# commentaries

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>-</p><p> "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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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></p><p>&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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> "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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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></p><p>&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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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;</p><p><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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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:</p><p>· 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;</p><p>· 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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><p><table border="1"><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</p><p>The account of the breaking of bread</p><p>The many quotations from the Old Testament, shown to be fulfilled in the Lord Jesus.</p><p>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></p><p>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.</p><p>John expresses this in more abstract language: “The word was made flesh” (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>).</p><p>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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> "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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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.</p><p>"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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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”</p><p>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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>.</p><p><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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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:).</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>-</p><p> "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>-</p><p> 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>-</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" is the same term used for the Lord's giving over of His life (10:11,15,17,18; 15:13; <em><a href='B:690 3:16'>1Jn 3:16</a></em>).</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>-</p><p> 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>-</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>-</p><p> 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.</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></p><p>&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.</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>-</p><p> 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.</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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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.</p>


text:
<p>13:13&nbsp;<em>You call me teacher and lord, and you say well; for so I am</em>-</p><p> 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>-</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>-</p><p> 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>


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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> "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>-</p><p> “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.</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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>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>-</p><p> 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><p><table border="1"><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.</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>-</p><p> 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>).</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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p>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>


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>-</p><p>&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><p><table border="1"><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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</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>"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" (<em><a href='B:230 80:8'>Psa 80:8</a></em>).</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>-</p><p> 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>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>-</p><p> 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.</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></p><p>&nbsp;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.</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>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:5'>Joh 15:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I am the vine, you are the branches. He that abides in me and I in him, the same carries much fruit. For severed from me you can do nothing</em>-</p><p> He is the whole tree; He does not say that He is the trunk, and we the branches. To leave the tree is to leave Him; and He is His body, the entire community of believers. And severed from me, He said, you can do nothing, in spiritual terms. Much as some think they can. And in the end, like a slow cancer, the brother or sister who was offended by whatever, will eventually die in that they leave the vine of Christ. It is from the body of Jesus that there comes nurture and nourishment, supplied by every member of the body (<em><a href='B:560 4:16'>Eph 4:16</a></em>). And we, all of us, are the body of Christ. To cut ourselves off from it, formally or informally, openly or deep within our hurt hearts, is to deprive ourselves of the nourishment which He is willing to give through our brethren. And likewise to try to exclude others from it is serious indeed; for so many who are disfellowshipped or excluded then fall away from true spirituality. It follows from this figure that not&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>our brethren are no good. There’s a lot of goodness out there- those who give up lands, houses, parents etc. for the Lord’s sake&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;find within His ecclesia a hundredfold of these things. But we will only share in these things if we are willing to look at the positive side in our brethren. For in many things we also offend others. Yet we know well enough we basically are sincere and willing to give to others. And as we expect others to relate to that good side in us, so we should to others. Nobody in the brotherhood is totally, purely evil- at least, seeing we cannot judge in that sense, we should not think that of any. We have to assume that each of our brethren is secured in Christ, and will be in the Kingdom. They have the Christ-man formed in them, however immaturely.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 13:6'>Mat 13:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:10'>Rev 14:10</a></em>.</p><p><em>If a man does not abide in me, he is thrown out as a branch and withers, and these are gathered and thrown into the fire, and they are burned</em>-</p><p> The language of branches being severed from the vine is used in Romans 11 about how&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;can do this in judgment. But it is He who can do this, and not us. We are the branches, not the husbandman. Those who choose not to abide in the Lord shall wither. In the primary context, the Lord had Israel in view, the fig tree which "withered" and would then have to be burnt (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 21:19'>Mat 21:19</a></em>). The Lord had this figure in view when He spoke soon afterwards, on the way to the cross, of Israel as a withered tree about to be burnt up in AD70 (<em><a href='B:490 22:31'>Luk 22:31</a></em>).</p><p>But Israel then, as many today, are living out their own condemnation; they will be "thrown out" or s:w. "cast away" at the final judgment (<em><a href='B:470 13:48'>Mat 13:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:35'>Luk 14:35</a></em>) in response to their conscious decision not to remain in the Lord, in the vine; and refusing the sap of the Spirit. It is they rather than the Lord who have chosen their fate:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em> My words- see on <em><a href='B:220 22:27-28'>Job 22:27-28</a></em>.</p><p><em>If you abide in me and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will and it shall be done to you</em>-</p><p> I have suggested elsewhere that the Lord's "words" refer not so much to His recorded statements, those printed in red letters in some Bibles; but rather to the whole essence of His being and personality. For He was "the word made flesh", as the prologue states (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). The reference is not to the entire Bible, but specifically to the words of the Lord Jesus. If He abides in us, we will ask what&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;will, and it will be done. Yet only if we ask according to&nbsp;<em>God's</em>&nbsp;will can we receive our requests (<em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:690 5:14'>1Jn 5:14</a></em>). The implication is that if the word that is Him dwells in us, our will becomes that of the Father, and therefore our requests, our innermost desires, are according to His will, and are therefore granted. It is by the Spirit that He abides in us (<em><a href='B:690 3:24'>1Jn 3:24</a></em>). His Spirit, His word, His way of thinking, is His will, which is the Father's will. If we have Him within, then our will shall be the Father's, and we will intuitively ask for only what we know is His will. We will not as it were be guessing, asking for lists of things in the hope that we shall hit on some points where our will and His coincide.</p><p>In our age, the Bible is indeed a valuable source for growing in knowledge of His will. The word of the Gospel becomes “united by faith with them that hear it” (<em><a href='B:650 4:2'>Heb 4:2</a></em> RVmg:). Through the medium of our response to God’s word, our will becomes united with his. Therefore the word was what directed and motivated David's regular daily prayers (<em><a href='B:230 119:164'>Psa 119:164</a></em>); they weren't standard repetitions of the same praises or requests, but a reflection of his Biblical meditation. He asks God to hear his prayers because He keeps God’s word (<em><a href='B:230 119:145'>Psa 119:145</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:173'>Psa 119:173</a></em>). He asks God to hear&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;voice in prayer, using the very same words with which he reflects upon how he heard&nbsp;<em>God's</em>&nbsp;voice as it is in His written word. He even goes so far as to draw a parallel between God and his own “reins” or inner self- both of them “instruct me” (<em><a href='B:230 16:7'>Psa 16:7</a></em>). His inner self was so absorbed into the reality of God. He asks God to hear&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;voice in prayer, using the very same words with which he reflects upon how he heard&nbsp;<em>God's</em>&nbsp;voice as it is in His written word. In successful prayer, therefore, our will merges with that of the Father. His will becomes our will; and&nbsp;<em>vice versa</em>. By this I mean that&nbsp;<em>our&nbsp;</em>will can become&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;will in that He will hear us and even change His declared will Moses several times achieved this during the course of his prayer life; prayer really does change things. Our will becomes God’s just as His becomes ours. There is an awesome mutuality between a man and his God as he kneels at night alone, praying and asking for the very things which are now God’s will.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:8'>Joh 15:8</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 12:23-26'>Joh 12:23-26</a></em>.</p><p><em>Herein is my Father glorified, that you bear much fruit; and so shall you be my disciples</em>-</p><p> They were fearful that the Lord was going away, and they were being left "orphans", pupils without a Rabbi. But the promise of the Spirit means that He will be present with us just as much, and even moreso, than when He was physically present as their teacher. He envisaged them, and all believers, continuing to be disciples, and Him through the Spirit being their continued teacher. The "fruit" in view is what Paul later terms "the fruit of the Spirit", the fruit brought forth by the Spirit, through our allowing the Lord to operate in us. It is the Father's will that we should bear much fruit, because it glorifies Him; and this is the end result of all the Lord's teaching, and of our being His disciples. We may think that if only our life situation were different, then we would be the more spiritually fruitful. But the Lord is clear that it is the Father's will, and His will, that we should be fruitful. As taught in the parable of the vineyard of Isaiah 5, all has in fact been done to provide us with an optimal environment in which to bring forth fruit.</p><p>The Father is glorified in our fruit bearing; but it is a major theme of John that it is the cross of Christ which brings glory to Him. The connection is in the fact that a true response to the principles of the cross brings forth true spiritual fruit. The glory of God is His Name and the characteristics associated with it; and we will bear these if we respond to the spirit of the cross. In this sense the Lord Jesus could say that through His death, He would be glorified in us (<em><a href='B:500 17:10'>Joh 17:10</a></em>). By beholding and perceiving His glory on the cross, we glorify Him (<em><a href='B:500 17:24'>Joh 17:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:10'>Joh 17:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:9'>Joh 15:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Even as the Father has loved me, I also have loved you. Abide in my love</em>-</p><p> Abiding is achieved through the Spirit abiding within us (<em><a href='B:690 3:24'>1Jn 3:24</a></em>); it is through the gift of the Spirit accepted within our hearts that His love is shed abroad within our hearts (<em><a href='B:520 5:5'>Rom 5:5</a></em>). We abide in Him, in His love, and His love abides in us. And we therefore shall live in love to others. If we do not love our brother, we do not abide in Him nor He in us (<em><a href='B:690 3:14'>1Jn 3:14</a></em>). These allusions in John's letters seem to be saying that abiding in His love means loving each other, those others who are also in Him. This idea is continued in the next verse, speaking of how abiding in the Lord's love means keeping His commandment, of loving our brethren.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:10'>Joh 15:10</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love</em>-</p><p> I suggest that the plural "commandments" is a Hebraism, a plural of majesty, referring to the one great commandment. And that is defined clearly in :12- the singular commandment is to love one another as He loved us, to death on the cross. This effectively means: 'If you love one another, then you shall abide in My love'. Which is just what He has said in :9 (see note there). "His commandments" and "the singular commandment" are paralleled in <em><a href='B:700 1:6'>2Jn 1:6</a></em>. The Father's commandment likewise is the same. For the Lord taught that all the Father's commandments are summarized in the idea of loving God and thereby our neighbour; see on <em><a href='B:480 12:31'>Mar 12:31</a></em>. Any other reading of this verse is likely to veer towards treating the Lord's commandments as another list of statutes, similar in principle to the 613 given by Moses; as if He grants His love conditional upon our legal obedience to some extended moral code of behaviour. If this were the case, given our disobedience and weakness, we shall never know His love. And His love is not conditional upon legalistic obedience in this sense.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:11'>Joh 15:11</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:690 1:4'>1Jn 1:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>These things have I spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full</em>-</p><p> The filling up of joy means that something will be done to us within our hearts; for that is where "joy" is experienced. 'Filling up' is the language of the ongoing filling of the Spirit, which is the context of this whole section in chapters 14-16. The Lord's spirit, His way of being and thinking, His mind, included "joy". He wished to give His spirit to us, so that His spirit might become ours; and thereby His joy would be within us. His "joy" is expressed in the Gospels as joy over a lost sheep being found (<em><a href='B:490 15:7'>Luk 15:7</a></em>), the joy of finding people for the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>), the joy of seeing others enter His Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>). What He rejoices in, we shall. His joy shall be in us in that we share His spirit, His attitude and mindset (<em><a href='B:500 17:13'>Joh 17:13</a></em>). John himself experienced this when he wrote of having joy that his converts were abiding in Christ; and he could think of "no greater joy" (<em><a href='B:710 1:4'>3Jn 1:4</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:12'>Joh 15:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This is my commandment: That you love one another, even as I have loved you</em>-</p><p> As noted on :10, this singular commandment is spoken of in the Hebraic plural of majesty as His "commandments", plural. This in one 'word' is the essence of His message, His<em>&nbsp;logos</em>&nbsp;to men. We are to love each in on ongoing way, as Christ loved us in His death in that once-off act (<em><a href='B:500 15:12'>Joh 15:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:17'>Joh 15:17</a></em>). The combination of the present and aorist tenses of&nbsp;<em>agapan</em>&nbsp;‘to love’ in these verses proves the point. Thus our obedience&nbsp;<em>to</em>&nbsp;Christ in loving each other is exemplified by the obedience&nbsp;<em>of</em>&nbsp;Christ (:10). Quite simply, something done 2000 years ago really does affect us&nbsp;<em>now</em>. There is a powerful link across the centuries, from the darkness of the cross to the lives we live today in this century. “By his knowledge", by knowing Christ as He was there, we are made righteous (<em><a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a></em>). As Israel stood before Moses, they promised: “All the words which the Lord has spoken will we do". When Moses then sprinkled the blood of the covenant upon them- and this incident is quoted in Hebrews as prophetic of the Lord’s blood- they said the same but more strongly: “All the words which the Lord hath spoken will we do&nbsp;<em>and be obedient</em>" (<em><a href='B:20 24:3'>Exo 24:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 24:7'>Exo 24:7</a></em>). It was as if their connection with the blood inspired obedience. Likewise the communication of God’s requirements was made from over the blood sprinkled mercy seat (<em><a href='B:20 25:22'>Exo 25:22</a></em>)- another foretaste of the blood of Christ. Quite simply, we can’t face the cross of Christ and not feel impelled towards obedience to that which God asks of us, which is to love as the Lord loved us. For the next verse will define love as the love of the cross.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:13'>Joh 15:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greater love has no one than this: That a man lay down his life for his friends</em>-</p><p> This is a truth accepted in every human society, and many men have laid down their lives for their friends. What is unique about the Lord's love-unto-death was that He died for us whilst we were yet enemies, and not His friends (<em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em>); He took the initiative in loving us through the death of the cross (<em><a href='B:690 4:10'>1Jn 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:19'>1Jn 4:19</a></em>). We only love, because He first loved us. As noted on <em><a href='B:500 10:11'>Joh 10:11</a></em>, the Lord did not have His life taken from Him, He gave it of Himself, to the point of controlling the very period and moment at which He died, consciously out breathing His last spirit toward us. And so the Lord's "greater love" was in that He died for us whilst we were not actually His friends but enemies (<em><a href='B:520 5:10'>Rom 5:10</a></em> "when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son"). He&nbsp;<em>called us</em>&nbsp;friends; that is the huge force behind those words in :15. He took the initiative, calling us friends when we were enemies; and died for us. We show ourselves to be His friends by accepting His love, and living in that love toward others (:14).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:14'>Joh 15:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You are my friends, if you do the things which I command you</em>-</p><p> For "friends", we could read 'The ones whom I love', for that is how the Lord has just defined love, as laying down life for friends (:13). The things commanded are quite simply to love our brethren as the Lord loved us (:12); that singular commandment is spoken of in the plural in :10 as a Hebraic plural of majesty, the one great commandment, the one great thing commanded. The Lord is not saying: 'I shall love you, if you first love Me, and demonstrate that by keeping a list of a few hundred commandments I have given you'. That would be to totally miss the point. We love, because He&nbsp;<em>first</em>&nbsp;loved us (<em><a href='B:690 4:19'>1Jn 4:19</a></em>); it was not that we loved God, but that He loved us in giving His Son (<em><a href='B:690 4:10'>1Jn 4:10</a></em>). The Lord has died for us, showing us that "no greater love" (:13). We abide in that love if His spirit abides in us, and we likewise live in love, doing the great thing He commanded both by word and example- to love as He did.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:15'>Joh 15:15</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 16:12'>Joh 16:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>No longer do I call you servants. For the servant does not know what his lord does; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from my Father, I have made known to you</em>-</p><p> As noted on :13, the uniquely "greater love" shown by the Lord was that He died for us when we were still enemies (<em><a href='B:520 5:10'>Rom 5:10</a></em>); but He&nbsp;<em>called us</em>His friends. His intense hopefulness in our response accompanies all our efforts to invite others to accept His love and consciously befriend Him who so befriended them. The "no longer" suggests that in His death on the cross, they will see the final revelation of God, the quintessential declaration of all that He had heard from the Father, made known to them. There is no hint here that He now is going to declare the future to them. Now they were going to understand what their Lord and friend had done; for the Comforter was to open their understanding to the things of the cross, to the meaning of it all. This explains how things were going to change in their understanding, from being servants just obedient for the sake of it to a Master they respect and obey but do not really understand, to friends who now have been shown the innermost essence of their Master. As noted on <em><a href='B:500 16:13'>Joh 16:13</a></em>, the Comforter was to make known to them the things which were coming, the things of His death on the cross. He would show them plainly of the Father, in His death on the cross and the Comforter unpacking that death to them (<em><a href='B:500 16:25'>Joh 16:25</a></em>). Or as Paul puts it, the gift of the Spirit opens our eyes to understand the depth and height of our Lord's love for us (<em><a href='B:560 1:18'>Eph 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:18-19'>Eph 3:18-19</a></em>). And His love was declared in essence in the death of the cross.</p><p>Friendship is exactly the language God uses about Abraham- because He was His "friend", He showed Abraham what He was going to do (<em><a href='B:10 18:17-19'>Gen 18:17-19</a></em>). But the things to be done here refer to the cross (see on <em><a href='B:500 16:13'>Joh 16:13</a></em>). To the Lord’s first hearers, a slave was defined by his or her obedience to the master’s commands. The Lord says that His followers are His friends, who do His commandments- but they’re not slaves. He seems to be saying that they were indeed His slaves- but a new kind of slave, a slave who whilst being obedient to the Master, was also His personal friend. It’s lovely how the Lord speaks of such well known ideas like slavery, and shows how in the humdrum of ordinary life, He gives an altogether higher value to them. See on <em><a href='B:500 10:28'>Joh 10:28</a></em>.</p><p>He has just reminded them that they call Him Lord, and rightly so, and therefore His washing of their feet was what they must do (<em><a href='B:500 13:13'>Joh 13:13</a></em>). Earlier, He had rebuked them for calling Him “Lord” but not&nbsp;<em>doing</em>&nbsp;what He said (<em><a href='B:490 6:46'>Luk 6:46</a></em> - this is in a speech directed at the disciples- <em><a href='B:490 6:20'>Luk 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:27'>Luk 6:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:40'>Luk 6:40</a></em>). And yet He told others that His disciples&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;His word (<em><a href='B:490 8:21'>Luk 8:21</a></em>). He was so positive about them to others, even though they did not&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;the consequences of calling Him Lord e.g. washing each other’s feet- instead, they argued who was to be the greatest. Perhaps when the Lord says that He will no longer relate to them as a Lord, with them as His servants, but rather simply as their friend, He is tacitly recognizing their failure, and preparing Himself to die for them as their friend rather than as their Master. And yet, as the Divine economy worked it all out, it was exactly through that death that they exalted Him as Lord and Master as they should have done previously:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:480 4:8'>Mar 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:12'>Joh 14:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>You did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you to go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain. So that whatever you shall ask of the Father in my name, He may give it to you</em>-</p><p> This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:690 4:10'>1Jn 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:19'>1Jn 4:19</a></em> - it is not that we loved God and He responded, but He loved us. We were out seeking for the Lord Jesus and found Him as a result of hard Biblical scholarship. He found us; indeed Paul cites the whole question of choosing, calling and predestination as the parade example of God's grace through the work of the Spirit. His choosing of us is the supreme example that it is not of works, nor intellectual ability, but of grace through the Spirit. “You did not choose me, but I chose you… out of the world” (:16,19) corresponds to the oft repeated theme of Moses that God has chosen Israel “out of all peoples” (<em><a href='B:50 7:6'>Deu 7:6</a></em> RVmg:), by grace (<em><a href='B:50 4:37'>Deu 4:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:15'>Deu 10:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 14:2'>Deu 14:2</a></em>).</p><p>It is not as if the Lord Jesus has said to us: 'Would you like me to die for you on the cross, to gain your salvation?'. Because then we could say 'No, don't do it for me', and we would be free of obligation. But He has taken the initiative. He has already died for us, He suffered for me, He won my redemption. And He has called me to know this and respond to it. I&nbsp;<em>can't</em>&nbsp;say, with eyes even only half open to the cross, 'No, I don't want what You did for me. Take it away, no, I don't want it'. He has done it. He has called me. I can't say I don't want it. And for you too. We have not chosen Him of our own decision; He has chosen us, and asked us to bring forth fruit (<em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>). Reflected upon, this is one of the most tremendous imperatives which we have to a dedicated life of response to the principles of His cross: justifying the weak, showing a spirit of grace amidst hatred, imbibing the word, being concerned for the salvation of others amidst our own agonies, enduring apparently endless tribulation (notice, and circle in your Bible, all the occurrences of the word "and" in Mark 15 A:V:)... that principle that&nbsp;<em>nothing else matters</em>&nbsp;apart from our response to His love, so great, so free. The whole horror, pain and tragedy of the cross was surely to show us that&nbsp;<em>He loved us far more than we have ever or will ever love Him</em>. And yet He asks us to accept His love, to respond to it, to love Him and in that love, show forth His character to others. With shame at the paucity and poverty of our own devotions, we can do little else but respond as fully and as best we can.</p><p>The twelve evidently saw Jesus of Nazareth as a Rabbi, their special, lovable, somewhat mystic teacher at whose feet they sat. But the disciples saw Jesus within the frames of Judaism. "What does this mean? He tells us..." (<em><a href='B:500 16:17'>Joh 16:17</a></em>) is similar to a familiar Rabbinic formula. But of course Jesus was far more than a Rabbi, and He laboured to change their perceptions. For example, He stresses many times that&nbsp;<em>He&nbsp;</em>chose&nbsp;<em>them&nbsp;</em>to be His disciples (especially <em><a href='B:500 15:16-19'>Joh 15:16-19</a></em>)- whereas in Judaism, it was always disciples who chose a Rabbi: "Jesus chose the disciples, but the students of the rabbis almost always chose a teacher". The words of the Lord Jesus were the words which He had 'heard' from the Father. But this doesn't mean that He was a mere fax machine, relaying literal words which the Father whispered in His ear to a listening world. When the disciples finally grasped something of the real measure of Jesus, they gasped: "You do not even need that a person ask you questions" (<em><a href='B:500 16:30'>Joh 16:30</a></em>). They had previously treated Jesus as a Rabbi, of whom questions were asked by his disciples and then cleverly answered by him. They finally perceived that here was more than a Jewish Rabbi. They came to that conclusion, they imply, not by asking Him questions comprised of words and hearing the cleverly ordered words that comprised His answers. The words He spoke and manifested were of an altogether higher quality and nature. Here was none other than the Son of God, the Word made flesh:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The language here is very much that of ordaining to priestly service, just as in chapter 17 the Lord will talk about sanctifying His followers, as if they are Levites, and sending them out to do Divine service in the work of the great commission, calling others to His grace. We find this same theme of a new Israel being created in the usage of “ordained Gk:&nbsp;<em>etheka</em>&nbsp;you”. C:K. Barrett shows that&nbsp;<em>etheka</em>&nbsp;reflects the Hebrew&nbsp;<em>samak</em>, and that the Lord’s phrase alludes to the ordination of a disciple as a Rabbi. Those guys must’ve looked at each other in shock. They who were barely literate, and knew how very human they were, whose small minds were creaking under the burden of trying to understand this Man they so loved… were being ordained as Rabbis, by a man who’d just washed their feet, which was what disciples usually did for their Rabbis. But yes, the Lord challenged them and us to have a far higher estimate of His opinion of us…&nbsp;</p><p>“I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should&nbsp;<em>go forth</em>&nbsp;and bring forth fruit... that whatsoever you shall ask of the&nbsp;<em>Father&nbsp;</em>in&nbsp;<em>my name</em>, he may give it you" is full of connection with the world-wide preaching commission; and in this context,&nbsp;<em>whatever</em>&nbsp;we ask to this end will be given. All will be provided for our mission; if it is indeed solely for His mission that we are making request. Lack of resources has never therefore ultimately and truthfully hindered any sincere attempt to obey the great commission. I can personally testify to that and so can many.</p><p>The fruit brought forth is therefore in converts. The 'remaining' s:w. 'abiding' of the fruit would then refer to the converts abiding in the Lord and He in them through the Spirit, which would then be alluded to by John when he writes that he has no greater joy than to know that his converts abide in the Lord (<em><a href='B:710 1:4'>3Jn 1:4</a></em>). This is the branch and fruit abiding in the vine.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:17'>Joh 15:17</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:560 1:5'>Eph 1:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>These things I command you, so that you may love one another</em>-</p><p> This doesn't mean 'I command you to love one another, so that you may love one another'. The idea rather is that all the "things" the Lord had taught, in the word or commandment which was Him as well as in His actual words, were summarized in the need to love one another. This was and is the essence of Him, His word made flesh. See on :17.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:18'>Joh 15:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you</em>-</p><p> The "if..." is perhaps a reflection of the Lord's hope that the Jewish world would be persuaded by the witness of the disciples' love and unity- although elsewhere He clearly envisaged their being cast out of the synagogues and experiencing evil at the hands of the Jewish world. And yet in that word "if..." we see reflected His positivism and hopefulness for others, which is to be part of our spirit too, if we have received His spirit. The hatred of the world has been explained by the Lord as a result of their resistance to the message preached (<em><a href='B:500 7:7'>Joh 7:7</a></em>). I suggested on :16 that the Lord is here repeating the essence of the great commission, to go into the world and bring forth fruit for Him. The comment about love in :17 would then be suggesting that our love for each other will back up that witness, as the Lord envisaged in chapter 17. And now He comforts His future preachers that they are to expect opposition to their witness, but in that experience they will know Him and share His spirit, for that was His experience too:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:19'>Joh 15:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you</em>-</p><p> This is basic psychology; those who come "out of" a system are hated by that system. But the hatred is specifically because the disciples would preach to the world and seek to convict them of sin (<em><a href='B:500 7:7'>Joh 7:7</a></em>). The talk about love and hatred here is alluded to by John when he urges his converts not to hate each other, especially in 1 John 4. By hating our brother, we are as the world. For that is what the world does. And John presents a chasmic divide between the believer and the world. To hate our brother is to place ourselves on the side of the world. John was writing for Jews and to Jewish converts; the pull of the Jewish world, the synagogue, was every strong. And he is reminding them that the Lord saw a huge divide between His followers and that world, a world which was fast heading to its destruction in AD70.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:20'>Joh 15:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Remember the word that I said to you: A servant is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will keep yours also</em>-</p><p> The Lord has just taught that He treats His followers not as servants but friends; and yet here He addresses them again as servants. But I suggested on :15 that His idea was that they are His servants whom He treats as intimate friends, revealing absolutely bare all that He is and stands for, and dying for them. From how the Lord speaks here, serious opposition to the preaching of His word is absolutely to be expected. A merely social Gospel, a doing good works in the hope somebody might somehow notice and come to the Lord, will not have this effect. Our preaching of Him means that there will be the parallel made here between "my word" and 'your word'. His word was the essence of Him, the light which challenged the darkness of men; and we shall meet the same response as He did. But it is that plain presentation of Him which will lead people to Him, rather than the supposed social Gospel of good works alone. For that is not a uniquely Christian statement, in that many folks do good works. 'Keeping My word' meant receiving life eternal (<em><a href='B:500 8:51-52'>Joh 8:51-52</a></em>), and the Father and Son making their dwelling in the heart of the hearer (<em><a href='B:500 14:23'>Joh 14:23</a></em>); this is the profound message we have for men:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:21'>Joh 15:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But all these things will they do to you for my name's sake, because they do not truly know Him that sent m</em>e- John later speaks about those who fulfil the great commission as going forth for His name's sake (<em><a href='B:710 1:7'>3Jn 1:7</a></em>). Throughout this section, the Lord is speaking about the need to follow the great commission and preach forgiveness and repentance in His name (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>). If His Spirit, His word and essence, abode in them, then they would experience the same opposition which He did. Their 'not knowing' the Father who sent the Son would be the basis of their hatred of the preachers. On the other hand, to know the Father is to have relationship with Him, and love His children. John's letters develop this same theme; to not love is to not have a relationship with the Father.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:22'>Joh 15:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin</em>-</p><p> We see here that hearing the word is the basis for responsibility to judgment. The 'coming' of the Lord was not a reference to some descent from Heaven to Palestine on planet earth; His coming to the Jewish world was in His words spoken to them. And as He was sent into the world, so He was sending His disciples. The fact they were without excuse issued in a hatred for the preachers who had spoken to them- for that is the context here in :23 and :21. All the synoptics use the word translated "excuse" about the Jewish leadership making a "pretence" of spirituality (<em><a href='B:470 23:14'>Mat 23:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 12:40'>Mar 12:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:47'>Luk 20:47</a></em>). And this is John's version of that. He states specifically what the synoptic writers do not- that the "pretence" of external religion was in fact to cloak AV or hide their sin. The synoptics state that for a "pretence" the Jews made long prayers, but they do not specifically state what was being cloaked or covered over. And here, the Lord states it was "sin". So often, religious behaviour is used in order to cover our sin from our own eyes. We must remember that we are all prone to the psychology of religious behaviour. The Lord 'spoke to them' about this; and they no longer had that cloak, for He had removed it and demonstrated that He saw through it. Their works were evil (<em><a href='B:500 7:7'>Joh 7:7</a></em>) and He had urged them to address their internal issues instead of covering their evil thoughts with external acts of obedience. And their response was to hate Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:23'>Joh 15:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He that hates me hates my Father also</em>-</p><p> The attitude of people to the Son is their attitude to God. The Jews of course considered that they loved God, but hated His Son. And the Lord is saying that this cannot be the case. And again John builds on this in a pastoral sense in 1 John 4, arguing that if we hate our brother, then we hate the Father and Son. It was an awful thing to accuse an Orthodox Jew of hating God; their whole life was so apparently God-centred. But our attitudes to His Son and all His children are our attitudes to Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:24'>Joh 15:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If I had not done among them the works which no other man did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father</em>-</p><p> This parallels the statement in :22 that it was because the Lord had "spoken" to them that they "had sin". His spoken words were paralleled with the works He did amongst them. As John especially makes clear, all those miracles were "signs", were a word to men. This confirms our earlier suggestion that the references to "my words" in John are talking about the essence of the Lord's self-declaration and declaration of the Father, rather than literally referring to His recorded lexical items, the sentences printed in red letters in some Bibles. The "works" were so that they could see the Son, and thereby the Father. The miracles were not therefore random acts of kindness to meet human compassion; for the Lord walked past many cases of human need without responding. They were specifically designed to enable men to see / understand / know / believe in the Son and Father. We also learn from this that the Jews through the miracles did in fact perceive who the Lord was, hence the hatred for Him which arose from a bad conscience. Throughout the Joseph record there is the unwritten sense that the brothers had a niggling conscience that Joseph might be alive. This typifies the underlying Jewish conscience towards the Lord Jesus. They knew Christ as Messiah, but blinded themselves to the fact (<em><a href='B:500 6:36'>Joh 6:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:41'>Joh 9:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:24'>Joh 15:24</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 14:7'>Joh 14:7</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:25'>Joh 15:25</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 11:20'>1Co 11:20</a></em>.</p><p><em>All this happens so that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their law: They hated me without a cause</em>-</p><p> "Their law" rather than 'God's law' is another reflection of how they had hijacked God's word and ways and turned it into their own religion; the feasts of the Lord and house of the Lord had become the feasts of the Jews, and the temple of the Jews. “They hated me without a cause" (<em><a href='B:230 35:19'>Psa 35:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:4'>Psa 69:4</a></em>) surely refers to their crucifixion of Him “without a cause" as reflected in the collapse of the legal case against Him. Their own law "their law" admitted there was no cause for death. He died purely because of their hatred. He again seems to use the past tense to describe His yet future death. There men would see the Father and Son, which has to be connected with John’s recurring theme that in the cross men saw what Moses so wanted to see- Yahweh Himself manifested.</p><p>The Messianic Psalms quoted about hatred of the Lord without a cause imply that this hatred was especially seen in His death. And yet the Lord has said that our sharing in His Spirit will mean that we too shall be hated if we witness "in Him", in His Name. This means that in our experience of opposition and hatred, we are sharing in His crucifixion experiences. He there becomes each of us. He was indeed our representative, and we are His too. Our experiences therefore provide a bridge between Him there, many centuries ago, and us today. We thereby in an experiential sense come to "know Him", and Him in His time of crucifixion. And if we thus suffer with Him, we shall also live with Him, eternally.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:26'>Joh 15:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me</em>-</p><p> The opening of this verse, "And..." or "But...", suggests a direct connection with what has preceded. There we have been told one of John's versions of the great commission. The Lord envisaged that believers in Him would go forth into the world and bring forth fruit, but would encounter the same hatred from the Jewish world which He had experienced. His anticipation of persecution for His witnesses (:20) is the background for this renewed promise of the Comforter. It is this context of persecution which provides the appropriacy of the language of&nbsp;<em>parakletos</em>. The Spirit would testify of the Lord Jesus; yet the disciples personally were to do so. They would have the Lord's Spirit within them, and so their witness would be in the power of the Spirit.</p><p>The&nbsp;<em>parakletos</em>&nbsp;/ Comforter is literally 'one called alongside', and this title is appropriate to the idea that the Lord is physically leaving them, but His presence will abide with them through the Spirit. It is as if the Lord is physically with us, as if He has come alongside us. The legal aspects of the word, referring to an advocate, may have been appropriate to the context of persecution. The association of the Comforter with "testimony" continues the legal association.</p><p>There is a definite link between the power of witness and the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit that bears witness; and yet we are the witnesses. The miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit are not in view, although in the first century context, they were a visible manifestation of possession of the Comforter. The Spirit bears witness in us in that the spirit of Christ, the joy, peace, love which we show as individuals and thereby as a community, gives as much credibility to our witness as did the performance of miracles in the 1st century. And so Paul told the Thessalonians: “Our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with much assurance”. The “assurance”, the power of confirmation, was in the credibility which the Spirit of Christ in their examples gave to their preaching of the word. And likewise in <em><a href='B:530 2:3-5'>1Co 2:3-5</a></em>: “My speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God”. &nbsp;</p><p>"He shall testify of me" reflects a masculine term in the Greek. But the object referred to is the Holy Spirit, which is neuter. This apparent mismatch of gender in Greek grammar is intentional; for the Lord is saying that the Spirit will enable them to have His personal presence in their hearts, to the point that the neuter "Spirit" is effectively Him, a male; so really can He be in us by the Spirit. The testimony of the Spirit would be their testimony (:27). It is our spiritual character, the evidence of the Spirit within us, which is the real and compelling witness to this world.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 15:27'>Joh 15:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And you also shall testify, because you have been with me from the beginning</em>-</p><p> This was exemplified in <em><a href='B:510 4:13'>Act 4:13</a></em>, where it was apparent from the nature of the disciples’ preaching that they “had been with Jesus”. To be with the Lord, to have experience of Him, meant that one would witness to Him; such is the true experience of Him that it is axiomatic that it issues in witness. All who have truly known the Lord will witness to Him. And if we don’t... do we know Him, have we “been with” Him…?</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:1'>Joh 16:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>These things have I spoken to you, so that you should not be made to stumble</em>-</p><p> The context goes on to speak of excommunication from the synagogue. The Lord perceived that religious excommunication created a strong possibility of stumbling; and so it is to this day. He says this in the context of His promise of the Comforter, His presence amongst and within the believers. His argument is that if that is felt and experienced by believers, then being disfellowshipped from some human group will not at all affect them. The wonder of His abiding presence will be far greater than the trauma of being excluded from some human group or society. And that truth remains wonderfully true today, the ultimate comfort through all church politics and exclusions performed by those who thereby proclaim that they do not have the Spirit.</p><p>The discourse in the upper room was intended by the Lord "to prevent your faith from being shaken" or, literally, 'scandalized' (<em><a href='B:500 16:1'>Joh 16:1</a></em>). And yet He uses the same word to predict how "This night you will all be scandalized because of me" (<em><a href='B:470 26:31'>Mat 26:31</a></em>). He knew they would stumble, or be 'scandalized'. Yet He hoped against hoped that they would not be; so positive was His hope of them. And exactly because He was like this, the pain of their desertion and stumbling would have been so much the greater. And the Lord who is the same today as yesterday goes through just the same with us, hour by hour:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:2'>Joh 16:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They shall put you out of the synagogues. Yes, the time is coming, when whoever kills you shall think that he offers service to God</em>-</p><p> See on :1. The coming time or hour in John's Gospel refers usually to the Lord's death (<em><a href='B:500 2:4'>Joh 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:30'>Joh 7:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:20-21'>Joh 8:20-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:23'>Joh 12:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:27'>Joh 12:27</a></em>). In the crises of persecution we face, we are sharing in His death, that His life might be ours too.</p><p>Realizing the need of each believer for the brotherhood will lead us to be more than careful before ever evicting anyone from our association. Indeed, forced expulsion from any social group is highly damaging to the victim. The Lord appreciated this when He said that when His followers were cast out of the synagogues, then they would be likely to stumble (<em><a href='B:500 16:1-2'>Joh 16:1-2</a></em>). They were excommunicated exactly because of their faith in Him; and yet He foresaw that in the aftermath of that rejection, emotionally, sociologically, economically, they would be likely to stumble. Eviction of anyone from our fellowship ought therefore never to be done lightly, if ever. For by doing so, we are likely to make them stumble from the path to eternity; and nobody would want such a millstone around their neck at judgment day. We may in this life appear to be ‘keeping the truth pure’, ‘doing the right thing’- but the Lord will judge the effect we had upon another’s path to Him.</p><p>Initially, as we see from e.g. John's Gospel, the core issue in Christianity revolved around simply believing in Jesus. But soon, as we see from John's letters, it became important to counter wrong beliefs&nbsp;<em>about</em>&nbsp;Jesus. As controversy over interpretation developed, it was almost inevitable that the arguments led to exaggerations on both sides. We see it happen in political arguments today- the supporters of candidate X respond to criticisms of him by painting him as more exalted, wonderful and even Divine than he really ever could be. And as they do so, the critics become even more virulently against them. This is the nature of controversy. And as the Jews began expelling Christians from their synagogues (<em><a href='B:500 9:22'>Joh 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:2'>Joh 16:2</a></em>) and inventing many slanderous stories about Jesus, it was inevitable that those without a solid Biblical grounding in their faith would&nbsp;<em>react</em>&nbsp;rather than&nbsp;<em>Biblically respond&nbsp;</em>to this- by making Jesus out to be far more 'Divine' than He was.</p><p>The apostate among God's people, both in Old and New Testaments, sunk to the most unbelievable levels, but sincerely felt that they were doing God's will. These things included killing righteous prophets (<em><a href='B:500 16:2'>Joh 16:2</a></em>), turning the breaking of bread service into a drunken orgy (<em><a href='B:530 11:21'>1Co 11:21</a></em>), and turning prostitution within the ecclesia into a spiritual act (<em><a href='B:730 2:20'>Rev 2:20</a></em>). For believers to come to the conclusion that such things were the will of God surely they were not just misinterpreting Scripture. There was an extra-human power of delusion at work. We have seen in the above verses that God is responsible for this kind of thing. Note that the Bible knows nothing of a super-human devil who does all this.</p><p>The early believers were initially members of the synagogues, and Paul always visited the synagogue services in his travels. Peter and John went up to pray in the temple at the ninth hour along with everyone else (<em><a href='B:510 3:1'>Act 3:1</a></em>). Early ecclesial meetings were based upon the synagogue system (<em><a href='B:660 2:2'>Jas 2:2</a></em>). The Lord didn’t tell them to leave because they might catch some ‘guilt by association’. He knew that if they forthrightly preached the Truth, they would be excommunicated: “the time will come when they will expel you from their synagogues”, He had foretold; as if He expected them to stay there until they were chased away. Those who reject the Lord Jesus will treat us likewise (<em><a href='B:500 15:18-21'>Joh 15:18-21</a></em>). However, it must be said that the Lord was perhaps making some concession to the weakness of His new people by allowing them to remain members of the synagogue system, and keep parts of the Law. As the New Testament period progressed, the Holy Spirit through Paul increasingly urged upon the believers the need to cast out the bondwoman of Judaism, to trust completely in grace not law. Consider, too, Paul’s command in <em><a href='B:530 11:14'>1Co 11:14</a></em> that brethren do&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;wear head coverings in ecclesial meetings. Assuming this to have been a universal principle which he intended to be followed in all ecclesias and the reasons he gives are based upon universal principles, this was really signalling an exit from the synagogues, where men&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;to attend with covered head. Now they could no longer go on attending the synagogues to fulfil their Christian worship; they had to realize the extent of the implications of the Lordship and Headship of Christ, as the image and glory of God. Yet sadly, the brethren increasingly returned to the synagogues rather than separated from them:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:3'>Joh 16:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And these things will they do, because they have not known the Father nor me</em>-</p><p> The idea is 'because they have refused to know'. They had been given the chance, as explained at the end of chapter 15, but had rejected it. And their bad conscience overflowed in personal anger. Not knowing the Father and Son was the reason why they killed the Lord (<em><a href='B:510 13:27-28'>Act 13:27-28</a></em>). Because they killed Him, we must expect persecution at their hands, if we are in His Name and share His spirit. John stresses that because they knew not the Father nor Son, they crucified Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 15:21'>Joh 15:21</a></em>). And yet on another level they&nbsp;<em>did&nbsp;</em>know the Son and Father, especially when they saw His death (<em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>). Even the Centurion was convinced that "truly, this was the Son of God". And even before that, "Jesus cried out in the temple, teaching and saying: You both know me, and know from where I am, and that I have not come of myself" (<em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>). They knew, but chose not to know. And this was the psychological cause of their extreme anger.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:4'>Joh 16:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But these things have I spoken to you, so that when the time comes, you may remember what I told you. And these things I did not say to you from the beginning, because I was with you</em>-</p><p> The "things" presumably concern the persecution which they were to experience, and the supportive presence of the Comforter as their defence. The Lord did not begin His teaching of the twelve by telling them of their likely sufferings; and His personal presence with them involved their 'keeping', both spiritually and in terms of physical safety (<em><a href='B:500 17:12'>Joh 17:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:9'>Joh 18:9</a></em>). Now He was departing, He would still be with them, in that the presence of the Comforter, His spirit in their hearts, would be as real as if He were personally with them. "The time / hour comes" is used in John normally concerning the hour of the Lord's cross. But now the Lord uses the term about the time of<em>&nbsp;their</em>&nbsp;sufferings, extending the idea that His Spirit<em>,&nbsp;</em>experience and destiny is to be theirs; or as the synoptics record it, they would pick up His cross, sharing in His sufferings.<em>&nbsp;</em></p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:5'>Joh 16:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But now I go to Him that sent me; and none of you asks me, Where do you go?</em>-</p><p> Peter had asked that very question (see on <em><a href='B:500 13:36-38'>Joh 13:36-38</a></em>). But he had asked it only from concern about himself and the disciples; not from interest in where the Lord was actually going. Real interest in the Lord Jesus can so often only be a form of self-interest and even self-preservation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:6'>Joh 16:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart</em>-</p><p> We sense the Lord's disappointment that they did not grasp that His departure meant the glorification of the Name, and the receipt by them of the Comforter. All they could think of was His physical presence not being with them, and they were filled with sorrow rather than with the Spirit. And yet the whole of the Lord’s last discourse to the twelve reflects His positive view of them- at the very time when their commitment to Him was in some ways at its lowest ebb. For they all forsook Him in His hour of need. He comments that they are filled with sorrow because of their misunderstanding about His departure from them. But He goes on to liken this sorrow to the sorrow of a woman in labour, who forgets that sorrow as soon as her child is born (<em><a href='B:500 16:6'>Joh 16:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:20-22'>Joh 16:20-22</a></em>). In the analogy, the travailing woman is the disciples, and the new born child is the resurrected Jesus. For “then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord”. Their ‘sorrow’ was thereby interpreted by the Lord as their longing and striving towards His resurrection. But this is a very positive way of interpreting their sorrow. Their sorrow was based on their misunderstanding (<em><a href='B:500 16:6'>Joh 16:6</a></em>). Yet the Lord saw that deep underneath that sorrow, even though they didn’t perceive it themselves, they were actually yearning for His resurrection. This helps explain the slight mismatch in the metaphor; for "sorrow" is not an emotion really associated with a woman facing labour pains; rather, anxiety, stress and fear. But the Lord as it were makes the analogy fit, because He wants to positively represent their sorrow and hope that something positive comes out of it.</p><p>This was all partly due to His penetration of their psychology, but it also reflects the simple fact that He certainly counted them as more spiritual than they actually were. He tells them to “ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full”, having just defined their future joy as the joy of seeing Him risen from the dead (<em><a href='B:500 16:24'>Joh 16:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:22'>Joh 16:22</a></em>). But did they ask to see His resurrection? Not as far as we know; for He upbraids them with their slowness to believe His predictions of resurrection. But despite all that, He said that they&nbsp;<em>would</em>&nbsp;have that joy which would come from asking to see Him risen from the dead. They didn’t ask for this, but they would still have the joy. Why? Because He perceived them to have ‘asked’ for what they didn’t actually ask for in so many words. He read their basic inner yearning for Him as a prayer for His resurrection, even though they were far from understanding that He would ever rise again once dead. It’s rather like God saying that the righteous remnant in Jerusalem had shaken their head at the Assyrian invaders and laughed at them in faith- when this was certainly not the case on the surface (<em><a href='B:290 37:22'>Isa 37:22</a></em>). And this Lord is our Lord today, interpreting our innermost, unarticulated desires as prayers to the Father (<em><a href='B:520 8:26-27'>Rom 8:26-27</a></em>). &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:7'>Joh 16:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away. For if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you. I will send him to you</em>-</p><p> "It is expedient" is the very phrase used by Caiaphas in saying that it was expedient that the Lord die (<em><a href='B:500 11:50'>Joh 11:50</a></em>). The parallel is clearly between His 'going away' and His death, confirming the suggestion that His talk of 'going to the Father' refers specifically to His crucifixion and not only to the ascension to Heaven. The Lord sees a major purpose of His death as being the giving of the Comforter, His spirit. When he breathed His last, and blood and water flowed out from Him, He was giving His spirit toward us, the confused and misunderstanding disciples. This is the connection between His death and the gift of His spirit to us. Our understanding and acceptance of this gift of the Spirit is therefore crucial; it is in fact what He died for, it is the gift of His life given to and into us.</p><p>"I will send him to you" uses the same word frequently used of how the Father sent the Son, and the Son sends us. But here, the Son will send the Comforter to us. He explained in <em><a href='B:500 8:29'>Joh 8:29</a></em> that "He that sent me is with me; the Father has not left me alone". The sending of the Son involved His being given the Father's presence. And in His sending of us into the world, in fulfilment of the great commission, He sends us as the Father sent Him, but He also sends us with His presence. The language of <em><a href='B:500 8:29'>Joh 8:29</a></em>, "not left alone... with me" is exactly that which the Lord uses about His presence with us through the Comforter. That presence however is specifically associated with our mission, the purpose for which we have been sent. The great commission in <em><a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a></em> comforts us that "I am with you always"; and here in John's version of that commission we find that the Lord's presence refers to the gift of the Spirit, empowering our mission, guiding us to correct understanding, spiritually keeping us from falling, and mediating to us the sense of His personal presence. The theme continues into the Lord's prayer of chapter 17, where He speaks of how He has sanctified us, as Levites, and sent us forth on this great commission. Therefore the work of the Gospel, the fulfilment of the great commission, is to be utterly central to our Christian lives. The way it is solemnly placed at the end of the synoptics is proof enough of this.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:8'>Joh 16:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he, when he comes, will convict the world in respect of sin and of righteousness and of judgment-&nbsp;</em>Just as the Lord convicted the world of sin (<em><a href='B:500 7:7'>Joh 7:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:22'>Joh 15:22</a></em>), so we will do so if the Comforter dwells in us, the presence within us of the Lord Jesus through the Spirit. We shall continue His work through our witness in the power of the Spirit / Comforter (<em><a href='B:500 15:26-27'>Joh 15:26-27</a></em>). The legal dimension to the word&nbsp;<em>parakletos</em>&nbsp;is here referred to. Our advocate will also be the prosecutor of the world. It is on our witness that the world is convicted of sin, because they heard the Gospel from us, through our obedience to the great commission, but rejected it as made clear in <em><a href='B:500 15:22'>Joh 15:22</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:9'>Joh 16:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Of sin, because they do not believe in me-&nbsp;</em>The Jewish world was convicted of sin through the Comforter-filled disciples witnessing to the Jews about their sin in rejecting the Lord. The implication of this statement is that when we preach Christ to people, they actually realize the truth of what we say, at least on a subconscious level no matter how well they disguise it. Otherwise, why would they be convicted of the sin of unbelief? The principle has been outlined in <em><a href='B:500 15:22'>Joh 15:22</a></em>, that hearing the spoken word of the Lord Jesus is to be left with no excuse for sin. This is a huge encouragement in our preaching to an apparently disinterested world. Their disinterest is a guise, however unconscious, to attempt to cover their deep dis-ease at their rejection of the call they are receiving. And more often than we may think, our message cuts through that guise, that cloak (<em><a href='B:500 15:22'>Joh 15:22</a></em>), and touches hearts.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:10'>Joh 16:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Of righteousness, because I go to the Father and you see me no more</em>-</p><p> To convict the Jewish world of righteousness is a strange idea, making little sense until we see the allusion to <em><a href='B:290 64:5'>Isa 64:5</a></em> LXX, which describes Israel's righteousness as abomination. They would be convicted concerning their righteousness- that it was empty. It would be clear from the witness of the Comforter, the spirit of Christ within the preachers, that they were counted righteous by grace; and all the legalistic rightness of Judaism, and indeed the world in any time or place, is but filthy rags.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:11'>Joh 16:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Of judgment, because the prince of this world has been judged</em>-</p><p> Just as "righteousness" in :10 refers to the false righteousness of the Jewish world, so here. The Lord has many times been wrongly judged by the Jewish world (<em><a href='B:500 7:24'>Joh 7:24</a></em>), coming to a climax in the way that Caiaphas, the prince of the Jewish world, judged the Lord as worthy of death. The witness of the Comforter, the Spirit-filled witness of the disciples, would demonstrate this to the Jewish world.</p><p>"The prince of this world" (sin, the devil?) was judged by the victory of the cross (<em><a href='B:500 16:11'>Joh 16:11</a></em>). There, in that naked, abused body and infinitely tormented yet righteous mind, there was displayed the judgments, the character, the very essence of God; and the utter condemnation of the flesh, the devil, the prince of this world. Those judgments were displayed in front of a world which stood before it self-condemned. The Lord was judged by Caiaphas and other princes of this world, but He in fact stood before them as the judge and condemned them. And yet it is&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;witness, empowered by the Comforter, which is to convict the world of judgment. We take the spirit of the Lord's cross before the world, and it convicts them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:12'>Joh 16:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now</em>-</p><p>The message or word of Jesus was far more than the words that He spoke from His lips. In one sense, He revealed to the disciples everything that He had heard from the Father (<em><a href='B:500 15:15'>Joh 15:15</a></em>); and yet in another, more literal sense, He lamented that there was much more He could tell them in words, but they weren't able to bear it (<em><a href='B:500 16:12'>Joh 16:12</a></em>). His person and character, which they would spend the rest of their lives reflecting upon, was the 'word' of God in flesh to its supremacy; but this doesn't necessarily mean that they heard all the literal words of God drop from the lips of Jesus. I have shown elsewhere that both the Father and Son use language, or words, very differently to how we normally do. The manifestation of God in Christ was not only a matter of the Christ speaking the right words about God. For as He said, His men couldn't have handled that in its entirety. The fullness of manifestation of the word was in His life, His character, and above all in His death, which the prologue in <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> may be specifically referring to in speaking of how John himself beheld the glory of the word being made flesh.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:13'>Joh 16:13</a></em> -see on <em><a href='B:690 4:1'>1Jn 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:12'>Joh 14:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>However, when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he shall guide you into all the truth. For he shall not speak from himself; but whatever he shall hear, these shall he speak-</em></p><p>"The Spirit of truth" is in reality "the spirit of Christ", making His presence near and real just as if He were literally with us. So "the truth" is again a reference to the Lord Jesus personally, the truth of Him who is "the truth", rather than a reference to the academic 'truth' of a particular set of theology. "All truth" would be going far too far if it refers to intellectual truth, for nobody could ever claim to have "all truth" in that sense. It makes little sense to talk of being "in" truth in the sense of theological truth. The language is far more appropriate to a person, the Lord Jesus.</p><p>"Guide" is the language of a Rabbi teaching or guiding his disciples by teaching (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 15:14'>Mat 15:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:16'>Mat 23:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:39'>Luk 6:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:31'>Act 8:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:19'>Rom 2:19</a></em>). The disciples were concerned that their Rabbi was leaving them and they would be without a teacher (see on <em><a href='B:500 14:18'>Joh 14:18</a></em>). The Lord is assuring them that His teaching presence would continue amongst them through the presence of the Spirit, the Comforter.</p><p>"He shall not speak from himself" recalls the Lord's claims that "I speak not from myself", but from what He heard from the Father (<em><a href='B:500 7:17'>Joh 7:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:49'>Joh 12:49</a></em>). The Comforter is personified and spoken of in exactly the terms of the Lord Jesus because He wished to emphasize the idea that the presence of the Spirit would be as if He personally was with them, teaching them as He had done as their Rabbi on earth.</p><p><em>And he shall declare to you the things that are to come</em>-</p><p> There could be a reference here to the giving of the book of Revelation, but the hour to come in John's Gospel, the even "to come", is clearly the Lord's death. The meaning of that would be declared to them by the Spirit. They did not then understand what the Lord was doing, but they would do so afterwards- when the Spirit revealed it to them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:14'>Joh 16:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He shall glorify me; for he shall take what is mine and shall declare it to you</em>-</p><p> The Spirit would be the medium of communication between the Lord and His followers. The context here is of teaching, of the disciples continuing to be taught by the Lord from Heaven through His Spirit (see on :13). "What is mine" would therefore refer to the understandings given to the Lord by the Father, which were now going to be in turn transmitted to His followers by means of the Spirit. And that process would be to the glorification of the Lord Jesus. For they would understand Him and His achievements so much deeper. This is the same word used in <em><a href='B:500 16:25'>Joh 16:25</a></em> of how the Lord would declare or shew to them plainly of the Father. He was to do this in His death for them, but that death would be unpacked by the Lord's work within them through the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:15'>Joh 16:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>All things, whatever the Father has, are mine. Therefore I said: that he shall take of mine and declare it to you</em>-</p><p> These "all things" which the Father has refer to the things which would be declared to them (:14), and those things centre in the Lord Jesus. All those things in that sense were 'Me', the Lord Jesus. For the prologue states that the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of Jesus is God, in the sense that the entire purpose and plan of God is centred in His Son. The focus of the Father upon His Son is significant beyond appreciation. The Son was "all things" to the Father; and the things of the Son, and thereby the "all things" of the Father, were to be declared to the believers by the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:16'>Joh 16:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>A little while, and you will see me no more; and then a little while, and you shall see me, because I go to the Father</em>-</p><p> The first "little while" refers to the time remaining until His death (<em><a href='B:500 7:33'>Joh 7:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:33'>Joh 13:33</a></em>). The second "little while" is until the point when they would 'see' Him because He goes to the Father. The 'seeing' in view is the vision of the presence of Jesus which arises from the gift of the Spirit which would be given as a result of the Lord's death. His going to the Father could refer to ascension; but that was not when the Spirit gift was given and they 'saw' Him. It was not through his ascension that the gift was enabled, but rather through His death. And it is to His death that '"I go to the Father" refers elsewhere in John. The second "little while" I suggest refers to the period from His death until the receipt of the Comforter and the full seeing of Him then. He is of course presenting a purposeful paradox; that His going away was in fact when they would 'see' Him. This 'seeing' was the understanding of Him and experience of His presence which would be possible through the Comforter. Elsewhere in John, beholding or seeing the Son doesn’t refer to physically seeing Him, but rather to understanding and believing in Him (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:29'>Joh 1:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:36'>Joh 1:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:50'>Joh 1:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:40'>Joh 6:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:21'>Joh 12:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:9'>Joh 14:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:19'>Joh 14:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:24'>Joh 17:24</a></em> etc:). The Lord surely meant: ‘Soon, you will no longer see / understand / believe me… but, in the end, you&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;understand / believe in me’. And John, the author or speaker of this Gospel record, was one of those being referred to. So he, and all the disciples, would’ve been appealing to people to see / understand / believe in Jesus, whilst openly telling them that they themselves had once lost that understanding / belief which they once had, even though they regained it later.</p><p>"If I go… I will come again... A little while, and you shall not see me: and again, a little while, and you shall see me, because I go to my father" (<em><a href='B:500 14:3'>Joh 14:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:16'>Joh 16:16</a></em>). This may refer to Moses going up and down the mountain, disappearing from Israel's sight, and then returning with the covenant- to find Israel worshipping the golden calf. Perhaps this refers to the Lord's disappointment that they did not perceive the wonder of His resurrection.</p><p>The New Testament speaks in challenging terms of how real is to be our relationship with the Lord Jesus. The Lord’s enigmatic words of <em><a href='B:500 16:16'>Joh 16:16</a></em> indicate just&nbsp;<em>how</em>&nbsp;close the Comforter was to make Him come to His people once He was in Heaven: “Yet a little while, and ye shall not see me&nbsp;<em>theoreo</em>, to physically see: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me&nbsp;<em>horai</em>, to know or understand, to spiritually 'see', because I go to the Father”. It could be argued,<em>&nbsp;contra</em>&nbsp;my position just stated, that the “little while” in each clause is one and the same. In “a little while” they would not see Him physically, but exactly because He would be with the Father, He would send the Comforter, and enable His people to ‘see’ Him in the sense that John usually speaks of in his Gospel. This ‘seeing’ of Jesus, this perception of Him, is effectively a ‘seeing’ of the Father.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:17'>Joh 16:17</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 15:16-19'>Joh 15:16-19</a></em>.</p><p><em>Some of his disciples questioned each other: What is this that he said to us? A little while and you will see me no more; and then a little while and you shall see me, because I go to the Father?</em>-</p><p> Their questions were presumably said out of the Lord's earshot, for He perceived rather than heard their questions (:19). His sensitivity of Spirit was such that He could perceive the hearts of men, without necessarily receiving some bolt of direct revelation as to what they were thinking. And His sensitive spirit is given to us. See on :16 for comment about the "little while".</p><p>There are two different words for "see" used here, and at first blush they seem rather strange. But that was purposeful, as the Lord wished their minds to work upon this immense idea of His absence meaning His presence through the Spirit. The first means 'to discern' and the second more literally 'to see'. In a little while He would die and they would not discern / see Him, they would not understand; but then they would 'see' Him when He went to the Father. The presence of the Son through the Comforter would be as real as if they were literally seeing Him; and this huge challenge comes down to us today.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:18'>Joh 16:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They said: What is this that he said? A little while? We cannot decipher what he said</em>-</p><p> They struggled over which period He had in view, and whether there were two 'little while' periods or whether they are referring to the same period. See on :16. The Lord was speaking in such a way that they would mull over His words. For the truth He presents here is so utterly profound and demanding that it cannot be accepted or perceived by just reading or hearing a few words and grasping the idea. The gift of the Spirit would mean that He would be amongst them just as really, and even moreso, as He had been in His physical presence.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:19'>Joh 16:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus perceived that they wanted to ask him, and he said to them: Do you inquire among yourselves what I said? A little while and you will see me no more, and then a little while and you shall see me?</em>-</p><p> See on :17 regarding the Lord's perception. The Lord may be rebuking them for asking&nbsp;<em>among themselves</em>&nbsp;for the answer to the paradox, rather than asking&nbsp;<em>Him</em>. Very rarely in the Gospel records does the Lord respond directly to the questions He was asked. He replies at a tangent, sometimes directing the questioner away from the question to more significant issues, or answering the question in terms of higher principle rather than focusing just on the specific case in question. And His response here is the same.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:20'>Joh 16:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Truly, truly, I say to you: You shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice. You shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy</em>-</p><p> As noted on :19, the Lord's response to the question about what "a little while" meant is typical of how He tends not to directly answer questions. He wanted them to reflect about what He meant; He wanted them, like us, to personally come to realize the momentous truth that through the Spirit, He will be as present with us as He physically was with the disciples during His ministry, teaching us as He taught them, under the trees and in the&nbsp;courtyards of Galilee. Instead He re-focuses their minds on the trauma immediately ahead. The Gospels do not record the disciples weeping and lamenting the Lord's death whilst the Jewish world rejoiced, but that is what happened during the days the Lord lay dead. Their sorrow is read here positively by the Lord as sorrow for the loss of a loved one. But in reality, their sorrow was also because of dashed hopes, as the disciples on the way to Emmaus clearly reveal. Their sorrow was also partly because of disappointment. But the Lord wishes to interpret their sorrow positively, and therefore turns it into the idea that their sorrow was that experienced by a woman just before giving birth. But as noted on :21, that is to force a simile, for "sorrow" is not really the dominant emotion or feeling of a woman in advanced labour. The way the Lord forces the simile is a reflection of how He was simply so positive about the weakness of the disciples' understanding. And we must have His positive spirit in all our dealings with our fellow disciples, never cutting them off because they lack understanding, faith or sufficient attention to the Lord's words; but ever hoping that they shall develop, and accepting what understanding they do have in a positive way; seeing the glass half full rather than half empty.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:21'>Joh 16:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>A woman when she is in labour has sorrow, because her hour comes; but when she has delivered the child, she does not remember her anguish, because of her joy that a child is born into the world</em>-</p><p> The coming hour is spoken of in John as the hour of the Lord's death. Although the Lord is addressing the disciples, as so often in His teaching, He is speaking to Himself too. For He was the one about to go through physical pain, to the end the child of the church should be born into the Jewish world- a world which would not accept it, as the drama of Revelation 12 makes clear, in its immediate first century application. Judaism used this very metaphor to speak of Israel's sufferings immediately prior to the coming of the Messianic Kingdom. The Lord is alluding to this, saying that His Kingdom is to come in the form of the birth of the church, but only as a baby, which must grow into the full maturity of His Kingdom on earth to be established at the second coming. His joy in us now means that He does not "remember" the anguish of the cross. The pain of the cross was therefore His bearing of the pain of Israel. The Lord is going along with the Jewish understanding of the metaphor, in that He is alluding to <em><a href='B:290 26:16-21'>Isa 26:16-21</a></em> where we meet the ideas of a "little while", the last day, the hope of resurrection and the metaphor of a woman in labour. And John was writing immediately prior to the pains of AD70 and Christian persecution/. The Lord had taken those pains into Himself in His crucifixion sufferings, and could absolutely relate to them.</p><p>The day of the Lord will result in the wicked being "in pain as of a woman that travaileth" (<em><a href='B:290 13:8'>Isa 13:8</a></em>):&nbsp; Yet the faithful just before His coming would also be like a woman in travail (<em><a href='B:590 5:3'>1Th 5:3</a></em>), with the subsequent joy on delivery matching the elation of the disciples in realizing the Lord had risen and would be eternally present with them through the Comforter (<em><a href='B:500 16:21'>Joh 16:21</a></em>). So, it's travail- or travail, especially in the last days. If we choose the way of the flesh, it will be travail for nothing, bringing forth in vain (this is seen as a characteristic of all worldly life in <em><a href='B:290 65:23'>Isa 65:23</a></em>). We either cut off the flesh now (in spiritual circumcision), or God will cut us off at the last day. This point was made when the rite of circumcision was first given: "The uncircumcised un-cut off man…shall be cut off" (<em><a href='B:10 17:14'>Gen 17:14</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:22'>Joh 16:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You now have sorrow; but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one will take away from you</em>-</p><p> It is tempting to connect this joy with the joy of the disciples when they met the risen Lord and literally saw Him again (<em><a href='B:500 20:20'>Joh 20:20</a></em>). But the joy in the heart which would never be taken from them is really a stronger reference to the coming of the Comforter to abide with them for ever; this was when and how they 'saw' the Lord in the sense John's Gospel uses the term, to mean understand / believe. The Lord's literal resurrection and the joy they had on literally seeing Him is presented as the joy that shall be with all who have received His abiding presence in the Comforter. That joy cannot be taken from them; but the joy of literally seeing Him would soon fade when He ascended, if the joy in view is simply that of literally seeing the risen Lord. The joy at seeing Him which does not fade is only possible if His presence abides permanently, and that is the work of the Comforter, making Him present to us as really as if He were physically with us. "Your heart shall rejoice" is a direct quotation from <em><a href='B:290 66:14'>Isa 66:14</a></em> LXX about the permanent joy of the Kingdom age. This is not to say that the Kingdom has now come. The idea is that through the work of the Comforter we experience the life eternal, the permanent joy of the Kingdom age is known in our experience of His abiding presence now.</p><p>"I will see you again" reads strangely; we would rather expect "You will see me again, so don't be sad". He sees us again, in that He comes to us. And He knows / sees us, as well as us seeing / knowing Him. <em><a href='B:550 4:9'>Gal 4:9</a></em> may have this idea in view, teaching that it is not so much a question of us knowing God, but of Him knowing us. Likewise, we did not choose Him, but He chose us (<em><a href='B:500 15:19'>Joh 15:19</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:23'>Joh 16:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And in that day, you shall ask me no questions-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :22, the experience of abiding joy and seeing the Lord is all Kingdom language, in that the Comforter enables us to live the eternal life, the Kingdom life, right now. This explains why "that day" is a phrase commonly used to refer to the last day (<em><a href='B:620 1:12'>2Ti 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:18'>2Ti 1:18</a></em> etc:). "That day" in essence comes to all who receive the Comforter, and thereby have the Lord's permanent presence. In <em><a href='B:690 2:18'>1Jn 2:18</a></em> John speaks as if the believers are right now in the last day / hour; not only in that they are expecting the second coming at any minute, but in that the last day is in essence being experienced by them.</p><p>"Ask me no questions" can be translated "ask me nothing". The idea is that His relationship with the Father will be ours; we will relate directly to the Father as He did and does, because we are "in my name", possessing the Comforter which is sent in His name. If we insist on the sense of 'ask me no questions', the idea could be that because we know the Father and Son through having relation with them, we will not be full of questions (<em><a href='B:690 2:20'>1Jn 2:20</a></em>). Our base experience of relationship with them will mean that 'hard questions' are of no particular angst to us. We know the things of our salvation (<em><a href='B:500 15:14-15'>Joh 15:14-15</a></em>), and that is enough. Any other questions are of far secondary importance. All struggles about apologetics, questions about the conflict between current science and the Bible, all become utterly subsumed beneath the reality of knowing the Father and Son in the sense of having ongoing relationship with them. The questions in the immediate context concerned the Lord's going away and coming again. The Comforter would explain those questions; and we note that the meaning of the Lord's death, resurrection and gift of the Holy Spirit were not understood by the disciples until after His resurrection and their receipt of the Holy Spirit Comforter. The Comforter works likewise with us, unpacking the meaning of these things- for the Lord was far from the only man to die through crucifixion. The personal import of&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;death and resurrection and gift of His Spirit has to be personally experienced; theology can only go so far. And that is the work of the Comforter.</p><p>We recall that towards the end of His ministry, the Jews ceased asking the Lord questions (<em><a href='B:470 22:46'>Mat 22:46</a></em>). This was because things had come to such a pitch that the Lord had answered everything and presented Himself without doubt as their Saviour and God's Son. The choices left were to believe in Him, or turn against Him blinded by a bad conscience. The Lord seems to be alluding to that position, saying that the disciples were also going to be in a position where they totally believed in Him and needed answers to no more questions, for the answer was already clear.</p><p><em>Truly, truly, I say to you: If you shall ask anything of the Father, He will give it you in my name</em>-</p><p> The intimacy of relationship between Father and Son is to be experienced by us on account of the Comforter. We will sense His will and pray accordingly, and receive. "In my name" is another way of saying that because we are in Christ and He in us, we shall directly dialogue with the Father just as He did and does. He will no longer be a mediator, in that sense. The language of His intercession which we encounter later in the New Testament is all concerning His attainment of salvation for us (<em><a href='B:520 8:34'>Rom 8:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:25'>Heb 7:25</a></em>), and the contexts do not refer to some kind of mechanical transaction being performed between Son and Father every time we pray for some request. We who were enemies have now been reconciled to God in Christ, as Romans 5 teaches. The Lord's work of mediating between God and man is therefore for those who have yet to be reconciled; for us it is done, we already live as reconciled to God.</p><p>Moses reached something of that intimacy; he cried to Yahweh to take away the frogs, "and Yahweh did according to the word of Moses" (<em><a href='B:20 8:12-13'>Exo 8:12-13</a></em>); the requests of prayer become almost a command to God; by His grace, we will ask what we will and He will do it for us (<em><a href='B:500 16:23'>Joh 16:23</a></em>). W:E. Vine makes the point that the Greek here implies a superior asking an inferior to do something. Not only is this an essay in the humility of God's self-revelation, but it surely shows how if we seriously believe in the power of prayer, what we request really will be given. "Thou shalt also decree a thing (in prayer) and it shall be established unto thee" (<em><a href='B:220 22:28'>Job 22:28</a></em>). <em><a href='B:730 9:13'>Rev 9:13</a></em> portrays prayer as a command to the Angels. The prayer of command is to be found in the well known words of Psalms 122. “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem”, David exhorts. And the response made so much clearer when the Psalm is sung: “Peace be within thy walls… I will now say, Peace be within thee” (<em><a href='B:230 122:6-8'>Psa 122:6-8</a></em>). The way peace is ‘commanded’ to be in Jerusalem by those who pray is because they so believe that the answer will surely come.</p><p>The wonder of the resurrection would totally affect our attitude to asking for things, the Lord taught in <em><a href='B:500 16:23'>Joh 16:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:26'>Joh 16:26</a></em>. “In that day of marvelling in the resurrected Lord, ye shall ask me nothing… if ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you RV… in that day you shall ask in my name…”. What are we to make of all this talk of asking and not asking, in the ‘day’ of the resurrected Lord Jesus? My synthesis of it all is this: Due to the sheer wonder of the resurrection of the Lord, we will not feel the need to ask for anything for ourselves. The gift of freedom from sin is enough. Because if God gave us His Son and raised Him from the dead, we will serve for nothing, for no extra ‘perks’ in this life; and yet, wonder of wonders,&nbsp;<em>if</em>&nbsp;we shall ask, in His Name, we will receive. But we must ask whether the implications and wonder of the fact of the Lord’s resurrection have had such an effect upon us…?</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:24'>Joh 16:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So far you have asked nothing in my name. Ask and you shall receive, that your joy may be made full</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; By receiving the spirit of the Lord Jesus, His mindset becomes ours. His joy becomes our joy (<em><a href='B:500 15:11'>Joh 15:11</a></em>). The Lord's joy was in our salvation (<em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:23'>Mat 25:23</a></em>), that spiritual being were born into the world of the new creation (<em><a href='B:500 16:21'>Joh 16:21</a></em>) and human repentance (<em><a href='B:490 15:7'>Luk 15:7</a></em>). This explains the Lord's exhortation to ask in His name so that their joy might be fulfilled. This doesn't simply refer to the joy of receiving a request which has earlier been requested in prayer. The fullness of joy received means having the Lord's joy within us; having His Spirit / mind / value set. This means that the thing asked for was the Comforter, the mind of Christ, His Spirit, which included His joy; the mindset which rejoices in the things He rejoices in. And they are the things of human salvation and the glorification of the Father's Name. See on <em><a href='B:500 17:13'>Joh 17:13</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:25'>Joh 16:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>These things have I spoken to you in figurative language-&nbsp;</em>This explains why the Lord did not directly answer their question concerning what He meant by "a little while"; see on :18,19.</p><p><em>The hour comes, when I shall no longer speak to you in figurative language, but shall show you plainly about the Father</em>-</p><p> God was especially in Christ at His death. Perhaps it was partly with reference to the cross that the Lord said: “I shall shew you plainly of the Father" (<em><a href='B:500 16:25'>Joh 16:25</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:500 19:19'>Joh 19:19</a></em>.</p><p>John’s references to the hour coming nearly always refer to the crucifixion. The plain showing forth of the Father was in the naked body of His crucified Son; there, all the theory which Jesus had taught was exemplified in stark, plain terms. The Father was ultimately revealed. <em><a href='B:290 64:1-4'>Isa 64:1-4</a></em> had foretold: “Oh that thou wouldest rend the heavens, that thou wouldest come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence... For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him". This latter verse is quoted in 1 Corinthians 2 about how the “foolishness" of the cross is not accepted by the wise of this world. Only the humble and spiritually perceptive eye of faith realized that there in the naked shame of Golgotha, God Himself had rent the heavens and come down, as all the faithful had somehow, in some sense foreseen and yearned for. There, in the battered body of Jesus, was God revealed to men.</p><p>As noted on <em><a href='B:500 2:4'>Joh 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:21-23'>Joh 4:21-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:25-29'>Joh 5:25-29</a></em>, the hour that was to come is a reference to the cross. There, we see and hear the preaching / word of ‘which is’, Gk. the cross. There on the cross, there was no allegory. There we were shown plainly the Father. He went on: “Behold, the hour s:w. “time" cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me" (<em><a href='B:500 16:32'>Joh 16:32</a></em>). The disciples scattered at the crucifixion, probably they came to see it and then scattered in fear after the first hour or so. But He was not left alone; for the Father was with Him there. Just as John began his Gospel by saying that “the word was with God", with specific reference to the cross. Philip had just asked to be shown the Father, just as Moses had asked (<em><a href='B:500 14:9-10'>Joh 14:9-10</a></em>). And the Lord is saying that in the cross, they will see plainly of the Father. And perhaps therefore we are to understand <em><a href='B:500 17:24'>Joh 17:24</a></em> as meaning that Jesus prayed that the disciples would physically see and spiritually understand His cross: “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world". “I am", “my glory", given by the Father, and the lamb slain from “the foundation of the world"... this is all language of the cross.</p><p>And yet the showing plainly of the Father is spoken here in the context of assuring the disciples that although He, their Rabbi, was to be taken from them, His teaching of them would continue and intensify through the ministry of the Comforter in their hearts. The showing plainly is to be connected with the promise that the Comforter would guide them into all truth (:13), and then they would have no more questions (:23).</p><p>The Lord recognized the influence of the synagogue upon them when He said that He spoke to them in parables, and would later speak to them plainly (<em><a href='B:500 16:25'>Joh 16:25</a></em>)- when He had earlier spoken to the Jewish world in parables rather than plainly, because they did not understand (<em><a href='B:480 4:34'>Mar 4:34</a></em>). And yet the disciples got there in the end. He spoke to them in the end "plain words" (<em>parresia</em>), and this word is the watchword of the disciples' own witness to the world (<em><a href='B:510 2:29'>Act 2:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:13'>Act 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:29'>Act 4:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:31'>Act 4:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:31'>Act 28:31</a></em>). They spoke "plainly"&nbsp;<em>(parresia</em>) to the world, without parables, because they reflected to the world the nature of their understanding of their Lord. However, during His ministry, it would appear that the Lord treated them as if they were still in the Jewish world. When they asked Him why He spoke to&nbsp;<em>the people</em>&nbsp;in parables, He replies by explaining why He spoke&nbsp;<em>to them</em>&nbsp;in parables; and He drives the point home that it is to those “outside” that He speaks in parables (<em><a href='B:480 4:11'>Mar 4:11</a></em>). &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:26'>Joh 16:26</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>In that day you shall ask in my name; and I do not say to you that I will pray to the Father for you</em>-</p><p> The Lord has just explained that "in that day" when they possess the Spirit, they will not need to go to the Father through the Lord. They will have the same relationship with the Father which the Son had and has; see on :23. They would ask the Father on account of being "in Christ", in His Name, baptized into it and abiding in it with the presence of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts. The Lord will not in some mechanical sense pray to the Father with our words but expressed in different language, with a nudge, as it were, for Him to respond positively because we are the Lord's. We shall be in direct relationship with the Father:&nbsp;</p><p>This unity of Spirit between us, the Son and the Father explains an apparent contradiction in the Lord's discourse in the upper room: "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will&nbsp;<em>I</em>&nbsp;do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask&nbsp;<em>me</em>&nbsp;anything (being) in my name, that will I do (<em><a href='B:500 14:13-14'>Joh 14:13-14</a></em> RV)... If ye shall ask anything of&nbsp;<em>the Father</em>, he will give it you in my name... and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: for the Father himself loveth you" (<em><a href='B:500 16:23'>Joh 16:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:26'>Joh 16:26</a></em> RV). Who do we pray to? The Father, or the Son? Who 'does' the answer to our prayers? God, or Christ? The context of the Lord's words was that "the Father is with me... I am in the Father, and the Father is in me... the Father abiding in me doeth the works", even as the believers are in the Son and in the Father, as they are in us. This means that the question of who to pray to is on one level irrelevant. Our spirit bears witness with their Spirit, and there is only one spirit. This unity of the believer with the Father is only made possible through the Son, and so our formal prayers should be addressed to God not with "in Christ's Name" tagged on to the end of them for that smacks of ritualism, but on account of our being in Christ, we can have a direct relationship with the Father. But the essence of prayer is not formal request. To pray “in my name” could mean ‘in union with me’; yet Christ was at one with the Father. "He that searches the hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit" (<em><a href='B:520 8:27'>Rom 8:27</a></em>) without us verbalizing our spirit in formal prayer. In the same way as the priests helped / assisted the Old Testament worshippers rather than actually offered their prayers or sacrifices, so with the Lord Jesus. Paul spoke of how he would be helped "through your prayers and the help of the spirit of Jesus" (<em><a href='B:570 1:19'>Phi 1:19</a></em> RSV). Their prayers ascended directly to God, but the response was helped by the spirit of the Lord Jesus which was to be given them in the Comforter; and because He is so sublimely at one with the Father, this means that the help will surely come. The rapport between our spirit and His Spirit is again reflected by the way <em><a href='B:520 8:6'>Rom 8:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:27'>Rom 8:27</a></em> use the same phrase, “the mind of the spirit”, to describe firstly the mind of&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;spirit, and then, the mind of the spirit of the Lord Jesus.</p><p>We will no longer need Christ to ask the Father for us, we will be able to have a direct relationship with the Father in prayer. We will not need to be like the disciples, who in their immaturity asked Jesus to pass on their requests to God (<em><a href='B:500 11:22'>Joh 11:22</a></em>). He sees our spirit anyway, He knows our need anyway; this knowledge doesn't depend on the Lord's mediation. The advocate, the Comforter, identifies with the one he helps, stands next to him, knowing his case fully. But as Christ is our advocate, so we should be to our brethren ("comfort" in <em><a href='B:540 2:7'>2Co 2:7</a></em> is s:w. <em><a href='B:690 2:1'>1Jn 2:1</a></em>). This doesn't necessarily mean that we interpret our brother's words to God, but rather than we pray for our brother, in our own words; we are with our brother, supporting him, knowing his weakness. So on one hand we have a direct relationship with the Father. On the other, the Lord Jesus is our vital, saving advocate with Him. I don't think these two aspects can be reconciled by re-translation or expositional juggling. The fact is, through what the Lord achieved, we theoretically don't need His mediation any longer. He was our High Priest to bring us to God on the cross. He no longer needs to enter into the Holiest Place (cp. heaven) to gain our atonement, for this He did once for all (<em><a href='B:650 9:26'>Heb 9:26</a></em>). We should be able to pray with the earnest intensity of Elijah or Moses, who prayed without an intercessor, and were heard. But where we lack that intensity, the Lord Jesus holds up our feeble 'groanings' before the Father. Likewise He is our 'advocate', although theoretically a righteous man doesn't need an advocate. John almost writes as if 'Of course, you won't sin, but if very occasionally you do, Jesus can act as a powerful advocate for you'. And yet in reality, He is acting in the advocate role for much of our sin-stricken lives.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:27'>Joh 16:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came from the Father</em>-</p><p> The Comforter, the gift of the Spirit in their hearts, would enable them to have the same relationship with the Father which the Son enjoyed in His mortal life. This is the repeated request in the prayer of chapter 17. The Lord does not therefore need to persuade the Father to be loving and generous in response to us; He Himself and of Himself&nbsp;<em>loves us</em>. Our love of the Son is read by the Father as love of Him, because we believe that the Jesus we love is His Son, 'come from the Father'. John later extends this logic, distilling it to mean that if we love the begetter we love also the begotten- and applies this to how therefore we cannot claim to love God but not love His spiritually begotten children (<em><a href='B:690 4:1-2'>1Jn 4:1-2</a></em>). "The Father Himself loves you" is a phrase we need to bear in our hearts always. We do not need the Lord to as it were get us on His right side; He Himself directly loves us, and all our brethren too.</p><p>The Lord's statement that “You… have believed that I came out from God” elicited agreement from the disciples: “Yes, we believe that you came forth from God”. But to that He responds in :32: “Do you now believe? Behold, the hour comes, yes, is now come, when you shall be scattered, every man to his own home, and shall leave me alone”. Although they didn’t really fully believe, He said that they did. He wasn’t so in love with them that He was blind to their failures. But He was all the same so positive about their practically non-existent faith. And what’s more, He goes on to tell the Father His positive perspective on their faith: “They…have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me” (<em><a href='B:500 17:8'>Joh 17:8</a></em>). But the Lord had only just been telling the disciples that they&nbsp;<em>didn’t</em>&nbsp;really believe that He had come out from God… Yet He counted them as if they did, and reflected this to the Father in prayer. And this is surely how the Lord feels and speaks about us to the Father today. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>I came from the Father and came into the world. Now I leave the world and go to the Father-</em></p><p> The disciples have just been commended for having &quot;believed that I came from the Father&quot; (<a href='B:500 16:27'>:27</a>). Their faith was in the fact that Jesus was the begotten Son of God, that Mary had been made pregnant with Jesus by the Holy Spirit. This is what it meant to believe that the Lord Jesus &quot;came from the Father&quot;. The disciples didn't believe the Lord Jesus was some pre-existent Divine being. This was not at all what their belief in His 'coming from the Father' meant. And so His 'coming into the world' refers to His entry into the Jewish world, as the begotten, Messianic Son of God- rather than referring to any entry into earth's atmosphere from 'heaven'. Literal descent from Heaven &quot;into the world' isn't in view. Likewise His 'leaving the world' was not referring to any literal ascent from planet earth to Heaven. If this were the case, then surely the language would have been of &quot;earth&quot; rather than the more social term &quot;the world&quot;.</p>


text:
<p><em>His disciples said: Now you speak plainly and not in figurative language!- </em></p><p>The irony of course was that the Lord was still speaking in somewhat figurative language (see on <a href='B:500 16:28'>:28</a>). And the disciples didn't really understand; for after His resurrection, the Lord was to rebuke them for their lack of understanding. And yet [under Divine inspiration], the record here is a transcript of how John usually preached the Gospel. He is as it were poking fun at himself and his brethren, in that they were so sure that &quot;Ah! Now we get your sense!&quot;, when actually they were very far from it. By implication, John appeals to his audience to not be as slow to understand as he had been. And it is a similar confession of our own weakness which will make our witness the more attractive and persuasive.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:30'>Joh 16:30</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 15:16-19'>Joh 15:16-19</a></em>.</p><p><em>Now we are sure that you know all things, and do not need anyone to question you. By this we believe you came from God</em>-</p><p> They do not say to the effect that 'Ah, now we understand everything'. They realized they did not, but were now satisfied that the Lord did understand and know all things. And here we have comfort to us in our questioning of Him; the comfort is not that we know the answers, but that there are answers, and He holds them. "By this we believe you came from God" may be reported as another example of a confessional formula; the hint is to readers and listeners to make the same confession in their hearts.</p><p>The words of the Lord Jesus were the words which He had 'heard' from the Father. But this doesn't mean that He was a mere fax machine, relaying literal words which the Father whispered in His ear to a listening world. When the disciples finally grasped something of the real measure of Jesus, they gasped: "You do not even need that a person ask you questions" (<em><a href='B:500 16:30'>Joh 16:30</a></em>). They had previously treated Jesus as a Rabbi, of whom questions were asked by his disciples and then cleverly answered by him. They finally perceived that here was more than a Jewish Rabbi. They came to that conclusion, they imply, not by asking Him questions comprised of words and hearing the cleverly ordered words that comprised His answers. The words He spoke and manifested were of an altogether higher quality and nature than mere lexical items strung together. Here was none other than the Son of God, the Word made flesh in person.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:31'>Joh 16:31</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>Jesus answered them: Do you now believe?</em>-</p><p> This recalls how Joshua and Moses in their goodbye speeches questioned Israel as to whether their commitment was really what they claimed, and warning that after their death they would soon fall away. See on <em><a href='B:470 28:10'>Mat 28:10</a></em>.</p><p>However, a fair translation, supported by NIV and Leon Morris (<em>John</em>&nbsp;p. 631) is: "You now believe". In this case, He rejoiced at their faith despite knowing that they would be weak in faith (:32); in the same way as John's Gospel positively records all confession of faith in the Lord, despite noting how weak that faith was subsequently shown to be.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:32'>Joh 16:32</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 10:5'>Joh 10:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>Behold, the hour comes, yes, has come, when you shall be scattered, every man to his own home, and you shall leave me alone; and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me</em>-</p><p> The Lord’s ‘hour’ which was to come was His death (<em><a href='B:500 2:4'>Joh 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:30'>Joh 7:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:20'>Joh 8:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:23'>Joh 12:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:27'>Joh 12:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:1'>Joh 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:27'>Joh 19:27</a></em>). The disciples scattered at the crucifixion, probably they came to see it and then scattered in fear after the first hour or so. But He was not left alone; for the Father was with Him there. Just as John began his Gospel by saying that “the word was with God", with specific reference to the cross. See on <em><a href='B:500 19:19'>Joh 19:19</a></em> concerning the special presence of the Father with the Son on the cross.</p><p>Each of them ran off to their own little family, to safeguard their own petty little human possessions, and left Him alone; alone, when He most needed some human comfort and compassion, a wave from a friend in the crowd, a few silently&nbsp;mouthed words, a catching of the eye, perhaps even the courtesy of a brief hand-shake or clap on the shoulders before the 11 ran off into the night, the word 'thank-you' called out as He stumbled along the Via Dolorosa. But nothing. They cleared off, they got out, every man to his own. And the pain of betrayal with a kiss by a man He was gracious enough to think of as His equal, with whom He had shared sweet fellowship (<em><a href='B:230 55:13-14'>Psa 55:13-14</a></em>). And to hear Peter's cursing, perhaps cursing of Him; his denial that he'd ever known the guy from Nazareth. And yet in the face of&nbsp;<em>all this</em>, the Lord went on: He laid down His life&nbsp;<em>for us</em>, we who betrayed Him, scattered from Him, hated Him, did Him to death in the most degrading and painful way our race knew how. In the face of rejection to the uttermost, He served us to the end, even to death, and even to the death of the cross.</p><p>The response of the disciples to the Lord's arrest was to flee; and at the time of His resurrection, which in faith they ought to have joyfully expected, they quite literally 'went fishing'. The powerful point is made that the church was built upon the foundations of men weak in faith, who were openly discredited and who themselves, in the Gospel records, preached their own weakness. And yet they are the foundation stones of the new Jerusalem pictured in Revelation. This stands for all time as an encouragement to all in their weakness.</p><p>"The Father is with me" is recorded here in this context of weakness; for the Lord later cried from the cross that the Father had forsaken Him (<em><a href='B:470 27:46'>Mat 27:46</a></em>). Perhaps this obvious tension is introduced here to show that human crisis of faith is not necessarily sinful, for the Lord experienced it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 16:33'>Joh 16:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>These things have I spoken to you, so that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good courage; I have overcome the world</em>-</p><p> This promise of personal "peace" comes straight after the prediction of their collapse of faith and shameful abandonment of the Lord. "Peace" in the Bible usually refers to peace with God. He is saying that despite their failure, He had foreseen it and His death would deal with it, and the gift of the Spirit would involve the gift of peace in their hearts, despite their sin and weakness. They could therefore find peace with God despite their failure; and despite their tribulation in the Jewish world, particularly that which would come in the last days and AD70(<em><a href='B:480 13:9'>Mar 13:9</a></em>), their peace with the Father and Son would make them courageous and strong in the face of all rejection by the Jewish world, in which they would have tribulation.</p><p>The Lord had "overcome" the Jewish world, and every form of this world; and He frequently uses the word in His letters to the churches in Revelation 2, 3, encouraging us likewise to overcome. His spirit is to be ours. John too rather likes this word "overcome", using it of how his converts had "overcome the wicked one" and the Jewish false teachers (<em><a href='B:690 2:13-14'>1Jn 2:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:4'>1Jn 4:4</a></em>). "The wicked one" is therefore, in the first context, the Jewish world which the Lord overcame. This is why the terms "satan" and "devil" and other such titles are used about the Jewish world so often; see my chapter 'The Jewish Satan' in&nbsp;<em>The Real Devil</em>, chapter 2.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em><em>&nbsp;These things spoke Jesus</em>-</p><p> The idea is that after having given the discourse just recorded in the previous chapters, the Lord prayed this prayer. In discussing the Lord's teaching about the Comforter in chapters 14-16, we have noted that He speaks of this gift as He Himself, coming in the first instance to the disciples who had been with Him "from the beginning" and who were to convict the Jewish world of sin by their witness, in the strength of the Comforter; and yet we have also seen that the promised Comforter is essentially an internal strengthening given to all believers. These three themes are all summed up in the Lord's prayer of John 17. The prayer falls easily into the same three categories; prayer for Himself (:1-5), for the disciples (:6-19) and for all believers (:20-26).</p><p><em>And lifting up his eyes to Heaven, he said</em>-</p><p> The significance of this is that the Lord has spoken of how the Comforter would enable believers in Him to have the same kind of relationship with the Father which He had enjoyed in His mortal life. And His prayer goes on to emphasize this. The fact He could pray to God in Heaven with no sense of barrier is a profound visual indicator of the totally open nature of that relationship; and His intention is that we share the same relationship with the Father as He did.</p><p>Indeed we must ask why the record of this prayer, the Lord's longest recorded prayer, this unique insight into His relationship with the Father, is placed at this point. Why do we not have transcripts of other, earlier prayers to the Father earlier in the account? I suggest it is because it follows on from the Lord's promise that through the presence of the Spirit, believers would share His relationship with the Father. And in this prayer, we see something of what that relationship involved.</p><p><em>Father, the hour comes. Glorify Your son, that the son may glorify you</em>-</p><p> The coming of the predetermined hour for His death did not make the Lord fatalistic, merely submitting to the Father's will. Not the hour had come, He prayed to the Father. Our sense of God's utter sovereignty should lead to prayer and action, as it did with the Lord; rather than mere resignation to His will. The Lord was lifted up on the cross, and 'lifted up' is the Hebrew idea for glorification. The Lord saw the whole process of death, resurrection and ascension as glorification; He did not break the process down into chronological segments, for He looked at it from outside time as we know it. It was by or for the glory of the Father that the Lord was raised from the dead (<em><a href='B:520 6:4'>Rom 6:4</a></em>), so the glorification process includes both death and resurrection. The purpose of His glorification was for the Father's glory, and Paul alludes to this in teaching that the whole process of the Lord's humiliation and glorification was "to the glory of God the Father" (<em><a href='B:570 2:11'>Phi 2:11</a></em>). The language and concepts simply cannot be fitted in to the Trinitarian paradigm.</p><p>The echoes of Deuteronomy in the Lord’s goodbye speeches shouldn’t be missed; for Moses at this time truly was a superb type of the Lord Jesus. Deuteronomy concludes with two songs of Moses, one addressed to the Father (Deuteronomy 32), and the other to his people (Deuteronomy 33). It is apparent that the Lord’s final prayer in John 17 is divisible into the same divisions- prayer to the Father, and concern for His people. It has been observed that the prayer of John 17 is also almost like a hymn- divided into seven strophes of eight lines each. It would appear to be John’s equivalent to the record in <em><a href='B:480 14:26'>Mar 14:26</a></em> of a hymn being sung at the end of the Last Supper.</p><p>The prayer is in some ways an expanded restatement of the model prayer. In it, the Lord asks for the Father’s Name to be hallowed or glorified (<em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:11-12'>Joh 17:11-12</a></em>); for His work or will to be done or finished (<em><a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a></em>); for deliverance from the evil one (<em><a href='B:500 17:15'>Joh 17:15</a></em>). The prayer of John 17 can be divided into three units of about the same length (<em><a href='B:500 17:1-8'>Joh 17:1-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:9-19'>Joh 17:9-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:20-26'>Joh 17:20-26</a></em>). Each has the theme of glory, of directly addressing the Father, and of the needs of God’s people- all clearly taken from the model prayer.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:2'>Joh 17:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Even as You gave him authority over all flesh, so that he should give eternal life to all whom You have given him</em>-</p><p> The connection between the universal authority of the Lord and the need to preach it is made in <em><a href='B:500 17:2-3'>Joh 17:2-3</a></em> AV: “Thou hast given him power over all flesh,&nbsp;<em>that</em>&nbsp;he should give eternal life to men... and this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”. The great commission says that because He has power over all flesh, therefore we must preach Him to all flesh (<em><a href='B:470 28:18-19'>Mat 28:18-19</a></em>). <em><a href='B:500 17:2'>Joh 17:2</a></em> says that because He has this power, He can give men eternal life through the knowledge of Him. But that giving of eternal life is through the process of our obedience to the great commission to go out and offer it to all flesh. The extent of our obedience to the preaching commission is the extent to which eternal life is given to men. Their eternal destiny is placed in our hands. The authority to save all men and women has been given to the Lord, but the extent to which this becomes reality depends upon our preaching it. And yet the gift of eternal life cannot be limited to the gift of immortality at the Lord's return; for throughout John, the gift of the life eternal is a present experience. The Lord gives us His life, through the gift of His Spirit into our spirit and living. It is this which we offer to "all flesh", and it shall surely have its issue in the gift of immortality at His return.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:3'>Joh 17:3</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 10:15'>Joh 10:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 1:3'>1Jn 1:3</a></em>.</p><p><em>And this is everlasting life, that they should know You, the only true God, and him whom You sent, Jesus Christ</em>-</p><p> As noted on :2, the gift of eternal life refers not only to immortality at His return. The meaning of this idea in John is that we can live that eternal life now. And so He defines what it is to life eternal life now- it is a knowing of the Father and Son, using 'knowledge' in the Hebraic sense of relationship with. The idea is not that if we have true academic, theological knowledge about the Father and Son, we shall get eternal life at the last day as a kind of reward for being so smart. That was the Rabbinic understanding; but the Lord turns it on its head, by saying that the knowledge of Father and Son, the life lived in relationship with them, is a gift, given right now, to those who believe (:2).</p><p>The Lord usually speaks of Himself in the third person- e.g. “the son”; but here in <em><a href='B:500 17:3'>Joh 17:3</a></em> He refers to Himself in prayer to the Father as “Jesus Christ”, as if He was consciously aware of how we would later see Him, and aware that His words were being recorded for us.</p><p>He will say to many in the last day that He has never known them, for they never knew Him- for all their pure doctrine and good works. Life eternal is about knowing God and Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 17:3'>Joh 17:3</a></em>)- and the Greek word here doesn't mean to merely know in an academic sense, but to know intimately and personally in relationship. Only if we&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;see / perceive the Son will we be saved; "you have seen me and yet believe not" the Lord told the Jews, warning them that only those who see the Son&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;believe in Him will have eternal life (<em><a href='B:500 6:36'>Joh 6:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:40'>Joh 6:40</a></em>). If we really know the Son then we will likewise know His love and sacrifice is enough to truly grant us the life eternal. If we truly see the Son and believe in Him, then we will know that we (will have) eternal life- because His grace, His love, His desire to save will be so clearly evident to us through the study and knowledge of His personality. If we know Him, we will be sure of our salvation; for we are living now the kind of life which we shall eternally live, the eternal life given right now to believers through the Spirit. We will be humbly confident that in the very, final end- we will be there. There is therefore the factual, doctrinal 'knowledge' or 'seeing' which by grace has been granted us. But beyond that there is the true seeing and believing into the Man Jesus, with the definite Hope which that brings. If we&nbsp;<em>truly</em>&nbsp;know Him we will count literally all else as loss (<em><a href='B:570 3:8'>Phi 3:8</a></em>). We should not be in the faith, labouring towards the Kingdom, just so that we personally can have eternal life at the end of it. "Eternal life" in John's Gospel refers to knowing and understanding God now, rather than simply to infinity (<em><a href='B:500 17:3'>Joh 17:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:20'>1Jn 5:20</a></em>).</p><p>The "... know you" is in the continuous tense. It speaks of relationship. It is simply not so that if we attain a set level of knowledge of God and His Son, then we shall be rewarded with immortality at the last day. The 'knowledge' in view is ongoing, incremental, and therefore refers to a relationship. This point has been sadly missed by those who insist on teaching converts theology about God and Jesus, baptize them once they have attained a level of facility with it which the teacher sets, and then tells them to hold on to those understandings and hope to get immortality for it at the last day. This verse has tragically been misread to support such a view. But it teaches something quite different- to be knowing, in a continuous tense, is a gift from God; and is the definition of the gift of life eternal. That eternal knowing will of course continue eternally, throughout the Kingdom. As God is infinite, it will take eternity to get to know Him. Life eternal both then as now will be all about getting to know God and Jesus. David saw the Kingdom as a time of&nbsp;<em>enquiring</em>&nbsp;after God in His temple (<em><a href='B:230 27:4'>Psa 27:4</a></em>). According to <em><a href='B:500 17:3'>Joh 17:3</a></em> and its various Old Testament foundations, to know God is to live for ever. Eternal life is all about knowing His Name. <em><a href='B:350 6:2-3'>Hos 6:2-3</a></em> LXX puts it like this: "We shall rise from the dead and live in His presence, and have knowledge; we shall press forward to know the Lord". If we start knowing God now, and press ever forward to know His Name yet more... we have started the essence of the life which we will eternally live. And of course 'knowing the Lord' involves a personal union with Christ, experience and relationship with Him, of which intellectual knowledge is only a part. For in John's Gospel, seeing, knowing and believing are related; "he that has seen me has seen the Father" (<em><a href='B:500 14:7-9'>Joh 14:7-9</a></em>) is paralleled with "If you believe in God, believe in me" (<em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em>). We start the process of knowing the Father's Name in this life; and in this sense we embark upon what will be for us by His grace the experience of the eternal life.</p><p>The new covenant promised that all God's people would know Him (<em><a href='B:300 31:34'>Jer 31:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 8:11'>Heb 8:11</a></em>). By baptism into the Lord, that new covenant is made with all believers. The knowledge promised is therefore a gift, part of the covenant promise, the equivalent of the word to Abraham that "I will be their God", in personal relationship / knowledge with each member of the seed. This promise of knowing God begins to be fulfilled when each believer is given that knowledge / relationship. It is not the case that on the basis of acquired theological knowledge, a believer receives some blessing. Rather is the knowledge of God a gift from Him to us, in the sense of relationship with Him, in which it is more significant to be known by Him rather than to know Him academically.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You gave me to do</em>-</p><p> The Lord sees His death and resurrection as His glorification of the Father (:1). And yet He knew that in essence, He had accomplished or finished that work during His mortal life. His final cry "It is finished / accomplished" was of course significant, but the essence of His sacrifice had been made in His personality and life amongst men before that. In <em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em> He spoke of His accomplishing the Father's work as still ongoing; and an example of it was in that context the saving of the Samaritan woman. His work was the Father's work, which was bringing men to faith and the experience now of eternal life. His life was the pattern for that eternal life, and now His life was at and end, He could say that He had completed that work.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>And now Father, glorify me with Your own self with the glory which I had with You before the world was</em>-</p><p>The idea of 'apocalypse' alludes to this Jewish idea of predestined things 'existing' in Heaven with God; for 'apocalypse' means literally an unveiling, a revealing of what is in Heaven. In this sense the believer at the resurrection will receive what was already laid up in store for him or her in Heaven (<em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:5'>Col 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>). Because of this, Hebrew can use past tenses to speak of that which is future (e.g. <em><a href='B:290 5:13'>Isa 5:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 9:2'>Isa 9:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 9:12'>Isa 9:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 10:28'>Isa 10:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 28:16'>Isa 28:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 34:2'>Isa 34:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 15:18'>Gen 15:18</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:510 7:5'>Act 7:5</a></em>). Things can thus "be" before they are created: "They are and were created" (<em><a href='B:730 4:11'>Rev 4:11</a></em>). And thus when the Lord Jesus speaks of the glory which He had with God from the beginning, there is no suggestion there that He therefore existed in glory from the beginning. He didn't ask for that glory to be restored to Him, as trinitarianism demands; instead He asked that the glory which He already had in the Divine purpose, be given to Him. Significantly, there is a Greek word which specifically refers to personal, literal pre-existence:&nbsp;<em>pro-uparchon</em>-</p><p> and it's never used about the Lord Jesus.</p><p>To understand this verse, we must enquire what the Bible means when it speaks about “glory”. The glory of God was revealed to Moses at Sinai- and what he heard was the declaration of God’s Name or character, that Yahweh is a God full of grace, mercy, truth, justice, judgment etc. (<em><a href='B:20 33:19'>Exo 33:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:6-7'>Exo 34:6-7</a></em>). Jesus alludes to what happened at Sinai by saying that He has “glorified you… manifested your name” (<em><a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em>) before the foundation of the Jewish world, which was at Sinai. Whenever those characteristics of God are recognized, manifested or openly shown, God is glorified. In this sense, God is the “God of glory” (<em><a href='B:230 29:3'>Psa 29:3</a></em> etc:). He is totally associated with His Name and characteristics- it’s not that He just shows those particular attributes to men, but He Himself personally is someone quite different. He&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;His glory. And this is why <em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em> parallels His glory with God’s very own “self”.</p><p>That glory of God was of course always with God, right at the beginning. He hasn’t changed His essential characteristics over time. The God of the Old Testament is the same God as in the New Testament. As John begins his Gospel by saying in the prologue, the essential “Word”,&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of God, His essential plans, intentions, personality, was in the beginning with Him. It was “made flesh” in the person of Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>), in that the Lord Jesus in His life and especially in His death on the cross revealed all those attributes and plans of God in a concrete, visible form- to perfection.</p><p>The request of Jesus to be glorified is therefore asking for the Name / attributes / characteristics / glory / word of God to be openly revealed in Him. Surely He had in mind His resurrection, and the glorifying of God which would take place as a result of this being preached and believed in world-wide:&nbsp;</p><p>But in what sense was this the glory which Jesus had with God before the world was? The “glory” of God was revealed to Moses at Sinai in Exodus 34 as the declaration of His character, at the beginning of the Jewish world. In this sense, the Lord Jesus could speak of having in His mortal life “that glory which was with the Father” when the Jewish world came into existence at Sinai (<em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em> Ethiopic and Western Text). It was that same glory which, like Moses, He reflected to men. But according to <em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>, the very experience of gazing upon the glory of His character will change us into a reflection of it. There is something transforming about the very personality of Jesus. And perhaps this is why we have such a psychological barrier to thinking about Him deeply. We know that it has the power to transform and intrude into our innermost darkness.</p><p>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>).</p><p>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;</p><p>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 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 (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>). 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. That glory was with God from the beginning. The Lord Jesus was in the mind and plan of God from the beginning. It was God’s original plan to resurrect and glorify and justify His Son. And in <em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em>, the Lord is asking that this will happen.</p><p>The glory which the Lord Jesus had “before the world was” is connected with the way that He was “foreordained before the foundation of the world” (<em><a href='B:670 1:20'>1Pe 1:20</a></em>), the way God promised us eternal life (through His Son) before the world was (<em><a href='B:630 1:2'>Tit 1:2</a></em>). <em><a href='B:620 1:9'>2Ti 1:9</a></em> speaks of us as being called to salvation in Christ “before the world began”, He “chose us in Him before the foundation of the world” (<em><a href='B:560 1:4'>Eph 1:4</a></em>). In the same way as we didn’t personally exist before the world began, neither did Christ. Indeed <em><a href='B:530 2:7'>1Co 2:7</a></em> speaks of&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;having some form of glory with God “before the world began”. It’s the idea of this “one glory” again- God’s glory existed, and it was His plan to share it with His Son and with us; and He speaks of those things which are not as though they are, so certain are they of fulfilment (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em>, the Lord Jesus is ‘pleading the promise’ of these things. We have noted that the Lord speaks of His whole process of death, resurrection and ascension as one item- going to the Father, glorification. He doesn't break it down into chronological segments, and likewise His talk of glory before is spoken from the Divine perspective, outside the limitations which our kind of time places upon our language.</p><p>We need to remember that the Lord was speaking, and John was writing, against a Jewish background. The language of 'pre-existence' was common in Jewish thinking and writing. To be 'with God' didn't mean, in Jewish terms, to be up there in heaven with God literally. Mary had favour&nbsp;<em>para</em>&nbsp;God (<em><a href='B:490 1:30'>Luk 1:30</a></em>) in the same way as Jesus had glory&nbsp;<em>para</em>&nbsp;God, but this doesn't mean she pre-existed or was in Heaven with God with her "favour". The Torah supposedly pre-existed, everything on earth was a pattern of the pre-existing ideas of those things which were held in the plan and mind of God in Heaven. <em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em> has reference to these things: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed". The Talmud and Genesis Rabbah speak of the "Throne of Glory" pre-existing before the world existed. And the Lord Jesus seems to be alluding to that. The Jewish mind wouldn't have understood the Lord Jesus to be making any claim here to have bodily, physically existed before birth. Peter reflected Jewish thinking when he wrote (albeit under inspiration) that Jesus was "foreknown" before the foundation of the world (<em><a href='B:670 1:20'>1Pe 1:20</a></em> ESV). Think through the implications of being "foreknown"- the Greek word used is the root of the English word 'prognosis'. If God 'foreknew' His Son, the Son was not literally existent next to Him at the time of being 'foreknown'. Otherwise the language of 'foreknowing' becomes meaningless. He goes on to say that the faithful were 'God's' (:6), who were given to the Lord. This is another example of speaking of things which were not as though they were.</p>


