International Critical Commentary

Hitherto the exoteric or public teaching of Jesus has been expounded: in Part I. as addressed to would-be disciples, and in Part II. to Jews, for the most part incredulous. In Part III. we have only the esoteric and private teaching reserved by Jesus for His chosen friends and future ambassadors.

Part III. begins with a carefully constructed editorial introduction (13:1). It is noteworthy that, while vv. 1–3 are full of Johannine phrases, a greater use is made of subordinate and dependent clauses than is customary with Jn., who prefers parataxis in narration.

13:1. πρὸ δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ πάσχα. δέ is resumptive, the Passover being that mentioned 12:1. What is now to be narrated took place on the eve of the Passover, i.e. on the evening of Nisan 13.

εἰδώς. Attention is specially called in this narrative (vv. 3, 11, 18) to the perfect insight and foresight which Jesus exhibited as to the time and circumstances of the Passion; cf. 18:4, 19:28. He knew that “His hour had come” (cf. 12:23); see on 2:4 for this feature of the Fourth Gospel, that it represents the predestined end as foreseen from the beginning.

For ἦλθεν (א A B L W Θ) the rec. has ἐλήλυθεν. D has παρῆν. For ἵνα in the sense of “when,” see on 12:23.

ἵνα μεταβῇ κτλ. Harris has suggested that this is Passover language; and in one of Bede’s Homilies we find “Pascha transitus interpretatur.”¹ But μεταβαίνειν is never used elsewhere in the Greek Bible with this suggestion. Its use here of a departure from this life to the unseen world is, indeed, also without Biblical parallels; but cf. 5:24, 1 Jn. 3:14.

ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου. See for this phrase the note on 8:23. For κόσμος generally, see on 1:9.

πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. Christ’s departure or ascension is spoken of again as a “going to the Father,” 14:12, 28, 16:10, 28.

τοὺς ἰδίους. “His own intimate friends and disciples,” not, as at 1:11, “His own people, the Jews.” Cf. Mk. 4:34.

τοὺς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. They were “in the world,” as He said 17:11, although in another sense they are distinguished from “the world,” out of which they had been given to Him (17:6, 9). These men He had loved.

εἰς τέλος ἠγάπησεν αὐτούς. To translate these words “He loved them unto the end,” although linguistically defensible, reduces the sentence to a platitude. This verse introduces an incident to which Jn. gives a good deal of space, and which he regards as of high consequence. “Jesus, knowing that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, …” The reader expects that this solemn prelude is to be followed by a statement that Jesus did or said something of special significance. The statement is εἰς τέλος ἠγάπησεν αὐτούς, and it seems to mean, “He exhibited His love for them to the uttermost,” i.e. in a remarkable manner.

First, as to ἠγάπησεν. If “He continued to love them” were the meaning, we should expect the impf. rather than the aor. tense. The aor. indicates a definite act, rather than a continuing emotion; so ἠγάπησεν in 3:16 is used of the love of God as exhibited in the gift of His Son. Abbott (Diat. 1744) quotes a similar Pauline use in Rom. 8:37, Gal. 2:20, Eph. 5:2, and also Ignatius, Magn. 6. Thus ἠγάπησεν may mean here “He showed His love,” sc. by His action, unprecedented for a master, in washing the feet of His disciples. And so the words καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς of v. 34 bear a definite reference to ἠγάπησεν in v. 1 and to the feet-washing which followed.

Secondly, εἰς τέλος is often used as equivalent to “wholly” or “utterly,” as at Josh. 3:16, 1 Chron. 28:9, 2 Macc. 8:29, 1 Thess. 2:16. Abbott (Diat. 2322c) cites Hermas, Vis. III. x. 5, where ἱλαρὰ εἰς τέλος means “joyful exceedingly,” or “joyful to the uttermost.” It can equally well mean “to the end,” e.g. Mt. 10:22, where it is said that “he that endures εἰς τέλος shall be saved”; but this rendering does not suit the context here.

Accordingly, we translate v. 1, “Jesus, knowing that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, exhibited His love for them to the uttermost,” i.e. gave that remarkable manifestation of His love for His disciples which is told in the narrative of the feet-washing that follows.

2. For γινομένου (א*B L W) the rec. text, with א^cA D Γ Δ Θ, has γενομένου, which wrongly suggests that the supper was ended.

δείπνου γινομένου, “while a supper was going on,” “during supper,” there being no def. art. and no suggestion that this was the supper of the Passover feast, as the Synoptists state.

τοῦ διαβόλου ἤδη βεβληκότος κτλ., “the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas, etc.” So the Synoptists (Mk. 14:10, Mt. 26:14, Lk. 22:3) represent the matter, Judas having made his bargain with the chief priests on a previous day of the same week; Lk. alone (as Jn. does here) ascribing his treachery to the instigation of the devil, εἰσῆλθεν Σατανᾶς εἰς Ἰούδαν. This is repeated by Jn. at v. 27, when Judas decided on the final and fatal step. Cf. Acts 5:3.

The rec. text, with A DΓ Δ Θ, has a smoother order of words, εἰς τὴν καρδίαν Ἰούδα Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτου, ἵνα αὐτὸν παραδῷ, which does not differ in meaning from the better supported εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἵνα παραδοῖ αὐτὸν Ἰούδας Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτης (so א B L).

For παραδίδωμι, see on 6:64. For Ἰσκαριώτης, see on 6:71. It is applied here to Judas, as there to his father Simon.

3. After εἰδώς, AΘ add ὁ Ἰησοῦς for the sake of clearness; om. א B D L W. For ἔδωκεν (א B L W) the rec. has δέδωκεν with A DΓ Δ Θ.

εἰδώς, as in v. 1; but here it signifies that Jesus set Himself to the humble office of washing His disciples’ feet, with full consciousness of the majesty of His Person, and even because of it. He knew that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that therefore He could evade the Passion which was impending, if He wished. Cf. 3:35 ὁ πατὴρ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δέδωκεν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ. We cannot distinguish ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ in that passage from αὐτῷ εἰς τὰς χεῖρας in this. So at Dan. 1:2 the LXX has παρέδωκεν … εἰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ, where Theodotion has ἔδωκεν ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ. ἐν and εἰς are not always to be distinguished.

Jn. says of Jesus that He knew ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν. So Nicodemus was ready to admit, ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐλήλυθας διδάσκαλος (3:2); and on the night before the Passion the apostles made the same confession, ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθες (16:30). Jn. never makes Jesus speak thus of Himself. He does not say ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξῆλθον, but always uses either παρὰ or ἐκ in such contexts. Yet, again, the distinction of prepositions cannot be pressed (see on 1:14, 44, 16:28).

καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ὑπάγει, “and is going to God,” the historic present which vividly reproduces the situation. For ὑπάγειν, see on 7:33, 16:7, 10.

There seems to be a reminiscence of this teaching (see also 16:28) in Ignatius, Magn. 7, Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν ἀφʼ ἑνὸς πατρὸς προελθόντα καὶ εἰς ἕνα ὅντα καὶ χωρήσαντα. See on 1:18.

Before we examine Jn.’s narrative of the Last Supper, we set down what we conceive to have been the actual order of events. Although the Synoptists treat the Last Supper as the Paschal Feast, which Jn. pointedly does not do, there can be no doubt that Jn. 13 is intended to describe the same supper as that of Mk. 14, Mt. 26, Lk. 22. We cannot harmonise the various narratives precisely, but they have much in common. We place the incidents in order as follows:

3. Jesus washes the feet of the disciples, by His example rebuking their self-seeking, and bidding them remember that their Master was content to act as their slave (Jn. 13:4–10; cf. Jn. 13:15, 16 and Lk. 22:26, 27).

4. Jesus announces that a traitor is in their midst (Jn. 13:10, 11, 18, 21, Mk. 14:18, Mt. 26:21, Lk. 22:21).

5. The disciples begin to ask which of them was thus designated (Jn. 13:22f., Mk. 14:19, Mt. 26:22, Lk. 22:23).

6. Jesus tells John the beloved disciple that the traitor is the one to whom He will give the sop from the dish (Jn. 13:25, 26; cf. Mk. 14:20, Mt. 26:23; not in Lk.).

7. Jesus gives the sop to Judas (Jn. 13:26), and thus or otherwise conveys to Judas that He knows of his intentions (Mt. 26:25). This is not in Mk. or Lk., neither of whom at this point names Judas as the traitor.

9. The Eucharist is instituted (Mk. 14:22f., Mt. 26:26f., Lk. 22:19f.; not in Jn., but cf. Jn. 6:51b–58).

10. Jesus predicts His impending Passion in the words, “I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (Mk. 14:25, Mt. 26:29, Lk. 22:18; not given thus by Jn., but cf. Jn. 13:31–35 and 15:1–13).

11. Jesus warns Peter that he will deny Him (Jn. 13:36–38, Mk. 14:29f., Mt. 26:33f., Lk. 22:31f.).

On examination of this table, it will be noticed, first that Jn. and Mk. (whom Mt. follows) never disagree as to the order of the various incidents; the important differences being that Jn. describes the Feet-washing, which Mk. does not mention, and that he omits the Institution of the Eucharist. Jn. also tells that it was to the beloved disciple that Jesus conveyed the hint which might have enabled the company to have identified the traitor (see on 13:26); and he alone mentions expressly that Judas left the room.

The order, however, in which Lk. mentions the several incidents is different. His order is 1, 10, 9, 4, 5, 2, 11, omitting 3, 6, 7, 8; the most remarkable feature in his narrative being that he puts the announcement that a traitor was present after the Institution of the Eucharist, thus implying that Judas received the Bread and the Cup along with the rest. The position, also, which he gives to the mysterious saying numbered 10 above, differs from that assigned to it by Mk. and Mt. Lk., in short, follows a different tradition from that of Mk. and Mt. in his narrative of the Eucharist. The longer recension of the words of Institution as given by him (see Introd., p. clxxii) seems to have been derived from Paul; but that cannot be said of the Western version, which may be the original. From whatever source Lk. has derived his narrative of the Last Supper, it has marks of confusion. We are justified, then, in preferring to his order of incidents here that which is given in the two Gospels Mk. and Jn., which probably rest respectively on the reminiscences of Peter and of John the son of Zebedee, both of whom were present at the Supper.

At what point in the narrative of Jn. are we to suppose that the Institution of the Eucharist took place? The foregoing comparison with Mk. suggests that we should put it after Judas had left (v. 30), and before the prediction of the Passion as near (vv. 31, 32). That Jn. knew of the Institution of the Eucharist is certain;¹ and we have found reason for holding that the words of Institution are reproduced in 6:51b, where see note. We hold that there has been a dislocation of the text after 13:30, and that the original order was c. 15, c. 16, c. 13:31–38, c. 14, c. 17.² It may be that a paragraph has been lost after 13:30, and it is tempting to conjecture that this paragraph told of the first Eucharist.³ But, if this were not so (and there is no external evidence for it), we must fall back on the conclusion that Jn. has designedly omitted to tell of the Institution of the Eucharist (although he betrays his knowledge of it in c. 6), while his reasons for this omission cannot now be discovered. See on v. 31.

13:4. ἐγείρεται ἐκ τοῦ δείπνου, “He rises from the supper,” that is, from the couch on which He had been reclining. This shows that the Feet-washing which follows was not before supper, and so is not to be regarded as the cleansing of the feet which was preparatory to a meal. Where sandals are worn, the feet get dusty and tired, and it was a courtesy of hospitality to arrange that water was available for washing them (Lk. 7:44; cf. Gen. 18:4, 19:2, 24:32, 43:24, Judg. 19:21, 1 Sam. 25:41, 1 Tim. 5:10). But in this case, the supper had not only begun, but was probably ending. In the talk that followed, the disciples began to dispute about their precedence (Lk. 22:24), perhaps in reference to the order in which they were placed at the meal; and Jesus, rising from His place, proceeds to give them an object-lesson. “Whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth at meat? But I am in the midst of you as he that serveth” (Lk. 22:27). So, stripping off His outer robe or tallith (ἱμάτιον) and appearing in His tunic only, He girded Himself with a towel, as a slave would do, that He might pour water upon their feet. Wetstein recalls the story of Caligula, who was wont to insult members of the Senate by making them wait at table succinctos linteo (Suetonius, Cal. 26). This story indicates how great an act of condescension the Feet-washing by Christ must have seemed to His disciples to be.

With διέζωσεν, cf. 21:7: Lk. 12:37, 17:8 illustrate the “girding” himself for his work which was appropriate to a slave. The towel (linteum) was fastened to the shoulder, so as to leave both hands free.

5. The word νιπτήρ does not occur again in Greek literature,¹ Biblical or secular, except in quotations of this passage. It must mean some washing utensil, but “bason” may easily convey a wrong impression. Orientals do not wash, as we do, in a bason which visibly retains the water that has been used; that they would regard as an unclean practice. The Eastern habit is to pour water from a ewer over hands or feet (cf. 2 Kings 3:11, where Elisha performs this duty for his master Elijah), the water being caught below in a bason with a strainer, and then passing through the strainer out of sight. The assistance of a servant is necessary, as both the ewer and the bason have to be held. At the Last Supper, the disciples were reclining on the usual divans or couches, their feet being stretched out behind (see Lk. 7:38, where the sinful woman was “standing behind” at the feet of Jesus, when she let her tears fall upon them). Jesus first poured (βάλλει, cf. Mt. 9:17) water into the νιπτήρ, which was ready in the room for such a purpose (τὸν νιπτῆρα, “the ewer”), and then He poured the water over the disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel with which He had girded Himself. He did all that was the duty of a slave for his master who was having his feet washed.¹

καὶ ἤρξατο κτλ. The verb ἄρχεσθαι does not occur again in Jn. (but cf. [8:9]). He began to wash the disciples’ feet,² but it is not said in what order, nor is this now possible to determine. Some have thought that the order was that in which they sat at table, and that Judas came first (see on v. 23 below). Or it may have been Peter, for οὖν in the phrase ἔρχεται οὖν πρὸς Σίμωνα Πέτρον (v. 6) is not causative (see on 1:22). οὖν is a favourite conjunction with Jn., and vv. 5, 6 may be rendered in accordance with his usage, “He began to wash the disciples’ feet … and so He comes to Simon Peter.” We do not know.

After μαθητῶν, D, for clearness, adds αὐτοῦ. οἱ μαθηταί here are the Twelve, the inner circle (cf. v. 1), not the general body of the disciples (see on 2:2).

ἐκμάσσειν is always used in Lk. and Jn. for “wiping” the feet after washing (Lk. 7:38, 44, Jn. 11:2, 12:3).

κύριε. Peter does not say “Rabbi,” as in the early days; see on 1:38, and cf. vv. 9, 36.

σύ μου νίπτεις τοὺς πόδας; “Dost Thou wash my feet?” both pronouns being emphatic, and special stress lying on μου, as following another pronoun directly. Peter, we may suppose, drew his feet up, as he spoke, in his impulsive humility. There is a pseudo-reverence which is near akin to irreverence.³

7. ὅ ἐγὼ (emphatic) ποιῶ σὺ (emphatic) οὐκ οἶδας κτλ., “What I do thou knowest not at this moment (ἄρτι; see on 9:19), but thou shalt know presently.” μετὰ ταῦτα (see Introd., p. cviii) is equivalent to “afterwards,” and is quite vague as to the length of time that is to elapse.

For the distinction between εἰδέναι and γινώσκειν, see on 1:26; cf. v. 12.

The Feet-washing is explained vv. 12 f. as being a lesson in humility. The disciples had been disputing about precedence (see on v. 4 above), and Jesus reminds them, as He had done before, of the dignity of service and ministry. See on 12:26, where the high place which διακονία occupies in the teaching of Christ is discussed. Here He illustrates, by His action (cf. Lk. 22:27), this essential feature of His mission, and He bids His disciples to follow His example (v. 16). As to the possibility of a deeper symbolism, see on v. 10 below.

8. οὐ μὴ νίψῃς μου τοὺς πόδας, “Thou shalt assuredly never (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα; see on 4:14) wash my feet,” μου being emphatic because of its position in the sentence (acc. to B C L; but the rec. text, with א A Γ Θ, puts it after πόδας).

The answer of Jesus, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me,” is very severe. “To have part with another,” or to be his partner, is to share in his work, and ultimately in his reward. Thus the unfaithful slave is condemned to have his part (τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ) with the hypocrites (Mt. 24:51; cf. Ps. 50:18). The Levites had no part in the inheritance of Israel, their work being different from that of the other tribes (Deut. 10:9, 12:12); Simon Magus had no part in the apostolic endowments of the Spirit, being animated by ideals wholly different from those of the apostles (Acts 8:21); a Christian has no part with an unbelieving heathen (2 Cor. 6:15). So to decline the call of ministry, to which every disciple is called, is to have no part with Christ, to be no partner of His, for His work was pre-eminently a work of ministry (see on 12:26). Peter’s refusal to allow his Master to minister to him was really to reject that principle of the dignity of ministry and service which was behind the work of Jesus.

It was not said affirmatively that he whom Jesus washed was thereby recognised as His partner; for the feet of Judas were washed by Him, and He knew Judas for a traitor.

9. For Σίμων Πέτρος, B has Πέτρος Σίμων, by inadvertence: D omits Σίμων.

Peter does not yet understand what is meant by the strange act of his Master. He now thinks that the “washing” of which Jesus has spoken is for bodily cleansing, or (perhaps) is a symbol of spiritual cleansing; and he cries with his accustomed impulsiveness, “Lord (א* om. κύριε), not my feet only, but also my hands and my head,” thus missing the point of the action of Jesus. It was not a symbol of cleansing, but an illustration of the dignity of service, even menial service; and therefore the washing was of the feet, rather than of the hands or the head.

10. B om. ὁ before Ἰης., ins. א A C D W Θ. For the rec. order οὐ χρείαν ἔχει, א A B C*W have οὐκ ἔχει χρείαν.

א omits the words εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας, possibly, as Abbott (Diat. 2659e) suggests, by homoioteleuton. א sometimes writes ει as ι, and Abbott thinks the archetype may have been

However that may be, B C*L retain εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας, A C³ having ἤ τοὺς πόδας, while E² has τοὺς πόδας only; D expands and gives οὐ χρείαν ἔχει τὴν κεφαλὴν νίψασθαι εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας μονον.

If the words εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας are omitted (א, with Origen and some O.L. authorities), the answer of Jesus is clear, “He that has been bathed needs not to wash,” thus indicating that His words and actions have had nothing to do with cleansing, as Peter supposed; the pedilauium was an illustration only of the dignity of ministry. But the variants show that τοὺς πόδας was probably in the original text, and that the omission of the words is due either to homoioteleuton or to the difficulty of reconciling εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας with the words ἀλλʼ ἔστιν καθαρὸς ὅλος which follow.

ὁ λελουμένος κτλ. λούειν is frequently used of bathing the whole body (e.g. Lev. 14:9, 16:4, 17:16, Num. 19:7, Deut. 23:11, Acts 9:37). Guests were accustomed to bathe before they went to a feast (Wetstein gives many illustrations of this); when they arrived at the house where they were to have dinner or supper, it was only necessary that their feet should be washed (see on v. 4). There was no need for the head or the hands to be washed. And so Jesus reminds Peter, who has been wrong in thinking that the washing of his feet by his Master was for the purpose of bodily cleansing. The man who has bathed before the meal is καθαρὸς ὅλος, and Jesus adds, of the disciples who were present, ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε.

καθαρός is often used of external cleanliness, as at Mt. 23:26, 27:59, and cf. Heb. 10:22 λελουσμένοι τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ, where καθαρός refers to the purity of the water to be used in baptism; but in the only other place where it occurs in Jn. (15:3) the word is used of spiritual purity. To this other meaning of καθαρός Jesus reverts here; then to the words “ye are clean” He adds, “but not all,” Judas being the exception. As far as bodily cleanliness was concerned, no doubt Judas was on a par with the rest; but not in a spiritual sense.

ἀλλʼ οὐχὶ πάντες. This, according to Jn., is the first hint given by Jesus that one of the Twelve would be a traitor; although Jn. has stated (6:64) that He had known this ἐξ ἀρχῆς, and repeats the statement here (v. 11).

In this verse a new idea emerges, sc. that of spiritual purity, being suggested by the double meaning of καθαρός; and we have to inquire if (as some have thought) Jn. sees a deeper symbolism in the feet-washing than the lessons of humility and of the dignity of service. In v. 8 we had, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.” This, apart from its context, would naturally refer to the spiritual cleansing which is needful before the disciple can be Christ’s partner, and perhaps (see on v. 9) Peter understood it thus. But in the narrative this is not the interpretation of His action furnished by Jesus Himself (vv. 13–16); although it has been thought that Jn. tells the story in terms which imply it.

Yet (1) if the cleansing be the spiritual purification which is the issue of Christ’s atonement, then we have an idea introduced which is foreign to the context and which does not appear again in c. 13. It is worth adding that the conception of Christ washing away sin in His blood is not explicit anywhere in the N.T. (In Rev. 1:5 the true reading is λύσαντι, not λούσαντι, and Rev. 7:14 refers to man’s part in redemption, “they washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb.”)

(2) More plausible is the interpretation which finds in the pedilauium the symbol of baptism. This goes back to Tertullian (de bapt. xii.), but Tertullian is inclined to find a fore-shadowing of baptism in any N.T. phrase which alludes to water. The washing of Christian disciples in the water of baptism is, however, a familiar image in the N.T.; cf. 1 Cor. 6:11, Eph. 5:26, Tit. 3:5, and Heb. 10:22 λελουσμένοι τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ.

Holtzmann suggested¹ that Jn. in this passage is giving an account of the institution of Baptism as a Christian rite, and that he gives it here instead of narrating, as the Synoptists do, the institution of the Eucharist, because he wishes to call attention to the high dignity of baptism. “In doing so, he at the same time very plainly offers the suggestion that washing the feet should be allowed to take the place of complete immersion.” The last sentence is not only an anachronism, for baptism by affusion rather than by immersion is, so far as we know, a concession much later than the latest date that can be assigned to the Fourth Gospel;¹ but no baptismal rite has ever been known which substituted the pouring water on the feet for pouring it on the head or the body. The pedilauium, indeed, is prescribed in some early Gallican “Ordines Baptismi” and also in the baptismal offices of the Celtic Church. But it was no part of the actual baptism; it was a supplementary ceremony, intended to illustrate for the new Christian what manner of life his should be—humble and ministerial, as was his Master’s.

If there be any allusion to baptism here, it must lurk in the word λελουμένος, “bathed,” and this is specially contrasted with the “washing” (νίπτειν) of the feet. The esoteric meaning of v. 10 would then be that, as baptism cannot be repeated, the baptized person needs but to have regard to the removal of the occasional defilements of sin with which he is troubled. Even this seems over subtle.

The simplest explanation is that provided in vv. 13–16; the sudden turn of the argument in v. 11 being due to the ambiguity of the word καθαρός, which suggests the introduction of the saving clause “but not all.”

11. The saying “but not all” was not understood by the disciples, who did not suspect Judas. After the Passion, it would have needed no explanation; but Jn., in explaining what it meant, is reproducing the situation as it presented itself to an eye-witness.

ᾔδει γὰρ τὸν παραδιδόντα αὐτόν, “for He knew the man that was delivering Him up,” the pres. part. indicating that the movement of treachery had already begun (see on v. 2). Jn. is always careful to bring out the insight of Jesus in regard to men’s characters and motives (see on 2:25). This explanatory comment is characteristic of his manner of writing (see on 2:21).

διὰ τοῦτο εἶπεν ὅτι κτλ., “wherefore He said, etc.” ὅτι (om. א A Γ Δ Θ, but ins. B C L W) is recitantis, introducing the words actually spoken.

οὐχὶ πάντες … Cf. v. 18 οὐ περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν (and Mt. 7:21) for this Greek order of words.

12. ὅτε … αὐτῶν, “When then He had washed their feet,” αὐτῶν indicating that He ministered to them all.

καὶ ἔλαβεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ, “and had taken His garments,” i.e. had resumed the tallith which He had taken off (v. 4).

καὶ ἀνέπεσεν πάλιν, “and had reclined (or, as we should say, sat down) again.” He resumed His place at the table, which He had left when ἐγείρεται ἐκ τοῦ δείπνου (v. 4).

εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Γινώσκετε τί πεποίηκα ὑμῖν; γινώσκετε may be either imperative (as at Josh. 23:13, Dan. 3:15, Jn. 15:18) or interrogative, as it has usually been understood. Abbott (Diat. 2243) prefers to take γινώσκετε as imperative here, the Lord bidding the disciples to recognise, and mark the meaning of, His ministry to them. The words go back to γνώσῃ μετὰ ταῦτα of v. 7, in any case. They introduce the interpretation of the strange action of Jesus in washing the disciples’ feet.

13. ὑμεῖς φωνεῖτέ με κτλ., “You address me as Teacher and Lord.” φωνεῖν (see on 1:48) is the word regularly used by Jn. for calling a person by his name or title.

For the titles Rabbi (διδάσκαλε) and Mari (κύριε), by which the disciples were accustomed to address Jesus, see on 1:38 above. ὁ διδάοκαλος, ὅ κύριος, are called by the grammarians titular nominatives.

καὶ καλῶς λέγετε, εἰμὶ γάρ, “and you say well, for so I am.” Cf. with εἰμὶ γάρ the καί ἐσμεν of 1 Jn. 3:1. Christ affirms His own dignity, even while stooping to what the disciples counted a menial office. He will not permit them to be in any doubt about this.

14. εἰ οὖν ἐγώ κτλ., “If then, I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, a fortiori, you ought to wash the feet of one another.” By this example were the dignity and the duty of mutual διακονία recommended (see on 12:26) to Christian disciples.

The precept was not taken by the Church to be the initiation of a sacramental rite; the pedilauium was never counted as a sacrament, although the custom grew up by the fourth century, in certain parts of the Western Church, of washing the feet of the poor on the Thursday before Easter. In England, the sovereign, or in his stead the Lord High Almoner, used to do this with ceremony until 1731; and in Rome the Pope still presides at the pedilauium. The pious widows described in 1 Tim. 5:10 “washed the saints’ feet,” but only as an incident of their hospitable ministrations.

ὀφείλετε. The verb occurs again in Jn. at 19:17, 1 Jn. 2:6, 3:16, 4:11.

15. ὑπόδειγμα is not found again in Jn., and is applied nowhere else in the N.T. to the example of Christ. It is used of the noble example of Eleazar’s death at 2 Macc. 6:28. Cf. Heb. 4:11, 8:5, 9:23, Jas. 5:10, 2 Pet. 2:6.

The rec. ἔδωκα (B C D WΘ) is perhaps to be preferred to δέδωκα of א A fam. 13.

ἵνα καθὼς ἐγώ κτλ., “that as I have done to you, so you should do”: a practical illustration having been provided of the meaning of the precept, “Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart” (Mt. 11:29). For the constr. καθὼς … καί, cf. vv. 33, 34.

16. ἀμὴν ἀμήν κτλ., as usual, introduces an aphorism of special significance. See on 1:51.

οὐκ ἔστιν δοῦλος μείζων τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ. Lk. 6:40 has οὐκ ἐστὶν μαθητὴς ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον; and Mt. 10:24 combines the Johannine and Lucan forms of the saying. It is, of course, beyond question that the servant is not greater than his master (cf. Lk. 22:27); but it is stated here to reinforce the lesson of the true dignity of service, which Jesus has been teaching by His example. If He may stoop to minister, without losing dignity, a fortiori may His disciples do so. The saying is repeated 15:20, where a different lesson is drawn from it.

οὐδὲ ἀπόστολος κτλ., “nor is he that is sent greater than Him that sent him.” ἀπόστολος is not found again in Jn., and is here used in its etymological sense of a “messenger,” as at 1 Kings 14:6, 2 Cor. 8:23, Phil. 2:25. The Synoptists tell that Jesus gave the title ἀπόστολοι to the Twelve (Lk. 6:13), and they occasionally apply it to them. But Jn. always uses the older descriptions “the Twelve,” or “the Disciples.” It is possible that Jn. discovers a special allusion to the Twelve in the words “he that is sent is not greater than Him that sent him,” and that the word ἀπόστολος is specially significant here of their mission; but this is not certain. See on 2:2.

17. εἰ ταῦτα οἴδατε κτλ., “If ye know these things,” sc. if you thoroughly understand and appreciate what I have been saying to you (for the force of οἴδατε, see on 1:26). Judas had not reached to this point.

μακάριοί ἐστε κτλ., “blessed are ye, if ye do them.” The dignity of διακονία is an easy lesson to understand, but is hard to put into practice (cf. Lk. 11:28). Yet it is he who does this, who humbles himself like a child, who is great in the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 18:4). μακάριος is used only once again by Jn., at 20:29, where he quotes other words of Jesus, μακάριοι οἱ μὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες. This latter saying is the Benediction of Faith; that in 13:17 is the Benediction of Ministry. Both are blessed, not only εὐλογητός that is, lauded by men, but μακάριος, as God is μακάριος (1 Tim. 1:11, 6:15).

18. οὐ περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν λέγω. So He had said before (v. 10). The treachery of Judas (who had no share in the benediction of v. 17) did not come upon Jesus unawares (see on 6:64).

τίνας (א B C L) is to be preferred to the rec. οὕς (A D WΘ) before ἐξελεξάμην: “I know the kind of men whom I chose,” sc. when selecting the Twelve out of a larger company of disciples. See 6:70, where the same word ἐξελεξάμην is used; and cf. 15:16, 19.

ἀλλʼ ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ κτλ., may be a note added by the evangelist after his manner,¹ but possibly he intends to place the phrase and the quotation in the mouth of Jesus Himself (cf. 17:12). If this be so, the sentence is elliptical, and we must understand the meaning to be: “I know whom I chose, but none the less this treachery will come, that the Scripture might be fulfilled” (cf. 9:3, 15:25 for a like ellipse). The treachery of Judas was foreordained in the eternal counsels of God; he was destined to deliver up Jesus to the Jews (see 6:71, 12:4).

The quotation is from the Hebrew (not the LXX) of Ps. 41:9: “he that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me.” To eat bread at the table of a superior was to offer a pledge of loyalty (2 Sam. 9:7, 13, 1 Kings 18:19, 2 Kings 25:29); and to betray one with whom bread had been eaten, one’s “messmate,” was a gross breach of the traditions of hospitality. “To lift up the heel” against any one is to offer him brutal violence. The Synoptists do not quote this Psalm in connexion with the treachery of Judas; but Jn. is especially prone to find fulfilment of prophecy in the incidents of the Passion.¹

The LXX of this passage is: ὁ ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου ἐμεγάλυνεν ἐπʼ ἐμὲ πτερνισμόν. It is noteworthy that Jn. does not say ὁ ἐσθίων, but ὁ τρώγων, a less usual word which he employs four times (6:54, 56, 57, 58) for the “feeding” on Christ in the Eucharist (see note on 6:54). Here he almost goes out of his way to use it of the “eating” at the Last Supper.

19. ἀπʼ ἄρτι λέγω ὑμῖν κτλ., “From now I tell you,” etc. For ἀπʼ ἄρτι, cf. 14:7, Rev. 14:13, Mt. 23:29, 26:29, 64; the phrase does not occur elsewhere in the N.T.

The startling announcement that one of the Twelve would betray Him was not made explicitly by Jesus before, but it is now distinctly stated, so that when the Betrayal took place they might not be scandalised and perplexed (cf. 16:1).

ἵνα πιστεύσητε ὅταν γένηται κτλ., “in order that ye may believe, when it comes to pass, that I am He.” ἐγώ εἰμι in this sentence is used absolutely, no predicate being expressed or suggested by the context. It is an instance (see Introd., P. cxx.; and cf. 8:58) of the employment of the phrase as the equivalent of אֲנִי־הוּא, I (am) He, which is the prophetic self-designation of Yahweh in the O.T. And the whole passage λέγω ὑμῖν πρὸ τοῦ γενέσθαι, ἴνα πιστεύσητε ὅταν γένηται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, recalls prophetic words which speak of the foretelling of the future as the prerogative of Yahweh. “Before it came to pass I showed it to thee” (Isa. 48:5) may be compared with Isa. 41:26, where the implied answer to the question, “Who hath declared it from the beginning that we may know?” is evidently “None but God.” Cf. also Ezek. 24:24, … ὅταν ἐλθῃ ταῦτα, καὶ ἐπιγνώσεσθε διότι ἐγὼ κύριος.

Jesus assumes to Himself this prerogative 3 times in Jn.: here, where He announces that He will be betrayed by one of His disciples; in 16:4, where, having forewarned His disciples of future persecution, he says ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑμῖν ἵνα ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἡ ὥρα αὐτῶν μνημονεύητε αὐτῶν, ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπον ὑμῖν, and again in 14:29, where, having spoken of the Coming of the Paraclete, He adds νῦν εἴρηκα ὑμῖν πρὶν γενέσθαι, ἵνα ὅταν γένηται πιστεύσητε. A similar phrase occurs in Mt. 24:25, where He has been speaking of the false Christs that would appear: ἰδού προείρηκα ὑμῖν See on 2:22.

πιστεύσητε (as at 14:29) is read by א A D L W Γ Δ Θ; πιστεύητε (cf. 17:21), by B C. Cf. Abbott, Diat. 2526 f.

Origen (in loc.) takes ἐγώ εἰμι as meaning “I am He, of whom it was written, He that eateth my bread, etc.” (v. 18); but this would be a strange ellipse, although the meaning would be suitable to the context.

Jesus has reminded the apostles that their dignity is not greater than His (v. 16); but lest they should make any mistake, He now reminds them that their dignity is, none the less, very great. The man who receives those whom He has sent, receives Him; and he who receives Jesus receives God who sent Him. The latter part of this aphorism has been stated already in other words (12:44, where see note). It is a Synoptic saying, and its form here is very like Mk. 9:37 and Mt. 10:40 ὁ δεχόμενος ὑμᾶς ἐμὲ δέχεται, καὶ ὁ ἐμὲ δεχόμενος δέχεται τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με (cf. Lk. 9:48). Jn. substituted for δέχεσθαι the verb λαμβάνειν (cf. 1:12), and for ἀποστέλλειν the verb πέμπειν (see on 3:17), after his manner.¹ It is a general principle that the reverence paid to an ambassador is reckoned as reverence to his sovereign; and so it was claimed by the Great Ambassador, both in respect of His own relation to the Father, and of the relation of His apostles to Himself.

Jesus Foretells His Betrayal, the Others Not Recognising that Judas is Designated by Being Handed a Sop: Judas Leaves the Room (vv. 21–31)

ἐταράχθη τῷ πνεύματι. See note on 11:33, and cf. 12:27, ταράσσειν being used in both cases of the troubled spirit of Jesus (in 14:1, 27 it is said of the disciples). Jn., who lays such stress on the consciousness which Jesus had of His oneness with God (cf. 5:19), is no less emphatic about His true humanity (see on 1:14). The emotion with which He announced explicitly to His chosen companions that a traitor was among them is very human.

καὶ ἐμαρτύρησεν, the verb being used here of an explicit and definite pronouncement of Jesus, as at 4:44, 18:37. For the idea of “witness” in Jn., see Introd., p. xc; and for the μαρτυρία of Jesus, cf. 3:11, 32, 7:7, 8:14, 18.

παραδώσει με, “shall deliver me up.” See on 6:64 for the exact meaning of παραδιδόναι. All the evangelists (cf. Mk. 14:18, followed by Mt. 26:21, Lk. 22:21) agree that this startling announcement was made for the first time at the Last Supper; even then, Jesus gave no clue as to who the traitor was (see on vv. 10, 26). Indeed, if He had done so, Judas could hardly have escaped with his life.

22. The rec., with א*A D L WΘ, ins. οὖν after ἔβλεπον, but om. א^cB C.

The bewilderment (cf. Lk. 24:4, Gal. 4:20, for ἀπορεῖν) and distress of the apostles at this announcement are noted by the Synoptists as well as by Jn.; possibly the dissension as to precedence which seems to have taken place that evening (see on v. 16) may have accentuated the perplexity which they felt. Judas did not suggest by his demeanour that he was the guilty one, for they noticed nothing of the sort.

This is the moment chosen by Leonardo da Vinci for his wonderful picture of the scene.

For the constr. ἦν ἀνακείμενος, where we should expect the impf., see on 1:28.

ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς. Cf. 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 20. We have argued in the Introduction (p. xxxv f.) that this disciple was John the son of Zebedee. The question has been raised, indeed, whether we may not suppose others, outside the circle of the Twelve, to have been present at the Last Supper, of whom “the beloved disciple” may have been one. But the language of Mk. 14:17, “He cometh with the Twelve,” is explicit; so too Lk. 22:14, “He sat down, and the apostles with Him.” There is no hint anywhere of the presence of any except the twelve chosen companions of the Lord (cf. v. 18), of whom therefore the beloved disciple must be one. Sanday’s suggestion¹ that the beloved disciple may have been present as a young and favoured follower, a “supernumerary apostle,” lacks evidence. It is highly unlikely that Jesus would have bestowed special marks of His love and favour on one whom He did not include within the circle of the Twelve, and of whom, besides, the Synoptists know absolutely nothing.¹

The posture at table of guests at a feast seems to have been that of reclining sideways on couches or divans, the left arm on a cushion which was on the table, the right hand being thus free for taking food; the feet were stretched out behind. The host or principal person was in the centre, and the place of honour was above him, that is, to his left; the next highest place being below him, or to his right.² Thus the person on the right of the host would be so placed that his head would be close to the host’s breast, and that it would be easy therefore to say a word to him confidentially. The host would occupy a similar position in relation to the chief guest on his left, and would readily be able to address him privately.

It is plain that, at the Supper, the beloved disciple (i.e., as we take it, John the son of Zebedee) lay on the right of Jesus, ἀνακείμενος ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. There is no certain indication as to the disciple on His left (which was the place of honour). Some have thought it was Peter, but, if that were so, he would have addressed his question (v. 24) to Jesus directly, without the intervention of John. And the fact that he made signs to John would suggest that he was not very near him at table. It is more probable that the chief place (on the left of Jesus) was occupied by Judas, for Jesus was able to speak to him privately without the conversation being overheard (see v. 27 and cf. Mt. 26:25). That Judas was the treasurer of the little company (see on 12:6) may point to his enjoyment of some kind of precedence; and if this were so, he would naturally occupy the chief place at table, next to Jesus. See also on 6:71.

That John the son of Zebedee was given a place of honour at the supper is reminiscent of the request of Mk. 10:37 that he and his brother should be given the two highest seats in the Messianic kingdom; and it is possible that it was their custom to occupy the places of honour at the common meals of the Lord and His disciples. This would suggest that James was on the left of Jesus, as John was on His right, at the Last Supper; but more probably on this occasion Judas was next his Master.

24. νεύει οὖν τούτῳ Σίμων Πέτρος. “Simon Peter,” taking the initiative as usual, beckons to him, sc. to John. The text in the latter part of the verse is not quite certain.

(1) B C L and the Latin vss., followed by most modern editors, after Πέτρος read καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Εἰπὲ τίς ἐστιν περὶ οὗ λέγει. But the verb νεύειν, “to make signs,” is not usually accompanied by an intimation that the person making signs also spoke.¹ Again, εἰπέ is difficult to translate. The R.V. renders “tell us”; but why should Peter have expected John to answer out of his own knowledge? They were all puzzled, and John knew no more than the others. Abbott (Diat. 1359) takes εἰπέ as meaning “say,” sc. to Jesus, that is, “ask Him.” But why, then, do we not find ἐρώτησον? (a c f q add interroga).

(2) The other reading, νεύει οὖν τούτῳ Σίμων Πέτρος πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη, has in its favour that νεύειν is followed by an infinitive, as it is in the only other place where it occurs in the N.T. (Acts 24:10), and that it does not represent Peter as making signs and speaking as well. It is supported by A D WΓ Δ Θ and the Syriac vss. (including the Sinai Syriac).² πυθέσθαι is a Johannine word, occurring at 4:52. The only objection to this reading is that the optative mood (εἴη) is very rare in the N.T., as it was going out of use at this period, and that it never occurs again in Jn.

In any case, according to the Fourth Gospel, John is prompted by Peter to ask Jesus whom He had in mind. Mk., followed by Mt., represents all the disciples as asking “Is it I?” Lk. says that they questioned each other. Perhaps all these things happened, but it may at least be claimed that Jn.’s narrative is peculiarly vivid.

25. ἀναπεσών. So א^cB C*L, as at 21:20; the rec. ἐπιπεσών, following א*A C³D W Γ Δ Θ, suggests too violent a change of posture for the occasion. The rec. inserts δέ after ἐπιπεσών, with AΘ, but it is om. by B C; א D L W have οὖν.

ἀναπεσὼν ἐκεῖνος οὕτως ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ Ἰη.,³ “he (i.e. John) leaning back just as he was (cf. 4:6 for οὓτως) on the breast of Jesus,” i.e. leaning back, keeping the same attitude that has been described in v. 23. For the frequent use of ἐκεῖνος by Jn., see on 1:8.

οὕτως is omitted by the rec., with א A D W Θ; but B C LΔ have it, and it gives an intimate touch to the narrative here.

λέγει αὐτῷ, “saith to Him,” viz. in a whisper so that the others could not hear, which his position on the right of Jesus would enable him to do.

τίς ἐστιν; “Who is it?” But Jesus does not give the name of the traitor in reply. He answers in a way that even John does not seem to have been able to interpret (see on vv. 21, 28).

26. ἀποκρίνεται οὖν, “So Jesus answers” (cf. for the pres. tense 12:23); see for οὖν on 1:22. οὖν is omitted (wrongly) by א*A C³D W Γ Δ Θ, but is read by א^cB C*L. B omits, after its frequent habit (see on 1:26), ὁ before Ἰησοῦς. א D and fam. 13 add καὶ λέγει after Ἰησοῦς, but om. A B C L WΘ.

ψωμίον, “a morsel,” is not found in the N.T. outside this passage, but is a common word, and is the usual word for “bread” in modern Greek (cf. Judg. 19:5). The best reading (B C L cop.) is ἐγὼ βάψω τὸ ψωμίον καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ, the constr. βάψω καὶ δώσω being thoroughly Johannine; but the rec. text has ἐγὼ βάψας τὸ ψωμίον ἐπιδώσω, following א A D. For βάψας in the second clause of the verse, the rec. has ἐμβάψας (AΓ Δ Θ). After the second ψωμίον the rec. omits λαμβάνει καί (with א*A D WΓ Δ Θ), but the words are found in א^caB C L and must be retained, as adding a new and vivid detail. For Ἰσκαριώτου (the true reading here; see on 6:71), which is found in א B C Θ, the rec. has Ἰσκαριώτῃ (A WΓ Δ).

In Mk. (followed by Mt.), the same reply in substance is given to the disciples’ eager inquiry as to which of them would be the traitor (ὁ ἐμβαπτόμενος μετʼ ἐμοῦ εἰς τὸ τρύβλιον, Mk. 14:20); Lk. does not mention it. Jn. relates that Jesus gave to the beloved disciple a more precise clue, by saying that the traitor would be he to whom Jesus would Himself give the “sop,” having first dipped it. This is, no doubt, a correct detail. But it does not appear that John identified the traitor even when this clue was provided (v. 28).

It was a token of intimacy, to allow a guest to dip his bread in the common dish or τρύβλιον: thus Boaz says to Ruth βάψεις τὸν ψωμόν σου τῷ ὄξει (Ruth 2:14). And it is still a favour of Eastern hospitality for the host to dip a choice morsel in the central dish and hand it to a guest. This is what Jesus did for Judas, who was probably reclining at table next to Him (see on v. 23); but it was so usual a courtesy that it escaped the notice of the others, and did not seem even to John to have any special significance, despite what he had been told. If John understood, we must suppose him to have kept silent, and to have refrained from telling the others, which is highly improbable.

βάψας οὖν τὸ ψωμίον κτλ., “having dipped the sop, He takes and gives it to Judas.” According to Mt. 26:25, Judas asked, “Is it I?” to which the answer “Thou hast said” was given. This could have happened without attracting the attention of any one, as Judas was reclining next to Jesus. In any case, whether by word or act, Judas was made aware that Jesus knew what was in his heart. There was still time for him to abandon his purpose. But the quiet word and the courteous gesture of giving him the sop did but harden him. This was the last appeal to his better nature, and there was no response.

27. μετὰ τὸ ψωμίον, sc. after the whole incident of the giving of the sop, a classical use of μετά with a substantive following.

τότε, “then,” a graphic word, calling attention to the moment of final decision.

εἰσῆλθεν εἰς ἐκ. κτλ., “Satan entered into that one,” ἐκεῖνος being used as indicating the alien mind of Judas, and not merely for emphasis (see on 1:8). Lk. (22:3) has the same phrase εἰσῆλθεν ὁ Σατανᾶς εἰς Ἰούδαν, but he uses it of him at an earlier stage. See v. 2; and cf. 6:70. It was a natural way of explaining a course of treachery, so abhorrent to the evangelists, by whom the direct agency of Satan was firmly believed in. εἰσέρχομαι is the verb used by the Synoptists to describe the “entering in” of evil spirits (cf. Mk. 5:12, Lk. 8:30, 11:26). The evangelist can no otherwise explain to himself the devilish treachery that followed.

ποίησον is imperative. “What thou doest, do more quickly” (see on 2:5).

τάχιον (or τάχειον) is the comparative, occurring again in the N. T. only at Jn. 20:4, Heb. 13:19, 23; cf. Wisd. 13:9. Possibly Judas had not intended to consummate his treachery so soon, and was waiting until the Passover was past. But, whether this be so or not, the stern word “Do it more quickly” is human, indeed, in its context. “How am I straitened until it be finished!” is an earlier saying which Lk. (12:50) ascribes to Jesus. The looking forward to the inevitable Passion was torture; that there should be no longer delay was the natural wish of His heart. Attention has been called above (1:14) to the emphasis laid by Jn. on the true humanity of Jesus, as indicated by the human emotions of which Jn. tells.

28. τοῦτο δὲ οὐδείς κτλ. None of the disciples understood what was the reference of this injunction “Do it more quickly,” which had been said aloud so that all could hear it. This explicit statement must include the beloved disciple as well as the rest (see on v. 26.)¹

For the constr. οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀνακειμένων, οὐδείς not being followed by ἐκ, cf. 21:12, and see on 1:40, 7:19; and for the position of οὐδείς in the sentence, see on 1:18.

29. τινὲς γάρ κτλ. Jn. is apt thus to introduce with γάρ his own comments on the incidents or sayings which he records; see on 3:16.

The disciples did not know what the order “Do it more quickly” meant, and they held different views about it. Judas, being the treasurer (for τὸ γλωσσόκομον, see on 12:6), was naturally also the purveyor and the almoner of the little company. Some thought that he was bidden to hasten the purchase of what was needed for the Passover feast. This indicates again that the Passover was still to come, and that the Last Supper, for Jn., was not the Paschal meal (see on v. 1); for, had it been Passover night, nothing could have been bought. Another explanation was that Judas was told to give some alms to the poor, as he was accustomed to do (12:6), perhaps in order that aid might be given to a poor household to provide the Paschal lamb for the morrow.

30. λαβὼν οὖν τὸ ψωμίον κτλ. “So, having taken the sop, that one went out immediately.” Jn. lays stress on the acceptance of the sop by Judas, the suggestion being that Judas had recognised the significance of the offer of it by Jesus, and understanding now that Jesus knew his purpose he proceeds to execute it at once, whatever he may have intended before as to the day or hour of the betrayal.

ἐξῆλθεν εὐθύς. This is the right order (א B C D L W), as against εὐθέως ἐξῆλθεν of AΘ and the rec. text: so also at 19:34. The emphasis is on εὐθύς; Judas hurried away at once.

There is a variant εὐθέως (AΓ Δ Θ), but εὐθύς is read here by א B C D L W. Abbott (Diat. 1911 f.) seems to draw a distinction in use between these forms, but his argument is over subtle. For εὐθύς, see on 5:9; and cf. 1:22.

ἦν δὲ νύξ. This may be only a note of time, such as Jn. is apt to give (see on 1:29); but it is remarkably impressive here, and the dramatic horror of the moment is brought before the reader. Judas went out into the darkness. The symbolic meaning of this can hardly have been absent from the mind of the evangelist. Cf. Lk. 22:53, Rev. 21:25, 22:5.

The departure of Judas from the room is not mentioned by the Synoptists, although it is assumed.

31a. ὅτε οὖν ἐξῆλθεν. The rec. omits οὖν, with A, but ins. א B C D L W Θ. Some commentators, e.g. Bengel, omitting it, connect the preceding words ἦν δὲ νύξ with ὅτε ἐξῆλθεν, and this repetition of ἐξῆλθεν would be quite in the style of Jn. But the MS. evidence is conclusive for οὖν, and this disposes of such an arrangement of the words. The sentence ends dramatically with the monosyllable νύξ.

Here there seems to have been a dislocation of the original text,¹ and in this commentary we take the text in the order cc. 13:31a, 15, 16, 13:31b–38, 14, 17. This is also the time (see Introductory Note to v. 4) at which we must suppose the Eucharist to have been instituted. Whether Jn.’s account of this has been lost, or whether he did not describe the institution at all, is not certain; but in any case it is at this point in the narrative that we suppose it to have taken place.

13:31a, 15:1. ὅτε οὖν ἐξῆλθεν, λέγει Ἰησοῦς Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή. οὖν is emphatic. Such a discourse as this of the True Vine which follows was only for the faithful.

It has been suggested² that cc. 14–17 are more easily understood if we suppose them to represent discourses of Jesus which belong to His post-resurrection life on earth, rather than discourses spoken on the eve of His Passion. That their teachings are specially apposite, when read in public worship between Easter and Pentecost, has been recognised by Christendom for many centuries, the Greek, Syrian, and Latin Churches (as well as the Anglican) making use of selections from these chapters as the Gospels for some of the Sundays after Easter. It is not impossible that Jn. has preserved in cc. 14–17 some of the Lord’s post-resurrection counsels with other words spoken after the Last Supper. Thus 16:7–11 present an interesting resemblance to words ascribed to Jesus after His Resurrection in an addition to Mk. 16:14, preserved in the Freer MS. (see on 16:11 below). But it can hardly be doubted that cc. 14–17 belong to the eve of the Passion, or that 16:5 must precede 13:36.

15:1. The comparison of Jesus to a Tree, and of His disciples to the branches which derive their life from the life of the Tree, is similar in some respects to an illustration used by Paul to explain the relation of the individual Israelite to his forefathers, Abraham and the rest. “If the root is holy, so are the branches” (Rom. 11:16). Israel is compared to an olive tree, the roots being the patriarchs and the branches their descendants. But the illustration of Jesus conveys a deeper lesson, as we shall see.

The question presents itself: Why is the vine selected as the tree best fitted to bring out the lesson which it was the purpose of Jesus to teach? A vine has none of the dignity of the olive, with its fine trunk and spreading branches. Vines, indeed, in the East generally trail on the ground, although they are sometimes supported on stakes (cf. Ezek. 17:6f.), or entwine themselves round a greater tree (as in the parable in Hermas, Sim. ii.). The olive was regarded in an older parable as fit to be the king of trees (Judg. 9:8). It is the most important of the fruit trees of Palestine, and was a familiar object in Jerusalem, as the name “the Mount of Olives” indicates. Vines were also plentiful, especially in Judæa (cf. Gen. 49:11), but for strength and stateliness they are much inferior to the olive, as to many other trees.

The reason generally assigned by exegetes for the employment here of the figure of a vine is that it is frequently used in the O.T. as a type of Israel. But it is always thus used of degenerate Israel. “What is the vine tree more than any other tree?” Ezekiel asks (15:2), and he declares that as vine branches are only fit for burning, the vine of Jerusalem must be devoured by fire. So again (Ezek. 19:10), Israel was once a fruitful vine, but she was plucked up and destroyed. The choicest vine was planted in the vineyard of Yahweh, but it only brought forth wild grapes (Isa. 5:1). Israel was planted as a noble vine, but it became degenerate (Jer. 2:21). Israel is a luxuriant vine, but judgment comes on her (Hos. 10:1). The vine from Egypt of God’s planting spread far and wide, but the fences of its vineyard were broken, and it was ravaged by wild beasts (Ps. 80:8–13). God had chosen “of all the trees … one vine,” as He had chosen one people, but it came to dishonour (2 Esd. 5:23). Always in the O.T., where Israel is compared to a vine, the comparison introduces a lament over her degeneracy, or a prophecy of her speedy destruction. See also Rev. 14:19, where the vintage of the earth is cast into the winepress of the wrath of God. None the less, the vine was the national emblem, and on the coins of the Maccabees Israel is represented by a vine. And it has been thought that when Jesus said “I am the True Vine,” the comparison in view was that between the degenerate vine of Israel and the Ideal Vine represented by Himself. That is to say, the True Vine is now brought before the disciples as the new ideal of the spiritual Israel.

This, however, involves a comparison of the Church of Christ with the True Vine (cf. Justin, Tryph. 110), rather than an identification of Christ Himself with it. No doubt, by describing His disciples as the branches, Jesus connected them as well as Himself with the mystic vine of His similitude; but the emphasis in the sentence ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή is on ἐγώ, as in all the other great similitudes of the Fourth Gospel. ἐγώ εἰμι marks the style of Deity, which cannot be shared (see Introd., p. cxviii). The main thought is not of the Vine as the Church, but of the Vine as representing Him who is the source of the Church’s life. We take the view that the Vine of the allegory was directly suggested here by the wine of the first Eucharist, which had just been celebrated.¹

ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή. Burkitt² points out that an early Syriac rendering of this similitude was “I am the Vineyard of Truth,” i.e. the True Vineyard. This does not appear in Syr. sin. or the Peshitta, but it may have been in the Diatessaron. The confusion between Vineyard and Vine may be due to ἄμπελος having been taken as equivalent to ἀμπελών, a usage which Moulton-Milligan (s.v.) illustrate from the papyri. ἄμπελος occurs again in the N.T. only in Jas. 3:12, 5:18, 19, and Mk. 14:25 (and parls.), where Jesus said that He would not drink again of τὸ γένημα τῆς ἀμπέλου until He drank it new in the kingdom of God.

καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου (see on 2:16) ὁ γεωργός ἐστιν. γεωργός occurs again only at 2 Tim. 2:6, Jas. 5:7, and in the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Mk. 12:1 and parallels). Cf. 1 Cor. 3:9 θεοῦ γεώργιον … ἐστέ.

2. πᾶν κλῆμα κτλ Note the pendent nominative, as at 6:39, 17:2. κλῆμα is a word which does not appear again in the N.T.; but it is habitually used in the LXX for the “shoot” of a vine (e.g. Num. 13:24, Ezek. 17:6), as distinct from the “branch” (κλάδος) of other trees.

ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπόν. Note that a κλῆμα or branch may be truly in Christ, and yet may not bear fruit. μή expresses a hypothetical possibility. This severe warning, coming so soon after the beginning of the allegory, was probably an allusion to the failure and doom of Judas, who had gone forth to his treachery just before, in the arrangement of chapters here adopted.

αἴρει αὐτό. “He takes it away.” So, too, the κλάδοι of the olive which represented Israel in Paul’s illustration, were of the true stock, but some of them were broken off by God (Rom. 11:16, 17). The action of the Great Husbandman in this is like that of every earthly γεωργός: inutilesque falce ramos amputans (Horace, Epod. ii. 13). Cf. Mt. 3:10, Lk. 3:9.

καὶ πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον, καθαίρει αὐτό The play on the words αἴρειν, καθαίρειν (suavis rhythmus, as Bengel says), cannot be reproduced in English.

καθαίρειν, to cleanse, occurs in the N.T. again only at Heb. 10:2 (of religious cleansing), and is rare in the LXX. It is used here in the sense of “to cleanse by pruning,” as it is in Philo (de somn. ii. 9, cited by Cremer): “As superfluous shoots grow on plants, which are a great injury to the genuine shoots (τῶν γνησίων), and which the husbandmen (γεωργοῦντες) cleanse and prune (καθαίρουσι καὶ ἀποτέμνουσι), knowing what is necessary; so likewise the false and arrogant life grows up beside the true and humble life, of which to this day no husbandman (γεωργός) has been found to cut off by the roots the superfluous and injurious growth.” In this passage καθαίρειν, “to cleanse,” can hardly be distinguished from ἀποτέμνειν, “to prune.”

In the verse before us, however, the Great Husbandman does “cleanse” the fruitful branches by pruning off useless shoots, so that they may bear fruit more abundantly. It is not as if the branches were foul; on the contrary, they are already clean by virtue of their share in the life of the Vine (v. 3). But pruning may be good for them, none the less. Such pruning, according to Justin (Tryph. 110), illustrates God’s painful discipline for His true servants. The vine is a tree which specially needs attention, and it is essential to its fruitfulness that the already fruitful branches should be pruned regularly. Perhaps this is a warning anticipatory of the more explicit warning of vv. 20, 21.

ἵνα καρπὸν πλείονα φέρῃ. Cf. Mt. 13:12. The order καρπὸν πλείονα is that of א B L latt.

3. ἤδη ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε. So Jesus had said before (13:10), the primary reference then being to bodily cleanness, although with an allusion to spiritual purity as well (see note in loc.). Here, the thought is carried on from v. 2, which spoke of the cleansing of the branches by the Great Husbandman (καθαίρειν). The disciples were not useless branches, presently to be cut off; they were in the way of bearing fruit, and already they had been “cleansed” διὰ τὸν λόγον ὃν λελάληκα ὑμῖν, “by the word which I have spoken to you.”

We have seen (on 6:57) that διά followed by an acc. is to be distinguished from διά with a gen. The text here is not διὰ τοῦ λόγου, which would suggest that the Word of Jesus is the instrument of cleansing; but διὰ τὸν λόγον signifies rather that it is because of the Word abiding in them (v. 7) that they are kept pure. The λόγος which had thus, in some measure, been assimilated by them (cf. 5:38, 8:43) was the whole message that Jesus had delivered during His training of the Twelve. In so far as this continued to “abide” in them (v. 7), in that degree were they “clean.” As it abides in them, so do they abide in the True Vine (1 Jn. 2:24).

The cleansing τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι of Eph. 5:26 does not constitute a true parallel to the thought here.

4. μείνατε ἐν ἐμοί, κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν. This is an imperative sentence (for the aor. imper. see on 2:5). No doubt, the practical precept which was the issue of all the teaching of Jesus was just this; but we must not join the words to the preceding διὰ τὸν λόγον ὃν λελάληκα ὑμῖν, as if the precept itself were the λόγος. The words ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει, κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ had been used before (6:56), but the promise of that passage has not heretofore been turned into an explicit precept (cf. 14:20). For λόγος as signifying not a single sentence, but the whole purport of the Divine revelation given by Christ, see on 5:38.

καθὼς τὸ κλῆμα κτλ. Even the fruitful branch does not bear fruit of itself (cf. for ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ, 5:19, 7:18, 11:51, 16:13), but only in so far as it assimilates and is nourished by the sap of the vine. So the disciple of Jesus cannot bear fruit, unless he abide (ἐὰν μὴ μένῃ) in the Vine. Here is the difference between the natural and the spiritual order. The vine shoot has not the power of choosing whether it will “abide” in the vine, or cut itself loose. But in the spiritual sphere this “abiding” is not maintained without the constant and conscious endeavour of the disciple’s own will. Hence the urgency of the precept μείνατε ἐν ἐμοί.

5. ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος κτλ., “I am the Vine, ye are the branches,” the main theme being repeated with slight verbal alteration, as frequently in Jn. Cf. the repetitions of “I am the Bread of Life” (6:35, 41, 48, 51), “I am the Door” (10:8, 9), “I am the Good Shepherd” (10:11, 14); and see on 3:16.

ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ. The two “abidings” go together; see on 6:56.

οὗτος φέρει καρπὸν πολύν. This was the purpose for which the disciples were chosen (v. 16). For the emphatic οὗτος, “he it is that …,” cf. 4:47.

ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν. The branch is wholly dependent on the tree, by whose sap it is quickened and made fruitful.

6. ἐὰν μή τις μένῃ κτλ. μένῃ is the true reading (א*A B D) as against the rec. μείνῃ. ἐὰν μή with the pres. subj. is rare in the N.T., but we have it three times in vv. 4, 6.

ἐβλήθη ἔξω. The branch that does not bear grapes is cast out (apparently, out of the vineyard). The aorists ἐβλήθη, ἐξηράνθη, seem to look forward to the future Judgment of mankind, and treat it as already past, so certain and inevitable is it. Abbott (Diat. 2445) compares Isa. 40:7, 8 ἐξηράνθη ὁ χόρτος καὶ τὸ ἄνθος ἐξέπεσεν, τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν μένει, where the aorists are used in the same way. But a Greek aorist may be used without reference to any special moment of time.

ἐξηράνθη (it does not occur again in Jn.) is the word used, Mk. 4:6, of the withering of the seed that had no root, as here of the vine shoot that is no longer “in” the vine.

καὶ συνάγουσιν αὐτό. So א D L Δ fam. 13; the rec. has αὐτά with A BΓ Θ. “They” (sc. the servants of the Lord of the Vineyard, the subject being understood. but not expressed) “collect” the useless branches.

καὶ εἰς τὸ πῦρ βάλλουσιν κτλ., “and fling them into the fire.” Cf. Ezek. 15:4, where the prophet says of the vine branch, “it is cast into the fire for fuel.” The vivid picture of the labourers burning at the harvest all that is worthless, appears also in Mt. 13:40 as an illustration of the Last Judgment.

7. The figure of the tree and its branches is left aside for the moment; and the consequence of abiding in Christ is declared to be not only the capacity for “bearing fruit,” but the acquisition of the power of efficacious prayer. This is the secret of the saints.

ἐὰν μείνητε ἐν ἐμοὶ (cf. v. 4 and 8:31) καὶ τὰ ῥήματά μου (sc. the “sayings” which make up the λόγος of v. 3) ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ κτλ. The man of whom this is true is a master of prayer, and his petitions will be answered. In the Synoptists faith is the prerequisite for efficacious prayer: πάντα ὅσα προσεύχεσθε καὶ αἰτεῖσθε, πιστεύετε ὅτι ἐλάβετε καὶ ἔσται ὑμῖν (Mk. 11:24); “if you had faith you would say to this tree, Be uprooted and planted in the sea, and it would obey you” (Lk. 17:6; cf. Mt. 17:20). πάντα δυνατὰ τῷ πιστεύοντι (Mk. 9:23) is true of the life of prayer. But in Jn. faith in Christ is more than belief in His message, or fitful attraction to His Person; it is a continual abiding “in Him.” See further on v. 16 below; and cf. 6:29.

ὃ ἐὰν θέλητε αἰτήσασθε. For ὃ ἐάν (A D LΘ), B has ὃ ἄν, and א has ὅσα ἐάν. A B D L support the imperative αἰτήσασθε, while א Θ have αἰτήσεσθε.

ὃ ἐὰν θέλητε κτλ., “whatever you will, etc.”; petitions prompted by the indwelling words of Jesus cannot fail to be in harmony with the Divine Will. A petitioner who “abides in Christ” asks habitually “in His Name”; i.e. he asks as Christ would ask, and so his satisfaction is sure. See 14:13 and the note there; cf. also v. 16 below, and 16:23.

γενήσεται ὑμῖν, “it shall come to pass for you,” not as a boon granted arbitrarily, but as the inevitable sequence of the prayer.

8. ἐν τούτῳ, sc. in the fact that His followers abide in Christ (v. 7), the reference being retrospective: “in this is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit.” The γεωργός (v. 1) is always glorified if the trees of his planting are fruitful; and so in Isa. 61:3 the purpose of the mission of Yahweh’s servant was “that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that He might be glorified.” The perfection of human character is the glory of God: all good works are ad maiorem Dei gloriam (cf. Mt. 5:16). So Jesus spoke of His signs as exhibiting the glory of God (11:40).

The aor. ἐδοξάσθη is used proleptically. The issue is so sure that it is spoken of as already a fact. See, for a similar usage, v. 6 and 12:23, 13:1, 31.

γενήσεσθε. So א A: γένησθε is read by B D LΘ. If γένησθε is read, the rendering is “that ye bear much fruit and become my disciples.” But γενήσεσθε is better: “that ye bear much fruit: so shall you become my disciples,” or literally “disciples to me,” ἐμοί (cf. 13:35.) expressing the relationship more affectionately than μου (which is read by D*). Cf. 8:31, “if ye abide in my word, ye are truly my disciples.”

It is to have gone a long way in the Christian course to be able to appropriate the promise of v. 7; but the final cause of such progress is that “fruit” may appear, not in service only but in the development of character, to the glory of God. And the highest aspiration of all is to become “a disciple.” “True discipleship is hardly begun until the earthly life is near its end and the fruit hangs thick and ripe upon the branches of the Vine”¹ Cf. the saying of Ignatius, when on his way to martyrdom, νῦν ἅρχομαι μαθητὴς εἶναι (Rom. 5).

9. καθὼς ἠγάπησέν με ὁ πατήρ (cf. 5:20, 17:24), κἀγὼ ὑμᾶς ἠγάπησα (13:34), “As the Father loved me, so also I loved you.” The words are spoken in retrospect of His association with the apostles, now that the hour of parting has come; but they convey an assurance of the depth and intimacy of His love to all future disciples.

For the constr. καθὼς … κἀγώ in Jn., see on 6:57, 10:15; and cf. also 17:18. For the verb ἀγαπᾶν, see on 21:15.

μείνατε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐμῇ, “abide in my love,” i.e. “continue in the shelter of my love for you.” See on 5:42 for the Johannine use of the phrase ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Judas had fallen away from the reach of this love of Christ, and so may any disciple. Hence the need of the precept μείνατε, “continue.” (Cf. Jude 21 ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ τηρήσατε.) This “is perhaps the nearest approach to an authoritative command to obey a moral or spiritual precept” that occurs in Jn. (Abbott, Diat. 2438). For the aor. imperative μείνατε, see on 2:5.

10. The precept is “abide in my love,” and the way to obey it is to keep His commandments: ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολάς μου τηρήσητε, μενεῖτε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ μου. The ἀγάπη is the love of Jesus for His disciples, not their love for Him, as it is in 14:15. It is over subtle to attempt a distinction between ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐμῇ of v. 9 and ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ μου of v. 10. Both phrases mean the same thing, sc. the love of Jesus for His own. Jn. is specially fond of ἐμός, which occurs 37 times in the Gospel, and always in words of Jesus.¹

καθὼς ἐγὼ (א D have καθὼς κἀγώ) τοῦ πατρός μου (B. om. μοῦ) τὰς ἐντολὰς τετήρηκα. This is the high example set before the Christian disciple. Jesus had claimed (8:29) ἐγὼ τὰ ἀρεστὰ αὐτῷ ποιῶ πάντοτε, and now, looking back, He can say τετήρηκα (cf. 17:4). No man could say with such complete assurance, “I have kept the commandments of my Father”; while it is possible at the end to say, with Paul, τὴν πίστιν τετήρηκα (2 Tim. 4:7).

καὶ μένω αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ. This is the eternal issue of the ministry of Christ, the resumption of His place in the bosom of Deity, who is Love (cf. 17:24).

Westcott² finds here an advance on the teaching of 14:15, 21; and if this could surely be traced, the traditional order of chapters (c. 14 preceding c. 15) would be in some degree corroborated. But his reasoning is precarious. The idea of the ἐντολαί given by Jesus is only found in cc. 13, 14, 15; and the relevant passages are quite consistent with the order of chapters adopted here, viz.:

15:10 “If ye keep my commandments, ye will abide in my love.” As we have seen, this is the fundamental idea in the Allegory of the Vine.

13:34 This commandment is repeated and described as “new.” See Introd., p. xxi.

14:15 He tells His disciples that if they love Him, they must keep His commandments.

14:21 And, finally, He gives them the great promise, that if they thus show their love for Him, the Father will love them, and He Himself will love them and will manifest Himself to them. There is no “advance” on this teaching in c. 15, nor could there be.

The truth is, that we must not expect a continuous logical sequence in the discourses of the Fourth Gospel. The sacred words are set down as they are remembered by the aged disciple of Jesus,¹ but there is no attempt to present them in the manner which would be suitable to a theological treatise.

11. In these Last Discourses the phrase ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑμῖν recurs like a solemn refrain seven times (15:11, 16:1, 4, 6, 25, 33, 14:25), just as ἐγὼ κύριος λελάληκα recurs several times in Ezekiel (5:13, 15, 17, 6:10, 17:21, 24 etc.). The ἐγώ of dignity (see Introd., p. cxvii) is, however, not prefixed to λελάληκα in Jn. It is improbable that there is significance in there being seven repetitions of ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑμῖν and no more.² 16:6 is a reference to 16:5 “because I said these things”; and in 16:25 ἐν παροιμίαις comes between ταῦτα and λελάληκα, the emphasis being on the words “in proverbs” and not on “these things have I spoken.” See, for similar refrains, on 6:33, 39.

In each case ταῦτα refers to what has been said in the preceding sentences; and in three cases the purpose of the teaching is indicated, sc. that the disciples might have joy (15:11), that they might have peace (16:33), and that they might be warned of future persecution (16:1, 4).

To come back on a phrase in this way is thoroughly characteristic of the style of Jn.: cf. note on 3:16.

ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ἡ ἐμή κτλ. Paul afterwards expressed the hope that his joy might be the joy of his disciples (2 Cor. 2:3; cf. Phil. 2:2); but ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ ἐν ὑμῖν ᾖ has a more mystical significance here. Jesus had spoken ταῦτα, i.e. ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολάς μου τηρήσητε, μενεῖτε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐμῇ, and He now says that the purpose of His speaking these words was ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ ἐν ὑμῖν ᾖ. For the joy of Christ must be shared by those who abide in His love. So shall their “joy be fulfilled” (cf. 16:24, and especially 17:13). This is a favourite expression of Jn.; cf. 1 Jn. 1:4 and 2 Jn. 12, as also Jn. 3:29, where it is put into the mouth of John the Baptist.

12. αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ ἐμή κτλ. Jesus had spoken of “commandments” to the disciples whom He was so soon to leave, and had promised that if they kept His commandments they would “abide in His love.” But He gives no detailed instructions, no set of precepts for the conduct of their lives. He gives only one commandment, for it will be enough, if fully realised.

ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους κτλ., “that you love one another.” This was the commandment, repeated a little later in the evening, when it is described as a new commandment, as something that had never been enjoined before (13:34, where see note). That Christian disciple must “love” Christian disciple, because of their common discipleship, was a new idea, perhaps not yet universally understood.

καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς. This mutual love is to be no faint affection of goodwill; it must be a love which will pour itself out in sacrifice, if it is to be like the love of Jesus for all of them. This is the commandment which must be fulfilled by the disciple who will claim the promise “Ye shall abide in my love” (v. 10). You can live in the shelter of my love only if you love one another. Cf. Eph. 5:2.

Abbott (Diat. 2529) calls attention to the frequent use of the present subjunctive in these Last Discourses, “that you may be loving,” etc., the precept extending to all future generations of Christian disciples.

13. μείζονα ταύτης ἀγάπην κτλ. He reminds the disciples what was the measure of His love for them, having just told them that their love for each other must be of the same type. He was about to lay down His life for them, and this is the supreme sacrifice of love. A man can show no greater proof of his love for his friends than to die on their behalf. The love of God, indeed, has a wider range, as Paul reminds us: “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,” thus showing the all-embracing character of God’s love (Rom. 5:7, 8). But here something less is commended to the imitation of the Christian disciple, for the “new commandment” does not speak of universal brotherhood, but only of the obligations of Christian brethren to each other. The precept is reproduced, 1 Jn. 3:16: ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην, ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν· καὶ ἡμεῖς ὀφείλομεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς θεῖναι. For the expression τὴν ψυχὴν τιθέναι, see on 10:11; and for the position of οὐδείς, see on 1:18.

ἵνα τις τὴν ψυχήν κτλ. This is in apposition to ταύτης: cf. 4:34 for a similar use of ἵνα. τις is omitted by א*D*Θ and some Latin vss., but א^cA B D²L have it.

14. ὑμεῖς φίλοι μού ἐστε κτλ. This is another way of expressing what has already been said in v. 10. Those who abide in Christ’s ἀγάπη are His φίλοι: see on 21:15 for ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν.

ἃ ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαι ὑμῖν. According to Mt. 28:20, this was also to be the burden of the apostles’ preaching: διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν.

15. οὐκέτι λέγω ὑμᾶς δούλους κτλ. They were accustomed to call Him Mar as well as Rabbi (see on 1:38, 13:13), and δοῦλος, “slave,” is the correlative of Mar, “Lord.” He had applied the term δοῦλος to them, 13:16; and He had implied that to be His διάκονος was a dignity.

There is nothing derogatory in being described as δοῦλος κυρίου, עֶבֶד יְהוֹה; on the contrary, it was a title of honour, and as such is used of Joshua (Josh. 24:29), Moses (Deut. 34:5), David (Ps. 89:20 etc.); in the N.T. Simeon uses it of himself (Lk. 2:29), the Epistle to Titus begins Παῦλος δοῦλος Θεοῦ, and the Epistle of James has Ἰάκωβος Θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος (Jas. 1:1). To this day, Abd-allah is a favourite name in the East. Abraham was singularly honoured by being called the friend of Yahweh (Ἀβραὰμ ὃν ἠγάπησα, Isa. 41:8; cf. 2 Chron. 20:7, Jas. 2:23), and still is called by the Arabs, El-Khalil.

This distinction between God’s “slave” and His “friend” appears in Philo. He says that while we speak of God as the δεσπότης or κύριος of the external world, in reference to the spiritual world (τὸ νοητὸν ἀγαθόν) He is called σωτὴρ καὶ εὐεργέτης. “For wisdom is God’s friend rather than His slave” (φίλον γὰρ τὸ σοφὸν θεῷ μᾶλλον ἢ δοῦλον, de sobrietate, 11). Philo then cites Gen. 18:17 in the form “Shall I hide it from Abraham my friend?” According to the Book of Wisdom (7:27), to be God’s friend (φίλος) is a privilege of holy men in every generation.

Thus the difference drawn out in the text between the δοῦλοι and the φίλοι of Jesus corresponds to the difference, familiar to the Jews, between the δοῦλοι and the φίλοι of God, and conveys an additional suggestion of the Divinity of Jesus, which is behind the teaching of the Fourth Gospel from beginning to end.

The chief officials of an Eastern monarch were called his “friends” (1 Macc. 2:18, 3:38, 10:65 etc.), and Swete suggests that there is here an allusion to this nomenclature. “He has lifted them out of the condition of menial service, and raised them gradually into that of the friends of the Messianic king.” But this does not seem to be in harmony with vv. 14, 15b, where the duties and privileges of “friends” as distinct from “slaves” are explained.

To be a δοῦλος of Jesus was the first stage in the progress of a Christian disciple; and the early Christian leaders, speaking of themselves, claim to be His δοῦλοι (Acts 4:29, Rom. 1:1, Gal. 1:10, etc.), while they do not venture to claim the further honour of His φιλία, which was given to the Eleven on the eve of the Lord’s Passion. The difference appears in this, that a slave obeys his lord, without claiming to know the reason for his lord’s actions, while a friend shares his knowledge and is admitted to his secrets. ὁ δοῦλος οὐκ οἶδεν κτλ. Thus the apostles did not know the significance of the action of Jesus in washing their feet (13:7, 12).

ὑμᾶς δὲ εἴρηκα φίλους. So Luke records (Lk. 12:4), at an earlier stage of their training, that Jesus addressed His disciples as “my friends.” And He had implied many times that they were His friends, because He had expounded to them more freely than to others the mysteries of the kingdom of God (Mk. 4:11).

ὅτι πάντα ἃ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ π. κτλ. Always His message was of the things which He had “heard” from His Father (cf. 8:26, 40); but He did not disclose everything to the multitudes. It was only to His chosen friends that He had made known the ὄνομα of the Father (17:26); but from them He had hidden nothing that they were able to bear (cf. 16:12).

16. The apostles were henceforth His chosen friends, and herein was encouragement for them, who were so soon to take up their mission, in the absence of their Master. It would be a mission of difficulty, but their Call was their Power.

οὐχ ὑμεῖς με ἐξελέξασθε, ἀλλʼ ἐγὼ ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς, “You did not choose me, but I chose you,” the personal pronouns being repeated for emphasis. See on 6:70, 13:18 and v. 19, where the aor. ἐξελεξάμην is used as here to mark the moment when the apostles were selected from the larger body of disciples. Each of them was a σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς (Acts 9:15), and had been chosen by Jesus after a night of prayer (Lk. 6:13). It is constantly taught in the Fourth Gospel that God’s love precedes the movement of man’s soul to Him (see on 3:16).

καὶ ἔθηκα ὑμᾶς,¹ “and appointed you,” sc. to your special work; cf. for τίθημι used thus, Acts 20:28, 1 Tim. 1:12.

ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑπάγητε. ὑπάγειν is used at Lk. 10:3 of the “going forth” of the Seventy on their mission. For ὑπάγειν in Jn., see on 7:33.

καὶ καρπὸν φέρητε, primarily the fruit of success in their apostolic labours, but also indicating the perfecting of personal character (cf. v. 4).

καὶ ὁ καρπὸς ὑμῶν μέῃ, “and your fruit may abide.” Jesus had said to a group of disciples on a former occasion, ὁ θερίζων … συνάγει καρπὸν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον (4:36), and the thought is the same in this passage. Cf. Rev. 14:13 and 1 Cor. 15:58.

ἵνα ὅ τι ἂν αἰτήσητε (so א A D N Θ, but B L have αἰτῆτε) τὸν πατέρα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δῷ ὑμῖν (cf. v. 7). This great promise occurs six times (with slight variations) in the Last Discourses (cf. 16:23, 24, 26, 14:13, 14); and in these passages the philosophy, so to speak, of Christian prayer is unfolded, as nowhere else in the N.T.

In the Sermon on the Mount we have the simple words αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν (Mt. 7:7). But, when the Lord’s Prayer is prescribed for use, it is made plain that there are conditions which must be fulfilled, if prayer is to be acceptably offered, and one of these is Thy Will be done. Prayer that is not submissive to that condition has no promise of answer. Another condition is suggested Mt. 18:19: “If two of you shall agree as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them by my Father.” Prayer may be selfish, so that the granting of one man’s petition may be the refusal of another’s. But if men agree, that barrier is removed. If all men agreed in asking the Eternal for the same thing, the prayer could be offered with entire confidence. And Jn. tells that Jesus expressed the supreme condition of Christian prayer by saying that it must be offered ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, “in my Name.” For Christ embraces all men. He is the Man. A petition which is one that He could offer is one the fulfilment of which could hurt none and would benefit all (cf. 11:22). So, in Johannine language, the prayer which is of certain efficacy must be ἐν τῷ ὁνόματι αὐτοῦ, and that is enough. Jn. does not speak of importunity in prayer, as Lk. does (Lk. 11:8); but it is reiterated in the Fourth Gospel that the will of the man who prays must be in harmony with Christ’s will (cf. 1 Jn. 5:14). The man must be ἐν ἐμοί, a phrase used several times in these Last Discourses (14:20, 15:4, 7, 16:33; cf. 6:56, 1 Jn. 5:20), with which Paul’s ἐν Χριστῷ should be compared (Rom. 12:5, 16:7, 1 Cor. 15:18, 2 Cor. 5:17).¹ This condition has been already expressed in different words at v. 7: “If ye abide in me, and my sayings abide in you, ask (αἰτήσασθε) what you will, and it shall be done to you.” To pray “in the Name” of Christ is not any magical invocation of the Name, nor is it enough to add per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, but it is to pray as one who is “in Christ.” Such are the prayers of the saints.

For the significance of “the Name,” see on 1:12; and for ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου in other contexts, cf. Lk. 10:17, Jn. 14:26, 20:31, Eph. 5:20.

The repeated ἵνα … ἵνα challenges attention. The final cause of the choice of the apostles was that they should “go forth and bear fruit,” in their own lives as well as in their missionary labours, so that at last they should become masters of effectual prayer.

17. ταῦτα ἐντέλλομαι ὑμῖν (cf. v. 14), ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους (v. 12). The purpose of these instructions was that they might appreciate the urgency of this novel precept (see on 13:34) which enjoined the love of Christian disciple for Christian disciple. This is not any vague recommendation of universal brotherhood; it is something much more definite. Indeed, as vv. 18, 19 show, the doctrine of mutual love cannot be extended so as to embrace all mankind. For the “world” hates Christians, as it hated Christ. There can be no reciprocity of ἀγάπη, in the special sense in which it is here enjoined, between the Church and the world.

See on 1:9 for the Johannine use of the term κόσμος. It is solemnly repeated five times in vv. 18, 19.

18. εἰ ὁ κόσμος ὑμᾶς μισεῖ κτλ. The disciples are not to expect that the world will love them (cf. 1 Jn. 3:13), and of its future hostility they are now warned explicitly (see on 16:4 below). Jesus had told His “brethren” that the world could not hate them (7:7), but that was because they were on the world’s side, and not on His, as all His disciples must be.

γινώσκετε ὅτο ἐμὲ πρῶτον ὑμῶν μεμίσηκεν, “know (scitote) that it has hated me first.” γινώσκετε is imperative, like μνημονεύετε in v. 20. Despite His words on a former occasion (7:7), the disciples had not yet realised the measure of the “world’s” hatred for Jesus, the world being here represented by the hostile Jews.

ὑμῶν is omitted by א D a b c e ff², but is found in א^cA B L N Θ f g l vg. etc. and the Syriac vss. If it be omitted, the constr. is easy; but if it be retained, πρῶτον ὑμῶν presents the same difficulties as πρῶτός μου in 1:15. Abbott (Diat. 1901) would translate here “that it hath hated me, your Chief,” which might be defended by the vg. priorem uobis. But this seems unsatisfactory, and it is best to take πρῶτον ὑμῶν as if it were πρότερον ὑμῶν (see on 1:15).

19. εἰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἦτε. Those who are “of the world” (cf. 1 Jn. 4:5) are sharply contrasted by Jn. with the Christian disciples, whose “otherworldliness” he always speaks of with emphasis. See, particularly, 17:14, 16. One of the characteristics of the writings of Jn. is that he always paints in black and white, without allowing for intermediate shades of colour. He will have no compromise with evil. For him the Church and the world are set over against each other, and he does not contemplate their reconcilement.¹

ὁ κόσμος ἂν τὸ ἴδιον ἐφίλει, “the world would have loved its own,” that which is in harmony with worldly ideals. The apostles, on the other hand, are not “of the world.” Out of it they had been chosen (see v. 16, and cf. 13:18), and so the world hated them. διὰ τοῦτο refers to what has gone before, as at 6:65. Thus vv. 16–20 taught the apostles that if to abide in Christ is the secret of fruitful lives and of effectiveness in prayer, it also provokes the world’s hostility. But this hostility carries with it a promise and a benediction (cf. 1 Pet. 4:14, Mt. 5:11).

With the Johannine teaching as to the hatred of the Church by the world (7:7, 17:14, 1 Jn. 3:13), cf. the fine saying of Ignatius: “Christianity (χριστιανισμός) is not talk, but power, when it is hated by the world” (Rom. 3).

20. μνημονεύετε τοῦ λόγου οὗ ἐγὼ εἶπον ὑμῖν, “Be mindful of the saying which I said to you.” μνημονεύειν occurs again in Jn. only at 16:4, 21. א reads here τὸν λόγον ὃν ἐγὼ ἐλάλησα ὑμῖν.

We have already had the saying οὐκ ἔστιν δοῦλος μείζων τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ at 13:16 (where see note), but Jesus probably repeated it more than once, the reference here perhaps being to the occasion when He gave a charge to the newly chosen apostles (Mt. 10:24; cf. Lk. 6:40). They had been warned then that they would not be exempt from persecution (cf. Mt. 10:17–23); it was even more necessary that they should bear this in mind in the days that were coming. He had told them that He counted them as friends rather than servants (v. 15), but for all that the saying “The servant is not greater than his lord” would be applicable to their situation in a hostile world. The moral He had drawn from this saying at the Last Supper, earlier in the evening, was different (13:16).

εἰ ἐμὲ ἐδίωξαν, “If they persecuted me,” the subject being ὁ κόσμος, taken as a noun of multitude, from v. 19. Jn. has already spoken of the persecution (ἐδίωκον) of Jesus by the Jews, because of the freedom with which He treated the rules of the Sabbath (5:16).

καὶ ὑμᾶς διώξουσιν, “they will persecute you also,” a warning repeated in other language at 16:33. Lk. records a similar warning (Lk. 21:12), and Mk. 10:30 notes that Jesus accompanied a promise of temporal blessings to the faithful with the significant addition of μετὰ διωγμῶν. There is no reason to doubt that Jesus did thus predict that persecution would be the lot of His disciples; and it is unnecessary to accumulate proofs that the prediction came true (cf. 1 Cor. 4:12, 2 Cor. 4:9, Gal. 4:29, 2 Tim. 3:12).

εἰ τὸν λόγον μου ἐτήρησαν, καὶ τὸν ὑμέτερον τηρήσουσιν, “if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.” For the phrase τὸν λόγον τηρεῖν, a favourite phrase in Jn., see on 8:51, 14:15. In Ezek. 3:7 Yahweh is represented as saying to the prophet, “They will not hearken unto thee, because they will not hearken unto me”; and this would apply to the apostles of Jesus. But the saying recorded here by Jn. goes farther. Those who observe the word of Jesus will also observe the word of His apostles, it being implied of course that the apostles will utter no “word” for which they have not the authority of their Master. A world which “observed” the teaching of Jesus would inevitably “observe” the teaching of those who could rightly claim His commission. The difficulty of drawing inferences from this great assurance, once Christendom was divided, is illustrated by the whole course of Christian history. Jesus, however, goes on to insist that it is the other alternative which the apostles must prepare to face; not acquiescence, but opposition, will be the portion of those who proclaim His gospel.

21. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα πάντα ποιήσουσιν εἰς ὑμᾶς (the rec. has ὑμῖν, with A D²N Γ, but א^a;B D*LΘ support εἰς ὑμᾶς), “but all these things will they do to you.” The “things” are not defined here. The whole verse is repeated in slightly different words at 16:3 (see note), where it follows the mention of excommunication and death; and if we could treat it here as a gloss that has crept into the text from below, the sequence of thought in vv. 20–24 would be easier to follow. But this would be an arbitrary alteration of the text. The sequence in Jn. is not always determined by logical considerations, and his reports of the words of Jesus are not to be taken as complete or exhaustive. Much more, doubtless, was said on this last night; what is preserved represents the long-pondered reminiscences of an aged disciple.

διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου, “for my Name’s sake.” Persecution will come, but it will be easier to bear if they remember why it comes, and whose cause it is that they are upholding. This, again, had been said to them before, when they received their apostolic commission: ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι ὑπὸ πάντων διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου (Mt. 10:22; see above on v. 20). The same warning appears in the Marcan tradition in a different context (Mk. 13:13, Mt. 24:9, Lk. 21:17), but in identical terms. A few verses before these passages in Mk. and Lk., the apostles had been told that they would be haled before rulers and kings, ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ (Mk. 13:9) or ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματός μου (Lk. 21:12); and there is no substantial difference in meaning between these expressions and διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου.

The Name of God is equivalent in the O.T. to His revealed character (see on 1:12); and in 1 Sam. 12:22, 2 Chron. 6:32, Jer. 14:21, we find διὰ τὸ ὄνομα [τὸ μέγα], “on account of His great Name,” sc. because He is what He is. In the N.T. we have the phrase διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, used of the Name of Christ, not only in the passages cited above, but at 1 Jn. 2:12, Rev. 2:3. His “Name” signified His revealed character, His Person; and those who suffered “on account of His Name” suffered because they proclaimed His Name as supreme. Cf. Polycarp, Phil. 8: ἐὰν πάσχωμεν διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, δοξάζωμεν αὐτόν. In the persecutions of the early centuries, to confess “the Name” was to court death. Cf. 1 Pet. 4:14, Acts 5:41; Ignatius, Eph. 3.

ὅτι οὐκ οἴδασιν τὸν πέμψαντά με. Ignorance of the character of God is the cause of failure to recognise the claims of Christ, who came as the Ambassador of the Father. Cf. Lk. 23:34, Acts 3:17, for ignorance as the cause of the Jews’ rejection of Christ; and see further on 16:3.

Jesus said before (8:19; cf. 14:9) that to know Him is to know the Father; here He says that to know the Father is to know Him (cf. 8:42). For the conception of Jesus as “sent” by the Father, which so frequently appears in Jn., see on 3:17.

22. That the Jews did not “know” God as revealed in Christ would be the cause of their hatred of Christ and of Christians (v. 21); and this ignorance is now shown to be inexcusable, (a) because the words of Jesus should have found an echo in their minds (v. 22), and (b) because His works should have convinced them of His Divine mission (v. 24).

The constr. εἰ μὴ … ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ εἴχοσαν· νῦν δὲ … is identical in vv. 22, 24; and it is noteworthy that ἄν is omitted, which perhaps makes the sentence more emphatic, “If I had not … assuredly they would have no sin.” In both verses εἴχοσαν (א B L N) is to be preferred to the rec. εἶχον.

εἰ μὴ ἦλθον. This is the Messianic ἔρχεσθαι. He who was to come had come.

καὶ ἐλάλησα αὐτοῖς, “and discoursed to them”; see on 3:11 for λαλεῖν. Cf. 12:48.

ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ εἴχοσαν. For ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν, cf. 9:41, 19:11, 1 Jn. 1:8. But their failure to accept Jesus, when they had heard Him speak, was a moral failure, and therefore blameworthy. See on the parallel passage 9:41. Involuntary ignorance, on the other hand, is excusable; cf. Acts 17:30.

πρόφασιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν κτλ. πρόφασις does not occur again in Jn.; cf. Ps. 141:4 (LXX).

23. Those who hate Christ, hate God, because in Christ’s words and works God is revealed.

24. εἰ τὰ ἔργα μὴ ἐποίησα κτλ. The Jews were blameworthy because they did not recognise that the “works,” as well as the “words” of Jesus revealed God.

In all the Gospels, the impression made by His works of wonder is noted; e.g. Mk. 1:27, Lk. 4:36, Jn. 3:2 (where see note) and 7:31. It is not the highest kind of faith that is thus generated (14:11), but nevertheless such faith is, in its measure, worthy and laudable (see on 2:11). And, more than once in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus Himself appeals to the witness of His ἔργα in confirmation of His Divine mission (5:36, 10:32, 37), as He does here. As His words were greater than those of any other (7:46), so were His works such as οὐδεὶς ἄλλος ἐποίησεν (cf. 9:32, Mt. 9:33). If He had not wrought works of this wonderful character among them (ἐν αὐτοῖς), the Jews would not have been counted blameworthy; but as things were, they were left without excuse (Mt. 11:21, Lk. 10:13).

νῦν δὲ καί κτλ., “but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father,” the perfects indicating the persistence of their hostility (cf. Abbott, Diat. 2443). The construction of the sentence, καί being four times repeated, shows that ἑωράκασιν as well as μεμισήκασιν governs τὸν πατέρα μου no less than ἐμέ. Jesus said later on ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα (14:9); but the original fault of the Jews was, as He had said before (6:36), ἑωράκατέ με καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε (see on 14:7). Neither in His words nor in His works did they discern the Divine mission of Jesus; and, not discerning who had sent Him, they hated Him and therefore implicitly His Father (v. 23).

ἵνα πληρωθῇ ὁ λόγος κτλ. The hatred of the Jews for Jesus was part of the mysterious purpose of God, disclosed in the O.T. scriptures. See Introd., p. clv.

The phrase “their law” has already been discussed in the note on 8:17. “The law” is used for the whole of Scripture (see on 12:34); but although a Greek Christian might readily say “their law,” to suppose that Jesus thus separated Himself from the Jewish race is hard of credence. Two of His Words from the Cross are quotations from the Psalms, which, if the phrase “their law” be His, He declines to recognise as having any special value for Him.

The allusion is either to Ps. 35:19 or Ps. 69:4 (most probably from Ps. 69, as this was regarded as a Messianic Psalm; see on 2:17), in both of which οἱ μισοῦντές με δωρεάν faithfully reproduces the Hebrew. The hatred of the Jews for Jesus was gratuitous and without cause (δωρεάν; cf. πρόφασιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν of v. 22).

The term παράκλητος does not occur in the Greek Bible outside the Johannine writings. On the other hand, Jn does not use παρακαλεῖν or παράκλησις, the latter word being specially Lucan and Pauline, while the former is common to most of the N.T. writers.

Etymologically, παράκλητος is a passive form, and is equivalent to the Latin aduocatus, signifying one who is “called in” to give help or advice, and being especially used of the counsel for the defence.¹ In classical writers this is always the meaning. Demosthenes (de falsa leg. 341) has αἱ τῶν παρακλήτων δεήσεις καὶ σπουδαί, and in Diog. Laert. iv. 50, Bion is made to say, “I will do what is sufficient for you if you will send παράκλητοι (sc. representatives) and don’t come yourself.” The term is used in the same way in Philo. Thus the city of Alexandria is called the παράκλητος by whom the emperor might be propitiated (in Flaccum, 4; cf. also de Josepho, 40). In de opif. mundi, 6, Philo says that God employed no παράκλητος (i.e. helper) in the work of creation. Again, in Vit. Mos. iii. 14, speaking of the high priest, “one consecrated to the Father of the world,” Philo says that it was necessary that he should employ as his παράκλητος, “a son most perfect in virtue.”² In like manner, Barnabas (§ 20) has πλουσίων παράκλητοι, “advocates of the wealthy”; and in 2 Clem. 6 we have the question, “Who shall be our παράκλητος, i.e. our advocate, if we are not found doing what is right?” So in the Letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne (about 177 a.d., Eus. H.E. v. 1), it is said that Vettius Epagathus, confessing that he was a Christian, was taken into the order of martyrs (εἰς τὸν κλῆρον τῶν μαρτυρῶν), being called παράκλητος Χριστιανῶν, having the Paraclete within himself.

It may be added that the word was borrowed from the Greek by the Jews, and appears in Talmudic writings (see Wetstein on Jn. 14:16) as פרקלט in the sense of aduocatus.

Although the verb παρακαλεῖν does not appear in Jn., an examination of its usage throws some additional light on the meaning of παράκλητος.

παρακαλεῖν is to call a person to stand by one (παρά), and hence to help in various ways, e.g.

(a) as a witness, to be present when a thing is done. Cf. Demosthenes, c. Phorm. § 29.

(b) as an adviser. Cf. Xenophon, Anab. I. vi. 5, Κλεάρχον δὲ καὶ εἴσω παρεκάλεσε σύμβουλον.

(c) as an advocate. Cf. Æschines, Fals. Leg., § 184: παρακαλῶ δʼ Εὔβουλον μὲν ἐκ τῶν πολιτικῶν καὶ σωφρόνων ἄνδρα συνήγορον.

The verb is specially applied to the invoking of a god, and calling him in to help: e.g. Thucydides, i. 118 fin., αὐτὸς ἔφη ξυλλήψεσθαι καὶ παρακαλούμενος καὶ ἅκλητος; Epictetus, Diss. III. xxi. 12, τοὺς θεοὺς παρακαλεῖν βοηθούς; Plutarch, Alexander, 33, παρεκάλει τοὺς θεούς.

It appears from these passages that παράκλητος is naturally used for a Divine helper called in, either as a witness (15:26), or as an advocate (16:8), or as an adviser (16:13). παρακαλεῖν is also used in the sense of encourage, e.g. Polybius, III. xix. 4, οἱ περὶ τὸν Δημήτριον συναθροίσαντες σφᾶς αὐτοὺς καὶ παρακαλέσαντες; but παράκλητος, being a passive form, cannot be equivalent to “one who encourages.”

The familiar rendering “Comforter” was introduced into our English versions by Wyclif, who meant by it “confortator,” i.e. strengthener, not consoler (see his rendering of Phil. 4:13). But there is some patristic authority for the translation “consoler.” Origen (de princ. II. vii. 4) says distinctly that while in 1 Jn. 2:1 παράκλητος means intercessor, in the Fourth Gospel it means consoler. So, too, Cyril of Jerusalem says (Cat. xvi. 20) that the Spirit is called παράκλητος from παρακαλεῖν, “to console,” as well as because He “helps our infirmities” and “makes intercession” for us (Rom. 8:26). Gregory of Nyssa (c. Eunom. ii. 14) also calls attention to the two meanings of the verb παρακαλεῖν. It is perhaps in consequence of an early interpretation of παράκλητος in Jn. 14 as “consoler,” that Aquila and Theodotion render נָחַם in Job 16:2 by παράκλητος, where the LXX has παρακλήτωρ. But the weight of evidence is undoubtedly in favour of “advocate” rather than “comforter” as the rendering of παράκλητος in Jn.; and the notes on 14:16, 26, 16:7 will show also that this rendering is more in accordance with the contexts in which it occurs. At 1 Jn. 2:1 “advocate” is the only possible rendering.

The R. V. margin suggests “Helper” as an alternative, and this is adopted by Moffatt. This might include the idea of consoling as well as of pleading one’s cause; but its vagueness veils the meaning here and at 16:7.

Witness to Christ in the Future Will Be Borne by the Paraclete as Well as by Christian Disciples (vv. 26, 27)

26. ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλ. After ὅταν the rec. inserts δέ, with A D LΓ Θ, but om. א B Δ; the omission of a connecting particle is a familiar feature of Jn.’s style.

Verses 26, 27, follow at once upon the rebuke (vv. 21–25) pronounced upon the enemies of Jesus. Their hostility was blameworthy. And in the future they will be proved in the wrong by the witness of the Spirit (v. 26) as well as by the witness of the apostles (v. 27).

The rendering of ὁ παράκλητος by advocate is here demanded by the context, to which the rendering comforter would be quite foreign. Jesus had explained that the hostility of the Jews to Him was sinful, for they ought to have recognised His Divine mission in His words and works (vv. 22–24). They hated Him, not knowing Him, although they ought to have known Him. But when the Paraclete came, He would bear true testimony to Jesus, being indeed the Spirit of Truth (v. 26). The Paraclete is the Divine aduocatus defending the Righteous One, and pleading His cause against false accusers. He is not, as at 1 Jn. 2:1, represented as pleading the cause of man with God, but rather as pleading the cause of Christ with the world. See further on 16:8; and cf. Introd., p. xxi.

ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν κτλ. So also at 16:7, the promise is that Jesus will send the Paraclete; but at 14:16 He is to be given by the Father in response to the prayer of Jesus, and at 14:26 the Father is to send Him in the Name of Jesus. The Lucan doctrine is that Jesus sends the Spirit, “the promise of the Father” (Lk. 24:49, Acts 2:33); see further on 14:26.

παρὰ τοῦ πατρός. Cf. 16:27, 17:8 and see on 1:14 for παρά as expressing the relation of the Son to the Father. The Paraclete is to be sent “from the Father’s side.”

τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας. The full phrase occurs again 16:13, 14:17, 1 Jn. 4:6. In the last passage it is contrasted with τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης, as in Testaments of XII. Patriarchs (Judah, xx.), where the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit both wait upon man, and it is said that “the spirit of truth testifieth all things and accuseth all.” It is probable that this sentence is a Christian interpolation introduced into the text of the Testaments; but see on 1:9, where there is another parallel to their language.

In these Last Discourses, however, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας is but another name for the Paraclete who is to be sent after Jesus has been withdrawn from the sight of men. The spirit of truth is the Spirit which brings truth and impresses it on the conscience of the world. In this passage the leading thought is of the witness of the Spirit to Jesus, infallibly true, however perverted the opinion of the world about Him may be.

The phrase τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας has, like the phrase ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς (see on 6:35), a double meaning. Primarily (a) it is the Spirit which brings truth and gives true testimony, but (b) this is the case because the Spirit has truth as the essential characteristic of His Being. So, also, the Logos is πλήρης ἀληθείας (1:14), and Jesus says, later in this discourse, ἐγώ εἰμι … ἡ ἀλήθεια (14:6).

ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται. ἐκπορεύεσθαι occurs once elsewhere in Jn., sc. at 5:29, where it is used of the dead “coming forth” out of their graves. Here it is used in the same way of the Spirit “coming forth” from God in His mission of witness (cf. ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ἀποσταλέντι ἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ, 1 Pet. 1:12). To interpret the phrase of what is called “the Eternal Procession” of the Spirit has been a habit of theologians, which has been the cause of the endless disputes between East and West as to the “Procession” of the Spirit from the Son as well as from the Father. As far back as the fourth century, at all events,¹ the clause τὸ ἐκ (not παρά) τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον has found a place in the Creed as descriptive of the Holy Spirit, and is taken from the verse before us. But to claim that this interpretation was present to the mind of Jn. would be to import into the Gospel the controversies and doctrines of the fourth century. ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται does not refer to the mysterious relationships between the Persons of the Holy Trinity, but only to the fact that the Spirit who bears witness of Jesus Christ has come from God (cf. Rev. 22:1, where in like manner the river of the water of life is described as ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ).

ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ. ἐκεῖνος calls special attention to the Spirit as the subject of the sentence, exactly as at 14:26. It is He, and none less than He, who shall bear august and true witness to the world about Christ. Cf. 1 Jn. 5:6 τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν, ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια.

However little modern conceptions of personality and of what it implies were present to the mind of the first century, the repeated application of ἐκεῖνος to the Spirit in these chapters (16:8, 13, 14, 14:26) shows that for Jn. τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας meant more than a mere tendency or influence.

27. The Spirit was to be a Witness concerning Jesus in the future: the disciples’ ministry of witness had already begun.

καὶ ὑμεῖς δὲ μαρτυρεῖτε, “ye also bear witness” (a statement of fact, not an imperative); cf. Lk. 24:48. The twofold witness of the Spirit and of the disciples is indicated Acts 5:32; but Jn. specially dwells on this witness of the first disciples (cf. 3:11, 1 Jn. 1:2, 4:14, 3 Jn. 12; and see Introd., p. xci).

The qualification for “witness” is personal intimacy, ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ: cf. Lk. 1:2, Acts 1:21.

ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς occurs again 8:44 only, but is frequent in the Johannine Epistles, sometimes (e.g. 1 Jn. 2:7, 24, 3:11, 2 Jn. 5, 6) referring to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, as here, but sometimes also to the beginning of all things (e.g. 1 Jn. 1:1, 2:13, 14, 3:8, as always in the Synoptists). See 8:44, 16:4.

ἐστέ, “ye are with me from the beginning.” So Jesus said τοσοῦτον χρόνον μεθʼ ὑμῶν εἰμί (14:9), using the present tense as here. The Twelve had been chosen ἵνα ὦσιν μετʼ αὐτοῦ (Mk. 3:14), and they continued to be in close fellowship with Him.

16:1. ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑμῖν: see on 15:11. ταῦτα covers all that has been said about future persecution (15:20), as well as about the promise of the Paraclete, who was to bear witness concerning Christ.

ἵνα μὴ σκανδαλισθῆτε. This image of the σκάνδαλα of faith, the stumbling-blocks which trip up a disciple, is very common in the Synoptists, but in Jn. only here and at 6:61 (cf. 1 Jn. 2:10). These parting counsels were given in order that they might not be surprised or “offended” when troubles came.

2. ἀποσυναγώγους ποιήσουσιν ὑμᾶς, “they will put you out of synagogue,” i.e. excommunicate you. For ἀποσυνάγωγος, see on 9:22 and 12:42.

ἀλλʼ ἔρχεται ὥρα, “indeed, furthermore, a time is coming.” ἀλλά has no adversative sense here, nor must we press ὥρα to mean “the predestined time,” as if it were ἡ ὥρα (but cf. v. 4), although, as we have seen (2:4), the idea of the inevitableness of what has been foreordained is a favourite one in Jn. See 4:21.

πᾶς ὁ ἀποκτείνας ὑμᾶς, “whosoever killeth you,” whether he be Jew or Gentile.

δόξῃ λατρείαν προσφέρειν τῷ θεῷ, “shall think (so blind will he be) that he is offering service to God.” (λατρεία does not occur elsewhere in the Gospels.) Paul’s persecution of the early disciples was a notable instance of such mistaken zeal (cf. Acts 22:3, 4, 26:9, also 8:1, 9:1). A Midrash on Num. 25:13 (cited by De Wette) has the maxim, “Quisquis effundit sanguinem impii idem facit ac si sacrificium offerat.” And among Gentiles the same fanaticism has often displayed itself. Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44) evidently thought that persecution of Christians to their death was morally justified. Many persecutors are sincere, but their sincerity does not excuse them, if they might have learnt the truth, and did not do so.

3. ταῦτα ποιήσουσιν ὑμῖν. The rec., with א D L and some vss., retains ὑμῖν, which A BΓ Δ Θ omit. Probably it ought to be retained (cf. 15:21).

ὅτι οὐκ ἔγνωσαν κτλ., “because they did not recognise the Father or me.” This is virtually repeated from 15:21 (where see note). That the Jews did not “know” God, and thus did not recognise Divinity in Jesus, has been said several times before (7:28, 8:19); and that “the world knew Him not” (1:10) when He came is the constant theme of the “Gospel of the Rejection.”

Ignorance, or want of appreciation of the true bearing of facts, may often be at the root of wrong doing, and it is wholesome to remember this. “When some one does you an injury or speaks ill of you, remember that he either does it or speaks it, believing that it is right and meet for him to do so.… So you will bear a gentle mind towards him … saying each time, So it appeared to him” (Epictetus, Enchir. 42). Cf. Lk. 23:34, Acts 3:17, 1 Cor. 2:8.

But the ignorance of the Jews of the true character of Jesus is always treated in Jn. as blameworthy and as deserving of punishment, for they ought to have known.

4. For ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑμῖν, see on 15:11. It is preceded by ἀλλά, not because what follows is in contrast with what goes before, but as a resumptive particle, v. 3 being in the nature of an explanatory parenthesis.

ἡ ὥρα αὐτῶν is the true reading (A BΘ syrr.), although αὐτῶν is omitted by א D Γ Δ, to assimilate the sentence to the more usual ἔλθῃ ἡ ὥρα.

ταῦτα refers primarily (but cf. v. 1) to the persecutions which have been foreshadowed (15:20, 16:1–3), of which Jesus says that when their hour comes the disciples will remember that He had predicted them. See on 13:19; and cf. 2:22.

ταῦτα δὲ ὑμῖν ἐξ ἀρχῆς οὐκ εἶπον. We cannot distinguish ἐξ ἀρχῆς from ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς of 15:27 (see on 6:64). The statement is precise: “These things I did not tell you from the beginning”; that is, He did not speak in the early stages of His teaching of the persecutions which would come upon His disciples after He had gone. That is what one would have expected; and the predictions of future persecutions in the Synoptists are mainly found at the close of His ministry, e.g. Mt. 23:34, Mk. 13:9f. = Lk. 21:12f. It is true that Mt. puts his parallel passage to Mk. 13:9f. as early as the tenth chapter (Mt. 10:17f.); and it is also noteworthy that persecution is foreshadowed in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5:10, 11, Lk. 6:22). But Mt. has rearranged our Lord’s sayings in such contexts as suit the frame of his narrative, and it is not surprising that he has placed the warning about persecution immediately after the charge to the Twelve. Nor is it to be thought that all the reported sayings in the Sermon on the Mount were delivered at one time: the Beatitude of the Persecuted would naturally be one of the last that would have been proclaimed, so austere a saying is it. There is, therefore, no good reason for doubting the statement which Jn. places in the mouth of Jesus, sc. that He did not speak at the beginning of His ministry of the ardua in store for His followers, although the perpetual burden of His exhortation was that they must be ready to “take up the cross.” Cf. 15:18.

The reason assigned for this reserve is ὅτι μεθʼ ὑμῶν ἤμην, “because I was with you.” That is, seemingly, as long as He was there, the attacks of His enemies would be directed against Him rather than against them; persecution of a serious kind would come upon them only after His departure.

The Coming of the Paraclete Consequent on the Departure of Jesus (vv. 5–7)

5. ὑπάγω πρὸς τὸν πέμψαντά με, repeated verbally from 7:33, where see note on ὑπάγειν. Cf. vv. 10, 17, 28, and 14:12.

καὶ οὐδείς κτλ. καί is used for ἀλλά, as often in Jn.: see note on 1:10. These words show that 13:36, 14:5 came after the present chapter in their original setting (see Introd., p. xx); for ποῦ ὑπάγεις; is the question put by Peter directly, and indirectly by Thomas at 14:5. At the point which the discourse has now reached, the disciples were thinking rather of themselves and of the dangers in front of them (15:21, 16:2, 3), than of the issue of their Master’s mission.

For the Johannine use of ἐρωτᾶν, primarily meaning “to ask a question,” see on 11:22.

The “going” of Jesus “to the Father” throughout this chapter refers directly to His Death, when He re-entered the world of spirit (cf. Lk. 23:46). This was the moment when His mission was completed: τετέλεσται (19:30). Jn. lays no stress on the Ascension as distinct from the Resurrection of Christ (although he makes allusion to the Ascension as a specific event, 6:62). See 20:17. For him the hour of the “glorification” of Jesus was the hour of His Passion (cf. 13:31 and 14:7).

6. ὅτι ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑμῖν, sc. because He had told them of the persecutions which they would experience: see on 15:11.

λύπη is found in Jn. in this chapter only (vv. 20, 21, 22); λύπη, λυπεῖν, are never used of Jesus in the Gospels.

7. For the asseveration τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγω, cf. Rom. 9:1, 1 Tim. 2:7. Jesus had used it before, in disputation with the Jews (8:45, 46). Here, however, it introduces with solemnity the enigmatical saying “it is expedient for you that I go away,” and is used like the prelude ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν (vv. 20, 23), which is a feature of the Fourth Gospel (see on 1:51).

συμφέρει (cf. 11:50, 18:14) ὑμῖν ἵνα ἐγὼ ἀπέλθω. This was a hard and perplexing saying. The disciples, who had been accustomed to look to Jesus for counsel and guidance in every difficulty, were now told that it would be better for them that He should go away than that He should stay with them. (1) Hitherto, He had trained them for His service by precept and visible example, but this method of spiritual direction was only preliminary. His strange words told them now that there is a better education in discipleship than that which can be supplied by a visible master, whose will for his disciples can never be misunderstood. The braver and more perfect disciple is he who can walk by faith, and not by sight only (cf. 20:29). So much might be reasoned out after reflexion on the way in which Jesus dealt with some would-be disciples who wished to be always by His side (cf. Lk. 8:38, 9:57). (2) But the reason assigned by Jesus Himself for the profitableness to His disciples of His departure is quite different. He said that if He did not go away from them, the Paraclete would not come to them, and that the mission of the Spirit could not begin until He had gone. This is one of those profound spiritual sayings in the Fourth Gospel which cannot be fully explained; but we have it hinted at before in the evangelist’s words, “the Spirit was not yet, for Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39). Why the Spirit’s influence could not be released during the earthly ministry of Jesus, as it was after His Passion and Resurrection, is a question to which no complete answer can be given. Perhaps it provides the supreme illustration of the gospel law that life comes only through death: a principle which is applied by Paul as well as by Jn., when he speaks of the Risen Christ (who had passed through death) as a Quickening Spirit. See further on 7:39 above.¹ It has been well said that “the Coming of the Holy Ghost was not merely to supply the absence of the Son, but to complete His presence.”²

ἀπέλθω. Three verbs are used in this passage (vv. 7–9) of Jesus “going” to God; and attempts have been made to distinguish their meaning. Thus, ἀπέρχεσθαι is “to depart,” simply; πορεύεσθαι is “to journey,” sc. with a definite purpose, the purpose here being the sending of the Paraclete; while ὑπάγειν, the word most commonly used in Jn. by Jesus of His “going to the Father” (see on 7:33), is “to withdraw,” sc. from the visible presence of men. But such distinctions are over subtle; e.g. in 11:8 ὑπάγειν is not used of a withdrawal, but of going to Judæa with a definite purpose. Again, Mk. 14:21 has ὑπάγει where the parallel Lk. 22:22 has πορεύεται; in Tob. 8:21 B has πορεύεσθαι, while א has ὑπάγειν. These verbs are discussed at length by Abbott (Diat. 1652–1664), who endeavours to distinguish the Johannine usage of each: see on 7:33, and cf. 6:67.

ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ ἀπέλθω. After ἐὰν γάρ AΓ Δ ins. the emphatic ἐγώ, as in the preceding clause; but om. א B D L Θ.

ὁ παράκλητος (see on 15:26) οὐκ ἐλεύσεται πρὸς ὑμᾶς. So א A D Θ; but B L have οὐ μὴ ἔλθῃ, an even stronger negative.

The language of this passage implies that the mission of the Paraclete, to help and to bear witness, will be of a different order from that influence of the Spirit of God which is a frequent topic of the O.T. writers. His mission will, henceforth, be primarily a mission of witness, bearing testimony to Jesus as the Revealer of God. The Spirit of God had always been at work in the world, inspiring, enlightening, strengthening mankind; but that He was to come as the παράκλητος of Jesus and His disciples was a new thing. Henceforth He will come ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ (see note on 14:26).

ἐὰν δὲ πορευθῶ, πέμψω αὐτὸν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. See 15:26, where we have ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν, ὑμῖν and πρὸς ὑμᾶς being identical in meaning. Jn. is apt (see on 3:17) to repeat an important statement in slightly different words.

8. In the following verses the work of the Paraclete is predicted in some detail. We have already had His office described as one of witness (15:26): He is to vindicate Jesus to the world. But He is also to vindicate the apostles in the testimony which they are to deliver (15:27). They will be exposed to persecution (16:1, 2); but, notwithstanding this, they will have a powerful advocate by their side (16:7). He will be their παράκλητος no less than the παράκλητος of Jesus; or, rather, He will be theirs because He is His.

In the Synoptists, this promise of support and Divine help in persecution is recorded more briefly, but quite explicitly. “When they lead you to judgment … be not anxious what you shall speak …; for it is not you that speak, but the Holy Spirit” (Mk. 13:11, Mt. 10:19, Lk. 12:11, 21:15). Here is assured to the apostles the help of the παράκλητος, as the advocate for their defence, who speaks through their mouths. In the present passage Jn. presents this thought more fully. The παράκλητος will not only provide their defence, but He will assume the part of the prosecutor, who convicts their accusers and the accusers of Jesus of being in the wrong. All early Christian preaching was, of necessity, apologetic and polemical. The first heralds of the gospel had to defend their new message, and were constrained to attack the Jewish and heathen doctrines in which much of evil was present. Both in defence and attack, the Holy Spirit was their unseen παράκλητος.

καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐκεῖνος ἐλέγξει κτλ. ἐλέγχειν τινα περί τινος (cf. 8:46) is a classical construction (Aristoph. Plutus, 574), “to convict one of anything.” ἐλέγχειν is to cross-examine for the purpose of convincing or refuting an opponent (the word being specially used of legal proceedings), and the ἔλεγχος may be brought to a head by means of witness or testimony.¹ Philo speaks of the ἔλεγχος of a man’s conscience, and in one place identifies it with the Logos (τὸν σωφρονιστὴν ἔλεγχον, τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λόγον, quod det. pot, c. 40; cf. also c. 8). In another passage (de animal. sacr. idon. 11), when speaking of a penitent going into the Temple, he calls the ἔλεγχος or conviction of his soul (ὁ κατὰ ψυχὴν ἔλεγχος) a “blameless advocate,” παράκλητος οὐ μεμπτός. This brings together the ideas of παράκλητος and ἔλεγχος, as in the verse before us.

ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσμον (see on 1:9 for the Johannine use of κόσμος) περὶ ἁμαρτίας. Jesus had confidently asked τίς … ἐλέγχει με περὶ ἁμαρτίας; (8:46; cf. Lk. 3:19 for the constr.); but the Paraclete would definitely convict the world of sin, as Jesus Himself had begun to do while He was in the flesh (7:7). This would not be until the Passion had been fulfilled (cf. 8:28; and see on v. 7 above). An early illustration of this “conviction” is given Acts 2:36, 37, where the crowds who had heard Peter’s inspired preaching were “pricked to the heart”: cf. 1 Cor. 14:24, 25. It will be observed that in vv. 7–11, as well as at 15:26, the Paraclete is spoken of, not as man’s advocate with God (1 Jn. 2:1), but as Christ’s advocate with the world. See Introd., p. xxi.

9. Abbott (Diat. 2077) notes that in Johannine words of Jesus, μέν occurs only twice (here and at v. 22), in both cases being followed by δέ.

περὶ ἁμαρτίας μέν, ὅτι οὐ πιστεύουσιν εἰς ἐμέ. This was the sin to which He had just referred (15:22), and which He had already said (15:26) that the witness of the Paraclete would expose. It is the touchstone of moral character to discern God in Christ, as is repeatedly insisted on by Jn.: cf. 3:18, 36, 9:41, 1 Jn. 5:10. This is “to believe on Him”: cf. 1:12, 4:39, and see 8:24.

The primary thought is of the vindication of Jesus to the world, which shall be “convicted” by the Paraclete of the sin which is inherent in its rejection of Jesus. But, although it is not directly stated here, the fact that the Spirit “convicts” of sin has been the experience of every disciple, as well as of the antagonists, of Jesus.

10. περὶ δικαιοσύνης. Syr. sin. has (at v. 8) “He will reprove the world in its sins and about His righteousness.” This brings out that the δικαιοσύνη of which the world will be “convinced” to its shame is the δικαιοσύνη of Christ. It will be “convicted of righteousness” by pointing to Christ the Righteous One (1 Jn. 2:1, 1 Pet. 3:18, Acts 3:14, 7:52). The Jews, as Paul says, were “ignorant of God’s righteousness” (Rom. 10:3); they had not perceived that a new type of righteousness had been exhibited in the Person of Jesus, in whom was “no unrighteousness” (7:18 above). But the words used here go deeper.

“He shall convict the world of righteousness, because I go to the Father.” Absolute Righteousness could be revealed only in the Risen Christ. With the Passion, His Revelation of the Father was completed (see on v. 5); and henceforth the Paraclete was to convince the world of the Perfect Righteousness which is in Christ revealed and made accessible to men.

It is apposite to cite here the testimony of one of the most impartial of modern historians. “It was reserved for Christianity,” writes Lecky,¹ “to present to the world an ideal character, which through all the changes of eighteen centuries has inspired the hearts of men with an impassioned love; has shown itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments, and conditions; has been not only the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice; and has exercised so deep an influence that it may be truly said that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists.” If we put this tribute into Johannine language, we shall say that the Spirit has convinced the world of the Righteousness of Christ.

ὅτι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ὑπάγω. Cf. vv. 5, 16, 17, 19, 28; and see 7:33 for ὑπάγω. After πατέρα, the rec. inserts μου, with AΓ Δ Θ, but om. א B D L W.

καὶ οὐκέτι θεωρεῖτέ με, “and ye behold me no longer,” sc. with the bodily eyes, for Jesus will have entered into the region of spirit: cf. vv. 16, 17, 19. There is no contradiction between this and ὑμεῖς θεωρεῖτέ με of 14:19 (q.v.), θεωρεῖν being there used of spiritual vision. See on 2:23 for the various usage of this verb in Jn.

11. περὶ δὲ κρίσεως. As the Spirit will convict the world of its sin, and reveal the true δικαιοσύνη, thereby the spiritual significance of judgment will be disclosed (cf. 5:30, Acts 17:31). There is nothing arbitrary in the Divine judgment; it is the inevitable issue of moral laws. Good is not the same as evil, and the sharpness of the distinction is revealed by the Spirit in His assurance of κρίσις, i.e. separation or judgment. He will convince the world at once of the justice and the inevitableness of God’s judgments.

The world (see 8:23) is not yet judged; but it will be judged at last; and the assurance of this is part of the message of Christ’s Passion; for in this, which was apparently defeat but really victory, ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κοσμοῦ τούτου (cf. 12:31, 14:30 for this title) κέκριται, “the prince of this world has been judged.” See on 12:31, where this has been said before, in similar words; and cf. 13:31, where the Passion is regarded as already begun. For this aspect of the Passion, that it is the defeat of the Evil One, cf. Heb. 2:14, “that through death He might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.” In later times, pious imagination played round the idea of the defeat and judgment of Satan, and the legend of the Harrowing of Hell, first found in the Gospel of Nicodemus, was widespread. All that is said in Jn. is κέκριται, “he has already been judged” (cf. Lk. 10:18), and this will issue in final expulsion from the domain over which he claims rule (12:31).

In the fifth century Freer MS. (W), which contains the last twelve verses of Mark, there is interpolated after Mk. 16:14, in which Jesus has rebuked the unbelief of the disciples, a remarkable passage which recalls the order of ideas in Jn. 16:8–11, as follows: “And they excused themselves, saying that this age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who, through the agency of unclean spirits, does not allow the true power of God to be apprehended. Wherefore, they said to Christ, reveal now Thy righteousness. And Christ said to them, The limit of the years of Satan’s authority has been fulfilled (πεπλήρωται ὁ ὅρος τῶν ἐτῶν τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ Σατανᾶ), but other terrors (δεῖνα) draw near, and I was delivered up to death on behalf of those that have sinned, that they may be turned to the truth and sin no more, so that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness in heaven. But go ye into all the world, etc.” Here we have a complaint of unbelief caused by Satan, to be cured by the revelation of Christ’s righteousness, to which Christ replies that Satan’s power is ended, that is, “he has been judged” (Jn. 16:11). The impending “terrors” may be the persecutions foretold in Jn. 16:2, 3. In this apocryphon there may be preserved an independent tradition of words recorded in Jn. 16:2–11.

12. ἔτι πολλὰ ἔχω ὑμῖν λέγειν κτλ. So א B L, but the rec. has λέγειν ὑμῖν. The constr. is thoroughly classical; cf. Demosth. Olynth. ii. τὰ μὲν ἄλλα σιωπῶ, πολλʼ ἄν ἔχων εἰπεῖν.

At 15:15 Jesus had assured His disciples that He had withheld from them nothing of His Father’s purpose, but this was necessarily subject to the reservation that there were some matters which they could not understand. All revelation is subject to the condition “Quicquid recipitur, recipitur ad modum recipientis.” So He now tells them that there are many things which they cannot yet bear (cf. 1 Cor. 3:2). βαστάζειν is used figuratively (as at Acts 15:10) of “bearing” a mental burden; see on 12:6. For ἄρτι, see on 9:19: its position here at the end of the sentence gives it emphasis.

The words of this verse show that the full Christian message is not contained in such teaching as, e.g., is found in the Synoptic Gospels. That marks a stage only in the revelation of God in Christ. If the challenge “Back to Jesus” means that we may safely neglect the interpretation of His gospel put forth by the Christians of the Apostolic age, then it is misleading. It is part of the teaching of Jesus Himself, if Jn. 16:12 truly expresses His mind, that much would be learnt of Divine things under the guidance of the Spirit, which could not have been taught with profit during His public ministry on earth.

13. We have here a new thought as to the office of the Paraclete. Hitherto He has been presented as the vindicator of Jesus to the world, by His witness (15:26), and His convincing and convicting power (16:9–11). But now He appears in a different capacity, sc. as a Guide and Teacher of the faithful (vv. 13–15). Cf. 14:26, where a short summary is given of what is said more fully here as to the office of the Spirit in relation to the Church.

ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας. This is repeated from 15:26, where see the note.

ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν. So A B, but the rec. has πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ is read by א D L W Θ, and supported by many O.L. texts: a reading perhaps due to the greater frequency of ἐν than εἰς after ὁδηγέω in the Psalms (e.g. 5:8, 27:11, 67:4, 106:9, 119:35).

The Vulgate rendering docebit uos omnem ueritatem has been thought to represent διηγήσεται ὑμῖν τὴν ἀλ. πᾶς., a reading which is found in Cyril Hier. (Cat. xvii. 11) and in Eusebius, but which is not supported by any extant Greek MS. of the Gospel. Wordsworth and White (in loc.) suggest that we have here a trace of a Greek MS. used by Jerome which is now lost, but the inference is doubtful.¹ Neither διηγέομαι nor ὁδηγέω are used elsewhere by Jn., but the true Greek reading may be taken to be ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς εἰς κτλ. The Spirit is represented as the Guide or Leader who points the Way (ὄδος) to the Truth (ἀλήθεια), Christ being Himself both the Way and the Truth (14:6).

In Rev. 7:17 ὁδηγεῖν is used of the Lamb leading the saints to fountains of living water; but the thought and the language of the verse before us seem to go back to the O.T. conception of the Divine leadership of Israel as a whole and of individual Israelites, which is so often expressed in the Psalms. Cf. Ps. 143:10 τὸ πνεῦμά σου τὸ ἄγιον (v.l. ἀγαθόν) ὀδηγήσει με ἐν τῇ εὐθείᾳ, Ps. 25:5 ὁδήγησόν με ἐπὶ τὴν ἀλήθειάν σου. See also Ps. 107:7.

We have a similar phrase in Philo (de vit. Mos. iii. 36), who says that sometimes a guess is akin to a prophecy, for the mind would not hit on the point so directly, were not a divine spirit leading it towards the truth, εἰ μὴ καὶ θεῖον ἦν πνεῦμα τὸ ποδηγετοῦν πρὸς αὐτὴν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.

In this verse, then, the work of the Paraclete as a guide is brought into close relation with what is said in the Psalms (especially Ps. 143:10) as to the work of the Spirit of Yahweh. The Paraclete is not explicitly identified with the “Holy Spirit,” a Name familiar to every Jew, until 14:26; but what is said at this point prepares us for the identification.

ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς κτλ., “He will guide you” sc. the apostles, to whom the words were addressed. It is natural, and in a sense legitimate, for modern readers to give the promise a wider reference, and to interpret it of a gradual revelation of the truth to the Church under the guidance of the Spirit.² But it is not clear that the author of the Fourth Gospel would have recognised such an interpretation of the words which he records. For him, the revelation to the apostles after the Descent of the Spirit was final and complete (cf. 20:22 and Heb. 1:1). In any case, by “all the truth” is meant here “all the truth about Christ and His Gospel”; the thought of the gradual revelation of scientific truth, and the ever-increasing knowledge of the works of God in nature, is not present in the text. The promise to the apostles did not mean, e.g., that they would be divinely guided into all truth as to economic law or as to the distribution of property (Acts 4:35). See further on 14:26.

οὐ γὰρ λαλήσει ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ. This is the reason why the guidance of the Paraclete is sure and trustworthy in the things of God and Christ. As the Son did not speak “of Himself” (12:49, 14:10, and cf. 7:17, 5:19), so the Spirit will not speak “of Himself.”

ἀλλʼ ὅσα ἀκούσει λαλήσει. So B D W; the rec. has ἅσα ἄν ἀκούσῃ Θ has ὅσα ἄν ἀκούσει; א L read ἀκούει. “Whatsoever He shall hear (sc. from God), that will He speak”; cf. 8:26, where Jesus says, “The things which I heard from Him, these I speak unto the world.” Westcott calls attention to the difference of tense, ἤκουσα at 8:26, ἀκούσει here. In the former passage, the message which the Son had to deliver was complete and definite, but here the thought is of a message being enlarged from time to time. This is attractive, but it is not certain (see above) that this thought of the continuous education of the Church was really present to the mind of the evangelist.

καὶ τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν. It was popularly believed that Messiah when He came would reveal new truths: cf. ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν πάντα (4:25, where see note; and cf. 16:25 for ἀναγγέλλειν, “to report”). Here it is thrice repeated (vv. 14, 15) that the Spirit’s office will also include that of “declaring” or “reporting” Divine things.

To report τὰ ἐρχόμενα is to predict the future, so that prophecy in the sense of prediction is included here in the work of the Paraclete. This is the only place in Jn. where any of the Pauline χαρίσματα of the Spirit is mentioned (cf. 1 Cor. 12:29, 30); and Wendt would treat the words τὰ ἐρχ … ὑμῖν as an editorial addition, regarding them as out of harmony with the context.¹ But we have already seen that the description of the Paraclete’s office as “guiding into truth” recalls O. T. phrases as to the work of the Holy Spirit, a main part of which, to Jewish thought, was the inspiration of the prophets. That it should be said of the promised Paraclete τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν is entirely in harmony with the identification of Him with the Divine Spirit (cf. Rev. 1:1, 22:6).

To Jewish thought the expected Christ was ὁ ἐρχόμενος, the Coming One (Lk. 7:20, Jn. 6:14); and to Christian thought He is still ὁ ἐρχόμενος, for He is, in some sense, to come again. There is a hint of apocalyptic prevision of the Last Things in τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ, such as Jn. keeps in the background for the most part, although we have it in the Synoptists (Mk. 13:26). See Introd., p. clix.

14. ἐκεῖνος ἐμὲ δοξάσει. The Spirit was not to come until Jesus had been “glorified,” i.e. in His Passion (7:39); but thenceforth every fresh revelation of the Spirit, all new insight into the meaning of Christ’s gospel, would be a fresh “glorification” of Christ, an enlargement of man’s sense of His majesty. As the Son had “glorified” the Father while He was on earth (17:4), so the Spirit will “glorify” the Son after He has departed from human vision.

ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἐμου λήμψεται καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν. This “glorification” will be brought about by the Spirit’s revelation of Christian truth. The advanced Christology of the Pauline Epistles, and of the Fourth Gospel itself, as compared with that to which the apostles had attained before the Passion, is a signal illustration of this.

See 14:22, where the question of Jude shows that very different thoughts as to the future “glorification” of Jesus filled the hearts of the apostles. They expected a visible manifestation in glory, which should convict the world and put it to shame.

15. πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ ἐμά ἐστιν. This is the perpetual claim of the Johannine Christ, repeated once more at 17:10. So Paul can speak of “the unsearchable wealth of the Christ” (Eph. 3:8).

διὰ τοῦτο, referring to what precedes (see on 5:16). “Wherefore I said that (ὄτι recitantis) He takes of mine and shall show it unto you,” repeated from v. 14, with the slight verbal change of λαμβάνει (B D L N WΘ) for λήμψεται of v. 14 (which is retained by the rec. with א^cA, the Latin vss., and Syr. sin.). This repetition of a striking phrase, a word or two being altered, is a feature of Johannine style (see on 3:16).

ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν, thrice repeated at the end of vv. 13, 14, 15, is like a solemn refrain, calling special attention to the revealing office of the Spirit.

16. μικρόν, “a little while”; see on 7:33, 13:33, 14:19. Jesus dwells again and again on the nearness of His Passion.

οὐκέτι is the true reading at this point (א B D^grW N Θ); but the rec. has οὐ (assimilated to v. 17), with AΓ Δ. καὶ οὐκέτι θεωρεῖτέ με is here repeated from v. 10.

“A little while, and ye no longer behold me,” sc. with the bodily eyes (see on 2:23 for θεωρεῖν). On the day after these words were spoken, He would meet death, after which they would no longer be able to look upon His face as heretofore. It is to be observed that οὐκέτι (see on 4:42) always means “no longer” in Jn., sc. that the action in question is discontinued; it does not necessarily mean “never again.”

καὶ πάλιν μικρὸν καὶ ὄψεσθέ με, “And again, a little while,” sc. the period between His Death and His Resurrection, “and ye shall see me.” ὄπτομαι, a verb always used in Jn. of the vision of spiritual realities (see on 1:51), now takes the place of θεωρεῖν. παλὶν δὲ ὄψομαι ὑμᾶς, Jesus says, in like manner, at v. 22. The “seeing” of the Risen Lord in His spiritual body, and His “seeing” of His disciples after His Resurrection, are more suitably expressed by ὄπτεσθαι than by θεωρεῖν (although cf. 20:14).

The rec. adds (from v. 10 or v. 17), after ὄψεσθέ με, ὅτι ἐγὼ ὑπάγω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, with A NΔ Θ; but the phrase is not found at this point in א B D L W or Pap. Oxy. 1781.

17. The disciples were puzzled. ὑπάγω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα (v. 10) seemed to indicate a final withdrawal of His visible presence, and yet He used the word μικρόν (v. 16), which suggested that it would be only temporary.

εἶπαν οὖν ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ κτλ. We must supply τινές. For a similar elliptical construction, cf. 7:40; and for πρὸς ἀλλήλους, cf. 4:33.

They repeated the enigmatic words of Jesus to each other, being unable to catch their meaning.

Note that they quote Jesus as having said Μικρὸν καὶ οὐ (not οὐκέτι) θεωρεῖτέ με, and Jesus is represented in verse 19 as repeating οὐ θεωρεῖτε. This provides one more illustration of Jn.’s habit of altering slightly a striking phrase when it is reproduced for the second or third time (see on 3:16). Such verbal alterations are not to be taken as indicating a subtle change of meaning; they exemplify merely the freedom of Jn.’s style.

18. τί ἐστιν τοῦτο. So א B D*L Θ and Pap. Oxy. 1781; but the rec. has τοῦτο τί ἐστιν, with A.²Δ N.

ὅ λέγει, τὸ μικρόν; “What is this that He says, this word μικρόν?” τό before μικρόν singles out the word as the point of difficulty.

οὐκ οἴδαμεν τί λαλεῖ. (See on 3:11 for the frequent inter-changeability of λέγειν and λαλεῖν in Jn.) “That which is quite clear to us was to them all mystery. If Jesus were about to found an earthly kingdom, why should He depart? If not, why should He return?” (Godet).

19. ἔγνω Ἰησοῦς ὅτι κτλ. He recognised that the disciples wished to interrogate Him (see below on v. 23 for ἐρωτᾶν). Cf. 2:24.

The rec. adds οὖν after ἔγνω, with AΔ N; but om. א B D L W. For οὖν, Θ has δέ. Also the rec. has ὁ before Ἰησοῦς, with א A D N Θ; but om. B L W and Pap. Oxy. 1781. See on 1:29; and cf. 6:15.

The repetition of phrases in vv. 16–19 is quite in the Oriental manner of narrative. The crucial word μικρόν is repeated 7 times; and “A little while, and ye behold me not, and again, a little while, and ye shall see me,” is said 3 times over. Although the Fourth Gospel is thoroughly Greek, the Semitic undertone is often present.

20. In the answer which Jesus gives to the bewildered disciples, He fixes on the word μικρόν, which was the centre of their difficulty, and says nothing about the meaning of “I go to the Father.” Their short time of sorrow at His departure will be followed by a season of joy. That is enough for them to know at the moment.

κλαύσετε καὶ θρηνήσετε. These are the verbs used of the loud wailings and lamentations customary in the East after a death. They both occur Jer. 22:10; for κλαίειν see on 11:31, and for θρηνεῖν cf. 2 Sam. 1:17. That the women lamented for Jesus (ἐθρήνουν αὐτόν) on the way to the Cross is told Lk. 23:27; and that they were wailing (κλαίειν) on the morning of the Resurrection is mentioned Mk. 16:10; cf. Jn. 20:11 Μαριάμ … κλαίουσα. Pseudo-Peter (§ 12) adds that the apostles also exhibited their sorrow by weeping, ἡμεῖς … ἐκλαίομεν καὶ ἐλυπούμεθα. It is plain that κλαύσετε καὶ θρηνήσετε in the present passage refers to the grief which the disciples will display when their Master is taken from them.

ὁ δὲ κόσμος χαρήσεται: but the hostile world, i.e. the Jewish adversaries of Jesus, will rejoice that the Prophet whom they hate (15:18) has been removed.

ὑμεῖς λυπηθήσεσθε, referring to the inward grief which they will feel (cf. 21:17, the only other place where the verb is found in Jn.). ὑμεῖς is emphatic.

ἀλλʼ ἡ λύπη ὑμῶν εἰς χαρὰν γενήσεται. So it came to pass. ἐχάρησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ ἰδόντες τὸν κύριον (20:20). Cf. ἀπὸ πένθους εἰς χαράν (Esth. 9:22; and see Jer. 31:13). See also 2 Esd. 2:27.

21. ἡ γυνή, sc. any woman, what follows being universally true; Cf. ὁ κόκκος (12:24) or ὁ δοῦλος (15:15). Abbott (Diat. 1948) takes the article as indicating that it is the woman of a household, i.e. the wife, that is in question. But this is to miss the point.

The image of a woman in travail is frequent in the O.T., where the suddenness and inevitableness of travail pains are often mentioned (e.g. Isa. 26:17, 2 Esd. 16:38); but the thought of the joy which follows the pain does not occur except here. Some expositors have thought that the Birth of the Church and the travail pains of the Passion are contemplated in this passage (cf. Isa. 66:7, Hos. 13:13, Mk. 13:8); but it is over subtle and inconsistent with the context to bring in such an idea. The apostles were not in travail with the Church that was to be. The true (and only) exposition of this beautiful image is given in the verse which follows. The image provides a familiar and touching illustration of the truth that pain is often the necessary antecedent to the supreme joys of life.

22. καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν. For the constr. see 8:38. This is the application of the image of the joy which follows the pain of childbirth. “You now, indeed (for μέν, see on v. 9), have grief,” but presently you will rejoice. ἔχετε (א*B CΔ) is to be preferred to ἔξετε of א^cA D L Θ.

πάλιν δὲ ὄψομαι ὑμᾶς. Here is even a greater promise than ὄψεσθέ με of v. 16: it is better to be seen of God than to see Him (cf. Gal. 4:9). This was the promise of Jesus, that He would see His disciples after He was risen.

καὶ χαρήσεται ὑμῶν ἡ καρδία The phrase is identical with that of Isa. 66:14 (ὄψεσθε, καὶ χαρήσεται ἡ καρδία ὑμῶν: cf. also Ps. 33:21) Cf. 20:14–16, when the promise was fulfilled in the first instance. Such joy is inalienable, οὐδεὶς αἴρει ἀφʼ ὑμῶν, the future which is certain being represented by a present tense. Nevertheless B D*N Pap. Oxy. 1781 have ἀρεῖ, which Westcott adopts. But א A C D²L Δ Θ and Pap. Oxy. 1228 give αἴρει. W has ἀφέρει.

23. ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ. This phrase occurs again at v. 26, and at 14:20; and in each case it signifies the day when the Spirit has been released, Jesus having been “glorified” (see on 7:39). The teaching of the Fourth Gospel is that the moment of consummation of the work of Jesus is the moment of His Death: τετέλεσται (19:30). After His Resurrection, He gave the Spirit to the assembled disciples: λάβετε πνεῦμα ἅγιον (20:22). The Day of Pentecost is described in Acts 2 as a Day when a special gift of spiritual power was manifested, and there is nothing in Jn. which is inconsistent with such a manifestation. But for Jn. the Day of the Spirit’s Advent is the Day of the Resurrection of Jesus; and to introduce the thoughts of what happened at Pentecost into the exegesis of these Last Discourses is to make confusion. ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ signifies the new Dispensation or Era of the Spirit, which began with the Resurrection, to the thought of Jn.

ἐμὲ οὐκ ἐρωτήσετε οὐδέν. ἐρωτᾶν may mean either “to ask a question,” as often in Jn. (1:19, 21, 25, 5:12, 9:2, 15, 19, 21, 23, 16:5, 19, 30, 18:19, 21), or “to entreat, to beseech, to ask a boon” (as at 4:31, 40, 47, 12:21, 19:31, 38). We have already noted (on 11:22) that it is the verb used of the prayers of Jesus by Himself (16:26, 14:16, 17:9, 15, 20), but that it is not used elsewhere in the Gospel of the prayers of men (cf., however, 1 Jn. 5:16).

Hence ἐμὲ οὐκ ἐρωτήσετε οὐδέν may be translated in two ways:

(1) “In that day ye shall ask me no questions,” as they had desired to do, v. 19; cf. v. 30. When the Paraclete came, they would no longer need to ask Jesus questions, such as those addressed to Him at 13:36, 14:5, 22; for the Spirit would teach them all things (14:26, 16:13). But this seems to break the sequence of thought, and there is no mention of the Spirit in the immediate context. Further, as Field points out, the emphatic position of ἐμέ before the negative and the verb, naturally suggests a comparison with τὸν πατέρα in the next clause.

(2) It is better to render, “In that day, ye shall ask nothing of me.” The visible company of Jesus would be withdrawn, so that they would no longer be able to ask favours of Him or proffer requests to Him, face to face. But there is a great compensation, and its promise is introduced by the solemn prelude ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν (see on 1:51). They can henceforth have direct access to the Father, and whatever they ask of Him, the due conditions of Christian prayer being observed (see on 15:16), shall be given.

The view that the contrast is between “asking me” and “asking the Father” has been rejected by some commentators because ἐρωτᾶν is used in the first case, and αἰτεῖν in the second. But (see on 11:22) these verbs are not sharply distinguished in later Greek (cf. Acts 3:2, 3 for an illustration of their being used interchangeably). The general purport of the teaching of these discourses is that it will be spiritually beneficial for the disciples that their Master should depart (16:7). New sources of knowledge and spiritual power will henceforth be available for them. They will be empowered to achieve great things on earth (14:12), and their prayers will have a potential efficacy, such as could not have been before it was possible to offer them in the Name of Jesus.

δώσει ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου. This is the order of words in א B C*L Δ, and is supported by Origen and the paraphrase of Nonnus. The rec. has ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δώσει ὑμῖν, with A C³D N W Γ Θ, the Syriac and Latin vss. generally.

If we adopt the former reading, which prima facie has the weight of MS. authority, the natural rendering of the sentence is, “If you ask anything of the Father, He will give it to you in my Name.” This is difficult of interpretation. It is true that Jesus speaks later of “the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my Name” (14:26, where see note), but that is a way of speaking which has parallels at 5:43, 10:25. To say that the Father gives in the Name of the Son a boon which has been sought in prayer is unlike anything elsewhere in the N.T. It is not adequate to interpret this as meaning only that the Son is the medium through which prayer is answered as well as offered. That is true in a sense (see on 14:13), but to speak of the Father acting ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ υἱοῦ is foreign alike to Johannine doctrine and to Johannine phraseology. The phrase ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου occurs 15:16, 16:23, 24, 26, 14:13, 14, 26 (7 times in all) in these Last Discourses; and in every case (except the last, 14:26, to which reference has already been made) it has reference to the essential condition of Christian prayer, sc. that it should be offered “in the Name” of Christ.

The Greek, however, does not necessarily require us to connect ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου here with δώσει ὑμῖν, even if δώσει ὑμῖν precedes ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου. For we have seen above (on 12:13) that εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου must be rendered “Blessed in the Name of the Lord is He that cometh,” ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου being taken with εὐλογημένος, although ὁ ἐρχόμενος immediately precedes. In the present passage, in like manner, it is legitimate to take ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου with αἰτήσητε τὸν πατέρα, although δώσει ὑμῖν immediately precedes. The meaning, then, is exactly similar to that of 15:16 ἵνα ὅ τι ἂν αἰτήσητε τὸν πατέρα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δῷ ὑμῖν. See notes on 14:13, 15:16. And that this is here also the true sequence of words is confirmed by the next verse, where Jesus goes on to say that hitherto the apostles had asked nothing in His Name. See on 20:31.

Hitherto they had asked nothing in the Name of Jesus. They could not have done so, nor had they before this been taught to do so. The dispensation of the Spirit had not yet begun. Not yet could a Christian disciple say διʼ αὐτοῦ ἔχομεν τὴν προσαγωγὴν … ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα (Eph. 2:18).

αἰτεῖτε, “Be asking,” the pres. indicating continuous prayer; καὶ λήμψεσθε, “and ye shall receive.” The new mode of prayer has a more certain promise of response than anything that had gone before, although αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν (Mt. 7:7) had been a precept of the Sermon on the Mount (see on 14:13).

ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν ᾖ πεπληρωμένη. Christian prayer issues in the fulness of Christian joy. For this thought of “joy being fulfilled,” which is frequent in Jn., see on 15:11 above, with the references there given.

Jesus Ceases to Speak in Parables, and Promises the Disciples Direct Access to the Father Who Loves Them and to Whom He Returns (vv. 25–28)

25. ταῦτα ἐν παροιμίαις λελάληκα ὑμῖν. For παροιμία, see on 10:6; cf. Ps. 78:2.

We have seen (on 15:11) that ταῦτα in the seven-times-repeated ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑμῖν refers in each case to what has immediately preceded. So here ταῦτα points back to the sayings in 16:15ff. about the approaching departure of Jesus. The apostles had not understood the meaning of ὑπάγω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα (v. 18), or of what Jesus had said about their seeing Him again. He puts it more plainly in v. 28, whereupon they reply at once that now they know what He means (v. 29). Whatever allusion ταῦτα ἐν παροιμίαις λελάληκα ὑμῖν may carry to the veiled teachings suggested by the images of the Vine (15:1) and of the Woman in Travail (16:21), or more generally by the parables of the Ministry (Mk. 4:33), the primary reference here is to vv. 15–18.

For the phrase ἔρχεται ὥρα, see on v. 2 and 4:21. Here it must be equated with ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ of v. 26 (see v. 23 above). When the visible presence of Jesus was withdrawn, and when His oral teaching was replaced by the fuller teaching of the Spirit (see on 14:26), then His revelation of the Father (the central theme of His ministry), conveyed through the Spirit, would be plainer.

ἀπαγγελῶ. So A B C*D L WΘ, but the rec. (with N) has ἀναγγελῶ (from vv. 13, 14, 15). On the other hand, ἀπαγγέλλειν occurs again in Jn. only twice (1 Jn. 1:2, 3), while we have ἀναγγέλλειν at Jn. 4:25, 5:15, 16:13, 14, 15, 1 Jn. 1:5. It is doubtful if any distinction in meaning can be traced. παρρησίᾳ περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀπαγγελῶ ὑμῖν means “I will bring word to you plainly about the Father”; ἀπαγγέλλειν, “to report,” being a quite appropriate word to employ of the revelations which the Spirit is to bring.

If it be urged that ἀπαγγελῶ must refer to some future oral teachings of Jesus Himself, then we must suppose that the post-Resurrection discourses contained such fuller and plainer doctrine (cf. 20:17); but it is most likely that the future disclosures of the Spirit are in view.

26. ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ (see on v. 23) ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου αἰτήσεσθε (see on 15:16 for this phrase). With the coming of the Paraclete, the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God as revealed in Christ would be better understood. They would know more of God as Father, and so would be bolder and more ambitious in prayer (cf. 1 Jn. 5:14 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ παρρησία ἣν ἔχομεν πρὸς αὐτόν, ὅτι ἐάν τι αἰτώμεθα κατὰ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ, ἀκούει ἡμῶν). Cognitio parit orationem (Bengel).

καὶ οὐ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν πατέρα περὶ ὑμῶν, “I do not say to you that I will entreat the Father for you” (see for ἐρωτᾷν on 11:22, 16:23), because in the dispensation of the Spirit prayer in the Name of Jesus does not fail to reach the Father and to receive its answer. The prayers of those who are “in Christ,” and offered “in His Name,” are virtually His prayers. Before the Coming of the Spirit He did pray for His disciples (14:16, 17:9, 15, 20), but here the thought is of the ideal disciple after the Spirit has descended. This does not exclude the perpetual intercession of Jesus for sinful disciples; ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ, παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον (1 Jn. 2:1; cf. Rom. 8:34, Heb. 7:25). But the true disciple is encouraged to be bold in prayer for himself, and the reason why he may be bold is now stated.

27. αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ φιλεῖ ὑμᾶς, “for the Father Himself loveth you.” There will be no reluctance in His answer to the prayers of those who love Jesus and have faith that His mission was from the Father.

Field calls attention to the “elegant Greek use” of αὐτός in the sense of αὐτόματος, proprio motu, and compares Homer, Iliad, viii. 293, τί με σπεύδοντα καὶ αὐτὸν ὀτρύνεις. This is one of the many passages in which the Greek of the Fourth Gospel does not resemble translation-Greek.

At 3:16, the love of God for the κόσμος (all mankind) has been mentioned; here and at 14:21, 23, 17:23 it is rather the special love of God for those who are disciples of Jesus that is in view (as at 1 Jn. 4:19). Here the verb φιλεῖν is used, the only instance in which Jn. employs it to express the love of God for man; in the other passages he uses ἀγαπᾶν. It is clear (see further on 21:15) that the attempt to distinguish ἀγαπᾶν from φιλεῖν in Jn. cannot be sustained.

ὅτι ὑμεῖς ἐμὲ πεφιλήκατε, “because you are they who have loved me,” ὑμεῖς and ἐμέ being both emphasised. Here, again, φιλεῖν is used of the love of His disciples for Jesus (21:15–17 providing the only other examples of this phraseology in Jn.; but cf. Mt. 10:37, 1 Cor. 16:22); while in 14:15, 21, 23, 24, 28, ἀγαπᾶν is consistently used to express this affection (cf. 21:15, 16).

καὶ πεπιστεύκατε (the perfect tenses bring back the discourse from a prospect of the future to the facts of the present) ὅτι ἐγὼ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον. To have believed this is to have accepted the central message of the Gospel.

παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον. So א*A C³N W Γ and Syr. sin. (see on 8:42). The rec. for θεοῦ has πατρός (from v. 28), with א^ca B C*D L. W om. the repeated ἐξῆλθον παρὰ τοῦ πατρός in the next verse.

Cf. παρὰ σοῦ ἐξῆλθον (17:8); and see on 1:14, 7:29 for παρά as expressing the relation of the Son to the Father. See on 13:3 for ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν.

28. Here, in four short phrases, we have the Pre-existence of Christ, His Incarnation, His Death, and His Ascension.

παρά in v. 27 and ἐκ in v. 28 cannot be differentiated in meaning without over subtlety. The classical distinction between these prepositions was being obliterated by the first century. To interpret ἐκ θεοῦ or ἐκ τοῦ πατρός in the Fourth Gospel as if we had to do with the formal theology of the Nicene Creed is not legitimate (see on 8:42). We cannot press the force of ἐκ so as to make it indicate the unique relation of the Son to the Father, in a fashion that παρά will not indicate it equally well. It must be remembered that ὁ ὢν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ at 8:47 does not mean Jesus, the Eternal Son, but any man who hears with understanding the Divine message.

παρά in v. 27, ἐκ in v. 28, and ἀπό in v. 30 carry the same meaning for Jn.

καὶ ἐλήλυθα (D has ἦλθον) εἰς τὸν κόσμον, sc. at the Incarnation. Cf. 11:27, 18:37 for this phrase; and for κόσμος, see on 1:10.

πάλιν (next, marking the sequence; cf. 1 Jn. 2:8) ἀφίημι τὸν κόσμον. Hitherto the apostles had not understood that He was going to leave the world.

καὶ πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. We shall have this phrase again 14:12, 28; it is not to be distinguished from ὑπάγω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα (16:10, 17; cf. 7:33, 16:5 and note on 16:7).

The Disciples Now Become Confident of Their Faith, and are Warned that It Will Fail Them in the Hour of Trial (vv. 29–32)

29. The rec. adds αὐτῷ after λέγουσιν, but om. א*B C*D*N WΘ. Ἴδε, an interjection of astonished admiration; see on 1:29 for its frequency in Jn.

νῦν ἐν παρρησίᾳ λαλεῖς, “now you are speaking explicitly.” But they did not really understand, as they thought they did. The promise of teaching ἐν παρρησίᾳ in v. 25 was for a future day.

καὶ παροιμίαν οὐδεμίαν λέγεις. For παροιμία, cf. v. 25; and see note on 10:6.

In the latter part of the Epistle to Diognetus, which Light-foot places at the end of the second century, there is a reference to the manifestation of the Logos, παρρησίᾳ λαλῶν (§ 11), which may be a reminiscence of this verse. See on 17:3.

30. νῦν οἴδαμεν κτλ. They were so surprised that He had discerned their thoughts, and so bewildered at His words (see v. 19), that they assure Him of their absolute confidence in Him as all-knowing. With οἶδας πάντα cf. 21:17. Jn. comes back again and again to the penetrating insight of Jesus into men’s thoughts; see on 2:25.

ἵνα τίς σε ἐρωτᾷ, “that any one shall question thee,” ἐρωτᾶν being here used in its most frequent sense of asking questions; see on v. 23 above.

ἐν τούτῳ, “by this,” ἐν being used in a quasi-causal sense, as at 13:35, where see note.

πιστεύομεν ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθες. Nicodemus had confessed as much (3:2); what Jesus had said of their faith was that they had come to believe ὅτι ἐγὼ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξῆλθον. But they were not yet strong in this faith, as He reminds them in His reply. See note on 13:3 and also on v. 28 above. Strictly, ἀπό ought to signify mission, while παρά or (especially) ἐκ ought to signify origin; but these prepositions are not sharply distinguished in Jn.

31. The form of the reply of Jesus is comparable with that in 13:38, the disciples’ expression of confidence being repeated, and then a warning given. Here, however, the reply does not begin with an interrogative. The stress is on ἄρτι, coming at the beginning of the sentence (cf. Rev. 12:10).

ἄρτι πιστεύετε, “at this moment you believe.” He had just before recognised their belief as genuine, so far as it went (v. 27; cf. 17:8), and He does not question it now. But He goes on to warn them that this faith will not keep them faithful in the time of danger which is imminent.

To translate “Do ye now believe?” is inconsistent with what has gone before, and also with the position of ἄρτι in the sentence.

32. For ἰδού, see on 4:35; it has an adversative force: “At this moment you believe, it is true, but an hour is imminent when you will all abandon me.”

ἔρχεται ὥρα, “an hour is coming.” See on 4:23 and on vv. 2, 25. It is not ἡ ὥρα, which would indicate the inevitableness of the predestined hour, and this thought is not prominent yet.

καὶ ἐλήλυθεν. The time for His arrest was at hand; cf. ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα (12:23), and cf. 4:23, 5:25.

ἵνα σκορπισθῆτε. The ἵνα marks the predestined sequence of events. σκορπίζειν occurs again at 10:12, and we find διασκορπίζειν at 11:52.

The prophecy Zech. 13:7, which (in the A text) runs as follows, πατάξον τὸν ποιμένα καὶ διασκορπισθήσονται τὰ πρόβατα. is cited as a prediction of the arrest of Jesus by Mk. 14:27 (followed by Mt. 26:31), as well as by Barnabas (v. 12) and Justin (Tryph. 53). Jn. does not mention Zechariah, but he places in the mouth of Jesus a prediction which reproduces the significant word σκορπισθῆτε.

Cf. the verbal parallel ἐσκορπίσθησαν ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτοῦ (1 Macc. 6:54).

For εἰς τὰ ἴδια, “to his own home,” see note on 19:27 below. Cf. Appian, 6:23 (quoted by Field), ἀπέλυε τοὺς αἰχμαλώτους εἰς τὰ ἴδια.

κἀμὲ μόνον ἀφῆτε, “and shall leave me alone.” This is the only word of reproach, and it is softened by the next words, “yet not alone, because, etc.”

οὐκ εἰμὶ μόνος, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστίν. So Jesus had said before, and in almost identical terms. See 8:16, 29 and the notes there.

Jn. does not tell of the disciples’ abandonment of Jesus after His arrest, as in Mk. 14:50, except by implication (see on 18:15).

Jesus Bids His Disciples to Be Courageous, for He Has Overcome the World (v. 33), In the Passion, Which is His Glorification (13:31B, 32)

33. ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑμῖν: see on 15:11. Here ταῦτα seems to refer to what has been said in v. 32 about the dispersion of His disciples after their Master’s arrest (cf. 16:1, 4).

The purpose of these instructions was ἵνα ἐν ἐμοὶ εἰρήνην ἔχητε (see for εἰρήνη on 14:27). Peace can be found only in Christ (cf. 15:5–7); ἐν ἐμοί is in antithesis to ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ which follows. For κόσμος, see on 1:9; here it is “the world” which “hates” Christ’s disciples (cf. 15:18), and in which therefore “tribulation” must be their portion.

θλίψις occurs in Jn. only here and at v. 21; but cf. Rev. 1:9, 2:22 and Acts 14:22, where Paul exhorts the disciples of Antioch ὅτι διὰ πολλῶν θλίψεων δεῖ ἡμᾶς εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

The rec. text (cf. v. 22) has ἔξετε with D 69, but the true reading is ἕχετε, “ye are having tribulation”; their trial has begun.

θαρσεῖν occurs only here in Jn. (cf. Mk. 6:50, Mt. 9:2, 22); but the same counsel in different words is given again 14:1, 27.

νικᾶν is rare in the LXX except in the later books, and in the N.T. except in the Apocalypse. It does not occur again in the Fourth Gospel, but is found 6 times in 1 Jn. Sometimes it is transitive, as here and at Lk. 11:22, Rom. 12:21, Rev. 11:7, 12:11, 13:7, 17:14, and 1 Jn. 2:13, 14, 4:4, 5:4, 5; sometimes it is used absolutely, as in Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 26, 3:5, 12, 21, 5:5, 6:2, 15:2, 21:7. The verb is only once used in the LXX of God as the Conqueror, sc. Ps. 51:4 (quoted Rom. 3:4), νικήσῃς ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαι; and in the N.T. it is applied to the conquests of Christ only here and at Rev. 3:21, 5:5, 6:2, 17:14. (Cf. 1 Esd. 3:12 ὑπὲρ δὲ πάντα νικᾷ ἡ ἀλήθεια.) In all the passages of 1 Jn. where it appears, it is used of the spiritual conquests of Christian believers. νικᾶν, then, is a favourite word both with the author of the Fourth Gospel and the author of the Apocalypse, both of whom apply it—alone among N.T. writers—to the victory of Christ.

The phrase νικᾶν τὸν κόσμον is found only here and at 1 Jn. 5:4, 5. Here the majestic announcement ἐγὼ νενίκηκα τὸν κόσμον is placed in the mouth of Jesus, when His public ministry had, to all seeming, ended in failure. In 1 Jn., the apostle claims for himself and his fellow-believers that their faith is “the victory which overcomes the world.” The words of Jn. 14:12 that they should do “greater things” than their Master did, are coming within the range of their spiritual understanding. ἐγὼ νενίκηκα τὸν κόσμον is thus a prophetic word for those who are “in Christ.”

13:31b. νῦν ἐδοξάσθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κτλ. We now go on with 13:31 f.¹ The note of triumph in the words ἐγὼ νενίκηκα τὸν κόσμον (16:33) is continued. νῦν, Now “has the Son of Man been glorified.”

The aorist ἐδοξάσθη challenges attention, for we should expect the future tense, “Now shall the Son of Man be glorified.” But it is a Hebrew usage to employ an aorist with prophetic anticipation of the future. Thus to Abraham it was said (Gen. 15:18), “Unto thy seed have I given this land,” where the LXX marks the meaning by the rendering δώσω. And this way of speaking is specially appropriate when the Speaker is Divine (which Jn. never allows his readers to forget when he is recording the words of Jesus), and is One to whom the inevitable future is involved in the present, and is foreseen. See also, for this use of the aorist, on 12:23, 15:8.

ὁ θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ. This is a different thought from that expressed in the first clause of the verse. Not only was Christ “glorified” in His Passion (see on 7:39), but God was glorified thereby (cf. 12:28). Martyrdom is always a glorifying of God, in whose name the martyr lays down his life. See 21:19, and the note there.¹ In other passages of the Gospel we have the idea of the Father being glorified in Christ (e.g. 14:13, 15:8, 17:4, and cf. 1 Pet. 4:11) because of Christ’s ministry and works; but here the idea is confined to that “glorification” of God by Christ’s Passion, of which lower illustrations may be found in every martyrdom.

καὶ ὁ θεὸς δοξάσει αὐτὸν ἐν αὐτῷ (some texts have ἑαυτῷ), “and God shall glorify Him in Himself.” This goes beyond the “glorification” of Christ in His Passion (v. 31); it is the “glorification” which succeeded it, God the Father glorifying Him in Himself, by taking up the humanity of Christ into the Godhead, after the Passion. This great concepton appears again and is more fully expressed at 17:5. It is of this consummation that Peter said ὁ θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ ἐδόξασεν τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν (Acts 3:13).

καὶ εὐθὺς δοξάσει αὐτόν, “and straightway He will glorify Him.” The time was near; the Passion would be short, for it is to this thought of His impending Death that the Speaker returns. For εὐθύς, see on 5:9.

Jesus Gives the New Commandment of Brotherly Love to Those Whom He Leaves Behind (vv. 33–35)

33. τεκνία. From the thought of what the Passion means for Him, Jesus turns to the thought of how it will affect His disciples when He is gone and they are like fatherless orphans (14:18). So He addresses them tenderly, as the Head of His little family (τεκνία, “children”). τεκνίον is a Johannine word (1 Jn. 2:1, 12, 28, 3:7, 18, 4:4, 5:21, only again in N.T. at Gal. 4:19; cf. τέκνα, Mk. 10:24).

ἔτι μικρὸν μεθʼ ὑμῶν εἰμί. The rec., with א L W T, adds χρόνον after μικρόν, this being a reminiscence of 7:33 (where see note). The verse reproduces the words of 7:33, 34 and of 8:21, the warning, which in those passages was addressed to unbelieving Jews, being repeated for the disciples, but not now in rebuke; and being followed in v. 36 by the consolatory promise that, although the disciples could not go where He was going immediately, yet they should follow afterwards. See on 7:34.

ζητήσετέ με. This would not be like the remorseful search which was in store for the unbelieving Jews (see on 7:34, 8:21); but it would be a search in perplexity and tears, when their Master was taken fom them (cf. 14:1, 2).

καθὼς εἶπον τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις κτλ. It is not certain whether the reference is to 7:33, 34 or to 8:21. Jn. represents the warning to the Jews as having been given twice, and it may have been so.

ὄπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν. This is verbally identified with 8:21. See the note on 7:34 for the meaning.

καὶ ὑμῖν λέγω ἄρτι, “so I tell you at this moment.” ἄρτι is a favourite word with Jn. (see on 9:19).

34. ἐντολὴν καινήν. For ἐντολή as a commandment given by Jesus, cf. 15:10, 12, 14:15, 21, 1 Jn. 2:3, 4, 3:24. He claimed to “give commandments,” and so claimed to be equal with God. See on 14:15.

Mandatum nouum do vobis. So the Latin vulgate renders, and hence Thursday before Easter has been commonly called Maundy (Mandati) Thursday, from the words of the Antiphon appointed for that day in the Latin rite.

The disciples had been disputing that evening about precedence (see on v. 4), and the “New Commandment” bade them “love one another.” This ἐντολὴ καινή had been already mentioned (15:12, although it is not there called “new”). It is often mentioned in 1 Jn. (e.g. 2:7–10, 3:11, 23; cf. 2 Jn. 5): “Love one another, as I have loved you.” The Old Commandment was, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Lev. 19:18), and Jesus had explained the wide range of the term “neighbour” (Lk. 10:29, 36); this was never superseded, and Paul notes its importance (Rom. 13:8, Col. 3:14). But the New Commandment is narrower in range, and is inspired by a new motive. φιλαδελφία, “love of the brethren,” is not so wide in its reference as ἀγάπη, but to cultivate it is a new commandment. A new circle, an inner circle, has been formed, and in this a special obligation is due from each to each (cf. Gal. 6:10). Here is the test of true discipleship: “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren” (1 Jn. 3:14). A later writer makes it clear that this is not the highest of Christian graces; to φιλαδελφία must be superadded ἀγάπη (2 Pet. 1:7), the love which is like the Love of God in the catholicity of its range (see on 3:16). But the idea that φιλαδελφία, the love of Christian disciple for Christian disciple, is a virtue at all was a new idea; and this grace is inspired by a new motive: “Love one another, as I have loved you.” The common love which Jesus has for His own binds them to each other.

The story preserved by Jerome (ad Galat. vi. 10), that John the son of Zebedee, in his old age, never ceased to repeat “Little children, love one another,” as his most important counsel, shows how deeply the precept had impressed itself upon the first generation of Christians.

καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς. The idea of the love of Jesus for His own hardly needs references, but cf. Rom. 8:37, Rev. 1:5. Observe that their love for each other is to be like His love for them, sc. it is to be a love which is ready to pour itself out in sacrifice (cf. 1 Jn. 3:16).

The words of this verse are repeated from 15:12. There may be a distant allusion to 13:1, where the love of Jesus for His disciples is specially mentioned; and to the incident of the Feet-washing, which was a remarkable illustration of it. As His love for the Twelve was exhibited by His ministrations to them, so ought the love of Christian for Christian to be exhibited by mutual service. Some expositors have found in the “New Commandment” a reference to the institution of the Eucharist, which is the sacrament of unity (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16, 17). But, whatever allusion it may carry to the duty of ministering to each other, or to the sacrament by which Christians are united in communion with each other as well as with Christ, there can be no doubt that the primary and essential obligation of the ἐντολὴ καινή is brotherly love, and was so understood by Jn.

That the verb φιλεῖν is never used in Jn. of man`s love for man, but always ἀγαπᾶν (cf. 15:12, 17, 1 Jn. 2:10, 3:10, 14, 23, 4:7, 20), does not justify us in distinguishing sharply between the meaning of the two verbs (see on 21:16).

For the constr. in this verse, ἵνα … καθὼς … ἵνα, see on 17:2.

35. ἐν τούτῳ γνώσονται κτλ. This use of ἐν τούτῳ, followed by γινώσκομεν, is thoroughly Johannine; cf. 1 Jn. 2:3, 3:16, 19, 24, 4:13, 5:2. We have ἐν τούτῳ πιστεύομεν at 16:30. “In this” in such passages is equivalent to “by this.” The causal or instrumental use of ἐν is illustrated from the papyri by Moulton-Milligan, and is not necessarily a Semitism, although its frequent employment in the Apocalypse points that way.¹

γνώσονται πάντες κτλ., “all men (cf. ὁ κόσμος, 14:31, 17:21) shall know that ye are my disciples” (cf. 1 Jn. 3:14). μαθητής is the highest title of a Christian: the apostles can aspire to nothing higher than ἐμοὶ μαθηταί implies (see on 15:8).

The badge of discipleship was to be mutual love, and so it proved. Cf. Tertullian, Apol. 39, “Vide, inquiunt, ut inuicem se diligant.”

Peter Breaks in with a Wish to Follow Jesus Even to Death: He is Warned that He Will Soon Deny His Master (vv. 36–38)

36. The story of the warning to Peter, and the prediction that he would deny Jesus, are common to all four Gospels (cf. Mk. 14:27f., Mt. 26:31f., Lk. 22:31f.). Mk., followed by Mt., says the warning was given after they had left the house and were on the way to Gethsemane. Jn. agrees with Lk. in placing the incident in the upper room; but the narrative of Jn. connects it more closely with what went before, sc. the announcement of the approaching departure of Jesus, than does that of Lk.

λέγει αὐτῷ Σίμων Π. As usual, Peter is the first with his question, and he fastens on what Jesus had said about His “going away,” not only in its relation to Him, but in its relation to the disciples. What is to happen to them? They had already found difficulty in the saying ὑπάγω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα (16:17, where see note).

κύριε, ποῦ ὑπάγεις; Domine, quo uadis? words which became very familiar from their use in the beautiful legend of the death of Peter, found in Acta Petri et Pauli, § 82. See on 14:5.

ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς. So B C*L; the rec. has ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς. See on 1:26 and on 1:50.

ὅπου ὑπάγω. א D and fam. 13 ins. ἐγώ after ὅπου (as in v. 33); om. A B C WΘ.

οὐ δύνασαί μοι κτλ., “thou canst not follow me now,” sc. into the heavenly places; see on v. 33.

ἀκολουθήσεις δὲ ὕστερον, “thou shalt follow afterwards.” There is no reference, as it seems, to Peter`s death by martyrdom (cf. 21:19, 2 Pet. 1:14); the promise is not confined to martyrs (cf. 14:2, 3).

37. διὰ τί οὐ δύναμαι κτλ. “Why can I not follow thee this minute?” (ἄρτι, see on 9:19). Peter had not yet realised that the death of Jesus was near, and that it was this which was in His mind; but even if to follow Him was dangerous, he was confident that he would take all risks. Thomas had expressed similar feelings (11:16).

τὴν ψυχήν μου ὑπὲρ σοὺ θήσω. This willingness is the mark of the Good Shepherd (10:11); it is the mark also of a true disciple.

38. ἀποκρίνεται Ἰησοῦς. This is the true reading (א A B C*L W Θ), as against the rec. ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, which would be the usual Johannine form. For the pres. ἀποκρίνεται, see on 12:23; and for Ἰησοῦς without ὁ, see on 1:29, 50.

τὴν ψυχήν σου κτλ. This repetition of the words used by Peter is thoroughly Johannine; cf. 16:16f. and 16:31.

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι. The prophetic warning to Peter is introduced in Mk. 14:30 by the same solemn ἀμὴν λέγω σοι. See on 1:51.

οὐ μὴ ἀλέκτωρ φωνήσῃ ἕως οὗ ἀρνήσῃ με τρίς. This is almost verbally identical with Lk 22:34, where the word σήμερον is added. Mk. (followed by Mt.) has “this night.”

Mk.’s version of this warning is peculiar in that it runs “the cock shall not crow twice (δίς, etc.); and, accordingly, a second cock-crowing is narrated Mk. 14:72. No other Gospel has this, but it is found also in a Fayyûm papyrus fragment.¹ It seems to be an eccentric variant, rather than a relic of genuine tradition. At all events, Jn., who knew Mk.,¹ and who betrays knowledge of Mk.’s version of this warning by prefacing it with ἀμήν, does not accept it. His report of Jesus’ prediction is simply that He told Peter that he would deny Him thrice before the cock crew. The fulfilment of the prediction is recorded in 18:27, where see the note.

ἀρνήσῃ. So B D L but א A C W Γ Δ Θ give ἀπαρνήσῃ, which is perhaps due to a reminiscence of Mk. 14:30.

It is not recorded that Peter gave any reply to this prediction, which, introduced as it was by the solemn “Verily, verily,” must have been a grievous blow to him. He does not appear again until 18:15.

14:1 ff. The opening verses of c. 14 are among the most familiar and the most precious in our Authorised Version of the Bible. It is an ungrateful task to disturb their beautiful cadences, charged with many memories, by offering a different rendering of the Greek text. But it must be attempted here, as at other points in the Fourth Gospel, if we are to express as nearly as we can the meaning of the evangelist’s words. In v. 1, as will be seen, Tyndale’s translation of 1534 has been preferred to the A.V. of 1611.

1. D prefixes καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς μαθηταὶς αὐτοῦ, probably to soften the apparent abruptness of the words which follow. But no introduction is necessary; for there is an intimate connexion between 13:38 and 14:1. The warning to Peter that he would presently deny his Master must have shocked him, as it silenced him. He is not among the disciples who ask questions as to the meaning of Jesus’ sayings in c. 14, nor is he mentioned again until c. 18. But the other disciples, too, must have been startled and saddened by the thought that the foremost among them would fail in the hour of trial. If that were so, who among them could be confident of himself? Indeed, they had already been warned that their faith would not be strong enough to keep them at the side of Jesus when the dark hour of His arrest came (16:31, 32). But this renewed suggestion of the instability of their allegiance, superadded to the announcements that Jesus had made of His impending departure from them (16:5–7, 13:33, 36), and of the persecutions which were in store for them (15:18–21, 16:33), had filled them with deep sorrow. So He sought to reassure them with a new message of consolation, which taught them to look beyond this earthly life to the life after death.

μὴ ταρασσέσθω ὑμῶν ἡ καρδία. The human experience of a “troubled” spirit had been His, more than once, during the last weeks (cf. 11:33, 12:27, 13:21), and He knew how painful it was.

πιστεύετε εἰς τὸν θεόν, καὶ εἰς ἐμὲ πιστεύετε. These are probably both imperatives: “believe in God (cf. Mk. 11:22); in me also believe.” Belief in God should, of itself, turn their thoughts to the security of the future life; and then, if they believed in Jesus, they would recall promises to them which He had made about this (see v. 3, with its two clauses).

Grammatically, πιστεύετε might be pres. indicative in either place or in both, and the familiar “Ye believe in God; believe also in me,” gives a good sense. But it seems more natural to take πιστεύετε in the same way in the first clause as in the second.

The true source of consolation for a troubled spirit is faith in God (cf. Ps. 27:13, 141:8 etc.), and in Jesus whom God sent (cf. Mk. 5:36). The disciples had already professed (16:30) their faith in Jesus, but He had warned them that it was not invincible (16:31).

For the constr. εἰς τινὰ πιστεύειν, never used by Jn. of faith in man, see on 1:12.

2. ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου κτλ., i.e. heaven; cf. Philo, who speaks of the soul returning εἰς τὸν πατρῷον οἶκον (de somn. i. 43).

μοναὶ πολλαί. The idea that there are “many mansions” in heaven, corresponding to different degrees of human merit, may not have been entirely new in Jewish religion. In the Sclavonic Book of the Secrets of Enoch (lxi. 2) we find: “In the world to come … there are many mansions prepared for men: good for the good; evil for evil” (cf. Ethiopic Enoch, xxxix. 4: “The mansions of the holy, and the resting-places of the righteous”). Charles dates the Sclavonic Enoch as between 1 and 50 a.d.; but we cannot be sure that it was known in Palestine during our Lord’s ministry. Nor can we be sure that μοναί was the Greek behind the Sclavonic word which Charles translates “mansions.” If it were, then μοναί meant “mansions” in the sense of “abodes,” not of “stages,” which are only halting-places.

μονή is found elsewhere in the Greek Bible only at v. 23 (where it must mean “permanent abode,” not a mere passing stage) and 1 Macc. 7:38 (where again the idea of permanence is involved). In Pausanias (x. 41) μονή is used in the sense of a stopping-place, a station on a journey; and this sense, if introduced into the present passage, suggests interesting speculations.

Thus Origen (de Princip. II. xi. 6) says that departed saints first live in some place “on the earth, which Scripture calls Paradise,” where they receive instruction. If worthy, they quickly ascend to a place in the air and reach the kingdom, through mansions, “which the Greeks call spheres, but Scripture heavens”; following Jesus, who “passed through the heavens” (Heb. 4:14). Origen then quotes Jn. 14:2, 3, showing that he understood μοναί, as stations or halting-places on the journey to God. His singular interpretation is not likely to be accepted, but his use of μονή is to be noted.

An earlier citation of Jn. 14:2 is to be found in a passage quoted by Irenæus (adv. Hær. v. xxxvi. 12) from the “Sayings of the Elders,” which is probably an extract from Papias.¹ According to the Elders, some good men will be counted worthy of a διατρίβη in heaven; others will enjoy paradise; others “the city,” the Saviour being seen of them all. This, the Elders say, is what is meant by the distinction between the thirtyfold, sixtyfold, hundredfold harvests in the Parable of the Sower. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἰρηκέναι τὸν κύριον, Ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου μονὰς εἶναι πολλάς. For all are of God, who gives to each his appropriate οἴκησις. This is the triclinium, the couch for three, on which shall recline those who are called to the Marriage Feast. This, the Elders said, is the dispositio of those who are saved, who advance by steps of this kind, through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father.

The first part of this implies that the μοναί are the permanent abodes of the blessed, which vary in glory; but the last sentence suggests, on the contrary, that the μοναί are stages, and that a saint may pass from one to another. The general patristic interpretation of μοναί is, however, “abiding-places”; not mansiones, which are like inns on a journey, but permanent habitations.

Clement of Alexandria often has the word μονή, and always with allusion to Jn. 14:2. In Strom. vi. 14 he refers (as Papias does) to the thirtyfold, sixtyfold, hundredfold harvests, which he says hint at (αἰνίσσομαι) the three μοναί where the saints dwell according to their respective merits. So, again, he says (Strom. iv. 6) that there are with the Lord καὶ μισθοὶ καὶ μοναὶ πλείονες κατὰ ἀναλογίαν βίων. Clement taught consistently that there were degrees of glory in the heavenly world. In Strom. vii. 14 he explains that the “other sheep not of this fold” (Jn. 10:16) are deemed worthy of another fold and another μονή in proportion to their faith.” Once more, in Strom. v. 1, he uses μονή for the dwelling-place of God, as distinct from τόπος, which is the locality where the μονή is situated.

These citations show that μοναί in v. 2 (as in v. 23 and 1 Macc. 7:38) must mean “abodes” or permanent dwelling-places, not merely temporary stations on a journey. The idea conveyed by the saying “In my Father’s house are many mansions” is that of a hospitable palace with many chambers, rather than of a journey with many stages.

οἰκία is hardly to be distinguished from οἶκος, except that οἰκία is the larger word, embracing the precincts of the house as well as the house itself. Cf. 8:35, 2 Cor. 5:1; and see on 2:16. For the significance of the full phrase “My Father,” cf. 2:16, 5:17 and vv. 20–23.

In heaven there are “many mansions,” i.e. there is room for all the faithful, although it is not said that they shall all be housed with equal dignity.

εἰ δὲ μή occurs again in Jn. at v. 23 only; and then after an imperative. It seems here to mean “if it were not so,” i.e. if the preceding statement were not true. Cf. Abbott, Diat. 2080.

ὅτι before πορεύομαι is omitted in the rec. text, with C^corrN Γ Δ Θ a e f q. Accordingly the A.V. places a full stop after “told you,” and proceeds with “I go to prepare a place for you,” as a new sentence. But ὅτι must be retained with א A B C*D L W, b c ff² syrr. and cop. vss. How to translate it is not obvious, for ὅτι may mean either because or that.

(a) The R.V. takes ὅτι as equivalent to because, with Meyer, Westcott, Godet, Swete, and others. “If it were not so, I would have told you, for (i.e. because) I go to prepare a place for you.” It is difficult to accept the sequence of thought which this rendering involves, sc.: if there was not plenty of room, He would have told them this bad news, because He is going to prepare a place. But that He was going to prepare a place for them could not be a reason for telling them that there was not plenty of room. This translation, when analysed, is hardly intelligible.

(b) A second expedient is to treat εἰ δὲ μή, εἶπον ἂν ὑμῖν, as parenthetical, and to connect directly “In my Father’s house are many mansions” with “because I go to prepare a place for you.” But again the sequence fails, for we should rather expect, “I go to prepare a place for you, because in my Father’s house are many mansions.”

(c) It is more natural to take ὅτι after εἶπον ἂν ὑμῖν as meaning that; sc., it is what the grammarians call ὅτι recitantis, introducing the actual words that might have been spoken. Syr. sin takes it thus: “I should have said that I go.” Then we render: “In my Father’s house are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you.” But the difficulty of this is that He was going to prepare a place for them, as v. 3 implies. Origen took the verse thus, assuming that ὅτι is recitantis, although he notices the contradiction with v. 3.¹

(d) The remaining alternative is to take εἶπον ἂν ὑμῖν ὅτι κτλ. as interrogative: “If there were not many mansions, would I have said to you that I go to prepare a place for you?” There is only one difficulty about this rendering, sc. that hitherto there has been no record of Jesus having told His disciples that He was going to prepare a place for them. At 13:36 He had told Peter that he would follow Him later, and no doubt the other disciples expected that this promise was to be fulfilled in their case also. But the explicit words “I go to prepare a place for you” do not appear before this verse. Jn., however, more than once records references made by Jesus to former sayings of His which cannot be traced with certainty (see 6:36, 10:25, 11:40), so that there is no insuperable difficulty, on this head, of taking the sentence interrogatively. This rendering is adopted by Moffatt, Strachan, and W. Bauer.²

ἑτοιμάσαι τόπον ὑμῖν. This was one of the purposes of His impending departure. He was the πρόδρομος of all the faithful (Heb. 6:20). Jn. does not use ἑτοιμάζειν elsewhere, but the verb is used Mk. 10:40, Mt. 20:23, of the highest seats in the Messianic kindgom which have been “prepared” by God for those whom He has chosen (cf. Heb. 11:16). In the present passage, ἑτοιμάζειν does not carry the idea of predestination; it is only “to make ready,” as at Mk. 14:16, Lk. 9:52.

τόπος is used of a “place” in heaven, Rev. 12:8; also in Clem. Rom. 5, where it is said of Peter ἐπορεύθη εἰς τόν ὀφειλόμενον τόπον τῆς δόξης. In the Revelation of Peter, τόπος is similarly used; and also in the Acts of Thomas, c. 22.

τόπον ὑμῖν is the order of words in א B D L N; but the rec. has ὑμῖν τόπον, with WΘ.

πάλιν ἔρχομαι. The present tense expresses the certainty of the future return: “I am coming back.” This is an explicit announcement of the Parousia, or Second Advent. Not as much is said about this in Jn. as in the Synoptists; but it is nevertheless an integral element in Johannine doctrine, more emphatic in the First Epistle than in the Gospel (cf. 21:22, 23 and 1 Jn. 2:28).¹

καὶ παραλήμψομαι κτλ. Perhaps παραλαμβάνειν has here, as at 1:11, the meaning of receiving with welcome (cf. Cant. 8:2); but at 19:17 it is equivalent to “seize.” For this meeting of Master and disciples, cf. 1 Thess. 4:17.

ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἦτε. This is, in a sense, true of earthly discipleship (12:26), but it is to be fulfilled more perfectly hereafter (17:24).

4. ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω οἴδατε τὴν ὁδόν is the reading of א B C*L W. But, as Field has pointed out, this is an ungrammatical construction. τὴν ὁδὸν ὅπου ὑπάγω is not good Greek, if it means τὴν ὁδὸν ἥν ὑπάγω. Furthermore, the comment of Thomas in v. 5 distinguishes clearly between the goal and the way, so that we should expect to find the same distinction inherent in the words of Jesus which drew it forth The rec. text is ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω οἴδατε, καὶ τὴν ὁδὸν οἴδατε. This is supported by A C³D N Γ Δ Θ with most cursives, and by the Syriac, Coptic, and O.L. vss. generally. If this were the original reading, we can see how easily the words οἴδατε καί might have dropped out, the eye being caught by the second οἴδατε. To claim that the uncials א B must outweigh the evidence of practically all the ancient versions, especially when they present an ungrammatical reading, is to claim too much for them. Accordingly, we follow the textus receptus here.

ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω οἴδατε. Peter had already shown that he, at any rate, did not know this, for he asked ποῦ ὑπάγεις; (13:36). But the disciples ought to have known, for Jesus had told them several times. He was going, He had said, πρὸς τὸν πέμψαντά με (7:33, 16:5), or πρὸς τὸν πατέρα (16:10, 28), or to His Father’s house (v. 2). The phrase ὑπάγω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα had already been the subject of perplexed comment by the disciples (16:17). They had not understood how Jesus was to “go to the Father,” but that this was the goal of the journey, of which He had spoken to them so often on this last night, He had repeated again and again. And so He said now, “You know where I am going.”

καὶ τὴν ὁδὸν οἴδατε. This too they should have understood. They did not yet know that for Him the Way to the Father was the Way of Death (see on 16:5), for even yet they had not realised that He was soon about to die. They may not have understood that they, too, must die before they could inhabit the heavenly mansions where He was to prepare a place for them (v. 2). It is not clear that they had abandoned hopes of a Messianic kingdom shortly to be established on earth, in which high stations of honour should be theirs. τὴν ὁδὸν οἴδατε did not mean that they knew, or ought to have known, that the way to the Father was through death. But they ought to have “known” that the way to the Father’s house was in fellowship with Jesus. This, in some measure, they must have realised at the end of their training; and so He reminds them that they “know the way,” sc. they know that only in that fellowship with Him which Jn. calls “believing on Him” could the way to life be trodden.

5. Thomas now intervenes. Peter was the first to interrupt the great discourse by asking, “Whither goest thou?” (see 13:36). Thomas presses the question, and urges that they could not be expected to know the answer. The Eleven had been perplexed when this “going” of Jesus to the Father had been mentioned at an earlier point in the discourse (16:17), and their perplexities had not yet been removed. We have already had Thomas appearing as spokesman for the rest (11:16), Peter perhaps being absent on that occasion. But Peter is silent now, although present, probably because of the severity of the rebuke and warning which he had just received (13:38). He would hardly venture again to interrupt Jesus by questions.

For κύριε, see on 1:38. Thomas declares that they do not know where Jesus was going, and that therefore they cannot be expected to know the way. Yet one may know the way without knowing exactly the goal of one’s journey; and this is specially true of the Christian pilgrimage.

There are unimportant variants. א A C²N Γ Δ Θ, with most vss., have καὶ after ὑπάγεις, and this may be right; but B C*L W and Syr. sin. omit καί the omission being characteristic of Jn.’s paratactic style. Again, for πῶς οἴδαμεν τὴν ὁδόν; (B C*D a b c), the rec., with A C²L N W Γ Δ Θ, has πῶς δυνάμεθα τὴν ὁδὸν εἰδέναι; which looks like an explanatory correction of the shorter reading.

6. א C*L om. ὁ before Ἰησοῦς, but ins. A B C³D N W Θ. See on 1:29.

ἐγώ εἰμι. On this majestic construction, see Introd., pp. cxvii–cxxi.

ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδός. This is the central thought here, the words following, sc. καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή, being not directly involved in the context, but added to complete the great declaration.

To walk in God’s way has been the aspiration of pious men of every race; and Israel was especially warned not to turn aside from the ὁδός which God had commanded (Deut. 5:32, 33, 31:29; cf. Isa. 30:21, 35:8). “Teach me Thy way” is the Psalmist’s prayer (Ps. 27:11; cf. Ps. 25:4, 86:11). Philo, after his manner, describes the “royal way” (ὁδός) as philosophy, and he says that Scripture calls it the ῥῆμα and λόγος of God (de post. Caini, 30), quoting Deut. 17:11. More apposite here, however, is the declaration of the Epistle to the Hebrews that the way to the holy place was not made plain before Christ (Heb. 9:8), who dedicated “a new and living way” through the veil of His flesh (Heb. 10:20). This is the doctrine which becomes explicit (cf. Eph. 2:18) in the words “I am the Way.” In the Acts (9:2, 19:9) the Christian profession is called “the Way,” but this does not provide a true parallel to the present verse. Again, in the second-century Acts of John (§ 95) there is a Gnostic hymn ascribed to Christ which ends with ὁδός εἰμί σοι προοδίτη, “A Way am I to thee, a wayfarer.” This, however, does not go as far as the claim involved in ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδός. The uniqueness of Christ’s claim in Jn. is that He is the Way, i.e. the only Way, to God. This is the heart of the Johannine message, which admits of no compromise with non- Christian religions, and in fact takes no account of such. See on 10:9.

For ἀλήθεια in Jn., see on 1:14. Both the exclusiveness and the inclusiveness (cf. Col. 2:3) of the claim ἐγώ εἰμι … ἡ ἀλήθεια are thoroughly Johannine. This is to say much more than to admit, as the Pharisees did, that Jesus taught τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπʼ ἀληθείας (Mk. 12:14, Mt. 22:16, Lk. 20:21).

The idea of Christ’s teaching as true does not strictly come into the argument or exposition here; and it would seem that the juxtaposition of ἡ ὁδός and ἡ ἀλήθεια is due to a reminiscence of O.T. phraseology. Cf. “I have chosen the way of truth” (Ps. 119:30); and see the same expression, ὁδὸς ἀληθείας, at Wisd. 5:6, Tob. 1:3 (cf. 2 Pet. 2:2). More striking still is, “Teach me thy Way, O Lord; I will walk in thy Truth” (Ps. 86:11; cf. Ps. 26:3), where the “Truth” is a synonym for the “Way.” So, again, a Psalmist says that the ὁδοί of the Lord are mercy and truth (Ps. 25:10). Perhaps the close association in O.T. phraseology between ἡ ὁδός and ἡ ἀλήθεια may account for the introduction of the word ἀλήθεια at this point.

καὶ ἡ ζωή. This is included in another of the great Similitudes, ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωή (11:25). ζωή is one of the keywords of the Fourth Gospel: “in Him was life” is the explicit pronouncement of the Prologue (1:4), and that men might have “life in His Name” was the purpose of the composition of the book (20:31). Cf. Col. 3:4. The declaration “I am the Life” could not be out of place at any point of the Gospel (cf. v. 19); but nevertheless it does not help the exposition at this point, where the thought is specially of Christ as the Way.

Here again we are reminded of the O.T. phrase “the way (or ‘ways’) of life” (Prov. 6:23, 10:17, 15:24): cf. ἐγνώρισάς μοι ὁδοὺς ζωῆς (Ps. 16:11). In Mt. 7:14 the way that leads to life is described as straitened; and in Heb. 10:20 we hear of the “living way” (ὁδὸς ζῶσα) which Jesus dedicated. The thought of Jesus as the Way would naturally be associated with the thought of Him as the Life. Cf. also Heb. 7:25.

Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr.) suggests that the idiom here is Hebrew, the Way and the Truth and the Life meaning the True and Living Way. (He compares Jer. 29:11, where the Hebrew “a latter end and hope” means “a hoped-for latter end.”) This at any rate brings out the point, that the emphasis is on the Way, as the concluding words, “No one comes to the Father but through me,” show. To claim to be not only a way to God, but the only Way, is in effect to claim to be the Truth and the Life.

There is a curious Christian interpolation in the Vulgate text of Ecclus. 24:25, which is a paraphrase of this Similitude. Wisdom says of herself, “In me gratia omnis uiae et ueritatis, in me omnis spes uitae et uirtutis,” where the triple alliteration, Via, Veritas, Vita, is reinforced by a fourth word, Virtus.

7. The verb contains a rebuke. The disciples ought to have known what was meant by going to “the Father.” That they did not know the Father was due to the fact that they had not yet learnt to know the Son.

εἰ ἐγνώκειτέ με, καὶ τὸν πατέρα μου ἂν ᾔδειτε. Jesus had said the same thing to His Jewish critics (8:19), in identical language, except that in the former passage we have εἰ ἐμὲ ᾔδειτε instead of εἰ ἐγνώκειτέ με. But we cannot distinguish οἶδα from γινώσκω in passages like this (see on 1:26 for the usage of these verbs).

For ἐγνώκειτε (A B C D²L N Θ) and ᾔδειτε (B C*L), א D* have ἐγνώκατε and γνώσεσθε, which would turn the rebuke into a promise. Syr. sin. gives, “If me ye have not known, my Father also will ye know?” For ᾔδειτε the rec. substitutes ἐγνώκειτε (A C³D²N Γ Δ Θ), so that the same verb may appear in both clauses.

ἀπʼ ἄρτι κτλ. So B C*L, omitting the prefatory καί: this would be consonant with Jn.’s paratactic style. But ins. א A C²D N Γ Δ Θ, a strong combination. If καί is retained, it stands for καίτοι, in accordance with a Johannine idiom (see on 3:11). In any case, there is a contrast between the rebuke in the first part of the verse and the assurance in the second part.

ἀπʼ ἄρτι γινώσκετε αὐτόν κτλ., “from now (see on 13:19 for ἀπʼ ἄρτι) you are beginning to know Him.” This is the force of the present tense γινώσκετε, which א tries to emphasise by reading γνώσεσθε. The moment marked by ἀπʼ ἄρτι is the moment of the Passion; cf. νῦν ἐδοξάσθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (13:31), and see on 16:5. The Revelation of the Father was not complete until Jesus had removed His visible presence. Only after that did His disciples begin to understand how much He had revealed of God’s nature and purpose (cf. 17:3). In the next generation, Jn. could say of his younger fellow-disciples ἐγνώκατε τὸν πατέρα (1 Jn. 2:13). But during the earthly ministry of Jesus that claim could not have been made. (“No one knoweth (γινώσκει) who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whom the Son willeth to reveal Him” (Lk. 10:22; cf. Mt. 11:27, who substitutes ἐπιγινώσκει, signifying complete knowledge, for the simple γινώσκει).

καὶ ἑωράκατε αὐτόν. B C* omit αὐτόν (perhaps because of the difficulty of the phrase), but ins. א A C³D L N W Θ. The verb ὁρᾶν in the pres. and pft. tenses (see on 3:32; and cf. 1:51) is generally, but not always, used in Jn. of seeing with the eyes of the body. θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε (1:18; cf. 5:37) is a general principle of Judaism: the only One of whom it could be said ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα is Jesus (6:46), and in that case the reference is to spiritual vision. But at v. 9 we have ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα, which is parallel to ὁ θεωρῶν ἐμὲ θεωρεῖ τὸν πέμψαντά με (12:45, where see note). In neither case can the verb for “seeing” be taken as representing physical vision, for many of the opponents of Jesus who “saw” Him in the flesh did not thereby “see the Father.” Accordingly θεωρῶν at 12:45 and ἑώρακεν in v. 9 must imply spiritual insight in some degree. Those who saw in the Works and Life of Christ something of His purpose and personality, thereby saw something of the nature of God who sent Him. Those who “saw and hated” Jesus, on the other hand, could be justly said to have “seen and hated” God the Father (15:24); the false impression which they acquired of Jesus, issuing in an equally false impression of God. Thus the strange statement, as it must have seemed, “You are beginning to know Him, and (indeed) have seen Him,” must mean that while the disciples would begin henceforth consciously to appropriate the new revelation of God as He is, they had already (although unconsciously) “seen” the reflection of His mind and purpose in the life of Jesus, with whom they had long been in close intimacy.

Abbott (Diat. 2760–2764) suggests as possible another rendering (apparently favoured by Nonnus) of ἀπʼ ἄρτι γινώσκετε αὐτὸν καὶ ἑωράκατε αὐτόν, which takes γινώσκετε as an imperative, “From henceforth begin to know Him, and (then) you have seen Him.” But this makes ἑωράκατε αὐτόν even more difficult than it is when we take γινώσκετε as indicative, for with this rendering there can be no reference to “seeing” God in Jesus, visible in the flesh.

Philip Asks to Be Shown the Father. The Coinherence of the Father and the Son Explained (vv. 8–14)

8. λέγει αὐτῷ φίλιππος κτλ. For Philip, see on 1:43. This is the third interruption of the discourse by a disciple. Their intimacy with Jesus was such that they ventured, even at this solemn hour and while He was bidding them farewell, to ask questions at any point where they did not understand Him; always addressing Him with the Κύριε of respect (13:37, 14:5, 22). Philip goes beyond a mere question. His remark is rather an argumentative challenge: “Show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”

ἀρκεῖν has occurred before at 6:7; Moulton-Milligan illustrate (s.v.) the impersonal use of the verb, as here, from the papyri.

δεῖξον ἡμῖν τὸν πατέρα. Probably Philip wished for a theophany, such as that which Ex. 33:18f. tells was granted to Moses when he prayed “Show me Thy glory.” Judas the son of James had similar desires and perplexities (see v. 22).

There is something of pathos in the reproach, “Have I been so long with you all (μεθʼ ὑμῶν), and hast thou not learnt to know me, Philip?” the personal name (cf. 20:16, 21:15) suggesting affectionate regard. The sheep know (γινώσκουσιν) their shepherd (10:14), and Philip ought to have “known” Jesus by this time. But to fail to see God in Jesus was to fail to know Jesus.

ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα. See on v. 7 above; and cf. Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:3.

After πατέρα, the rec. ins. καί with A D L NΓ Δ Θ, but om. א B.

πῶς σὺ λέγεις κτλ., “how is that you say, etc.,” σύ being emphatic, “you who have followed me from the beginning” (1:43f.).

10. οὐ πιστεύεις κτλ. This was to expect a greater faith than He asked of the blind man (9:35), or even of Martha (11:27). Jesus expected of the Eleven, who had enjoyed a longer and more intimate association with Him than others, that they should appreciate in some measure the deeper secrets of His being. The “evolution” of faith is always towards a larger faith.

ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρί κτλ. Here is the mystery of that oneness with the Father which is always prominent in Jn. Jesus had held this Divine coinherence up to the Jews as a belief which they might ultimately recognise as true (10:38), but He did not reproach them for not having reached it yet. Philip was in a different position, and ought to have learnt something of it before now. The two lines of testimony to which Jesus appeals in support of His claim to reciprocal communion with the Father, here as elsewhere, are His words and His works. See on 10:38, where the argument is almost identical with that of vv. 10, 11, and expressed in the same terms.

τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ λέγω ὑμῖν. The rec., with א A Γ Δ Θ, has λαλῶ from the next clause, but B²L N have λέγω (which has been omitted in B* through misreading ἐγὼ λέγω). λέγω is often used in Jn. interchangeably with λαλῶ, as here. See on 3:11.

ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐ λαλῶ. This He had said several times. See the references given in the note on 7:17.

ὁ δὲ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένων The second ὁ is omitted in B L, but is preserved in א A D N W Θ.

ποιεῖ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ; So א B D but the rec., with AΓ Δ Θ, has αὐτὸς ποιεῖ τὰ ἔργα, a correction due to the tendency to describe the miracles as Christ’s rather than as the Father’s. But to distinguish thus is contrary to Johannine teaching. See especially on 5:19. The ἔργα of Jesus are also the ἔργα of God the Father.

In this verse the words of Jesus are treated as among his works. Both are, as it were, the λαλία of the Father. But they may be considered separately, His words appealing more directly to the conscience and spiritual insight of His hearers, His works appealing rather to their intellect, as indicative of His superhuman personality.

11. πιστεύετέ μοι. The plural shows that Jesus now addresses Himself not to Philip individually, but to the disciples collectively, whose spokesman for the moment Philip was. “Believe me,” sc. believe my words when I tell you that I am in the Father and the Father in me (repeated in identical terms from v. 10). He does not say “Believe in me” here. He merely appeals (as at 5:47, 10:38) to the testimony of His own sayings, as worthy of credit (cf. 4:21).

εἰ δὲ μή, διὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτὰ πιστεύετέ μοι. This is the appeal to His miraculous works (cf. 3:2, 5:36, 10:37) in support of His great claim of unity with the Father. The faith which is generated by an appeal like this is not the highest type of faith, but it is not despised by Jesus. Better to believe because of miracles than not to believe at all. See on 6:36, 10:38; and cf. 2:23, 3:2, 4:48.

The concluding μοι is omitted after πιστεύετε by א D L W, but ins. A B Γ Δ Θ.

12. ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, the customary prelude to a solemn and unexpected saying. See on 1:51.

He had appealed to His ἔργα. He now assures His hearers that the Christian believer shall be endued with power to do the like or even greater things, and in particular that he shall have the secret of efficacious prayer (vv. 13, 14).

ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ This He had bidden them all to do (v. 1), and He returns to the phrase, which involves more than πιστεύετέ μοι of v. 11 (see on 1:12). But, as Bengel says, “qui Christo de se loquenti credit, in Christum credit.”

τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει. He had already given such power to the Twelve (Mk. 6:7, 13), and in [Mk.] 16:17 it is recorded that He renewed this assurance after His Resurrection.

καὶ μείζονα τούτων, “greater things,” not necessarily more extraordinary “miracles,” to the eye of the unspiritual observer. These works of wonder, healing the blind and the sick, etc., were not reckoned by Jesus among His own “greater” works (see on 5:20). The “greater things” which the apostles were to achieve, were the far-reaching spiritual effects which their preaching was to bring about. The teaching of the Incarnate Son was confined to one country, and while He was in the flesh His adherents were few. But His Church made conquest of the nations of the world.

ὅτι ἐγὼ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα πορεύομαι. His departure from their visible presence increased the apostles’ spiritual power (see on 16:7 above). As He goes on to explain (vv. 13, 14), their spiritual effectiveness in prayer will be increased beyond all limits hitherto presupposed, for their prayers will be offered “in His Name.”

For πρὸς τὸν πατέρα πορεύομαι, cf. v. 28; and see on 16:28.

13. καὶ ὅ τι ἄν αἰτήσητε κτλ. “And” (further, in addition to the promise of v. 12, and following from it) “whatsoever ye shall ask in my Name, I will do it.” See on 15:16 for this great promise, here repeated for the fifth time.

It is not said here to whom the prayer is addressed, but we should probably understand τὸν πατέρα as at 15:16, 16:23. Jesus is the Way (v. 6), and while prayers are naturally addressed to the Father, they are addressed through Jesus, “in the Name of” Jesus.

There is, however, an advance here on the teaching of 15:16, 16:23. In the former passages it is the Father who answers prayer, who gives what the faithful petitioner asks; but here and at v. 14 it is the Son who is to grant the boon, ποιήσω being twice repeated. For, in the teaching of Jesus as presented in Jn., what the Father does, the Son does (cf. 10:30). Swete’s paraphrase is thoroughly Johannine. “We pray to the Father in Christ’s Name; we receive the answer from the Father. Yet we receive it through the Son and by the action of the Son.” The difference between δώσει, “He will give,” of 16:23, and ποιήσω, “I will do,” of 14:13 is the difference between the Jewish and the Christian doctrine of prayer.

ἵνα δοξασθῇ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ. This is only verbally similar to 13:31, where see note. All that is done by Christ in His heavenly ministry is a “glorification” of the Father, a revelation to men of His power and compassion. This is the final cause of Christ’s work.

14. This verse is wholly omitted in two minor uncials, as well as in 1, 22, b, ful, the Sinai Syriac, and Nonnus—a strong and unusual combination. The omission may be due to homoioteleuton, v. 14 being repeated from v. 13. A B L and fam. 13, indeed, repeat τοῦτο ποιήσω from v. 13, but א D W Θ in v. 14 replace τοῦτο by ἐγώ. So A D L follow v. 13 in reading αἰτήσητε ἐν κτλ, but א B W Γ Δ Θ have αἰτήσητέ με ἐν κτλ.

If the verse is to be retained, it must be taken as a repetition in slightly different terms of what has been said already: a construction which is quite in the style of Jn.¹ ἐγώ clearly lays special emphasis on Jesus being Himself the answerer of the prayer: “I will see that it is done.”

But the insertion of με after αἰτήσητε, which the best MSS support, involves the harsh and unexampled phrase, “If ye shall ask me in my Name.” No doubt, it may be urged that the man who is in Christ alone can offer petitions to Christ which are certain of acceptance. He whose will is in harmony with Christ’s will, and who therefore can truly pray “in His Name,” may be assured that Christ will perform what he asks. Yet the expression “ask me in my Name” is awkward, and does not occur elsewhere, the other passages in these discourses in which prayers in the Name of Christ are recommended explicitly mentioning the Father as Him to whom these prayers should be addressed (cf. 15:16, 16:23, 24). The Johannine teaching would not indeed stumble at the addressing of prayer to Christ. He who prays to the Father, prays to the Son, so intimate is their ineffable union (cf. 10:30); but, nevertheless, no explicit mention of prayer to the Son is found elsewhere in Jn., unless 16:23 (where see note) is an exception.

We conclude that με must be rejected here,² despite its strong MS. support; and we read ἐάν τι αἰτήσητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐγὼ ποιήσω, the thought being carried on from the previous verse, a special emphasis being laid upon ἐγώ.

Love Issuing in Obedience Will Be Followed by the Gift of the Paraclete, Revealing the Union of the Father and the Son (vv. 15–20)

15. ἐὰν ἀγαπᾶτέ με, τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐμὰς τηρήσετε (so א B L, which is to be preferred to τηρήσατε of A DΘ and the rec. text), “if you love me, you will keep my commandments,” as it is said again (v. 23), ἐάν τις ἀγαπᾷ με, τὸν λόγον μου τηρήσει. Love issues in obedience. The converse, “he who keeps my commandments loves me,” is found at v. 21 (the love then fulfilling itself in knowledge, 1 Jn. 2:3). For the verb ἀγαπᾶν, as used in Jn. of the love of His disciples for Jesus, see on 3:16.

The phrase τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολάς is thoroughly Johannine (cf. 15:10, 1 Jn. 2:3, 4, 3:22, 24, 5:2, 3). It is the phrase used for “keeping” the Ten Commandments (cf. Mt. 19:17, 1 Cor. 7:19); and that the precept “keep my commandments” should be placed in the mouth of Jesus is significant of His claim to be equal with God (cf. 13:34).

In Jn. τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολάς μου is used interchangeably with τηρεῖν τὸν λόγον μου (8:51, 14:23, 24, 15:20, 1 Jn. 2:5).

16. κἀγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν πατέρα. See on 11:22, 16:23, 26 on ἐρωτᾶν as the verb used of the prayers of Jesus Himself; cf. 17:9.

καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν. The Sinai Syriac renders “He will give you Another, the Paraclete”; but the more natural rendering is “He will give you another Paraclete,” sc. another besides myself. Jesus does not directly call Himself a “Paraclete,” nor is the term applied to Him anywhere in the Gospels (cf. 1 Jn. 2:1); but He has just spoken of Himself (vv. 13, 14) as discharging in the future the functions of a παράκλητος, or a Helper and Friend at the court of heaven, in that it is He who will cause to be fulfilled the prayers which are addressed to the Father. For παράκλητος see on 15:26.

ἵνα ᾖ μεθʼ ὑμῶν. The rec. text (with A DΓ Δ Θ) has μένῃ for ᾖ (perhaps from v. 17).

εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Jesus had been with them as Helper and Friend on earth only for a short time, but the “other Paraclete” would be in fellowship with them “for ever,” i.e. until the end of the present dispensation (cf. Mt. 28:20). See on 4:14 for εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, which is generally used as including eternity.

With the sharp contrast between the “world” and the “disciples” in regard to their faculty of spiritual perception, cf. 1 Cor. 2:14.

ὃ ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν. It could not have been said to the “world,” λάβετε πνεῦμα ἅγιον (20:22). That gift could be received only by spiritually minded men.

ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτό. θεωρεῖν (see on 2:23) is generally used in Jn. of bodily vision, but sometimes (as at 6:40, 12:45) of mental and spiritual appreciation. The analogy of v. 19 would suggest that bodily vision is intended here, as there. The only kind of vision that the “world” has is physical, and with this the Spirit cannot be perceived. Observe that it is not said that the disciples could thus (θεωροῦσι) behold the Spirit.

οὐδὲ γινώσκει. So it is said in the Prologue (1:10), ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω. The world did not recognise Jesus as the Word: nor does it recognise the Spirit.

ὑμεῖς γινώσκετε αὐτό. Disciples are not “of the world” (15:19): they can, and will, recognise the workings of the Spirit, as they have in some measure recognised Christ for what He was (cf. v. 9).

ὅτι παρʼ ὑμῖν μένει, “because He abides with you,” καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστίν, “and is in you,” the present tenses being used proleptically of the future. The rec. has ἔσται (with א A D²L Θ), which is a correction of the better reading ἐστίν (B D*W).

First it is said that the Spirit of Truth abides μετὰ ὑμῶν, then παρʼ ὑμῖν, and finally ἐν ὑμῖν, the last phrase signifying the indwelling of the Spirit in the individual disciple (Rom. 8:9, 1 Jn. 2:27, 2 Jn. 2), while the other phrases (the former of which occurs also in 2 Jn. 2) lay the emphasis on the fellowship of the Spirit with the disciples collectively, that is, with the Church (cf. ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν, 2 Cor. 13:14).

18. οὐκ ἀφήσω ὑμᾶς ὀρφανούς. ὀρφανός occurs in the N.T. again only at Jas. 1:27, and there in its primary meaning of “fatherless.” It has been thought that this is the idea here also; at 13:33 Jesus addressed his disciples as τεκνία, which suggests the relation of a father to his children. But, although ὀρφανός, both in the LXX and in classical literature, generally means “fatherless” in the most literal sense, it may be used of bereavement of any kind. ὀρφανῷ σὺ ἦσθα βοηθός (Ps. 10:14) appears in Coverdale’s Psalter as “Thou art the helper of the friendless,” which brings out the sense well. Milligan (Vocab. s.v.) quotes a modern Greek song where friendless must be the meaning; and also Epictetus, iii. xxiv. 14 for this more general sense. The rendering “comfortless” of the A.V. cannot be defended.

“I will not leave you friendless” means, then, “I will not leave you without a Helper and Friend (a παράκλητος), such as I have been.”

ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, “I am coming to you,” not, as in v. 3, in the Parousia, but after His Resurrection, when the Spirit will be imparted (20:22). See on 16:23 for the Day of the Spirit’s Advent.

19. ἔτι μικρὸν (see on 16:16) καὶ ὁ κόσμος με οὐκέτι θεωρεῖ, “the world perceiveth me no longer,” θεωρεῖν (see on 2:23) being used here of any kind of vision, for Jesus will have been removed from the world’s sight after His Passion.

ὑμεῖς δὲ θεωρεῖτέ με, “but you perceive me,” sc. with the spiritual perception which the disciples were to have of the Risen Lord. Jesus had indeed told them at an earlier point in this last discourse that, like the world, they would see Him no longer with the eyes of the body after His Passion: οὐκέτι θεωρεῖτέ με (16:10). The assurance of the present verse is in verbal, although not real, contradiction with the former warning. He had led them on step by step, in the endeavour to make them understand that it was better for them that He should be removed from their bodily eyes (16:7), and that He would be present with them spiritually. And, at last, He assures them—so intimate and vital will His presence be—“you shall perceive me” ὑμεῖς θεωρεῖτέ με, the present tense being used proleptically to mark the certainty of the future.

θεωρεῖν is the verb used of Mary’s “seeing” the Risen Lord (20:14), as it is used here of the disciples’ “seeing” Him after His Passion, while such “seeing” would be impossible for the unbelieving world.

A comparison of 14:19 with 16:10 goes far to show that 16:10 must be regarded as an earlier utterance than 14:19. See Introd., p. xxi.

ὅτι ἐγὼ ζῶ καὶ ὑμεῖς ζήσετε. So B L, but א A D Γ Δ Θ have ζήσεσθε. This had been said before (6:57, where see note), and the thought is present also in Paul (Rom. 5:10, 1 Cor. 15:21, 22, Gal. 2:20, Eph. 2:5; cf. Rev. 20:4). But the words “because I live, you also shall live,” have here a direct connexion with the context. Jesus has just assured the disciples that they shall “see” Him in His Risen Life. But this would only be possible—for ordinary physical vision is not in question—for those who are in spiritual sympathy with Him, who are “in Him” and in whom He abides (v. 20), who share His Life. And so He adds, “because I live, you also shall live”; not ye do live (in the present), for He was not yet risen from the dead, and His quickening power was not yet set free in those who “believed on Him.”

20. ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, i.e. in the new Dispensation of the Spirit, which will begin with the Resurrection. See on 16:23.

γνώσεσθε ὑμεῖς κτλ, “you will know” (ὑμεῖς being emphatic) “that I am in my Father, etc.” At v. 10 (where see note) Jesus had indicated that the disciples ought to have reached as far as faith in His ineffable union with the Father; but He now promises that they shall know it, and recognise it as true, when the illumination of the Spirit has been granted to their minds.

καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν. He had given this to them as a precept of life (15:4, where see note); but the assurance that they might indeed reckon themselves as “in Him” could not be complete until the realisation that they shared His Life (v. 19) was confirmed by the Spirit’s internal witness. This assurance is the highest point in Christian experience. Cf. 17:21, 23, 26; and see especially the note on 17:18.

The Loving Disciple is Loved by God, and to Him Jesus Will Manifest Himself (v. 21)

21. What has heretofore been said in terms primarily applicable to the listening disciples is now said more generally. The teaching of v. 21 is for all future believers. Not only for the apostles, but for every disciple, the sequence of spiritual experience is Obedience, Love, Life, Vision.

ἔχων τὰς ἐντολάς (the phrase does not occur again) is to have them in one’s heart, to know them and apprehend their meaning; but τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολάς is to keep them, which is a harder thing. See on v. 15 above, where (as at v. 23) it is said that love issues in obedience; here the point is, that obedience is the proof of love.

ὁ δὲ ἀγαπῶν με ἀγαπηθήσεται ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου. This has been said before at 16:27, where φιλεῖν was used instead of ἀγαπᾶν (but see on 21:15), and where, in accordance with Jn.’s usual style, the active voice (ὁ πατὴρ φιλεῖ ὑμᾶς) was preferred to the passive. Abbott (Diat. 1885j) notes that in this verse is the only instance in Jn. of ὑπό followed by a genitive of the agent.

καὶ ἐμφανίσω αὐτῷ ἐμαυτόν. ἐμφανίζειν (in Jn. only here and at v. 22) is used as in Ex. 33:13, 18 of a special manifestation of the Divine; cf. also Wisd. 1:2, 17:4, Mt. 27:53. The reference is to that fuller revelation of Christ which will be made through the Spirit’s illumination: cf. 16:14.

Jude Asks Why Jesus Will Not Manifest Himself to the World; No Direct Answer is Given, the Former Teaching Being Repeated (vv. 22–24)

22. λέγει αὐτῷ Ἰούδας κτλ. This is the fourth interruption of the discourse by an apostle anxious to understand what was being said (cf. 13:37, 14:5, 8); this time the speaker is Judas the son of James (Lk. 6:16, Acts 1:13, who is also called Thaddeus Mk. 3:18, Mt. 10:3; see on 2:12 above). Syr. sin. reads “Thomas” here for “Judas,” and Syr. cur. has “Judas Thomas,” which apparently was the personal name (Judas the Twin) of the doubting apostle. The Syriac vss. have confused the undistinguished apostle, Judas the son of James, with the better known Judas Thomas.

οὐχ ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης. Judas Iscariot had left the company some time before (13:30), but Jn. is anxious that the name “Judas” shall not mislead. For “the Iscariot,” the man of Kerioth, see on 6:71.

καὶ τί γέγονεν κτλ., “What, then, has happened that, etc.” For the initial καί, which is retained by א, see on 9:36. It is omitted by A B D LΘ, but its omission is probably due to a mistaken correction of the text by scribes who did not understand the initial καί.

Jude catches at the word ἐμφανίζειν. This is what he has been waiting for. For this verb seemed to suggest (see Ex. 33:13, 18) a visible manifestation of Jesus in glory, which had been the hope of the Twelve. They clung to the thought of a Messianic theophany which should convince the world. There was a truth behind this Jewish expectation, as Jesus had said on former occasions (5:27, 28). But the promise to the faithful in these Last Discourses was not that of any speedy return of the Son of Man in the clouds, although it was misinterpreted thus by some. The ἐμφανισμός which Jesus promised was the illumination of the heart of the individual disciple: “I will manifest myself to him,” not to the world. Judas is perplexed by such a limitation, as it seems to him, of the Messianic hope. What, then, about your manifestation of your glory to the world? See on v. 8 for similar perplexity exhibited by his brother apostle Philip. Both of them desired the same kind of public vindication by Jesus of Himself as His incredulous “brethren” had demanded when they said φανέρωσον σεαυτὸν τῷ κόσμῳ (7:4).

Such vindication, however, was not given. Even after He had risen, Jesus was not seen by those who hated Him or were sceptical as to His claims. ὁ θεὸς … ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν ἐμφανῆ γενέσθαι (Acts 10:40), not to everybody, but only to the select few. And the only answer that Jesus gives to Jude is to repeat the assurance that He will, in truth, manifest Himself to every loving and obedient disciple: a promise which points forward to the illumination which the Spirit is to give.

No direct answer is given as to the manifestation in glory of Jesus to the world at large. This is in complete correspondence with the habit of Jesus when problems were put to Him by questioners as to the destiny or the duty of other people. He rebuked Peter for asking about John’s future career (21:22). “Are there few that be saved?” another asked Him (Lk. 13:23). But His answer was to bid the man look to his own salvation: “Strive to enter in at the strait gate.” And so here, it is said (in effect) to Jude: “If you love and obey me, I will come and abide with you; that is enough for you to know.”

23. ἀπεκρ. Ἰησοῦς καὶ κτλ. The rec. inserts ὁ before Ἰησοῦς, but om. א A B D L W Γ Δ Θ: see on 1:29.

ἐάν τις ἀγαπᾷ με κτλ. The answer of Jesus to Jude is indirect, and begins by repeating what He had said before v. 15 (cf. v. 21) as to the necessity of obedience for a true disciple.

τὸν λόγον μου τηρήσει. For τὰς ἐντολάς of v. 21, the specific commandments of Jesus, is substituted here τὸν λόγον, the message of Jesus as a whole. For the phrase τὸν λόγον τηρεῖν, see on 8:51, 17:6. Jn., as has been pointed out before, is fond of changing slightly the form of a great saying, when he repeats it (see on 3:17).

καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ἀγαπήσει αὐτόν. Cf. 17:23. This must be taken to mean something more than the fundamental Johannine doctrine that “God loved the world” (3:16), although this tremendous fact is prior to, and at the root of, every special manifestation of God’s love to individual disciples.

καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐλευσόμεθα. Here the singular ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς (v. 18) is replaced by the plural ἐλευσόμεθα, marking the claim of equality with the Father which is prominent throughout the Fourth Gospel. Cf. 10:30 ἕν ἐσμεν. In both passages the reference is to that Divine Advent in the disciple’s heart which is mediated by the Spirit. Cf. Rev. 3:20 εἰσελεύσομαι πρὸς αὐτόν.

καὶ μονὴν παρʼ αὐτῷ ποιησόμεθα. The Spirit παρʼ ὑμῖν μένει (v. 17), and the same must be true of the Father and the Son. “In the coming of the Spirit, the Son too was to come; in the coming of the Son, also the Father.”¹ In v. 2 (where see note) the μοναί where man shall dwell with God in the future are promised; here we have the promise of a greater thing, the dwelling of God with man in the present. The main thought associated with the sanctuary in the Pentateuch was that there Yahweh dwelt with His people (Ex. 25:8, 29:45, Lev. 26:11, 12; cf. 2 Cor. 6:16); but the indwelling promised here is associated with no special sanctuary or holy place. It is a Presence, real although invisible, in the disciple’s heart (Mt. 28:20): the peculiar benediction of the kingdom which does not come “by observation” (Lk. 17:20). So Jn. writes later of the disciple who “keeps His commandments,” that Christ “abides in him,” adding “this we know by the Spirit which He gave us” (1 Jn. 3:24; cf. 1 Jn. 4:13).

ποιησόμεθα. So א B L W fam. 13; but AΘ have ποιήσομεν μονὴν ποιούμενος occurs in Thucydides (i. 131), the phrase being good classical Greek.

24. The implied argument of this verse is that the “world,” which does not love Jesus and does not “keep His commandments,” is spiritually incapable of apprehending such spiritual manifestations of God and Christ as those which have been promised to faithful disciples. Nothing is said of a manifestation in glory, such as that which Jude and his fellow-disciples longed to see (cf. v. 22).

ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν με κτλ., “he that does not love me” (sc. the world) “does not keep my sayings” (λόγοι as distinct from λόγος, His full message). λόγοι here is practically equivalent to ἐντολαί (v. 21).

καὶ ὁ λόγος ὃν ἀκούετε. καί is for καίτοι, in accordance with Jn.’s usage (see on 3:11): “and yet, the word which ye hear,” i.e. which the world hears without understanding what it implies. The phrase ἀκούειν τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐμόν has appeared before at 8:43, where see note.

οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμός κτλ. Cf. 7:16 ἡ ἐμὴ διδαχὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμή, ἀλλὰ τοῦ πέμψαντός με. See also 8:28, 12:49; and for the thought of Christ being “sent” by God, see on 3:17.

25. ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑμῖν. This is the seventh time that this solemn refrain (see on 15:11) appears in the Last Discourse. Here ταῦτα may embrace all that has been said throughout the evening, and not only the sentences immediately preceding. “These things have I spoken to you, while abiding with you,” sc. in the flesh. But this temporary companionship in the body is now to be replaced by a permanent spiritual abiding, in the Person of the Paraclete.

26. This is the fifth (and last) time that the Paraclete is mentioned (see on 15:26 for the meaning of the word). Here ὁ παράκλητος is for the first time identified with τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, an august title familiar to every Jew (cf. Ps. 51:11, Isa. 63:10). The complete title does not occur again in Jn. (but cf. 20:22). We have it, however, in Mk. 3:29, 13:11, Mt. 12:32; cf. Lk. 12:10, 12.

ὃ πέμψει. For ὅ, א^cL have ὅν. The Old Syriac treats the Spirit as feminine, but the Peshitta does not follow this Semitic doctrine.

ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατήρ. This is the Lucan doctrine, that the Father sends the Spirit (Lk. 24:49, Acts 2:33), and we have had it already at v. 16; but at 15:26, 16:7 the Spirit is sent by the Son (see also 20:22). This is only an additional illustration of the Johannine doctrine that what the Father does, the Son does (see note on v. 13 above).

ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου. “In my stead” does not convey the meaning adequately. At 5:43 Jesus said that He had come “in the Name” of the Father, and at 10:25 that He wrought His works in the same Name; the meaning in both cases (see notes in loc.) being not only that He came as the Father’s representative, but as One to whom “the Name,” i.e. the providential power of the Father, had been given, and who was to reveal the Father’s character and purpose. So here it is said that the Spirit will be sent “in the Name” of Christ, to explain His mission and to reveal its consequences. As the Son was sent in the Name of the Father (5:43), so the Holy Spirit will be sent in future “in the Name” of the Son. This does not imply that the Holy Spirit was not operative before the Incarnation, but rather that after the Passion and Resurrection (see on 16:23; and cf. 7:39) He will come with the more effective quickening power of the new revelation of God in Christ.

ἐκεῖνος. It is He, the Spirit, whose twofold work is now described in relation primarily to the listening apostles, but probably what is said may apply in some measure to all Christian disciples of succeeding generations.

ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα. This has already been said at 16:13 ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. The two phrases are treated as identical at Ps. 25:5: ὁδήγησόν με ἐπὶ τὴν ἀλήθειάν σου, καὶ δίδαξόν με. Cf. also Ps. 25:9:

πάντα in this verse corresponds to εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν of 16:13, and stands in contrast to ταῦτα of v. 25, sc. the things that have already been taught by Jesus. For πάντα, cf. 1 Jn. 2:27 τὸ αὐτοῦ χρίσμα διδάσκει ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων. The reference is only (see again on 16:13) to religious doctrines (cf. 1 Cor. 2:10 πνεῦμα πάντα ἐρευνᾷ, καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ), but of these Divine truths the Spirit is to teach new things as time goes on.

καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν. B L add ἐγώ after ὑμῖν, and this would bring out the emphasis well; but it is omitted by most authorities. “And He will bring to your remembrance all that I said to you,” the aor. εἶπον indicating that the personal oral teaching of Jesus was ended. This is the second side of the work of the Spirit, who not only was to reveal what was new, but was to recall to the memory of the apostles the old truths that Jesus had taught. Cf. 2:22, 12:16, Acts 11:16, for illustrations of the fact that after His Resurrection the apostles entered more fully into the meaning of His words than they had done at the time they were spoken. Here, however, the promise is that their memory of them shall be stimulated. Bengel says pregnantly, “Exemplum praebet haec ipsa homilia.”

ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα. ὑπομιμνήσκειν does not occur again in Jn.; but cf. Lk. 22:61, where Peter “remembered” the words of Jesus. There is a literary parallel (but no more) in Jubilees xxxii. 25, where God says to Jacob after his vision, “I will bring all things to thy remembrance.”

27. εἰρήνη, i.e. שלום “peace,” the ordinary salutation and the ordinary word of farewell in the East. The words παρʼ ὑμῖν μένων in v. 25 are suggestive of His departure, and He is not forgetful of the parting word of peace. Except in salutations (20:19, 21, 26, 2 Jn. 3, 3 Jn. 14), εἰρήνη is used by Jn. only here and at 16:33; and in both cases it refers to the spiritual peace which Christ gives. Just as in the Priestly Blessing (Num. 6:26) the meaning of the familiar שלום is transfigured, “The Lord … give thee peace,” so here εἰρήνην τὴν ἐμὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν conveys more than the customary “Go in peace.” The peace which Jesus bequeaths (ἀφίημι ὑμῖν) is His to give as a permanent possession (cf. 16:33), and is given, not by way of hope or assurance of good will only, as the world (i.e. the ordinary run of mankind; see on 1:9) gives it in farewells, but in the plenitude of Divine power. εἰρήνην δίδωμι ὑμῖν is no less absolute a gift than that other ζωὴν αἰώνιον δίδωμι αὐτοῖς (10:28).

It is noteworthy that in the Apocalypse εἰρήνη is used only of earthly peace (6:4; cf. 1:4), while in Jn. it is used only of spiritual peace. Paul has it in both senses, but more frequently in the latter (cf. Col. 3:15, 2 Thess. 3:16).

μὴ ταρασσέσθω ὑμῶν ἡ καρδία. This is repeated from v. 1 (see note on 3:17), and now is added μηδὲ δειλιάτω. This is the only occurrence of the verb δειλιᾶν in the N.T.; although we find δειλός (Mk. 4:40, Mt. 8:26, Rev. 21:8) and δειλία (2 Tim. 1:7). μηδὲ δειλία is the parting counsel of Moses (Deut. 31:8): so also μηδὲ δειλάσῃς is the counsel of Joshua to his warriors (Josh. 10:25), as it was the word of Yahweh to him (Josh. 1:9, 8:1). μηδὲ δειλιάτω, “let not your heart be dismayed,” is, in like manner, the parting word of Christ. There is no place for cowards in the ranks of His army; and the seer of the Apocalypse ranks them with “the unbelieving … and murderers … and liars,” who, in his vision, have their portion in hell (Rev. 21:8).

28. Jesus has told them that they must not be cowards; now He tells them that they must not be selfish. His departure means for Him the resumption of the Divine glory.

ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπον ὑμῖν (sc. at vv. 2–4) Ὑπάγω (see for this verb on 7:33) καὶ ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς (vv. 3, 18). His departure is the condition of His return through the Spirit. This has all been said before. He now makes a new appeal to them, based on their love for Him.

εἰ ἠγαπᾶτέ με (see on 3:16 for ἀγαπᾶν used of the love of His disciples for Jesus; and cf. v. 15 above), “if ye loved me.” It is a tender, half-playful appeal. He does not really question their love for Him, but He reminds them of it.

ὅτι πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα (repeated from v. 12). His return to the Father is His elevation to His true glory. No precise distinction can be drawn between ὑπάγειν and πορεύεσθαι in such phrases (see on 16:7).

The rec. inserts εἶπον after ὅτι, but om. א A B D L Θ Fam. 13 add μου after πατέρα.

ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν. To this sentence theologians devoted close attention in the fourth century, but it would be out of place in a commentary on the Fourth Gospel to review the Arian controversy. It suffices to note that the filial relationship, upon which so much stress is laid in Jn., implies of itself that the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son. There is no question here of theological subtleties about what a later age called the “subordination” of the Son, or of any distinction between His οὐσία and that of the Father. But, for Jn., the Father sent the Son (see on 3:17), and gave Him all things (see on 3:35). Cf. Mk. 13:32, Phil. 2:6, 1 Cor. 15:27, for other phrases which suggest that ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν is a necessary condition of the Incarnation. It is the same Person that says “I and my Father are one thing” (10:30), who speaks of Himself as “a man who hath told you the truth which I have heard from God” (8:40).¹ See on 5:18, 32.

The rec. text has μου after πατήρ, with א*D²Γ Δ Θ; but om. א^caA B D*L.

29. καὶ νῦν, “And now,” sc. “to make an end” (cf. 17:5, 1 Jn. 2:28, for καὶ νῦν used thus; and see on 11:22), “I have told you before it come to pass, that when it is come to pass ye may believe.” See note on 13:19.

πιστεύειν may be used here absolutely (see 1:7); or the meaning may be governed by 13:19, where the words are ἵνα πιστεύσητε … ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, “that I (am) He.”

In vv. 26 ff., Jesus had told the disciples of His approaching departure, which as yet they had hardly brought themselves to believe, and of the coming of the Holy Spirit which would ensue. The experience of this heavenly illumination would convince them of His superhuman foreknowledge. Cf. 2:22.

30. οὐκέτι πολλὰ λαλήσω μεθʼ ὑμῶν. If cc. 15 and 16 follow c. 14, this is difficult to understand, for then sixty verses of exhortation must be supposed to have been added before the discourse came to an end. But, in our arrangement of the text, the discourse has come to its conclusion. See Introd., p. xx.

καὶ ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν “and has nothing in me,” i.e. has no point in my personality on which he can fasten. Twice in the last hours, Jesus said that He Himself was not “of this world” (cf. 17:11, 18:36); and thus “the prince of this world” had no power over Him. This was to claim in serene confidence that He was sinless (cf. Heb. 4:15). But, although thus superior to the forces of evil, He must go to meet them in the agony of conflict, for this was the predestined purpose of God.

31. ἀλλʼ ἵνα γνῷ ὁ κόσμος κτλ. We must supply something before ἵνα, “but I do these things that the world may recognise” my love for, and obedience to, the Father. For similar elliptical constructions with ἵνα, see 9:3, 13:18, 15:25, 1 Jn. 2:19. Otherwise we are obliged to take the whole clause as subordinate to “Arise, let us go hence,” which is very harsh. Whichever constr. is adopted, the meaning is the same. Jesus assures His apostles once more that what He does at this critical hour is done voluntarily and in obedience to the Divine purpose. Having made this declaration, He offers His Prayer (c. 17) before He leaves the house to face arrest and death.

ἵνα γνῷ ὁ κόσμος … cf. 17:23 for this ideal of the future; and cf. 1 Cor. 1:21 for the reality of the present.

ὅτι ἀγαπῶ τὸν πατέρα. This is the only place in the N.T. where the “love” of the Son for the Father is mentioned explicitly. The love of the Father for the Son is mentioned often in Jn. (see on 3:35, where ἀγαπᾶν is the verb employed, and 5:20, where we find φιλεῖν); but it is remarkable that Jn. never again speaks of Jesus as “loving” God. See on 3:16 for ἀγαπᾶν in Jn.

ἐνετείλατο. So א A D Γ Δ Θ; but B L have ἐντολὴν δέδωκεν, from the parallel saying at 12:49, where see the exegetical note. For the obedience of Christ to the commandment of the Father, see 4:34, 8:55, and cf. Phil. 2:8, Heb. 5:8. This obedience was perfect throughout His life on earth, but here the allusion is rather to the last act of self-surrender in going to meet the Passion. Here is the last word of Jesus to the Eleven: “As the Father commanded me, so I do.”

ἐγείρεσθε, ἄγωμεν. According to Mk. 14:42, Mt. 26:46, these were the words with which Jesus summoned the sleeping disciples at Gethsemane, just before His arrest. Jn. adds ἐντεῦθεν, and puts the words in a slightly different context; i.e. they mark the conclusion of the Discourse in the Upper Room, which was followed by a short pause for prayer, the solemn prayer of c. 17 being said standing, before Jesus and His disciples left the house for Gethsemane and the arrest (18:1).

For those who accept the traditional order of chapters, the sharp finality of ἐγείρεσθε, ἄγωμεν ἐντεῦθεν is not easy of explanation. The allegory of the Vine (c. 15) comes in strangely after such words,¹ which must mark a break in, or the termination of, the Last Discourse of Jesus. Several exegetes suppose that, after He had said “Arise, let us go hence,” Jesus and His eleven disciples left the house, the rest of the discourse being spoken as they were walking to Gethsemane. It is difficult to suppose that teaching so profound and so novel was given under such conditions, or that Jn. intends thus to represent the course of events. Westcott suggested that before the little party crossed the Kidron they halted for a time in the Temple precincts, where quiet opportunity could be found for the delivery of cc. 15, 16 and for the great prayer of c. 17. But there is no evidence for such an hypothesis. The simplicity of the exegesis which emerges from placing the text in the order that is here adopted is a strong argument in its favour.

ἄγωμεν, it may be noted, is used thrice in c. 11 of a going forth to meet death (see on 11:7).

17:1 ff. Of the Prayer of Jesus which is now recorded, it would be too much to suppose that we have the exact words, or even an exact translation of the Aramaic words which He used. We have not here a shorthand report, taken down at the time, but rather the substance of sacred intercessions preserved for half a century in the memory of a disciple. On the other hand, the occasion must have been felt by all who were present to be specially momentous, and the words used of extraordinary significance. They would be remembered when other things were forgotten, as the Last Prayer of Jesus, said in the hearing of His disciples, when the Last Discourse was ended, before He went to meet the Cross. The topics upon which He dwelt—His coming glorification, His committal of His chosen friends to the compassionate protection of the Father while they were in the world with its trials, His intercession for those other disciples who were to receive the Gospel through the ministry of the Eleven, His prayer that the mutual love of Christian for Christian might at last convince the hostile world of the truth of His claims—these things could never pass from the memory of one who heard Him speak of them at the last. Phrase after phrase is repeated, and more than once, as is characteristic of the style of Jn.; but Jn. is drawing all the while upon the tenacious memory of an old man recalling the greatest days of his life. This, at any rate, seems more probable than the hypothesis that the Prayer is a free composition of the evangelist himself. To take such a view would be to ascribe the deepest thoughts in the Fourth Gospel to the disciple rather than to the Master. As Harnack says, the confidence with which Jn. makes Jesus address the Father. “Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world” (v. 24), “is undoubtedly the direct reflection of the certainty with which Jesus Himself spoke.”¹

No other long prayer of Jesus is recorded. His habit of prayer at crises or great moments is often mentioned (Mk. 1:35, 6:46, Lk. 3:21, 5:16, 6:12, 9:18, 28, 11:1), but these prayers were usually (as it seems) offered in private, and were overheard by none. Something, however, of His methods of prayer may be gathered from the Synoptists. Two, at any rate, of His ejaculations from the Cross were verses of the Psalms (Ps. 22:1, 31:5), hallowed by long and venerable use. That they should come to His lips in the agony of death, shows that they were familiarly used by Him in life. Again, it was His habit to begin with the word “Father” (cf. Lk. 22:42, 23:34, 46, Mt. 11:25, and Jn. 11:41, 12:27), as this great Prayer begins (17:1). He prayed, at the end at least, for His own needs, when distressed in spirit (Lk. 22:43, Jn. 12:27), and the prayer of c. 17 begins with intercession for Himself. He prayed for His disciples (Lk. 22:32), and He is represented as doing so in 17:9–19. The solemn note of thanksgiving at the beginning of His Prayer of Consecration (17:1, 2) has a parallel at Jn. 11:41, and also in Mt. 11:25f., a passage which recalls the manner of Jn. 17:1–3 more than any other passage in the Gospels: “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes; yea, Father, for so it was well pleasing in Thy sight. All things have been delivered unto me of my Father, etc.”

It has been pointed out¹ that several of the thoughts underlying the Lord’s Prayer, which Jesus prescribed for the use of His disciples, appear also in the great Prayer of Intercession in c. 17. With the opening address, “Our Father,” cf. 17:1, 5, 11, 21, 24, 25 where “Father” is used in the special and personal sense in which Jesus was accustomed to use it. “Hallowed be Thy Name” is recalled, vv. 6, 11, 12, 26. Perhaps “Thy kingdom come” is the form in which we may express something of what Christ expressed when He said “Glorify Thy Son” (vv. 1, 5). “As in heaven, so in earth,” has echoes in vv. 4, 5 With “lead us not into temptation” cf. “I kept them … I guarded them” (v. 12). And “deliver us from evil” is almost verbally reproduced (v. 15).

None of these coincidences or parallels is likely to have been invented by one setting himself to compose a prayer for the lips of Christ on the eve of His Passion; but, when taken together, they show that the spirit which breathes throughout c. 17 is similar to that with which we have been made familiar when reading Jesus’ words as recorded by the Synoptists and elsewhere in Jn.

The prayer of c. 17 falls naturally into three divisions. First, Jesus prays for Himself (vv. 1–8); then, for the eleven apostles, His intimate friends (vv. 9–19); and lastly, for the disciples of future generations, who were to be evangelised through the ministry begun by the apostles (vv. 20–26). That is, the prayer begins with what is immediate, intimate, and urgent, and only gradually passes into intercession for that which is distant and of universal import.

17:1. ταῦτα ἐλάλησεν Ἰησοῦς, “these things said Jesus,” viz. the discourse ending 14:31. The rec. has ὁ before Ἰης. but א B Θ om. See on 1:29.

καὶ ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς κτλ. See on 11:41. The rec. text has ἐπῆρε … καὶ εἶπε with A C³N Γ Δ; but ἐπάρας … εἶπεν is found in א B C*D L W Θ.

πάτερ. For this beginning of the prayers of Jesus, see on 11:41; πάτερ is repeated, vv. 5, 11, 21, 24, 25.

ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα, sc. the hour of His “glorification,” as He had already told them (13:31, 32 and 12:23), had come. The same prescience is ascribed to Him at Gethsemane in Mk. 14:41. The idea that the whole course of His Ministry and Passion was predetermined runs through the Gospel, e.g. 7:30, 8:20, 13:1; see on 2:4.

δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν. Here is the only personal intercession throughout this Prayer of Consecration. He cared nothing for the “glory” which men can bestow (cf. 8:50, ἐγὼ οὐ ζητῶ τὴν δόξαν μου), but He prays that the Father may “glorify” Him in His impending Passion (cf. 12:16, 23, 13:31, 32, and see on 7:39 for this use of δοξαζω). This goes deeper than a prayer for support in the hour of death. A martyr might pray for such signal measures of grace to be bestowed in the day of trial, that all who perceived his courage and faith might recognise that he was honoured of God. The “glorification” of Jesus included this. The centurion, standing by the Cross, was constrained to say, as he watched the bearing of the Crucified, “Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mk. 15:39, Mt. 27:54; cf. Lk. 23:47). But there was more than this. The “glorification” of Jesus in the Passion was the Divine acceptance of His Sacrifice by the Father, the sealing of His Mission as complete. Cf. Phil. 2:9, “Wherefore God highly exalted Him (ὑπερύψωσεν) and gave Him the Name that is above every name.”

ἵνα ὁ υἱὸς δοξάσῃ σέ. The redemption of mankind through the Crucified is a glorification of the Father. The final cause of the Passion, viewed sub specie æternitatis, is “ad majorem dei gloriam,” as was every incident in the ministry of Jesus. See on 11:4 and cf. 1 Pet. 4:11.

2. The constr. ἵνα … καθὼς … ἵνα, which we have here, appears also 13:34, 17:21, in each case the clause introduced by καθώς being parenthetical, and the second ἵνα being reiterative, the clause following it being identical in meaning with that introduced by the first ἵνα. Consequently ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ κτλ. in this verse is only another way of saying ἵνα ὁ υἱὸς δοξάσῃ σέ of v. 1.

καθὼς ἔδωκας αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν κτλ. To the Son, the Father gave authority to determine the final destinies of mankind (see on 5:27). His ἐξουσία is over “all flesh” (although not fully acknowledged by the world), πᾶσα σάρξ being the rendering of the phrase בָּל־בָּשָׂד, very common in the O.T., representing all humanity in its weakness (see Hort on 1 Pet. 1:24), but infrequent in the N.T. except in quotations (cf. Mt. 24:22, Rom. 3:20, 1 Cor. 1:29, Gal. 2:16).

ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ κτλ. The meaning is “that He may give eternal life to all whom thou hast given to Him” (see on 6:37), the latter clause limiting the πᾶσα σάρξ which has preceded. This consummation of His redemptive work is the “glorification” of the Father by the Son.

πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ. The constr. with a nom.-pendens is like πᾶν ὃ δέδωκέν μοι of 6:39, where see the note on the collective use of the neuter singular, which perhaps is here a forecast of ἵνα … ἓν ὦσιν of v. 21. πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῲ is the Universal Church (cf. v. 24).

ἵνα … δώσῃ αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Cf. 10:28, 1 Jn. 2:25, Rom. 6:23, and see on 6:39, 40; and for the conception of ζωὴ αἰωνίος, see on 4:14.

αὐτοῖς refers to all who are included in πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ, with disregard of formal grammar. As Blass notes (Gram. p. 166), this is a usage with classical precedent.

3. This verse seems to be an explanatory comment on the phrase “eternal life,” which the evangelist says that Jesus used in His prayer. Jn. often supplies such comments (see Introd., p. cxvi), and this is quite in his manner. To suppose that he means to represent Jesus as introducing a definition of “eternal life” into His prayer, and as calling Himself “Jesus Christ” when speaking to His Father, is not a probable hypothesis. Further, the sequence of thought from v. 2 to v. 4 is direct, and the interposition of a parenthesis in a prayer is unlikely.

αὕτη δέ ἐστιν … ἵνα … For this Johannine construction, cf. 1 Jn. 3:11, 5:3 (also 15:12).

א B C Θ have γινώσκωσιν, but A D L N WΔ read γινώσκουσιν.

For the possibility of “knowing” the Father, see on 14:7: the present tense (γινώσκωσιν) marking that continual growth in the knowledge of God which is a characteristic of spiritual life, as physical growth is a characteristic of bodily life. The prophet’s ideal was, “We will follow on to know the Lord,” διώξομεν τοῦ γνῶναι τὸν κύριον (Hos. 6:3). Cf. Jer. 9:24.

τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν. For μόνος as applied to God, see on 5:44 above. He is described as ἀληθινός, Ex. 34:6, Num. 14:18, 1 Esd. 8:39, Ps. 86:15, 1 Thess. 1:9, Rev. 6:10; and cf. especially 1 Jn. 5:20, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. For ἀληθινός, see on 1:9. The adjectives μόνος and ἀληθινός express the central truth of Monotheism.

Wetstein quotes a verbal parallel from Athenæus (vi. p. 523c): describing the flattery of the Athenians in their reception of Demetrius, he says, ἐπᾴδοντες, ὡς εἴη μόνος θεις ἀληινός. This shows how natural is the combination of μόνις and ἀληθινός. Cf. Philo, Leg. All. ii. 17, μὰ τὸν ἀληθῆ μόνον θεόν.

That to know God is, itself, eternal life, is a doctrine which has its roots in Jewish sapiential literature. Wisdom “is a tree of life to them that lay hold on her” (Prov. 3:18). Again, περίσσεια γνώσεως τῆς σοφίας ζωοποιήσει τὸν παρʼ αὐτῆς (Eccles. 7:12). An even nearer parallel to Jn.’s definition of eternal life is: εἰδέναι σου τὸ κράτος ῥίζα ἀθανασίας (Wisd. 15:3).

Alford appositely cites the words of Irenæus: ἡ δὲ ὕπαρξις τῆς ζωῆς ἐκ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ παραγίνεται μετοχῆς· μετοχὴ δὲ θεοῦ ἐστὶ τὸ γινώσκειν θεόν, καὶ ἀπολαύειν τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ (Hær. iv. 20. 5). A little lower down (§ 5, where the Greek is deficient) Irenæus combines with wonderful insight the two thoughts that the giving of eternal life by the Son is a glorification of the Father (v. 2), and that eternal life is the knowledge of God (v. 3), although he does not cite the present passage. “Gloria enim dei uiuens homo; uita autem hominis uisio dei.” It would not be easy to express these profound thoughts more succinctly.

The writer of the last paragraphs of the Epistle to Diognetus (whom Lightfoot identifies with Pantænus¹), commenting on the presence in Paradise of both the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life, says: οὐδὲ γὰρ ζωὴ ἄνευ γνώσεως, οὐδὲ γνῶσις ἀσφαλὴς ἄνευ ζωῆς ἀληθοῦς (§ 12. 4).

καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰη. χρ. To “know” Jesus Christ is eternal life; cf. 6:68. Jn. treats this knowledge as on a par with the knowledge of “the only true God.” So the apostles were bidden to “believe” not only in God, but in Christ (14:1).

For the thought of Jesus as “sent” by God (cf. vv. 8, 18, 21, 23, 25), see on 3:17 above.

The only other place in the Fourth Gospel where the historical name “Jesus Christ” occurs is 1:17 (see note, in loc.)

4. ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. This is in direct sequence with v. 2 (v. 3 being parenthetical). He had spoken of the “glorification” of the Father by Him, which was to be consummated in the gift of eternal life through His ministry to those whom the Father had given Him. This “glorification” had been His aim throughout His earthly sojourn. “I glorified Thee on earth” (the aorist ἐδόξασα being the aorist of historical retrospect) by making known as never before the nature of God.

τὸ ἔργον τελειώσας ὃ δέδωκάς μοι ἵνα ποιήσω. This had been His purpose throughout (see on 4:34), from the day when He asked οὐκ ᾔδειτε ὅτι ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου δεῖ εἶναί με; (Lk. 2:49). His “works” had been “given” Him by the Father to accomplish (3:35, 5:36). They had now been accomplished, and presently He would say τετέλεσται (19:30).

For τελειώσας (א A B C L N W) the rec. (with Θ) has ἐτελείωσα, and for δέδωκας (א A B L N Θ) C D W have ἔδωκας. The variants δέδωκα, ἔδωκα frequently occur (cf. vv. 6, 8, 24, etc.) in similar contexts throughout the Gospel. Abbott (Diat. 2454) holds that “the aorist usually describes gifts regarded as given by the Father to the Son on His coming into the world to proclaim the Gospel; the perfect describes gifts regarded as having been given to the Son and as now belonging to Him.” But we cannot always press this distinction.

5. καὶ νῦν, “and now,” that this earthly ministry is ended (cf. 14:29 for καὶ νῦν).

δόξασόν με. There is emphasis on νῦν. The glorification prayed for here transcends the glorification in the Passion prayed for in v. 1. Here the thought is of a heavenly glorification already predicted, 13:32, ὁ θεὸς δοξάσει αὐτὸν ἐν αὐτῷ. For Jesus asks now, with lofty assurance (σύ, πάτερ), that the eternal glory which was His before the Incarnation (cf. 1:1) may be resumed in fellowship with the Father (παρὰ σεαυτῷ … παρὰ σοί). Cf. Prov. 8:30, Jn. 6:62, and Rev. 3:21. The glory of the Eternal Word is distinguishable from the glory of the Incarnate Word (see on 1:14); the spheres of life are different, ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (v. 4) implying the Incarnate Life, but παρὰ σεαυτῷ implying life in the bosom of the Godhead.

As He had said, “Before Abraham was, I am” (8:58), so here He expresses His sure conviction that He was in eternal relation with God. τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον … παρὰ σοί indicates a real, and not only an ideal, pre-existence.

πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι. See 1:1, v. 24, and cf. Prov. 8:23. For κόσμος, see on 1:9.

6. ἐφανέρωσά σου τὸ ὄνομα. This means the same thing as ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς of v. 4, and as ἐγνώρισα τὸ ὄνομά σου of v. 26, although different phrases are used to bring out the full meaning. For the “Name” of God as indicating His true nature, see on 12:28 and especially on v. 11 below.

One of the Messianic Psalms has the aspiration, διηγήσομαι τὸ ὄνομά σου τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου (Ps. 22:22), and in the apostolic age the words were interpreted of Christ (Heb. 2:12). As He looks back on His ministry, He can say that this has been accomplished: ἐφανέρωσά σου τὸ ὄνομα. Although the disciples had not appreciated all of His teaching, they had learnt, through Him, something more of the nature of God than any Jew had learnt before.

τοῖς ἀνθρώποις οὓς ἔδωκάς μοι ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. See on 6:37 for the thought of disciples being “given” to the Son by the Father, which recurs throughout the Priestly Prayer of Jesus (vv. 2, 9, 12, 24).

σοὶ ἦσαν, “they were thine,” and σοί εἰσιν, “they are thine” (v. 9). This means more than that they were “Israelites indeed” (1:47); it is rather that they were among the men ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ of whom He spoke before (8:47).

καὶ τὸν λόγον σου τετήρηκαν. This was some of the fruit of His ministry; the chosen disciples (except Judas) had “kept” the Divine word revealed to them through Jesus. Cf. 8:51, 14:23 for the phrase τὸν λόγον τηρεῖν, and see on 5:38.

ἔδωκας (א A B D W Θ) is the true reading in this verse, in both places where it occurs, as against the rec. δέδωκας. The reference is to the definite “gift” of the faithful disciples chosen ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. See on v. 4 above.

There is a passage in the Odes of Solomon (xxxi. 4, 5) which recalls the thought of this verse: “He offered to Him the sons that were in His hands. And His face was justified, for thus His holy Father had given to Him.” Cf. also v. 11.

7. νῦν ἔγνωκαν κτλ. The disciples had said (16:30) νῦν οἴδαμεν ὄτι οἶδας πάντα κτλ., but their confidence was not so deep-rooted as they had supposed. Yet they had come to recognise (ἔγνωκαν expressing the gradual growth of their spiritual insight) that His words were divine (v. 8), or (as it is expressed in this verse) that “all things which Thou hast given me are from Thee” (see on 3:35).

Godet calls attention to the apparent scantiness of the spiritual harvest for which Jesus gives thanks in these verses. “Eleven Galilæan peasants after three years’ labour! But it is enough for Jesus, for in these eleven He beholds the pledge of the continuance of God’s work upon earth.”

For ἔγνωκαν, there is a Western variant, ἔγνων (א latt. syrr.), the mistaken correction of a scribe who returns to the first person of v. 6.

8. ὅτι τὰ ῥήματα κτλ., “that the words which Thou gavest me I have given unto them.” For ῥήματα, see on 3:34: cf. 5:47, 6:63, 68.

These “words” of Jesus were “given” Him by the Father, as has been said before. See on 12:49, and cf. 15:15, 17:14.

καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔλαβον. The chosen disciples had received and appropriated His words, which “abode” in them (cf. 15:7). Here was the token that the disciples were, indeed, ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (cf. 8:47).

The rec. has δέδωκας (so א L N Γ Δ Θ) for ἔδωκας (A B C D W), but the sense requires the aorist here (see on v. 4). The ῥήματα of Jesus were “given” to Him by the Father, when He entered on His mission (see on 3:35).

καὶ ἔγνωσαν … καὶ ἐπίστευσαν. Here, again, we have the aorist tense. The disciples recognised, “knew of a truth,” i.e. inferred from what they saw and heard, that Jesus had come from God (cf. 3:2); and, further, they believed (for this was not a matter of merely intellectual inference) that God had sent Him. But perhaps we must not lay stress on the distinction between ἔγνωσαν and ἐπίστευσαν here; for at 16:27 Jesus has already said to the Eleven, πεπιστεύκατε ὅτι ἐγὼ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξῆλθον. And at 8:42 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ ἐλήλυθα, ἀλλʼ ἐκεῖνός με ἀπέστειλεν is a single sentence, the “sending” by the Father being the only possible alternative to Jesus having come “of Himself.” Cf. 11:42 ἵνα πιστεύσωσιν ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας, and for the “sending” of the Son by the Father, see on 3:17. For the combination of πεπιστεύκαμεν and ἐγνώκαμεν, see on 6:69.

σύ με ἀπέστειλας is found five times in this Prayer of Christ (cf. vv. 18, 21, 23, 25), the phrase being repeated like a kind of solemn refrain (see on 15:21)

The Prayer of Jesus for the Eleven—(1) that They May Be Divinely Guarded (vv. 9–16) and (2) that They May Be Consecrated Men (vv. 17–19)

9. ἐγὼ περὶ αὐτῶν ἐρωτῶ. From v. 9 to v. 19, we have the prayer of Jesus for His chosen disciples, that the Father may guard them from evil, and that He may sanctify them in the truth. He had prayed for Peter that his faith should not fail (Lk. 22:32), but this prayer does not contemplate any failure of faith among the Eleven, in the days to come when their Master had returned to His glory. For ἐρωτᾶν, which is the verb generally used by Jesus of His own prayers, see on 11:22, 16:23, and cf. 16:26, 14:16.

οὐ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου ἐρωτῶ, i.e. “I am not praying for the world now”; the prayers which follow were for those who loved Him, not for those who rejected Him. But this is not to be interpreted as indicating that Jesus never prayed for His enemies (cf. Lk. 23:34 and His own precept Mt. 5:44). The κόσμος (see on 1:9) was hostile to Him, but God loved it (3:16); and even this Prayer of c. 17, which was primarily a prayer for Himself and His own disciples, present and future, does not exclude the thought of the world’s acceptance of Him at last (v. 21).

The language of 1 Jn. 5:16, “there is a sin unto death: I do not say that he should pray (ἐρωτήσῃ) for that,” is verbally similar, but the thought there is different, viz. of the propriety or duty of praying for a fellow-Christian whose sin is πρὸς θάνατον.

ἀλλὰ περὶ ὧν δέδωκάς μοι, ὅτι σοί εἰσιν, sc. because they are God’s. See on v. 6, from which verse this clause is repeated.

Only in this chap. (cf. vv. 15, 20) is ἐρωτᾶν used by Jn. absolutely or intransitively, being generally followed by the account of the person who is asked either to give something or to reply. See on [8]:7.

10. καὶ τὰ ἐμὰ πάντα σά ἐστιν. So He had said before; see on 16:15.

καὶ τὰ σὰ ἐμά. This goes further than the preceding clause. Meyer cites Luther’s comment: “This no creature can say in reference to God.”

καὶ δεδόξασμαι ἐν αὐτοῖς. The apostles were Jesus’ own men, not only because the Father “gave” them to Him, when they were chosen, not only because all that belonged to the Father belonged to Him, but for the additional reason that He had been “glorified” in them. He was “glorified” in the physical miracle of the Raising of Lazarus (11:4), much more in the spiritual miracle of the faith of the Eleven. They exhibited and continued to exhibit (note the perfect tense δεδόξασμαι) the power of the message which He brought. So Paul said of his Thessalonian converts ὑμεῖς γάρ ἐστε ἡ δόξα ἡμῶν (1 Thess. 2:20). Cf. 2 Thess. 1:10 of the future “glorification” of Christ in His saints.

Through misunderstanding of the meaning, for δεδόξασμαι D has ἐδόξασάς με (cf. v. 1).

11. The occasion and ground of the prayer are now more distinctly stated. He is going away from the disciples whom He had trained and guarded; henceforth the relations between Him and them will be different from those of the days of His ministry in the flesh. He had told them about this, but they had hardly understood it (13:33, 36; cf. 16:10, 16). They will need a special measure of the Father’s care. Swinburne has finely paraphrased some of the thoughts behind vv. 11, 12:

οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. Cf. v. 14. His visible ministry in the world of men is over. Meyer cites Calvin’s comment: “nunc quasi provincia sua defunctus.”

αὐτοὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἰσίν: the disciples are still in the world and have their service and ministry to fulfil.

κἀγὼ πρὸς σὲ ἔρχομαι, repeated v. 13; cf. 13:3, 14:12.

After ἔρχομαι D adds οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ καὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἰμί, a Western gloss, which has some support from a c e, and which evidently was added because the scribe stumbled at the words, “I am no longer in the world.”

πάτερ ἅγιε. The holiness of God is fundamental in the Hebrew religion. This is a characteristically Jewish mode of address in prayer; cf. 2 Macc. 14:36, ἅγιε παντὸς ἁγιασμοῦ Κύριε, and 3 Macc. 2:2, ἅγιε ἐν ἁγίοις, μόναρχε, παντοκράτωρ. The conception goes back to Lev. 11:44 (quoted 1 Pet. 1:16); cf. Isa. 6:3, Ps. 71:22, and esp. Lk. 1:49, ἅγιον τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ (Ps. 111:9). See also 6:69, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ, as used of Christ, and 20:22, λάβετε πνεῦμα ἅγιον, of the Spirit. We find πάτερ δίκαιε in v. 25, but πάτερ ἅγιε does not appear again in the N.T. A remarkable parallel, which may be a reminiscence of the language of this verse, occurs in the Post-Communion Thanks-giving in the Didache (§ 10), εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἅγιε, ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἁγίου ὀνόματός σου, οὗ κατεσκήνωσας ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν, καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς γνώσεως καὶ πίστεως καὶ ἀθανασίας, ἧς ἐγνώρισας (cf. v. 26) ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου.

τήρησον αὐτούς, “keep them,” as now specially needing care. For τηρεῖν, of keeping persons safe, cf. vv. 12, 15, Acts 16:23, 24:23, 25:4, 21, and esp. Jude 1, “kept for Jesus Christ,” Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις. For τηρεῖν, of keeping or observing commandments, see on 8:51.

ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου, “in Thy Name,” i.e. under Thy Fatherly protection. The Name of God expresses (see on 5:43) the revelation of His Being, especially as exhibited in His help in time of need. Cf. Ps. 44:6, ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ἐξουθενώσομεν τοὺς ἐπανιστανομένους ἡμῖν, Ps. 54:1, ὁ θεός, ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου σῶσόν με, and Ps. 124:8, ἡ βοήθεια ἡμῶν ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου. In such contexts the “Name” of God is equivalent to what a modern writer would call His “Providence”; and this, in the N.T. and especially in Jn., is associated with the doctrine of God as Father.

ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι. The reading here and in v. 12 presents difficulty, and the variants are important.

(1) The rec. text has οὓς δέδωκάς μοι, but this is poorly attested (D², 69 f g q vg. cop.), and οὕς may have come from 18:9, or from v. 6. It gives an excellent sense; that His disciples were “given” to Jesus by the Father is said five times elsewhere in this chapter (vv. 2, 6, 9, 12, 24; see on 6:37 for other references).

(2) ὃ δέδωκάς μοι is read by D² ful. This might have the same meaning as οὕς, and ὃ δέδωκας is the right reading at vv. 2, 24. For this collective use of the neuter sing., see on 6:37. Field, whose opinion is always weighty, prefers ὅ.

(3) But the harder reading, ᾧ, has such strong attestation that it must be accepted. It is supported by the great bulk of MSS and vss., including א A B C L W Θ. ᾧ must refer to ὀνόματι, so that “in Thy Name, which Thou hast given me” is the only possible rendering. This is accepted by most modern editors, including Westcott and Abbott (Diat. 2408 f). Burney (Aramaic Origin, etc., p. 103), while recognising that ᾧ is the reading best attested, holds that οὕς must have been intended by the evangelist, and he traces the variants to the ambiguity of the relative particle דְּ, which might stand for either οὕς, ὅ, or ᾧ. But this does not explain the superior attestation of ᾧ, even if an Aramaic origin for the Fourth Gospel were accepted.

We have seen (on 3:35) that it is a favourite thought with Jn. that the Father gave all things to the Incarnate Son; but it is only here and at v. 12 that the idea is expressed that the Father has given His “Name” to Christ, and that it is in this “Name” that Jesus guarded His disciples. This does not mean only that the Son was “sent” by the Father (see on 3:17), and that therefore His ministry was accomplished “in the Name of the Father” (see on 5:43, 10:25) as His delegate and representative; but that in Christ God was revealed in His providential love and care, His “Name,” that is, His essential nature as Father, being exhibited in the Incarnate Son. Thus that “the Name” of the Father was “given” to Christ is yet another way of expressing the essential unity of the Father and the Son (see on 10:30). This transcends any such idea as that of Num. 6:27, where the “Name” of Yahweh is “put” upon Israel by the priestly blessing; or of Ex. 23:21, where it is said of the guardian angel of the people, “My Name is in him”; or of Jer. 23:6, where the “Name” of the Messianic King is “Yahweh our Righteousness.” The nearest parallel is Phil. 2:9, ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα (cf. Rev. 19:12); but in no N.T. passage except Jn. 17:11, 12 is found the conception of the Father giving His “Name,” in the sense of His revealed character as Fatherly Providence, to Christ. See on v. 22 for the δόξα which the Father had given to the Son.

This interpretation (demanded by the reading, ᾧ δέδωκας), viz. that the Father gave His “Name” to the Son, is in consonance with the thanksgiving quoted above from the Didache, according to which the Father causes His “Name” to tabernacle in the hearts of believers, i.e. His Fatherly protection rests upon them.

ἔδωκας is read by א L N W, but the true reading is δέδωκας (see on v. 4), the perfect indicating not merely one act of giving at a definite moment in time, but a continuous “giving” of the Father to the Son, throughout His earthly ministry.

ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς, sc. that the apostles might be united in will and purpose and spiritual fellowship even as the Father and the Son are united (see on 10:30). They had been given a “new” commandment, enjoining all disciples to love one another (see on 13:34), and the Fatherly protection of God is now invoked for them, that they may be kept of one mind in their sacred fellowship. At v. 21 the thought is no longer of the apostles only, but of all future generations of Christian disciples, for whom again the prayer is ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν.

The petition ἵνα ὦσιν ἕν, as applied to the apostles, was fulfilled in their case, for otherwise the earliest apostolic preaching could not have achieved its wonderful success; but it was not fulfilled in such fashion that no differences of opinion as to method were observed among the apostolic body, or that they were always right, as compared, e.g., with Paul (cf. Acts 11:2, Gal. 2:11, etc.) See further on v. 21.

It is probably due to its difficulty that the whole clause, ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς, is omitted in the O.L. texts a b c e ff² and by the Coptic Q.

12. After ὅτε ἤμην μετʼ αὐτῶν, the rec. with A C³N Γ Δ Θ inserts the explanatory gloss ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, but om. א B C*D L W.

ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὐτούς κτλ., “I (ἐγώ being emphatic) used to keep them,” ἐτήρουν marking the continual training of disciples that was so great a feature of the ministry of Jesus.

ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, repeated from v. 11 (where see note) in the Johannine manner. It is “in the Name,” that is, in the sure protection of the Father’s providence and love, that Jesus guarded (and guards) His disciples.

καὶ ἐφύλαξα κτλ., “and I guarded them (sc. while I was with them in the flesh), and none perished.” For φυλάττειν, cf. 2 Thess. 3:3, Jude²⁴; and see Wisd. 10:5, where τηρεῖν and φυλάττειν are both used of the Divine guardianship of Abraham.

The rec. text, as in v. 11, has οὕς for ᾧ, and omits καί before ἐφύλαξα, making the latter govern οὕς directly; א B C*L W ins. καί.

καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν (cf. for constr. 7:19) ἀπώλετο κτλ., “and not one of them perished, except the son of perdition.” The falling away of Judas has already been described (13:27); ἀπολλύναι is used of the final “perishing,” as at 3:16 (where see note) 10:28. Jesus is represented as speaking of the fate of Judas as if it were already in the past (see 6:64, 70). Cf. 6:39, 10:28, where his exceptional case is not in view; and see note on 18:9, where is quoted this saying of Jesus that He lost none of those whom the Father had “given” to Him. It has often been discussed by theologians whether Judas had really been predestined to destruction, or whether his fall from faithfulness was of his free choice. Such questions are foreign to the philosophy of the first century. For Jn., all that happened to Judas was, indeed, predestined, but that this involves any difficulty as to his guilt does not suggest itself to the evangelist.

εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας. The play on words ἀπώλετο … ἀπωλείας can hardly be reproduced in English. The constr. υἱός τινος (see on 12:36) is not exclusively Hebraic, but it is frequent in Eastern literature. Antichrist is called ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας (2 Thess. 2:3), the same expression being applied to those who perished in the Flood (Jubilees, x. 3), and to Satan (Evang. Nicodemi, xx.). It signifies one whose end will be perdition, not necessarily that this is inevitable but that it will be so because of his own acts. He is one of whom it may be said, “good were it for him if he had not been born” (Mk. 14:21). Cf. υἱὸς γεένης (Mt. 23:15), υἱὸς θανάτου (2 Sam. 12:5), and τέκνα ἀπωλείας (Isa. 57:4). Judas was “the son of loss,” although Jesus came to save the lost. For him Jesus did not pray (cf. 1 Jn. 5:16).

ἀπώλεια is generally used in the N.T. for the final “loss” of a man (it does not occur again in Jn.); but at Mk. 14:4 it is the word for the “waste” of the ointment, of which (as Jn. tells, 12:4) it was Judas that complained. It has been suggested that possibly this incident was in mind when Judas was called ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, “the son of loss,” the man who really wasted what was precious.¹ But the ordinary interpretation is simpler and more probable.

ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ. It is not quite certain whether this is a comment of Jn. on the words of Jesus which he has just narrated, or whether he means to place it in the mouth of Jesus Himself.² It is to be observed that in 18:9, where the words, “of those whom Thou hast given me, I lost not one,” are cited from the present passage, there is no appeal to the O.T., but Jn. applies ἵνα πληρωθῇ ὁ λόγος κτλ. to the saying of Jesus as carrying with it the certainty of its fulfilment. Probably here ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πλ. is a reflective gloss or comment added by the evangelist or an early editor.

ἡ γραφή always refers in Jn. to a definite passage of the O.T. (see on 2:22), and the Scripture here indicated was probably Ps. 41:9, which was cited before (13:18) as foreshadowing the treachery of Judas. Pss. 69:25 and 109:8 are cited in Acts 1:20 in reference to his miserable and execrated end, and his replacement by Matthias, but Ps. 41:9 is more in place here.

13. νῦν δὲ πρὸς σὲ ἔρχομαι, repeated from v. 11; cf. 14:12.

καὶ ταῦτα λαλῶ, “And I say these things,” viz. “I say them aloud,” for λαλῶ implies this.

ἵνα ἔχωσιν κτλ. The prayer was spoken aloud, so that the apostles might overhear His intercessions for them, and hearing might rejoice. See on 11:42, where Jesus is represented, in the rec. text, as having said explicitly that some words of His thanksgiving were uttered διὰ τὸν ὄχλον.

τὴν χαρὰν τὴν ἐμὴν πεπληρωμένην ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. This is a phrase several times repeated in Jn.; see on 15:11, 16:24. To hear Jesus rejoice when speaking in prayer of the faithfulness of His chosen friends would awaken in them feelings of joy, which would be His joy “fulfilled in them.”

For ἑαυτοῖς (א A B N W), the rec. has αὐτοῖς (probably from the next line).

14. ἐγὼ δέδωκα αὐτοῖς τὸν λόγον σου, repeated from v. 8, τὸν λόγον being substituted for τὰ ῥήματα (see on 5:38), the perfect δέδωκα in both cases implying that Jesus had continued to give to the disciples the revelation of the Father, and was still giving it.

καὶ ὁ κόσμος ἐμίσησεν αὐτούς. This was the badge of a disciple (15:18, 19, where the verb is in the present tense, μισεῖ, which D substitutes here for the harder ἐμίσησεν). We should expect the perf. μεμίσηκεν as in 15:24, if not μισεῖ; this is one of the cases in which Jn. uses the aorist as if it were a perfect (cf. 12:28, 13:34, 15:15; and see Abbott, Diat. 2441).

ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. A fine and eloquent exposition of the thought that Christian disciples generally, and not the apostles only, are in the world but not of the world is given in the second-century Ep. to Diognetus (vi. 3), with a probable allusion to vv. 11, 14. See on 3:16.

καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. So He had said at 8:23, where see note.

15. οὐκ ἐρωτῶ ἵνα ἄρῃς αὐτούς κτλ. The question as to how far Christians were to separate themselves from the company of non-Christians, from the Jewish and heathen world, was urgent and difficult in the apostolic age. In 1 Cor. 5:10, Paul explains, in terms similar to those of this passage, that for a complete dissociation from heathen of evil lives, a Christian disciple would have to “go out of the world.” On the other hand, he is equally explicit in his statement (Gal. 1:4) that the purpose of the sacrifice of Christ was that He might deliver us from the present evil age (αἰῶνος). These two principles are tersely enunciated in the present verse. The apostles would have to live in the world, for that was to be the theatre of their evangelical ministry; but they would need the special grace of God to keep them from its evil influences.

ἀλλʼ ἵνα τηρήσῃς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ. This is the first petition of Jesus for the Eleven, viz. for their protection and deliverance. τηρεῖν ἐκ is found again in N.T. only at Rev. 3:10, a passage very similar to the present: ὅτι ἐτήρησας τὸν λόγον (cf. v. 6, τὸν λόγον σου τετήρηκαν) … κἀγώ σε τηρήσω ἐκ τῆς ὥρας τοῦ πειρασμοῦ (cf. v. 11, τήρησον αὐτούς). A nearer parallel is in 1 Jn. 5:18, where it is said of a child of God, that Christ τηρεῖ αὐτόν, καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς οὐκ ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ.

ὁ πονηρός appears again 1 Jn. 2:14, 5:19 (ὁ κόσμος ὅλος ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται). The agency of the personal devil, Satan, is not doubted by Jn.; cf. 13:27, and the references to ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου (12:31, 14:30, 16:11).

In the words ἵνα τηρήσῃς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ, we probably have an echo of the clause in the Lord’s Prayer, ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ (Mt. 6:13; see above on v. 1).¹ Some commentators have endeavoured to distinguish the meaning of ἀπὸ from that of ἐκ in constructions like this (see on 1:44), but this is over subtle. Cf. the parallelism in Ps. 140:1:

16. This verse is repeated from v. 14, οὐκ εἰμί here preceding ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, according to א A B^cD L W.

17. Here is the second petition for the Eleven (cf. v. 15), viz. for their consecration. ἁγιάζειν (see on 10:36) connotes not so much the selection of a man for an important work as the equipping and fitting him for its due discharge. It is applied to the divine separation of Jeremiah for the work of a prophet (Jer. 1:5); and also to Aaron and his sons for their priestly office, Ex. 28:41, where the Divine command to Moses is ἀγιάσεις αὐτούς, ἵνα ἱερατεύωσίν μοι. (See Additional Note on 18:15.)

ἁγιάζειν is not equivalent to καθαρίζειν; one who is not ἡγιασμένος is not necessarily impure. Of the apostles it had already been said ἤδη ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε, and the effective instrument of their purification was the λόγος which Jesus had spoken to them (15:3), as the Divine λόγος is said here also to be the medium of their consecration. But the two ideas of ἁγιασμός and καθαρισμός are not identical. Just because the Eleven were already, in a sense, pure, being not “of the world” even as their Master was not “of the world” (v. 16), is their consecration for their future task a fitting boon to be asked in prayer of God who is Himself ἅγιος (v. 11). Cf. Paul’s prayer for his Thessalonian converts that God would consecrate them wholly (ἁγιάσαι ὑμᾶς ὁλοτελεῖς, 1 Thess. 5:23).

ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ. Truth would be the medium of their consecration, as (although this is not expressed in the present passage) the “Spirit of Truth” would be the Agent (cf. 16:13). See also 8:32. So Paul said of his Thessalonian converts that God had chosen them εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἀληθείας (2 Thess. 2:13). Westcott makes the pregnant comment that “the end of the Truth is not wisdom … but holiness.”

After άληθείᾳ the rec. text adds σου, but om. א*A B C*D L WΘ. What is meant by ἀληθείᾳ is explained in the next clause.

ὁ λόγος ὁ σὸς ἀλήθειά ἐστιν. It is not always noticed that this is a quotation from the LXX of Ps. 118:142, ὁ λόγος σου ἀλήθεια (cf. 2 Sam. 7:28). Jesus had already said of the disciples, τὸν λόγον σου τετήρηκαν (v. 6, where see note); and thus they were in the way of consecration, which is in truth (cf. 14:6). Such consecration is not an isolated event in the life-history of a disciple, but is a continuous process (cf. οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι, Heb. 2:11).

Westcott quotes an interesting parallel from a Jewish prayer for the new year: “Purify our hearts to serve Thee in truth. Thou, O God, art Truth, and Thy word is truth, and standeth for ever.”

18. καθὼς ἐμὲ ἀπέστειλας. For this thought, five times expressed in this chapter, cf. v. 8 and see on 3:17.

That the relation between Jesus and His disciples is comparable with that between the Son and the Father is several times stated in the discourses of Jesus as reported by Jn. As is the love of the Father to the Son, so is the love of Jesus for His disciples (15:9). The glory which the Father gave to the Son was given by Jesus to His disciples (17:22). As the Son lives by the Father (διὰ τὸν πατέρα), so His disciples live by Jesus (διʼ ἐμέ, 6:57). As the Father knows the Son, and the Son the Father, so does Jesus know His sheep, and they know Him (10:14, 15). As the Son is “in” the Father, so are His disciples “in” Jesus (14:20). These are amazing teachings, but they are deep-rooted in the Fourth Gospel. And, corresponding to them, we have the saying of this verse that as the Father sent the Son into the world, so Jesus sent His apostles into the world.

The comparison καθὼς … καί in such passages can never be exact or definite (see on 6:57), but at the same time it points in each case to something more than a superficial analogy.

κἀγὼ ἀπέστειλα αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν κόσμον. The words carry a reference not only to the original choice of the Twelve, ἵνα ἀποστέλλῃ αὐτοὺς κηρύσσειν (Mk. 3:14; cf. Lk. 9:2), but to their future mission, the aorist being used because of the certainty of this predetermined future in store for them. The actual commission is recorded at 20:21, 22: καθὼς ἀπέσταλκέν με ὁ πατήρ, κἀγὼ πέμπω ὑμᾶς … λάβετε πνεῦμα ἅγιον. (No distinction can be drawn between ἀποστέλλω and πέμπω in such passages; see on 3:17.) Cf. also 4:38.

19. καὶ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἐγὼ ἁγιάζω ἐμαυτόν. ἐγώ is om. by א W, but ins. B C D L N Θ rightly: it is here emphatic.

ὑπέρ is a favourite prep. with Jn., who always uses it as meaning “on behalf of.” See on 1:30, and cf. 6:51.

ἐγὼ ἁγιάζω ἐμαυτόν. At 10:36 He had spoken of Himself as One ὃν ὁ πατὴρ ἡγίασεν. But there is no inconsistency. The Father “consecrated” Jesus for His mission to the world; and now that His mission is about to be consummated in death, Jesus “consecrates” Himself, as He enters upon the Passion. So He had said before of His life, “I lay it down of myself” (10:18). In His death He was both Priest and Victim.

The two petitions for the disciples were for their deliverance from the Evil One (v. 15), and for their consecration (v. 17). These are the two purposes of the Atonement, as set out Tit. 2:14, “Who gave Himself for us, in order that He might (1) redeem us from all iniquity, and (2) purify to Himself a peculiar people zealous of good works.” So here the “consecration” of Himself to the Cross by Jesus was not only that (ἵνα) His chosen apostles might in their turn be guarded and consecrated, but that the same consecration might be the portion of all future disciples (v. 20). There is a special emphasis on ἐγώ. No one else could say, “I consecrate myself.” It is only through His consecration that His disciples can be consecrated; and so in Heb. 10:10 we find the confession, “We have been consecrated through the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ.” In a sense, He is the consecrator of all such: “He that consecrates and they that are being consecrated are all of one” (ἐξ ἑνός, Heb. 2:11), a thoroughly Johannine statement, although it does not appear in Jn.

ἵνα ὦσιν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἡγιασμένοι ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. Cf. v. 17 for truth, the Divine λόγος, the full revelation of the Father, as the medium of consecration to the Christian life.

20. We now reach the third division of the Prayer of Jesus, which passes from the thought of the apostles to the thought of all those who should reach discipleship through their ministry.

ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῶν πιστευόντων κτλ. πιστευόντων is a proleptic or anticipatory present participle, with the force of a future, qui credituri sunt (Vulg.). Some minuscules, which the rec. text follows, through misunderstanding, have adopted πιστευσόντων.

διὰ τοῦ λόγου αὐτῶν. The “word” of the evangelical preachers was the message of God in Christ which they brought, such preaching being an essential preliminary to faith. Cf. Rom. 10:14.

21. As the Church grew, so would the risk of disunion among its members be intensified. Jesus had already prayed that His apostles might be united in will and purpose even as the Father and the Son are united (v. 11, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς). He now repeats this petition for all future disciples, ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν, stating more fully what the nature of this ideal unity was to be.

There is no suggestion of a unity of organisation, such as that which appears in Paul’s conception of the Church as one body with many members, each performing its appropriate function (Rom. 12:4f., 1 Cor. 12:12f.). No biological analogy is offered here to assist us in comprehending the sense in which Christians are intended to be one. Jesus had said already that His sheep would ultimately be One Flock, even as they had One Shepherd (10:16). But the mystical phrases used in this passage transcend even that thought. For He prays that the unity of His disciples may be realised in the spiritual life, after the pattern of that highest form of unity, in which the Father is “in” the Son and the Son “in” the Father. This unity, however, as appertaining to Christian discipleship, is not invisible; it is to be such as will convince the world of the Divine mission of the common Master of Christians. And He has already explained that the badge of this unity is love, the love of Christian for Christian which all men may see (13:35).

ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν. For the use of the neuter singular here, see on 10:30; and cf. ἵνα τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ … συναγάγῃ εἰς ἕν (11:52).

καθὼς σύ, Πάτερ, ἐν ἐμοὶ (cf. 14:10, 20) κἀγὼ ἐν σοί (cf. 14:11). That men might come to acknowledge this central assertion of His claim had been the immediate object of His mission (see on 10:38).

Jn. always expresses the voc. by πάτερ. In this passage πατήρ is read by BDW, and by A B at vv. 24, 25. See Abbott, Diat. 2052, and cf. note on [8]:10.

ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσιν. Before ὦσιν the rec. text inserts ἕν, with א A C³L N Θ, but B C*D W a b c e om. ἕν. It has probably come in from the earlier clause ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν.

The ideal is that all Christians may be ἐν ἡμῖν. “Abide in me” was the counsel of 15:4 (cf. 1 Jn. 3:24, 5:20), but rightly obeyed this implies abiding in God; the use of the plural ἡμῖν here, recalling the plural verbs at 14:23. Cf. 1 Jn. 1:3, ἡ κοινωνία ἡ ἡμετέρα μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. To be “in Christ” is to be “in God.” Those who are thus “in God” share the Divine life in common, and are therefore one, ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς (v. 11); it being always remembered that καθώς in such passages is only suggestive of a partial, not a complete, analogy (see on v. 18 above, and cf. 6:57).

Ignatius has some sentences reminiscent of these thoughts, where he approves the Ephesian Christians for being closely joined with the bishop: “as the Church is with Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is with the Father, that all things may be harmonious in unity (ἵνα πάντα ἐν ἑνότητι σύμφωνα ᾖ, Eph. 5).

ἵνα ὁ κόσμος πιστεύῃ ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας. The consequence of the spiritual unity of Christians, as indicated by their common love for each other, is that the world will be at last convinced (cf. 16:8) that the mission of Jesus was divine, and that He is “the Saviour of the world” (4:42). For such forecasts of universal homage, cf. Rev. 3:9 and 1 Cor. 15:28. See v. 23 below.

πιστεύῃ. So א*B*W, but the rec., with א^cA D L N Θ, has the inferior reading πιστεύσῃ. πιστεύῃ indicates the gradual growth of faith, “may come to believe.”

22. κἀγὼ τὴν δόξαν κτλ. “And I, even I, have given to them the glory which Thou hast given to me.” Quanta maiestas Christianorum! is Bengel’s penetrating comment. But what is this δόξα? It is not the glory of the Eternal Word, spoken of in v. 24. That a faithful disciple may hope to see, but not to share (although 1 Pet. 5:1 seems to claim more than is suggested in Jn.). It is rather the glory of the Incarnate Word (see on 1:14), which Jesus exhibited in His earthly ministry (2:11), the manifestation of the Divine Nature in man. His disciples were the branches of which He was the Vine (15:5), or, as it is expressed in 2 Pet. 1:4, they had become θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως, “partakers of the Divine Nature.” See on 8:54 for the “glorification” of the Son by the Father; and for the “glorification” of believers, cf. Rom. 8:30.

For δέδωκας (א B C L Γ Δ), A D N WΘ have ἔδωκας; and for δέδωκα (B C D L WΓ Δ), א A N Θ have ἔδωκα. See on v. 4 for similar variants.

ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς ἕν. The rec. (Θ) adds ἐσμεν, but om. B C*D L W. The consequence of the imparting of His Incarnate δόξα to His disciples by Jesus would be that, sharing this in common with Him and with each other, they would be spiritually united, and thus be one, even as the Father and the Son are one.

23. ἐγὼ ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ σὺ ἐν ἐμοί, the nature of the unity of believers being once again illustrated by that highest pattern of Unity, the Unity of the Godhead. “I in them”; so He had spoken before (14:20), and the idea of Christ being “in” the believer is as familiar a thought to Paul as it is to Jn.; cf. Rom. 8:10, 2 Cor. 13:5, Gal. 2:20, 4:19.

ἵνα ὦσιν τετελειωμένοι εἰς ἕν. The imparting of His δόξα to the disciples of Jesus would not only tend to unite them, but it would at last completely unite them, “that they may be perfected (cf. for τελειοῦσθαι used thus, 1 Jn. 2:5, 4:12, 17, 18; cf. Phil. 3:12) into one.” With τετ. εἰς ἕν, cf. συναγάγῃ εἰς ἕν (11:52).

ἵνα γινώσκῃ ὁ κόσμος ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας. Here is the final consequence of the impartation of the “glory” of Jesus to His disciples, viz. that the world might come to be assured of His Divine mission; the phrase being repeated from v. 21, γινώσκῃ being substituted for πιστεύῃ. Cf. the concluding words of the Farewell Discourse, ἵνα γνῷ ὁ κόσμος … (14:31). This is Jesus’ ideal of the world’s future.

καὶ ἠγάπησας αὐτοὺς καθώς κτλ. For thus will the world be led to the knowledge that God loved it (αὐτούς) with the same kind of love as that with which He loved His Son (5:20); and that therefore He had sent His Son. These are the thoughts of the “comfortable word” of 3:16, which are here expressed as a prayer.

For ἠγάπησας there is a Western reading, ἠγάπησα (D a b, etc.), which is a mistaken correction (introduced from 15:9), the connexion of the passage with 3:16 having been missed.

24. There follows the thought of those who have been “perfected into one” on earth, sharing the fellowship of their common Lord in heaven, as they behold His eternal glory.

ὃ δέδωκάς μοι. ὅ is for οὕς (cf. v. 12), the neuter singular suggesting their unity, as at 6:37, 39, where see note.

θέλω. He does not now say ἐρωτῶ (v. 20 and see on 11:22), but θέλω, “I wish.” He has said repeatedly that He did not come to do His own will (θέλημα), but the will of the Father (4:34, 5:30, 6:38–40); and in the Agony at Gethsemane He distinguishes His human will from the Father’s (οὐ τί ἐγὼ θέλω, ἀλλὰ τί σύ, Mk. 14:36). But at this moment of spiritual exaltation, the climax of His consecration of Himself to death, He realises the perfect coincidence of His will with the Father’s, and so can say θέλω (cf. ὁ υἱὸς οὓς θέλει ζωοποιεῖ, 5:21). The use of θέλω at 21:22 is different, for there it is the θέλω of authority which the master may address to a disciple.

ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ κἀκεῖνοι ὦσιν μετʼ ἐμοῦ, sc. hereafter in glory. See 12:26, 13:36, 14:3 for the thought of the spiritual fellowship of His disciples with Christ continuing after death. Cf. 2 Tim. 2:11, 12, Rom. 8:17.

ἵνα θεωρῶσιν τὴν δόξαν τὴν ἐμήν. This is not the glory of the Incarnate Christ. That they had been permitted to see with the eyes of the body, ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ (see on 1:14). θεωρεῖν is used here of spiritual perception (cf. 12:45, and see on 2:23). The δόξα, of which the vision is to be the portion of the saints, is the glory of the Eternal Logos, which He had with the Father “before the world was” (v. 5). They are to see Him “as He is” (1 Jn. 3:2).

ἣν δέδωκάς μοι. The rec. has ἔδωκας with B NΓ Δ Θ, but א A C D L W have δέδωκας (see on v. 4), which is accepted by Westcott-Hort against the testimony of B.

Against the interpretation of δόξα here as referring to the glory of the Eternal Word, several exegetes have urged that a “giving” of glory by the Father to the Son before the Incarnation is not explicitly mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. But there is no other passage which refers to the eternal relationships inherent in Deity with the same boldness and confidence of vision that appear in this Last Prayer of Christ. These are unique utterances (cf. also v. 5); and a clear distinction seems to be indicated between the δόξα of v. 22 which had been given to the disciples, and the δόξα of v. 24 which they might hope to contemplate hereafter, but which was given only to Christ.

ὅτι ἠγάπησάς με πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. This, in fact, is the δόξα of the Eternal Word. Eternal Love is Eternal Glory; even as Eternal Love and Eternal Glory may be regarded as respectively the subjective and objective aspects of Eternal Life.

πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. καταβολή occurs only once in the LXX (2 Macc. 2:29, of the foundation of a house), and eleven times in the N.T., in nine of which it is followed by κόσμου (ἀπὸ κατ. κόσμ., Mt. 25:34, Lk. 11:50, Heb. 4:3, 9:26, Rev. 13:8, 17:8). We find πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, as here, at Eph. 1:4, 1 Pet. 1:20. The phrase also occurs in the Assumption of Moses, a first-century work, in a passage of which the Greek has been preserved (i. 13, 14, ed. Charles). The sentence “in that Thou hast loved me before the foundation of the world,” suggests the idea of predestination, so frequently appearing in Jn. (see on 2:4).

25. Πάτερ δίκαιε. That God is righteous is fundamental in the Jewish religion (cf. Jer. 12:1, Ps. 116:5, 119:137), and fundamental, too, in Christianity (Rom. 3:26, 16:5, 1 Jn. 1:9). The appeal at this point of the Prayer is to the justice of God, that He may distinguish between those who accept the Divine mission of Jesus, and the hostile world which rejects Him. For the former, Jesus has made the request that they may be with Him, hereafter (v. 24).

καί, before ὁ κόσμος, “is intended to keep the reader in suspense, aware that the meaning is incomplete” (Abbott, Diat. 2164). It is omitted by D

ἐγὼ δέ σε ἔγνων. This is a parenthetical sentence, the real antithesis to “the world knew Thee not” being “but these knew,” which follows. Jesus, as Incarnate, habitually claims a unique knowledge of God (7:29, 8:55, 10:15).

καὶ οὗτοι ἔγνωσαν κτλ. “But these knew that Thou didst send me,” this being the important thing to be assured of, viz. that God had sent Jesus, this refrain occurring for the last time (see on v. 8). The thought of Jesus returns from the Church of the future to the disciples in whose company He offered a last prayer. Its final clauses have to do with them. οὗτοι, these, knew this much at least, that the mission of Jesus was divine.

The contrast with the failure of “the world” to recognise Him is brought up by καί, used here adversatively, as often in Jn. (see on 3:11): “but these knew.”

26. καὶ ἐγνώρισα αὐτοῖς τὸ ὄνομά σου, repeated in slightly different form from v. 6, where see note. For γνωρίζειν, cf. 15:15.

καὶ γνωρίσω, sc. in the Church of the future, by the Spirit which is to come (16:12, 25).

ἵνα ἡ ἀγάπη ἣν ἠγάπησάς με ἐν αὐτοῖς ᾖ. This is not a prayer that God may love Christian disciples with the same kind of love as that with which He loved Christ. Already, at v. 23, we have seen that even “the world”—in its alienation and hostility—was thus loved by God, although the world did not recognise it. But the prayer is that the love of God for all Christian disciples, similar as it is to the love of God for Christ, may be “in them,” that is, their sense of it may become vivid and efficacious; so that they may recognise, in Paul’s words, “that the love of God has been shed abroad in their hearts, through the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 5:5).

For ἤν after ἀγάπη D substitutes the more usual ᾗ, qua; but there is an exact parallel to the true reading at Eph. 2:4: διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην αὐτοῦ ἣν ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς (cf. 7:39 for a similar constr.).

κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτοῖς. “I in them.” This has already been proclaimed as the ideal condition of the disciples of Christ (v. 23, where see note). Here the thought is, as in the preceding clause, of a growing sense of Christ’s presence in the believer’s heart. It is this for which the last petition is offered, “ut cor ipsorum theatrum sit et palaestra huius amoris” (Bengel). Ego in ipsis is the last aspiration of Jesus for His own, before He goes forth to meet death.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Θ Koridethi (ε 050). Tiflis. vii–ix. Discovered at Koridethi, in Russian territory, and edited by Beermann & Gregory (Leipzig, 1913). The text is akin to that of fam. 13, fam. 1, and the cursives 28, 565, 700 See Lake and Blake in Harvard Theol. Review (July 1923) and Streeter, The Four Gospels. Cf. also J.T.S. Oct. 1915, April and July 1925.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

¹ See Expository Times, Nov. 1926, p. 88, and Feb. 1927, p. 233.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

¹ Cf. Introd., p. clxvi f.

² See Introd., p. xx f.

³ This idea was put forward first by Spitta (Zur Gesch. u. Litt. d. Urchristentums, i. 186 f.).

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

¹ The Coptic Q has λακάνη, the later form of λεκάνη, a dish or pot.

¹ See, for details, art. “Bason” in D.C.G.

² For the pleonastic use of ἄρχεσθαι in the Synoptists, see Hunkin in J.T.S., July 1924, p. 390. Here, however, ἤρξατο is not pleonastic, the aorist marking the definite time when the feet-washing began.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

³ A curious turn is given to this incident in the eccentric Latin paraphrase of the Gospels known as the Huntington Palimpsest, of which E. S. Buchanan has printed the text (New York, 1917). It represents Jesus as “washing the feet of Simon Iscariot,” and Simon Peter protesting, “Thou wilt not wash his feet!”

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

¹ Life of Jesus, Eng. Tr., p. 42.

¹ See Abrahams, in J.T.S., July 1911, in reply to C. F. Rogers in the same journal for April 1911, on the Jewish method of baptism.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Cf. Introd., p. clv.

¹ Cf. Introd., p. cliv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

¹ Cf. Ignatius, Eph. vi. οὕτως δεῖ ἡμᾶς αὐτὸν δέχεσθαι, ὡς αὐτὸν τὸν πέμψαντα.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Criticism of Fourth Gospel, p. 98.

¹ Cf. Jülicher (Introd., p. 413), who holds, however, that the “beloved disciple” is only an ideal figure.

² See Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in loc., and in Mt. 26:22.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

¹ See Field, in loc.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

² א combines both readings in a confused fashion, thus showing that both are earlier than the date of that manuscript.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

³ The phrase is quoted verbatim, as descriptive of John, by Irenæus (III. i. 1) and Polycrates (Eus. H.E. v. 24). See Introd., p. l.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

¹ Newman’s astounding comment on “What thou doest, do quickly,” as justifying or illustrating the rapid recitation of the words in the Canon of the Mass, is one of the curiosities of literature (Loss and Gain, ch. xx.).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

MS. manuscript

¹ See Introd., p. xx.

² See R. T. Byrn in the Irish Church Quarterly for April and Oct. 1909; and G. Henslow in the Interpreter, 1917. Cf., contra, Garvie, The Beloved Disciple, p. 157.

MS. manuscript

¹ See Introd., p. xxi.

² Ev. da Mepharr., ii. 143, 151.

Moulton-Milligan Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, illustrated from the papyri, by J. H. Moulton and G.Milligan (1914–). This is being completed by Dr. Milligan; it is indispensable.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

¹ Swete, The Last Discourse, etc., p. 81.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

¹ Cf. Introd., p. lxvi.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

² St. John, i. p. cxxx.

¹ Cf. Introd., p. cxiv.

² Cf. Introd., p. lxxxix.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

¹ The words καὶ ἔθηκα ὑμᾶς are omitted (because of homoioteleuton, ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς immediately preceding) by Δ 13 250, suggesting that the exemplars of these MSS. were written in lines of twelve letters (cf. Introd., p. xxix).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

N Purpureus Petropolitanus (ε 19). Dispersed through the libraries of Leningrad, Patmos, Rome, Vienna, and British Museum. vi. Some pages are missing. Edited by H. S. Cronin in Cambridge Texts and Studies (1899).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

¹ Cf. Introd., p. cxxxvii.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

¹ See, for this contrast, Hobhouse, The Church and the World; cf. Westcott, Epp. of St. John, p. 250 f., and Gore, Epp. of St. John, p. 154 f.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

¹ See Lightfoot, Revision of N.T., p. 50 f.

² This “son” is not the Logos (as has been erroneously stated), but the Cosmos (cf. Drummond, Philo Judœus, ii. 238; Sanday, Criticism of Fourth Gospel, 197; and Bacon, Fourth Gospel, 298). Philo’s use of παράκλητος does not relate the term to his Logos.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

¹ See Hort, Two Dissertations, p. 86.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

¹ I have discussed this great topic more fully in Studia Sacra, pp. 117–120.

² Gore, Bampton Lectures, p. 132.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

¹ Cf. Lucian, Pseudol. 4: παρακλητέος ἡμῖν … ὁ Ἔλεγχος.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

¹ History of European Morals, ii. 8.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

MS. manuscript

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

MS. manuscript

¹ I have discussed this point in Hermathena (1895, p. 189, and 1901, p. 340).

² Cf. Justin (Tryph. 39), οἱ ἐκ πάσης τῆς ἀληθείας μεμαθητευομένοι.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

¹ St. John’s Gospel, pp. 163, 203.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

Pap. Oxy. 1228 Glasgow, iii. This has a good text of Jn. 15:25–16:31

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

MS. manuscript

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

¹ See Introd., p. xx f.

¹ In the Collect for Innocents’ Day it is said that the infants were made to “glorify” God by their deaths.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

MSS. manuscripts

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28–67 7:6–8:31.

Moulton-Milligan Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, illustrated from the papyri, by J. H. Moulton and G.Milligan (1914–). This is being completed by Dr. Milligan; it is indispensable.

¹ See Charles, Revelation, 1. cxxx; cf. Abbott, Diat. 2332.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ See Zahn, Canon, ii. 785; there is an English version of the fragment in James`s Apocryphal N. T., p. 25.

¹ Cf. Introd., pp. xcvi ff.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

¹ Cf. Lightfoot, Supernatural Religion, p. 194, and Biblical Essays, p. 68.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Cf. Origen`s Comm. in Joh. (ed. Brooke, ii. 308).

² Cf. also Lowther Clarke, Theology, July 1924, p. 41; and Abbott, Diat. 2186.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ See Introd., p. clviii f.