7."I Go to the Father" (14:25-31)

7."I Go to the Father" (14:25-31)

JOHN 14

3. Christ, The Way (14:1-7)

I "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God^a; trust also in me. 2In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4You know the way to the place where I am going." 5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way? " 6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know^b my Father as well. From now on you do know him and have seen him."

a. 1 Or You trust in God

b. 7 Some early manuscripts If you really have known me, you will know

Jesus looks beyond the trouble the disciples are about to experience and reassures them. They need not be troubled in heart: he is going to prepare a place in heaven for them. And he is the means of bringing them to the Father.

1 If the present imperative¹ is significant its meaning will be "stop being troubled." Jesus is not urging trouble-free men not to begin to worry. He is talking to men whose hearts² are far from tranquil. We should not be misled by the chapter division; these words are to be taken in close connection with the preceding. Peter has been thrown into consternation at the prediction of his threefold denial of Jesus, and we cannot doubt that this had its effect on the others also. If Peter was to deny Jesus, did not that mean that some great trial was imminent? Moreover, Jesus had spoken of his impending departure, a departure to a place where they could not follow him. To men who had left everything for their Leader, to be told that he is about to leave them is shattering.³ They are all very disturbed. And Jesus knows that within a few short hours they will be even more disturbed. So he tells them to be calm.

The meaning of the second part of the verse is uncertain because of the ambiguity of the Greek twice rendered "trust,"⁴ a verb that may be either imperative or indicative in each case. This means that the expression may be translated in any one of a bewildering variety of ways. It might mean, "You believe in God, you also believe in me," or "Believe in God, believe also in me." Or we could translate, "You believe in God, believe also in me," or even "Believe in God, you also believe in me" (though the "also" makes this rendering rather difficult). It is also possible to take some of these as interrogafives: for example, "Do you believe in God? Believe also in me." Or "You believe in God. Do you also believe in me?" Or we could put a comma after the first word: "Believe, believe in God and also in me" (cf. Moffatt, "You believe — believe in God, believe also in me"). Against the rendering of KJV, "Ye believe in God, believe also in me," it may be urged that, as John understands it, faith in Jesus is not something additional to faith in God,⁵ to be exercised by those who choose to do so. Rather, since Jesus is the revelation of God, and there is no way to the Father but through him (v. 6), faith in the Father in any meaningful sense is impossible apart from faith in him. But this leaves us with quite a few possibilities. In view of the preceding imperative it seems best to take both forms as imperative. Jesus is then urging his followers to continue to believe in the Father and to continue to believe also in him, and in this way not to let their hearts be troubled. Yet it must be admitted that other ways of taking the words are possible. Perhaps we have here another example of John's habit of using expressions that can be understood in more ways than one, with a view to calling to mind what each means. We should not miss the challenge implied in the call to have faith in Jesus himself. It is one thing for the disciples to have faith in the God who acted in days of old. It is another to have faith in the Jesus who stands before them, especially when he is even then being betrayed by one of his followers and about to be denied three times by the chief of them, abandoned by the rest, and crucified by his enemies. To call for faith in these circumstances is not to utter a platitude.

2 "My Father's house" clearly refers to heaven.⁶ The meaning of "rooms"⁷ is not so clear. It seems better to understand the term as "permanent residences" than as "steps along the way of development." The idea of continuing development in the next world, though attractive and possibly true, is not taught in Scripture. The bliss and permanence of heaven, however, are taught, and it seems that it is this to which Jesus is now referring. Another suggestion is that the reference is to progress in this life; Christ has provided many a resting place and place of refreshment for those who move along life's way. The objection to this is that "my Father's house" is scarcely a recognizable description of this world. Moreover, the imagery of temporary resting places, or stages along a journey, within a "house" is very difficult. It is much more likely to be "rooms" or "places of residence." "Many" should not be misinterpreted as though it signified all. "The phrase means that there is room and to spare for all the redeemed in heaven" (Richardson). "If it were not so"⁸ underlines this point. There is not the slightest doubt about it, otherwise Jesus' teaching would have been very different. The punctuation of NIV is favored by many, but some delete the full stop after "you" and understand the passage as Rieu, "Were this not so, should I have told you that I am on my way to prepare a place for you?"⁹ (so Phillips, Knox, NRSV; but GNB, REB, and others agree with NIV ).The big difficulty in Rieu's way of taking the passage is that Jesus is not recorded as having previously said this. This is not a fatal objection, for many sayings of Jesus have not been recorded (cf. 21:25). But we ought not to call on this possibility if a better one lies ready to hand, as it does here. We should probably take the words "if it were not so, I would have told you" as a parenthesis. The sense of the verse is then "In my Father's house are many rooms (if it were not so, I would have told you), for I go to prepare a place for you." All the preceding is shown to be true in that now Jesus goes¹⁰ to prepare their place¹¹.

3 This has consequences. If Jesus goes for such a purpose he returns (the use of the present introduces a note of greater certainty).¹² The reference to the Second Advent should not be missed. It is true that John does not refer to this as often as do most other New Testament writers, but it is not true that it is missing from his pages. This is not to deny that John uses the idea of "coming" in more senses than one, nor that in a very real sense Jesus comes to his followers in the here-and-now. But the thought is not confined to this life. Now and then John does look forward to the Parousia. Nothing is said about the nature of the place that Christ prepares. It is sufficient for believers that we will be with our Lord.¹³

4 The shorter text in NIV is almost certainly correct.¹⁴ The longer reading, "and whither I go ye know, and the way ye know" (KJV), is more sonorous. The shorter text almost invites expansion, whereas the longer is not naturally abbreviated. Jesus is asserting¹⁵ that they know how to follow him. He has been showing them the way in the whole body of his teaching. If they follow that way, they will come where he is.

5 This leads Thomas (see on 11:16) into an expression of perplexity. He wants the position to be clear, and will not let Jesus' words stand as though he understands them when he does not. The man's fundamental honesty shines through his words. He says that he and his companions do not know where Jesus is going (cf. Peter's question, 13:36). Has Jesus himself not said that they cannot come there (13:33, 36)? How then do they know the way? The whole thing is impossible.

6 Jesus now introduces a somewhat different topic. He has been talking about leaving the disciples, and it is with this that Thomas is concerned. But Jesus is to go to the Father (13:3; 16:5, 10, 17), and he now speaks of the way¹⁶ ("way" is emphasized by repetition, vv. 4, 5, 6). He not only shows people the way (i.e., by revealing it), but he is the way (i.e., he redeems us). In this connection "the truth" (see Additional Note D, pp. 259-62) will have saving significance. It will point to Jesus' utter dependability, but also to the saving truth of the gospel. "The life" (see on 1:4) will likewise take its content from the gospel. Jesus is both life and the source of life to believers.¹⁷ All this is followed by the explicit statement that no one comes to the Father other than through Christ. "Way," "truth," and "life" all have relevance,¹⁸ the triple expression emphasizing the manysidedness of the saving work. "Way" speaks of a connection between two persons or things, and here the link between God and sinners. "Truth" reminds us of the complete reliability of Jesus in all that he does and is. And "life" stresses the fact that mere physical existence matters little. The only life worth the name is that which Jesus brings, for he is life itself. Jesus is asserting in strong terms the uniqueness and the sufficiency of his work for sinners. We should not overlook the faith involved both in the utterance and in the acceptance of those words, spoken as they were on the eve of the crucifixion. "I am the Way," said one who would shortly hang impotent on a cross. "I am the Truth," when the lies of evil people were about to enjoy a spectacular triumph. "I am the Life," when within a matter of hours his corpse would be placed in a tomb.

7 The conditional construction implies that the disciples have not really known¹⁹ Christ, and accordingly that they have not known the Father.²⁰ In a sense, of course, they had known Jesus. They had known him well enough to leave their homes and friends and livelihood to follow him wherever he went. But they did not know him in his full significance. Really to know him is to know his Father. Until now all has been preparation. They have not really come to the full knowledge of Jesus and his significance. But from now on it is to be different. For they know²¹ him and have seen him.²² This is to be understood in terms of 1:18, "No one has ever seen God, but God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." God cannot be seen in the literal sense, but to know Jesus fully is to see the heavenly Father. We should not miss the advance on Old Testament teaching. Throughout die Old Testament, as Dodd has pointed out,²³ the knowledge of God is not normally claimed. It is looked for as a future blessing, or people may be urged to know God, but it is very rare indeed to find assertions that people know God (as in Ps. 36:10). John sees this whole situation as changed in Christ. As a result of what he has done ("From now on") his followers really know God. It is a revolution both in religious experience and in theological understanding.

4. The Father and the Son (14:8-14)

8.Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." 9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such α. long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me ? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. "

A question from Philip opens the way for some teaching on the intimate relation existing between Jesus and the Father. The two are so closely connected that anyone who has seen the Son has seen the Father. Since this has consequences for the prayer life of the disciples, Jesus proceeds to bring some of them out.

8 Philip (see on 1:43) is attracted by the words about seeing the Father. It seems to him that really to see the Father might well be the end of many a difficulty. So he asks Jesus to show them the Father. "That's all we want," he says. He is apparently looking for a theophany such as we find from time to time in the Old Testament (Exod. 24:10; 33:17ff.; Isa. 6:1). See on 2:20 for John's habit of using misunderstandings as a way of introducing further explanation.

9 Jesus' reply is a gentle rebuke. Though Jesus has been with them all ("you" is plural) for "such a long time," Philip has not really known him. "Such a long time"²⁴ is not defined with precision, but it indicates a ministry of some duration. Philip²⁵ might have been expected to know more about Jesus than he did. His question reveals the limitations of his knowledge. And now comes the explanation, staggering in its simplicity and its profundity. To see Jesus is to see the Father (cf. 12:45; 13:20).²⁶ This means that Jesus is the revelation of the Father. In 1:18 Jesus is said to have declared the Father. If anything this goes further. It is difficult to interpret it without seeing the Father and the Son as in some sense one. These are words that no mere human has the right to use. There is some emphasis on "you" ("how can you say . . . ?"). Philip, being one of the apostolic band, one of Jesus' intimates, might have been expected to know better.

10 Now comes a statement about the mutual interpenetration of the Father and the Son. Each is "in" the other, and this is put as something that Philip might have been expected to believe; the question, "Don't you believe . . . ?" looks for the answer "Yes." In 10:38 even "the Jews" might have been expected to believe in some sense; much more an intimate disciple. Apparently it was Jesus' teaching that should have brought this home to Philip, for Jesus goes on immediately to speak of his words. These are not merely of human origin (cf. 7:17, etc.). Jesus says, "The words I say to you I do not speak²⁷ from myself" (NIV gives the sense, but not an exact translation). Then, when we expect something like "but the Father abiding in me speaks the words," we get instead, "the Father... does his works" (see Additional Note G, pp. 607-13). Throughout this Gospel the deeds are "signs," and the words are God in action. The deeds and the words of Jesus are both a revelation of God. Both proceed from the Father and reveal what the Father is like. Though from a human point of view Jesus does them, they are said to be done by the Father (i.e., through Jesus), and they are called "his" works. "Living" points to a permanent relation. The argument is much like that in 10:38 and forms another example of John's habit of using minor variations in repeated statements.

11 Believe me "that" (NIV, "when I say that") is significant. In modem times it is often stressed that faith is not merely adherence to certain intellectual propositions, but rather trust in a living person. This may be conceded without any implication that the content of faith is unimportant. While it is true that the New Testament looks for a vital faith in a living person, it is also true that this is not a blind credulity. Faith has an intellectual content. So here Jesus calls on Philip and the others (the verb is plural) to believe him,²⁸ not only to believe in him. Faith includes the recognition that what Jesus says is true. Jesus also calls on Philip to believe "that." We might well ask where faith in Christ would be without the idea that Jesus is worthy of faith. Faith that there is a mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son²⁹ is part of the faith whereby one commits oneself to Christ. If there is no such indwelling there can scarcely be full commitment.

The last part of the verse draws attention to Jesus' miracles (for the appeal to the miracles cf. 5:36; 10:25, 38). As elsewhere in this Gospel, faith on the basis of miracles is better than no faith at all. This is not really a contradiction of the temptation narrative that we see in the Synoptic Gospels. There Jesus resisted the temptation to be a miracle worker performing wonders that would bludgeon people into belief. In John the characteristic of the miracles is not that they are wonders, nor that they show mighty power, but that they are "signs." For those who have eyes to see they point people to God. The miracles are spoken of here as "works" (NIV actually translates as "miracles," but the word means "works"). What for us is a miracle is for Jesus nothing more than a normal work. See further Additional Note G, pp. 607-13.

12 For the solemn "I tell you the truth" see on 1:51; it underlines the following statement as important. "Anyone who has faith in me" (for the construction see on 1:12) stresses personal commitment; Jesus is not talking about the merely formal believer. He goes on to say that anyone who really trusts him will do the works that he does, and greater things than these.³⁰ The reason for this is that Jesus "goes"³¹ to the Father; in other words, his saving work is consummated. This is probably to be explained in terms of the coming of the Holy Spirit, who will not come until the Son goes away (16:7; cf. 7:39). What Jesus means we may see in the narratives in Acts. There there are a few miracles of healing, but the emphasis is on the mighty works of conversion.³² On the day of Pentecost alone more believers were added to the little band of Jesus' followers than throughout his entire earthly life. There we see a literal fulfillment of doing "even greater things than these." During his life-time the Son of God was confined in his influence to a comparatively small sector in Palestine. After his departure his followers were able to influence much larger numbers of people and to work in widely scattered places. But they did it all on the basis of Christ's return to the Father. They were in no sense acting independently of him. On the contrary, in doing their "greater things" they were but his agents.

13 This leads directly to the importance of prayer. Whatever³³ the disciples ask³⁴ in his name³⁵ Christ will do. This does not mean simply using the name as a formula. It means that prayer is to be in accordance with all that that name stands for. It is prayer proceeding from faith in Christ, prayer that gives expression to oneness with Christ, prayer that seeks to glorify Christ. And the purpose of it all is the glory of God, a glory that is "in the Son" (NIV rewords the sentence to make "the Son" the subject; NRSV is better here, "so that the Father may be glorified in the Son"). The two are inseparable, as throughout this paragraph. That is why prayer may be addressed to either. It is a characteristic Johannine thought that the Father and the Son are so intimately related that what one does the other does also. We should not overlook the importance of the fact that Christ says that he himself will answer prayer.³⁶

14 There is no object to the verb "ask" in verse 13, so that it is not certain whether it is Christ or the Father who is to be asked (though it is Christ who will "do" the response). Since the subject is prayer it is perhaps more natural that we should think of the Father as the object, and we expect the same to be true of this verse. However, the true text appears to be, "if you ask me anything in my name." Prayer may be addressed to the Son as well as to the Father, but it is still "in my name." The basic condition is the same. Praying to Christ in his own name may be thought to be difficult, but there is good Old Testament precedent in that the Father is appealed to "for the sake of your name" (e.g., Ps. 25:11; 79:9). As in the previous verse, the prayer will be answered by Christ himself. Indeed, there is some emphasis on this.³⁷ "Anything" makes this promise very wide indeed. There is no limit to the power of prayer. Passing from verse 13 to this verse, we notice the characteristic Johannine habit of introducing slight variations when a statement is repeated.³⁸

5. The Corning of the Spirit (14:15-17)

15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be^a in you."

a. 17 Some early manuscripts and is

This passage introduces the first of an important series of references to the Holy Spirit (14:26; 15:26; 16:7-15). Little is said about him in the earlier part of the Gospel, but his work is spoken of in each of chapters 14, 15, and 16. The important point made in this passage is that when Jesus goes away the Spirit will be with his followers. They will not be left without resource.

15 Jesus' previous words have emphasized the importance of believing and have given the disciples a tremendous promise about what they would receive through prayer. There is a change now with an emphasis on love (the verb occurs eight times in vv. 15-24). Jesus follows the promise of verse 14 with a reminder of the ethical implications of being his follower. If anyone really loves Jesus, then that love will be shown in keeping his commandments. There is a certain emphasis on "my commandments" (NIV, "what I command").³⁹ It is a thought to which Jesus returns (v. 21). The present tense is probably significant. He is talking about a continuing attitude of love.⁴⁰

16 For those who are serious about their commitment to him, those who both love him and keep his commandments, Jesus promises that he⁴¹ will pray.⁴² And the effect of his prayer is that the Father will give the disciples "another⁴³ Counselor." Jesus' bodily presence was about to be withdrawn from them. Never again would they know the warm intimate companionship of the days of his earthly ministry. But this does not mean that they will be bereft. "Another Counselor" will be with them. Traditionally the noun has been translated "Comforter,"⁴⁴ But its modern associations render this word unsuited to conveying the meaning of the Greek term. The thought is rather that of the advocacy of one's cause than of comforting in our sense of the term; modern translations favor "Advocate" (Rieu, REB) or "Counselor" (as NIV). The word means a friend, especially a legal friend. See further Additional Note F, pp. 587-91. The Counselor will be with the disciples "forever."⁴⁵ The new state of affairs will be permanent. The Spirit once given will not be withdrawn.

17 The Advocate is now called "the Spirit of truth" (cf. 15:26; 16:13)⁴⁶ It is interesting to see the Spirit associated with truth, for we have just had Jesus describe himself as "the truth" (v. 6), and we earlier learned that those who worship the Father must do so "in truth" (4:23-24). Clearly troth is very closely associated with the Godhead. The expression probably means "the Spirit who communicates truth" (Barrett). Jesus then proceeds to contrast the world with the disciples in their attitudes to the Spirit. First he tells them that the world (see Additional Note B, pp. 111-13) "cannot⁴⁷ accept" the Spirit. This is a strong expression.⁴⁸ It is further explained as that the world neither sees nor knows him. "Sees" is equivalent to "perceives." The world is quite unaware of the Spirit's activities. Therefore it does not know him. It enters into no personal relations with him. But it is not so with the disciples. They⁴⁹ do know him. The present, "he lives with⁵⁰ you," indicates a continuing reality,⁵¹ just as "will be in you" means a future certainty.⁵²

6. The Manifestation of Christ to the Disciples (14:18-24)

18 "1 will not leave you as orphans: I will come to you. 19Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because 1 live, you also will live. 20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." 22Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, "But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?" 23Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me."

Arising out of the thought that the Spirit will be within the disciples though the world does not even recognize his existence, Jesus goes on to speak of the way he will manifest himself to the disciples but not to the world. The relationship of Jesus to his followers is one that the worldly cannot appreciate. Christians "know" Christ with the fullest meaning that that word will take. But the world has no knowledge of him at all.

18 Jesus has several times spoken of going away from the disciples (13:33, 36; 14:2ff.). He has also said that he will come back again (v. 3), though we have seen that the thought there is primarily that of the second coming. Now Jesus takes up the thought of a return to the disciples that will meet their immediate need. "Orphans"⁵³ harmonizes with the address "children" (13:33). Jesus will not⁵⁴ leave⁵⁵ the disciples to battle their way through the world alone. He assures them that he will come to them, the present tense giving greater certainty (see on v. 3). It is true, as many commentators point out, that he comes in the coming of the Holy Spirit. But here Jesus is surely referring to the post-resurrection appearances.⁵⁶

19 "Before long" (the Greek means "yet a little while"; see on 13:33) is a further indication that Jesus is not speaking of events in the remote future. The crucifixion is very near now. It will mean a sharp division between "the world" and the disciples. After Jesus' death the world will see him no more. Physically he will be removed from them, and spiritually they have never approached him. With the disciples it will be different. The crucifixion will indeed separate them from him, but this will be only for a little while. "You will see me" (the verb is actually present) is difficult. The crucifixion meant the same separation for them as for the world. They then saw Jesus no more than the world did. Probably we should understand the saying to look right through the crucifixion to the resurrection. Certainly that is in mind at the end of the verse. After being taken from them Jesus will "live." And his living has implications for them.⁵⁷ His resurrection is the guarantee that they will not be overcome by death.⁵⁸ His life means life for them (cf. 6:57). In the Johannine manner the saying probably has a deeper reference. Throughout history it has always been the case that the world has not "seen" Christ, though his followers have done so.

20 "On that day" is not defined, but apparently we must understand it of the day of Jesus' resurrection. Another suggestion is that the reference is to the coming of the Holy Spirit, but if this is accepted it must be in the sense of 20.22, where the Spirit was in some sense given on the day of resurrectior.. All this will give the disciples certainty, a certainty based on Christ's indwelling in God and the mutual indwelling of Christ and believers. When he is risen they will know the truth of his relationship to the Father and they will know that he is in them and they in him.

21 Once again love to Christ is expressed in ethical terms (see v. 15). The man who loves Christ is the one who "has" his commands and "obeys" them. To "have" commandments is an unusual expression and does not seem to be exactly paralleled (though cf. 1 John 4:21). The meaning appears to be to make the commandments one's own, to take them into one's inner being. Jesus speaks not only of "having" the commandments but also of "keeping" them. This means that it is more important to obey them in daily life than to have a firm intellectual grasp of their content.⁵⁹ This does not mean that the Father's love is merited by this obedience: in the first place Jesus is saying that love for him is not only a matter of words; if it is real it is shown by deeds. The lover does what the loved one asks. In the second place he is saying that the Father is not indifferent to the attitude people take toward the Son. This does not mean that God hands out rewards on the basis of merit, but rather that love calls to love. Not only will such people be loved by the Father,⁶⁰ but Jesus will love them too. He further says that he will "show"⁶¹ himself to them. He does not explain this, but simply says that in some undefined way he will reveal himself to those who love him.

22 This provokes a question from Judas, who is expressly distinguished from Iscariot. This is the one place where this apostle is mentioned in this Gospel. He is mentioned once in Luke and once in Acts, from which we learn that he was the son (or perhaps brother) of James (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). He may be the same person as Thaddeus (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18). Very little is known about him. Incidentally the repeated interruptions of this solemn discourse, as the disciples put the questions that puzzle them, illustrates graphically the fact that they were indeed the "friends" of Jesus (15:14-5) and were perfectly at home with him. Judas now voices what must have been the perplexity of the whole band. He asks what has happened⁶² (in view of Jesus' words we might perhaps have anticipated a future) that Jesus will manifest himself to the disciples⁶³ and not⁶⁴ to the world. Evidently he understands "show" as "show physically." Like the Jews in general he expects the Messiah to stand forth in all his glory before all the people. The way he puts it seems to imply that he now thinks that something has happened to disrupt Jesus' planned program.

23 The answer to Judas's question is love. As in verses 15 and 21, Jesus insists that love to him will be expressed in deeds. Anyone who truly loves Jesus will keep his word (cf. 8:51; 17:6). This leads to the further thoughts that the Father will love that person and that both the Father and the Son will come to make⁶⁵ their home with him or her.⁶⁶ "Home"⁶⁷ will have its full force. Jesus is not speaking of a temporary place of lodging, but of a permanent dwelling. Elsewhere we read that God is love, that no one has ever seen God, and that if anyone abides in love that person abides in God (1 John 4:12, 16). The thought here is akin to that. John is not thinking of the second coming, nor of the postresurrection appearances, but of that state of believers in which they experience the immediate presence of the Deity.⁶⁸

24 The negative side of the same thing now receives expression. Those who do not love Christ do not keep his teaching.⁶⁹ Love is not regarded in this Gospel as an abstract emotion but as something intensely practical. It involves obedience. The seriousness of this is brought out with the reminder that the word Jesus preaches is not his own, but that of the Father (cf. 7:16; 8:28; 12:49). There can be no higher authority. Characteristically the Father is spoken of as the one who sent the Son (see on 3:17). The mission of Christ is never far from view in this Gospel. And it points to the permanence of God's purpose of love.

7. "I Go to the Father" (14:25-31)

25 "All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27PeaceI leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. 28You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. 301 will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, 31but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me. Come now; let us leave."

This section of the discourse closes with a renewed emphasis on Jesus' going away and its consequences for the disciples. These consequences are not put in terms of sorrow and the like, as we might have anticipated, but of blessing. The Holy Spirit will be active in the believers. Christ's peace will remain among them. They should rejoice at the prospect of Christ's being with his Father.

25 "These things" (NIV, "All this") will mean the words of this discourse rather than the whole of the teaching of Jesus.⁷⁰ "While still with you" indicates that Jesus' earthly time with them was near its end. There may also be something of a contrast with "we will... make our home with him" (v. 23).

26 This is the fullest description of the Spirit to be found in this Gospel. For "the Counselor" see Additional Note F, pp. 587-91. In the previous passage he was called "the Spirit of truth"; now he is entitled "the Holy Spirit."⁷¹ This characteristic designation, found throughout the New Testament, does not draw attention to the power of the Spirit, his greatness, or the like. For the first Christians the important thing was that he is holy. His character mattered most of all. This verse shows him to be closely related to both the Father and the Son. He is to be sent by the Father, but in the name of the Son. In 15:26 he is sent by the Son from the Father. Probably no great difference should be put between these ways of putting it; John has a tendency to vary statements a little when they are repeated. What he is saying in both places is that the Spirit's mission derives exclusively neither from the Father nor the Son. It comes from both. For "in my name" see on verse 13. Here it can scarcely mean that the disciples ask in Christ's name. He may mean that he himself will ask (as in v. 16), or perhaps that the Spirit will be sent to continue the work of Christ, to be in his place⁷² ("if he is sent in Jesus' name, he is Jesus' emissary [not simply his substitute, contra Brown . . .]," Carson). The particular function of the Spirit stressed here is that of teacher.⁷³ "All things" is comprehensive and probably means "all that you will need to know." The Spirit is to be the guide and teacher of the church. This does not mean that he will make new revelations; rather he will bring back to the disciples' memory all the things that Jesus⁷⁴ had told them. John has made it clear that the disciples did not grasp the significance of much that their Master taught them. It seems likely that they let slip some of the things they did not understand. Jesus is now saying that the Holy Spirit will supply their lack. The things of which he will remind them are the things that Jesus has spoken⁷⁵ to them. In other words, the Spirit will not dispense with the teaching of Jesus. The teaching to be recalled is his.

27 In a way this verse introduces a new subject. There has been no talk of peace until now. But in another way there is nothing new, for the peace that Jesus gives is the natural result of the presence within people of the Holy Spirit of whom Jesus has been speaking. Peace is Jesus' bequest⁷⁶ to his disciples. Peace was commonly used at this time as a word of greeting (20:19, 21, 26) or of farewell. It thus comes in aptly in this final discourse of our Lord's. But the expression used here is not the usual formula of farewell; Jesus is using the term in his own way and for his own purpose. The repetition of "peace" is impressive.⁷⁷ The concept is important. Having stated positively what he gives, Jesus goes on to differentiate this gift from anything that the world can give. When the world uses "Peace" in a greeting it expresses a hope. It can do no more. And even that it usually does in no more than a conventional sense like our "Good-bye" (= "God be with you"). But Christ effectually gives people peace. Moreover, the peace of which he speaks is not dependent on outward circumstances, as any peace the world can give must necessarily be. Because he gives⁷⁸ people such a peace Jesus can enjoin them not to be troubled in heart⁷⁹ nor cowardly.⁸⁰ A Christ-given serenity excludes both. In the Bible "peace'' is given a wider and deeper meaning than in other Greek writings. For the Greeks (as for us) peace was essentially negative, the absence of war. But for the Hebrews it meant positive blessing, especially a right relationship with God. This is to be seen in the Old Testament, and it is carried over into the New.⁸¹ The word here has its fullest content.

28 Jesus recalls his teaching of verse 3 that he will go away⁸² and come again. This had perturbed the disciples at the time, and Jesus had dealt with their question and perplexities. Now he returns to the thought of his impending departure. If they really loved him, this would have been a matter for rejoicing (the Greek conditional implies that they neither loved nor rejoiced),⁸³ not for consternation. The thought that Jesus goes to the Father is not one to cause sorrow. It is a joyful thought. "The Father is greater than I" presents difficulties to those who hold a trinitarian faith. The reference, however, is not to Christ's essential being, but to his incarnate state. The incarnation involved the acceptance of a certain subordination, as is insisted upon throughout the New Testament. The words must be understood in the light of "I and the Father are one" (10:30).⁸⁴ John is not asserting, as the Arians maintained, that Jesus was a created being. He is talking about the departure of the human Jesus from this earth to be with the Father. In the light of this Jesus sees it as a matter for rejoicing that he returns to the Father. True love will recognize this.

29 Jesus' words will have a greater effect in the future. When the things of which he speaks actually come to pass the disciples will recall the words and believe. This last verb probably means more than give credence to the words of Jesus. They will trust⁸⁵ their Master all the more when they see his words verified. For the thought of this verse cf. 13:19.

30 These words would suit the close of Jesus' discourse, but they do not, as some advocates of rearranging these chapters maintain, require it.⁸⁶ As a matter of fact, he could have put these words at the very beginning of the entire final discourse. The reason given for the cessation of Jesus' teaching is the coming of Satan. The human agents are not forgotten, but they receive no stress. In the coming of Judas and the soldiers Jesus saw the coming of the evil one. He was especially active in the crucifixion. There the forces of good and evil were engaged. For "the prince of this world" see on 12:31. The meaning of "He has no hold on me" in detail is not easy to understand, though the general sense is clear enough. It is sin that gives Satan his hold on people, but there is no sin in Jesus as there is in others. Perhaps "There is no point at which he can take hold" is somewhere near the sense of it (Tenney cites the colloquial "Has nothing on me"; EBC).⁸⁷

31 There is dispute as to the correct punctuation of this verse. It has been suggested that we place a comma instead of a full stop after "even so I do" (NIV, "I do exactly") to give the sense, "but that the world may know . . . arise, let us go."⁸⁸ This cannot be ruled out as impossible, but NIV seems to give the better sense. In other places Jesus lays on his followers the necessity for obedience if they are to show their love (vv. 15, 21, 23). Now he says that he does the same thing himself (see on 4:34). "I do exactly . .." might refer to the whole of Jesus' life. From first to last he was obedient to the Father's commands.⁸⁹ But in this context we should probably think particularly of the cross. Jesus is about to die in obedience to the command of his Father,⁹⁰ and this will demonstrate to the world⁹¹ that he loves the Father.⁹² "Come now; let us leave"⁹³ is curious at this stage of the discourse. It has been a major factor in inducing many scholars to think of a dislocation of the material in these chapters. But this does not necessarily follow. It is not impossible that the words were followed immediately by action, so that, as many interpreters held in earlier days and some still do (e.g., Haenchen, though on 15:1 he says this "is not a realistic picture"), the words in the following two chapters were spoken as the little band walked to Gethsemane. A variant is that they were spoken at a halt somewhere along the way, possibly at the Temple. But such hypotheses are not necessary. Anyone who has tried to get a group of a dozen or so people to leave a particular place at a particular time will appreciate that it takes more than the brief exhortation "let us leave" to accomplish this. There is nothing at all unlikely in an interval between the uttering of the words and the departure of the group. And if an interval, then there is no reason why Jesus should not have continued to speak during it.

But it is more likely, as Lightfoot thinks, that we should take the words about departing as marking a stage in the teaching. The stages leading up to the passion "consist, on one side, of the external events of the passion, and, on the other, of internal resolution and self-dedication by the Lord, as He increasingly imparts Himself to His disciples. This paragraph will then rep-resent the close of one such stage, on the internal side; and it is noteworthy that, whereas at its close, in His devotion and obedience to the Father, He invites the disciples to arise and act along with Him, the first person plural being used, at the close of the next instruction He is the only Agent in the conquest of the world (16³³); the first person singular alone is used." Hoskyns and Dodd also see in the words a pause in the discourse rather than a change of scene. Most of our trouble is caused by our natural inclination to expect the writer to arrange his material in accordance with our modern standards of logic and coherence. But John has his own standards, and he arranges his work to produce effects in his own way. All theories of dislocation and rearrangement come up against the difficulty that the final redactor must have seen the meaning of the words at the end of this chapter just as clearly as we do. Yet he retained (or created!) the present order. By far the simplest proceeding appears to be to take the narrative as it stands, and recognize a major division in the discourse at the end of this chapter.⁹⁴

ADDITIONAL NOTE F: THE PARACLETE

The Greek adjective παράκλητος, being passive in form, should have the meaning, "called to the side of" (i.e., for the purpose of helping). As a substantive it was used (though not often),⁹⁵ like its Latin equivalent advocatus, as a legal term indicating the counsel for the defense. Thus LS defines the word in this way: "called to one's aid, in a court of justice: as Subst., legal assistant, advocate" (the other meanings given are "summoned" and "intercessor"). Westcott in a valuable Additional Note (II, pp. 188ff.) points out that the form of the word is "unquestionably passive" and that the classical use "is equally clear. The word is used technically for the 'advocates' of a party in a cause, and specially for advocates for the defence." He finds a similar usage in rabbinic writers⁹⁶ and in early Christian writings like the Epistle of Barnabas. Strangely, however, the Greek Fathers seem normally to have used the word in the active sense, "consoler," "comforter." No reason appears to be given for this, and, though one must always pay respect to the Greek Fathers in their interpretation of a Greek word, in this particular case it is hard to escape the impression that they are not correct. Neither Greek use in general, nor that in the Greek Bible supports them.

In the New Testament the word is applied to Jesus on one occasion (1 John 2:1), and perhaps by implication in another, namely in the expression "another παράκλητος" (John 14:16). In the former passage the legal aspect of the word is clearly prominent, so that the translation "Advocate" is in order. Christ is thought of as pleading his people's cause before the Father.

All the other New Testament references employ the word of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). The παράκλητος is "the Holy Spirit" (14:26) and "the Spirit of truth" (15:26). No one aspect of the Spirit then appears to be in mind when παράκλητος is used. But these two descriptions remind us that there is an important moral aspect to the work of the Spirit.⁹⁷ This may be in mind also when "the world" is opposed to the Spirit as neither seeing nor understanding him (14:17).

In this Gospel the word is always used by Jesus, who speaks of the Spirit as sent to supply the need of his followers after his departure. The Spirit is to be with the disciples continually, and, indeed, to be in them (14:16-17). He is to be their teacher, and to remind them of all that Jesus has said (14:26). He bears witness to Christ (15:26). He has one work to do in unbelievers, namely to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (16:8). He can come only when Jesus goes away (16:7). This appears to mean that the work of the Spirit in the believer is a consequence of the saving work of Christ and not something separate from it. The same truth may be implied in the statement that the Spirit is sent in the name of Jesus (14:26). It is only because Jesus has died for us and put away our sin that the Holy Spirit can be found at work within our hearts.

Without exception, the functions ascribed to the Spirit are elsewhere in this Gospel assigned to Christ. Thus he is in the disciples (14:20; 15:4, 5); he is their teacher (7:14; 13:13). As the Paraclete bears witness, so does Jesus (8:14). Much more could be cited.⁹⁸ There is point in Jesus referring to "another" Paraclete (14:16).

What then are we to say is the fundamental idea in παράκλητος? There is fairly general agreement that "Comforter" is not the idea, but not so very much agreement on anything else. "Comforter," which we owe in the English translation to Wycliffe,⁹⁹ can be defended, it would seem, only if the word be taken in its etymological sense (Latin — con, "with," and fortis, "strong"). It will then denote "Strengthener," or "Helper." Several modern translations adopt this last-mentioned word as the best rendering (e.g., GNB). But in modern times "comfort" has come to have a meaning much like "consolation," It points to a making the best of a difficult situation, whereas the idea in παράκλητος is not so much this as that of providing the assistance that will deliver from the difficult situation. "Helper" is better, but it does not really face the fact that the word is not active in meaning.

Ν. H. Snaith argues strongly for the meaning " 'Convincer,' i.e. He who convinces men of the things of God, and accomplishes in them a change of heart."¹⁰⁰ This seems to be going too far in one direction, for the Spirit does not necessarily convince in every one of the relevant passages, or even in most of them, and not far enough in another, for this does not cover, for example, the case of reminding the disciples of Christ's teaching.

C. K. Barrett contends that "the Paraclete is the Spirit of Christian paraclesis."¹⁰¹ He takes the expression as John's way of bringing together "the Church's doctrine of the Spirit . . . and the gospel tradition." To make this combination "was to surrender any attempt to represent historically the words of Jesus."¹⁰² It is tempting to link the Spirit with the general Christian paraclesis. But the price paid is too high. John's method throughout his Gospel will not allow us to think that he surrendered "any attempt to represent historically the words of Jesus." Rather the reverse. Nor can a good case be made out for linking παράκλητος with παρακαλέω in general. Though superficially attractive, this hypothesis will not really meet the case.

"Advocate" seems to many the best English equivalent, and this is the translation adopted, for example, by NRSV, REB, Rieu, and Weymouth; "Counselor" (NIV) appears to have much the same meaning. Plummer argues that this is the fundamental idea in the use of the term in the Fourth Gospel as well as in 1 John: "the idea of pleading, arguing, convincing, instructing, is prominent in every instance.... In short, He is represented as the Advocate, the Counsel, who suggests true reasonings to our minds and true courses for our lives, convicts our adversary the world of wrong, and pleads our cause before God our Father" (on 14:16). It may be relevant to notice the frequent references to keeping the commandments in the context, at any rate of the first sayings (14:15, 21, 23, and 24). This is to be understood in the light of the fact that judgment is one of the great themes of this Gospel. A high standard is set before Christians, one that they do not meet. Precisely because of the standard expected and the certainty of judgment, they need a παράκλητος.

Yet when all is said, this fails to carry complete conviction. To take the last point, though it is true that the Christian needs an Advocate on account of failures to keep the commandments, yet παράκλητος in John is never connected with such a failure. Again, while the παράκλητος engages in activities like arguing and instructing, it is not clear that these are always those associated with an Advocate. Such a person would certainly argue, but on behalf of his client. He would instruct, but not the client. He would instruct the court. In John the παράκλητος is found instructing those whose παράκλητος he is.

We may be helped by reflecting that the παράκλητος as the Greeks knew this legal functionary was not as precisely defined as our counsel for the defense. There might be more than one παράκλητος, and he was not necessarily a trained legal person, in sole charge of the conduct of the defendant's case. Any friend who would take action to help in time of legal need might be called a παράκλητος. C. K. Williams translates the word "Friend," while Knox has renderings like "another to befriend you.'' G. Johnston sees both legal and nonlegal functions in the Paraclete's work and thinks that "The most useful word in English to cover all the meanings of the Greek παράκλητος is the word ' representative'."¹⁰³. It seems as if something like "friend" is needed, though the legal background of the term is not to be overlooked. John is thinking of the Friend at court, but characteristically he fills the world with a specifically Christian content. The one who stands for us as the Friend at the heavenly court will perform functions that would not be required in any earthly court. Thus he will remind us of what Jesus has said (14:26). For heavenly purposes in certain circumstances this may well be the most important thing that can be done. So with his teaching of us, his bearing witness to Christ, his convicting of the world, and the rest. In all these things he is the legal helper, the friend who does whatever is necessary to forward their best interests. But it is impossible to find one English word that will cover all that the παράκλητος does. We must content ourselves with a term that brings out a limited aspect or aspects, or else use such a term as "Paraclete."¹⁰⁴

There is an extensive literature, but perhaps we may draw attention to the following: C. K. Barrett, JThS, n.s. I (1950), pp. 1-15; J. G. Davies, JThS, IV (1953), pp. 35-38; LAE, p. 336; HDB, art. "Paraclete"; TWBB, art. "Spirit"; MM s.v.; Ν. H. Snaith, ExT, LVII (1945-46), pp. 47-50; Westcott's Additional Note (II, pp. 188-91); SBk, II, pp. 560-62; TWNT, V, pp. 798-812; W. F. Howard, Christianity according to St. John (London, 1943), pp. 71-80; BAGD, s.v.; J. B. Lightfoot, On a Fresh Revision of the English New Testament (London, 1872), pp. 50-56; B. S. Brown, Theolog Review (Melbourne) vol. 3, no. 3, 1966, pp. 1-10; R. E. Brown, NTS 13 (1966-67), pp. 113-32; R. Kysar, John the Maverick Gospel (Atlanta, 1976), pp. 93-98; G. Johnston, The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John (Cambridge, 1970); G. M. Burge, The Anointed Community (Grand Rapids, 1987), pp. 1-45. Burge has a comprehensive bibliography (pp. 225-54).

———————————————

1. Μή ταρασσέσθω. The verb is used of Jesus' trouble of soul (11:33; 12:27; 13:21) and of the "troubling" of the waters of Bethesda (5:7). It is found later in another exhortation to the disciples not to be troubled in heart (14:27). John uses it six times, but outside this Gospel it is not common (Acts with three times is the next most frequent use).

2. Turner has an interesting table to illustrate his point that "Contrary to normal Greek and Latin practice, the NT sometimes follows the Aram, and Heb. preference for a distributive sing. Something belonging to each person in a group of people is placed in the sing.," though in other places the plural is used (Μ, III, pp. 23-24). John uses καρδία in this way in the singular five times (including one quotation from LXX), but never in the plural. His only other appearance in the table is also a singular (χείρ, 10:39).

3. Lüthi brings out the significance of this: "Peter and Thomas and the others are thoroughly shocked, and with good reason. They have followed Jesus, burning their boats, and blowing up the bridges behind them, so to speak. . . . And now He has disclosed to them that He is about to go where they cannot follow Him as yet. That means that they must part from Him. The reason why they are so deeply shocked is that separation from their Lord is absolutely unthinkable to them."

4. πιστεύετε.

5. Cf. Schnackenburg, "trust in God is shaken if faith in Jesus is not preserved."

6. Unless, with S. Aalen, we take "house" to mean the people of God in the manner of Heb. 3:2ff. He thinks that the present passage is dependent on the targum of 1 Chron. 17:9, "And I will make (or, appoint) for my people a prepared place, and they shall dwell in their places, and they shall not tremble more" (NTS, 8 [1961-62], p. 238). The words in italics indicate the close resemblances. Very attractive is the suggestion of MiM, that "my Father's house" includes earth as well as heaven, so that wherever we are we are in that house. But on this view it is not easy to understand why Jesus should "go" in order to prepare a place for us. Not unlike this is the view of Kysar that Christians "already experience the future in their present. God's benefits for humanity are not confined to a blessed past. Nor is it that there will be 'pie in the sky by and by.' Now is the time for the bestowal of those gifts for which all humanity yearns" (John the Maverick Gospel [Atlanta, 1976], p. 110).

7. μονή (only here and v. 23 in the New Testament) is cognate with μένω, which occurs so frequently in this Gospel. It is used both of temporary and permanent abiding. BAGD cites μονήν ποιεΐσθαι in the sense "live, stay." In later times the noun is used for "monastery" (MM, Lampe). In the present chapter on both occasions it is the sense of permanence that is required. The translation "mansions" is derived from the Vulgate mansiones ("lodging-places"), but the modern associations of the term make this misleading. Robert H. Gundry stresses the connection with μένω, and sees a reference to "spiritual positions in Christ, much as in Pauline theology" (ZNTW, 58 [1967], p. 70).

8. εί δέ μή is found in John only here and in v. 11. In both cases it follows πιστεύετε.

9. Taking δτι to mean "that" rather than "because."

10. πορεύομαι is used here and in verse 3, but ύπάγω in 13:33, 36; 14:4, 5; Johannine usage does not warrant the drawing of a distinction between the two verbs. See also on v. 28 and for John's use of ύπάγω on 7:33.

11. The term "place" is used in almost a technical sense in the so-called Gospel of Thomas. Thus in Saying 60 we read, "He said to them: You too seek for yourselves a place within for rest" (cited from R. M. Grant and D. N. Freedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus [London, 1960], p. 157). But here, as elsewhere, the "place" is within the believer; it is an inward state of peace. John is concerned with something quite different. His concept is eschatological. Of his preparing T. D. Bernard says, "We understand how men are prepared for the place; but not how the place is prepared for men" (The Central Teaching of Jesus Christ [London, 1900], p. 134). Jesus is engaged on some activity for us that passes our comprehension.

12. BDF classes this among the presents of which it says, "In confident assertions regarding the future, a vivid, realistic present may be used for the future (in the vernacular; a counterpart to the historical present. . .)" (323).

13. ίνα (see on 1:8) is fully telic here. This is the purpose of Jesus' going away and coming again. John uses δπου twice as often as anyone else in the New Testament (30 times; next is Mark with 15 times; John has more than one third of the New Testament total of 82).

14. The addition και τήν όδόν οίδσ.τε is found in ρ⁶⁶* A D Θ fl fl3 syr^s sa, but this can scarcely outweigh the testimony of the important MSS that omit the words, together with the probability of an addition being made to the shorter text. Some texts stop at οίδατε, but τήν όδόν should be read with p^66c Β W etc.

15. MacGregor takes the words as a question: "And do you know the way to the place where I am going?" But there seems to be no good reason for having a question here.

16. For the seven "I am's" of this Gospel see on 6:35. For Jesus as the Way, cf. Heb. 10:20. In Acts "the Way" is sometimes used of Christianity (e.g., Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 24:14, 22).

17. The threefold article is something of a puzzle. Moule sees that with όδός as required by the context, but are the others due simply to accommodation to this one? Or the use with the abstract noun? He asks whether we should translate "I am the Way, I am Truth, I am Life" (IBNTG, p. 112). Turner cites Zerwick as finding these articles inexplicable unless the reference "is to Christ as the real truth, life, light, etc.; all other truths, lives, lights, being transitory" (Μ, ΙΠ, p. 178). This seems the best suggestion.

18. The three nouns may form a construction that John Lightfoot quaintly calls "a Hebrew idiotism" signifying "true and living way" (HHT, p. 382). Cf. Moffatt: "I am the real and living way." This is possible but does not carry conviction since elsewhere this Gospel uses other forms for "true" and for "living." Some expositors find the emphasis on "life": "I am the true way to life." Another view has it that the words mean "I am the way to truth and life." But it is better to see the three as coordinate, not as depending on one another.

19. There is a natural tendency to put the emphasis on "me," which we then contrast with "my Father." But the enclitic με cannot be emphatic. The stress in the first clause is on έγνώκειτε. The stress in the second is on τόν Πατέρα μου, as its position in the clause and its relationship to &v shows. The whole thus means: "If you had really known me (with all that that knowledge implies) you would have known (no less than) my Father."

20. εί with a past tense of the indicative in the protasis and av with the indicative in the apodosis. The words are a rebuke. There is another reading, found, for example, in p⁶⁰ D*, which has εϊ έγνώκατε . . . γνώσεσθε (without αν). This would make the words a promise: "If (as is the case) you have come to know me, you will know my Father also." The attestation of this reading is inferior, and the context makes the rebuke more likely.

21. It is possible to take γινώσκετε as imperative: "From now onwards you are to recognize him" (Knox). But the indicative seems more likely.

22. Barclay comments: "It may well be that to the ancient world this was the most staggering thing that Jesus ever said. To the Greeks God was characteristically The Invisible. The Jew would count it as an article of faith that no man has seen God at any time."

23. IFG, pp. 163ff.

24. τοσούτον χρόνον. (א* D read τοσούτω χρόνο), but the meaning is not essentially different.) The verb ειμί also gives the thought of duration, regarding the action as continuing through past time right up to the moment of speaking.

25. It is not certain whether we should attach "Philip" to the preceding or the following. It is usually taken in the former way, but it makes quite good sense to read, "Have I been so long time with you, and you do not know me? Philip, he who has seen me. . . ."

26. This may well be another example of John's habit of introducing slight variations in repetitions (see 12:45; 13:20). 13:20 has to do with receiving rather than seeing, and if this be excluded we have a twofold variation, for 12:45 differs slightly from this verse. But it may be included since all three deal with the intimate relationship between Christ and the Father such that what is done to one is done also to the other.

27. There appears to be no appreciable difference between λέγω and λαλώ; some MSS read λαλώ in both places. "You" here is plural; Jesus is referring to what he says to them all, not only to Philip.

28. Reading μοι with ρ⁷⁵ Α Β Θ fl fl3 it boh etc. The word is not found in p⁶⁶ D W lat, but should probably be read. The attestation is strong. It would, moreover, be easy to omit it and thus get a smoother sentence.

29. In the repetition of the statement from v. 10 there is in the Johannine manner a slight variation, the omission here of έστιν.

30. έγώ (see on 1:20) and κάκεϊνος are both emphatic, έργα is not repeated with μείζονα. ARV supplies "works," but probably NIV is better with "things" (so REB, Knox, etc.). Jesus is not speaking of doing miracles, but of service of a more general kind.

31. For this use of the present to denote a future certainty see on v. 3.

32. Cf. Ryle: " 'greater works' means more conversions. There is no greater work than the conversion of a soul."

33. δ τι αν is indefinite and includes anything at all. Similarly, τι in the next verse sets no limit.

34. For αίτέω and έρωτάω in prayer see on 11:22.

35. There is a sevenfold occurrence of έν τω όνόματί μου: here, 14:14, 26; 15:16; 16:23, 24, 26. The Father's "name" is also referred to seven times, though not always in exactly the same words: 5:43; 10:25; 12:13; 17:6, 11, 12, 26. For "the name" in antiquity see on 1:12.

36. Bernard can comment, "The difference between δώσει, 'He will give,' of 16²³, and ποιήσω, 'I will do,' of 14¹³ is the difference between the Jewish and the Christian doctrine of prayer."

37. The pronoun έγώ is used, as it was not in the preceding verse, τοϋτο, it is true, is read by some authorities (A Β L etc.), but most scholars agree that έγώ is the true text.

38. The whole of this verse is omitted by some authorities (Χ Λ fl 565 syr^s.c etc.). με is omitted by some that do read the verse (A D it co etc.). It seems likely that the verse is original and that the omissions are different attempts to deal with the problem posed by the addressing of prayer to Christ in his own name immediately after a reference to praying to the Father. Or the omission of the whole verse may be due to homoioteleuton, the eye passing from the first έάν to the second.

39. τάς έντολάς τάς έμάς is used, and it comes first in the clause. It is more emphatic than τίχς έντολάς μου, though, as John uses it, less so than τάς έμάς έντολάς (see on 3:29). But we should not put much weight on this form in the light of τάς έντολάς a few verses later (v. 21). The position of the words is more important.

40. For άγαπάω see on 3:16.

41. κάγώ is emphatic (see on 1:31): "no less than I."

42. This is the first example in this Gospel of the use of έρωτάω referring to Jesus' prayers (until now it has been used of people asking questions). For the difference between αίτέω and έρωτάω see on 11:22. The latter is the more common word in John, being found 27 times, whereas αίτέω occurs 11 times.

43. άλλον is said to mean "another of the same kind," whereas έτερον would mean "another of a different kind." Thus J. B. Lightfoot affirms that έτερον "implies a difference of kind, which is not involved in άλλο. The primary distinction between the words appears to be, that άλλος is another as 'one besides,' έτερος another as 'one of two.' . . . άλλος adds, while έτερος distinguishes. Now when our attention is confined to two objects, we naturally compare and contrast them; hence έτερος gets to signify 'unlike, opposite'.. . while άλλος is generally confined to a negation of identity, έτερος sometimes implies the negation of resemblance" (Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians [London, 1902], p. 76; he adds that on some occasions the two terms are interchangeable). The Spirit is thus said to be a Counselor like Christ. This may well be so, but. not all writers observe the difference between the two terms. And since John uses έτερος only once (19:37), we cannot be sure whether he employs the words strictly or not. Abbott oints out that Christ has not called himself a παράκλητος, and he feels accordingly that we should take άλλον to mean not "another than myself," but "other than yourselves," that is, "The Father will send you Another, a Spirit like yours but beyond yours, (as) Paraclete (to you)" (2793). Similarly W. Michaelis understands the passage to signify, "another, and to be sure as a Paraclete" (Coniectanea Neotestamentica, XI [1947], p. 153). Against this it can be contended that though Jesus has not used the word Paraclete of himself he has spoken of performing actions that a Paraclete might well perform. Η. B. Swete is definite: the Spirit is "a second of the same and not of a different order." He further says, "It is impossible to conceive of έτερον παράκλητον standing in this context" (The Holy Spirit in the New Testament [London, 1910], p. 300 and n. 2). It seems best to understand Jesus as a Paraclete (all the more so since this term is actually used of him, 1 John 2:1) and the Spirit as another.

44. The Greek is παράκλητος, which means an advocate rather than a comforter in our sense of the term. The translation "Comforter" seems to come from Wycliffe.

45. Black draws attention to qui, which is a variant of ϊνα in the Old Latin MSS m and q. He sees in these variants different ways of understanding the Aramaic Ί and concludes: "we have here a piece of valuable evidence for an Aramaic tradition behind a Johannine saying of Jesus" (AA, p. 59).

46. In the Qumran scrolls we read of "the spirits of truth and of error (or 'perversity')" (1QS 3:18f.). This is a striking coincidence of language since the expression is not at all common. But it is a coincidence of language, not thought. Where John thinks of "the Spirit of truth" as a Being to be associated with the Father and the Son, the scrolls refer to two spirits, one good and one evil, and fairly evenly matched, which strive for mastery within people. Again, the scrolls equate the "prince of lights" with the spirit of truth, whereas John prefers to associate light with Christ. See further my The Dead Sea Scrolls and St. John's Gospel (London, 1960), pp. 5-7. "The spirit of truth" is referred to in Test. Jud. 20:1, 5, but again the coincidence is in language, not thought. The passage in the Testaments appears to be a development of the Jewish doctrine of the two Yetzers (which makes it unlikely that this is a Christian interpolation).

47. For John's interest in what can and what cannot be done see on 3:4.

48. Bultmann reminds us that this "does not mean that the unbeliever cannot become a believer"; rather it means that "The world qua world cannot receive the Spirit" (p. 616).

49. ύμεϊς is emphatic: the disciples stand in sharp contrast to the world.

50. In this passage three prepositions are used to describe the Spirit's association with believers, μεθ' ύμών (v. 16) does not seem to differ much from παρ' ύμΐν (here). It is possible that both point to the Spirit's presence in the church, whereas έν ύμΐν (here) stresses rather his indwelling in the individual Christian (as Barrett, e.g., thinks). But the three forms may result simply from John's love of a variety of expression.

51. That is, if it is a present, μένει could be accented μενεΐ, which would make it a future (so Torrey, Knox). But the present seems more likely.

52. Just as there is a slight uncertainty whether μένει should not be read as a future, so there is doubt, this time textual, as to whether we should read "will be" or "is." έσται is read by nearly all MSS, but έστίν by Β D* W fl 565 syr0 and a few others. But the present seems to be due to a desire to harmonize this verb with the two preceding presents, γινώσκετε and μένει.

53. ορφανούς. In the only two other places where it occurs in the New Testament it is used in the literal sense (Mark 12:40, v.l,; Jas. 1:27). Horsley shows that the word is used of children who have lost one or both parents (New Docs. 4, pp. 162-64).

54. John makes more use of this negative, ού, than any of the other Evangelists does. Matthew has it 204 times, Mark 117 times, Luke 174 times, but John 286 times. John often uses his negative as a way of introducing an important positive, as he does here. See further on 1:5.

55. άφήσω is a strong term. It can be used in the sense "abandon."

56. Cf. Hoskyns, "This advent of the Christ is not an interpretation of the coming of the Spirit, as many commentators ancient and modern have supposed.... It is, rather, a distinct appearance, and the primary reference is to the Resurrection appearances." So also Barrett, who, however, thinks that John may have deliberately used language "applicable to both the resurrection and the parousia."

57. John's emphatic ύμεϊς sets the disciples over against the world. Then έγώ and ύμεΐς emphasize the places of Jesus and his followers.

58. Taking δτι to mean "because" and καί "also." Others prefer to make them mean "that" and "and" respectively, to give the meaning: "the world taketh note of me no more, but ye take note of me that I live and ye shall live" (Temple). It is also possible to take δτι as "because," but to run the sentence on thus: "the world will see Me no more but you will see Me, because I am really alive and you will be alive, too" (Phillips).

59. Augustine describes the person who fulfills this saying as one "who hath them orally, and keepeth them morally" (75.5; p. 336).

60. This is the one place in this Gospel where John uses υπό with the genitive. It is a fairly common construction and his avoidance of it is evidently due to a preference for using the active of verbs (though perhaps we should notice that he uses υπό very rarely, twice only in fact, whereas Matthew has it 28 times, Mark 12 times and Luke 30 times). Why he should have departed from his normal practice in this passage is not clear unless it is that he wished to repeat ό άγαπών με. Westcott thinks that the passive "seems to bring out the idea of the conscious experience of love by the object of it."

61. έμφανίζω, found only here and in the next verse in this Gospel. It is not the usual word for "manifest" (φανερόω). BAGD defines it as "make visible" while MM speaks of it as used in the papyri in a "quasi-technical sense" for "make an official report." Obviously that is not the use here, which is rather, as Westcott puts it, "presentation in a clear, conspicuous form." It is used of Moses' desire for a visible manifestation of God (Exod. 33:13, 18). But it can also be used of God's manifesting himself to those who do not distrust him (Wis. 1:2). It is in somewhat this sense that the word is used here.

62. τί γεγονεν; NIV reads "why?"

63. ήμΐν is emphatic from its position: "to us, not to the world."

64. The strong negative ούχί puts emphasis on not to the world.

65. "Make" renders ποιησόμεθα, apparently the only example of the middle of this verb in this Gospel. It appears, however, to be used in much the sense of the active.

66. παρ' αύτω is literally "beside him," but from v. 17 we see that it does not differ greatly from έν αύτω.

67. For μονή see on v. 2.

68. Morgan paraphrases neatly: "Now He said in effect: You ask Me, Jude, why I have abandoned the world? I have not abandoned the world. My Father and I are coming to dwell in you, and in all who shall, like you, love Me."6

69. We should probably not distinguish sharply between λόγους and λόγον. It is John's habit to use the singular as a summary of Jesus' teaching (2:22; 5:24, etc.), but the plural is found on two other occasions (7:40; 10:19). This is the one place in this Gospel where Jesus himself uses the plural. It apparently means much the same as does έντολαί in v. 21. When John uses ρήμα it is invariably in the plural.

70. The perfect λελάληκα may be meant to indicate the permanence of the words spoken. The expression ταϋτα λελάληκα ΰμΐν is found seven times in the farewell discourse and nowhere else in this Gospel (here, 15:11; 16:1, 4, 6, 25, 33).

71. This is the one place in this Gospel where the full form τό Πνεϋμα τό 'Άγιον occurs. It puts a certain stress on the quality of the Spirit as holy.

72. C. B. Williams translates, "whom the Father will send to represent me."

73. The pronoun έκεΐνος is not grammatically necessary and, especially following the neuter πνεϋμα, it reminds us that the Spirit is a person. Cf. Westcott, "The emphatic masculine pronoun brings out the personality of the Advocate."

74. έγώ (see on 1:20) is emphatic, both from its form and its position. The dispensation of the Spirit will not be radically new in the sense of dispensing with what Jesus has taught. Rather it will emphasize that teaching. Cf. Bultmann, "the Spirit does not speak in new revelations, loosed from the ties of history, but in the continuity of the office of proclamation" (p. 626, n. 5).

75. The aorist είπον gives an air of finality to the expression. Jesus' teaching has come to its end.

76. άφίημι will have the sense here of "leave behind," "leave as a bequest" (for this use of the verb cf. Ps. 17:14). Here Jesus refers to peace not as a salutation, but as a special gift of his own and to his own. Cf. Col. 3:15; 2 Thess. 3:16, etc. Apart from the greetings in 20:19, 21, 26, ειρήνη is used only here and in 16:33 in this Gospel. In both places it is the gift of Christ.

77. We would expect the article with the second είρήνην, all the more so as it is followed by τήν έμήν. Its absence may mean that attention is drawn to the quality of the peace in question. It is not the usual peace, but Christ's own peace. BDF sees this as an example of a construction in which "the definiteness of the substantive is supplied only as an afterthought through the additional phrase" (270[3]).

78. The multiplication of δίδωμι in this verse is a characteristic Johannine way of driving a point home. It is a gift of Jesus.

79. For the singular καρδία see on v. 1.

80. This is the significance of δειλιάχω. The verb is defined by BAGD as "be cowardly, timid." It is found only here in the New Testament.

81. The Hebrew has a fuller content than the Greek ειρήνη, but when in LXX the latter term was used to translate the former it acquired this fuller meaning. The New Testament writers then used it in the LXX sense rather than in that of contemporary Greek writers in general. See further my The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross³ (London and Grand Rapids, 1965), pp. 237-44, and the literature there cited.

82. The use of ύπάγω and πορεύομαι in this verse shows that John makes little distinction between the two. Some students assert that in this Gospel the former word means "go home" and the latter "go on a journey." But the evidence will not sustain this. See also on v. 2.

83. εί ήγαπάτε . . . έχάρητε άν. It is possible, as some commentators think, that Jesus is being gently playful with the disciples. But he is certainly showing the limitations of their love.

84. Westcott has an excellent note in which he sets out the principal patristic views on this passage. See also the valuable note in Hoskyns. Godet sagely remarks: "our passage breathes, in Him who thus speaks, the most lively feeling of His participation in divin  ity. God alone can compare Himself with God." Schnackenburg sees the Arian subordinationist view as "not relevant to the gospel of John, in which the voluntary subordination of the Son to the Father is dialectically combined with the Son's claim to equal fulness of life (5:26), the same divine being (1:1 . . .), and the same glory (17:5) as the Father."

85. The aorist πιστεύσητε may well mean "come to trust."

86. Advocates of rearrangement might well heed some wise words of Wright: "The only real objection to the present order is that it is felt to involve an illogical or unchronological sequence. Such an objection, in our own judgement, is in large measure dictated by the demand that the Evangelist ought to have conformed to more modern standards of writing. Our study of the Gospel up to this point has already made it abundantly clear that the author had a mind of his own, and a way of writing which is not that of us moderns. Is it not possible that he would have been, shall we say, mildly surprised and perhaps a little amused, at our modern endeavours to achieve a logical harmony for his writings? A little of the grace of humour would have saved many critics from their dogmatic pronouncements on the original order of the discourses" (p. 295). Dodd has some scathing criticism: "This is an example of precisely the kind of wooden criticism which ought never to be applied to the work of a mind like our evangelist's. However long these discourses may be, they are burdened from beginning to end with the sense of parting, and the time is short" (IFG, p. 407, η. 1).

87. Amplified gives the various possibilities, "he has no claim on Me — he has nothing in common with Me, there is nothing in Me that belongs to him, and be has no power over Me." The disadvantage, of course, is that it gives no indication which is to be preferred.

88. Plummer sees in this arrangement of the words "a want of solemnity, if not a savour of 'theatrical effect,' " and he proceeds, "Moreover it is less in harmony with S. John's style." Dodd, however, argues strongly for this division (IFG, pp. 406-9). In his view άγωμεν is used in the military sense of advancing to meet the enemy, so that έγείρεσθε άγωμεν έντεϋθεν means, "let us go to meet the advancing enemy." He takes the whole verse in this way: "In order that the world may learn (a) that Jesus loves the Father, since (b) He is obedient to His command ... He goes to meet His assailant." He suggests such a translation as, "The Ruler of this world is coming. He has no claim upon me; but to show the world that I love the Father, and do exactly as He commands — up, let us march to meet him!" (IFG, p. 409). This is a very attractive understanding of the words, though it does seem to rest heavily on a particular interpretation of αγωμεν,

89. Some MSS read "gave me commandment" (as ARV); for the things the Father "gave" the Son see on 3:35.

90. This is the 23rd occurrence of "Father" in this chapter. Such a concentration of references is unusual and puts a strong emphasis on Fatherhood as characteristic of God. See on 1:14.

91. For 'ίνα with the omission of the preceding principal verb see on 1:8.

92. This is the one place in the New Testament in which Jesus' love for the Father is explicitly mentioned. There are, of course, many passages in which the love of the Father for the Son is referred to, and the love of the Son is implied everywhere. But this is the one place where it comes to expression.

93. Matthew and Mark relate that at the end of the scene in Gethsemane, after rebuking the disciples for sleeping, Jesus used the same words: έγείρεσθε αγωμεν (Matt. 26:46; Mark 14:42).

94. C. C. Torrey points out that, apart from the words έγείρεσθε, &γωμεν έντεϋθεν, "the connection here is perfect." He postulates a misreading of an Aramaic original that was singular: "I will arise and go hence" (HThR, XVI [1923], p. 342).

95. "But the technical mng. 'lawyer', 'attorney' is rare" (BAGD). Behm also denies this usage (TWNT, V, p. 799).

96. The Greek word is simply taken over and transliterated , a fact that is of interest. There appears to be no Semitic word of which παράκλητος is the translation. We must get our information from Greek, not Hebrew sources.

97. Cf. Abbott: "emphasis is laid on the Paraclete, or Advocate, as not being one of the ordinary kind — the kind that takes up a client's cause, good or bad, and makes the best of it — but as being 'holy,' and — which is twice repeated — 'a Spirit of truth1932) '" ).

98. See R. E. Brown, NTS, 13 (1966-67), pp. 126-27.

99. For an excellent summary of the various English translations of the word see E. J. Goodspeed, Problems of New Testament Translation (Chicago, 1945), pp. 110-11. He concludes: "The best opinion seems to be that the word meant one called to someone's aid in court, a helper, intercessor, pleader; a character witness. . . . 'Defender' is a very close equivalent, yet more than a defense witness seems intended. The work of teaching and reminding them seems to go far beyond this meaning and calls for a looser and broader word, as it is used in the gospel" (p. 111). He suggests "another Helper" for the translation in the Gospel, and "one who will intercede for us" in the Epistle.

100. ExT, LVII (1945-46), p. 50; see also his The Distinctive Ideas of the Old

Testament (London, 1950), pp. 180-81

101. JThS, n.s. I (1950), p. 14.

102. P. 15.

103. Johnston, p. 87. He takes up and italicizes Brown's view that the Paraclete

is "the presence of Jesus when Jesus is absent" (p. 94).

104. Cf. R. E, Brown: "the Paraclete is a witness in defence of Jesus and a spokesman for him in the context of the trial of Jesus by his enemies; the Paraclete is a consoler of the disciples; more important, he is their teacher and guide and thus, in an extended sense, their helper. No one translation captures the complexity of these functions. . . . Christian usage has given a peculiar connotation and status to παράκλητος — a connotation not entirely independent of related Hebrew concepts and of the secular Greek meaning of the words, but a connotation that is unique just the same" (art. cit., p. 118). Cf. also G. M. Burge, "The variety of traits given to the Paraclete defy any attempt to give him a comprehensive title." He cites H. Windisch for "the convergence of three themes: a witness that vindicates and judges; a helper and aid; a counselor and teacher." He proceeds to note "the great multiplicity of activities in the Paraclete's role" (The Anointed Community [Grand Rapids, 1987], p. 9).

↑ Back to top