Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - John 14:1 - 14:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
14:1 ff. The opening verses of c. 14 are among the most familiar and the most precious in our Authorised Version of the Bible. It is an ungrateful task to disturb their beautiful cadences, charged with many memories, by offering a different rendering of the Greek text. But it must be attempted here, as at other points in the Fourth Gospel, if we are to express as nearly as we can the meaning of the evangelist’s words. In v. 1, as will be seen, Tyndale’s translation of 1534 has been preferred to the A.V. of 1611.
The Promise of a Future Life, Where the Disciples Would Be with Jesus (14:1-4)
1. D prefixes κὶεπντῖ μθτὶ ατῦ probably to soften the apparent abruptness of the words which follow. But no introduction is necessary; for there is an intimate connexion between 13:38 and 14:1. The warning to Peter that he would presently deny his Master must have shocked him, as it silenced him. He is not among the disciples who ask questions as to the meaning of Jesus’ sayings in c. 14, nor is he mentioned again until c. 18. But the other disciples, too, must have been startled and saddened by the thought that the foremost among them would fail in the hour of trial. If that were so, who among them could be confident of himself? Indeed, they had already been warned that their faith would not be strong enough to keep them at the side of Jesus when the dark hour of His arrest came (16:31, 32). But this renewed suggestion of the instability of their allegiance, superadded to the announcements that Jesus had made of His impending departure from them (16:5-7, 13:33, 36), and of the persecutions which were in store for them (15:18-21, 16:33), had filled them with deep sorrow. So He sought to reassure them with a new message of consolation, which taught them to look beyond this earthly life to the life after death.
μ τρσέθ ὑῶ ἡκρί. The human experience of a “troubled” spirit had been His, more than once, during the last weeks (cf. 11:33, 12:27, 13:21), and He knew how painful it was.
πσεεεεςτνθό, κὶεςἐὲπσεεε These are probably both imperatives: “believe in God (cf. Mar_11:22); in me also believe.” Belief in God should, of itself, turn their thoughts to the security of the future life; and then, if they believed in Jesus, they would recall promises to them which He had made about this (see v. 3, with its two clauses).
Grammatically, πσεεεmight be pres. indicative in either place or in both, and the familiar “Ye believe in God; believe also in me,” gives a good sense. But it seems more natural to take πσεεεin the same way in the first clause as in the second.
The true source of consolation for a troubled spirit is faith in God (cf. Psa_27:13, Psa_141:8 etc.), and in Jesus whom God sent (cf. Mar_5:36). The disciples had already professed (16:30) their faith in Jesus, but He had warned them that it was not invincible (16:31).
For the constr. εςτν πσεεν never used by Jn. of faith in man, see on 1:12.
2. ἐ τ οκᾳτῦπτό μυκλ i.e. heaven; cf. Philo, who speaks of the soul returning εςτνπτῷνοκν(de somn. i. 43).
μνὶπλα. The idea that there are “many mansions” in heaven, corresponding to different degrees of human merit, may not have been entirely new in Jewish religion. In the Sclavonic Book of the Secrets of Enoch (lxi. 2) we find: “In the world to come …there are many mansions prepared for men: good for the good; evil for evil” (cf. Ethiopic Enoch, xxxix. 4: “The mansions of the holy, and the resting-places of the righteous”). Charles dates the Sclavonic Enoch as between 1 and 50 a.d.; but we cannot be sure that it was known in Palestine during our Lord’s ministry. Nor can we be sure that μνίwas the Greek behind the Sclavonic word which Charles translates “mansions.” If it were, then μνίmeant “mansions” in the sense of “abodes,” not of “stages,” which are only halting-places.
μν is found elsewhere in the Greek Bible only at v. 23 (where it must mean “permanent abode,” not a mere passing stage) and 1 Macc. 7:38 (where again the idea of permanence is involved). In Pausanias (x. 41) μν is used in the sense of a stopping-place, a station on a journey; and this sense, if introduced into the present passage, suggests interesting speculations.
Thus Origen (de Princip. II. xi. 6) says that departed saints first live in some place “on the earth, which Scripture calls Paradise,” where they receive instruction. If worthy, they quickly ascend to a place in the air and reach the kingdom, through mansions, “which the Greeks call spheres, but Scripture heavens”; following Jesus, who “passed through the heavens” (Heb_4:14). Origen then quotes Joh_14:2, Joh_14:3, showing that he understood μνί as stations or halting-places on the journey to God. His singular interpretation is not likely to be accepted, but his use of μν is to be noted.
An earlier citation of Joh_14:2 is to be found in a passage quoted by Irenæ (adv. Hæ v. xxxvi. 12) from the “Sayings of the Elders,” which is probably an extract from Papias.1 According to the Elders, some good men will be counted worthy of a δαρβ in heaven; others will enjoy paradise; others “the city,” the Saviour being seen of them all. This, the Elders say, is what is meant by the distinction between the thirtyfold, sixtyfold, hundredfold harvests in the Parable of the Sower. κὶδὰτῦοερκνιτνκρο, Ἐ τῖ τῦπτό μυμνςενιπλά. For all are of God, who gives to each his appropriate οκσς This is the triclinium, the couch for three, on which shall recline those who are called to the Marriage Feast. This, the Elders said, is the dispositio of those who are saved, who advance by steps of this kind, through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father.
The first part of this implies that the μνίare the permanent abodes of the blessed, which vary in glory; but the last sentence suggests, on the contrary, that the μνίare stages, and that a saint may pass from one to another. The general patristic interpretation of μνίis, however, “abiding-places”; not mansiones, which are like inns on a journey, but permanent habitations.
Clement of Alexandria often has the word μν, and always with allusion to Joh_14:2. In Strom. vi. 14 he refers (as Papias does) to the thirtyfold, sixtyfold, hundredfold harvests, which he says hint at (ανσοα) the three μνίwhere the saints dwell according to their respective merits. So, again, he says (Strom. iv. 6) that there are with the Lord κὶμσο κὶμνὶπεοε κτ ἀαοίνβω. Clement taught consistently that there were degrees of glory in the heavenly world. In Strom. vii. 14 he explains that the “other sheep not of this fold” (Joh_10:16) are deemed worthy of another fold and another μν in proportion to their faith.” Once more, in Strom. v. 1, he uses μν for the dwelling-place of God, as distinct from τπς which is the locality where the μν is situated.
These citations show that μνίin v. 2 (as in v. 23 and 1 Macc. 7:38) must mean “abodes” or permanent dwelling-places, not merely temporary stations on a journey. The idea conveyed by the saying “In my Father’s house are many mansions” is that of a hospitable palace with many chambers, rather than of a journey with many stages.
οκαis hardly to be distinguished from οκς except that οκαis the larger word, embracing the precincts of the house as well as the house itself. Cf. 8:35, 2Co_5:1; and see on 2:16. For the significance of the full phrase “My Father,” cf. 2:16, 5:17 and vv. 20-23.
In heaven there are “many mansions,” i.e. there is room for all the faithful, although it is not said that they shall all be housed with equal dignity.
ε δ μ occurs again in Jn. at v. 23 only; and then after an imperative. It seems here to mean “if it were not so, ” i.e. if the preceding statement were not true. Cf. Abbott, Diat. 2080.
ὅιbefore πρύμιis omitted in the rec. text, with CcorrNΓΘa e f q. Accordingly the A.V. places a full stop after “told you,” and proceeds with “I go to prepare a place for you,” as a new sentence. But ὅιmust be retained with א b c ff2 syrr. and cop. vss. How to translate it is not obvious, for ὅιmay mean either because or that.
(a) The R.V. takes ὅιas equivalent to because, with Meyer, Westcott, Godet, Swete, and others. “If it were not so, I would have told you, for (i.e. because) I go to prepare a place for you.” It is difficult to accept the sequence of thought which this rendering involves, sc.: if there was not plenty of room, He would have told them this bad news, because He is going to prepare a place. But that He was going to prepare a place for them could not be a reason for telling them that there was not plenty of room. This translation, when analysed, is hardly intelligible.
(b) A second expedient is to treat ε δ μ, επνἂ ὑῖ, as parenthetical, and to connect directly “In my Father’s house are many mansions” with “because I go to prepare a place for you.” But again the sequence fails, for we should rather expect, “I go to prepare a place for you, because in my Father’s house are many mansions.”
(c) It is more natural to take ὅιafter επνἂ ὑῖ as meaning that; sc., it is what the grammarians call ὅιrecitantis, introducing the actual words that might have been spoken. Syr. sin takes it thus: “I should have said that I go.” Then we render: “In my Father’s house are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you.” But the difficulty of this is that He was going to prepare a place for them, as v. 3 implies. Origen took the verse thus, assuming that ὅιis recitantis, although he notices the contradiction with v. 3.1
(d) The remaining alternative is to take επνἂ ὑῖ ὅικλ as interrogative: “If there were not many mansions, would I have said to you that I go to prepare a place for you?” There is only one difficulty about this rendering, sc. that hitherto there has been no record of Jesus having told His disciples that He was going to prepare a place for them. At 13:36 He had told Peter that he would follow Him later, and no doubt the other disciples expected that this promise was to be fulfilled in their case also. But the explicit words “I go to prepare a place for you” do not appear before this verse. Jn., however, more than once records references made by Jesus to former sayings of His which cannot be traced with certainty (see 6:36, 10:25, 11:40), so that there is no insuperable difficulty, on this head, of taking the sentence interrogatively. This rendering is adopted by Moffatt, Strachan, and W. Bauer.2
πρύμι See on 16:7 for this verb.
ἑομσιτπνὑῖ. This was one of the purposes of His impending departure. He was the πόρμςof all the faithful (Heb_6:20). Jn. does not use ἑομζι elsewhere, but the verb is used Mar_10:40, Mat_20:23, of the highest seats in the Messianic kindgom which have been “prepared” by God for those whom He has chosen (cf. Heb_11:16). In the present passage, ἑομζι does not carry the idea of predestination; it is only “to make ready,” as at Mar_14:16, Luk_9:52.
τπςis used of a “place” in heaven, Rev_12:8; also in Clem. Rom_5, where it is said of Peter ἐοεθ εςτνὀελμνντπντςδξς In the Revelation of Peter, τπςis similarly used; and also in the Acts of Thomas, c. 22.
3. κὶἐνπρυῶ repeated in substance from 16:7.
τπνὑῖ is the order of words in א but the rec. has ὑῖ τπν with WΘ
πλνἔχμι The present tense expresses the certainty of the future return: “I am coming back.” This is an explicit announcement of the Parousia, or Second Advent. Not as much is said about this in Jn. as in the Synoptists; but it is nevertheless an integral element in Johannine doctrine, more emphatic in the First Epistle than in the Gospel (cf. 21:22, 23 and 1Jn_2:28).1
κὶπρλμοα κλ Perhaps πρλμάενhas here, as at 1:11, the meaning of receiving with welcome (cf. Son_8:2); but at 19:17 it is equivalent to “seize.” For this meeting of Master and disciples, cf. 1Th_4:17.
ἵαὅο εμ ἐὼκὶὑεςἦε This is, in a sense, true of earthly discipleship (12:26), but it is to be fulfilled more perfectly hereafter (17:24).
4. ὅο ἐὼὑάωοδτ τνὁό is the reading of א But, as Field has pointed out, this is an ungrammatical construction. τνὁὸ ὅο ὑάωis not good Greek, if it means τνὁὸ ἥ ὑάω Furthermore, the comment of Thomas in v. 5 distinguishes clearly between the goal and the way, so that we should expect to find the same distinction inherent in the words of Jesus which drew it forth The rec. text is ὅο ἐὼὑάωοδτ, κὶτνὁὸ οδτ. This is supported by AC3DNΓΘwith most cursives, and by the Syriac, Coptic, and O.L. vss. generally. If this were the original reading, we can see how easily the words οδτ κίmight have dropped out, the eye being caught by the second οδτ. To claim that the uncials א must outweigh the evidence of practically all the ancient versions, especially when they present an ungrammatical reading, is to claim too much for them. Accordingly, we follow the textus receptus here.
ὅο ἐὼὑάωοδτ. Peter had already shown that he, at any rate, did not know this, for he asked πῦὐάες (13:36). But the disciples ought to have known, for Jesus had told them several times. He was going, He had said, πὸ τνπματ μ (7:33, 16:5), or πὸ τνπτρ (16:10, 28), or to His Father’s house (v. 2). The phrase ὑάωπὸ τνπτρ had already been the subject of perplexed comment by the disciples (16:17). They had not understood how Jesus was to “go to the Father,” but that this was the goal of the journey, of which He had spoken to them so often on this last night, He had repeated again and again. And so He said now, “You know where I am going.”
κὶτνὁὸ οδτ. This too they should have understood. They did not yet know that for Him the Way to the Father was the Way of Death (see on 16:5), for even yet they had not realised that He was soon about to die. They may not have understood that they, too, must die before they could inhabit the heavenly mansions where He was to prepare a place for them (v. 2). It is not clear that they had abandoned hopes of a Messianic kingdom shortly to be established on earth, in which high stations of honour should be theirs. τνὁὸ οδτ did not mean that they knew, or ought to have known, that the way to the Father was through death. But they ought to have “known” that the way to the Father’s house was in fellowship with Jesus. This, in some measure, they must have realised at the end of their training; and so He reminds them that they “know the way,” sc. they know that only in that fellowship with Him which Jn. calls “believing on Him” could the way to life be trodden.
The Question of Thomas, and the Answer to It (vv. 5-7)
5. Thomas now intervenes. Peter was the first to interrupt the great discourse by asking, “Whither goest thou?” (see 13:36). Thomas presses the question, and urges that they could not be expected to know the answer. The Eleven had been perplexed when this “going” of Jesus to the Father had been mentioned at an earlier point in the discourse (16:17), and their perplexities had not yet been removed. We have already had Thomas appearing as spokesman for the rest (11:16), Peter perhaps being absent on that occasion. But Peter is silent now, although present, probably because of the severity of the rebuke and warning which he had just received (13:38). He would hardly venture again to interrupt Jesus by questions.
For κρε see on 1:38. Thomas declares that they do not know where Jesus was going, and that therefore they cannot be expected to know the way. Yet one may know the way without knowing exactly the goal of one’s journey; and this is specially true of the Christian pilgrimage.
There are unimportant variants. אΓΘ with most vss., have κὶafter ὑάες and this may be right; but BC*LW and Syr. sin. omit κίthe omission being characteristic of Jn.’s paratactic style. Again, for πςοδμντνὁό; (BC*D a b c), the rec., with AC2LNWΓΘ has πςδνμθ τνὁὸ εδνι which looks like an explanatory correction of the shorter reading.
6. א om. ὁbefore Ἰσῦ, but ins. ABC3DNWΘ See on 1:29.
ἐώεμ. On this majestic construction, see Introd., pp. cxvii-cxxi.
ἐώεμ ἡὁό. This is the central thought here, the words following, sc. κὶἡἀήεακὶἡζή being not directly involved in the context, but added to complete the great declaration.
To walk in God’s way has been the aspiration of pious men of every race; and Israel was especially warned not to turn aside from the ὁό which God had commanded (Deu_5:32, Deu_5:33, Deu_5:31:29; cf. Isa_30:21, Isa_35:8). “Teach me Thy way” is the Psalmist’s prayer (Psa_27:11; cf. Psa_25:4, Psa_86:11). Philo, after his manner, describes the “royal way” (ὁό) as philosophy, and he says that Scripture calls it the ῥμ and λγςof God (de post. Caini, 30), quoting Deu_17:11. More apposite here, however, is the declaration of the Epistle to the Hebrews that the way to the holy place was not made plain before Christ (Heb_9:8), who dedicated “a new and living way” through the veil of His flesh (Heb_10:20). This is the doctrine which becomes explicit (cf. Eph_2:18) in the words “I am the Way.” In the Acts (9:2, 19:9) the Christian profession is called “the Way,” but this does not provide a true parallel to the present verse. Again, in the second-century Acts of John (§95) there is a Gnostic hymn ascribed to Christ which ends with ὁό εμ σιποδτ, “A Way am I to thee, a wayfarer.” This, however, does not go as far as the claim involved in ἐώεμ ἡὁό. The uniqueness of Christ’s claim in Jn. is that He is the Way, i.e. the only Way, to God. This is the heart of the Johannine message, which admits of no compromise with non- Christian religions, and in fact takes no account of such. See on 10:9.
For ἀήεαin Jn., see on 1:41. Both the exclusiveness and the inclusiveness (cf. Col_2:3) of the claim ἐώεμ …ἡἀήεαare thoroughly Johannine. This is to say much more than to admit, as the Pharisees did, that Jesus taught τνὁὸ τῦθο ἐʼἀηεα (Mar_12:14, Mat_22:16, Luk_20:21).
The idea of Christ’s teaching as true does not strictly come into the argument or exposition here; and it would seem that the juxtaposition of ἡὁό and ἡἀήεαis due to a reminiscence of O.T. phraseology. Cf. “I have chosen the way of truth” (Psa_119:30); and see the same expression, ὁὸ ἀηεα, at Wisd. 5:6, Tob. 1:3 (cf. 2Pe_2:2). More striking still is, “Teach me thy Way, O Lord; I will walk in thy Truth” (Psa_86:11; cf. Psa_26:3), where the “Truth” is a synonym for the “Way.” So, again, a Psalmist says that the ὁο of the Lord are mercy and truth (Psa_25:10). Perhaps the close association in O.T. phraseology between ἡὁό and ἡἀήεαmay account for the introduction of the word ἀήεαat this point.
κὶἡζή This is included in another of the great Similitudes, ἐώεμ ἡἀάτσςκὶἡζή(11:25). ζήis one of the keywords of the Fourth Gospel: “in Him was life” is the explicit pronouncement of the Prologue (1:4), and that men might have “life in His Name” was the purpose of the composition of the book (20:31). Cf. Col_3:4. The declaration “I am the Life” could not be out of place at any point of the Gospel (cf. v. 19); but nevertheless it does not help the exposition at this point, where the thought is specially of Christ as the Way.
Here again we are reminded of the O.T. phrase “the way (or ‘ways’) of life” (Pro_6:23, Pro_10:17, Pro_15:24): cf. ἐνρσςμιὁοςζῆ (Psa_16:11). In Mat_7:14 the way that leads to life is described as straitened; and in Heb_10:20 we hear of the “living way” (ὁὸ ζσ) which Jesus dedicated. The thought of Jesus as the Way would naturally be associated with the thought of Him as the Life. Cf. also Heb_7:25.
Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr.) suggests that the idiom here is Hebrew, the Way and the Truth and the Life meaning the True and Living Way. (He compares Jer_29:11, where the Hebrew “a latter end and hope” means “a hoped-for latter end.”) This at any rate brings out the point, that the emphasis is on the Way, as the concluding words, “No one comes to the Father but through me, ” show. To claim to be not only a way to God, but the only Way, is in effect to claim to be the Truth and the Life.
There is a curious Christian interpolation in the Vulgate text of Ecclus. 24:25, which is a paraphrase of this Similitude. Wisdom says of herself, “In me gratia omnis uiae et ueritatis, in me omnis spes uitae et uirtutis,” where the triple alliteration, Via, Veritas, Vita, is reinforced by a fourth word, Virtus.
7. The verb contains a rebuke. The disciples ought to have known what was meant by going to “the Father.” That they did not know the Father was due to the fact that they had not yet learnt to know the Son.
ε ἐνκιέμ, κὶτνπτρ μυἂ ᾔετ. Jesus had said the same thing to His Jewish critics (8:19), in identical language, except that in the former passage we have ε ἐὲᾔετ instead of ε ἐνκιέμ. But we cannot distinguish οδ from γνσωin passages like this (see on 1:26 for the usage of these verbs).
For ἐνκιε(ABCD2LNΘ and ᾔετ (BC*L), א have ἐνκτ and γώεθ, which would turn the rebuke into a promise. Syr. sin. gives, “If me ye have not known, my Father also will ye know?” For ᾔετ the rec. substitutes ἐνκιε(AC3D2NΓΘ so that the same verb may appear in both clauses.
ἀʼἄτ κλ So BC*L, omitting the prefatory κί this would be consonant with Jn.’s paratactic style. But ins. אΓΘ a strong combination. If κίis retained, it stands for κίο, in accordance with a Johannine idiom (see on 3:11). In any case, there is a contrast between the rebuke in the first part of the verse and the assurance in the second part.
ἀʼἄτ γνσεεατνκλ “from now (see on 13:19 for ἀʼἄτ) you are beginning to know Him.” This is the force of the present tense γνσεε which אtries to emphasise by reading γώεθ. The moment marked by ἀʼἄτ is the moment of the Passion; cf. ννἐοάθ ὁυὸ τῦἀθώο (13:31), and see on 16:5. The Revelation of the Father was not complete until Jesus had removed His visible presence. Only after that did His disciples begin to understand how much He had revealed of God’s nature and purpose (cf. 17:3). In the next generation, Jn. could say of his younger fellow-disciples ἐνκτ τνπτρ (1Jn_2:13). But during the earthly ministry of Jesus that claim could not have been made. (“No one knoweth (γνσε) who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whom the Son willeth to reveal Him” (Luk_10:22; cf. Mat_11:27, who substitutes ἐιιώκι signifying complete knowledge, for the simple γνσε).
κὶἑρκτ ατν BC* omit ατν(perhaps because of the difficulty of the phrase), but ins. אΘ The verb ὁᾶ in the pres. and pft. tenses (see on 3:32; and cf. 1:51) is generally, but not always, used in Jn. of seeing with the eyes of the body. θὸ οδὶ ἑρκνππτ (1:18; cf. 5:37) is a general principle of Judaism: the only One of whom it could be said ἑρκντνπτρ is Jesus (6:46), and in that case the reference is to spiritual vision. But at v. 9 we have ὁἑρκςἐὲἑρκντνπτρ, which is parallel to ὁθωῶ ἐὲθωε τνπματ μ (12:45, where see note). In neither case can the verb for “seeing” be taken as representing physical vision, for many of the opponents of Jesus who “saw” Him in the flesh did not thereby “see the Father.” Accordingly θωῶ at 12:45 and ἑρκνin v. 9 must imply spiritual insight in some degree. Those who saw in the Works and Life of Christ something of His purpose and personality, thereby saw something of the nature of God who sent Him. Those who “saw and hated” Jesus, on the other hand, could be justly said to have “seen and hated” God the Father (15:24); the false impression which they acquired of Jesus, issuing in an equally false impression of God. Thus the strange statement, as it must have seemed, “You are beginning to know Him, and (indeed) have seen Him,” must mean that while the disciples would begin henceforth consciously to appropriate the new revelation of God as He is, they had already (although unconsciously) “seen” the reflection of His mind and purpose in the life of Jesus, with whom they had long been in close intimacy.
Abbott (Diat. 2760-2764) suggests as possible another rendering (apparently favoured by Nonnus) of ἀʼἄτ γνσεεατνκὶἑρκτ ατν which takes γνσεεas an imperative, “From henceforth begin to know Him, and (then) you have seen Him.” But this makes ἑρκτ ατνeven more difficult than it is when we take γνσεεas indicative, for with this rendering there can be no reference to “seeing” God in Jesus, visible in the flesh.
Philip Asks to Be Shown the Father. The Coinherence of the Father and the Son Explained (vv. 8-14)
8. λγιατ φλπο κλ For Philip, see on 1:43. This is the third interruption of the discourse by a disciple. Their intimacy with Jesus was such that they ventured, even at this solemn hour and while He was bidding them farewell, to ask questions at any point where they did not understand Him; always addressing Him with the Κρεof respect (13:37, 14:5, 22). Philip goes beyond a mere question. His remark is rather an argumentative challenge: “Show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
ἀκῖ has occurred before at 6:7; Moulton-Milligan illustrate (s.v.) the impersonal use of the verb, as here, from the papyri.
δῖο ἡῖ τνπτρ. Probably Philip wished for a theophany, such as that which Exo_33:18f. tells was granted to Moses when he prayed “Show me Thy glory.” Judas the son of James had similar desires and perplexities (see v. 22).
9. τσῦο χόο. So ABNΓΘ but א have the dative τσύῳχόῳ
There is something of pathos in the reproach, “Have I been so long with you all (μθ ὑῶ), and hast thou not learnt to know me, Philip?” the personal name (cf. 20:16, 21:15) suggesting affectionate regard. The sheep know (γνσοσν their shepherd (10:14), and Philip ought to have “known” Jesus by this time. But to fail to see God in Jesus was to fail to know Jesus.
ὁἑρκςἐὲἑρκντνπτρ. See on v. 7 above; and cf. Col_1:15, Heb_1:3.
After πτρ, the rec. ins. κίwith ADLNΓΘ but om. א
πςσ λγι κλ “how is that you say, etc.,” σ being emphatic, “you who have followed me from the beginning” (1:43f.).
10. ο πσεεςκλ This was to expect a greater faith than He asked of the blind man (9:35), or even of Martha (11:27). Jesus expected of the Eleven, who had enjoyed a longer and more intimate association with Him than others, that they should appreciate in some measure the deeper secrets of His being. The “evolution” of faith is always towards a larger faith.
ὅιἐὼἐ τ πτίκλ Here is the mystery of that oneness with the Father which is always prominent in Jn. Jesus had held this Divine coinherence up to the Jews as a belief which they might ultimately recognise as true (10:38), but He did not reproach them for not having reached it yet. Philip was in a different position, and ought to have learnt something of it before now. The two lines of testimony to which Jesus appeals in support of His claim to reciprocal communion with the Father, here as elsewhere, are His words and His works. See on 10:38, where the argument is almost identical with that of vv. 10, 11, and expressed in the same terms.
τ ῥμτ. See on 3:34 for the “words” of Jesus as divine.
τ ῥμτ ἃἐὼλγ ὑῖ. The rec., with אΓΘ has λλ from the next clause, but B2LN have λγ (which has been omitted in B* through misreading ἐὼλγ). λγ is often used in Jn. interchangeably with λλ, as here. See on 3:11.
ἀʼἐατῦο λλ. This He had said several times. See the references given in the note on 7:17.
ὁδ πτρὁἐ ἐο μννThe second ὁis omitted in BL, but is preserved in אΘ
πιῖτ ἔγ ατῦ So א but the rec., with AΓΘ has ατςπιῖτ ἔγ, a correction due to the tendency to describe the miracles as Christ’s rather than as the Father’s. But to distinguish thus is contrary to Johannine teaching. See especially on 5:19. The ἔγ of Jesus are also the ἔγ of God the Father.
In this verse the words of Jesus are treated as among his works. Both are, as it were, the λλαof the Father. But they may be considered separately, His words appealing more directly to the conscience and spiritual insight of His hearers, His works appealing rather to their intellect, as indicative of His superhuman personality.
11. πσεεέμι The plural shows that Jesus now addresses Himself not to Philip individually, but to the disciples collectively, whose spokesman for the moment Philip was. “Believe me,” sc. believe my words when I tell you that I am in the Father and the Father in me (repeated in identical terms from v. 10). He does not say “Believe in me” here. He merely appeals (as at 5:47, 10:38) to the testimony of His own sayings, as worthy of credit (cf. 4:21).
ε δ μ, δὰτ ἔγ ατ πσεεέμι This is the appeal to His miraculous works (cf. 3:2, 5:36, 10:37) in support of His great claim of unity with the Father. The faith which is generated by an appeal like this is not the highest type of faith, but it is not despised by Jesus. Better to believe because of miracles than not to believe at all. See on 6:36, 10:38; and cf. 2:23, 3:2, 4:48.
The concluding μιis omitted after πσεεεby א but ins. ABΓΘ
12. ἀὴ ἀὴ λγ ὑῖ, the customary prelude to a solemn and unexpected saying. See on 1:51.
He had appealed to His ἔγ. He now assures His hearers that the Christian believer shall be endued with power to do the like or even greater things, and in particular that he shall have the secret of efficacious prayer (vv. 13, 14).
ὁπσεω εςἐέThis He had bidden them all to do (v. 1), and He returns to the phrase, which involves more than πσεεέμιof v. 11 (see on 1:12). But, as Bengel says, “qui Christo de se loquenti credit, in Christum credit.”
τ ἔγ ἃἐὼπι κκῖο πισι He had already given such power to the Twelve (Mar_6:7, Mar_6:13), and in [Mk.] 16:17 it is recorded that He renewed this assurance after His Resurrection.
κὶμίοατύω, “greater things,” not necessarily more extraordinary “miracles,” to the eye of the unspiritual observer. These works of wonder, healing the blind and the sick, etc., were not reckoned by Jesus among His own “greater” works (see on 5:20). The “greater things” which the apostles were to achieve, were the far-reaching spiritual effects which their preaching was to bring about. The teaching of the Incarnate Son was confined to one country, and while He was in the flesh His adherents were few. But His Church made conquest of the nations of the world.
ὅιἐὼπὸ τνπτρ πρύμι His departure from their visible presence increased the apostles’ spiritual power (see on 16:7 above). As He goes on to explain (vv. 13, 14), their spiritual effectiveness in prayer will be increased beyond all limits hitherto presupposed, for their prayers will be offered “in His Name.”
For πὸ τνπτρ πρύμι cf. v. 28; and see on 16:28.
13. κὶὅτ ἄ ατστ κλ “And” (further, in addition to the promise of v. 12, and following from it) “whatsoever ye shall ask in my Name, I will do it.” See on 15:16 for this great promise, here repeated for the fifth time.
It is not said here to whom the prayer is addressed, but we should probably understand τνπτρ as at 15:16, 16:23. Jesus is the Way (v. 6), and while prayers are naturally addressed to the Father, they are addressed through Jesus, “in the Name of” Jesus.
There is, however, an advance here on the teaching of 15:16, 16:23. In the former passages it is the Father who answers prayer, who gives what the faithful petitioner asks; but here and at v. 14 it is the Son who is to grant the boon, πισ being twice repeated. For, in the teaching of Jesus as presented in Jn., what the Father does, the Son does (cf. 10:30). Swete’s paraphrase is thoroughly Johannine. “We pray to the Father in Christ’s Name; we receive the answer from the Father. Yet we receive it through the Son and by the action of the Son.” The difference between δσι “He will give,” of 16:23, and πισ, “I will do,” of 14:13 is the difference between the Jewish and the Christian doctrine of prayer.
ἵαδξσῇὁπτρἐ τ υῷ This is only verbally similar to 13:31, where see note. All that is done by Christ in His heavenly ministry is a “glorification” of the Father, a revelation to men of His power and compassion. This is the final cause of Christ’s work.
For the absolute use of υό in Jn., see on 3:35.
14. This verse is wholly omitted in two minor uncials, as well as in 1, 22, b, ful, the Sinai Syriac, and Nonnus—a strong and unusual combination. The omission may be due to homoioteleuton, v. 14 being repeated from v. 13. ABL and fam. 13, indeed, repeat τῦοπισ from v. 13, but אΘin v. 14 replace τῦοby ἐώ So ADL follow v. 13 in reading ατστ ἐ κλ but אΓΘhave ατστ μ ἐ κλ
If the verse is to be retained, it must be taken as a repetition in slightly different terms of what has been said already: a construction which is quite in the style of Joh_1 ἐώclearly lays special emphasis on Jesus being Himself the answerer of the prayer: “I will see that it is done.”
But the insertion of μ after ατστ, which the best MSS support, involves the harsh and unexampled phrase, “If ye shall ask me in my Name.” No doubt, it may be urged that the man who is in Christ alone can offer petitions to Christ which are certain of acceptance. He whose will is in harmony with Christ’s will, and who therefore can truly pray “in His Name,” may be assured that Christ will perform what he asks. Yet the expression “ask me in my Name” is awkward, and does not occur elsewhere, the other passages in these discourses in which prayers in the Name of Christ are recommended explicitly mentioning the Father as Him to whom these prayers should be addressed (cf. 15:16, 16:23, 24). The Johannine teaching would not indeed stumble at the addressing of prayer to Christ. He who prays to the Father, prays to the Son, so intimate is their ineffable union (cf. 10:30); but, nevertheless, no explicit mention of prayer to the Son is found elsewhere in Jn., unless 16:23 (where see note) is an exception.
We conclude that μ must be rejected here,2 despite its strong MS. support; and we read ἐντ ατστ ἐ τ ὀόαίμυ ἐὼπισ, the thought being carried on from the previous verse, a special emphasis being laid upon ἐώ
Love Issuing in Obedience Will Be Followed by the Gift of the Paraclete, Revealing the Union of the Father and the Son (vv. 15-20)
15. ἐνἀαᾶέμ, τςἐτλςτςἐὰ τρστ (so א which is to be preferred to τρστ of ADΘand the rec. text), “if you love me, you will keep my commandments,” as it is said again (v. 23), ἐντςἀαᾷμ, τνλγνμυτρσι Love issues in obedience. The converse, “he who keeps my commandments loves me,” is found at v. 21 (the love then fulfilling itself in knowledge, 1Jn_2:3). For the verb ἀαᾶ, as used in Jn. of the love of His disciples for Jesus, see on 3:16.
The phrase τρῖ τςἐτλςis thoroughly Johannine (cf. 15:10, 1Jn_2:3, 1Jn_2:4, 1Jn_2:3:22, 1Jn_2:24, 1Jn_2:5:2, 1Jn_2:3). It is the phrase used for “keeping” the Ten Commandments (cf. Mat_19:17, 1Co_7:19); and that the precept “keep my commandments” should be placed in the mouth of Jesus is significant of His claim to be equal with God (cf. 13:34).
In Jn. τρῖ τςἐτλςμυis used interchangeably with τρῖ τνλγνμυ(8:51, 14:23, 24, 15:20, 1Jn_2:5).
16. κγ ἐωήωτνπτρ. See on 11:22, 16:23, 26 on ἐωᾶ as the verb used of the prayers of Jesus Himself; cf. 17:9.
κὶἄλνπρκηο δσιὑῖ. The Sinai Syriac renders “He will give you Another, the Paraclete”; but the more natural rendering is “He will give you another Paraclete,” sc. another besides myself. Jesus does not directly call Himself a “Paraclete,” nor is the term applied to Him anywhere in the Gospels (cf. 1Jn_2:1); but He has just spoken of Himself (vv. 13, 14) as discharging in the future the functions of a πρκηο, or a Helper and Friend at the court of heaven, in that it is He who will cause to be fulfilled the prayers which are addressed to the Father. For πρκηο see on 15:26.
ἵαᾖμθ ὑῶ. The rec. text (with ADΓΘ has μν for ᾖ(perhaps from v. 17).
εςτναῶα Jesus had been with them as Helper and Friend on earth only for a short time, but the “other Paraclete” would be in fellowship with them “for ever,” i.e. until the end of the present dispensation (cf. Mat_28:20). See on 4:14 for εςτναῶα which is generally used as including eternity.
17. For τ π. τςἀηεα, see on 15:26.
With the sharp contrast between the “world” and the “disciples” in regard to their faculty of spiritual perception, cf. 1Co_2:14.
ὃὁκσο ο δντιλβῖ. It could not have been said to the “world,” λβτ πεμ ἅιν(20:22). That gift could be received only by spiritually minded men.
ὅιο θωε ατ. θωεν(see on 2:23) is generally used in Jn. of bodily vision, but sometimes (as at 6:40, 12:45) of mental and spiritual appreciation. The analogy of v. 19 would suggest that bodily vision is intended here, as there. The only kind of vision that the “world” has is physical, and with this the Spirit cannot be perceived. Observe that it is not said that the disciples could thus (θωοσ) behold the Spirit.
οδ γνσε. So it is said in the Prologue (1:10), ὁκσο ατνοκἔν. The world did not recognise Jesus as the Word: nor does it recognise the Spirit.
ὑεςγνσεεατ. Disciples are not “of the world” (15:19): they can, and will, recognise the workings of the Spirit, as they have in some measure recognised Christ for what He was (cf. v. 9).
ὅιπρ ὑῖ μνι “because He abides with you,” κὶἐ ὑῖ ἐτν “and is in you,” the present tenses being used proleptically of the future. The rec. has ἔτι(with אΘ which is a correction of the better reading ἐτν(BD*W).
First it is said that the Spirit of Truth abides μτ ὑῶ, then πρ ὑῖ, and finally ἐ ὑῖ, the last phrase signifying the indwelling of the Spirit in the individual disciple (Rom_8:9, 1Jn_2:27, 2Jn_1:2), while the other phrases (the former of which occurs also in 2Jn_1:2) lay the emphasis on the fellowship of the Spirit with the disciples collectively, that is, with the Church (cf. ἡκιωί τῦἁίυπεμτςμτ πνω ὑῶ, 2Co_13:14).
18. οκἀήωὑᾶ ὀφνύ. ὀφνςoccurs in the N.T. again only at Jam_1:27, and there in its primary meaning of “fatherless.” It has been thought that this is the idea here also; at 13:33 Jesus addressed his disciples as τκί, which suggests the relation of a father to his children. But, although ὀφνς both in the LXX and in classical literature, generally means “fatherless” in the most literal sense, it may be used of bereavement of any kind. ὀφν σ ἦθ βηό (Psa_10:14) appears in Coverdale’s Psalter as “Thou art the helper of the friendless, ” which brings out the sense well. Milligan (Vocab. s.v.) quotes a modern Greek song where friendless must be the meaning; and also Epictetus, iii. xxiv. 14 for this more general sense. The rendering “comfortless” of the A.V. cannot be defended.
“I will not leave you friendless” means, then, “I will not leave you without a Helper and Friend (a πρκηο), such as I have been.”
ἔχμιπὸ ὑᾶ, “I am coming to you,” not, as in v. 3, in the Parousia, but after His Resurrection, when the Spirit will be imparted (20:22). See on 16:23 for the Day of the Spirit’s Advent.
19. ἔιμκὸ (see on 16:16) κὶὁκσο μ οκτ θωε, “the world perceiveth me no longer,” θωεν(see on 2:23) being used here of any kind of vision, for Jesus will have been removed from the world’s sight after His Passion.
ὑεςδ θωετ μ, “but you perceive me,” sc. with the spiritual perception which the disciples were to have of the Risen Lord. Jesus had indeed told them at an earlier point in this last discourse that, like the world, they would see Him no longer with the eyes of the body after His Passion: οκτ θωετ μ (16:10). The assurance of the present verse is in verbal, although not real, contradiction with the former warning. He had led them on step by step, in the endeavour to make them understand that it was better for them that He should be removed from their bodily eyes (16:7), and that He would be present with them spiritually. And, at last, He assures them—so intimate and vital will His presence be—“you shall perceive me” ὑεςθωετ μ, the present tense being used proleptically to mark the certainty of the future.
θωενis the verb used of Mary’s “seeing” the Risen Lord (20:14), as it is used here of the disciples’ “seeing” Him after His Passion, while such “seeing” would be impossible for the unbelieving world.
A comparison of 14:19 with 16:10 goes far to show that 16:10 must be regarded as an earlier utterance than 14:19. See Introd., p. xxi.
ὅιἐὼζ κὶὑεςζστ. So BL, but אΓΘhave ζσσε This had been said before (6:57, where see note), and the thought is present also in Paul (Rom_5:10, 1Co_15:21, 1Co_15:22, Gal_2:20, Eph_2:5; cf. Rev_20:4). But the words “because I live, you also shall live,” have here a direct connexion with the context. Jesus has just assured the disciples that they shall “see” Him in His Risen Life. But this would only be possible—for ordinary physical vision is not in question—for those who are in spiritual sympathy with Him, who are “in Him” and in whom He abides (v. 20), who share His Life. And so He adds, “because I live, you also shall live”; not ye do live (in the present), for He was not yet risen from the dead, and His quickening power was not yet set free in those who “believed on Him.”
20. ἐ ἐεν τ ἡέᾳ i.e. in the new Dispensation of the Spirit, which will begin with the Resurrection. See on 16:23.
γώεθ ὑεςκλ “you will know” (ὑεςbeing emphatic) “that I am in my Father, etc.” At v. 10 (where see note) Jesus had indicated that the disciples ought to have reached as far