Notes on God in the Gospel of John

[Ahanu]

Hermeneutic Stack Exchange: Quoted in its entirety:

"The Greek phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ (“he said to him”) indicates that Thomas is addressing Jesus directly. The nominative forms ὁ κύριός μου (“my Lord”) and ὁ θεός μου (“my God”) function as vocative forms in Koine Greek. Thomas’s words are not directed to the Father but directly to Jesus. The phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ (“he said to him”, not not "to them", not one statement for Christ, and the other for the Father) confirms that Thomas is speaking only to one person, to Christ, not the Father. The possessive pronoun μου (“my”) emphasizes Thomas’s personal recognition of Jesus as both Lord and God.

In first-century Jewish culture, invoking God's name flippantly, as in “Oh my God!” would constitute blasphemy (Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 24:16). Thomas, a devout Jew, would not utter such an exclamation. Jesus does not rebuke Thomas for blasphemy or a mistaken declaration. Instead, He commends Thomas’s belief: "Because you have seen me, you have believed" (John 20:29). This affirmation confirms that Thomas’s words were a true confession of faith. The phrase “my God” is used over 100 times in the Bible, and in every instance, it refers to YHWH, the one true God of Israel (e.g. Psalm 35:23, Revelation 4:11). For a pious Jew like Thomas to call Jesus "my God" signifies his recognition of Jesus as fully divine. In John 20:28, Thomas applies this language directly to Jesus, aligning with the Gospel's high Christology.

In Psalm 35:23, the Hebrew phrase אֱלֹהַ֖י וַאדֹנָ֣י (’ĕlōhay wa-’ăḏōnay, "My God and my Lord") demonstrates a close parallel to the Peshitta's rendering of John 20:28. The Psalmist's invocation of God combines two divine titles, indicating both a personal relationship ("my God") and reverence for God’s sovereign authority ("my Lord"). The Targum to this verse also uses אֱלֹהַי וּמָרֵי (Ĕlohāy ū-Mārēy), confirming the use of these terms in a similar liturgical or devotional context. The Peshitta’s Aramaic translation of John 20:28 reads: ܡܳܪܝ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܝ (Mari w-Alahi), which directly translates to "My Lord and my God." Psalm 35:23, in both its Hebrew form (’ĕlōhay wa-’ăḏōnay) and its Targumic translation (Ĕlohāy ū-Mārēy), serves as a linguistic and theological precedent. The structure and terminology in John 20:28 align with the Psalm’s pairing of divine titles. This suggests that Thomas’ exclamation was not an innovation but was deeply rooted in the Jewish linguistic and theological tradition of addressing God. (This bold emphasis mine)

In first-century Palestine, the conversation between Thomas and Jesus likely occurred in Aramaic. Based on the Peshitta’s rendering and the linguistic evidence from the Hebrew Bible and its Targum, Thomas may have said something like: "מָרֵי וֵאלָהָי" (Marei w-Elohai). This reflects the natural way an Aramaic-speaking Jew would declare devotion and recognize divine authority. The declaration in John 20:28 is extraordinary because it is addressed directly to Jesus. In Jewish monotheism, such titles were reserved exclusively for Yahweh. By invoking both "My Lord" and "My God," Thomas expresses not just respect but worship, equating Jesus with the God (Yahweh).

A religious Jew might use the phrase "מָרֵי וֵאלָהָי" (Marei w-Elohai) in prayer, meditation, or Torah study when addressing God directly, expressing profound gratitude, submission, or awe. It could also be uttered in moments of introspection or during a heartfelt plea for guidance or forgiveness. This phrase is directed SOLELY to God, as it would not be appropriate to use it for addressing a human being in the Jewish faith due to its sanctified nature. In an ancient Jewish context, it would have at least extremely unlikely for the phrase "Marei w-Elohai" to be used casually or directed toward another person in moments of surprise or emotional outburst, as phrases involving the name of God (Elohai) were treated with great reverence. Jewish tradition, both ancient and modern, generally avoids casual or irreverent use of God's name or titles (cf. Exodus 20:7). This phrase, specifically meaning "My Lord and my God," would have been reserved for solemn, prayerful, or deeply devotional contexts, always directed exclusively toward the Almighty God. Using it in a way similar to expressions like "Oh my God!" in modern everyday English to address a human being in surprise or emotion would likely have been considered inappropriate or even blasphemous within Jewish religious norms. Cultural norms of the ancient world also emphasized the sacred nature of God's name, making it unlikely for such phrases to be used informally or without careful intention.

The text explicitly states that Thomas "said to him" (εἶπεν αὐτῷ), meaning the whole statement is directed at Jesus, not at the Father. There is no grammatical or contextual basis for redirecting Thomas's words to the Father. The context of John 20:24-29 focuses entirely on Jesus’s resurrection and Thomas's doubt. When Jesus invites Thomas to touch His wounds, Thomas responds with a direct confession of Jesus's identity: "My Lord and my God." This moment reflects Thomas's recognition of Jesus as both his risen Lord and his divine God. Thomas’s confession serves as the climactic conclusion of John’s Gospel, paralleling the prologue: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Thomas’s declaration reaffirms the divine identity of Jesus as introduced in John 1:1. The direct object pronoun ("to him") in both Greek (αὐτῷ) and Aramaic (ܠܶܗ) unambiguously points to Jesus as the recipient of the declaration. The immediate context—Thomas addressing Jesus after seeing his wounds—reinforces that this exclamation is directed at Jesus, not the Father.

As stated earlier (in post #190), John 20.28 is Native Greek and not Translation Greek. Claims based on the Septuagint parallel (Psalms 35:23) that “My Lord” and “My God” refer to a single person are baseless.

“The phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ ('he said to him' ... confirms that Thomas is speaking only to one person, to Christ, not the Father.”
Two persons are in view. In proper native Koine Greek, the repetition of the possessive pronoun “my” with coordinate titles identifies two distinct persons.

"For a pious Jew like Thomas to call Jesus 'my God' signifies his recognition of Jesus as fully divine."
This claim is based on a heedless translation Hebraism found in the Septuagint, but the Gospel of John is written in proper native Greek. In native Greek syntax, this construction prevents the titles from being applied to a single person.

“By invoking both 'My Lord' and 'My God,' Thomas expresses not just respect but worship, equating Jesus with the God (Yahweh).”
The titles the Lord and the God in John 20.28 are anaphoric. They serve as renewed mentions of the two distinct individuals identified in John 20.17.

To refer to one person, John should have used syntax similar to verses we find elsewhere: John 11.48 (“Our place and nation”) and John 13.9 (“My hands and head”). Since John showed us he knows how to use the one pronoun for one subject rule in chapters 11 and 13, it is highly unlikely he would switch to an ungrammatical Hebraism in chapter 20 to refer to a single person.

 

[Thomas]

Creation is not ex nihilo; it is ex materia.

If that's what you believe, then so be it. It's not what I believe.

My point here is that neither Genesis nor Proverbs asserts a specific creatio – there is no sufficient argument to say they must be read one way or the other. Later Rabbinical tradition allows for the idea that the materia prima, "the deep" was subsequent to and a product of creation:
"1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep" which means one can read God created heaven and earth, and that the "void and empty darkness upon the face of the deep" was the condition of the earth immediately after its creation, rather than a prior substance from which it was spun, without contradiction.

However, the verb חוֹלָ֑לְתִּי (ḥōlāltî) suggests ...

I would generally agree, but I would also observe that as we're clearly speaking of an order of Divine activity here, a personified divine quality, Divine Wisdom (Greek: Sophia), then we should be open to a nuanced reading and yes, whilst it is entirely possible to read this as "birth or writhing into existence within a process", that process is within the Divine Life, and I would suggest not anterior to it.

Further, and you can take this with a pinch of salt, your point led me to Strongs, and the verb חוֹלָ֑לְתִּי:
"חוּל ... a primitive root; properly, to twist or whirl (in a circular or spiral manner), i.e. (specifically) to dance ... "
Wich renders the verb not a million miles away from the post-Nicene Greek theological concept of perichoresis (περιχώρησις, perikhōrēsis,  'rotation'), a term first used by Gregory of Nyssa (4th century) in reference to the divine and human natures in Christ, and later by giants such as Maximus (7th) and Gregory of Nazianzus (8th) to speak of the mutual indwelling of the three persons in the Trinity.

(Actually, in a rare instance, the Latin Church predates the Greek, as regarding the Trinity Hilary of Poitiers wrote "They reciprocally contain One Another, so that One permanently envelopes, and is permanently enveloped by, the Other whom he yet envelopes" De Trinitate 3.1.)

So what I am saying is, there is a providential 'genius' to Scripture which allows a reading to be relevant to the people who wrote it, but a a text which remains relevant to later understandings, even though they might be fundamentally different.

On which point, my reading of apocalypse – ἀποκάλυψις (apokálupsis), to mean 'revelation' or 'uncovering' is not solely limited to the last book of the New Testament but also a factor of a living faith, in more ways than one.

 

[Thomas]

Trinitarianism is a later Christology that would not exist without the following innovation: creatio ex nihilo.

The idea of Trinity and ex nihilo are indeed Christian innovations, founded on Scripture, and roughly contemporary – both appear in 180CE in the writings of Theophilus of Antioch, but to say Christology or Trinity would not exist without creatio ex nihilo is, I would say, unlikely.

Christology and Trinity both address the relations of the Divine Persons in regard to the a priori belief in One God – and as such can be argued without recourse to a creatio argument.

Arius (4th century), for example, believed Jesus was Divine, a creatio ex nihilo and that He, Jesus, subsequently created the world – whether the world is ex nihilo or ex materia was not stated, and was irrelevant to his argument – Arius' ex nihilo asserts Jesus was divine, but not the same divine substance as the Father.

 

[Thomas]

As stated earlier (in post #190), John 20.28 is Native Greek and not Translation Greek. Claims based on the Septuagint parallel (Psalms 35:23) that “My Lord” and “My God” refer to a single person are baseless.

Actually I checked, and that's not absolutely the case.

The Greek ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou ("the Lord of me and the God of me") is grammatically ambiguous and can be interpreted as addressing either one or two persons, 'depending on the reader's theological and grammatical framework' .

 

[muhammad_isa]

Arius' ex nihilo asserts Jesus was divine, but not the same divine substance as the Father.

What is a "divine substance" ?

 

[Thomas]

What is a "divine substance" ?

Good question!

 

[Ahanu]

Actually I checked, and that's not absolutely the case.

The Greek ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou ("the Lord of me and the God of me") is grammatically ambiguous and can be interpreted as addressing either one or two persons, 'depending on the reader's theological and grammatical framework' .

What did you check? It is only ambiguous if one fails to distinguish between Translation Greek and Native Greek. Also, you would have to ignore statistical and linguistic evidence.

 

[Thomas]

What did you check? It is only ambiguous if one fails to distinguish between Translation Greek and Native Greek. Also, you would have to ignore statistical and linguistic evidence.

Nope. I checked the fact that there are arguments for or against, and as much as anyone might claim, there is no definitive answer.

 

[Ahanu]

Nope. I checked the fact that there are arguments for or against, and as much as anyone might claim, there is no definitive answer.

Are you sure?

What would Greek grammarians say? The syntax is not ambiguous.

See Smart’s Rule, which states that in native Koine Greek, repeating the possessive pronoun (“my Lord and my God”) with two nouns joined by kai is a known grammatical marker used to indicate two distinct persons. The only times this rule appears to be broken, in which the repeated pronoun refers to one person, are in direct quotations from the Septuagint, such as Hebrews 8.11, which is quoting Jeremiah. Unlike the Septuagint, the Gospel of John is not a translation of a Hebrew text. James Hope Moulton said that the author of the Fourth Gospel did not commit a “breach of the laws of grammar.” The Septuagint doesn’t even represent idiomatic Greek, including the Psalms, which is one of the most ungrammatical from a native Koine Greek speaker’s perspective.

Fact one: there are zero examples in the New Testament of a native Greek writer (not quoting the Septuagint) using this specific construction for one individual.

Fact two: Raija Sollamo’s research found that in a vast corpus of native Greek, the repeated pronoun construction never refers to a single person. Note the phrase can refer to one person in the Septuagint, but it has Translation Greek (ungrammatical Hebraism).

Fact three: If the writer of the Gospel of John wanted to refer to one person, there was clear syntax available to do so, as we see here: ho kyrios kai theos mou. He clearly was aware of this rule (John 11.48, 13.9), but did not use it for 20.28.

 

[Ahanu]

Nope. I checked the fact that there are arguments for or against, and as much as anyone might claim, there is no definitive answer.

How could John’s big reveal be ambiguous? You said: “The point being, if John is uncertain or expressing any uncertainty in 1:1, then that is entirely and unequivocally resolved in 20:28.” So it is not resolved then if his words are ambiguous.

 

[Thomas]

Are you sure?

Sufficiently so, yes.

What would Greek grammarians say? The syntax is not ambiguous.

No it's not ... however:

See Smart’s Rule, ...

According to my searches, the rule is largely rejected as a parody of Sharp's Rule (see the extract below from Sharp's rule).

As somone observed: "this is another solid example of importing external influences into texts, and ignoring all other hermeneutical tools, especially considering the immediate context of the verse. As a general rule, if you have to ignore all the words around a phrase to make it mean something, then that's eisegesis - not exegesis."

One could argue that if John wanted to make it clear that Jesus wasn't both Lord and God, he would have divided the exclamation cleanly in two. John 1 and the general tenor of the text would lead to a natural reading of 20:28 as referring to Jesus as both Lord – which Thomas had accepted from the moment he followed Jesus, and God, which was his rtealisation after coming face-to-face with the risen Christ.

So, looking at Sharp's Rule:
"Except distinct and different actions are intended to be attributed to one and the same person; in which case, if the sentence is not expressed agreeably to the three first rules, but appears as an exception to this sixth rule, or even to the fifth, (for, this exception relates to both rules,) the context must explain or point out plainly the person to whom the two nouns relate: as in 1 Thess. iii. 6… And also in John, xx. 28. καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ὁ Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ὁ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ μου ΚΑΙ Ὁ ΘΕΟΣ μου. If the two nouns (viz. ὁ κύριος μου and ὁ θεός μου) were the leading nominative substantives of a sentence, they would express the descriptive qualities or dignities of two distinct persons, according to the sixth rule; but, in this last text, two distinct divine characters are applied to one person only; for, the context clearly expresses to whom the words were addressed by Thomas: which perspicuity in the address clearly proves, likewise, the futility of that gloss for which the Arians and Socinians contend; viz. that Thomas could not mean that Christ was his God, but only uttered, in his surprise, a solemn exclamation or ejaculation to God. The text, however, expressly relates thay our Lord first addressed himself to Thomas: εἶτα λέγει τῷ Θωμᾷ Φέρε τὸν δάκτυλόν σου ὧδε, &c. καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ὁ Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ (that is, without doubt, to Jesus,) ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου. So that both these distinct titles (for, they are plainly mentioned as distinct) were manifestly addressed αὐτῷ, to that one person, Jesus, to whom Thomas replied, as the text expressly informs us. The language is so plain, when the whole context is considered, that the Socinian perversion of it is notorious."
(Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament, Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from Passages Which are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version. 3rd ed. London: Vernor and Hood, 1803. p15-17. Emphasis author's.)

 

[Thomas]

How could John’s big reveal be ambiguous?

Exactly ... read in context of the Gospel, there can be no doubt.

So it is not resolved then if his words are ambiguous.

In response to your raising particular questions, aimed at interpretations of particular texts. Taken altogether, the apparent ambiguities are resolved.

 

[Ahanu]

Sufficiently so, yes.


No it's not ... however:


According to my searches, the rule is largely rejected as a parody of Sharp's Rule (see the extract below from Sharp's rule).

Yes, the rule was introduced in October 2000 on the B-GREEK mailing list as a parody of Granville Sharp’s famous grammatical rules. But this rule under discussion actually aligns with Granville Sharp’s Rule 6: “If they are connected by the copulative and both have the article they relate also to different persons.” Sharp admits that according to his own Rule 6, the syntax ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou “would express the descriptive qualities or dignities of two distinct persons.”

He spends about two pages of his book trying to prove this rule does not apply to John 20.28. All he could conclude was that the context overrides his own rule. Here we see an example of theology overriding native Greek syntax in Sharp’s viewpoint. If context is really the key, them Sharp misses the context. In John 20.17, Jesus explicitly identifies two persons: himself and his Father. The articles in verse 28 are anaphoric. They point back to the two entities just mentioned by Jesus. So, yes, this is exegesis.

The consistency of this so-called parody rule should be taken seriously. It was initially rejected as a parody, but it is a useful tool backed up by hard linguistic data. Traditional scholars can continue to stick their heads in the sand all they like, but Raija Sollamo analyzed the entire Pentateuch and a large cross-section of secular Greek, and she concluded that repeating a possessive pronoun with coordinate items (e.g., “my X and my Y”) is a grammatical Hebraism common in translation Greek like the Septuagint but is never found in good native grammatical Greek to refer to one person.

Now let’s see what Steve can help says:

As somone observed: "this is another solid example of importing external influences into texts, and ignoring all other hermeneutical tools, especially considering the immediate context of the verse. As a general rule, if you have to ignore all the words around a phrase to make it mean something, then that's eisegesis - not exegesis."

A lot of these traditional scholars that influence people like Steve can help are the ones practicing eisegesis by importing external influences, and here I am clearly referring to the one person reading of John 20.28 that relies on a construction that is a grammatical Hebraism, which is a literal translation of Hebrew possessive suffixes.

Look, as stated before, John elsewhere follows the native rule for single subjects (John 11.48, 13.9), so I think assuming he broke the rule here requires the reader to assume John was suddenly writing a poor translation of a Hebrew thought, rather than proper Greek.

One could argue that if John wanted to make it clear that Jesus wasn't both Lord and God, he would have divided the exclamation cleanly in two.

He did. Again, see John 11.48 (“our place and nation”) and John 13.9 (“my hands and head”). In these verses, John uses the proper native Greek construction for a single subject: One pronoun for multiple nouns.

If John had intended to call Jesus “Lord and God,” he would have written ho kyrios kai theos mou. By choosing to write ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou, he used the specific syntax that native Greek speakers recognized as a separator for two distinct subjects.

John 1 and the general tenor of the text would lead to a natural reading of 20:28 as referring to Jesus as both Lord

Shouldn’t the immediate context of John 20.17 be grammatically more relevant? Anaphoric articles typically refer to things recently mentioned. Both versus use the exact same syntax:

20.17: Ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα μου καὶ Πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ Θεόν μου καὶ Θεὸν ὑμῶν.
Anabainō pros ton Patera mou kai Patera hymōn kai Theon mou kai Theon hymōn.

20.28: ...Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.
. . . Ho Kyrios mou kai ho Theos mou.

– which Thomas had accepted from the moment he followed Jesus, and God, which was his rtealisation after coming face-to-face with the risen Christ.

So, looking at Sharp's Rule:
"Except distinct and different actions are intended to be attributed to one and the same person; in which case, if the sentence is not expressed agreeably to the three first rules, but appears as an exception to this sixth rule, or even to the fifth, (for, this exception relates to both rules,) the context must explain or point out plainly the person to whom the two nouns relate: as in 1 Thess. iii. 6… And also in John, xx. 28. καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ὁ Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ὁ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ μου ΚΑΙ Ὁ ΘΕΟΣ μου. If the two nouns (viz. ὁ κύριος μου and ὁ θεός μου) were the leading nominative substantives of a sentence, they would express the descriptive qualities or dignities of two distinct persons, according to the sixth rule; but, in this last text, two distinct divine characters are applied to one person only; for, the context clearly expresses to whom the words were addressed by Thomas: which perspicuity in the address clearly proves, likewise, the futility of that gloss for which the Arians and Socinians contend; viz. that Thomas could not mean that Christ was his God, but only uttered, in his surprise, a solemn exclamation or ejaculation to God. The text, however, expressly relates thay our Lord first addressed himself to Thomas: εἶτα λέγει τῷ Θωμᾷ Φέρε τὸν δάκτυλόν σου ὧδε, &c. καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ὁ Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ (that is, without doubt, to Jesus,) ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου. So that both these distinct titles (for, they are plainly mentioned as distinct) were manifestly addressed αὐτῷ, to that one person, Jesus, to whom Thomas replied, as the text expressly informs us. The language is so plain, when the whole context is considered, that the Socinian perversion of it is notorious."
(Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament, Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from Passages Which are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version. 3rd ed. London: Vernor and Hood, 1803. p15-17. Emphasis author's.)

As you can see, Sharp labels 20.28 an exception because the context demands it. αὐτῷ identifies the direction of the speech, not the identity of every noun within the speech. Besides, Sharp, who was writing in 1803, did not have the large amount of modern linguistic data we have today - such as the research proving that in native, non-translation Greek, repeating the pronoun creates a mandatory separator.

 

[Ahanu]

John 1 and the general tenor of the text would lead to a natural reading of 20:28 as referring to Jesus as both Lord – which Thomas had accepted from the moment he followed Jesus, and God, which was his rtealisation after coming face-to-face with the risen Christ.

It is an unnatural reading to make an anaphoric article look for its antecedent 20 chapters away!

 

[Thomas]

Sharp admits that according to his own Rule 6, the syntax ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou “would express the descriptive qualities or dignities of two distinct persons.”

Yes, he qualifies the rule with its exceptions, as he does elsewhere.

Here we see an example of theology overriding native Greek syntax in Sharp’s viewpoint.

Or rather, this is the way some choose to read it.

If the Divinity of Christ rested on this single point, then perhaps it would be worth labouring – but assuming an objection to every reference and declaration of the New Testament, then really we have to settle to the idea that one either accepts of traditional Christology or one does not.

You have raised your objections, and they have been noted, and discussing them is a pleasure, but I think the best we can do is point out where we stand, how our positions differ, rather than seek to argue the other is wrong, because neither of us is likely to be successful.

 

[Thomas]

In discussing the above, I happened upon this interesting note, regarding the post-resurrection appearance to Mary Magdalene.

John 20: The empty tomb is discovered, Peter and John 'race' to the scene, see the tomb for themselves, and go home ...
"11 But Mary stood outside by the tomb weeping. As she was weeping, then, she bent down into the tomb, 12 and sees two angels in white sitting there, one at the head and one at the feet of where the body of Jesus had lain. 13 And they say to her, 'Madam, why are you weeping?' She says to them: 'They took away my Lord and I do not know where they put him.' 14 Saying these things, she turned back around and sees Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus says to her, 'Madam, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?' She, thinking that he is the gardener, says to him, 'My lord, if you have carried him off, tell me where you put him, and I will take him away.' 16 Jesus says to her, 'Mary.' Turning, she says to him in Hebrew, 'Rabbouni' 17 Jesus says to her, 'Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and tell them: I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.' " (Hart translation)

The Latin text has "nolle me tangere", which in English is "touch me not", but the Greek is Μή μου ἅπτου, which Hart (among others) renders "Do not cling to me" ...

The two angels flank the empty space of the tomb like cherubim guarding the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant. Mary turns and sees Jesus, whom she does not recognise. He repeats the angels' question: 'Why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?'.

She mistakes him for the gardener. Why mention that? There is a reference here to that Primordial Garden – a reference which probably would not have gone unnoticed to the 1st century Judeo-Christians – the two cherubim set before the garden of Eden after the expulsion of Adam and Eve. John 1:1 references Genesis 1:1, and here, at the end of his Gospel, he references the expulsion, the implication being, as Paul saw, Christ as the New Adam. Genesis begins with God in a garden; John ends with the Son of God in another garden.

Faced with the Risen Christ, Jesus says: "Do not cling to me" – grammatically, the phrase employs μή with the present imperative, which normally prohibits the continuation of an action already in progress. Mary has an idea of who Jesus is – Rabbouni – but here Jesus' words are a redirection, not a rejection. Here Mary is in the Presence in a manner she has no prior experience of, and if she clings to that idea, then that will prevent her seeing Jesus for who and what He is.

He entrusts her with a singular mission: she becomes apostola apostolorum, the apostle to the apostles. "Go to my brothers and say to them, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God' " (John 20:17). The 'your' (πατέρα ὑμῶν, θεὸν ὑμῶν) is plural. Jesus is not speaking to Mary alone but to the whole community of disciples. His address to the disciples is not as disciples, nor friends, but as brothers.

In the Genesis Eden, God seeks Adam and Eve, who hid from the Presence. Now, it is reversed, Mary is in the Presence, but does not see, until He reveals Himself to her. (As he will do to us, on the road to Emmaus.)

In Genesis, God looks for the humans among the trees. In John, Mary looks for Jesus among the dead. In Genesis, hiding is met by seeking, in John, seeking is met by Revelation of the Hidden.