John 14 - Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

14:1 Trust in God. There are several translation possibilities in light of the fact that the verbs can be indicative or imperative: (1) “You are trusting in God and trusting in me” (both indicatives); but this is unlikely because they are in fact failing to trust in Christ. (2) “You are trusting in God; now trust in me” (the second switches to imperative), but the context doesn’t really support a statement that they are in fact trusting God. (3) “Trust in God, and trust in me” (both imperatives), which better fits a context where Jesus was commanding them to trust as the only antidote to fear (so Carson, Beasley-Murray, Burge contra Brown, who prefers indicative/imperative).

14:2 room. The KJV “mansions” stems from the influence of William Tyndale, who in the fourteenth century followed the Latin Vulgate’s mansiones.

would I have told you that . . . ? Although “that” (hoti [TG3754, ZG4022]) is missing in several witnesses (66* C2vid 038 —so the KJV, NIV), it was probably omitted by later copyists as superfluous (cf. Metzger 1994:206) and does belong in the text. As such, it could either introduce a question (as in the NLT reading above) or a causal idea (“If it were not so, I would have warned you, because I am going to prepare a place for you”). The question is problematic because there is no record that Jesus had told them any such thing yet. The causal is even more difficult, however: why would Jesus “warn” them about such a thing? It is best to take the question and presuppose that Jesus had indeed told them previously (there are certainly many sayings not recorded in the Gospels).

14:3 I will come. Some scholars (e.g., Gundry 1967; Keener 2003:932-939) think this refers to Jesus’ coming via the Holy Spirit and the new fellowship the believers would enjoy with Jesus through the Spirit. This is quite possible, for in 14:23, Jesus is likely referring to the Spirit’s coming when he says that he and the Father will “come and make our home with” the disciples (this and 14:2 are the only uses of monē [TG3438, ZG3665], “room” in John). Also, 14:18 says, “I will not abandon you as orphans—I will come to you,” a definite reference to the Spirit (Cf. 14:16-17). Comfort (1994:123-126) interprets this section with respect to Jesus’ coming to the disciples after his resurrection and giving them the Spirit. As such, the believers will be able, through the Spirit, to live in God the Father, and both God the Father and the Son will be able live in the believers. He argues that the context of John 14–16 and 20 points to Jesus’ coming in resurrection to impart the Spirit into the disciples (20:22) so that God and the believers can mutually indwell each other. Thus, when Jesus said that there are many rooms in the Father’s house, he was speaking of preparing the way for the believers to live in him (Jesus) and thereby also to live in the Father. Kangas (2000:27-29) takes this one step further and argues that the “home” is the church, the body of Christ, in which both God and his people dwell together. The imagery of “Father’s house” and “many rooms,” however, strongly favors a reference to Jesus’ return at the end of the age. It is possible that there is a double meaning here, in which there might be the return of Christ in the Spirit as the first stage of the final coming (cf. Barrett 1978:457 who says “the theme of ‘going and coming’ is constantly repeated in the future communion of Jesus with his disciples”; see also Westcott and Witherington for this idea). The primary referent, however, is to Jesus’ second coming (so Segovia 1985, Beasley-Murray, Michaels, Carson, Burge, Köstenberger). There is a development of the image from Jesus’ second coming and preparation of a home in heaven for them in 14:2-3 to Jesus’ coming and dwelling with them via the Holy Spirit in 14:18, 23.

14:7 If you had really known me. There are two mss readings—one a condition contrary to fact (entailing a rebuke as in the NLT; supported by A B C D1 L 038 044 f1,13 and accepted by NASB, NIV, Westcott, Brown, Hendriksen, Morris), the other a condition of fact (entailing a real condition with a promise [cf. NLT mg]; supported by 66 א D* W and accepted by UBS, NJB, Beasley-Murray, Michaels, Carson, Ridderbos, Köstenberger). The ms evidence is virtually even, but the context seems to support the second, more positive view, as in the latter half of the verse (“from now on, you do know him”). A rebuke would fit 14:9, but the context of 14:7 is more positive. The contrary to fact could be an assimilation to 8:19—“If you had known me, you would have known my Father too.”

14:16 Advocate. The meaning of paraklētos [TG3875, ZG4156] is very disputed: it is translated “Comforter” in the KJV; “Helper” in the NASB, Phillips; “Counselor” in the NIV; and “Advocate” in the NRSV, NJB, REB, NLT. The problem is that no single translation will truly suffice, for the work of the Spirit in these five passages is too broad for any one term (cf. the excellent discussions in Brown 1970:1135-1143; Keener 2003:953-964). The Paraclete teaches, reveals, and guides the believers and witnesses to, convicts, and prosecutes the unbelievers. “Comforter” does not fit at all, and “Helper” (Köstenberger—“helping presence”) does not describe Jesus’ work in the world. “Counselor” can fit the Spirit as guide, strength, and help to the disciples (so Carson) but again does not fit his work in the world. “Advocate” fits the general meaning of the term best, for in the first century it meant “one called upon for support . . . assistance” (BAGD), thus “a legal advisor or helper or advocate” (EDNT 28). Yet in this context it does not completely fit since it referred to an intercessor or defense attorney, while the Paraclete functions like a prosecuting attorney in 16:8-11. Still, “Advocate” catches the nuances of the term better than other words and is probably the best English equivalent (cf. Witherington). Johnston (1970) argues (probably rightly) that, on the whole, the Paraclete is the “representative” of God. Jesus was the first representative, envoy, or agent, and the Holy Spirit is another one. Several (Burge, Keener) also suggest a background in wisdom literature; building on Jesus as personified Wisdom, the Spirit is also the presence of God (and Jesus) in this world.

14:17 the Holy Spirit, who leads into all truth. There may be some polemical intention here (so Beasley-Murray) with the Spirit of truth in contrast with the lying spirit of the devil (8:44), fitting the Passion events as the defeat of Satan (12:31; 14:30; 16:11). Jewish writings normally used “Spirit of truth” in contrast to “the spirit of error” (Testament of Judah 20:1-5; 1QS 3:18-21). While John’s Gospel does not contain this dualism (so Carson), the battle between Christ and Satan in this section makes some connection likely.

he lives with you now and later will be in you. There is grammatical ambiguity and a text critical question as to whether these two verbs were orignally in the present or future tense. The best support is for the NLT reading—present tense for “lives” and future tense for “will be” (cf. Comfort 2007:[John 14:17]).

14:18 I will come to you. Bultmann (1971:617-618) believes this is a more developed version of Christian doctrine in which Jesus’ resurrection and second coming have been “demythologized” and collapsed into the coming of the Spirit. This explanation is certainly unnecessary, for the teaching of the early church never wavered regarding the expectation of Christ’s later return. There is simply no evidence for such a development.

14:28 the Father, who is greater than I am. This statement has caused great controversy. The fourth century heretic Arius (followed by modern Arians like the Jehovah’s Witnesses) said that this implies that Jesus is not divine. Yet John’s emphasis on the oneness between Jesus and the Father is the strongest in the NT (1:1, 18; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28). At the same time, Jesus clearly deferred to his Father on numerous occasions (3:17; 4:34; 5:19, 30, 36; 6:38; 7:16, 33; 8:29; 12:27, 49). How do we reconcile the seeming contradiction? Only by allowing each aspect to define the other. It is clear that Jesus is divine (1:1, 18; 10:30; the “I Am” passages), and it is also clear that he also placed himself under his Father on occasion (4:34; 5:19-30; 6:38; 8:29; 12:48-49). Two solutions suggest themselves: (1) he is one with the Father and yet in his incarnation was under the Father; and (2) he was subordinate to his Father’s will in his mission on earth (so Westcott, Michaels, Whitacre). Both aspects are correct and help us to understand this complex issue. Godet has an excellent remark: “Our passage breathes, in him who thus speaks, the most lively feeling of his participation in divinity. God alone can compare himself with God” (1969:289). Barrett adds, “The Father is God sending and commanding, the Son is God sent and obedient” (1978:468). At the same time, it must be stated that the Father-Son relationship exists within the Godhead and is an eternal relationship. There is ontological equality and functional subordination.

Suppose you had not been feeling well and finally visited a doctor. After tests, he called you in and told you that you had less than 24 hours to live. That evening, you only had a short time to tell your children the news, sum up everything you had been trying to teach them, and launch them into life without you. That is precisely the purpose of Jesus’ farewell discourse in 13:31–17:26. Jesus was preparing his disciples for the unbelievably difficult days ahead and for their mission to come afterwards. He also wanted to tell them why the approaching difficulties must come. The basic theme is, “I must depart so the Spirit might come.” Rahner (2000:76-80) thinks the tension between Jesus’ fast approaching departure and the coming of the Paraclete to finish his mission is the key to the whole discourse. Jesus was about to finish his course, the way to the new era of salvation. The Spirit would take over and bring God’s plan to completion.

The form of speech Jesus chose—the farewell discourse—is found often in the Old Testament (e.g., Jacob in Gen 47:29–49:33; Moses in Deut 32; Joshua in Josh 23–24; Samuel in 1 Sam 12; and David in 1 Chr 28–29). The similarities with these speeches are not surprising, as each of these great men comforted his followers in the face of his impending death and predicted what the future would bring (so Brown, Whitacre). While Jesus followed this pattern, he also transcended it because his was the death of the Messiah and Son of God. Most importantly, none of the others returned after they departed. Jesus is the only one who came back from the grave (so Carson). Primarily, Jesus provided a unique look at the Spirit as God’s “Paraclete” in this speech (see note on 14:16; Cf. 14:25-26; 15:26; 16:7-15) and gave seven all-embracing prayer promises (14:13, 14; 15:7, 16; 16:23, 24, 26).

There are three parts to the farewell speech (13:31–17:26): the first discourse (13:31-14:31), consisting of teaching and four dialogs with disciples—Peter (13:36), Thomas (14:5), Philip (14:8), and Judas (not Iscariot, 14:22); the second discourse (15:1–16:33), consisting entirely of Jesus’ elaboration on the themes in the first discourse; and the third, the high priestly prayer (17:1-26), centering on Jesus’ concern for glorifying his Father and for his followers.

Many critical scholars (e.g., Segovia 1985; for a survey of the literature, see Klauck 1996) think this was not one continuous speech but rather involves duplicated material (with chs 14 and 15–16 being two versions of the same material) or is an edited piece containing several levels of redaction by more than one author. Brown (1970:582-583) lists six details that call for this conclusion: (1) 14:30-31 (“Come, let’s be going”) is a natural conclusion, yet Jesus continued speaking; (2) sections contradict each other (e.g., 13:36; 16:5); (3) there are many duplications (e.g., 14:28 = 16:5-7; 14:1 = 16:6; 14:16, 26 = 15:26, 16:7; 14:12 = 16:10; 14:30 = 16:11, 12); (4) some material matches Synoptic parallels closely (e.g., 15:1–16:4 = Matt 10:17-25); (5) some material (e.g., 15:1-6) has little connection with the theme of Jesus’ departure; and (6) the variety of theological expression is hard to explain in a single discourse. The whole, however, is constructed very carefully and does not really contain evidence of clumsy compiling. Blomberg (2001:197) finds evidence of a chiastic arrangement (A = 14:1-31; B = 15:1-17; B’ = 15:16–16:4; A’ = 16:5-33), indicating both thoughtful construction and a unified discourse (for chiasm behind 13:31–17:26, see Keener 2003:895). This runs counter to the idea that we are observing duplications and misplaced material in the speech (in which case, one would have to wonder about the competence of later editors). The greatest difficulty for viewing the passage as one speech is 14:31. Carson (1991:479) notes two plausible scenarios: (1) Jesus and the disciples did not leave the upper room until 17:26; the statement of 14:31 then would be an original desire to go, but the conversation continued for a while before they actually left. By including 14:31, John was showing that Jesus’ love for them was so great that he had to go over his points again. (2) They could have left after 14:31 and continued their conversation in the streets of the city on the way to Gethsemane. Some believe chapters 15–17 were uttered in the Temple (giving rise to the vine imagery in 15:1ff and the high priestly prayer of 17) on the way (so Westcott, Burge). Either is possible and both supply a valid explanation for 14:31 (I prefer the second overall). In short, there are valid reasons for asserting that Jesus uttered this discourse as it stands.

Since Jesus and his Father are one, the reverse is true (13:32). Not only is the Father glorified in Jesus, but also God “will give his own glory to the Son, and he will do so at once.” The combination of the future tense with “at once” emphasizes the imminence of the Cross. In reality, Jesus would be dead in less than 24 hours. If the discourse occurred near midnight, it would be completed 15 hours later! In this cataclysmic event, Jesus glorified God by being obedient to his will, and God would glorify Jesus by making the Cross the final cosmic victory over Satan and the moment of Jesus’ supreme triumph.

Then Jesus switched to another of the major themes: his departure (13:33). He began with “dear children” (used only here in John but found seven times in 1 John) to show them the depth of his love and to continue his role from the Passover meal as family head of the apostolic band (a common metaphor for the rabbi-disciple relationship). The Father-Son relationship is reproduced in Jesus’ relationship with his followers (as also the loving unity of Father and Son in 15:4, 9; 17:21-22). The message that Jesus was going soon to a place where they could not find him had been conveyed twice to the Jewish leaders (7:34; 8:21). Now Jesus wanted his disciples to know it as well—but the difference was huge. His opponents had little hope of ever “going” to meet Jesus in heaven (few of them ever converted, though see Acts 6:7), but the separation from his “children” would be only temporary. Jesus was “going to prepare a place for [them]” (14:2) and “will come back to” them (14:28), both in the Holy Spirit and at his second coming.

The third theme of the discourse is introduced in 13:34-35, as Jesus gave them “a new commandment” to “love each other.” The importance of this is seen the common name “Maundy Thursday” for the anniversary of the Last Supper, reflecting the Latin Vulgate’s mandatum novum (new commandment); the early church considered this command an essential component of the Last Supper. In John, love is one of three great gifts along with “peace” (14:27) and “joy” (15:11, so Bruce). The command to love was hardly new, as in the Old Testament the people were told to love God (Deut 6:5) and their neighbors (Lev 19:18), commandments summarized in Jesus’ well-known teaching of Mark 12:29-31. It was “new” because it was grounded in two things: God’s love for Jesus and Jesus’ love for them, and the fact that he had brought them the new covenant. Hartin (1991:347) says it was new in the sense that Jesus had become the paradigm of sacrificial love, and the disciples thus had a new model to follow. It is also possible that “new commandment” was built upon the “new covenant” in Jesus’ eucharistic words (“new covenant . . . confirmed with my blood,” 1 Cor 11:25, so Lindars, Carson).

Newness characterizes every aspect of the kingdom reality. The new age has indeed begun, and now there is a new depth to the community love that characterizes the church. Moreover, this new love has been modeled in the love shown by Christ in both the Incarnation and the Cross: “Just as I have loved you, you should love each other.” As the disciples experience divine love, they participate in it also via their love for one another. The New Testament message is clear—we cannot truly love Christ without loving each other. Moreover, this love is at the heart of the church’s mission (Cf. 17:20-23), for their mutual love is what will “prove to the world that you are my disciples.” Throughout history the love of the community—both external love for the unsaved and internal love for the brotherhood (cf. Gal 6:10)—has been an essential component of Christian outreach. On the other hand, dissension in the community has always constituted a major barrier to the spread of the Gospel.

Peter (again probably speaking for the rest of the disciples) was rather confused by Jesus’ whole train of thought to this point. Ignoring the love command, he focused on what he thought was the key issue—“Lord, where are you going?” (13:36). Like the Jews of 7:35; 8:21-22, he could not comprehend Jesus’ prophecy about his departure, though he did realize that death was involved (13:37). Jesus’ response was quite different than his statement to the Jews in 7:34; he told Peter he could not come then but would follow him later. “Follow” is an essential component of discipleship in John (1:43; 8:12; 10:4, 27; 12:26; 21:19-22), and this probably applies to imitatio Christi—that is, the disciple following Jesus all the way, even unto death (cf. Mark 8:34). Only Jesus’ death could make it possible to follow him into the presence of God, though Peter would “follow” him later (21:18-19).

Peter protested that he wanted to follow Jesus, even if it meant dying for him. He was probably thinking of the final eschatological war, for soon after this he drew his sword and did battle against the infidels, probably expecting the angelic hosts to appear (cf. on 18:10). Jesus, who knows everyone’s heart (2:25), was fully aware of the truth. Far from dying for Jesus, Peter would “deny three times” that he knew Christ, “before the rooster crows” (13:38). Peter’s love was misdirected, for he did not realize how weak he really was. Jesus, with his omniscience, knew better. This prophecy is found in all four Gospels and emphasizes at a deep level the discipleship failure that is part of our own spiritual weakness and sin.

Jesus’ death would also be the turning point for the future destiny of the disciples. After his death, Jesus would return to his Father in heaven, for he was going away specifically to “prepare a place” for them (14:2-3). This was a major reason for them to trust in him—he was securing them a place in heaven. The image in 14:2 (cf. NLT mg) is of a large house (but not a “mansion,” [contra KJV], which was based on the Latin [the Vulgate] mansiones, which meant a “stopover place”; cf. Brown, Carson, Köstenberger) with many rooms for his followers, possibly reflecting the idea of the Temple as a multiroom house (so Blomberg). This is a metaphor for heaven; thus, Christ was going to heaven to prepare a place for his followers. In light of the following material in 14:15-29 about Jesus’ coming back to the disciples in resurrection via the Holy Spirit (cf. notes on 14:2-3), it is certainly possible that there is a double meaning with respect to his coming—with the coming of the Spirit anticipating the final coming. Still, I take the primary meaning of 14:3 to center on the Second Coming. Thus, Jesus was promising them a “room” prepared in heaven. The picture is of Jesus going home to heaven and there readying dwelling places in his Father’s heavenly “home” (14:2) and then going back to get the disciples and take them home to spend eternity with him (14:3; “so that you will always be with me where I am”). The path to his going home is the Cross, Resurrection, and Ascension. The path to his disciples joining him is their own resurrection, as Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:1—“when this earthly tent we live in is taken down . . . we will have a house in heaven.” Paul’s reference is to Jesus’ second coming, with the “house” here paralleling the “city” of Revelation 21. In both places, the image is that of the disciples dwelling with the Father and the Son for all eternity. The goal is that the believers “will always be with” Jesus, experiencing an eternity of joy in his presence. Since the disciples had been Jesus’ followers and had listened to his teaching, they should have known his way to the Father (14:4).

We will see in the very next verse that they seemingly knew nothing of the sort. They actually did “know the way,” even though they didn’t realize it, for they knew Jesus, and he is the “way” (14:6). Still, Thomas demurred, saying, “We have no idea where you are going, so how can we know the way?” (14:5). Thomas, though a committed disciple, seems to be filled with doubts and questions throughout John (Cf. 11:16; 20:24-25). Yet he did the right thing and brought his uncertainty to Jesus (a good lesson for us all!). Again, the disciples were thinking on the earthly plane, while Jesus was speaking of heavenly realities. This is the third of four passages (with 5:28-29; 6:39-40; 21:22) centering on a final eschatology (the end of the age) rather than a realized perspective (the present situation), and the disciples were completely confused. Like the Jewish authorities (7:35-36), they seemed to be wondering what earthly place he was planning to move to.

Jesus’ reaction (14:6) was quite different from his denunciation of the ignorance of the authorities (8:14b-21). Since the disciples were faithful and were honestly seeking the truth, Jesus responded with another “I am” saying, pointing to his identity with Yahweh and his resultant characteristics (14:6; see commentary on 6:16-19). Schnackenburg (1982:64-65) calls this “a unique statement that has lost none of its sovereign power” and says it is “a culminating point in Johannine theology, in particular his doctrine of salvation as centered entirely in Jesus Christ.” As a response to Thomas’s query regarding “the way,” the central point is Jesus as “the way,” and the other two clarify why he is the only “way.” It is best to translate Jesus’ words as “I am the way—namely, the truth and the life” (or “true and living way,” perhaps even “the way to truth and life,” though more likely they all three refer to Jesus). The idea of “the way” was at the heart of early Christian consciousness (they called themselves “the Way” [Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23] and at the earliest stage considered themselves the messianic sect of the Jews), derived from Isaiah 40:3 (cf. Mark 1:2-3). As Jesus and his disciples were on the road to Jerusalem in Mark, they were said to be “on the way” (cf. the Greek of Mark 9:33, 34; 10:17, 32, 52). There, it was “on the way” to Jesus’ destiny in Jerusalem; here, it is “the way” to the Father. As Keener says (2003:940-941), Jesus is “the way of righteousness and wisdom” as well as to life in God.

As “the way,” Jesus is also “the truth” and “the life.” He is “truth” because he is the living revealer, the very voice and revelation of God. As the incarnate shekinah, the “Word” is “grace and truth,” defined as “unfailing love and faithfulness” (1:14). Also, in Jesus is “life” (1:4), and God has granted him “life-giving power” (5:26) so that he bestows life on whomever he wants (5:21). Only by believing in Jesus can eternal life be found (3:15, 16, 36; 5:24). Jesus is the truth-teller and the life-giver, but even more, he is truth and life. For this reason, “no one can come to the Father except through” him. To many people this idea is highly offensive, and the Christian message is oppressive because it dares to say that Jesus is the only way to eternal life; others take an inclusive approach and say anyone who lives up to the “light” God provides them will get to heaven. But why would God go to so much trouble as to have his Son assume human flesh and die on the cross for our sins if he knew there were already many ways to eternal life? In truth, sin is an eternal force (called “total depravity”) that makes it impossible for people to come to God on their own merits or by their own religious beliefs. The atoning sacrifice of Christ is the only path to God that could in any way suffice to atone for sin. Therefore, he is indeed the only way to God and to eternal life.

Jesus concluded this with a statement of fact and a promise. In spite of their constant misunderstandings, the disciples “have really known” Jesus. On that basis, they could be assured that they would know his Father (cf. note on 14:7). They had progressively grown in their knowledge and had recognized him as Messiah, King of Israel, and Son of God (1:41, 49). Therefore, they could be assured that they were also coming to know the Father. After all, Jesus is the shaliach, the official representative agent or envoy of God (see notes on 1:6; 3:17); he is the representative of the Father and one with the Father (5:19; 10:30). To know him is to know the Father. Moreover, to know and see the Son is to share full community with the Father (so Schnackenburg).

Philip makes a natural request coming out of this: “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied” (14:8). This could hardly betray a desire to physically look on the face of God, for 1:18 tells us “no one has ever seen God.” Most likely, Philip wanted the type of vision that Isaiah was privileged to experience. Perhaps like Moses he desired to see the glory of God (Exod 33:18). Still, he failed to understand that in Jesus he had indeed looked on the glory of God. In fact, this was exactly the point Jesus made (14:9): How could Philip have spent so much time with him and not known who he really was? They had spent so much time with Jesus that they should have realized the truth: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father!” (14:9). Jesus turned to the language of belief (14:10); they didn’t know because they had not yet come to faith regarding Jesus’ true identity. They believed he was the Messiah, even the Son of God, but they had not yet perceived his true relationship with the Father. The mutual indwelling of Jesus and the Father has already been stated in 10:38 and is explored further in 14:11, 20; 17:21-23. Jesus’ point was that if they had this depth of faith and knowledge of Jesus as one with the Father as well as Messiah, they should have no trouble understanding that to see him is to see God. Not only that, but Jesus’ words are also the words of the “Father who lives in” him (Cf. 8:28; 12:49). He does nothing on his own, but instead, everything he does is the Father working through him. In John, Jesus’ works are more than his miracles; all his words and deeds are the work of the indwelling Father through him (for his works, see 5:17, 19; 9:3-4; 14:31; for his words, see 12:49).

In 14:10, Jesus challenged Philip to “believe”—but this is not saving faith as elsewhere in John. Rather, it is illuminating faith, the Spirit-given ability to see and understand truth. Jesus told them how they could find such faith (14:11). First, even if they couldn’t comprehend the key truth regarding the mutual indwelling of Father and Son, they could accept it by faith on the basis of Jesus’ teaching. Then, if they could not attain faith based simply on his teaching, they should believe on the basis of Jesus’ “work,” his miracles (called “signs” throughout, meaning they point to the true nature of Jesus) and other incredible deeds. In 5:36-40, Jesus told the Jewish people that “the Father gave me these works to accomplish, and they prove that he sent me.” He was telling the disciples the same thing. It would be best if their faith was grounded entirely in Jesus, but if they needed more concrete evidence, then they could remember his “work.”

Jesus expanded on the implications of faith for the disciples (14:12). It is an appropriating faith: Those who have come to that illumination regarding the true nature of Jesus via the Spirit will have incredible spiritual power. Jesus defined this two ways. First, they will be able to “do the same works I have done”—in one sense another reference to miracles. In other words, the power to do miracles is available to the church and is appropriated by faith. At the same time, the “works” are wider and include a life of piety and prayer. James says it correctly, “Unless [faith] produces good deeds, it is dead and useless” (Jas 2:14-17). Works cannot save us, but works are the necessary fruit of any true salvation. Second, Jesus goes beyond this: those who have faith will even perform “greater works” (Cf. 1:50; 5:20). What can be greater than the raising of Lazarus or the multiplication of the loaves? There have been many answers, such as doing even more works than Jesus did. But the best view is that this refers to life in the Spirit—i.e., experiencing the reality of the new life under Christ, namely the post-Resurrection power (Beasley-Murray, Carson, Whitacre). This, of course, is true, for Jesus clarifies it with “because I am going to be with the Father,” referring to the period after his work was done, and he ascended to the Father. That would introduce the age of the Spirit. Köstenberger (1998a:171-175) says the “greater” probably is meant eschatologically as a reference to the new age in salvation-history inaugurated by Jesus. Yet the text also says “greater works” (14:12), and the greatest miracle of them all is not the raising of the dead to earthly life but the bestowal of eternal life upon the unsaved. Jesus made salvation possible through his death, and in the age of the Spirit, his disciples would participate in the mission to the lost (Cf. 20:21-23, so Westcott, Bruce, Schnackenburg, Ridderbos). Thus the “greater works” are both the new power of the Spirit and the resultant privilege of mission produced by the Spirit (so Keener).

As part of the “greater works” of the new age inaugurated by Christ’s passion, there is a new prayer power (14:13-14). This exhibits an A-B-A pattern, as the two prayer promises frame the purpose, “so that the Son can bring glory to the Father” (14:13b). Christ sought to bring glory to the Father throughout his earthly ministry (7:18; 13:31; 17:4), and by answering prayer, he would continue to do so in heaven. In this sense, through prayer we participate in the glory of the Godhead! On the surface, these prayer promises are extraordinary, saying “ask me for anything . . . and I will do it.” Yet to assume we can get anything we want through prayer is not just an error but a dangerous theology. If that were true, we would be in control of God (as seen in prosperity preaching).

In reality, the key is “in my name” (also in 14:26; 15:16; 16:23, 24, 26). This is not a magical formula with which we close our prayers (nowhere in the NT does it come at the end of a prayer). Instead, it is the true perspective of prayer. In the ancient world, the person’s name defined who they were, the essence of their being. Parents would give their children the name they hoped would shape their lives. For instance, the angel told Mary to name her son “Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matt 1:21) (the name “Jesus” (Heb., yehoshua‘ [TH3091, ZH3397] or yeshua‘ [TH3442, ZH3800] originally meant “Yahweh saves”). To pray in Jesus’ “name” means to pray in union with who he is (note the indwelling motif in 14:10, 11), reflecting a life and prayers that are in accordance with his will (see Whitacre, Keener). Prayers that center on what we want without considering God’s will are not answered (Jas 4:3). This new prayer power was proof positive that the Kingdom had arrived, and it is mentioned often in John’s writing (15:7, 16; 16:23, 24, 26; 1 John 3:22; 5:14-15 [which adds “anything that pleases him”]).

The necessary responsibility of the believer in light of the “greater works” and prayer power of 14:12-14 is love and obedience. This provides a transition to 14:16ff, for it is also the necessary qualification for experiencing the Holy Spirit. The phrase, “if you love,” does not really question the disciples’ love for Jesus but rather uses their love for him as a springboard to their need to obey him (so Ridderbos). They must demonstrate their love in obedience. The connection between love and obedience is frequent (14:15, 21, 23; 15:14; 1 John 5:3) and implies its converse: to disobey means we do not love Christ. His commands include understanding and accepting the whole of his teaching, followed by a desire to live our lives on the basis of that teaching with its ethical/spiritual requirements. Love must naturally lead to obedience.

The responsibility of a disciple is to love and obey. Jesus promised that if his disciples obeyed, he would “ask the Father, and he [would] give [them] another Advocate (paraklētos [TG3875, ZG4156]; 14:16)”—that is, the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit who will enable the believer to have power in prayer and to obey the commands of the Lord. This is the first of five passages dealing with the ministry of the Holy Spirit as Paraclete (this Greek word now appears in many English dictionaries since no single translation does it justice; see note on 14:16), and the first thing we must notice is that he is “another Advocate,” meaning that Jesus was the first one. Everything the Spirit is described as doing in these passages Jesus had already done, so the Spirit continues the work of Jesus on earth. Also, the Spirit is given by the Father here. Twice he was sent by the Father (14:16, 26) and twice by the Son (15:26; 16:7). This continues the mission theme in John (cf. “Major Themes” in the Introduction)—the Father sends the Son to the world, and both Father and Son send the Spirit. Like Jesus, the Advocate’s ministry is both to the believer and the unbeliever; both are addressed in 14:16-17.

Jesus then defines the Advocate as the Spirit of truth, or “the Holy Spirit, who leads into all truth” (14:17; Cf. 15:26; 16:13), meaning one both characterized by truth and proclaiming truth. In his ministry to both the saved and the unsaved, the Spirit communicates divine truth, as did Jesus (8:32, 40, 45-46; 14:6). He comes first to the world, which “cannot receive him” (the same as Jesus, Cf. 1:10). The “world” in John is controlled by sin and rebellion, and thus rejection of Jesus and the Spirit is to be expected, for “it isn’t looking for him and doesn’t recognize him.” The world is spiritually blind—the natural result of total depravity (note that it “cannot receive him”).

In contrast, the disciples do “know him,” for they have spiritual sight. Not only that but the Spirit, like Jesus, lives with them now (14:17). The movement from the present “lives with you” to the future “will be in you” has occasioned much discussion. The Spirit had not yet been given to the disciples (7:39; that will occur in 20:22), so in what sense was the Spirit with them and in what sense would the Spirit be in them? Did he live with them? The difference is that the Spirit was with them throughout Jesus’ ministry—in the person of Jesus. After Jesus’ resurrection, the Spirit would indwell them.

The disciples were feeling isolated and alone in their fear, so Jesus said, “I will not abandon you as orphans,” a term sometimes used in secular Greek of disciples when their teacher died (Plato Phaedrus 116a). While Jesus would leave them to ascend to his Father, he would not leave them alone (cf. Josh 1:5, “I will not fail you or abandon you”). In Jesus statement, “I will come to you,” (14:18) there is ambiguity as to whether he meant he would come back to them in his resurrection appearances, in the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, or at the Parousia, his second coming. Some believe it is his coming in the person of the Spirit since this section is bracketed by passages on the Paraclete (14:16-17, 25-26). Others take it as the Parousia on the basis of 14:2-3. The most likely and the simplest answer is that Jesus was telling them he would come back to them in his resurrection appearances. At that time, the world would no longer see him, but the disciples would “see” him (14:19; there are no appearances to unbelievers except to his brothers, cf. 1 Cor 15:7). The language is too personal and specific (“see me”) to fit the coming of the Spirit (so Beasley-Murray, Carson, Borchert contra Bruce, Köstenberger). Not only that but Jesus’ next statement promised that he would be the firstfruits and guarantee of their own future resurrection—“Since I live, you also will live” (14:19; so Sanders, Morris). Yet there could also be double meaning here, for this may also indicate a new spiritual life that will be inaugurated by the events of the Resurrection (so Barrett, Whitacre).

The new spiritual life is clarified further in 14:20. “When” is literally “on that day,” an apocalyptic phrase used throughout the Old Testament (especially in the prophets) to refer to the coming Kingdom of God. Here it refers to the Resurrection as an apocalyptic, world-changing event. Then they “will know,” meaning not just intellectual apprehension but the participation of the whole person in the new age that Christ was about to introduce. Their new life would involve a depth of union that they never could have imagined. This threefold progression is truly one of the remarkable truths in Scripture; it is conveyed via the “indwelling” motif: as (1) Jesus indwells the Father, (2) believers indwell Jesus, and (3) Jesus indwells them. The principle is clear—the union within the Godhead is reflected in the mutual union we have with Jesus! This is explored even more deeply in 17:20-23. Here there is a double union—the Paraclete indwells us (14:17), and Jesus indwells us (14:20).

The central command of this section is to “accept my commandments and obey them”; this is connected with experiencing the love of Jesus (14:21; Cf. 14:15, 23). Once more, it is impossible to love him truly without living on the basis of his teaching. The new relationship with Jesus, inaugurated by the new eon that was established by the Resurrection events, demands a new level of adherence to his precepts. Note also that while there is a union of essence (14:20), there is also a union of love (14:21), for when we love Jesus and obey him, we will experience the love of both the Father and the Son. There is a oneness between the Father and the Son, and this is mirrored by the oneness between Jesus and us (so Carson). Moreover, Jesus would “reveal [himself] to each of them.” This manifestation of himself would begin with the resurrection appearances but would move beyond them to “his progressive self-revelation after his departure,” as seen in the switch to referencing disciples in the third person (“they”), showing that Jesus here includes future believers (Ridderbos 1997:507). It is likely that this progressive revelation of himself includes all the levels of this chapter—his resurrection appearances (14:18), the coming of the Spirit (14:16), and his Parousia (14:3), where the final revelation of himself will occur.

Jesus responded by contrasting the reactions of his followers and the world. Jesus would reveal himself to “all who love me” and “do what I say” (14:23). This is the third time obedience is stressed as the key response of the true believer (Cf. 14:15, 21). A life molded by Jesus’ teaching is proof positive that one loves him. These are the ones who experience God’s love and to whom Jesus promised that he and the Father would “come and make our home with each of them” (14:23). While Jesus was preparing a future “home” (monē [TG3438, ZG3665], 14:2) in heaven, he and the Father would also make a present “home” (14:23) in the life of the believer. This takes place through the Spirit, called both the “Spirit of God” (Rom 8:9a, 14; 1 Cor 6:11) and the “Spirit of Christ” (Rom 8:9b; Phil 1:19; 1 Pet 1:11). As the Spirit indwells the Christian (14:17), he is the presence of the Father and the Son. At the same time, it can also be said that the triune Godhead dwells within the believer! In a very real sense, this is a touch of heaven, an anticipation of the final reality expressed in Revelation 21:3—“Look, God’s home is now among his people! He will live with them, and they will be his people.” The world, by contrast, neither loves nor obeys Christ (14:24). That is why he reveals himself only to his own. To anchor both truths (14:23 and 14:24a), Jesus reminded them that his teaching was not his own but came directly from God. He wanted his disciples to understand the eternal truths embodied in them.

Jesus concluded the first half of his discourse with the promise of peace (14:27). The Hebrew shalom [TH7965, ZH8934] (peace) was the traditional “good-bye,” but Jesus’ intent went far beyond that. Here it was “a benediction full of grace and power” (Ridderbos 1997:511). In the Old Testament, peace was associated with God’s gift of salvation (Ps 29:11; Isa 57:19) and was a major messianic promise for the last days (Isa 9:6; 52:7; Ezek 37:26; Zech 9:10). Peace was also the blessing the disciples would receive again when Jesus had risen (20:19, 21, 26). In the midst of the tumult and fear that the disciples were undergoing, Jesus promised a messianic peace that was beyond human understanding (cf. Phil 4:7). It is a prime characteristic of the new order that Christ introduced (so Hoskyns, Beasley-Murray) and, as such, is a peace “the world cannot give” (14:27). The world’s peace is always a facade and is upheld only by military prowess (e.g., the Cold War or Pax Romana [the “Roman peace”], which were maintained by violence). There are never any lasting results. Only Christ can both provide inward peace and guarantee it for eternity. So as in 14:1, he told them they didn’t need to “be troubled or afraid.” The triune Godhead was watching over them and would be indwelling them.

After comforting his disciples, Jesus pointed out their failures. They had forgotten and failed to understand his repeated message: “I am going away, but I will come back to you again” (14:28). He had told them about his coming departure even more often than John records. The Synoptics have three Passion predictions, and Luke records several others. Between the Gospels, Jesus had told them 10 to 12 times that he would die and rise again. Yet as the women went to the empty tomb, they expected only a corpse (cf. Mark 16:1-2 and parallels), and even the Twelve initially showed strong doubts on the whole (Luke 24:11). Jesus’ statement, “if you really loved me” (14:28), implies that they did not (a contrary-to-fact condition in Greek). Jesus wasn’t really saying that they did not love him at all but rather that their love had not led to understanding and a greater concern for what was best for him rather than for themselves. They were still in denial (a common reaction to tragedy).

When Christians lose a loved one, it is natural that they vacillate between grief at the loss (11:35; Phil 2:27) and joy that the departed are with the Lord. Jesus asked that their love for him produce happiness since he would be with his heavenly Father. Then he added that his Father “is greater than I am” (14:28), meaning that God was in complete control of the situation (on Jesus’ subordination to the Father, see notes on 5:19-30; 8:29; 12:49-50) and his will was being accomplished. If the disciples were truly trusting God and concerned for his will, they would rejoice as they saw the events taking place exactly as he had ordained. If they truly loved Jesus, they would rejoice that he was returning to his true home. Also, Jesus told them (14:29) that he had related these things concerning the future so that their faith would be strengthened when the events came to pass (Cf. 13:19; 16:4).

Since Jesus was near the end of his life, he told them he had little time left to talk with them (14:30), for “the ruler of this world approaches,” implying that Judas, possessed by Satan, was approaching. In this Gospel, the death of Jesus is clearly portrayed as a cosmic war (also 6:70; 12:31; 13:27; 16:11). Satan led Jesus to the Cross and precipitated his own defeat, certainly one of the greatest tactical errors in history! Yet what else could Satan do? He had been cast out of heaven and knew his time was short (Rev 12:12). His final defeat was certain, and he knew it. Even in the end times, God will allow the Antichrist to martyr the saints (Rev 13:7), yet each death will be another defeat for Satan (Rev 12:11). Jesus added, “He has no power over me.” There is a legal connotation here: the devil can make no charge against Jesus (so Beasley-Murray). Also, the statement shows that Satan is not in control—God is.

Rather than giving in to Satan, Jesus was actually doing “what the Father requires” (14:31). Satan only ever seems to be winning; in reality, even he can do only what God allows (Rev 13:5-8; 17:17). Jesus loves the Father and obeys him (the supreme example for us, Cf. 14:15, 21, 23). The Cross was an act of divine obedience, not a victory for Satan. In the final analysis, the world would know of Jesus’ love for the Father (14:31), not of Satan’s act. At this point, Jesus said, “Come, let’s be going,” signifying the end of the dialog. At this point Jesus was either simply indicating his desire to leave (something which may not have happened until the end of chapter 16), or he and the disciples actually were leaving and he continued their conversation in the streets of the city on the way to Gethsemane (cf. Carson 1991:479). What is clear is that Jesus knew it was time to meet his destiny.