John 14 - Expositor's Bible Commentary - Abridged

c. The question of Thomas (14:5–7)

5 Thomas’s abrupt question, like Peter’s questions (13:6, 36–37), was characteristic of its proponent. Thomas was utterly honest, pessimistic, and uninhibited. He did not suppress his feelings but voiced his despair (Cf. 11:16). He was confused by life and felt that its riddles were unsolvable. But he was not ready to accept a state of permanent bewilderment.

6 Jesus’ reply is the ultimate foundation for a satisfactory philosophy of life. First, it is personal. He did not claim merely to know the way, the truth, and the life as a formula he could impart to the ignorant; but he actually claimed to be the answer to human problems. That is, Jesus’ solution to perplexity is not a recipe; it is a relationship with him. Second, Jesus responded with an authoritative assertion as the master of life. He is the way to the Father because only he has an intimate knowledge of God, unmarred by sin. He is the truth because he has the perfect power of making life one coherent experience irrespective of its ups and downs. He is the life because he was not subject to death but made it subject to him. He died to demonstrate the power and continuity of his life. Because he is the way, the truth, and the life, he is the only means of reaching the Father (Cf. 1:18). Jesus is the only authorized revelation of God in human form, and he is the only authorized representative of humanity to God.

7 The first part of this verse could be better rendered, “If you have attained an experiential realization of who I am, you will know my Father also.” Jesus declared that he had adequately presented the Father in his own person (cf. Paul’s teaching in Col 1:15). To the extent that the disciples had come to a satisfactory understanding of Jesus, they had a comprehension of the being of God.

d. The request of Philip (14:8–15)

8 If Thomas was a skeptic, Philip was a realist. Having determined in his thinking that the Father of whom Jesus spoke must be the Ultimate Absolute, Philip demanded that he and his associates might see him. Philip was also materialistic; abstractions meant little to him. Nevertheless he had a deep desire to experience God for himself. If he and the other disciples could only apprehend God with at least one of their senses, they would be satisfied. Perhaps Philip wanted to have an experience such as Jacob (Ge 32:24, 30), Samson’s parents (Jdg 13:3–22), and Moses (Ex 34:4–8) had had.

9 Jesus was both pleased and saddened by Philip’s request: pleased by his earnestness and saddened by his obtuseness. His union with the Father was so natural that he was astonished that Philip had not observed it. “I am in the Father, and . . . the Father is in me” (v.10) was his description of the relationship both in instructing the public and in his final prayer to the Father (Cf. 10:38; 14:20; 17:21). For this reason he could say, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” No material image or likeness can adequately depict God. Only a person can give knowledge of him since personality cannot be represented by an impersonal object.

10–11 Furthermore, if a personality must be employed to represent God, that personality cannot be less than God and do him justice, nor can it be so far above humanity that it cannot communicate God perfectly to humans. The way Jesus made known the character and reality of the Father was by his words and works. The truth of God filled Jesus’ words; the power of God produced his works.

12 Jesus again slowly resumed the main current of his teaching. He wanted to impress on the disciples that he was not disbanding them in anticipation of his departure; rather, he was expecting them to continue his work and do even greater things than he had accomplished. Such an expectation seems impossible in the light of his character and power; yet, through the power of the Spirit whom Jesus sent after his ascension, there were more converts after the initial sermon of Peter at Pentecost than are recorded for Jesus during his entire career (see Ac 1:15; 2:41). The influence of the infant church covered the Roman world, whereas Jesus during his lifetime never traveled outside the boundaries of Palestine. Through the disciples Jesus multiplied his ministry after his departure.

13–15 The power of the disciples originated in prayer. Jesus could hardly have made more emphatic the declaration that whatever they should ask in his name, he would do. The phrase “in my name,” however, is not a magical charm like an Aladdin’s lamp. It was both a guarantee, like the endorsement on a check, and a limitation on the petition; for he would grant only such petitions as could be presented in a manner consistent with his character and purpose. In prayer we call on him to work out his purpose, not simply to gratify our whims. The answer is promised so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. The disciples’ obedience to him will be the test of their love.

e. The promise of the Spirit (14:16–21)

16–17 With the preceding words, Jesus returned from the answer to Philip’s question to the more general theme of preparation for his departure. His absence would make more difficult the realization of the person of the Father whom he represented. In his place, however, he promised to send the Holy Spirit, the “Counselor” (parakletos; GK 4156; lit., “a person summoned to one’s aid”). The Spirit’s function is to represent God to the believer as Jesus did in his incarnate state. The concept of the Holy Spirit was not new, for the Spirit of God had been active in the OT (see Ge 1:2; 6:3; Jdg 3:10; 13:24–25; 14:6, 19; 15:14; Zec 7:12). John the Baptist had predicted that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:33). In his discussion of the new birth, Jesus had already spoken to Nicodemus of the work of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:5). The ministry of the Spirit, however, would be directed primarily to the disciples. He would direct their decisions, counsel them continually, and remain with them forever. The world would not understand the Spirit since it would not recognize him. His presence was already with the disciples insofar as they were under his influence. Later, after Jesus departed, he would indwell them. This indwelling of the Spirit is the specific privilege of the Christian believer (see 7:39).

18–19 Jesus’ allusion to a return may refer to his reappearances after the Resurrection (Chs. 20–21). But he did not remain visible for long, nor were there any public manifestations. The motive for these appearances was the need to reassure the disciples, who felt left as helpless orphans in an unfriendly world. Jesus knew that they, as spiritual children (13:33), would need the strong protection and guidance of a parent in order to survive. The resurrection of Jesus would also be the guarantee of life for the disciples. The eternal life that he would demonstrate is the same eternal life he promised to them.

20 The coming of the Spirit to indwell believers would bring the realization that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are united in purpose and operation and that there would be a new intimate relationship between them and believers (see also 15:26).

21 Jesus reiterated the statement of v.15 because of its importance. Love is the basis of our relationship with God. His love has been manifested in the gift of Jesus (1Jn 4:9–10), and our love for him is manifested in obedience (1Jn 5:3). Those who obey his commands and show their love for him will reap great benefits. The Father will love the obedient disciples, Jesus himself will love them, and Jesus will make himself known to them.

f. The question of Judas, not Iscariot (14:22–24)

22 The last question in this impromptu dialogue was posed by Judas (not Iscariot). Nothing is known of him beyond his name (cf. Lk 6:16; Ac 1:13), unless he can be identified with Thaddaeus (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18). Judas could not understand how Jesus would appear to the disciples without being at the same time subject to public scrutiny. Either Jesus would be visible or he would not; for Judas there was no possibility of both.

23 In his reply, Jesus did not focus on his postresurrection appearances, but on the broader revelation that would come to them through obedience to his known teaching and through the work of the Holy Spirit. The reality of Jesus’ and the Father’s presence would be conditioned on obedience, an obedience that resulted from their love for God. Obedience is not, however, the condition of God’s love for humans but the proof of their realization of his love and of their love for him.

24 Being obedient to Jesus’ words extends beyond keeping the charges he personally delivered. Jesus equated his teaching with the Father’s will. Thus, loving Jesus is demonstrated by one’s obedience to the revealed will of God, the Bible.

g. Parting comfort (14:25–31)

25–26 Jesus now resumed his teaching on the Holy Spirit because Judas’s question evoked it. Through the Spirit Jesus’ presence would be perpetuated among them. The phrase “in my name [GK 3950]” (cf. vv.13, 14) means that the Spirit would be Jesus’ officially delegated representative to act in his behalf. Just as Jesus himself demonstrated the personality and character of God to others, so after his departure the Holy Spirit would make the living Christ real to his followers. The function of the Spirit is teaching. He instructs from within and recalls to the memory what Jesus taught. The Spirit will, therefore, impress the commandments of Jesus on the minds of his disciples and thus prompt them to obedience.

27 The peace Jesus spoke of could not be exemption from conflict and trial. Jesus himself had been “troubled” by the impending Crucifixion (12:27). The peace he spoke of here is the calmness of confidence in God. Jesus had this peace because he was sure of the Father’s love and approval. He could therefore move forward to meet the crisis without fear or hesitation. The world can give only false peace, which mostly comes from the ignorance of peril or self-reliance. With his promise of peace, he repeated the words of comfort he had spoken in reply to Peter’s earlier question (cf. v.1). The disciples must have continued to show their dismay as they contemplated Jesus’ departure.

28 In concluding this discourse, Jesus reminded them that he was about to return to the Father and that he had forewarned them so that their faith might not be disrupted by his removal. The statement “the Father is greater than I” refers to position rather than essence; Jesus was speaking from the standpoint of his humanity (Cf. 5:19). The numerous statements in this gospel that the Father had sent him confirm that Jesus was acting under authority and was obligated to fulfill the Father’s commands.

29 Throughout the gospel the necessity of believing is emphasized (1:50; 3:12, 15–16; 4:21, 41; et al.). Jesus insisted that acceptance of his person is pivotal to spiritual experience. The particular form of “believe” used here by Jesus indicates the beginning of an action, not its continuation. After the previous statements that the disciples had believed (1:50; 2:11; 6:69), such a construction seems inconsistent. Nevertheless the final arrest and death that they would soon witness would undoubtedly shake their faith to its foundations, and Jesus wished to prepare them for the strain this crisis would place on them.

30–31 “The prince of this world” refers to Satan. Jesus was constantly aware of Satan’s hostile presence and was preparing for his last attack. Satan first afflicted Jesus at his temptation (Mt 4:1–11; Mk 1:12; Lk 4:1–13). Luke, however, indicates that there would be other times when the devil would tempt Jesus (Lk 4:13). One of those times was certainly now. The betrayal by Judas, the frustration of human hopes, the disappointment of apparent failure, the agony of death—these would make him especially susceptible to suggestion or temptation. But Jesus did not fear Satan because Satan had no claim on him. There was nothing in his character or action that could be used against him. His obedience had been perfect, and he intended to complete the Father’s purpose irrespective of what it might cost him.

At this point Jesus proposed leaving the upper room. Whether Chs. 15–17 were spoken en route to Gethsemane or he and the disciples lingered while he finished the discussion is not plain; but in either case the words conclude the open dialogue.