7. God the Father
JOHN HAS A GOOD DEAL TO SAY ABOUT GOD. HE USES the word “God” 83 times, which, of course, is much less than in some other New Testament writings. Thus Luke has the word 122 times in his Gospel and another 166 times in Acts, while in the much shorter Romans Paul has it 153 times. But when we add that in addition to the word “God” John speaks of the same Being as “Father” more than 120 times, we see that he has a strong interest in the deity. When he speaks of “God” John almost invariably means the Father, but we should notice that he includes the words of Thomas to the risen Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” (20:28).
For John God is a great person; he is “the only true God” (17:3), which separates this Evangelist from the many polytheists of his day. God, he says, “is spirit” (4:24), which makes it clear that he is not to be understood as the idolaters saw him or as just another being like us, only greater. He is a being of a different order, and that must be borne in mind when we approach him in worship. Precisely because God is spirit, those who worship him must worship him “in spirit and truth” (4:23, 24); access to God is not always and everywhere open to people who presume that they may approach at any time and in their own way.1 That worship is to be “in truth” as well as “in spirit” points to the importance of sincerity and reality in worship. We are not to think that a great God is honored by a shallow, materialistic approach.
It accords with this that no one has ever seen God (1:18).2 He has chosen to reveal himself in the incarnate Word, but that is his choice. Created beings are unable to encounter him with the use of the physical eye. The Word (spoken of as monogenēs theos, “only-begotten God”) has declared what he is (1:18). But his greatness and his transcendence are plain for John. A little illustration of this is the reference to “the angels of God” who go up and down on the Son of man (1:51). At one and the same time we see the greatness of God (whose angels these are) and his willingness to have dealings with those he has created (the angels come to this earth).
God Was in Christ
A point that John emphasizes is that this great God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. He has many ways of bringing out the unity of the two. Thus he starts his Gospel with some statements about a being he calls “the Word”. He never explains the term, but as his Gospel unfolds it becomes clear that this is a designation of Jesus Christ. It points to him as divine (1:1) and as the revealer of the Father (1:18). By saying “the Word was with God” (1:1), John makes it clear that he is not equating the Word with the Father. They stand in the closest connection, but they are not identical. When we read of him as “a teacher come from God” and are informed that God is “with him” (3:2), this tells us something about God as well as about Christ.3 The God of whom John writes is a God who chooses to reveal himself; he does not leave those he has created without guidance and help. There is teaching that comes from God (7:17; 8:40). Jesus quotes the prophet to the effect that they will be “all taught by God” (6:45; cf. Isa. 54:13), and proceeds to say that everyone who has heard and learned from God comes to him. The God who has always willed to make his teaching known to his people has brought all this to its consummation in the coming of Christ. Thus we often hear that he is “from God” or a similar expression (6:46; 8:42; 9:33; 13:3, etc.).
The tragedy of so many in John’s day (and in ours) is that they have been so wise in their own estimation that they have rejected the ways of God and have set up their own way as the way to life. Jesus pointed out that some of his hearers did not really “seek the glory that is from the only God” (5:44); they did not “have the love of God in themselves” (5:42).4 Their own ideas of the way to God were so clear to them and so strongly held that they were sure that God was their Father (8:41), but their deeds denied this (8:42). Indeed, their deeds showed that the devil was their true father (8:44). They did not receive the one who came to them with the words of God, and they did not listen to him because they were not God’s people (8:47). In the last resort they valued the approval of people more highly than the approval of God (12:43).
But the God of whom John writes does more than reveal. Revelation and teaching, if that was all, could lead to despair as people come to realize that they do not live up to the standard that God demands. But John is writing about a God who brings salvation, not a God who brings despair. John insists that God loves the world and that he took action in giving his Son so that all who believe in him might be saved (3:16). Jesus speaks of his death in terms of glorification (12:23), and this seems still to be in mind when he goes on to refer to God’s glorifying of his name (12:28). The death of Jesus was God’s glorious action in bringing salvation to people who could never obtain it, left to their own devices. God sent the Son, not so that people would be condemned but so that they would be saved (3:17). This is the point of earlier statements which bring out the truth that people cannot by their own efforts enter the heavenly family (1:12–13) and that rebirth by water and the Spirit is the only way to enter the kingdom of God (3:3–8). In this vein Jesus speaks of “the free gift of God” (4:10).
Some people once asked Jesus what they must do “to work the works of God” (6:28), a question that clearly showed that they thought that their salvation depended on their working works that would be acceptable to God. But Jesus told them that “the work of God” (the singular is important) is that they “believe in him whom he sent” (6:29). The way into God’s salvation is not the way of human merit or human achievement of any sort, but rather of trust in the one whom God sent. And this is the point of the passages which speak of believing in Christ or in God or in both (e.g., 3:18; 9:35; 11:27; 14:1). God is acting in Christ to bring salvation, and this is received by simple trust, not by some difficult human achievement. That sin is a serious matter is brought out in this Gospel, and that “the wrath of God” abides on the disobedient sinner is clear (3:36). But John’s great teaching about God is that he has taken the initiative in bringing about salvation. It is God who has made the way whereby the sinner may be saved. It is God who has sent “the Lamb of God” (1:29, 36) to be offered for the salvation of sinners. This whole Gospel was written so that people might believe and thus enter life (20:31).
Father
That God is the Father of his people is not commonly taught in the Old Testament. We do find it, as when the psalmist says that God looks for a time when “He shall cry to me, ‘Thou art my Father …’ ” (Ps. 89:26) or when the prophet says, “Yet, O LORD, thou art our Father” (Isa. 64:8; cf. Isa. 63:16; Jer. 3:19; 31:9, etc.). But “Father” tends to be applied to the nation as a whole rather than to the individual Israelite. There is nothing in the Old Testament writings to match the way the word is used in the New. Specifically, John consistently speaks of God as Father, and there is no Old Testament equivalent.5
John’s great advance over everyone else in the New Testament in his teaching about God lies in the emphasis he gives to the truth that God is Father, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Father of believers. “Father” has become the typical Christian word for God, and it is a priceless gain that we have come to think of God as our Father. James Moffatt points out that “a religion may call God by several names, but there are titles for God without which it would not be itself, and for Christianity the supreme title is that of ‘Father.’ ”6 He goes on to point out that this is not something Christians took over from Judaism, for it is not found there. It is a way of looking at God that we owe to Jesus. And in the New Testament writings it is John who gives it emphasis.
We have seen that he uses the word “God” 83 times; we should also notice that he has the word “Father” 137 times, of which no less than 122 refer to God. No one in the entire New Testament has this habitual reference to the divine fatherhood. Paul has a strong emphasis on the place of God, and in the Pauline writings this word occurs no less than 548 times. This is a staggering total and reminds us that Paul was a God-centered man. But, although he has some striking and significant passages about the Father, all told he uses this term only 63 times and many of these refer to human fathers. Thus in Romans he refers to God as Father only four times, in 1 Corinthians three times, in 2 Corinthians five times, and in Galatians four times. The highest total in any Pauline writing is eight in Ephesians. The only New Testament writer who may be linked with John in this respect is Matthew, who has the word 64 times, of which 45 refer to the heavenly Father. For John clearly it was of central importance that our God is our heavenly Father. We should appreciate more than we do the truth that our habit of speaking of our God simply as “the Father” is a habit we owe to John.
In discussing the way in which he uses the term we must retrace some of the ground we covered when we were thinking of his teaching about God, but perhaps it would be true to say that in each case there is more on the subject under “Father” and the subject is treated more fully and from a different angle. First, let us notice that the Father is a great person. Jesus appears throughout this Gospel as a most important being, but he says, “the Father is greater than I” (14:28). What this says about the place of the Son must be understood with some care,7 but the passage certainly ascribes the highest possible place to the Father.
A passage with some difficulties is that in which RSV and others translate some words of Jesus as “My Father … is greater than all” (10:29). There is a problem in that some good MSS read “What my Father has given me is greater than everything” (GNB). In the former case we have a clear affirmation that the Father is superior to everyone and everything that exists; in the latter it is usually agreed that “what” refers to the church, since it is “that which the Father gave” to Jesus and is greater in the Father’s eyes than anything else on earth. We should probably accept this second reading, but in doing so we should not overlook the fact that it has significant implications for the greatness of the Father.8 Jesus is saying that the Father is so powerful that nothing and no one can pluck his people from his grasp.
We should put with these passages those that speak of honoring the Father. When Jesus speaks of the Father as committing all judgment to the Son “so that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father” (5:23), the implication is that the Father is certainly to be honored by all. And when Jesus says that he honors the Father (8:49), the thought is that if such a great person as the Jesus of whom John writes renders honor to the Father, then the Father is supremely important.
The Father is not accessible to ordinary mortals, for no one has seen him, other than Christ (6:46; cf. 1:18). The Father “has life in himself” (5:26) and may be called “the living Father” (6:57). Heaven may be spoken of as “my Father’s house” in which there are many places of residence (14:2). The use of such varied expressions shows us something of the ease with which John uses the term “Father” and of the greatness of him to whom it refers. We are not to think of the Father in terms appropriate only to people like ourselves. John conceives of him as a very great being indeed.
The Father and the Son
The complement of “Father” is “Son” and, while John speaks of God as the Father of his people, the principal way in which he employs the term is to relate the Father to Christ. The Jews were incensed that Jesus “called God his own Father, making himself equal with God” (5:18). They were not upset that Jesus spoke of God as Father in the manner of Isaiah or Jeremiah. They were upset that, because he spoke of him as his own Father, he related himself to God in a way in which he related no one else.9 And the tense of the verb is continuous. He did it habitually. They were not complaining because of an isolated, perhaps untypical slip. They were complaining because of what they saw as a settled attitude. It accords with this that Jesus could say, “I live on account of the Father” (6:57), and again, “I and the Father are one” (10:30), and “the Father is with me” (16:32). Repeatedly he is said to be in the Father, and the Father in him (10:38; 14:10, 11; 17:21). To have seen him is to have seen the Father (14:9); to know him is to know the Father (8:19; 14:7). People are blamed who know neither the Father nor the Son (16:3). The Father knows him, and he knows the Father (10:15). The things the Father does the Son does too (5:19). Such statements point to a close relationship to the Father, such a close relationship indeed that it is shared with no one else.
This is seen also in a variety of things the Father is said to do with respect to the Son. Thus Jesus is one “whom the Father sanctified, and sent into the world” (10:36; cf. “I went out from the Father”, 16:28). The Father has “sealed” the Son (6:27), or set his seal of approval on him. He has given all things into his hands (13:3), a staggering claim. The Father has “given” him the works that he does (5:36), and it is the people the Father has given him who come to him (6:37; 17:24). The Father has spoken to him, and it is what the Father has said that he speaks (12:50). The Father has taught him, and these things he speaks (8:28). His “word” is the “word” of the Father (14:24). It means much the same to say that it is what he has seen with the Father that he speaks (8:38), and that it is what he has heard from the Father that he makes known (15:15). Over and over John tells us that the Father sent the Son (5:36, 37; 6:44, etc.).10 Hans Conzelmann brings out some of the significance of this by saying, “The key-words ‘sending’, ‘the one who is sent’ (emissary) mean that God himself is responsible for salvation”.11 Jesus’ deeds are good works from the Father (10:32), indeed they are the works of the Father (10:37), for the Father, living in him, does his works (14:10). Jesus speaks of his capacity to lay down his life and to take it again, and explains, “this command I received from my Father” (10:18). His departure from this life is several times said to be a going to the Father (13:1; 14:12, 28; 16:10, 17, 28). The great movement from heaven to earth and back again is put in one verse: “I came out from the Father and have come into the world; again I leave the world and go to the Father” (16:28). This verse does not use the verb “send”, but it follows a statement that the Father loves the disciples because they have loved Christ and have believed that he came out from God (v. 27). Whatever verb is being used, there is not the slightest doubt that Jesus is speaking of the divine love that sent him to this earth and of the fact that when his mission was accomplished he would return to the Father.
It is not surprising that John speaks of the Father’s love for the Son (3:35; 5:20; 10:17; 15:9), and of the Son’s love for the Father (14:31). It is perhaps surprising that this is the one place in the New Testament in which the Son is explicitly said to love the Father. Throughout the New Testament, of course, the Son’s love for the Father is everywhere implicit; it is significant that the one passage in which it comes to expression is in John.
The Father and the Children
That God is Father means, for John, in the first instance that he is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is in this relationship that we see what divine fatherhood means. But it is also important for John that believers enter the heavenly family and may call God “Father”. As we have noted elsewhere, John does not call them “sons of God”. As it relates to the heavenly family he reserves “son” for Christ; when he is speaking of believers, he calls them “children” rather than “sons”. This is a Johannine usage; Paul, for example, does not hesitate to speak of human members of the heavenly family as “sons”. But John’s usage distinguishes between Christ’s sonship and that of anyone else. Jesus is God’s Son; believers become God’s sons. He belongs to God’s family because of what he is; we may be adopted into that family despite what we are. As J. I. Packer puts it, “The gift of sonship to God becomes ours, not through being born, but through being born again.”12 John is quite clear that our membership in the heavenly family is not to be taken for granted; it is sheer miracle.
We should take this seriously. The New Testament nowhere teaches that the whole human race belongs to the heavenly family as though being born on earth meant being enrolled in heaven. As Alan Richardson says, “There is therefore something original and distinctive in the teaching of Jesus about God as the Father of each individual disciple. Jesus did not, of course, teach the liberal protestant notion that God is Father of all men qua men and that all men are therefore brothers (Harnack’s ‘essence of Christianity’); God is Father only of those who have by faith and repentance entered into his reign and accepted the obedience of sons.”13
G. E. Ladd emphasizes this point and holds that in respect of the scope of God’s fatherhood “a radical change” has come over New Testament criticism. Certainly in an earlier day it was common to have it said that there is a divine fatherhood over the entire human race, but it is now widely recognized that it is difficult to find this in the New Testament. Ladd draws attention to “two exegetical facts: (1) Jesus never grouped Himself together with His disciples as the sons of God, since His messianic sonship is different from the sonship of His disciples; (2) Jesus never applied the category of sonship to any but His disciples. People become children of God by recognizing His messianic sonship”.14 On one occasion at any rate in this Gospel Jesus almost goes out of his way to distinguish between his sonship and that of his disciples (20:17), and John has what amounts to the classic way of describing how people become children of God (1:12–13).
The Father Works
“My Father works up till now,” Jesus said, “and I work” (5:17). Jesus spoke these words in a situation wherein the Jews were accusing him of breaking the Sabbath, and in doing so he drew attention to the fact that the Father works even on the Sabbath. If this were not so, the whole universe would cease to function. It is not a question of whether work of some kind is permitted on the Sabbath, but what kind of work is allowed. But for our present purpose the thing to notice is that the Father is active. John is not writing about an absentee God who allows the universe to go on all by itself. The Father is at work sustaining it all and working out his purposes.15
Elsewhere Jesus draws attention to God’s work in salvation. The Father keeps giving the true bread from heaven (6:32), the bread that sustains spiritual life. And in an important saying Jesus tells his hearers that no one can come to him “unless the Father who sent me draws him” (6:44). The initiative in salvation does not come from the sinner; it comes from God. John does not depict a God who is kindly enough disposed towards sinners to accept them if and when they turn to him. He depicts a God who loves people, even sinful people, so much that he seeks them out and draws them to himself. Without that drawing they cannot be saved. In the same context we find that all are taught by God, and that only as they learn from him do they come to Christ (6:45). The same truth may be expressed in Jesus’ words: “No one can come to me unless it be given him of the Father” (6:65). This truth was repeated in the upper room when Jesus said, “No one comes to the Father except through me” (14:6).16 He also said that the person who loves him will be loved by the Father, and that he himself will love him too (14:21; cf. 14:23). Such passages make a strong link between the Father and the Son, specifically in the working out of salvation. We also find that the Father bears witness to Jesus (8:18), a statement that we should probably understand in something of the same way. It is Jesus who brings the salvation of which we have been talking, and that salvation is God-appointed. So the Father bears his witness to Jesus and to what he is doing. From another angle we see the importance of the divine initiative in bringing salvation into being.
With this we should take Jesus’ words, “In my Father’s house are many dwelling places (if it were not so I would have told you), for I am going to prepare a place for you” (14:2).17 There is an air of assurance about these words; Jesus is speaking of something about which he has certain knowledge. And it conveys to the disciples the certainty of ultimate triumph. For the moment they were in trouble from the opposition of the world, and they would soon be plunged into gloom when what they saw as the tragedy of the crucifixion took place. But Jesus looks beyond all that to the fact that the salvation he had come to bring would carry right on into the life beyond this one.
There is also an activity of the Father of a more severe kind. As we saw in an earlier chapter, when Jesus speaks of himself as the true vine he speaks also of the Father as the vinedresser and explains the meaning of this in these terms: “Every cane in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every one that bears fruit he cleanses so that it may bear more fruit” (15:2). We should probably not understand the cane that does not bear fruit as an imperfect believer. Jesus goes on to speak of his followers as being “clean” (the adjective corresponding to the verb just used of the Father’s activity), and a little earlier he had said of those in the upper room, “you are clean, but not all,” a statement John explains by adding, “for he knew who was betraying him; for this reason he said, ‘You are not all clean’ ” (13:10–11). When the Father purges the vine of the “unclean” canes, he is ridding it of people like Judas, those who profess membership while in fact betraying all that Jesus stands for.18 Such have no place in the church.
There is also an activity in those who really are abiding in the vine. Those who bear fruit are cleansed so that they will bear more fruit. The grapevine, left to itself, will produce a few grapes and a riotous mass of foliage. The result may be interesting and decorative, but it is not fruitful. Jesus is telling us that the Father looks to those saved in Christ to live fruitful lives, not to produce flashy, ornamental achievements barren of effect. God’s pruning away of what is barren (no matter how aesthetically satisfying we find it) may well be painful. But it is a necessary part of living out the fulness of our salvation. We are saved not in order to indulge in spiritual hobbies of our own, but in order to produce fruit.
Worship
Early in his Gospel John tells the story of Jesus’ driving the traders from the temple. As he does so, he quotes the words of Jesus: “Take these things away from here; do not make my Father’s house into a house of trade” (2:16). From the beginning John lets his readers see that there is a dignity attaching to God and to the house of God. We are not to take lightly the place that is linked to the name of God.
Nor should we take lightly the way we worship. When the woman at the well puts her emphasis on the place where God is worshipped, Jesus tells her that a time is coming when God will be worshipped in neither of the places she is discussing. He goes on, “You worship you know not what. We worship what we know, for the salvation (i.e., the messianic salvation, not salvation in general) is from the Jews” (4:22).19 It is not enough to have a spirit of devotion, as doubtless many of the Samaritans did. It is important to take notice of what the Father requires of those who approach him. Jesus goes on to point out that the Father actively seeks those who worship “in spirit and in truth” (4:23). Indeed, those who worship “must” worship in this way (4:24). We should not pass over too quickly the fact that the Father “seeks” worshippers of this kind. This is a new note. Judaism knew of a God who would welcome the penitent sinner when he returned. But the thought that God actively seeks people who will worship in the right way is not to be found there. Judaism has no equivalent of this passage on worship or the Synoptic parable of the man with a hundred sheep.
On more than one occasion John records that Jesus prayed. He records his thanksgiving at the tomb of Lazarus (11:41–42) and the interesting occasion when Jesus looked at one possible prayer and prayed another. He asked, “What shall I say?” and suggested, “Father, save me from this hour.” He rejected this because “for this reason I came to this hour.” So he prayed, “Father, glorify your name” (12:27–28).20 The passage shows us something of Jesus’ prayerfulness, of the difficulty in the way of the Son’s understanding quite what he should do, and of his recourse to prayer as the way out of the difficulty.21
There are some interesting references to prayer during Jesus’ conversation with his disciples in the upper room on the eve of the crucifixion. He said to them, “I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, so that he may be with you for ever” (14:16). The parts played by the Father and the Son in the sending of the Spirit are difficult to untangle, for a little later Jesus said that he would send the Paraclete from the Father (15:26).22 We can certainly say that the sending of the Spirit involves them both, and that the Son’s prayer is important in this connection. And so is the Father’s consideration for the people saved by his Son. He would not leave them without the help they needed and would certainly respond to the Son’s prayer. We should probably understand Jesus’ later words, “I do not say to you that I will pray the Father for you” (16:26), in much the same way, since he adds, “for the Father himself loves you” (v. 27). Jesus is affirming in strong terms that the disciples may approach the Father in prayer with the greatest confidence. They might perhaps expect that Jesus would pray for them, and the passage is such that we cannot for one moment doubt that he would be ready to do this. But he assures them that the Father’s love makes this unnecessary. The Father and the Son are at one.
The prayer of the disciples is mentioned elsewhere in the same conversation. “Whatever you ask the Father in my name, he will give you”, said Jesus (15:16; almost the same words are used in 16:23). Interestingly, this is preceded by Jesus’ statement that he had chosen them and appointed them so that they should bear fruit in order that whatever they should ask the Father.… We usually think that we should pray in order that we may be fruitful, but here we have the thought that we should be fruitful in order that we may pray. We are prone to downgrade the importance of prayer. We say the right words about it, but so often use it as a means to an end, that of being better servants of God. These words of Jesus remind us both that we do not pray well unless we are fruitful and that the prayer that results from fruitfulness is important.
We should also, of course, bear in mind that the conversation in the upper room ends with the great prayer that John records in chapter 17.23 This prayer covers a wide range and embraces such thoughts as the glorification of the Son and the glorification of the Father as the Son’s work on earth comes to its consummation. The intimacy between the Father and the Son is reflected in the repeated use of “Father”. A noteworthy feature of the prayer is its stress on giving. The verb did mi, “to give”, is used 17 times in this prayer, with 13 of them referring to gifts the Father gave to the Son. From another point of view we see that the Father and the Son are involved together in the work of salvation for which the Son came to earth. The prayer contains petitions for the disciples who were there with Jesus, for they were about to face a terrible trial, and it is interesting that as Jesus faced the cross he gave thought to the effect this would have on his followers. He prayed also for those who would believe through their preaching, for the church through the ages.
The World
In a striking and well-known passage John tells us that God loved the world and gave his Son for it (3:16). But throughout this Gospel the world is pictured as not understanding what the Father has done. It is true that the world, in its religious form, claims that God is its Father (8:41), but Jesus points out to such “religious” people that if God were really their Father they would love him (8:42). It is the thought we see running right through this Gospel, that the Father has acted in Christ for the salvation of the world. When then people oppose and hate the Son, it is obvious that they belong to the world, that they are not really children of God. So it is that when the Pharisees ask Jesus, “Where is your Father?” Jesus replies, “You know neither me nor my Father; if you had known me, you would have known my Father too” (8:19). Since Jesus is in the world on a mission from the Father, and since he constantly does the Father’s will, it is not possible really to know God and yet to oppose him. The attitude of the Pharisees towards Jesus made it impossible to think that they really knew the Father.
Some scholars these days are sure that the Jesus of Saint John was not interested in those outside the little Christian group. Such writers often maintain that Jesus in this Gospel refuses to pray for the world, and cite 17:9 as evidence for this contention. Thus H. W. Montefiore says, “In the Fourth Gospel Christ does not pray for the world, only for his disciples and those who will believe through them. In the Fourth Gospel Christ does not die for the world. He lays down his life for his friends.”24 But this is to overlook two considerations. One is that it is not easy to see how Jesus could pray for “the world” as “world”. Could Jesus possibly pray that the world should be blessed in its worldliness? That it should go on from strength to strength in its opposition to God and its persecution of God’s people? Surely the only prayer that he could pray for “the world” is that it should cease to be “the world”. The second consideration is that that prayer he did pray, twice. He prayed that “the world may believe that you sent me” (17:21) and that it “may know that you sent me” (17:23). Both times he is praying that the world may come to recognize the Father’s hand in what he was doing, and that, of course, means that it ceases to be the world and comes to be numbered among the followers of him whom God sent.
“The Name”
In an earlier chapter we noticed that “the name” of Jesus was very important. Now we take notice of the fact that “the name” of the Father is also a very significant concept. As in the case of Jesus, “the name” stands for the entire person, so that in the passages we now consider it means the Father’s essential being, all that the Father is and does.
Sometimes we find that this concerns the mission of the Son (in this Gospel it is impossible to separate the work of the Son from that of the Father).25 The tragedy of the Jews was that, although Jesus had come “in the name” of his Father, they did not receive him (5:43). At the triumphal entry into the city of Jerusalem Jesus was greeted as him “that comes in the name of the Lord” (12:13). In line with this the works he did were works done “in the name of my Father” (10:25), so that at the end he could say, “I have manifested your name to the men whom you gave me” (17:6). With this we should take the words, “While I was with them, I kept them in your name” (17:12), and the prayer that the Father would keep them in his own name (17:11). It accords with the idea of revelation which runs through this Gospel that Jesus could also say, “I have made your name known to them, and I will make it known, so that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them” (17:26). This is a complex passage, but at the least we can say that Jesus’ making known of the name leads to the love of the Father being a reality in the inner being of the disciples.
We should add a couple of passages that speak of the Father’s concern. One occurs when he says that the Father will send the Spirit in his (the Son’s) name (14:26), and the other assures them that whatever they ask the Father in his (again, the Son’s) name the Father will give them (15:16). Both bring out the concern the Father has for his people and the provision he makes for them as they go forward on their earthly pilgrimage.
Eschatology
This Gospel is not noteworthy for an emphasis on the last time. John is more interested in the fact that the last time has been made present in the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. But he does not overlook the fact that the Father is Lord of the end as well as of the beginning. The Father raises the dead and gives them life (5:21), which probably refers to the spiritually dead and denotes an act in the here and now, but which may also apply to the end time. Again, Jesus says, “If anyone serves me, him will the Father honor” (12:26). This is true of the here and now, but it will reach its climax at the end of time. We should not overlook either the implications of Jesus’ words in the upper room: “I am coming again, and I will receive you to myself” (14:3), a passage on which Donald Guthrie comments, “this certainly appears to demand a future event to complement the statement about a going away”.26 The words emphasize the activity of the Son rather than the Father, but in the context the two are combined and we should see this here.
We should not overlook the fact that now and then this Gospel refers to judgment at the end time. This may refer to the action of the Son, as in the recurrent “I will raise him up in the last day” in the bread of life discourse (6:39, 40, 44, 54), though even here we cannot say that all action by the Father is excluded. Certainly he is involved elsewhere. Thus Jesus says that the Father judges no one but has committed all judgment to the Son (5:22), which certainly looks forward to what the Father has determined for Judgment Day. This is also in mind when Jesus says to some Jews, “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father” (5:45). There is, of course, a sense in which Jesus is a standing witness against unbelievers in the present life, but this passage seems to point forward to final judgment. We should probably discern something of the Father’s action also in the firm prediction that Jesus’ “word” will at the last day judge anyone who despises him (12:48). This also seems to be part of the meaning of the statement that the wrath of God “abides” on the disobedient sinner (3:36). The saying clearly points to what happens here and now, but it gives no hint that it is confined to this life.
1. G. S. Hendry points out that the passage “has commonly been taken to mean that God, being Spirit, is present everywhere and can be worshiped anywhere; the important thing is not where men worship, but how they worship.” This he denies. The meaning, he holds, is rather: “God is present in his own realm, to which man as such has no access. To worship God in spirit is not a possibility that is always and everywhere open to man.… The meaning is that the location has been redefined, and God is now to be worshiped in the place where he is present, i.e., in Him who is the truth incarnate” (The Holy Spirit in Christian Theology, London, 1957, pp. 31–32).
2. F. L. Godet remarks, “One can know everything else, not God! The perfect, heōrake, has seen, denotes a result, rather than an act, which would be indicated by the aorist: ‘No one is in possession of the sight of God, and consequently no one can speak of Him de visu.’ The full truth does not exist on earth before or outside of Jesus Christ; it truly came through Him” (Commentary on the Gospel of John, I, Grand Rapids, n.d., p. 280).
3. Floyd V. Filson says, “Nicodemus was convinced that only by God’s active power could Jesus do such signs” (Saint John, London, 1963, p. 45).
4. I have taken tēn agapēn tou theou to mean “the love they had for God” rather than “the love God had for them”. The Greek is, of course, open to either interpretation, but even if the latter be accepted, the people in question are blamed for “not having it in them”, which must mean that they had refused to respond. That God loved them is clear, but they did not respond to that love with an answering love, so however we translate, they are blamed because they had no real love for God.
5. There is no equivalent in a good deal of modern writing either. Thus in his book Concepts of Deity (London, 1971), H. P. Owen sets forth classical theism as teaching such things as “the unity of God”, “God the Creator”, etc. He has 12 such points, but he does not include any such heading as “God the Father”. In fairness it should be said that he is not trying to expound the biblical revelation, but it is interesting that in a book on God written from a Christian perspective there is nothing about God as Father.
6. The Theology of the Gospels (London, 1928), p. 99. Cf. Joseph Bonsirven, “This idea of the divine Fatherhood occupies a central position in the Revelation that Jesus brought to us.… Jesus contributed to this an unexpected novelty: he was the only Son of God. He became incarnate so that we should share his sonship …” (Theology of the New Testament, London, 1963, pp. 107–108).
7. The words are spoken in a context of the completion of the incarnation with all its implications of Jesus’ lowliness. His coming to earth involved a certain subordination, but the church seems never to have regarded this passage as teaching that the Son is inferior by nature to the Father.
8. E. C. Hoskyns sees little difference in the ultimate meaning whichever of the possible readings we accept. He says that the passage means: “The Father is the only source of the ultimate security of the believers in Jesus. They belong to Jesus because they have been given to Him by the Father” (The Fourth Gospel, London, 1947, p. 389).
9. Barnabas Lindars regards “his own Father” as “in contrast with the sense in which God is the Father of all men”; of Jesus’ suggestion that he was equal with God Lindars says, “Nothing could be more provocative to Jews who did not accept his claim. It was not only the ultimate folly to put oneself on a level with God, but absolute blasphemy” (The Gospel of John, London, 1972, p. 219).
10. John uses apostellō 17 times and pempō 24 times for the Father’s sending of the Son, a total of 41 times, a considerable total in a book of 21 chapters. See further pp. 102ff.
11. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (London, 1969), p. 341.
12. Knowing God (London, 1973), p. 181. He says later, “Our first point about adoption is that it is the highest privilege that the gospel offers” (p. 186).
13. An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London, 1958), p. 149.
14. ISBE, II, p. 511. C. F. D. Moule draws attention to the use of “Abba” (Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6) and reasons, “there is no need to doubt that it is a genuine word of Jesus; and, representing a form of address to human fathers, it reflects in Jesus an unprecedented simplicity and directness of approach to God” (IDB, II, p. 433). While the word itself is not recorded in John, this Gospel certainly gives evidence of this “unprecedented simplicity and directness of approach to God.”
15. Cf. Ronald A. Ward, “God is the Sustainer of the universe. To use a word common in Canada, He is its Operator. Jesus does not live in a naturalistic universe: the sun indeed rises regularly, but the uniformity is not self-working. God may work according to law, but it is He who works, not a substantial law. He causes His sun to rise … and He causes it to rain” (Royal Theology, London, 1964, p. 26).
16. W. F. Howard sees in these words “the theme of the Gospel.” He goes on, “It underlies all the teaching of the Epistles. The words are not to be understood as a disparagement of all the soaring imaginations of seekers after God in any age or race of men. Still less should we read into them a repudiation of all that had been spoken by prophetic seers in their fragmentary witness to Israel. Many had sought God, and had been found by Him. The uniqueness of the revelation in Christ is that in him we have the Way to the Father” (Christianity according to St. John, London, 1943, pp. 181–82).
17. It is possible to take the passage in the way RSV does: “In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?” But since John has not recorded any saying about Jesus preparing a place, it seems better to take the words “if it were not so, I would have told you” as a parenthesis or a plain statement.
18. C. K. Barrett has a twofold application: “The original branches in God’s vine were the Jews; these, being unfruitful (unbelieving), God removed … but en emoi shows that his primary thought was of apostate Christians” (The Gospel according to St. John2, Philadelphia, 1978, p. 473).
19. R. C. H. Lenski comments, “Though in the Greek abstract nouns may have the article as a matter of course, here ‘the salvation’ denotes the specific and only salvation contemplated in God’s promises and to be realized in his incarnate Son. This salvation is in no way promised to the Samaritans, so that it would emanate from their midst, but to the Jews alone. The Messiah could not be a Samaritan, he had to be a Jew” (The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel, Columbus, 1956, pp. 320–21).
20. There are some who hold that Jesus actually prayed, “Father, save me from this hour”, then added, “for this reason I came to this hour”; he then changed his prayer to “Father, glorify your name.” See William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, Exposition of the Gospel according to John, II (Grand Rapids, 1954), pp. 198–201. But it is better to see a consistency of purpose in the sequence I have outlined.
21. William Barclay brings out something of the courage of Jesus as he prayed this prayer: “No one wishes to die; no one wishes to die at thirty-three; and no one wishes to die upon a cross. There would have been no virtue in Jesus’ obedience to God at all, if it had come easily and without cost. Real courage does not mean not being afraid. There is no virtue in doing a thing if to do it is an easy thing. Real courage means to be terribly afraid, and yet to do the thing that ought to be done” (The Gospel of John, II, Edinburgh, 1956, p. 146).
22. Gary M. Burge speaks of John as placing the two views, that the Father would send the Spirit and that the Son would send him, “in direct tension.” But, “As Brown comments, there is no theological tension here. Jesus and the Father are one (10:30), and John’s point is the divine agency of the Paraclete” (The Anointed Community, Grand Rapids, 1987, p. 203).
23. G. A. Turner and J. R. Mantey comment, “We now come to the ‘throne room,’ to the ‘holy of holies’ of this ‘Spiritual Gospel’ ”, and go on to remark that “This chapter is to the Fourth Gospel what the central spire is to a Gothic cathedral; it unifies and dominates the whole. Here, more than any other one spot, the reader is truly on ‘holy ground’ ” (The Gospel according to John, Grand Rapids, n.d., p. 332). This may be a trifle exuberant, but it draws attention to the fact that this chapter is very important.
24. Awkward Questions on Christian Love (Philadelphia, 1964), p. 106. So also E. Käsemann complains that “It is not even universally recognized that John demands love for one’s brethren, but not for one’s enemies, and correspondingly that Jesus loves his own, but not the world” (The Testament of Jesus, London, 1968, p. 59). This is surely a perversion of the teaching of this Gospel (cf. 3:16).
25. Cf. R. Abba, “Christ’s claim to have come in his Father’s name means as the Father’s representative (John 5:43). His works done in that name bear witness to the Father’s authority, which he shares (10:25). In him there has been given to men the complete revelation of the divine nature: he has manifested and declared the name of God (12:28; 17:6, 26)” (IDB, III, p. 506).
26. New Testament Theology (Leicester, 1981), pp. 800–801.