# comment

text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 10:14'>Joh 10:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I am the good shepherd, and I know my own and my own know me</em>- Again the Lord is imputing righteousness and perception to His followers; for He lamented that although they had been with Him so long, they still apparently did not "know" Him (<em><a href='B:500 14:9'>Joh 14:9</a></em>). And yet 'knowledge' is being used in the Hebraic sense of relationship. His relationship with His sheep is mutual.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 10:15'>Joh 10:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Even as the Father knows me, and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep</em>- His mutual relationship with the Father, the Hebrew sense of both sides 'knowing' each other, was to be reflected in His knowing His sheep and them knowing Him (:14- a theme developed at length in chapter 17).</p><p>There is and will be something dynamic in our relationship with the Father and Son. The Lord Jesus spoke of how He ‘knows’ the Father and ‘knows’ us His sheep in the continuous tense (:14,15)- He was ‘getting to know’ the Father, and He ‘gets to know’ us. And this is life eternal, both now and then, that we might&nbsp;<em>get to know</em>the one true God and His Son (<em><a href='B:500 17:3'>Joh 17:3</a></em>). The knowing of God and His Son is not something merely academic, consisting only of facts. It is above all an experience, a thrilling and dynamic one. I am the good shepherd, and know (Gk. 'am getting to know', continuous tense) my sheep, and am known (<em>being known</em>) of mine. As the Father&nbsp;<em>knoweth</em>&nbsp;(is knowing) me, even so know I (I am getting to know) the Father". The relationship between us and our Lord will therefore be one of progressive upward knowledge, as He has with God. Thus a state of ultimate knowledge of God will not be flashed into us at the moment of acceptance at the judgment. For this very reason, the Kingdom cannot be an inactive state. God is dynamic. For us to grow in His knowledge will be a continuously dynamic process. It is pointed out in John's Gospel that those who will truly know God will not fully know Him now, in this life. Thus the blind man in <em><a href='B:500 9:12'>Joh 9:12</a></em> said that he did not know where Jesus was; Thomas likewise said that the disciples did not know where Jesus was going <em><a href='B:500 14:5'>Joh 14:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:7'>Joh 14:7</a></em>); in <em><a href='B:500 4:32'>Joh 4:32</a></em> the Lord Jesus said that He had meat which we do not know of. Those who said (in John's&nbsp;Gospel) that they&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;know Jesus, often found that they did not. Thus the Lord said that the Samaritans worshipped what they did not know (<em><a href='B:500 4:22'>Joh 4:22</a></em>), although they were convinced that they did. Nicodemus thought that he knew Jesus, when he did not (<em><a href='B:500 3:2'>Joh 3:2</a></em>); the Jews thought that they knew whence Jesus was (<em><a href='B:500 7:26'>Joh 7:26</a></em>);&nbsp;"now we know that you have a demon", they boasted (<em><a href='B:500 8:52'>Joh 8:52</a></em>); "we know that this man is a sinner" (<em><a href='B:500 9:34'>Joh 9:34</a></em>)- and how wrong they were. Those who accepted they did not fully know the Lord Jesus will spend eternity coming to know Him (<em><a href='B:500 17:3'>Joh 17:3</a></em>).</p><p>It was due to His&nbsp;<em>knowing</em>&nbsp;that the Lord gave His life. Knowledge, in its active and true sense of relationship, does have a vital part to play. Otherwise spirituality becomes pure emotion alone. To "follow after righteousness" is paralleled with "to know righteousness" (<em><a href='B:290 51:1'>Isa 51:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a></em>). To know it properly is to follow after it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 10:16'>Joh 10:16</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 17:23'>Joh 17:23</a></em>.</p><p><em>And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold. Them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and they shall become one flock with one shepherd</em>- We note that it was not uncommon for smaller, poorer farmers to merge their flocks, so that only one shepherd had to be employed to care for them all. The impression given, therefore, is that the Lord Jesus is a poor shepherd, and not a wealthy one. I suggested earlier that the Lord was saying these things standing by the court of the Gentiles, and the idea of the 'fold' is associated with that of the 'courts', for Jews, Gentiles and women. The Greek for "fold" is translated "court" in <em><a href='B:500 18:15'>Joh 18:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 11:2'>Rev 11:2</a></em>. The true fold or court was only one, and entered into through the Lord Jesus. Instead of threatening death to those who crossed into the wrong courts, the Lord was the door through which&nbsp;<em>life</em>&nbsp;was offered:&nbsp;<em>This</em>&nbsp;fold may have been said with a motion toward the inner court. The women, Gentiles, the unclean and outcasts were to be brought, in obedience to His voice, and moulded into one flock with only one shepherd. The 'bringing' preceded the 'hearing My voice'. It's not that the Lord has given us His written word and whoever figures it out becomes part of the flock. He brings people, called by grace; and then it is over to them whether they further 'hear His voice'. Revelation develops the idea where we have a vision of the Lord as a shepherd leading His flock, on account of being Himself a lamb. But that vision refers to the Kingdom age. It could be argued from the force of "they shall&nbsp;<em>become</em>..." that the Lord is working to bring together His sheep into one fold, but that final unity will only be achieved at His return. The present divided state of the flock is therefore envisaged, although the Lord works to bring down the barriers between sheep and sheep.</p><p>Time and again the Lord Jesus reapplies the language of the restoration from Babylon to what He is doing to all men and women who heed His call to come out from the world and follow Him. The ideas of bringing His sheep, "other sheep of mine", who will hear His voice and form one flock under one shepherd- all these are rooted in the restoration prophecies (Ezekiel 34; <em><a href='B:330 37:21-28'>Eze 37:21-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 23:1-8'>Jer 23:1-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 31:1-10'>Jer 31:1-10</a></em>). When the Lord spoke of His people as being raised up put of the stones, as living stones, He surely had <em><a href='B:160 4:2'>Neh 4:2</a></em> in mind- where the stones of Zion are described as reviving, coming alive, at the restoration. The second coming is to be the restoration&nbsp;<em>again</em>&nbsp;of the Kingdom to Israel (<em><a href='B:510 1:6'>Act 1:6</a></em>), as if the first restoration is to be understood as a type of that to come.</p><p>The way in which we are seen by God as if we are already saved on account of our being in Christ is also explicable by appreciating His timelessness. <em><a href='B:520 8:29'>Rom 8:29</a></em> says that the whole process of our calling, justification and glorification all occurred at the foundation of the world. In God’s eyes, those of us in Christ are already saved and glorified. The Lord spoke of "other sheep I have" (<em><a href='B:500 10:16'>Joh 10:16</a></em>) when at that time we never existed. Likewise in God’s eyes there was only one resurrection, that of the Lord Jesus. The resurrected Lord is compared to the sheaf of first fruits (<em><a href='B:530 15:20'>1Co 15:20</a></em>), as if those in him rose with him and were glorified together, in God’s eyes. Perhaps the Lord Jesus had this in mind when he said: "I&nbsp;<em>am</em>&nbsp;the resurrection".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 10:17'>Joh 10:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life so that I may take it again</em>-</p><p>The idea of Christ&nbsp;<em>giving</em>&nbsp;Himself for us refers to that final moment of giving up, yielding, laying down His breath for us. He did not die, as most men do, against their will, fighting for the continuation of life at all costs; in the words of Dylan Thomas, dying men “Go not gentle into that good night / But rage, rage against the dying of the light”. The Lord died by breathing out the last breath in His lungs, His spirit, toward His disciples. Paul was evidently moved by this; he marvelled at how Christ "<em>gave himself</em>&nbsp;for me" (<em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em>), using the same word as in <em><a href='B:500 19:30'>Joh 19:30</a></em> concerning him giving up His spirit. And we can enter into that sense or marvel and wonder. Paul again alludes to this in <em><a href='B:560 5:2'>Eph 5:2</a></em>: "Walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath&nbsp;<em>given himself</em>&nbsp;for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour". That wondrous moment when Christ reached such self-control as to give His life for us, to breathe out His last breath for us as an act of the will, that moment was evidently deep within the mind of Paul. Because of it we should find ample inspiration to "walk in love" towards each other, to be so full of praise for this that we have no time to even speak about the sins to which are earthly nature is so prone. These are high ideals indeed, yet in Paul (another sin-stricken human) they began to be realized. They&nbsp;<em>really can</em>&nbsp;be realized in our lives, we truly can begin to appreciate the intensity of that yielding up, that laying down of the life spirit of our Lord Jesus- and therefore and thereby we will find the inspiration to respond in a life of true love for each other.</p><p>The same word crops up later: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and&nbsp;<em>gave himself</em>&nbsp;for it" (<em><a href='B:560 5:25'>Eph 5:25</a></em>). Now this is high, heavenly, indeed. Husbands are asked to consider the intensity of that moment when Christ, rigid with self-control, gave up His life for us, breathing His last as a controlled act of the will. And the Spirit through Paul asks husbands to reflect this in their daily lives, in the petty day by day situation of life. No wonder he asks wives to deeply respect their husbands if they at least try to rise up to this spirit (<em><a href='B:560 5:33'>Eph 5:33</a></em>). Real meditation upon the implications of all this, the very height of the challenge, will surely do more good to a marriage than any amount of counselling and reading of human words.</p><p>The Father loved the Son&nbsp;<em>because</em>&nbsp;He laid down His life in this way; there was an upwelling of love within the soul of Almighty God as He beheld it (<em><a href='B:500 10:17'>Joh 10:17</a></em>). And ditto for all those who try to enter into the spirit of laying down their lives after the pattern of our Lord's final moment. But well before His death, our Lord could speak of how "I lay down my life" (<em><a href='B:500 10:17'>Joh 10:17</a></em>); His whole life was a laying down of His innermost spirit, His final out breathing was a summation of His daily attitude. He saw His death as the baptism with which He must be baptized (<em><a href='B:490 12:50'>Luk 12:50</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 6:3-4'>Rom 6:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:10-12'>Col 2:10-12</a></em>, His 'baptism-unto-death' Gk:); and yet He spoke of the baptism with which He was being baptized in an ongoing sense (<em><a href='B:470 20:22'>Mat 20:22</a></em>). In this same vein, <em><a href='B:230 69:8-9'>Psa 69:8-9</a></em> is a prophecy about the final sufferings of the Lord in crucifixion, and yet these verses are elsewhere quoted about the experiences of His ministry. And “they hated me without a cause" (<em><a href='B:230 69:4'>Psa 69:4</a></em>) was true throughout the Lord’s life (<em><a href='B:500 15:25'>Joh 15:25</a></em>) as well as particularly in His death. The Lord spoke of the manna as being a symbol of His body, which He would give on the cross. He described the gift of that bread, that figure of His sacrifice, as not only bread that would come from Heaven but more accurately as bread that&nbsp;<em>is coming down</em>, and had been throughout His life (<em><a href='B:500 6:50-51'>Joh 6:50-51</a></em> Gk:). The spirit of life-giving which there was in His death was shown all through His life.</p><p>The fact the Lord died not just because events overtook Him and happened to Him is perhaps reflected in Paul’s speaking in Romans 6 of “the death that he died…the life that he liveth". He died a death; he Himself died it; and yet just as truly, He lived a life. He didn’t just let events happen to Him. He was not mastered in His life by human lusts and selfish desires; He was in that sense the only ultimately free person. When He “bowed his head", the same Greek is used as in <em><a href='B:470 8:20'>Mat 8:20</a></em>: “The Son of man has no place to lay / bow his head". It was as if He only lay His head down, giving out His life, when He knew it was time to rest from a day’s work well done. He lived a surpassingly free life, and freely gave that life up; it was not taken from Him.</p><p>That we should be called to imitate our Lord in this should truly fill us with a sense of highness, that we should be called to such a high challenge. <em><a href='B:690 3:16'>1Jn 3:16</a></em> takes us even further in this wondrous story, alluding to <em><a href='B:500 10:17'>Joh 10:17</a></em>: " Hereby perceive we the love of God (cp. “For this reason the Father loves me”, because he&nbsp;<em>laid down</em>&nbsp;His life for us: and we ought to&nbsp;<em>lay down</em>&nbsp;our lives for the brethren". So intensely was God in Christ on the cross that in a sense He too laid down His life for us, He bowed down for us, laid Himself before our feet as that palsied man was laid before (same word) Jesus. In that final cry from the cross we perceive God’s love for us. We too, therefore, should not be put off from laying down our lives for each other because we feel our brethren are spiritually weak. This is the very essence of laying down our lives for each other; we are to replicate the laying down of the life of Christ for us&nbsp;<em>while we were weak</em>&nbsp;in our giving of our innermost being for our weak brethren. We are truly at the very boundary of human words to express these things. We must, we&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;respond in practice. And the wonder of it all is that in this final, supreme moment of self-giving, the Lord was identifying with apostate Israel, of whom it had been prophesied: “She hath given up the spirit; her sun is gone down while it was yet day: she hath been ashamed" (<em><a href='B:300 15:9'>Jer 15:9</a></em> - all crucifixion language).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 10:18'>Joh 10:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down myself. I have authority to lay it down and I have authority to take it again. This command I received from my Father</em>- See on :17. He had the right "authority" to receive His life again, from the Father, for the Father raised the Son. The resurrection process means that the life we had before resurrection, in our mortal life, is that same life we shall live eternally. And the Lord was our pattern. In this sense we live the eternal life now, living the kind of life, spiritually, which we shall eternally live. Note that He spoke with arresting continuous tenses of how ‘The good shepherd&nbsp;<em>is laying&nbsp;</em>down his life for the sheep... I&nbsp;<em>am laying down&nbsp;</em>my life of myself’ (<em><a href='B:500 10:11'>Joh 10:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:18'>Joh 10:18</a></em>). He&nbsp;<em>would be</em>&nbsp;delivered up, but in principle He went through it in His daily life beforehand.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 10:19'>Joh 10:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Because of these words, again a division arose among the Jews</em>- The Lord's presence amongst men does cause division; that is quite a theme of the New Testament. Families divide, and even amongst the Jews there was division over Him. And yet as the New Testament clearly teaches and historically testifies, His presence amongst believers forges a unity of a unique nature, powerful enough to convert the world. This is all foreseen in the prologue, where the separation between light and darkness which occurred at creation is used as representative of the fundamental division which must occur between believers and disbelievers in the light. This principle affects who we marry, what we watch and think about, our associations on absolutely every level of thought and practical existence.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 10:20'>Joh 10:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And many of them said: He has a demon and is mad. Why do you listen to him?</em>- Madness was attributed to demon possession, and the language of casting out demons often effectively refers to curing mental illness. But "has a demon and is mad" suggests two separate, if related, things. This group of accusers were not simply saying that the Lord was mad. They were implying that His supposed possession by a demon meant that He was on the side of the cosmic enemies they supposed existed- and therefore, His words were madness. "Listen" here implies listening favourably. Clearly amongst the Jewish leadership there were some like Nicodemus and Joseph with some level of belief in Him; but it is a theme of John's Gospel that men must come out for the Lord, and not simply hold a level of quiet, positive view of Him somewhere deep within their hearts.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 10:21'>Joh 10:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Others said: These are not the sayings of one possessed with a demon. Can a demon possessed person open the eyes of the blind?</em>- The Lord's miracles were used with economy, but they were necessary in order to demonstrate beyond doubt that the Lord was from God. This was especially necessary in a society where only a few % were literate, and there was no easy access to the Old Testament scrolls for personal study. And the miracles were self-evidently good; the suggestion that the Lord was an agent of some supposed 'Satan' or evil empire was absurd if He was using His supernatural powers to do good.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 10:22'>Joh 10:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>It was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem</em>- John's material almost exclusively records what the Lord did and said around the time of the Jewish feasts.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 10:23'>Joh 10:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple along Solomon's porch</em>- As noted earlier, the material which follows is seamlessly connected with the theme of shepherd and sheep earlier in this chapter. So I suggest that this is read as a general positioning statement for the material both before and after this point in the chapter. I have earlier pointed out the similarities between the idea of a "fold" and of the 'courts' of the temple, for women, Gentiles and Jews. The Lord was standing at the division between the courts of the Gentiles and Jews, and His language of creating only one fold, entrance to which was only through Him, must be read in this context.</p><p>The Bible does use (at times) the language of the day, contemporary with the time when it was first inspired. <em><a href='B:500 10:23'>Joh 10:23</a></em> speaks of “Solomon’s colonnade”, but as the NIV Study Bible correctly points out, this was “commonly but erroneously thought to date back to Solomon’s time”. But the error isn’t corrected. The language of the day is used, just as it is concerning demons.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 10:24'>Joh 10:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The Jews surrounded him and said to him: How long do you hold us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly</em>- A theme of John's Gospel has been that the Jews did know that the Lord was Messiah, but their dislike of the light, and all it demanded, meant they didn’t believe in Him. Hence His answer to this apparent desire for plain clarification was that 'You do not believe' (:25). It's basic human psychology that we put off accepting truth under the smokescreen of needing more information. This is why some will apparently 'search for truth' all their lives- because they don't want to accept the truth they have found, as it demands too much of them personally.</p><p>The Lord's response was that their underlying problem was not with His language, but with the simple fact that they did not believe that He, the carpenter from Nazareth, was the Son of God. Is it going too far to suggest that all intellectual failure to understand the teaching of Jesus is rooted in a simple lack of faith and perception of Him as a person? See on <em><a href='B:500 16:30'>Joh 16:30</a></em>.</p><p>He had indeed spoken plainly to them- the crowds use the very word in remarking that the Lord spoke plainly / boldly (<em><a href='B:500 7:26'>Joh 7:26</a></em>). He Himself reflected that He had spoken plainly to the Jewish world (<em><a href='B:500 18:20'>Joh 18:20</a></em>). But the disciples too seem to have felt that the Lord was not "plain" in His speech (<em><a href='B:500 16:25'>Joh 16:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:29'>Joh 16:29</a></em>). The reason for 'not getting it' is not because the information has been presented in a hazy manner, or because the intellectual processing of it is too demanding for the hearer. The message of the Lord was plain. But it was the pre-existing sense of self-preservation, of keeping one’s own way of life and thinking intact, which meant that the hearers complained about lack of clarity. The Lord predicted His death and resurrection in great detail, in language which could never have been plainer. But the disciples were slow of heart to believe it. The simple message of the Lord Jesus, as explained in the prologue, is light compared to darkness; and it demands our all. Every part of life and thought has to be surrendered to it. And so hearers usually choose to misunderstand, or beg off with excuses about 'not enough information'. John alludes to this issue of speaking plainly when he tells his converts that the Lord's plainness, boldness, is to become ours (<em><a href='B:690 5:14'>1Jn 5:14</a></em>). Life becomes so simple once we have surrendered to Him as the light, and wholeheartedly walk in it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 10:25'>Joh 10:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered them: I told you and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name, these testify of me</em>- See on :24. There was no unclarity in the Lord's message, and the miracles done were beyond question His authentication as having come from God. Of course, they'd have complained that He had&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;told them in so many words. His comment was that His "works", His life, His being, showed plainly who He was, His personality was "the plain word" which they were demanding. He was the word made flesh in totality and to perfection. See on <em><a href='B:500 14:10'>Joh 14:10</a></em>. John uses&nbsp;<em>ergon</em>, "works", for far more than miracles; effectively the term means 'way of life' in <em><a href='B:500 3:19-21'>Joh 3:19-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:29'>Joh 6:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:39'>Joh 8:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:41'>Joh 8:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:12'>1Jn 3:12</a></em>). The Lord's being and person, as well as His miracles, was His testimony to men, just as ours should be. It is not publicly performed good works cp. miracles which have lasting power in their testimony, but the works of a life worked or done in the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>10:26&nbsp;<em>But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep</em>- Belief was related to accepting the Lord's words&nbsp;(:27). Those words, His claims, were and are to be accepted without concrete proof and there is no such thing as concrete proof or else faith would not be faith. The claims of His person are presented as they are in the Gospel and clearly in the Gospel records. Once they are accepted, then we are His sheep, and are led further if we wish to follow further. It is not that there is something magic in the words of the book called the Bible which creates faith. For many read it and do not believe. The idea is that the words and salvation promises of the Lord Jesus are heard or read, and accepted. The leap in faith is taken. And then all starts to make sense. The Samaritan woman is a case in point. No miracles were done to back up the Lord's claims. She simply believed them.</p>


text:
<p>10:27- see on <em><a href='B:470 19:28'>Mat 19:28</a></em>.</p><p><em>My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me</em>- The Lord takes the initiative in speaking His word to men, but they must still respond in following; and this is how He 'knows' them, in the Hebraic sense of having a relationship. The "voice" they hear is His words, the essence of Him; not the Bible in its entirety, but "My words". The Lord's references to "My words" in John must be understood as a reference to Him, the news about Him, His Spirit, the essence of Him as a person. Although His words were the words of God, for the word was God as explained in the prologue, that is not to say that "My words" refer to the Bible as a whole. That would be a confusion of category; rather like saying that Mercedes are cars; but not all cars are Mercedes.</p><p>The Hebrew word for ‘hear’ is also translated ‘obey’ (<em><a href='B:10 22:18'>Gen 22:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 19:5'>Exo 19:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:8'>Deu 30:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:20'>Deu 30:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 95:7'>Psa 95:7</a></em>). We can hear God’s word and not obey it. But if we&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>hear it as we are intended to, we will obey it. If we truly believe God’s word to be His voice personally speaking to us, then we will by the very fact of hearing, obey. The message itself, if heard properly and not just on a surface level, will compel action. We can&nbsp;<em>delight&nbsp;</em>to know God’s laws and pray daily to Him, when at the same time we are forsaking Him and His laws; if we are truly obedient,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;we will&nbsp;<em>delight</em>&nbsp;in God’s law (<em><a href='B:290 58:2'>Isa 58:2</a></em> cp. 14). We have a tendency to have a&nbsp;love of and delight in God’s law only on the surface. John especially often uses ‘hearing’ to mean ‘believing’ (e.g. <em><a href='B:500 10:4'>Joh 10:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:26-27'>Joh 10:26-27</a></em>). And yet the Jews ‘heard’ but didn’t believe. We must, we really must ask ourselves: whether we merely hear, or hear and believe. For we can hear, but not really hear, if we lack the “obedience of faith”.</p><p>The Lord knows His sheep according to whether they follow Him, i:e. whether they take up His cross and follow Him. The question of cross carrying therefore reveals a man to his Lord for what he is. And it also reveals the Lord to His would be followers for who He really is. His words, that which is seen and heard in Him, is a call to follow Him to the cross.</p>


text:
<p>10:28&nbsp;<em>And I give to them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand</em>- The gift of eternal life is in the present tense, in that the Lord gives His spirit to us, the kind of life we can eternally live. "They shall never perish" refers to the condemnation of the last day; if we continue living the Kingdom life now, we shall not be condemned. If the Spirit of the Lord Jesus abides in us now, that same Spirit shall energize our bodies after the power of an endless life (<em><a href='B:520 8:11'>Rom 8:11</a></em>).</p><p>The eternal type of life being given is an ongoing process. Consider the repeated parallelisms in the Lord’s teaching:</p><table><tr><td></p><p>Labour / work, as Israel worked to gather manna, as the crowds walked around the lake to get to Jesus</td><td>For the food that gives eternal life</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Believe in me</td><td>Receive eternal life</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Eat me daily, eat / absorb my body and blood, the essence of My sacrifice; have this as your real food and drink in life</td><td>Receive eternal life</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Come to me, having heard and learnt of the Father</td><td>Never hunger, never perish, receive eternal life</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Behold the son, believe on him</td><td>Receive eternal life</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“I am”, God manifested in the person of Jesus</td><td>The bread that gives eternal life</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The manna of Christ</td><td>Gives eternal life</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Jesus came down from Heaven i:e. manifested the Father</td><td>Gives life unto the world</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>By Jesus doing God’s will</td><td>I get eternal life for you (“the world” of believers)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>By giving His blood to drink and flesh to eat</td><td>Gives eternal life</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The Spirit and words of Jesus</td><td>Quickens / gives eternal life</td><td></td></tr></table><p>The Spirit of Jesus, His disposition, His mindset, His way of thinking and being, is paralleled with His words and His person. They both ‘quicken’ or give eternal life, right now. “It is the Spirit that quickeneth present tense… the words that I speak unto you, they are right now spirit, and they are life… thou hast right now the words of eternal life” (<em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:68'>Joh 6:68</a></em>). Yet at the last day, God will quicken the dead and physically give them eternal life (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:22'>1Co 15:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:36'>1Co 15:36</a></em>). But this will be because in this life we had the ‘Spirit’ of the eternal life in us: “He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by on account of his spirit that dwelleth in you” (<em><a href='B:520 8:11'>Rom 8:11</a></em>).</p><p>This unreal shepherd not only dies for the sheep but gives them eternal life, making them eternal sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:28'>Joh 10:28</a></em>). We’d understand it more comfortably if He spoke of giving His life for people, and then them living for ever. But He speaks of giving eternal life to a sheep, who wouldn’t have a clue what that really entailed. But that’s just how it is with us, who by grace are receiving an eternal Kingdom, the wonderful implications of which are beyond our appreciation, due to the intrinsic limitations of who we are as sheep. See on <em><a href='B:500 15:15'>Joh 15:15</a></em>.</p><p>The context of chapter 10 is the shameful treatment of the blind man by the Jewish shepherds in chapter 9. The Lord is assuring His flock that if they hear His voice, then He will preserve them from any robbers who seek to grab them for themselves.</p>


text:
<p>10:29&nbsp;<em>My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand</em>- The gift of the sheep was before the Lord called the sheep with His voice / word, and they responded. This reference to the gift of the sheep surely speaks of the predestination, foreknowledge and calling which Paul cites in Romans as the parade example of God’s grace. The Father being greater than the Son means that the Lord's assurances of&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;protection and eternal salvation are made yet the more sure, because the Father was greater than Him but upholding the same passionate desire for our preservation unto salvation.</p>


text:
<p>10:30&nbsp;<em>I and the Father are one</em>- The protective, saving hand of the Son is that of the Father, for they both have the same will and determination for human salvation. This is the context of their being "one", in purpose and function rather than in person and nature, as wrongly supposed by Trinitarian thinking. In chapter 17, the Lord envisages the unity between the Father and Son being that between all His people, and between themselves and the Father and Himself. Clearly, the unity spoken of is not any support for the confused theology of Trinitarianism.</p>


text:
<p>10:31&nbsp;<em>Once again the Jews took up stones to stone him-&nbsp;</em>This was anger on the spur of the moment; there had been no trial, no verdict issued; and the Jews could only recommend the death penalty for the Romans to carry out. I suggest that their excuse that He was blaspheming was a cover for the fact that their consciences had been pricked by the Lord's challenge that belief in Him meant they were the Father's sheep and would be protected unto life eternal. And if they didn’t believe- they were not the Father's flock at all.</p>


text:
<p>10:32- see on <em><a href='B:500 9:36'>Joh 9:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:20'>Joh 17:20</a></em>.</p><p><em>Jesus said to them: Many good works have I shown you from the Father. For which of those works do you stone me?</em>- I noted on :25 that "works" refer not only to the miracles but to the Lord's whole life. But here the reference appears to be to His miracles, and the Lord's logic appeals to those who had likewise concluded that a bad man could simply not do such wonderful miracles unless God was intimately with Him. The Lord's miracles were "shown to the Jews just as the Father had "shown" Him which works to perform (5:20 s:w:). The idea surely is that the Lord did not merely encounter human need and use His power to resolve it; for He offered walked by such need without intervening. Rather He was shown miracles to perform, and did them accordingly, in an attempt to show the Father to the Jews. However in 14:8,9 we see that the disciples had failed to perceive this 'showing' of the Father to them. Their belief and perception was very weak, but the Lord still worked with them to perfect what they had- just as He does with us.</p>


text:
<p>10:33&nbsp;<em>The Jews answered him: For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself as God-&nbsp;</em>John's Gospel records many interactions between the Lord and the Jews. Every single time they misunderstand Him and wrongly interpret His words and positions, often intentionally in order to make an accusation against Him. And so it is here. Trinitarians have to assume that this time, they got it right- that the Jews correctly interpreted Him; whereas the Lord Himself stated that they did not understand His words (8:43). Not only would such a reading be quite out of step with the emphasis upon the Jews' misunderstandings of the Lord, but He Himself goes on to demonstrate that their claim was inappropriate because men can be called "God", and He was only claiming to be the<em>&nbsp;Son</em>&nbsp;of God.</p>


text:
<p>10:34&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law: I said, you are gods?</em>- "Your law" is another example of how God’s law had become their law; His feasts were now "feasts of the Jews". They had hijacked His way and turned it into their own religion. The Lord Jesus is really saying ‘In the Old Testament men are called ‘gods’; I am saying I am the&nbsp;<em>Son</em>&nbsp;of God; so why are you getting so upset?’. The Lord Jesus is actually quoting from Psalms 82, where the judges of Israel were called ‘gods’. And yet the context is critical of those judges; to bear the name of 'God' didn’t mean one was acceptable to God. And it is no accident that the Lord chose to quote an example of where Israel's leaders bear God’s Name but are apostate. He was turning the tables on the Jewish leadership who were accusing Him of claiming to be God. It was in fact they who bore the name of God- and yet were to be condemned for not responding to the word /&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of God which had come to them.</p>


text:
<p>10:35&nbsp;<em>If he called those men gods, to whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken)</em>- As noted on :35, the apostate leaders of Israel were the ones who bore the Name of God. The word /&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of God had come to them in that as pictured in the prologue, the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of God in Jesus of Nazareth had 'come' to Israel and they had rejected it. The word of God came to the Old Testament judges of Israel the context of Psalms 82 in that they were to judge according to His word. The Lord may have in mind the LXX of <em><a href='B:140 19:6'>2Ch 19:6</a></em> where the judges of Israel are warned to judge rightly, because the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of God is with them, had been given them, to judge rightly. The same idea is found in <em><a href='B:50 1:17'>Deu 1:17</a></em> where again the judges of Israel are warned in the LXX to judge according to the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of God and not reject it in favour of human sympathies. In this sense perhaps <em><a href='B:650 4:13'>Heb 4:13</a></em> speaks of being judged by the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of God. In the person of the Lord Jesus, the&nbsp;<em>logos&nbsp;</em>of God had come to the judges of Israel- and they were refusing to judge rightly because of their own agendas and personal investments.</p><p>The Lord adds that "the scripture cannot be broken" or dissolved / unloosed, quoting a common Rabbinical saying found often in the Talmud. The Lord didn’t mean that 'the Bible doesn't contradict itself', because there are contradictory statements in the Bible, and God often teaches through paradox. And the Mosaic law part of Scripture has indeed been unloosed in Christ; the word is used by John of how the Lord unloosed the Sabbath legislation (5:18). The Lord had used the very same word in 7:23, arguing that in order not to break or unloose the Law of Moses, the Jews circumcised boys on the Sabbath- but thereby they broke or unloosed the laws about the Sabbath. So He is using their own misplaced ideals, quoting their own maxim about Scripture not being broken, appealing to their claim that such paradoxes could not be countenanced. If indeed there was to be no possible contradiction between Scripture verses, then they were trounced. Logically, the case was watertight. Bible verses, Scripture, state that men carry the Name of God. And condemn such men, because the&nbsp;<em>logos&nbsp;</em>of God came to them and they did not judge according to it. And so there was no reason to stone a man, even if he claimed to carry God’s Name. And further, the Lord was not stating that, rather was He claiming to be God’s Son. And further; by not judging according to the word /&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;which had come to them, it was they who were breaking or unloosing Scripture, leaving God’s word broken by them, in that they judged by the outward appearance rather than by the word which demanded right judgment on their part. And if indeed Scripture could not be broken, they could not walk away from the fact the word had come to them. The passage of time would never take away their responsibility to respond to that word.</p>


text:
<p>10:36- see on <em><a href='B:500 17:20'>Joh 17:20</a></em>.</p><p><em>Do you say of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world: You blaspheme, because I said: I am the Son of God?</em>- As noted on :34 and :35, the Lord was not claiming to be God; the accusation was misplaced and a wilful misinterpretation. His claim was to be the Son of God. However, that claim is nowhere recorded. It was insofar as the word was made flesh that He proclaimed the Father in a way that only the begotten Son could do. His life was therefore effectively the statement that He was God’s Son; but He never actually uses those words in any recorded speech in the Gospels.</p><p>We have here a brief and rare window into how the Lord perceived His life before age 30. The Lord Jesus says that He was "consecrated" as a priest or High Priest, and then sent into the world, at age 30. That's how He looked back and understood those 30 years of mundane village life- a process of consecration, of purifying, of preparation. He saw that none of the multitude of daily frustrations was without purpose- it was all part of His preparation. And perhaps we'll look back on these brief years of our humanity in the same way. But the point is that the Lord's mundane life before 30 was actually an active preparation of Him for service.</p>


text:
<p>10:37&nbsp;<em>If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not</em>- Here and in :38 the Lord seems to countenance and encourage a level of belief which was simply an acceptance that the Father was working through Him; even if they disliked Him personally, and His personality and Galilean background, or other trappings of His humanity, were simply too obnoxious to them. John's Gospel positively and generously reports that many "believed" in Him perhaps in this way. And yet John's Gospel also emphasizes the need to ultimately come out for Him, and to accept that He as a person, with all His humanity, was and is the only light of life. So I would conclude that the Lord was eager for them to at least accept His "works" or miracles as being done from God; for He knew that with that level of acceptance, He could go further and work with them towards a higher level of commitment. His work with Nicodemus would be a case in point.</p>


text:
<p>10:38&nbsp;<em>But if I do them, though you do not believe me, believe the works; that you may know and understand, that the Father is in me and I in the Father</em>- See on :37 for discussion of this apparently lower level of faith being encouraged. The Lord had just quoted Psalms 82 about these men, implying they as the judges of Israel stood condemned. But He didn’t want them to stay like that; He urges them toward at least some level of faith that the miracles He was doing were indeed from God.</p><p>This verse parallels knowing and believing, as in 17:8. <em><a href='B:500 10:38'>Joh 10:38</a></em> in the AV has the Lord Jesus beseeching men to "know and&nbsp;<em>believe</em>", whereas the RV/ NEV has "know and&nbsp;<em>understand</em>". Understanding was not therefore related to academic prowess in interpreting Scripture; the Lord was challenging their Jewish supposition that knowledge of itself was so critical. Instead He is saying that the real understanding or knowledge is belief in Him. To know Him is to believe in Him; that is the understanding required. And the illiterate masses could in any case not attain much academic understanding of Scripture at that time; but they could understand / know / believe in the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>10:39&nbsp;<em>Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands</em>- He wished to die at a specific point, at a Passover; and as stated in :17,18, He gave His life and it was not taken from Him. He therefore had the power to avoid arrest and stoning; the fact He used it at times like this underlines the fact that it was indeed His love and self-control which kept Him on the cross, rather than the nails. He could have come down from the cross and avoided it in the form it was. He had that power, and had exercised it at times like this. Truly He gave His life for us; it was not taken from Him.</p>


text:
<p>10:40&nbsp;<em>He went away again across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing at first, and there he remained</em>- Perhaps we see here the Lord's sentimentality, which is a legitimate part of human nature. He returned to the place where He was baptized, far from anywhere, to meditate. And again we note that "at the first", the beginning, is used in John for the beginning of the Lord's ministry, as made clear in the prologue.</p>


text:
<p>10:41- see on <em><a href='B:550 3:5'>Gal 3:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>Many came to him. And they said: John did no miracle, but everything that John said about this man was true</em>- Several times during his ministry Elijah did spectacular miracles to confirm the validity of his message:&nbsp;The fact that "John did no miracle" is perhaps recorded in order to show that he was not the supreme fulfilment of the prophet who would come "in the spirit and power of Elias" (<em><a href='B:490 1:17'>Luk 1:17</a></em>), i:e. doing similar miracles to those of Elijah:&nbsp;John could have been the Elijah prophet in fullness, for in a sense he was Elijah; but Israel would not. We see here how potentials are set up, which may never be realized because of our weakness or that of others. The Holy Spirit was upon John from the womb; but he did no miracle. Here we see encouragement for us- that the activity of the Spirit in our lives, which John's Gospel continually alludes to, doesn't require that we perform miracles. It is very wrong to assume as Pentecostalism does that the Spirit = miracles; just as it is so wrong to assume that because the miraculous gifts are no longer available, therefore the Holy Spirit is not given to men today. Perhaps this observation about John doing no miracle is purposefully included in John's Gospel because he was writing at a time when the miraculous gifts were disappearing, but there was an urgent need to accept the Holy Spirit in the sense of the internal strengthening which is critical to the Christian life.</p>


text:
<p>10:42&nbsp;<em>And many believed in him there</em>- The fact many came to Him (:41) and believed is maybe another example of how the Lord went away to seek solitude, but the crowds still followed Him. Perhaps hearing Him speak at the spot where He had been baptized inspired the crowds to also believe and be baptized. This remains the abiding power of the example He set in being baptized Himself.</p>


text:
<p>11:1&nbsp;<em>Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, of the village of Mary and her sister Martha</em>- "Now" can as well be translated "but". In this case, we have yet another example of how the Lord's plans were interrupted by human need. At the end of John 10, the Lord has gone for some break into Peraea, but now He must return to Judea. The disciples will comment upon this abrupt change of plan. And so we see that the Lord didn't have every detail of His ministry foreknown; He allowed human need to bring about changes of plan. Just as it seems He still does today.</p><p>The 'sickness' is emphasized (:1,2,3,6). Presumably he had only recently fallen sick (the Lord heard about it at this time, :4,6). Otherwise, the question is raised as to why he had not been cured when so many other "sick" people had been cured by the Lord and His disciples. Lazarus is introduced as a sick man from Bethany, which was also the home town of Martha and Mary. Why not introduce him immediately as the brother of Mary and Martha? Here we have an example of where the Gospel writers operate as a cameraman, focusing on a particular aspect of a person. The focus is hereby placed upon the man Lazarus and his human situation, he stands as an individual in need rather than being presented as someone defined by his family members. This is of course how the Lord looks upon each of us- as independent individuals, even if society looks at us in terms of our being defined by our relatives and social situation.</p>


text:
<p>11:2&nbsp;<em>And it was that Mary who had anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick</em>- The anointing of John 12 is after this; so presumably it is the anointing by the "woman in the city who was a sinner" of Luke 7 which is in view. And that woman was Mary, a repentant prostitute. The fact the Lord and His men often stayed at her family home in a poor out of town dormitory settlement "Bethany" = 'house of the poor' would surely have elicited all manner of gossip. A very interesting picture of Mary emerges when the pieces of the Biblical jigsaw are put together.</p>


text:
<p>11:3&nbsp;<em>The sisters therefore sent to him, saying</em>- The "therefore" may refer to the fact that it was that Mary who had anointed the Lord (:2). They knew that He knew and recognized her love for Him and total devotion to Him. On that basis they feel confident to ask His action for a third party. For Lazarus himself could not pray to the Lord- but He is open, as today, to the requests of third parties.</p><p><em>Lord, he whom you loves is sick</em>- This is&nbsp;<em>phileo,</em>&nbsp;whereas the Lord loved them with&nbsp;<em>agape;</em>&nbsp;see on :5. There was no request for specific action, just a statement of the problem. David’s Psalms so often simply inform God of the situation, rather than suggesting specific answers. In this case, the Lord read their unspoken desire- that death would not triumph. Although they had not articulated it, verbalization isn't required. The Lord read their spirit and responded. And this is why the events of John 11 are alluded to in Romans 8, where we read of the Lord's intercession for our groanings and unspoken desires through absorbing them into His own spirit.</p><p>John 11 several times presents Lazarus as the one the Lord loved. From now on in John, we read of the "disciple whom Jesus loved", who is clearly the author of John's Gospel. This gives rise to the speculation- and it is no more than that- that the beloved disciple was in fact Lazarus. A letter written by Clement referenced a young man named John Eleazar [a form of 'Lazarus'] whom Jesus raised from the dead, and this may account for the name. The gospel of John is centered in Judea, the place Lazarus lived, whereas the synoptic gospels, which do not mention the Lazarus story, center more on Galilee. John’s Gospel has previously identified Lazarus as the disciple whom Jesus loved: "Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus" (Jn. 11:5); and Lazarus is presented in Jn. 12:2 as sitting with Jesus at another such meal, being "one of them that sat at the table with him". The anonymity would be understandable in order to protect him from persecution as the Gospel accounts were distributed. Mark's Gospel likewise speaks of "a certain young man" (Mk. 14:51). Bullinger in The Companion Bible suggests this person was also Lazarus: “That this might be Lazarus, is probable: (1) because the Lord had returned to Bethany each preceding night of that week; (2) because Lazarus would be looking out; (3) because of the linen robe, betokening his social position; (4) and especially because he was wanted: "The chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death" (John 12:10). None of the apostles were arrested. Peter (though suspected) and another (John 18:15) were unmolested; (5) his name is not given here by Divine guidance, because Lazarus was probably still alive and therefore in danger”. If “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was in fact Lazarus, this sheds some light on the ending of John’s Gospel in Jn. 21:20-23. Some confusion is clarified over the supposition and rumour that “that disciple should not die". Because Lazarus had been resurrected by the Lord there was naturally a question as to whether he would die again- and that question is clarified. Note that it is John’s Gospel which alone records Lazarus’ resurrection, and it is that Gospel which understandably clarifies the question. In this case we need to revisit Jn. 21:24- “This is the disciple which testifies of these things”. The “things” in view would then not be the entire Gospel, but the incident by the sea, and it was Lazarus therefore who would’ve written John 21. That there was a Divinely inspired editorial hand at work in John’s Gospel is evident from the comment that “we know that his testimony [Lazarus', the eye witness] is rrue”. This suggestion about Lazarus explains the old question as to why John didn’t refer to himself more directly in his own Gospel and appears to present himself as anonymous. These are of course just suggestions, but if they appeal to you- then we have another non-member of the twelve present at the Last Supper. Joachim Jeremias is still likely unsurpassed in the amount of scholarly attention he gave to the Last Supper. And he concludes: “According to Mark 14 and Mt.26,20, Jesus was surrounded by his twelve disciples at the Last Supper. But we may not without further ado conclude from this that the women mentioned in Mark 15,40 and Luke 23,49-55 had been
excluded. An Oriental text does not allow this kind of argument from silence. Neither may we attach too much importance to the fact that this composition of attendance at the meal (Jesus and the Twelve) reported in Mark 14,17 is nowhere else expressly mentioned in the Gospels: it is certainly a pure coincidence. On the contrary, it is almost certain that during his ministry of preaching, Jesus had the
habit of taking his meals with the great circle of those listening to him. That follows from the warning given to hypocrites that it would serve them no purpose to be able to state that they had eaten at the same table as Jesus during his preachings in their country (Luke 13, 26ff). Mark reports that quite often Jesus was so pressed by the crowd around him that is was impossible for him to take his food (Mk. 3,20; 6,31). Often, and especially on sabbaths (Mk. 1,29-31; Lk. 14,1), Jesus was invited to meals with other participants (Mk. 14,3; Lk. 7,36;11,37; John 2,1-11). Occasionally he himself entertained invited guests (Lk.15,1f; compare Jn. 1,39). On one occasion he even had a great number of invited guests (Mk. 2,15). The characterisation of Jesus as ‘a glutton and drunkard, friend of Publicans and sinners’ (Mt. 11,19) confirms the fact that meals in large assemblies happened frequently. Often during his travelling around, it was quite natural for Jesus to take his meals surrounded by his disciples and fans... (Mk. 6,32-44; 8,14; Jn. 4,8.31;21,12)”.</p>


text:
<p>11:4- see on <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:32'>Joh 13:32</a></em>.</p><p><em>But when Jesus heard it, he said: This sickness is not to death</em>- But it obviously was, humanly speaking. His point would later become clear- that death is now reinterpreted by Him, and is to be understood differently by those in Him. Death means something radically different for us, in comparison to unbelievers. Again we see how the Lord is using language and seeing things differently to those around Him. He was trying to get the disciples to perceive a difference between the death of a believer in hope of resurrection, and "death" in the sense of total, permanent loss of existence. For He goes on to say plainly that "Lazarus is dead". Through this apparent contradiction, the Lord was seeking to help them develop a realization that death is not ultimately death for those associated with Him. But as so often, the disciples failed to catch on. Yet later in the discourse, He again seeks to encourage Martha to believe that His promises of life beyond death actually have application in this life too.</p><p><em>But for the glory of God</em>- The glory of the Son of God was and is the glory of God. The Lord stated that the sickness of Lazarus “is not unto death, but for the glory of God”. That sounds like a predictive statement. But it seems to have been conditional. For one thing, that sickness did lead to the death of Lazarus. But notice the Lord’s later comment to Martha when her faith wavered in the possibility of immediate resurrection for Lazarus: “Said I not unto you, that if you would believe, you would see the glory of God?” (<em><a href='B:500 11:40'>Joh 11:40</a></em>). But the Lord isn’t recorded as actually having said that. What He had said was that the sickness of Lazarus would reveal the glory of God, in a way as dramatic as an Old Testament theophany, when God’s glory was literally revealed in visible terms. But He had intended Martha to understand the conditionality of that statement- i:e. ‘If you can believe Martha, Lazarus can be saved from that sickness and its effects, and thus glory will be given to God’. But again, we see the Lord’s grace. She didn’t have that faith. She was concerned that even the taking away of the grave stone would release the odour of her brother’s dead body. But Jesus didn’t say ‘Well Martha, no faith on your part, no resurrection of Lazarus, no glory to God this time’. By grace alone, He raised Lazarus. He overrode the conditionality. And so it must happen so often, and so tragically unperceived, in our lives.</p><p><em>That thereby the Son of God may be glorified</em>- This is very much the language of the glorification of God’s Son through His death and resurrection (<em><a href='B:500 12:23'>Joh 12:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:31'>Joh 13:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>). But the essence of His experience on the cross was worked out in His life before that time came. Perhaps this was why the Lord specifically waited two days where He was, knowing that the time it took to get to Bethany would occupy another day, so that Lazarus would be resurrected after three days in the grave wrapped in graveclothes, as He was to be. Perhaps His reference to "twelve hours" and walking through a day or night is to be understood as alluding to how far away they literally were from Bethany (:9). The "four days" in the grave of :17 could refer to two full days and two partial days. The Lord wanted to see Himself in Lazarus, and He arranged situations to that end; just as He desires to see Himself in us all, and allows suffering and delays His responses to that end. This is the essence of Christianity- being made into the&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>&nbsp;or form / image of the crucified, resurrected and victorious Christ; being made conformable unto His death, that the power of His new life might be seen in us (<em><a href='B:570 3:10'>Phi 3:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>11:5&nbsp;<em>Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus</em>- This is&nbsp;<em>agape</em>. The sisters had said that Jesus 'loved' Lazarus, using&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>&nbsp;(:3 "He whom you love"). They considered Him a friend with&nbsp;<em>phileo&nbsp;</em>love, but He actually loved them with&nbsp;<em>agape</em>&nbsp;love. We may consider the Lord Jesus to be on our side because He has fellowshipped with us and helped us out in times of need. But the essence of His love is&nbsp;<em>agape</em>, the love of the cross, so far above how we perceive His love for us in more material, earthly terms.</p>


text:
<p>11:6&nbsp;<em>When he heard that Lazarus was sick, he therefore stayed two days longer in the place where he was-&nbsp;</em>The "therefore" perhaps relates to His&nbsp;<em>agape</em>&nbsp;love for them introduced in :5. It was because of this love that He allowed Lazarus to die; because He had a longer term, loving plan for their ultimate salvation. Spirituality can affect third parties; in this case, Lazarus was raised because of Martha and Mary’s faith. And so it can be that our prayers and intercessions for others can bring about some degree of salvation for them which otherwise wouldn’t happen. We also see that the Lord can delay things, not least His second coming, because He is working along with human freewill in order to achieve a greater glory for the Father. His delay in responding to prayer and entreaty is not because of inattention or deafness; rather is it because He has a far wider purpose, to an even greater glory than providing instant response to our needs.</p>


text:
<p>11:7&nbsp;<em>Then after this, he said to the disciples: Let us go into Judea again</em>- He had specifically withdrawn from Judea because the Jews sought to kill Him, and His game plan was to die not then but at the Passover. Remember that He gave His life of Himself in His own time and of His volition (10:17,18).</p><p>Although the disciples marvelled at His miracles at the time He did them, they seem to have doubted at times whether He was really that super-human. When He said “Let us go up to Judaea again”, they respond like He is crazy: “Goest&nbsp;<em>thou</em>&nbsp;you singular there again?” (AV), they respond. They feared the Jews would kill Him, even though they had seen Him walk through the Nazareth crowd who tried to throw Him over a cliff.</p>


text:
<p>11:8&nbsp;<em>The disciples said to him: Rabbi, only a few days ago the Jews wanted to stone you; and you want to go there again?</em>- The implication of how the disciples reason is that they were unaware that Lazarus was seriously ill. Perhaps the messenger delivered the message to the Lord Jesus alone. He didn’t share the news with the disciples. They would've wondered what His game plan was, making them stay two more days where they were. We likewise don't know His full game plan with us, and there are inexplicable delays and sitting around in the same place, in various ways; but one day we shall understand why this was. And even in this life, as in this case, we may come to understand later. Although they had seen the Lord walk through aggressive crowds and lynching situations, they feared that He would die. We see here how they had zoned out to the Lord's frequent predictions of His upcoming death. Rather should they have been wondering whether these words were the sign that the Lord's predicted death was now to happen. But like Peter in Matthew 16, they wish to discourage Him from death.</p>


text:
<p>11:9&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered: Are there not twelve hours in the day? If a man walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world</em>- The Lord as a labourer alludes to the idea of a working man working a 12 hour day. His idea is: 'I have not yet reached the end of My working-day, and so can safely continue the work I came to do. The night comes, My death, when I can no longer work; but it hasn't yet come’. And if they walked with Him in His light, they would likewise be unharmed by this proposed journey into hostile territory. </p><p>The Lord is replying to the disciples' apparent concern that&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;is risking His life by going again into Judea. But His response challenges&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp;fears, by assuring them that if they 'walk in the light', "the light of the world", they will 'not stumble'. All these ideas are used elsewhere in John concerning the walk of&nbsp;<em>the disciple</em>&nbsp;in the light of Christ, the light of the world. He thereby perceives that their concern about&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;suffering and death is actually because they are concerned about themselves. Elsewhere, Peter expresses concern about the Lord's prediction of His death, that "this shall not be unto you" (<em><a href='B:470 16:22'>Mat 16:22</a></em>). But again the Lord's response is to encourage Peter to follow Him, carrying His cross. Our barrier in considering the physicalities of the Lord's crucifixion may likewise not simply be because we love Him and fear to see again His sufferings; but because unconsciously, we realize that His death is to be ours. And we would rather not focus upon His death, for it is to be ours. The Lord is encouraging them here that if they are focused upon Him, walking in the light of Himself, then they will not stumble spiritually, and can also confidently walk into Judea, to Jerusalem and even to death itself, knowing that most importantly, they will not spiritually stumble. No test will be so great as to make us fall spiritually: "God is faithful, and He will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation He will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (<em><a href='B:530 10:13'>1Co 10:13</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>11:10&nbsp;<em>But if a man walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him</em>- "In him" shows the Lord has in view the internal light in the heart, the presence of His Spirit amongst those who accepted Him. In John's letters, there are many allusions back to John's Gospel. This is an example. The reason for the connections is because the gospel of John is as it were a transcript of John's preaching of the Gospel; it became written down as a text for the basic instruction of John's converts. Once communities of believers had been baptized and established on this basis, John then wrote letters to them. And it is understandable that he would base his appeals for Christian living on the facts of the Gospel message which the converts had first learnt in the Gospel of John. The allusion to <em><a href='B:500 11:10'>Joh 11:10</a></em> is in <em><a href='B:690 2:10-11'>1Jn 2:10-11</a></em>: "He that loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he goes, because the darkness has blinded his eyes". The context of <em><a href='B:500 11:10'>Joh 11:10</a></em> is about a beloved brother, Lazarus, brother of sisters Martha and Mary. John is surely making the point that if the Lord and the disciples had not gone to raise Lazarus, because they feared for their own wellbeing, then this would effectively have been hating their brother. Here we see powerfully presented the full extent of sins of omission; to not respond to the need of Lazarus, citing fear of the Jews, would be to effectively hate that brother. And we all likely need such exhortation as to the real import of omitting to do what we could. The Lord walked those 12 hours to Bethany with the disciples following, willing if necessary to "die with Him". And the context in 1 John 2 also alludes to this: "He that says he abides in him, ought also walk even as he walked" (<em><a href='B:690 2:6'>1Jn 2:6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>11:11&nbsp;<em>These things he spoke, and after this he said to them: Our friend Lazarus is fallen asleep, but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep</em>- Sleep is a common figure for death (Mt. 27:52; Acts 7:50; 13:36; 1 Cor. 7:39; 11:30; 15:6,18; 1 Thess. 4:13; 2 Pet. 3:4). 'Cemetery' means literally a sleeping place. I suggest on :19 that the presence of "the Jews" at the funeral suggests Lazarus had not 'come out' for the cause of Jesus as he might have done. But the Lord still considered Lazarus as His "friend", a term used for those He accepted as His disciples (<em><a href='B:500 15:13-15'>Joh 15:13-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:710 1:14'>3Jn 1:14</a></em>).</p><p>Jesus believed that He had already raised Lazarus back to life and so He was now asking him to come out of the grave. Presumably there were just seconds in it- He raised Lazarus, and then, invited Lazarus to come out. Jesus spoke to Lazarus as a person speaks to another living person. He didn’t invite the immortal soul of Lazarus to reunite with the body. He raised Lazarus from the dead- that was the miracle. Jesus said that He 'awoke Lazarus out of sleep'- not reunited a 'soul' with a body.</p>


text:
<p>11:12&nbsp;<em>The disciples replied to him: Lord, if he is fallen asleep, he will recover</em>- The Lord Jesus speaks of sleeping in death, and going to resurrect Lazarus; they understand 'sleep' as literal sleeping, which they think will cure Lazarus. Time and again, we sense how the Lord's thinking was out of step with those closest to Him. His mother asks Him to make more wine, and He replies that His hour of death has not yet come; she thinks of literal wine, whereas His thought is on the blood which wine represented. He tells Nicodemus to be born again, and the man thinks He means entering again into his mother's tubes. He tells the disciples that He has food to eat which they don't know about, referring to the work He was doing with the Samaritan woman- and the disciples think someone has brought Him literal food without their knowledge. As the Son of God, the Lord was of super high intelligence, and this was particularly acutely honed when it came to spiritual things. Those with above average IQ frequently experience frustration, angst and existential loneliness as they have to exist amongst the mass of smaller minded folk who comprise humanity generally. Yet the Lord clearly rose above all that, because despite this spiritual and intellectual distance, He was naturally attractive to children and to the poorest and simplest of society. And in this He sets us an example, if we struggle with a sense of distance between ourselves and others. See on 11:14&nbsp;<em>Then Jesus said to them plainly</em>.</p>


text:
<p>11:13&nbsp;<em>Now Jesus had spoken of Lazarus' death; but they thought that he spoke of Lazarus taking rest in sleep</em>- See on :12. Constantly, the figurative is taken literally by them, and they only think of the secular rather than the spiritual. This was just as the Jewish leaders did. So it is not that the disciples understood the Lord better than they did; they had the same misunderstandings as the Jews, but somehow believed in Him. This observation is proof enough that intellectual clarity of understanding is not the same as faith.</p>


text:
<p>11:14&nbsp;<em>Then Jesus said to them plainly: Lazarus is dead</em>- See on :12&nbsp;<em>Lord, if he is fallen asleep, he will recover:&nbsp;</em>Was there a sense of frustration in the tone of the Lord, that they hadn't 'got it' when He had spoken of Lazarus sleeping? I like to think not, but rather the gentleness of a parent explaining something a second time but in more simple language. It makes a good exercise to think what tone of voice the Lord spoke in whenever we read His reported speech. We also sense a relief amongst the disciples, that now their Lord was talking to them on their own level. We get the same feeling at <em><a href='B:500 16:25'>Joh 16:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:29'>Joh 16:29</a></em>: "These things have I spoken to you in figurative language. The hour comes, when I shall no longer speak to you in figurative language, but shall show you plainly about the Father... His disciples said: Now you speak plainly". John's Gospel records the Lord speaking in "figurative language", to the point that the Jews demanded He tell them "plainly" whether He was Messiah (<em><a href='B:500 10:24'>Joh 10:24</a></em>); the other Gospels tend to focus on His 'plain speaking', and the same word is found in <em><a href='B:480 8:32'>Mar 8:32</a></em> for how Jesus "spoke plainly" (AV "openly"). In this sense, the Lord insisted that He had 'spoken plainly' to the Jewish world (<em><a href='B:500 18:20'>Joh 18:20</a></em>). Higher critics like to imagine that the words of Jesus recorded in John were never spoken by Him because they are so different in tone to those recorded in the Synoptics. It could appear that we are being presented with two different personalities, the Jesus of John and the Jesus of the Synoptics. I don't accept this; rather does the evidence in John suggest that He spoke in two different styles, "figurative" which John tends to record and "plainly", and the disciples struggled to understand the "figurative" parts. Just as we do. But see on :16.</p>


text:
<p>11:15- see on <em><a href='B:490 8:27'>Luk 8:27</a></em>.</p><p><em>And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, so that you may believe</em>- The Lord would weep at the grave; yet He also had joy at the prospect of God's glory being achieved. We see an insight into His humanity; for we can have the emotions of joy and sorrow at one and the same time. Again we see the psychological credibility of the record. We will note on :33 the Lord's emotions of anger and sorrow at the same time. </p><p>The Lord's joy was that the disciples would believe. So His joy was that He had not been there, because He knew that His resurrection of Lazarus would develop their faith. And He did this even though He wept for the loss of His friend Lazarus which was temporarily required for this.</p><p>So the Lord Jesus seems to have purposefully not gone to Lazarus immediately, knowing that the longer he remained dead, the greater would be the impression made upon the disciples when they saw the miracle He planned to do (<em><a href='B:500 11:15'>Joh 11:15</a></em>). He was even glad that Lazarus died- even though He wept over the loss of His friend. Thus His joy, which He invites us to share, is not mere personal joy- it was the joy for the sake of others’ spiritual growth:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord knew that His love of Lazarus was such that had He been present, He would have stopped Lazarus from dying. We have here another insight into His humanity. He knew that His emotions would have led Him to do the cure. From a distance He still could have cured Lazarus, for distance was no barrier to His healings, His physical presence wasn't required (<em><a href='B:490 7:7-10'>Luk 7:7-10</a></em>). So the Lord is recognizing that His human senses and emotions would have been such that He would have cured Lazarus, but because they were not exercised so strongly, by reason of His not being physically present, He therefore restrained Himself and allowed Lazarus to die. And He was "glad" about that, because the resurrection of Lazarus would result in their 'believing'. Again we see how there are levels of faith. The disciples already believed; but He saw that their faith would increment to another level on witnessing the resurrection of Lazarus. Martha knew that if Jesus had been physically present, her brother would have been healed: "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died" (:21). We can understand this as meaning that she knew Him well enough to know that His pity would have been so deeply aroused by the sight of the terminally ill Lazarus that He would have cured Him. In this we see another insight into His humanity. His followers certainly didn’t think He was God Himself. But see another possibility on :21.</p><p><em>Nevertheless let us go to him</em>- The meaning of the "nevertheless" is hard to find, unless we follow the reasoning presented above about physical presence; see 11:15&nbsp;<em>I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, so that you may believe</em>. Although the Lord's physical presence wasn't required for the miracle, nevertheless, He wanted to go there and raise Lazarus in front of them all- "so that you may believe". In this case, as often in the Gospels, the Lord was speaking a word more to Himself than to His listeners; the "nevertheless" was relevant to His own deep awareness that He could merely say the word, and Lazarus would rise from the dead. The language of "let us go to him" implies that His dead friend was alive; which is how He looks at all who have fallen asleep in Him. For all live unto God (<em><a href='B:520 4:17-18'>Rom 4:17-18</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>11:16&nbsp;<em>Thomas therefore, who is called Didymus, said to his fellow disciples: Let us also go, that we may die with him</em>- "Didymus" can simply mean that he was a twin, but in the deeper, more figurative background of John's gospel we wonder whether this simply means that he was twin minded (James 1:8; 4:8). Faith and unbelief, understanding and misunderstanding, were within him at one and the same time. Here we have an example; on one hand he fails to understand the Lord, but on the other, he is willing to "die with Him". </p><p>See on :14. There is no record that the Lord corrected the disciples’ misunderstanding that He was going to commit suicide in order to “go unto” Lazarus. He let events take their course and allowed the disciples to reflect upon the situation in order to come to a truer understanding of His words. He was willing to accept their simple devotion, despite their lack of understanding. And surely He looks at misunderstanding folk today in the same way; and that includes all of us in some ways.</p><p>When the Lord spoke of going to Lazarus, they thought He was going to commit suicide. They hoped He would redeem Israel in glory, there and then. But such was their devotion to Him as their Saviour, even though they didn’t understand how He was going to work it out, that Thomas solemnly ordered them, as they huddled together out of the Lord's earshot: "Let us also go, that we may die with him" (<em><a href='B:500 11:16'>Joh 11:16</a></em>). I imagine dear Peter solemnly nodding in agreement, thinking of his wife and dear children back in that fisherman's cottage. But he was serving for nothing, for sheer love of his Lord. And he was prepared to die for Him, even if it meant receiving nothing of the present benefits he thought Jesus of Nazareth might bring for him. And yet the Lord demands such devotion from all of us. The tired servant can labour all day for Him, but immediately he returns, the Lord expects him to&nbsp;<em>immediately</em>&nbsp;prepare a meal, and doesn't expect to thank us. As it happens, He elsewhere intimated that He will praise us at the judgment, He Himself will serve us (<em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>). But the attitude of serving for nothing, for no thanks even, must be with us now, in this life.</p><p><em>"</em>Let us also go, that we may die with him" is yet another example of the disciples being out of step with their Lord, understanding Him on a more human, literal level when He was speaking on another level. But John's Gospel was written, under inspiration, by John. By recording all these examples of the different levels between the Lord and His followers, he is expressing what the Synoptic writers state more directly- that the disciples did not understand. And this was and is a great comfort to those encountering the Gospel for the first time today. Complete understanding is not required of disciples, but rather simple faith. There is no record here that the Lord corrected their misunderstanding, indeed in most of the incidents where they misunderstand, He doesn't specifically correct them, but rather left time and the Father's further leading to clarify the point to those who were thoughtful and reflective. The same can be seen in His attitude to the language of demons.</p>


text:
<p>11:17&nbsp;<em>So when Jesus came, he found that Lazarus had already been in his tomb for four days</em>- "He found" could possibly suggest that He was unaware Lazarus had been dead so long. Perhaps He had intended to perform the resurrection three and not four days after the death of Lazarus, in order to encourage them all to believe that He too after three days would rise again. But see on :4&nbsp;<em>That thereby the Son of God may be glorified:&nbsp;</em>The period could refer to two full days and two part days.</p>


text:
<p>11:18&nbsp;<em>Now Bethany was near to Jerusalem, about three kilometres away</em>- This is the reason why many of "the Jews" came to the funeral (:19), and confirms our suggestion under :19 that "the Jews" were the Jewish leadership, specifically the Jerusalem leadership.</p>


text:
<p>11:19&nbsp;<em>And many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them concerning their brother-&nbsp;</em> Literally "from among the Jews". "The Jews" refers to the Jewish leadership, and suggests that Lazarus had not been cast out of the Synagogue. Perhaps Lazarus had not stood up for Jesus as he might have done and was therefore still popular amongst the Jewish leadership; yet still the Lord loved him. Remember that the disciples feared going to Judea because "the Jews" sought to kill the Lord, and they only went to Bethany because they were willing to die with the Lord there.</p>


text:
<p>11:20&nbsp;<em>Martha, when she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him</em>- Literally "Jesus is coming". They believed in His coming but considered it too late to change anything- just as many in the first audience of John's gospel. This is all very much the language of the Lord's second coming especially as described in <em><a href='B:470 25:6'>Mat 25:6</a></em>: "Look The bridegroom Come out to meet him". John's Gospel continually repeats the Synoptic material, but presents it differently. And the similarity of language in this case leads us to think that the connection is intentional. That Mary 'stayed' would therefore appear to reflect badly upon her. The parable of <em><a href='B:470 25:6'>Mat 25:6</a></em> is about the response of different groups of&nbsp;<em>young women</em>, and both Martha and Mary were presumably young, unmarried women. Perhaps Mary simply plays the role of the foolish virgins who didn’t respond immediately, but came later. The resurrection of Lazarus was clearly a foretaste of the resurrection at the last day: "Jesus said to her: Your brother shall rise again. Martha said to him: I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life. He that believes on me, though he die, yet shall he live". The similarities with the last day judgment scenario are so many that it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that they are being consciously referred to.</p><p><em>Jesus was coming</em>- Literally, "Jesus is coming". The present tense suggests this is to be read as reported speech. Again, the perspective of the Gospel writers can be seen to change very quickly.</p><p><em>But Mary stayed in the house</em>- Luke notes the tension between Martha and Mary over domestic issues. She perhaps remained in the house because she wished to meet the Lord without her dominant sister. Or perhaps the whole incident is being recorded as a foretaste of the Lord's resurrection; some disciples ran out to see the risen Lord whilst some remained in the house.</p>


text:
<p>11:21&nbsp;<em>Martha said to Jesus: Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died</em>- This level of faith, which required the literal presence of the Lord in order to perform healing, contrasts unfavourably with the faith of others, even Gentiles, who believed that the Lord's physical presence was not required for His miracles to be performed. But the Gospel records present the key believers as having been weak in faith during the Lord's ministry- surely as encouragement to others to believe. But we see here the growth in Martha's faith, just as we did in the encounter with the Samaritan woman and the man born blind. At this point she believes the Lord would have healed Lazarus had He been present. Mary uses the same phrase in :32; they had obviously discussed this and said these words to each other several times. But she proceeds in :22 to dare to believe the Lord could ask God for a resurrection "even now", now Lazarus was dead.</p>


text:
<p>11:22&nbsp;<em>And even now, I know that whatever you shall ask of God, God will give you</em>-</p><p>Martha understood the Lord's power to help, and she prayed to Him (<em><a href='B:500 11:22'>Joh 11:22</a></em> cp. 16:23). But she didn’t make the obvious, blindingly desperate request which filled her heart: to bring Lazarus back to her. She simply stated that the Lord could do all things. And she knew He would read her spirit, and see what she wanted.</p><p>"Even now" hints that she did wonder if the Lord could even now raise him. Martha's hope that the Lord just might raise Lazarus was not based simply upon a vague whim that the Lord might just do her a favour this time, on this issue. "Even now",&nbsp;<em>kai nun</em>, was a phrase she had previously heard on the lips of the Lord as He sought to explain that the realities of His future Kingdom were also capable of some present experience: "But the hour comes&nbsp;<em>and now is&nbsp;kai nun</em>, when true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit" (<em><a href='B:500 4:23'>Joh 4:23</a></em>). And most significantly <em><a href='B:500 5:25'>Joh 5:25</a></em>: "The hour comes and&nbsp;<em>now is</em>, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live". So her vaguely expressed request was actually a result of her attention to the Spirit words of the Lord Jesus. And thus she was in harmony with the movement of the Spirit, and the Lord's Spirit was therefore aligned with her spirit in intercession before the Father- as Romans 8 makes explicit. The powerful lesson is that prayer is heard not because of how we verbalize things, the word choice we achieve- for that would be some kind of paganism, whereby certain words elicit Divine responses. As we read in this context in Romans 8, "we know not how to pray as we ought". "The Lord the Spirit" (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> RV) looks upon the spirit, the deepest heart desires, and responds to them rather than to our clumsy attempts to formulate those deep desires as words and sentences.</p><p>She wasn't asking for a resurrection, she left it to the Lord to decide how best to respond; and in doing so reveals a parade example to us all. Clearly it was her unspoken, vaguely conceived and unverbalized desire that the Lord would raise Lazarus immediately. And the Lord (as explained in Romans 8) took this unspoken desire of her spirit and revealed it to the Father. Romans 8 says that He does the same for us today.</p><p>"Whatever you shall ask of God, God will give you" are the very words the Lord elsewhere used urging&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;that whatever&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>ask will be&nbsp;<em>given</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 21:22'>Mat 21:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:23'>Joh 16:23</a></em>). Perhaps her emphasis was upon the word "you". Martha clearly felt an inadequacy in prayer. Like us, she wanted the Lord to do it all for her. The whole story reveals that such feelings of inadequacy are unnecessary. Because her spirit, her deepest heart desires, were what the Lord would raise Lazarus, and this was indeed read by the Lord as prayer.</p>


text:
<p>11:23&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to her: Your brother shall rise again</em>- The Lord is purposefully ambiguous about the timing of the possible resurrection. He could have meant 'right away', or, 'at the last day'. That ambiguity was to elicit a response from Mary, to make her too wonder what His reference was to. And the Lord leaves things hanging at times in our interactions with Him and reading of His word- in order to exercise our own faith and reflection.</p>


text:
<p>11:24&nbsp;<em>Martha said to him: I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day</em>- First century Judaism generally believed in immortal souls, passage to Abraham's bosom etc. The fact Martha didn’t believe this was surely due to her attention to the Lord's teaching about the resurrection of the body. She is quoting verbatim the Lord's laboured emphasis upon how He would "raise up" believers in Him "at the last day"- the same Greek words are used (<em><a href='B:500 6:39-40'>Joh 6:39-40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:44'>Joh 6:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:54'>Joh 6:54</a></em>). Perhaps Martha had been present at the incident in John 6, or probably the Lord repeated His teachings in different places, and she had heard this teaching and absorbed it into her deepest belief system.</p><p>But the Lord was perhaps hoping that His ambiguity would provoke her to state that she believed the Lord could raise Lazarus immediately. But she didn’t quite get there, and so the Lord takes here there in :25 by speaking of how He&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;the resurrection.</p>


text:
<p>11:25&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life</em>- Here and in :26, the Lord seeks to develop the idea that the language of latter day resurrection and salvation at "the last day" is in fact applicable to life in Him right now. Under :22&nbsp;<em>Even now</em>&nbsp;I suggested that Martha had heard the Lord's discourses on this theme earlier, and was even quoting from them. But now He asks her whether she really believes it- because if she does, then she may indeed entertain the idea that it was possible to raise Lazarus immediately.</p><p><em>He that believes on me, though he die, yet shall he live</em>- A repeat of the Lord's teaching in <em><a href='B:500 6:58'>Joh 6:58</a></em> about how those who eat the Christ manna shall live and not die. Martha had already alluded to His teaching on that occasion in her reference to being raised again at the last day. Now the Lord is trying to take her further, as if to say: 'And what did I go on to say? I spoke later on in that same discourse about 'life' in Me as a present experience... that ought to confirm your hope and faith that I could raise Lazarus even now'. Likewise the Lord's description of Himself in this verse as "the life" uses a phrase only found in <em><a href='B:500 6:51'>Joh 6:51</a></em>, where He speaks of His flesh giving "the life" to the believers. And this is how He seeks to work with us, always leading us on, and so patiently and in such hope that we will 'get it'. We read or hear His word, and then we encounter another part of His word which is Him gently prodding us to reflect upon the word we previously heard or read. This all helps us understand why regular Bible reading and reflection on His word is such an important part of our daily walk with Him.</p>


text:
<p>11:26&nbsp;<em>And whoever lives and believes on me shall never die-</em>&nbsp;"Lives" therefore comes before 'believing'. Yet in the preceding verses, the Lord has spoken of 'living' as if He meant 'life at the last day as a result of resurrection': "... he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. But the eternal life, the kind of life we shall eternally live, can be lived right now. "Whoever lives" therefore refers to whoever has His life in them and continues that life of believing.</p><p>He is suggesting that this 'life' can be lived now, and if we have it, and continue to believe in Him, then we will literally "never die". Again, the Lord is encouraging Martha to believe that in some sense the resurrection life can be experienced now. And He is doing this, in the immediate context, to deepen her faith in the Lord's possibility to raise Lazarus to life- so that He could indeed raise Lazarus from the dead in response to her faith, rather than solely from the motive of His own personal compassion. And He works in this same multi-level way with millions of people simultaneously... the extent of His activity is breath-taking.</p><p><em>Do you believe this?</em>- Is not the implication that Lazarus was raised partly because of&nbsp;<em>her</em>&nbsp;faith…?</p><p>And yet when asked whether she believed the Lord could raise the dead right now, she slips back to simply stating she believed in Jesus as the Christ (:27). And that imperfect faith was as it were added to by the Lord, to achieve the immediate resurrection of Lazarus.</p>


text:
<p>11:27&nbsp;<em>She said to him: Yes, Lord. I have believed</em>- Implying she had taken a one-time specific act of faith; the very specific confession of faith which John's Gospel was seeking to elicit in its audience.</p><p><em>I have believed you are the Christ</em>- This is in answer to the question as to whether she believed that "He that believes on me, though he die, yet shall he live" (:25,26). She still dare not make the specific statement that she believes in life after death. On one hand, we could read her answer negatively, as if she fails to make the answer the Lord was trying to elicit- that yes, she believed in Him as the resurrection and the life, both now and at the last day. On another hand, we could read her answer positively, in that instead of saying she believed in a future gift of life, both in this life and the next, she simply says that she believes in Jesus as the Christ, making no presumption about getting any personal blessing out of that belief, and content with whatever He in His wisdom may give her. We noted this when considering how the sisters simply informed the Lord of Lazarus' grave sickness, without presuming to ask for His specific resolution of the issue (:3).</p><p><em>The Son of God, He that is to come into the world</em>- Every believer likewise 'comes into the world' (<em><a href='B:500 1:9'>Joh 1:9</a></em> - the same Greek words are used). There is therefore no requirement to interpret this as meaning that the Lord Jesus personally pre-existed and literally came from Heaven to this earth. The Lord had spoken of how He 'came into the world' (<em><a href='B:500 3:19'>Joh 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:39'>Joh 9:39</a></em>), and again Martha is quoting His words. Whilst Mary is framed as the one who loved hearing the Lord's words, clearly Martha likewise loved His words and based her faith upon them.</p>


text:
<p>11:28&nbsp;<em>And when she had said this, she went away, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Teacher is here</em>- Or, the Master. A nice insight into how the earliest disciples spoke of the Lord Jesus to each other when not in His presence.</p><p><em>And calls you</em>- The same word is used for how the Lord 'called' Lazarus out of the grave (12:17). This develops the theme that the essence of resurrection happens in the Lord's interactions with those He calls to Himself. See on :25 and :26. The call to Mary was therefore in essence the same call to Lazarus, to come from death to life.</p>


text:
<p>11:29&nbsp;<em>And she, when she heard it, arose quickly and went to him</em>- As noted on :28, the response to the call in this life reflects our response to the call to life in the last day. Hearing the call, quickly responding and coming to the Lord immediately is surely being presented as a template for all John's audience to follow. The hearers would have been challenged by these words to themselves respond- just as we should be.</p>


text:
<p>11:30&nbsp;<em>(Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still in the place where Martha met him)</em>- All the communication being through messengers, privacy would have been hard to achieve. The Lord wanted to meet Martha and Mary alone, as far as possible, because He sought to develop their faith away from "the Jews" who were swamping the home. And He was also aware that "the Jews" sought to kill Him; that may have been another consideration, or at least, He was being sensitive to the fears of the disciples.</p>


text:
<p>11:31&nbsp;<em>The Jews then who were with her in the house and were consoling her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up quickly and went out, followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there</em>- This means that the tomb was located the same side of the village as where the Lord entered. He was therefore left waiting somewhere near the tomb. Therefore the question 'Where have you laid him?' (:34) was likely rhetorical.</p>


text:
<p>11:32- see on <em><a href='B:490 19:42'>Luk 19:42</a></em>.</p><p><em>Therefore, when Mary came to where Jesus was and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying to him: Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died</em>- She repeats the words of Martha, suggesting they had said this to one another in conversation beforehand. And she too displays the limited faith that assumes only the Lord's literal presence could achieve miracles, and that healing from a distance was impossible. The way she repeats the same words as her sister, and with the same understandable anger&nbsp;/ frustration with the Lord that He had not come quicker for the messenger would have returned with the news that the Lord had not followed him back to Bethany immediately... this all adds to the sense that we are indeed reading words actually spoken, and feelings really felt.</p>


text:
<p>11:33&nbsp;<em>When Jesus saw her weeping</em>- This is the same word used for the same? women weeping before the stone which covered the Lord's tomb (<em><a href='B:500 20:11'>Joh 20:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:13'>Joh 20:13</a></em>). Clearly the Lord saw the whole scene as pointing forward to His own death and resurrection, and He sought to use the similarities to inculcate faith in His resurrection:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And the Jews also weeping who had come with her</em>- The grief of "the Jews", even though they "sought to kill Him", still stirred parallel emotions within the Lord. For He had our nature, and such sympathetic response to others' grief is natural. And yet the Lord felt this psychological response even for His enemies; and in this we see the core love for them which was at His heart. His ability to respond even now to our emotions and tears, as He did toward Stephen at his time of dying, all makes Him a living Lord and matchless mediator.</p><p><em>He groaned in the spirit and was disturbed</em>- Their weeping, just like ours, provokes a reflection deeply within the Lord. He groaned "in Himself" (:38); He took their grief deeply within Himself. This is again a reflection of His humanity; for it is normal to absorb the emotions of those we love deep into ourselves. But He is the Son of God, and <em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em> clearly alludes to this incident by saying that "the Spirit" (a title of the Lord Jesus, "the Lord the Spirit" of <em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>) intercedes even now with groanings which cannot be uttered. He is the same today as yesterday. The Greek translated "disturbed" is twice used in John of the Lord's feelings as He faced the cross (<em><a href='B:500 12:27'>Joh 12:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:21'>Joh 13:21</a></em>). So clearly did He see the whole incident as pointing forward to His own death and resurrection. And it was an existentially lonely feeling, because He uses the same word to urge His followers: "Let not&nbsp;<em>your</em>&nbsp;and this perhaps is where the emphasis was be troubled" (<em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:27'>Joh 14:27</a></em>). This deep troubling / disturbance was felt uniquely by the Lord. We need to be aware that the Lord knew what He would do- He knew that within maybe as little as ten minutes, the sisters would be ecstatic with joy as they met their resurrected brother. For me, this knowledge would have mitigated against entering into their emotions of grief. But His unity with them, His love, was such that He all the same wept for their tears. With us too, He knows that we shall eternally rejoice, relatively soon. And yet He still enters fully into our grief of the moment. Such is His love. Truly, man is not alone. God is with us, right now, through His Emmanuel.</p><p>It must be noted that the Greek word translated "groaned" means literally to snort with anger [s.w. Mt. 9:30; Mk. 14:5 same LXX in Dan. 11:30; Lam. 2:6]. There is definitely the sense of anger within the verb. Why was the Lord angry at this point, whilst at the same time weeping in grief? Anger and grief commonly occur together at the same time when facing bereavement, so this is psychologically credible. And a profound insight into His absolute humanity. But in the Lord's case, the anger may well have been because He knew that even this supreme miracle of resurrection, the seventh sign miracle in John's Gospel, would be disbelieved. His anger follows on from the notices that the Jews were weeping with Martha. Perhaps He was angry with insincere weeping by those He knew would soon slay Him, and seek to slay Lazarus. </p>


text:
<p>11:34&nbsp;<em>And said, Where have you laid him?</em>- Was this a rhetorical question, perhaps in order to focus them on the deadness of their brother as a prelude to the wonder of his resurrection? See on :31. Or is it a reflection of how the Lord had limited knowledge? The same word is repeatedly used of how the Lord's body was "laid" in the tomb (<em><a href='B:470 27:60'>Mat 27:60</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:47'>Mar 15:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:6'>Mar 16:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:53'>Luk 23:53</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:55'>Luk 23:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:41-42'>Joh 19:41-42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:2'>Joh 20:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:13'>Joh 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:15'>Joh 20:15</a></em>). But the Lord also often uses the same word, at least in John, for how He 'laid down' His life (<em><a href='B:500 10:11'>Joh 10:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:15'>Joh 10:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:17-18'>Joh 10:17-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:13'>Joh 15:13</a></em>). Again, the Lord is developing the idea that life is laid down both in death and during this mortal life; that the power of new life might break through into our mortal flesh, both now and through the resurrection of the body to the life eternal. Consciously or unconsciously, Mary uses the same original words in enquiring where the Lord's body has been laid (<em><a href='B:500 20:2'>Joh 20:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:13'>Joh 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:15'>Joh 20:15</a></em>). Surely she must have seen the similarities, as the Lord intended. He knew she would one day soon be asking where&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>body had been laid, and He lovingly, gently sets her up for this.</p><p><em>They said to him: Lord, come and see</em>- Again, the Lord is setting her up to see the similarities at the time of His resurrection; for in response to the same question, as to where the body had been laid, the same answer would be given by the Angel who represented Jesus: "Come, see the place where the Lord lay" (<em><a href='B:470 28:6'>Mat 28:6</a></em>). But it's all the other way around; the words of Jesus ("Where have you laid him?") become the words of Mary, and the words of the Angel who represented the Lord Jesus become Mary's words ("Come and see"). By so cleverly and profoundly setting this up, the Lord sought to demonstrate the connection between Him and her and all those who seek His body; His words become her words, her words become His words. He would soon make this explicit when speaking of how His words were to abide in His people, so that their will and His were the same, and therefore whatever they asked would be granted without needing His formal intercession (<em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>).</p><p>The Greek thinking minds who read the New Testament were sadly divorced from the Hebrew background which is the backdrop for God’s revelation in the Bible. In the lead up to the AD381 Decree of Constantinople, which declared Trinitarianism as the only acceptable form of Christian faith, Gregory of Nazianzus preached a series of sermons in defence of the Trinity. He dealt with the two blocks of Biblical evidence as saying that e.g. in <em><a href='B:500 11:34'>Joh 11:34</a></em>, Jesus resurrected Lazarus by His Divine nature, and then wept in His human nature. Gregory utterly failed to appreciate Hebrew thought; he ended up splitting up the Lord Jesus effectively into two persons, rather than seeking to harmonize the two strands which there were within the one person of Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>11:35&nbsp;<em>Jesus wept-&nbsp;</em>He of all men knew the reality of future resurrection at the last day, and He knew what He was going to do. So why then did He weep? He saw how unnecessary was their grief, how misguided. For He knew what He was going to do. And yet He wept with them because His heart bled for them, because He shared their grief (on whatever basis it was) to the extent that He too wept with them. And the love of Christ will constrain us to have His bleeding heart (<em><a href='B:540 5:14'>2Co 5:14</a></em>). We may be tempted to think that our griefs and sorrows are too petty for the Lord to engage with. Our feelings are reflected in His, quite simply because He loves us.</p>


text:
<p>11:36&nbsp;<em>The Jews said: Look how he loved him-&nbsp;</em>They perceived His love as&nbsp;<em>phileo&nbsp;</em>love, whereas the inspired record says that the Lord's love was of the&nbsp;<em>agape</em>&nbsp;quality (:5). The misunderstanding of the Lord's love was and is tragic. Some see this as evidence of a parallel between&nbsp;<em>phileo&nbsp;</em>and&nbsp;<em>agape</em>, but I would argue against that position. If they are interchangeable terms, then why use them both. Rather I suggest we see His&nbsp;<em>agape</em>&nbsp;as being misunderstood as the far lower level of&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>&nbsp;love.</p>


text:
<p>11:37<em>&nbsp;But some of them said: Could not this man, who opened the eyes of him that was blind, have also caused that this man should not have died?</em>- Here we see yet another point of connection with the Lord's crucifixion; for "the Jews" made similar accusation as justification for their demand that the Lord "come down from the cross". The line of argument they were presenting, introduced by the ominous words "But some of them...", suggests that they may have been sarcastic and cynical in saying that the Lord had opened the eyes of the blind man. But we see again some sort of division amongst "the Jews"; the Lord's grief was evidently genuine, indicating He has a good friend and good man (:36). But others chose to find any excuse to disbelieve Him.</p>


text:
<p>11:38&nbsp;<em>Jesus therefore again groaning in himself, came to the tomb. Now it was a cave</em>- The whole process of mediation takes place within the Lord's mind, with the sort of groanings He had as He begged the Father to raise Lazarus (<em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 11:38'>Joh 11:38</a></em>), and as on the cross He prayed with strong crying and tears for our redemption (<em><a href='B:650 5:5'>Heb 5:5</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>). The Lord Jesus is the same yesterday and today. That same passion and intensity of pleading really is there. This is why the state of our mind, our spirit, is so vitally important; because it is this which the Lord Jesus interprets to the Father. The Lord's Spirit struggles in mediation with crying and groaning (<em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>), as He did for the raising of Lazarus. There is a further connection with <em><a href='B:650 5:5'>Heb 5:5</a></em>, where we learn that the Lord prayed on the cross with a like intensity. And this Lord is our Lord today. He can be crucified afresh, therefore He has the capacity for struggle and mental effort:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And a stone lay across it</em>- The same word used about the stone that lay over the Lord's tomb (<em><a href='B:500 20:1'>Joh 20:1</a></em>). The whole incident was to provoke faith in the Lord's resurrection after three days were fulfilled. But the disciples didn’t 'get it', and John may be making that point- that they failed to believe, to take the lesson from the resurrection of Lazarus which was clearly a foretaste of the Lord's. This is part of the wider theme of the Gospel writers emphasizing their own slowness and weakness of faith- which likely made them the more compelling and credible.</p>


text:
<p>11:39<em>&nbsp;Jesus said: Take away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, said to him: Lord, by this time the body stinks. For he has been dead four days</em>-&nbsp;<em>&nbsp;</em>Female concern about taking the stone away from the tomb was another point of contact with the Lord's resurrection. The Lord's body did not "see corruption" because of the huge amount of expensive spices placed upon it, but with Lazarus, the body was already decomposed. The contrast with the Lord's corpse was perhaps to make the point that&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;body did not "see corruption". And although our corpses do "see corruption", this is no barrier to resurrection.</p>


text:
<p>11:40 - see on <em><a href='B:500 11:4'>Joh 11:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>Jesus said to her: Did I not say to you, that if you believed, you should see the glory of God?</em>- The raising of Lazarus was on one level predicated upon the faith of Martha and Mary. But all the indications are that they didn't get to it. Yet Lazarus was still resurrected, and the Lord clearly foreknew that He was going to raise him. We can conclude that a potential bar was set, the sisters failed to reach it, but the Lord made up for their failure by His faith. And so it seems He works oftentimes with man.</p><p> The Lord Jesus encourages us to see ourselves as Moses. This is without doubt an allusion to Moses' experience of seeing God’s glory- an experience which in Jewish eyes marked Moses&nbsp;out as the greatest man who had ever lived. The veneration in which Moses was and is held in the Jewish world is hard for Gentiles to enter into. A glance through rabbinical commentaries on the Pentateuch will illustrate this well. And here was the Lord Jesus saying that through faith in him, we can share the experience of Moses, we can rise to the spiritual heights of the man who spoke to God face to face as a man speaks to his friend:&nbsp;</p><p>We are being invited to be equal to Moses, seeing from the cleft in the rock the awesome majesty of the perfection of Christ's character; the full glory of God. But do we appreciate his righteousness? Paul likewise invites us to behold with unveiled face, as Moses did (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> RV), and thereby, just from appreciating the glory of Christ's character, be changed into the same glory. Note too how in Romans 11 we are each bidden “behold the goodness and severity of God”- a reference to Moses beholding all the goodness of Yahweh. We are in essence in his position right now (<em><a href='B:20 33:19'>Exo 33:19</a></em>).</p><p>John's Gospel contains several references to the fact that Christ 'shows' the Father to those who believe in him, and that it is possible to "see the Father" and his glory through seeing or accurately believing in him as the Son of the Father (<em><a href='B:500 11:40'>Joh 11:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:45'>Joh 12:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:9'>Joh 14:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:25'>Joh 16:25</a></em>). Moses earnestly wished to see the Father fully, but was unable to do so. The height which Moses reached as he cowered in that rock cleft and heard God’s Name declared is hard to plumb. But we have been enabled to&nbsp;<em>see</em>&nbsp;the Father, through our appreciation of the Lord Jesus. But does an appropriate sense of&nbsp;<em>wonder</em>&nbsp;fill us? Do we really make time to&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;the Son of God? Or do we see words like “glory" as just cold theology?</p><p>Martha clearly believed Lazarus was now decomposed, and it would make a smell if the stone over his tomb was rolled away. “Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?” was the Lord’s response (<em><a href='B:500 11:40'>Joh 11:40</a></em>). Clearly she didn’t have that faith. So, on one level, she shouldn’t have seen God’s glory revealed in the resurrection of Lazarus (<em><a href='B:500 11:4'>Joh 11:4</a></em>). And yet we read straight away that then, Lazarus was raised- despite Martha’s ‘unworthiness’ of it. Such was the Lord’s love for them all:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:41&nbsp;<em>So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said: Father, I thank you that you have heard me</em>- The way the Lord characteristically lifted His eyes to Heaven to pray reflects His complete unity of spirit with the Father, with no barriers nor issues of guilty conscience standing between them. Even before the body of Lazarus emerged, the Lord knew that He had been heard. He had earlier spoken of doing the works / miracles which He had seen / been shown by the Father (5:20,36). We get the impression that the Father had shown the Lord this "work", and He was totally confident that it would be performed. It was of course a huge encouragement to the Lord that He too would emerge from the grave.</p>


text:
<p>11:42&nbsp;<em>And I know you hear me always, but because of the crowd that stands around I said it, that they may believe you did send me</em>- Said what? The past tense suggests the reference is not to His word of command to Lazarus to "come forth", for He had not yet spoken that. Was the reference therefore to His command "Take away the stone" (:39)? Was it to His "groaning"? But this was "in the spirit... within Himself", not publicly stated. I suggest that the "it" which He "said" was in prayer to the Father. The Father always heard Him, He did not need to ask for specific things in order to get them, for the Spirit was given to Him without measure. Perhaps He is saying that in this case, He had specifically prayed to the Father, and received a positive response- in order that the crowd might realize that indeed He had been sent by the Father. But there is no record of any prayer prayed publicly by the Lord in front of the watching crowd. Maybe He meant that He had already said "it" in prayer to the Father and been answered, and He was now going to say publicly "Lazarus, come forth"; but that also is hardly a public prayer to the Father. The GNB tries to avoid the problem by offering a more vague interpretation of the tense: "I&nbsp;<em>say this&nbsp;</em>for the sake of the people here". But this seems questionable in terms of the Greek grammar. My conclusion is therefore that the prayer to the Father was private, but the raising of Lazarus would have been seen by the thoughtful amongst the crowd as clearly an answer to the Lord's private prayer. Such resurrection could only come from God, and seeing it was done at the hands and word of Jesus, it followed that He had therefore prayed to the Father for it. In this way, the Lord demonstrated that the essence of prayer was within the heart of the believer, whereas at that time prayer was generally conceived as a matter of public activity, with words spoken out loud. It's the same lesson as taught by Hannah's silent prayer. This is why the Lord&nbsp;<em>says out loud</em>&nbsp;in the audience of the crowd that He "said it" for the sake of the crowd. John's Gospel draws a distinction between "the crowd" and "the Jews", the Jewish leadership. The Lord's intention was that both groups would be converted (recall His desire that the cured leper made a witness to the priests), but the resurrection of Lazarus was aimed at converting the masses- "because of the crowd I said it". The Jewish leadership were not likely to reflect upon what the Lord had said and done, because their hearts were hardened. But "the crowd" contained at least some open minds.</p><p>So it seems to me that Jesus had asked / commanded / said to the Father to resurrect Lazarus. Jesus believed that this had happened. And so, in utter faith, he thanks the Father for raising Lazarus- even though Lazarus was still silent in the grave and there was at that point no actual physical evidence Lazarus had come back to life. But then Jesus says, believing so firmly the prayer had already been answered 'OK Lazarus, well, come out and see us then' my paraphrase. The whole point was to demonstrate that "I am the resurrection and the life", to confirm Martha's faith that indeed there would be a resurrection "at the last day" (<em><a href='B:500 11:24-25'>Joh 11:24-25</a></em>). It wasn't to demonstrate that Jesus could reunite 'soul' and body- it was to prove a resurrection.</p><p><em>I know you hear me always</em>- Both David and Christ panicked when they felt their prayers weren't being answered; they felt that this meant they had sinned (<em><a href='B:230 22:1-4'>Psa 22:1-4</a></em>; and consider too 17:15; 24:5; 27:4,8). Clearly they understood answered prayer as a sign of acceptability with God. the Lord knew that God&nbsp;<em>always</em>&nbsp;heard Him. When apparently God didn’t hear His prayer for deliverance on the cross, He for a moment supposed that He'd sinned and therefore God had forsaken Him.</p><p>Lazarus had died, and the evident desire of Martha was to see her brother again, there and then. But she didn’t go running to the Lord with this desire. She simply and briefly stated her faith in the Lord's limitless power to resurrect, and her knowledge that He could use the Father's power as He wished. He read her spirit, He saw her fervent desire. And He responded to this as if it had been a prayer. He groaned deeply within Himself, and wept- not the tears of grief, as the Jews mistakenly thought (note how throughout the record they misunderstand what is really going on), but the tears which go with the groaning of serious prayer (<em><a href='B:500 11:33-39'>Joh 11:33-39</a></em>). Having done this, He comments: "Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me&nbsp;<em>always</em>". Because His spirit, His mind, was in constant contact with the Father, His prayers / desires were always communicated to Him, and always being heard. "Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me" could almost imply that the Lord prayed for something, and then, after some interval, the answer came. We have an exquisite insight into the Lord's mind and the highly personal relationship between Father and Son in the words that follow: "I knew (not 'I know') that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe". This almost certainly was not spoken out loud; this is a very rare and privileged glimpse into the unspoken communication between the Son and Father. The Lord seems to be adding this almost in half apology, lest it should seem that He prayed for Lazarus' resurrection, the answer came, and He then thanked the Father for it. It seems that this would be too primitive a sequence of events. He says that He&nbsp;<em>knew</em>&nbsp;that His request had been granted, and His utterance of thanks for the answer was for the peoples' benefit: that&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;might perceive that whatever the Son asked for, He received from God. But in reality, the Lord's thoughts to the Father seem to suggest, it wasn't a question of His prayers being accepted and answered. His Spirit, His thoughts, were one with the Father, and therefore it was not that His thoughts were considered, accepted and then God granted the request. What He thought was the prayer and it was the answer all in one. His 'mediation' for us is in the sense that He is the Lord&nbsp;<em>the Spirit</em>. There is no barrier (and was not any) between His mind and that of the Father.</p>


text:
<p>11:43&nbsp;<em>And when he had thus spoken, he cried with a loud voice</em>- Yet another connection with the crucifixion; for this was how the Lord ended His mortal life, crying with a loud voice (<em><a href='B:470 27:46'>Mat 27:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:50'>Mat 27:50</a></em>).</p><p><em>Lazarus, come out</em>- The Greek is only elsewhere used in the Gospels for the Lord calling men to come 'here' to Him and follow Him in service (<em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:22'>Luk 18:22</a></em>). This was also His personal intention for Lazarus. Again we have the hint that Lazarus may not have been a full believer at the time (see on :19). And the miracles were not done simply to meet human need as the Lord encountered it- for He walked past so much of it, without addressing it. The intention was that those cured or assisted would come to Him in faith. Our good works and social welfare outreach should therefore likewise be intimately connected to evangelism and not done for their own sake.</p>


text:
<p>11:44&nbsp;<em>He that was dead came out, bound hand and foot with grave clothes, and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus said to them: Loose him, and let him go away</em>- "Graveclothes... napkin" are all yet again reminiscent of the Lord's burial and release from death; the same word for "napkin" is used in <em><a href='B:500 20:7'>Joh 20:7</a></em>. His emergence, when so tightly bound, was also of itself a miracle; and it may have been an encouragement to the Lord Jesus, who may likewise have been interested to know how He would emerge from bound graveclothes. The command to "loose him" also had a deeper hint within it; "the Jews" were to release people like Lazarus and allow them to come to the Lord and walk thereafter in freedom. But it was ultimately the Lord who not only healed and resurrected, but also loosed men from bondage to what which was associated with death- the Jewish system. The same word is used for unloosing the Jewish legislation in 5:18 and 7:23.</p>


text:
<p>11:45&nbsp;<em>Therefore, many of the Jews who had come to Mary-&nbsp;</em>I have tried to demonstrate in this exposition that "the Jews" referred to the Jewish leadership, and "the crowd" are mentioned separately to them in John's Gospel (the definition of "the Jews" begins in <em><a href='B:500 1:19'>Joh 1:19</a></em>). The Lord had intended this miracle to specifically convert some from "the crowd" (see on :42). But it appears that His expectations were proven wrong, for actually it was some from "the Jews" who believed. He was after all of human nature. Likewise we noted on <em><a href='B:500 4:44'>Joh 4:44</a></em> that the Lord had expected no response from His own "country" but actually there was response. If even the Lord found that some responded whom He didn’t expect to, we must surely approach our own witness in a spirit of mere sowing, not attempting to foresee the response.</p><p><em>And saw what he did, believed in him</em>- Faith of course is ideally believing without visual evidence (<em><a href='B:650 11:1'>Heb 11:1</a></em>), and the Lord lamented that many wanted to 'see' before believing (<em><a href='B:500 4:48'>Joh 4:48</a></em>). The example of Thomas, demanding to see before he believed, is surely recorded in a negative light (<em><a href='B:500 20:25'>Joh 20:25</a></em>), leading the Lord to pronounce blessing on those who have not seen yet believe (<em><a href='B:500 20:29'>Joh 20:29</a></em>). But all the same, such lower level 'belief' is still counted to folk, by the Lord of all grace who is so enthusiastic to notice human faith on whatever level. This serves as an encouragement to us, to view positively those with apparently weak faith; and also, to not think that our faith is so weak that our Lord doesn't notice it. So again we see evidence that some of "the Jews" believed in the Lord- but would not 'come out' for Him until after His resurrection. The thousands baptized a few weeks later on Pentecost were all devout Jews "dwelling in Jerusalem", and we wonder whether these were those who at various times in John are described as having 'believed in Him' but had not openly confessed Him. Public baptism was an ideal way to do so. It would also explain why they were converted so quickly, and clearly were struggling with conscience issues.</p>


text:
<p>11:46&nbsp;<em>But some of them went away to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done</em>- Again and again, the Jews were divided by the Lord's work. Even resurrection from the dead would not persuade them; perhaps it was to the resurrection of Lazarus that the Lord referred in his parable of the rich man and Lazarus (<em><a href='B:490 16:31'>Luk 16:31</a></em>). There are some for whom the opinion of others, especially religious leaders, is paramount. They can be shown the clearest truths, such as the resurrection of Lazarus, or the clear teaching of Scripture- and it means nothing, because they have elevated their religious leaders to an absolute position. We read these things in the Bible because we encounter the same psychologies today.</p>


text:
<p>11:47&nbsp;<em>The chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said: What will we do? For this man does many miracles</em>- The idea in the Greek is that if He is 'doing' so much, then what are&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>'doing' in response. Again the Jews have to admit the Lord was indeed doing miracles, as Nicodemus stated at the start of the Gospel. We learn from this that miracles alone will not convict a person of faith; but we also see that clearly they were responsible toward God now that they had seen them. The most aggressive people, in a given context, are those who know they are wrong and are desperately seeking to destroy the evidence which is too inconvenient for them. And so those who encounter the Lord have to either capitulate to His claims, or go away as did the Jews in bitterness and wild attempts to destroy the evidence and inconvenient truths- no matter how much they disguise all that beneath nice speak.</p>


text:
<p>11:48&nbsp;<em>If we leave him alone, all men will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation</em>- Like so many, they resisted the powerful claims of the Lord upon them because of their own petty vested interest. Just as so many will not sacrifice their family relationships or business or living place for the Lord's sake. Their&nbsp;<em>topos</em>, "place", could be the Jerusalem temple; but their essential fear was that they would lose their own "place". They recognized that belief in the teaching of Jesus meant that no priesthood or religious leadership such as theirs was in fact necessary. Which means that to return to such a system is to not follow the true teaching of Jesus. Yet they disguised all this under the excuse that the Lord's miracles would get Him a mass following, which would lead to a revolution which the Romans would crush, resulting in their loss of all their vested interests. This kind of logic is so typically human. If this respecting Jesus of Nazareth... then A could happen, then B might happen, and then the unthinkable might happen- I lose my "place" in society and the eyes of men. This is why the New Testament records the Lord's claims being acted upon immediately, with believers being baptized straight away. Response to the Lord needs to be quick, before the mind of the flesh kicks in with its delaying tactics and endless chains of 'what if…'.</p>


text:
<p>11:49&nbsp;<em>But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing at all</em>- The Mosaic High Priest did the job for life, but the work had been reduced by Judaism into a much coveted position which was shared each year. The thrust of the argument seemed to be that they 'knew nothing' of the real threat posed- which was the whole Jewish nation "perish" in some terrible holocaust which would aim to destroy every Jew within Palestine. Caiaphas argues that they "knew nothing at all" compared to what really could happen; not just&nbsp;<em>they&nbsp;</em>would lose their place, but every Jew in Palestine would be murdered by the imagined Roman response to a Messianic revolution. This was taking their 'what ifs' to the ultimate moment. It was extremely unlikely that the whole Jewish nation would perish because of any Roman response. And the Old Testament promises would surely not allow that to happen; although Caiaphas had no faith in them to reason like this. He was of course leading up to his decision that one man must die so that Jewry did not perish completely.</p>


text:
<p>11:50&nbsp;<em>Nor do you take account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, so that the whole nation does not perish-</em>&nbsp;The paradox of course was the Lord's death was so that all who believed in Him, the new Israel, would "not perish". Caiaphas seems to be arguing that they had not even considered the idea of killing the Lord in order that the Jewish people "not perish". "Expedient" is the same word used by the Lord in saying that His death was "expedient" in order that the Holy Spirit be sent and God’s people be saved (16:7). So whilst the reasoning was that of Caiaphas, the words came out in a way which spoke clearly of the Lord's death.</p><p><em>That one man should die for the people</em>- Adam Clarke claims that "This saying was proverbial among the Jews"; it was an allusion to the scapegoat slain on the day of Atonement. It was the High Priest's duty to slay the scapegoat; and here he says that the Lord's death was to be seen as just that.</p><p><em>Not perish</em>- The same Greek phrase is used by the Lord about how faith in Him will mean that individuals will "not perish" (<em><a href='B:500 3:15-16'>Joh 3:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:39'>Joh 6:39</a></em>). He saw salvation on an individual level, whereas Judaism and Caiaphas wrongly thought of salvation as being a concept applicable only on a&nbsp;<em>national</em>&nbsp;level. And yet the death of Jesus was primarily for Israel; and that whole nation need not have perished, due to the cross. Here we see the depth of grace; their rejection of Him, their doing of their Saviour to death, was actually the means for their salvation. We would have made it the basis of their condemnation, were we in the Father’s position. But potentially, it was the means of their salvation. But such grace was incomprehensible to them. The whole nation, or many of them,&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;perish. And thereby we learn that the extent of the Lord’s victory is dependent upon our response to it; so much was made possible through it, but human response is still required. John evidently intended us to see the connection with his earlier comment that the Lord was lifted up&nbsp;<em>that whosoever believeth on Him</em>&nbsp;should “not perish" but have eternal life.</p>


text:
<p>11:51- see on <em><a href='B:500 5:4'>Joh 5:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>Now this he said not of himself</em>- An example of where the power of inspiration is such that men were moved to speak far beyond their own personal understanding or intention.</p><p><em>But being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation</em>- The terms he used and the logic followed was all as it were put in his mouth. But "the nation", the true Israel, was thereby redefined as those who believe in the Lord and accept His death for them.</p>


text:
<p>11:52&nbsp;<em>And not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one the children of God that are scattered abroad</em>- This may have been added by John. Or perhaps it was the vision of Caiaphas that the Lord's death would enable Judaism to rally their troops as it were, and the diaspora Jews would return to Jerusalem as the Rabbis taught, and establish an independent Kingdom in Palestine.</p><p>The Lord Jesus died as He did in order that all who benefit from His cross should show forth the love, the glory and the Name of the Father and Son, and thus have an extraordinary unity among themselves- so powerful it would convert the world (<em><a href='B:500 17:20-26'>Joh 17:20-26</a></em>). This theme of unity amongst us played deeply on His mind as He faced death in John 17. He died that He might gather together in one all God’s children in that His death would enable the giving of the Holy Spirit within the hearts of His people; and the result of spiritual mindedness would be unity between persons. Those who advocate splitting the body, thereby showing the world our&nbsp;<em>dis</em>unity, are working albeit unwittingly against<em>&nbsp;the most essential intention of the cross,&nbsp;</em>and declare themselves to not have received the Holy Spirit. And in this, for me at least, lies an unspeakable tragedy:&nbsp;The atonement should create fellowship. His death would create a new synagogue- for "gather together" translates&nbsp;<em>sunago</em>. But it would be a meeting of minds, based around Him and His cross; rather than in a building cantered around a religion and human priesthood.</p><p>Do we find a true unity with our brethren impossible? He died&nbsp;<em>that</em>&nbsp;He might gather together into one all God’s children. Before His cross, before serious and extended personal meditation upon it, all our personal differences will disappear. A divided ecclesia is therefore one which is not centred upon the cross. Whether or not we must live our ecclesial experience in such a context, the barriers which exist within us personally really&nbsp;<em>can</em>&nbsp;be brought down by the humbling experience of the cross, and the way in which we are forced to see how that death was not only for us personally. The wonder of it was and is in its universal and so widely-inclusive nature. Again, the basis of our unity is a sustained, individual appreciation of the cross.</p><p><em>The children of God that are scattered abroad</em>- The Lord uses the same word in predicting that initially, His death would result in His sheep being "scattered abroad" (<em><a href='B:470 26:31'>Mat 26:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:32'>Joh 16:32</a></em>). Response to His death therefore involves a scattering, in order for each man to individuate; and then a coming together in the profoundest unity of the cosmos. We see this in the experience of Paul, who spent three years in the wilderness after his conversion, out of contact with the big name brethren of the time; and then became the most passionate preacher of unity in Christ.</p>


text:
<p>11:53&nbsp;<em>So from that day forward, they took advice how they might put him to death</em>- AV "Took counsel together". The element of 'together' is implied in the Greek. But <em><a href='B:500 18:14'>Joh 18:14</a></em> uses the same word to say that "Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people". One individual gave the advice or 'counsel', but the decision was formally taken by a committee under his influence. This is how apparent 'democracy' so often works in religious groups; the voice of a dominant individual speaks through an appearance of group speak, supposed peer review and joint 'decision making'. Comparing the two passages, it would seem that Caiaphas indeed played a hugely significant role in the Lord's death. This would therefore justify him being called the "prince of this world" and the significant adversary / satan who is associated with the Lord's death.</p>


text:
<p>11:54&nbsp;<em>Therefore Jesus no longer walked openly among the Jews, but departed from there into the country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim; and there he stayed with the disciples</em>- The Lord gave His life of Himself, it was not taken from Him. We therefore see Him here consciously acting in a way which took control over the timing of His death.</p><p><em>Ephraim</em>- "Fruitful". The blessing on Ephraim spoke clearly of the acceptance of Gentiles through him: "The younger brother shall be greater, and his seed shall become the fullness of Gentiles" (<em><a href='B:10 48:19'>Gen 48:19</a></em> Heb:, cp. <em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>). This is in the context of :52, which speaks of how Gentiles also would be gathered together by the Lord's death.</p>


text:
<p>11:55&nbsp;<em>Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand; and many from the countryside went to Jerusalem to purify themselves before the Passover</em>- This would have included the Lord's family from Nazareth. The Jewish ritual of purifying oneself before Passover is alluded to by the requirement to 'examine ourselves' before breaking bread, the Christian equivalent of the Passover feast. Again, Passover is no longer a feast "of Yahweh", but "of the Jews". They had hijacked God’s law and turned it into their own religion.</p>


text:
<p>11:56&nbsp;<em>They looked for Jesus, and spoke one with another, as they stood in the temple: What do you think? That he will not come to the feast?</em>- Every male should come to the Passover; so they wondered whether He would break the Law because He was clearly going to be arrested and maybe killed. They were apparently assuming the Lord would enter the temple, and so they were watching as to whether He would enter it.</p>


text:
<p>11:57&nbsp;<em>Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where he was, they were to inform them, so that they might arrest him</em>- Yet, remarkably enough, nobody did perform such a betrayal. Except one of those in the Lord's very inner circle... The fact nobody else apparently did so is surely a reflection of how the Lord was deeply respected- up until the moment of His refusal to give people the Kingdom now.</p>


text:
<p>12:1&nbsp;<em>Therefore, six days before the Passover, Jesus went to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead</em>- The "therefore" is significant. We are each called to witness; and there is no way out. That witness flows out of our deeply personal experiences. If we won’t make that witness, then God will work in our lives to bring us to a position where we have no choice but to do so. This was how the Lord worked with the family of Lazarus. The Jews had commanded “that if any man knew where he was, he should shew it” (<em><a href='B:500 11:57'>Joh 11:57</a></em>). And “Jesus&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>… came to Bethany” (<em><a href='B:500 12:1'>Joh 12:1</a></em> RV). He purposefully attracted attention to His connection with the Bethany home. And so it was that “much people of the Jews learned that he was there” (<em><a href='B:500 12:9'>Joh 12:9</a></em>), and the context makes it clear that this was a source of witness to them (<em><a href='B:500 12:10-11'>Joh 12:10-11</a></em>). The Lord sought to expose their secret discipleship, to take the bucket off their candle. And He will do likewise with us:&nbsp;<em>Therefore</em>&nbsp;Jesus came to Mary and Martha’s home. Why? So that they could no longer keep secret their faith in Him. The meal they put on was not just female, standard hospitality. It was, in this context, a brave public declaration of their identification with this wanted man. And the way in the last week of His life the Lord chose to sleep there each night was surely done for the same reason: to lead them to open identity with His cause and His cross. “Much people therefore of the Jews knew that he was there” (<em><a href='B:500 12:9'>Joh 12:9</a></em>). And so with us, the Lord brings about circumstances so that our light can no longer remain under a bucket.</p><p>The anointing recorded in Mark 14 is clearly the same as that here in Matthew 26. But the anointing in Luke 7 appears to have occurred in the house of a Pharisee called Simon somewhere in Galilee. The anointing recorded in John 12 is very similar, but occurred six days before the Passover and one day&nbsp;<em>before</em>&nbsp;the triumphal entry (<em><a href='B:500 12:12'>Joh 12:12</a></em>), whereas the anointing recorded here in Matthew and Mark occurred&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;that. There are other differences, too. In <em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em> Mary uses "a pound of spikenard" whereas the anointing in Matthew seems to emphasize the use of spikenard as a liquid, in an alabaster flask that had to be broken to release the liquid. The spikenard was worth&nbsp;<em>more</em>&nbsp;than 300 pence (<em><a href='B:480 14:5'>Mar 14:5</a></em>), whereas that of <em><a href='B:500 12:5'>Joh 12:5</a></em> was worth 300 pence; it was used to anoint the Lord's&nbsp;<em>feet</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em>), whereas that of <em><a href='B:470 26:7'>Mat 26:7</a></em> was used to anoint His&nbsp;<em>head</em>. In <em><a href='B:500 12:4'>Joh 12:4</a></em> it is Judas who complains at the apparent waste of the money, whereas in <em><a href='B:470 26:8'>Mat 26:8</a></em> it is the disciples. <em><a href='B:470 26:11-12'>Mat 26:11-12</a></em> record the Lord's word about "You will always have the poor with you" and goes on to record His explanation that the woman had done this for His burial; whereas in <em><a href='B:500 12:7-8'>Joh 12:7-8</a></em> these two sayings are the other way around. The wiping of His feet with her hair is stressed in <em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em>, but Matthew and Mark are silent about this. John 12 clearly identifies the woman as Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus; whereas Matthew and Mark are careful to preserve her as a nameless "woman" who "came unto Him" (26:7). I therefore have no doubt that John 12 and Matthew 26 / Mark 14 speak of two separate anointings, both in Bethany, separated from each other by four days. The anointing in Luke 7 is clearly framed as a similar incident, also in the house of a man called Simon.</p><p>The question, of course, is why these three anointings are described in such similar language. Higher critics immediately speak of textual dislocation and mistakes made by the writers in their chronology of events. These kinds of approaches arise from a focus upon the text before our eyes, rather than having a wider perspective on Scripture earned by years of careful Bible reading of the entire Bible text. Those who read the entire Scriptures over a period of time cannot fail to be impressed by the repetition of situations and events. The way Joseph is called out of prison to interpret a King's dream and is then exalted to rulership in a pagan land is clearly the basis for the language used about Daniel's experience in Babylon. This is not to say that text got dislocated, that Daniel was Joseph or vice versa. Rather do we perceive a single Divine mind behind the production of the Bible as we have it; and God’s intention was clearly to show that circumstances repeat within and between the lives of His people. And the language He uses in recording history seeks to bring out those repetitions. This is why the lament of Jeremiah in depression is so similar to that of Job in his depression. And of course we are free to assume that Biblical characters were aware of and took inspiration from those who had gone before them. I suggest that this is what we have going on in the records of these three anointings of the Lord by despised and misunderstood women. They were inspired by each other- for the Lord comments that what the women did was to be told worldwide. This was a command, and it was surely obeyed. Mary of Bethany was inspired by the woman of Luke 7, and the anonymous woman of Matthew 26 was inspired by Mary's anointing of four days previously. Mary had given spikenard worth 300 pence; this woman used even more expensive ointment. And in this is our lesson- to be inspired by the devotion of others to their Lord. Heaven's record of our response is as it were recorded in similar language, in recognition of the inspiration provided by earlier acts of faithfulness by those we know or who have gone before us.</p><p>The similarities between the anointing record in Luke 7 and those of John 12 etc. require an explanation. Could it not be that the Gospels are showing us that the intensity of Mary’s faith and love at first conversion was held by her until the end of the Lord’s ministry? We need to ask ourselves whether the fire of first love for Him has grown weak; whether over the years we would do the same things for Him, feel the same way about Him, cry the same tears over Him… or have the years worn our idealism away?&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:2&nbsp;<em>So they made him supper; and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of them that sat and ate with him</em>- Given the obsession of Martha with serving in an earlier incident (<em><a href='B:490 10:40'>Luk 10:40</a></em>), we can assume she continued doing what she liked doing, but with a more spiritual attitude than before. The Gospels several times use eating as a proof of resurrection; perhaps to prepare us for the idea of eating at the Lord's table in celebration of His resurrection. His ongoing eating with us at the communion service is likewise a testament to His resurrection.</p>


text:
<p>12:3&nbsp;<em>Then Mary</em>- RV "Mary therefore". In gratitude for the resurrection of Lazarus, “Mary therefore” anointed the Lord ‘for his burial’. It was as if she perceived that the resurrection of Lazarus was only possible on account of the resurrection of Jesus which was soon to come. But after the Lord's death, her faith in His resurrection seems to have taken a nose dive. Mary's response to ‘the gardener’ reveals that despite it being the third day after the crucifixion, Mary Magdalene wasn’t apparently open to the possibility that the Lord had risen. Yet surely she had heard Him specifically, categorically predict His death and resurrection. One can only conclude that she was so consumed by the feelings of the moment that she like us failed to make that crucial translation of knowledge into felt and real faith. As with us as we sit through Bible studies and revel in our own perception of Scripture, her so fine and correct understanding was suddenly without power when reality called.</p><p><em>Took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair-&nbsp;</em>Peter’s letters are packed with allusions back to the Gospels. When he writes that to us, the Lord Jesus should be “precious” (<em><a href='B:670 2:7'>1Pe 2:7</a></em>), he surely has in mind how Mary had anointed the Lord with her “very precious ointment” (<em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em> RV). He bids us to be like Mary, to perceive “the preciousness” (RV) of Jesus, and to respond by giving up our most precious things, mentally or materially, in our worshipful response to Him.</p><p>The question arises as to why Mary anointed the Lord’s feet, when anointing is nearly always of the head. The only time the foot of anything was anointed was in <em><a href='B:20 40:11'>Exo 40:11</a></em>, when the pedestal&nbsp;/ “foot” of the laver was anointed in order to consecrate it. This pedestal was made from the brass mirrors donated by repentant prostitutes (<em><a href='B:20 38:8'>Exo 38:8</a></em> = <em><a href='B:90 2:22'>1Sa 2:22</a></em>). In this there is the connection. Mary the repentant whore wanted to likewise donate way she had to the true tabernacle and laver, which she perceived to be the Lord Jesus. Her equivalent of brass mirrors was her pound of spikenard. And it could be that she had been baptized at her conversion, and saw the Lord as her laver. And this was her response- to pour all her wealth into Him. She anointed him for His death- for she perceived that it was through death that the Lord would fulfil all the OT types of the laver etc:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil-</em>&nbsp;Yet every one of the 11 OT references to a house being filled refers to the temple being filled with the Shekinah glory (<em><a href='B:110 8:10-11'>1Ki 8:10-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 5:13-14'>2Ch 5:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 7:1-2'>2Ch 7:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 6:4'>Isa 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 10:3-4'>Eze 10:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 43:5'>Eze 43:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:4'>Eze 44:4</a></em>). John’s sensitive use of language&nbsp;is surely seeking to draw a parallel. She was glorifying the Name by her gift, senseless as it may have seemed in the eyes of less spiritual people. There is a definite connection between spikenard and what incense was made from. What may seem to have no practical achievement in the eyes of men can truly be a sweet smelling savour to God. We need to remember this at times in bearing with our brethren’s efforts for Him. To judge them in a utilitarian way is to fall into the same error as the disciples did. The efforts of others are described later in the NT in the same language- the same word for “odour” occurs in <em><a href='B:570 4:18'>Phi 4:18</a></em> to describe the labour of believers which is “well pleasing to God”. The way Mary anoints the Lord with spikenard is surely to be connected with how earlier she had washed His feet with her tears. The spikenard was “precious” (<em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em> RV), not only in its value materially, but in the way Mary used it in some kind of parallel to her tears. She perceived the preciousness of her tears, her repentance, her grateful love for her Lord. And any tears we may shed in gratitude of forgiveness are likewise so precious in His sight &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:4&nbsp;<em>But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, the one that would betray him, said</em>- The other Gospels say that it was some of the disciples who said this. The disaffection of one disciple to this day so easily influences others, to the point that their words are effectively the words of the disaffected, bitter individual who stands behind them.</p>


text:
<p>12:5&nbsp;<em>Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred dinarii and given to the poor?</em>- This kind of secular approach to spiritual devotion is of the flesh and not the Spirit. What is done with money and how it is done is all on one level; the essence is of devotion to the Lord. A denarius was the penny paid for a day's hard work (<em><a href='B:470 20:2'>Mat 20:2</a></em>). The figure of 300 denarii may therefore be a round figure referring to the money earned in a year. The implication is that the disciples had a common fund from which they donated to the poor; such almsgiving was common in first century Palestine, and for the Lord to have pointedly not given alms would have been controversial. We note that He had the power to totally heal the sick, provide food and transform the material lives of people. But He used a great economy of miracle. He must have allowed this small scale poor fund to continue for the sake of developing the attitudes of the donors amongst His disciples- rather than for the sake of what the donations would achieve. There are many principles which arise out of reflection on these things, living as we do in a grossly unequal world.</p>


text:
<p>12:6&nbsp;<em>Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it-&nbsp;</em>The Lord evidently knew how Judas was taking money out of the bag. As the Son of God He was an intellectual beyond compare, and sensitive and perceptive beyond our imagination. And He noticed it; and yet said nothing. He was seeking to save Judas and He saw that to just kick up a fuss about evident weakness wasn’t the way. If only many of our brethren would show a like discernment. As noted on :5, the whole existence of this Poor Fund was not because it was effective in alleviating human need the Lord had the power to achieve that by direct intervention- but in order to develop the attitudes and devotions of the disciples.</p><p>Judas' lack of "care" for the poor uses the same word as recently used in 10:13 about the false shepherds who cared not the flock. So the point is being made that the Lord's disciples were now the shepherds of the new Israel- but there was a bad shepherd amongst them as there had been amongst Israel of old. And those poor beggars, requiring alms, were the Lord's "flock".</p>


text:
<p>12:7- see on <em><a href='B:480 14:53'>Mar 14:53</a></em>:&nbsp;<br/><em>Jesus replied: Leave her alone</em>&nbsp;- This translates a Greek phrase which essentially means ‘to forgive’, and it is usually translated like this. The Lord isn’t just saying ‘leave off her, let her be as she is’; He is saying ‘Let her be forgiven’, which is tantamount to saying ‘let her express her gratitude as she wants’. The root for her gratitude was her sense of forgiveness. This heightens the connection between Mary and the woman in the city who was a sinner of Luke 7. &nbsp;</p><p><em>She intended to keep it for the day of my burial</em>- But Mary's beloved brother Lazarus had only recently died, and been embalmed. Yet she had not used her precious possession for that, but rather kept it for her Lord's burial. Mary Magdalene’s understanding of the Lord went far beyond that of anyone else at the time. The record of Mary after the crucifixion has many links back to the woman of Luke 7. She&nbsp;<em>came to the sepulchre,</em>&nbsp;to wash the dead body with her tears, for she&nbsp;<em>went to the grave, to weep there,</em>&nbsp;and to&nbsp;<em>anoint it with the ointment</em>&nbsp;she had prepared. It’s as if in her anointing of the Lord she really did see forward to His death and burial. And yet her initial motivation in doing it all was gratitude for what He had done for her through enabling her forgiveness. The Lord’s power to forgive was ultimately due to His death, resurrection and ascension (<em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:46-47'>Luk 24:46-47</a></em>). Yet Mary believed there and then that all this would happen, and thus she believed in His forgiveness. Her second anointing of the Lord has within it the implication that she somehow perceived that her adoration was motivated on account of the death that He was to die. “It was right for her to save this perfume for today, the day for me to be prepared for burial” (<em><a href='B:500 12:7'>Joh 12:7</a></em> New Century Version). The RV of <em><a href='B:500 12:7'>Joh 12:7</a></em> gives another suggestion: “Jesus therefore said in response to Judas’ suggestion she sell the ointment and give him the money to distribute to the poor, Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying”. Mary Magdalene had kept the precious ointment to anoint Jesus with when He died; and yet Judas was pressurizing her to sell it. And yet she used at least some of it then. This would indicate that she perceived Him as good as dead; she alone it seems perceived the frequent implications in His teaching that He was living out an ongoing death. She fully intended to pour the ointment on His dead body, but she did it ahead of time because she wanted Him to know right then that she understood, and that she loved Him.</p><p>The argument of Judas for efficiency, central administration etc. is contrasted most unfavourably with her personal, simple and deeply felt emotional response to the Lord’s death. She did it at supper time (<em><a href='B:500 12:2'>Joh 12:2</a></em>). In Jewish culture of the time, a meal together had religious significance. It could be that she so dwelt upon the Lord’s teaching in John 6 that she perceived the broken bread of the meal to be symbolic and prophetic of His upcoming death. Her generosity and totality of response to His death was therefore inspired by what we would call a breaking of bread, which made real to her yet once again the endless implications of His self-sacrifice:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:8&nbsp;<em>The poor you have always with you, but me you do not have always</em>- We note the Lord's grace and wisdom in not confronting Judas about his petty theft. Rather did the Lord focus upon protecting the dignity of Mary. His allusion is clearly to <em><a href='B:50 15:11'>Deu 15:11</a></em>: "For the poor will never cease out of the land, therefore I command you, saying, You must surely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and to your poor". The context of this statement is that if Israel were obedient, then there would be no poor in the land (<em><a href='B:50 15:4'>Deu 15:4</a></em>), but because of their disobedience which Moses foresaw, there were commandments about being generous to the poor. So perhaps there was a hidden message here to Judas, if he perceived it. If he were to be obedient, then he would not be poor, he would be blessed, and there would be no need for petty theft. The Deuteronomy 15 passage also has the context of urging generosity to the poor, and not in any way seeking to get around it, nor begrudging any gift to them: "You must surely give to him, and your heart must not be grieved when you give to him" (<em><a href='B:50 15:10'>Deu 15:10</a></em>). This was precisely what had happened- Judas and all the disciples were grieved at Mary's generosity. But clearly "the poor" was Jesus Himself personally. We see here not only an insight into the Lord's personal poverty, but also into how He perceived Himself as the poor in spirit. For Biblically, "the poor" refers not simply to the financially hard up, but to the depressed, the poor in spirit. The Messianic Psalms feature David describing himself as the "poor man", although the context of many of them doesn't refer to material poverty but to David’s poverty of spirit at the time. We see therefore that the Lord of the universe can totally identify with the feelings of "the poor". Though He was rich, He made Himself a pauper for our sakes (<em><a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a></em> Gk:). That doesn't seem true in financial terms, for the Lord was never at any point financially rich (although one can speculate as to what happened to the gifts of the magi), but rather is the reference to the Lord's poverty of spirit and depression.</p>


text:
<p>12:9&nbsp;<em>The common people of the Jews learned that he was there, and they came, not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead</em>- This confirms the contrast in John between "the Jews", referring to the Jewish leadership, and "the common people". Another possibility is that John uses it specifically for those who were inhabitants of Jerusalem. Perhaps it was the literal smell of the powerful perfume which brought the people to the knowledge of the Lord's presence in that home. The resurrected Lazarus would have been a hugely powerful exhibit in favour of the Lord's power and message of life in Him.</p>


text:
<p>12:10&nbsp;<em>But the chief priests took counsel that they might put Lazarus also to death</em>- This is the classic response of those who refuse to capitulate; they try to destroy or nullify the evidence and all the inconvenient truths. Those who don't wish to believe in the Father and Son are full of such desperation. Jealousy and fear of losing position, converts and vested interest leads to a crazed attempt to denigrate and deny the validity of another's faith or witness. Lazarus had done nothing wrong- he was simply the subject of a resurrection. The fact the highest leaders of Judaism wanted to give him a death sentence simply reflects how corrupt they were.</p>


text:
<p>12:11- see on <em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em>.</p><p><em>Because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus</em>- The idea of the Greek is that they 'withdrew'; understanding "the Jews" as the Jewish leadership, there is no evidence they actually did this at this stage, but rather that they secretly believed. If as suggested on :9, "the Jews" refers to the Jerusalem Jews; then these people would have been amongst those who came out openly for the Lord at Pentecost. Perhaps here we see how inspiration records the weak faith and commitment of others in generous, positive terms (e.g. the disciples 'sleeping for sorrow'). The tragedy is that the Jewish leadership condemned the Lord to death when 'many' of them believed in Him. This is a classic feature of human beings once they get into groupings together; a group position is upheld even when the majority are against it, and even when the position is the most terrible of all, in this case, the killing of God’s Son. Again we note how the Lord had thought that some from "the crowd" would be converted (see on 11:42), when what happened was the opposite; the crowd, of whom we read in 12:12 (RV and some manuscripts "<em>the</em>&nbsp;crowd"), were those who violently turned against Him, and the converts were made from within the Jewish leadership. The Lord was human, and misplaced hopes and inaccurate suppositions of the immediate future are all part of being human.</p><p><em>Many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus</em>- The chief priests wanted Lazarus put to death simply because “many of the Jews went away” from the synagogue because of him, and it would have meant the tithes were lost or at least put in jeopardy. And this cannot be ruled out as a major factor why they wanted Jesus out of the way too, and why they persecuted the early church so fiercely, seeing that thousands of tithe-paying members were being turned against them.</p>


text:
<p>12:12&nbsp;<em>The next day, a great crowd that had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem</em>- On the triumphal entry, see on <em><a href='B:470 21:1-8'>Mat 21:1-8</a></em>. John's chronology suggests that the triumphal entry took place once there were gathered together a mass of people who were pro-Jesus, because of the witness made by the resurrection of Lazarus. I have repeatedly emphasized that events did not overtake the Lord; He used His own planning and awareness of human psychology, as well as the Father's direct power, to orchestrate things so that He gave His life precisely when and how He did. It was not taken from Him, He laid it down (see on 10:17,18). So it could be that the Lord raised Lazarus, knowing that such a spectacular miracle would provoke support for Him and also the desire to kill Him at all costs. And He orchestrated the triumphal entry in order for it to be a total come down and dashing of Messianic expectation for all who apparently supported Him, so that they would turn against Him and empower the Jews to crucify Him.</p>


text:
<p>12:13&nbsp;<em>Took the branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, and cried out: Hosanna Blessed is he that comes in the Name of the Lord, the King of Israel-&nbsp;</em>It has been so often pointed out that the crowd who welcomed the Lord into Jerusalem with shouts of “Hosanna” were the very people who days later were screaming “Crucify him”. It’s been suggested that the crowds were comprised of two different groups; those who shouted “Hosanna” were those who had come up from Galilee, and the Jerusalem crowd shouted “Crucify Him”. But <em><a href='B:500 12:13'>Joh 12:13</a></em> and <em><a href='B:500 19:14-15'>Joh 19:14-15</a></em> seem to encourage us to make a connection between the two scenes, for “the crowd”&nbsp;<em>shouts&nbsp;</em>both times- firstly “Hosanna”, and then “Crucify Him”. Personally I am convinced it was the same basic crowd. They were a classic witness to the fickleness of human loyalty to God’s Son. And remember that only a few months after Jerusalem slew Him, the leaders of the Jews feared that “the people” would have stoned them if they acted too roughly with the followers of Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 5:26'>Act 5:26</a></em>). Popular opinion had swayed back the other way again. And a while later, it was to sway against the Christians again, when “there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem” (<em><a href='B:510 8:1'>Act 8:1</a></em>). But this leads to questions, questions which aren’t answered by a simple acceptance of humanity’s fickleness. Why this&nbsp;<em>anger&nbsp;</em>with Jesus, a man who truly went about doing good, caring for little children, impressing others with the evident congruity between His words and His person? How could it have happened that the anger of His people was so focused against Him, leading them to prefer a murderer as against a Man who clearly came to give life, and that more abundantly…? &nbsp;</p><p><em>Branches of palm trees-&nbsp;</em>They welcomed Him into Jerusalem with the waving of palm fronds. These were a symbol of Jewish nationalism- hence the palm appeared on the coins of the Second Revolt (AD 132-135). Back in 164 BC when Judas Maccabeus rededicated the temple altar, palms were brought to the temple (<em>2Ma_10:7</em>); and Simon Maccabeus led the Jews back into Jerusalem with palm fronds in <em>1Ma_13:51</em>. The crowd were therefore welcoming Jesus, expecting Him to announce His Messianic Kingdom there and then. The “Hosanna” of <em><a href='B:500 12:13'>Joh 12:13</a></em> was used in addressing kings in <em><a href='B:100 14:4'>2Sa 14:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 6:26'>2Ki 6:26</a></em>. It meant literally “Save&nbsp;<em>now</em>”. They wanted a Kingdom there and then. His whole interpretation of the Kingdom, extensively and so patiently delivered for over three years, had simply failed to register with them. It seems that only after the crowd had started doing this, that the Lord consciously dashed their expectations by sitting on a donkey.</p>


text:
<p>12:14&nbsp;<em>And Jesus, having found a young donkey, sat upon it- as it is written</em>- The Lord sat upon the donkey, to fulfil the prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em> that Israel’s King would come to them “humble, and riding upon a donkey”- not a warhorse. And, moreover, Zechariah says that He would come commanding peace and not bloodlust&nbsp;<em>to the Gentiles</em>, with a world-wide dominion from sea to sea, not merely in Palestine. Those who perceived the Lord’s allusion to Zechariah 9 would have realized this was what His acted parable was trying to tell them- the Lord Jesus was not out to destroy Rome but to bring peace to them as well as all the Gentile world. A humble, lowly king was a paradox which they could not comprehend. A king, especially the Messianic King of Israel, had to be proud and war-like. The crowd must have been so terribly disappointed. He purposefully abased Himself and sat upon a donkey. This Jesus whom they had liked and loved and hoped in, turned out to totally and fundamentally&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>be the person they thought He was- despite Him so patiently seeking to show them who He really was for so long. He had become an image in their own minds, of their own creation, convenient to their own agendas- and when the truth dawned on them, that He was&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;that person, their anger against Him knew no bounds. The Russian atheist Maxim Gorky commented, in terrible language but with much truth in it, that man has created God in his own image and after his own likeness. And for so many, this is indeed the case. The image of Jesus which the crowds had was only partially based on who He really was. Some things they understood right, but very much they didn’t. And they turned away in disgust and anger when they realized how deeply and basically they had misunderstood Him. They angrily commented: “Who is this son of man?” (<em><a href='B:500 12:34'>Joh 12:34</a></em>). In that context, Jesus had not said a word about being “son of man”. But they were effectively saying: ‘What sort of Messiah / son of man figure is this? We thought you were the son-of-man Messiah, who would deliver us right now. Clearly you’re not the type of Messiah / Christ we thought you were’. All this would explain perfectly why the awful torture and mocking of Jesus in His time of dying was based around His claims to be a King. The crown of thorns, the mock-royal robe, the ‘sceptre’ put in His hand, then taken away and used to beat Him with, the mocking title over His body “This is the King of the Jews”, the anger of the Jewish leaders about this even being written as it was, the jeers of the crowd about this “King”- all this reflects the extent of anger there was with the nature of His ‘Kingship’. All the parables and teaching about the true nature of His Kingship / Kingdom had been totally ignored. The Lord had told them plainly enough. But it hadn’t penetrated at all…&nbsp; The Lord was not only misunderstood by the crowds, but His very being amongst men had provoked in them a crisis of conscience; and their response was to repress that conscience. As many others have done and do to this day, they had shifted their discontent onto an innocent victim, artificially creating a culprit and stirring up hatred against him. Their angry turning against Him was therefore a direct outcome of the way He had touched their consciences. Such tragic misunderstanding of persons occurs all the time, to varying intensities. One frequently finds married couples with such anger against each other that it seems hard for an outsider to appreciate how two such nice people could be so angry with each other. The source of that anger is often traceable to a misunderstanding of each other during courtship. Each party built up an idealized or simply incorrect image of the other; and once they really got to know the other, in the humdrum of daily life, there was a great release of anger- that the spouse was not the person the other partner had imaged. The goodness of who they really goes unperceived and is readily discounted- simply because they don’t live up to the mistaken image which the spouse had of them in other areas:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:15&nbsp;<em>Fear not, daughter of Zion Look, your King comes, sitting on an donkey's colt</em>- The colt would not have been broken in; it would have careered all over the place in a most unseemly way. It would be like a president elect driving through the streets of his capital city in an old, backfiring two door economy car- rather than a brand new Mercedes. But this humility was the special sign that was to be looked for "Look...". It was the sign that the faithful remnant "the daughter of Zion" would take encouragement from. Those who looked only for immediate Messianic blessing would be bitterly disappointed and let down; but that was the Lord's design.</p>


text:
<p>12:16- see on <em><a href='B:500 14:29'>Joh 14:29</a></em>.</p><p><em>These things his disciples did not understand at first; but when Jesus was glorified</em>- This is associated in John with the giving of the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em>). The suggestion is surely that the Holy Spirit enabled them to understand the significance of events during the Lord's ministry. The Comforter was promised to enable them to do this, and in this sense the Comforter brought about the Lord's glorification (<em><a href='B:500 16:14'>Joh 16:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:13'>Act 3:13</a></em>). In a sense, the Lord was glorified in the events of the cross (<em><a href='B:500 13:31-32'>Joh 13:31-32</a></em> "Now is the Son of Man glorified"). And yet the perception of that glory was only achieved by the disciples some time later.</p><p><em>Then they remembered that these things were written about him, and that they had done these things to him</em>- The Comforter brought things to their attention and helped them see the significance and meaning in the Lord's words and actions. For it was after all His personal presence in the hearts of the disciples. That same power and gift of the Spirit is for all time, and can have the same effect upon us.</p><p>The purpose of prophecy such as Zechariah 9 is that we shall be able to recognize the signs when they appear, not that we shall be able to predict the future:<br/>· The disciples did not expect the Lord Jesus to enter into Jerusalem "sitting on an ass's colt" in fulfilment of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>. But when He did, then soon afterwards, all became clear to them- that He had fulfilled this prophecy (<em><a href='B:500 12:16'>Joh 12:16</a></em>).</p><p>· "I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe" (<em><a href='B:500 14:29'>Joh 14:29</a></em>):&nbsp;<br/>· Likewise with prophecies such as "the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up" in <em><a href='B:230 69:9'>Psa 69:9</a></em>, and even the Lord's own prophecies of His resurrection. When it happened, "his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture (<em><a href='B:230 69:9'>Psa 69:9</a></em>), and the word which Jesus had said" (<em><a href='B:500 2:17-22'>Joh 2:17-22</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>12:17&nbsp;<em>The crowd that was with him, when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead, made testimony</em>- As noted on :12, I would say that the Lord psychologically orchestrated the flow of events which would lead to His death. "The crowd" who were the basis of His triumphal entry, who were stirred up in wanting Him to "save now" "Hosanna", were the crowd who had been motivated by their experience of Lazarus' amazing resurrection. It was their manic enthusiasm which led the Jews to panic and seek to murder the Lord at all costs. When their expectations were dashed by the whole style of the triumphal entry, this same crowd then turned violently and disappointedly against the Lord, and this fitted in perfectly with the Jewish plot to kill the Lord without problems from the masses. Yet the whole thing was orchestrated by the Lord- for He gave His life, when and how He wished; it was not taken from Him (see on 10:17,18).</p>


text:
<p>12:18&nbsp;<em>For this cause also the crowd went and met him, for they heard that he had done this miracle</em>- As noted on :17, John is stressing that the crowd so manic for the Lord to "save now", who welcomed Him into Jerusalem, was the crowd motivated by the resurrection of Lazarus. This was all planned by the Lord; He was winding them up to a peak of popularist support for Him, and then through the triumphal entry being the very opposite of their hopes, in fact a mocking of traditional Messianic expectation... He was setting them up to then turn against Him. See on :12 and :17.</p>


text:
<p>12:19&nbsp;<em>The Pharisees complained to one another: You see that you can do nothing. Look, the world has gone after him</em>- As noted on :12 and :17,18, the Lord intended His miracle to have this effect. He intended the Jewish world to momentarily turn after Him whilst their leadership became the more committed to murdering Him at all costs; so that if He then disappointed the masses of the Jewish world, then His demise would be brought about. In all this we see the Lord scheming to give His life for us, because He loved us. It was not taken from Him (see on 10:17,18).</p>


text:
<p>12:20&nbsp;<em>Now there were certain Greeks among those that went to worship at the feast</em>- These were presumably proselytes, like the Ethiopian eunuch, who had travelled to Jerusalem in order to keep Passover as far as they could. Perhaps the Ethiopian eunuch was present at this time amongst them. This would explain why Philip was sent to baptize him, for this group approached Philip at this time (:21).</p>


text:
<p>12:21&nbsp;<em>These went to Philip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him: Sir, can we see Jesus?</em>- The Gentiles perhaps approached Philip because he was known to be from an area which was mocked as being largely Gentile. When men asked “We would see Jesus” (AV), He responded by giving a prophecy of His death&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:500 12:21'>Joh 12:21</a></em>)- just as the broken bread&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;Him; His death is the essence of Him. To know Him crucified was and is to know Him. He continues by saying that if a man lost his life for Him, then that man would be with Jesus where He is. Those who want to know where Jesus is, to see Him, have to die His death (<em><a href='B:500 12:25-26'>Joh 12:25-26</a></em>). The fact the disciples did&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;appreciate His death meant, therefore, that they didn’t really appreciate&nbsp;<em>Him</em>. And they so openly stress this in their Gospels.</p>


text:
<p>12:22&nbsp;<em>Philip went and told Andrew, and then Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus-&nbsp;</em>Andrew and Philip occur together in <em><a href='B:500 1:45'>Joh 1:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:7-8'>Joh 6:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:18'>Mar 3:18</a></em>. Such friendship between two of a group of twelve is normal, and is another evidence that the Gospel records are true to reality accounts.</p>


text:
<p>12:23- see on <em><a href='B:730 7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>.</p><p><em>Jesus told them: The hour comes that the Son of Man should be glorified</em>- It can be inferred from :23 that the Lord perceived that His hour had come to lay down His life when He was told that there were Gentiles who wanted to “see” Johannine language for ‘believe’ Him. It was as if this were the cue for Him to voluntarily lay down His life. The conversion of the whole world was a major reason for the Lord’s death; and thus there is the inevitable connection between His death, and the need to take the knowledge and power of that death to the whole planet.</p><p>Through John’s Gospel, the Lord inspired an awareness that the&nbsp;<em>essence</em>&nbsp;of His coming, the day of judgment and the future Kingdom was in fact to be realized within Christian experience right now. John’s Gospel brings this out clearly. The Synoptics all include the Lord’s Mount Olivet prophecy as a lead-in to the record of the breaking of bread and crucifixion. In John, the record of this prophecy is omitted and replaced by the account of the Lord’s discourse in the upper room. “The day of the son of man” in John becomes “the hour of the cross… that the son of man should be glorified” (<em><a href='B:500 12:23'>Joh 12:23</a></em>). “Coming”, “that day”, “convict / judge the world” are all phrases picked up by John and applied to our experience of the Lord right now. In our context of judgment now, we have to appreciate that the reality of the future judgment of course holds true; but the essence of it is going on now. As John Robinson put it, “the Last Assize is being accomplished in every moment of choice and decision… Judgment Day is a dramatized, idealised picture of every day”.</p><p>The Synoptics record several references to "the day of the Son of Man" as the day of His second coming. But in John, this becomes the time when the Son of Man is glorified- which refers both to His death, and to the subsequent glorification through the giving of the Spirit into the hearts of the believers. For this was the effective 'coming' of the Lord to the believers, as they await His literal return. This is only one of many examples of where the language and events of Matthew, Mark and Luke are alluded to and expressed by John in more spiritual and abstract terms. Here are some examples:</p><p>:</p><table><tr><td></p><p>The Synoptic Gospels</td><td>John’s Gospel</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em> the keys of the Gospel of the Kingdom</td><td><em><a href='B:500 20:21'>Joh 20:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:23'>Joh 20:23</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the more literal accounts of the birth of Jesus</td><td><em><a href='B:500 1:1-14'>Joh 1:1-14</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The great preaching commission</td><td><em><a href='B:500 14:12'>Joh 14:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:18'>Joh 17:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:21'>Joh 20:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:8'>Joh 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:23'>Joh 17:23</a></em> RV</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:490 16:31'>Luk 16:31</a></em></td><td>"If you believe not (Moses') writings, how shall you believe my words?" (<em><a href='B:500 5:47'>Joh 5:47</a></em>). This is John's equivalent of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which concluded with the same basic point (<em><a href='B:490 16:31'>Luk 16:31</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The transfiguration</td><td>Whilst there is no account of the transfiguration in John, he repeatedly stresses how the Lord manifested forth His glory and was glorified. For John, the Lord's whole life was in a spiritual sense a form of the transfiguration experience which the synoptics described.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The Synoptics all include the Lord’s Mount Olivet prophecy as a lead-in to the record of the breaking of bread and crucifixion</td><td>In John, the record of this prophecy is omitted and replaced by the account of the Lord’s discourse in the upper room. “The day of the son of man” in the synoptics becomes “the hour of the cross… that the son of man should be glorified” (<em><a href='B:500 12:23'>Joh 12:23</a></em>). “Coming”, “that day”, “convict / judge the world” are all phrases picked up by John and applied to our experience of the Lord right now. In our context of judgment now, we have to appreciate that the reality of the future judgment of course holds true; but the essence of it is going on now.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The three synoptic gospels all include Peter’s ‘confession’, shortly before Jesus’ transfiguration on the mountain.</td><td>In John’s gospel the account of the transfiguration is lacking. Are we to assume that Thomas’ confession in chapter 20 is supposed to take its place?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The need for water baptism<br/>The account of the breaking of bread</p><p>The many quotations from the Old Testament, shown to be fulfilled in the Lord Jesus.<br/>The synoptics each give some account of the literal origin of Jesus through giving genealogies or some reference to them.</td><td><em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em><br/>John’s version is in <em><a href='B:500 6:48-58'>Joh 6:48-58</a></em>. He stresses that one must absorb Christ into themselves in order to really have the eternal life which the bread and blood symbolize. It seems John puts it this way in order to counter the tendency to think that merely by partaking in the ritual of breaking bread, believers are thereby guaranteed eternal life.<br/>John expresses this in more abstract language: “The word was made flesh” (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>).<br/>John’s Gospel speaks of Jesus as if He somehow existed in the plan of God from the beginning, but “became flesh” when He was born of Mary.</td><td></td></tr></table><p>The transfiguration is recorded in the synoptics, and their records include the idea that it happened “after six days” (<em><a href='B:480 9:2'>Mar 9:2</a></em>). John speaks of the same theme of Christ manifesting God’s glory, but he sees it as happening not just once at the transfiguration, but throughout the Lord’s ministry and above all in His death. Interestingly, John’s record also has the idea of the Lord manifesting the Father’s glory after six days. The Gospel opens by describing events on four successive days (<em><a href='B:500 1:19'>Joh 1:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:29'>Joh 1:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:35'>Joh 1:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:43'>Joh 1:43</a></em>), and then we read that “the third day” i:e. six or seven days after the story has begun, Jesus “manifested his glory” (<em><a href='B:500 2:1'>Joh 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 2:11'>Joh 2:11</a></em>). Again in <em><a href='B:500 7:37'>Joh 7:37</a></em>, it was on the last great day of the feast of Tabernacles, i:e. on the 7th day, that the Lord Jesus manifests Himself. Perhaps too we are to pay attention to the six days mentioned in <em><a href='B:500 12:1'>Joh 12:1</a></em>, after which the Lord was crucified and manifested the Father’s glory.</p>


text:
<p>12:24- see on <em><a href='B:480 14:35'>Mar 14:35</a></em>.</p><p><em>Truly, truly, I say to you: Except a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it abides alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit</em>&nbsp;- Gk. 'The grain'. Vine observes that this was spoken to some Greeks (:20); it was "addressed to Greeks, familiar with the Eleusinian mysteries... the risen Dionysus in the freshness of his second life was conducted from Athens to Eleusis in joyful procession. An ear of corn, plucked in solemn silence, was exhibited to the initiated as the object of mystical contemplation, as the symbol of the god, prematurely killed, but, like the ear enclosing the seed-corn, bearing within himself the germ of a second life". Here we have an example of the Lord speaking to people in terms which they could relate to. He of course didn’t believe the Eleusinian mysteries were true, just as He didn’t believe in demons, but He alludes to their incorrect ideas in order to realign their thinking towards God’s power in Himself. We likewise are to engage with this world in their own terms and language, in order to lead them to the better way.</p><p>In the parable of the sower, the Lord likened the preaching of the Gospel to a seed falling onto various types of ground, good, stony, etc. In all the synoptics, the account of the sower parable is recorded at length; and within that parable, the Lord emphasizes this falling of the seed onto the ground. Likewise He likens response to the Gospel message to “a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth… but when it is sown…” (<em><a href='B:480 4:31-32'>Mar 4:31-32</a></em>). But the Lord clearly understood the image of a seed falling into the ground as prophetic of His forthcoming crucifixion (<em><a href='B:500 12:23-25'>Joh 12:23-25</a></em>). The connection in His mind is surely clear- the preaching of the Gospel is a form of death and crucifixion, in order to bring forth a harvest in others. Through preaching, we live out the Lord's death for others in practice, we placard Him crucified before the world's eyes. We are not simply "Him" to them; we are Him crucified to them. The honour of this is surpassing.</p><p><em>It abides alone-&nbsp;</em>The Lord Jesus died a lonely death. Loneliness is a part of sharing in the crucifixion life. The Lord hinted at the loneliness of the cross in saying that the seed falls into the ground and ‘dies’ “alone”- but then brings forth much fruit as a result of that alone-ness (<em><a href='B:500 12:24'>Joh 12:24</a></em>). The High Priest entered alone into the Most Holy place with the blood of atonement (<em><a href='B:650 9:7'>Heb 9:7</a></em>). Any stepping out of the comfort zone is an inevitably lonely experience, just as the crucifixion life of Jesus was the ultimately lonely experience. For nobody else knows exactly how you feel in e.g. turning down that job, giving away those savings, quitting that worldly friendship, quietly selling something...</p><p><em>It bears much fruit</em>- He mused that if He didn’t allow Himself to fall to the ground and die, no fruit could be brought forth (<em><a href='B:500 12:24'>Joh 12:24</a></em>). The fact He did means that we will bring forth fruit. It could be that the reference in <em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em> to the Holy Spirit being given through the Lord’s death (His ‘glory’), as symbolized by the water flowing from His side, means that due to the cross we have the inspiration to a holy, spiritual way of life. It is not so that His death released some mystical influence which would change men and women whether or not they will it; rather is it that His example there inspires those who are open to it. We have been reconciled to God through the cross of Jesus, and yet therefore we must be reconciled to God, and take the message of reconciliation to others. What has been achieved there in prospect we have to make real for us, by appropriating it to ourselves in repentance, baptism and a life of ongoing repentance (<em><a href='B:540 5:18-20'>2Co 5:18-20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 5:10'>Rom 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:14-15'>2Co 5:14-15</a></em>).</p><p>The fruit brought forth depends upon our freewill bringing forth of that fruit: "I chose you, and appointed you to go and bear fruit s:w. 12:24, and that your fruit should remain" (<em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>, as in the parable of the sower, <em><a href='B:480 4:8'>Mar 4:8</a></em>). The more fruit we bring forth, the more His work and death is glorified. And the language in 15:16 of&nbsp;<em>going</em>&nbsp;and bearing fruit is surely John's version of the great preaching commission recorded in the Synoptics.</p><p>Here the Lord assumes that His death, His falling into the ground, would be matched by His followers also hating their lives, that they might rise again. And He connects His death with glorification. Soon afterwards, the Lord spoke of how his followers would likewise “bear much fruit”, and thus&nbsp;<em>glorify</em>&nbsp;God. And in this context He continues with words which can be read as John’s record of the great preaching commission: “I have chosen you... that ye should&nbsp;<em>go&nbsp;</em>cp. “Go ye into all the world..." and bring forth fruit” (<em><a href='B:500 15:8'>Joh 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>). Clearly the Lord connected His bringing forth of “much fruit” through His death with the same “much fruit” being brought forth by the disciples’ witness. It follows from this that the fruit which He potentially achieved on the cross is brought to reality by our preaching. And perhaps it is also possible to see a parallel between our preaching and His laying down of His life on the cross, as if the work of witness is in effect a laying down of life by the preacher, in order to bring forth fruit. Likewise the Lord had earlier linked the life of cross carrying with bearing witness to the world around us (<em><a href='B:490 9:23'>Luk 9:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:26'>Luk 9:26</a></em>). As His witnesses we bare His cross as well as share His glory. See on <em><a href='B:500 17:20'>Joh 17:20</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>12:25&nbsp;<em>He that loves his life</em>- "Life" translates&nbsp;<em>psuche</em>, "soul". This is surely the Gospel of John's equivalent of the parable of the rich fool, who so loved his own soul but lost it: "I will say to my soul: Soul, you have many goods..." (<em><a href='B:490 12:19'>Luk 12:19</a></em>). But here in John we see that the Lord half spoke that parable to Himself; if He refused the cross, He would be loving His own soul, trying to be briefly rich for himself in this world.</p><p><em>Loses it</em>- As so often, the Lord was clearly half talking to Himself here. For in the immediate context, it was His life which was to be lost, or could be temporarily kept if He were to refuse the cross. We are right now losing our lives if we love ourselves. The final judgment is likened to a winnowing process. But right now, according to <em><a href='B:230 139:3'>Psa 139:3</a></em> RVmg:, God winnows our path our daily living, all day ("my path") and every evening (at my "lying down"). "The Lord sat as king in judgment at the Flood. Yea, the Lord sitteth King for ever" (<em><a href='B:230 29:10'>Psa 29:10</a></em> RV); He is just as much sitting in judgment now as He was at the flood, which is a well-known type of the judgment to come. He speaks of our death in the context of His death. Baptism is a statement that we are prepared to identify with His death as the guiding principle for the rest of our eternal existence.</p><p><em>He that hates his life in this world, shall keep it to everlasting life</em>- The Lord carefully doesn't speak of 'losing' life and then receiving it. Instead, He speaks of keeping life and that life becoming everlasting. As He made clear in the events and teaching of the resurrection of Lazarus in John 11, death for Him was not death. The important thing was the kind of life we now live; for He is often recorded by John as teaching that we can live the eternal life right now. We can live the kind of life we shall eternally live. Note that we 'keep' our current spiritual life eternally; we will eternally be who we are spiritually today. In this lies the paramount and eternal importance of spiritual mindedness and character development.</p>


text:
<p>12:26- see on <em><a href='B:490 9:54-55'>Luk 9:54-55</a></em>.</p><p><em>If anyone desires to serve me, he must follow me</em>- Whoever serves Gk. ‘is a deacon of’ the Lord Jesus must follow Him, and the idea of following Him is usually connected with His walk to death on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 12:26'>Joh 12:26</a></em>). We are all asked to follow Him, it is all part of being His disciples, and so we are all asked to be ‘deacons’ in this sense. Our service is of&nbsp;<em>each other</em>; to walk away from active involvement because of personality clashes etc. is to walk away from true, cross-carrying Christianity. In unfeigned humility, let us by love serve one another, and in so doing know the spirit of the Lord who served, and thereby share together His exaltation.</p><p>I have suggested that John's Gospel record had a missionary intention and background. It was the transcript of how John preached the Gospel to a particular Jewish interest group, and he backed it up by his three letters which are full of allusion to the Gospel. The Greek for "serve" here is elsewhere translated "use the office of a deacon". There could well be a specific localized point being made to the Johannine community of converts- any desiring to be a deacon in the church community must be aware that such service is all about sharing in the spirit of the Lord's cross. Truly, "If anyone serves me as a deacon, in this initial context, the Father will honour him". Honour is what church servants receive (<em><a href='B:610 5:17'>1Ti 5:17</a></em>)</p><p><em>He must follow me-&nbsp;</em>“Follow me" is usually used by the Lord in the context of taking up the cross and following Him. True service is cross-carrying. It cannot be that we serve, truly serve, in order to advance our own egos. It is all too easy to “serve" especially in an ecclesial context without truly carrying the Lord’s cross.</p><p><em>And where I am, there shall also my servant be-&nbsp;</em>Where He was right then was at a place where He saw so clearly the cross beckoning, and desperately wished there might be another way. When there was not. We can know something of the spirit of His cross. We can be where He was and where He is, in spirit. The life of cross carrying, devotion to the principles of the cross, will lead us to be with Him always wherever He leads us. In <em><a href='B:500 12:24-26'>Joh 12:24-26</a></em> losing life as the Lord lost His, serving Him, following Him, being “where I am" are all parallel. "I am" can legitimately be read as an allusion to the Yahweh Name, and this was manifested supremely in the Lord's death. The sense is therefore that where "I am" would be, i:e. on the cross, to there those who follow the Lord will also come.</p><p><em>If anyone serves me, the Father will honour him-&nbsp;</em>It makes an interesting exercise to compare all the Lord's references to "<em>My</em>&nbsp;Father" and to "<em>The&nbsp;</em>Father". So much of what He says about His relationship with "My Father" He says about our relationship to "The Father". He was seeking to inculcate an awareness of what He finally states in so many words in <em><a href='B:500 20:17'>Joh 20:17</a></em> - that His Father is our Father. His relationship with the Father can be replicated in ours with the same Father, through the spirit of adoption which makes us His dear sons too.</p>


text:
<p>12:27&nbsp;<em>Now is my soul disturbed</em>- The same word used about the Lord's disturbed soul at the death and resurrection of Lazarus (<em><a href='B:500 11:33'>Joh 11:33</a></em>). He saw in the death and resurrection of Lazarus a foretaste of His own, hence His groaning in spirit.</p><p><em>What shall I say?</em>- This is often read as the Lord meaning: 'Shall I say 'Save Me from this hour?'', as if He is going through various options of possible prayer. But He does indeed ask to be saved from the hour. Therefore I see this as Him wondering how to find the right words with which to verbalize His emotions. The language of the Lord's intercession with groanings which cannot be spoken (<em><a href='B:520 8:26-27'>Rom 8:26-27</a></em>) clearly alludes to His groanings at the resurrection of Lazarus and now as He faces His own death. In that very context, Paul says that we too know not how to pray as we should (<em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>). The Lord also was at that place.</p><p><em>Father, save me from this hour?</em>- Jesus seems to have prepared His words before praying them. But it appears He decided against praying that. The question mark isn't required by the Greek. The sense is 'save me&nbsp;<em>out of</em>&nbsp;this hour', and we read in <em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em> that the Lord prayed this and was heard because of His groanings in prayer. So this was not just a prayer He contemplated praying. He prayed it, and it was answered in His resurrection.</p>


text:
<p>12:28&nbsp;<em>Father, glorify your name</em>- The Lord Jesus struggled in Gethsemane between “save&nbsp;<em>me</em>..." and “Father, glorify Your name”. The glorifying of the Father’s Name meant more to him than his personal salvation. Likewise Moses and Paul in spirit were prepared to sacrifice their personal salvation for the sake of Yahweh’s Name being glorified in the saving of His people (<em><a href='B:20 32:30-34'>Exo 32:30-34</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 9:1-3'>Rom 9:1-3</a></em>).</p><p>When He addressed God as&nbsp;<em>abba</em>, 'dad', the Jews would have been scandalized. But this was the experience He had of God as a near at hand, compassionate Father. He purposefully juxtaposed&nbsp;<em>abba</em>&nbsp;with the Divine Name which Jews were so paranoid about pronouncing: "Abba, glorify your name" (<em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>). This was nothing short of scandal to Jewish ears. And we&nbsp;are to pray as the Lord prayed, also using "Abba, father" (<em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:6'>Gal 4:6</a></em>). Seeing it was unheard of at the time for Jews to pray to God using 'Abba', Paul is clearly encouraging us to relate to God and pray to Him as Jesus did (cp. <em><a href='B:500 20:17'>Joh 20:17</a></em>). The Lord made a big deal of calling God 'Abba', even forbidding His Jewish followers to use the term about anyone else (<em><a href='B:470 23:9'>Mat 23:9</a></em>).</p><p>The Lord Jesus prayed out loud: "Father, glorify Your name". A voice came from Heaven saying that God had already done this and would do it again. And the Lord told the listeners that this response came not for His sake, not really as an answer to His prayer, but for their sakes, that in the apparent 'answer' to His words, they might see the power of prayer and the extent of the Father's relationship with the Son (<em><a href='B:500 12:28-30'>Joh 12:28-30</a></em>). But He knew that the prayer had already been answered before it was prayed. And even with us, answers can come not necessarily for the sake of the answer, but to demonstrate other principles. Likewise the Lord asks us to pray for the Kingdom to come, not because this means that a certain number of prayers will change the date, but surely because the process of petition for the Kingdom is for our benefit.<br/>"Father, glorify your name" could have been a request for the whole crucifixion and resurrection event to start there and then. It would only be natural for any genuine human to wish for it to start and be done with. There is good reason to understand that in those wretched hours of crucifixion, God was especially manifested to the world. There was a matchless, never to be surpassed partnership between Father and Son on the cross. God was in Christ on the cross, reconciling the world unto Himself (<em><a href='B:540 5:19'>2Co 5:19</a></em>). There the Lord Jesus manifested and declared the Father's Name, His essential character, to the full (<em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:31-32'>Joh 13:31-32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:5-6'>Joh 17:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>). The Lord's references to 'going to the Father' referred to His coming crucifixion. That was where the Father was, on the cross. In the very moment of His death the observing Centurion gasped, twice: "<em>Truly</em>&nbsp;this was the Son of God" (<em><a href='B:480 15:40'>Mar 15:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:46'>Luk 23:46</a></em>). There was something so evidently Godly in that death. God was so near.</p><p>"Hallowed be your name" isn't merely an ascription of praise- it's actually a request for God to carry out all the implications of His Name in practice. When we sing praise to God’s Name, we ask for it to be glorified- and here is where praise isn't mere painless performance of music. Once we bring the Name of God into it, we're actually asking for action in our lives. Jesus Himself prayed that part of His model prayer- "Father, glorify your name" (<em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>)- and soon afterwards He could comment that in His death, "Now the Son of man is glorified, and in him God is glorified" (<em><a href='B:500 13:31'>Joh 13:31</a></em>). Thus in the Lord's case, a request to glorify God’s Name lead Him ultimately to the cross.</p><p>The continuity of personality between the human Jesus and the now-exalted Jesus is brought out by meditation upon His “glory”. The glory of God refers to His essential personality and characteristics. When He ‘glorifies Himself’, He articulates that personality- e.g. in the condemnation of the wicked or the salvation of His people. Thus God was "glorified" in the judgment of the disobedient (<em><a href='B:330 28:22'>Eze 28:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 39:13'>Eze 39:13</a></em>), just as much as He is "glorified" in the salvation of His obedient people. God glorified Himself in redeeming Israel, both in saving them out of Babylon, and ultimately in the future. Thus He was glorified in His servant Israel (<em><a href='B:290 44:23'>Isa 44:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:3'>Isa 49:3</a></em>). There are therefore both times and issues over which the Father is glorified. He was above all glorified in the resurrection of His Son. Each of these 'glorifications' meant that the essential Name / personality of the Father was being manifested and justified. The glory of the Lord Jesus was that of the Father. He was glorified in various ways and at different times within His ministry (e.g. <em><a href='B:500 11:4'>Joh 11:4</a></em>); but He was also glorified in His resurrection and exaltation (<em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em>). As the Lord approached the cross, He asked that the Father's Name be glorified. The response from Heaven was that God had already glorified it in Christ, and would do so again (<em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>). At the last Supper, the Lord could say: "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him" (<em><a href='B:500 13:31'>Joh 13:31</a></em>):&nbsp; And yet various Scriptures teach that the Son of man was to be glorified in His death, in His resurrection (<em><a href='B:510 3:13'>Act 3:13</a></em>), at His ascension, in His priestly mediation for us now (<em><a href='B:650 5:5'>Heb 5:5</a></em>), in the praise His body on earth would give Him, in their every victory over sin, in every convert made (<em><a href='B:510 13:48'>Act 13:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:1'>2Th 3:1</a></em>), in every answered prayer (<em><a href='B:500 14:13'>Joh 14:13</a></em>), and especially at His return (<em><a href='B:600 1:10'>2Th 1:10</a></em>)... So the glorification of the Lord Jesus wasn't solely associated with His resurrection, and therefore it wasn't solely associated with His nature being changed or His receiving a new body. In each of these events, and at each of these times, the Name / glory / personality of the Father is being manifested, justified and articulated.</p><p><em>I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again</em>- The Name was glorified in the Lord's perfect life, and would be supremely in His death. There, in the nakedness, blood and spittle of the cross, the Name of God was declared. And yet the Name is glorified in that the characteristics of God are declared in the willing response of people ("Who shall not fear You and glorify Your Name?", <em><a href='B:730 15:4'>Rev 15:4</a></em> s:w:). But here, God speaks of how He will glorify His Name; the revealing of His characteristics in people is not only over to them to achieve; God through the Spirit will do His part in bringing this about.</p>


text:
<p>12:29&nbsp;<em>The crowd that stood by and heard it</em>- They heard the "voice" from Heaven (:28). Significantly, <em><a href='B:500 3:29'>Joh 3:29</a></em> has spoken of John the Baptist as 'standing and hearing' same Greek words the Lord's voice. The voice came for their sakes (:30), so we are led to imagine this crowd as containing believers, perhaps prepared by John the Baptist's preaching. "The crowd" had heard God’s voice; to turn away from His Son was to totally deny His personal appeal to them. And yet this "crowd" were the very group who soon were to turn against the Lord and cry for His crucifixion, because their expectations of Messiah had been dashed.</p><p><em>Said that it had thundered. Others said an angel had spoken to him</em>- This is all the language of Old Testament theophany, especially to Moses. The Lord is clearly being established as greater than Moses, and they are being called to be a new Israel obedient to a new covenant.</p>


text:
<p>12:30&nbsp;<em>Jesus responded: This voice has not come for my sake, but for your sakes</em>- To hear the actual voice of His Father might seem the ultimate encouragement to the Lord. After all the years of abstraction, of praying to the Father and reading His voice in His written word... to finally hear His actual voice would seem to be a case of faith gloriously and triumphantly turned to sight. But the Lord emphasizes that hearing the Father's actual voice was not for His sake. It did not as it were encourage Him. We are reminded of Elisha being so sure there were Angels surrounding him that he asked for only the eyes of his servant to be opened to behold them (<em><a href='B:120 6:17'>2Ki 6:17</a></em>). And so we are set up for the momentous teaching about the Comforter which is to come in chapters 14-16. Physicalities like seeing or hearing a person are on a very low level. The presence of the Comforter in our hearts will actually be more significant than having the Lord's literal presence. And likewise, the manifestation of the Father in the Son is far more than hearing His literal, physical voice. This is a huge challenge to us. To read the Bible and have the Spirit operative in our hearts, and the Lord's presence there, as of the word made flesh, is&nbsp;<em>more than</em>&nbsp;actually hearing the voice of God almighty.</p>


text:
<p>12:31&nbsp;<em>Now is the judgment of this world</em>- The coming of the voice was to encourage that crowd that the Lord was indeed of God, and that the Jewish world which had such a pull on them against Him was actually under judgment, just as He had proclaimed. The Lord plainly described His death as "the judgment of this world". Because there was "no judgment" in the ultimate sense as there was no justice, therefore the Lord Jesus died on the cross (<em><a href='B:290 59:15-16'>Isa 59:15-16</a></em>). This was the ultimate judgment of this world. There the Lord God, through His Son, acted as judge in condemning sin (<em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em>).</p><p><em>Now shall the prince of this world be cast out-</em></p><p>The “prince of this world” is described as being “cast out”, coming to the Lord Jesus, having no part in Him and being “judged”, all during the last few hours before Christ’s death (<em><a href='B:500 12:31'>Joh 12:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:30'>Joh 14:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:11'>Joh 16:11</a></em>). All these descriptions seem to fit the Jewish system as represented by the Law, Moses, Caiaphas the High Priest, Judas and the Jews wanting to kill Jesus, and Judas. Note that “the prince of this world” refers to Roman and Jewish governors in <em><a href='B:530 2:6'>1Co 2:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:8'>1Co 2:8</a></em>. At the Lord’s death the Mosaic system was done away with (<em><a href='B:580 2:14-17'>Col 2:14-17</a></em>); the “bondwoman”, representing the Law in the allegory, was “cast out” (<em><a href='B:550 4:30'>Gal 4:30</a></em>). “The prince of this world” is described, in the very same words, as being “cast out” (<em><a href='B:500 12:31'>Joh 12:31</a></em>).</p><p>Caiaphas?</p><p>Wycliffe in archaic English renders <em><a href='B:470 26:3'>Mat 26:3</a></em>: “Then the princes of priests and the elder men of the people were gathered into the hall of the prince of priests, that was said Caiaphas”. The “world” in John’s Gospel refers primarily to the Jewish world; its “prince” can either be a personification of it, or a reference to Caiaphas the High Priest. Caiaphas’ equivalent name in Hebrew could suggest ‘cast out’; his rending of his priestly clothes at Christ’s trial declared him “cast out” of the priesthood (see <em><a href='B:30 10:6'>Lev 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:10'>Lev 21:10</a></em>). “This world” and its “prince” are treated in parallel by John (12:31 cp. 16:11) – just as Jesus, the prince of the Kingdom, can be called therefore “the Kingdom” (<em><a href='B:490 17:21'>Luk 17:21</a></em>). <em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em> describes Christ’s ending of the Law on the cross as “spoiling principalities and powers” – the “prince” of the Jewish world being “cast out” (a similar idea in Greek to “spoiling”) would then parallel this. The Jews “caught” Jesus and cast Him out of the vineyard (<em><a href='B:470 21:39'>Mat 21:39</a></em>) – but in doing so, they themselves were cast out of the vineyard and “spoiled” by Jesus (<em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em>).</p><p>If indeed “the prince of this world” is a reference to Caiaphas, then we have to face the fact that this individual is being singled out by the Lord for very special condemnation, as the very embodiment of ‘Satan’, sin and its desires, all that was then in opposition to God. This is confirmed by the Lord’s comment to Pilate that “he that delivered me unto you has the greatest sin” (<em><a href='B:500 19:11'>Joh 19:11</a></em> Gk. – “greater” in the AV is translated “greatest” in <em><a href='B:530 13:13'>1Co 13:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:34'>Mar 9:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:32'>Mat 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:1'>Mat 18:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:4'>Mat 18:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:11'>Mat 23:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:46'>Luk 9:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:24'>Luk 22:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:26'>Luk 22:26</a></em>). It was Caiaphas and the Jews who “delivered” Jesus to Pilate to execute (<em><a href='B:470 27:2'>Mat 27:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:18'>Mat 27:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:30'>Joh 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:35'>Joh 18:35</a></em> s:w:). But the Lord speaks as if one person amongst them in particular had delivered Him to Pilate – and that specific individual was Caiaphas. If Caiaphas had the “greatest sin” in the crucifixion of God’s son, we can understand how he is singled out by the Lord Jesus for such description as the “prince of this world”. A number of expositors have interpreted “the Devil... that had the power of death” in <em><a href='B:650 2:14-17'>Heb 2:14-17</a></em> as an allusion to Caiaphas.</p><p>Judas and “The prince of this world”</p><p>There are points of association between "the prince of this world" and Judas; I suggest, because Judas was the agent of Caiaphas and the Jewish world. After Judas left the upper room we get the impression that Jesus started to talk more earnestly and intensely. Immediately after Judas went out Jesus said, “<em>Now&nbsp;</em>is the Son of man glorified... Little children, yet a little while I am with you... Hereafter I will not talk much (longer) with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me” (<em><a href='B:500 13:31'>Joh 13:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:33'>Joh 13:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:30'>Joh 14:30</a></em>). Because He knew Judas would soon return with his men, Christ wanted to give the disciples as much instruction as possible in the time that remained. This would explain the extraordinary intensity of meaning behind the language used in John 14-17. After He finished, “Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees,&nbsp;<em>cometh</em>..." (<em><a href='B:500 18:3'>Joh 18:3</a></em>); “The prince of this world&nbsp;<em>cometh</em>”, Jesus had prophesied, epitomized in the person and attitude of Judas. Christ had told the disciples that “the prince” “hath nothing (cp. no part) in Me” (<em><a href='B:500 14:30'>Joh 14:30</a></em>). Not until Judas appeared with the men would the disciples have realized that he was the betrayer (see <em><a href='B:500 18:3-5'>Joh 18:3-5</a></em>). Jesus knew this would come as a shock to them, and would lead them to question whether they themselves were in Christ; therefore He warned them that Judas, as a manifestation of “the prince of this world”, had no part in Him any longer. For “the Devil” of the Jewish authorities and system, perhaps Caiaphas personally, had put into the heart of Judas to betray the Lord (<em><a href='B:500 13:2'>Joh 13:2</a></em>). The whole Jewish leadership were the “betrayers” of Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 7:52'>Act 7:52</a></em>) in that Judas, the one singular betrayer, was the epitome of the Jewish system and the agent of Caiaphas. The prince having nothing in Christ suggests a reference to <em><a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a></em>: “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, and shall have nothing (A:V. margin – i:e. have no part): and the people of the prince that shall come (the Romans) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary”. Thus it was the Jewish world as well as Judas which had nothing in Messiah, and the system they represented was to be destroyed by another (Roman) “prince that shall come” to replace the (Jewish) “prince of this world”. The occurrence of the phrase “prince” and the idea of having nothing in Messiah in both <em><a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a></em> and <em><a href='B:500 14:30'>Joh 14:30</a></em> suggest there must be a connection of this nature.</p><p>Judas betrayed the Lord Jesus because he was bought out and thus controlled by the Jewish ‘Satan’. The fact that Judas was “one of the twelve” as he sat at the last supper is emphasized by all the Gospel writers – the phrase occurs in <em><a href='B:470 26:14'>Mat 26:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:20'>Mar 14:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:47'>Luk 22:47</a></em> and <em><a href='B:500 13:21'>Joh 13:21</a></em>. Thus later Peter reflected: “he was numbered with us (cp. “one of the twelve”), and had (once) obtained&nbsp;<em>part</em>&nbsp;of this ministry” (<em><a href='B:510 1:17'>Act 1:17</a></em>), alluding back to Christ’s statement that “the prince of this world” ultimately had&nbsp;<em>no&nbsp;</em>part in Him. Similarly <em><a href='B:690 2:19'>1Jn 2:19</a></em> probably alludes to Judas as a type of all who return to the world: “They went out from us, but they were not of us” (cp. “Judas, one of the twelve”). Judas is described as a Devil (<em><a href='B:500 6:70'>Joh 6:70</a></em>), and his leaving the room may have connected in the Lord’s mind with “the prince of this world” being cast out. Those who “went out from us” in <em><a href='B:690 2:19'>1Jn 2:19</a></em> were primarily those who left the Jewish ecclesias (to whom John was largely writing) to return to Judaism, and they who left were epitomized by Judas. <em><a href='B:680 2:13'>2Pe 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:15'>2Pe 2:15</a></em> equates the Judaizers within the ecclesias with Balaam “who loved the wages of unrighteousness”. The only other time this latter phrase occurs is in <em><a href='B:510 1:18'>Act 1:18</a></em> concerning Judas.</p><p>“Cast out”<br/>Apostate Israel are described in the very language of the adversaries / Satans of God’s people. Because they acted like the world around them, from which they had been called out, they were ultimately judged by God as part of that world. Consider all the times when God’s apostate people are recorded as acting in terms of their Arab cousins; thus apostate Israel and the Jewish system were to be "cast out" (<em><a href='B:500 12:31'>Joh 12:31</a></em>) just as Ishmael had been (<em><a href='B:10 21:10'>Gen 21:10</a></em>).</p><p>“Cast out” in the Old Testament at times refers to Israel being cast out of the land for their disobedience (cp. <em><a href='B:490 19:45'>Luk 19:45</a></em>). This was what was to happen to the first century Jews. The Law itself was to be “cast out” (<em><a href='B:550 4:30'>Gal 4:30</a></em>). The idea of being cast out recalls the casting out of Hagar and Ishmael. The Lord commented concerning the end of the Mosaic system: “The servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever” (<em><a href='B:500 8:35'>Joh 8:35</a></em>). The description of apostate Israel as being “cast out in the open field” with none to pity them except God must have some reference to Ishmael (<em><a href='B:330 16:5'>Eze 16:5</a></em>). <em><a href='B:550 4:29-30'>Gal 4:29-30</a></em> specifically connects the Law with Hagar, and the source of this passage in <em><a href='B:290 54:1-7'>Isa 54:1-7</a></em> concerning the calling again of a forsaken young wife who had more children than the married wife has similarities with Hagar’s return to Abraham in Genesis 16. After Hagar’s final rejection in Genesis 21, she wandered through the Paran wilderness carrying Ishmael – as Israel was carried by God through the same wilderness. The miraculous provision of water for Israel in this place is a further similarity, as is Ishmael’s name, which means ‘God heard the cry’ – as He did of His people in Egypt. Thus Hagar and Ishmael represent apostate Israel, and both of them were “cast out”. <em><a href='B:520 9:6-8'>Rom 9:6-8</a></em> provides more confirmation: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel... but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God”. Paul’s reminder that the seed was to be traced through Isaac, and that the apostate Israel of the first century were not the true Israel of God but the children of the flesh, leads us to identify them with Ishmael, the prototype child of the flesh. In the same way, Jeremiah describes wayward Israel as a wild ass (<em><a href='B:300 2:24'>Jer 2:24</a></em>), perhaps inviting comparison with Ishmael, the wild ass man (<em><a href='B:10 16:12'>Gen 16:12</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>12:32- see on <em><a href='B:500 3:14-21'>Joh 3:14-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:13'>Joh 19:13</a></em>.</p><p><em>And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself-&nbsp;</em>The Lord's lifting up on the pole resulted in all men being drawn unto him (<em><a href='B:500 12:32'>Joh 12:32</a></em>); but this is taking language from Isaiah's prophecies of how the Lord Jesus at His return would be raised up like an ensign (s:w. pole, <em><a href='B:40 21:9'>Num 21:9</a></em>), and all people would be gathered to Him for judgment (<em><a href='B:290 5:26'>Isa 5:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 11:10'>Isa 11:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 18:3'>Isa 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:22'>Isa 49:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 62:10'>Isa 62:10</a></em>). There is evidently a connection between the Lord's lifting up on the pole / cross and gathering all men to Him, and the way in which all men will be gathered to Him at His return. His cross was a foretaste of the judgment. Our feelings before His cross&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>will be those we experience before Him at the final judgment. See on <em><a href='B:500 19:37'>Joh 19:37</a></em>.</p><p>The Lord foresaw that if He were lifted up, He would&nbsp;<em>thereby</em>&nbsp;draw all men men of all types, of all nations and languages unto Him in truth (<em><a href='B:500 12:32'>Joh 12:32</a></em>). And a brief reflection upon the effect of the cross in human lives will reveal that this has indeed been the case. The cross was an instrument of torture; yet it inspires men to write hymns of praise about it e.g. “When I survey the wondrous cross…". Men have never written hymns of praise to the guillotine or hangman’s rope. Nor have men made small relics of an electric chair and glanced towards them for inspiration at hard times.</p><p><em>From the earth</em>- Gk:&nbsp;<em>out of</em>&nbsp;the earth. The reference is not only to the lifting up in crucifixion, but to the lifting up in resurrection and then ascension glory.</p><p><em>All men-&nbsp;</em>“All men" would be drawn together unto the crucified Christ (<em><a href='B:500 12:32'>Joh 12:32</a></em>). There is a theme in John's Gospel, that there was disunity amongst the Jews whenever they rejected the message of Christ crucified (7:43; 9:16; 10:19- which implies this was often the case). Conversely, acceptance of His atonement leads to unity. The crucified Son of Man must be lifted up by our preaching before the eyes of all, so that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish (<em><a href='B:500 3:14-15'>Joh 3:14-15</a></em>). “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (<em><a href='B:500 12:32'>Joh 12:32</a></em>)- but we draw men by our spreading of the Gospel net, preaching to “all men”. Thus the extent of the Lord’s achievement on the cross depends upon our preaching of it.</p><p><em>Whenever</em>&nbsp;we come into contact with Him, or reflect upon Him and His death, we are in some sense coming before Him in judgment. Indeed,&nbsp;<em>any&nbsp;</em>meeting of God with man, or His Son with men, is effectively some kind of judgment process. The brightness of their light inevitably, by its very nature, shows up the dark shadows of our lives. In the cross we see the glory of the Lord Jesus epitomised and presented in its most concentrated form. In <em><a href='B:500 12:31-32'>Joh 12:31-32</a></em>, in the same passage in which Isaiah 6, 53 are connected and applied to the crucifixion, He Himself foretold that His death would be “the judgment of this world". And He explained in the next breath that His being ‘lifted up from the earth’ (an Isaiah 6 allusion) would gather all men unto Him (cp. “all men" being gathered to the last judgment, <em><a href='B:290 49:22'>Isa 49:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 62:10'>Isa 62:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>). When He was lifted up, then the Jews would know their judgments (<em><a href='B:500 8:26-28'>Joh 8:26-28</a></em>).</p><p>The whole congregation (LXX&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>) of Israel were "gathered together" before the smitten rock, which "was Christ" crucified (<em><a href='B:40 20:8'>Num 20:8</a></em> cp. 21:16; <em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>). The "ensign", the pole on which the brazen serpent was lifted up, would draw together the scattered individuals of God’s people (<em><a href='B:290 11:2'>Isa 11:2</a></em>); and as stricken Israel were gathered around that pole, so the lifting up of the crucified Christ brings together all His people (<em><a href='B:500 12:32'>Joh 12:32</a></em> cp. 3:14). See on <em><a href='B:500 17:21'>Joh 17:21</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>12:33&nbsp;<em>But this he said to signify by what manner of death he should die</em>- The Lord intended to die by crucifixion. "Should",&nbsp;<em>mello</em>, has a strong flavour of intention and self-purpose. This was the manner of death He chose. He became obedient to death, even the death of the cross; and yet that death was also of His own device. This gives even more significance to "the cross"; for it was His own intention to die that way. He could have legitimately sacrificed Himself in many ways; for He gave His life totally of Himself and it was not taken from Him. But He chose this cruellest and most public form because He so wanted to appeal to men and women to repent. May we respond to it and not shrug and walk on by.</p>


text:
<p>12:34- see on <em><a href='B:500 12:13'>Joh 12:13</a></em>.</p><p><em>The crowd asked him: We have heard out of the law that the Christ abides forever; and how do you say: The Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?</em>- This same "crowd" had been enthused by the resurrection of Lazarus and were welcoming the Lord as Messiah on the basis that He would establish an eternal Messianic Kingdom there and then. As explained on :12 and elsewhere, the Lord purposefully deflated their expectations. They were in love with an image of Him and not He Himself; and when He brought that to their attention, saying that He had come to die and not start a political Kingdom; it had the desired effect. They turned against Him. "Who is this Son of Man?" can imply 'We don't need a Son of Man Messiah of&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;kind'. A crucified Messiah was anathema to them, so much so that they actually went and got Him crucified.</p>


text:
<p>12:35&nbsp;<em>Jesus replied to them: Yet a little while is the light among you. Walk while you have the light, so that darkness does not overtake you. He that walks in the darkness does not know where he goes-&nbsp;</em>He had earlier spoken of Himself as the light of the world, meaning a torch lifted up, just as the snake was lifted up on a standard pole. And He had spoken this in evident anticipation of the manner of His death. Yet He speaks as if He was in His life the light of the world, by which men must walk; the prologue introduces this theme. His life exhibited the spirit of His final death. And this is the light, lifted up, by which we must live. There can be no sense of direction to life unless it is guided by the principles of the cross- we will know not whither we go. For those whose lives seems a long tunnel, through reason of their jobs or family burdens, let His cross enlighten our darkness. The light of His example was literally only to be with them a few more days before He would die. The darkness which could overtake them was that of Judaism, according to the prologue; and John's letters define that darkness as hating our brother. For those Jews to not accept the Lord as their Messiah and to crucify Him, and then persecute His followers, is all not living in love towards our brother. This is to live in darkness.</p>


text:
<p>12:36&nbsp;<em>Believe in the light, so that you may become sons of light-&nbsp;</em>Our belief in any statement of faith should be just that- a statement of our living faith, rather than a mere statement of our intellectual, academic, theoretical opinion. Our lives and personalities above all are our individual statement of faith. The doctrine of the cross, of the Gospel, of the man and Lord Christ Jesus, is to be the centre of not merely our mind and reason, but at the core of our actual life and conscience. For we become like what we believe in- if we believe in the light, we become children of light (<em><a href='B:500 12:36'>Joh 12:36</a></em>). The Lord had stated that "you are the light of the world", just as He was "the light of the world". If we walk by His light, we shall in turn become light in the darkness- which in John's first context referred to the darkness of the Jewish world.</p><p>12:36&nbsp;<em>While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become sons of light</em>- This is an intensely urgent appeal to the crowd who had apparently believed in Him. The Lord had set them up to turn against Him (see on :12) but all the same, He begs for them to not do the psychologically inevitable- and to believe in Him.</p><p>John's later interpretation of this is in <em><a href='B:690 1:7'>1Jn 1:7</a></em>: "But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin". The light is ultimately God, but we see His light reflected in the face of the Lord Jesus. Walking in the light refers to the Lord's desire that they make the most of every minute of His mortal company. Soon the light would be taken from them, in that He would die. He urges His followers the same way in John 11 . By walking with Him in the light, believing in Him, walking as He walked, they would become sons of light, true believers. But <em><a href='B:690 1:7'>1Jn 1:7</a></em> is saying that we who never met the Lord Jesus can walk in the light as much as those who walked with Him in Palestine two millennia ago. And that is indeed the promise of the Comforter- that although He was to be taken from the disciples in death, the ministry of the Spirit would mean that He was as real to believers as He had been to the disciples who literally touched and watched Him. This is quite the challenge to us all. That man is not alone; God with us, in Christ, walks that close, as if literally with us.</p><p><em>Jesus spoke these things, then he departed and hid himself from them-&nbsp;</em>He had just spoken of Himself as the light of the world, which must be viewed and walked in, but having said that, He hides Himself. The idea is that He is the light to those who seek Him, who find where He is 'hidden'; the metaphor of light doesn't mean that He is shining like the sun, obvious to all. He is- but in the spiritual world and heart of the believer.</p>


text:
<p>12:37&nbsp;<em>But though he had done so many signs before them, yet they did not believe in him</em>- This was the identical experience of Moses, described in just the same language (<em><a href='B:40 14:11'>Num 14:11</a></em>). And this was despite His desperate appeal to the crowd to truly believe in Him (see on :36).</p>


text:
<p>12:38&nbsp;<em>So that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, when he spoke: Lord, who has believed our report?</em>- The prophecies of Isaiah 53 had fulfilment in the Lord's life as well as in His death. His crucifixion in that sense was the essence of His life. His whole life was a being acquainted with grief (<em><a href='B:290 53:3'>Isa 53:3</a></em>); and yet we read in this same context that He was put to grief in His death (:10). The grief of His death was an extension of the grief of His life. “Who has believed our report?" (<em><a href='B:290 53:1'>Isa 53:1</a></em>) was fulfilled by the Jewish rejection of Him in His life, as well as in His death (<em><a href='B:500 12:38'>Joh 12:38</a></em>)."He bore the sin of many" (<em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>) is applied by <em><a href='B:500 1:29'>Joh 1:29</a></em> to how during His ministry, the Lord Jesus bore the sin of the world. He was glorified in His death (although the world didn’t see it that way), as well as in His life (<em><a href='B:500 12:23'>Joh 12:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:29'>Joh 12:29</a></em>). The Jews refused to believe in Jesus whilst He was still alive- and yet by doing so, John says, they fulfilled <em><a href='B:290 53:1'>Isa 53:1</a></em>:"Who hath believed our report". But the “report" there was clearly the message of the cross. It’s as if John applies a clear prophecy about the cross to people’s response to Jesus during His lifetime.</p><p><em><a href='B:500 12:38'>Joh 12:38</a></em> parallels our preaching or “report” of the Gospel with the Lord Jesus, the “arm of the Lord”, being ‘revealed’ through us. The body of Christ thus witnesses to itself by simply&nbsp;<em>being</em>&nbsp;Christ to this world. This is the essence of our calling and of our lives- to manifest / reveal the Christ.</p><p><em>And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?-&nbsp;</em>"The arm of the Lord" is the Father's operation in human individuals and society. Only those who accept the crucified Messiah will perceive that. For it is through the crucified Saviour that God works in hearts and minds and whole groups of people. But that is only revealed to believers in the cross. Those who 'believe the report' about the crucified Lord Jesus see the arm of the Lord revealed.</p>


text:
<p>12:39&nbsp;<em>Because of this they could not believe, because Isaiah also said</em>- In <em><a href='B:500 12:39-42'>Joh 12:39-42</a></em> we find John quoting the words of Isaiah about how Israel would not believe the message of Jesus: “Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes…&nbsp;<em>nevertheless&nbsp;</em>even of the rulers many believed on him” (RV). “Nevertheless” shows the wonder of it all; despite clear prophecy that they would not believe, some of them did. The Lord’s hopefulness paid off. And so can ours. It is not that God doesn't want people to believe; but those who refuse His voice, who will not see with their eyes, are blinded so that they will not see. They are confirmed in their attitudes.</p><p>Here the Lord combines quotations from Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 6, applying them to His cross. There He was lifted up in glory, with the power to both convict Isaiah of his sinfulness and also inspire his service of the Gospel. Yet <em><a href='B:290 53:1'>Isa 53:1</a></em> also applies to Israel’s refusal to hear the “report" of the Lord’s miracles. The Lord saw His death as summing up the message of all the “works" of miracles which He had done, at least those recorded by John. This opens up a fruitful line of investigation of the miracles; they all show something of the spirit of the cross, and find their final fulfilment in the cross. In 4:34 see notes there He had spoken of His death as the final, crowning “work" of His ministry. If men understand the cross, then they see with their eyes, understand with their heart, and are converted.</p>


text:
<p>12:40&nbsp;<em>He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts, and turn, so that I should heal them</em>- As noted on :39, this blinding of Israel is not because God wanted to. It was because He was confirming them in attitudes they had themselves adopted. Seeing / understanding is paralleled with believing; the understanding in view is simple belief in the Lord Jesus. This would then lead to the Lord's healing- which speaks in the context of a healing of hearts, the kind of thing spoken of in the beatitudes. So belief / understanding / seeing leads to the Lord's action on the heart, in the healing of human hearts or minds. This speaks of the work of the Spirit in the hearts and psychology of the believer. "Turn" is 'be converted / turned'. The work of turning a heart around is a matter of the spirit, and happens when one believes. We see here a difference between initial belief, and the process of conversion / turning and healing of the heart which is done by the Lord in response to belief. Note that these words of Isaiah are quoted five times in the New Testament (<em><a href='B:470 13:13'>Mat 13:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 4:12'>Mar 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:10'>Luk 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:26'>Act 28:26</a></em>). This is a major teaching which we need to give due weight to.</p>


text:
<p>12:41&nbsp;<em>These things said Isaiah, because he foresaw his glory, and he spoke about him</em>- The hour of glory was the hour of crucifixion. The son of God, naked, covered in blood and spittle... was the Son of man glorified. And likewise when we are fools for Christ’s sake, then we know His glory<em>:&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:500 12:37-41'>Joh 12:37-41</a></em> tells us that Isaiah 6 is a vision of the Lord Jesus in glory; and in this passage John quotes both Isaiah 6, 53 together, reflecting their connection and application to the same event, namely the Lord's crucifixion. So it is established that Isaiah 6 is a vision of the crucified Lord Jesus, high and lifted up in glory in God’s sight, whilst covered in blood and spittle, with no beauty that man should desire Him. The point is, when Isaiah saw this vision he was convicted of his sinfulness: "Woe is me, for I am undone...". And yet the same vision comforted him with the reality of forgiveness, and inspired him to offer to go forth and witness to Israel&nbsp;of God’s grace. Isaiah saw a vision of the Lord "high and lifted up", with the temple veil torn (<em><a href='B:290 6:4'>Isa 6:4</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 27:51'>Mat 27:51</a></em>), and was moved to realize his sinfulness, and vow to spread the appeal for repentance (<em><a href='B:290 6:1'>Isa 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 6:5'>Isa 6:5</a></em>). The high, lifted up Lord whom he saw was He of <em><a href='B:290 52:13'>Isa 52:13</a></em> - the crucified Lord. And yet He saw Him enthroned in God’s glory, as it were on the cross. John links the visions of Isaiah 6, 52/53 as both concerning the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:500 12:37-41'>Joh 12:37-41</a></em>); there the glory and essence of God was revealed supremely. <em><a href='B:500 12:38-41'>Joh 12:38-41</a></em> draws a parallel between being converted, and understanding the prophecies of the glory of the crucified Christ. To know Him in His time of dying, to see the arm of Yahweh revealed in Him there, is to be converted. &nbsp;</p><p>Isaiah's vision of "the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up" (<em><a href='B:290 6:1'>Isa 6:1</a></em>) connects with the description of the crucified Lord high and lifted up (<em><a href='B:290 52:13'>Isa 52:13</a></em>). This vision, John tells us, was of Christ in His glory. And John combines his citation of this passage with that of Isaiah 53 concerning the cross (<em><a href='B:500 12:41-42'>Joh 12:41-42</a></em>). The Lord, high and lifted up in glory, was the crucified Lord. There He was enthroned, in God’s eyes, in His throne of glory. When He comes again and sits in the throne of His glory, He will be repeating in principle the glorification of the cross. The very vision of the lifted up Lord convicted Isaiah of his sinfulness, and steeled his faith in forgiveness (<em><a href='B:290 6:5-8'>Isa 6:5-8</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:500 19:37'>Joh 19:37</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>12:42- see on <em><a href='B:520 10:9'>Rom 10:9</a></em>.</p><p><em>Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue</em>- Why then did they turn so quickly against Him? The answer, I suggest, lies in the way that they misunderstood Him. They liked Him; the Jewish authorities despaired even just prior to His death that “the world is gone after him”, because so many of the Jews were apparently “Believing in him” (<em><a href='B:500 12:11'>Joh 12:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:19'>Joh 12:19</a></em>); His popularity seems to have resurged to an all time high on his final visit to Jerusalem. The crowds liked some aspects of the idea of this man Jesus of Nazareth; they are described in John’s Gospel as “believing on him”, and yet John makes it clear that this was not the real belief which the Lord sought. John makes this point within <em><a href='B:500 6:14'>Joh 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:26'>Joh 6:26</a></em>: “When therefore the people saw the sign which he did, they said, This is of a truth the prophet that cometh into the world… Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye ate of the loaves, and were filled”. The crowd appeared to respond and perceive the significance of the sign-miracles; but the Lord knew that they had not properly understood. They apparently “believed”, but would not confess Him before men (<em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em>)- and such ‘confession’ is vital for salvation (<em><a href='B:520 10:9-10'>Rom 10:9-10</a></em> s:w:). For all their liking of Jesus and some of the things that He stood for, they willingly closed their hearts to the radical import of His essential message of self-crucifixion, of a cross before the crown, of a future Kingdom which inverts all human values, where the humble are the greatest, the poor in spirit are the truly rich, the despised are the honoured...</p><p>Any who openly confessed Jesus as Messiah were put out of the synagogue (<em><a href='B:500 9:22'>Joh 9:22</a></em>). The chief rulers are described as believing on Christ (<em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em>), even though their faith was such a private affair at that time that it was hardly faith at all:&nbsp; The positivism of Jesus counted them as believers. Perhaps <em><a href='B:500 1:12'>Joh 1:12</a></em> alludes to them: "<em>Whoever</em>&nbsp;accepts him, those who believe in his name, to them he gave the right to become children of God". The "whoever" would then be implying that even if their faith was so weak that they would not publicly confess it, all the same they were counted as God’s children. Yet we could read <em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em> the other way- belief alone is not enough, there must be public confession. It could be that we are to see a parallel between not confessing and not believing. We were called and converted&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;we might give light to others. These Jewish leaders who believed wanted praise / glory of men (:43), and this desire to receive praise from men was exactly what led men&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;to truly believe (<em><a href='B:500 5:44'>Joh 5:44</a></em>). The expositional choice before us is purposefully ambiguous- was the 'faith' of these leaders accepted, or was it nullified by their refusal to 'confess'? The ambiguity is to exercise our own consciences, as we naturally look within to enquire whether we have simply believed but not confessed... for we all will have a tendency to do this. In any case, there was a terrible outcome of not confessing their faith publicly- the condemnation and crucifixion of God’s Son. Whether or not their faith was counted as acceptable, this was the outcome of not confessing it. And it is John who demonstrates how Joseph and Nicodemus 'came out' publicly after the Lord's death. See on 12:46&nbsp;<em>So that whoever believes in me may not remain in the darkness</em>.</p><p>Note the grace reflected in the record here, where we read that some Jews were credited with having believed in Jesus, even though they did&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;confess Him (<em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em>), presumably because those who confessed Jesus as Christ were excommunicated from the synagogues (<em><a href='B:500 9:22'>Joh 9:22</a></em>). Those will not confess Jesus are antichrist (<em><a href='B:690 4:3'>1Jn 4:3</a></em>)- and yet the inspired record is so eager to note that these weak 'believers' were still believers, and their weak faith appears still to have been credited to them. This is a comfort to us in the weakness of our faith- and yet also a challenge to us to accept weak believers as believers. It seems that the record is prepared to accept that some achieved a valid faith in Jesus, even though they didn’t confess Him. And yet there are abundant reasons for understanding that unless we witness to our faith, it isn’t a faith that’s worth much. And yet the record still accounts these who didn’t testify as they ought to have done as ‘believers’. This is a comfort for us in those times when we know we chose a far lower level than we should have done, and simply kept quiet about the wondrous hope within us. Perhaps the idea was and is that an initial belief can be worked upon by the Lord, in order to bring it to open confession. We see several examples of this in John's Gospel, e.g. Nicodemus. And perhaps multitudes of these secret believers 'came out' in baptism on the day of Pentecost a few weeks later.</p>


text:
<p>12:43- see on <em><a href='B:500 4:14'>Joh 4:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>For they loved the glory that is of men more than the glory that is of God</em>- The cause of unbelief and refusal to see / understand is not because a person doesn't 'get it' intellectually, or they fail to rightly process the information received. Disbelief is here blamed upon pride; a desire for glory to themselves from men, rather than as men giving glory to God, and seeking His glory above all. No amount of clever intellectual argument or accommodation with the latest science will elicit faith. Unbelief is not because of not being able to answer academic arguments. It is because of human pride.</p>


text:
<p>12:44&nbsp;<em>And Jesus cried and said: He that believes on me does not believe on me, but on him that sent me</em>- The crying out of the Lord was a reflection of His earnest desire that they should believe. He knew that those who had welcomed Him with cries of "Hosanna" would turn against Him. And He urges them to really believe, and to realize that their rejection of Him was a rejection of God. Not because He was God Himself, but because the Father was manifest in the Son.</p>


text:
<p>12:45&nbsp;<em>And he that sees me, sees him that sent me</em>- Again, seeing is used to mean understanding and believing. To see God was instinctively known by all Jews to be impossible. But as noted on :30, such physical seeing of God or His Son, or literally hearing His voice, is irrelevant. The spiritual 'sight' of Him and sense of the Son's presence through the Spirit is worth far more than that. And to see the Son was and is to see God; not literally, but because the Son manifests the Father.</p>


text:
<p>12:46&nbsp;<em>I have come into the world as light</em>- This is how the prologue opens the Gospel, with the Lord personally represented as light shining in the darkness of the Jewish world. His 'coming into the world' was insofar as He revealed the light, and that only happened at the start of His ministry at age 30. This was when He came into the world. He was not the light of the world as a new-born baby desperate only for milk. His point of 'coming' into the world is defined as when He was the light of the world, which was at the beginning of His ministry. As He was sent into the world, so are we sent; and there is no question in our case that we were sent literally from Heaven to earth. Trinitarian thinking is very shoddy when it comes to verses such as these.</p><p><em>So that whoever believes in me may not remain in the darkness</em>- What in practice does this mean, to have Jesus as our light, and not to be remain in darkness? John's letters allude to this and in clear practical terms inform us that not loving our brother is abiding in darkness (<em><a href='B:690 2:9'>1Jn 2:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:11'>1Jn 2:11</a></em>). We cannot claim to believe in Jesus, to have Him as a merely intellectual light of correct theory- and not love our brother. Perhaps this explains the question raised in the commentary on :42 as to whether the unconfessed, very private and theoretical 'faith' of many of the leaders was acceptable. Because it was not confessed, it resulted in their condemning and crucifying God’s Son- the deepest depth of not loving our brother.</p>


text:
<p>12:47&nbsp;<em>And if anyone hear my sayings and keep them not, I judge him not. For I came not to judge the world but to save</em>- For judgment He came into this world (<em><a href='B:500 9:39'>Joh 9:39</a></em>), although He Himself came not to judge so much as to save (<em><a href='B:500 12:47'>Joh 12:47</a></em>; "not" is also used in the sense of 'not so much to... but rather to…'&nbsp; in <em><a href='B:540 7:12'>2Co 7:12</a></em>: "I did it not so much for his cause …but that our care...". Likewise in <em><a href='B:480 10:45'>Mar 10:45</a></em>, the Lord came not&nbsp;<em>so much as&nbsp;</em>to be ministered unto, but to minister. He was and is ministered unto, but His focus is upon&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;ministering to us: <em><a href='B:480 1:13'>Mar 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:31'>Mar 1:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:41'>Mar 15:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:7'>Col 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 4:6'>1Ti 4:6</a></em>). God said He judged His people 'according to their way… according to their judgments I will judge' (<em><a href='B:330 7:27'>Eze 7:27</a></em> LXX). A man's way, freely chosen, is his judgment. We truly 'make the answer now'. The Saviour came more to save than condemn (<em><a href='B:500 12:47'>Joh 12:47</a></em>); it is men who condemn themselves as inappropriate to receive eternal life. It is&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp;words, not His, which will be the basis of their rejection.</p>


text:
<p>12:48- see on <em><a href='B:490 14:18'>Luk 14:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:13'>Joh 3:13</a></em>.<br/><em>He that rejects me and receives not my sayings has one that judges him. The word that I spoke, the same shall judge him in the last day</em>- Our conscience is not going to jump out of us and stand and judge us at the day of judgment. There is one thing that will judge us, the word of the Lord (<em><a href='B:500 12:48'>Joh 12:48</a></em>), not how far we have lived according to our conscience. They crucified Him because they rejected the words He spoke from God (<em><a href='B:500 12:48'>Joh 12:48</a></em>). The language of rejection is used both about the Jews' crucifixion of Christ (<em><a href='B:490 17:25'>Luk 17:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 12:10'>Mar 12:10</a></em>) and their rejection of His words. Thus <em><a href='B:650 6:5-6'>Heb 6:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:28-29'>Heb 10:28-29</a></em> connect despising the word with crucifying Christ afresh. As the prologue explains, He was the word made flesh. To not receive His sayings&nbsp;<em>rhema</em>&nbsp;meant that His&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;"word" would judge them. His teachings had an essential&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;to them. And that singular word is spoken of in :49 and :50 as God’s singular "commandment"- the offer of eternal life in His Son (see on :50).</p>


text:
<p>12:49&nbsp;<em>For I spoke not from myself, but the Father that sent me, He has given me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak</em>- Just as the Lord's miracles were revealed to Him by the Father ahead of time (5:30), so were the words which He should teach. To reject the Lord's words was to therefore reject God’s word; and as the prologue states, "the word was God". To reject His words is to reject Him. Judaism was so deeply into theism, it was so God centred, that such ideas were repugnant to them. But this is what they were doing by rejecting His word as it was in His Son. The "commandment" is singular, and parallels the singular&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;or word of :48.</p>


text:
<p>12:50&nbsp;<em>And I know that His commandment is everlasting life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me: So I speak- "</em>The commandment" is surely put for all that the Lord said and spoke (:49). It was His&nbsp;<em>logos&nbsp;</em>(see on :48). His words and person were an imperative to respond to; He was in Himself a command to be obeyed in following Him in total surrender. To believe in Him was the everlasting life. The commandment, the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, was and is to believe in Him and receive everlasting life, in the sense of allowing Him to live in our lives. All He spoke was summed up in that. To refuse that eternal life meant therefore to remain in eternal death, and that would therefore be the outcome of the final judgment (:48).</p>


text:
<p>13:1&nbsp;<em>Now before the feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that his hour had come-&nbsp;</em>I argued on 12:12 and throughout chapter 12 that the Lord arranged the exact point of His death; for He gave His life, it was not taken from Him (10:17,18). He wanted to die at that particular Passover feast, which explains why John records how at other feasts, the Jews tried to kill Him but He somehow avoided them. The implication here in 13:1 is that the coming of Passover meant that the Lord knew His hour of death and glory had come.</p><p><em>That he should depart out of this world to his Father-&nbsp;</em>The Lord saw His death as an exodus, as He had been taught at the transfiguration. And He saw the whole process of death, resurrection, 40 days on earth and ascension as a going to the Father. His prayer that the Father not take His disciples "out of the world" could be understood as asking that their lives, for the time being, be preserved; they should be "kept from the evil" (<em><a href='B:500 17:15'>Joh 17:15</a></em>). For He understood departing out of the world as a reference to His death. And yet the word for 'departing' is used of how believers in Him depart or pass from death to life, right now (5:24; <em><a href='B:690 3:14'>1Jn 3:14</a></em>). The essence of His experience becomes ours if we walk in the light of life we have seen and known in Him.</p><p>The language of departing from this world to the Father is a quotation from a common Rabbinic claim that these were the words of Moses before he died (Targum on Song of Solomon i. 1, 7, Bereshit Rabba, sect. 96. fol. 84. 1. and Debarim Rabba, sect. 11. fol. 245. 2). The Lord clearly understood Himself as the greater than Moses (<em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>). Without any doubt there is also reference to the well-known at the time John was writing Jerusalem Targum on Deuteronomy 32 : “And when the last end of Moses the prophet was at hand, that he should be gathered from the world…”:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Having loved his own that were in the world, he loved them to the end</em>- His love for His own during His ministry is part of His final love for them unto the end. The essence of His self-giving for them throughout His life was seamlessly continued in His death. "His own" is another allusion to the prologue, where the Lord comes to "His own" and they do not receive Him; but others do (1:11,12). Israel becomes redefined; no longer are "His own" His own kith and kin of Israelites, but those who receive Him.</p><p>The 'love to the uttermost' here can of course be applied to the crucifixion. But the Lord at this point felt He had now departed from this world (17:11 "I am no longer in the world"), and so it could be that the following account of the foot washing is to be understood as a preview of the Lord's death on the cross. The grammar of the whole verse implies that "Before the feast of the Passover... He loved them to the end", as if the 'love to the end' was before the feast, before His death. When did He loved them to the end? Before the Passover. That is the idea. The last supper therefore becomes the love feast, the exemplification of His love unto the end; and it is to be felt like that by us as we partake to this day.</p><p>The Lord’s conscious attempt to develop the twelve appears to have paid off to some extent, even during His ministry. For there was evidently some spiritual growth of the disciples even during the ministry. There are indications that even before the Lord’s death, the disciples did indeed progressively grasp at least some things about Him. John’s Gospel is divided into what has been called ‘The book of signs’ (<em><a href='B:500 1:19'>Joh 1:19</a></em> to <em><a href='B:500 12:50'>Joh 12:50</a></em>) and ‘the book of glory’ (<em><a href='B:500 13:1'>Joh 13:1</a></em> and following). In the book of signs, the disciples always refer to the Lord as “rabbi” or “teacher”; whereas in the book of glory, they call him “Lord”. We have seen in other character studies how spiritual maturity is reflected in some ways by a growth in appreciation of the titles used of God. Although Jesus was not God Himself,&nbsp;so it seems was the case in how the disciples increasingly came to respect and perceive the Lordship of Jesus:&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>In the New Testament, we see the love of Christ directly, openly displayed. Particularly on the cross we see the very essence of love. Having loved His own, He loved us there unto the end, to the end of the very concept of love and beyond. He knew that in His death, He would shew "greater love" than any man had or could show. There He declared the Name and character of God, "that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them" (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>). "Walk in love, as Christ hath loved us (in that) he hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God" (<em><a href='B:560 5:2'>Eph 5:2</a></em>). "Hereby perceive we love, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren" (<em><a href='B:690 3:16'>1Jn 3:16</a></em> Gk:). The cross is therefore love "to the end". The ultimate definition of love. Love elicits love; we see this in the cycle of life between children, parents and relatives. But at times, the dysfunction of humanity means that true love is rejected, families fall apart, parents and children hate each other and disregard all the love once shown. And so it is with the love of God in the gift of His Son. Some will be motivated to love; His love, His huge initiative, is responded to, and it elicits love. But not always. Others see the cross of Christ and refuse His beckoning arms, seeing the Lord as a hard man.

Love "to the end", to telos, to completion, to maturity, is to be seen in us- for His love there elicits our love. The same phrase is used in John's letters about the believer in that love. Whoever keeps His word, the word of the new commandment to love as He loved, "in him verily is the love of God perfected" (1 Jn. 2:5). The love to the end of Jesus, on the cross, becomes perfected / comes towards its full term in us- if we start to reflect it. And so if we love one another, God's love [which was seen supremely in His Son's death] is perfected in us" (1 Jn. 4:12). When we are secure in having accepted the Lord's 'perfect love', and in knowing that we are part of the process of reflecting it, then we can confidently look ahead to eternity after the day of final judgment: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love [the love to the end / perfection of Jn. 13:1] casts out fear. He that fears is not made perfect in love" (1 Jn. 4:18). The love-to-the-end, the love of Jesus to us on the cross, has not perfected / had process in us, if we still fear the outcome of the day of judgment. "Herein is love made perfect: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment" (1 Jn. 4:17). To look forward to judgment day with confidence... this is how the Lord's love for us becomes perfect / works its intended process / comes to final intended maturity. It does not make us sinless [and the old English word "perfect" has muddied the waters of interpretation here]. But it makes us confident of His gracious acceptance.</p>


text:
<p>13:2- see on <em><a href='B:490 22:3'>Luk 22:3</a></em>.</p><p><em>And during supper, when the Devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him</em>- Adam Clarke 'While supper was being prepared'. This would explain the timing of the footwashing incident, which would come before eating, not during the meal. "Supper" is literally 'a supper'; not 'the feast' as we would expect if this was indeed the Passover feast of 14 Nissan. It was a Passover supper, but kept earlier and perhaps in a slightly different way. The whole style in this section suggests that when certain conditions were fulfilled, then the Lord could die on the cross. I have suggested on 12:12 that the Lord arranged the entire scenario, as He gave His life as He did of His own choice of time and place. The account here reads as if the Lord knew that Judas had in his heart to betray Him, and so knowing this, He acts out the essence of His future service for others on the cross by washing the disciples' feet. He knew this would offer Judas the chance to repent, but if he would not, then it would be the psychological trigger for Judas to go off and hand Him over to the Jews. And that is indeed how it worked out.</p><p>"The devil" in the New Testament, including in John's writings, refers to organized, systemic opposition to the Lord's person and work, and in the first instance refers to the Jewish opposition. I have exemplified this at length in&nbsp;<em>The Real Devil</em>&nbsp;especially section 2-4, 'The Jewish Satan'. The thought to betray the Lord had been put into the heart of Judas by the Jewish opposition, who were the great 'satan' adversary and false accuser 'devil' with regard to the Lord and His work. This explains why when 'satan entered into Judas', he goes to the Jewish leadership to arrange the betrayal (<em><a href='B:490 22:3-6'>Luk 22:3-6</a></em>):&nbsp; It could even be that "the devil" here is to be paralleled with "the prince of this Jewish world" whom I have suggested on 12:31 had specific reference to Caiaphas the High Priest, who is presented as the one who came up with the specific scheme to kill the Lord (see on 11:49).</p><p>The reference to "Simon's son" would be appropriate if the reference is to the Simon the Pharisee of <em><a href='B:490 7:40'>Luk 7:40</a></em>, in whose house Mary Magdalene had previously anointed the Lord. I noted on 11:2 that the woman who was a sinner who anointed the Lord in Simon's house was Mary Magdalene. The fact she had access to the meal table suggests she was a close relative. And Judas was the son of Simon. We therefore can conclude that Judas was a relative of Mary, Martha and Lazarus; perhaps even their brother. This would explain his anger at her wasting of family wealth by anointing the Lord in chapter 12 (see on <em><a href='B:470 26:14'>Mat 26:14</a></em>). If the family had Pharisee connections, then this would explain why "the Jews" came from Jerusalem to their home in Bethany, as they were relatives.</p>


text:
<p>13:3&nbsp;<em>Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God</em>- This may seem axiomatic, but the text seems to be saying that as He sat at supper, the Lord had a deep sense of utter certainty that He was from God and was going to successfully accomplish what lay before Him, and this 'go to God'. The "all things" refer to the believers (<em><a href='B:560 1:22'>Eph 1:22</a></em>); He had earlier spoken of the Father having given Him the sheep, who were safe in His hands (10:28,29). He was deeply aware that we were in His hands, and He must now go and die for us.</p>


text:
<p>13:4&nbsp;<em>Rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and girded himself with a towel</em>- We note the emphasis upon the Lord's actions, inviting us to play Bible television with these words. His rising from the table, laying down / aside His several layers of garments and girding Himself... all bid us imagine His body language. It was all a foretaste of His laying down His life on the cross, where the same body language would have been apparent. We note how having washed their feet, He does everything in the reverse order- having washed the disciples’ feet, he puts on his outer garment and again reclines at the supper table.</p><p>He dressed Himself as He would for the crucifixion, naked but for a loincloth, with His outer clothing taken away, as Johns crucifixion account emphasizes. Philippians 2 seems to allude to the descriptions here of the Lord progressively setting aside all human trappings in order to humble Himself to serve and thence to actually die the death of the cross for us. "Laid aside", literally 'laying down', is the same term used for the Lord's giving over of His life (10:11,15,17,18; 15:13; 1 Jn. 3:16). It was on the cross that the Lord was the suffering servant to the ultimate extent. And to love is to serve.</p>


text:
<p>13:5&nbsp;<em>Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded</em>- This was the work of the lowest slave, and Philippians 2 alludes to this in saying that the Lord took upon Himself the form of a slave- not in adopting human nature, but in His mental attitude in the lead up to the cross, and in His final death there. The record is as it were zoomed up close upon the Lord, with every action recorded. This action of foot washing is seen as highly significant; it was the essence of his death. And it was, as suggested on :1, the epitome of love unto the end. The usage of water could look forward to baptism, but the idea is that He does something to the disciple- His death was not just something to be emulated. It is His action upon us; as a result of it, the Spirit was to be given, whereby He would cleanse / sanctify the disciples. But the outpouring of water is used as a figure for the outpouring of the Spirit which would come as a result of the Lord's death and glorification (7:38,39). John's crucifixion record notes how the Lord's death resulted in water issuing from His side toward the disciples; and here, the towel from His side is used to wash the disciples' feet. The gift of the Spirit is in view, and connects with the frequent references to our sanctification or being made clean by the Spirit. The mention of the basin is perhaps to recall the Mosaic rituals whereby blood and water were taken from a basin to sanctify the priests. This motley crew of mixed up men were being declared the priesthood of the new Israel, and the prayer of chapter 17 is full of allusion to the theme of sanctification. This, it must be emphasized, is something done to a willing person, and not done by themselves. This is the picture of the Lord's activity in our lives through the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>13:6&nbsp;<em>When he came to Simon Peter, Peter said to him: Lord, are you going to wash my feet?</em>- "When He came..." suggests Him going to each of them personally. This spoke of how His death and cleansing work is somehow for us each individually. And we pause with deepest respect at the thought of the Lord kneeling before Judas and washing his feet. Here for all time is the paradigm for our attitude to the worst of the worst amongst the Lord's supposed followers. </p><p>The Lord had taught that when one was invited to a feast, they should take the lowest seat. It seems that at the last supper, Peter did just this. There would likely have been petty jealousy over who sat next to Jesus, and there may have been a desire to sit closest to Him as a sign of faithfulness to their beloved teacher. John was clearly sitting next to Jesus, as he was able to have his head on Jesus’ breast. And the fact the Lord dipped in the dish at the same time as Judas may imply that Judas was also next to Him. It’s tempting to imagine John at Jesus’ right hand and Judas at His left. But it seems Peter was the last to have his feet washed. Jesus “came to Simon Peter” to wash his feet, and when he had done so, He commented that now, all His men were clean (<em><a href='B:500 13:6'>Joh 13:6</a></em>). This implies to me that Peter was sitting at the end of the couch, furthest away from Jesus. He certainly wasn’t that close to Jesus, because he had to signal Gk. ‘to nod’ to John to ask the Lord who the betrayer was (<em><a href='B:500 13:24'>Joh 13:24</a></em>). So I conclude from all this that Peter took the lowest seat at that feast- in conformity to what the Lord had taught them earlier. And I imagine it would have been especially difficult, as the order of seating at the Jewish Passover was a classic opportunity to demonstrate a pecking order within a group of friends or family:&nbsp;But despite taking the lowest seat, Peter's pride objected to the Lord washing His feet. The Lord had taken more than the lowest seat at the table; He had shown Himself to be the lowest slave who was present but not seated even at the table.</p>


text:
<p>13:7&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered and said to him: What I am doing you do not comprehend now, but later you shall understand</em>- This would appear to be an allusion to how the Comforter / Holy Spirit would give them understanding of the Lord's words and ministry. The Holy Spirit was not yet given (7:38,39), so the sense of His work would still be not fully understandable. The idea surely is that "later", after the Lord's death on the cross, they would perceive that the spirit He showed in that death was epitomized in this footwashing.</p>


text:
<p>13:8- see on <em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>Peter said to him: You shall never wash my feet Jesus answered him: If I do not wash you, you have no part with me-</em>&nbsp;The critical importance of washing could speak of how baptism is connected to salvation. But "no part with me" is surely alluded to by Paul in writing that if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is "none of His" (<em><a href='B:520 8:9'>Rom 8:9</a></em>). The sanctifying work of the Spirit is clearly in view, bearing in mind that "wash",&nbsp;<em>nipto</em>, has ceremonial associations; it spoke of sanctification for priestly service. And to accept that sanctifying work of the Spirit requires a humility which Peter initially struggled with. Resistance to the idea of the internal work of the Spirit is likewise associated with pride and self-confidence in the flesh. "Part", meros, is really 'inheritance'. I suggest this is John's equivalent of 'He who believes and is baptized shall be saved'. Salvation, eternal inheritance in the Lord, depends upon letting Him wash us. We are to note that baptism represents [amongst other things] the Lord Jesus washing us, cleansing us with the gift of His Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>13:9<em>&nbsp;Simon Peter said to him: Lord, wash not only my feet but also my hands and my head</em>- Peter got the Lord's drift, and wanted not only cleansing of his feet, his path in life; but of his actions hands and head thinking. We note how Peter is presented here as impetuous and primitive. And yet he was the undoubted leader of the early church. The Gospel records are full of reference to the disciples' immaturity- because the disciples' preaching of the Gospel was full of such admission of their own weakness, just as our witness ought to be.</p>


text:
<p>13:10&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to him: He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over; and you are clean, but not every one of you</em>- The idea may also be that after baptism, it is seen by the Lord as inevitable that we are going to dirty our feet in life's path. Whilst technically, sin is not inevitable, it is the observed reality in all men [apart from Jesus] that they do sin. And we can be comforted by the Lord's recognition of that here. However, He seems to imply that the disciples were all clean, they had all been bathed, apart from Judas. So He has far more in view than literal water baptism. The baptism experience is defined by Him in Jn. 3:3-5 as being of water and the Spirit. There is a spiritual cleansing that takes place, which doesn't totally stop us from sin, for the disciples still sinned despite having been 'cleansed'. But, if accepted, it does keep us from falling away as Judas did. Through the Spirit, willingly accepted, He is able to "keep us from falling".

The Lord's argument is that footwashing is always going to be necessary. There will always be the 'dirt' picked up on the feet of a man who has been washed overall in baptism. These sins and failures of the baptized will always be there, almost inevitably. And it is these we are called upon to wash or cleanse / forgive in each other. In the spirit of the Lord's death for us on the cross. This is surely suggesting that all baptized believers ("washed") were like the priests, who firstly washed their bodies and then their hands and feet, before entering on service (<em><a href='B:20 30:21'>Exo 30:21</a></em>). "He who has bathed" could be about the only discernible hint that the disciples had been baptized. But they needed to be born of water and of the Spirit as well. Surely the Lord was saying that baptism is a one time event- he has been thus bathed does not need to wash again, or be re-baptized. But, he does need to periodically wash his feet, which I would take to be a reference to the breaking of bread and acceptance of the sanctification of the Spirit which Peter seemed to want to avoid.</p><p>"You are clean" is developed in 15:3, where the Lord teaches that we are clean by the word He spoke. But here, the cleansing is on account of His death and sacrifice. His death and work of saving is His "word" to us. His "word" is not therefore necessarily a reference to His actual sayings, but is used as it is in the prologue, for His whole being and message which was lived out in His person; for the word was made flesh in Him, supremely in His death on the cross.</p><p>The importance of self-examination at the breaking of bread is indirectly hinted at here. This is surely a reference to how <em><a href='B:40 19:19'>Num 19:19</a></em> prescribed that a Levite was required to take a plunge bath in order to be clean. The Lord is therefore saying that&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;His people, when they partake of His feast, are to present themselves as cleansed Levites. He understood His people as&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;being part of a priesthood. Additionally, we need to bear in mind that the Lord spoke those words just before the breaking of bread, in response to how Peter did not want to participate in the Lord’s meal if it meant the Lord washing him. Thus whilst forgiveness is not mystically mediated through the bread and wine, there is all the same a very distinct connection between the memorial meeting and forgiveness, just as there is between baptism and forgiveness. To not break bread is to walk away from that forgiveness in the blood of Jesus, just as to refuse baptism is to do the same. Whilst forgiveness itself is not mediated in any metaphysical sense by the memorial meeting, it is nonetheless a vital part of the life of the forgiven believer. When Peter didn’t want to break bread, the Lord reminded him that he who has been baptized / washed is indeed clean, but needs periodic feet-washing. This, surely, was a reference to the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:500 13:10'>Joh 13:10</a></em>). The same word for ‘wash’ is found in <em><a href='B:500 15:2'>Joh 15:2</a></em>, where we read of how the Father washes / purifies periodically the vine branches. Could this not be some reference to the effect the breaking of bread should have upon us?</p>


text:
<p>13:11&nbsp;<em>For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said: Not all of you are clean</em>- The cleansing was not therefore simply a question of being baptized; for Judas had presumably been baptized along with the others. But he had not allowed the sanctifying work of the Spirit within him, and was therefore not cleansed or sanctified within.</p><p>The Lord Jesus knew from the beginning who should betray Him; and yet He went through the pain, shock and surprise of realizing that Judas, his own familiar friend in whom He trusted, had done this to Him (<em><a href='B:230 41:9'>Psa 41:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:64'>Joh 6:64</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:11'>Joh 13:11</a></em>). He knew, and yet He chose to limit that foreknowledge from love. This is in fact what all human beings are capable of, seeing we are made in the image of God. Thus Samson surely knew Delilah would betray him, and yet his love for her made him trust her. And we as observers see women marrying alcoholic men, wincing as we do at the way their love makes them limit their foreknowledge. There is an element of this in God, as there was in His Son as He faced the cross. Thus we read of the Lord Jesus being silent before His slaughterers, being led out to death as a sheep (<em><a href='B:290 53:7'>Isa 53:7</a></em>). But this idiom is used about Jeremiah to describe his wilful naivety about Israel's desire to slay him: "I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me" (<em><a href='B:300 11:19'>Jer 11:19</a></em>). In this Jeremiah was indeed a type of Christ.</p>


text:
<p>13:12&nbsp;<em>So when he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and sat down again, he said to them: Do you comprehend what I have done to you?</em>- The putting on of His clothes speaks of His resurrection after the death on the cross which His washing their feet spoke of. The sitting down would then correspond with His sitting down at the right hand of the Father after His work had been accomplished (<em><a href='B:650 1:3'>Heb 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:12'>Heb 10:12</a></em>). "Do you comprehend…?" was presumably asked with the implication that 'No, you do not- because if you did, you would be on your knees washing each other’s feet (:15)'. If we comprehend the Lord's work, we shall do likewise, living out the essence of His cross for others. Whilst there is nothing wrong with literal footwashing in response to this incident, "Do you understand what I have done...?" of itself suggests that we are to see in the Lord's footwashing something far deeper. We are not to simply interpret on the literal level, of like for like. The incident spoke of the spirit that was behind His death for each of us, a kneeling down before us to serve us, and the challenge is to die that death for our brethren. To love as He loved, with all the vast dimensions of that truth.</p>


text:
<p>13:13&nbsp;<em>You call me teacher and lord, and you say well; for so I am</em>- The Lord reasons that He is no mere teacher of ideas and doctrine, as the Jewish rabbis were. He was their teacher by example, and they therefore ought to fall to their knees in washing each other’s feet (:15). He was the word made flesh; His word was not just what He spoke, but His example and very being (see on :10). To call Jesus 'master' and 'Lord' was meaningless unless the pupils&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;what He said; so closely were His words associated with action, a word made flesh. See on <em><a href='B:470 7:22'>Mat 7:22</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>13:14&nbsp;<em>If I then, your lord and teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet</em>- The Lord is the most astute psychologist. He knew at this point that they were all deeply aware that they ought to have washed His feet. And knowing that, He teached them to was one another's feet. He is is asking them to treat one another as if they were Him. And to also learn from their error and do what He had done to them, the superior to the inferior, in the spirit of "Let me be the Christ to you". </p><p>His teaching was therefore not so much by spoken words but by example. He was His word made flesh. His example was to be taken as His word to His disciples. Because Jesus is Lord and Master, and because He is our representative in every way, therefore all that He did and was becomes an imperative for us to follow. They called Him “Lord and Master", but&nbsp;<em>wouldn’t</em>&nbsp;wash each other’s feet. Like us so often, they had the right doctrinal knowledge, but it meant nothing to them in practice. They failed to perceive that "my word" referred to His whole being and personality rather than the words which came from His mouth in teaching sessions. To know Him as Lord is to wash each other’s feet, naked but for a loincloth, with all the subtle anticipations of the cross which there are in this incident. “Wherefore because of the exaltation of Jesus be obedient and work out your own salvation with fear and trembling i:e. in humility" (<em><a href='B:570 2:12'>Phi 2:12</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>We would so dearly wish for the suffering Christ to be just an item in history, an act which saved us which is now over, an icon we hang around our neck or mount prominently on our study wall- and no more. But He, His cross, His ‘last walk’, His request that we pick up a cross and walk behind Him, the eerie continuous tenses used in New Testament references to the crucifixion- is so much more than that. &nbsp;If He washed our feet, we&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;wash each other’s. Everything He did, all He showed Himself to be in character, disposition and attitude, becomes an imperative for us to do and be likewise. And it is on this basis that He can so positively represent us to the Father: “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (<em><a href='B:500 17:16'>Joh 17:16</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>13:15&nbsp;<em>For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you</em>- The 'doing' of the Lord was to die for us in service (14:31). The height of the challenge is so high- to have the cross as our pattern, and not just something to be looked to with thanksgiving. This challenge transforms all departments of human thought and action. The immediate context of course was the Lord's attitude to His brethren at the last supper; and this should be reflected in our attitude to others at the breaking of bread. That so many of His disciples have lost their way here is tragic, for closed table policies and exclusion of His people from the table is the very opposite of His example.</p><p>As often in John's Gospel, the incidents are later commented upon. "Do as I have done to you" is expanded into the principle of :34: "Just as I loved you, you also should love one another". The footwashing, with all the humility it involved, being the servant to those in many ways our inferiors, was the epitome of loving as He loved us on the cross. Whether our superiority is actual or perceived, the challenge remains.</p>


text:
<p>13:16&nbsp;<em>Truly, truly, I say to you: A servant is not greater than his lord, neither is one sent greater than he that sent him</em>- "Truly, truly" occurs more in John 13 than any other chapter (:20,21,38). The issues connected with the Lord's death are the ultimate truth. To act as if the Lord's attitude at the last supper and on the cross is&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;our example is effectively to consider ourselves greater than Him. If our Lord and master acted and thought as He did- we His servants can do nothing else; we are to be as the Master (<em><a href='B:470 10:24-25'>Mat 10:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:40'>Luk 6:40</a></em>). If we do not emulate the spirit of feet washing and death on the cross, then we are pronouncing ourselves greater than Him. The logic requires an urgency in seeking by all means to follow His example. The apostles were those sent; and the Lord frequently refers to Himself as the One sent, and the Messianic servant. He as the sent One was therefore also living out the essence of the Father who sent Him. To have acted otherwise would have suggested He was greater than the One who sent Him, the Father. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p>13:17&nbsp;<em>If you know these things, and if you do them, you will be blessed</em>- The Lord sensed the tension between knowing and doing. To know but not do would not lead to being happy&nbsp; / blessed. And this is the root cause of a lack of joy amongst many believers; they know but do not do. The doing, of course, is radical- to be the lowest servant, to wash the feet of others, living out the spirit of the cross. To know this but not do it is to not attain happiness. The only path to Christian joy is to surrender all in the emulation of the Lord's spirit in these ways. The Lord had concluded the sermon on the mount with a similar challenge, to do what we know (see on <em><a href='B:470 7:22'>Mat 7:22</a></em>). The "things" immediately in view here in John 13 were the spirit of foot washing, of radical servanthood, and death on the cross. But these were all a fulfilment in practice of the various principles outlined in the sermon on the mount.</p>


text:
<p>13:18&nbsp;<em>I speak not of you all. I know whom I have chosen; but the scripture must be fulfilled: He that eats my bread lifted up his heel against me</em>- I have suggested on 12:12 and elsewhere that the Lord arranged the entire scene in order to die by crucifixion at that Passover. It could be that He means here that He knew Judas whom He had chosen; and He chose him to perform the role of betrayer which He knew was necessary in order to bring about the intended final scene. But that is not to say that Judas had no choice in the matter; he did, and the Lord urged him against his path. But He also knew the outcome, and in that sense knew the betrayer whom He had chosen for this role. He was led to plan things as He did by Scripture, which required that one who ate His bread would then betray Him. And so He set things up so that an offended Judas would be present at the last supper, and then do the act of betrayal.</p><p>The implication is that Judas had a heel to crush the Lord with, as if Judas was the seed of the woman and He was the seed of the serpent due to His close association with sin and sinners. However, it has also been pointed out that “To show the bottom of one’s foot to someone in the Near East is a mark of contempt”- E:F. Bishop,&nbsp;<em>Evangelical Times</em>&nbsp;Vol. 70 p. 331. The non-violent resistance to evil and the message of grace led Judas to despise the Lord; and the outpouring of the precious ointment upon Him appeared senseless to the materialistic Judas. His despite of the Lord was therefore a factor in his betrayal.</p><p><em><a href='B:230 41:9-10'>Psa 41:9-10</a></em> is quoted from the LXX in <em><a href='B:480 14:18'>Mar 14:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:21'>Mar 14:21</a></em>. Yet <em><a href='B:500 13:18'>Joh 13:18</a></em> quotes the same passage from the Hebrew text, with a slight difference. Which was inspired? Surely, both sources of the original were accepted as worthy of quotation. So from this evidence alone we should be wary of concluding that the differences between LXX and the Hebrew text are mutually incompatible. See on <em><a href='B:510 15:16'>Act 15:16</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>13:19&nbsp;<em>From this time forward I will tell you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe that I am he</em>- This refers to the Lord's prediction of Judas' betrayal. He knew that later, they would reflect on all things and perceive that the Lord was master of the whole situation. He had set up the entire stage, including with one of His disciples betraying Him, in order to bring about the end which&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;intended- that He would be crucified that Passover. His total mastery of the scene (see on 12:12) was a declaration of the Yahweh Name, "I am", and a sign of His identity with the Father.</p><p>We also see here the intention of prophecy- not in order to predict the future in detail, but so that when things happen, we perceive that they were exactly foretold. This needs to be remembered- for so many attempts to foretell sequences of political events heralding the Lord's return have been proven wrong, and have ended up damaging faith rather than building it up. Bible prophecy is not, therefore, to be appealed to in order to support faith, unless we are pointing out how predictions or required scenarios have already been fulfilled.</p>


text:
<p>13:20&nbsp;<em>Truly, truly, I say to you: He that receives whoever I send receives me, and he that receives me, receives Him that sent me</em>- The Lord has just reasoned that if He has washed their feet, and they are sent by Him, then they are to do likewise (:16). In doing as He did, their witness was a manifestation of Him. And more than that, of the Father who had sent Him. See on :16. In this sense, God was in Christ on the cross, reconciling the world to Himself. The 'receiving' in John's writings speaks of receiving a message. The assumption is that the message we preach will be "Him", centred upon and about Him. Those who accept the Lord Jesus at our word thereby receive the Father too. So much hinges upon our witness. We represent so much- even God Himself.</p>


text:
<p>13:21&nbsp;<em>When Jesus had said this, he was disturbed in his spirit, and testified: Truly, truly, I say to you: One of you shall betray me</em>- The Lord has just spoken of how His followers are representatives of Him and thereby of the Father; and attitudes to Him are attitudes to the Father. Perhaps this was why He was so upset, remembering that what Judas was doing to Him was in effect to God, and there would be such terrible judgment for it.</p><p>The Lord was able to attract all kinds of sinners to Him, when those who are spiritually marginalized tend normally to steer away from those who exude righteousness but no humanity. He was real, He really was who He appeared to be, there was total congruence between His words and actions; and He encouraged others in the same spirit to simply face up to who they were. And He would accept them at that. Yet He was real and human; although there was this congruence between His words and actions, consider how His spirit was “troubled”; “now is my soul troubled” (<em><a href='B:500 12:27'>Joh 12:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:21'>Joh 13:21</a></em>). Yet He goes on to use the same word to exhort the disciples hours later: “Let not your heart be troubled” (<em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:27'>Joh 14:27</a></em>). Was this inconsistency, “Do as I say, not as I do”? Of course not. The strength and power of His exhortation “Let not your heart be troubled” was in the very way that His heart&nbsp;<em>had been troubled&nbsp;</em>but He now had composed Himself in calm trust in the Father. And Peter remembered that, as he later in turn exhorted&nbsp;<em>his&nbsp;</em>flock to not be troubled nor afraid under persecution (<em><a href='B:670 3:14'>1Pe 3:14</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>13:22&nbsp;<em>The disciples looked at each other, wondering of whom he spoke</em>- We see here the ability of Judas, as of all men, to disguise real motives. The others had absolutely no inkling that Judas would betray the Lord. This stands as a warning for all time not to attempt to judge who is sincere and who is not amongst the Lord's people. We cannot judge not least because we&nbsp;<em>cannot</em>&nbsp;judge. They were so unable to do this that having looked at one another, wondering who it was, they concluded that it might be them- for after trying to decide which of them it was, they began to ask Him "Is it me?" (<em><a href='B:480 14:19'>Mar 14:19</a></em>). We simply cannot tell the wheat from the weeds.</p><p>"He spoke" is a continuous present tense- 'Of whom He is speaking'. This change of tenses in the Gospels is to enable to us to relive the situation, playing as it were Bible television with the record.</p>


text:
<p>13:23&nbsp;<em>There was at the table reclining on Jesus' chest one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved</em>- John’s Gospel is the personal testimony of the beloved disciple (<em><a href='B:500 19:35'>Joh 19:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:24'>Joh 21:24</a></em>). Not that John was loved any more than the others- his point is surely that ‘I am one whom Jesus so loved to the end’. He describes himself as resting on Jesus’ bosom (<em><a href='B:500 13:23'>Joh 13:23</a></em>); yet he writes that Jesus is now in the Father’s bosom (<em><a href='B:500 1:18'>Joh 1:18</a></em>). He is saying that he has the same kind of intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus as Jesus has with the Father. Yet John also records how the Lord Jesus repeatedly stressed that the intimacy between Him and the Father was to be shared with all His followers. So John is consciously holding up his own relationship with the Lord Jesus as an example for all others to experience and follow. Yet John also underlines his own slowness to understand the Lord. Without any pride or self-presentation, he is inviting others to share the wonderful relationship with the Father and Son which he himself had been blessed with. John knew his Lord. He repeatedly describes himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved (<em><a href='B:500 13:23'>Joh 13:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:2'>Joh 20:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:7'>Joh 21:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:20'>Joh 21:20</a></em>). Doubtless John was aware that Jesus loved all His people; but John is surely exalting in the fact that the Lord loved him personally. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:24- see on <em><a href='B:500 13:6'>Joh 13:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>Simon Peter motioned to him, and said to him: Tell us who it is of whom he speaks</em>- This all has the ring of truth to it. He would not have called across the table to John, but could easily have motioned with his eyes and other non-verbal language. We have an example here of non-verbal communication being counted as words- for the motioning was in effect saying to him the words. This is significant because the references in John to the Lord's "word" or "words" are not necessarily referring to His literally spoken words; but to all the other communication from Him that went on. For He as a person and character was His word, as the prologue begins by explaining.</p>


text:
<p>13:25&nbsp;<em>He leaning back, as he was on Jesus' breast, said to him: Lord, who is it?</em>- As noted on :23, John saw his own intimate relationship with the Lord as reflected in how close the Lord was to His father (1:18). We could infer from 21:20 that John's close access to the Lord was a cause of jealousy for Peter.</p>


text:
<p>13:26&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered: It is he to whom I gave the morsel of bread after I dipped it. When he had dipped the morsel, he had given it to Judas the son of Simon Iscariot</em>- The motive of the question had surely been 'Tell us who it is, and we shall stop him forcibly'. But the Lord is saying that they were too late; He had chosen Judas to do this job. And yet the "morsel" may refer to the prized portion of the bread which a father would give to a favoured child at the Passover feast. It could be read as a sign of the Lord's special love and care for Judas. He so wanted him to repent. But it was the sign of the Lord's extreme love for him, to the point of apparent favouritism, which made Judas then go out into the darkness and betray the Lord. This was all according to the Lord's plan, but there was still the absolute possibility for Judas' repentance. The Lord's psychology was superb; He knew the things of the human spirit. He realized that the special exposure to His love would make Judas either collapse in repentance, or harden him in his fell purpose. And this is true throughout John's Gospel; encounter with the Lord as the only light of the world made men either live in that light, or recoil deeper into their darkness. And Judas was the parade example.</p>


text:
<p>13:27&nbsp;<em>Then after Judas had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :2, the devil and satan, the false accuser and adversary to the Lord's cause, refers in the immediate context to the Jewish system. It could be that a representative from "the satan" entered into the upper room, and Judas went out with him, as if doing some errand. This would make good sense in the context of :29. Or it could be that as elsewhere, "satan" refers to the great adversary, sin within. And in the face of the Lord's supreme and special love for Judas, Judas was faced with the choice to accept it or be hardened by sin, personified as the great satan / adversary to all human spiritual endeavour.</p><p>The breaking of bread brings us face to face with the need for self-examination and the two paths before us. It is a T-junction which reflects the final judgment. Judas’ reaction to the first memorial meeting exemplifies this. The Lord took the sop (of bread) and dipped it (in the vinegar-wine, according to the Jewish custom), and gave it to Judas. This was a special sign of His love and affection, and one cannot help wondering whether Peter and John observed it with keen jealousy. Yet&nbsp;<em>after taking it,&nbsp;</em>after that sign of the Lord’s&nbsp;<em>especial love</em>&nbsp;for him, “satan entered into" Judas and he went out and betrayed the Lord of glory (<em><a href='B:500 13:27'>Joh 13:27</a></em>). In that bread and wine, Judas was confronted with the Lord’s peerless love for the very darkest sinner and His matchless self-sacrifice; and this very experience confirmed him in the evil way his heart was set upon. And it also works, thankfully, the other way. We can leave that meeting with the Lord, that foretaste of judgment, that conviction of sin and also of the Lord’s victory over it, with a calm assurance of His love which cannot be shaken, whatever the coming week holds.</p><p><em>Jesus said to him: What you are about to do, do quickly</em>- I somewhat doubt that the Lord meant 'Please, get it over with quickly, don't draw out the agony for Me'. That seems out of character with the Lord, and certainly with the nature of John's highly spiritual record. So we can assume that the Lord wished for Judas to repent, and He urged him to do so quickly, knowing that human nature ever seeks to procrastinate, and thus lose the power of decision against the flesh. In this case, "you are about to do" would suggest that Judas was on the verge of repentance, and the Lord urges him to go all the way with it quickly. But it could be that the Lord perceived that Judas had sold himself completely to the evil he had allowed to develop within him; and He is now encouraging Judas in the path he had embarked upon.</p>


text:
<p>13:28&nbsp;<em>Now no one at the table knew for what reason Jesus spoke this to Judas</em>- This is an open admission from John that they did not understand at the time, but now they did- all confirming the truth of the Lord's promise of the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, to bring all things to their remembrance and understanding.</p>


text:
<p>13:29&nbsp;<em>Some thought because Judas had the money bag, that Jesus said to him: Buy what things we have need of for the feast, or that he should give something to the poor</em>- This supposition would rather support the idea suggested on :29 that a member of the Jewish 'satan' came into the upper room, requesting Judas' attention. We can maybe infer that Judas had gone out with the money bag in his hand. For we know that he kept the money bag, from which the group made donations to the poor. So we imagine Judas leaving the room clutching the bag, hence the supposition that he was going to buy something or donate to the poor. The association between Judas and money is very clear; although his motivations were multi-factorial, <em><a href='B:470 26:15'>Mat 26:15</a></em> is clear that Judas went to the priests and asked what they would give him if he betrayed the Lord to them. It may seem incredible that a man would do such evil for money; but we constantly see the power of covetousness and materialism leading men to throw away life eternal. The power of these things is great indeed.</p>


text:
<p>13:30- see on <em><a href='B:480 14:68'>Mar 14:68</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:62'>Luk 22:62</a></em>.</p><p><em>He then having received the morsel went out immediately into the night</em>- There seems an echo of how Esau "for one morsel of meat sold his birth right" (<em><a href='B:650 12:16'>Heb 12:16</a></em>). The immediate and the visible is so powerfully attractive, so powerful that it can lead men to throw away their spiritual birth right and betray God’s peerless Son. "Went out" is a term later used by John to describe all those who went out from the community of John's converts- back into the darkness of Judaism, just as Judas did (<em><a href='B:690 2:19'>1Jn 2:19</a></em>). Judas is not, therefore, any special case. He is representative of an entire class of people, indeed, all those who turn away from the Lord's love.</p>


text:
<p>13:31- see on <em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>.</p><p><em>When he was gone, Jesus said: Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him</em>- With Judas gone, the Lord sensed that all those gathered around Him were to be ultimately and eternally saved by the sacrifice He was about to make. That was the final glory to God which He sought. In this we see the importance of all preaching and pastoral work; this shall climax in the glorification of the Father in the Son.</p><p>But the Lord had in view the way that He was about to die. This would be to the glory of God, just as the death and resurrection of Lazarus had been to the glory of God in His Son. The Lord knew that the exit of Judas to the Jewish 'satan' was now going to set in process the final train of events which would lead to His crucifixion.</p>


text:
<p>13:32&nbsp;<em>And God shall glorify him in Himself, and will glorify him immediately</em>- The second stage of the glorification was presumably in the events of the resurrection. However the idea may simply be as in GNB: "Now the Son of Man's glory is revealed; now God’s glory is revealed through him. And if God’s glory is revealed through him, then God will reveal the glory of the Son of Man in himself, and he will do so at once". The idea is that the glory of the Son is that of the Father and&nbsp;<em>vice versa</em>, God Himself would glorify the Son just as the Son had Himself glorified the Father; even though both Father and Son have their own glory.</p><p>"In Himself" could be translated "by Himself"; and the "immediately" may mean that the time was soon coming when this mutual glorification was going to happen, in a spiritual intercourse between Father and Son which was the most sublime moment of all time and space. No wonder the translation is difficult, for the ideas are the profoundest to ever be expressed in language. The mutual glorification of Father and Son speaks of the Lord's death and resurrection; the mutual quality and nature of it is hard to plumb and express, hence the difficulty in both translation and interpretation at this point.</p><p>The Lord Jesus had that “glory” in what John calls “the beginning”, and he says that he and the other disciples witnessed that glory (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). “The beginning” in John’s Gospel often has reference to the beginning of the Lord’s ministry. There is essentially only one glory- the glory of the Son is a reflection or manifestation of the glory of the Father. They may be seen as different glories only in the sense that the same glory is reflected from the Lord Jesus in His unique way; as a son reflects or articulates his father’s personality, it’s not a mirror personality, but it’s the same essence. One star differs from another in glory, but they all reflect the same essential light of glory. The Lord Jesus sought only the glory of the Father (<em><a href='B:500 7:18'>Joh 7:18</a></em>). He spoke of God’s glory as being the Son’s glory (<em><a href='B:500 11:4'>Joh 11:4</a></em>). Thus Isaiah’s vision of God’s glory is interpreted by John as a prophecy of the Son’s glory (<em><a href='B:500 12:41'>Joh 12:41</a></em>). The glory of God is His “own self”, His own personality and essence. This was with God of course from the ultimate beginning of all, and it was this glory which was manifested in both the death and glorification of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em>). The Old Testament title “God of glory” is applied to the Lord Jesus, “the Lord of glory” (<em><a href='B:530 2:8'>1Co 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:1'>Jas 2:1</a></em>). It is&nbsp;<em>God’s</em>&nbsp;glory which radiates from the face of Jesus Christ (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>). Jesus is the brightness of God’s glory, because He is the express image of God’s personality (<em><a href='B:650 1:3'>Heb 1:3</a></em>). He received glory from God’s glory (<em><a href='B:680 1:17'>2Pe 1:17</a></em>). God is the “Father of glory”, the prime source of the one true glory, that is reflected both in the Lord Jesus and in ourselves (<em><a href='B:560 1:17'>Eph 1:17</a></em>). The intimate relation of the Father's glory with that of the Son is brought out in <em><a href='B:500 13:31-32'>Joh 13:31-32</a></em>: "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him; and God shall glorify him in himself, and straightway shall he glorify him". &nbsp;What all this exposition means in practice is this. There is only “one glory” of God. That glory refers to the essential “self”, the personality, characteristics, being etc. The Lord Jesus manifested that glory in His mortal life (<em><a href='B:500 2:11'>Joh 2:11</a></em>). But He manifests it now that He has been “glorified”, and will manifest it in the future day of His glory. And the Lord was as in all things a pattern to us. We are bidden follow in His path to glory. We now in our personalities reflect and manifest the one glory of the Father, and our blessed Hope is glory in the future, to be glorified, to be persons (note that-&nbsp;<em>to be persons</em>) who reflect and ‘are’ that glory in a more intimate and complete sense than we are now, marred as we are by our human dysfunction, sin, and weakness of will against temptation. We now reflect that glory as in a dirty bronze mirror. The outline of God’s glory in the face of Jesus is only dimly reflected in us. But we are being changed, from glory to glory, the focus getting clearer all the time, until that great day when we meet Him and see Him face to face, with all that shall imply and result in. But my point in this context is that there is only one glory. The essence of who we are now in our spiritual man, how we reflect it, in our own unique way, is how we shall always be.</p>


text:
<p>13:33- see on <em><a href='B:500 7:33'>Joh 7:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You shall seek me, but as I said to the Jews, where I go, you cannot come. So now I say to you</em>- "As I said to the Jews" as well as to you suggests they were far more influenced by the Jews than they should have been. The Lord has explained the deep spiritual intercourse and mutual glorification between Father and Son which was to be achieved on the cross. And there, into that profound mutual unity with the Father, they could not go. It was a communion unenterable by the disciples at that time.</p>


text:
<p>13:34&nbsp;<em>A new commandment I give to you: Love one another. Even as I have loved you, you also love one another</em>- “As I&nbsp;<em>have</em>&nbsp;loved you" is another example of how the Lord spoke of His impending sacrifice as if He had already achieved it in His life. Having loved His own, He loved them unto the end in His death (13:1). 15:12-13 says the same: “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends". Only the cross can be a strong enough power to inspire a love between us quite different to anything known in previous times; a love so powerful that it in itself could convert men and women. The newness of the commandment was to love as the Lord loved us.</p><p>The Greeks had various words for love,&nbsp;<em>agape&nbsp;</em>(a rather general word, used in the LXX);&nbsp;<em>eros&nbsp;</em>(referring to the physical aspect) and&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>, referring (for example) to the love of parents for children. These terms had loose definitions and are almost interchangeable in their OT (LXX) and NT usage. But then the Lord introduced a whole new paradigm: "A new commandment I give unto you, That you love (<em>agape</em>) one another; as I have loved you" (<em><a href='B:500 13:34'>Joh 13:34</a></em>). To love as the Lord loved was something fundamentally new, and He chose one of the available terms and made it into something else. He chose a rather colourless word in the Greek language:&nbsp;<em>agape</em>, and made it refer specifically to the love of God and Christ towards us, and also to the love which their followers should show to each other. 'This is&nbsp;<em>agape'</em>, He says: 'This is My redefinition of that word, which must enter your new vocabulary'. It is true that&nbsp;<em>agape</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>&nbsp;are apparently interchangeable in some places; but the Lord’s redefinition of love, His placing of new meaning into old words, still stands valid. Not only does the Lord give ‘love’ a new flavour as a word. He above all showed forth that quality of love. He turned man’s conception of love on its head. Thus He plugged in to the Pharisee’s debate about who could be identified as their neighbour- by showing, in His Samaritan parable, that we must make ourselves neighbours to others.  In this sense the new commandment can be later called an old commandment, which Christians had from the beginning (1 Jn. 2:7,8; 2 Jn. 5). "The beginning" surely means the beginning of Christianity in the upper room. All revelation before it was 'old'; to love as Jesus loved was 'new' and by that all is defined. His love, love achieved in His death, was the beginning, the new start for God's people. This is how utterly new and defining is the love seen in the cross, visually demonstrated by the footwashing, with the Lord clothed as He was on the cross, where He was the ultimate servant of all.</p>


text:
<p>13:35- see on <em><a href='B:510 4:13'>Act 4:13</a></em>.</p><p><em>By this shall all men know you are my disciples- if you have love for one another</em>- The Lord has just redefined "love" as the love He was showing by dying for them, epitomized in the foot washing incident. If His followers could do this for each other, then the witness would be made to "all men". Christian love must be distinctively different from any other profession of 'love' made by others. That is a great challenge; and it is only capable of fulfilment by being motivated by the Lord's love. It will be a witness powerful enough to convert the world. Indeed, this is John’s version of the great commission- see on <em><a href='B:490 22:32'>Luk 22:32</a></em>. The Lord’s death was to result in a unity between us that would lead the world to understand Him and the love the Father has for Him (<em><a href='B:500 17:21'>Joh 17:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:23'>Joh 17:23</a></em>); and yet through the loving unity of believers, the world knows&nbsp;<em>them</em>, that they are His disciples (<em><a href='B:500 13:35'>Joh 13:35</a></em>). We are an exhibition to this world of the relationship between the Father and Son. Hence our behaviour is so crucial. For if we are divided and unloving, this is the image of the Father and Son which we are presenting. It is also therefore sadly true that if all men do not see love for one another, then we are in fact not the Lord's disciples. This makes so many forms of cranky denominationalism self-condemned as non-Christian.</p>


text:
<p>13:36- see on <em><a href='B:500 21:18-19'>Joh 21:18-19</a></em>.</p><p><em>Simon Peter said to him: Lord, where do you go? Jesus answered: Where I go, you cannot follow now, but you shall follow afterwards</em>- As noted on :32 and :33, the Lord was going to the cross, but to an unenterable mutual intercourse between Father and Son which would be to the profoundest glory of them both. This was unenterable by the spiritually immature disciples at that stage. The Lord was indeed telling Peter that he was not yet able to die for Him, but He would do so ultimately. But the essence of "Where I go" was to this intimate unity with the Father which was unenterable by the disciples at that stage. But the promise of the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, would mean that the Lord's prayer of chapter 17 could and would come true- that the depths of His unity and mutual glorification with the Father would become true for them too.</p><p>The question is “Where are you going?", in the context of the Lord going to the cross. Yet later, the Lord pointed out that “Not one of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’” (<em><a href='B:500 13:36'>Joh 13:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:5'>Joh 16:5</a></em>). Clearly enough the Lord’s point was that Peter had enquired about the cross, but not really enquired. Peter took 'Where the Lord is going' as referring to a literal place, or His death. But as noted on :32 and :33, where the Lord was going, as He understood it, was the most profound unity between Father and Son. And is it that same with us? That we wish to know of the cross, but we are not&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;enquiring as to it, as the personal and spiritual implications are too great for us? It wasn’t that Peter was unaware of the cross and the Lord’s teaching about it; it was rather that he and we failed to let the realities sink home and failed to appreciate the deep spiritual implications of it all. The Lord had clearly taught Peter that He must lay down His life for the sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:11'>Joh 10:11</a></em>)- but Peter wished to sacrifice his own life to save Jesus’ having to do this (<em><a href='B:500 13:36-38'>Joh 13:36-38</a></em>). So great was Peter’s barrier to the idea of the Lord Jesus having to die. And we too run into this same barrier with the cross of Christ; it’s why, e.g., we find it so hard to make an extended study of the crucifixion, why people walk out of movies about the Passion of Christ half way through, why we find it hard to concentrate upon the simple facts of the death of Christ at their memorial meetings…&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:37&nbsp;<em>Peter said to him: Lord, why cannot I follow you even now? I will lay down my life for you</em>- Peter understood where the Lord was going as meaning 'to His death'. But the Lord had in view the intense spiritual intercourse with the Father and mutual glorification which would arise from that death (see on :32 and :33). His death was far more than death&nbsp;<em>per se,&nbsp;</em>it was a profound glorification of the Father. Peter's loyalty and desire to physically die&nbsp;<em>f</em>or the Lord is commendable, but the record shows that he was rather missing the point and spiritual perspective of the Lord's death. When he says “Though I should / must die with you” (<em><a href='B:470 26:35'>Mat 26:35</a></em>), he uses the word elsewhere translated “must” in connection with Lord’s foreknowledge that He must suffer the death of the cross. Peter knew that he must share the cross- but the flesh was weak. When it became apparent that the Lord was going to actually die, he asked: “Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake” (<em><a href='B:500 13:37'>Joh 13:37</a></em>). He saw the connection between following and laying down life in death. He had heard the Lord saying that He would lay down His life for them (<em><a href='B:500 10:15'>Joh 10:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:17'>Joh 10:17</a></em>). And Peter thought he could do just the same for his Lord- but not, it didn’t occur to him, for his brethren. He didn’t then appreciate the weight or extent of the cross of Christ. The Lord replied that he was not yet able to do that, he would deny Him rather than follow Him, but one day he would be strong enough, and then he would follow Him to the end (<em><a href='B:500 13:36-37'>Joh 13:36-37</a></em>). Peter thought he was strong enough then; for he followed (s:w:) Christ afar off, to the High Priest’s house (<em><a href='B:470 26:58'>Mat 26:58</a></em>). But in ineffable self-hatred he came to see that the Lord’s prediction was right.</p><p>Just before His death, the Saviour spoke of going to the Father, and coming again in resurrection (<em><a href='B:500 13:36-37'>Joh 13:36-37</a></em> cp. 14:28; 16:16,17; 17:11). He somehow saw the cross as a being with God, a going to Him there (‘going to the Father’ in these Johannine passages is hard to apply to His ascent to Heaven after the resurrection). When in this context He speaks of&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;coming to the Father, He refers to our taking up of His cross, and in this coming to the essence of God (<em><a href='B:500 14:6'>Joh 14:6</a></em> cp. 4, 13:36). See on <em><a href='B:500 19:19'>Joh 19:19</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>13:38&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered: Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say to you: The cock shall not crow, till you have denied me three times</em>- As noted on:37, Peter had rather missed the point anyway. The Lord was 'going' not to simply die&nbsp;<em>per se</em>, but into the profoundest spiritual glorification process with the Father which Peter was too immature to enter. But the Lord goes along with Peter's literalism, and gently points out to him that he was not even up to dying with Him, let alone entering the spiritual things which were implied in the Lord's death and where He was 'going'. The issues relating to the Lord's words to Peter here are discussed on <em><a href='B:470 26:34-35'>Mat 26:34-35</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>14:1- see on 17:3.</p><p><em>Do not let your heart be disturbed-&nbsp;</em>The chapter division is unfortunate. The "you" in the final verses of John 13 referred to Peter and his upcoming spiritual failure. The "your heart... you" now addressed also referred to Peter. Although of course there is wider reference to all of us. For Peter is every man. Peter is being comforted that despite his failure, the Lord was going to the cross to prepare a place for Peter in eternity, in God's eternal house. And his heart should not be troubled at the inevitability of his sin and failure. The Lord was now going to Gethsemane to be "troubled" for him... </p><p>John has used this very phrase for a troubled or "disturbed" heart in describing the stress felt by the Lord as He faced the eternal issues of human salvation which were before Him (11:33; 12:27; 13:21). That is enough emphasis for us to safely conclude that the Lord meant- and means- that He is taking our stress and "trouble" about salvation onto Himself, and we need not worry about. For all the issues concerning whether we shall be saved were carried by Him. And it is surely alluded to when He urges them after His resurrection not to be "troubled" (<em><a href='B:490 24:38'>Luk 24:38</a></em>). "Let not your heart be troubled" is an allusion to <em><a href='B:90 17:32'>1Sa 17:32</a></em>, where Israel were not to fear Goliath because of the salvation which would be achieved through David.</p><p><em>Believe in God, believe also in me</em>- For first century Jews, belief in God was taken as natural and normal. If they believe that He is from the Father and one with the Father in a functional sense, then they should believe also in Him. And the belief in view is faith in salvation (see on :1).</p><p>The Lord's goodbye address in John 14-16 has many connections with those of Moses and Joshua, in which they expressed fear that after their death there would be a mass falling away within Israel, and their guise of spirituality would give way due to their lack of a real faith. This further indicates the weakness of the disciples. Our Lord's speech was shot through with doubt of the twelve and recognition of the weakness of the disciples, which needs tabulating to show its full force:</p><table><tr><td></p><p>14</td><td>:2</td><td>"If it were not so" - implying they doubted</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"If I go... I will come again" - using logic to answer their implied doubt.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:5</td><td>"We know not whither Thou goest"</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:7</td><td>"If ye had known me"</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:9</td><td>"Have I been so long with you, and yet hast thou not known me?"</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:10,11</td><td>"Believest thou?... believe me"</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:14</td><td>"If ye shall ask..."</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:15</td><td>"If ye love me... if ye loved me, ye would rejoice…if a man love me" (v:28,23)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>:4</td><td>"Abide in me... no more can ye, except ye abide in me... without me ye can do nothing…if ye abide in me"</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:9,14,15</td><td>"Continue ye... ye are my friends, if ye…I have called you friends" - implying 'But you've got to live up to it'.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:17</td><td>"These things I command you" - emphatic, desperate warning</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:20</td><td>"Remember the word"</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>:1</td><td>"That ye should not be offended"</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:5</td><td>"None of you asketh me, Whither goest Thou?" - implying Jesus was disappointed that they hadn't. "Sorrow hath filled your heart" (v:6) seems a similar rebuke.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:24</td><td>"Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name; ask..."</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:31</td><td>"Do ye now believe? (said almost sarcastically)... ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone" - cp. Joshua and Moses questioning Israel whether their commitment was really what they claimed, and warning that after their death they would soon fall away.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table><p>“Let not your heart be troubled… neither let it be afraid” (:1,27) repeats Moses’ final encouragement to Israel to “fear not, neither be dismayed” (<em><a href='B:50 31:8'>Deu 31:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:21'>Deu 1:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:29'>Deu 1:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:18'>Deu 7:18</a></em>). Inheritance of the Kingdom was assured- if they believed.</p><p>I think it is worth all of us pausing to ask the most basic question: Do we&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;believe that God exists? "Those who say that they believe in God and yet neither love nor fear him, do not in fact believe in him but in those who have taught them that God exists. Those who believe that they believe in God, but without any passion in their heart, any anguish of mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, without an element of despair even in their consolation, believe only in the God-idea, not in God". The Jews must have been shocked when the Lord told them to "believe in God" (<em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em> RVmg:). For there were no atheists amongst them. What the Lord Jesus was saying was that their faith was in the God-idea, not in the real God. For if they believed the Father, they would accept His Son. We must ask whether we feel any real passion for Him, any true emotion, any sense of spiritual crisis, of radical motivation…&nbsp; See on <em><a href='B:510 16:34'>Act 16:34</a></em>.</p><p>There are many other references in the Upper Room discourse to Moses- without doubt, Moses was very much in the Lord’s mind as He faced His end. Consider at your leisure how <em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 14:31'>Exo 14:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:11'>Joh 14:11</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 14:8'>Exo 14:8</a></em>. When the Lord speaks in the Upper Room of manifesting the Father and Himself unto the disciples (<em><a href='B:500 14:21-22'>Joh 14:21-22</a></em>), He is alluding to the way that Moses asked God to “manifest Yourself unto me” (<em><a href='B:20 33:18'>Exo 33:18</a></em> LXX). The Lord’s allusion makes Himself out to be God’s representative, and all those who believe in Him to be as Moses, receiving the vision of God’s glory. Note that it was that very experience above all others which marks off Moses in Rabbinic writings as supreme and beyond all human equal. And yet the Lord is teaching that that very experience of Moses is to be shared&nbsp;<em>to an even higher degree</em>&nbsp;by all His followers. It would’ve taken real faith and spiritual ambition for those immature men who listened to the Lord that evening to really believe it… And the same difficult call comes to us too.</p><p>The command not to be troubled is also an allusion to “Then I said unto you, Dread not, neither be afraid of them” (<em><a href='B:50 1:41'>Deu 1:41</a></em>). Yet the contrast is with Moses, who fain would have gone ahead into the promised land to prepare the place, but was unable.</p>


text:
<p>14:2- see on <em><a href='B:490 14:12'>Luk 14:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>In my Father's house are many dwelling places-&nbsp;</em>This is a form of the verb 'to abide' which features so frequently in John's record. The Father and Son seek to abide in the believer through the Spirit, deep in the heart of the believer (:17; <em><a href='B:690 3:24'>1Jn 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:13'>1Jn 4:13</a></em>). In this sense, each believer becomes like one of the rooms or cubicles around the temple, each used by a different priest. Insofar as the Spirit abides in us now, we are the temple of God, we are the new priesthood, and are therefore called to active service for others to His glory. So the thought is both that we go to a place to abide there, and also that God and His Son abide in us through the Spirit. The document known as "The Temple Scroll", a Jewish apocalyptic writing from Qumran, was well known at the time. It claims that there would be so many rooms in the future temple that there would be one for each Israelite. Against this background, the Lord's words about many rooms / abiding places in the Father's house would have been understood as alluding to the rooms around the temple courts- and not Heaven. Indeed the Lord speaks of the temple as His Father's house in Jn. 2:16, and we note the use of the word "place" for the temple in Jn. 11:48 cp. 4:20. The Lord Himself says that His discourse here is in figurative language (Jn. 16:25), so it is far too literalistic to insist that the "Father's house" here is simply Heaven. The house of God in the OT is always an earthly sanctuary and not Heaven (Ex. 23:19; Jud. 18:31; 1 Chron. 6:48; 2 Chron. 4:11; Ps. 42:4; 118:26).</p><p><em>If it were not so, I would have told you-&nbsp;</em>The offer of salvation is so repeatedly stated by the Father and Son throughout the Bible that we are left with a terrible choice: Either it is true, or God is the worst deceiver. And if that were the case, the Lord as the obviously good man would have told us. This awful choice points up the amazing truth- that God really wishes us to be saved and assures any and every believer of the certainty of salvation.</p><p><em>I go to prepare a place for you</em>- The abiding Spirit was only given as a result of the Lord's death and glorification (7:38,39), and He will go on throughout the Comforter discourse to make this point. He was going to the cross, and to the intense mutual glorification of Father and Son there of which He has just spoken in chapter 13. He is speaking here in response to Peter’s question as to where the Lord Jesus was now going to disappear to, i:e. in death. “I go to prepare a place for you” alludes to the idea of Moses and the Angel bringing Israel “into the place which I have prepared” (<em><a href='B:20 23:30'>Exo 23:30</a></em>). Indeed the LXX of Ex. 15:17 is so similar; Israel were to be brought to "the place of Your dwelling". The Angel of the presence, called "His Holy Spirit" in Isaiah, "goes before you on the way to seek out a place for you" (Dt. 1:33). The Lord speaks of the "Comforter" in the same terms as that Angel. We will be king-priest of the future age (Rev. 5:10), on active duty, doing God's service in a unique way. That is the picture of having our own individual priestly room in the temple. Those rooms included the "household stuff" of Tobiah in Nehemiah's time, so we can imagine that the priests lived in those rooms whilst on duty. </p><p>And it is also surely an allusion to the Palestinian tradition that the wife came to live with the new husband after a year and a day, whilst He 'prepared the place' for her. The cross was His purchase of us as His bride. The bridegroom was “taken away” from the wedding guests (<em><a href='B:480 2:20'>Mar 2:20</a></em>)- the same word used in the LXX of <em><a href='B:290 53:8'>Isa 53:8</a></em> for the ‘taking away’ of the Lord Jesus in His crucifixion death. But the groom is ‘taken away’ from the guests- because he is going off to marry his bride. The cross, in all its tears, blood and pain, was the Lord’s wedding to us.</p>


text:
<p>14:3- see on <em><a href='B:490 17:34'>Luk 17:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 4:15'>1Th 4:15</a></em>.</p><p><em>And if I go and prepare a place for you-&nbsp;</em>The Lord's death and glorification on the cross in God’s eyes, being lifted up in glory from God’s viewpoint, was in order to release the Spirit. This was symbolized by the water which came from the Lord's side, and His breathing His last breath / spirit toward the weak and fearful disciples. He had asked the disciples to "prepare" the Passover meal for them (s:w. <em><a href='B:490 22:12'>Luk 22:12</a></em>). And now He demonstrates the mutuality between Him and His followers by saying that He was now going to prepare a place for&nbsp;<em>them</em>, an abiding place, on account of actually being the Paschal lamb.</p><p><em>I will come again-&nbsp;</em>The coming again refers therefore to His resurrection, and the spiritual intimacy with His followers which the gift of the Spirit would enable. There is of course some reference to the second coming, but the Lord is to go on now to explain that His physical coming and presence were to be experienced in spiritual essence by His presence amongst them through the Spirit. The way He was going was to the cross- not to Heaven. There our place was prepared. He “came again” in resurrection.</p><p>The fact we sin and fail inevitably militates against a robust faith that “we will be there”. The Lord predicted how Peter would deny him; but went straight on to assure the shocked and worried disciples: “Let not your heart be troubled because some of you will fail me: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you… if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (<em><a href='B:500 13:36'>Joh 13:36</a></em> to <em><a href='B:500 14:3'>Joh 14:3</a></em>). These wonderful words of assurance were in the very context of predicting the disciples’ failure. It’s as if the Lord is saying: ‘Don’t let the fact that you will fail me shake your faith that I will never fail&nbsp;<em>you</em>, and I will save you in the end, despite your weakness and collapses of faith’.</p><p><em>And will receive you to myself; that where I am, there you may be also-&nbsp;</em>This speaks of the spiritual intimacy which would be achieved through the gift of the Spirit released by the Lord's death. His death was enabling or preparing the abiding place by the Spirit in every believers' heart. "Where I am" is a distinct present tense. His being so united with the Father, able to lift up His eyes to Heaven and pray with no senses of barrier, was to be shared with the believers on account of the gift of the Spirit released through His death. This idea of His relationship and unity with the Father being shared with us is the great theme of His prayer of chapter 17. Where He was in His relationship with the Father would be ours. He would 'receive us unto Himself'- a phrase so intimate that it implies the closest form of marital union. It is used of taking a woman unto oneself in marriage (<em><a href='B:470 1:20'>Mat 1:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 1:24'>Mat 1:24</a></em>). "Unto myself" is the very phrase He used in 12:32 of how the cross would draw all the men of the new creation "unto me". This drawing unto and into Himself is all the work of the Spirit, an outflow of His work on the cross. The idea is not at all of going to be with Him in Heaven, but of being personally connected with Him; being received unto Himself is to be drawn unto Him on the cross. Again there is a connection with the prologue, where Israel generally did not "receive" Him, but those who did were given the Spirit of adoption, His grace / gift, His fullness (1:11,12,16 s:w:). The Jewish world refused to receive the gift of the Spirit (:17 s:w:). The same word is used of the receipt of the Spirit through His death (7:39; 20:22 "receive the Holy Spirit"; <em><a href='B:690 2:27'>1Jn 2:27</a></em> "the anointing which you have received"). There is a mutuality in all this; we receive Him, and He receives us (:20 s:w:). The receipt of the Spirit enables us to be received unto and into Himself, to be with Him where He was with the Father as He spoke those words. To deny the Spirit's operation is to miss out on the relationship with the Lord Jesus which is the essence of Christianity.</p>


text:
<p>14:4&nbsp;<em>And where I go, you know the way</em>- He had often told them of His forthcoming death, but rarely if ever about His ascension to Heaven. Where He was going clearly refers to the cross. The Lord seems to have imputed their future maturity to them at a time when they still didn’t have it. ‘You know where I go’, He told them (:4,5)- when, as they themselves responded, they didn’t. He said that they knew the Spirit of Truth, whereas the Jewish world didn’t (14:17)- because “in that day you shall know…” (14:20). And this approach will help us with our immature and frustrating brethren; we need to impute to them that spiritual maturity to which we must believe they will rise. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:5&nbsp;<em>Thomas said to him: Lord, we do not know where you go. How do we discern the way?</em>- See on :4. Here we have our typical problem- we know the way of the cross, but in practice we don’t know- or rather, we don’t want to know. The disciples were confused as to where the Lord Jesus was going and to where He was leading them. His response was that He was and is “the way”. C:H. Dodd in&nbsp;<em>The Interpretation Of John’s Gospel</em>&nbsp;p. 412 suggests the meaning of <em><a href='B:500 14:4-5'>Joh 14:4-5</a></em> as: “You know the way in that I am the way, but you do not know where it leads”, and Thomas therefore objects: “If we do not know the destination, how can we know the way?”. The Lord’s response is that He is the way. That’s it. It’s not so much the destination as the way there. The excellency of knowing Christ demands of us to walk in His way, to know Him as the life right now, to live His life, to be in His way. The way is the goal; ‘You don’t need any further horizons than that, than me, right now’. This is totally unappreciated by the prosperity Gospel.</p>


text:
<p>14:6- see on <em><a href='B:500 13:37'>Joh 13:37</a></em>.</p><p><em>Jesus said to him: I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me</em>- The way to the cross had been lived out by the Lord throughout His life. And that too is "the truth". “The way" was to the cross, and there we find and see the only true kind of life. That “way" of crucifixion life leads us to the Father, just as the Lord understood His death on the cross as a going to the Father. Because the cross so supremely manifested the Father, there we find Him, if we will live the life of Christ crucified. Yet if we keep His commandments, the Father and Son come to us (14:23), and we come to them. The cross enables a mutuality of relationship between us all. Note too that “the way" is now another term for “the cross". They were asking where He was going; was He going to die on a cross? And He replies that “I am the way"- that they ought to have realized that His whole way of life was a cross carrying, and so of course, He would be literally going to die on the cross; He would follow His “way" to the end.</p><p><em>“</em>I am&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;way" may allude to the one great way of Proverbs. The whole way of life which leads to the Kingdom, the things we do, our deepest thoughts, our daily decisions; these are all "the way" which leads to the Kingdom; and yet Christ is “the way". This clearly means that all these things, the very essence of our being, the fibre of our thought processes, the basis of all our works; must be the Lord Jesus Christ. The fact God’s ways and principles are unchanging encourage our self-examination; for there is always the rock of God and His way against which to compare our ways. The Lord Jesus is the same yesterday and today and for ever.</p>


text:
<p>14:7- see on <em><a href='B:500 17:7'>Joh 17:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>If you had truly known me, you would have truly known my Father also. From this time forward you will truly know Him and will have seen Him</em>-  I noted on :1 that these words all have special relevance to Peter. And he was about to state three times that he doesn't "know" the Lord Jesus. But the Lord tells the Father in 17:7,8 that the disciples have known Him and the Father, unlike the Jewish world who had not known Him (16:3). Here we see a wonderful principle revealed: The Lord speaks so positively to the Father about us, imputing righteousness and levels of commitment to us which we do not currently have. They would truly know and see the Father through the work of the cross and the gift of the Spirit which would open their eyes to the Son and thereby to His Father.</p>


text:
<p>14:8- see on <em><a href='B:50 5:4-5'>Deu 5:4-5</a></em>.</p><p><em>Philip said to him: Lord, show us the Father, and it suffices us</em>- The Lord replies that He is the manifestation of the Father. This is the language of <em><a href='B:20 33:18'>Exo 33:18</a></em> LXX, where Moses likewise asks God “show Yourself to me”. The answer was in the theophany on Sinai, with the Name of Yahweh declared, as full of grace and truth. This, according to Philip’s allusion to it, is what we see in Jesus. And this is why the prologue in John 1 speaks of the Lord Jesus in terms of the theophany of Exodus, that in His personality the full glory of the Father dwelt. Philip was the one who commented that “two hundred pennyworth of bread is not&nbsp;<em>sufficient</em>” for the crowd to eat and be filled. Yet he now uses the same, relatively uncommon, Greek word some time later, when he says that if he could see the Father, it would ‘suffice’ him (<em><a href='B:500 6:7'>Joh 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:8'>Joh 14:8</a></em>). Perhaps John intended to bring out the growth in Philip; he now perceived that the bread created by the Lord for the crowd was indeed representative of the bread of life, the Lord Jesus who was the manifestation of the Father. The Lord had taught in <em><a href='B:500 6:35'>Joh 6:35</a></em> that He was the bread, and He bade His followers ‘see’ Him; and Philip had absorbed the point, even though, as the Lord makes clear, Philip still did not ‘see’ Him as he ought:&nbsp;</p><p>The relationship of the Lord Jesus with His Father was evidently intended by Him to be a very real, achievable pattern for all those in Him. The prayer of chapter 17 makes this clear, for the Lord there prays that we would share His relationship with the Father, or as He has just said, we would be with Him where He then was in relationship with the Father. He wasn't an aberration, an uncopiable, inimitable freak. John's Gospel brings this out very clearly. The Father knows the Son, the Son knows the Father, the Son knows men, men know the Son, and so men know both the Father and Son (10:14,15; 14:7,8). The Son is in the Father as the Father is in the Son; men are in the Son and the Son is in men; and so men are in the Father and Son (<em><a href='B:500 14:10-11'>Joh 14:10-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:21'>Joh 17:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:23'>Joh 17:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>). As the Son did the Father's works and was thereby "one" with Him, so it is for the believers who do the Father's works (<em><a href='B:500 10:30'>Joh 10:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:37-38'>Joh 10:37-38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:8-15'>Joh 14:8-15</a></em>). Whilst there obviously was a unique bonding between Father and Son on account of the virgin birth, the Lord Jesus certainly chooses to speak as if His Spirit enables the relationship between Him and His Father to be reproduced in our experience.</p>


text:
<p>14:9&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to him: Philip, have I been with you such a long time, and still you do not truly know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father. How do you ask: Show us the Father?</em>- Although the Lord speaks quite toughly to them at this point, as noted on :7, He is totally positive about them in talking with the Father about them (17:7,8). They did not truly know Him nor the Father, and yet He uses just that same Greek word in telling the Father that His men did “know” Him and His word (<em><a href='B:500 17:7-8'>Joh 17:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:25'>Joh 17:25</a></em>). He had faith and hope in their future maturity- they didn’t then “know”, but they did in the future (<em><a href='B:500 12:16'>Joh 12:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:7'>Joh 13:7</a></em>). The Lord had hope that “In that day you shall know” (<em><a href='B:500 14:20'>Joh 14:20</a></em>). For there was no absolute guarantee that the eleven would come to “know” Him and His word, seeing they had freewill- Jesus had faith they would, and He expressed that faith and Hope to the Father so positively. For to love someone is to impute things to them which we only hope for. That is the simple basis of the 'imputed righteousness' of which Paul writes in Romans.</p>


text:
<p>14:10&nbsp;<em>Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not from myself; but the Father abiding in me does His works</em>- John’s Gospel especially seems to speak of the “words” and “works” of the Lord Jesus almost interchangeably (<em><a href='B:500 14:10-14'>Joh 14:10-14</a></em>); in illustration of the way in which the word of Jesus, which was the word of God, was constantly and consistently made flesh in Him, as the prologue stated (1:14); issuing in the works / actions of this man who was “the word made flesh”. See on <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>. The Lord is encouraging us to see beyond the miracles or "works"; all of His words, works, miracles, character, spirit, personality were summarized in Him as a person. There was perfect congruence between Him as a person and all that He said, did and showed Himself to be. He was as He has just stated "the truth", the word made flesh. The appeal to let His words abide in us does not therefore only imply that we are to memorize His recorded words and endlessly recycle them in our minds. Although there may well be an allusion to the idea of memorizing the Gospel records. It is more a question of allowing Him to dwell or abide within us, with all His spirit, words, personality and essence of His being. For this would be the Hebraic understanding of a man's "word".</p>


text:
<p>14:11- see on 14:1.</p><p><em>Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works' sake</em>- He wanted them to perceive the indwelling of the Father in Himself, and His mutual abiding in the Father, because this was the very thing which He was promising them- to share His relationship with the Father, to come to be where He now was with the Father (:3). The prayer of John 17 and the promises of the effect of the Comforter all speak of the same possibility.</p><p>As noted on 10:38, the Lord was willing to accept 'belief' if it was simply at the level of accepting that His miracles "works" were from God; in the hope that He could take such faith further. Yet here He seems to be saying that belief in Him as a person, was the same as believing in Him for the sake of His miracles. He as a personality, as a character, was the most powerful witness, at least equal to that witness provided by the miracles. To encounter Him without miracles ought to be persuasive enough, and we see this from the conversion of the Samaritan woman, who believed He was in the Father without seeing miracles.</p>


text:
<p>14:12- see on <em><a href='B:480 11:24'>Mar 11:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:20'>Joh 17:20</a></em>.</p><p><em>Truly, truly, I say to you: He that believes in me, the works that I do, shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do, because I go to the Father</em>- As noted on :10 and :11, "the works" of the Lord refer not only to His miracles but to all that He was. His going to the Father on the cross would release the gift of the Spirit (7:39). This was and is fundamentally a gift of internal strengthening in the heart, although it had issue in miraculous works for the disciples in the first century context.</p><p>It may be the Lord had in mind that the disciples through having the miraculous gifts of the Spirit would do greater works than He had done. But this raises the question of what is meant by "greater". It could mean "more", numerically. But the Greek word specifically carries the idea of being older, more mature- e.g. "Are you greater than our father Abraham?" (<em><a href='B:500 8:53'>Joh 8:53</a></em>) in the context means 'Are you older than Abraham?'. So He could be saying that the disciples would do greater works" in the sense that collectively between us we would reveal to an even greater or mature extent the works of God. Because there must be a connection in His thought with <em><a href='B:500 5:20'>Joh 5:20</a></em>, where alone elsewhere we meet the phrase "greater works": "For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and greater works than these will he shew him, that ye may marvel". The greater works that the Father showed the Son were the works which the believers in Christ were to perform subsequent to the Lord's resurrection. The "works" are the works of God Himself. The community of believers in Christ are doing His works, acting as God would do if He were a human being living on planet earth, and in this sense we are doing greater works than what Jesus personally did; for He was 'only' one person, and we are many. And Jesus was aware of this. He explained repeatedly that the works He did were the works which God did (<em><a href='B:500 5:36'>Joh 5:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:25'>Joh 10:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:32'>Joh 10:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:37-38'>Joh 10:37-38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:10-11'>Joh 14:10-11</a></em>). As God showed Him the works He was to do, so He showed those works to the world in which He lived (<em><a href='B:500 10:32'>Joh 10:32</a></em>). Paul therefore states that there are good works which are prepared in Heaven for us to fulfil: "We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them" (<em><a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a></em>). In a sense, all the works were finished from the foundation of the world, it's for us to go out there today and perform them (<em><a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a></em>). Practically this means that as we contemplate "good works", we can be assured that somehow God will provide all that's needed for them to be performed. Our little faith so often stops us from performing them because we doubt whether we have the resources, the time, the money, the ability... whereas instead the need should be the call, and we should approach them in confidence that this is indeed God’s will for us to do His works here on earth. For He has prepared both them and us to fulfil them. &nbsp;</p><p>The works of the Father and Son are defined in 6:29 as believing on the Son whom the Father sent. This is what it means to do the works of God. We could therefore read these promises as John's version of the great commission- to take the Gospel into all the world, and to trust that we shall be empowered by the Spirit to do this.</p><p>Another take on all this is that the potential enabled by the Spirit was never fully lived up to by the disciples, just as it is not with us. The Lord’s promise that whatever the disciples asked, they would be given seems never to have been fully realized in them (<em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>). Likewise the ‘prophecy’ here that they would do greater works than done by the Lord, once they received the Comforter, and possibly the promise that they would be taught “all the truth” about “things to come” (<em><a href='B:500 16:13'>Joh 16:13</a></em>), were all likewise promises / prophecies whose potential it seems the disciples never fully rose up to.</p>


text:
<p>14:13&nbsp;<em>And whatever you shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son</em>- This is not a blank cheque promise. I suggested on :12 that the works of God were to bring others to faith in His Son, for that is how they are defined in 6:29. It is in that context that whatever we ask for will be ultimately provided. The connection with the great commission in the Synoptics is in the promise that "all power" would be given to enable this work to be done (<em><a href='B:470 28:18'>Mat 28:18</a></em>). The laboured emphasis upon "in my name" here and in :14 would then connect with the command to "preach in his name" with the promise of the Spirit to empower them in that work (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:49'>Luk 24:49</a></em>). Whilst we do not now have the miraculous gifts, the essence of this remains powerfully true. All shall be provided, the Spirit works in non-miraculous ways, if we ask for empowerment to glorify the Father in the Son through bringing others to Him. My own ministry is proof enough of that.</p>


text:
<p>14:14&nbsp;<em>If you shall ask anything in my name, that will I do</em>- This repeats word for word the assurance of :13; but as noted there, it is in the context of doing the "works" of the Father, which are bringing others to faith in His Son (6:29).</p>


text:
<p>14:15- see on <em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>If you love me, you will keep my commandments</em>- As noted earlier in this chapter, the Lord is ever alluding to the last speech of Moses in Deuteronomy; here the appeal to "keep my commandments" sets the Lord as greater than Moses, mediating a new law to a new Israel; for "keep the commandments" reflects a major identical theme in <em><a href='B:50 5:10'>Deu 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:9'>Deu 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:1'>Deu 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 13:3-4'>Deu 13:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a></em>; Deuteronomy 30; Deuteronomy 16. The Lord’s comment to the disciples that if they loved him, then they would ‘keep his word’ (<em><a href='B:500 14:15'>Joh 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:21'>Joh 14:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:23'>Joh 14:23</a></em>) implies their love was at best imperfect. Their keeping of His word and loving Him was certainly under question in <em><a href='B:500 15:10'>Joh 15:10</a></em>. And yet He confidently represents them to the Father as those who had kept His word (<em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em>).</p><p>But the Lord's commandments are "not grievous" (<em><a href='B:690 5:3'>1Jn 5:3</a></em>); it is not that we have been given a whole set of detailed regulations similar to the 613 given by Moses. It is not hard to be obedient to His commandments, <em><a href='B:690 5:3'>1Jn 5:3</a></em> implies. The Lord states clearly that He has left us one commandment- to love one another as He loved us (13:34; 15:12; <em><a href='B:690 4:21'>1Jn 4:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:2'>1Jn 5:2</a></em>). The plural "commandments" may be a reflection of the Hebraism whereby the plural is used to emphasize the greatness and cardinal value of one singular thing, the plural of majesty. This is perhaps confirmed by 15:17: "These thingsplural I command you: That you love one another". Love of each other was the great 'thing'. To love should not be grievous; if we are walking in the light of His endless love. Therefore "This is his commandment, that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another" (<em><a href='B:690 3:23'>1Jn 3:23</a></em>). The commandment to love as He loved us is only capable of understanding and fulfilment if we have believed into the Name of the Lord Jesus, and experienced that love, having God’s love shed abroad in our hearts by the Spirit we receive after believing into Him (<em><a href='B:520 5:5'>Rom 5:5</a></em>).</p><p>God is His word, as the prologue states (<em><a href='B:500 1:1'>Joh 1:1</a></em>); to love God is to love His word. If we love His Son, we will keep His words (<em><a href='B:500 14:15'>Joh 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:21'>Joh 14:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:10'>Joh 15:10</a></em>). This is evidently alluding to the many Old Testament passages which say that Israel's love for God would be shown through their keeping of His commands (<em><a href='B:20 20:6'>Exo 20:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:10'>Deu 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:9'>Deu 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:1'>Deu 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 22:5'>Jos 22:5</a></em>). Israel were also told that God’s commands were&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;related to showing love (<em><a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a></em>). So there is a logical circuit here: We love God by keeping His commands, therefore His commands are fundamentally about love. Thus love is the fulfilling of the law of God; both under the Old and New covenants (<em><a href='B:520 13:10'>Rom 13:10</a></em>). It is all too easy to see our relationship with God and His Son as a question of obedience to their words, as if this is somehow a test of our spirituality. This is to humanize God too far, to see God as if He were a fallible man; for if we were God, we would institute some kind of written test for our creatures: 'Do this, and if you don't, then I know you don't love me'. The God of glory is beyond this kind of thing. He is His word. If we love Him, we will be eager to know His words, we will dwell upon them, we will live them out in our daily experience as far as we can. In our seeking to know an infinite God, we will of course fail to see or appreciate the spirit of all His words. But He appreciates this. Yet in a sense our attitude to His word is an indication of our state of 'in-loveness' with God. Reading His word will not be a chore, a mountain to be grimly climbed and achieved each day; it will be a vital and natural part of our daily life, as natural and spontaneous as our desire to eat; and even&nbsp;<em>more so</em>&nbsp;(cp. <em><a href='B:220 23:12'>Job 23:12</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>14:16&nbsp;<em>And I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another comforter, that he may be with you for ever</em>- Another Comforter / intercessor implies that the Lord Jesus was the first Paraclete as confirmed in <em><a href='B:690 2:1'>1Jn 2:1</a></em>. Yet Moses was the foremost intercessor for Israel, and is actually called ‘the Paraclete’ in the Midrash on <em><a href='B:20 12:29'>Exo 12:29</a></em>. But the idea is that the Lord was only physically with them for so long; the Comforter would mean that His presence was with them "for ever". Any attempt to confine the work of the Comforter to the first century is therefore ill founded. For the contrast is with how the Lord physically was with them for only a period; but the Comforter, His abiding presence, would remain with them "for ever".</p>


text:
<p>14:17&nbsp;<em>The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive. For it neither sees him nor knows him. You truly know him, for he abides with you and shall be in you</em>- This is clarified when we appreciate the allusion to the prologue. The Jewish world did not receive the Lord Jesus, and therefore did not receive His Spirit; but those who did received power to become God’s children, and the grace / gift of all His fullness (1:11,12,16). "You truly know him" was not then true; as noted on :9 and :10, the Lord is imputing knowledge to them which they did not have at that very moment. We too need to see the spiritual potential in people, rather than relating to them how they are at this given moment.</p><p>Likewise the Spirit of truth, so named because it would guide them into all truth (16:13), "abides with you" right then. Although the Spirit was only poured out at the Lord's glorification on the cross (7:38,39), this was so certain that the Lord perceived that potentially, the Spirit was within them already. This is the scenario in Corinthians, where they had been given the Spirit potentially, but were "not spiritual" (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>); and it is the case with many believers today who have not perceived the potential of the Spirit within them.</p><p>The promised Spirit "shall be in you"; it speaks fundamentally of an internal power, guiding into truth (16:13), which is a matter of the mind rather than miraculous external gifts. The Lord has just defined Himself personally as "the truth", so the promise is not so much of intellectual purity of understanding as relationship with Him; for "truth" is a Hebraism for relationship. It is only the Western mindset which would see in "truth" here a reference to academic, intellectual purity of understanding.</p>


text:
<p>14:18- see on <em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>I will not leave you desolate as orphans. I will come to you</em>- The Lord has just addressed them as "little children" (13:33), and senses their panic that He is leaving them. He assures them that He will come to them, just as He has stated in :3; that coming to them would be to receive them for ever to Himself through the ministry of His abiding Spirit. The allusion is to the way the Rabbis spoke of their disciples being left orphans after the Rabbi died. But the Lord's death would not be like that, but the opposite. His death would lead to His abiding personal presence and continual teaching of His disciples deep within their hearts. It is this allusion which explains the emphasis upon the Comforter providing continued teaching to the disciples. The discourse about the Comforter is inserted it seems in place of the Olivet prophecy, which in the Synoptics forms the Lord's promise of literally coming back. John's Gospel was written after them, and he is perhaps addressing the concern that the Lord had not returned, and might delay His return, by reminding them that the Comforter enabled the Lord's presence to be with us just as really as when He was literally present. There is an understandable desire in every true believer for the Lord's literal return; but we must be careful that our enthusiasm for it does not become so obsessive that we fail to sense His very real coming to us now in the Spirit. It is unfortunately significant that some of those most obsessive about the signs of the times fulfilling Bible prophecy and pointing to the Lord's imminent return are in fact those who also deny the operation of the Spirit today.</p>


text:
<p>14:19&nbsp;<em>Yet a little while, and the world sees me no more; but you will see me. Because I live, you shall live also</em>- The Lord carefully uses a present tense: "I live", not "I will live". His life was going to become their life because He would give them His spirit of life. The Lord would no longer be visible to the Jewish world; but He would be 'seen' by the disciples because the gift of the Comforter would be such that His presence was as real as if He were physically present.</p>


text:
<p>14:20- see on <em><a href='B:500 17:7'>Joh 17:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>In that day, you shall truly know that I am in my Father, and you in me and I in you</em>- The "truth" in to which they would be guided by the Comforter, "the spirit of truth", would not be intellectual purity of understanding, but the knowledge or seeing of the Father and Son. And they would also "know" that "I am in you". This promise is often alluded to by John when later writing to the converts made from hearing or reading his Gospel record. For he writes about "hereby we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us" (<em><a href='B:690 3:24'>1Jn 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:13'>1Jn 4:13</a></em>; also alluded to in <em><a href='B:690 2:3'>1Jn 2:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:5'>1Jn 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:19'>1Jn 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:6'>1Jn 4:6</a></em>). So the knowledge that the Son dwells in us is from the experience of the Spirit. "That day" therefore refers to the day when the Spirit would be given, and they would 'see' the Lord ever before them and have His personal presence within them (:19).</p>


text:
<p>14:21- see on <em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>He that has my commandments and keeps them, he it is that loves me; and he that loves me, shall be loved of my Father; and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him</em>- I suggested on :15 that the plural "commandments" refers to the singular commandment to love which is paramount to Christianity. And the connection between commandment and love is continued here. To love one another as He loved us, keeping the commandments, is to love the Lord. And John later makes this explicit, in explaining that love of the Lord and love of each other are related and inseparable. The commandments must be both 'had' and kept. To love those in Christ was a commandment which the Jewish world did not 'have' in that they did not accept it, and not only killed God’s Son but persecuted and hated all who believed in Him. John's letters refer to those who hate their brother, and the reference is primarily to the Jewish persecution of their Christian brothers. Obedience to the command to love one another is effectively a loving of the Son, which is a loving of the Father; and in response the Son will love us in manifesting Himself to us. This self-manifestation of the Lord to those who love Him and His brethren is again through the ministry of the Spirit. It is paralleled in :23 with coming to the believer and abiding "make our abode" with him. "Manifest myself" is the word used of the manifestation of the risen Christ in <em><a href='B:510 10:40'>Act 10:40</a></em>, and of the appearing of resurrected people of <em><a href='B:470 27:53'>Mat 27:53</a></em>. John uses a related verb about the 'showing' of the Lord to the disciples after His resurrection (21:1,14). The evidence of the resurrection is not therefore in the literal visible appearance of the risen Lord to believers, but in His appearance or manifestation to them by the Spirit. In this sense His life is manifested or shown to us (<em><a href='B:690 1:2'>1Jn 1:2</a></em> s:w:). This is why His resurrection, His life, His living again, can never be proven in Euclidean terms; it is a matter of experience. No amount of apologetics can prove the Lord rose from the dead, that a living body emerged from a cave on the outskirts of Jerusalem; and yet this is the cornerstone of the whole Christian faith. It is proven by His resurrection manifestation to those who accept His claims and live in His love, and whose lives are His life, His living. This may appear a circular argument, and so it is, in secular, human terms. But the transformation of life elicited by it, in radical love for each other, is to be the exhibit which cannot be argued against.</p>


text:
<p>14:22- see on <em><a href='B:500 7:4'>Joh 7:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>Judas (not Iscariot) said to him: Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?</em>- They were far from understanding. His manifestation to the believers was because they had accepted Him and His claims, and were obeying His commandment to love each other. The Jewish world had not received Him, and so the internal manifestation of the Spirit could not be experienced by them. In simple terms, they did not love Him (:23).</p>


text:
<p>14:23&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered and said to him: If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him; and we will come to him and make our home with him</em>- The Jewish world did not accept the light of the Lord Jesus, as the prologue emphasizes. The manifestation of the Lord would be through His Spirit in the hearts of those who loved Him, and also loved their brethren, i:e. 'kept His word', His singular commandment of loving each other (13:34; 15:12; <em><a href='B:690 4:21'>1Jn 4:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:2'>1Jn 5:2</a></em>). See on :15. John's letters put this in so many words by saying that if we love the Father and Son, then we will love other believers. Here the Lord says that if we love Him, then we will "keep my word", which is the singular commandment to love one another. In that life of love, the Father and Son will 'come' to us by the Spirit, as explained on :3, and abide with us on a permanent level "make our home". Not just in moments of emotional connection with them, but on a permanent basis.</p>


text:
<p>14:24&nbsp;<em>He that does not love me, does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me</em>- The words which are to be kept, as noted on :15, refer to the singular commandment to love each other (13:34; 15:12; <em><a href='B:690 4:21'>1Jn 4:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:2'>1Jn 5:2</a></em>). If we do not love the Lord, we will not love our brethren. And that word, of radical love, is the word of the Father. He is love, in that sense. This interpretation is confirmed by John's later interpretation of these words in <em><a href='B:690 4:16'>1Jn 4:16</a></em>: "And we know and have believed the love which God has toward us. God is love, and he that abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him". See on :31, where again, keeping God’s commandment meant simply loving Him, unto death on the cross for His people.</p>


text:
<p>14:25- see on <em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>.</p><p><em>These things have I spoken to you, while still with you</em>- The Lord predicted His personal presence amongst them through the Spirit before He left them. He didn’t leave them to just experience His presence through the Spirit. That experience would remind them that this was precisely what He had predicted. And yet He realized that at that time, they did not understand. But the coming of the Spirit would make clear what He meant. These words spoken about the Comforter, spoken at that moment whilst still with them, were the words which would be recalled to their mind by the Comforter (:26).</p><p><em><a href='B:500 14:26'>Joh 14:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But the comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and cause you to remember all that I said to you</em>- The Spirit was "in my name" in that it would be as if the Lord was literally with them. The Lord was aware that His teaching about the Comforter could not then be understood by them; and so He assures them that the Comforter would make them remember these words about the Comforter and then all would be plain to them; see on :25. It could be that the Comforter had a specific role in recalling literally all the Lord had spoken to them, so that the Gospel records could be written under inspiration. But the connection with :25 suggests to me that the Lord had in view His specific teaching about the Comforter.</p><p>AV "Being yet present with you"- the same Greek word as 'abide'. The Lord was 'abiding' with them; but He promises to give them the Spirit so that He might "abide" or "be present" with them for ever. The gift of the Spirit therefore enables His abiding presence, as real as if He were physically with us. 'Abiding' is a major theme in John's writing. He sees it as what Christian discipleship is all about- abiding in Him, in the sphere of thinking around Him, His Sprit abiding in us, eternal life abiding in us, walking as He walked if we abide in Him, absorbing Him as a person into our person, eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking his blood if we abide in Him... this is what it is to be a Christian, a Christ person.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>But the comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and cause you to remember all that I said to you- The Spirit was &quot;in my name&quot; in that it would be as if the Lord was literally with them. The Lord was aware that His teaching about the Comforter could not then be understood by them; and so He assures them that the Comforter would make them remember these words about the Comforter and then all would be plain to them; see on <a href='B:500 14:25'>:25</a>. It could be that the Comforter had a specific role in recalling literally all the Lord had spoken to them, so that the Gospel records could be written under inspiration. But the connection with <a href='B:500 14:25'>:25</a> suggests to me that the Lord had in view His specific teaching about the Comforter.</p><p>Eph. 4:21 AV says that we are "taught by Him". The Lord "began to do and teach" things (Acts 1:1), and continues. Multiple times this word is used of the Lord's teaching people in His ministry. And that now continues. He teaches us. And He specifically says He will give us the Comforter, His teaching Spirit, to effect this. The Comforter will teach us "all things", and the "all things" are the things about Jesus (Jn. 14:26). 1 Jn. 2:27 alludes to this, saying that the anointing we have received "teaches you all things" and abides within us, in our hearts, so that we don't need any man to teach us. And any human teacher we do listen to must be judged against this teaching from the Comforter. This is why any man who does God's will through the Spirit will intuitively know if a human teaching ["doctrine", same word as 'teaching'] is of God or not (Jn. 7:17). Whoever leaves the teaching of Christ doesn't have God (2 Jn. 9). These Johannine passages use the same word for "teach" which we have in Eph. 4:21. . Paul himself says the same when he claims that he was taught the Gospel by none other than Jesus Christ and not by man (Gal. 1:12). Heb. 8:11 may have the same idea- under the new covenant, which includes the gift of the Spirit, men shall not teach their brother to "know the Lord" because all shall know Him through His direct teaching. We see here the active nature of the Lord's work now, teaching as well as mediating, forgiving and seeking to guide our life path towards eternity with Him. He teaches us, and Paul says that thus we "learned Christ" (Eph. 4:20). He teaches us about Himself. And there's nothing better than reading the Gospel records with the Lord Himself explaining Himself to us, as an individual tutor. We are taught "Christ" (:20), or "according to the truth which is in ['which consists in'] Jesus". Those lessons, that learning, is of the final truth- which is "Christ" Himself, "Jesus". Knowing Him, being in relationship with Him, is "the truth", as John's writings make clear. Understanding these things makes us review the passages which speak of our having received a teaching / doctrine [s.w.], and needing to remain faithful to it. At first blush we may assume this teaching is from the person who taught us the Gospel. But perhaps the idea is rather than this teaching was given us by the Lord Jesus: "That form of teaching that was delivered to you... the teaching that you learned [from Jesus directly?]... holding fast the faithful word he has been taught [by Jesus?]... abide in the teaching of Christ" (Rom. 6:17; 16:17; Tit. 1:9; 2 Jn. 9). Once we are secure in this relationship, we will not be blown about by every wind of human teaching / doctrine. We will be able to easily discern teachings.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 14:27'>Joh 14:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Peace I leave with you. My peace I give to you. Not as the world gives, do I give it to you. Let not your heart be disturbed, neither let it be fearful</em>-&nbsp; “’Peace’ ‘<em>shalom</em>’- the usual Semitic greeting is my farewell to you” is an example of how He seems to have almost purposefully delighted in using language in a startlingly different way. There are times when the Lord Jesus seems to have almost coined words. The gift of the Spirit would be the source of peace with God, which is how "peace" is commonly used in the Bible. Therefore they need have no fear before God, troubled thoughts about the outcome of judgment day; see on :1. The peace given would affect their heart; the gift of the Spirit in view was primarily internal, in the heart. "My peace" refers to the peace which the Lord had with the Father, with no barriers. This is another way of saying what He does so often in this section- that the Spirit was enabling them to have the same relationship with the Father which He had. His&nbsp;<em>shalom</em>&nbsp;peace was not as the Jewish world could give it; each time He called out&nbsp;<em>shalom&nbsp;</em>across the street or to the guys at work each morning, He meant it. And He perceived that it would take His death on the cross to really achieve what He was giving to them in His words. &nbsp;</p><p>The Lord’s commission to His preachers comes along with a promise that He would “be with them always”. This is perhaps Matthew’s equivalent to John’s promise of the Comforter, who would abide with the Lord’s people for ever. The promise of Holy Spirit support in the work of fulfilling the great commission is not necessarily fulfilled in the ability to do miracles etc. It was in the first century, but not today. Yet the promise that “I am with you always, even as you fulfil my commission to preach unto the ends of the world”, is surely fulfilled in the promised Comforter, who is to ‘abide with us for ever’. What does this mean? The Comforter clearly refers to the personal presence of Jesus, even though He is not visibly with us:</p><table><tr><td></p><p>The Comforter</td><td>The Lord Jesus</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Will come into the world</td><td><em><a href='B:500 5:43'>Joh 5:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:28'>Joh 16:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:37'>Joh 18:37</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Comes forth from the Father</td><td>Ditto</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Given by the Father</td><td><em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sent by the Father</td><td><em><a href='B:500 3:17'>Joh 3:17</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The spirit of truth</td><td>The truth <em><a href='B:500 14:6'>Joh 14:6</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The Holy Spirit</td><td>The Holy One of God <em><a href='B:500 6:69'>Joh 6:69</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The disciples would know / recognize the Comforter</td><td>As they knew / recognized Jesus <em><a href='B:500 14:7'>Joh 14:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:9'>Joh 14:9</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Would remain within the disciples</td><td><em><a href='B:500 14:20'>Joh 14:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:23'>Joh 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:4-5'>Joh 15:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:23'>Joh 17:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Declares things to come</td><td><em><a href='B:500 4:25-26'>Joh 4:25-26</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bears witness, against the world</td><td><em><a href='B:500 8:14'>Joh 8:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:7'>Joh 7:7</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Not accepted by the world</td><td><em><a href='B:500 5:43'>Joh 5:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:48'>Joh 12:48</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unseen by the world</td><td><em><a href='B:500 16:16'>Joh 16:16</a></em></td><td></td></tr></table><p>Because of this, the Lord made a clever word play by saying that “‘Peace’&nbsp;<em>shalom</em>&nbsp;is my farewell to you” (<em><a href='B:500 14:27'>Joh 14:27</a></em>)- when ‘Peace’ was what you said when you met someone, to say ‘Hello’. His farewell in the flesh was His ‘hello’, in that His personal presence would be with them. This Comforter, this personal presence of Jesus, is given&nbsp;<em>especially in the context of fulfilling the great commission to take Him to the whole world</em>. He will be with us, there will be a special sense of His abiding presence amongst us, because we are witnessing “in Him”, and our witness is a shared witness with Him. Any who have done any witnessing work, not necessarily missionary work, but any witnessing to Him, will have felt and known His especial presence, as He promised. And we live in a time similar to that when John’s Gospel was written- a time when the church were disappointed the Lord had not returned as quickly as they thought He would, when the eyewitnesses of Jesus in the flesh were not with them any longer. John’s point is that through the Comforter, it’s as good as if Jesus&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;here with us; and he brings out in his gospel how things like the judgment, eternal life, the coming of Jesus etc. all essentially occur within the life of the believer right now.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 14:28'>Joh 14:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You heard how I said to you: I go away and I come to you. If you loved me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father. For the Father is greater than I</em>- As explained on :3, the going away was to the cross and the coming to them through His abiding presence in the Comforter. "If you loved me" may seem rather severe, seeing they were willing to die for Him. But their sorrow rather than rejoicing at His departure was actually because in real spiritual terms they did not love Him; they wanted Him to remain for their own sakes. If they loved the essence of what He and the Father stood for, they would have rejoiced at His departure, for it meant the giving of the Comforter which would glorify the Father and Son so much more than if He did not depart. "The Father is greater than I" may mean that the Father's glory was far greater an issue than the Lord's death or presence with them- the issues they were immediately concerned about. To love the Son was to love the glorification of the Father, who was greater than Him. They should therefore have rejoiced at the teaching that He was going away in order to come to them in the power of the Comforter. The same word has just been used of how "greater works" were to be done when the Comforter was given (:12), on account of the Lord's going to the Father on the cross. The "works", the miracles, would glorify the Father and Son (<em><a href='B:500 2:11'>Joh 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:4'>Joh 11:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:40'>Joh 11:40</a></em>). The cross itself would glorify the Father and Son (<em><a href='B:500 12:41'>Joh 12:41</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 14:29'>Joh 14:29</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 12:16'>Joh 12:16</a></em>.</p><p><em>And now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe</em>- The purpose of prophecy isn’t to specifically predict the future, but so that we shall be able to recognize the signs when they appear. The disciples did not expect Jesus to enter into Jerusalem “sitting on an ass’s colt” in fulfilment of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>. But when He did, then soon afterwards, all became clear to them- that He had fulfilled this prophecy (<em><a href='B:500 12:16'>Joh 12:16</a></em>). Likewise with prophecies such as “the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up” in <em><a href='B:230 69:9'>Psa 69:9</a></em>, and even the Lord’s own prophecies of His resurrection. When it happened, “his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture (<em><a href='B:230 69:9'>Psa 69:9</a></em>), and the word which Jesus had said” (<em><a href='B:500 2:17-22'>Joh 2:17-22</a></em>):&nbsp;Such later clarification of the Lord's words and actions was all part of the ministry of the Comforter to the disciples (:26).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 14:30'>Joh 14:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I will no longer say much to you. For the prince of the world comes; but he has no claim on me</em>- There was a Rabbinic tradition that the whole world was under the power of the Angel of death which controlled Egypt at the first Passover, but had no dominion over Israel. They referred to this Angel as&nbsp;the&nbsp;<em>Sar ha-olam</em>, and at the time of Jesus the phrase "Prince of this world" would have been understood as referring to this Angel. This is how the Lord's use of the phrase would have been understood. He described the "prince of this world"- the Angel of death and darkness- as coming to him and finding nothing in Him. This would be alluding to the Angel of death at the first Passover (and Jesus was speaking at Passover time) coming to each house and finding nothing worthy of death there because of the blood of the lamb on the lintel. Jesus may have been using the 'language of the day' as He did regarding Beelzebub and demons, but the consistent fitting of the type implies Jesus believed the Rabbinic idea was at least partially correct, in that the whole world apart from Israel was under the control of a specific Angel. However, spiritually Israel were not under the protection of the blood of the lamb because they rejected Christ. The "prince of this world" Angel would therefore destroy them too. I have suggested on <em><a href='B:500 12:31'>Joh 12:31</a></em> that this prince refers to leader of the Jewish system, Caiaphas. This man, the very epitome of apparent spirituality, who had dominion over Israel, was being compared to the Angel of evil which the Jews believed had dominion over the Jews' enemies but not over the Jews. The Lord is turning it all around, to show that actually the Jews were like the Egyptians, and were under the domination of a leader who would not preserve them from the destruction now coming to them.</p><p>The Jews believed that the&nbsp;<em>Sar ha-olam&nbsp;</em>had no claim upon the Jews who were the true Israel, covered by the blood of the Passover lamb. The Lord is saying that&nbsp;<em>He&nbsp;</em>is that true Israel upon whom Caiaphas and his evil system had no power. This is the force of "he has no claim on me". The Angel whom the Jews thought would not touch them because of the other Angels hovering over them (the real idea of the word 'Passover') to protect them from the destroying Angel, was going to destroy them; the protecting Angel which hovered over them and led them through the wilderness was "turned to be their enemy"- i:e. to be the destroying Angel (<em><a href='B:290 63:10'>Isa 63:10</a></em>), the&nbsp;<em>Sar ha-olam</em>. And that destroying Angel was operating on earth through his human representative, Caiaphas, the prince of the Jewish world.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 14:31'>Joh 14:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he comes so that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, thus I shall now do. Arise, let us leave here</em>- The prince of the Jewish world would come to take the Lord away to death, epitomized in his agent Judas, who 'came' to the Lord with the forces of the Jewish world to arrest Him (<em><a href='B:500 18:3'>Joh 18:3</a></em>). It was through reflection on all this that the Jewish world would "know" the Lord's sincerity, His love for the Father. That was however only potentially true, for even His death, with all the internal contradictions and evil within the Jewish system which were thereby exposed, did not bring all the Jewish world to know Him. "That the world may know" is an allusion to David’s words just before the victory over Goliath:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord's obedience to the Father's commandment was His love of the Father. Again we see a connection between love, and keeping commandment. I have suggested on :15 and :24 that the keeping of the Lord's commandment means loving our brethren unto the death of the cross, as He loved us. Here we see the same idea- the Son obeyed the Father's commandment by loving Him, unto death on the cross.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:1'>Joh 15:1</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 13:8'>Luk 13:8</a></em>.</p><p><em>I am the true vine and my Father is the husbandman</em>- The parable of the vine is within the context of the Lord's teaching about the gift of His Spirit, and the need to let that abide in them. So we can deduce that the central thrust of the parable is the need to be in the vine, so that the sap [representing the Spirit] may be in us. Without abiding in the source of that sap, we are nothing. </p><p>The Lord Jesus in John’s Gospel describes Himself in terms of the “I am…” formula. Each time, He was referring back to the burning bush revelation of Yahweh as the “I am”; and by implication, the Lord’s audience are thereby placed in the position of Moses, intended to rise up in response as he did. This parable is in the direct context of the promise of the Spirit. This is expressed here as the Father's constant activity as our husbandman, seeking to elicit spiritual fruit from us. And likewise our partaking in the vine means that we receive the sap, representing the Spirit, without which we are "none of His" are dead, unable to bring forth fruit.</p><p>We notice the juxtaposition of ideas- the "I am" of the Yahweh Name is placed next to the description of the Father as "the husbandman", literally, 'the worker of the land', one of the lowest jobs, nearly always performed by a slave or servant. We see the humility of God; none of the false gods of the Gentiles had this feature of humility. But perhaps we are intended to put this parable together with that of the wicked husbandmen. The owner of the vineyard [God] sent His servants and then His Son, but the husbandmen [s.w. six times in Mt. 21] rejected them. He then destroyed the vineyard. And perhaps we are supposed to take that parable further- and conclude that the owner does the work of the husbandmen, so short is He of good workers, because the other husbandmen are not much better than the Jewish ones. He does the menial work Himself, because He is so passionately connected to His vineyard project. Even though the absentee landlord is initially set up to evoke images of someone distant and disinterested- which is how many see God. But putting these parables together, we see that this is but an initial impression. Closer investigation shows that He actually has a passionate interest in His special project of the vineyard, and fruit within it.

"The true vine" suggests that the community in view is the true one compared to a false one; and the false vine was the community of Israel: "Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt and planted it in this land" (Ps. 80:8). That vine had not brought forth good fruit and so had been cut down (Mt. 3:8). But the parable makes clear that the new vine, Jesus, still has the possibility of being fruitless and suffering judgment. Membership in a community had been replaced by membership or, better, relationship, with and in a person- the Lord Jesus. That same move is part of every conversion- from 'religious membership' to personal relationship.</p><p>In this parable, the mediation of the Spirit is envisaged as being provided collectively, to the whole vine. If we opt out of realistic mixing with each other, we are effectively resigning from Christ. For He&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;His brothers and sisters. He didn’t say ‘I am the trunk and you are the branches’, He said ‘I&nbsp;<em>am</em>&nbsp;the vine, and you are the branches’. We&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;Him, His body. Our attitude to our brothers and sisters is our attitude to Him. We cannot claim to love God if we don’t love our brother. It’s as simple as this. &nbsp;</p><p>The Father is the husbandman, and is noted for His long patience in waiting "for the precious fruit" (<em><a href='B:660 5:7'>Jas 5:7</a></em>). Every bit of spiritual development is so precious to Him. To hinder it by our attitude to others, or enforcing situations which are going to limit the development of spirituality in others, is deeply displeasing to God and frustrating of His purpose and work for people.</p><p>The same word is used by the Lord in the synoptics concerning the parable of the husbandmen in Matthew 21; Mark 12 and Luke 20. This is surely John's take on that parable. The Jewish husbandmen had failed to develop fruit for the Father, and had been replaced by other husbandmen. But ultimately, the owner of the vineyard also becomes the husbandman. He is manifested through our efforts to be husbandmen. If we consciously seek to develop spiritual fruit in others then we will experience God’s especial blessing and empowerment of our efforts.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:2'>Joh 15:2</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:540 4:4'>2Co 4:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>Every branch in me that carries no fruit, he prunes away; and every branch that carries fruit, he cleanses it, that it may bear more fruit</em>- This is powerful warning that it is possible to appear as "in Christ" by status, perhaps by baptism, and yet bear no fruit. Perhaps the difference is between simply being "in Christ", and "abiding in" Him, which alone will bring fruit. And it is bearing the fruit of the Spirit which is therefore critically important. Only at the day of judgment is the branch finally pruned to the point of being cut off and burnt. Until then, fruitless branches are allowed to remain- in hope that the vinedresser may coax them into life. The Lord's approach is a stark contrast to those who want to cut off fruitless branches from the church in this life. To lament a lack of 'fruit worthy of repentance' and therefore cut someone off is in fact not what we read here. Such fruitless branches get special attention. And only after the dormant period of Winter [cp. death] are they then cut off and destroyed. And of course it is God, through the Lord Jesus (the vinedresser of Lk. 13), who does the pruning away, and not us. Our focus is to be upon our personal fruitfulness. In viticulture, the pruning of apparently dead branches is to avoid the tendency of vines to grow longer, larger and more leafy branches- at the expense of fruitfulness. We can easily perceive that God's activity in our lives is geared towards our fruitfulness, and to prevent us from merely external appearances. 

"Prune" is literally 'to lift up'. First century vineyards allowed the branches of the vine to run along the ground, or to be lifted up on trellises, or cross-bars. So the same word for "prune" is translated "take up" or "carry" in "take up his cross..." (Mt. 16:24; 27:32). The idea is not as in AV to 'take away' in destruction. That comes later, when at the day of judgment, the fruitless branch is cut off and thrown into the fire. The connections with crucifixion may suggest that the Father works in order to bring the fruitless believer into closer identity with the cross of Jesus. The removed branch which was not cleansed refers initially to Judas, who had now left them, as he was the one of them who was not clean / cleansed (<em><a href='B:500 13:10'>Joh 13:10</a></em>). Bearing the fruit of the Spirit is absolutely essential; Paul puts it another way when he writes that if we have not the Spirit of Christ, we are "none of His". The Lord Jesus here speaks of how we as shoots on the vine tree are either ‘cut off’ in rejection, or ‘trimmed / purged’ to be more fruitful. There is a paronomasia here in the Greek text i:e. a play on similar sounding verbs-&nbsp;<em>airein</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>kathairein</em>. The point being that the purging process works through condemning oneself now; by going through the realization of our condemnation now, we are thereby purged so that we avoid condemnation at the day of judgment.</p><p>"Cleanses" is the word used in Jn. 13:10,11 to describe how the 11 disciples were 'cleansed', but Judas was not. Always in these upper room discourses, Judas is ever being alluded to. He was the branch which was not cleansed because he had no fruit, and was finally broken off. He was the one who did not abide in Christ, but walked out into the darkness. In one sense, abiding in Christ means to stick with Him and not walk out on Him. Which is all easier said than done.

In viticulture, the branches that are fruitful are pruned in order that after the Winter dormancy period [cp. death], they will be more fruitful next season. I suggested above that the unfruitful branches are lifted up, or trellised; and now He refers to the trimming of the fruitful branches. But the most severe trimming or  pruning is done after the harvest, after which the vine becomes dormant, and then as it were resurrects into new life in the Spring. So the Lord may be saying that the fruitless will be harvested and pruned at their death, and then in the resurrection, their fruitfulness will be again considered. If then there is no sign of fruit, they are cut off the vine and burnt / destroyed. Another take on this is that the Lord is speaking to the disciples just before His own death. He is urging them to "abide" in Him through that time of dormancy, and emerge into an eternal Spring of fruitfulness at His resurrection. The fruit to be produced is the fruit of the Spirit- which is all internal attributes, elicited by the sap / Spirit: "The fruit of the Spirit (that which the Spirit produces) is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control" (<em><a href='B:550 5:22-23'>Gal 5:22-23</a></em>). Nine qualities gathered as one cluster, just as on a grapevine.</p><p>As also to be noted on the parable of the vineyard in Isaiah 5, God does all He can to ensure that we have an optimal environment for bearing spiritual fruit. So often we complain that if only we were in this or that situation, then we would bear more fruit. But He knows best. The cleansing, spoken of in this Upper Room context, must be understood in the context of the Lord's washing of the disciples' feet, whereby they were cleansed, but not all (<em><a href='B:500 13:10'>Joh 13:10</a></em>); for Judas was not cleansed internally. His comment that feet needed regularly washing may refer to some regular cleansing by the Lord, of which He again speaks here. 'Cleansing' may refer to internal cleansing of the heart; the pure / cleansed in heart (<em><a href='B:470 5:8'>Mat 5:8</a></em>), those cleansed "within" (<em><a href='B:470 23:6'>Mat 23:6</a></em>), and the internal work of cleansing the heart and conscience is that of the Spirit, operating within the heart of believers.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:3'>Joh 15:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Already you are clean because of the word which I have spoken to you</em>- How does the Lord's word cleanse? It is inadequate to suppose that by reading the whole Bible, we are somehow internally cleansed. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:500 13:10'>Joh 13:10</a></em> of how they had been cleansed, but not all- for Judas was excepted. Yet he had heard the word, as spoken words- but was not cleansed. As ever in John, the prologue helps us toward understanding. "The word was made flesh", and was "in the beginning" of His ministry, and "was God". The reference is not to all the recorded statements of the Lord Jesus, as if we are to read and recite all the red letter words in a New Testament and thereby be cleansed by the exercise. I have suggested elsewhere that the Gospel records were indeed intended to be memorized. But "the word" is the Lord Jesus as a person, in the flesh, as the personality which was the sum total of all His words, miracles, work, personality and character. The word of John 1 was the light of men, in which they should live:&nbsp;<em>Logos</em>, "word", like&nbsp;<em>rhema</em>, is used to translate the Hebrew&nbsp;<em>dabar</em>. These terms, however, are used to refer not just to words, but to actions and persons:&nbsp;<em>Dabar</em>&nbsp;is used to refer to far more than spoken words; but to things and causes. When the Lord speaks of "My word", He means not simply His recorded statements, but He Himself, the summary of all His being and personhood. "The acts&nbsp;<em>dabar</em>&nbsp;of David" (<em><a href='B:130 29:29'>1Ch 29:29</a></em>) means not simply his words, but his acts and whole life story. "The things&nbsp;<em>dabar</em>&nbsp;which your eyes have seen" (<em><a href='B:50 4:9'>Deu 4:9</a></em>) referred not to words heard, but to experience; and this is a common usage, speaking of event as a "word". In Hebraic thought, a 'word' is a thing done and not merely words as in lexical items. "The Lord was angry with me for your sakes&nbsp;<em>dabar</em>" (<em><a href='B:50 4:21'>Deu 4:21</a></em>) doesn't refer to words so much as to the sake or cause of a person. The Lord's "word" must be understood in this Hebraic sense, far wider than simply His recorded speech as it stands in the Gospels. This is why He speaks of "<em>My</em>&nbsp;words"; the word /&nbsp;<em>logos / dabar</em>&nbsp;which was Him. His reference is not to the words of God in the Bible, but to the word which was Him. <em><a href='B:50 26:17'>Deu 26:17</a></em> records that Israel had chosen Yahweh to be their King; but the Targum on this says that they had appointed the word /&nbsp;<em>logos&nbsp;</em>of God to be their king. The&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of a person is them, with all their actions and events; and thus the word of the Lord Jesus refers to He Himself, just as "the word was God" in the prologue.</p><p>We therefore at this point note the singular, "word", not "words" as we would expect if His utterances were in view. References in the plural to His "words" may well be an example of the Hebrew plural of majesty- the one great word /&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, which in John's writing can be none other than the Lord personally. We are cleansed by Him, by His blood, His work, and His sacrifice of a uniquely perfect life. The association of cleansing with His sacrifice is a common New Testament theme. "Now you are clean...", in the context of viticulture, may be an allusion to how after three years, the fruit of vines was "holy" (Lev. 19:23,24). And the Lord was speaking after the third year of ministry with them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:4'>Joh 15:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Abide in me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, so neither can you, except you abide in me-</em>&nbsp;The idea of 'abiding' is so common. The preceding verse has spoken of how they are 'clean'; and yet the Lord has made the point in Jn. 13 that they were all clean, apart from Judas, who went out into the night. To abide is therefore to not go out into the night. Sinlessness is not therefore in view. Rather the sense of overall location and self-perception is to be "in Christ". Abiding in the Lord Jesus is also definable as allowing Him to "abide in you" through His Spirit. The Lord’s common Upper Room theme of ‘abiding’ in Him uses the same word as Moses used when exhorting his people to ‘cleave unto’ God (<em><a href='B:50 10:20'>Deu 10:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em> LXX). This abiding involved loving God and keeping His commandments- all ideas which occur together in <em><a href='B:50 13:4'>Deu 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:20'>Deu 30:20</a></em>. The branch can only bear fruit if it receives the sap which is in the whole tree. This sap represents the Spirit, which is why this parable is found wedged in between the promises of the indwelling of the Comforter. Abiding in the Lord means Him abiding in us, which He does through the gift of the Spirit in our hearts (<em><a href='B:690 3:24'>1Jn 3:24</a></em> etc:). The disciples were going to be tempted to turn away from the Lord; but He urges them to abide, because there can be no fruit of the Spirit on us unless the Spirit abides in us and brings forth those fruits. This is also a vital perspective on the claim that non-Christians produce spiritual fruit. The fruit brought forth by the Spirit, spiritual fruit, is indeed just that; and unless we are abiding in the vine, in the Lord Jesus, and He in us, then we simply cannot bring forth the fruit of the Spirit. It is no good being near the vine, associated with it... we have to have the spirit of Christ, in order to bear fruit. To abide in the vine is therefore to remain under the influence of His Spirit. "The fruit of the Spirit" is brought forth by the Spirit. We can therefore never overstate the case for a Spirit-based approach to practical Christian living. This is the emphasis of the Bible, and any approach which devalues the ministry of the Spirit is simply missing the point of the essence of Christianity. The vine cannot bear fruit "of itself"- a sober warning against all ideas that we can force ourselves to bring forth the fruit of the Spirit. We may think we have brought forth love or peace, but this is not the fruit of the Spirit unless it has been brought forth of the Spirit and not of ourselves. And yet there is an interplay between the work of the Spirit on the one hand, and human volition on the other. For the fruit is all the same called "your fruit" (:16).</p><p>The man under the Old Covenant who made his offering of, e.g. an ox, at a place other than at "the door of the tabernacle of the congregation" was viewed as having shed blood and therefore was to be cut off from the congregation (<em><a href='B:30 17:3-4'>Lev 17:3-4</a></em>). The Law foresaw that there would be this tendency, to worship God away from the rest of the congregation. Those who did so were condemned in the strongest terms: their sacrifice of an animal was seen as the murder of their brother, whereas they would have seen it as an expression of their righteousness. "He that kills an ox is as if he slew a man" (<em><a href='B:290 66:3'>Isa 66:3</a></em>) refers back to this, making it parallel with idolatry and proudly refusing to let God’s word dwell in the heart.</p>


