John 14

CHAPTER XIV

5. The Comforting Explanation of Jesus’ Departure, 14:1–11

John 14:1

1 The last verse of this chapter shows that the entire chapter was spoken while Jesus and the eleven reclined at table in the upper room. The connection is direct. Jesus spoke of leaving the disciples (13:33); he bade them to love each other when he would be gone and to remember how he had loved them while he was with them; then he had to warn Peter who was determined to leave with Jesus—it was all very depressing for these disciples who did not understand the inwardness of it all. This situation Jesus meets with the comforting explanation of his departure.

First the negative command: Let not your heart be troubled, stirred up and shaken at the thought of my going away from you. The present imperative with μή forbids what one has begun to do, here, “Stop letting your heart be troubled!” because you have no reason to be troubled. The departure of Jesus, rightly understood, is no cause for distress but the very contrary, though it be a departure. Beside this negative command Jesus places a double positive command: Believe in God, in addition believe in me. This is, not said with reference to general faith in God and in Jesus but with reference to trust in God and in Jesus as regards the departure of Jesus. God sent Jesus on his mission and desires his return now that his mission is being completed; Jesus came on this mission, is now completing it, and thus returns to God.

And this mission, planned and carried out by God and by Jesus, opens heaven for the disciples and for all who believe as they do. In all this the disciples must keep on (the imperatives are durative) trusting God and Jesus. The thought requires that after the negative imperative, “let not your heart be troubled,” we read the two verbs that follow as positive imperatives: “believe—believe!” These are followed in v. 2, etc., by what the disciples are to believe. The form πιστεύετε might also be indicative; hence we find four, in fact, five, interpretations: all but the first of which run into difficulties: 1) two imperatives; 2) two indicatives; 3) an imperative and an indicative; 4) the reverse; 5) finally a strange punctuation: “Believe—in God and in me believe,” which, however, destroys the beautiful chiasm. By means of the chiasm the two verbs are placed into the two emphatic positions: “Believe … believe!” The trouble of the disciples will disappear if now, when all seems so strange and dark to them, they will only believe and trust.

The two “believe” are used in the same sense, demanding the same trust in Jesus as in God. Both are equally trustworthy, and the ground for this is the deity of Jesus, 10:30; 14:9; Matt. 16:16. Elsewhere, too, faith in Jesus is made equal to faith in God, 5:24; 12:44. In the present case the two are considered distinct, and καί adds the one trust to the other. First, the disciples have God with all his promises and his assurances concerning the mission of Jesus; “in addition” (καί) they have Jesus, God’s Son, and him in his mission which is now almost accomplished. Either one would be enough, both together are more than enough.

John 14:2

2 The two “believe” do not refer to blind but to intelligent belief. While all true faith of necessity contains an implicit element, one which extends beyond our limited knowledge and the partial experience we may have had in our lives and may yet attain, this always rests on the explicit element, the clear knowledge granted to us and the actual experience we have in this knowledge and in our spiritual contact with God and with his Son Jesus. Thus the disciples are bidden to keep on believing in view of the departure of Jesus what they have for a long time known from God’s revelation and of what Jesus now again assures them: In the house of my Father are many mansions, μοναί, permanent abiding-places. Ps. 23:6. This figurative language is quite transparent. There is no need to spiritualize the concrete terms which the Scriptures use with reference to heaven, as though they refer to a future condition.

Our human minds cannot get beyond conceptions of time and of space, hence the Scriptures always use these with reference to heaven, wisely leaving it to the great future when we shall experience just what eternity and the place (ποῦ) of God’s abode is. “My Father’s house” lends to the word “Father” and to “our Father, who art in heaven” a richer meaning. He has a house, οἰκία, a home, to which the “household of God” now on earth (Eph. 2:19) and all his children (Gal. 3:26; Rom. 8:14–17) shall be transferred. All the tenderness and the attractiveness, the restfulness and the happiness that lie in the word “home” are thus in the loftiest degree applied to heaven. With only a stroke or two Jesus draws a picture which fills us pilgrims, who are still far from home, with both heavenly homesickness and the sure hope of soon reaching our home.

SUNT, writes Bengel: ARE, in order to bring out the fact that these mansions are realities, are in actual existence. God has provided them, and we may say from all eternity. These mansions are “many,” which is stated in reference to Jesus as being only one Son; not he alone shall dwell in “the house of his Father” but all the other sons with him, whom he brings unto glory (Heb. 2:10). This statement about the many mansions must thus be read in connection with the mission of Jesus and its accomplishment. It is a covert promise to the disciples that they, too, shall enter those mansions. “Many” thus means far more than that there shall be room for all, or that God’s children shall be numerous—thoughts that are rather trivial when the eleven were thinking only of their impending separation from Jesus. The word “many” is misapplied when it is referred to men of all kinds of opinions, convictions, faiths, and the like; for only true believers may enter. Some devout writers use this figurative language of Jesus in their human fancies of what heaven will be like, but it is well to bear in mind that no human thought is able to portray the details, and that the only safe course is to abide by what the Scriptures say.

But if not, I would have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you. The interpretation of this statement should not clash with facts that are assured. One is that Jesus does, indeed, go to prepare a place for the disciples (v. 3); another is that the many mansions do, indeed, exist, just as the entire Old Testament has always said and as Jesus now says, hence Jesus could not now assume their non-existence; and a third is that the abbreviated protasis, because it is so abbreviated, must express past unreality (not present), exactly as does the apodosis. Moving within these fixed bounds, we have this sense: “But if not, i.e., if you had not believed this about the many mansions (as, however, I know that you have), I would have told you (as, however, I have not needed to) that I am going to prepare a place in these mansions not only for others but in particular also for you (ὑμῖν, emphatic).” Then v. 3: “But you have had this faith about the many mansions and about the final part of my mission that I would there prepare a place for you, hence all I now need to do is to assure you that, if I shall thus go and prepare a place for you, which I am, indeed, now on the very point of doing, I most certainly also will add this: I will come again and receive you unto myself.”

After saying, not as something new, but as something well-known to the disciples and clear from the Old Testament and from all the teaching of Jesus, that the Father’s house has many mansions, i.e., that his love has prepared salvation for so many: Jesus cannot in the next breath add, “If this were (objectively) not so, I would have told you.” Our versions and those who so read have a protasis of present unreality, whereas εἰμή is followed by an apodosis of past unreality and must thus also be past; “if not” meaning, “if you had not believed.” The ὅτι does not mean “for” (our versions and others) or “because,” in the sense that, if no mansions existed, Jesus would have said so because he is going to prepare a place for the disciples. This would then mean, that with no mansions existing, Jesus would supply the deficiency, i.e., “prepare” or create a place for the disciples. Yet in the next breath Jesus says that since the mansions do exist, he is going “to prepare” a place for the disciples in these mansions. The verb “prepare a place” cannot have two opposite meanings in such close succession, once “to create” a place where none exists and then “to make ready” a place which already exists. Those who see this regard the statement as a question: “If not (if no mansions exist), would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?” But where has Jesus hitherto said this to the disciples?

The mansions exist, even as the disciples had all along known and believed. If they had not known and believed, Jesus would have told them about these mansions, told them by saying that he is going to prepare a place for them in these mansions. Jesus says this to the disciples in order to lead them to understand one great comforting reason for his departure, namely that he is going in advance of his disciples to make ready their places in the heavenly mansions so that they may follow him in due time. His departure is not a permanent separation but a necessary step for a glorious and eternal reunion. Instead of being troubled, the disciples should remember what they have all along known and believed about the house of the Father and its many mansions, should connect the departure of Jesus with their own places in those mansions (he making them ready to receive his own there) and should thus be comforted and glad.

John 14:3

3 And if I shall go and prepare for you a place, I am coming again and will receive you unto myself, in order that where I myself am also you on your part may be. The departure of Jesus ushers in this glorious and eternal reunion. With this great promise Jesus plants the comfort of hope in his disciples. The translation indicates the assured reading of the text.

The condition with ἐάν presents expectancy, but one coupled with certainty: “If I shall go,” etc., as indeed I shall. The aorists “shall go and prepare” denote actuality as well as single acts. “Shall go” refers to the ascension of Jesus. “Shall prepare” or “make ready” is a heavenly act and, therefore, since no further explanation is added, impossible for us to visualize in detail. The best explanation is that the presence of Jesus in his Father’s heavenly home makes the mansions ready for our reception; for only through the presence of our Redeemer in heaven is it possible for us disciples to enter heaven. Some have pictured the preparation in a human way: as we prepare a room for a coming guest, placing in it all that the guest may like, embellishing and decorating it for his delight. Perhaps the best analogy is the scene on the Mount of Transfiguration, where Peter was so anxious to stay with Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. We shall know all about this preparation when we are finally received into the heavenly mansions.

The present tense, ἔρχομαι, especially with πάλιν added and followed by a future tense, is used in a future sense, “I am coming again,” i.e., “I shall come.” Also the two acts, that of coming again and that of receiving the disciples unto himself occur at the same time. The best commentary on ἔρχομαι is ἐλεύσεται in Acts 1:11; this is the coming of Jesus at the last great day. Those who think of the spiritual coming of Jesus in his Word and sacraments forget that in this sense Jesus never left his disciples. Those who think of the resurrection of Jesus as his return to the disciples have difficulty with the purpose clause, “in order that where I myself am,” etc. When this clause is spiritualized in the sense of “the reception into the communion of his heavenly life,” whether we are still on earth or already in heaven, the context is ignored with its reference to the heavenly mansions and the preparation of our places there, to say nothing of the resurrection, which then would have to be spiritualized. The promise of Jesus refers to the parousia.

The coming again is the counterpart of the going away; visibly Jesus ascends, visibly he returns, 1:9–11. The objection that John does not otherwise mention the parousia follows the mistaken principle that a writer must mention a subject repeatedly, otherwise he cannot be considered as having mentioned it at all. But why rule out “the last day” in 6:39, 40, 44, and 54; and the statements in 5:28, 29?

From other passages we know that the soul shall anticipate the body in its entrance into the heavenly mansions (Lazarus in the parable, the malefactor, Paul in Phil. 1:23); yet Jesus does not “come” for the soul in the sense in which he has promised to come at the last day. The angels, not the Lord, came for Lazarus’ soul; dying Stephen beholds Jesus on his heavenly throne, Jesus does not come to him. The interval between our bodily death and the Lord’s coming is so brief that he spans it with one word, “I am coming again.” “I will receive you unto myself” (volitive not merely futuristic) is made clearer by the purpose clause, “in order that where I myself am also you on your part may be.” The reception will be a complete, final, eternal reunion. “Where,” ὅπου, reverts to everything said about the “place.” The pronouns ἐγώ and καὶὑμεῖς are strongly stressed—Jesus and the eleven forever together in heaven. This is what the impending departure of Jesus means: cause for pure joy, the very opposite of distress. In 12:26 the promise is general, to any “servant” of Jesus; here it is made specific, to the eleven alone, and yet, as we read this ὑμεῖς, we see that it applies so decidedly to the eleven because it applies to all true believers.

John 14:4

4 From the glorious day when Jesus will return and receive his own unto himself he again turns, as in v. 1, to the present situation of the disciples whom he is leaving behind. He has told them where he is going and what his departure means for them. He now adds another word of assurance. And as regards whither I am leaving, you know the way. Or, according to the other reading, “And whither I am leaving you know, and the way you know.” The ὅπου clause is adverbial. Either reading implies that the disciples know both the destination of Jesus and the way to that destination.

Yet ὁδός does not refer to the way Jesus is about to take but the way the disciples must take to reach that destination. Whereas Jesus a moment ago used πορεύομαι (“to bring oneself upon the way”), “to travel,” he now employs the synonym ὑπάγω (intransitive), “to leave or depart” (slowly or quietly), “to retire.” Both verbs refer to the ascension of Jesus to heaven. When Jesus speaks of “the way” by which the disciples are to reach the same heavenly destination, he has in mind neither a miraculous bodily ascension into heaven like his own, nor the reception to himself promised at his return on the last day, but the actual means or medium by which the disciples shall be brought to the Father and to the place of his heavenly presence.

Thus Jesus is right in saying that the disciples already know that way, for they are already moving forward upon it. Jesus has been teaching them this way, leading them forward upon it ever since they joined themselves to him. All they need to do is to continue on this way until Jesus finally comes to take them unto himself forever.

John 14:5

5 Thomas says to him, Lord, we do not know whither thou art leaving. How do we know the way? Thomas speaks for all the disciples, taking it for granted that they all feel much as he does. Thomas actually contradicts Jesus, telling him that so little do they know the way that they do not even know the destination for which Jesus is leaving. Yet this is not the ugly contradiction of unbelief but the pessimistic contradiction of discouraged faith when it looks forward and is still unable to see clearly. That, too, is why Jesus does not rebuke Thomas but explains with words so light and clear that we almost feel like thanking Thomas for calling them forth.

In an endeavor to analyze what was in the mind of Thomas we may say that he knew that Jesus was returning to his Father in heaven and that this return involved the death of Jesus, leaving the disciples behind. We recall how in 11:16 he spoke of dying with Jesus. His trouble, however, was not his inability to conceive how a going down into death could be a going up to the Father in heaven. Thomas had no notions of “a realm of the dead” or Totenreich, such as some modern interpretation by misunderstanding sheol and hades attributes to the ancient Jews and tries to incorporate into Christian doctrine. The dark spot in the mind of Thomas was his inability to follow the mission and work of Jesus beyond the boundary of death. For him the mission of Jesus was an earthly kingdom (Acts 1:6)—how, then, could Jesus retire to heaven (ὑπάγω); and how could there be a way to this kingdom that would lead via heaven? So Thomas grows down hearted like one who is lost in the dark; he heaves a great sigh and tells Jesus: You think we know, but really it all seems dark: this your going away and our knowing the road.

John 14:6

6 But the case of Thomas was not nearly as bad as he felt it was. Thomas and the rest knew more than they thought they knew. It was rather their sadness that dimmed their eyes. Jesus had not attributed too much to them; Thomas credited himself and the rest with too little. Jesus says to Thomas, I myself am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

This he says, not as something new, but as something old, that they all most certainly know. Jesus needs only to restate it for them in all its simplicity; all they need to do is to fix their minds upon these simple facts, then their misgivings will disappear. First, the simple fact about the way; secondly, the equally simple fact about the destination, both that of Jesus and of the disciples, together with this way as the only one to that destination.

Here is another I AM. How simple all this is! “I myself (ἐγώ with strong emphasis) am the way.” Because “the way” is figurative, Jesus adds two literal terms, “the truth, the life,” to define “the way.” He does more, he defines “I am the way” by the διʼ ἐμοῦ, “through me,” and shows that “way” is to be understood as means: Jesus is the means for reaching the Father. In all simplicity he also combines “the way” as thus made plain with the destination Thomas thought he did not know. This way leads “to the Father,” to his heavenly presence, the very place to which Jesus now goes (v. 2). Stated in one proposition, the mission of Jesus is to bring his disciples to the Father above. In simple words Jesus here summarizes all his teaching (doctrine) and all his work.

Koegel preaches: He does not say, “I show you the way,” like a second Moses; but, “I am the way.” Nor, “I have the truth,” like another Elijah; but, “I am the truth.” Not only, “I lead unto life,” as one of his apostles; but, “I am the life.” The emphasis is on ἐγώ, Jesus, the Word become flesh, the Son of the identical essence with the Father and born of the virgin, sent and come on his mission as the one Mediator between God and man, in all that he is and that he does. The moment we discount this Ego and make it less, that moment we also empty the three predicates of their content. Jesus as the way bridges a chasm. If the bridge lacks as little as an inch of reaching across, it plunges down and is not a bridge but a wreck. It may have been intended to be a bridge, but it is a wreck nonetheless. All three predicates have the article: the way, the truth, the life.

This means that the subject and the predicates are both identical and interchangeable—a most illuminating and valuable point; see the many examples in R. 768, etc. Jacob saw “the way” in the ladder of his dream. Jesus describes it: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me,” 12:32. Isaiah contrasts it with our own ways: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way,” 53:6. Only this ONE WAY takes us to the Father. The astounding thing is that this way is a person, this one person.

This is not a dead road that one travels with his own strength, but a way such as never existed on earth, that picks us up in its arms and carries us to the destination. The figure falls short of the reality, like so many figures in the Scriptures which are able to picture only one point of the reality. This way, we may venture to say, is like a vast stream which takes our little boat and with its flood-power bears it to the ocean.

Because the way is this one great person, all is clear as to travelling this way. Only in one fashion can this one person be the way for us to the Father: by faith in him alone, by entrusting ourselves completely to him, by forsaking all other ways (means) for reaching God and heaven. Concordia Triglotta, 55, 10; 1085, 66.

With καί “the way and the truth and the life” are piled on top of each other. The three are, indeed, distinct, each concept having its own content, and yet they are linked together, each making clearer the other, the two literal terms especially shedding light on the original figurative term. The two “and” thus do not join diverse or mutually exclusive terms; all three are also predicates of the same ἐγώ. The proper order, moreover, is that “the truth” should follow “the way,” and then should come “the life.”

“I myself am the truth” and thus “I am the way.” We at once see that this means far more than that Jesus is truthful, every word of his being the honest expression of his thought. Nor is he merely of the truth, illumined and purified by it, his heart being devoted to truth (18:37 last sentence). If this were all, Jesus could not be “the way.” Jesus is the actual embodiment of the truth. He is ἡἀλήθεια, the very reality of all God’s grace toward us sinners, of all God’s plans of grace and their execution, of all God’s gifts of grace in those plans. The law could be given by a human mediator like Moses, but the grace and the truth could not merely be given, they actually came (ἐγένετο) through the living person of Jesus Christ, 1:17. Moses could give manna, but the actual Bread of Life descended in the Son Jesus. “The truth” is, of course, soteriological only.

Jesus as “the truth” or reality in this sense is for our apprehension, to know and to trust in one inward spiritual act. Every lie and deception we ought to spurn, but to know and to receive in fullest confidence the actual reality of God’s blessed grace in Jesus ought to be the delight of our souls. For this reality is “the way” (objective) to get to the Father above, and our faith in this reality is the manner in which this way carries us (subjective) to the Father.

Already this is enough, and yet it is not enough. This way, this reality, is “I myself,” Jesus, a person, this divine Person, and not merely as a divine Being but in our flesh and together with all his work. “I myself am the life,” ἡζωή. Not merely ἡψυχή, a soul or breath animating a body, and life in that sense. There are many ψυχαί before us but only one ζωή, which word is never pluralized. God is himself “life” in his very existence and nature; but when Jesus, our Mediator, calls himself “the life,” this is soteriological with reference to us. He is the one and only source of blessed existence and life for us.

In our sin is death, i.e., the separation from God. Left to ourselves, we should remain in this separation forever, dead beyond hope. In the person of Jesus God sent us “the life.” Through himself Jesus abolishes the separation and once more unites us with God. This union kindles the ζωή in us, so that we again have “the life eternal”; see 3:15, 16. How is this union accomplished? How does Jesus become ours, and we his?

The answer is the same: by faith when he comes to us and kindles confidence and trust in us. Then he is in us, and we are in him. Then God’s ζωή again fills us, the blessed life that shall live with God in heaven forever. And thus “the way” to the Father is the reception of Jesus who is “the life.”

It is plain: “no one comes to the Father except through me.” The present tense is timeless and universal. Here is the destination, once more clearly stated, “to the Father.” Let Thomas fix his eyes upon it. “To the Father,” that is the kingdom forever. To bring us “to the Father,” that is the mission of the Son, the Messiah, Jesus. Nothing can be higher, greater, more blessed. The three rays, “the way and the truth and the life,” come to a focus in the one phrase, “through me.” “Through me,” in what I am, offer, give, bestow; “through me,” in what I actually make yours. Mediator (διά) = the person as the means.

Take away Jesus, and the way, the truth, and the life are gone; no way, no truth, no life are left. Acts 4:12; John 3:36; Mark 16:16, “He that believeth not shall be damned.” All hope of God and heaven outside of Jesus is vanity and worse. “Except through me” is absolute and final.

John 14:7

7 We have two readings, 1) εἰἐγνώκατεἐμέ, καὶτὸνπατέραμουγνώσεσθε, 2) εἰἐγνώκειτε … ἂνᾔδειτε, with some variation in the latter. There is strong textual evidence for both. If you have known me, also my Father you shall know. “If you had known me, also my Father you would know.” The first reading has a protasis of reality, which admits that the disciples have, indeed, known Jesus, with the perfect tense extending this knowledge to the present. And, surely, it is a fact and cheering for Jesus to state to the eleven in this hour that they have known him. Then Jesus promises that they shall also know the Father. Not that they do not know him at all, but they shall know him as fully as they know Jesus who has been their companion for over three years. This statement of Jesus fits in perfectly with the lament of Thomas, cheering him with a promise, and with the next statement which says when the disciples shall know the Father.

The second reading with its protasis of past unreality denies that the eleven have known Jesus and with its apodosis of present unreality tells them that by not having known Jesus they have failed in knowing the Father. This reading rebukes the eleven and not Thomas alone and does not join well with the next statement, that from now on the eleven know the Father—with not one word about knowing Jesus without whom the Father cannot be known. In 8:19 Jesus rebukes the Jews in this way with only this difference that 8:19 emphasizes the objects “me,” “my Father,” while here the emphasis would be on the verbs: “if you had known … you would know.” In addition, why the change of verbs, once ἐγνώκειτε and then ᾔδειτε? The internal evidence is in favor of the first reading. Even when the protasis of the second is toned down to mean, “if you had fully known me,” thus charging the eleven with only partial failure to know Jesus, the situation is not improved; for if the eleven know Jesus in part—as they surely did—by that token they would know also the Father in part. Besides, if a qualification is placed in the verb of the protasis, the same would have to be done with the verb of the apodosis.

The disciples have known Jesus—γινώσκειν to designate the knowledge of their experience with Jesus. The acknowledgment means much for the eleven in this depressing hour. The promise that they shall know (the identical verb—surely, no change of verbs is here in place) the Father with equal experience is at once explained. From now on you do know him and have seen him. The emphasis is on ἀπʼ ἄρτι, which does not mean: since the time when you first believed in me; nor since this moment in view of what I have just told you. “From now on” designates the great new period beginning with the events of this night and extending to all the great experiences about to follow in quick succession: the Father will give his Son into death, will raise him from the dead, will seat him at his right hand (Eph. 1:19–23), will have Jesus send the Spirit (14:26; 15:26; Acts 1:4). What an experience this will be for the eleven!

They will know the Father as never before. While “from now on you do know” has the present tense, it naturally refers to the future and might equally (like the previous statement) have the future tense. But the present tense enables Jesus to add the perfect of the next verb (these two tenses matching), “from now on … you have seen him.” After every one of the impending experiences the disciples will have to say, “We have seen the Father!” namely in every act done in Jesus. What a wealth of comfort for the eleven at this moment!

Most certainly, also in the past the disciples knew and saw the Father in what he had his Son do and say and in what the Father himself did (1:32, etc.; the Transfiguration; 12:28). By it they knew both Jesus and the Father. But now the climax of all this is at hand, the great acts for which Jesus had especially come (12:27). The revelation in these final acts would crown all that had preceded.

John 14:8

8 Philip says to him, Show us the Father, and we are satisfied, it suffices for us. Philip does not contradict, he only begs. On the one hand, note the great thing his faith regards Jesus as able to do: actually and visibly to show the Father to the disciples. On the other hand, see how slow Philip is to grasp what Jesus means when he speaks about knowing and seeing the Father. What a mixture! Did Philip think of receiving a theophany such as is mentioned in Exod. 24:9–11; 33:18, etc.?

His thought seems to be that if Jesus in now leaving would thus visibly show them the Father, the disciples would be satisfied with this as the crowning revelation until the day when Jesus would return unto them. Such a vision of the Father would show them where Jesus is now going and where they, his disciples, are at last to arrive with Jesus’ help. We see what Philip lacks: a comprehension of what the mission of Jesus really is for which the Father sent him.

John 14:9

9 Jesus is deeply pained by what Philip’s words reveal. Jesus says to him, For so long a time am I with you, and hast thou not known me, Philip? The accusative is that of the extent of time; the present εἰμί expresses past action still in progress, with an adjunct of time to indicate this, although the English prefers the perfect “have I been,” R. 879. The “am I” is thus matched by the following perfect “hast thou not known me,” again using the verb to designate the knowledge of experience. Has this long association of Jesus with his disciples been in vain? When we think of the night in which this was said, the poignancy of the question is increased with its touching vocative at the end. Poor, blundering Philip little realized how he was hurting Jesus.

Philip speaks about the Father, Jesus speaks about himself. How this applies the next word shows. He that has seen me has seen the Father. How dost thou say, Show us the Father? 12:45. Philip wants to see the Father with his physical eyes, little realizing that such sight would profit him nothing. Jesus has shown Philip the Father in a far superior way, so that he could see the Father with his spiritual eyes and by such sight enter into full communion with the Father. Has all this been in vain? Does Philip want to repeat the question of the Jews in 8:19, “Where is thy Father?” To those unbelieving Jews Jesus had to reply that if they had known him they would have known his Father also, but, surely, Philip believes. How, then, can he ask such a question?

John 14:10

10 Dost thou not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? 10:38. Yes, most surely Philip does believe this great fact—he has seen it with the eyes of faith. This question will make him fully conscious of his faith, and he will regret asking a question that is not in harmony with this faith.

In order to make this oneness of himself with the Father altogether clear and to correct any lingering doubt or misconception in the minds of the eleven, Jesus again points to the constant evidence and manifestation of this oneness which is ever open to the eyes of all who are not determined for ulterior reasons to reject Jesus. The utterances which I speak to you I utter not from myself; moreover, the Father abiding in me does his works. Jesus here repeats 7:16; 8:26–28; 12:49, etc.; but now his object is to clarify a faith that at the moment does not see clearly. The very utterances (ῥήματα not λόγοι) by which Jesus expresses his thought (hence λέγω) he utters (hence λαλῶ) not “from himself,” as being devised like the utterances of men by their own minds. This negation implies the affirmation: My utterances are derived from the Father; they are really his. This is clear evidence of the oneness of Jesus with the Father.

Every time Jesus opens his mouth (λαλῶ, ῥήματα) to say something (λέγω), it is the Father who speaks through his mouth. Not that Jesus is a phonograph or an automaton. Then he and the Father would be anything but one, he would be nothing. This oneness and identity of even the very utterance evidences a oneness of the two persons concerned. For Jesus is not like the prophets who must say, “Thus saith the Lord,” showing that God uses them only as instruments and messengers. Quite the opposite.

When Jesus opens his lips, he, indeed, speaks (λαλῶ and λέγω), every word and utterance is truly his; but what he says and the words he employs, every word and utterance, are the Father’s own thought and speech. The two speak as one because they are one, Jesus in the Father, the Father in Jesus.

Here, too, we see the highest type of true inspiration which is never anything but verbal. The very ῥήματα, the very λαλεῖν, coming from Jesus’ lips are the Father’s utterances and uttering. Only by giving Jesus and the Father who speaks with Jesus’ mind and lips the direct lie can verbal inspiration be abolished.

With a copulative δέ Jesus adds the other evidence, that of his works. Now the statement is positive: “Moreover, the Father abiding in me (μένων, with the thought of never leaving Jesus, ever in him) does his works.” We need to hesitate only between the two readings αὑτοῦ and αὑτός, “his works,” the Father’s, and “the Father himself”; the effect is minor. These works are the miracles especially. Who does them? The Father; but the Father as abiding in Jesus by virtue of the oneness of the Father and the Son. What was said with regard to the utterances is also true with regard to the works.

The negative “not from myself” is matched by the positive “abiding in me”; the first person, “I speak” and “I utter,” is matched by the third, “the Father does.” The sense is: the utterances are “not from myself” but from the Father abiding in me; likewise, the works are done by the Father “abiding in me” not from myself. With the reading αὑτοῦ the Father would do the works of Jesus as his own (the Father’s); with the reading αὑτός he “himself” would do them just as he speaks the words. The genitive is the best attested reading.

Some are inclined to identify the utterances with the works, regarding every divine utterance as a deed, even also as the miracles are always combined with words. This may pass. In fact, it is a necessary reminder in an age when the utterances of Jesus are so often treated lightly. But in the present connection this identification cannot stand. In 5:19 and 30 works and words are distinct; in 10:25 and 32 Jesus relies on the works as the ultimate evidence; so he also does here.

John 14:11

11 Go on believing me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me. Yet if not, on account of the very works go on believing me. The tense of both imperatives is essential to the sense: πιστεύετε, go on with an action already begun, R. 856 (especially regarding this verb). Jesus deals with the eleven as being believers. The only question is the ground for their believing, believing especially that Jesus is in the Father, and the Father in him, so that whoever hears and sees Jesus’ works sees the Father himself in these words and these works. The word and testimony of Jesus should be all-sufficient for their continuance in this faith. “Go on believing me” means believing that I am speaking the truth regarding this oneness of myself with the Father.

In 10:38 the order is reversed: the Father in me, and I in him, because there the issue is whether Jesus has come from the Father; here Jesus is named first because in him the disciples are to see the Father. Even points like this are absolutely exact.

But even for the disciples, when their faith must be fortified against misgivings and doubt, Jesus uses the ultimate evidence, the works. These works themselves, αὑτά, fuer sich, as such, so exhibit the fact that Jesus is in the Father, and the Father in him, that for the sake of these works taken by themselves the disciples would have to go on believing that what Jesus says about himself and the Father is, indeed, the truth. Recall 7:31 in regard to the effect of the works upon the multitude at the feast; also 11:47.

When Jesus makes this appeal to the works, it must not be urged that they would thus stand alone, hang, as it were, in the air when separated from the utterances of Jesus. For Jesus says: Believe me, i.e., what I say, because of the works as such. Always the works establish the words, and vice versa. Yet always at the ultimate point the works are decisive. With regard to words one may argue, with regard to deeds only one thing is left to be done: to see what they are and to believe, or to shut the eyes (9:39–41) and to disbelieve. See what the deed did for the beggar in 9:31–33.

6. The Condition, Full of Comfort, of Jesus’ Disciples after his Departure, 12–31

Jesus goes to the Father and to the Father’s house; the disciples shall also be brought thither. They know the place and the way; they have seen the Father. But what in the meantime? Jesus leaves the disciples the most comforting assurances and promises.

John 14:12

12 Amen, amen, I say to you, He that believes in me, the works that I am doing, he, too, shall do, and greater than these he shall do; because I am going to the Father. What a mighty assurance, what a magnificent promise and prospect, what abounding comfort! So this is what the departure brings to those left behind! Verity and authority are again combined (see 1:51). In v. 11 πιστεύετέμοι refers to believing what Jesus says; here ὁπιστεύωνεἰςἐμέ means believing in the person of Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life (v. 6), one in essence with the Father (v. 10), the Son of God, the Mediator, and the Redeemer. The substantivized present participle characterizes the person as one who continues in this faith.

Note the universality of the designation: every such believer. To him this promise is made. The object is placed forward with great emphasis: “the works that I am doing,” the very works of which Jesus spoke in v. 10, 11, namely the mighty miracles. The present tense is justified by Luke 22:51. Over against ἐγώ is set κἀκεῖνος, with emphasis again taking up the subject. Did the works which Jesus does astound the disciples—in the days to come they themselves shall do the same works.

The future is categorical: ποιήσει—no “if” or “and” about it, and the verb is repeated: “he, too, shall do.”

As though this were not enough Jesus adds, “and greater than these he shall do.” Can there be greater? Indeed, far greater: convert sinners by God’s grace, carry the gospel to the ends of the earth, save souls for life eternal, 4:35–38; 10:16; 12:24 and 32; and the story of the Acts. These are greater because in miracles only omnipotence and goodness are revealed but in saving souls all the grace of God in Christ Jesus. The great works deal with the material, the greater with the spiritual (5:20, 21). For these greater works Jesus leaves the disciples behind.

The reason and ground for this promise is: “because I am going to the Father.” Without this exaltation of Jesus no promise of any kind could be made and fulfilled. The present tense is used because the going has virtually begun. He returns to the Father as one having completed his mission, and thus it is possible that, with redemption accomplished, the greater works of the gospel of redemption can begin. This causal clause shuts out the misconception as though these works of the disciples would make them equal to Jesus, one also in essence with the Father. For only through Jesus himself in whom they believe, only through him and his work and exaltation will these disciples, and only as disciples and believers, do what he promises to them. Here, too, is the answer to those who insist that believers today must do miracles such as Jesus and the apostles and others performed in the first church.

They do not have in mind all believers but only their special “healers” with their shams and imitations. The miracles of Jesus and those of the apostles were absolutely genuine. And yet these great works were wrought only in support of the greater works until the time when no further supporting works were needed, and when those already wrought and standing as credentials for all time were all the support needed. This is how Jesus, who made his promise, redeemed it, and who is there to demand more?

John 14:13

13 And whatever you shall ask in my name this I will do, in order that there may be glorified the Father in the Son. This is not a continuation of the ὅτι clause in v. 12, “because I am going to the Father, and (because) whatever you,” etc. It is unlike John to extend a subordinate clause in such fashion, even attaching two other sub-subordinate clauses. By all tokens this is an independent sentence. Let us note that v. 12 and 13, 14 are parallel, purposely worded thus: first two emphatic ποιήσει (to indicate what the believer shall do), then ποιήσω (to indicate what Jesus shall do). This parallel should not be destroyed by unwarranted subordination.

Furthermore, we should not restrict the indefinite ὅτι (R. 727) and the constative aorist αἰτήσητε to power and help from Jesus for the performance of miracles and of the greater works. Why this peculiar restriction of an indefinite pronoun when, by promising much more, it surely promises all help needed for these works? Moreover, it is a misconception to look upon the miracles as answers to prayers. In the entire story of Acts no miracle occurs as such an answer. When Peter prayed at Joppa he did not ask for the life of Dorcas; he prayed to know Christ’s will in regard to her. All the apostolic miracles are wrought as direct gifts from Christ, on intimation and direction from the Spirit, whereas the miracles of Jesus were wrought on his own initiative and volition in the execution of his mission (very plain, for instance, in Matt. 8:2).

All the apostolic miracles are, indeed, wrought “in the name of Jesus”; but this phrase is not used in a prayer to God, asking him for the miracle, but in a command to the person on whom the miracle is wrought. Even the greater works of the apostles and the believers are not to be restricted to answers to prayer. At Pentecost the 3, 000 were not converted in response to prayer. Consider Acts 1:8 and Rom. 1:16. While prayer of various kinds is in place in connection with our preaching and our teaching, this our work is done at the behest of Jesus, by the power of his Word, and the results are due to that power alone not to our pleading and prayer.

Thus the first promise with which Jesus leaves his disciples is that they shall do the great and greater works through the power of their exalted Lord. Then follows the second promise: all their prayers shall be answered. Both promises are even doubled. Certainly ὅτι … τοῦτο, “whatever … this very thing” is broad. It includes far more than what pertains to our spiritual work among men; it covers every personal need of the disciples, both temporal and spiritual; for instance, daily forgiveness of sin, daily bread—think of the last four petitions of the Lord’s Prayer. Yet a natural restriction enters into all these askings: no believer will ask what conflicts with his own faith and status as a believer, or with the purpose and the will of his exalted Lord. He can and will ask nothing “in my name” which is not covered by that name.

This important phrase does not mean: by my authority; in my stead; through my merits; in the element of my life; in my spirit and for my sake; etc. In all the connections in which this important phrase occurs τὸὄνομα denotes the revelation by which we know Jesus; see 1:12. This revelation covers his person as well as his work. It is concentrated in his titles, of which we have many, but it takes in all that makes these titles the shining designations that they are. And ἐν has its natural sense of sphere: “in union with,” “in connection with.” This ἐν draws a circle around the action of asking, the boundary is the ὄνομα. Hence not “on the basis of my name,” “through my name,” which would change the preposition.

To pray in Jesus’ name naturally involves faith in the revelation, also that the petition abide in the circle of that revelation. We may or may not use the formula, “in the name of Jesus,” only so the heart and the prayer abide in the sacred sphere. To ask in the name of Jesus implies that the prayer is directed to the Father, yet Jesus promises, “I will do this” that you ask. This is not an incongruity but a revelation of what it means that Jesus returns to his Father. His mission continues in his glorious heavenly state. Thus the answer comes by the act of Jesus.

He remains the Mediator, the Father answers through him. Moreover, these answers are opera ad externa, all of which sunt indivisa aut communa, attributed to all or to any one of the three Persons. Jesus says, “I will do” what you ask, preferring this verb to, “I will give or grant,” because it matches “shall do” in v. 12, predicated there of believers. Yet “I will do” is volitive. Our doing depends on him, hence the believer “shall do” the promised works; Jesus’ doing depends on himself and his own will, hence “I will do” what I promise.

He will do what he thus promises, “in order that there may be glorified the Father in the Son.” The English is awkward but it brings out the emphasis which is on the verb. The divine attributes of love, grace, mercy, power, and wisdom are to be displayed in these answers to prayer, so that we may see and feel them and praise God’s name. Here Jesus again calls himself “the Son.” “In” is not “through,” διά, or per, although this, too, could be said. “In” is again “in union with” the Son. The circle which embraces the Son embraces the glorification of the Father as well. This union rests on the other, of which Philip is reminded in v. 10. The essential perichoresis of the divine persons produces a perichoresis of their glory: in every glorious act of one person the other persons are equally glorified.

The disciples will have God’s own Son in heaven to care for all their needs while they remain on earth, and all this care of the Son for them will reflect the glory of the Father in the Son. Greater assurance and comfort cannot be imagined by the disciples—and, let us add, by us.

John 14:14

14 This tremendous promise bears repeating, but in the repetition we have important changes. If you shall ask me anything in my name, I myself will do it. The textual evidence supports the retention of μέ, as well as of ἐγώ, in place of τοῦτο; with this the inner evidence agrees. The stress is no longer on what the disciples shall ask but now on the person who answers. To the silent implication that the disciples will direct their petitions to the Father (v. 13) there is now added the explicit statement that they will also direct them to Jesus, “if you shall ask me,” etc. The enclitic pronoun has no emphasis and thus no contrast of this “me” with the Father.

In v. 13 we have only an implication that it is the Father who is asked, for this is altogether usual; and likewise in v. 14 the enclitic μέ implies that asking Jesus is also usual and in the nature of the case. The objection that, after the Father is indicated as the one to whom the petitions are addressed, Jesus cannot also be so indicated, is pointless, because the very thing Jesus wants to say is that he as well as the Father may be so addressed. If, however, it is assumed that the Scriptures show no warrant for praying to Jesus, this dogmatical assumption, lowering the person of the Son, is more than answered by the Scriptures themselves in Acts 2:21; 7:59, etc.; 9:14 and 21; 22:16; Rom. 10:12, etc.; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 12:8; 2 Tim. 2:22.

When petitions are addressed to Jesus, they still remain “in my name,” and this revelation of Jesus naturally includes his true relation to the Father (v. 10). Whichever person we address, the one is always in the other. Now, however, Jesus promises with the fullest emphasis on himself, “I myself (ἐγώ) will do it.” In v. 13 ποίησω does not stress the subject, “I will do it.” To this Jesus now adds, “I myself will do it.” Of course, there is no conflict with 15:16, where the Father does the giving. The persons are equal, and their gracious will is one. “I myself” does not mean, “even if the Father would not.” This ἐγώ is for the comfort of the eleven as they see Jesus departing from them. When he is gone, they have him in heaven as the one who will himself do for them what they ask whether they address their requests to the Father or to him. Both ὅτιἅν (v. 13) and ἐάν (v. 14) expect the disciples to ask, αἰτεῖν, peto, the action of a suppliant, a beggar, etc., (never used by Jesus regarding himself toward the Father), as distinguished from ἐρωτᾶν, rogo and interrogo, the finer term (never used regarding our prayers, always used with reference to Jesus toward the Father), Trench, New Testament Synonyms, more correct C.-K. 91.

John 14:15

15 Great are the promises made to the faith of the disciples (greater works, answers to prayer). Yet greater promises are yet to follow (the gift of the Paraclete, the unio mystica with the Father and the Son). For the promised works and answers to prayer the main subjective condition is faith; hence v. 12, “he that believes in me,” in substance the same as, “if you believe in me.” For the promised Paraclete and the unio mystica the subjective condition must be expanded to include also the fruit of faith which is love to Jesus with the evidence of its actuality; hence now, “if you love me,” in substance the same as, “he that loves me.” In this advancing love, faith is not left out even in thought, quite the contrary: no love without the presence of faith. He who does not trust cannot possibly love.

If you love me, my precepts will you guard. He is speaking to believers and he expects their love (ἐάν). And this is ἀγαπᾶν, the love of intelligent comprehension and purposeful devotion, not mere φιλεῖν, liking and personal preference. While the condition expects this love, it yet bids the disciples to question themselves whether they have it and show it as they should. The tense is very properly present, “are loving” in constancy.

The existence of love for Jesus is easy to determine, “my precepts will you guard.” The entire statement is like an axiom; nor is there an exception. The ἐντολαί are not admonitions but Aufgaben; and certainly not “commandments” in any Mosaic sense. Luther writes of them, “that you faithfully preach concerning me, have my Word and Sacrament laid upon you, keep love and unity among yourselves for my sake, and suffer with patience whatever on this account comes upon you … For I do not mean to be a Moses to drive and to plague you with threats and terrors, but I give you such precepts as you can and will keep without commanding, if you, indeed, love me.” Erlangen edition, 49, 131–2. These precepts are the gospel behests of Jesus. The idea of τηρεῖν is watchful care, to cherish and to hold as a treasure, to take all pains not to lose; or to let others violate; see 8:51. Whose heart thus cherishes the precepts will, of course, “keep” or “obey” them, although this is more the resultant effect.

We must read the future indicative, not, as some texts do, the aorist imperative. Nor should we narrow the statement to cover only the official work of the apostles. Though addressed to them, it is as broad as v. 13 and includes all believers like v. 12.

John 14:16

16 The thought connection is not that in order to love Jesus and to cherish his precepts the disciples will be endowed with the Paraclete. The very title of the Spirit here used forbids such a connection. Besides, we have the parallel in the second promised gift, the unio mystica, where again the thought is not and cannot be that in order to love Jesus and to keep his precepts the Father’s love and the indwelling of the Father and the Son will be granted to the disciples (v. 23). verse 15 describes the disciples as true lovers of Jesus, and v. 16 promises to these his true lovers the two great gifts mentioned. They who dearly love Jesus and who now see him departing are not to be left orphans, shifting for themselves as best they can; they shall have a substitute for the familiar presence of Jesus, another Paraclete at their side; in fact, also the Father and Jesus will come and dwell with them in invisible presence. That these divine presences will increase the faith and the love of the eleven is not said; only this is said, that for them as lovers of Jesus these presences will surely follow.

And I myself will request the Father, and another Paraclete shall he give to you, in order that he may be with you forever, the Spirit of the truth, etc. Jesus himself will have the Paraclete sent, the disciples need not fear that their need will be forgotten. Here, to mark the fact that Jesus and the Father are equals, we have ἐρωτᾶν, “to request”; compare on the difference from αἰτεῖν in v. 14. The curious question might be asked why, when all three Persons of the Godhead have the same mind and the same will, the same love and the same grace for men, the Son should yet request the Father to send the Spirit; or the Father should send the Son. Why would not the Son come of his own accord, the Spirit likewise; or the Father send the Spirit without request as he sent the Son; or the Son himself send the Spirit as the Father sent him ? Luther tries to penetrate the council of the Trinity as regards the Father and the Son by saying that in v. 13, 14 “I will do” refers to the divine nature of Jesus, while here “I myself will request” refers to his human nature; “so that ever this article of faith remains certain and clear, that in this person, Christ, there is not utter deity nor utter humanity, but both divine and human nature in one person, undivided,” Erlangen edition, 49, 135.

But this by no means solves the mystery. It forms the heavenly background of the entire plan and the work of salvation. This is nothing less than the mystery of the Trinity itself, in which we do not see three Fathers but only one; not three Sons but only one; not three Spirits but only one. One in essence, the three are yet diverse. They work to one end, yet, as in this case, One requests, One gives, One comes. We know certain divine facts, which transcend all human analogies and categories.

We can do but one thing: abide by the facts and their blessedness and rest content.

We are not willing to regard “I will request” as implying a condition, “if I request,” as R. 1023 thinks we should. “I will request” and “he shall give” are coordinate acts, although the one is the response to the other. The Spirit is a gift from the Father just as is the Son (3:16). We may even say that the Father, too, gives himself to us when he comes and dwells in us (v. 23). The verb δώσει is pure grace.

Jesus calls the Spirit “another Paraclete,” implying that he himself was the first Paraclete of the disciples when he walked in their midst. The word is sometimes used in the sense of “advocate” in a court of justice, and John uses the word in this sense in 1 John 2:1, where he speaks of Jesus as our Advocate with the Father when we sin. Demosthenes uses the word with reference to friends of the accused, who personally urge the judge to decide in his favor. Yet the word was not restricted to courts of law but had a wide range of use. It does not occur frequently in literature, and M.-M., 485, find little enough of it in the papyri. Even Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 339, etc., finds support only for “advocate.” It was used quite freely in ordinary speech, since even the Jews had it in transliteration both in Hebrew and in Aramaic, even as Jesus here employs it in the latter language.

In form Παράκλητος is a verbal adjective, one called to another’s side to aid him, and the term is derived from the passive perfect παρακεκλῆσθαι, not from the active present παρακαλεῖν, and is thus not the same as ὁπαρακαλῶν, C.-K., 572, etc. References to Philo are beside the mark the moment we note how the word is used in our Gospel. The translation “Comforter” adopts Luther’s Troester, which loses the passive sense and gives only a general idea of what is meant.

The Spirit, as the Paraclete, takes the place of Jesus at the side of the disciples; he brings all things to their remembrance which Jesus said to them, 14:26; he testifies to the disciples concerning Jesus, 15:26; Jesus sends him to the disciples (16:7), and he shall glorify Jesus, taking what is his and showing it unto them (16:14). It is plain that the disciples do not call this Paraclete to their side, the Father and Jesus call him to the disciples’ side, they give (14:16) and send him (16:7) to the disciples. The agents in the passive verbal are the Father and the Son. In these connections the Spirit is shown, not as conducting our case before God, but as attending to God’s case before us. Thus he is, indeed, “another” Paraclete, one like Jesus who revealed God to the disciples, who showed them the Father, and who led them to the Father. With the. departure of Jesus the Spirit will assume this work, naturally on the basis of what Jesus had already done and so as to complete it all.

Moreover, the Father’s purpose in giving this other Paraclete is that “he may be with you forever,” εἰςτὸναἰῶνα. In this phrase αἰών denotes unlimited time and thus eternity, here with εἰς eternity a parte post (from now forward). C.-K., 93. The stay of Jesus was limited, not so the stay of this other Paraclete. Compare and correlate in v. 16, 17: μεθʼ ὑμῶν, in your company; παρʼ ὑμῖν, within you—the last being the most intimate. Since the Spirit has been given and remains forever, it is a misconception to speak of or to pray for a new Pentecost.

John 14:17

17 The Spirit of the truth, whom the world cannot receive; for it does not behold him nor know him. You know him; for he remains with you and shall be in you. The designation “another Paraclete” does not yet name this Companion who will always be with the disciples. He is now both named and characterized, “the Spirit of the truth,” and the characterization is one that helps to explain why the world does not receive him, and how the disciples, in contrast with the world, have him in their hearts. The tenses are present, timeless, because the statements are doctrinal facts applying to any time. But the last tense is future, ἔσται, reverting to δώσει in v. 16, with the coming day of Pentecost in mind. “Of the truth” is ethically qualitative; the Spirit, the third Person of the Godhead, belongs to the truth, being wholly bound up with it.

Of course, he has also other attributes, but this is the one pertinent in the present connection. Luther’s explanation, “a truthful, certain Spirit, who does not deceive or fail,” touches only the fringe. Luther is thinking of the devil who makes men certain by his lies which he palms off as truth, until too late they find they have been deceived. Jesus himself describes the ἀλήθεια to which the Spirit is wedded: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself (inventions of his own); but whatsoever he shall hear (from the Father and the Son), that shall he speak; and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me (who am the Truth, v. 6); for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine; therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you,” 16:13–15.

This “truth” consists in the saving realities, which the Spirit possesses, bears, and imparts.

Compare 1:32 on the way in which the Trinity is known and believed by the Jews on the basis of evidence from the Old Testament, so that Father, Son, and Spirit are freely mentioned and need no proof or explanation at any time.

Being what he is, the Spirit of the truth, the bearer of this specific divine and saving truth, “the world,” also being what it is, namely the opposite of the disciples and resolved to remain that, cannot receive the Spirit (λαβεῖν to express the single act indicated). “Ye are of your father the devil.… He abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him,” 8:44. Just because Jesus told the Jews the truth, they believed not, 8:45; if he had told them lies, they would have delighted to believe him. The Spirit has the same experience. Jesus is not speaking of the inability that inheres in all men because of their sinful state; if he meant this, no man could be saved. He speaks of the inability of wilful obduracy, which brings about a state that is still worse, one in which men neither “behold” nor “know” the Spirit although he is present with all his grace. They are not even aware (θεωρεῖν) that it is the Spirit who speaks in the Word and works in the church.

Blinded by the devil’s delusion, they have only false and foolish explanations for the Spirit’s manifestations (Acts 2:13). Naturally they also lack all experimental knowledge (γινώσκειν) of the Spirit and his gracious power. In brief, the new Companion of the disciples will be as foreign to the obdurate world as Jesus was when he walked with them.

Without an adversative particle but with an emphatic ὑμεῖς Jesus says of the disciples, “You know him” with the inner knowledge of experience. For them this one verb suffices, and there is no need to speak of their also beholding or of their also receiving the Spirit. Instead, Jesus points out what causes this knowledge in the disciples, “because he remains with you,” παρά, at your side, as your Paraclete, “and will be in you,” ἐν, in inner spiritual union with you, in your very hearts and souls. Beside the present tenses with their timelessness is set the one final future tense, which accords with εἰςτὸναἰῶνα in v. 16. What it means “to know the Spirit” is thus made perfectly clear. One who is ever at our side to guide, help, teach, and bless us with the Word, One who is actually in our very hearts to mold our minds and our wills with his Word, him we cannot help but know with deepest intimacy (γινώσκειν). Every bit of faith, love, obedience, every holy motion, delight in God and his Word, its promises, comfort, etc., is both a mark of the Spirit’s presence in us and of our knowledge of who and what he really is.

We must say that the eleven already had the Spirit in their hearts when Jesus spoke these words. “You yourself know him” was true in its present sense. No saving faith was ever wrought even in the Old Testament without the Spirit. Jesus himself had planted the Spirit in the hearts of his disciples; their experience of the Spirit had begun. And yet all their contact with the Spirit had been only through Jesus and through him as being visibly present. This is where the great change would come in the departure of Jesus and in the coming of the Spirit. One Paraclete would take the place of the other.

And this not silently and secretly but openly, miraculously, on Pentecost. Compare 7:39. The disciples would have a wondrously new knowledge of the Spirit. The restriction, that all that Jesus here says to the disciples applies to them only in their apostolic office, hence is not applicable to the rank and file of believers, is unwarranted as far as the words themselves go and is certainly contradicted by the number of those who received the Spirit at Pentecost, who were by no means the eleven alone; compare also Acts 10:44.

John 14:18

18 When Jesus is transferred to heaven he will request that the Spirit be sent to the disciples as another Paraclete. But when he now adds: I will not leave you orphans, this does not mean that the Spirit’s presence as substituting for Jesus will provide them as children with another father; for Jesus at once adds: I am coming to you. He will not leave them orphans because after his leaving he himself will come back to them. Only a little while will they be orphaned. What coming does Jesus refer to? The answer is given in the last clause of v. 21 and again in v. 23.

The death of Jesus will not be like that of a father whose little children are then left fatherless orphans. The death of Jesus means his return, a return for a higher and a richer union than that before his death and departure. This return is connected with the gift of the Spirit. We must not break the thought in passing from v. 17 to 18. Jesus, indeed, does not identify himself with the Spirit so that the Spirit’s presence with the disciples is the presence of Jesus; but he does connect his coming with that of the Spirit.

As far as the appearances of Jesus to the disciples after his resurrection are concerned, these have a special import as abounding proofs of his actual resurrection and of his glorification. As such they are transient, encompassed within forty days. These appearances are not the real fulfillment of “I am coming to you.” For then, after all, at the time of the ascension the disciples would have been left orphans save for the foster care of the Spirit. Others identify “I am coming to you” with v. 3, “I am coming again,” and make the former, like the latter, refer to the last day. But the connection of the two statements is entirely different. Moreover, then, indeed, the disciples would be left orphans by the departure of Jesus.

Nor can we argue that, if Jesus would at once come to the disciples, he would not need to send them the Spirit. For Jesus is so far removed from such thoughts that he now tells the disciples that after his death they will have and will enjoy more than they had before. They will have the Spirit with all that the Spirit is able to do on the strength of the completed redemptive work of Jesus; moreover, they will also have Jesus, not indeed as they had him when he came to work out our redemption, but in a far higher manner, using all his divine attributes, in a spiritual presence, like that of the Spirit and combined with him. Matt. 28:20.

John 14:19

19 And this will occur very soon. Yet a little while and the world no longer beholds me, but you do behold me. The little while had shrunk to a few hours. The beholding of the world is, of course, only the one of which the world is capable, namely physical sight. Over against the world Jesus places the disciples; “but you do behold me.” In the nature of the case and because of the strong contrast this is a different kind of beholding, one accomplished only with spiritual eyes. Jesus is not speaking of his appearances during the forty days. The tenses are present, dating forward from “the little while,” but they reach forward indefinitely.

Because I myself live you, too, shall live, ought to be read as an independent sentence and not as the reason why the disciples will still behold Jesus. The causal ὅτι points forward not backward, since the pronouns are so emphatic: ἐγώ, “I myself,” paralleled with καὶὑμεῖς, “you, too,” with all the emphasis resting on these subjects, and with the two verbs also being made parallel. Jesus says that because he lives the disciples, too, shall live. To be sure, with both Jesus and the disciples living, they will have no difficulty in beholding him. This is the general sense of the statements themselves, the one following the other; and not the force of ὅτι, which belongs only in the second statement. The fact that Jesus and the disciples thus live reaches much farther than their beholding him after his death and his exaltation.

This is why Jesus can send them the Paraclete, why he does not leave them orphans, why he comes to them. The καί belongs to ὑμεῖς, “you too,” not to the verb, “you shall also live.” With Jesus living, it is impossible that his disciples should fall into death.

A glance at C.-K., 470, or any other good dictionary eliminates the notion that ζῆν means “come to life” and not “to live.” In fact, when this verb is used regarding the disciples it means “to live in possession of the true ζωή, born in regeneration and connected with God through Christ’s redemption.” “No wonder that the Scripture should know no higher word than ζωή to set forth either the blessedness of God or the blessedness of the creature in communion with God.” Trench, New Testament Synonyms, 1, 133. The best commentary on ὅτιἐγὼζῶ is v. 6: ἐγώεἰμιἡζωή, “I myself am the Life.” This clears away the interpretation that Jesus here says, “Because I myself rise from the dead, you, too, shall rise from the dead,” I at once, you at the last day; that, likewise, his coming to them (v. 18) and their beholding him (v. 19) means only at the last day when they, too, arise from the dead. What Jesus says is that he lives though he dies; he is the very Life itself, which even swallows up death; and this forms the absolute guarantee (ὅτι) that also the disciples “shall live,” shall share in Jesus’ ζωή, shall have and continue to have “life eternal” (3:15, 16). Here, too, lies the real explanation for the change in tenses, regarding Jesus the timeless present ζῶ, “I live,” while regarding the disciples the future ζήσεσθε, “you shall live.” Since Jesus speaks of the time after the “little while,” he might have used the future also regarding himself, “I myself shall live.” Then, however, the relation between his living and that of the disciples marked by ὅτι would be less clear; for we should think only of his future life. The significant present tense “I live,” spoken in the face of death, with its note of timelessness, conveys the thought that no death affects his life, and that thus because of their connection with him the disciples, too, shall continue (future tense) in the spiritual life they have already obtained from him. It should, however, be added that Jesus speaks, not of his life as it inheres in him as the ever-living eternal Logos, irrespective of his incarnation, but of this life of his as made a fountain of life through his incarnation and his redemptive death for all who become his disciples by faith.

John 14:20

20 In that day you shall know that I myself am in my Father, and you yourselves in me, and I myself in you. The promises with which Jesus is taking leave of the disciples are carried a step farther. A further great realization awaits them. “In that day” refers to Pentecost. Even if ἡμέρα is taken in the broader sense of season or time, this time starts with Pentecost when the Father “shall give” (v. 16) them the Paraclete, and when Jesus “comes” (v. 18) to the disciples; also v. 3. In that day and from then on they shall know by their own experience (γνώσεσθε) two mighty facts.

The first is “that I myself am in the Father,” an abbreviation of v. 10 which adds, “and the Father in me.” The abbreviation is natural, since the fuller statement is still in mind, and since the addition now follows, “I in you, and you in me.” What Philip and the others are now bidden to believe (v. 10) on the evidence they have thus far had with Jesus in his state of humiliation, on that day they will actually realize when the Spirit descends upon them with miraculous manifestations, coming from the Father and from their exalted Lord. Then they will know in a marvelous new and direct way that he, with whom they had walked in his humiliation, whom they had seen risen in power from the dead, whom they had beheld lifted up in glory on high, is, indeed, true God, one with the Father, or as he states it, “I myself am in the Father.” For us who were not present at Pentecost the miraculous manifestations of that day cannot be repeated; we have them only in the apostolic attestation, to which is added the abiding effect of the Spirit in the power and the grace of his Word. In this mediate way we, too, realize that the Son, our Savior Jesus, is “in the Father.” For all the love, grace, mercy, light, comfort, joy, hope, and glory, as offered by the Father and the Son, is one. The two are not separate; each is in the other.

This realization is at once combined with another, its product and its proof. “You yourselves in me” through the Spirit poured out in that day, “you yourselves” cleansed, purified, filled with new life and power, joined thus to me with spiritual bonds in the blessed unio mystica. All this comes to us by the same Spirit working in us through the Word. Jesus is the circle (ἐν) in which we live, move, and have our being spiritually. Its counterpart is, “and I myself in you,” we the circle (ἐν) which Jesus fills, joined inwardly to us in the unio mystica, possessing, guiding, governing, blessing us, heart, mind, faculties, members. This is how the exalted Jesus comes to us (v. 18).

Yet the three “in,” while each has a double content, differ greatly. The “in” which encircles the Father and the Son tells of the interpenetration of two Persons of the Godhead, each equally filling the circle, in a mystery of being too profound for us even to grasp its fringe. We see only its radiant evidence as revealed in connection with the saving work of the Persons, and all we may do is to bow down in the dust and worship. The other two “in” are due only to divine grace. They encircle unequal persons: “You in me,” because drawn into me by my grace; “I in you,” because I enter into you by my grace. Again a wondrous interpenetration which only they who are involved know and feel.

These “in” mean that we must be taken out of sin and death before we can be in Jesus; and that sin and death must be taken out of us before Jesus can be in us. The divine “in” has no degrees, it is absolute; our two “in” are with gradations, awaiting perfection above.

Those who place the fulfillment of the promises at the end of the world are compelled to do so also with this one; “in that day” is referred to the last day. The objections to this view already stated intensify themselves at this point and do so still more in v. 23.

John 14:21

21 The entire line of promises from v. 15 onward rests on the condition “if you love me.” The Scriptures are quite regular in emphasizing the love of believers when benefactions are promised to them. Jesus now recurs to this love, yet not in order to repeat the condition, but in order to assure the disciples that they are the ones referred to, and that their love shall meet with a most wonderful response. He that has my precepts and guards them, he it is that loves me. This is a pertinent description of the true disciple whom Jesus acknowledges as such over against the world or any false disciple. The two participles are combined under one article: ὁἔχωνκαὶτηρῶν, for the characterizing actions are always combined. On ἐντολαί and τηρεῖν see v. 15.

The emphatic ἐκεῖνος takes up this subject, but by its emphasis conveys the thought, “he, and he alone” is the one that loves me. The test is always obvious and simple: a true disciple, one who really loves Jesus, always does more than make protestations or pretenses, he cherishes and guards every precept of Jesus which he has by holding to it in his heart and his life against all opposition. Because the predicate is a participle it requires the article; at the same time this makes the predicate identical and interchangeable with the subject, R. 769. As in v. 12, Jesus now again uses the third person singular with its universal note—taking in all his believers (v. 12) and all his lovers (v. 21). In v. 13 and on through v. 19 Jesus used the second person plural, himself applying everything directly to the eleven. Now, however, the third person singular is retained through to v. 24, save for one relative clause in the final verse.

The eleven will know that they are meant.

All the promises hitherto made in this chapter, each one grand and wonderful in itself, are so many evidences of something far greater, namely divine love. And this is subsequent love, which, when antecedent love has kindled faith and love in us, delights to show itself to the beloved in most intimate fashion. And he that loves me with the love just indicated shall be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him. The future tenses refer to the day of Pentecost and thereafter. This appears especially in the last verb; for the appearances during the forty days were only preliminary manifestations to be followed by his constant presence, help, and blessing in the spirit (v. 18). What this love of the Father means Paul states in Rom. 8:28, and 32. The fact that his love is stated with a passive verb while that of Jesus is stated with an active verb is a mere formal difference.

The verb ἐμφανίζω does not refer to revelations in a special feeling of the nearness of Jesus, or to a consciousness of spiritual power (perhaps while the physical strength wanes), or to direct inner impressions of Christ’s glory in glimpses of the other world. These are dangerous ideas, leading to autosuggestion, hallucination, or fanaticism (Schwaermerei). Gerhard points us away from this subjectivism to the objective Word: “That is a salutary, practical manifestation of Jesus Christ, when he implants spiritual motions into the hearts of his believers and lovers: as when they receive a living, believing impression of the divine love from the mystery of the incarnation; when they understand the greatness of their sins from the mystery of the passion, heartily lament them and are assured of their forgiveness; when they draw an earnest longing for heaven from the mystery of eternal life, etc. For thus Christ manifests himself to the soul as the most gracious Savior, as the most lovely Bridegroom, as the most faithful Shepherd, as the most mighty King, as the most wise Teacher, as the most ready Physician; and by such manifestation faith, love, hope, patience, and all Christian virtues are produced in the hearts of the godly and increase from day to day.”

John 14:22

22 Judas (not the Iscariot) says to him, Lord, what has occurred that only to us thou art about to manifest thyself and not to the world? This Judas is usually identified with Thaddeus, also called Lebbeus (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18). We may accept it as certain that he was not one of Jesus’ brothers, for in 7:5 John writes, “not even his brethren believed on him.” Not in order to identify this Judas but to obviate any misunderstanding John adds, “not the Iscariot,” the one from Keriot, of whom we have been told that he went out (13:30). No one is to suppose that the traitor had possibly come back, with John now merely noting his renewed presence. Concerning this other Judas (or Jude) the Gospels have preserved only the one little incident now introduced.

Judas notes the marked contrast into which Jesus places the disciples and the world, especially that in the future only the disciples will behold Jesus, that Jesus comes only to them, and will manifest himself only to those that love him. Judas cannot harmonize this marked restriction with the statements of Jesus that he is the Savior of the world, that he has many other sheep not of this fold, that his mission is unto all men. So he asks τίγέγονεν, what has happened to cause this change and restriction? In τίγέγονενὅτι we have an extended “why?” R. 739, with ὅτι consecutive, R. 1001. Since ἡμῖν is in contrast with οὑχὶτῷκόσμῳ, its force is “only to us”; and μέλλεις with the present infinitive circumscribes the future, “art about to manifest thyself.”

John 14:23

23 Jesus answered and said unto him (what follows is thus a real answer): If anyone loves me, my word will be guard; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and will make abode with him for ourselves. He that does not love me, my words he does not guard. And the word which you hear is not mine but the Father’s who did send me. While Jesus seems simply to go on with his discourse, as if no interruption had occurred, he really answers the point raised by Judas. For the manifestation which is restricted to the disciples is that intimate personal manifestation which is possible only after Jesus comes to men with his Word. Then some will believe in him, accept, prize, and cherish his Word and thus show that they love him; while others will do the opposite and will remain the world that they are. That clears up the question of Judas.

The first class is again described as in v. 15, but now “my word” is substituted for “my precepts,” thus defining what is meant by the latter. Since love is highly personal, Jesus again uses the singular, and the “if” of expectancy (ἐάν) still asks that each of us examine his own heart and life. The promise now added is the same as that in v. 21, but now it is stated in the active, “and my Father will love him” with that subsequent love which answers the love already enkindled in us. Jesus does hot need to add that he, too, will love him who shows love by guarding his Word. For this is implied in the extension of the promise, using the plural so as to include both Jesus and the Father, “and we will come to him,” etc. This is the same coming as that predicated of Jesus in v. 18.

In spite of the clearness of the words the supposition is held that this is the coming at the end of the world. Yet the Scriptures know of no coming of the Father such as this at the end of the world; there will be no joint parousia of the Father and the Son. The promise is that this coming, conditioned by our loving and cherishing Jesus’ Word, follows at once upon our love. That this is an invisible spiritual coming, full of additional grace and blessings, is made plain by the addition “and will make abode with him for ourselves” (ποιησόμεθα, reflexive middle). This cannot refer to the last day and to eternity. It is intended as an immediate answer to our present love.

Not only will the Father and Jesus come to us, they will do to the full what is always the desire of complete love, namely join themselves permanently to the loved one.

Although the phrase is παρʼ αὑτῷ, “at his side,” “with him,” the sense is quite equal to “in him,” as appears from μονήν, “abiding-place,” the same term used in v. 2 for our “mansions” or “abiding-places” in the Father’s heavenly house. Those who love Jesus will be the “mansions” for the indwelling of the Father and the Son. We may say that this unio mystica includes also the Spirit, and in the economy and the cooperation of the three Persons is made possible by the Spirit and mediated by him, since it is his office to implant faith and love in us.

John 14:24

24 The answer to Judas is completed by adding the opposite. They who constitute “the world,” to whom Jesus cannot manifest himself as he can to his loving disciples, are all who lack love and its evidence. Again this is personal and individual: “He that does not love me, my words he does not guard.” Here Jesus uses the plural, for the one Word is both a grand unit and at the same time composed of parts. Not one of these parts is dear to the worldling. Not one is prized as valuable; all are treated with indifference or with hostility. No need to add that such a loveless person cannot be loved like a disciple and cannot be blessed with the indwelling and the communion of the Father and the Son. His heart, like that of Iscariot, is filled and dominated by another.

The full gravity of this lack of love for Jesus and of this disregard of his Word as evidence of the lack is brought out by once more showing the connection of Jesus and his Word with the Father: “And the Word which you hear is not mine,” as if I invented it apart from the Father, “but the Father’s who did send me” and who gave me this Word to speak in my saving mission. Compare the same statement in 7:16, where Jesus warns the Jews about treating his teaching with disdain. The Greek is very compact, τοῦπέμψαντόςμεπατρός. Jesus returns to the singular, “the Word” and adds, “which you hear,” ἀκούετε, a comprehensive present tense which views the Word as a great unit, so that, whenever the disciples hear Jesus speak, they hear this Word. It is, of course, as much the Word of Jesus as it is that of the Father. But Jesus is in the flesh and in the state of humiliation; and when men hear him speak this Word, they may, in order to escape its truth and power, attribute it to him alone as the Word of a mere man.

Any such thought is absolutely false. This is the Word of the great Sender of Jesus. He is the real author and speaker of his Word.

In saying that it belongs to the Sender of Jesus the idea is that this Word embodies and presents the entire saving mission of Jesus. He not only speaks this Word as a part of his mission (his prophetic office); this Word reveals and presents to us his mission itself. In this Word we see the Father, the Son whom he sent, and the entire mission on which he is sent. To reject this Word is to reject all three, and these three are combined when designating the Father as “the Father who did send me.” Thus it is impossible to keep the Father and yet to discard the Son and his mission. Refusal to cherish the Word means rejection of the Father with all the consequences this involves. And the consequence here stressed is the loss of all the subsequent love of the Father. He, indeed, would extend this love with all its benefactions, but they who belong to the world and attest it by rejecting the Word of the great Sender of Jesus make any reception of the Father’s love and benefactions on their part utterly impossible.

Jesus treats only these two cases: the man who cherishes his Word, and the man who does not. He, indeed, considers this Word as consisting of parts, “precepts,” “words”, but says nothing about the man who would cherish only certain parts of his teachings while neglecting or rejecting other parts. We may say that this man lacks greatly in love, deprives himself of much of God’s subsequent love and blessings, and is in danger of losing the entire Word. For, however many its parts, they ever form one vital unit, and to discard or to antagonize some of its parts weakens and jeopardizes our hold upon the rest.—The entire section, v. 16–24, turns on love, but this follows the section on faith. Faith is always presupposed in love.

John 14:25

25 All that Jesus has thus said is filled with the thought of his impending departure, and now he reaches the point where he begins actually to say farewell. These things have I spoken to you while remaining with you. And the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and will remind you of everything that I myself said to you. See how this expression, “These things I have spoken to you,” carrying the tone of one turning to leave, recurs in 15:11 and 17; and in 16:1, 4, and 25. These chapters read as though Jesus is loth to leave, drawn by tender love to linger as long as possible, pouring out his heart’s thoughts during every precious minute still left. The absence of ἐγώ shows that the thought is not: I have spoken to you thus far, but now another will speak to you.

The emphasis is on the participial addition παρʼ ὑμῖνμένων. Jesus has thus far spoken to the disciples as one visibly in their presence; hereafter he will speak to them in a different manner, namely by the Spirit. “These things” refers to the discourses of this last evening but as embodying all that Jesus had hitherto conveyed to his disciples.

John 14:26

26 The connective δέ expresses only a slight contrast. “The Paraclete” (v. 16) is now used as an official title like “the Christ” and is at once followed by the actual name of the Person referred to, “the Holy Spirit.” Everything points to the personality of this Spirit, although the grammatical gender of τὸΠνεῦμα happens to be neuter in the Greek; always also τὰπνεύματα are personal spirit beings. On the personal force of the Greek article see R. 795, and 709 on the demonstrative masculine ἐκεῖνος. According to v. 16 this spirit is given, but now we learn that he is sent even as the Son was sent; to give is to send him. The adjective ἅγιον is added by a second article thus receiving increased emphasis, R. 418. The Spirit is called “holy,” not in comparison with the other two Persons of the Godhead, but because of his divine function and office which is to make holy or sanctify sinners. Jesus names the Paraclete so fully because he wants the eleven to understand how they will be blessed by the presence and the work of this invisible divine Person who will now carry the work of Jesus forward. “In my name” evidently cannot mean “on my authority,” but, as in all similar instances, “in connection with me and with my revelation (ὄνομα).” On ὄνομα in these phrases see 1:12 and 14:13. Nor need ἐν be altered into ἐπί “on the basis of,” for its native sense is the true one, “in union with” my name (revelation). “He shall send” the Spirit—he did, Acts 2.

“He will teach you everything” has the sense of 16:13, 14, “he shall guide you into all the truth,” etc. We see the fulfillment of this promise in the apostolic epistles and in the hearts and the minds of all who, like the 3, 000 at Pentecost, “continue steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching.” This teaching was to a great extent immediate in the case of the apostles; for others it is mediate, the medium being the apostles whose Word forms the foundation of the church, Eph. 2:20. In πάντα is included all that the apostles might need in their work, much also that Jesus could not communicate to them while he was with them.

The second πάντα is narrower, “will remind you of everything that I myself said to you.” The fulfillment is exhibited in the marvelous record of the four Gospels, most notably in that of John which contains the extended discourses of Jesus. It is humanly impossible to reproduce with fidelity even human words spoken during a period of over three years, when all the words are understood perfectly at the moment they are heard. It is vastly more impossible to reproduce with exactness the many words of Jesus which the disciples failed to grasp at the time they heard them. The promise of Jesus assures the eleven on this vital point. By means of an immediate illumination the Spirit will enable them to recall every utterance of Jesus in its true meaning. He will remind the disciples and in addition he will teach them what is contained in all of which they are thus reminded.

Here is the answer to all the questioning in regard to the four Gospels. This answer covers also the form of these Gospels, the verbal variations in reporting the words of Jesus, the translation of what Jesus said from Aramaic into Greek. The Spirit is back of it all. The final ἐγώ, “what I myself said to you,” should not be dropped.

The two πάντα cannot be reduced to one, “he will teach and remind you in regard to everything that I myself said to you.” If this were the sense, one πάντα and one ὑμᾶς would suffice. Moreover, the reminding should be first and the teaching second. It is true enough that the words of Jesus are the foundation on which the further teaching of the Spirit rests, but the Spirit’s teaching goes beyond that which the disciples had when Jesus left them, 16:12, 13. This further teaching, while predicated of the Spirit, is at the same time the teaching of Jesus who uses the Spirit to convey to the disciples what is his own (16:13).

John 14:27

27 As one who is near the point of leaving Jesus promises the disciples the work of the Spirit which shall be more than a substitute for his familiar presence and teaching. To this he adds his gift of peace. Peace I leave to you, my own peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I on my part give. The oriental greeting, “Peace to you!” occurs in the Scriptures as a greeting on arrival (Luke 10:5; 24:36; John 20:19 and 26), as a farewell greeting (Eph. 6:23; 1 Pet. 5:14; 3 John 14), and as a gracious form of dismissal, “Go in peace!” (1 Sam. 1:17; 20:42; 2 Sam. 15:9; Acts 16:36; James 2:16). None of these applies here, nor does Jesus use any of the forms of greeting. And yet these forms must have been in his mind with his departure so near at hand.

It is thus that Jesus now speaks of peace. What friends at parting wish each other in their poor human way, that Jesus actually gives and leaves at his parting from the disciples like a sweet, rich treasure for their comfort.

“Peace” is at once defined by “my own peace,” one which in a peculiar way belongs to Jesus, which he also can “leave” (like a legacy) and “give” (like a treasure). The very words indicate that this “peace” is objective: the condition and the situation of peace when nothing disturbs our relation to God. This must be distinguished from the subjective feeling of peace. The latter is to flow from the former, yet the feeling may be slight, even altogether absent at times, while the condition itself still obtains. On the other hand, one may feel quite undisturbed, unconscious of any danger while his actual condition should fill him with dismay. “My peace” must mean, “the peace I establish for you.” This objective blessed condition Jesus leaves to his disciples, leaves it to them as a precious gift from his own hand. Whether they at once enter into the full consciousness and enjoyment of this peace is a minor matter. The subjective feeling will come in due time where the objective condition prevails.

Thus it is a mistake to think that Jesus leaves his own personal feeling of peace to the disciples. How can they “make his calmness in the presence of danger their own”? The matter is misconceived when we are told that their own faith is not yet strong enough to produce in them a peace of their own and that, therefore, Jesus invites them (he does not use such a verb) for the present to enjoy what they behold in him. Are they then later on when their faith produces its own peace to discard what Jesus now leaves and gives to them? The present tenses “I leave,” “I give” are disregarded when others assume that “my own peace” means “my security in the face of the deadly attack of the prince of this world,” and that this security is to pass on to the disciples after the departure of Jesus, so that they, too, will feel perfectly secure in the dangers that beset them, God being their protector as he is that of his Son. The peace Jesus leaves he leaves and gives now.

The disciples have already had it (objectively) and even enjoyed it (subjectively). They are to retain it even though Jesus now departs. The security and the well-being intended by this peace relate to far more than to protection in the hour of danger; they refer to the relation of the disciples to God. “Peace” is a central concept and should not be reduced by being in some way turned into mere feeling.

In the addition, “not as the world gives do I on my part give,” the two verbs are without specified objects. Thus the contrast deals only with the two modes of giving and not, as is often supposed, with the two kinds of peace. The world gives only with empty words which convey no lasting treasures; Jesus gives with words that actually convey true blessings whether they are those of peace or of some other divine grace. This difference in the acts, of course, includes a difference in the objects. The world has no true peace, and hence its greetings of peace mean nothing; Jesus has a true gift of peace for us and thus is able to bestow it upon us. In abiding by the contrast as drawn by Jesus we lose nothing as regards the objects; we gain something that reaches beyond the objects.

Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid, is not the negative side of the positive gift of peace as if Jesus said, “Therefore let not your heart be troubled,” etc. As in v. 1, this imperative, now enhanced by a second verb, ushers in the reason why no troubling fears and no dismay (δειλιᾶν, found only in this passage) should upset the hearts of the disciples. If this injunction against cowardly fear were intended to indicate the proper result of peace in the hearts of the disciples, it would present only one side of the subjective feeling induced by the objective condition of peace, and a side out of line with the great concept of objective peace. Jesus would be made to say, “Because I have made peace between you and God, therefore do not feel afraid when you get into danger!” Yet thus far we have heard of danger only for Jesus not for the disciples. Any fears in their hearts were thus concerned with Jesus and only indirectly with themselves, in so far as his death would leave them alone in the world. The moment we connect this injunction against fear with what follows all is clear: Jesus wants no fear in their hearts when he now goes into his death, he wants the very opposite—joy.

John 14:28

28 Therefore he once more shows them what his death really means, not merely to them, but to himself. The disciples, if they love their Lord at all, ought to be glad that now his mission on earth is done, that he goes back to his Father who is far greater than the human Jesus they have thus far known. You heard that I myself said to you, I am going away and am coming to you. The peculiar ἐγώ must not be overlooked. Jesus alone could say a thing like this: in the same breath speak of his leaving and of his coming to the disciples. He repeats what he said before in such a striking way, because this strange combination of the departure and the return to them must be held fast by the disciples.

Understanding this double declaration (v. 18, 19), all fear will leave their hearts, in fact, joy will take its place. “Am coming to you,” of course, does not refer to the coming at the last day (v. 3) but to the invisible spiritual coming and presence promised in v. 18 and 23. The departure and death of Jesus only ushers in this far higher and more blessed presence of Jesus with his disciples. Jesus, however, has already spoken of the gain this would bring to the disciples (v. 16–23). While they may, indeed, think of themselves they ought also to think of Jesus and of what his departure means for him.

So he continues: If you loved me (present unreality, εἰ with the imperfect) you would have rejoiced (past unreality, the aorist with ἄν) that I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I. The protasis charges the disciples only with a certain lack of love, namely the lack evidenced by their failure to rejoice at the coming exaltation of Jesus. The disciples did, indeed, love Jesus but not with the clarity and the understanding that would have placed joy instead of fear into their hearts. Their ἀγάπη was not yet fully what the term implies. The mixed condition indicates a shifting of the standpoint (R. 1015). The protasis speaks of a present lack of love, and the apodosis of the past evidence of that lack.

But, of course, this present lack of love reaches back to the time when the disciples failed to rejoice; and likewise their past failure to rejoice has not even yet been changed into joy. That (ὅτι) which from the start should have rejoiced the disciples is the going of Jesus “to the Father” with all that love would see in this elevation for Jesus. Read on ὅτιπορεύομαι and not ὅτιεἶπον, πορεύομαι (“because I said, I go unto the Father,” A. V.). This ὅτι is declarative, it states the object of the joy. It is subjective, stating the object as the disciples should have seen it.

The second ὅτι is causal: “for the Father is greater than I.” It is objective, Jesus states his relation to the Father. This brief reference, intended only to show the disciples why going to the Father would be an event so happy for Jesus that they should at once have rejoiced when he told them of it, has become the battleground of both exegetes and dogmaticians. Here Jesus is in his humiliation, limited to a narrow range in exercising his divine attributes; but now he goes to the Father, to him who has assumed no limitations of any kind, where, when Jesus arrives there, all limitations will cease also for him. What joy for all who love him! It has well been said and often repeated that the creature that would dare to make a comparison of himself with God by saying, “God is greater than I,” would be guilty of blasphemous folly as he who would say, “I am equal to God.” When Jesus utters this comparison he does so with the most vivid consciousness of his deity. Merely to note this obvious fact answers the denial of the deity of Jesus.

In 10:29 Jesus calls the Father greater than all hostile powers that may array themselves against him and in that connection makes his own power equal to that of the Father, saying of each (v. 28, 29) that no hostile power shall snatch the sheep out of his hand. When Jesus now says that the Father is greater than he, he does this in connection with his departure by death. This statement of Jesus “can be referred only to the Son of man as he stood in lowliness before the disciples and comforted them in regard to his departure,” Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4, 1, 449. Recall 6:62: the Son of man ascends up where he was before, i.e., where he was before as the Son of God. “Greater than I” is usually referred to power. But why this restriction where Jesus makes none? “Greater” means greater in every way. Because we have only the pronoun μοῦ, “than I,” which to the disciples meant the Lord as he stood before them in his lowliness, some are not content with this obvious sense, “greater than I as you have seen and now see me,” but press this pronoun to mean “the Son.” This opens the floodgates of speculation.

John’s prolog, statements like 5:23; 10:30 are forgotten, and we are offered a variety of views as to how Jesus is in his actual person and being less than the Father. Some leave us nothing but a mere man with a high immanence of God; others are more generous, like Arius and his modern pupils, Sabellius, all types of subordinationists, the kenoticists, and a motley array of rationalists. One contends against the other; we turn away from their contentions. Jesus is here not at all speaking of the inner Trinitarian relation of the Persons of the Godhead but only of his person in its present state.

Jesus is going to his greater Father where he will do all that he promises in this chapter. Hence we discard the notion that he goes only again to enjoy the glory and the blessedness of his Father. Likewise, that he leaves the disciples to the greater protection of the Father. But we must hold with Luther and with others that the going of Jesus to his Father means much also for the disciples, that his own interest in going involves also theirs, as the entire chapter attests.

John 14:29

29 And now I have told you before it takes place, in order that, when it takes place, you may believe. “I have told you” means: about my going away and coming to you. Jesus has an eye to the future. He says these things now, in advance, although he knows that the disciples cannot grasp them at this moment, in order that, when these things take place, his having told them thus may form the basis of their faith. Compare the similar statement in 13:19. In both passages the aorist πιστεύσητε denotes the act of faith that shall then take place. The aorists γενέσθαι and γένηται designate definite future happenings.

John 14:30

30 No longer will I speak much with you, for the world’s ruler is coming. The fact that the time of parting is quite near is now stated in so many words. “No longer will I speak much” means that Jesus has time to say only a few things more. He indicates that he knows just how much time is left and, of course, that he will use this most fully. The limit is set by the coming of “the world’s ruler.” This time the genitive is between the article and the noun, making it less emphatic than in 12:31, “the ruler of this world.” Here, too, κόσμος is general, the entire world of men and things in which Satan, because of the entrance of sin, is able to exercise his power; not “world” in the sense merely of wicked men. Jesus might have said, Judas and the men sent out by the Sanhedrin are on the way. He says far more, for in what is about to happen the chief agent is Satan who merely uses the miserable tools he has found for his purpose.

The present tense ἔρχεται shows that Jesus is aware of every move of his great foe. He thus might nullify or frustrate Satan’s plans even now. The disciples are to understand this and are to know that Jesus is freely laying down his life by allowing Satan’s plans to proceed, 10:18.

All that now follows is one sentence. And in me he has nothing; nevertheless, in order that the world may realize that I love the Father, and that just as the Father gave me commission thus I do, arise, let us be going hence. Satan has nothing in Jesus, and thus his efforts to kill Jesus might properly be resented and nullified. Over against this negative thought ἀλλά sets the strong positive, “nevertheless, to achieve the great purpose (ἵνα) of Jesus and his Father, let us go hence, where Satan can lay hands on me.” Those who make, “Arise, let us go hence,” an independent statement, secure only a disjointed command, thrust into the discourse without motivation. When this is done, the main verb is supplied: ἀλλὰἔρχεται, “but he comes, in order that,” etc. Or ποιῶ is regarded as the main verb, as our versions translate. The thought as well as the construction is thus disturbed.

The two thoughts are placed side by side: Satan is coming, and in me he has nothing. The emphasis is on ἐνἐμοί and on οὑδέν. The Greek doubles and thus strengthens the negation: οὑκἔχειοὑδέν. The sense of “nothing” is made plain by the connection with ὁἄρχων: nothing that might justify this ruler in coming to strike at Jesus. That is why “in me” is so emphatic. Jesus differs from all other men. No link of any kind exists between him and Satan—only an impassable gulf. That this is due to the absolute sinlessness of Jesus is only part of the truth. The sinlessness is itself due to the deity of Jesus.

John 14:31

31 But if this is the case, why does Jesus yield and submit to Satan on this night? Why does he not rid himself of the devil as he did in Matt. 4:10? The answer is given by ἀλλὰἵνακτλ., by the divine and saving purpose which Jesus and his Father are carrying out: “in order that the world may realize,” etc. What Jesus allows to happen this night will be brought to the attention of the whole world of men. He enters his passion and his death with this tremendous consciousness. On γνῷ (or γνοῖ) see R. 308.

This strong verb is used because the realization that Jesus has in mind is one that leads to saving faith in what Jesus now does. His act is due to his love for the Father, the love (ἀγαπᾶν) that understands the Father’s will and purposes to carry it out. Hence the elucidating addition that just as the Father gave him commission thus he does—also and especially at this decisive moment; καθώς and οὕτως are correlative. On ἐντολή in the sense of “commission” or Auftrag see 10:18. All the world is to see this love of Jesus doing just what the Father wills even at the price of Jesus’ death. This love and its great saving deed is to win the world to faith.

The aorist “gave” refers to the time when Jesus came into the world, and the present “I do” covers all the work of Jesus down to the act now about to take place.

“Nevertheless … arise, let us be going hence” ends the Passover feast. No destination is indicated, yet the disciples know that Jesus intends to meet “the world’s ruler” and thus once more do the Father’s ἐντολή. The asyndeton ἐγείρεσθεἄγωμεν is idiomatic, as is also the combination of the present imperative with the hortative present subjunctive. The action of arising from the couches on which the company had dined is merely preliminary to the action of leaving the place and going elsewhere. Those who regard “Arise,” etc., as a separate sentence incline to the opinion that Jesus left the upper room at this point, spoke the next three chapters somewhere on the way to the Kidron, crossed this at 18:1, and then went on to Gethsemane. When we note that the bidding to arise and to leave is only the conclusion of a longer sentence, that 15:1, etc., indicates no change of place, and that ἐξῆλθεν in 18:1 reads as though Jesus did not leave the upper room until that moment, we are led to conclude that after the company arose from their couches they lingered in the upper room until Jesus finished speaking the next three chapters.

This delay consumed only a short time. We cannot think that the next three chapters were spoken while the company was in motion, and John nowhere indicates that they halted at some spot along the way.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.