OVERVIEW
John 13–17 is commonly called “the Upper Room Discourse.” Whether Jesus left the upper room before or after speaking the words recorded in chs. 15–17 is not clear. In 14:31 he says, “Come now; let us leave.” Yet not until three chapters later in the narrative (18:1) does John record that when Jesus finished praying, he left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. In either case, chs. 13–17 comprise those special truths Jesus wanted his disciples to understand and carry with them in view of his imminent death and departure. They are, in a sense, Jesus’ “last will and testament.” The truths are rich in spiritual insight and were especially important for the followers of Jesus at that critical juncture. He would soon be gone, and his redemptive mission and message would be left in their care.
OVERVIEW
Chapter 13 marks the beginning of the final period in Jesus’ life here on earth. The previous chapter chronicled the events that took place during the six days that preceded Passover (12:1). It was a time of constant exposure to crowds of people. Six times in ch. 12 John calls attention to “the crowd.” (In v.9 it is described as “large” and in v.12 as “great.”) When Jesus entered Jerusalem and the crowds welcomed him with shouts of “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” (v.13), the Pharisees declared, “Look how the whole world has gone after him!” (v.19).
It had been a busy week. Just before the triumphal entry, Jesus had dined with his friends in Bethany and Mary had anointed his feet with fragrant and expensive perfume. Greeks attending the festival had come to Philip requesting an opportunity to speak with Jesus. He spoke of the necessity of his death (12:24), the drawing power of his resurrection (v.32), and the judgment to come on those who refuse his teaching (v.48). He marveled that, after all he had done in their presence, “they still would not believe in him” (v.37). Now as the end approaches, Jesus turns from the crowds to give his full attention to a small group of loyal followers.
1It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love.
2The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. 3Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; 4so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.
6He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”
7Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”
8“No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.”
Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”
9“Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!”
10Jesus answered, “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” 11For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.
12When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13“You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.”
COMMENTARY
1 John places the events of the evening just before the Passover Feast. The question of whether the Last Supper was a Passover Feast (Mk 14:12 par.) or a meal on the previous day that had Passover characteristics is discussed at great length in more critical commentaries. Carson, 457, after working through the issue, concludes, “Jesus and his disciples did indeed eat a Passover meal on Thursday, the beginning of 15 Nisan.” Passover was a sacred festival commemorating the deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage (Ex 12). It took its name from the “passing over” of the angel of death and the sparing of all the firstborn among the Israelites. At the time of the Passover, devout Jews came to Jerusalem from all over the inhabited world to join in that most sacred and holy festival.
Jerusalem was an exciting place during Passover. Religious emotions ran high. Friends from different areas would meet in the crowded streets and excitedly exchange stories of home and family. But for Jesus, his time had come, and only this one last evening remained for him to spend with his disciples. At an earlier point in his ministry, the Pharisees had tried to seize Jesus but were unable to do so because “his time had not yet come” (7:30; cf. 8:20). But now “the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (12:23; cf. 17:1). This was the hour toward which, in the eternal plan of God, all history had moved with inexorable pace. It was the hour in which the redemptive love of God would reveal itself as voluntary suffering for the unworthy. A Savior crucified by those he came to save is paradoxical only to those who have not grasped the fact that God wins his victories through suffering, not by an outward demonstration of power or might. In the great throne room scene of Revelation 4–5, the Lion of the tribe of Judah turns out to be a Lamb, who is worthy to open the seals of the scroll because he has been slain and with his blood has purchased human beings for God (Rev 5:5–6, 9).
Specifically, it was the time for Jesus to “leave this world and go to the Father.” For the believer, death is not the end but the beginning. It is a departure from the realm of evil (cf. Gal 1:4) and a going home to the Father. Since Jesus is the “firstborn from among the dead” (Col 1:18), we may logically expect that as his death was a journey to the Father so also will be ours. All ideas of soul-sleep are foreign to NT teaching. Neither is the “soul” entrapped along the way in some place of physical punishment. Paul said it clearly: “Absent from the body … present with the Lord” (2Co 5:8 KJV). What a remarkable way to complete what we call life! Death has been robbed of its terror and made the passage to our eternal home. Waiting for us is the One whose love bridged the gulf created by our sin. We are the prodigals returning home, and he is the Father who rushes out to meet us. This world has been a place of hostility and heartache. Death is the entrance into joy eternal and inexpressible.
The text says that Jesus “knew” that his time had come. This was more than mere premonition; it was a clear understanding of what must necessarily take place in the dark days that lay ahead. As the Lamb of God whose blood would be shed for the sins of the world, he knew not only what would happen but also that the critical time had arrived. Jesus was not trapped into a sequence of events that unexpectedly led to the cross. With full knowledge of what the future held, he moved steadily through his years of public ministry to a destiny ordained by the Father and known by the Son. This foreknowledge makes his sacrifice all the more remarkable.
Though his disciples had often failed to grasp the full meaning of his words and had demonstrated by their behavior an inadequate commitment to his ethical demands, he “loved his own” and would now show them “the full extent of his love.” In the prologue to his gospel John notes that the Word came to “his own creation,” (ta idia is neuter plural), but “his own people” (hoi idioi is masculine plural) did not receive him (1:11–12). Those referred to in ch. 13 as “his own” comprise a much smaller group. To belong to Jesus—to be “his own”—requires far more than to find oneself somewhat unintentionally within an ethnic or religious organization. It requires separation from the prevailing world system and allegiance to a kingdom that belongs to another world. As Paul puts it, the Christian has his citizenship “in heaven” (Php 3:20). “My kingdom,” said Jesus, “is not of this world” (Jn 18:36). Elsewhere believers are called “a people that are his very own” (Tit 2:14, drawing on Moses’ reference to the Israelites as God’s “treasured possession,” Ex 19:5). To be called God’s own is a reward given to those few who by faith have committed themselves to the reality of a universal kingdom yet undisclosed. As Jesus, misunderstood and rejected, moved among people, so also do his current followers find themselves at odds with much of contemporary wisdom and culture.
Throughout his entire ministry Jesus had loved his own. He bore with their lack of spiritual understanding and put up with their all-too-human reactions. When they failed to understand his teachings, he found other ways to communicate what he wanted them to learn. He loved his disciples. And now he was about to show them “the full extent of his love.” The expression may mean either that he loved them utterly and completely or that he loved them to the end, i.e., to his death. It is better in this case not to separate the two ideas, for because the love of Jesus was of the highest degree, it would consequently carry through to the very end. A bit later he will remind his disciples that “no one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (15:13 NRSV). One of the most remarkable things about Jesus from a human point of view is that there is no disparity between his words and his life. What he taught he lived.
2 In NT times, the evening meal was an important event. It brought together family (and often friends too) in a relaxed and pleasant setting. The gospels record a number of occasions when Jesus was a guest at a meal. He performed his first miracle while attending a wedding feast at Cana (2:1–11). At Matthew’s house he ate with “tax collectors and ‘sinners’” (Mt 9:10). In Jericho he was the guest of Zacchaeus (Lk 19:5–10). The beautiful recognition scene in Emmaus took place as Jesus sat at table with two disciples and broke bread (Lk 24:30–32). How fitting that on the eve of his departure he should share a final meal with his disciples.
John begins his narrative of those final hours with the jarring reminder that the devil had already “prompted Judas … to betray Jesus.” Later, in v.27, we read that after Judas took the bread, “Satan entered into him.” While it may be that this represents a progression from demonic influence to demonic possession, another reading of the Greek text here suggests the translation, “The devil had already made up his mind that Judas should betray him.” The synoptic accounts all place Judas’s bargain with the chief priests before the Last Supper (Mk 14:10–11 par.). Judas had entered into a Faustian bargain with Satan, who from that time on directed his activity. Calvin, 2:56, comments that “all the wickedness which men do is incited by Satan; but the more revolting and execrable the crime, the more should we see in it the rage of the devil.” More will be said of Judas when John records Jesus’ announcement of betrayal and the departure of Satan’s pawn (see comments at vv.21, 27–28).
3 Verse 1 taught that Jesus knew his time had come to leave the world and go to the Father. Verse 3 expands the idea by noting that he also knew he had come from God and was returning to God. The question as to when Jesus first realized his heavenly origin is impossible to answer. We know that at the age of twelve, when he lingered in the temple to question the religious teachers, he was aware that he was in his “Father’s house” (Lk 2:49). As Jesus entered his public ministry, the devil attempted to sow the seeds of doubt by challenging, “If you are the Son of God …” (Lk 4:3, 9). At that time Jesus knew full well that he had come from God.
We can only conjecture what that knowledge of divine origin entailed. Undoubtedly it was far more than an undefined awareness of preincarnate existence, yet how specific it was is impossible to know. In his incarnate state, Jesus had experienced a veiling of certain divine attributes (cf. Mk 13:32). The beauty of his earthly life stems from the fact that even though he was truly God, he lived among us as the perfect man. Knowing that he had “come from God” must, as the end approached, have increasingly heightened his longing to “return to God,” even though that return involved the shame and cruelty of a public execution. Since no two human beings have ever known the joys of a perfect father-son relationship, none of us can grasp fully the infinite beauty of that intimate association. Jesus had come from God; yet in one sense he had never left him. Now he returns to God and at the same time never really leaves us. Such is the mystery of the divine presence, the continuing fulfillment of his name “Immanuel—which means ‘God with us’” (Mt 1:23).
4–5 During the meal Jesus rose from the table and poured water into a basin. He then began to wash his disciples’ feet and dried them with a towel. Ancient roads were dusty, and the sandals people wore made foot washing a common courtesy. The task was normally performed by a servant (cf. 1Sa 25:41; Lk 7:44; 1Ti 5:10), but none were present in the upper room. Any one of the disciples would undoubtedly have been willing to wash Jesus’ feet, but to offer the same service to another disciple would have been an admission of inferiority. Luke reports that there was a dispute among them as to which was considered the greatest (Lk 22:24–27). This was hardly the time to play the role of a servant!
Meals were eaten at a low table, with guests in a semi-reclining position. It appears that Jesus removed not simply his outer garment (ta himatia, “the garments,” GK 2668, is plural, as in 19:23–24; cf. the singular in 19:2, 5), but stripped down to a loincloth—the garb of a servant. The Greek verb translated “took off” (tithēmi, GK 5502, v.4) is used in ch. 10, where Jesus explains that he is the good shepherd who “lays down his life for the sheep” (10:11, 15, 17). This could serve to strengthen the view that the foot-washing episode is to be understood as an enacted parable of Jesus’ imminent death. It is often noted that John does not include the Last Supper in his narrative of Jesus’ final days and that the Synoptics omit the foot washing. The reason could well be that both incidents serve the same purpose. Both are graphic illustrations of Jesus’ role as the Suffering Servant who “did not come to be served, but to serve” (Mk 10:45; cf. Php 2:6–8). To take the foot washing as no more than an example of humble service overlooks the deeper significance that stems from the redemptive context of the passion narrative.
The towel Jesus used would be long enough to go around his waist, with enough left free to dry the disciples’ feet. Foot washing was normally performed by pouring water over the feet and catching the runoff in a basin. What a sense of mingled shame and embarrassment must have welled up within the hearts of the disciples as Jesus knelt before each one and carried out the humble task of a servant. They were too proud to serve one another, but they were hardly ready to be served in this way by their Master. Temple, 2:210, notes that humility does not begin with providing service but with the readiness to receive it. The disciples’ pride kept them from entering into a genuine understanding of and appreciation for the remarkable event they were privileged to witness.
6 The sequence of events suggests that Peter was not the first disciple whose feet were washed by Jesus, and v.12 appears to imply that he was not the last. The conjunction oun (“therefore,” omitted from the NIV but rendered “then” by the KJV and “so” by the NASB) creates a sense of expectancy. What will happen when Jesus comes to Peter? When that moment arrived, Peter was unable to contain himself. In astonishment he asked, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” The unusual position of the two pronouns (sy mou) adds an emphasis not easily translated. A reasonable paraphrase might be, “Lord, could it possibly be that you intend to wash my feet?” (emphasis added). It was not so much a question as a reaction. In similar fashion, John the Baptist, when approached by Jesus, had exclaimed, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” (Mt 3:14).
At times Peter is portrayed rather negatively as an impetuous disciple insensitive to what would be appropriate in a given situation. But on this occasion it was Peter’s wholehearted commitment to his Master, along with his sense of the incongruity between lordship and humble service, that led him to react as he did. The other disciples undoubtedly felt the same way but were not given to speaking out. Peter’s response is a clear indication that enthusiasm and devotion can coexist with less than an adequate understanding of how God works.
7 Jesus answered Peter’s question and placed the same emphasis on the pronouns, saying in effect, “What I am doing now you do not yet know. Later, however, you will understand; after the resurrection you will discern the deeper meaning of the foot washing [cf. 2:22; 12:16].” The Holy Spirit will come and will “teach [them] all things and will remind [them] of everything [Jesus] … said to [them]” (14:26; cf. 16:13).
The foot washing had a significance beyond the literal act itself. Later the disciples would see the more profound lesson here, namely, that humble service for others is the appropriate lifestyle for the believer. There is also a broad spiritual principle: “[God’s] ways [are] higher than [our] ways and [his] thoughts than [our] thoughts” (Isa 55:9). There are many things God does that we simply cannot at the present understand. It is not our role to fathom the mind of God but to allow him the freedom to do what he wishes. Peter’s intention was to prevent what he could not grasp, and in so doing he revealed more pride than humility. Our lack of understanding should call forth trust. Faith inevitably precedes knowledge. One of the great joys of eternity will be to enter into a more profound understanding of who God is and why he did what he did in history. Until then, we “see through a glass darkly” (KJV), while knowing that when we see him face-to-face, “we shall understand as completely as we are understood” (1Co 13:12 MLB).
8 Peter’s response is remarkably strong. The Greek double negative ou mē has the force of an oath and is strengthened even further by eis ton aiōna, “unto the age, forever.” You most certainly shall “never [ever] wash my feet”—once again the pronoun is emphatic. Peter’s resistance stemmed from his failure to understand what the act of washing the disciples’ feet symbolized. He could not understand that Jesus by his coming death would stoop as the Suffering Servant to minister to the critical need of the human race. By his death he would cleanse all those who would allow him to “wash their feet.” By objecting, Peter typified all those who are confident of their ability to cleanse themselves. His refusal illustrates the human tendency to trust one’s own sense of what is right rather than to accept with humility the gift of God. Calvin, 2:57, writes, “Until a man renounces his liberty of judging the works of God, however he may strive to honor God, pride will be always latent under the semblance of humility.”
To Peter’s emphatic refusal Jesus replied, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” The word translated “part” (meros, GK 3538) is used in the Greek OT (LXX) to describe an inheritance (cf. Pr 17:2). Eschatologically it came to mean “an eternal reward.” Here John uses the term to mean “fellowship with Christ.” Jesus is saying that purification (from sin) is the unconditional requirement for sharing in the life of Christ, both now and in the age to come. As is so often the case, John would remind us that the words of Jesus may be understood on more than one level. Peter had been thinking of the foot-washing episode as no more than a customary practice in ancient Israel, while Jesus had moved ahead to a new level and was teaching about the spiritual significance of his imminent death.
9 Peter’s reversal was as dramatic as his refusal: “Not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!” The idea of forfeiting communion with his Master was more than he could bear. “Wash not only my feet, but pour the water all over me. Nothing could be so terrible as to be separated from you!” Whatever else may be said about Peter, it cannot be said that he lacked fervor for his Lord.
10 Verse 10 teaches an important lesson about the difference between justification and sanctification. The person who has had a bath is the one who has been cleansed of sin by the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus. This is justification. The perfect participle ho leloumenos (“the person who has had a bath”—the bathed one, GK 3374) suggests an action in the past, the effect of which continues in the present. There is no need to bathe again. Once a person has received the cleansing benefit of Jesus’ sacrifice, there can be no reason why the process should be repeated. On the other hand, the cleansed person now needs only to “wash his feet.” This is sanctification. Believers, through continued contact with the uncleanness of a world separated from God and prone to act out of their old nature, need to be continually cleansed from their daily contact with sin. This is why we pray, “Forgive us our debts,” and, “deliver us from the evil one” (Mt 6:12, 13).
11 In the sense of divine forgiveness the disciples were clean, though “not every one of [them].” The reference was to Judas, who would soon betray Jesus. The other disciples knew only that there was a traitor in their midst; they did not know who he was. The specific reference by Jesus to one who was not clean was intended to pierce the conscience of Judas and provide him one more opportunity to forsake his treacherous intent and be forgiven. (The present participle ton paradidonta, “the betraying one,” GK 4140, suggests that the betrayal was already underway.) Though the disciples had traveled with Jesus throughout his public ministry, there was one who had effectively resisted the cleansing influence of such an intimate relationship. Is it not likewise highly probable that the contemporary church has among its adherents those who have never experienced the cleansing power of Jesus’ death? As in the case of Judas, the day will surely come when the faithful will be separated from those whose “commitment” is based on personal advantage.
12–17 Having discussed in vv. 7–11 the theological significance of the foot washing (note that had Peter not objected to having his feet washed we may not have learned from Jesus the deeper parabolic meaning of what was taking place), we will now learn the practical meaning of the foot washing.
12 When Jesus had finished washing the disciples’ feet, he put on the clothes he had laid aside and resumed his place at the table. To encourage his disciples to reflect on what had just happened he asked, “Do you understand what I have done for you?” Some writers note that ginōskete (“understand,” GK 1182) may be taken as an imperative (“Understand what I have done for you!”), but in either case the meaning is essentially the same. Jesus taught not only by word but also by actions. It is important to reflect on what he did as well as what he said. The verses that follow (vv.13–17) contain Jesus’ explanation of the practical implications of the foot washing.
13 The basic premise of Jesus’ argument is that the disciples acknowledged him to be their Teacher and Lord. The order is significant. The disciples came to know Jesus first as Teacher (equivalent to Rabbi, the title normally used by Jewish students when addressing their master) and later as Lord. They had been with him in public ministry for almost two years before he asked, “Who do you say that I am?” and Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:15–16). While it is true that the day will come when every tongue will confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord” (Php 2:11), during his earthly ministry Jesus did not demand the obedience appropriate to lordship from those who had not come to know him first as Teacher. The disciples, however, were correct in acknowledging him as Teacher and Lord because, as Jesus said, “That is what I am.” He was not simply one who had taught them; more important, he was their Lord.
14 This point is stressed by Jesus’ reversal of the order in which he uses the titles here: “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet.” The goal of a servant is to become like his master. The priorities and practices of the greater must of necessity become those of the lesser. Since the Lord of the disciples had washed their feet, it was incumbent on them to extend the same humble service to one another. Jesus had set an example so that they would do as he had done for them.
15 The question inevitably arises: Did Jesus intend that the church incorporate foot washing into its worship and ritual? At various times certain segments of the church have answered in the affirmative. The pedilavium was a foot-washing ceremony performed on Maundy Thursday in which an ecclesiastical superior washed, dried, and kissed the right foot of someone chosen for the occasion. Earlier commentaries refer to the practice as “ceremonial comedy” (Luther) or a “burlesque on the command of the Lord” (Reith). Verse 15 does not say that the disciples should do what Jesus had done but as he had done. It is the spirit of the act that is to be followed. The example Jesus set reflects an all-inclusive attitude toward others. It should not be limited simply to the act of washing another person’s feet.
16 It was pride that kept the disciples from serving one another. Their concern was to establish superiority of rank (cf. Lk 22:24–27). And it is pride that prevents the church today from demonstrating as fully as it ought the power of Christian love. H. L. Mencken (A Book of Burlesques [New York: John Lane, 1916]) once defined an archbishop as a “Christian ecclesiastic of a rank superior to that attained by Christ.” By taking the role of a servant and washing his disciples’ feet, Jesus established once and for all the model for Christian love. It was crucial for his followers to learn that whoever wanted to be great must become a servant, and whoever wanted to be first must be slave of all (Mk 10:43–44). The only kind of leadership Jesus taught was servant-leadership.
17 Jesus concludes his words on foot washing by emphasizing the need for knowledge to be put into practice: “Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.” The construction of the sentence in Greek implies that they do know these things (i.e., what he has just taught about foot washing), but whether or not they will put them into practice is less certain. Only if they actually do them will they be blessed (makarios, GK 3421, the word used repeatedly in the Beatitudes of Mt 5:3–11). Throughout his ministry Jesus emphasized the necessity of doing God’s will (Mt 7:21, 24; Mk 3:35). Knowledge of what is right has no value unless it changes conduct; in fact, to know what ought to be done and not to do it is sin (cf. Jas 4:17). The blessedness that comes from doing what is right is not so much a gift bestowed as it is that state of well-being resulting from the conduct itself. To be blessed is not to receive some extrinsic reward for good behavior but to enjoy the natural consequence of living in harmony with truth revealed.
2 The NASB follows the reading δείπνου γινομένου (deipnou ginomenou) and translates “during supper” (GK 1270, 1181; NIV, “The evening meal was being served”). This reading is found in א* B L W Ψ 0124 1241 pc d r1. The aorist (δείπνου γενομένου, deipnou genomenou) is found in P66 א2 A D Θ f 1.13 33 and is followed by the KJV, which translates, “supper being ended.” While the latter is more difficult in view of vv.4, 26, which detail items taking place during the dinner and therefore would tend to explain why a copyist would change to the present tense, the superiority of the MS evidence led the UBS committee to adopt the former reading. A minority of the committee preferred δείπνου γενομένου, deipnou genomenou, taken in the sense of an ingressive aorist, which would yield, “supper having been served” (cf. Metzger, 203).
Manuscripts vary with regard to both “Judas” and “Iscariot” and the location of the name in the sentence. In John 6:71 and 13:26 he is called “Judas the son of Simon Iscariot,” while in 12:4 he is simply “Judas Iscariot.” In the present verse (13:2) both the NIV and NASB refer to him as Judas Iscariot, [the] son of Simon. In the Synoptics he is always referred to as Judas Iscariot (Mt 10:4; 26:14; Lk 22:3). “Iscariot” has been traced to a number of sources. If the reference is to the town of Kerioth (in southern Israel?), he would be the “man from Kerioth.” If the name is derived from the Aramaic root meaning “liar,” then Judas would be “the Liar” (a reference to the betrayal). Others refer to the Latin sicarius (“dagger man”), which would identify him as one of the Zealots. Other suggestions are the “carrier of the scortea” (a leather bag for money) and the “man from Sychar.”
10 Commentators often discuss whether the phrase “except for the feet” (NRSV) should be included in the text, since MSS vary in that regard. The shorter text (lit., “the one having been bathed does not have a need to wash”) has the advantage of strengthening the point Jesus made in v.8. The longer text (which adds “except for the feet”) has better MS support and adds the point about daily cleansing from contact with sin.
The background is the ancient custom of bathing before going out to a banquet but needing the feet to be washed on arrival due to the dust accumulated en route. Sacramentalists tend to see in these two acts baptism and penance (or the Lord’s Supper). It is far more likely that they represent the initial cleansing of justification followed by the daily process of sanctification. One minister has on the door leading from his study into the sanctuary the words, “Are your feet clean?”
REFLECTIONS
How is it possible for people, who by nature seek their own advantage, to serve the interests and welfare of others? The only answer is to be set free from enslavement to oneself. Obviously, a deliverance of this magnitude poses a serious problem. Freedom from self-interest cannot be achieved by drawing on one’s own resources. We need help from outside. Though the death of Jesus has provided not only forgiveness but also the power to live for others, very few have taken a firm hold of that power and allowed it to accomplish through their lives the self-forgetful service for others that God intended. Our deliverance is incomplete. Like the disciples, we often fail to show on a day-to-day basis what it means to be servants of one another.
OVERVIEW
The prophet Isaiah described the coming messianic king as “a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering” (Isa 53:3). During his public ministry Jesus had experienced sorrow of every sort. The unbelief of the Jewish nation as well as the hostility of the religious establishment caused him profound personal disappointment and pain. At one point he cried out, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!” (Lk 13:34). A far deeper wound, however, was about to be inflicted by one of the Twelve. To be betrayed by a friend is the most devastating wound of all.
18“I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: ‘He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me.’
19“I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He. 20I tell you the truth, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me.”
21After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, “I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me.”
22His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. 23One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, “Ask him which one he means.”
25Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, “Lord, who is it?”
26Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. 27As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.
“What you are about to do, do quickly,” Jesus told him, 28but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. 29Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor. 30As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night.
18 Judas’s treachery must have made a marked impression on John. In 6:71 he added a parenthesis to call to the reader’s attention that the “devil” of whom Jesus spoke was Judas. In 12:4 he identified Judas Iscariot as the one “who was later to betray him.” Already in ch. 13 Judas has been referred to twice (vv.2, 10–11). Now in v.18 Jesus says that what is about to happen is “to fulfill the scripture.” Not for a moment are we to assume that Judas was somehow trapped by divine necessity and left with no other option but to betray Jesus. To play the traitor was his own decision. The “scripture” that was fulfilled by his treacherous act is Psalm 41:9: “Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.” To “share a person’s bread” was to pledge loyalty to the person. The act reflects an intimate relationship of trust and fidelity. To “lift up the heel against” someone is a metaphor for violent opposition. It pictures a horse lifting its hoof in readiness to kick. Judas, who has posed as a faithful companion, is about to strike out in revenge. (Some have seen in the metaphor a reference to the shaking off of dust from one’s feet [see Lk 9:5], while others find an allusion to Genesis 3:15. A literal translation of the Hebrew expression is “has made his heel great against me.”)
In speaking as he does, Jesus is not referring to all of his disciples. “I know,” he says, “those I have chosen.” Some writers resist including Judas in the group of those who are said to have been chosen. They understand the choosing of the Eleven in the Pauline sense of God’s gracious choice unto redemption. One way to alleviate the difficulty is to translate tinas (“those”) as “the kind of men” (Barclay, 2:142). In this case, Jesus would be saying only that he knew what kind of men he had chosen—a statement implying that the betrayal by Judas would come as no surprise. It is better to take the word in a more general sense and understand the passage in the light of Jesus’ earlier response to Peter: “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (6:70). Israel had been chosen by God, yet many of them betrayed their calling. Judas was chosen as a disciple but failed to remain loyal.
19 Jesus warned his disciples ahead of time of the coming betrayal so that when it did happen they would believe in him. The text reads, “that I am he.” The meaning both here and in 8:24 is, “I am the one I claim to be.” In both cases the Greek is egō eimi, “I am,” with no expressed predicate. The egō eimi formula ultimately rests on the “I AM WHO I AM” of Exodus 3:14, “I AM” being the name by which God reveals himself in history (cf. Dt 32:39; Isa 43:10). Jesus knows ahead of time that he will be betrayed and that his betrayer will be one who “shares [his] bread.” By telling his disciples beforehand, he intends that when it does happen their faith will be strengthened.
20 Verse 20 records a saying of Jesus that occurs elsewhere in the Gospels in various contexts (Mk 9:37; Lk 10:16). To accept those sent out by Jesus is to accept Jesus, and to accept him is to accept the one who sent him. Very shortly Jesus will tell his disciples, “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (20:21). Betrayal and death will bring confusion and discouragement, but resurrection and the knowledge that Jesus was fully aware of what would happen will result in renewed faith and the courage to carry out the commission. The point is emphasized by the doubled amēn amēn (NASB, “truly, truly”). It was important for the disciples to understand that as Jesus was sent by God, so also were they sent by him. Those who accept the disciples will at the same time be accepting both the Son and the Father. Apostleship carries with it the awesome privilege of divine companionship. To accept the messenger of God is to accept God as well.
21 Jesus had just indicated that one who shared his bread would lift up his heel against him (v.18). John records that after Jesus said this, he was deeply “troubled.” The same word (etarachthē, GK 5429) was used of Jesus’ response to Mary, who had fallen at his feet mourning the death of her brother Lazarus (11:33; Jesus was “troubled”). It is interesting that the gospel of John, which dwells most often on the deity of Jesus, is also the one that portrays in the most graphic ways his complete humanity.
Jesus is deeply troubled by the knowledge that one of his own disciples is about to betray him. Three years of close association has failed to win Judas’s affection and loyalty. To make matters even worse, this lack of fidelity has been masked by a hypocrisy undetected by the other disciples. To know full well the deceitfulness of a “friend” and yet to bear with it till the very last out of compassion for the faithless one reveals a remarkable degree of restraint. Stoicism taught that a wise man meets all of life with equanimity. Perfect composure is the goal of life. Jesus was not a Stoic. His responses to life were fully human, and as such he revealed the nature of God as compassionately concerned with human frailty. He is a high priest who is “touched with the feeling of our infirmities” (Heb 4:15 KJV).
Jesus testified that one of his disciples would betray him. Until then, there had been no specific indication that a member of the band of disciples would be involved in what was about to happen. They had learned that not every one of them was “clean” (v.10) and that in some way the prophecy that one of them would “lift up his heel against” Jesus would be fulfilled (v.18). But the announcement that one of their very own would actually betray their Master must have struck them like a thunderbolt. The word “testify” (martyreō, GK 3455; cf. the English “martyr”) coupled with the double amēn emphasizes the supreme importance of the announcement. Incredible as it might seem, the betrayer was one of them. But how could anyone who had listened to the gracious teachings of Jesus and shared the intimacy of the group of disciples now turn and betray his Master?
22 The stunned disciples looked at one another, at a loss to know which of them Jesus meant. Apparently Judas had masked his duplicity so effectively that not one of them suspected him. Jesus had taught that the weeds and the wheat grow together and are not separated until the harvest, at which time the “sons of the evil one” are pulled up and burned (Mt 13:38). Even among the chosen Twelve was a “weed” sown by the devil (cf. Mt 13:39). The ability of a deceiver to feign loyalty while plotting high treason and to go unnoticed is a stark reminder of the shallowness of human perception. But while people may be easily deceived, there is no way to hide from God. From the beginning Jesus knew who the traitor would be. Calvin, 2:65, remarks that we should sometimes not point out the ungodly until God has dragged them into the light: wickedness needs to be ripe for discovery. In any case, Jesus allowed the presence of Judas until the very last.
23–24 To understand more accurately the exchange about to take place one needs to picture the way the group was arranged around the tables. Leonardo da Vinci’s “The Last Supper,” which pictures the disciples seated along one side of a long table, is misleading. In ancient times, the guests at special feasts would recline so that each would be resting on his left elbow supported by a cushion, with his feet pointing away from the table. In the upper room there were probably three tables arranged in a horseshoe fashion. Jesus and two of his disciples would be reclining at the center table. The place on Jesus’ right would be reserved for a close friend, while the place on his left would go to the special guest.
It appears that John was the disciple who was seated on Jesus’ right. Verse 25 says that he leaned back against Jesus to ask a question (a natural motion if he were on Jesus’ right). The case for Judas being to the left of Jesus rests on the ease with which Jesus would hand him the bread after dipping it in the dish (v.26). It would also be consistent with the view that Jesus was offering his betrayer one more chance to abandon his wicked plan and seek forgiveness. It appears that Peter was not at the head table, because when he wanted to discover who the betrayer would be, he had to catch John’s attention and ask him to relay the question (v.24). Apparently Peter enjoyed no special role among the disciples at this time.
I take the position that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (v.23) was John the disciple and author of the fourth gospel (the same designation is found in 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). Others have conjectured Lazarus or the rich young ruler, but it is highly unlikely that anyone except Jesus and the Twelve would have been present on that special occasion. The argument that John would not refer to himself in such a favorable way overlooks the nature of Oriental expression. In addition, everything we know about John leads us to believe that love was the most prominent characteristic of both his life and his teaching.
25–26 John, “leaning back against Jesus,” asked him who the betrayer would be. If John was in fact sitting to the right of Jesus, this movement would not call attention to Peter’s question and Jesus’ answer. It helps explain why no one understood the significance of the special morsel given to Judas or what it meant when Judas left their presence (in v.29). Jesus identified the betrayer as the one to whom he would give the “piece of bread” (or meat; psōmion simply means “fragment” or “morsel,” GK 6040) after it had been dipped in a broth (perhaps the haroseth sauce of dates, raisins, and sour wine). To offer a special morsel was one of the ways a host could honor a distinguished guest. Every possible opportunity was given to Judas to turn from his wicked plan. On this special occasion he was given the place of honor and acknowledged by a distinct act of respect. Had there remained in him even a shred of integrity he would have surrendered to the love of his Master and turned from his treacherous scheme.
27–28 Instead Judas took the morsel, and immediately Satan entered into him. Earlier we learned that the devil “prompted” Judas to betray Jesus (v.2). Here it says that he “entered into him.” The choice of verbs indicates a progression of influence or control. Satan’s approach is subtle. What begins with a carefully designed suggestion ends in complete control. The sly question put to Eve was, “Did God really say …?” (Ge 3:1). Satan achieves his objectives in our lives by gradually redirecting our affections away from God. As we are led astray by his cunning, his influence over us continues to increase. Unless checked by renewed obedience to the divine will, this line of progression leads to complete control by the adversary. Paul warns us against being deceived by Satan’s cunning (2Co 11:3) and tells us to put on the full armor of God in order to “stand against the devil’s schemes” (Eph 6:11).
It must have been with great heaviness of heart that Jesus said to Judas, “What you are about to do, do quickly.” The words were not intended to prod Judas into moving ahead with his nefarious plan but should be taken as the sentence pronounced on a guilty man already condemned by his actions. The die has been cast. Satan entered into Judas, and the point of no return was passed. A parallel is found in Romans, where God is repeatedly said to have “given over” those who had willfully turned their backs on him (Ro 1:24, 26, 28).
No one at the table knew why Jesus said what he did. Some thought that he was telling Judas, who was in charge of the common purse, to go out and buy what was needed for the Feast; others thought that he wanted Judas to give something to the poor. What is truly amazing is that not one of the disciples suspected Judas of any sort of wrongdoing. He had masked his hypocrisy from his closest friends. How cunning are the ways of the deceitful! That he was the one charged with managing the meager resources of the group of disciples would indicate their confidence in his ability and integrity. Instead of being faithful to his charge, he was plotting the overthrow of his Master. There is a profound lesson here for those who are unaware of the deceitfulness of sin. Human nature is marred by duplicity and guile. The problem is less in detecting it in others as it is in recognizing it in ourselves. Thankfully, God’s gracious forgiveness is available for those who request it.
29 “The Feast” would be the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which began at Passover and lasted for seven days. Reference to “the poor” reflects the Jewish practice of giving to the needy on the night of Passover. It is instructive to note that the possession and handling of money is not without its peculiar snares. Agur wisely said, “Give me neither poverty nor riches …. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you” (Pr 30:8–9).
30 John records that “it was night” when Judas left the upper room. The observation is more than a reference to literal darkness. To turn one’s back on the light of the world (cf. 8:12) is to enter the darkness of eternal night. It is because people’s deeds are evil that they love darkness instead of light (3:19). Judas rejected the summons to light and chose the path of darkness. It is a frightful thing to be given the responsibility of determining one’s own destiny.
NOTES
18 Textual evidence favors the reading μετ’ ἐμοῦ (met emou, “with me”; P66 א A D W Θ Ψ f 1.13 33 lat sy bo; Eus Epiph); however, most modern translations (e.g., NIV, NASB, NRSV [but not NKJV]) read μου τὸν ἄρτον (mou ton arton, “my bread”) as it is in the Hebrew of Psalm 41:9. The USB committee thinks that the former may have been an assimilation to Mark 14:18.
This is the first of four occasions on which John uses the formula ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ (hina hē graphē plērōthē, lit., “in order that the scripture may be fulfilled”). The others are in 17:12 and 19:24, 36. A similar fulfillment formula is found seven times in Matthew (ἵνα πληρωθῇ, hina plērōthē), with the agent through whom the fulfillment takes place always being a prophet (1:22; 2:15; 4:14; 12:17; 21:4; 26:56). The phrase is found once in Mark (14:49) but not at all in Luke.
19 The aorist subjunctive πιστεύσητε (pisteusēte, GK 4409) suggests a coming to full faith. The present subjunctive πιστεύητε (pisteuēte), found in a few texts, would indicate a continuing faith.
27 In the NT, the Greek σατανᾶς (satanas, “Satan,” GK 4928) occurs thirty-six times; he is also referred to as διάβολος (diabolos, “the devil, the accuser,” GK 1333) approximately the same number of times. Other names are “the tempter,” “the enemy,” “the god of this age,” “the ruler of the kingdom of the air,” “the one who deceives,” “the dragon,” “the ancient serpent,” “the father of lies,” and “the evil one” (cf. ISBE 4:342). Although a clever and powerful foe, he was defeated on the cross. Yet even as a defeated foe he continues his attack on believers in an attempt to thwart the redemptive work of Christ. At the second advent he will be destroyed in the lake of fire, along with all his demonic cohorts and those who have surrendered to the deceptive and malevolent power of the beast (Rev 20:10).
31When he was gone, Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him. 32If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once.
33“My children, I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come.
34“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
COMMENTARY
31 As soon as Judas leaves the upper room, Jesus cries out, “Now is the Son of Man glorified” (Moffatt translates, “Now at last the Son of man is glorified”). The presence of a traitor among the chosen Twelve, especially at the farewell banquet, must have been a great sorrow for Jesus. Now that he had gone there is a special tenderness in the words and actions of Jesus (in v.33 he calls his companions teknia [a nursery term for “[little] children,” GK 5448], the only time Jesus ever uses this affectionate term for his disciples).
It is regularly noted that in v.31 the verb “glorified” (edoxasthē, GK 1519) occurs both times in the aorist (i.e., past) tense. A literal reading seems to say that the glorification of the Son of Man had already taken place. Not only would such a statement be less than clear; it would also make awkward the temporal word “now.” The aorist tense is used because once the betrayer had gone out and the chain of events that would lead from crucifixion through resurrection and on to ascension were set in motion, the outcome was so certain that it could be stated as already having been accomplished.
It is one of the great theological insights of John’s gospel that the glory of God is seen most clearly in the cross. God is love, and his glory is what most vividly displays this love. Thus the cross, the ultimate expression of God’s love, is the focus of God’s glory. It is not simply the Son of Man who is glorified, but God also is glorified—the Father is glorified in the Son. We are reminded of the truth of 1:18 that the Son, “who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” By word and action, Jesus taught that the Father is love, and nowhere is this clearer than in Jesus’ passion.
32 As v.31 spoke of the glory of the Son (and the Father) in the cross and resurrection, v.32 speaks of the glory that will come to the Son following the ascension: “God will glorify the Son in himself,” i.e., in the eternal glory that belongs to the Father. And this will take place at once. It has been properly noted that this saying enunciates the great spiritual principle that “those who glorify God shall be glorified by God” (cited in Ryle, 4:272). God is debtor to no one. His design is that redemption will issue in praise and that in eternity the redeemed will in some way share in the glory ascribed to Jesus.
33 The time has come for Jesus to tell his band of followers that soon he will be leaving them. As noted, the expression “my [little] children” reveals a special tenderness, and if the experience in the upper room is taken as a Passover meal, this designation would be especially suitable, since on that occasion parents explained to their children the meaning of the Hebrews’ deliverance from Egypt (Ex 12:26–27; 13:8). Jesus will be with his disciples “only a little longer” (a prophetic expression indicating the shortness of time before God brings deliverance; cf. Isa 10:25; Jer 51:33). They will look for him, but where he is going they cannot come. On a previous occasion, he said the same thing to the Jews, but in that case, after “you will look for me,” he added, “but you will not find me” (7:34). Such will not be the case with the disciples, because in a very real sense he will remain with them, even though bodily he will be absent. They will find him constantly present in the person of the Holy Spirit.
34 Jesus delivers to his disciples a new commandment: “love one another.” In the Vulgate (the Latin translation, which since the sixteenth century has been the official version of the Roman Catholic Church), “new command” is translated mandatum novum, from which is derived the name Maundy Thursday, the anniversary of the Last Supper. The commandment is not new in the sense that it was formerly unknown. Leviticus 19:18 reads, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The newness of the command lay in the meaning given to love by the life and teachings of Jesus. It was to be a covenantal love, distinguished from even the noblest forms of human love by the fact that it was “spontaneous and unmotivated” (Brown, 614). God’s love does not question the worthiness of the recipient but gladly gives of itself in humble service.
35 Jesus’ charge to his disciples is crystal clear: They are to love one another as he has loved them. His life defines the meaning of love. Love is the evidence of discipleship. It is the one quality that provides indisputable evidence that a person is a genuine disciple of Jesus—all people will know that they are his disciples “if [they] love one another.” The third-century apologist Tertullian (Apol. 39.7) noted that the pagans said of the early Christians, “See, how they love one another!” and added, “How ready they are to die for one another!” The concern and care exercised by members of the early church for each other made a definite impact on pagan culture. Little wonder that the Christian faith spread so rapidly throughout the ancient world! It has always been true that love is the mightiest force in the world. If contemporary Christianity is weak and ineffectual, it is not because of opposition from outside but because we who call ourselves “Christians” have forgotten the mandate to love one another even as Jesus loved his own.
NOTES
31 The verb ἐδοξάσθη (edoxasthē, GK 1519) falls in a category that Daniel Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 564) calls “proleptic aorist.”
Because ch. 14 closed with the words “come now; let us leave,” and this exit doesn’t seem to take place until ch. 18, some writers think that chs. 15 and 16 should be inserted after “Jesus said” in 13:31. There is no MS evidence or support from early writers that would encourage us to accept the conjecture. One structural observation worth noting is that while elsewhere in the fourth gospel “signs” are followed by discourses that bring out their meaning, here the discourse (chs. 13–17) precedes the final sign (the cross and empty tomb).
32 The initial clause in v.32 (εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ, ei ho theos edoxasthē en autō, “if God is glorified in him”) is omitted in P66 א* B C* D L W 1 et al. Although the shorter reading is normally accepted as more likely to be valid, the absence of the clause can be accounted for by (1) a copyist’s skipping from the ἐν αὐτῷ, en autō, at the end of the previous verse to the ἐν αὐτῷ, en autō, at the end of the clause in question (homoioteleuton), and (2) a decision to remove what appears to be redundant (cf. Metzger, 205–6).
36Simon Peter asked him, “Lord, where are you going?”
Jesus replied, “Where I am going, you cannot follow now, but you will follow later.”
37Peter asked, “Lord, why can’t I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you.”
38Then Jesus answered, “Will you really lay down your life for me? I tell you the truth, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times!”
COMMENTARY
36 It would appear that what Jesus said about the new command didn’t register with Simon Peter. He was still pondering Jesus’ earlier statement about his leaving them and going to a place where they could not come. How could that be? They had been with him now for some three years and had accompanied him throughout Galilee and Judea. So he asked, “Lord, where are you going?” But geography was not the issue. “Where I am going,” responded Jesus, “you cannot follow now, but you will follow later.” The “place” where Jesus was about to go was death on a cross. Peter was not yet ready for that kind of commitment. First there would be the tragic denial and then a restoration and recommissioning to service; this in turn would lead to a life of active witness culminating in a martyr’s death (cf. the prediction in 21:18–19). Tradition has it that at his request Peter was crucified in a head-down position. In the second century apocryphal Acts of Peter (35), the same question (“Where are you going?” Latin, Quo vadis?) was asked of Jesus by Peter, who was fleeing the danger of martyrdom in Rome. On learning that Jesus was going into Rome to be crucified again—in Peter’s place—Peter returned to the city to surrender his life.
37–38 Convinced that he could meet any test that might arise, Peter asked, perhaps not without a bit of irritation, “Lord, why can’t I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you.” Bold words from a man certain of his own ability to remain faithful in testing. But Jesus knew Peter better than Peter knew himself. With a note “both of irony and of being resigned to human weakness” (Brown, 608), Jesus answered, “Will you really lay down your life for me?” The self-assurance of Peter over against the compassionate knowledge of Jesus reflects the relationship on a larger scale between Jesus and every person.
Not only will Peter not lay down his life for Jesus at this time, but before the rooster crows, he will disown his Master three times. According to Roman custom, cockcrow was the third of the four night watches and fell between midnight and 3:00 a.m. (cf. Mk 13:35). What a shocking effect this prophetic statement of Jesus must have had on Peter. Though other disciples speak freely in subsequent chapters (Thomas in 14:5; Philip in 14:8; Judas in 14:22), we hear not another word from Peter until ch. 18 (v.10). Peter had suddenly come face-to-face with the naked truth about himself, and it left him speechless.
OVERVIEW
It is important to remember that the chapter divisions in the Bible are not the work of the original writers. (The fourth-century AD Codex Vaticanus, which contains the oldest system we know about for dividing the NT, separates the fourth gospel into fifty units.) What we label as ch. 14 continues the previous “chapter” without any necessary break. The admonition “do not let your hearts be troubled” must be read in the context of Jesus’ announcement of his imminent death (13:31–33) and his prediction of Peter’s betrayal (13:38).
1“Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. 2In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4You know the way to the place where I am going.”
5Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”
6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
8Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.”
COMMENTARY
1 Having left their homes and occupations to follow the Master, the disciples are now faced with what appears to be complete failure. The noble cause to which they had given themselves for the past three years seems about to crumble. How reassuring, then, would be the words of Jesus, “Set your troubled hearts at rest” (NEB; the present imperative may suggest “stop being troubled”). The verb (tarassō, GK 5429) means “stir up,” “unsettle,” “throw into confusion.” In 11:33 it depicted Jesus’ reaction when he encountered the sorrowing Mary, in 12:27 when he anticipated death, and in 13:21 when he predicted his betrayal.
As members of the Jewish community, the disciples would know from their own religious tradition that God would never abandon them. Throughout history he had responded to the needs of his people and protected them in times of distress. Jesus is saying to his disciples, “You do trust in God; therefore trust also in me [pisteuete, “trust,” GK 4409, can be taken as indicative or imperative in either clause]. Have I not yet convinced you that I and my Father are one [10:30; cf. 17:21–23]? If the Father is worthy of your trust, so also is the Son.” In light of this, then, Jesus urges, “You must not let yourselves be distressed” (Phillips).
2 The reason the disciples are able to set their hearts at rest is that, although he will leave them for a time, Jesus will return. While he is gone, he will be preparing a place for them in his Father’s house, i.e., where God is, in heaven. “Many rooms” is a way of saying “enough room for everyone.” The KJV’s “mansions” (stemming from Tyndale) is misleading. In Old English the word meant “dwelling place” without any special reference to a palatial mansion. Some writers take the Greek monai (“rooms,” GK 3665) as representing an Aramaic term meaning “shelters along the road” where a traveler could spend the night. Temple, 2:226, calls them “wayside caravanserais” and pictures Jesus as “our spiritual dragoman, who treads the way of faith before us.” While it is comforting to think of “resting places” as stages in our spiritual growth and of Jesus as the One who goes ahead to prepare each place and lead us there (cf. Temple, 2:227–28), it is better to take monē as related to menō (“to abide,” GK 3531), a basic verb that occurs frequently in John. The “many rooms” are in the Father’s house, not along the road that leads there.
Since the place Jesus is preparing for his disciples is in heaven, it is difficult to say with any precision what this may entail. Speculations about “celestial palaces” miss the point. To be in the Father’s house is to be with him; everything else will pale by comparison. Marsh, 501, holds that the actual preparation of the permanent dwelling places was accomplished “not after the death on the cross, but in it and by it”—an interesting thought, though by saying that Jesus is “going there” (i.e., to his Father’s house) in order to prepare a place, the text puts the preparation subsequent to the ascension.
3 Jesus’ return for his disciples is as certain as his departure: “I go” and “I will come back.” It is somewhat difficult to determine whether at this point Jesus is speaking of his post-resurrection appearances or his return at the end of the age. In the first case, it is not clear in what sense he would then take his disciples to be with him; in the second case, it is difficult to understand how the second advent would fulfill the apparent immediacy of the promise. Some have solved the ambiguity by holding that Jesus is speaking at this point of his “return” in the person of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it is best to understand the passage as blending all three suggested interpretations: in the resurrection Jesus comes back from the dead, in the current age he lives among us by the Spirit, and at the consummation he will come again for his own.
The promise Jesus makes to his followers is that on his return he will take them to be with him so that they also may be where he is. The deepest longing of the human heart is to be in the presence of God. In the book of Revelation, John portrays the essence of eternal bliss in the words, “They shall see his face” (Rev 22:4). When the new Jerusalem descends from heaven, then will be fulfilled the glorious promise, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God” (Rev 21:3). There is no greater joy than the presence of God—which is why those who now live in vital relationship with him experience the greatest satisfactions life has to offer.
4–5 Jesus tells his disciples that they “know the way to the place where [he] is going,” but Thomas questions both where Jesus is going and therefore the way that would take them there. While the question posed by Thomas is in a certain sense rational, it reveals an inability to grasp spiritual truth. True, if they don’t know where Jesus is going, they cannot know the way. But Thomas should have known that Jesus was speaking spiritually rather than geographically. The disciples had been told by Jesus that he would be crucified and would return to his Father (cf. 12:7–8, 23–24, 27, 32, 46–47). Their understanding of that truth, however, was limited by the narrow scope of their imagination. They were unable to grasp the fact that for Jesus to “go away” could signify something other than merely geographical separation.
6 Unwittingly, the mundane question by Thomas led to one of the most far-reaching and provocative statements ever made by Jesus. For Thomas, the way to an unknown destination cannot be known. Jesus answers, “I am the way.” Jesus is not one who shows the way but the one who himself is the way. He is the way—the only way—to the Father, for “no one comes to the Father except through [him].” The particularism of Jesus’ teaching has caused many to stumble. The mind-set of secular society regards such exclusive claims as intolerant. Certainly there are other paths that lead to God. Not so! To accept Jesus Christ involves accepting all that he said, even though open support of his claims may cause a bit of embarrassment when brought up in certain circles of contemporary society.
Jesus is the only way to God because he is also “the truth.” Note that each of the three nouns (way, truth, life) is preceded by a definite article. “Truth” and “life” do not modify “way,” as though Jesus were saying, “I am the real and living way” (Moffatt). He is the truth. Ultimate truth is not a series of propositions to be grasped by the intellect but a person to be received and therefore knowable only by means of a personal relationship. Others have made true statements, but only Jesus perfectly embodies truth itself. He is the truth. And he is also “the life.” Eternal life is to know Jesus Christ (17:3; cf. 1Jn 1:2; 5:20). Apart from him is darkness and death.
Barclay, 2:157, mentions that in this sublime statement Jesus took three of the great basic conceptions of Jewish religion and made the tremendous claim that in him all three found their full realization. The fifteenth-century Augustinian priest Thomas à Kempis (The Imitation of Christ [1441; repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983], 208) joined the three as follows: “Without the way, there is no going; without the truth, there is no knowing; without the life, there is no living.”
7 Jesus recognized that the ideas held by the disciples about him were less than adequate, so he added, “If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well.” Throughout his ministry, Jesus had taught his followers that he had come to do the will of his Father and to carry out what the Father had planned. So perfect was the correspondence between the life of Jesus and the will of God that to know Jesus was to know his Father too. As a perfect Son, Jesus revealed with total accuracy the person of the Father. Anticipating the events about to take place, Jesus can say, “From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
8 The disciples were unable to grasp the meaning of Jesus’ statement that from that point on it could be said that they had seen the Father. Their Jewish background had taught them that no one could see God and live (Ex 33:20; Jn 1:18; 6:46). Philip’s petition, “Lord, show us the Father,” was a request for a theophany such as came to Abraham at the oaks of Mamre (Ge 18:1), to Moses in the burning bush (Ex 3), and to Elijah in the cave at Horeb (1Ki 19:9–14). Philip was asking for some sort of visible manifestation of God, but Jesus had come to reveal the nature and character of God.
Philip was convinced that if they could see the Father, “that [would] be enough.” The longing of the heart for God is beautifully set forth in the opening lines of Psalm 42: “As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, O God.” What Philip had not yet learned was that in the person of Jesus, God had answered the deepest longing of the human heart. It is in Jesus that the Father presents himself to us. To know the Son is to know the Father. To see the Son is to see the Father.
9 Jesus’ poignant answer reveals disappointment more than rebuke: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?” It seems reasonable to expect that after some three years of close association, Philip (and the others) would have come to a better understanding of who Jesus really was. But such is the ineptitude and dullness of human insight with regard to spiritual matters. By nature we are creatures prone to forget our Creator. Our minds operate in such a way as to exclude God, if possible. So Jesus restates the central truth that “anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” Morris, 643, calls this statement “staggering in its simplicity and its profundity.” Jesus’ claim to be one with God leaves no alternative but to accept it as true or dismiss it as the ravings of a madman.
10 The major premise running through these verses is that the Father and Son are in one another (vv.10, 11, 20; cf. 10:38; 17:21). The precise nature of this unity is beyond our ability to comprehend. It is more than a simple relationship yet less than identity. The Godhead, while remaining three persons, is one in essence. The words of Jesus are the work of the Father. Jesus does not speak on his own (cf. 7:16; 8:28 et al.) but maintains that in whatever he does and says, it is the Father living in him who is doing his work through him. In fact, no one has ever been able to do the work of God. Our role, like that of Jesus, is to live in such unity with the Father that whatever we do will be God doing his work through us. The pretensions of humankind would always have it otherwise. While wanting God’s help, we still want to be in charge of and receive the credit for doing his work.
11 Jesus challenges the disciples (from v.10 on the plural is used) that if they cannot believe the essential mutuality of Father and Son on the basis of his own statement, then they ought to believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. Better a faith based on miracles than no faith at all. John the Baptist had sent messengers to ask Jesus whether he was the one who was to come or whether they should look for another. They were told to go back and report what they heard and saw, that “the blind receive sight” and “the lame walk” (Mt 11:2–5). While miracles were never intended to coerce belief, they do perform the valuable function of supporting faith. It would be better to accept Jesus at his word; if faith cannot rise to the challenge, however, then let it be energized by considering the undeniable acts of God in redemptive history.
12 Verses 12–14 have been called the “Magna Carta of primitive Christianity.” The effective power of a sovereign God is placed in the hands of believers, who exercise it through prayer offered in the name of the Son. The double amēn (“I tell you the truth”) calls attention to an utterance of unusual importance. The remarkable truth is that those who have faith in Jesus will do not only what he has been doing but “even greater things than these.” We tend to understand this statement in reference to the miracles of Jesus, and the apostles of the early church did in fact perform a number of miracles (cf. Ac 4:30). However, the “greater works” (KJV) that the disciples will do will be the mighty miracles of regeneration about to take place as a result of their proclamation of the gospel. On the day of Pentecost alone, about three thousand people accepted their message and were added to the church (Ac 2:41). Jesus was limited in time and space, but his body, the church, would soon be spread throughout the entire known world and take with them the message of salvation through faith in Christ.
Our fixation on the visibly miraculous may well be due to “the scantiness of our knowledge or the vulgarity of our taste” rather than the intrinsic marvel of what takes place (Temple, 2:235). Conversion is the miracle of miracles in that it requires nothing less than the supernatural involvement of God himself in the inner reaches of the human soul. Physical healings and miracles of nature take place on a level much easier to grasp.
It is crucially important to note that these greater works will be done because Jesus is “going to the Father.” Very shortly he will explain that, following his ascension, another Counselor will come to be with them forever (vv.16–17, 26). The power to perform greater works will result from this coming of the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with the ability of the messenger. In every case it is God at work through the presence and power of his Spirit. Nothing has changed since the day Jesus spoke these important words. The miracle of regeneration continues to take place wherever present-day disciples trust in God’s way to bring people to faith. Apart from his Spirit, the church is powerless to effect spiritual transformation.
13 Jesus gives his followers the incredible promise that he will do whatever they ask “in [his] name” (en tō onomati mou, used seven times in the discourse that follows: 14:13, 14, 26; 15:16; 16:23, 24, 26). The name of Jesus speaks of his essential character. To pray in his name is to pray for those things that correspond to the nature and will of Jesus. Such prayers are always answered. When we voice the desires of the Son, we pray for what is already his will but awaits our request. When we pray in his name (i.e., in a way congruent with his character), we pray as his representatives. The Father will not deny the requests of his dearly beloved Son. The purpose of answered prayer is that “the Son may bring glory to the Father.” Ultimately all praise and honor belong to him. This is why Jesus taught us to pray, “Let your name [i.e., your character] be honored … on earth as it is in heaven” (Mt 6:9–10).
14 The verse strengthens by repetition what has just been said: whatever is asked in Jesus’ name he will do. Note that prayer may be addressed to the Son as well as to the Father (“You may ask me”). Though God reveals himself in Scripture as triune, and though certain functions seem to be assigned quite appropriately to each member of the Godhead, there is at the same time a significant degree of overlap.
NOTES
1 The interpretation of v.1b adopted above takes the first πιστεύετε (pisteuete, GK 4409) as indicative and the second as imperative. Since both can be indicative or imperative in either location (plus the fact that the first may be taken as a question), a rather confusing number of possibilities are available. Jesus is about to be rejected by the nation’s leaders as the promised Messiah, and this event will expose the disciples’ faith to an extreme test. So he encourages them that since they do believe in God they are also to maintain their belief in him, regardless of his coming rejection and death.
2 The second half of v.2 is ambiguous. The NIV follows a shorter text that omits the Greek conjunction ὃτι, hoti (“that,” “because”), and by inserting a period creates an additional sentence (“if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you”). The problem with the rendering is that it is more likely that the ὃτι, hoti, was dropped from the text (to simplify the passage) than that it was added. A second possibility is to take the clause “if it were not so, I would have told you” as a parenthesis and connect the final clause with the earlier part of the verse while taking hoti in the sense of “for.” Opting for a different solution, Carson, 490, writes that the parenthesis is “somewhat awkward” and the logic of the connection “a bit stilted.” Although we have no prior record of Jesus’ teaching about going on ahead into heaven to prepare a place for the disciples, it would appear that it is preferable to follow the lead of the NRSV and take the unit under consideration as a question (“If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?”).
4 Thomas’s two-part statement/question in v.5 probably accounts for the copyist’s longer reading in v.4 (καὶ τὴν ὁδὸν οἴδατε, kai tēn hodon oidate, lit., “and the way you know”), which is followed by the KJV and the NKJV. The NASB has, “And you know the way where I am going,” which is slightly less clear than the NIV’s “the way to the place where I am going.”
6 For the other “I am” statements in John, see 6:35, “I am the light of the world”; 10:7, “I am the gate”; 10:11, “I am the good shepherd”; 11:25, “I am the resurrection and the life”; and 15:1, “I am the true vine.”
7 NA27 reads the perfect ἐγνώκατε (egnōkate, GK 1182) followed by the future γνώσεσθε (gnōsesthe), which construction yields, “If you have known me, you will know my Father.” The NASB follows the MS tradition that reads the pluperfect ἐγνώκειτε (egnōkeite) in both places: “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.” The first option states a promise; the second is a condition contrary to fact. The NIV adopts the latter and places the statement in the English present: “If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well.”
14 Verse 14 is omitted by various witnesses (such as X f 1 565 pc vgms sys), probably because the eye of the copyist moved from ἐάν, ean, at the beginning of v.14 to the same word at the beginning of v.15. (Λ* omits the last seven words of v.13 as well, skipping from ποιήσω [poiēsō, GK 4472] there to the ποιήσω, poiēsō, at the end of v.14.) Metzger, 208, also mentions as reasons for the omission the similarity with v.13a and the possible contradiction with 16:23.
OVERVIEW
We come now to the first of five passages in the Upper Room Discourse that provide instruction on the person and work of the Holy Spirit (vv.16–17). Bruce, 302, notes that here the Spirit functions as helper, in 14:26 as interpreter, in 15:26 as witness, in 16:4b–11 as prosecutor, and in 16:12–15 as revealer.
15“If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.”
22Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”
23Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
25“All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
28“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. 30I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, 31but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
“Come now; let us leave.”
COMMENTARY
16 Jesus says that he will ask the Father, who in response will provide the disciples with “another Counselor.” The Greek paraklētos (GK 4156) is difficult to translate. “Comforter” (KJV) is misleading because the meaning of the English word has changed since Wycliffe’s day when it was first used. (“Comforter” stems from the Latin fortis, which means “brave”). “Advocate” is closer, since literally a paraklētos is “one called alongside” (from the verb kaleō, GK 2813, and the preposition para) to help, especially in a legal sense. The problem with “Counselor” (NIV) is that it suggests advice rather than active assistance. Phillips translates allon paraklēton with, “someone else to stand by you,” and Knox has, “another to befriend you.”
It is often noted that the one to come will be another Counselor. Although the distinction should not be pressed, the use of allos rather than heteros could indicate “another of the same kind” rather than “another of a different kind.” The implication that Jesus’ ministry will be continued by another Counselor (thus defining in part the role of Jesus) should cause no problem. As an Advocate, Jesus prayed that Simon’s faith would not fail (Lk 22:23), argued that the disciples had a right to pick grain on the Sabbath (Mk 3:23–28), and came to the aid of the man healed of blindness who had been excommunicated by the religious authorities (Jn 9). In Romans 8:34 Paul refers to the advocacy role of the resurrected Jesus (“at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us”), and the author of Hebrews writes of Jesus as the heavenly priest who lives forever and is therefore able “to intercede” for those who “come to God through him” (Heb 7:25). Jesus is telling his band of disciples that, when he has returned to the Father, another Counselor will be sent to stand in his place by their side and give them help and encouragement.
17 The coming Counselor is called “the Spirit of truth.” Earlier Jesus had stated that he himself was “the truth” (14:6), so we are not surprised to learn that the one who will take his place will be eminently qualified to communicate the truth. (See especially 16:12–15 for this role.) Truth is perfect correspondence with reality. For this reason, God’s Spirit, the Spirit of truth, is the most reliable means of divine revelation. Since God is person, it follows that his most compelling revelation must be through another person.
Though Jesus will soon leave his disciples to return to the Father, the Spirit of truth will be with them forever. Once given to believers, he will never be taken away. The NT era, which extends from Pentecost to the second advent, is peculiarly the age of the Spirit. He is Christ’s continuing presence working in and through the church until God’s redemptive work is complete. How sad that the church so often forgets its source of truth and power. Samuel Taylor Coleridge (Aids to Reflection [1825; repr., Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1993], xxv) remarked that the one who “begins by loving Christianity better than truth, will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all.”
The world (i.e., society organized apart from God) “cannot accept [lambanō, GK 3284, may mean to receive someone in the sense of recognizing that person’s authority; cf. 1:12; 13:20]” the Spirit because “He is known only by the experience of faith” (Calvin, 2:83). In anticipation of the Spirit’s coming, Jesus can tell his disciples, “You know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.” His presence in their lives will be self-authenticating. Rational argument will never convince a person of spiritual truth—it must be experienced to be known. Ultimate truth may be defended by rational discourse but never established in that way. Scripture is clear that the world through its wisdom does not know God (1Co 1:18–2:16). Truth is known and recognized when the Spirit of truth indwells the believing heart. In spiritual matters, faith precedes knowledge.
18 In view of Jesus’ imminent departure, how comforting must have been his promise, “I will not leave you as orphans.” The word orphanos (“left without parents,” GK 4003) is used figuratively to mean “abandoned” or “unprotected” (cf. Jas 1:27). Jesus had worked patiently with his disciples to bring them fully to trust in him and prepare them to be the first to enter a hostile world with the message of God’s redeeming love. He will not abandon them at this or any other point along the way.
A second promise quickly follows the first: “I will come to you.” This promise is usually held to refer to (1) the Parousia, (2) the postresurrection appearances of Jesus, or (3) his coming as the Spirit into the lives of believers. Favoring the first option is the reference to the Parousia in v.3 and the designation in v.20 of “that day” (taken as a semitechnical term for the Jewish period preceding God’s final intervention). This interpretation is not likely, however, because they were to see him “before long” (v.19), yet after two thousand years the Parousia is still in the future. Further, when v.19 is taken in a strictly eschatological sense, Jesus’ statement, “the world will not see me,” contradicts his teaching in Matthew that “all the nations of the earth … will see the Son of Man coming” (Mt 24:30).
A better case can be made for the position that the coming of Jesus promised in v.18 is fulfilled in his postresurrection appearances. We know that he did return following the resurrection and met on numerous occasions with his disciples. While there is nothing that weighs heavily against this interpretation, it is more probable that in this instance Jesus is referring primarily to his “coming” in the person of the Holy Spirit to indwell and empower his disciples as they take up the arduous task of world evangelization. Consider that (1) the focus of the immediately preceding verses is the coming of the Spirit of truth, (2) v.23 speaks of the “coming” of the Father and the Son to make their home with those who love and obey Jesus’ teaching, and (3) several phrases in the paragraph are best understood in a spiritual sense (“you will see me [with the eyes of faith],” v.19; “you are in me, and I am in you,” v.20).
Perhaps it is not necessary to decide between the second two alternatives since, as Dodd, 395, has observed, the distinction between the various phases of Jesus’ return in the fourth gospel is a “vanishing” one. This is neither to deny the reality of the resurrection nor to undermine confidence in the second advent; it is simply to draw attention to the fact that Christ “comes” at various times and in various ways. In part it corresponds with Paul’s declaration that “the Lord is the Spirit” (2Co 3:17).
19–20 In a short time the world will not see Jesus any longer—he is going to the Father—but the disciples “will still see [him]” (TCNT) because they see with the eyes of faith. “Blessed are the pure in heart,” said Jesus, “for they will see God” (Mt 5:8). His victory over death and the grave results in eternal life for those who believe. On that day (the “day” that stretches from Pentecost till Jesus’ return), all who follow him will come to realize the mutual indwelling of the believer, the glorified Jesus, and the Father.
21 In v.15 love was presented as the motivating cause of obedience; now in v.21 obedience becomes the test of love. The one who has the commands of Jesus (has received them and made them his own) and obeys them (puts them into daily practice) is the one who loves Jesus. The instructions of our Lord were given not to make us better theologians but better people. It would be better to remain uninstructed than to hear a command and fail to obey it. Ryle, 4:311, correctly says that “passive impressions which do not lead to action, gradually deaden and paralyze the heart.” To know carries the obligation to obey. Obedience is the proof of love.
Jesus promises a special reward to the one who “loves” him. (That agapōn, GK 26, in v.21 is present tense suggests a continuing relationship of love.) Not only will such a person be loved by both the Father and the Son, but Jesus will “show [himself]” to him or her as well. Emphanizō (“to make visible,” GK 1872) is used here in the figurative sense of self-revelation through the Spirit. It is the high privilege of the one who loves the Son to experience in a unique way the reality of his presence and gain a fuller understanding of who he is. God reveals himself in the context of love. Apathy or disobedience makes it impossible to encounter God in any meaningful way. It was to Mary Magdalene, whose love expressed itself in service and sorrow, that the risen Jesus first appeared (20:10–18). It has always been true that apart from love, the things most worth knowing can never be learned.
22 Once again, Jesus is interrupted by one of the disciples (Thomas in v.5; Philip in v.8; Judas in v.22). In each case the question or statement begins with the acknowledgment that Jesus is “Lord,” and in each case the interruption serves to prepare the way for Jesus to teach a spiritual truth of great importance. Judas, further identified as “not Judas Iscariot,” is “Judas son of James” (Lk 6:16; Ac 1:13), sometimes identified with Thaddaeus (Mk 3:18) or Lebbaeus (certain MSS at Mt 10:3). Judas takes Jesus’ statement about “showing himself” in a physical sense and wonders why the coming manifestation will be to the disciples only and not to the world. Had not Jesus taught that “all the nations of the earth … will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky” (Mt 24:30)? The disciples regularly heard the words of Jesus on a level as free from ambiguity as possible. Their penchant for seeking the obvious often prevented them from grasping the spiritual meaning of Jesus’ teaching. Is there not a danger that we still tend to limit the word of God to its most obvious meaning and fail to plumb its depths for what theologians call sensus plenior (“the fuller sense”)?
23 Jesus gives no direct answer to Judas’s question but encourages him to understand the promise in terms of the abiding presence of the Father and Son in the life of the obedient believer. Once again, he joins love and obedience (cf. vv.15, 21). The reward for those whose love is real and therefore issues in obedience is, “My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him” (monē, “home,” GK 3665, occurs only here and in v.2 in the NT). The reality of God’s presence in the daily experience of those who truly believe cannot be emphasized too strongly. While eternal life is life without end, it is (perhaps even more important) a quality of life that stems from the presence of the Eternal One. The Pauline mystery, “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27), is firmly based in Jesus’ teaching of the indwelling of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
24 Those who do not love Jesus will not do what he says. The seriousness of this neglect lies in the fact that Jesus’ words are not his own but “belong to the Father who sent [him].” To disobey God himself is a matter of grave concern, and the words of Jesus are the words of God. The Messenger speaks the will of the One who sent him. It is worth noting that a claim such as this must be taken either as authentic or as the rambling of an irresponsible dreamer. To deny Jesus the honor of one who speaks the very words of God is to conclude that he is not at all who he claims to be. There is no acceptable middle ground.
25 The departure of Jesus to the Father will bring to a close the time during which he has been able to instruct his disciples in the essential truths of the coming kingdom. The use of the perfect tense, “I have spoken” (lelalēka, GK 3281), suggests a certain finality to what has been taught. “All this” refers to all that Jesus has taught thus far during his final evening with the Twelve.
26 The instruction of the disciples, however, will not cease. The Father will send the Holy Spirit to remind them of all that Jesus has said and help them understand the full meaning of his teaching. Apart from this teaching role of the Spirit, there never could have been a reliable gospel or, for that matter, a NT at all. As Peter put it, “Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2Pe 1:21).
The Counselor who is to be sent by the Father is the Holy Spirit. (Only here in John is the title in Greek given in its fullest form: to pneuma to hagion, GK 4460, 51). For the early Christians the title would emphasize the holiness of the Spirit rather than his might and power. In his vision of the exalted Lord, Isaiah saw the seraphs as they circled the throne and called out, “Holy, holy, holy [hagios, LXX] is the Lord Almighty” (Isa 6:3). As God is holy so also is his Spirit. Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will be sent by the Father “in [his] name,” i.e., his task will be in accord with the character of Jesus.
If we take the last two clauses of v.26 as synonymous parallelism (so Brown, 651), the teaching work of the Spirit will be to “remind” the disciples of all that Jesus taught. It will not consist of new revelations. The Spirit will take the words of Jesus and make them known (cf. 16:13–15). He will help the disciples grasp the full meaning of what Jesus was teaching while he was with them in person. It is one thing to understand a statement as being true; it is something quite different to grasp the full meaning and significance of that truth. The Holy Spirit’s teaching ministry belongs in the latter category.
Calvin, 2:88, calls the Spirit “the inward Teacher (interior magister)” and points out that God has two ways of teaching: first, the words that fall on our ears, and second, the inward action of the Spirit. It is still the case that biblical truth may be heard and understood without its more profound meaning laying hold of the mind and heart of the listener. Theology as an academic discipline is not the same as truth about God understood from the heart. Obviously, the “all things” taught by the Spirit does not include matters irrelevant to God’s purpose in sending Jesus to be our Savior.
27 On the eve of his departure from the world, Jesus bestowed on his disciples the legacy of peace. In that day eirēnē (“peace,” GK 1645) was used as both a greeting (Ro 1:7) and a farewell (Mk 5:34). The Greeks thought of peace in essentially negative terms, namely, the absence of hostility. In Hebrew thought, however, peace also designated a positive sense of well-being. The LXX regularly uses eirēnē to translate the well-known Hebrew šalôm (GK 8934). Jesus further identifies peace as “my peace,” the total well-being that results from a perfect relationship to God. It was his peace because he would purchase it by his own death and grant it as a gift to those who would accept it. Peace is a blessing that involves all the positive benefits flowing from Jesus’ victory over sin and death. Like all spiritual blessings, it cannot be earned but must come as a part of the free gift of salvation.
The peace of Jesus differs from the peace that the world gives. That “peace” depends largely on circumstances, which by definition are in a state of constant flux. Tasker, 168, lists as examples of the world’s peace temporary freedom from distraction and anxiety, the peace of momentary flight from all that is unpleasant, and the peace of false security. They all fall woefully short of the rich blessings of God’s personal presence in the life of the believer.
The peace Jesus provides is the peace of sins forgiven and of reconciliation to God. It is a peace that “transcends all understanding” (Php 4:7). Therefore, even though Jesus will soon depart, the disciples need not be “troubled” or “afraid.” (Knox translates the latter verb, deiliaō, GK 1262, with “to play the coward”; Berkeley has “to be intimidated.”) For the early Christians fear was incompatible with faith. Though opposition was strong, they should not be alarmed. Paul writes that not being frightened by the opposition is a sign to the opposers of their coming destruction (Php 1:28).
28 That Jesus is “going away” and “coming back” is the dominant theme of the entire chapter. Since Jesus is going to the Father, his disciples should have been filled with gladness. His departure is reason for rejoicing in that it marks the completion of his redemptive work on earth. Had the disciples been able to grasp what that would mean for the redemption of the human race they would have been overjoyed. Jesus’ statement that “if they loved [him], they would be glad” should not be taken to mean that the disciples had no love at all for their Master. It was simply a vivid way of pointing out how partial was their understanding of what was happening and how incomplete was their love for him. In spite of the suffering Jesus was about to undergo, he could speak of his death in terms of a journey back to his Father. As such, it was a cause for rejoicing. The author of Hebrews reminds us that Jesus “for the joy set before him endured the cross” (Heb 12:2).
Jesus’ statement that “the Father is greater than I” was used by the Arians to argue that Christ was subordinate to the Father, created but not eternal, and therefore inferior. Arianism was strongly opposed by Athanasius and rejected at the first council at Nicea in AD 325. The Athanasian Creed says that Christ is “equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.” Others have argued that the Son is “inferior” in the sense that sonship implies subordination of some sort. The problem with all such metaphysical solutions is that they remove the statement from its context.
Jesus has said that his followers should have been glad that he was going to the Father because (hoti) “the Father is greater than [he.]” The last clause supplies the reason why his departure should bring joy. Interpretations that treat ontological relationships within the Godhead do not explain why there is cause for gladness. Calvin, 2:90, is certainly on the mark when he writes that Jesus was drawing a comparison “between His present state and the heavenly glory to which he was shortly to be received.” In that the eternal state is infinitely more glorious than the incarnate, Jesus’ departure to that realm should elicit rejoicing on the part of his followers. In any case, the statement that the Father is “greater” than the Son must be understood in the light of Jesus’ clear teaching in 10:30: “I and the Father are one.”
29 Jesus’ purpose in telling his disciples ahead of time about what would happen is that, when it did take place, they would believe. In this context, believing means trusting in a personal sense. His departure to the Father and subsequent return is not intended to provide irrefutable proof of the superiority of the Christian faith but to encourage the disciples to place their complete trust in God.
30 The end is fast approaching. Within a short time, Judas and a detachment of soldiers, along with some religious leaders, will come to take him into custody (18:3). For Jesus, however, it is the devil who comes. People are simply the tools used by the evil one to carry out his diabolical schemes (cf. 1Jn 5:19, “the whole world is under the control of the evil one”). Satan is the “prince of this world,” not in the sense that the world belongs to him or that he has any rightful claim to it, but only because God has allowed him on a temporary basis to exercise his tyranny here. The hymn “This Is My Father’s World” gives expression to a theology more in line with the eternal purposes of God.
Although the arrival of the prince of this world will lead to the crucifixion, Jesus can say, “He has no hold on me.” A more literal translation of en emoi ouk exei ouden would be “in me he has nothing.” Since Jesus is without sin, the devil has no way to make an accusation against him that will hold. The clause should be taken in a legal context. Lindars, 484, writes, “From this point of view the Passion is not thought of as a struggle in which Jesus emerges as the victor, but as a court of law in which his innocence is proved.”
31 It is important that the world learn of Jesus’ love for the Father. This cannot be accomplished through rhetoric but only through action. While it is everywhere implied in the NT, only here do we find the specific statement that Jesus loves the Father. It is remarkable that in John 14 God is referred to as “Father” twenty-three times. The nature of God is most adequately portrayed by a metaphor taken from family life. Were God not Father, death would not be a family reunion. Jesus’ love for the Father is explained by the coordinate clause, “I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.” (The “and” that separates the two clauses of v.31 is epexegetical and should be translated, “that is.”) The world will learn of his love by what he is about to do.
The final words of the chapter, “Come now; let us leave,” have caused commentators a bit of trouble, because it is not until three chapters later that Jesus actually leaves with his disciples and crosses the Kidron Valley (18:1). Some have thought that the discourses comprising chs. 15 and 16 (and perhaps 17) were spoken along the way to Gethsemane. Others picture Jesus as continuing his teaching during the interval between the announcement of departure in 14:31 and the time when they actually left the upper room.
It is possible, however, that the final sentence should be understood on a different level. It has been noted that in normal Greek usage agōmen (“Let us leave,” GK 72), may imply, “Let us go to meet the advancing army” (cf. Dodd, 406–9). Furthermore, if we take the final clause as integrally related to what has preceded rather than as a somewhat out-of-place directive, then another solution appears likely. In the final verses of ch. 14, Jesus is saying, “The prince of this world is coming and he has no claim on me; yet to prove to the world my love for the Father and my willingness to do whatever he commands, let us arise and march forth to meet him.” In any case, Jesus’ departure to that realm should elicit rejoicing on the part of his followers.
NOTES
15 Manuscripts vary with regard to the tense and mood of the verb in the main clause of v.15. The NIV chooses the future τηρήσετε, tērēsete (GK 5498), and translates, “you will obey what I command.” Other translations chose the aorist imperative τηρήσατε, tērēsate (“keep my commandments”), while a few read the aorist subjunctive τηρήσητε, tērēsēte. (Brown has, “If you love me and keep my commandments.”)
The first option is probably to be preferred, though the thrust of the verse is not to present a test for love but to stress that obedience stems from devotion. If we love Jesus, we will do what he commands. The obedience of a true disciple is not grudging acquiescence but the spontaneous and joyful response to an opportunity to please the Lord. Love necessarily results in a desire to please. Love is neither a sentiment nor an emotion but a relationship most convincingly authenticated by a life of obedience.
16 Thirty of the eighty-four occurrences of the emphatic καγώ (kagō, GK 2743; “and I”) are found in the fourth gospel. By comparison it occurs eight times in Matthew and six times in Luke, but not at all in Mark. Clearly, John favors the emphasis it places on the conjunction καί (kai, “and”) when the subject of the clause is first person singular. Morris, 648 n. 40, suggests as a translation, “no less than I.”
17 Apart from this one verse, the Spirit is regularly referred to throughout the fourth gospel with masculine pronouns (15:26; 16:7, 8, 13, 14). Here ὃ (ho) and αὐτό (auto) are neuter because πνεῦμα (pneuma, “spirit,” GK 4460) is neuter.
NA27 has the present tense μένει (menei, “remains,” GK 3531) and the future tense ἔσται (estai, “will be”). The present μένει, menei, is much more probable than the future μενεῖ, menei (read by a few MSS), and helps to account for the present ἐστιν (estin), which is found in P66* B D* W 1. 565 pc it. The Spirit of truth is living with them, but he will take his permanent residence in them only after Pentecost.
OVERVIEW
Chapter 14 provided a fairly orderly presentation of the theme of Jesus’ departure to the Father. The unifying theme of ch. 15 is less clear. Lindars, 486, says that the chapter seems to have been composed by bringing together several homilies preached by John on various occasions for the purpose of creating a supplementary discourse that would serve as a further exposition of 13:31–38.
There is, however, a genuine continuity that runs throughout the chapter. The first eight verses treat the relationship between the believer and Jesus; vv.9–17 speak of the relationship believers are to sustain toward one another; and vv.18–27 explain the relationship the believer will have with a hostile world. It is therefore unnecessary to conjecture various origins for supposedly separate segments. Note that the first two sections are so closely related that texts and translations differ on whether the paragraph break should be at v.9 or at v.12.
OVERVIEW
In ch. 14 Jesus promised not to leave his disciples as orphans (14:18). He would come again. Father and Son will make their home in the heart of the believer (14:23), and the Holy Spirit will come as Counselor and Teacher (14:26).
This new relationship between Jesus and the believer is expressed succinctly and powerfully by the analogy of the vine and the branches (15:1–8). It would be difficult to find another figure of speech that could portray the intimacy of the relationship so winsomely yet so powerfully. As a devotional classic it is unique.
1“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5“I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.”
9“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.”
COMMENTARY
1 What was it that prompted Jesus’ opening words, “I am the true vine”? Scholars who believe that the disciples left the upper room at the close of ch. 14 and were passing by the temple on the way to the garden of Gethsemane have suggested the famous golden vine, which adorned the principal gate of the temple. Others assume a eucharistic background and call attention to the “fruit of the vine” spoken of by Jesus in each of the synoptic accounts of the Last Supper (Mk 14:25 par.).
It is much more plausible that behind the figure lay the many OT references to Israel as a vine. In Psalm 80 Israel is a “vine out of Egypt” (v.8) that “took root and filled the land” (v.9) but now is “cut down” and “burned with fire” (v.16). The prophet Isaiah pictured Israel as “the vineyard of the Lord” (Isa 5:7), which “yielded only bad fruit” (5:2). Jeremiah called Israel a “corrupt, wild vine” (Jer 2:21), and Ezekiel referred to the people living in Jerusalem as a charred and useless vine (Eze 15:2–5). In the OT, wherever Israel is symbolized as a vine it is always depicted as decadent and corrupt. It is against this background that Jesus says he is the “true [i.e., “genuine” or “real”] vine.” The same adjective (alēthinos, GK 240) was used earlier to describe Jesus as the “true bread from heaven” (6:32). In contrast to Israel, the vine of God that failed to produce the expected fruit, Jesus comes to them as the “true vine.”
Jesus is the vine, and his Father is the gardener or “vinedresser” (RSV). Geōrgos (GK 1177) is a general term for “farmer,” but here the context calls for one who works the vineyard. Viticulture reaches back to the origins of civilization in the Near East—Noah planted a vineyard following the flood (Ge 9:20). Israel, with its bright sunshine and heavy dew in late summer, was particularly well suited for growing grapevines. Though the vines were planted in rows eight to ten feet apart, their rapid and luxuriant growth required extensive pruning.
2 Jesus says that his Father “cuts off every branch … that bears no fruit.” He also “trims clean” (Knox) those that do bear fruit. Some writers find here a reference to the two kinds of pruning practiced in ancient times. In early spring (February or March) the dead wood unable to bear fruit was cut away. Later, when the blossoms had become ripening grapes (August), the little shoots that had appeared were cut away so that the main fruitbearing branches would receive all the nourishment. There is an interesting play on words in v.2 between airei (“cuts off,” GK 149) and kathairei (“trims clean,” “prunes,” GK 2748), especially since katharoi (“clean,” GK 2754) is used in the following verse.
The question of the identity of these non-fruitbearing branches is often posed. Some understand a reference to the Jewish nation (cf. Ro 11:17–24); others see a reference to apostate Christians (since Jesus says that the branches to be cut off are “in me”). It is better to understand the cutting out of dead wood as a vivid way of saying that where there is no life, there is no vital connection with the vine. Branches that produce no fruit are worthless and need to be cleared away. The fruit produced by a good branch is likeness to Christ. Paul identifies the fruit of the Spirit as “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” (Gal 5:22–23).
Branches that do bear fruit Jesus prunes. Since kathairō (lit., “to make clean”) may be understood in both the figurative sense of moral purification and the more literal sense of pruning, it serves well the dual reference of the analogy. Branches are pruned so they will become more fruitful. God’s “pruning” is his gracious way of directing the flow of spiritual energy in order that his plans for our lives will be realized. While pruning is painful, it serves the necessary purpose of removing those branches that would otherwise absorb our time and energy in unproductive pursuits. The well-trimmed branch is, as hymnist Elizabeth Clephane puts it, “content to let the world go by, to know no gain nor loss.” Temple, 2:256–57, offers the important insight that the world doesn’t understand the suffering of the innocent because it begins with the crude notion of justice as consisting in a correlation of pain and guilt; but pain is evil only in a secondary sense, and for the believer there is an “ennobling pain” we should welcome because it increases our capacity to bear fruit. Thus James can say that we should “consider it pure joy” when we “face trials of many kinds” (Jas 1:2).
3 Jesus tells his disciples that they are “already clean,” i.e., the pruning has taken place (cf. the identical phrase, hymeis katharoi este, in 13:10). The instrument for cleansing is the word Jesus had spoken to them. Jesus’ logos (singular “word,” GK 3364) is his teaching in its entirety (cf. rhēmata, “individual utterances,” GK 4839, in v.7). The cleansing power of the word of God is taught throughout Scripture. In answer to the question, “How can a young man keep his way pure?” the psalmist replies, “By living according to [God’s] word” (Ps 119:9). Paul writes that the church is cleansed “by the indwelling of the word of God” (W. J. Conybeare’s translation of Eph 5:26 in The Epistles of Paul [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958]). It is impossible to expose oneself prayerfully and systematically to the word of God and fail to experience its cleansing power. God’s word is truth (Jn 17:17), and truth brings to light duplicitous conduct as well as theological error. Those who desire moral cleansing will respond with humility and gratitude to the purifying influence of truth.
4 The central focus of Jesus’ teaching in this opening paragraph is found here: “Remain in me, and I will remain in you.” Since a verb must be supplied in the Greek text for the second clause, the NIV adds, “will remain.” Moffatt has, “as I remain in you.” Morris, 670, favors taking the second clause as a continuation of the command in the first clause and translates, “and see that I abide in you.” A more satisfactory approach is to allow the ambiguous relationship between the clauses to remain and to see in the sentence as a whole the dual condition that we as believers are to bring into being. Jesus is setting before us the prospect of the mutual indwelling of Jesus and those who will abide in him. So central is this mutual indwelling to what it means to be a Christian that Temple, 2:258, can say, “Whatever leads to this is good; whatever hinders this is bad; whatever does not bear on this is futile.”
The verb “remain” occurs ten times in the first eleven verses of ch. 15. For a branch to bear fruit it must share the life of the vine. Likewise, for believers to bear fruit they must remain in Christ. All spiritual power for living out the Christian life comes from God. There is only one way for a believer to receive this power, namely, to remain in unbroken fellowship with the source of power. Paul pictures the relationship in terms of a spiritual death and resurrection: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20).
5 Thus far in the allegory it has been assumed that the branches are to be understood as the disciples. Here this identity is confirmed: “I am the vine; you are the branches.” Jesus does not say that he is the stem and we are the branches. As vine he is both stem and branches. We are included in him (cf. the analogous figure of Christ as the whole body [1Co 12:12] while at the same time its head [Eph 4:15]). The life of the branch is the life of the vine. The branch has no life of its own. For this reason it must remain in the vine.
Jesus promises that if we as branches remain in him (and he in us), we will “bear much fruit.” The life of the believer who abides in Christ cannot help but be productive. Fruit is the necessary result of maintaining a vital relationship with the vine. “Apart from me,” says Jesus, “you can do nothing.” Cut off from the source of life, the branch will wither and die. Cut off from Christ by an unwillingness to abide, the professing Christian will be unable to produce fruit or, for that matter, do anything of spiritual consequence.
6 Branches separated from the vine wither and are good for nothing but to be burned. If a person does not remain in Christ, he or she shares the fate of the withered branch, which is “picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.” The present article before “fire” favors a reference to the well-known fire of eschatological punishment. The two Greek verbs translated “thrown away” and “withers” are both in the aorist (past) tense. This unexpected and abrupt change of tense implies that the penalty for failing to abide is immediate and final. Although the grammar is awkward, the meaning is clear: to have severed the life-giving relationship with Christ is to have been cast out to be burned (cf. Mt 3:10). The penalty and the separation are simultaneous.
Some have used v.6 to claim that people can lose their salvation. Since the branches are “in [Christ]” (vv.2, 6), and if they do not remain in him, they are burned in fire (v.6), it would seem that believers who fail to maintain a vital relationship with Christ will suffer the flames of eternal punishment. Theological questions of this magnitude, however, must never be decided on the basis of secondary elements in an allegory. The nature and extent of eternal punishment should be determined by less figurative passages found elsewhere in Scripture.
7 In vv.4 and 5 it was Jesus who would abide in the believer, while in v.7 it is “[his] words.” To meditate on the words of Jesus is to be in communion with him. His sayings are not mere words on a piece of paper but the occasion for a genuine encounter with the living Christ. When we open ourselves to the words of Jesus, we discover that we are in dialogue with Jesus himself. Such is the mystery of the word of God (Heb 4:12; cf. Ro 1:16).
One of the most far-reaching benefits of abiding in Christ is answered prayer. Those who maintain a vital relationship with Christ may “ask whatever [they] wish, and it will be given [them].” Most manuscripts have the future indicative aitēsesthe (“you will ask,” GK 160), yet most translators prefer the aorist imperative aitēsasthe (“ask”). A few have the infinitive, which would yield, “whatever you wish to ask will be done.” The prayers of Christians who abide in Christ are answered because “whatever [they] wish” turns out to be what he would like to see happen. The fruit that we bear is the direct result of God’s activity released by our prayers. Prayer has always been the primary ingredient in any significant advance of God’s kingdom on earth. Mary, queen of Scots, once said that she feared the prayers of John Knox more than an army of twenty thousand men. God’s purposes in history are realized when believers, through fellowship with him, come to understand his will and then by prayer release him to act redemptively in the world.
8 An abundance of fruit indicates a healthy vine. When the “fruit of the Spirit” is abundantly present in the lives of Christians, God is glorified. The last clause of v.8 is difficult. Some manuscripts understand the clause as dependent on hina and read the aorist subjunctive genēsthe (“that you become,” GK 1181). In this case the latter clause is coordinate with the preceding pherēte (“that you bear,” GK 5770) and makes the point that the Father is glorified not only by their bearing much fruit but also by their continuing as disciples. Other manuscripts read the future genēsesthe (“you will be”), which makes the clause somewhat independent and sees the bearing of fruit as the evidence of their discipleship (NIV, “showing yourselves to be my disciples”; NASB, “that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples”). In Greek the expression “much fruit” (in both v.5 and v.8) is karpos polys (GK 2843, 4498). It has been suggested that Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was burned at the stake for his allegiance to Jesus, got his name from these verses in John 15.
9–10 The measure of the Father’s love for the Son is the measure of the Son’s love for the disciples. Since the Son lived a life of perfect obedience and spoke only what the Father told him to speak (8:28; 12:50), it is not surprising that the Father’s love for the Son would be duplicated in the love of the Son for his disciples. The responsibility of the disciples is to “remain in [his] love” (cf. the parallel in Jude 21, “Keep yourselves in God’s love”).
How this is accomplished is clearly set forth in the following sentence: “If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love” (v.10). Love for God is defined in 1 John 5:3 as “obeying his commands.” The model for Christian obedience is the obedience of the Son (“just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands”). Christian ethics are integrally related to the person and conduct of Jesus himself. Obedience should not be thought of as simply compliance with a set of regulations but as wholehearted commitment to a way of life springing from and expressing the very nature of God. Obedience is not burdensome. Jesus said, “My yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Mt 11:32). Satan wants to make us think of obedience as restrictive and palpably unfair (cf. Ge 3:1–5); in actuality, obedience frees us to become everything that someday we will rejoice to be. In the meantime we will find that the enjoyment of each day is determined by our willingness to allow our lives to be directed by the express will of God.
11 Jesus has a twofold purpose for telling his disciples “these things” (the NIV’s “this” overlooks the plural tauta and tends to restrict the reference to what was said in v.10). His first purpose is “that my joy may be in you.” This could mean the joy that comes to Jesus as a result of the obedience of his disciples; but more likely it means the joy that he already possesses, the “joy of unbroken communion” (Temple, 2:265) or the “joy of doing the Father’s will” (Reith, 105). Joy springs from obedience and love. To “my peace” (14:27) and “my love” (15:10) Jesus now adds “my joy” (Bruce, 311). Up to this point in the gospel, the word “joy” was used only in 3:29. From this point on, in the Upper Room Discourse alone it occurs seven times (15:11; 16:20–24; 17:13). Paradoxical as it may seem, it is on the very eve of Jesus’ crucifixion that he emphasizes joy so strongly.
Jesus’ second purpose is “that [their] joy may be complete”—a purpose not realized apart from the first. A causative relationship exists between the presence of the joy that is Jesus’ and the bringing to completeness of the joy of the disciples. The life of the disciple is not an imitation of Christ but the result of Christ in that life. Insofar as being a Christian calls for a supernatural life, every attempt to duplicate it apart from Christ himself is doomed to failure. Our joy is his joy in us. It is not the result of pleasant circumstances but of wholehearted obedience. Morris, 674, notes that “to be halfhearted is to get the worst of both worlds.”
2 In an attempt to avoid the difficulty of what appears to be the meaning here, i.e., that non-fruitbearing branches (believers?) are cut off from the vine (lose their salvation?), some have pointed out that the Greek αἴρω (airō, GK 149) may mean “to lift up,” which in this context could mean to “prop up” (a weak branch) so it can bear more fruit. Though αἴρω, airō, means “to pick up” in verses such as 8:59 (Jesus’ opponents “picked up” stones to throw at him), it is used more often by John in the sense of “to take away” (cf. 11:39; 16:22 et al.). The suggestion also meets the considerable obstacle posed by the fact that such branches are “thrown into the fire and burned” (v.6).
8 The UBS committee finally chose the aorist subjunctive γένησθε (genēsthe) on the basis of the age and diversity of the external support (P66vid B D L X Θ Π 0250 f 1 565 1079 et al.; cf. Metzger, 209). The future indicative γενήσεσθε (genēsesthe) is read by א A and the majority of the Byzantine MSS.
OVERVIEW
In John 13:34, Jesus gave his disciples a “new command”—they were to love one another. Verses 12–17 of ch. 15 now expand that theme. This section begins and ends with the injunction to “love each other.” With this step the “triad of love” is complete: the Father loves the Son (v.9), the Son loves the disciples (v.9), the disciples love each other (v.12). As Jesus is the paradigm for obedience (v.10), so also is he the paradigm for love (v.12: “as I have loved you”).
12“My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command. 15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17This is my command: Love each other.”
COMMENTARY
12 It is worth noting that the aorist tense (ēgapēsa, GK 26, “loved”) is used to call attention to the love of Jesus as demonstrated once and for all on the cross, while the present tense (agapate) is used to stress the continuous relationship of love that should exist between believers.
13 The ultimate proof of love is the willingness to sacrifice one’s life for a friend. In a very few hours this rather general statement will be infused with new and heightened significance. Jesus’ love for his own will be incontrovertibly demonstrated by his death on the cross. His willingness to sacrifice his life for his followers validates his claim to be the good shepherd who “lays down his life for the sheep” (10:11). Some have questioned whether dying for friends is the greatest proof of love, since Paul argues that the greatness of God’s love is seen in the death of Christ for sinners rather than for the righteous (Ro 5:6–7). The context in John answers this query. Jesus is with friends, and there is no greater way for a person to prove his or her love for a friend than to die for that friend.
14 The disciples will prove their friendship by their willingness to do what Jesus commands. While this does not mean that Jesus offers a conditional friendship, it does indicate that friendship is a reciprocal relationship. The disciples do not earn Jesus’ friendship by their obedience; they give evidence that such a friendship does in fact exist. Kysar, 240, notes that the definition of Jesus’ friends as those he loves so dearly that he will sacrifice himself in death for them “bursts the normal boundaries of our everyday use of the word friends.”
15 Jesus is able to call his disciples “friends” rather than servants because he has taken them fully into his confidence and shared with them everything that he has learned from his Father. “Everything that I have learned” should be taken in the general sense of all that is appropriate for their spiritual welfare at that time. It does not conflict with Jesus’ statement in 16:12 that there is more to be said but they are not yet ready for it.
Jesus no longer calls his disciples servants, “because a servant does not know his master’s business.” The high regard for freedom among the Greeks led them to scorn slavery. In the Jewish community, however, the designation doulos (“servant,” “slave,” GK 1528) could connote honor or respect. In Judges 2:8 [LXX] Joshua is called a doulos kyriou (cf. the reference to Abraham, Ps 105:42, and to David, Ps 89:3). As Jesus uses the term here, the servant is simply one who has not been taken into his master’s confidence. The servant’s responsibility is to obey without questioning.
That Jesus “no longer” calls his disciples servants does not imply that until this point he regarded them as such. The purpose of the statement is to stress the point that now (in contrast to some former period) they have been brought to an understanding of the Father’s purpose in sending the Son. As friends they share the secret of the incarnation. In times of difficulty, when we may be tempted to think that God has removed himself from us and concealed his plans, it is good to remember that we are still friends of Jesus and as such have access to insights unavailable to the unbeliever.
In ancient days there were in the royal court select groups known as “friends of the king.” These exclusive cliques enjoyed free access to the throne room and maintained an intimate relationship with the king. Of all the OT patriarchs, only Abraham is called “[God’s] friend” (Isa 41:8). In Genesis 18:17 God asks, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” That the expected answer is a strong “no” is reflected in the LXX, which understands the “question” as a strongly negative statement (“I will never ever hide from Abraham my servant what I will do”). God shares his plans with his friends!
16 It was common practice for a disciple to choose the rabbi under whom he wished to study. Not so in the case of Jesus’ disciples: “You did not choose me, but I chose you.” In spiritual matters the initiative is always God’s. Our activity is a response to his prior action. The election spoken of here was not to eternal life but to fruit bearing. They were chosen and appointed to “go and bear fruit.” Even Calvin, 2:102, says that this verse “does not treat of the common election of believers” but “of that special election by which He appointed His disciples to the office of preaching the Gospel.” Appointment to the apostolic office was first of all a mandate to go as an emissary of Jesus. Second, it involved bearing fruit—in context, the conversion of those who hear the message (cf. 4:36). If the fruit of v.16 were the same as the fruit of vv.2–5 (the inner graces and outer conduct resulting from the presence of the Spirit in the life of the Christian), there would be no particular reason why the disciples should “go.”
We typically think of prayer as a prerequisite for bearing fruit. The final clause of v.16 reverses the order (unless the two hina clauses are to be taken as coordinate—an unlikely case, since we were not chosen so that our prayers would be answered). Jesus says that fruit bearing prompts the Father to “give you whatever you ask in my name” (cf. Mt 7:7). Bearing fruit indicates that the believer has responded to the charge to “go” and carry out this divinely ordained mission. A life of obedience allows the Father to answer the requests we make as representatives of his Son. The ministry of believers extends in time the ministry of Jesus.
17 The paragraph closes as it began with the command to “love each other” (cf. v.12). The more intimate our friendship with Jesus the greater will be our love for one another. As the spokes on a wheel converge as they near the hub, so also are the bonds of Christian love strengthened as believers move ever closer in fellowship with the one who is perfect love. The word “this” (tauta) at the beginning of the verse is plural in Greek. The sentence seems to say that all Jesus has taught can be summarized in the one command that we love each other.
NOTES
13 The term “friend(s)” (φίλος, philos, GK 5813) occurs six times in the fourth gospel. In 3:29 John the Baptist speaks of the “friend who attends the bridegroom,” and in 19:12 the Jews tell Pilate that if he releases Jesus he is no “friend of Caesar.” In the other four cases it is Jesus who is speaking. Talking with his disciples he refers to Lazarus as “our friend” (11:11). The remaining three occurrences are found here in vv.13–15. It is easy to understand how it would be John, “the beloved disciple,” who would call attention to what it means to be a friend of the Lord. Of the sixteen occurrences of the term in the Synoptics, only once is it used in connection with the relationship between Jesus and his disciples (Lk 12:4).
14 When a pronoun is the subject of a clause or a sentence, it is included in the verb itself. When the text includes the pronoun as well, the intent is to provide emphasis. Here ὑμεῖς (hymeis, “you”) and ἐγώ (egō, “I”) perform this function: You, not the world at large, are my friends in that you will carry out the things that I, not someone else, have commanded.
OVERVIEW
The third section of John 15 deals with the relationship between the disciple and the world. In the NT, the word kosmos (“world,” GK 3180) stands for the human system that opposes God’s purpose (cf. TDNT 3:893, “the world is the epitome of unredeemed creation”). While the synoptic writers use kosmos only fifteen times, it is found almost eighty times in the fourth gospel (six times in 6:18–19 alone). Verse 17 closed with the admonition that the disciples love one another. They are to be known for their love. The world, on the other hand, is known for its hatred—first for Jesus and then for those who follow him.
18“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. 22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. 23He who hates me hates my Father as well. 24If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’
26“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. 27And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.
16:1“All this I have told you so that you will not go astray. 2They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. 3They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. 4I have told you this, so that when the time comes you will remember that I warned you.”
COMMENTARY
18 “If the world hates you” is a conditional clause that assumes the premise to be true. The world does hate the disciple. Lindars speaks of a Semitic use of the love/hate antithesis in which the words lack emotional intensity (493) and “merely express contrasting attitudes” (429). But if “to hate” means no more than “to prefer less,” then it is difficult to see how such a mild emotion could drive people to crucify Jesus. The history of martyrdom is a graphic portrayal of the world’s intense hostility toward those who took their Christian faith with all seriousness. Wherever and whenever the church has spoken with conviction against the injustices in society, it has experienced the wrath of those who benefit from the status quo.
Barclay, 2:184, suggests that the name “Christian” was hated because followers of Christ were rumored to be insurrectionists, cannibals, incendiaries, flagrantly immoral people, and those who tried to divide families. Fraudulent and misinformed charges such as these were in fact leveled at the primitive church, but the actual cause for their being hated was that Christians advocated a set of values that were fundamentally opposed to those of the pagan world. There is nothing quite as upsetting as to have one’s essential value-orientation called into question. Christians were an ethical burr under the saddle of secular society. Hatred was the result. Speaking of the world’s hatred of God, and of man for God’s sake, Reith, 2:107, says rather poetically that the wave that began to rise with the murder of Abel by his brother Cain gathered through the ages until it “broke in fury on the cross, and we are struggling in its broken waters.” When we find ourselves overlooked or opposed by contemporary ideology, we must remember Jesus’ words: “it hated me first.” Hatred for the believer is hatred for the One whose life is being lived out through the believer. It is persecution based on association. It is “enduring what still needs to be endured of Christ’s sorrows” (Col 1:24 Beck).
19 In contrast to the simple condition of v.18, “if you belonged to the world” of v.19 is a contrary-to-fact conditional clause. If it were true (and of course it isn’t) that the disciples belonged to this world, then it would love them as its own. It is impossible for the world not to love its own minions. Such love is self-love, and the kosmos is not about to deny itself the mindless adulation of self-approval. The disciple, however, does not belong to this world but has been chosen “out of the world.” The action of Jesus in choosing is emphasized by the presence of the personal pronoun egō (“I”). He himself is the one who has selected out his followers from among those who live without regard for God in the world. To be chosen out of the world does not imply some sort of other-worldly pietism—it simply designates believers as a group that have been removed from the secular mind-set of society and given the new perspective of God’s plan for the human race. Temple, 2:272, notes that the antagonism of the world against Christians stems from the fact that those who began in the world have separated themselves from the world. He writes that the world “would not hate angels for being angelic; but it does hate men for being Christians. It grudges them their new character; it is tormented by their peace; it is infuriated by their joy.” “That is why the world hates you,” says Jesus, because “I have chosen you out of the world.”
20 In vv.20–25 Jesus speaks of the reaction of the world, first to what he has said and then to what he has done. In v.20 he reminds the disciples of his words, “No servant is greater than his master.” It is interesting that earlier (in 13:16) this proverbial statement was applied in context to strengthen the admonition for humble service. Since Jesus (the Master) washed the feet of the disciples (the servants), in the same way they ought to serve one another. The same statement is used here to emphasize that “if they persecuted me [the Master], they will persecute you [the servants] also.” If all the words of Jesus had been recorded (cf. 21:25!), we would undoubtedly discover that the same proverbial statement had been applied in other situations as well. This serves to remind us, as translation expert Eugene Nida used to say, that “words [and phrases] bleed their meaning from the context.”
21 Whatever happens to the disciples happens because of their relationship to Jesus. Whatever the world did to Jesus it will also do to those who bear his name. Jesus had warned his followers that they would be persecuted (Mt 10:16–25). At the end of his ministry the apostle Paul had ample reason to write, “Everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2Ti 3:12; cf. 2Co 11:23–27). Christians need to be sure, however, that any persecution that comes their way is the result of their close association with Jesus and not due to personal idiosyncrasies that unnecessarily offend.
Jesus states the ultimate reason for persecution: the world does “not know the One who sent me.” Willful ignorance of God leads to violent opposition. The spirit of rebellion, which has marked the human race from the beginning, relentlessly opposes anything that unmasks its true identity as malignantly antithetical to all God is and all he stands for.
22–23 Jesus can say that if he had not come and spoken to his opponents, they would not be guilty of sin. In the presence of Jesus, there is no neutral ground. His claims call for decision. While his purpose in coming was to “save his people from their sins” (Mt 1:21), the inescapable consequence of that coming for those who refused him was the revelation of their sinfulness and an intensification of their guilt. Their prior condition was not one of immunity from sin in general (Ro 1:20 judges the entire world to be “without excuse”) but one in which they were exempt from the sin of rejecting the clear revelation of God in the incarnate Christ. Truth must be acknowledged. It would be better not to know than to know and refuse. The sin of darkness is the rejection of light.
Had Jesus not come, the world would not have been responsible for refusing him. “Now [Brown, 688, says nyn combined with de means “in reality”], however, they have no excuse for their sin.” The die has been cast, and the result cannot be altered. To refuse Jesus is to hate him, and “he who hates me,” says Jesus, “hates my Father as well” (v.23).
24 Had Jesus not come and spoken to the world, it would have had no sin to answer for (v.22); in v.24, had he not “done among them what no one else did,” they would have been blameless. Not only Jesus’ words but also his mighty works leave people without excuse for their sin. Although the miracles of Jesus were never intended to force a person to believe—after all, faith by definition is a free response—they do serve to encourage and support belief. In 14:11 Jesus chided his disciples that if they couldn’t believe on the basis of what he said, then “at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves” (cf. 5:36).
It is no longer possible for the world to plead innocent because “they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both [Jesus] and [his] Father.” Both verbs are perfect in tense (heōrakasin, GK 3972; memisēkasin, GK 3631) and thus connote a permanent state. There can be no denying that they witnessed the truth of God revealed in Christ. The result of that exposure to revelation continues. So also does their hatred for the Father and for the Son who came to reveal him. The world is unalterably opposed to God. Their guilty conscience will not allow them the freedom to disregard completely a loyalty they sense they still owe to their Creator. Their hatred gives expression to the frustration of not being able to escape totally from the constraints of conscience. Exposure to truth simply heightens their antagonism to what they know to be right.
25 Ironically, the world’s hatred fulfills “what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’” The quotation gives expression to a thought clearly set forth in the psalms (35:19; 69:4; 109:3). Strictly defined, the Law comprised the first five books of the OT; it was often used, however, to refer to Scripture in general. Jesus calls it “their Law” not to praise his opponents but to point out that their antagonism toward him is foretold in their own authoritative Scriptures. They are condemned by their own Law.
It is incredible that created beings should hate their Creator. He has done nothing to merit their hostility. The hatred of the world for God is understandable only on the basis of the tragic fall of humanity from its original place of honor. Created for fellowship with God, Adam bought into Satan’s lie that God’s plans were restrictive and that by an act of disobedience he could discover true freedom. The spiritual, intellectual, and psychological distortion resulting from sin has convinced people that God seeks to undermine what little fulfillment they know and wants to make them captive and dependent again. No wonder the world hates God! And how sad that this very hatred separates the world from the only remedy that can cure its malignancy.
26 Once again, Jesus refers to “the Counselor,” whom he will send to the disciples from the Father (cf. 14:16). The Counselor is described as the “Spirit of truth” (cf. 14:17) who “goes out from the Father.” On the basis of this clause the Eastern church argued for the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father alone. The Western church, following the Council of Nicea in AD 325, added to the Nicene Creed what is known as the “filioque clause” (“and from the Son”) in order to safeguard the vital truth that the Son is consubstantial with the Father; it became the main doctrinal issue in the rupture between East and West in 1054 (see Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984], 415). The text in John, however, is not dealing with the internal relationships of the Trinity. To go out from the Father means nothing more than to be sent from him. The different expressions are literary, not theological.
27 Jesus declares that the mission of the Counselor is to “testify about [him]” (v.26; cf. Jn 16:13–15), and he immediately adds, “And you also must testify.” This juxtaposition suggests that the testifying of the disciples is not something in addition to the witness of the Counselor but the means by which the Counselor carries out his mission.
We are reminded of the synoptic teaching that when the disciples are put on trial, they are not to worry about what they should say because the Holy Spirit will be speaking through them (Mk 13:11). This same ministry of the Spirit will take place in our every witness concerning Jesus (but should never be thought of as an effortless method of sermon preparation!).
The disciples were enabled to testify because they had been with Jesus “from the beginning,” i.e., since the beginning of his ministry (Hoskyns, 482, has, “since their conversion”; cf. Ac 1:21–22). The primary function of the apostle is to bear witness to Jesus. While humanitarian deeds are appropriate expressions of God’s love for the world, the critical need of the human race is to know who Jesus is and what he has accomplished for their redemption.
16:1 Jesus’ teaching on the theme of persecution began at 15:18 and is brought to a close at 16:4a. Unfortunately, the chapter division tends to separate the last four verses of the discussion from what has preceded. Jesus has told his disciples to expect the hatred of the world, with all the persecution that accompanies it, “so that you will not go astray.” He makes it perfectly clear that if they follow him, they will inevitably incur the hostility of the world (cf. the predictions of persecution, Mt 10:17–25). It would not be long until faithfulness to Jesus would require nothing less than the willingness to lay down one’s life as a martyr. There is a brand of popular Christianity that caters to people’s natural desire for wealth and success. It teaches that God wants his followers to be “healthy, wealthy, and wise.” All such travesties of biblical truth misconstrue the doctrine of grace and conveniently overlook the crucial fact that to live like Jesus is to be treated like Jesus.
The “all this” to which Jesus refers (the pronoun is plural, tauta, “these things”) is the teaching on persecution beginning at 15:18, not simply the reference to the coming of the Spirit of truth mentioned in 15:26–27. His concern is that the disciples will not “go astray.” The Greek word is skandalizō, GK 4997, from which we get the expression “to scandalize,” i.e., “to shock by something disgraceful.” In context it means, “to offend so as to fall away.” The etymology of the term suggests a certain unexpectedness. (The cognate noun skandalon was a trap laid for an enemy, and the skandalēthron was the bait stick, which when touched allowed the trap to close suddenly.)
More often than not, our loyalty to Jesus is tested in crises that arise without warning. We are more apt to fail in the unexpected trials of daily life than in some great test of loyalty for which we have been preparing over the years. Peter “stumbled” at the accusation of the high priest’s maid that he had been with the Nazarene Jesus (Mk 14:66–68). Jesus taught his followers about the coming persecution so that when it did come, they would be less likely to compromise their faith and fall away. Earlier Jesus had pronounced a blessing on “the man who does not fall away on account of me” (Mt 11:6).
2 Until the Edict of Milan was issued in AD 313, when the emperors Constantine and Licinius granted religious tolerance to Christians, those who professed Christian faith suffered great persecution under Rome. Haenchen, 2:142, writes, “Christians were the non-conformists par excellence in antiquity and they had to pay for that.” The persecution to which Jesus refers here, however, had its origin in the opposition to the Christian faith that arose within Judaism (“They will put you out of the synagogue”).
It is difficult for us to understand how profoundly disturbing excommunication would have been to a first-century Jewish Christian. John 12:42 reports that many of the leaders who heard Jesus speak “believed in him,” but “because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue” (cf. 9:22). Wherever a specific religious commitment is the primary force providing the cohesive element within society, deviation from that commitment is a matter of utmost concern.
Jesus’ call to follow him was revolutionary. From the standpoint of the leaders of Judaism, it brought into question the validity of their religious tradition. Their only recourse was to punish by excommunication. It is quite possible that some forms of current Christianity have also elevated their “tradition” to a point where faithfulness to the clear teachings of Jesus is deemed as sufficient reason for removal from the circles of influence. The most severe persecution has always come as the result of religious deviation.
Jesus says that the religious leaders who will carry out the coming persecution will be so certain that what they are doing is pleasing to God that “anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God.” Acts 7:57–60 records the stoning of Stephen, who was “guilty” of preaching a sermon that did not please the chief priest and his cohorts. Paul was present on that occasion (v.58) and later, in his defense before Agrippa, details his own persecution of the church (Ac 26:9–11). It should be noted that earnestness in religion has nothing to do with correctness of faith. If that were so, the persecution of Christians, to say nothing of the crucifixion of Jesus, would stand as a persuasive example of self-validating religion.
The word for “service” (latreia, GK 3301) denotes the idea of worship (Ro 9:4; Heb 9:6) as well as the more general concept of service to God (Ro 12:1). Knox translates this to read that anyone who kills a disciple “will claim that he is performing an act of worship to God.” An ancient midrash on Numbers 25:13 reads, “Whoever sheds the blood of the godless is as one who offers a sacrifice” (Num. Rab. 21.4). Persecution is never more intense than where violence is given a religious sanction. Historically, holy wars have been the least holy. Temple, 2:277, remarks that it is the religious conscientiousness of the persecutor that makes him so relentless.
3 The reason the early church will suffer such persecution is that the persecutors have not known either Jesus or the Father. Had they really known the One whom they professed to worship, they would have recoiled from such blasphemous conduct.
4a In 13:19 and 14:29 Jesus told his disciples that he had taught them certain things ahead of time so that when those things came to pass, they would believe. He now says that his teaching on the coming persecution will serve to forewarn them, so that when it does happen, they will remember his words of caution. The pronoun egō (“I”) is emphatic and stresses the importance Jesus places on his own testimony to the band of disciples.
22 The expression “to have sin” (the verb ἔχω, echō, plus the noun ἁμαρτία, hamartia; NIV, “be guilty of sin”) is found only in the Johannine material in the NT (9:41; 15:22, 24; 19:11; 1Jn 1:8). Morris, 681 n. 53, notes that it “implies that the sin in question remains like a personal possession with the person who commits it.”
24 The NASB understands the latter part of v.24 as saying that the object of the “seeing” as well as the “hating” refers to the Father in addition to the Son (“but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well”). While such an understanding of the first “both … and” construction is grammatically possible, it is ruled out by the obvious fact that the world has not “seen” the Father. While the disciples may be said to have “seen” the Father by virtue of having seen the Son (14:9), this cannot be said of those who hate the Father. The NIV more accurately has the world seeing the miracles performed by Jesus and hating both the Father and the Son.
26 The masculine demonstrative pronoun ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos) refers back to ὁ παράκλητος (ho paraklētos, “the Counselor,” GK 4156), though the intervening clause, being closer, might suggest that the antecedent would be “the Spirit of truth.” This is unlikely because the expression is modified by a relative pronoun (ὃ, ho) that is neuter. The neuter is determined by the case of its antecedent, τὸ πνεῦμα (to pneuma, “the Spirit,” GK 4460).
16:3 Jesus’ oneness with the Father is implied by his assertion that those who will persecute the disciples have not known either the Father or the Son. To know the Son is to know the Father. Ignorance of the one implies ignorance of the other (cf. 8:19).
OVERVIEW
Much of Jesus’ teaching in ch. 16 is indirect and difficult to understand with complete clarity. The disciples seem to be confused about what he is saying to them. In vv.12–13 Jesus indicated that there was more that he wanted to teach them, but until the Spirit came they would be unable to bear it. The inadequacy of the disciples is reflected in the difficulty presented by the chapter as a whole. Ryle, 4:409, notes that “nowhere in Scripture … do commentators appear to me to contribute so little light to the text as in their interpretation of this chapter.” While the situation may not be quite so bleak, it is true that many of the statements in the chapter continue to receive a less-than-satisfactory explanation.
4b“I did not tell you this at first because I was with you.
5“Now I am going to him who sent me, yet none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief. 7But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
12“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.”
COMMENTARY
4b The argument for taking the second sentence in v.4 with the verse that follows rests on the comparison of “at first” in v.4b and “now” in v.5. At first (lit., “from [the] beginning,” i.e., “from the beginning of their association with him”) Jesus did not tell his disciples about the inevitability of persecution; but now he is returning to the Father, and the hatred that is about to nail him to the cross will very shortly be redirected at those who take up his mission. As long as Jesus was with his followers, the world focused its hostility on him. Once he is gone it will be a different story.
In Revelation 12 the great red dragon, thwarted in his attempt to devour the male child (vv.4–6) and enraged by his failure to drown the woman (vv.15–16), goes off “to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus” (v.17). The persecution of the church has its origin in the cosmic struggle between God and Satan. The virulence of the world’s opposition to Jesus is mute testimony to the truthfulness of his claims. Idiots (and Jesus would be one if his claims were untrue) are endured, not crucified.
5 “Now” marks the crowning moment in Jesus’ life. All the years of his incarnate life pointed toward this great redemptive denouement, which from God’s perspective found its greatest joy in the return of the Son to his heavenly home. The disciples, however, were thinking not of what the return would mean to Jesus but of how it would affect them. Concern for self precluded their full participation in the central drama of redemptive history. Sin inevitably carries with it its own penalty. It creates spiritual dwarfs where there might have been spiritual giants.
There is a note of rebuke in Jesus’ words, “I am going to him who sent me, yet none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’” Barrett, 405, says it is “both necessary and justifiable to emphasize the present tense erōta [“is asking,” GK 2263].” The sense is that Jesus is returning to his Father, and not one of them seems to care enough to inquire any further.
It is sometimes questioned how Jesus could say that no one asked where he was going when just a few hours before, Peter had asked that very question (13:36; cf. Thomas’s statement in 14:5). The contradiction, however, is only formal since in each case the purpose for asking is distinct. Peter’s question has less to do with Jesus’ destination than with its consequences for the disciples. The question they failed to ask points up their lack of concern with what was about to take place in the affairs of their Master. Self-interest was the controlling motivation in each case: first it prompted Peter to ask, then it kept them all from asking.
6 Little wonder that the disciples are “filled with grief” (see vv.20–22). The penalty for self-concern is not only to miss out on what God is doing in the world but also to suffer the grief that accompanies isolation from the common good. The remedy for grief, says Calvin, 2:15, is Christ, absent from the body but sitting at the right hand of God to protect believers by his power.
7 Verses 7–14 contain the fourth of the Paraclete sections of the Upper Room Discourse. The disciples were filled with grief (v.6), but Jesus assured them it was to their advantage that he go away; otherwise the Counselor would not come. By going to the Father, Jesus will be enabled to send the One “who is to befriend [them]” (Knox). Ryle, 4:376, notes that “the universal presence of the Holy Ghost in the Church, is better than the visible bodily presence of Christ with the Church.”
It would have been extremely difficult for the disciples to grasp that the departure of Jesus from their midst would usher in a time during which his “replacement” would serve God’s purposes more effectively. The truth is more readily seen when we compare the weakness of the disciples just before the crucifixion (“everyone deserted him and fled,” Mk 14:50) with their boldness after the Holy Spirit had come upon them (“the apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name,” Ac 5:41). Throughout history the church has surged ahead whenever it has recognized the appropriate role and mission of the Spirit in the task of world evangelism. Too often we are immobilized by the absence of the Son rather than invigorated by the presence of the Spirit. As was the case with the disciples, human discouragement blinds us to God’s glorious provision.
8–11 At the Counselor’s coming, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment. This basic statement is expanded and made more specific in vv.9–11. While the general import is relatively clear, considerable difference of opinion exists with regard to the specific interpretation of the various parts of the passage. One’s approach will depend on an interpretation of (1) the verb elenchō (“prove,” GK 1794; NIV, “convict … of guilt”), (2) the preposition peri (“about”; six times in vv.8–11; NIV, “of, in regard to”), and (3) the conjunction hoti (“because”; three times in vv.9–11).
The verb elenchō means “bring to light,” “convict,” “reprove.” When taken with the accusative of person, it means, “to show someone his sin and summon him to repentance,” whether privately as in Matthew 18:15 or congregationally as in 1 Timothy 5:20 (TDNT 2:474). It has the juridical sense of cross-examination for the purpose of providing evidence that proves guilt. Jesus declares that the Counselor (the paraklētos, GK 4156, who is called alongside to provide assistance) will prove the world wrong about sin, righteousness, and judgment. Note the close relationship among the three. The world’s sin reveals how inadequate is its understanding of righteousness and how certain will be its judgment. Reith, 111, says that “sin is the world’s state as it is; righteousness as it ought to be; and judgment as it must and shall be that righteousness may obtain.”
A common interpretation understands vv.8–11 as describing the work of the Holy Spirit in convicting sinners and bringing them to faith in Jesus. While this has been a major activity of the Spirit throughout history, these verses point to a different work of the Spirit in which he convicts the world of how wrong it has been in rejecting Jesus. The heavenly prosecutor will prove that the world is guilty for its rejection of Jesus and its distorted ideas of righteousness and judgment.
Brown, 712, holds that the proof of the world’s guilt was directed not to the world but to the disciples. He pictures in the minds of the disciples a courtroom scene in which a “rerun of the trial of Jesus” takes place and “the Paraclete makes the truth emerge for the disciples to see.” But a straightforward reading of the text would indicate that it is the world, not the disciples, that is proven wrong.
9 In vv.9–11 the preposition peri (“about”) is used to point out the areas about which the world is wrong and the conjunction hoti (“because”) to elaborate further. The Counselor puts aside his role as defender and becomes prosecutor. He will prove the world wrong on three crucial points. First, worldly people are wrong with regard to sin. They regarded Jesus as a sinner (9:24) and themselves as righteous (cf. Lk 18:9). Their sin consisted in their unwillingness to believe in Jesus (taking hoti in an explanatory rather than a causative sense). The root of sin is humanity’s desire to live in isolation from God. By refusing to respond in faith to the incarnate Son, they have committed themselves to a flawed view of the nature of sin.
10 Second, worldly people are wrong with regard to righteousness. They considered Jesus worthy of death, but he will be vindicated by his return to the Father. In this context the Greek dikaiosynē (GK 1466; only here in the fourth gospel) means “justice.” The world’s idea of justice was to put Jesus to death for his supposedly blasphemous claims to be the Son of God. But God’s idea of justice is different. He raised Jesus from the dead and welcomed him back to his preincarnate state of eternal glory (cf. Ac 2:22–24).
11 Third, worldly people are wrong with regard to judgment. The fact that “the prince of this world now stands condemned” is irrefutable proof that sin has been judged and found guilty. Judgment does exist because Satan’s power has been overthrown by the cross and empty grave. In condemning Jesus, the world brought judgment on itself.
12 Jesus turns from discussing the work of the Spirit in relation to the world and speaks again (cf. 14:26; 15:26) of the Spirit’s part in equipping the disciples to carry out their role in the difficult days that lie ahead. The choice of the verb bastazō (GK 1002; NIV, “bear”) in this context is somewhat unusual in that it normally means “to lift up” or “to carry away.” Some think that Jesus is referring to the disciples’ ability to understand what he was saying. For example, in Mark 4:33 Jesus speaks to the Twelve in parables “as much as they could understand” (cf. 1Co 3:2, where Paul gives the church “milk” rather than “meat” because they were “not yet ready for it”). While it is true that a teacher cannot communicate more than his students can absorb, it would seem that in this case the verb “to bear” should be taken in a somewhat more literal sense. Until the Spirit came, the Twelve would be unable to lift up and carry the full responsibilities of discipleship. They would be unable “to live out the implications of the revelation” (Morris, 699). The hostility that would shortly nail Jesus to a cross would before many days turn against those who were loyal to him and advocated his cause. To bear up in the coming crisis the disciples needed to wait in Jerusalem for the arrival of the Spirit and the power he would provide (Ac 1:4, 8).
13 Though Jesus was unable to tell them more right then, they would learn what he wanted them to know when the Spirit of truth came. This is the fourth time in the discourse that the emphatic demonstrative pronoun ekeinos (“that one,” “he”) is used (14:26; 15:26; 16:8, 13), and it will occur again in the following verse (16:14). That the masculine pronoun is used in direct juxtaposition to the neuter to pneuma (“the Spirit,” GK 4460) is strong evidence that the evangelist understood the Spirit as a person rather than an abstract force.
The Spirit’s role is to “guide [the disciples] into all truth.” The verb hodēgeō (GK 3842) is frequently used in the LXX of the guidance and instruction of God (e.g., “He guides the humble in what is right,” Ps 25:9). The context indicates that the Spirit will continue the revelatory work of Jesus. He is the one who will now become the disciples’ guide and lead them “into all truth.” Sadly, this phrase has often been taken as a validation for all sorts of contemporary truth claims. But the words of Jesus that immediately follow define “all truth” in a less than universal sense. It is not new truth but “the truth that is in Jesus” (Eph 4:21) that will be the focus of the Spirit’s revelatory work.
The Spirit “will not speak on his own” (RSV, “on his own authority”) but “only what he hears.” On a number of occasions Jesus made this same claim about himself (8:26–28; 12:49; 14:10). As the Son spoke only what he heard from the Father, so will the Spirit limit his teaching ministry to “whatever he is told” (Moffatt). We are not to expect new (in the sense of additional) truth from the Spirit but a fuller understanding and appreciation of truth already known. As Paul put it, we have received the Spirit so that “we may get an insight into the blessings God has graciously given us” (1Co 2:12 Williams).
Not only will the Spirit speak what he hears, but he will also “tell you what is yet to come.” The verb anangellō (GK 334) in earlier Greek meant “to carry back a report.” Brown, 708, notes that in the context the prefix ana suggests repetition and the verb carries the classical meaning of saying over again what has already been said. This would strengthen the case for the Spirit’s work as drawing out the implications of and deepening insight into the truth already proclaimed by Jesus. But what is it that is “yet to come”? Calvin, 2:120, thought the reference was to “the future state of [Jesus’] kingdom, which the apostles saw soon after His resurrection but were then quite unable to comprehend.” Others see a reference to the gift of prophecy that before long would be exercised in the early church (Ac 21:10–12; cf. 1Co 12:10). More often, it is taken either as the final eschatological events that bring history to a close or as the unique events that would shortly come to pass (the death and resurrection of Jesus). The second option is supported by the subject under consideration in vv.16–24 and is in keeping with the understanding of anangellō as discussed above.
14 The role of the Spirit is to “bring glory” to the Son. He will do so by drawing on the riches of Christ (“from what is mine”) and revealing his glory to the disciples. The full significance of spiritual truth cannot be grasped apart from the illuminating work of the Spirit. As a prerequisite this requires prayerful reflection on the works and words of Jesus. The result is a deeper appreciation of Jesus and a new sense of wonder concerning his person and work. In this way the Spirit brings praise and honor to the Son. As the Son glorified the Father by completing the work he was sent to do (17:4), so will the Spirit bring glory to the Son by his work of divine illumination.
15 Jesus declares that all that the Father has belongs to him as well (cf. 17:10). The point is not to prove that Jesus is coequal with the Father but to assert that the revelatory work of the Spirit will not be hampered by less-than-complete access to the source of all truth. Whatever knowledge is appropriate for us to know will be made clear by the Spirit.
7–8 In OT thought, God is sometimes pictured as an advocate for Israel. In connection with the predicted fall of Babylon, God says to Israel through the prophet Jeremiah, “I will be your lawyer to plead your case, and I will avenge you” (Jer 51:36 NLT). Many believed that in the final days, when Israel had prevailed over her enemies, God would establish a great tribunal in which he would carry out his judgment against the nations. Jesus says that when he has gone away, he will send the Counselor, who will act as prosecutor of the world with its faulty ideas about sin, righteousness, and judgment.
8 BDAG, 315, lists four meanings for ἐλέγχω (elenchō): (1) “to scrutinize or examine carefully”; (2) “to bring a person to the point of recognizing wrongdoing”; (3) “to express strong disapproval of someone’s action”; and (4) “to penalize for wrongdoing.” BDAG places the verse under consideration in the second category with the glosses, “convict, convince.”
10 The NET has an extended translator’s note at v.10 on the meaning of δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosyne; NIV, “righteousness”) in which it argues against the rather common understanding of the word as forensic justification (as in Morris, 698–99) and concludes that in this context it refers to Jesus’ vindication.
13 Greek MSS differ as to whether the phrase should read “into [εἰς, eis] all truth” or “in [ἐν, en] all truth.” The former would suggest being led into a full understanding of all truth, while the latter would imply protection against straying from the path of truth. ᾿Εν, En, has slightly stronger MS support, but as Joseph Sanders (A Commentary on the Gospel of St. John [HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1968], 353 n. 6) notes, εἰς, eis, may have been original but removed because it was found to be theologically dangerous.
The future indicative ἀκούσει (akousei, “he will hear,” GK 201) is to be preferred over the present ἀκούει (akouei, “he hears”), which according to Metzger, 210, is “a dogmatic improvement, introduced to suggest the eternal relationship of the Holy Spirit with the Father.” The MS support is strong, and it best accounts for the alternate readings.
14 The centrality of Jesus in the revelatory process is heightened by the emphatic ἐμέ (eme, “me”) both in form and position in the clause. One might translate, “I [Jesus] am the one that he [the Father] will glorify.”