It is not necessary to follow Codex D and some of the versions, and here introduce into the text καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ. It is enough that the awful warning to Peter, which followed the announcement of the treachery of Judas and his departure, the solemnity of the Lord, and the clear announcement of his approaching death, had fallen like a thunderbolt into their company. Judas held the bag, and was their treasurer, their ἐπίσκοπος (see Hatch's 'Bampt. Lect.'), and a referee on all practical subjects and details. He had turned against the Lord; and now their spokesman, their rock of strength, their most prominent and their boldest brother, the senior of the group, and with one exception the disciple most beloved and trusted by the Master, was actually warned against the most deadly sin—nay, more, a course of conduct is predicted of him enough to scatter them all to the four winds. Is it possible to exaggerate the consternation and distraction, the shrieks of fear, the bitter sobs of reckless grief that convulsed the upper chamber? In the agony of despair, and amid the awful pause that followed the outburst of their confusion and grief, words fell upon their ears which Luther described as "the best and most consoling sermons that the Lord Christ delivered on earth," "a treasure and jewel not to be purchased with the world's goods." Hengstenberg has argued at length that the opening words of the chapter do not point to this scene of deep dejection, but to the conversation recorded in Luke 22:35-38, where our Lord warned his disciples of the career of anxiety and dependence and struggle through which they would have to pass. They must be ready even to part with their garment to procure a sword, i.e. they must be prepared to defend themselves against many enemies. With his characteristic impetuosity Peter says, "Here are two swords;" and Jesus said, "It is enough." He could not have meant that two swords were a match for the weapons of the high priests, or the power of the Roman empire, but that the disciple had once again misunderstood the figurative teaching of Christ, and, like a child (as he was), had, in the intensity of his present feeling, lost all apperception of the future. True, the language of Luke 22:35-38 suggests an answer to the question, "Why cannot I follow thee now?" But these words in John 14:1-31. more certainly contemplate that query, coupled with the other occasions that had arisen for bitter tribulation. To the faithful ones, to Peter's own nobler nature, and to them all alike in view of their unparalleled grief and dismay at the immediate prospect of his departure, he says, Let not your heart be troubled—the one heart of you all; for, after all, it is one heart, and for the moment it was in uttermost exacerbation and distress, lie repeated the words at the close of the first part of the discourse (John 14:27), after he had uttered his words of consolation. The "trouble" from which that one heart of theirs is breaking is not the mere sentimental sorrow of parting with a friend, but the perplexity arising from distracting cares and conflicting passions. The work of love and sacrifice means trouble that nothing but supernatural aid and Divine strength can touch. The heartache of those who are wakened up to any due sense of the eternal is one that nothing but the hand that moves all things can soothe or remedy. Faith in the absolute goodness of God can alone sustain the mind in these deep places of fear, and under the shadow of death. But he gives a reason for their consolation. This is, Believe in God, i.e. the eternal God in all his revelations of himself in the past—in God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who has most completely been unveiled to you now in the word and light and life that have been given to you in me. Your faith in God will be equal to your emergencies, and, if you live up to such fairly, you will bear all that befalls you. But, he adds, as I have been in the bosom of God and have declared him to you, believe also in me, as his highest and most complete Revelation. He claimed from them thus the same kind of sentiment, as by right of creation and infinite perfection God Almighty had demanded from them. There are three other ways in which this ambiguous sentence may be translated, according as both the πιστεύετε are taken either as indicatives or imperatives, but the above method is approved by the great majority of interpreters from the early Fathers to Meyer and Godet. The vulgate and Authorized version and Revised version make the second only of the πιστεύετε imperative, and consequently read, "Ye believe in God, believe also in me," which, in the revelation they had just given of their wretchedness and lack of adequate courage and faithfulness, was almost more than the Lord, in the deep and comprehensive sense in which he was using the word "God," would have attributed to them. The different order of the words in the Greek, bringing the two clauses, "in God" and "in me," together, gives potency to the argument of the verse, which is that of the entire Gospel.
In my Father's house are many mansions; or, abiding-places, homes of rest and peace and sojourn. "My Father" is the grandest name of all—the Divine fatherhood, as conceived in the consciousness of Jesus and revealed to them. Had not he who dwelt for ever in the bosom of the Father come forth, as he alone could, to reveal "the Father" and what the Father had been to him in the eternities? "My Father's house" is the dwelling-place in which devout believing souls would abide forever (Psalms 23:6; Psalms 90:1). In the vast home filled by my Father's glory and lighted by his smile of recognition and reconciliation, in the high and holy place (Isaiah 63:15; Deuteronomy 26:15), are "many mansions" prepared from the foundation of the world (Matthew 25:34). Heaven is a large place; its possibilities transcend your imagination and exceed your charity. Thoma quotes all the grand hopes which Paul's Epistles and that to the Hebrews contain, that Jesus made heaven and home by his presence there (Philippians 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:14, 1 Thessalonians 4:17), and he supposes that the Johannist put these words into the lips of Jesus. One conclusion forced upon the reader, so far as this passage is concerned, is that there is no reason why this Gospel may not have been written long before the close of the first century. If it were not so; i.e. if there were any doubt about it, if the revelations already made do not avail to prove as much as this, if you have been cherishing nothing better than vain illusions on this subject, I would have told you, for I came forth from God, and know these many mansions well. I would have told you, for all things that I have heard from the Father (up to this time possible for you to receive) I have made known to you. Here surely is a colon, if not a period. Many interpreters, by reason of the ὅτι £ which Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott, and Meyer believe to be the correct reading, link the following sentence in different ways to the preceding; e.g. some say ὅτι is equivalent to "that," and read, "I would have told you that I go, etc.; but against this is the simple statement of John 14:3, where Jesus proceeds to say that he is going to prepare, etc. Others, translating ὅτι "for," differ as to whether the departure of Jesus and his preparation of a place for his disciples refers to the first or second part of the sentence. Surely the ὅτι, "because" or "for," opens out a new thought based on the whole of that sentence: "Because, seeing if it were not so, I would have told you," because our relations are so close as to have involved on your part this claim on my frankness, for I am going to prepare a place—to make ready one of these many mansions—for you. Over and above the vague mystery of the Father's house, my departure is that of your "Forerunner," and my presence will make a new resting-place—it will localize your home. As you have made ready this guest-chamber for me, I am going to make ready a presence-chamber for you in the heavenly Jerusalem. Lange objects to this view of Lucke, Calvin, and Tholuck, that it involves a diffusion of knowledge and revelation among the disciples, of which there is no proof. This does not seem bettered by another rendering preferred by him, viz. "If it were not so, would I have told you I go to prepare a place for you?" But then this mode of interpretation implies a previous definite instruction as to the part he himself was going to take in the furnishing of the heavenly mansion. Of that most certainly there is no proof.
And if I go and if I prepare a place for you—a simple condition, soon to be realized by the event—I come again; I am ever coming, as I am now about to explain to you,
shall prevail between us. I am coming to you, in my glory and power, and in my victory in you as well as for you over death and Hades, to receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. The full perspective of the Lord's approach to faithful souls is given in the extraordinary pregnancy of the "I am coming." Not until he comes m all his glory will the words be perfectly fulfilled; but the early Church, on the basis of communion with Christ himself in the power of his Spirit, expected that Christ had come and taken to himself one by one those who died in the faith (1 Thessalonians 4:14). Thus Stephen expected the Lord to receive his spirit (Acts 7:59); and the dying thief was to be with him, in Paradise; and Paul knew that to be from home, so far as body is concerned, was to be "at home or present with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8). "To be with Christ" was "far better" than to labor on in the flesh (Philippians 1:23). The highest thought of peace and love was to the apostles union and presence with Christ. Our Lord asserts here that by his very nearness to them he will make their heaven for them. How soon this wonderful idea spread among men! Within twenty years, Thessalonians were comforted about their pious dead, with the thought that they slept in Jesus, and would together with them be "forever with the Lord."
Instead of "Whither I go ye know, and the way ye know," R.T. reads, Ye know the way whither I am going. £ Some valuable manuscripts and versions, also the bulk of the cursives, Cyril and Chrysostom, sustain the T.R.; nor have Hengstenberg or Gorier departed from it. The construction of the amended reading is harsh and awkward, but considering the point-blank contradiction which Thomas gives to the words in John 14:5, the truncated reading is probably the true one. Great emphasis is laid upon the ἐγώ. They ought to have known, if they did not know, after his telling them so frequently of the way he was taking through suffering, self-sacrifice, and aloneness, by spiritual processes rather than secular triumphs, by giving his life a ransom for many, by laying it down that he might take it again. He assumes, he even assures them, that whithersoever he may be going, and however vague may be his goal their ideas, they at least must comprehend the way by which he intended to reach it. Peter in any case ought to have been clear about it; more than once had he been rebuked for such worldly conceptions as beclouded his surer judgment.
(4) The question of Thomas, eliciting from Christ that he was going to the Father, and that his death was their "way" as well as his own way thither.
Thomas—true to the character elsewhere attributed to him in this Gospel, of anxious, intellectual striving after truth and reality, with a certain despondency and morbid fear of issues which he could not grasp, and yet with a great love to his Master—saith to him, We know not whither thou goest; i.e. we are still in vague perplexity. "Whither? oh, whither?" Art thou going to the dispersed among the Gentiles? Art thou going to restore the kingdom to Israel? Thou art to be "lifted up;" but how and where art thou to be lifted up? Thou art going—that is all we know, and this ignorance of ours makes us doubt "the way." £ How do we knew the way? Is not a knowledge of the goal absolutely necessary to bring into proper light for us the way, the strange mysterious way, thou art taking? There often seems in the language of skepticism much common sense, and in the dry light of science a straightforward honesty; and in reading the memorable reply of our Lord many have felt a lack of directness and recognition of the difficulty of Thomas. But is it really so?
John 14:6, John 14:7
Jesus saith to him, I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had learned to know me, ye would have £ known (absolutely) my Father also: from henceforward ye know (by personal experience) him, and (or, perhaps, even) ye have seen him. The whole sentence must be taken together. The whither of Christ is obvious enough, and throws consequent illumination upon the way thither. "The Father's house" is the whither no one cometh unto the Father (but) except through me. Christ explicitly says
—all the relations, not only those of saints and holy angels, but those of rebels and sinners, whose destiny he has taken upon himself. He is the Way because he is the whole Truth about God and man and concerning the way to the Father. More than this, and because of this, he adds, "I am the Life"—"the life eternal," the Possessor, Author, Captain, Giver, and Prince of life—the life in the heart of man that can never die; the occasion, germ, condition, and force of the new lath. It were impossible to imagine higher claim. But he leaves his hearers without any doubt as to his personal and conscious identification of himself with the Father. Hitherto he had not so clearly unveiled himself as in that which he has here said and is now doing. Hence his nearest and dearest only partially knew him. If they had seen all they might have seen, they would have seen the Father also. Then, as though he would close all aperture to doubt about the glory involved in his humiliation, and the way in which his human life had revealed the Father, he says ἀπάρτι—henceforward this must be a fact of your consciousness, that you do learn and come to know him by personal experience ( γινώσκετε); and as a matter of fact ye have seen him ( ἐωράκατε). Possibly in the ἀπάρτι, involving the notion of a period rather than a moment, the Lord was including the full revelation of the glory of self-sacrificial love given alike in his death and resurrection. And the important thought is suggested that neither the knowledge of God can ever be complete, nor the vision either. Is Thomas answered or no? He is silent, and perhaps is pondering the words, which will lead him, before long, notwithstanding his doubts, to make the grandest confession contained in the entire Gospel, the answer of convinced though once skeptical humanity to the question, "Whom say ye that I am?" The other apostles feel that Christ's words have met the mystic vague fear of Thomas, and that "henceforward" they all belong with Christ to the Father's house. They would go to the Father, and at the right time dwell in the place prepared for them; but how can they be said to know and have seen the Father already—to have passed into the light or received the beatific vision?
(5) The question of Philip, with the reply.
(a) Jesus the full Revelation of the Father.
Philip has been introduced in John 1:44-46; John 6:7; John 12:21, etc. (see notes), as one early acquainted with the sons of Zebedee, with Andrew and Nathaniel. He is described as convinced of the Messianic character of Jesus, and able, by what he had seen and heard, to overcome all prejudices. Philip, with practical mind, took part in the conversations and preparations for our Lord's great miracle on the loaves. Philip was thought of as a suitable person to introduce the Greeks to Jesus: and every hint we obtain about him is graphic and valuable. Philip saith to him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. This query is a very natural one. Though under ordinary circumstances men cannot with mortal eyes look on God, yet one of the high purports of the Christian revelation is to make it possible that men may look and live. Theophanies of Jehovah are not infrequent. The favored prophets, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Isaiah, Ezekiel £ and others had been favored with visions of Divine majesty, and it was not unreasonable that the practical Philip, who believed in the invincible assent which personal experience would give, who not only had seen in Jesus the Messiah of their prophecies, but had said to Nathanael, "Come and see," and be as satisfied as I am, should now think that some gorgeous vision of the Father's face was possibly within their reach and within Christ's power to confer—a vision which would for ever scatter their doubts and enforce certitude with plausibility. B. Weiss suggests that some whisper of the Transfiguration-glory had escaped from the favored three, leading the other disciples to desire a corresponding theophany. As Luther says, "His faith flutters up into the clouds." A dazzling spectacle would satisfy and suffice for all needs. To see and know the Father, to have irresistible evidence that the Eternal Power is one who has begotten us from himself, and both knows and loves us, is the highest and most sacred yearning of the human heart. The desire is implanted by God himself. Philip, with his fellow-disciples, had not vet learned the sacred truth that they had already had the opportunity of seeing in the life of the God Man the most explicit manifestation of the Father. A dazzling phenomenon, outside of Christ, might have given to the disciples a new impression of awe and fear like that which fell on Moses and the elders of Israel, on Isaiah and Elijah; yet a far more comprehensive revelation of Divine perfection, inspiring the spirit of obedience, reverence, trust, and love, devotion, and self-sacrifice, had already been made to them, but their eyes were holden. They were not satisfied, or Philip would not have said καὶ ἀρκεῖ ἡμῖν.
Christ's reply is, Have I been so long a period ( χρόνον) with you, and hast thou not come to know ( ἔγνωκάς) me, Philip? (Compare the aorist δεῖξον, suggesting one great complete sufficing act, with the perfect forms, ἔγνωκάς με ἐωρακὼς ἐόρακε, implying a process continuing from the past into the present,) The revelation of the Father, rather than an unveiling of the absolute God whom no man hath ever yet seen (see John 1:18), had been constantly going on before their eyes. Our Lord first of all appeals to that fact; and yet fact, reality as it was, the disciples had failed even to know him, inasmuch as they had not seen in him the Father. He thus confirms the statement of John 14:7. "There is an evident pathos in this personal appeal the only partial parallels in St. John are cf. John 20:16 (Mary); John 21:15 (Simon, etc.)" (Westcott). There is no right understanding of Jesus Christ until the Father is actually seen in him. He is not known in his humanity until the Divine Personality flashes through him on the eyes of faith. We do not know any man until we know the best of him. How far more true is it of God and of the Father-God revealed in the Christ? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. The "seeing" here must be adequate, comprehensive vision. How £ sayest thou—emphatic—Show us the Father? Philip, by the hints already given of him, might have discarded the Jewish and crude idea of a physical theophany. "How sayest thou?" reveals that sense of failure which Christ experienced when he sought to realize in the poor material of our human nature his own ideal.
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Philip had heard in an inverted order these very words (see John 10:38). He might have grasped their meaning; two aspects of the same Divine truth or reality—the reciprocal fellowship between the Father and the Son, between the Father and the Effulgence of the Father's glory who is now the God-Man. I am in the Father, I the God-Man am in the Father, as the Loges has ever been in him and proceeding from him. I, who was forever in the bosom of the Father in heaven though on earth, am in the Father now, as the sun dwells in its own effluent light; and the Father is in me, seeing I am the Image of his substance, the Agent of his purpose, the Speaker of his words, the Doer of his works. The words ( ῥήματα) which I speak ( λέγω, R.T.) unto you—those words which are "spirit and life" (John 6:63), those "words of eternal life," according to Peter's grand confession (John 6:68, John 6:69)—I do not utter ( λαλῶ) from myself; i.e. they are the words of the Father, and also the proof that I am in the Father, but the Father worketh always and ever more in and through the Son, these works which may seem to be mine as the Son of man, but are the operation of the Father himself, he who abides in the Son. And the Father abiding in me, doeth £ his works. These works of mine ( ἔργα) are all signs ( σημεῖα) of my relation to the Father. They are indications to Philip of the nature, and quality, and character, and feeling towards him of the Father himself.
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, on the ground of my simple affirmation. My words are spirit and life, and carry their own evidence with them. Christ is not here antithetically contrasting (as Lange suggests) words and works, as though the words were his, and the works the Father's; but he is appealing to their spiritual intuition of truth which is legible by its own light as eternal and Divine, and then reminding them that they may fail in transcendental vision and fall back on reason and its processes, which will come nearer to their understanding—Or else ( εἰ δὲ μή), if it be after all that you cannot take my words as the Father's words, as the utterance of the Divine thought, believe me—believe that I am in the Father, etc.—by reason of the very works which are the witness of the Father's power, holiness, and love. In this last appeal he turns from Philip to the whole group of the apostles. Miracles are, if not primary evidence, secondary and convincing evidence, where the eye has been blinded by the mists of doubt, and the vision of the Father confused and withheld by lack of inward purity. Moreover, by Christ's ἔργα are meant, not merely the supernatural portents, but all the work of his life, all the healing of souls, all the conversion of souls, all the indubitable issues of his approach to the heart of man. The great ἔργον is salvation from sin, the gift of righteousness, and the life where before there was moral death (see notes, John 14:19, John 14:20; John 10:37, John 10:38).
(b) The greater works, and their conditions and issues, He offers a fresh ground of consolation, based on the double consideration, first of his departure from them and abiding presence with them, and then on the reflex effect on their own faith and on the world of their consciousness of union with him. He throws the arms of his love round about, not only the eleven disciples, but all believers on him, and in a sense draws them up into his own Divinity. With these words must be compared the closely parallel words addressed to them (as preserved by Matthew 21:22, Matthew 21:23) a few days before. This was a saying at once explaining the reference to the "greater works" and also to the power of prayer (see Hengstenberg's masterly treatment of this passage).
Verily, verily—with a fresh emphasis he turns now, not from Philip to the eleven, but from the eleven to all who will believe on him through their word—I say unto you, He that believeth on me—observe here a nominative absolute, which gives great emphasis to the universality of the reference; the form is slightly varied, εἰς ἐμέ, in place of μοι, John 14:11,—believeth, trusteth on me, confides in me, by reason of believing me—he also shall do the works that I do (see for similar emphasis procured by the word κὰκεῖνος, John 6:57; John 9:37; John 12:48). The disciples might naturally have reasoned on this wise: "Our Master is the incarnate Word, the very Hand and Grace of the Father; but he is going to the invisible Father, and wilt be lost in light. His series of proofs will be at an end; we shall only have the memory of them. The glory of God is great, but, like a gorgeous sunset, its flames will die away into the night." To rectify such fear for all the ages of the Church, he adds, "The very works of healing and helping men, even of raising the dead, and preaching glad tidings to the poor and needy,—these will be proofs of the union of the believer in all time with me and with my Father." In the case of such believer, as well as in my case, the works may increase the faith of others. They are not indispensable, but comforting and reassuring, and they show that every believer is near to the heart of the Father and wields the power of God. But the full force of this somewhat perplexing sentence is heightened and to some extent explained by the addition: And greater works than these he shall do; because I am going to the £ Father. Greater works than any wrought by the Lord in the days of his humiliation are predicted of Messiah. He is to be the "Light of the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6; cf. Psalms 72:8, Psalms 72:11; Psalms 110:1-7.). He is to rule the world, to cover the earth with the glory of God. How he was to do this was hidden from the disciples, but it would soon appear that they were the instruments, in his loving hands, for world-victories. Nay, more than that, Jesus (John 4:36-38) had told these disciples that they might reap what he had sown. These rather than other and more surprising prodigies of supernatural energy (as even Bengel supposed was his meaning, pointing, to the healing energy of Peter's shadow, etc.) were the greater works to which he probably (John 5:20) referred, though he gives a reason which would check all presumption: Because of going to the Father. The contrast, then, is between the humiliation and exaltation of Christ, between works wrought in his flesh and those that would be done by him when at the right hand of power. Without him, separated from him, independently of his continued and augmented energy working through them, they would do nothing (John 15:5; comp. here Matthew 21:21, Matthew 21:22). In the last passage, in answer to believing prayer, the disciples were told that they would do greater things than wither up the fig tree, or remove the mountain into the sea. Probably (see Hengstenberg) these terms, "fig tree," "mountain," "sea," were used in their prophetic-symbolic sense, and were not hyperbolic promises, but definite prophecies of the overthrow of the Jewish state, and the fall of the Roman power under the word of those who believed on him. These vast privileges and functions are here attributed to "believers," not merely to the apostles, or princes in his kingdom. This extraordinary pro-raise is no disparagement of his supreme authority, but will be proof that he sitteth on the right hand of the Majesty on high.
The great word that follows may hang closely on the "because" of John 14:12. Whether that be so or not, the power of their hands to perform these greater works is in answer to prayer presented to himself, and their success is nothing less than his own activity. And whatsoever ye ask in my Name, that will I do (see Luther). Here for the first time our Lord uses these words. Frequently (John 5:43; John 10:25) he had spoken of the Father's Name, and in Matthew 18:20 εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα occurs; but now he suggests a new and vitalizing condition of prayer. Luthardt has suggested that the believer, being "in Christ," prays to the Father, who is also in Christ. But the ἐν is used here in two entirely distinct senses. Others have said, taking "Name" as the compendium of all his perfections, that asking "in his Name" meant in full recognition of his Person and his relation to them and to the Father. The Name of the Son reveals the Father, and by assuming this most excellent Name, and having its fullness of meaning avouched by the Resurrection and Ascension, the Father was truly manifested. Others, again, urge that Christ's "Name" is equivalent to "himself;" and "in my Name" means "in the full consciousness that he is the element in which prayerful activity lives and moves" (Meyer). Surely this passage is the true justification of prayer to Christ himself, as identically one with the Father (see Revelation 7:17). "This thing I will do" is strongly in favor of this interpretation. That the Father may be glorified in the Son. The end of this prayer-offering and the Lord's response is that the Father may be glorified; the Father who has such a Son is thereby glorified in the grateful love of his children, and in the Son himself, who is seen thus to be the link between him and his other children.
If ye shall ask me £ anything in my Name, etc., is, omitting the ἵνα clause of the former utterance, a solemn repetition of the promise. The only condition being "in my Name." "Our Lord Christ foresaw that this article would go hard with human reason, and that it would be much assailed by the devil." "What ye ask," says he, "I will do. I am God, who may do and give all things." The peculiarity of the R.T. lays, indeed, special emphasis on Christ's own power and willingness to receive and answer prayer.
If ye love me, keep £ my commandments. This great saying is enlarged on in the subsequent section—the relation of love to obedience, obedience producing love, and love suggesting obedience and supplying it with motive. τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐμάς, "the commandments which are peculiarly mine" (see Westcott on John 15:9), "as either adopted and reuttered by me, or as originating in my new relation to you." "Guard them as a sacred deposit, obey them as the only reasonable response you can make to authoritative command." It is somewhat startling to find the great promise that follows conditioned by loving obedience, seeing that love and obedience in any sinful man, love to Christ itself, are elsewhere made the work of the Holy Spirit. But we here come across that which often perplexes the student, viz. the contrast between the general idea of the constant and continuous work of grace in human hearts, and the special manifestation in personal glory and Divine activity of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost.
(c) The greatest Gift—the other Advocate.
John 14:16, John 14:17,
Consequent on this obedient love, conditioned by it, is the Lord's assurance: And I will ask the Father— ἐρωτᾷν is used of an asking which is based on close and intimate fellowship; it is the word which implies the presentation of wish or a desire from an equal to an equal, while αἰτεῖν represents the prayer or seeking which rises from an inferior to a superior (see note, John 16:26, and other usage of the same words, John 17:9, John 17:15, John 17:20)—and he will give—make a Divine and free manifestation of himself by his Spirit, give to you as your inalienable possession—another Paraclete, that he may be £ with you for evermore. Great deference is due to the Greek expositors, beginning with Chrysostom, who translate this word "Comforter," and who point back to the LXX. παρακαλεῖτε (Isaiah 40:1), and because παρακλήσις very often, if not always, means "consolation;" but the word is passive in form, and denotes "one called in," or "called to the side of another," for the purpose of helping him in any way, but especially in legal proceedings and criminal charges, so that the word "Advocate," Pleader for us and in us, is the translation that most generally is accepted by almost all modern expositors. "Another" implies that Christ had already stood in this position while present with them, helping with tender care their first efforts to stand or serve. John (1 John 2:1) distinctly says, "We have now a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous," etc. And in this place (verse 17) the coming of the Paraclete was his own true return to his disciples. The following is the substance of Westcott's "additional note" on this word: "The two renderings of Paraclete as ' Comforter' in the Gospel, and 'Advocate' in the Epistle, are found in the English versions, with exception of Rhenish, from Wickliffe to Authorized version and Revised version. In the ancient versions, with the exception of Thebaic, the original word Paracletus is preserved. Its passive form by all analogous words will not justify here an active or transitive sense, but means 'one called to the side of another' with the secondary sense of helping, consoling, counseling, or aiding him. The classical use is 'advocate,' so used in Demosthenes, not found in LXX. Philo uses it in the same sense, and the rabbinic writers adopt the Greek word טילקרף, in opposition to 'accuser.' The apostolic Fathers use the word in this sense, but the patristic writers, Origen, Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, Use it for ' Comforter.' In 1 John it. I no other word is satisfactory but 'Advocate,' and the suggestion is that the only meaning here that is adequate is that of one who pleads, convinces, convicts in a great controversy, who strengthens on the one hand, and defends on the other. Christ, as the Advocate, pleads the believer's cause with the Father against the accuser (1 John 2:1 ; Romans 8:26; Revelation 12:10). The Holy Spirit, as the Advocate, pleads the cause of the believer against the world (John 16:8), and pleads Christ's cause with the believer (John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:14)." Archdeacon Watkins has presented a large portion of the Talmudic evidence to the same effect. Thus from the 'Pirke Aboth,' 4.11, "He that keepeth one commandment obtains for himself one paraklit, but he who committeth one sin obtains for himself one kattegor ( κατήγορος)." The word was incorporated into the Syrian language, as seen in the Peshito Syriac translation, both of the Gospel and the First Epistle of John. The Advocate who is to be with the disciples forever, arguing down opposition and silencing cavil, is the Spirit of truth. The abundant proof of this great function of the Holy Spirit is not wanting. There is Christ's promise. Then in Acts 4:8 and Acts 4:13, whatever Christ had been to the twelve, that would the other Advocate, Mediator of Divine grace, be to the whole Church when the Lord's earthly manifestation should terminate. The genitive after "Spirit" sometimes denotes its great characteristic (cf. Romans 1:4, "the Spirit of holiness;" Romans 8:15, "Spirit of bondage" and "of adoption;" but in the same context we have "Spirit of God," "the Spirit;" Ephesians 1:17, "Spirit of wisdom and revelation; cf. also Romans 8:9, "Spirit of Christ;" 1 Peter 4:14, "the Spirit of glory"); and the idea is that this other Advocate, even the Spirit of truth, shall reveal truth to the disciples, convince them of truth, as Christ had done. Whom the world cannot receive. There are antipathies between "the world" (as conceived by St. John) and "truth," which will render the world strangely unsusceptible of Divine teaching. Still, since the whole process of conviction is the distinct effect of the Holy Spirit upon the world (see John 16:1-33.), the λάβειν must not mean that the world cannot accept its convincing power, but cannot exert its power of convincing. Through apostles, who are his organs and representatives, the world will be convinced, and not apart from them. Because it seeth him not ( θεωρεῖ)—does not behold him in his external revelations—and knoweth him not by personal experience, "is not learning to know him" as these disciples even hitherto have been able to do in Christ. The world has proved by its rejection of Christ that it cannot behold the Divine energy in him, nor perceive by any inward experience his nature or the real nature of God; but ye, said Christ, are now learning to know him; for he abideth with you. He has begun his abiding presence with you, and shall be in you; and this state of things will continue to the end of time. "The future shows that the whole matter belongs to the domain of futurity" (Hengstenberg). The world cannot "receive," because it is dependent on visible things, and it cannot know because it cannot behold. You have no need to behold, and can and do know by another process. The passage is very difficult, because, if the world cannot receive the Spirit by reason of its own unspirituality and ignorance, how is the threefold conviction to be realized? May λάβειν be regarded in the sense of καταλάμβανειν, "to seize hold of"? Rost and Palm give the following instances of this use of λαμβανεῖν in Homer: ' Od.,' 6:81; 8:116; ' II.,' 5:273; Herod., 4:130, etc. (cf. John 19:1; Revelation 8:5). If so, the whole of this passage would read, "He will give you another Helper or Advocate, that he may be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot seize (or take from you), because it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye are learning to know him, because he, according to the eternal laws of his being, dwelleth with you, and will be in you, and be altogether beyond the malice of the world."
I will not leave you behind as orphans, bereft of my paternal guardianship. Though the disciples were his brethren, yet, as we have seen, he calls them (John 13:1-38 :53) τεκνία his "little children;" and (Hebrews 2:11) the apostles reckoned him as Arthur (in 'Guinevere') does when he speaks of "our fair Father Christ." His departure might be the signal for the most utter sense of desertion, exposure, and peril; and even the promise of another Advocatus would hardly console them before the time would arrive when he would receive them unto himself; but, says he, I am coming to you. Much unnecessary comment has here arisen as to whether this coming was the last triumphant παρουσία of which he speaks in part in John 14:3,—this would be incompatible with the assurances that then the world would and will see him: "Every eye shall" then be prophetic and "see him," and "before him shall be gathered all nations;" or whether this coming be simply his resurrection with his transitory appearances in the flesh; for both of these representations would fail of the full consolation which would terminate their orphanhood. Surely he speaks of his own spiritual coming in the bestowment of the other Advocate, who, by being with them and in them, would prove to them, notwithstanding his own apparent departure, that he had come again in his glorious fullness of love. In the thought of the early Church the Lord was the Spirit: the glorified Lord, the Christ, who had "all power in heaven and earth," was manifested, was veritably present, in all the work of the Spirit of God in his Church. The Spirit was not only the Unity of the Father and the Son, the one Self-consciousness of both, but the one Consciousness of the Son of God and Son of man, the uniting Energy which represents the one Personality of the Christ, the Spirit-power which blends all the members of the mystical body with the Head. Throughout the Acts of the Apostles we see that all the great operations of the Holy Spirit are but the energies of the living, reigning Lord.
Yet a little while—a few hours only—and the world—which cannot take from you (or even appreciate or receive) the Holy Spirit—beholdeth me no more. Their power of beholding me will be gone by their own act, they will have cursed and driven me away with the hellish cry, "Crucify him!" they will have slain and buried me out of their sight; but, notwithstanding this, you, by my coming to you in the power of the Spirit, will veritably behold me. Even more than this, because I live though I die, ye shall live also, in your intense spiritual apperception of my continuity of life, of which you will have ocular and spiritual guarantee. Jesus here passed over the concrete fact of the Resurrection, to return to it afterwards. We know that the resurrection of his body and his victory over death became
In that day of glorious re-communion with you, begun in the Resurrection-surprises, which will aid your faith and triumphantly establish the mysteries and marvels of Pentecost, you shall know what you now most imperfectly apprehend by faith, that I am in my Father, as One lifted up into God, and that I act entirely with and for and as my Father, fulfilling all that I have told you of my personal relationship with him; and then, he adds, you shall know that as I am in my Father, you (are) in me, living in and by my power, and continuously drawing life from me; and what is still more, I in you; i.e. as the Father has acted in and through my will, and I have spoken his words and done his works, so I will energize in you. Your "greater works" will prove my "greater power." Your own consciousness of my presence, and of continuous communion with me, will reveal to you, as you never knew before, that I am in my Father, and also that I am in you. So the apparent paradox presents itself, that in order to know the Father, to see the Father, we must commune with the humanity of Jesus; but in order to realize and come into contact with that humanity, we have to grasp that it is lifted up into God. Because he is in the Father he is able to be with and in us.
Then for a moment he turns from the eleven, and stretches out his searching gaze and far-sweeping love to every one who hath my commandments as a sure possession and lofty privilege and sufficient standard, and keepeth them, thus proving that he it is that loveth me; returning thus back to John 14:15, where he said that love would induce and ought to compel to obedience; and he adds another and wonderful benediction: He will be loved by my Father, in a sense more intense than that in which God is said to love the world (John 3:16). God the Father loves those who love the Son, i.e. love the object of his own superlative affection. But who can this wondrous Being be who adds, as a climax of privilege and honor, as though it were more even than the love of the Father, I will love him, and will manifest myself in him (not ἀποκαλύψω or φανερώσω), not merely "disclose an undiscovered presence" or make evident a hidden glory, but I will take special means to disclose my Person and nature and goodness to him? Christ will do this to those who have and keep his commandments of self-forgetting love and perfect consecration. This remarkable word, ἐμφανίσω, implies that the scene and place of the higher manifestation will be "in" ( ἐν) the consciousness of the soul. "The kingdom of God is within men.
(6) The question of Judas, and the conditions of our Lord's self-manifestation, followed by appeals, promises, and the gift of PEACE.
This reference to "manifestation" once more occasioned another anxious inquiry. Thomas bad not known whither the Lord was going, and was ignorant of the true meaning of that way of departure from them; and the Lord had told him that he was going to the Father, and that he himself was the Way for them to find their access to the Father's heart. Philip had longed for some vision of the Father which would suffice for the "whither" and "way," and was surprised to find that he had had already, in the Savior's own Person, a sufficient revelation of the Father; but that he and others had not known him nor his Father; and now Jesus promises a fuller manifestation of himself, and therefore of the Father. Here Judas, not Iscariot, saith to him, What has come to pass that thou art about to manifest thyself unto us, and not to manifest thyself to the world? Hast thou altered thy plan? Is the world to be left unvisited by thy glory? This question, in some form or other, is constantly pressed upon the Lord. This seeking for a sign, this eager desire for a great display of power, or judgment, or glory, this restoration of the kingdom to Israel, was the cry of the Jewish heart. Christ's sublime reply to it is given in the restatement of the spiritual law of the kingdom and glory of God. Once more he goes back to the law of love, issuing in obedience.
Jesus answered and said to him, If a man, let him be whosoever he may, love me—there is the germ and root of all—he will keep my Word ( λόγον £). In John 14:21 we see the complementary statement, "He that has and keeps my commandments loves me;" here, "He that loves me keeps my Word." In John 14:21 obedience proves inward love, and may indicate to the world the fact of the Father's love and my own response. Here our Lord is laying down the principle of relation—the law of close intimacy, the conditions of higher knowledge. The keeping of the Word is a certain consequence of holy love. And my Father will love him. So far Christ has only reiterated the great statement of John 14:21, but instead of saying, "I will love him, and manifest myself," he added, We will come—the Father and I—to him, and take up our abode, £ make for ourselves a resting-place in his dwelling ( πἀρ αὐτῳ); cf. the analogous and wonderful parallel in Revelation 3:20. There is a clear utterance of Divine self-consciousness. It is worthy of note that such an expression as this sounds a profounder depth of that consciousness than any phrase ( λόγος) already delivered. Apart from the stupendous corroborative facts elsewhere on record, this seems, to mere human experience, either awfully true or infinitely blasphemous. The Father add I will come together in the power of the Spirit, and we will dwell within the loving and obedient soul. This phrase suggests the mystical union of the Divine Personality with that of those who have entered into spiritual relation with Christ through love and obedience.
We have three statements about love and obedience:
John 14:25, John 14:26
These things (in antithesis to the "all things" of which he is about to speak), namely, the great consolations and instructions just delivered not the whole course of his ministerial prophetic teaching—have I uttered, and these things I am stilt continuing to address to you, while remaining with you; but the Paraclete (Advocate), of whom I have spoken as the "Spirit of truth," and whom I now more fully define as the Holy Spirit (this is the only place in this Gospel where this full and elsewhere often-used designation occurs), whom the Father will send—in answer to my prayer (John 14:16), and as he has already sent me—m my Name. This shows that, while the disciples are to approach the Father "in the Name," in the fullness of perfection involved in the filial Name of Jesus, so the Father sends the Paraelete in the same Name, in the full recognition of Christ as the Sphere of all his gracious work. Meyer emphasizes by it the Name of Jesus; "in my Name," say Grotius, Lucke; "at my intercession" or "in my stead" (Tholuck, Ewald); "as my Representative" (Watkins). But the great Name of Jesus is "the Son" (Hebrews 1:1-5). In the Sonship which he realized and displayed, the Father himself was manifested. The Spirit is sent from the Father fully to reveal the Son, while the substance of the teaching and meaning of the life of our Lord, in his Divine training of souls revealed the Father. He ( ἐκεῖνος, a masculine and emphatic pronoun, which gives personal quality and dignity to the Spirit, and points to all that is here predicated of his agency) shall teach you all things that you need to know over and above what I have said ( λελάληκα), and he will assist you to know more than you do now. He shall remind you of the all things which I have said to you. The teaching of Christ, according to St. John's own statement, was vastly more extensive than all that had been recorded, the impression produced far deeper than anything that could be measured; yet even this would have been evaporated into vague sentiment, if the veritable things, the marvelous and incomparable wisdom, uttered by the Lord had not, by the special teaching of the Spirit, been re-communicated to the apostles by extraordinary refreshment of memory. The supernatural energy of the memory of the apostles, and their profound insight, is the basis of the New Testament, and the fulfillm