John 20:21 – “Just as the Father has sent me, I also send you.”

(See also Jn 17:18 – “Just as you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.”)

In what sense are Jesus’ disciples sent ‘just as’ he himself was sent?

The two ‘sendings’ use different Greek words: the first, apostellō, and the second, pempō.  However, as Kruse explains, nothing theological should be made of this difference, because the two words are used interchangeably throughout John’s Gospel.  Carson agrees, saying, ‘this is an instance of John’s penchant for minor stylistic variations.’

To be sure, we cannot be either incarnated as the Son of God was, nor can we die, as he did, for the sins of the world.

Some seek to make Jesus’ mission a rather exact pattern and model (e.g. Keener) of our own.  Appealing to scriptures such as Lk 4:18f; 7:22, they urge that just as he healed the sick, helped the needy, and preached the gospel to the poor, so must we.  The church’s mission is not limited to evangelism, but extended to an imitation of all that he did.

Such also became the view of John Stott.  In his early days, he was wont to insist that the church’s mission was to proclaim the gospel and to win souls.  But then, in the early 1970s, he came to the view – based in part on the present text – that the church was called to holistic mission, which include socio-political action as well as evangelism.  As early as 1970 (in Christ the Controversialist) Stott was writing:

‘The church’s mission reflects the Son’s mission, and both express the character of the Father. What is this? He is not the Judge only, but the Saviour. He does not reward merit, but he does bestow mercy. He is the shepherd of lost sheep, the doctor of sick souls, a father of infinite patience. Now he sends us out into the world just like he sent Christ—not to run away and escape, but to enter the pain of distressed humanity, to think and feel our way into people’s doubts, difficulties and distresses, to be channels of the love of God as both servants and witnesses, to bring what relief we can and the good news of salvation through Christ’s death and resurrection. This is our responsibility. Nothing less than costly involvement is Christian; to withdraw is Pharisaic.’

And in 1979 Stott was explaining and defending his position (in the light of criticism of it) in John R. W. Stott, “Cornerstone: The Battle for World Evangelism,” Christianity Today 23, no. 7 (January 5, 1979): 34–35. (eprinted as ch. 15 of Christ the Cornerstone, Collected Essays of John Stott, Lexham Press, 2019.

Briefly, Stott’s understanding is that

‘We are sent into the world, like Jesus, to serve.’ (Christian Mission in the Modern World)

Stott’s mature teaching is summarised by Paul A. Beals.  Referring to the concept of ‘holistic mission’,

‘John R.W. Stott articulated this position in his book, Christian Mission in the Modern World. Stott holds that John 20:21 is the basic statement of the Great Commission: “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”

In addition to this position on the Great Commission, Stott also champions the Great Commandment, namely, Christ’s instruction to “love your neighbor as yourself.” According to this view, these two commands constitute the Christian mission in the world. Stott explains that “if we love our neighbor as God made him, we must inevitably be concerned for his total welfare, the good of his soul, his body, and his community” (Stott, 1975, 30). Also according to this view, the Christian mission should include a political dimension in an effort to bring about structural social change.

‘This concept of mission “describes … everything the church is sent into the world to do. ‘Mission’ embraces the church’s double vocation of service to be ‘the salt of the earth’ and ‘the light of the world.’ For Christ sends his people into the earth to be its salt, and sends his people into the world to be its light (Matt. 5:13–16)” (ibid., 30–31, emphasis his). In Stott’s expression of this view, evangelism and social action are considered equal partners in mission and mutually integral to each other.’

In Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, art. ‘Controversies in Contemporary Evangelical Mission Theory’.

H.H. Rowdon writes:

‘I confess that, when preaching from this text, I used to relate it exclusively to the preaching of forgiveness and reconciliation which is the subject of verse 23. I trust I am wiser now, having realized that the key to the meaning of verse 21 is Mark 10:45 where Jesus sums up the terms of his commission as not only redemption but also service.

‘The apostles certainly understood it that way. They went out ready to act as well as to speak. Peter and John brought physical healing to a crippled man (Acts 3:6-7). The apostles as a whole healed and exorcised (Acts 5:12-16). Beyond the apostles, Philip ministered to human need as well as preaching the gospel (Acts 8:6-7). This kind of ministry was not confined to the context of preaching and evangelism. For example, Peter healed Aeneas and raised Dorcas from death. (Acts 9:32-41), Paul, as well as Peter, brought healing to a lame man (Acts 14:8-10), and exorcised a slave girl at Philippi (Acts 16: 16-18). It has been alleged that the emphasis in Paul’s ministry was increasingly on verbal proclamation, but there is clear evidence that this was not so. It was during his third missionary journey and his longest stay in one place-the crucially important city of Ephesus–that we read of unusual healings and exorcisms taking place (Acts 19: 11-12).’

Rowdon goes on to argue that in the church’s mission – which ‘includes everything which God has sent the church into the world to do in his name’ – it is improper to attempt to distinguish between ‘more’ and ‘less’ important activities.  The church at large, as well as the local congregation, should strive to excell in all aspects of its mission.  For the individual, however, the situation is a little different:

‘If the biblical concept of the body, with its multiplicity of members, each with its distinctive-and partial-function to perform for the effective operation of the whole, means anything at all, then the individual may well have to decide between one and the other and know which is more important for him or her.’

Rowdon concludes:

‘Care of the sick, the afflicted, the hungry and the oppressed is more than an accompaniment to the preaching of the gospel as the real task of mission. It is more than a bridge, leading people to open their eyes to the message. It is more than authentication of the message (though it is all of these). It is part of the message. The distinction between word and deed is artificial. How do you know that someone really loves you? Not merely because they say so verbally, but also because their actions say so. ‘God so loved that he gave.’ Medical care, educational attention, the provision of food for the hungry and the imparting of technological skills-not to mention ‘supernatural’ acts-speak loud and clear, provided they are done clearly and unequivocally in the name of Jesus. In any case, they are inherently good things.’

DeYoung and Gilbert (What is the Mission of the Church?) note that Stott’s understanding of John 20:21 has been very influential.  While by no means denying a place for social action either in Jesus’ ministry or our own, they note that it can be misleading to summarise Jesus’ mission as being devoted entirely to meeting temporal needs.  Sometimes he wished to be alone.  On other occasions he spent time with rich people.  Oftentimes he was with his disciples, who were not destitute.

As these authors say:

‘No one can deny, nor would we want to deny, that Jesus showed compassion to countless multitudes in extraordinary ways. Nor do we want to suggest that meeting physical needs has no place in the church’s work. On the contrary, let us be zealous for good works (Titus 2: 14) and walk in the good deeds prepared for us (Eph. 2: 10).’

Jesus did indeed heal the sick and feed the hungry; but these did not constitute the main focus of his ministry:

‘He was sent into the world to save people from condemnation (John 3:17), that he might be lifted up so believers could have eternal life (Jn 3:14–15). He was sent by the Father so that whoever feeds on him might live forever (Jn 6:57– 58).’

Examining the Gospels more broadly, we note that we are never told that Jesus set out with the express purpose of healing or casting out demons.  The focus is elsewhere.  Note Jesus’ statements of purpose in Mark’s Gospel:

‘He came to preach (Mk 1:38). He came to call sinners (Mk 2:17). He came to give his life as a ransom for many (Mk 10:45).’

So while there are in Mark, and also the other Gospels, many examples of works of compassion,

‘they are far from the main point. The first half of the Gospel drives toward Peter’s confession in chapter 8, where Jesus’s identity is revealed. The second half of the Gospel drives toward the cross, where Jesus’s work is completed (three predictions of death and resurrection in chapters 9– 10, and a detailed description of Holy Week in chapters 12– 16). Mark’s Gospel does not focus on Jesus meeting physical needs. Mark’s Gospel is about who Jesus was and what he did to save sinners.’

The mission of Jesus, then,

‘is not service broadly conceived, but the proclamation of the gospel through teaching, the corroboration of the gospel through signs and wonders, and the accomplishment of the gospel in death and resurrection.’

We should be careful, then, about the terminology around ‘incarnational mission’:

‘We cannot re-embody Christ’s incarnational ministry any more than we can repeat his atonement. Our role is to bear witness to what Christ has already done. We are not new incarnations of Christ but his representatives offering life in his name, proclaiming his gospel, imploring others to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5: 20).’

These authors quote Kestenberger as clarifying the connection between Christ’s ‘sending’ and our own:

‘The Fourth Gospel does therefore not appear to teach the kind of “incarnational model” advocated by Stott and others. Not the way in which Jesus came into the world (i.e., the incarnation), but the nature of Jesus’ relationship with his sender (i.e., one of obedience and utter dependence), is presented in the Fourth Gospel as the model for the disciples’ mission. Jesus’ followers are called to imitate Jesus’ selfless devotion in seeking his sender’s glory, to submit to their sender’s will, and to represent their sender accurately and know him intimately.’

J.I. Packer taught that the missional task of the church was twofold:

‘First and fundamentally, it is the work of worldwide witness, disciple-making, and church-planting (Matt. 24:14; 28:19–20; Mark 13:10; Luke 24:47–48). Jesus Christ is to be proclaimed everywhere as God incarnate, Lord, and Savior; and God’s authoritative invitation to find life through turning to Christ in repentance and faith (Matt. 22:1–10; Luke 14:16–24) is to be delivered to all mankind. The ministry of church-planter Paul, evangelist (so far as strength and circumstances allowed) to the whole world (Rom. 1:14; 15:17–29; 1 Cor. 9:19–23; Col. 1:28–29), models this primary commitment.

‘Second, all Christians, and therefore every congregation of the church on earth, are called to practice deeds of mercy and compassion, a thoroughgoing neighbor-love that responds unstintingly to all forms of human need as they present themselves (Luke 10:25–27; Rom. 12:20–21). Compassion was the inward aspect of the neighbor-love that led Jesus to heal the sick, feed the hungry, and teach the ignorant (Matt. 9:36; 15:32; 20:34; Mark 1:41; Luke 7:13), and those who are new creatures in Christ must be similarly compassionate. Thereby they keep the second great commandment and also give credibility to their proclamation of a Savior who makes sinners into lovers of God and of their fellow human beings. If the exponents of this message do not display its power in their own lives, credibility is destroyed. If they do, credibility is enhanced. This was Jesus’ point when he envisaged the sight of the good works of his witnesses leading people to glorify the Father (Matt. 5:16; cf. 1 Pet. 2:11–12). Good works should be visible to back up good words.’

(Concise Theology, art. ‘Mission’)

Others object that this neglects the Johannine context (in which Jesus moves on immediately to the forgiveness of sins) and instead imports teaching from the Synoptic corpus.  Jesus’ unique role was to the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and as the incarnate word his mission cannot be precisely emulated.  To be sure, we are to do good to all – especially the household of faith – but the present verse will not support the weight the other ‘side’ place on it.

Graham A. Cole offers a critique of an ‘incarnational’ model of mission:

‘This passage is widely appealed to in order to justify an incarnational model of mission to embrace, and not just by John Stott. The argument runs in general along the following lines. Just as Christ identified with us in becoming human, we too need to identify with those whom we are trying to reach with the love of God. James Davison Hunter expresses the point in this way as he teases out the implications of the incarnation: ‘For the Christian, if there is a possibility for human flourishing in a world such as ours, it begins when God’s word of love becomes flesh in us, is embodied in us, is enacted through us.’ We are to be a faithful presence in a broken world as a kind of incarnatus prolongus (the incarnation prolonged) in concert with the quintessential faithful presence of the Word who became flesh. However, the accent in Jesus’ words is not on identification but on the reception of the Holy Spirit and the promise of forgiveness. As Andreas Köstenberger rightly comments, ‘The fact that Jesus shows to his disciples his pierced hands and his side (cf. 20:19), as well as his commission to forgive or retain sins, ties the disciples’ mission to Jesus’ death (cf. chaps 18–20; cf. also 17:4 and 19:30).’ J. Todd Billings adds to the point by drawing attention to the reference to the Holy Spirit in the Johannine passage. He explores the implication of Jesus’ saying ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ as follows: ‘It is not our own “incarnation,” then, but the Holy Spirit who makes Christ present in us and beyond us.’ In his view the New Testament model for mission is not an incarnational one but ‘the much richer theology of servant-witness and cross-cultural ministry … in union with Christ by the Spirit’. Furthermore he contends that the popular slogan in some circles of ‘live the Good News rather than preach the Good News’ fails in the light of the biblical witness. He is right.’

(The God Who Became Human: A Biblical Theology of Incarnation)

Carson agrees that the issue cannot be settled by an appeal to a few verses from another Gospel, while ignoring the context in John’s Gospel.  We must take note of the ‘sending’ motif in John:

‘Here it is the perfect obedience of the Son that is especially emphasized (e.g. Jn 5:19–30; 8:29), an obedience that has already been made a paradigm for the relation of the believers to Jesus (Jn 15:9–10). Jesus was sent by his Father into the world (Jn 3:17) by means of the incarnation (Jn 1:14) with the end of saving the world (Jn 1:29); now that Jesus’ disciples no longer belong to the world (Jn 15:19), they must also be sent back into the world (Jn 20:21) in order to bear witness, along with the Paraclete (Jn 15:26–27)—though obviously there is no mention of incarnation along the lines of Jn 1:14, and any parallel must be entirely derivative.’

Further:

‘In so far as Jesus was entirely obedient to and dependent upon his Father, who sealed and sanctified him and poured out the Spirit upon him without limit (Jn 1:32; 3:34; 4:34; 5:19; 6:27; 10:36; 17:4), so far also does he constitute the definitive model for his disciples: they have become children of God (Jn 1:12–13; 3:3, 5; 20:17), the Spirit has been promised to them (chs. 14–16) and will soon be imparted to them, they have been sanctified by Christ and will be sanctified by God’s word (Jn 17:17) as they grow in unqualified obedience to and dependence upon their Lord.’

For Barrett, it is the nature of the church and the authority of its mission (rather than the holistic nature of that mission) that is stressed here:

‘The sending of Jesus by God meant that in the words, works, and person of Jesus men were veritably confronted not merely by a Jewish Rabbi but by God himself (1:18; 14:9; and many passages). It follows that in the apostolic mission of the church … the world is veritably confronted not merely by a human institution but by Jesus the Son of God (13:20; 17:18). It follows further that as Jesus in his ministry was entirely dependent upon and obedient to God the Father, who sealed and sanctified him (4:34; 5:19; 10:37; 17:4, and other passages: 6:27; 10:36), and acted in the power of the Spirit who rested upon him (1:32), so the church is the apostolic church, commissioned by Christ, only in virtue of the fact that Jesus sanctified it (17:19) and breathed the Spirit into it (v. 22), and only so far as it maintains an attitude of perfect obedience to Jesus (it is here, of course, that the parallelism between the relation of Jesus to the Father and the relation of the church to Jesus breaks down). The life and mission of the church are meaningless if they are detached from this historical and theological context.’

So the two ‘sendings’, though continuous, are not identical, is indicated by the two ‘senders’ – the Father sends the Son, and the Son sends his disciples.  ‘The Son was participating in the work of the Father, and was doing what only the Son can do. In a similar way, then, the disciples are participating in what is ultimately the work of the Son, a work made possible through the Son alone. Although the church is sent “just as” (καθὼς) the Son was sent, the mission of the church is defined by the Son who sent them, from whom the nature and direction of its mission are derived.’ (Klink)

We are then in a position to take into account the commissions that are reported in the other Gospels, which are comprehensive enough (note the ‘all’ of Mt 28:20).  At the same time, what was central to the Son’s mission – ‘that he came as the Father’s gift so that those who believe in him might not perish but have eternal life (Jn 3:16), experiencing new life as the children of God (Jn 1:12–13) and freedom from the slavery of sin because they have been set free by the Son of God (Jn 8:34–36)’ must never be lost from our view.  Indeed, we are reminded of these emphases by the reference, in v23, to the forgiveness of sins, and, in v30f, to the purpose of the Gospel.