¹ While the number of occurrences of a word is not in itself a measure of the word's importance in an author's thought, it is at least one barometer that merits attention. Of the 11 Johannine words and word-groups discussed by Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John, AB (2 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966–1970) 1. 497–518, as being crucial in understanding the Fourth Gospel, the ‘sending’ verbs, found a total of 59 times, occur more than all but three. Here is Brown's list: ‘love’’ group – 56, ‘truth’ group – 48, ‘see’ group – 114, ‘glory’ – 18, ‘command’ – 11, ‘life’ – 36, ‘world’ – 78, ‘abide’ – 40, ‘believe’ – 98, ‘light’ and ‘darkness’ – 31, and ‘hour’ – 26. Numerous authors, many referred to in this paper, state that the ‘sending’ motif is a major feature of John, but few follow their statement with anything more than a sentence or two.Google Scholar

² ‘άποστέλλω (πέμπω), έξαποστέλλω, άπóστολος, ψευδαπóστολος, Άποστολή’, TDNT 1 (1964) 398–447.Google Scholar

³ ‘άποστέλλω (πέμπω)’, 405.Google Scholar

⁴ Westcott, B. F., The Gospel According to St. John (London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1887) 298.Google Scholar

⁵ von Eicken, E. and Lindner, H., ‘Apostle’, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (ed. Brown, C.; 1975) 1. 126–8.Google Scholar

⁶ Fennema, D. A., ‘Jesus and God According to John: An Analysis of the Fourth Gospel's Father/Son Christology’ (Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1979) 5.Google Scholar

⁷ None of the scholars listed in this paragraph discusses the issue in any depth.Google Scholar

⁸ Tarelli, , ‘Johannine Synonyms’, JTS (old series) 47 (1946) 175. Tarelli goes on to discuss other possible Johannine synonyms, like έρωτάω and αίτέω, in the same fashion. In reference to John 20. 21, Tarelli argues that the καθώς… κάγώ construction suggests assimilation and not differentiation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ 1. 6; 3. 7, 28, 34; 5. 36, 38; 6. 29, 57; 7. 29; 8. 42; 10. 36; 11. 42; 17.3, 8, 18a, 21, 23, 25; 20. 21. Other senders: 1.19, 24; 4. 38; 5. 33; 7. 32; 11. 3; 17.18b; 18. 24.Google Scholar

¹⁰ 1. 33; 4.34; 5. 23, 24, 30, 37; 6. 38, 39, 44; 7.16, 18, 28, 33; 8.16, 18, 26, 29; 9. 4; 12. 44, 45,49; 13. 20b; 14. 24, 26; 15. 21; 16. 5. Other senders: 1. 22; 13.16, 20a; 15. 26; 16. 7; 20. 21b.Google Scholar

¹¹ Although it is not in his interests to pursue the idea, Culpepper, R. A., Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 113, correctly states that God's predominant characteristic in John is that he sent Jesus.Google Scholar

¹² Kuhl, J., Die Sendung Jesu und der Kirche nach dem Johannes-Evangelium, Studia Instituti Missiologici Societatis Verbi Divini 11 (St. Augustin: Steyler, 1967) 63–4,Google Scholarwho attempts to set ‘sending’ in the context of other themes in John, stresses God's act of sending here, as does Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1953) 259–60; and Barrett, St. John, 348. Fennema, ‘Jesus and God’, 36–97; and Kuhl, Sendung Jesu, 160–70 and 36–97, relate the sending of Jesus to the general theme of his coming into the world in passages like 3.17; 10. 36; and 17.18a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ So suggests Westcott, St. John, 294.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Barrett, , St. John, 216, agrees that the stress here is on the purpose of Jesus' mission. Hendriksen, Commentary 1. 45–47, provides a good discussion of the clauses in the Fourth Gospel. He says both occurrences of ἵνα in 3.17 express purpose.Google Scholar

¹⁵ 1.9, 12, 18, 29 etc. In general, it might be said that Jesus' mission is to reveal the Father and give eternal life to the world. John 6. 39 is, however, another instance where ‘sending’ and mission are closely connected. Hendriksen, Commentary 1. 49, sees the ἱνα clause in this case as expressing purpose.Google Scholar

¹⁶ On this passage see Sanders, J. N., A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, Black's New Testament Commentaries (ed. and completed by Mastin, B. A.; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968) 75; and Howard, St. John, 467. Hendriksen, Commentary 1. 47, sees the second ἵνα in 1. 7 as expressing purpose.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Brown, , St. John 2.1036.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Bernard, , St. John, 159, says John 4. 38 suggests a mission like that in Mark's gospel.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Hendriksen, , Commentary 1. 47, 49, notes that in both these cases ἵνα expresses purpose.Google Scholar

²⁰ Rengstorf, , ‘άποστέλλω (πέμπω)’, 398–402.Google Scholar

²¹ ‘Αποστέλλειμ: Mark, 21; Matt, 21; Luke-Acts, 51; other books, 12. Πέμπειν: Mark 1; Matt, 4; Luke-Acts, 22; other books, 11.Google Scholar

²² 1. 22,33; 4. 34; 5. 23, 24, 30, 37; 6.38, 39, 44; 7.16, 18, 28, 33; 8.16, 18, 26, 29; 9. 4; 12. 44, 45, 49; 13.16, 20b; 14. 24; 15. 21; and 16. 5.Google Scholar

²³ Interpreters generally agree that this, the only occurrence of άπóστολος, in John, has the non-technical sense of ‘messenger’. See Kuhl, Sendung Jesu, 148–9; Brown, John 2. 553; and R. Bultmann, John, 447. B. Lindars, John, 453, says it has a ‘quasi-technical meaning’ here.Google Scholar

²⁴ Lenski, Interpretation, 332. Haenchen, E., ‘“Der Vater, der mich gesandt hat”’, NTS 9 (1962–1963) 208–16, studied this phrase to clarify what it yields for the Johannine doctrine of revelation. See esp. 210–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ Rengstorf, ‘άποστέλλω (πέμπω)’, 435. See 404–6 for the more detailed discussion.Google Scholar

²⁶ Kuhl, Sendung Jesu, 145, and Brown, St. John 2.1036, say the Father's sending of Jesus serves as the ground of Jesus' sending of the disciples.Google Scholar

²⁷ It should be noted that the verb occurs much less frequently in the earlier writings of the NT than it does in the later literature (i.e. gospels) and it is primarily to the former that recent scholars of the apostle are looking; e.g. von Campenhausen, H. F., ‘Der urchristliche Apostelbegriff’, ST 1 (1947) 96–130;Google ScholarGerhardsson, B., ‘Die Boten Gottes und die Apostel Christi’, SEA 27 (1962) 89–131;Google Scholarand Hahn, F., ‘Der Apostolat im Urchristentum’, KD 20 (1974) 54–77.Google ScholarOn the apostle, Agnew, F. H., ‘The Origin of the NT Apostle-Concept: A Review of Research’, JBL 105 (1986) 75–96, is the most recent survey.Google ScholarCf. Barrett, C. K., ‘Shaliab and Apostle’, in Donum Gentilicium: New Testament Studies in Honor of David Daube (ed. Bammel, E., Barrett, C. K., and Davies, W. D.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1978) 88–102.Google Scholar

²⁸ Mosbech, H., ‘Apostolos in the New Testament’, ST 2 (1948) 187–5.Google Scholar

²⁹ So suggests Muller, D., ‘Apostle’, in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (ed. Brown, C.; 1975) 1. 134–5.Google ScholarThis approach to the apostle might benefit from the kind of work done by Miranda, J. P., Die Sendung Jesu im vierten Evangelium: Religions- und theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Sendungsformeln, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 87 (eds. Haag, H., Kilian, R., and Pesch, W.; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), who exhibits source and history-of-religion concerns. In 29–38, Miranda locates the roots of Johannine ‘sending’ in Jewish - as opposed to Gnostic - sources, consistent with the current scholarly trend of interpreting the Christian apostle in light of the Jewish and its OT background. Presupposing a cur rent popular understanding of the history of the Johannine community, Miranda also shows how the ‘sending’ convention in John can be set in the context of the development of that community in its conflict with Judaism.Google Scholar

³⁰ Albertz, D. M., Die Botschaft des Neuen Testamentes (vol. 1, part 2; Zurich: Zollikon, 1952) 57–8, relates ‘sending’ in John to the notion of an apostle as one sent. Miranda, Sendungsformeln, 46–51, prefers the concept of prophet.Google Scholar