a. v.4: “Jesus stood on the shore.”

b. v.11: “Peter drew the net to land.”

c. v.9: “as soon then as they were come to land.”

To read into any of these verses the meaning “into”, is to make a nonsense, and accordingly King James’ men used their commonsense and came away from the strict grammatical meaning. It looks as though John, by these three examples, was giving his readers a hint. It is as if he were saying: ‘According to your insight be it unto you.’

Another detail points to the same conclusion that Peter cast himself upon the water, to walk to Jesus.

Why should he “gird his fisher’s coat unto him” for this operation? Being virtually naked, why did he not stay so and swim the hundred yards to the shore? (Is there any beach on the verge of hill-girt Galilee where a man can walk only waist-deep a hundred yards from shore?)

Again, would Peter be so absurd as to try to swim to shore with a heavy coat impeding his movement?

When it is remembered that on an earlier occasion (Mt. 14:28-32) Peter had twice walked on the water (when it was tempestuous, and not calm, as now), it is not difficult to understand that with faith begotten out of past experience he would assay to do the same again — and be empowered to succeed once again.

Other features of this complex “sign” suggest a further element of the extraordinary.

Why, for example, did the apostles not recognize Jesus when he shouted to them? If half-a-dozen words on the telephone readily betray a man’s identity (a commonplace experience, this), ought not at least one of the seven, all of whom had been with Jesus for three-and-a-half years, to have recognized that well-loved voice at once? Another negative miracle?

And whence came the bread and fire and fish on the coals?

If the suggestion advanced in ch.251 has any substance in it, that this eighth sign was symbolic in various ways of the New Day of Messiah’s appearing, this profusion of miracles takes on an appearance of marked appropriateness, for are not the works of the Holy Spirit in the early church described as “the powers of the age to come.” (Heb.6:5)?

There is a stimulating homework here for the diligent student – to explore what specific implications there might be behind these findings. What did the symbolic mind of John perceive, and his symbolic pen imply, in this unique assembly of wonders “written for our learning”?

A fishing party, which included the present writer, once caught in a fairly short time off the coast of British Columbia, six splendid salmon. Their total weight was sixty-three pounds. If the “great fishes” caught in Galilee were on a par with these, this would make the total catch now under consideration to be about three-quarters of a ton.

But why — the question may well be asked — was John so careful as to specify meticulously how many fish were caught? At different times thousands of his readers have scented a special significance here. There is a sound instinct behind this.

Here, then, is a list of suggestions (doubtless incomplete). Some of these have a good Biblical flavour; others not at all.

1.	153 = 9×17: and 9 is the number of judgment (is it?), whilst 17 combines the ideas of “spirit” and “order”: 10 + 7 (do they?). So it is said! (Companion Bible).
2.	There were not 153 fishes, but 154—and this is 11 x 14 (or 22 x 7), again with corresponding numerical meaning. Sic!
3.	Contemporary Greek zoologists asserted that the sea contains precisely 153 different species of fishes. So John saw this number as symbolizing men out of all nations within the gospel net (Hoskyns).
4.	By Gematria (that is, substituting the numerical value of each letter), the Greek word for “fishes’ (ichthues) gives 1224 which is 153 x 8. Thus, “fishes” suggests those caught in the gospel net according to the eighth sign.
5.	When “Sons of God” is written in Hebrew characters it gives, by Gematria once again (par.4): 153. This result only holds true, however, if the Hebrew definite article is included: B’nei ha-Elohim, which could signify: Sons (disciples, converts) of the Mighty (the Apostles), that is, the fruits of their preaching.
6.	2 Chronicles 2:17 gives 153 thousand and six hundred as the number of “strangers”, i.e. Gentiles, in Israel who were numbered by David. And in Exodus 30:14-16, numbering of the people is associated with atonement and redemption.
7.	And now, mathematics. For the reason made plain by this diagram, 10 is called a triangular number 4.
	* ** *** ****
	The next in the set is, of course, 15; and then 21, and so on.
	153 is one of this family. 153 = triangular number 17.
	Similarly, 120 (Acts 1:15) = triangular number 15 (and 15 = triangular number 5).
	276 (Acts 27:37) = triangular number 23.
	666 (Rev. 13:18) = triangular number 36 (and 36 = triangular number 8).
	These are the most noteworthy, but not the only, examples to be found in the NT The odds against all the three-figure numbers in the NT being “triangular” are enormous. Has such a thing happened by “chance”? So it looks as though the early church saw special meaning in the idea of triangular numbers. But what? Possibly, but not certainly, according to Matthew 28:19, thus:
			Father
			/
		Son		Holy Spirit
	There may be some other more satisfactory explanation of 153 outside the range of the seven suggestions listed here. But it is not necessary to believe that the eighth sign has eight different meanings.

254. “Lovest Thou Me?” (John 21:15-19)

After the miraculous catch of fishes and the meal of fellowship which ensued, Jesus addressed himself to Peter in words which carry a certain ambiguity: “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?” Was the reference to these other disciples or to these fishes? i.e: ‘Peter, do you love me more than these other disciples love me?’ or: ‘Peter, do you love me more than you love your fishing?’

Grammatically it might be either. The reader has only the context of the words to guide him. The conclusion usually reached is that Jesus was making allusion to Peter’s strong declaration of loyalty that “though all shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended;” and, “even, if I must die with thee, yet will I in no wise deny thee” (Matthew 26:33,35). Nevertheless, within a few hours, Peter had thrice denied his Lord with oaths and curses. And now three times, as if with allusion to that abysmal lapse of loyalty, Jesus put the disquieting question: “Lovest thou me?”

Although with hardly an exception, the commentators prefer this interpretation, scarcely any one of them offers a reason beyond the correspondence of these three questions with the three denials and the sharp contrast between denial and love. Plumtre stresses also the mention of a “fire of coals” in John 21:9 and 18:1 8, but this seems rather pointless.

Then, in view of certain difficulties, can this conclusion be accepted with confidence? For instance, is it conceivable that Jesus would torture his apostle in this fashion, and in the presence of some of the others? True, he was about to confer big pastoral responsibility on Peter. But was a blunt, almost over-emphatic, reminder of Peter’s weakness a suitable prelude to such a commission? Is it conceivable that in the Day of Judgment, before Jesus accepts those whom he sets at his right hand, he will torment them with pointed reminders of past disloyalty? This is not the Jesus of the gospels.

The Lord had already appeared to Peter on the day of his resurrection with the express purpose of comforting him in his self-torture: “Go tell his disciples and Peter…”; “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon.” And it was doubtless with a vivid grateful memory of all that that encounter had meant to him that Peter wrote, years later: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:5). This is one of the many pointed allusions to the gospels to be traced in 1 Peter. For Peter that meeting with his risen Lord meant his own spiritual resurrection from a day of despair, self-recrimination and bitter weeping. Is it conceivable that, after the Lord had appeared to him to impart reassurance and consolation, he would then proceed to rub salt into a sore wound that was not yet closed? Again it has to be said – this is not the Jesus of the gospels!

Further, is it not difficult to imagine Jesus inciting one of his followers to assert over and over again that he does love the Lord more than the rest do? If Peter answered point-blank: “Yes, I do,” would he not be inviting a yet more pointed reminder of those tragic hours in the courtyard of the high priest’s palace. On the other hand, if the apostle had responded with an equally explicit: “No,”the answer would have been insincere, for none loved Jesus more than Peter did. And, either way, what was to be gained by making Peter so uncomfortable concerning the worst hour of his life? Had he not already suffered enough in his own soul because of it?

Yet another important objection, of a very different kind, is the complete lack of contextual connection between the narrative of John 21 and Peter’s denials of Jesus in John 18.

A powerful alternative

This weakness—a serious one, surely—is certainly not apparent when the alternative meaning is considered: “Simon, do you love me more than you love your fishing?” The context shouts for this interpretation. In the immediate prelude to this three-fold apostrophe, there is not the smallest allusion to pastoral responsibilities, but there is emphatic reference — of a disapproving kind — to fishing: “I go a fishing… they caught nothing”… then the Lord, having rubbed in their failure (v.5 Gk.), himself provides the catch, and also the much needed meal … the shame-faced silence of the disciples (“none of them durst ask him”). All this is followed by the Lord’s insistence that there be no more “girding of thyself” (v.18) with a fisher’s coat (v.7); instead, a repeated “Follow me” (v. 19,22), itself a pointed renewal of the call to be a fisher of men (Mt. 4:19), a call given immediately after the earlier provision of a miraculous net-full of fishes. The grim words: “another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldest not” become even more grim if taken to imply: Then ought you not to get on with my work as speedily and energetically as possible?”

With such a context to steer the reader’s understanding, one is left marvelling at the obsession of the commentators here with Peter’s denials.

Thus, John’s gospel can thankfully be read as concluding not with an encounter full of uncomfortable reproach for a lapse already much repented of, but as a necessary reminder that service of the risen Lord and his brethren must come before all else. The reader turns the page and is immediately aware in the Book of Acts that Simon the fisherman is dead. He too is risen – Peter the preacher, Peter the shepherd, Peter the rock.

This, surely, is why Jesus here addressed Peter as “Simon, son of Jonas.” Almost certainly Peter was a fisherman because his father had been a fisherman before him. Such was the way of life in those days. Moreover, Peter and Andrew had their own boat — a thing unlikely with young men, unless the boat was inherited. Such, at least, is the way of things to this day in most fishing villages of Britain. Consequently, if Jesus were alluding to Peter’s love for his trade, there would be much point in calling him “son of Jonas.”

The question is not to be lightly thrust aside. With such a designed emphasis throughout the entire incident on the contrast between Peter’s former employment and his new and big responsibilities in the gospel. It would seem to be at least possible that Jesus was pressing home in Peter’s mind: Do you love me or your fishing more? Are you not willing, Peter, to say a final farewell to that old life and to become instead a shepherd of my flock?

Many years later the lesson which Peter learned that day was still remembered, to be passed on to Peter’s successors facing a similar temptation: “Feed the flock of God… not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind” (1 Peter 5:2). Thus it seems by no means unlikely that “Lovest thou me more than these” was a reminder to Peter, that having been called to be a fisher of men, he must abandon his old trade altogether.

NOTES: John 21:15-19

15.	No reference here to Peter’s denials, but plenty to fishing: v.3a,c; 6,7,12,15-17,18,1 9b; Mt. 4:19.
16.	Feed my sheep; 10:11,16; 1 Jn. 3:16; Acts 20:28. Peter can be a shepherd, but not a Door; Jn. 10:7. The Catholic application of these words is vetoed by 1 Pet. 5:1-4.
17.	Thou knowest all things; i.e. about us disciples; 16:30,27; 1Jn. 3:20.
18.	Walked; v.7.
	Old; Ps. 37:25..
	Stretch forth thine hands in crucifixion, the time when, in contrast with past failures, Peter would achieve more than he had purposed or promised (13:37). From now on he knew himself to be sentenced to crucifixion; cp. 14:27.
	Wither thou wouldest not; Is. 46:4.
19.	By what death; 10:14,15. Jesus apparently implied; ‘So go on with the work whilst you can.’
	Glorify God: crucifixion; 12:33.

The ensuing dialogue with Jesus is one which has baffled the wit of generations of translators. Without an array of explanatory footnotes, it has been found impossible to render the various phrases in such a way as to bring out adequately the nuances of meaning implied in the terms which John preserves.

It needs to be recognized that the New Testament Greek employs two different words for love:

(a)	The normal NT word, by far the commoner of the two, has been defined in the following way: “The Greek word for love in the New Testament (agapao)does notsignify any sort of emotion, but a deliberate disposition of the will — something which is within everyone’s control if he chooses to have it so. We can put God indisputably first; and we can care impartially for the interests of those we like and those we don’t like” (Gore in “The Philosophy of the Good Life”).
(b)	The other word (philos, phileo): is more akin to the modern use of the word: affection (a more emotional word), and would cover the warm affection existing between close friends or the devotion of a mother to her children.
	The distinction is illustrated by John 1 1:3,5. “He (Lazarus) whom thou lovestb is sick;” but “Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.” Jesus had a natural fondness for Lazarus, and for Martha and Mary, too, doubtless; but to have continued into verse 5 the use of the word used in verse 3 would have been to invite misunderstanding.
	It is somewhat surprising to note that some modern scholars have advanced me suggestion that John uses the terms interchangeably. But a really wholesome view of the divine character of these records will hardly allow of such a haphazard approach, especially in the light of verse 1 7: “Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest*3 thou me?” i.e. he was grieved because Jesus changed from the use of one word to the other.

Similarly, the passage under consideration employs two words for ”know:”

(c)	To know familiarly or instinctively; for example, to know one’s next door neighbours or to know that two and two make four.
(d)	To get to know, to perceive, or to learn.
	The variations in phrase can now be set out thus:
verse 15:		“Lovest (a) thou me more than these?”
		“Thou knowest (c) that I love (b) thee.”
		“Feed my lambs.”
verse 16:		“Lovest (a) thou me more than these?”
		“Thou knowest (c) that I love (b) thee.”
		“Shepherd my little sheep.”
verse 17:		“Lovest (b) thou me?”
		“Thou knowest (c) all things. Thou knowest (d) that I love (b) thee.”
		“Feed my sheep.”

When Jesus asked (twice) if Peter’s will were disposed to love him, Peter could not in honesty assert more than a natural impulsive affection (b) for Jesus, and of this affection Jesus was already aware.

But when Jesus adopted Peter’s own phrase and asked: “Peter, have you an affection (b) for me?”, then Peter was grieved, for he felt that his Master was now questioning that about which there could be no question. Hence the indignant reproachful response: “Lord, by innate power thou knowest (c) all things (ch. 16:30); thou canst perceive (d) even now (witness the eagerness with which I came to thee just now) that I have an affection (b) for thee.” Was Jesus suggesting that, in the years to come, when Peter was no longer a fisherman in Galilee but instead a shepherd of the ecclesias of Christ, there would be times of difficulty and discouragement, when his natural love for Jesus would be insufficient to carry him through except it were strongly reinforced by another love (a) (agape) which commanded his will more effectively?

The interpretation of the triple commission given to Peter is anything but easy. The “lambs, little sheep and sheep” may, possibly be “children, young men, and elders” to whom John sends exhortation elsewhere (1 John 2:12- 14). Or, the reference may be to individuals, ecclesias and the church as 3 whole. Or, again, preachers of the gospel (Luke 10:3) and Jews and Gentiles in Christ may perhaps be covered by these terms, It is difficult to say. There can be little doubt that with these variations of phrase, Jesus was making deliberate reference to Isaiah 40:1 1: “He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom (cp. Jn. 21:20), and shall gently lead those that are with young.”

Peter and Rome

Apologists of the Roman Church are in no doubt whatever as to the meaning of the words, “Shepherd my flock.” Here, they maintain, is the plainest of all demonstrations of the supremacy of the popes. In saying: “Shepherd my flock” Jesus was, so they aver, committing unto Peter full authority over the church; Peter was the first bishop of Rome; he transmitted that authority to his successors; there has been an unbroken line of succession to the office of bishop of Rome. Hence the pope is the supreme spiritual authority today. Q.E.D.!

Alas for Rome’s pretensions! The argument breaks down at the very beginning and at every stage thereafter. Full and complete authority in the church was not committed unto Peter alone (see, for example, Matthew 18:18, Galatians 2:9). Nor is it demonstrable that Peter was ever bishop of Rome. Nor can it be shown that there was a man-to-man transmission of spiritual primacy; on the contrary, both Peter and Paul addressed the like exhortation to others utterly unconnected with Rome (1 Peter 5:1-4; Acts 20:28). And lastly, the chequered history of popes of Rome utterly fails to exhibit an unbroken succession. At every point the claims of Rome are bogus.

“Peter, lovest thou me?”. The question which had moved Peter to indignation Jesus now answered for himself: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, when thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.”

The concluding words here are a prophecy of Peter’s martyrdom for Christ, “the death by which he should glorify God.” Now, since “greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his Friend,” from this prophecy it follows, as the night the day, that Peter did love his Lord. The answer to Jesus’ interrogation was in his own “Verily, verily.” He had used the same emphatic form of words when foretelling his own betrayal by Judas. Henceforth Peter’s faithful martyrdom was as certain as that fell act had been. Like his Master, Peter knew for certain, years before it happened, that he must one day end his life on a cross. “Let a man take up his cross and follow me,” Jesus had said. For Peter this was to be literally true.

The mode of foretelling this crucifixion of Peter (the fact of it is attested by strong tradition of the early church) is somewhat unusual. The reference is possibly to the method sometimes followed of binding the victim to the cross that his impaling to it might be more easily and thoroughly completed. “Bind the sacrifice with cords, even to the horns of the altar.”

A young Peter

Why is it that the Peter of the ministry of Jesus is almost always pictured as a man approaching middle-age, when everything that is written about him suggests the impetuosity of youth — these words strikingly so? ‘When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself and walkedst whither thou wouldest.” The allusion is to recent, not distant, past. Peter had girt his fisher’s coat about him and had gone fishing; Peter had also girt his fisher’s coat about him to reach Jesus on the shore. So it was Peter, a young man, who had done these things. However, the time would come when, as an old man, he would suffer the constraint that led to martyrdom.

Such a time seemed to be imminent only a few years later. It was Passover, and Herod was currying favour with the mob by persecuting the Christians. James, the son of Zebedee, he had beheaded already. Peter was the next on the list. There in prison Peter doubtless felt that now was the time for his Lord’s prophecy to be fulfilled; evidently he was to die at Passover like his Master. Yet had not Jesus said: “When thou shalt be old…?” That night the angel came to the sleeping prisoner, roused him and said: “Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals.” Thus in one short phrase, a deliberate contrast with “another shall gird thee,” it was intimated to him that the time was not yet come when another would gird him and lead him forth to a God-glorifying death. One minute more, and Peter was a free man.

The time did come, years later, in the persecution by Nero, when Peter died precisely as Jesus said; with evident allusion to the prophecy he wrote (only a very short while before his martyrdom): “Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me’ (2 Peter 1:13-14).

An unfinished story

A careful reading of the rest of John 21 reveals the astonishing fact, easily overlooked, that John ends his gospel with a story that is only half-told. A summary of verses 19-23 will make this evident:

• Jesus walks away from the rest, commanding Peter to follow him.
• Peter obeys, but John follows also.
• Realising this, Peter asks Jesus about John, but
• is bidden not to concern himself on this score.
• John inserts a warning against a possible misinterpretation of Jesus’ words, and ends there.

The purpose of the Lord’s instruction to Peter to follow him to a place apart from the rest is left unexplained, and what eventually happened or was said is not mentioned at all.

It follows, therefore, that the entire purpose of the writer had been already fully achieved when he got as far as he did. What was that purpose? Probably it was to set forth symbolically the ultimate fate of the two leading disciples. The crucifixion of Peter had already been intimated (v.18) and was now re-affirmed in the command, “Follow me.” These words, with their allusion to John 13:36,37, had symbolic significance also: “Whither I go thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me afterwards … Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.”

John also, the disciple whom Jesus loved, evinced a desire to follow Jesus and thus provoked Peter’s curiosity (and possibly his pique): “Lord, and what shall this man do?” — as who should say: “If my love for you is to end in death for you, what of this one whom you love most of all? Is he to die in like fashion?”

In reply, by intimating that he wished John to stay behind until his return from this special errand that he had with Peter, Jesus uttered what was taken thenceforward to be a symbolic prophecy of his beloved disciple’s future — he was to “tarry till I come.”

Now since verses 18, 19 are manifestly symbolic prophecies of what was to befall Peter, it is surely reasonable to regard verse 22 concerning John in the same light. In some sense the early brethren were surely right in the conclusion they came to. It is noteworthy, too, that in issuing no disclaimer, John does not insist that his Lord’s words were to be taken only literally and not symbolically also. Instead he issued a caveat by emphasizing the conditional form which the words of Jesus took: “If I will that he tarry till I come…”

What is the explanation of the enigma? An attempt to resolve this problem has been made in “Revelation: a Biblical approach.” HAW, p.259ff

NOTES: John 21:19-23

19.	By what death … glorify God; 12:33.
	Follow me; 1:43; 13:36; Mt. 16:24; 4:19; 8:22; 9:9; 19:21.
	All these emphasize not a literal following, but spiritual loyalty, and imitation.
20.	Turning about; allusion to Lk. 22:32 Gk.(61)?
	The disciple … following, without being told. John was spiritually ahead of Peter; v.7; 20:8.

It has already been pointed out that Matthew’s brief account of the resurrection appearances of Jesus is tied together by four allusions to his manifestation to the disciples in Galilee:

1. 26:32: “But after I am risen I will go before you into Galilee.”
2. 28:7: “Behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.”
3. 28:10: “Go, tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.”
4. 28:16: “Then the eleven disciples went away into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.”

This emphasis on rendezvous in Galilee was doubtless dictated by the very good reason that Jerusalem was now a city of fear for followers of Jesus. It had been the scene of their panic and flight at the time of his suffering; and now the apostles were marked men because of the alarm of the priests and elders after the report from the Roman guard. But more than this, the union of Master and disciples in Galilee of the Gentiles was surely intended to mark the dethronement of Jerusalem from her position of queenly privilege and the end of Jewish prerogative in the divine purpose. Here in Galilee of the Gentiles was to be assembled the largest company of believers who saw the risen Christ.

Jesus had bidden them meet him on a certain mountain (where the sermon on the mount was proclaimed?), but — according to John’s record – some of the disciples first went back to their fishing and had to be called again to more vital privilege and activity.

Those on whom the hills have laid their awe-inspiring fascination find no difficulty in appreciating their Lord’s love of mountains. What more suitable places for prayer (Mark 3:13,14), for the instruction of the called-out disciples (Matthew 5:1), or for manifestation of heavenly glory (Matthew 17:1; 28:16)?

The disciples rallied in hundreds to the appointed spot. (One popular modern novelist describes the early church as a kind of secret society. This early part of the forty days, when word was being secretly passed on where to see the risen Jesus, is the only time when that concept has any degree of accuracy). By no means all of them believed that which had been told them by the now fully convinced apostles. “There shall ye see him … there shall ye see me” had been the emphatic words concerning this meeting in Galilee, but Matthew in honesty was constrained to record: “When they (the apostles) saw him, they worshipped him: but some (of the multitude of believers) doubted.” Perhaps they doubted as they saw Jesus approaching from a distance, and were only fully convinced when he came near and spoke to them.

Evidence – and unbelief

It is useful here to review the efforts that were made to bring conviction to the disciples:

Appearances of angels

An empty tomb

A message brought by the women

The Emmaus experience

“Handle me”

The eating of food

The exposition of Holy Scripture

Renewed miracles

And now this appearance to a great crowd of disciples. The Good Shepherd giving special care to his flock (Is. 40:11; Ez. 34:11,12,16; John 10:3,4). Thus through all the gospel records of the Lord’s resurrection appearances there runs this amazing theme of unbelief. Not at any time was it true that the disciples were thirsting to be comforted with the news that their Leader had never died or, being dead, had come to life again. But rather, at every manifestation, there was the same stolid matter-of-fact incredulity. In a few emphatic verses Mark’s record brings out this stubborn reluctance to believe:

a.	“And they (the disciples), when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her (Mary Magdalene), believed not” (16:11).
b.	“And they (the two from Emmaus) went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them” (16:13).
c.	“Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen” (16:14).

All the more marvellous is the striking contrast in the ensuing verses that to such followers should be entrusted the responsibility of a gospel of justification by faith, based on a belief that a crucified Saviour was risen from the dead:

d.	“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;”
e.	“but he that believeth not shall be damned” (16:16).
f.	“And these signs shall follow them that believe (16:17).

The emphasis is exactly that of John’s gospel (20:25-31).

It is unlikely that this Galilee meeting was the occasion of the great commission to become preachers of the gospel. That came later when the apostles were back in Jerusalem. At this time, the Lord was content to establish in their minds the great fact of his new status in the Father’s purpose: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” The days of his human weakness were past. Now those who acknowledged him as Lord were called upon to “honour the Son as they honour the Father.” No wonder that as the truth concerning him dawned upon them they worshipped him. Wandering preacher, scoffed at and derided, no longer! He was now the Lord of Glory, with angels and archangels at his bidding.

Yet how could he say: “All power is given unto me … in earth”?7rie words are not true yet, nor have they been. There is need here to recognize the Hebraism in the expression. Very often the word “given” is used in Hebrew in the sense of “appointed,” and in places this usage carries over into the New Testament (e.g. Matthew 19:11; John 5:22,27; Acts 7:8; 13:20,21). “Above five hundred brethren at once” (1 Corinthians 15:6) saw Jesus that day and had their doubts or disbelief laid to rest. Twenty years later it was still possible for Paul to assert with confidence that “the greater part (of this cloud of witnesses) remain unto this present,” many of them doubtless known to him personally.

These were Christ’s family, his true brethren, the New Creation of whom he was “the first begotten from the dead.” But it is doubtful whether there were any of his own kin in that great company—those who had grown up with him in the humble home at Nazareth and who, because they had known him in that easy intimate fashion, could not bring themselves to think of him in any other way. Yet among these children of Mary and Joseph was one quite outstanding character, James, the eldest, whose reputation among the Jewish nation for devout and holy living became considerable in later years. To him the Lord manifested himself specially (1 Corinthians 15:7). Most likely this took place during this last Galilee ministry. Thenceforward James was accorded a leading place among the apostles in Jerusalem.

It is difficult to believe that at some time during the forty days Jesus did not appear to his own mother, even though she was almost certainly among those who had seen him in Jerusalem. The Roman church would be glad to point to some mention of a special manifestation to Mary, but on this (if it happened) the record is altogether silent. Only the briefest of phrases (Acts 1:14) implies the conversion of the entire family to acceptance of their elder brother as the Lord of Glory.

Education, enlightenment

Much of that forty days was taken up with the systematic instruction of the eleven. “Speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God,” the Lord filled out their understanding of his coming again and also of their own responsibilities in the leadership of his Church. All this, for certain, was solidly based on a unique unfolding of the message of the Scriptures. This was a Bible School before which all other Bible Schools pale into insignificance. Those modernists, who decry the Biblical insight of the apostles and who speak in a superior fashion about their “mistaken” expectations regarding a literal Second Coming and a literal Kingdom of Christ on earth, have given little consideration (if they believe it) to the tremendous educative influence which Jesus was now able to exercise on minds no longer blinded by mistaken pre-conceived ideas concerning him. Within a few weeks these “unlearned and ignorant men” became the world’s finest Biblical scholars, able to interpret with clear insight and accuracy of detail many a Messianic Scripture which hitherto had been shrouded in uncertainty. It may be taken as almost certain that many a New Testament exposition of an unusual or even dubious character (as the twentieth-century mind deems it) was first imparted to the disciples during this period. “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures” (Luke 24:44,45).

A man needs more than the printed page of Holy Scripture to make him wise unto salvation. He needs a mind opened to give heed to the heavenly message (Acts 16:14). He needs eyes opened to behold wondrous things out of God’s law (Psalm 119:18). He needs Christ “opening his mind” (RV) that he might understand the Scriptures. And when this blessed process takes place, with what gladness and wonder does he, like a new-born babe, open his eyes in a new and greater world of truth and assurance.

So it was now with the apostles: “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved the Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations” ((Luke 24:46,47).

Here seven items in the first principles of Christ were specifically educed by him from the Scriptures, and expanded for their better understanding:

1. He is the Christ, the promised Messiah.
2. He had to suffer and die.
3. He rose again.
4. This happened on the third day.
5. The word concerning him must be received with repentance.
6. Thus, through Baptism and Breaking of Bread, there is remission of sins.
7. This is a catholic gospel, available to men of all nations.

How many readers of these words, believing these first principles, could establish them from the Old Testament Scriptures which Christ now unfolded to the minds of his apostles?

NOTES: Luke 24:45-48.

45.	That they might understand the Scriptures. Yet there are those who maintain that a man needs a Bible and nothing else! (B.S. 14.01). But here were men with a Bible who needed that their understanding be “opened”. The key word here means ‘putting two and two together!’ Could this passage be the equivalent of Jn. 20:22?
46.	Suffering and glory; v.26; Acts 3:13; 17:3; 23:6; 26:23; 1 Cor. 15:3,4; 1 Pet. 1:11.
47.	Among all nations – OT witness to this is copious; e.g. Gen. 22:18; Ps. 22:27; Is. 49:6,22; Hos. 2:23; Mic. 4:2; Mal. 1:11. These are only samples. How ever did the rabbis fail to get the message?
	Beginning at Jerusalem: Is. 2:3. This phrase really belongs to v.48.
48.	Ye are witnesses: Acts 1:8,22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:20,33; 5:32; 10:39; 13:31; 1 Pet. 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:16; Jl. 2:28.
	This verse (and v.46: rise) echoes Zeph. 3:8 LXX: but what a different emphasis there!