John 17

CHAPTER XVII

12. The High-Priestly Prayer, Chapter 17

John 17:1

1 Chytraeus calls this chapter the precatio Summi Sacerdotis, the High-Priestly Prayer, and Luther says, “that he might entirely carry out his office as our only High Priest.” We surely have a prayer here. The counterclaim that this chapter presents only another solemn testimony addressed to the disciples, a final benediction for them, is contradicted at every turn. Jesus utters this prayer aloud for the simple reason that he wants his disciples to hear his communication with the Father. For his own person a silent prayer might have sufficed. To the last his interest includes the disciples. They are to see how he enters his passion as a victor and to hear with their own ears the thoughts that rise to the Father from his heart, thoughts concerning himself (v. 1–5), concerning the disciples at his side (v. 6–19), and concerning all future believers in all the world (v. 20–26).

This prayer is to deepen and to intensify all that the last discourses contain. Its power is to work in the hearts of the disciples throughout the coming days. Jesus does not pray with the disciples, does not ask them to lift up their hearts and to join him in prayer as we do at times when saying farewell. This prayer lies on a plane that is so exalted that no disciple can join in its utterance. Jesus prays before his disciples, they can only witness this prayer. Its serenity, its majesty, and its authority befit only the heart and the lips of him who is the Son.

Before this-prayer all our prayers fade like tapers in the sun.

These things said Jesus and lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, Father, the hour has come. Glorify thy Son in order that the Son may glorify thee. The three introductory verbs are finite and thus equally important, although the variant reading that has the participle, “having lifted up his eyes, said,” is also well attested. The statement, “these things said Jesus,” intends to mark the division between the discourse and the prayer. Thus also Jesus now lifts his eyes to heaven; but εἰςτὸνοὑρανόν is too slender a thread to bear the conclusion that Jesus is now somewhere in the open and no longer in the upper room; see 14:31. In 11:41, where Jesus is in the open, John writes only ἄνω, “he lifted up his eyes.” The attitude of looking up to heaven naturally accompanies prayer, since for us on earth God is always above, not in a physical, but in an ideal or spiritual sense.

The simple address, “Father,” repeated in v. 5, 21, and 24, is peculiarly fitting for the Son in the sense in which Jesus differentiates “my Father” from “your Father” in 20:17. He speaks as the Only-begotten who came from his Father on his great mission. In v. 11 Jesus uses “holy Father,” and in v. 25 “righteous Father,” to accord with the thought of his prayer in these sections, yet these variations, like the unmodified address “Father,” still eminently fit the lips of the Son. “The hour has come,” with its perfect tense, means that, having come, it is now here. It is the hour for which in a special sense Jesus had come into the world, 12:27; not the hour for his death merely but the time for his death, his resurrection, and his ascension, these taken together.

The time has come for two reciprocal acts: for the Father to glorify the Son that the Son may glorify him. Both the imperative and the subjunctive are aorists. The latter is constative (R. 832), embracing, as it evidently does, the entire activity of Jesus in his heavenly exaltation in making the glory of his Father shine forth in all his wondrous attributes before the eyes and the hearts of men. This aorist also indicates that the Son will actually effect the glorification of the Father. The first aorist δὸξασον may refer to the resurrection and the ascension as the acts that glorify Jesus. Yet, “glorify thy Son” may be conceived as a single act, that of investing the human nature of Jesus with the full use of the divine attributes, v. 5.

Then the aorist would be effective (R. 834). These observations show that the two acts of glorification are not identical, which appears also from the conjunction ἵνα. The Father is to exalt Jesus by investing his human nature with the unlimited use of the divine attributes in the glory of heaven (Phil. 2:9); and this he is to do in order to effect the purpose (ἵνα) that the Son may make the glorious attributes of the Father shine out in all the world through the work of the Spirit in the gospel and in the church. In the Son’s case his own person receives an augmentation of glory apart from any effect upon men, by way of what is done to his human nature. In the Father’s case his own person receives no augmentation, and only what he already is from all eternity is revealed to the world which needs this revelation. The Father glorifies the Son in the Son’s self; the Son glorifies the Father in the world (see v. 3).

The position of σον before its noun does not make this genitive emphatic: “seeing he is thy Son,” as some of the older commentators suppose; for these possessives are naturally placed forward in the Greek.

Verse 5 thwarts the efforts of rationalism to reduce the glorification of the Son to the bestowal of moral perfection upon Jesus at his reception into heaven or during his passion. It also refutes the notion that God is to increase the power of attraction which Jesus is to have among men because of his spiritual perfection. These ideas rob Jesus of his deity and leave him no more than a man even though he be made the greatest of men.—To charge orthodoxy with teaching that the glorification of Jesus consists in his enjoyment of divine happiness and glory is to state an unwarranted charge.

Jesus uses the third person, calling himself “thy Son” and “the Son” not merely “me” and “I.” By designating himself thus he evidently intends to indicate his eternal relation to the Father (1:1, 2; 1:18). But here we make the observation that Jesus may designate his person in any way, according to either of his two natures or without reference to his natures, so long as he only designates his person, and then may predicate of himself anything that pertains to the one or to the other or even to both natures. Here “Son” names him as God, and yet “glorify” predicates something that is possible only to his human nature. The same manner of expression appears in 1:14; Acts 3:15; 1 Cor. 2:8; Gal. 4:4; 1 Tim. 3:16; the reverse, in Acts 17:31; Isa. 9:6; etc.

John 17:2

2 Even as thou didst give him authority over all flesh that—everything thou didst give him—he give to them life eternal. We need not say with R. 963 that καθώς is almost causal, “since thou didst give,” etc. It expresses correspondence. When God glorifies Jesus in order that Jesus may glorify him, this is in perfect harmony with what God did when he gave Jesus authority over all flesh, etc. What Jesus now requests is in absolute accord with this past act of God. In order to carry to completion what God began in the past he will now certainly glorify Jesus.

Jesus and the Father are in absolute harmony on all features of his great mission regarding the world. This harmony Jesus puts into words. For one thing, the disciples are to hear it, and not merely as a point of instruction, but in a loftier way, namely as a communication between the two divine Persons in this most solemn moment. Our rationalizing minds might ask why this perfect agreement of Jesus with the Father is not enough in itself, why Jesus needed to put it into words. And further, why did Jesus ask the Father to do what in the nature of the case the Father himself intends to do? We may remark that these and similar questions may be asked at every turn where the divine Persons deal with each other.

Our answer has already been given in connection with 14:16. Who is able to penetrate into the mystery of the Trinity and to say more?

The Father gave to Jesus “authority over all flesh,” ἐξουσίανπάσηςσαρκός, an objective genitive for which we need the preposition in our idiom: “over all flesh,” R. 500. John uses “all flesh” only here. The sense is obvious: the entire human race, all mankind as made of flesh and as, therefore, now mortal. The authority over all flesh is the rule and dominion over all men. The aorist ἔδωκας is historical: when the Son came on his mission he received this authority. His mission was to the entire world of men, and hence, when he came on this mission, he received this universal authority.

It was the Father’s gift to the human nature which his Son assumed in the incarnation. According to his divine nature the Son already possessed this authority and could not be given what he already had by virtue of his deity. But as man he could, indeed, and did, indeed, receive this gift. “He put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things,” Eph. 1:22. During his humiliation Jesus had this authority but did not exercise it save in a very limited degree. The humiliation was a brief, transient period, the prelude to the exaltation or glorification of the human nature when Jesus exercises to the full also according to his human nature the authority that came to it as the Father’s gift in the assumption of the divine mission.

The ἵνα clause is subfinal and as such defines the contents of the “authority” given to Jesus. He has authority to give life eternal (see 3:15), the life of eternal salvation, to all whom the Father gives to him. This does not describe or define all that the authority covers, it names only the supreme part, which is here sufficient. In other connections such as 5:28 and 12:48, we learn that the judgment is included and that this part of the authority is given to Jesus as the Son of man, i.e., to him as man: “he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained,” to whom he gave this authority, Acts 17:31. “For to quicken, to have all judgment and all power in heaven and on earth, to have all things in his hands, to have all things in subjection beneath his feet, to cleanse from sin, etc., are not created gifts, but divine, infinite properties; and yet, according to the declarations of Scripture, these have been given and communicated to the man Christ, John 5:27; 6:39; Matt. 28:18; Dan. 7:14; John 3:35; 13:3; Matt. 11:27; Eph. 1:22; Heb. 2:8; 1 Cor. 15:27; John 1:3; 14:51.” Concordia Triglotta, 1033.

In describing the salutary work of the authority given to Jesus the construction is broken: “everything thou didst give him” hangs in the air. We might call it an accusative absolute, or with R. 437, 718 recognize it as an anacoluthon. This construction is intentionally employed by John, for it lifts into special prominence the universality indicated by πᾶν, “everything” which thou didst give to him, the neuter singular indicating the entire mass as one great unit; compare the identical expression in 6:37 and 39. The entire mass (namely of believers), though scattered through all the world in all ages, the Father gave to Jesus in and by the act by which he gave to Jesus authority over all flesh. To the Father and to Jesus this entire mass is already present and can thus be regarded as a gift. Reading on in 6:40, Jesus defines πᾶν as Composed of πᾶςὁθεωρῶντὸνυἱὸνκαὶπιστεύωνεἰςαὑτόν, “everyone beholding the Son and believing in him.” In 6:44 we further learn that the Father’s giving to Jesus involves for those who constitute the gift a gracious and efficacious drawing (ἐλκύειν), bringing them to behold and to believe in the Son.

After naming the mass as a gift Jesus states what his authority is to do with those embraced in this mass: “that he give to them life eternal.” Between the plural masculine αὑτοῖς and its antecedent, the neuter singular πᾶν, we have no breach either of number or of gender, R. 400 (mass, a collective), and 411 (the human individuals composing the mass). In the Greek the neuter singular is like an abstract term for the unit idea (note ἕν in v. 21) which is then spread out in its concrete contents by the masculine plural pronoun. They all receive the gift of life eternal. Note how the verb “to give” keeps recurring and how, whether the giving is one to Jesus on the part of the Father, or on the part of Jesus to us, the divine grace to us poor sinners motivates the gift. This grace is intended for all men, and none are excluded by the giving of the Father or that of Jesus. No limitation is made by either Person.

Only by excluding themselves do unbelievers bar themselves from the gift to Jesus and from receiving the gift of life. The readings present both δώσει, which is preferable, as a future indicative afer ἵνα (permissible in the Koine), and δώσῃ, apparently an aorist subjunctive from the late aorist ἔδωσα (on which the grammars have much to say).

John 17:3

3 And this is the eternal life that they know thee as the only real God and him whom thou didst commission, Jesus as Christ. Jesus is not defining the nature of eternal life but describing in what its reception and its possession consist. He has spoken of giving this life, he now states what receiving and having it mean. The demonstrative αὕτη is feminine because of its antecedent, R. 699. “This is eternal life” is equal to saying, “this is what it means to have the gift of eternal life.” Here, as so often in John, ἵνα is non-final, introducing an appositional clause to “this”; hence, “that they know thee,” and not “should” or “might know thee” (our versions), R. 992. This knowing is durative (present tense) and might be expressed by the infinitive “to know thee.”

Interpreters differ as to whether to read the statement as an apposition: “thee, the only real God,” or as a predication: “thee, as the only real God.” The main issue, however, is on the second object. Is it apposition, “whom thou didst commission, Jesus Christ (one name); or predicative, “whom thou didst commission, Jesus as Christ”? Grammatically either is possible as all interpreters freely admit. The argument is offered that the predicative reading makes the objects of γινώσκωσι too intellectual, namely two dogmatical propositions: “thou art the only real God”—“Jesus, whom thou didst send, is Christ.” If this could be de defended, it would be decisive. But the claim is excessive. “To know thee” and “to know Jesus” with the verb γινώσκειν, which, when the object is a person as here, means, “to have intimate personal experience” and nothing less, already settles the meaning, and then it makes no difference whether the addition to the two personal designations “thee” and “Jesus” is an apposition, a predicative term. or. as it might be, a relative clause or some other modifier. The true heart knowledge lies in the verb as such with its personal objects.

Those who oppose the view that these terms are appositions center on the second object and claim that it would be anachronistic to let Jesus call himself “Jesus Christ,” for only at a later time does this double name appear. The answer that this later use was inaugurated by Jesus himself just before his death is, of course, only a claim. What is rather decisive against making the terms appositions is the confessional force of the two objects. Jesus, indeed, states the personal relation of the believer to the true God and to Jesus, but he does more: he states the definite personal summary by which faith in the true God and in Jesus is confessed. This confession is, first of all, directed against pagan polytheism: the Father “as the only real God,” all pagan gods being fakes, no gods at all. It is also directed against Jewish unbelief, hence, “him whom thou didst commission, Jesus, as Christ.” Overagainst the pagan gods it is necessary that the predication have the article: τὸνμόνονἀληθινὸνΘεὸν; since Judaism does not have other Messiahs, who are set overagainst Jesus, the term needs no article.

It may, of course, be employed, but in 1 Cor. 12:3 the confession is, “Jesus is Lord” (not “the Lord”); also Phil. 2:11; and Acts 2:36, “God made him both Lord and Christ” (no articles). In the Aramaic, in which Jesus spoke, no article was added; compare 4:24. Thus also, as Zahn states, in the present case John reports literally.

The object is necessarily double, for the real God is and can be known in true heart knowledge only by likewise knowing “him whom he did send on his mission (ἀποστέλλειν), namely Jesus” (14:7–11). Already Luther refutes the rationalistic claim that “the only real God” is intended to be in opposition to Jesus, who thus would not be “real God.” By saying that the only real God sent him Jesus “mingles and weaves himself into the same one divine essence, power, and might, since he wills to be known with the Father as he who gives eternal life; which knowledge pertains to no one save to the real God.” The entire Gospel of John in any number of individual statements bars out the contention of ancient and of modernistic Arianism and rationalism that Jesus is devoid of deity and not one in essence with the Father.

Another claim along this line is that verse 3 is not a part of the prayer but an insertion by John; or that this verse proves the entire prayer to be a fictitious composition by the author of this Gospel. It is sufficient to point to the second person “thee” and “thou didst send” as clear evidence that these are true words of prayer to the Father. Their connection is equally evident, passing from the divine giving of eternal life to its reception and its possession. The holy garment of this prayer is seamless.

John 17:4

4 Verses 1 to 3 request the glorification of Jesus with a view to what Jesus will do after he is glorified. This is only the half. Verses 4 and 5 repeat the request in view of what Jesus has already done. This is the other half. And the two halves belong together. When adding the other half Jesus amplifies by describing the glory for which he makes request.

He also now turns from the third person “the Son” to the first “I” and “me.” I glorified thee on the earth, having brought to an end the work which thou hast given to me that I do it. And now glorify thou me, Father, at thine own side with the glory which I had at thy side before the world was. Twice the pronouns are emphatically brought together: ἐγώσε, and then in reversed order μεσύ. A similar contrast appears in “thee on the earth” and “me at thine own side,” namely in heaven. Jesus glorified his Father on earth, revealing the Father with his divine attributes and with his blessed plan and work of salvation for men to see and to worship with adoration. The aorist states the great fact.

This, Jesus says, he did by bringing to an end, by completing the work the Father gave him to do. This “work” is the mission of Jesus on earth. While it is entirely for the benefit of men, namely for their redemption, it involved a higher purpose, the glorification of God. The world shines with the radiance of him who sent his Son to redeem us and to draw us to himself. Jesus says that he has brought this work to its completion. Its crowning point is his atoning death.

He can speak of this as being already a fact, for at this very moment he is laying down his life in compliance with his Father’s behest (10:18). Note how the verb “to give” again appears: “which thou hast given to me,” a gift that stands as such (perfect tense). The entire redemptive mission is viewed and is executed by Jesus, not as a burden, but as a loving gift to him on the part of the Father.

John 17:5

5 “And now” after the earthly part of the work has been completed, the heavenly part may begin. This latter is the Father’s own will just as was the earthly part now completed. The request of Jesus for the heavenly part is in perfect accord with the Father’s own desire. Certainly, Jesus is conscious of having done the Father’s work flawlessly and perfectly in every point; he speaks as the Sinless One. But it is idle to bring this in, for the thought of Jesus rises far higher. He is thinking of the glorification of the Father not of the absence of something negative in himself (fault or sin), but of the presence of something ineffably great concerning the Father.

Again, since Jesus did this work voluntarily as far as the Father’s behest is concerned and vicariously as far as men are concerned he achieved infinite merit. But it is idle to bring this into his words and to read a therefore into his request: “therefore now glorify thou me.” Jesus is not requesting a reward for his work. His prayer again moves on a far higher plane, the one already indicated in verses 1 and 2. By being himself glorified Jesus will glorify the Father among men in all future ages; by being himself glorified Jesus will bring to eternal life and glory all whom the Father has given to him. In this sense we must understand his request, “glorify thou me,” just as we understand it in v. 1.

Now, however, we have a fuller view of what δόξασόνμε means. First we have the two παρά phrases: “at thine own side,” and “at thy side,” both in contrast to “on the earth” and both expressing a relation possible only to the Persons of the Godhead, the first phrase speaking of a return to the Father, the second of the former eternal presence with the Father. Jesus asks to be in the heavenly glory with the Father as he was with him before the incarnation. To the verb “glorify” the cognate noun “glory” is added, “glorify with the glory.” This intensifies the verb; it also enables Jesus to specify what glory he has in mind: “the glory which I had at thy side before the world was.” The article with the infinitive is rare in John’s writings (R. 765), only here is it found with the present infinitive (1074), only here with πρό (891) and in a temporal sense (978). The reason Jesus does not say: with the glory which I had with thee “before thou didst send me into the world,” or, “before I came into the world,” is his desire to place beyond question the nature of the glory he has in mind. It is the glory of the Godhead, the eternal, divine glory that extends back into all eternity before the cosmos or any creature or created glory existed. Yet, to conclude that because this eternal glory is referred to, the state of humiliation must extend back to the beginning of the cosmos, to the day of its creation, is to draw an unwarranted conclusion.

Kenoticism uses this passage as a dictum probans. In a variety of formulations, one contradicting the other, intermingled with subordinationism, or docetism, or even views that approach pantheism, kenoticism empties the Logos of his deity, his divine attributes or glory, makes his immutable being mutable and changes him into a being that only appears as man, or into one that is nothing but man, many even adding human fallibility, mistaken ignorance, and actual faults. We pass by the many vagaries which appear in these views. Some kenoticists find their proof in the personal pronouns. When Jesus says, “glorify me with the glory which I had,” etc., they claim that in the incarnation the Logos emptied himself of his Logos nature, attributes, and glory and now asks that this nature and this glory be returned to him as the Logos. They admit that also his flesh or human nature will thus be glorified, but this is only incidental to the resumption of glory by the Logos.

The answer to this contention is obvious. When Jesus says “I” he may add a predicate that belongs either to the divine or to the human nature. It is unwarranted to claim that “I” must always be followed by a divine predication. “I thirst” (19:28); “I wash” (13:8); “I speak, I say” (12:49), and a number of other predications refer to Jesus as man, i.e., to what this divine person does according to his human nature. “They bound him” (18:12); “why smitest thou me?” (18:23); “they crucified him” (19:18), and a number of other statements that have “him” as the object refer to the human nature of the divine person only. On the other hand, “I proceeded forth and came from God,” and “he sent me” (8:42), and many similar statements containing “I” and “me” refer to the divine nature of Jesus. Not the pronouns decide but what is predicated of the pronouns. And this is equally true when in place of the pronoun some name of Jesus is used, no matter what the name may be (see on v. 1, last paragraph).

Thus “now glorify thou me” means, “in my human nature”; “with the glory which I had with thee before the world was,” means, “with the glory of my divine nature.” The Logos did not empty himself of his divine glory when the world began nor at any point in time. In the incarnation he veiled this glory and did not use it according to his human nature during his humiliation because of his work among men. But now that the work is completed he requests to be glorified according to his human nature with the glory that was his before the world began. The immutable Logos cannot empty himself of his glory even in part without ceasing to be the Logos, without going out of existence. The Logos that does what kenoticism claims is a fictitious being, like the God who is not Triune. He exists on paper, in books, not in Jesus as he walked on earth nor in heaven at his Father’s side.

This answers also the contention that the glory for which Jesus here asks is a different glory from the one John and the disciples beheld, cf. 1:14. John himself tells us that they beheld “his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father,” naming especially two rays of that glory, “grace and truth.” The glory of Jesus, the Logos made flesh, is one. During the humiliation it was covered yet shone through the veil of the flesh. The disciples saw it thus and beheld in Jesus the eternal Son. In the exaltation this eternal glory shone forth in unrestrained and unlimited splendor also in the human nature. That this may now become reality Jesus requests in his prayer.

During the forty days, in the wondrous appearances of Jesus to the disciples, his glorified human nature was veiled to such a degree that the disciples were able to behold their glorified Lord. Similarly in Acts 7:55 and 9:3, etc.

John 17:6

6 After praying for himself Jesus now prays for his disciples, the eleven gathered about him (v. 6–19). I did manifest thy name to the men whom thou didst give me out of the world; thine they were, and to me thou didst give them, and thy word they have guarded. In v. 6–10 we have the motivation for the prayer for the eleven, and in v. 11–19 the intercessory petitions coupled with the necessary details. First of all, then, we are allowed to see just how Jesus regards his disciples now that he is on the point of leaving them. He is voicing his inmost thoughts regarding them. Nor is this a cold, intellectual estimate of what the disciples are; these are the utterances of profound love, with every word telling how Jesus and his great mission are wrapped up in the disciples, how his great work has succeeded in them and brought them to the present hour when in leaving them Jesus can place them into the Father’s care.

This intense love wells up from Jesus’ heart in word after word, delighting to reveal how inexpressibly dear these men are to Jesus. Not as though the Father himself does not see and know it all without any telling on Jesus’ part, but in true human fashion laying all his inmost thought and love for the disciples before the Father’s own loving and responsive heart.

The very first statement thus connects with what Jesus has already said of his own mission on earth, how he glorified God and finished the work given him (v. 4). One great part of this task now lies completed in the eleven: “I did manifest thy name to the men,” etc. The aorist records the accomplished fact, and the verb φανεροῦν is comprehensive, “make visible and clear,” hence more than “to teach,” somewhat like “to reveal” by all that Jesus is, says, and does. Therefore the object, too, is “thy name” and not merely “thee”; for “the name” or ὄνομα is the revelation by which God is brought to us that we may apprehend and receive him into our hearts. Jesus calls the eleven “the men whom thou didst give me out of the world.” Of course, more than eleven belong to this class; we think of the 120 in Acts 1:15, and of the more than 500 in 1 Cor. 15:6. Here, however, the eleven are singled out from this class as the ones especially to be sent out into the world as the apostles of Jesus (v. 18), for whom he thus prays in a special way.

How the eleven were given to Jesus by the Father we see in v. 2, compared with 6:37 and 44. This is the giving due to universal grace as this grace becomes effective in the individual heart; and all those thus made a gift to Jesus are already present to the divine mind. They are given “out of the world,” for originally, by their natural birth, they were part of the world; compare 15:19. Abbott (R. 598) may doubt this sense of ἐκ in connections like the present, yet it is quite assured, and no other sense can be substituted.

When Jesus adds, “thine they were” (σοί not the dative singular from σύ but the nominative plural of the possessive adjective σός) he thinks of the eleven, not as creatures who belonged to God by virtue of creation, but as former members of the old covenant. The eleven were believing Israelites; as such at least six of them (1:35, etc.) had been with the Baptist and were induced by him to follow Jesus. All the eleven were given to Jesus as former true members of the old covenant. What that covenant promised they had found in Jesus. With a glad heart Jesus adds the evidence for this, “and thy word they have guarded,” τηρεῖν, “to watch over,” not to lose it from their hearts, nor to violate it in their lives, not to let anyone else tamper with it (8:51 and 14:15). “Thy word” is in substance the same as “thy name”; compare “my saying” in 8:51; and the equivalents in 14:15, 21, 23, 24; 15:10 and 20. On the perfect forms τετήρηκαν (instead of—ασι) and ἔγνωκαν in v. 7 see R. 337. The force of the tense is that of an action reaching a final and completed state, R. 895.

John 17:7

7 Now they have realized that all things whatever thou hast given me are from thee. This shows how much is included in the statement that the eleven have guarded the Father’s Word. The tense again denotes action that has arrived at a completed state. All their past knowledge and realization culminated in what the eleven now realize; compare their confession in 16:30. The adverb “now” makes it certain that the two perfect tenses have their climax in the present moment. “All things whatever thou hast given me” (δέδωκας, and what I thus now have) is spoken from the standpoint of Jesus and the Father, not from that of the eleven, otherwise the predicate, “are from thee,” would be tautological. We must not reduce πάντα to refer only to the teaching of Jesus, nor add only his works.

The term is emphatic and includes everything in and about Jesus. The eleven believed in Jesus from the start, but the longer they were in contact with him, the more they arrived at the realization that everything about him was from the Father. R. 820 regards παρά as denoting agency, but this cannot be the case with ἐστίν; the preposition indicates source and origin: “from,” yet not ἐκ “out of.”

John 17:8

8 Both the reason for this realization on the part of the eleven and also the supreme part of what they thus have realized is now stated. For the utterances which thou didst give me I have given to them, and they on their part did receive them and did realize of a truth that I came forth from thee and did believe that thou thyself didst commission me. The ῥήματα are the words as spoken by the lips; λόγοι would point to the thoughts conveyed by words. Even the utterances which the eleven heard from the mouth of Jesus were the Father’s gift to the Son. The very language was divine. We realize this today in the Scriptures generally and then in a high degree in the utterances of Jesus, so simple, so brief, and yet so profound and rich, so perfect in every detail.

The aorist is constative, all the giving being one comprehensive gift. In the utterances of Jesus the disciples heard the very voice of God (8:43, also v. 26 and 28). The utterances, Jesus says, “I have given to them,” namely by speaking them for the disciples to hear. The gift Jesus received he passed on as a gift to the disciples. The perfect is to indicate the course of giving which is now complete (R. 895 β). Jesus is happy to be able to add, “and they on their part (αὑτοί, emphatic) did receive them,” namely as given to Jesus by the Father himself.

They accepted and appropriated in their hearts the gift so graciously extended to them. They did this; many others spurned the gift in unbelief. This is how the disciples realized what Jesus says in v. 7.

And now he names the supreme part of what they realized: “and did realize of a truth that I came forth from thee (8:42; 16:27) and did believe that thou thyself didst commission me” (5:36, 38; 6:29; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3). Compare the exposition of 8:42. The two verbs “did realize” and “did believe” indicate substantially the same act, for true heart knowledge is faith, and vice versa. So also the two objects go together: proceeding forth from God is the incarnation, and, while it is an act in itself, it goes together with the other act, commissioning Jesus for his great work. All that the Father gave to Jesus (v. 7) centers in this going forth and being commissioned. Jesus went forth on his own volition—the verb expresses an activity of Jesus.

Jesus accepted the Father’s commission—here the verb expresses an activity of the Father. Both verbs are historical aorists, narrating the past facts. The other two aorists, “did realize” and “did believe,” are constative, each summarizing a course of past action. The entire characterization of the disciples consists of a description as to how the word of Jesus attained its great effect in them. They are the ones who in an eminent sense have received Jesus into their hearts as who and what he really is.

John 17:9

9 Thus Jesus continues: I on my part make request concerning them; not concerning the world do I make request but only concerning them whom thou hast given to me because they are thine (σοί as in v. 6). And my things all are thine, and thy things are mine; and I have been glorified in them. The emphatic ἐγώ is in place because of the great personal interest Jesus has in the disciples; this is why he makes request for them. Jesus uses the superior word ἐρωτῶ in addressing his Father, speaking as an equal; not αἰτεῖν which is proper for a subordinate. Trench, Synonyms, though see also C.-K. 91. Jesus here makes request for the disciples alone and not for the world, for those whom the Father has given to him not for the rest.

On this so-called intercessio specialis see Heb. 7:25; 9:24; 1 John 2:1; Rom. 8:34. This special intercession deals with believers only inasmuch as they alone are able to receive the gifts which the Father has for his children. We must include among the disciples all those who eventually come to faith (v. 21). It is generally assumed that Jesus prays also for the entire world of men in the intercessio generalis on the basis of Isa. 53:12; Luke 23:34, even as we, too, are bidden to intercede for all men, 1 Tim. 2:1; Matt. 5:44. Little can be said on this point.

In words of utmost simplicity yet profound beyond human thought Jesus dwells on the relation of the disciples to himself. The Father has given them to him, but this is not a dismissal of the disciples from the Father; the very reason why Jesus prays for them is “because they are thine.” As a gift to Jesus they are the Father’s; as the Father’s they are a gift to Jesus. Strange interaction and interrelation—no one comes to the Father save through Jesus, so that we may say Jesus gives us to him, and yet Jesus considers us as given to himself, and even, when so given, as still being the Father’s.

John 17:10

10 The key to this blessed double ownership, to this giving which bestows and still retains, to this receiving which still leaves what it receives, is that “my things all are thine, and thy things are mine.” Both σά and ἐμά without the articles are predicates, R. 685, 770. What pertains to the disciples is only part of the blessed mystery; it embraces “my things all,” everything that Jesus in any way has as his own. And how much is included we see in the reverse statement, “thy things are mine.” While “all” is not again added, it is certainly intended: all that in any way is the Father’s is equally the possession of the Son Jesus. Luther’s comment is best, exceedingly simple and yet profoundly to the point: “Everyone may say this, that all we have is God’s. But this is much greater, that he turns it around and says, all that is thine is mine. This no creature is able to say before God.” It shuts out the limitation, as though Jesus here speaks only of what pertains to his work, saying only that he and the Father have a purpose, plan, work, means, and results in mutuality, all this belonging equally to both.

Luther: “Understand this now not only of what the Father has given him on earth but also of his divine being with the Father. The word: all that is thine is mine, leaves nothing whatever excluded. Are all things his, then the eternal deity is also his; otherwise he could not and dared not use the word all.” Luther has caught the full force of these neuters. They are not merely a collection of objects, a mass or sum of earthly things; these neuters as neuter possessive adjectives are abstract, and the abstract idea is intensified by making them plural. These neuters differ greatly from the abstract πᾶν in 6:37 and 39, which, as the context shows, denotes the great mass of believers. In the present connection the joint possession of the believers is explained by the inner relation of the divine Persons themselves.

Hence we have not merely πάντα, “all things,” but τὰἐμά and τὰσά, with πάντα only as a modifier: all that is attributed to thee. Earth is left behind, heaven itself opens. We catch a glimpse of the oneness of the Father and the Son—two persons, indeed, (“mine,” “thine”) but in a union exceeding human powers of comprehension.

In the light of this relation of the Persons “they are thine” though given to Jesus. In this light we are to understand the addition, “and I am glorified in them.” Jesus is made great and illustrious in the hearts of the disciples by their realizing that he came forth from God and by their believing that he was commissioned by God. They recognize him for what he is and trust him accordingly (v. 8b). “I am glorified” is the passive, but v. 8a shows how this came about. Jesus does not add that thus the Father is also glorified in the disciples. This follows of itself when we reflect on the glorification of Jesus in the disciples. Here the former fact is enough, for all that is needed is the motivation for the action of Jesus that he on his part (ἐγώ, v. 9) intercedes for the disciples with the Father.

John 17:11

11 The profound preparation is ended. We see how infinitely precious the disciples are in the eyes of Jesus as well as in the eyes of the Father. Would that we might always think of ourselves in this exalted light! On the basis of this grander and broader motivation rests the narrower one which now follows, and on both rises the great request which is now expressed. And I am no longer in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, guard them in thy name, which thou hast given to me, in order that they may be one, even as we.

Jesus leaves the world while the disciples still remain in the world. It is thus that he comes to the Father with his request. Like ἐγὼἐρωτῶ in v. 9, Jesus now says ἐγὼπρόςσεἔρχομαι; compare also v. 13. This cannot mean the coming to heaven; not only is this included already in Jesus no longer being in the world, but ἔρχομαι is nowhere else used in this sense by Jesus. For this he has ὑπάγω, πορεύεσθαι, and ἀπέρχεσθαι. The expression ἔρχεσθαιπρός is used to describe those coming with a request in Mark 1:40; Luke 7:7; 18:3; John 7:37.

The marked repetition of “the world” seems to indicate the danger to which the disciples will be exposed when Jesus departs from and leaves them in the world.

So Jesus now voices his request, “Holy Father, guard them,” etc. The adjective is emphatic after twice using only “Father.” It contrasts with the mention of the world which is unholy, and it harmonizes with the request now made to guard the disciples against all unholiness while they are still in the world. God is holy in that he is absolutely separated from and actively opposed to all sin. Here his holiness is emphasized in so far as by his grace he works to save men from sin, separates them from the world, and keeps them for himself as separate and holy. Thus Jesus asks, “guard them in thy name, which thou hast given me.” On τηρεῖν see 8:51 and 14:15: “to watch over.” In v. 6 it is used with reference to the disciples, and the object is the Word; now it is used with reference to the Father, and the object is personal, namely the disciples. While the action is according to the objects, the modification “in thy Word which thou hast given me” brings the guarding predicated of the disciples closely together with the guarding attributed to God.

In fact, what Jesus requests is that the disciples, who under his care have thus far guarded the Father’s Word, may now be in the Father’s care, guarded by him and kept in his Word. For ὄνομάσου designates the contents of the Word, the revelation by which we know him whose “name” is thus made ours. Hence Jesus also says that the Father has given him this “name.” The implication is that Jesus was to give this “name” (revelation, Word) to the disciples, which he says he did (v. 6). Another implication is that the disciples received this “name” (v. 8) and are now “in” this name, in living connection with what it reveals to them. But, still being in the world which is full of delusion and spurns this name, the disciples need divine care lest they lose their connection with the saving “name.” Here it is “thy name,” the Father’s, elsewhere, as in Acts 4:10–12, it is Jesus’ name. The contents of both is the same.

The purpose of thus guarding and keeping the disciples in connection with the blessed name is “that they may be one, even as we.” The neuter ἕν signifies “one thing,” a unit, one body, over against the world. And ὦσιν with its present tense is durative, “may continue to be” a unit. Yet the imperative τήρησον is an aorist, either ingressive, “take and keep,” or effective, “actually keep”; and while it is true that in prayers these aorist imperatives, so constantly employed, denote “instant prayer” (R. 948), they reveal not only the fervor of the petitioner but also his certainty that what he asks will actually be done, thus in the present case that the disciples will go on indefinitely in being one. The model for this oneness of the disciples is the oneness of the Father and Jesus: “even as we,” i.e., are one. The idea in καθώς is analogy not identity. When identity is assumed, the oneness of the Father and the Son is reduced to an ethical oneness of love, of agreement in purpose and action, etc., which oneness can, of course, be reproduced in the disciples.

Such a conception is shut out as being inferior by v. 21–23. Jesus is speaking of the oneness he has mentioned in 10:30 and 14:10, the essential oneness of the Persons of the Trinity. This cannot be duplicated, yet it can be imitated. All believers are one spiritually by their living connection with God. The same living Word and “name,” the same faith and life, is in them all. By that they are one, inwardly in the great Una Sancta, “the communion of saints” (third article of the Apostles’ Creed), the church invisible.

This is the oneness that is like unto the oneness of the Father and the Son. The latter, indeed, as Bengel puts it, is ex natura, the former only ex gratia. The former embraces only three Persons, the latter millions.

Yet Jesus does not here pray for this oneness of the disciples, i.e., that it may come to pass. Perhaps this misconception is due to the translation; “may be one” is taken to mean, “may get to be one.” But ὦσιν does not have this force. It assumes that the disciples are already one; v. 6–10 shows that beyond question. Since they are already one in the name that the Father gave to Jesus, he requests that the Father guard them “in order that they may go on being one.” The verb is not the aorist γένωνται, “become,” “get to be one.” This thought pertains only to those who are not yet disciples and applies to them only when they enter discipleship. Even in v. 21 Jesus does not introduce this idea. He prays only for this, that the oneness already established may remain unbroken by the guardian care of the Father.

How will it be kept intact? By keeping the disciples “in the name,” in the Word, in the utterances of Jesus (ῥήματα, v. 8). How may this oneness be endangered, how may a disciple drop out of it? By any teaching or doctrine contrary to the Word. This cuts into the bond that ties the disciples together and may easily cut it altogether and thus sever some of the disciples from the oneness, dropping them back into the world. The entire prayer has the one great burden that we may be preserved in oneness by complete adherence to the Word.

John 17:12

12 When I was with them I myself kept guarding them in thy name which thou hast given to me; and I did protect them, and not one of them went to perdition save the son of perdition; in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled. Until this time Jesus had made himself the guard of the disciples; and he had succeeded in his protection. The imperfect ἐτήρουν tells that the guarding went on from day to day; then comes the aorist ἐφύλαξα and sums up the finished result, stating that Jesus actually did protect the disciples. The verbs are synonymous in the sense “to keep watch over,” “to keep an eye upon,” the former verb being used in the wider sense; both, too, easily come to the further meaning “to keep,” also “to observe.” The difference in the present use lies more in the tenses than in the meaning of the verbs. The imperfect shows the daily effort of Jesus, the aorist reports the successful result. It is inexact to make τηρεῖν mean conservare and to connect it with something internal, and to make φυλάσσειν mean custodire against foes from without. Jesus uses both verbs as applying to “in thy name.” The effect of the tenses is completely reversed when we are told that “through φυλάσσειν the τηρεῖν was accomplished”; for it is the imperfect which brings about the aorist.

The accepted reading simply repeats from v. 11, “in thy name which thou hast given to me.” This would have the effect of emphasis, although the reason for an emphasis here is not obvious. The other reading, though less well-attested, substitutes οὕς for the attracted relative ᾧ and seems much more to the point. Here we have a case where the internal evidence seems superior to the external (that in the codices). We should then read: “I myself kept guarding them in thy name; whom thou hast given to me I also did protect,” etc. This, moreover, is strongly substantiated by 18:9, “whom thou hast given to me, not one of them did I lose.” Here the same relative clause with οὕς appears. It is quoted as a former saying of Jesus (namely from our passage), is placed forward in the same way, and only the main clause is changed from a positive statement (“I did protect”) to the negative which has the same sense (“I did not lose one of them”).

It is almost exactly like the corresponding statement in our passage. On the giving of the disciples to Jesus by the Father see v. 2 and 6:37 and 39.

All whom the Father has given to Jesus he “did protect” so that “not one of them perished,” i.e., spiritually; see 3:16 on the word, its true meaning and its perversion. Usually, however, Judas is taken to be “the sad exception” (Bengel) in whom all the guarding and protecting of Jesus failed; and εἰμή is then translated “except,” R. 1188. But this is not correct. Judas is not an exception, he was never given to Jesus by the Father; εἰμή must be rendered “but” (our versions), or “save,” as in Gal. 1:7 and 19; Rom. 14:14. Likewise, we must note the correspondence in terms: “not one of them went to perdition save the son of perdition.” This ethical or qualitative genitive marked Judas from the start; and εἰμή only introduces something that must be added to the previous negation by way of explanation lest a misunderstanding result. Jesus, indeed, labored with Judas as he did with the Jews and persisted in his labors to the last; but as in the case of the Jews Jesus knew that Judas was not his own.

Not that Judas never believed—we may be quite sure that he did at first; but even then he was “the son of perditon,” a son or product of eternal damnation; compare the similar designations in Matt. 23:15; 2 Thess. 2:2. For Judas is not given this awful title because he went to perdition and thus ex eventu became a son of perdition. The reverse is true: being a son of perdition, he went to perdition, “fell away, that he might go to his own place,” Acts 1:25; only for a time was he numbered among the apostles, only for a time had he a portion or lot in this ministry, Acts 1:17.

“In order that the Scripture might be fulfilled” modifies the preceding clause, “save the son of perdition,” i.e., that as such he, indeed, did perish. This ἵνα, like all the others referring to the Scripture fulfillment concerning the wicked, is not deterministic; it rests on the infallible foreknowledge of God. God foresaw all that Judas would become and would do in spite of all the grace vouchsafed to him. He beheld Judas dying as the son of perdition, thus to remain the son of perdition forever. Therefore in God’s foreknowledge and counsel Judas was the son of perdition from the beginning, and God prefigured Judas by Ahitophel in Ps. 41:9; some add Ps. 55:12–15; Ps. 109:8 (Acts 1:20). Due to the infallibility of the divine foreknowledge, these predictions in the Old Testament types were bound to be fulfilled in Judas. See 13:18 on this fulfillment, and 6:64 and 71; 12:4 on the case of Judas itself.

John 17:13

13 Thus far Jesus had personally watched over the disciples. But now I come to thee, namely with my request and prayer from now on to place them into the Father’s keeping; compare the same words in v. 11. “But now” is in contrast with “when I was with them” in v. 12; now Jesus is on the point of leaving his disciples. Hitherto he assumed the protection of the disciples, now the Father is to assume that care. The former type and kind of protection through the visible presence of one of the divine Persons is to be superseded by another kind through the invisible agency of another Person. Hence Jesus adds: and these things I speak, i.e., in audible words for the disciples to hear, in order that in the world they may have my own joy as having been made full in themselves. The disciples, who are to remain in the world for the great mission they are to execute in the world, are to have in their hearts the very joy that fills the heart of Jesus; and the measure of this joy is to be complete, it is to be like a vessel that has been filled to the brim (πεπληρωμένη) from which they may draw at any time.

On the perfect participle as here used with ἔχω see R. 902. In stating this purpose for speaking his prayer audibly (λαλῶ, to speak instead of being silent) Jesus treats his own joy as something objective, just as he does in the case of his own peace in 14:27. Just as Jesus places his disciples into the condition of peace in order that from it they may draw the feeling of peace, so he places them into the condition of joy in order that they may draw the feeling of joy from it. Having the true source of joy and this in full measure, the rejoicing itself will follow; and though the rejoicing should cease at times, it will be sure to return. Compare 16:20–22.

Usually ἐντῷκόσμῳ is construed With ταῦταλαλῶ: “these things I speak in the world.” But why so obvious a remark? In 14:25 his speaking while he is yet with the disciples has point, for it contrasts with the coming teaching of the Paraclete. Here, however, no such contrast appears. Even if the previous statement, “but now I come to thee,” is thought to mean, “now I return to thee,” the very adverb “now” implies, what also the eleven see with their own eyes, that Jesus is still “in the world.” The phrase must belong to the ἵνα. clause and is placed in front of the conjunction for the sake of emphasis. Already now, in the midst of a hateful world (v. 14), the disciples are to have not only courage and peace, but the true source of joy and the happiness it will give them. John often uses this form of emphasis With ἵνα.

Luther has put into simple words the purpose Jesus wanted to attain: “In order that through the Word, caught with the ears and held in the heart, they be comforted, joyfully rely upon it, and be able to say: See, this is what my Lord Christ said, so faithfully and fervently he prayed for me, this have I heard from his mouth, etc. What is needed here is that one hold to the Word with his whole heart and take comfort in that.” As the purpose of this audible prayer must be rightly understood, so also the great request it contains. When Jesus protected the disciples hitherto, this was not done apart from or without the Father (10:30; 5:19; etc.); when the Father would now protect them, this would not be done without Jesus (14:18; Matt. 28:20). The opera ad extra are always indivisa. As far as the intercommunication of the divine Persons and their interaction concerning any part of the work of salvation is concerned, what is revealed to us in great condescension is the actuality of these activities. They are shown to us in an attractive human way, the object being faith and joy, not in a transcendent way as if our minds could penetrate into the mystery of the Trinity and from the inwardness of that mystery comprehend all the profound whys and wherefores.

John 17:14

14 Once more (see v. 6 and 8) Jesus states: I have given them thy word. This time he uses the word λόγος, which points especially to the substance; but he retains the verb “to give,” for the Word is always a pure gift which emanates from grace in the Giver, and the perfect tense indicates that the gift is still in the possession of the disciples: he is leaving them with this divine gift in their hearts. But now the thought advances beyond what this gift has made of the disciples (v. 6 and 7) to what the world has done to them as a result: and the world hated them (adding the inward reason) because they are not of the world (15:18, 19), the gift of the Word having changed the spiritual nature of the disciples, making them foreigners to the world. They are like Jesus: just as I myself am not of the world. The aorist is ingressive, “began to hate”; and the two ἐκ have an ethical force: “of the same nature, kind, and quality as the world,” so that the world, which is very keen in this respect, would recognize the disciples as its true children. The comparison with Jesus adds the positive idea to the negative description. “Not of the world” means that the disciples are like Jesus; they are not of the world in the same sense as Jesus is not of the world.

They, of course, are such by the gift of the Word, by grace; he, as the Giver of the Word, by his own divine nature. Once, by natural birth, they, too, were of the world, but now, by the new birth through the Word, they have left the world. Through their contact with Jesus this has become so manifest that the world considers them traitors and renegades to itself, hating them accordingly. And this hatred is intensified when the disciples now preach and teach the Word and begin to make still further inroads upon the world. Note how the two thoughts match: “in the world” the disciples are to have joy (v. 13, when the phrase is thus construed) in spite of the fact that the world vents its hatred upon them.

John 17:15

15 Since the disciples have a great work to do in the world, the simple solution of just taking them out of the world and thus beyond the reach of any hatred of the world cannot be applied. I do not request that thou take them out of the world, on the contrary, that thou guard them from, the evil one. The two ἵνα introduce non-final object clauses in which Jesus states what he requests; hence this word is not to be translated, “that (in order that) thou shouldest,” etc. These clauses are the equivalents of infinitives, “I do not request for thee to take, etc., but to guard, etc.” The first aorist “take,” denotes a single act, the second, “guard,” is constative to indicate a successful course of action. The phrase ἐκτοῦπονηροῦ may be either masculine, “from the evil one,” the devil; or neuter, “from the evil” that exists in the world. It is thus ambiguous.

Naturally the commentators are divided regarding its force. One argument in favor of the neuter force is the fact that Jesus nowhere else in this prayer mentions the devil but refers only to the world. Why he would have to mention the devil at least twice before a single mention could be assured is, of course, not obvious. Despite repeated mention otherwise the ambiguity of our phrase would remain. Because ἐκ is used with τηρεῖν, and because this combination occurs only once more, in Rev. 3:10, and there with “hour,” some feel certain that the devil cannot be referred to. But ἐκ is suitable in either sense, and no more so with evil than with the author of evil; in 1 Cor. 9:19 the object is personal: ἐκπάντων (namely ἀνθρώπων).

Nothing is gained by making the noun a neuter; for evil and the evil one are so clearly joined that protection from the former involves protection from the latter. And that is true even in the case of those who prefer to make man his own devil.

If during this last night which Jesus spent on earth we did not have the example of Judas who fell a prey not merely to something evil but to Satan, the evil one (Luke 22:3; John 13:27), so that he himself is called “a devil” (6:70), we might content ourselves with the neuter in our passage. If during this last night Jesus had not repeatedly mentioned the prince of this world (12:31; 14:30; 16:11), connecting him with the world as its ἄρχων or ruler, we might consider the neuter sufficient when now, in the final prayer, “the world” is mentioned so repeatedly. In 1 John 5:18, where τηρεῖν also occurs, the man born of God guards himself so that “the evil one” (Satan) does not touch him. All the hatred of the world against the disciples is inspired by Satan. The work of the disciples is to war not merely against flesh and blood but against demon spirits with “the evil one” at their head (Eph. 6:13 and 16), and our protection is to be directed against his fiery darts. This is the protection for which Jesus now prays. He does not stop halfway in his request, he includes the devil and thus includes all else.

John 17:16

16 Protection for the disciples is something negative: guarding them against the evil one. Now the positive is to be added. Hence once more (see v. 14): Not of the world are they just as I myself am not of the world. On this ground rests the request for the protection of the disciples, on it rests also the request for their sanctification.

John 17:17

17 Sanctify them in the truth; thine own word is truth. The aorist imperative is like the one in v. 11; it is either ingressive, “take and sanctify,” or constative, “actually sanctify,” embracing all the sanctifying activity of God. The verb ἁγιάζειν means “to set apart for God,” thus on the one hand, to separate from all profane connection and, on the other hand, to devote only to him. But in the case of the eleven this setting apart unto God is not the first act of this kind. Jesus has already said, “thine they were,” etc., v. 6; “they are thine,” v. 9; “I guarded them in thy name,” v. 12; “I have given them thy Word,” v. 14. Thus also negatively “they are not of the world,” v. 16.

All that Jesus has done for them in the past by his personal work must be called a sanctifying and setting apart of the disciples unto God. This work might be considered completed if the disciples were now to leave the world in company with Jesus; the final sanctifying would then take place in the moment of their death. But they are to remain in the world, and so they need the sanctifying of the Father in order to keep them as they are, a body wholly separate from the world.

Jesus prays, Sanctify them “in the truth.” The reading “in thy truth” lacks support and would also make the emphasis on the following “thine own word” pointless. The ἐν should not be considered equal to διά or ὑπό, “through” or “by” the truth. The thought goes deeper than means or agency. The preposition indicates sphere. Jesus has already placed the disciples into this sphere; they are no strangers to the truth. It now surrounds their souls, lifting them away from the world and upward to God.

And this is to continue, to be intensified, perfected in all directions and thus carried forward to its ultimate goal: all in union with the truth. As to the ways and means and the agency Jesus has already said, by “the Spirit of the truth” remaining permanently in the disciples (14:17), teaching them, etc. (14:26), bearing witness to them of Jesus (15:26), and guiding them into all the truth (16:13). As in these previous passages, plus 8:32 and 14:6, so here again ἡἀλήθεια with its definite article is concrete and designates that specific divine spiritual and saving reality embodied in Jesus. This reality is neither indefinite nor abstract just as Jesus and all that he is and does are not abstract.

“The truth” names the substance itself in living connection with which the sanctifying work proceeds. This substance, however, is transmitted to us so that we are brought into contact with it and with its sanctifying power by the Word, ὁλόγος, that which conveys the actual substance and significance of thought. It is thus that, exactly as in 8:32, Jesus connects “the truth” with the Word. In 8:32 he calls it “my own word,” while now he calls it “thine own word.” The two are, of course, identical (8:26; 14:24; etc.). Yet in this instance Jesus does not identify “the truth” with “thine own word”; he does not say, “thine own word as the truth.” There is only the slenderest textual evidence for the insertion of the article. If the article were present, the subject and the predicate would be identical and convertible (R. 768) as in many other utterances of Jesus.

Then Jesus would say only this, “By the truth I mean thine own Word.” Without the article ἀλήθεια expresses quality. By using the noun instead of the adjective (“truth” instead of “true”) this quality is most forcefully expressed. Jesus thus says: “Thine own Word is truth, composed wholly of truth, without an admixture of falsehood.” By adding this statement without a connective Jesus makes it so much stronger. You may place it by itself, its weight will be unchanged.

This ἀλήθεια, whether it be used with or without the article, must be properly understood. The thought is not that Jesus would support his request for sanctification by saying that the Father cannot but grant it seeing that his Word is very truth itself. For the hearing of his request Jesus counts on what is in the Father’s own heart: “thine they are.” The assumption that Jesus must indicate where “the truth” is to be found after mentioning “the truth” misses the point. In the case of Jesus it goes without saying that the saving reality is entirely in the Word. Why else did he give the disciples the ῥήματα that the Father gave him (v. 8), namely the Father’s Word? We see the same in v. 6: Jesus manifested the Father’s “name” to the disciples; and in v. 11: the Father is to guard them “in thy name.” This “name” is the Word as containing the entire revelation of the Father, we may say all “the saving truth” (reality) concerning the Father.

Where “the truth” is found has thus been settled all along: the Word is filled with it. Of this blessed Word Jesus now predicates that it is verity and truth itself. Those who seek “the truth” that saves and sanctifies by going to the Word will find that Word true on every point and in every respect. The quality of reality marks it throughout. At no point does this true Word leave us in doubt or make us uncertain in regard to “the truth,” all the concrete substance of it or any part of that substance.

In “thine own word” the addition of the possessive adjective with a second article lends emphasis: ὁλόγοςὁσός not merely ὁλόγοςσου. This is the only Word that is wholly truth. Often only the correspondence between “sanctify them” (make them holy) and the address “holy Father” in v. 11 is noted; but “truth” also corresponds with holiness. By means of “the truth” alone and of the Word whose essential quality is “truth” can the “holy Father sanctify us.” Another correspondence appears in the phrases with ἐν when Jesus at first prays, “guard them in thy name,” and now, “sanctify them in the truth.” By so sanctifying the Father will guard them. “Thine own word is truth” certifies the inerrancy and infallibility of the Word excepting no portion of it. The holy garment of the Word is seamless; it has no rents of errors—or call them mistakes—which hands today must sew up. “Thine own word” signifies all of it, the Word of the Old Testament on which Jesus placed his approval again and again, plus the revelation that Jesus added in person with the promise of its perfect preservation through the Paraclete (14:26; 16:13).

John 17:18

18 The sanctification which Jesus requests the Father to bestow upon the disciples in continuance of the sanctification he himself has already bestowed upon them has its reason in their mission in the world. As thou didst send me into the world, I, too, did send them into the world. Both Jesus and the the disciples were sent on a mission (ἀποστέλλειν, to commission), both are thus sent into the world. The difference appears in this that Jesus, who himself was sent, sends them. Jesus thus carries the Father’s mission to a certain point and then uses the disciples to carry it to completion. A certain part of the great work is thus graciously transferred to the disciples.

The translation “even so” is inexact. The parallel is not regarding the manner but in regard to the persons: “I, too, sent them.” This reveals the true greatness of Jesus: he sent—the Father sent. The first sending contemplated the second. In it, as well as in his own mission, the Son executed the Father’s will. Both sendings are “into the world”: their range is nothing less than universal, far beyond the narrow limits of Judaism. Often the mission of the eleven, who alone are here present with Jesus, is taken in too narrow a sense.

Without question the commission of which Jesus here speaks included their apostleship; the very word ἀπόστολος is derived from the verb here used, ἀποστέλλειν. But already as followers of Jesus they are sent into the world; all believers have this general commission. Separated from the world and dedicated to God as his own peculiar possession, we are here for the world’s sake, in order to show forth the praises of him who has called us out of the kingdom of darkness into his marvelous light, 1 Pet. 2:9. In v. 21 Jesus states of our oneness that its purpose is “that the world may believe.” Let us keep together what belongs together. On the basis of the grand mission of the church in the world rests every special office in the church, beginning with the highest, the apostolate. The aorist “I sent” is historical and refers to the first appointment of the Twelve, who now in due time would receive the further order to proceed with their work amid all nations.

John 17:19

19 How the commissioning of the disciples is connected with their sanctifying is made plain by noting the parallel in Jesus. And in their behalf I on my part sanctify myself in order that they may be also on their part such as have been sanctified in truth. The tense is present, “I on my part (ἐγώ) sanctify myself.” This, then, is not the sanctifying mentioned in 10:36, which preceded and accompanied his entrance into the world and made him in a supreme sense the Holy One of Israel. Jesus is speaking of a sanctifying act in which he is engaged at the present moment. In our endeavor to understand just what he means we must hold fast to the fact that the verb “sanctify” cannot have two different meanings in the present connection. We cannot admit a play on the word and make, as some desire, the variant sense of “sanctify” the very point of what is said.

The two acts are essentially alike although that pertaining to Jesus is active and that pertaining to the disciples passive. “I sanctify myself” does not mean, “I set myself apart as a sacrifice in behalf of them” (ὑπέρ being equivalent to “instead of”); for the disciples were not to be set apart to become such a sacrifice. The play on the word breaks down when Jesus is thought to sanctify himself as a substitutionary sacrifice for the disciples while the disciples on their part are to be sanctified for an entirely different purpose. The Old Testament references to kidesh or hikdish lajaveh, sanctifying something as an offering to God (Exod. 13:2; Deut. 15:19; 2 Sam. 8:11) cannot apply here even as regards the sanctifying of Jesus. The Hebrew always has the dative, and Jesus does not say, “I sanctify myself to thee”; in the Hebrew someone else sets the object aside for God, but Jesus sanctifies himself. The parallels fail.

The correspondence is marked: “in their behalf I on my part—they also on their part (or: they also themselves).” Both are equally to be set apart although, of course, the office of the one is infinitely above that of the other: “I in their behalf”—but only “they on their part.” Both are sent, both have a mission, both missions are divine, both are holy, and so both need to be set apart, devoted in a holy sense to do their work. Jesus does this of his own accord and power. Some are satisfied with the thought that of his own volition he now prepares himself to die. This would mean a sanctification for the climax of his mission. But the discourses have given us a wider vision: Jesus is going to the Father, he prays to be glorified. By his death he enters on his glorious heavenly mission in which his world-wide work will begin when he will send the Spirit, be with the disciples in a spiritual presence, and finally receive them unto himself.

For the entrance upon this heavenly mission Jesus now sanctifies himself by voluntarily entering his sacrificial and atoning death. But for this act of his, for which no one can set him apart, for which he himself must give himself freely, of his own accord, no sanctification and no mission of the disciples could be possible. This is the complete sense of the emphatic phrase “in their behalf.”

Hence the purpose clause with ἵνα. The sanctification of Jesus for his heavenly mission is to make possible the sanctification of the disciples. Jesus does not say that in like manner they may be sanctified. That would be impossible, granting even their lesser task. They are only to receive sanctification (ἡγιασμένοι, passive) by a gift from the Father, v. 17. And this gift to them is to proceed from what Jesus now does for them.

Yet they, too, (καί) are to be set apart for a mission. Out of the one sanctification the other is to proceed; thus the two are placed side by side. Some again are content to make the sanctification of the disciples signify only their cleansing from sin through the death of Jesus. But it surely includes all that Jesus has said about their reception of the Paraclete and of their mission in the world. This wider view comports with the predicate καὶαὑτοὶἡγιασμένοι. We regard αὑτοί, not as the subject, but as part of the predicate; and the perfect participle, not as part of the subjunctive verb (a periphrastic perfect, R. 907, 360), but as a participial modifier of αὑτοί: “such as also on their part (or: themselves) have been sanctified.” The participle thus includes all by which this completed state (durative-punctiliar, R. 907) is reached.

The sanctification of Jesus alone can be ὑπὲραὑτῶν; to that of the disciples no such phrase can be attached. The phrase for them is ἐνἀληθείᾳ, “in truth.” Both grammatically and exegetically there is much discussion as to whether this phrase means only “truly,” equivalent to ἀληθῶς̇, or is in effect the same as ἐντῇἀληθείᾳ in v. 17. We note that if only “truly” is meant, we should expect the adverb, and this the more to avoid confusion because a phrase has just preceded. When the absence of the article is urged over against the previous phrase with the article, we note that in v. 18 ἀλήθεια without the article appears between the two phrases. “Truly” would be out of place after the perfect participle with its perfective sense; for this participle denotes a completed state of sanctification. Can there be two such states, one “truly” and in reality such, and one not “truly” such? On the other hand, the phrase without the article cannot be identical with the phrase containing the article; in other words, the absence of the article is not negligible.

We are aided by 2 John 1 and 4; 3 John 1, “in truth,” compared with 3 John 4, “in the truth.” “In the truth” is specific, the truth the disciples had heard and learned; “in truth” is general, all truth, whatever the Spirit would reveal to the disciples (16:13). Since “in order that they may be also,” etc., refers to the future and does this after v. 18 declares that thy Word is “truth” (no article), it seems perfectly in order that Jesus should advance the thought of v. 17 from sanctification “in the truth” (specific, concrete) to sanctification “in truth” (general, in all that bears this quality of being true), v. 18. With both “the truth” and “truth” preceding, each in a decisive sense, it is impossible for us to regard “in truth” as nothing more than an adverb, which is then superfluous.

John 17:20

20 The previous verses still refer directly to the eleven, yet in the nature of the case they must also reach farther. The eleven, sent into the world as apostles, will not be sent in vain. Whatever opposition they encounter, their work will succeed. Sanctified and enabled by God, they will bring thousands to faith. Hence the prayer expands: Not concerning these alone, however, do I make request but also concerning those believing in me through their word. On ἐρωτῶ see v. 9.

It is as an equal that Jesus “makes request”; as a designation for our praying this verb is too high. Jesus makes a clear distinction between “these,” the eleven, and “those believing in me through their word.” While it is distinct, the prayer embraces both as belonging together. For these coming believers will become believers “through their word,” that of the eleven. Thus the office of the apostles is connected with the whole church, and all that Jesus has requested for the apostles refers mediately also to the entire church. In the singular “word” all the teaching and the writing of the apostles is summarized as a unit; yet λόγος has the idea of communication. The Word communicated by the apostles is the means for producing faith and making believers—note διά.

It is “their” Word, not as though they originated it but only as being the special agents for its dissemination and transmission. In reality it is God’s Word (v. 17), and its substance is “truth.” Word and faith are correlative; the one intends to produce the other, and the other has no basis but the one. Apart from the Word there is no church, because there is no faith apart from the Word; and the church is constituted out of those and those alone who have faith. The Word is the vital means and the root of faith. At once it appears how dangerous it is to be ignorant of the Word or to alter and to falsify it in any way. Eph. 2:20 shows that Jesus considers the Word as given to the church through the apostles the foundation of the church for all time.

Only few men heard the apostles while they lived; they still speak “through their Word” in the New Testament and still win ever new believers. Jesus sees them down through the ages (1:16) and in this prayer reaches out and presses them to his heart.

John 17:21

21 And this is what Jesus requests: that they all be one even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that also they be in us. Here is a fuller statement of the request made in v. 11, “that they be one even as we.” This ἵνα clause is non-final, an object clause, stating what Jesus requests; in v. 11 ἵνα denotes purpose. “That they all be one,” πάντες (compare the neuter πᾶν in v. 2) stresses the great number of believers. The Greek abuts πάντες and ἕν, making the contrasting terms “all” and “one” stand out in relief: though so many in number all believers are to be one unit, one body, one spiritual whole. Of course, the apostles themselves are included as believers. This oneness is in distinction from the world, in fact, in opposition to the world. The fact that καθώς expresses analogy and not identity, and that the oneness is not merely ethical, as is often thought, has been shown in v. 11.

Our mystical oneness as believers is a resemblance to the essential oneness of the divine Persons. What in v. 11 is condensed to the two words καθὼςἡμεῖς is now unfolded: “even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that also they may be in us.” Between the Father and the Son (and we are free to add the Spirit) a wonderful, incomprehensible interpenetration exists, called the perichoresis essentialis by the dogmaticians. This is absolutely the highest type of oneness known. This and nothing less is to be the model and pattern for the oneness of believers. The very idea of duplicating in us the interpenetrating oneness of the divine Persons is so impossible that we decline to consider it. The only idea possible is a resemblance of the human oneness to the divine.

Recall the resemblance (and no more) when man was created in God’s image. In Eph. 5:23, etc., the divine oneness of Christ and the church is the model (and no more) for the Christian marital union, something pertaining only to this life. So it is here.

Therefore we do not need to fear connecting the καθώς clause with what precedes. Every reader will do this automatically. We are not compelled to construe the καθώς clause after the second ἵνα: “that they all be one, that, even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, they also be in us.” In v. 11 the disciples are to be one “even as we” (Jesus and the Father); in v. 21 all believers are to be one “even as thou art in me, and I in thee,” i.e., as we (Jesus and the Father) are one. But now we see how these two are one, namely by the ineffable divine interpenetration. And now Jesus adds the second ἵνα as appositional to the first. It defines how all the believers are to be one, how their oneness is to resemble that of the divine Persons, namely thus: “that also they be in us.” All believers being in the Father and the Son, they will certainly be one.

This will not be a mere human oneness (national, racial, political, in a society, or the like). It will bear the divine stamp: a. oneness in the true God, in actual spiritual union with him. This is why so high a model and pattern is set for our oneness. Here, too, we see that our oneness is not merely placed beside the oneness of the divine Persons as though all that exists between them is a likeness. The two are vitally connected; this is why they have the resemblance of which Jesus speaks. We believers can be one with each other only by each of us and all of us being one with the Father and Jesus.

Union with God and with Christ makes us a unit in ourselves. Jesus here omits the other side, namely that as the believers are in God and his Son, so these are also in us (14:23, add v. 16).

The enclitic pronouns are generally accented after prepositions, as ἐνσοί, R. 234. In the Greek the copula is omitted: “even as thou (art) in me, and I (am) in thee,” R. 395. The vocative may be written as the nominative: πατήρ, R. 264, 461, etc.

On the view that Jesus prays for the oneness which already exists among all believers by faith, instead of for the oneness that is to be the result of this faith in perfect adherence to the Word, see v. 11. It is true, indeed, that even the smallest measure of faith joins us to God and to the mystical body of the church. But this is only the beginning. Our apprehension of the Word is to grow, the range and the inner power of our faith in that Word likewise. As this advances and is perfected, our oneness with God and with Christ and our oneness with each other becomes more and more what Jesus wants it to be. This is the burden of Jesus’ prayer (v. 17).

The mystical side must never blind us to the medium, the Word. We have no Christ and no God without the Word and no oneness among ourselves without the Word. On the other hand, the more we have of the Word in our hearts by faith and thus also ruling us in our lives, the more perfect is our oneness. Being spiritual and mystical, this unity is of necessity invisible and does not consist in any form of outward organization. How far, however, it is from being merely imaginary appears the moment we look at the Word. We are as much one with each other and with God and with Christ as we believe, teach, live, and confess all that is contained in the Word.

Every deviation in doctrine, life, and practice from the Word mars and disrupts our oneness and hinders the fulfillment of Jesus’ prayer. Those rend the church who deviate from any part of the Word, also those who demand things other than the Word demands. Those permit Jesus’ prayer to be fulfilled in them who bring every thought and every act of theirs into subjection to the Word. “That they be one” means one in the Word; “that also they be in us” means in us through and by the Word. Thus Jesus prays.

The third ἵνα introduces a purpose clause, “in order that the world may believe that thou didst commission me.” “This is the fruit which is to follow from this oneness, namely that Christ’s Word is to break forth more and more and be accepted in the world as God’s Word, in which an almighty, divine, unconquerable power and the treasure of all grace and blessedness reside.” Luther. What stirs the world is not our faith but our faith arrayed as a unit behind the Word. This oneness of faith voicing the Word, adhering to it in every part, obeying its every precept, is bound to act powerfully upon the world. The greater our oneness in the Word, the greater our victories in the world. The more schism, heresy, and ignorance prevail, the less will our victories be.

Jesus does not intercede for the world as he does for his own (v. 9). His own are already one by faith. For them he can ask that by this faith they be one also in the Word. Yet the world is still the object of Jesus’ love, and his saving efforts extend to it; this, however, only through the church as the bearer of his Word. In this way Jesus here prays for the world. It is to believe “that thou didst commission me,” i.e., believe in the entire mission of Jesus as the Savior, and that means in the gospel.

The purpose is one of pure grace. The idea is not that the whole world will finally believe, nor that the power which works faith in men is the oneness of the church. Many will not believe in spite of the Word and however a united church brings the Word to them. The power that creates faith lies wholly in the Word. Yet it makes a great difference how the church acts in bringing the Word to men. If the church is only in part a unit on the Word, if great parts of the church repudiate or pervert parts of the Word, the saving impact of the Word on the world is reduced.

The channel of the church through which the Word with its power is to flow to the world is more or less blocked, and less of the power of the Word gets through to the world. Let all missionary agencies of the church mark this and second the prayer of Jesus for the complete oneness of the church in the Word!

John 17:22

22 And the glory which thou hast given me I on my part have given to them in order that they may be one even as we are one, I in them, and thou in me in order that they may have been brought completely unto oneness. “What glory is this which Christ has and gives?” Luther asks and then misses the answer. It cannot be our oneness for the glory given us is to produce the oneness. It is impossible to dissociate the glory the Father has given to Jesus from the glory mentioned in v. 1 and 5. This is the eternal glory which the Logos had before the world was, the uncreated and essential glory of God, consisting of the sum of the divine attributes. This glory was given to Jesus in his human nature at the incarnation when the Logos assumed that nature. This glory the apostles beheld in Jesus, shining through the veil of his flesh (1:14).

In v. 5 Jesus does not ask that this glory be given to him. It had been given to him, i.e., to his human nature; what Jesus asks is that he be glorified with this glory, namely that his human nature should shine and radiate with this glory, exercising all the divine attributes in the exaltation of heaven. The Scriptures know of only one glory not of two or more. “Thou hast given,” like the following, “I have given,” denotes an act in time not one in eternity. The gift of the divine glory could not have been made to the divine nature of the Son, for this nature never was without this glory, in fact, this glory is his divine nature. Only the human nature could receive the divine glory as a gift. The perfect tense “has given” is the proper form: the gift made in the instant of the Incarnation remains as such to this moment and on indefinitely.

This text is variously interpreted. The glory is found in the power to work miracles, or is the glory of office. Such a glory the Father is to have given to Jesus, and then he to the apostles. Yet “to them” means to all believers, the multitude of whom has neither miraculous powers nor offices. Some date the gift back in eternity and have it received by the Logos before the world was. Some add “in idea” to the verb, really making “thou hast given” proleptical; the gift belonged to Jesus, but he has yet to take it for himself. These and similar ideas are then also applied to the next clause.

This divine glory, which Jesus received in his human nature at the time of the incarnation, he says, “I on my part have given to them,” namely to all believers, for this part of the prayer deals with all of them. As the gift to Jesus was of necessity made only in a way in which he could receive it, namely by way of his human nature, so again the giving of this gift to the believers was only accomplished in a way in which they could receive it. They received it by the indwelling of Jesus by which they were made partakers of the divine nature, 2 Pet. 1:4; 2 Cor. 3:18; Heb. 12:10; 1 John 3:2: This our glory, received from Jesus, is invisible while we are in what we may call our state of humiliation; the consummation at the time of the Parousia will reveal it in all its excellence, Rev. 3:21. In Rom. 8:30 ἐδόξασε, “them he also did glorify,” is an exact parallel to our passage, “the glory I have given to them.” This perfect tense is again not proleptical, as R. 898 makes it, a futuristic prophetico-perfect; for Jesus is not speaking prophetically. Nor is this gift one made only “ideally” not yet in reality.

The purpose that Jesus has in making this gift is now added: “in order that they may be one even as we are one.” The gift of the divine glory unites us in one body. We, of whom Jesus says in v. 19, “that also they be in us,” are by this made one in the divine glory that thus comes to us. When the three καθώς, v. 11, 21, and now 23, are placed side by side, each sheds light on the other. The last adds the predicate which is left out in the other two: “even as we are one.” In this restatement of the oneness of believers we must not forget the Word. This Word mediates the indwelling of Jesus in us and thus the reception of his glory in us, and thus the oneness that results. When Jesus says, “even as we are one,” his human nature must not be left out.

This is the nature that received the divine glory, received it for our sakes in order that we might be partakers of it through his indwelling. Through his human nature in which all the Godhead dwells bodily (Col. 2:9) Jesus is our Savior; and all his saving gifts come to us through this nature, here in particular the gift of his glory.

John 17:23

23 “I in them, and thou in me,” etc., is not a separate sentence with the verb to be supplied but an apposition to something that precedes. Not to ἡμεῖς (although “I” and “thou” = “we”) because the thought prevents this. “I in them, and thou in me” cannot be an apposition to “we are one.” Somewhat more likely is the apposition to the preceding ἕν, or to the clause itself: “that they may be one,” … “I in them,” etc., adding this as explaining their oneness. But why not follow the “we” in “I” and “thou” to its source? This apposition goes beyond the preceding ἵνα clause which is only subordinate; it is to be attached to the main clause with its “thou” and “I”: “And the glory which thou hast given me I on my part have given to them, … I in them, and thou in me,” etc. These two givings need an explanatory apposition, and this apposition does explain them. “I in them” explains how the believers have the glory of Jesus, how it was given them; and “thou in me” explains how the Father gave this glory to Jesus and how he now has it—“thou in me” even in my human nature. Thus v. 22, 23 become a compact whole which the thought most certainly requires. With Jesus dwelling in the believers, his glory is made theirs even as the indwelling of the Father in Jesus makes the Father’s glory his.

The three ἵνα clauses in v. 21 correspond in a striking way with the three ἵνα clauses in v. 22, 23. Write each pair together and so study them. Take the second pair, “that they may all be one in us” (v. 21); “that they may have been brought completely into one” (v. 23). All are to be completely brought to oneness. The verb τελειοῦν means, “to bring to τέλος or goal,” “to make complete”; and εἰςἕν states the goal. The periphrastic perfect subjunctive, ὦσιτετελειωμένοι, has its usual force: brought to the goal of complete oneness and thus continuing there indefinitely.

The passive has Jesus as the agent; it is he who intends (ἵνα) to bring the believers completely into oneness so that in every way they may be one body. Take it all together: just as the fuller reception of the Word completes the oneness of believers more and more by mediating the indwelling of Jesus and the Father in them, so this indwelling in us and the consequent gift of the glory to us constitute our oneness and constitute it as something that has been made complete and now remains thus. The realization of this purpose, the actual complete oneness, is attained in every age in all those believers who unite in accepting the Word as they should. Those who, though they are still believers, in any way deviate from the Word hinder the consummation of the oneness and prevent the fulfillment of Jesus’ last prayer as far as they are concerned.

As in v. 21, so now in v. 23 a third ἵνα follows, which deals with the world: in order that the world may realize that thou didst commission me and didst love them even as thou didst love me. “May realize” is substantially the same as “may believe” in the parallel clause in v. 21. Both verbs are aorists and signify actual realizing, actual believing. The verb “may realize” is emphatic by position. By beholding the oneness of believers as this manifests itself especially in the united confession and proclamation of the Word (these two by both lip and life), the world is to come to an inner realization of the significance of this oneness. To be sure, a saving realization is referred to, one that induces faith (“may believe,” v. 21). Many in the world will not yield to this impression.

They will harden themselves when they come in contact with believers and their oneness in Christ and in the Word. Often they will use the divisions caused by faulty believers as an excuse for unbelief. But the unity of true believers in Christ and in the world will always have its salutary, saving effect.

In v. 21 the object of believing is summarized in one statement, “that thou didst commission me.” Jesus now repeats this but here amplifies by adding in harmony with the intervening elaboration, “and didst love them (the believers) even as thou didst love me.” This double love of the Father shines forth in the great act of the Father in sending Jesus on his great mission. The church proclaims this great act by means of the Word. The whole gospel tells how the Father gave his Son for the salvation of the world (3:16). Here is the ἀγάπη of God for the world, his comprehending and purposeful love, seeing the plight of sinners and purposing to save them (on ἀγαπᾶν see 3:16). This saving love blesses all those who yield to it (the believers) with life everlasting and with all the divine gifts that go with this life. Many of those in the world will be drawn (6:44) by this love.

Its sweetness and its gifts will win them. They will desire to share in all this blessedness.

One ὅτι unites the two verbs: “that thou didst send me” and “didst love them,” etc. The two are treated as a unit. In the sending of Jesus there is manifested this love of the Father which the believers now enjoy to the full. They constitute the fruit of the sending; upon them the love of the Father can pour itself. What a happy realization when any man who is still in the world begins to see this! And this love of the Father to the believers is after the manner (καθώς) of his love for Jesus.

Here again we must not lose sight of the incarnation and think only of the love of the Father to the Son in their relation in the Trinity. We must think of 10:17; Matt. 3:35; 12:18; 17:5, and similar statements, voicing the love of the Father for the incarnate Son in carrying out the commission of the Father. In this love to Jesus the love to us believers is embraced. We may even say how this comes to pass, for this Jesus who so perfectly did the saving will of the Father is now in us, and we in him. By this identification we share with Jesus in the Father’s love. Blessed are all those who join us in the reception of this love!

John 17:24

24 We may say that now the epilog or conclusion of the prayer begins. This contains no more petitions. The epilog rests on all that precedes and crowns the whole. Father, what thou hast given me, I will that where I myself am also they on their part may be with me; in order that they may behold my own glory which thou hast given me; because thou didst love me before the foundation of the world. The best reading has the vocative in nominative form, which often occurs. The emphasis is first on the clause, “what thou hast given me,” which is, therefore, also placed forward in the form of an absolute nominative which is picked up by the following κἀκεῖνοι; secondly, on the non-final ἵνα clause which states what Jesus wills.

The neuter ὅ (inferior reading οὕς) is like the neuters found in 17:2; 6:37 and 39 (R. 653, 713) and views the entire mass of believers as a mass although it is composed of persons. How the giving has been effected is explained in 6:37 and 17:2. The perfect tense “hast given” must be left as it stands: a past act with a continuous present effect. It is neither a prophetic perfect nor in effect a future perfect. All believers in all ages were present to God, and thus he gave them all to Jesus, and they are his even though they are as yet unborn.

Regarding these believers Jesus expresses his will. When the American committee on the R. V. translates θέλω “I desire,” it weakens the word. Jesus expresses nothing less than his will. This, however, is not a demand: sic volo, sic jubeo! nor as when one makes his last will and testament. Jesus came to execute his Father’s will and does not now demand that the Father execute Jesus’ will.

The position of the word shows that it bears no emphasis. To do so it would have to head the sentence. Nor is there an emphatic ἐγώ, “I on my part,” “I myself will.” Jesus says, “I will,” as expressing the will of the Father in what he wills. He and the Father are in perfect accord. If it be asked, why he then needs to say so to the Father, we might answer that no need compels him but that, as in all other instances, the divine Persons, one in thought, will, and work, freely express this oneness that we may know of it. As far as the Persons themselves are concerned, we may not penetrate into their unity nor ask why they communicate as they do.

What Jesus wills is stated in the object clause, “that where I myself am also they on their part may be with me.” Here both ἐγώ and ἐκεῖνοι are emphatic and parallel. It is certain that in giving us to Jesus the Father intended no separation of Jesus from us, or of us from him, but the very contrary. What Jesus wills is plain from what is now about to occur. Death will soon remove his visible presence from the disciples, but this is to be only a temporary separation. All believers are to be “where I am,” in heaven, in the glory into which Jesus is returning. The will of Jesus lifts the whole church from earth to heaven, from the lowliness here below to the exaltation above.

Already in μετʼ ἐμοῦ, “in my company,” lies the thought of participation in the glory of Jesus in heaven. This thought is fully expressed in the purpose clause, “in order that they may behold my own glory which thou hast given me.” The stress is on the verb, and θεωρεῖν, “to gaze upon as a spectator,” is used with regard to objects that are extraordinary. The believers are to see all the wonders of the glory of Jesus with unspeakable delight. The present tense indicates continuous beholding. The glory the believers are to behold is, of course, the one divine glory of his attributes. We need not here dispute about the visio Dei, whether our glorified eyes shall behold God as he is.

When Jesus adds, the glory “which thou hast given me” (some read the aorist, “didst give”), he again refers to his human nature. The glory we shall behold is thus the glory of the Son ἔνσαρκος shining out from his exalted human nature. This beholding is the very essence of heavenly blessedness. “With me,” “where I myself am,” implies our transfer into heaven and into the heavenly presence of Jesus and at the same time our own glorification, 1 Cor. 15:48; 1 John 3:2, for only glorified eyes can behold in blessedness the glory of the exalted Redeemer. On the clause, “which thou hast given me,” see v. 22; the perfect tense is not prophetic or proleptic.

It is usual to combine: “which thou hast given me, because thou didst love me before the foundation of the world.” The words then mean just what they say: in all eternity the Father did love Jesus as he would eventually walk here on earth in the flesh and do his good and gracious will. The love which declared, “This is my beloved Son,” goes back to eternity. And in this eternal love, when Jesus came to earth, he received in his human nature the glory of God and after the days of his humiliation were accomplished, entered his exaltation, and all the glory shone forth in unrestrained splendor from his human nature. All these wonders of grace in the Son of man, wrought in time and culminating in our own glorification and in our beholding Jesus’ glory in heaven, go back to all eternity and center there in the love of the Father. The prayer of Jesus reaches back into all eternity, to the eternal love of God, and at the same time reaches forward to all eternity and to the blessedness which, shall there be ours. When the last two clauses are connected in this usual manner, no occasion exists for dating back the act of giving the glory to Jesus to the time when the Father did love him, namely in eternity “before the foundation of the world.” The attempt to find this meaning in the words violates the grammar, clashes with the parallel clause in v. 22, and produces an unacceptable thought.

It seems strange, however, to attach to a mere relative clause like, “which thou hast given me,” merely repeated from v. 22, the weighty ὅτι clause, “because thou didst love me before the world began.” So grave and great a reason should be attached to a weightier statement. We suggest that in the mind of Jesus the connection was made with the highly unusual verb θέλω, and that Jesus here states why he is able in this final prayer to address the Father with the words, “I will.” “I will, … because thou didst love me before the foundation of the world.” On this eternal love rests the will for what Jesus here states. Read thus, the love in eternity may be left as the love between the Father and the Son ἄσαρκος. Since in any case this love is dated in timeless eternity, it is immaterial whether the tense is the aorist or the perfect.

John 17:25

25 Jesus closes with a word of complete confidence in the righteousness of the Father, yet he leaves unsaid what action he expects from this righteousness. He does not need to say this, for the Father will most assuredly act in righteous accord with what Jesus here lays before him. Righteous Father, both did the world not know thee, yet I knew thee, and these did know that thou didst commission me. Jesus simply lays the facts before his righteous Father. This suffices for the three aorist tenses for which the English would probably use perfects (R. 843). “Both—and,” καί … καί, in this instance as in 6:36 and 15:24, correlate opposites, the world as not knowing, the disciples as knowing. Between these two is placed the clause with δέ, placing Jesus in contrast with the world: “the world did not know thee, yet I (emphatic ἐγώ) knew thee.” This reference to Jesus is necessary in order to bring out the guilt of the world.

It is terse, saying only that Jesus knew the Father but implying that he made his knowledge known, and that thus the world should have known the Father. It did not know him and, of course, made this its lack of knowledge known (8:55). Both are true, the fact that the world did not know the Father, and that “these” did know him. Both facts Jesus places side by side before his righteous Father. Only in regard to “these” he says: they did know “that thou didst commission me,” thus establishing the fact that they really knew the Father (compare v. 3, and 14:7 as showing that the Father is known only in Jesus whom he sent).

By “these” Jesus refers to the eleven, but what applies to them applies to all believers alike: they all know what Jesus says. The verb “know” is used in an intensive sense with reference to the knowledge of full realization. By thus correlating the world with the eleven and by Jesus placing himself between the two, the thought is that when the eleven faced the alternative of following the wilful ignorance of the word or the knowledge which Jesus made known, they were drawn to the latter and knew the Father in Jesus. The stress is thus placed on the disciples and on their blessed knowledge. This means that by placing these facts before the Father, Jesus is concerned chiefly about the disciples and about the verdict of the Father in regard to them. What the Father may do regarding the world is a minor matter. In his righteousness he can do only one thing with the disciples who have turned from the world to Jesus, he can only leave them with Jesus that they may be with him forever.

John 17:26

26 What the terse clause, “yet I knew thee,” only implies is now brought out, not, however, as regards the world but as regards the disciples with whom Jesus is so deeply concerned. And I made known to them thy name and will make it known in order that the love with which thou didst love me may be in them, and I myself in them. The verb γνωρίζω is chosen to match γινώσκω in v. 25; in v. 6 the same thought is expressed with φανεροῦν, “I did manifest thy name,” etc., ὄνομα, here again the revelation which makes the Father known. The two καί are not correlative, each only adds to what precedes. To the fact that the disciples did know Jesus as sent by the Father is added the other that Jesus made the Father’s name known to them, namely effectively; and to this is added the thought that he will yet make this name known to them. How the latter will be done in the future the discourses have fully stated.

The emphasis is on the following purpose clause as stating the intent of both what Jesus has done and will yet do. This his intent Jesus places before the Father with the certainty that in his righteousness he will second it and give it perfect approval.

This is the great purpose, “in order that the love with which thou didst love me may be in them,” etc. The Greek has the cognate object of the inner content, ἣιἠγάπησας, besides the personal object “me” (R. 478). This is the love of the Father for Jesus mentioned in v. 24. Reaching back into eternity, it is now to fill the disciples. We need not puzzle as to how this love of the Father will be “in them.” It will fill them as a blessed treasure, a possession of which they can have constant experience. “In them” is evidently chosen because of the Father’s own indwelling in the hearts of the disciples (14:23). Hence Jesus adds as the further purpose, “and I myself in them” (this indwelling as in v. 23).

Only here Jesus presents this his intent to the Father that he may weigh it in his righteous dealings with the disciples. Jesus is in indissoluble union with them, and the Father will look upon them and treat them as he does Jesus who is in them.

In these three closing verses Jesus expresses his assurance that the Father will hear him. It is like a grand “Amen, amen, Yea, yea, it shall be so!” The purpose and the object of Jesus and of his work shall be attained.

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.