John 16 - Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

16:1 abandon your faith. The verb skandalizō [TG4624, ZG4997] means to “stumble” or “go astray.” It is used in 6:61 of those disciples who were offended and then fell away (6:66). It also appears in Mark 14:27 in Jesus’ use of the language of apostasy to predict that upon his arrest the disciples would all “desert” him.

16:2 the time is coming. This is a semitechnical phrase in John (4:21, 23; 5:25, 28; 16:25, 32) for the eschatological last days, which had arrived. It was the time of true worship (4:23) and the time of messianic salvation (5:25) and final revelation (16:25; cf. “soon,” NLT). Persecution (16:2, 32) is also part of the last days.

16:8 convict the world. The verb in the NT is always used of proving someone a sinner so as to call them to repentance (TDNT 2.473-474), but it can mean to “expose” sin (so Brown, Hoskyns, Beasley-Murray, Derrett 1999, Whitacre), to “convince” people of their sinfulness (Bruce), to “convict” of being wrong (Westcott, Kysar), or to prove them guilty of sin (Carson, Barrett, Schnackenburg, Ridderbos, Burge). In 3:20, the verb is used of exposing evil deeds, and in 8:46 of accusing Jesus of sin. The context here is decidedly forensic, and so this last option is best. The Spirit is proving both to the world itself and to the judgment seat of God that the world is guilty.

16:9-11 that . . . because . . . because. All three clauses have the Paraclete convicting the world, but the contents of the conviction use a hoti [TG3754, ZG4022] clause that can be translated “that” or “because” and therefore may give either the contents of the conviction or the reason for it. Scholars are divided, with some saying it gives the substance of the charge (“that,” so Brown, Morris) and others the basis of it (“because,” so Barrett, Carson). In the forensic context of this passage, the three better express the cause of the charge than its substance.

16:10 Righteousness. This is the most difficult content of the three hoti clauses (see note on 16:9-11) to specify. There are several options: (1) in a legal context it could be “justice,” showing that Jesus was innocent and just (Brown, Whitacre); (2) it could be demonstrating Jesus’ righteousness in light of his exaltation and return to the Father (Hoskyns, Bruce, Beasley-Murray, Comfort, Witherington, Burge, Keener, Köstenberger); (3) to continue the centrality of the world in the three clauses, it means convicting the world of its lack of righteousness (Carson, Blomberg); (4) it could refer to the “justification” of believers, as they suffer for the Lord (Barrett). Of these, the second is the most natural in light of the whole context. The world is convicted of three things—its sin, Christ’s righteousness (in light of its condemnation of him), and its coming judgment.

16:13 into all truth. Carson (1991:539-540) makes a strong case for understanding this as “in all truth,” pointing out that Jesus had already revealed all truth in himself (14:6). This “suggests an exploration of truth already principally disclosed,” and the Spirit guides the believer into the implications of those truths.

16:16 a little while . . . a little while. Some believe the first refers to the interval between Jesus’ death and resurrection and the second time, between his resurrection and second coming (Barrett, Bruce), but it is more likely they refer, respectively, to the time before his death and the time between his death and resurrection because the context refers to the joy of seeing Jesus again (16:21-24), undoubtedly at the resurrection appearances (Michaels, Witherington, Burge).

16:19 Jesus realized. As in 1:47; 2:24; 6:61, Jesus was almost supernaturally aware of what his disciples were saying and thinking. His knowledge of people and their thoughts was further proof of his heavenly origin.

16:21 brought a new baby into the world. Some have seen a reference to Gen 3:16 and 4:1, and so to a new creation theme with Jesus as the new Adam. This is hardly the stress here; that idea has a stronger association with the Day of the Lord. The emphasis here is on Jesus’ death and resurrection. In one sense, Jesus brought about a new creation (Cf. 1:1), but there is no new Adam theme here.

16:23 At that time. This phrase is lit. “in that day,” and in both the OT (Isa 2:11, 17; 3:6, 18; Hos 2:16, 18) and NT (Mark 13:11, 17, 19, 32; Acts 2:18; 2 Tim 1:12, 18; 4:8; Heb 8:10; Rev 9:6), it refers to the Day of the Lord when the present world order will be overthrown. Here it is used in an inaugurated sense of the beginning of those last days.

won’t need to ask me for anything. Scholars are divided as to whether this concludes 16:17-22 (Westcott, Bultmann, Hoskyns, Brown, Barrett, Morris, Beasley-Murray) or introduces 16:23-24 (Bernard, Bruce, Carson). The verb “ask” here probably means they will no longer need to ask him any questions (as in 16:17-19) rather than prayer requests, so the first option is better.

16:31 Do you finally believe? Some (Michaels, NIV) make this a positive statement, “You believe at last,” on the basis that the context shows genuine faith on the part of the disciples. It is better to take this as a question, indicating Jesus’ doubt regarding the degree of their faith since there is more a tone of rebuke in the context (Barrett, Witherington, Burge, NRSV, NLT—Carson keeps the exclamation but sees it as sarcastic).

16:32 you will be scattered. Ridderbos (1997:545) believes this alludes not just to Zech 13:7 but also to 1 Kgs 22:17, which mentions not only the sheep scattered but also includes the command, “send them home in peace.” Thus after the battle, the enemy will stop pursuing, and the scattered army will be able to return in peace. Jesus would bear the full burden of the world’s hostility, as the disciples returned to their homes. This is possible, but it must be stated that, if so, it came true only after the Resurrection.

you will be scattered. . . . Yet I am not alone because the Father is with me. There are two problems here: (1) John never mentions the desertion of the disciples (cf. Mark 14:50-52 and parallels), so it is best to take this as a piece of tradition embedded in John to warn later followers against such failures (so Brown). (2) How do we reconcile Jesus’ statement here with the cry of dereliction in Mark 15:34 and parallels: “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” Some (Brown, Kysar) believe John would never use such a saying in light of this; others (Hoskyns, Barrett, Lindars) that he corrects a false understanding of that cry. It is better to say that the two statements relate two separate aspects of Jesus’ experience of the Cross: he was conscious of his Father’s presence but for that terrible moment expressed his deep agony via Ps 22:1, the cry of dereliction (so Beasley-Murray, Carson, Borchert, Köstenberger).

The farewell discourse is organized in two cycles, a Hebraic method of writing that goes over the same material twice, adding further clarification (this method is central in Heb 8–10, 1 John, and the book of Revelation). Jesus went over the material in 13:31–14:31 a second time, building on several themes like the necessity of love in the community (13:34-35 // 15:17), the coming of another Paraclete (14:15-17, 26 // 15:26; 16:7-15), spiritual warfare (14:30 // 16:11), and the prayer promises (14:13-14 // 15:7, 16; 16:23). At the same time, he added further nuances. In the first half, he centered on his need to depart so that the Spirit could come. In this cycle he centers more on the disciples, who would have to remain in him and bear fruit, and the fact that they would endure persecution as he did.

This is the last of the seven “I am” sayings in John (Cf. 6:35; 8:12; 10:7, 11; 11:25; 14:6). The illustration of the Vine has background in the use of a vine for Israel in the Old Testament (Ps 80:8-18; Isa 5:1-7; 27:2; Jer 2:21; 5:10; Ezek 15; 17:1-6; Hos 10:1) and intertestamental period (Sir 24:17-21; 2 Baruch 39:7). As Burge brings out (1994:392), the idea is that Israel’s “holy space” is in the land God has given her. In these passages, the vine metaphor is usually negative, centering on divine judgment on the nation for its unfaithfulness to God (so Pryor). Jesus used it more positively but still with negative overtones.

It is possible that Jesus, on the way from the upper room with his disciples, was standing on the Temple grounds looking up at the Holy Place where, at the entrance above the linen curtain, there was a large grapevine (with some clusters the “height of a man,” so Josephus Antiquities 15.395) of pure gold, symbolizing Israel (so Burge). In a further fulfillment theme (similar to the feasts in chs 5–10), Jesus identified himself as “the true grapevine,” replacing Israel as God’s true vineyard. Consider what Jeremiah 2:21 says about the vine (Israel): “I [God] was the one who planted you, choosing a vine of the purest stock—the very best. How did you grow into this corrupt wild vine?” The nation was no longer fit to be the source of the covenant people of God; Jesus became the only way (14:6). The “sacred space” in which God’s people must now dwell is Jesus. Earlier, he replaced the Temple (ch 2), the Passover (ch 6), the Festival of Shelters (chs 7–8), and now he replaces the land (so Burge 1994:393-394). As Ridderbos says (1997:515), Jesus “applies to himself the redemptive-historical description of the people of God. He thus becomes the one who represents or embodies the people.” Now a personal relationship with Jesus defines God’s people, and so the disciples constitute the new Israel. Building on the background in which Wisdom is planted among the people of God and produces fruit (Sir 24:17-21), Witherington (1995:255-257) sees Jesus as the Wisdom of God, “the authentic source of nourishment, strength, and empowerment for ministry.” Moreover, the “Father is the gardener” (15:1), the one who controls the vineyard and decides which branches are to remain on the vine. Isaiah 5:2 speaks of the gardener as the one who “plowed the land, cleared its stones, and planted it with the best vines.”

There are two kinds of branches—fruit-bearing ones and those that fail to produce fruit—but it is important to realize that both types of branches are “in me” (that is, originally part of the vine). Here Jesus was utilizing the ancient practice of viticulture as an illustration. Dead branches were removed, and fruitful branches were trimmed so that they would be even more productive. In one sense, this summarizes chapter 13, as the “dead branch,” Judas, was cut off and the good branches, the disciples, were pruned (so Whitacre). Fruitless branches are cut off, a strong image elaborated in 15:6. It connotes the idea that they are useless and have ceased to be living branches. The good branches are then pruned so they will “produce even more” (15:2). Brown (1970:675) gives the background: The removal of dead branches occurred in February–March, and at times the vines resembled “stalks bereft of branches.” The pruning occurred in spring and then a second time in August (so Keener) after the vine developed leaves, and the gardener would press off the little shoots so that the main fruit-bearing branches would get all the moisture. The meaning of removing the dead branches is explored in 15:6; however, the thrust of the act of pruning by the heavenly gardener should be explored here. Obviously, it refers to growth in the new life in Christ, and the idea of producing more fruit sums up all the qualities of discipleship in John—increased faith, prayer, obedience, love, mission, ministry—all that brings glory to God (15:8). The process of pruning probably refers to the difficulties in life, the trials that make the believer “strong in character” and “ready for anything” (Jas 1:2-4, TLB).

Jesus then applied the allegory to the disciples (15:3-4), saying first that they “have already been pruned and purified” by his teaching. Jesus had been developing them spiritually throughout his ministry with them, and they were already bearing fruit. There may also be a reference to Jesus’ earlier teaching during the Last Supper (the setting for this discourse, Cf. 13:10, “you disciples are clean”), which in a sense finalized the cleansing process by preparing them for Jesus’ true destiny. Since they were clean, they needed to continue in that state, and there was only one way to do so: “Remain in me, and I will remain in you” (15:4). Mutual indwelling is the key concept in this section of the discourse (15:4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10) and continues the theme from 14:16, 20, 23. The life of the believer is to be lived entirely in union with Jesus and in dependence on his presence. All branches have life only to the extent that they are attached to the vine, and fruitfulness is completely dependent on life-giving sap from the vine. Jesus could not be more clear. The extent to which the disciples relied on themselves was the extent to which they would fail (cf. the discipleship failure motif in Mark [[6:52;8::14-21;9:14-29]). The only way to a fruitful life is to dwell entirely in Christ and the Spirit. As said by Paul (Eph 2:8-10) and James (2:14-26), works cannot produce faith, but faith must produce works. The believer is totally responsible to continually draw sustenance and life from union with Jesus.

Returning to the metaphor, Jesus repeated the theme: “Yes, I am the vine; you are the branches” (15:5). The thrust is clear. Only by remaining in Jesus is there any possibility of fruit-bearing, “for apart from me you can do nothing.” In the new life after Jesus had departed and the Spirit had come, the disciples must absolutely rely on Jesus in every area of life. Hartin (1991:347) says this is the heart of the new ethics Jesus introduced; as the model of self-sacrificial love, Jesus becomes one with the members of his community and makes it possible for them to exemplify the same love. The alternative is fearful indeed. Those branches that cease to “remain” and bear fruit will be “thrown away like a useless branch,” withering and being “gathered into a pile to be burned” (15:6). This expands the image in 15:2. This is a very serious warning since it implies fiery judgment; and as it is tied in closely with the issue of the security of the believer according to John (Cf. 6:37-40; 10:27-29), it is quite controversial. The Arminian theologian takes this as a warning against the apostasy of a believer (note “every branch of mine” in 15:2); note that they refuse to “remain in” Christ. Westcott (1881:217) says the unfruitful branches are true branches “in Christ,” and several (Brown, Whitacre) suggest that this echoes Old Testament passages on the fate of apostate Israel (Ezek 15:4-6; 19:12), as well as Matthew’s parable of the weeds (13:30). Witherington (1995:258) says, “This being cut off is not seen as happening to those who have never been a part of the authentic vine but to those who ‘do not remain in me.’ This of course presupposes that at one point they were authentically joined to Jesus but did not stay the course because of pressures and problems created by a hostile world” (cf. Keener 2003:1000-1002).

The Calvinist says that these are not true disciples, even though they were part of the church (so Hendriksen, Blomberg, Köstenberger; Michaels takes this as a reference to Judas who was never a believer; Comfort and Hawley [1994] apply 1 John 2:19: “These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us”). Some also suggest that these were perhaps the Jews who were once in God’s vine but refused to remain when Christ came (so Carson). Others say that the cutting off and burning are simply viticultural images that stress the need to remain in the vine without implying the apostasy of true believers (Morris, Ridderbos). The latter interpretation is unlikely, for if the pruning is meant to be applied, so is the cutting off. Also, the Jewish interpretation is unlikely, for Jesus says “in me,” not “in God.” Thus, the two most likely are the views that true believers can apostatize or that the apostates are part of the church, though not of the elect. While in my opinion, “in me” favors true believers, both are possible, and the issue must be decided not just on this text but on a study of the security and warning passages throughout Scripture (cf. Osborne 2003 on Rom 8:28, 29-30, and 10:21). In reality, there is a mediating position. The warning to the church is very real here as well as in passages like Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-31, and it should be preached as such in our churches, for we do not know who is a true believer and who is not. In a sense, the debate occurs after someone apostatizes—that is, was the person a believer before (we thought so) or not? In other words, both sides should preach security in security passages (e.g., 6:35-44; 10:27-29) and warning in warning passages such as this one.

Our prayer life will thus reflect that union, and so we can “ask for anything” and “it will be granted.” The implication, as in 14:13-14, is that we will not ask self- centered requests. Our prayer life will be concerned more for the glory of God (the “thou-petitions” of the Lord’s prayer, Matt 6:9-10) than for our own needs (the “we-petitions,” Matt 6:11-13, which come after the God-centered requests). Prayer, along with Christ answering such prayers, is a major type of fruit-bearing and is a hallmark of true discipleship. Every disciple is defined by the quality of fruit they produce.

The goal of a disciple is to remain in Jesus and bear much fruit for him (15:8, cf. 4-5). “Christians were chosen for this and appointed for this. It is God’s design and economy that each believer should live in union with his Son and be fruitful (i.e., express the effect of that union in daily life)” (Comfort 1994:133-134). One of the primary means by which this fruitful life is accomplished is to depend upon Christ to the extent that all needs are placed before him in prayer. This, in fact, is the meaning of the first we-petition in the Lord’s prayer, “Give us today the food we need” (Matt 6:11). The prayer is not equivalent to, “Gimme, gimme!” but rather, “Lord, I surrender my needs to you.” Producing much fruit, moreover, “brings great glory to” God. In 14:13, Jesus already said he answered prayer in order to glorify his Father. This is expanded here into every kind of fruit-bearing. It is all a product of Christ indwelling the believer, and so the purpose of every kind of fruitfulness is to glorify God. As the Westminster Confession says, we have been created to “glorify God and enjoy him forever.” Glorifying God is the great privilege and joy of the disciple.

The second part of Jesus’ amplification of the vine and branches illustration focuses on the love and joy the believer experiences in Jesus (15:9-11). Throughout the farewell discourse, the relationship between Jesus and the disciples reflects the relationship between Jesus and the Father. This is especially the case in experiencing Jesus’ love. The love he has for us is the outgrowth of the love he shares with his Father. This is beyond understanding. The depth of that love cannot be expressed in human language. It can only be experienced. The Greek (ēgapēsa [TG25, ZG26], “loved”; aorist tense) expresses the completeness of God’s love for his Son and connotes an eternal love that existed even before time began (so Carson). The depth of that eternal love is now experienced by Jesus’ followers. As Romans 5:8 says, “God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners.” This love continues throughout our lives. Yet to experience its depths, we are responsible to “remain in (his) love.” Love must be experienced to be complete. The self- centered believer is like a self-centered spouse—they are loved but remain unaware of it. It is a terrible tragedy to be loved by Christ and yet not respond to it.

Remaining in Christ’s love is further defined as obedience to his commands (15:10). Moreover, obedience, like love, is built upon the relationship between God and Christ. His obedience to his Father is the basis and model for our obedience, a major emphasis in John (4:34; 5:17, 19-20; 6:38; 8:29; 10:18; 12:49-50), especially in this section (14:15, 21, 23, 31). Jesus’ love is the ground of obedience, and our love for him is the wellspring from which our obedience flows. Like Jesus, as we obey, we “remain in [God’s] love” (15:10). This does not mean that when we fail to obey, he stops loving us (Rom 8:31-39); rather, disobedience keeps us from experiencing his love. Further, the purpose for this teaching is joy—he wants us to be filled with joy and for that joy to “overflow” (15:11). Jesus had given his disciples messianic “peace” (14:27) and now offered them messianic “joy,” a promise that would culminate in the upper room appearance to them (20:19-20). In fact, all three of the messianic gifts—love, peace, joy—are now available to Jesus’ followers. With this, even our trials can be greeted with “great joy” (Jas 1:2); we may not have happiness, for trials are painful (Heb 12:11), but we have joy because Christ is in control.

The third implication of the vine illustration that Jesus discusses is the love that believers share with one another (15:12-17). This completes the three stages of love: love between the Father and the Son leads to love between Jesus and the disciples (15:9-10), and now his love for us must be reflected in our love for one another (15:12). Michaels (1989:273) sees in this the same triangular pattern as in 13:34; Jesus loves each believer, and that love must lead to his followers loving one another. Our relationships with each other are part of our relationships with Christ. This is true at every level—husband–wife (1 Pet 3:7), parent–child (Eph 6:1-4), or Christian–government (Rom 13:1-2; 1 Pet 2:13), as well as in areas like forgiveness (Matt 6:14-15) or social concern (Jas 2:13). We cannot truly experience the love of Christ without loving one another. These all tie together: Love for God and Jesus demands obedience, and obedience includes the “new commandment” of 13:34-35 to love each other (so Carson). This love then will involve even laying down our lives for our friends (15:13), an extension of God’s love as demonstrated in Christ’s death (Rom 5:8; 1 John 3:16). The model is Jesus, who would lay down his life for them just hours after delivering this address. As we emulate Christ’s love, we too may someday be required to give our lives for others (as many missionaries have done). God’s Word is clear on this: godly suffering is a special sharing with Christ (Phil 3:10), and God will use it redemptively (the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church).

Jesus then gave his disciples an entirely new status and relationship with him. In a sense, this was their graduation ceremony. They were no longer just disciples but friends (15:14-15). First, his friends are those who obey him. This is not really a condition, as if every act of disobedience destroys that friendship. Rather, it flows out of what he had been saying. Love and obedience are deeply intertwined (14:15, 21, 23); it is when we obey that we experience the depth of his love (15:10). Nothing can separate us from Christ’s love (Rom 8:35), but as we live according to his precepts, we know a special intimacy with him. The slave/master terminology was often used of the relationship between a rabbi and his disciples. Also, “slave” (doulos [TG1401, ZG1528]) and related words are used throughout the New Testament to describe the relationship between the believer and God (cf. John 13:16; 15:20). It means that we belong to God and are part of his family (a slave was a member of the household in the first century). Jesus was not saying that this metaphor no longer applied but rather that his relationship with his followers was changing. They were now “friends” (for background on this see Keener 2003:1006-1011) and not just “slaves” (Cf. 20:17 where they become “brothers”). A slave owner does not “confide” in his slave but demands unquestioning adherence. Jesus, however, shared everything his Father had told him (as emphasized throughout this discourse). This would be continued even more in the ministry of the Paraclete (14:26; 16:13-15). The disciples now enjoyed a special status as “friends of God,” a concept the Jewish people reserved primarily for the great leaders of the past, like Abraham and Moses (cf. TDNT 9.168).

The relationship is completely dependent on Christ, not them: “You didn’t choose me. I chose you” (15:16). This also makes even more apparent the incredible privilege of being one of the chosen (so Ridderbos). Jesus’ followers are truly the special people in this world. Moreover, they were not just chosen but “appointed” or “set apart” (ethēka [TG5087, ZG5502]) from the rest of humanity. This is often used for appointment to ministry (Gen 17:5; Num 8:10; 27:18; Acts 13:47; 1 Tim 1:12), and the specific ministry here is to “produce lasting fruit,” certainly pointing generally to the fruitful Christian life (Schnackenburg) but specifically referring to the missionary mandate to reach the world for Christ (Westcott, Bernard, Barrett, Beasley-Murray, Carson, Köstenberger). The most enduring fruit there can be is converts. When we are engaged in mission, God also grants us our requests in prayer (Cf. 14:13, 14; 15:7). Prayer might be called the lubricating fluid for the engine of fruit-bearing. It channels the presence of God into our mission and ensures his power in our task. Concluding this section, then, is the reiteration of the command to “love each other” (15:17), thus framing this section with the necessity of brotherly love (Cf. 15:12). Love in the community is necessary to the success of the Christian mission.

Jesus had just told them, in the context of the foot washing, that “slaves are not greater than their master” (13:16). There, the emphasis was the necessity of a servant heart; here, it was the necessity of sharing their Master’s suffering (15:20). As they became more Christlike, they would face the same persecution he had. In fact, their message would be treated the same way (cf. note on 15:20). They were ambassadors of the Word of God and so were in direct opposition to the world. In the same way that the people of this world had rejected Jesus’ message, they would reject the preaching of the disciples. Yet the true reason for this rejection was not the disciples or their message but rather the one who sent them (15:21). Jesus would send them on their mission, as he was sent by his Father (17:18; 20:21). It is “because of” Jesus that they would be hated, and in reality he was rejected because they rejected the one who sent him. The Jewish people claimed to know God, but they proved their true ignorance when they rejected his Son. In the same way that there are three stages of union—Father, Son, believers—there are the same three stages of rejection.

The guilt of the world and the Jewish people is explored in 15:22-25. The basis of the world’s problem is willful ignorance, which equals rejection. Jesus had come with words (15:22) and works (15:24), and they had rejected both. As he said here, their guilt would not be so clear if he had never spoken to them (15:22), but since he had come, they “have no excuse for their sin.” They had met the Son of God, and they had rejected God’s final revelation. Instead of accepting the divine offer of salvation, they had responded to the Son with hatred (15:23). As Ridderbos says (1997:525), “This hatred is the human ‘no’ to the divine ‘yes’ expressed in the mission of his Son.” In hating the Son, they had by extension hated the Father as well, and this after they had not only heard his words but also seen his works (15:24). So they were doubly without excuse. Remember that in John, Jesus’ words and his works are the “signs” that point to the reality of Jesus and call people to salvation; yet even the world’s hatred is part of God’s larger purpose and was planned for in Scripture. John points out that it “fulfills what is written in their Scriptures. ‘They hated me without cause’ ” (15:25). This is found in Psalms 35:19 and 69:4 (more likely the latter is the source here since it is quoted so often in the NT). In those psalms, David grieves over the number of enemies who oppose him; in John, Jesus is seen as the Davidic Messiah, suffering the same fate as David. In light of this parallel, Jewish guilt becomes all the more evident, for they had turned against their own Messiah “without cause.”

Jesus’ mission to the world was to be continued by the Paraclete and the disciples. That is the theme of 15:26-27 (in fact, it is also the primary theme of the farewell discourse). These are not two independent witnesses but one. The Spirit empowers and indwells the community of saints, and he inspires their witness (so Bultmann, Brown, Barrett; cf. Matt 10:20; Acts 5:32, 6:10). Once more, the origin of the Paraclete is stressed: “I will send you the Advocate. . . . He will come to you from the Father.” The Father sent the Son, and the Father and Son together would send the Spirit. The mission to the world is a heavenly one, and the entire Godhead is involved. In fact, in the legal setting of the world’s opposition, the “Advocate” would “testify” on behalf of Jesus. As “the Spirit of truth” (Cf. 14:17; 16:13), the Paraclete ensures that the world hears what is absolutely true of Jesus. There will be no avoiding the light as it shines forth (1:5). In the Spirit’s witness, the world’s encounter with Jesus will continue unabated. This will take place primarily through the witness of the disciples (though not entirely, for the Spirit works in many ways, Cf. 16:8-11), who had been with Jesus from the beginning. Jesus commanded the disciples to bear witness (the verb is an imperative). They were Jesus’ chosen envoys from the start, and so it was their calling to continue his witness to the world. It was not only their calling—it is the task of every Christian to proclaim the truth of Jesus Christ to a lost world.

As the disciples engaged in mission through the presence of the Spirit (15:26-27), they should expect fierce opposition (16:1-4). Jesus covered this issue generally in 15:18-25 but here described specific trials they would undergo. The great danger was not just discouragement due to hard times but abandoning the faith—apostasy. He had already presented this danger in the vine and branches illustration (Cf. 15:2, 6), and it was demonstrated in the case of Judas. Moreover, the entire Epistle to the Hebrews is devoted to this problem, showing that it was a very real danger in the early church as well as today (see commentary on 15:6 for the theological issue). The first specific trial is expulsion from the synagogue (16:2), which happened to the man born blind (9:34; Cf. 9:22; 12:42; for the historical issue see note on 9:22). Jesus warned of this in the Synoptics as well (Matt 10:17; Mark 13:9; Luke 21:12), and it was more than just being removed from synagogue membership. It meant being put under the ban and cut off from the Jewish community itself.

Second, they would not only be killed, but their murderers would “think they are doing a holy service for God” (16:2). In Mark 13:12, Jesus warned, “A brother will betray his brother to death, a father will betray his own child, and children will rebel against their parents and cause them to be killed.” This began with Jesus, when Caiaphas said, “It’s better for you that one man should die for the people than for the whole nation to be destroyed” (11:50). Since Christians came to be viewed as heretics by the Jews, it was thought that killing them was serving God (Numbers Rabbah 21 [191a]; m. Sanhedrin 9:6; so Beasley-Murray). It was thought that so long as there was blasphemy in the land, the Messiah would not come. Paul himself undoubtedly believed that arresting Christians, putting them in prison, and having them killed (Acts 8:3; 9:1; 26:10) was an act of piety on his part. As seen throughout Acts, the Jews, rather than the Romans, were the primary source of persecution in the early years of the church. The saddest aspect is that Christians, who have been the brunt of such religious persecution so often, have all too frequently been the instigators of the same kind of slaughter “in the name of Christ,” as in the Crusades or the Jewish pogroms.

The reason for such rabid hatred is that “they have never known the Father or me” (16:3; Cf. 15:21). This has been an emphasis since 1:10-11. Christ is the only path to knowing the Father (14:6-7, 9-10), so when one rejects the Son, one is rejecting the Father as well. As in 1:10, the failure to know means more than ignorance and connotes deliberate rejection of the truth. In 16:4 Jesus reiterates the point he made in 16:1. He was “telling [them] these things now” so that when the persecution began, the disciples would “remember” his “warning” not to “abandon [their] faith.” They would then realize that Jesus had known all along what would happen and that he is sovereign over all such events. “When they happen” is literally “when their hour comes,” and it is connected to the “hour” theology in John (see commentary on 2:4). The “hour” of their trial was instigated by Jesus’ “hour” (so Carson).

Therefore, Jesus clarified the eternal picture behind these events, and he did so from their perspective. He returned to the major theme of the farewell discourse and told them that unless he went away, “the Advocate won’t come” (16:7) and God’s plan would not be completed. It was the Cross that had to inaugurate the end times, and only then would the age of the Spirit begin (Cf. 7:39). This was for the disciples’ good, for then they would find their destinies as well. In fact, this was Peter’s answer to the discouragement caused by persecution. He asked his readers to reflect upon the fact that they were living in the age of salvation (1 Pet 1:3-12), the time the prophets longed to see (1 Pet 1:10-12), thereby putting their persecution in proper perspective. The time the prophets longed for is indeed the age of the Spirit (Isa 11:1-2; 32:15; 42:1; 44:3; Ezek 37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28).

Jesus elaborated on this by bringing to completion everything he had said regarding the work of the Paraclete in the world (16:8-11) and the church (16:12-15). First, he would “convict the world,” a strong legal concept presupposing a courtroom scene—meaning to “prove the world guilty.” The Paraclete is a prosecuting attorney providing irrefutable evidence of guilt (Keener, Köstenberger). Carson adds a further important point (1979:547-566; 1991:536-537) that the Paraclete is not pictured here arguing the case before God, the judge, but is rather “shaming the world and convincing it of its own guilt, thus calling it to repentance.” The courtroom is the court of the mind, and the Spirit would convict through the witness of the disciples, as well as through the going forth of the gospel in diverse ways.

There are three areas in which the Spirit’s convicting power operates (16:9-11). First, the world is convicted of “sin” because “it refuses to believe in me.” The basic sin is unbelief. If they believed, they would find the light (3:18-21) and eternal life (3:16; 5:24). As a result of unbelief, the world lives in sin. Jewish opponents had accused Jesus of being a sinner (9:16, 24), when in reality they were steeped in sin and unbelief (5:47; 6:64; 7:48; 8:24; 9:41; 15:22).

Second, the world is convicted of “righteousness.” The world condemned Jesus and put him on the cross as a blasphemer, but God demonstrated his innocence and true righteousness by raising him and taking him home to heaven. Beasley-Murray (1987:282) says it well: “The lifting up of Jesus on the cross, which in the world’s eyes was the demonstration of Jesus’ unrighteousness, was none other than the means of his exaltation to heaven by the Father; it was at once God’s reversal of the verdict of men . . . the justification of Jesus thus is the vindication of his righteousness in life and his entrance upon righteousness in glory with the Father (Cf. 12:23; 13:31-32; 17:1, 5; 1 Tim 3:16).” The disciples would “see [Jesus] no more” (16:10) because they would depend on the Paraclete, who would strengthen their witness. They would not see Jesus physically but would see him through the Paraclete (so Brown), who mediates his presence in the world and makes the righteousness of Jesus evident in the world as a convicting force.

Third, through the Paraclete the world stands convicted of judgment “because the ruler of this world has already been judged” (16:11). The world judged Jesus but is now judged by Jesus. Its judgment had been proven false (Cf. 7:24; 8:16). In his passion, Jesus confronted and defeated “the ruler of this world” (12:31; 14:30), and the world shares his defeat the same way the saints share Christ’s victory. This must be understood on the spiritual plane; Satan is still “god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4) but is defeated by those who “put on all of God’s armor” (Eph 6:10-17). This is inaugurated eschatology at its best: Satan still has a hold on this world (Eph 6:12; 1 John 5:19), but his power has been broken, and the process of his demise has begun, to be completed at the eschaton (Rev 20:7-10).

Then Jesus turned to the work of the Paraclete among his followers (16:12-15). He told them he would like to say more, but he could not because they “can’t bear it now.” They were so beaten down with grief and worry that they simply were unable to hear any more. This is similar to 13:7, when Jesus said “you don’t understand now,” meaning it would become clear later. As Ridderbos says (1997:535), “Only the overpowering surprise of seeing him again after his resurrection will explain the riddle—partly in the light of the Scriptures (Cf. 20:9) and above all through the assistance of the Spirit.” Complete understanding of what Jesus had said would be provided by the Paraclete; this full understanding was promised to come after the Resurrection via the Spirit (2:22; 12:16; 13:7; 14:26).

It is the “Spirit of truth” who will “guide you into all truth” (16:13). This builds on 14:26 and the work of the Paraclete in teaching and reminding them of “everything I have told you.” There is Old Testament background to the Spirit as guide (Ps 143:10; Isa 63:14, LXX; cf. Ps 25:4-5), and the idea is that the Spirit would continue the work of Jesus in leading the disciples to a full understanding of the divine truths. Comfort (1994:137) thinks John follows the classical meaning of the Greek eis [TG1519, ZG1650] as “into” used dynamically to mean the Spirit “penetrates” into the sphere of ultimate truth and guides the disciples into their destiny, the truth of Christ. This means that those who are guided will pattern their lives after the teaching (the verb means “guided on the way” and is connected with Jesus as the “way” [14:6]). Moreover, the Spirit guides entirely in accordance with Jesus’ teaching, revealing not “his own” message but only “what he has heard” from Jesus. This is the process of divine revelation: In the same way that Jesus revealed only what he heard from the Father (3:34; 5:19; 7:16-17; 8:26, 28; 12:47-50; 14:10; 15:15), so the Spirit passes on what he has been given by Jesus. The disciples received these truths and passed them on via teaching and preaching.

Next, the Paraclete “will tell you about the future.” This could be the immediate future—referring to the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus (so Whitacre)—but much of that would happen before the Spirit was given (20:22). Or, this could be final eschatology, referring to apocalyptic predictions of the final events of human history, as in the book of Revelation (so Bernard, Johnston); however, there is little in this context to suggest such a switch of focus. Additionally, this could refer to the gift of prophecy, referring to Spirit-inspired prophets who guide the church (Burge). This could certainly be part of the meaning but can hardly constitute the whole. Most likely the statement refers in a comprehensive way to the Spirit guiding the church into the future, building on all that Jesus had said and done (so Brown, Beasley-Murray, Ridderbos, Keener, Köstenberger). “This includes the Paraclete’s own witness to Jesus, his ministry to the world (16:8-11) primarily through the church (15:26-27), the pattern of life and obedience under the inbreaking kingdom, up to and including the consumation” (Carson 1991:540).

The purpose of the Spirit’s work is to bring glory to Jesus (16:14-15), just as the Son had sought always to glorify the Father (7:18; 13:31; 14:13; 17:4). The way the Spirit does this is to guide the disciples into a full understanding of Jesus’ teaching (repeating the point of 16:13a). As the Father’s work is completed in the Son’s work (5:19-20), so Jesus’ work is completed in the Spirit’s ministry. By the literal phrase “what is mine” (“all that belongs to the Father,” NLT), John refers both to Jesus’ words and his works—what he said and did. As Bruce says (1983:321), “Since the Father has given him ‘all things’ (13:3), what the Spirit discloses to the disciples is ‘everything the Father has.’ ” The Spirit not only makes the Son known but also makes known the Father, who is revealed in the Son. In other words, the Spirit discloses the triune Godhead.

The emphasis is on Jesus’ knowledge (16:19): he fully “realized” their perplexity regarding his prophecy of his death and resurrection and so dispelled their confusion. Using another double amēn [TG281, ZG297] saying (16:20; see note on 1:51) to emphasize the importance of his message, he predicted once more the great turning point in human history, this time stating it from the disciples’ vantage point and organizing it along the lines of his statements in 16:16 and 19. After the first “little while” (his death), the disciples would “weep and mourn” while “the world will rejoice” (16:20). At that time, their ignorance of what Jesus had been saying to them would cause them horrible grief. Not realizing that this would be the single greatest event ever to occur on planet Earth and the center of God’s plan of salvation, they would weep and mourn as at a funeral (note the women in Mark 16:1, going to anoint a corpse!). At the same time the world, also not understanding the import of God’s great victory on the cross, would rejoice at their having disposed of this troublemaker—seemingly once and for all. However, after the second “little while,” Jesus would appear to them in glory, and their “grief will suddenly turn to wonderful joy.” Then the incredible victory God accomplished in Christ would suddenly become clear to them.

To illustrate the sorrow turning to joy, Jesus used the imagery of birth pangs (16:21). This is obviously a perfect illustration of intense pain turning to wonderful joy, and it was used often in the Old Testament (Isa 26:17-21; 66:7-14; Jer 13:21; Mic 4:9-10) and New Testament (Mark 13:8) of the sufferings of God’s people and of God’s promised deliverance. In Isaiah 26:16-21, the phrase “a little while” is used, and the promise of resurrection from the dead is emphasized. In Isaiah 66:14, the statement “Your heart will rejoice” occurs. The Isaianic promise of salvation through suffering, along with the joy of experiencing divine deliverance, is at the heart of what Jesus was saying. The emphasis is on the divine initiative. He is the one to make the “new baby” (= eternal salvation) possible. In 16:22, Jesus applied this directly to the disciples, who would “sorrow” briefly and yet turn to joy when Jesus saw them again. Then no one would be able to rob them of their joy (16:22); it would never go away, for Jesus’ resurrection is an eternal event and the “first of a great harvest” (1 Cor 15:20; cf. 1 Cor 15:23), guaranteeing their own resurrection. In it, Jesus ushered in the new age of joy and peace. It must be remembered by all of us that we live in this age of joy, so it is even more incumbent upon us that we greet each trouble we encounter with joy (cf. Jas 1:2; 1 Pet 1:6).

For the fourth time, Jesus promised them a new power in prayer (16:23-24; Cf. 14:13-14; 15:7, 16), but this time it is linked to the new age that would begin after the Resurrection. Actually, there are two promises here, for first Jesus told them they would have a new understanding. When he said, “at that time [namely, when the new age arrives] you won’t need to ask me for anything” (16:23), he was concluding the section on knowledge from 16:16-22. The disciples had shown a nearly complete lack of understanding in their questions (e.g., 16:17-19). Soon they would no longer need to address their questions to Jesus, for as the new dispensation began, they would have the Holy Spirit to give them understanding. Second, they would also have a new source of power in prayer. For the second time, he began with a double amēn [TG281, ZG297] to highlight its importance (Cf. 16:20). According to 16:23a, they would no longer need to go to Jesus for information because they would have the Spirit. Now in 16:23b he said that they would no longer need to go to him in prayer because they would have direct access to the Father. This is, in a sense, the promise of a deeper intimacy with God (so Brown). Their union with Christ (15:4, 7) would produce a new union with the Father (14:20, 23).

Jesus is the key. They will ask “using my name,” and the Father will “grant your request because you use my name” (16:23-24). Jesus’ name is the basis of both the prayer and the answer to the prayer. As Brown says (1966:734), “Since Jesus dwells in the Christians, their petitions are in Jesus’ name; since the Father is one with Jesus, the petitions He grants are granted in Jesus’ name.” Moreover, this promise is a sign of the new era; the disciples “haven’t done this before” (16:24; i.e., they haven’t prayed directly to the Father like this; this type of prayer is a gift for the new age). After the Cross and Resurrection inaugurate the new eschatological order, they will ask and receive, thereby experiencing “abundant joy.” This is the joy now experienced by each believer; this prayer power is ours. It is easy to take our situation for granted. Carson (1991:546) thinks this association of prayer and joy compresses themes from chapter 15: “If that joy is part of the matrix of consistent obedience (15:11), that obedience, that remaining in Jesus (15:4) and his love (15:9) and his word (8:31), is the matrix out of which fruit-bearing springs, the fruit bearing that is the direct consequence of prayer (15:7, 8).”

Jesus had been speaking enigmatically “in figures of speech” (16:25)—those elusive illustrations in his farewell speech that were so hard to understand—but the days of obscure truths were almost over. Soon he would tell them plainly about the Father. The problem was not with the illustrations but with the deeper mysteries they represented. Jesus was promising them that in the period of the Spirit about to be introduced, these mysteries would finally be “plainly” understood. He also meant that his final address was almost finished, and the ensuing events would usher in the new era. This is the opposite of Mark 4:10-12, 33-34, where Jesus spoke plainly to the disciples and addressed the others “in parables.” Mark shows that Jesus did not want the leaders to understand all his teachings because they had rejected God’s offer of salvation. But Jesus did want the disciples to understand, and what remained obscure before his death and resurrection would be clear afterwards. Jesus had told them again and again of his departure and exaltation, but they could not comprehend it. Only after these events took place and the Spirit had arrived could they realize these things (Cf. 2:22; 12:16; 14:26). So it is with us; we are living in the new age of understanding, but like the disciples, we need the Spirit to comprehend these truths fully.

The final of the seven all-embracing prayer promises then comes in 16:26 (Cf. 14:13-14; 15:7, 16; 16:23, 24). The new relationship with the Father produces a new depth of asking and receiving. Previously, Jesus said he would answer their prayers directly (14:13, 14). Now he said they did not need his intercession, for “the Father himself loves you dearly.” This does not mean that the believer no longer needs Jesus’ intercessory work (mentioned in Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25; 1 John 2:1) but rather that by that work, Jesus produces a whole new intimacy between God and his children (see Brown, Köstenberger). That love produced a direct line to God, a whole new access to him (cf. Heb 10:19-20). We still pray “in [Jesus’] name” (i.e., in union with him), but the new relationship he has produced for us with God (Eph 2:6, “seated us with him in the heavenly realms”) gives us the kind of efficacious prayer never before thought possible (cf. Jas 5:16b). The Father loves his Son (17:23-26) and so loves the Son’s followers “because you love me and believe that I came from God” (16:27). There is a three-way relationship between the Father, the Son, and the believers. Jesus concluded his point about their relationship to the Father by reminding them of the descent-ascent basis of his mission: he “came from the Father” (descent—3:13, 31; 6:33, 50, 51, 58) and was now ready to “leave the world and return to the Father” (ascent—6:62; 20:17). The idea of his departing and returning to the Father is a major theme of the farewell discourse (13:33, 36; 14:2, 19-20, 28; 16:5, 16, 17, 19).

Jesus’ response was to shatter their falsely based confidence (16:31-32). He asked them with a tinge of sarcasm, “Do you finally believe?” He did not doubt the degree of faith they had but wanted to bring them back to reality. Their faith was very real but incomplete; they had to realize where they actually stood—they were still in process as they had been all along. The situation here echoes 13:37-38, where Peter earlier showed the same bravado (“I’m ready to die for you”), and Jesus predicted his coming failure. Now he predicts a similar failure for all the disciples. The “time” (lit., “hour”) when his destiny would be realized (2:4; 7:30; 8:20) is a major theme in John, and Jesus was saying that it had arrived. One of the events of that divinely appointed hour would be the desertion of his followers, when they would “be scattered, each one going his own way, leaving [Jesus] alone” (16:32). As in the Synoptics (Mark 14:27 and parallels), Jesus was alluding to Zechariah 13:7 (“strike down the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered”), a passage on the apostasy of Israel. The disciples would completely fail Jesus and leave him all alone (the one exception being John; Cf. 19:25-27). In the same way that Paul could never quite forgive himself for persecuting the church, the disciples had to live the rest of their lives knowing that while their Lord was suffering on the cross, they had cowered behind closed doors.

Jesus would not be completely deserted however: “Yet I am not alone because the Father is with me” (16:32). In 8:28-29, Jesus said, “when you have lifted up the Son of Man on the cross, then you will understand that I AM he. . . . And the one who sent me is with me—he has not deserted me.” This was about to come to pass; even though his closest followers would desert him, his Father would not. Still, though the disciples would desert him, Jesus would not desert them. In fact, he was telling them this not to reject them or even to rebuke them but rather “so that you may have peace in me” (16:33). The discourse proper (13:31–16:33) ends on a note of encouragement. The reason is that the love of Jesus and his Father can and would overcome the personal failures of the disciples. They would be given the strength to transcend their “trials and sorrows” on this earth. In the midst of troubles and difficulties, they would have “peace,” not because life is easy but because Christ was with them. Notice it is “peace in me,” not a peaceful life, that was promised. The basis of this promised peace is, “I have overcome the world” (Cf. 1:5). Christ was victorious not only over the world but also over “the ruler of this world” (12:31; 14:30). Satan and this world were conquered at the Cross; the true battle is over. But Satan, and the world with him, is filled with rage because his time is short (Rev 12:12). Still, in the midst of our personal battles, we must also “take heart” and be aware that we are on the winning side and can also be victorious by depending on God and Christ (Jas 4:7-8; 1 Pet 5:6-9).