What has come to be known as the “Fourth Gospel” contains extensive information that is not found in the accounts attributed to Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The writer of the “Fourth Gospel” acknowledged that much more could have been written about Jesusʼ “signs” or miracles and activity. (John 20:30; 21:25) He also revealed the purpose regarding what had been written. It was that those reading the account or hearing it read to them would “believe that Jesus is the Christ [or promised Messiah] the Son of God.” Then, on the basis of coming to believe in Jesus Christ, they would have life “in his name” or in him as the person whose name identified him as the Christ, the Son of God. Their real life would be as persons who truly recognized him and whom he accepted as belonging to him. (John 20:31)
From very early times, the “Fourth Gospel” has been considered to have had the apostle John as its source. Eusebius (c. 263 to c. 339 CE), in his Ecclesiastical History, provided information about what was commonly believed regarding the accounts that became part of the recognized Scriptures. He quoted Origen (185? to 254? CE) as accepting the tradition that there were only four authentic evangels, the first being written by the former tax collector Matthew, the second by Mark (as Peter instructed him), the third by Luke, and the last one by John. Fragmentary papyrus manuscripts (P66 [thought to date from the second century] and P75 [believed to date from late in the second century or early in the third century]) contain the following superscription for the account traditionally attributed to the apostle John, “evangel according to John” (euaggelion kata ioannen [P66]; euaggelion kata ioanen [P75]).
Note:
Much of the material for the commentary on John is drawn from the section Jesus Christ, Godʼs Unique Son, which see about how the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John may fit into a chronological framework.
In the Septuagint, the opening two words of Genesis are the same as in John 1:1 (en arché [“in (the) beginning”]). The first chapter of Genesis portrays creative works as progressively coming into existence in response to what God says. This direct link of God’s speaking to the coming into existence of the creation appears to be preserved in the designation “the Word.” The reference to the Son as “the Word” suggests that God communicated through him and by means of him brought into existence the realities of his expressed will and purpose. (1:1)
“In the beginning the Word was.” Before the countless ages that had passed since the universe came into existence the Word already “was” with the Father. The prophecy of Micah about Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem similarly pointed to his prehuman existence as reaching back to the infinite past. The Septuagint text of Micah 5:2 reads, hai éxodoi autoú ap’ archés ex hemerón aiónos (his goings forth [are] from [the] beginning, from [the] days of eternity.) (1:1)
“The Word was with God [literally, the God].” In this case, the Greek preposition prós (“with”) may be regarded as indicating a close mutual relationship. “God” (theós) appears in the emphatic position as the opening term of the next statement. As the “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15), being “in the form of God” (Philippians 2:6) and his very “imprint” (Hebrews 1:3), the Word is identified as theós, the only single Greek term that can adequately describe his nature. In the Greek text, the Word’s being distinct from the Father is evident from the absence of the definite article. The structure of the Greek text about the use of theós as applying to the “Word” in a descriptive sense could be illustrated by the following sentence in English: In the beginning was the child, and the child was with the male, and male was the child. (1:1)
From the infinite past, the Word enjoyed a close mutual relationship with God. Evidently this meant much more than his merely being in the presence of God, as is revealed by the reality that the Word “was” with God in the beginning or prior to the start of creation. (1:2)
Everything came into existence through the Word. Apart from him, not a single creation came to be. The second part of the Greek text could be punctuated and rendered in two different ways. (1) “Apart from him not one thing came to be that has come to be.” (2) “What has come to be [1:3] in him was life [1:4].” (1:3)
Depending on which alternative is chosen in punctuating and rendering the Greek text, life was either in the Word or life came to be “in” or through the Word. Accordingly, the text could be understood to mean that (1) the Word possessed life-giving power or that (2) he imparted life to the creation. In the case of humans, this “life” was more than mere existence; it was “light,” or a life inseparably associated with an inner light that made moral decisions possible. The possession of this light may also include the capacity for love, kindness, reasoning, understanding, and wisdom. (1:4)
So powerful is the inner light, with all the faculties associated therewith, that it continues to shine in a morally corrupt world of darkness. Although surrounded by darkness, this light has not been extinguished. It might appear as though the darkness in the world of mankind that is in a state of alienation from God and acts contrary to his will and ways completely surrounds the light and is about to swallow it up. Regardless of how great the moral darkness comes to be, however, the light continues to shine brightly among those who are guided by it or are rightly motivated by a good conscience. (1:5)
Steeped in idolatry, worshiping the creation instead of the Creator, the world in the first century CE was in darkness, the darkness of moral degradation and superstition. Having lived and labored in many of the major cities then existing, the Roman citizen Paul possessed firsthand knowledge about the greatness of that darkness and described humans who chose to suppress the voice of conscience. “They were filled with all [manner] of unrighteousness, depravity, covetousness, viciousness, envy, murder, discord, treachery, [being] ill-tempered, detractors, defamers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boasters, contrivers of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, faithless, devoid of natural affection, merciless.” (Romans 1:29-31)
In the world of darkness that existed in the first century CE, God raised up a man as his prophet to prepare for the arrival of the “light” in the person of his unique Son. This man was John, the son of the priest Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth. (1:6)
John testified concerning the light. The purpose of his testimony was to lead others to respond in faith to the one who would make his appearance as the “true light.” (1:7, 9)
As for John, he was not the light. His significant role was to present testimony “about the light.” (1:8)
The “true light” (the unique Son of God) was then about to come into the world, imparting “light” to all men or people everywhere. As the “true light, the Son of God would provide enlightenment about his Father and reveal how humans could come to enjoy an enduring relationship with him as his approved children. (1:9)
The world of mankind into which the “light” in the person of the Son of God came was not new to him. This is because it was through him that the human family came into existence. Therefore, humans should have recognized him as one with whom they had a relationship, but they did not. (1:10)
He came to his own people or the Jewish people, the only people who professed belief in his Father. The majority, however, did not accept him. (1:11)
In the case of persons who believed “in his name” or who accepted him in faith as the one he truly was (the Son of God), he granted the authority or the right to become Godʼs children or approved members in his beloved family. (1:12)
The newness of life or the new birth that identified them as Godʼs children could not be attributed to “blood” (a particular line of descent), “flesh” (natural procreation), or the “will of man” (adoption). They were born “from God.” On the basis of their faith in his Son, God acted to make them his children. (1:13)
Prior to his birth as the son of Mary, “the Word” was spirit, not flesh, and enjoyed life in an entirely different realm, the heavenly one. After his becoming flesh and tenting or making his home among humans, his early disciples (and those who joined them later) came to see in the Son of God a divine glory or splendor. His was the glory of an only-begotten of a father. He was the unique one, full of kindness and truth. As the one full of “kindness,” favor, or grace, God’s Son manifested a gracious disposition of unparalleled love. He himself was the living truth, the one through whom all the promises of God find their fulfillment and the one who, through his attitude, words, and deeds, provided to humans the most complete disclosure possible regarding his Father. (1:14)
He alone, as John the Baptist had testified, already “was” prior to his arrival on the earthly scene. Although the Son of God appeared on the scene after John the Baptist began preparing people for his arrival, he already was before John or predated John’s existence. (1:15)
From the fullness of the Son of God (from his limitless supply), his disciples received kindness upon kindness, or favor upon favor. This favor or kindness was unearned and unmerited. Their receiving “favor upon [anti; literally, “instead of”] favor” could be understood to mean that their receiving unmerited kindness was followed by receiving even greater unmerited kindness. The disciples continued to be the objects of Jesus’ care and compassionate concern as he taught them, came to their aid and defense, and, finally, in expression of his boundless love, gave his life for them. (1:16)
Whereas the law had been given through Moses, through Jesus Christ came the favor and truth or the full expression of godly kindness and the complete revelation of divine truth. The law, although dependable as a guide, did not disclose fully the greatness of the divine favor and truth that the Son of God could reveal. (1:17)
Unlike humans who have never seen God, Jesus had both seen him and enjoyed an intimacy with him that reached into the infinite past. That intimacy is revealed in the expressions used concerning him. He is the “only-begotten.” The Greek term monogenés (often rendered “only-begotten”) points to the uniqueness of the relationship of the Son to the Father. There is no other son like him. The emphasis is not to be placed on the second part of the compound (begotten), but the expression is to be regarded as a unit. This is evident from the way the term is used in the Septuagint as a rendering for the Hebrew term yahíd (only, only one, alone). Jephthah’s daughter was his only child. (Judges 11:34) The psalmist pleaded that YHWH might rescue his “only-begotten one” (LXX, Brenton), meaning the only life he possessed or his precious life. (Psalm 21:21 [22:20(21)]; 34:17 [35:17]) (1:18)
“God” (theós), if this is the original reading of John 1:18 (later manuscripts read, “only-begotten Son,” signifying unique Son), describes him as being exactly like his Father. The closeness to the Father is further shown by his being portrayed in his bosom or his bosom position. This is the kind of intimacy a person would enjoy when reclining in front of another person on the same couch while eating a meal. As the intimate of his Father, Jesus could reveal him to others in a way that no one else could. (1:18)
John’s preaching raised concerns among the Pharisees in Jerusalem. Probably because John was the son of a priest and therefore himself a priest in the Aaronic line of the tribe of Levi, the Pharisees sent a delegation of priests and Levites to question him. Arriving at Bethany on the east side of the Jordan, where John was then baptizing, they asked him, “Who are you?” This question implied that they wanted to know on whose authority he was acting and what basis he had for his activity. (1:19, 24, 28)
In response, John told them that he was not the Christ. His acknowledgment left no doubt regarding this. (1:20)
The questioners then asked him whether he was Elijah or “the prophet.” His emphatic response made it clear that he was neither Elijah nor “the prophet.” Although John did the work of the foretold Elijah, he was not the Elijah who had lived centuries earlier and whom the questioners expected to return literally. Seemingly, they also believed that “the prophet” greater than Moses would appear before the coming of the Messiah. (Deuteronomy 18:18, 19) That “prophet,” however, proved to be the one for whom John was preparing the way. (1:21)
Wanting a specific answer from John, an answer they could relate to those who had sent them, they again raised the question, “Who are you?” They followed this up with another question, “What do you say about yourself?” (1:22)
Referring to the words of Isaiah (40:3), John identified himself, “I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare the way of the Lord.” These prophetic words focused on the message, not the messenger. John was just a “voice,” the agent who gave voice to the message. (1:23)
The delegation whom the Pharisees had sent then asked why he was baptizing if he was not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet. Seemingly, in their view, John was not authorized to do baptizing without being able to identify himself definitively as being the Christ, Elijah, or the prophet whom Moses had foretold. Possibly their belief may have been based on certain prophecies in Ezekiel and Zechariah. The prophecy of Ezekiel indicated that God would cleanse the Israelites by sprinkling clean water upon them and then would put his spirit within them. (Ezekiel 36:25-27) Zechariah’s prophecy (13:1) pointed to the time when God would open a fountain to purify from sin and uncleanness. Such prophecies may have given rise to the expectation of the coming of one who would act as the agent to carry out God’s work of cleansing by means of water, and the Jews may have concluded that this one would be an extraordinary personage — the Messiah, Elijah, or the prophet like Moses. (1:24, 25)
In his reply, John turned attention away from himself and stressed the greatness of the one to come and before whom he was preparing the way. He said, “I baptize in water. In your midst, one is standing [or, is one who has taken his stand (according to another reading of the Greek text)] whom you do not know. [As for] the one coming after me, I am not worthy to loose the strap of his sandal” or to do the most menial task for him. (1:26, 27)
The narrated questioning of John the Baptist and of his responses occurred at Bethany. It is at this location on the east side of the Jordan that John did baptizing. The site itself has not been identified. Origen (185? to 254? CE) did not find Bethany in the general area and, therefore, preferred the reading Bethabara. (1:28)
The next day, after the interchange with the questioners from Jerusalem, John saw Jesus (after his return from the wilderness subsequent to his having been subjected to Satan’s testing [Matthew 4:1-11]) approaching and then said to those within hearing distance, “See, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” This identification suggested that Jesus, like the lambs offered daily at the temple, would die sacrificially for the sins of humans (or the “world” of humankind). (1:29)
Stressing the greatness of Jesus, John called attention to what he had said earlier. “This is the one about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who has come to be ahead of me, because he was before me.’” John thus revealed that Jesus would surpass him and, in relation to time, had priority. He already “was” before John’s birth. (1:30)
John acknowledged that he did not know Jesus in the manner that he then could identify him but did baptizing so that he would be revealed to Israel. Before John started his activity of calling the people to repentance and baptizing, God had revealed to him that the one upon whom he would see the spirit descending and remaining would be the one who would baptize with holy spirit. As he did see the spirit coming down like a dove from heaven and remaining on Jesus, John testified, “This is the Son of God.” (1:31-34)
The next day Jesus again went to the area where John was baptizing. At the time, John was standing with two of his disciples. Seeing Jesus walking, he said to them, “See, the Lamb of God!” This prompted the two disciples to leave and head toward Jesus. (1:35-37)
Aware that he was being followed, Jesus turned and asked John’s two disciples, “What are you seeking?” This question served as an invitation for them to express their wishes respecting him. They addressed him as “Rabbi” (“Teacher”) and asked, “Where are you staying?” Their question implied that they wanted to spend time with him. Jesus invited them to come with him and to see for themselves. They then remained with him that day. It was about the tenth hour when they arrived where Jesus was staying. According to Jewish reckoning, roughly only two hours remained before the start of a new day. With the day (the daylight hours) starting at 6 a.m., the tenth hour would have been about 4:00 p.m. (1:38, 39)
One of the disciples was Andrew, the brother of Simon (to whom Jesus would later give the name Peter). The other disciple likely was John the brother of James. This is suggested by the fact that John is never named in a single verse of the account to which he is linked as the writer. (John 1:40)
Upon leaving Jesus’ company, Andrew located his brother Simon and excitedly told him, “We have found the Messiah” (Christ or the Anointed). With his brother, Andrew then headed back to the place where Jesus was staying. Upon seeing Simon, Jesus said to him, “You are Simon, son of John [Jonah]. You will be called Cephas” (Peter). The name “Cephas” or “Peter” means “rock,” and this name reflected Jesus’ confidence in Simon as one who would prove to be rocklike or solid in his faith and provide strengthening aid to fellow believers. (1:41, 42; Mark 3:16; compare Luke 22:32.)
The next day Jesus wanted to leave Judea to go to Galilee. He personally approached Philip, doubtless also one of John’s disciples, inviting him to be a follower. Philip must have known Peter and Andrew. Before taking up residence in Capernaum, Peter and Andrew, like Philip, lived in Bethsaida, a town on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. (1:43, 44; compare Luke 4:31-39.)
Philip then located Nathanael, telling him, “The one of whom Moses wrote in the Law and the Prophets [wrote] we have found, Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth.” The link to Nazareth appeared puzzling to Nathanael, “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” His question may suggest that Nazareth did not have a good reputation. On the other hand, Nathanael may have meant that he found it difficult to believe that the promised Messiah, the great good to which Philip had referred, would come from this city in Galilee (and not Bethlehem in Judea). Could it really be that the Messiah, of all places, would have Nazareth as his home? Philip did not try to persuade Nathanael with words but invited him to come and find out for himself. (1:45, 46)
Nathanael is not named in the accounts attributed to Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Based on the mention of Philip and Bartholomew together in listings of the apostles, Nathanael and Bartholomew appear to be the same person. (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14) Similarly, Matthew is also called Levi. (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27-29)
As Philip and Nathanael approached, Jesus’ first words to Nathanael were, “See, a true Israelite in whom nothing is false.” Surprised by this observation from one whom he had never met, Nathanael responded, “How do you know me?” Revealing that he had knowledge about Nathanael beyond the ordinary, Jesus told him that he had seen him under the fig tree before Philip called him. Based on Jesus’ reference to the fig tree, Nathanael recognized that Jesus’ knowledge about him was of a miraculous nature, removing any doubt from his mind about Jesus’ true identity. An event or circumstance associated with that fig tree revealed the kind of person Nathanael was, and he immediately grasped the significance of Jesus’ words. With conviction, he replied, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.” Having believed on the basis of being told that he had been seen under the fig tree, Nathanael heard Jesus say that he would see things greater than this. In fact, he and the other disciples would see heaven opened and “the angels of God ascending and descending to the Son of Man.” Through him, the very heavens would be opened up to them. (1:47-51)
The reference to the ascending and descending of angels from the Son of Man somewhat parallels what Jacob saw in his dream at Bethel. In that case, angels descended and ascended by means of a ladder-like or stair-like arrangement that reached from the land to the sky, and the Almighty was positioned at the top. Jacob then heard God’s promise that through his seed all the families of the earth would be blessed. (Genesis 28:12-14) As the apostle Paul wrote when referring to the promise first made to Abraham, that seed proved to be Christ. (Galatians 3:16) Jesus’ statement therefore may also have served to confirm Nathanael’s expression of faith, “You are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.” (1:49-51)
Not until after Jesus’ death do angels figure prominently in the biblical accounts, being seen at various times. (Matthew 28:2-7; Mark 16:5-7; Luke 24:1-7; John 20:11, 12; Acts 1:10, 11) Manuscript evidence concerning the appearance of an angel in the garden of Gethsemane to strengthen Jesus is inconclusive. The omission of this incident in early extant manuscripts suggests that it may not have been mentioned in Luke’s original account. (Luke 22:43) So it would appear that Jesus’ words about the ascending and descending of angels relate more to the disciples being able to see the free approach he had to his Father and that angels were always available to minister to him. (1:51; compare Matthew 26:53.)
Possibly on the third day after Nathanael’s first meeting Jesus, a wedding took place in Cana of Galilee (identified with a site about 8 miles [c. 13 kilometers] northeast of Nazareth). Among those present were Jesus’ mother Mary, Jesus, and his disciples. (2:1, 2)
By invitation, Jesus and his disciples were present for the event. Likely there were six disciples at this time, Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew, Philip and Nathanael (Bartholomew), and John and his brother James. While the record is silent about when James became a disciple, it would seem reasonable that John (probably the unnamed disciple mentioned in the first chapter of John) would have shared the news about Jesus with his brother. Their mother appears to have been Salome, usually identified as the wife of Zebedee. She may also have been Mary’s sister. (2:2; compare Matthew 27:56 with Mark 15:40 and John 19:25 with Matthew 27:55 and Mark 15:40, 41.)
During the wedding festivities, the supply of wine ran out. Mary became concerned about this embarrassing development. Her personal interest in preserving the joyous spirit of the occasion appears to be more typical of a relative or a close family friend than of an invited guest. She approached Jesus, informing him that there was no more wine. Possibly based on what her son had done at other times, she apparently believed that he would be able to come up with a solution for the problem she had brought to his attention. (2:3)
Jesus’ initial reply to her indicated that their relationship had changed. As the Christ, God’s unique Son, he would be the one to initiate action in his own time. A literal English translation of his words is harsher in tone than is the Greek, where the term for “woman” gyné can also denote “lady” or “wife.” For this reason, a number of translations represent Jesus as addressing Mary as “dear woman.” His response in question form was, “What to me and to you?” The idiomatic expression implied that in this specific matter the two of them had nothing in common. Jesus then added, “My hour has not yet come” (possibly meaning the time for him to intervene to handle the problem regarding the wine or the time for him to reveal his identity as the promised Messiah). (2:4)
Mary evidently understood that Jesus would no longer be taking motherly direction from her but did not doubt that he would act. This is suggested by her words to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” (2:5)
For ceremonial washing purposes, six large stone jars were available. Each of these could hold two or three measures (perhaps bath measures or roughly between 12 and 18 gallons [between 44 and 66 liters]). (2:6)
Jesus directed the servants to fill the containers with water. They then filled them to the top. (2:7)
In response to Jesus’s words, the servants drew out a sample of the liquid. As Jesus had instructed them, they took the drawn-out liquid to the master of the festivities. (2:8)
The servants did not tell the master of the festivities from where they had obtained the liquid. Upon tasting it, he perceived it to be choice wine and thereafter summoned the bridegroom to tell him that he had not followed the customary procedure. Unlike others, the bridegroom had set out the inferior wine first and reserved the best wine until the guests had partaken to a degree where their sense of taste had ceased to be keen. (2:9, 10)
His transforming water into wine in Cana of Galilee proved to be Jesus’ first “sign.” The term “sign” (semeíon) designates an occurrence that is viewed as having a special significance. In the context of John 2:11, the Greek word refers to a miracle or a miraculous sign. All the “signs” Jesus performed served to identify him as the promised Messiah, the Son of God. At the same time, the individual “signs” revealed aspects about him or his activity. This particular sign indicated that his ministry would differ markedly from that of John the Baptist, who lived an austere life and never drank wine. (Matthew 11:18; Luke 1:15) John proclaimed a serious message, calling upon the people to repent, and his bearing and actions harmonized with a spirit of godly sorrow. The arrival of the Messiah, however, opened up a period of joy and hope, extending to responsive ones the opportunity to become sharers with him in his royal realm and all the blessings associated therewith. By means of this sign, Jesus also manifested “his glory” or magnificence, revealing his divinely granted power, his role as a benefactor, and the kind of joy he alone would be able to impart to his disciples. Whereas the disciples had earlier made expressions of belief in him as being the Messiah and God’s Son, the noteworthy sign, as a manifestation of his glory, served to deepen their faith. As the biblical record states, “His disciples believed in him.” (2:11)
After the wedding, Jesus, his mother, his brothers, and his disciples went down to Capernaum (a city on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee about 676 feet [206 meters] below sea leve). From what is thought to have been the site of ancient Cana, they would have traveled about 25 miles (40 kilometers) by road. The group did not remain long in Capernaum. Originally Peter and Andrew had lived in nearby Bethsaida. (1:44) At this time, however, they were residing in Capernaum, and the city may also have been the home of James and John. (2:12; compare Mark 1:16-21; Luke 4:31-38.)
As the Passover was near, Jesus, his brothers, his disciples, and Mary left Capernaum for Jerusalem, where they would observe the Passover. With the prime focus being on Jesus and his activity in Jerusalem, the account only specifically mentions Jesus as going up to Jerusalem. (2:13)
There, in the “temple” (hierón) or, more specifically, in the Court of the Gentiles, which was part of the extensive temple complex, Jesus saw merchants selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and money changers seated at their tables. Worshipers would buy animals for sacrifice and exchange coins that were unacceptable for the payment of the temple tax, contributions for the support of the temple, and possibly also for the purchase of sacrificial animals. (2:14)
For the merchants and money changers, this proved to be a profitable enterprise. The Mishnah, compiled around 200 CE and consisting of a collection of ancient Jewish traditions, says (Shekalim 1:3) that money changers set up in the temple area on the 25th of Adar (February/March). This Jewish work also reveals extreme price gouging in connection with the sale of sacrificial animals. On one occasion, a pair of doves was being sold for 25 times more than the usual price. (Keritot 1:7)
Filled with indignation about the defilement of a sacred location with commercial activity, Jesus made a whip of ropes and drove the sheep and cattle out of the temple area, forcing the sellers to leave with their animals. He scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables, and told the sellers of doves to leave with their birds, rebuking them for having turned his Father’s house into a place of business. Upon witnessing Jesus’ taking such firm action, the disciples recalled the words of the psalmist, “The zeal for your house will consume me.” (2:15-17; see Psalm 69:9[10], 68:10, LXX)
Based on the words recorded in Malachi 3:1-7, the Jews may have expected the promised Messiah to take decisive action in connection with the sanctity of the temple. His foretold role included purifying the Levites for offering acceptable sacrifices. It therefore appears that certain Jews challenged Jesus to show them a sign, a sign establishing Messianic authority to stop commercial activity in the temple complex. (2:18)
In response to their challenging question about what sign he would be showing them, Jesus replied, “Pull down this temple [naós, usually applying to the main sanctuary building], and in three days I will raise it.” Jesus’ response was basically the same as his reply on other occasions when challengingly asked for a sign. This sign, which came to be widely known, was that he would rise in three days. (Matthew 12:38-40; 16:4; 26:60, 61; Luke 11:29) Jesus could refer to raising “the temple of his body” in three days, as his Father had granted him the authority or right to surrender his “soul” or life and to receive it again. (2:19; 10:17, 18)
In disbelief, they said, “This temple [naós] was built in 46 years, and you are going to raise it in three days?” From the historical information contained in the writings of Josephus, it is not possible to determine just what the Jews in the temple area meant when saying to Jesus that the temple was built in 46 years. Work on the entire temple complex was not completed until some six years before the Romans destroyed it in 70 CE. As for the start of the rebuilding undertaken at the direction of Herod the Great, Josephus says in War (I, xxi, 1) that it was the 15th year of Herod’s reign, whereas in Antiquities (XV, xi, 1) he states that it was the 18th year. If the reference to the 15th year is not in error, possibly it was then that preparatory work began, with actual construction on the site not commencing until the 18th year. (2:20)
Neither the Jewish questioners nor his disciples understood that Jesus was speaking figuratively about “the temple [naós] of his body.” Not until Jesus was raised from the dead did his disciples understand what he meant. It was then that they believed the “Scripture” foretelling Jesus’ resurrection and the “word” he spoke in the temple area relating to his rising from the dead. (2:21, 22)
While in Jerusalem for the Passover and the seven-day festival that followed, Jesus did perform miraculous signs. Witnessing these signs, many came to believe in “his name” or in him. Jesus, however, recognized that those who initially responded favorably did not have a solid faith. He did not trust himself to them, for he knew them all or he knew who they really were at heart and understood human weaknesses fully. He did not need anyone else’s testimony about “man,” for “he knew what was in man.” Jesus discerned how easily humans could be swayed or wrongly influenced despite having clear evidence respecting the rightness of a particular course. (2:23-25)
One night during Jesus’ stay in Jerusalem, Nicodemus, a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews (probably meaning a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish supreme council or the highest religious authority), came to see him. Likely Nicodemus was aware of negative sentiments about Jesus among influential Jews and may have chosen to be cautious to avoid potential problems. A night visit would also have been more suitable for an uninterrupted private interchange. He addressed Jesus as “Rabbi” and acknowledged him as a teacher having come from God, for the miraculous signs he had performed proved that God was with him. The first-person plural verb oídamen (“we know”) may indicate that he was aware of others who recognized Jesus as having come as a teacher from God. On the other hand, this could simply be the editorial first-person plural verb. (3:1, 2)
In response, Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The expression “amen, amen” signifies “truly, truly,” and serves to introduce an important truth in a solemn manner. For one to see the “kingdom of God” (or to be part of the royal realm where the Most High is recognized as Sovereign and all the members thereof share in the blessings and privileges he grants) requires a tremendous change. The Greek term ánothen means either “above” or “again.” Earlier in John’s account, the new birth is attributed to God (1:13), and this suggests that “born from above” (instead of “born again”) is the preferable significance. (3:3)
Nicodemus did not understand what Jesus meant. He replied, “How can a man who is old be born? He cannot enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born.” (3:4)
Clarifying what the new birth involves, Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, Unless a person is born from water and spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Whoever is born from flesh is flesh, and whoever is born from spirit is spirit. Do not be surprised that I said to you, You must be born from above [ánothen]. The wind [pneúma, meaning “wind” or “spirit”] blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know from where it comes and where it is going. Thus [it] is [with] everyone who is born from the spirit.” (3:5-8)
Without being made new by the kind of cleansing represented by the water and receiving God’s spirit, a person would not be able to “see” (3:3) or “enter” (3:5) the kingdom of God. He would not be recognized as one of God’s people and so could not possibly be in his royal realm. Born of flesh, all humans are flesh, and are burdened by the flawed condition they have inherited. This is why all are sinners, repeatedly disappointing themselves and others in attitude, word, and deed. All need help from outside the human sphere. That aid must come from “above” or the realm of the spirit. A newness of life can only be brought about by an operation of God’s spirit, and the outward manifestation thereof would be a marked change in conduct, motivated by a desire to do God’s will. As Jesus pointed out to Nicodemus, just how God’s spirit operates within an individual cannot be perceived. One can hear the wind and observe its effects, but one cannot see its source or where it is going. Nevertheless, just as the wind is real and its effects are real, the invisible working of God’s spirit within individuals is real. (3:5-8)
Still not grasping the significance of Jesus’ words, Nicodemus said, “How can these things take place?” Based on his knowledge of the Scriptures, he should have understood what Jesus meant. This is evident from Jesus’ response, “You are a teacher of Israel, and you do not know these things?” (3:9, 10)
As a recognized teacher among fellow Jews, Nicodemus knew what the holy writings contained. The prophets Isaiah, Joel, and Ezekiel, for example, spoke about a future outpouring of God’s spirit. Isaiah referred to mourning resulting from divine chastisement as ending upon God’s spirit being poured out from on high upon the people. (Isaiah 32:12-15) Joel’s prophetic words (2:28, 29) indicated that the spirit would be poured out on sons and daughters, men and women, young and old. Ezekiel (36:25-28, Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) specifically mentioned cleansing as preceding the outpouring of God’s spirit: “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean: I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your fetishes. And I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit into you: I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh; and I will put My spirit into you. Thus I will cause you to follow My laws and faithfully to observe My rules. Then you shall dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers, and you shall be My people and I will be your God.”
Repeatedly, the prophets urged the people to repent and change their ways in order to be recipients of God’s mercy and blessing. (Isaiah 1:15-20; Ezekiel 18:31; Joel 2:12-14; Malachi 3:7) Therefore, from what he knew the prophets had proclaimed, Nicodemus should have understood that repentance preceded a cleansing as by water and only then would God pour out his spirit upon those whom he recognized as clean before him. This was also the message John the Baptist proclaimed, and his immersing Israelites in the Jordan followed an acknowledgment of their sins. Moreover, he announced the future outpouring of God’s spirit, saying of the one to come, “He will baptize you with holy spirit.” (Matthew 3:2, 5, 6, 11; Luke 3:10-16)
The Son of God, having come from the spirit realm, fully understood the functioning of holy spirit. He knew what none of earth’s inhabitants knew and had seen what they had never seen. His authoritative testimony, however, did not gain general acceptance. The transformation about which Jesus spoke to Nicodemus related to the earthly realm, for it involved a change in the human condition. If this earthly aspect was not believed, how could it possibly be that Jesus’ words about heavenly things only known to him would be believed? No man had ascended to heaven, precluding any possibility of possessing testimony regarding heavenly things. Jesus, though, had descended from heaven. When referring to himself as the “Son of Man,” Jesus evidently identified himself as the promised Messiah portrayed in the book of Daniel (7:13, 14). Having come from heaven, he alone could teach what no one else could. Additionally, only he could reveal how an eternal relationship with his Father would be possible. (3:11-13)
An event during Israel’s wandering in the wilderness revealed an aspect of how restoration to divine favor would come about. When many Israelites died from being bitten by poisonous serpents, Moses was divinely instructed to make a serpent and place it on a pole. Anyone bitten by a serpent, upon looking at the bronze serpent Moses had made, would live. There was nothing in that metal serpent that could remove the lethal venom from those who had been bitten. Their response to God’s arrangement made it possible for them to continue living. (Numbers 21:5-9) Similarly, response in faith to Jesus’ being lifted up on the implement on which he would die would lead to eternal life. Just as the Israelites acknowledged their sin and had to recognize the danger in which they found themselves because of having been bitten, humans must acknowledge their sinful state, recognize the death-dealing effects of sin, and avail themselves of God’s provision through Christ to be liberated. It is an arrangement that reveals the hideous nature of sin (considering what Jesus endured for sinners) and God’s great love by having his Son die for the world of mankind, reaching the inmost selves of those who believe and appreciatively acknowledge that God and Christ did this for them so that they might live in eternal fellowship with them. (3:14-16)
In expression of his boundless love, God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, depriving humans of all hope, but to save the world of mankind, opening up to all the opportunity for eternal life or an abiding relationship with him. The individual responding in faith would not have a condemnatory judgment expressed against him. A failure to put faith in the “name” or in the person of the unique Son of God when the testimony concerning him is presented would, however, lead to adverse judgment. (3:17, 18)
The only-begotten or unique Son of God is the “light” that came into the world, dispelling the darkness of ignorance and evil. Whenever people love the darkness more than the light, preferring a life contrary to God’s upright ways, they are not drawn to his Son. Having chosen to engage in wicked works, harming themselves and others by their lawless actions, they hate the light embodied in him. They do not want their works to be exposed by the light that radiates from God’s Son. (3:19, 20)
The person who “does [or lives] the truth,” striving to harmonize his life with what is true and right, is drawn to the light. Instead of fearing exposure, such a person makes a confident approach, letting the light reveal his works as having been done “in God.” The expression “in God” suggests that the individual recognized the need for divine aid and lived a life that acknowledged the Most High and focused on pleasing him. (3:21)
The words of John 3:16-21 or 14-21 are not necessarily part of the discussion with Nicodemus, but may be the comments of the writer of this account. Translations vary in the placement of the quotation marks, either ending the quotation with verse 13, verse 15, or verse 21. Today’s English Version, for example, ends the quotation with verse 13 to indicate that verses 14-21 were not part of the conversation.
Jesus and his disciples next went into the region of Judea. There he spent some time with them, and they did baptizing, evidently at his direction or with his approval. (3:22; 4:1, 2)
As there was abundant water in Aenon near Salim, John did baptizing at that location (which has not been identified with any known site), and people continued coming to him to be immersed. At the time, John had not as yet been imprisoned. (3:23, 24)
In the mind of the Jews (singular “Jew” in other Greek manuscripts) who disputed with John’s disciples about purification, baptism would have been associated with cleansing, especially in view of the call to repentance. The nature of the argument, however, is not specified in the account. In view of what his disciples later said to John, it would appear that the dispute centered on what seemed to be competing baptisms. John had ceased to be the only one doing baptizing. The disciples of John called to his attention that the one concerning whom he had testified was baptizing and that “all” were going to him. They attributed to Jesus what his disciples were doing and appear to have been disturbed by the decreasing number of people coming to John. (3:25, 26)
Responding to their concern, John told them that a man cannot receive anything unless it has been given him from above, heaven, or by God. As he reminded them, they knew full well that he had said, “I am not the Christ,” and that he had been sent to prepare the way before him. Likening himself to the bridegroom’s friend, John continued, “The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The bridegroom’s friend stands and hears him, rejoicing greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore, this, my joy, has been made complete. He must increase, but I must decrease.” (3:27-30)
The Son of God had come from above and so was above all. Although a prophet, John had not come from the realm above. He was from the earth and was limited to conveying information that related to the earthly sphere. Although God’s unique Son had come from heaven and is above all and could testify about things that no one from the earth had seen or heard, people generally did not accept his testimony. (3:31, 32)
The person accepting this testimony placed his seal upon it, certifying that God is true or that he had kept his word to send the one who was promised to come. With the fullness of God’s spirit operating upon him (unlike the prophets to whom the spirit had been given by measure), Jesus spoke his Father’s words. As the one whom he dearly loved, the Father had given everything into the hands of his Son — everything relating to the eternal future of the world of mankind. To have faith in the Son would result in coming into possession of eternal life or a life distinguished by an abiding relationship with the Father. Those who reject the Son will not see life or experience an enduring life as persons whom the Father approves and loves. As persons against whom a record of sin remains, they continue to be the objects of God’s wrath or disapproval. (3:33-36)
Verses 31-36 may not be a part of John the Baptist’s testimony. The revelatory nature of the comments about God’s Son would seem to indicate that this is a summation of the gospel writer. Translators vary respecting the placement of the closing quotation marks, either including verses 31 through 36 or ending the quotation of John the Baptist’s words with verse 30.
Whereas Jesus’ disciples and not he himself did baptizing, the news reached the Pharisees that he was making and baptizing more disciples than John. Learning about this development, Jesus left Judea and returned to Galilee. According to Matthew 4:12 and Mark 1:14, Jesus’ departure coincided with John’s arrest and imprisonment for having exposed the wrongness of Herod Antipas’s incestuous relationship with Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip. (Mark 6:17, 18) This suggests that the apparent jealousy of the Pharisees and John’s imprisonment created an environment hostile to Jesus. As his time for laying down his life had not yet come, he may have left for Galilee, where the potential personal dangers would not have been as great. (4:1-3)
On their way to Galilee, Jesus and his disciples traveled the more direct route through Samaria. Arriving at a well the patriarch Jacob had dug centuries earlier and which was in a field that came to be the legal possession of Joseph, Jesus, tired from the journey, seated himself there while his disciples went into the nearby city of Sychar to buy food. It was about the sixth hour or noon (according to Jewish reckoning). (4:4-6, 8)
In view of her reputation, a certain Samaritan woman may have chosen to walk to the well to draw water during the heat of the day when others usually would not be there. When she arrived, Jesus asked her to give him a drink. Surprised that a Jew would ask a Samaritan for a drink (as Jews did not associate with Samaritans), she said, “How can you, a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink?” Endeavoring to shift her focus to what he could provide for her, Jesus replied, “If you had known the gift of God and the one who said to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” The Samaritan woman, however, did not understand what Jesus meant but continued to focus on literal water, telling him that he had no means for drawing water from the deep well. “Where, then,” she asked, “can you get this living water? Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob who gave us the well and who himself and his sons and his flocks drank from it?” (4:7-12)
Drawing a distinction between the water from the well and the “water” he could provide, Jesus said, “Everyone drinking from this water will get thirsty again. The one, however, drinking from the water I shall give him will never thirst, but the water I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” To partake of the living water, the individual must turn in faith or unqualified trust to Jesus as the promised Messiah or Christ and as the unique Son of God. Thereafter what Jesus, as the source of the living water, imparts becomes within the person a well of never-failing water that bubbles up, granting eternal life to the individual. This life is a newness of life as a person having an enduring approved relationship with the Father and his beloved Son. With her mind still fixed on water, the woman did not comprehend Jesus’ words. “Sir, give me this water,” she said, “that I may not thirst and may not have to come here to draw [water].” (4:13-15)
If the Scriptural account basically contains the entire conversation, Jesus did not explain how his words related to him and how, through him, all that was essential for eternal life could be obtained. He used another approach to direct her attention beyond her mundane concerns, asking her to call her husband. Acknowledging the correctness of her response about not having a husband, Jesus continued, “You have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband.” His reply made her realize that he was no ordinary man. He was a prophet. This prompted her to bring up a matter that had seemingly lain dormant in her mind. “Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain [Gerizim], but you [Jews] say that in Jerusalem is the place where one must worship.” Her implied question was, Which view is correct? (4:16-20)
Jesus then revealed that the time was at hand when geographical locations would cease to have any bearing on worship. “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You [Samaritans] worship what you do not know. We [Jews] worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is [here], when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for also such ones the Father seeks to worship him. God [is] spirit, and those worshiping him must worship in spirit and truth.” (4:21-24)
With Jesus’ arrival as the promised Messiah, the “hour” or time had come for a change in the arrangement for worship. No longer would worship be associated with a specific location like Mount Gerizim or the temple in Jerusalem. Because the Samaritans were only acquainted with the Pentateuch and did not have the complete revelation about God available in the writings of the Hebrew prophets, they were worshiping one whom they did not fully know. The Jews, on the other hand, were in possession of all the “holy writings.” From among them, the Messiah was promised to come. Therefore, as Jesus said, “Salvation is from the Jews.” (4:21, 22)
Worship “in spirit” is not dependent on a particular location or any other external factors. Regardless of the time or circumstances, true worshipers are in possession of a worshipful attitude. Theirs is worship of a spiritual kind. The approach to the Father is with profound reverence and humility. Worship “in truth” harmonizes with the complete revelation the Father has provided respecting himself. The full disclosure became available through his Son, who is the “truth.” Jesus flawlessly mirrored his Father. Therefore, seeing the Son was just like seeing God. The Father is seeking those whose worship is not governed by externals. He is “spirit” and therefore not to be linked in any way to the realm of the physical. Worship that is acceptable to him must be “in spirit and truth,” reflecting who he is (based on the complete revelation he has provided). Being “in truth,” such worship would also be genuine and not a mere expression of the lips or a ritualistic routine. (4:23, 24; compare 1 John 3:18.)
At this point, the woman acknowledged that she knew Messiah was coming and that he would make everything known. In keeping with her expectation about the Messiah, Jesus identified himself openly to her in a way that he did not among his own people. “I am [the Messiah], the one speaking to you.” (4:25, 26)
In the then-existing culture, men did not freely converse with women in the manner that Jesus did. So, when the disciples returned from having purchased food, they wondered why he was speaking with a woman, but no one could bring himself to ask what she wanted or why Jesus was speaking to her. (4:27)
Indicating that she planned to return, the woman left her water jar and headed back to the city. As Jesus had revealed that he knew intimate details about her life, she invited men of the city to see the man who had told her “all” that she had done and expressed the thought that he could be the Messiah. Based on her words, the men departed from the city to meet Jesus. (4:28-30)
During the intervening time, the disciples asked Jesus to eat. He, though, told them, “I have food to eat of which you have no knowledge.” This perplexed the disciples, causing them to wonder whether someone else had brought him something to eat. Clarifying his statement, Jesus continued, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work. Do you not say, ‘Yet [éti, missing in a number of ancient manuscripts] four months it is, and [then] comes the harvest’? Look! I say to you, raise your eyes and behold the fields, that they are white, [ready] for [the] harvest. Already the reaper is receiving wages and gathering fruit for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may rejoice together. For in this, the saying is true, ‘One is the sower, and another the reaper.’ I sent you to harvest [that] on which you had not labored. Others labored, and you have entered into their labor,” benefiting from the preparatory work others had performed. (4:31-38)
For Jesus, doing his Father’s will brought refreshment comparable to partaking of nourishment. The reference to “four months” until the harvest may have been a proverbial saying, indicating that from sowing until harvesting was a period of four months. As a proverbial saying, the reference would provide no clue as to the time of the year Jesus and his disciples were in Samaria. (4:32, 34, 35)
Jesus’ words, however, did not focus on a literal harvest of grain. The fields ripe for harvesting denoted the people who would be ready to respond to the message about him that his disciples would proclaim. This could mean that the Greek word héde for “already” could refer to the fields that were then ripe for harvesting. The inclusion of kaí (“and”) in fifth century Codex Alexandrinus and a number of other manuscripts after héde does support this significance. If, however, héde is understood to start the sentence that is completed in verse 36, this would mean that the reaper was already receiving wages. These wages would be the results the disciples had when laboring with Jesus in the harvest. The Samaritans who were making their way to see Jesus illustrated the bountiful harvest of people that lay ahead. Those who accepted Jesus as the Son of God would come into possession of eternal life (a life distinguished by an enduring relationship with him and his Father). As “fruit” of the harvest, people would be gathered for eternal life. (4:35)
The time would come when both those who shared in the preparatory work and those who participated in the harvest could rejoice together. The Hebrew prophets had labored while subjected to abuse and bitter opposition, and their words survived in written form, giving rise to hope respecting the coming of the Messiah. The last of the prophets who had faithfully labored until his arrest and imprisonment was John the Baptist. Even the testimony of the Samaritan woman about her conversation with Jesus served as preparatory sowing. Jesus’ disciples would benefit from all the sowing that had been done in the past, finding joy in gathering “fruit for eternal life.” (4:35-38)
In view of what the woman had told them, many Samaritans came to believe in Jesus. Her basic message about him was, “He told me everything I did.” The Samaritans asked Jesus to stay with them, and he accepted their invitation, remaining with them for two days. Based on their personal experience with Jesus, many more came to believe. They then told the woman that their conviction was not based on just what she had said, adding, “We know that he is truly the Savior of the world.” (4:39-42)
The faith many Samaritans showed is remarkable. They did not see Jesus perform a single miraculous sign but believed in him because of what they first heard he said to the woman and, later, what they heard from him personally. (4:41, 42)
Whether Jesus’ disciples remained with him two extra days in Samaria is not specifically stated in the biblical account. At some point during the course of their travel northward, however, they began to head to their own homes.
After the two days in Samaria, Jesus departed for Galilee. Whereas the Samaritans had invited him to stay, he could testify that in his own country (or among his own people) a prophet has no honor. (4:43, 44)
At the seven-day festival following the Passover, the Galileans present for the observance had witnessed Jesus’ activity in Jerusalem, including his miraculous signs and his cleansing the temple of commercial activity. Based on what they had seen, they welcomed him. (4:45)
Arriving in Cana, where he had earlier turned water into wine, he met a royal official from Capernaum, where Peter and Andrew and seemingly also James and John resided. This official’s son was seriously ill. Upon learning that Jesus had come from Judea, this man set out to meet him, requesting that he come to Capernaum to heal his boy who was then close to death. (4:46, 47)
Jesus responded, “Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe.” According to the Greek text, the verbs are second-person plural verbs, not the singular (“you see” and “you believe”). This suggests that Jesus’ words were designed to test the genuineness of the royal official’s faith. Was the man like the many others who personally wanted to see signs and wonders before they would put faith in Jesus? (4:48)
This official’s next words reflected the desperate plea of a father for his son and the belief that Jesus alone could cure him. “Sir [or, Lord], come down before my boy dies.” Instead of accompanying the father back to Capernaum, Jesus told him to return, assuring him, “Your son lives.” He believed what Jesus told him and departed. The measure of faith he had then manifested was strengthened during the trip back to Capernaum. While he was on his way, his slaves met him, telling him that his son was alive and well. In response to his inquiry about when his son’s health improved, the slaves said, “Yesterday, in the seventh hour [about 1:00 p.m., according to Jewish reckoning], the fever left him.” This was the very time Jesus had said to him, “Your son lives.” Therefore, he “believed” (evidently in Jesus and with greater conviction than he had upon first heading back to Capernaum) and so did his entire household. (4:49-53)
This was the “second sign” Jesus performed in Galilee, and the first one since his return from Judea. How many miracles Jesus did earlier in Judea is not disclosed in the biblical accounts. Like the other miracles, the “second sign” served to identify Jesus as the Son of God. It demonstrated the greatness of the divine power operating through him, as he did not have to be present personally for the cure to occur. (4:54)
The various manuscript readings do not make it possible to determine for which festival Jesus went to Jerusalem. While the oldest extant manuscripts omit the definite article before “festival” (heorté), many later manuscripts include it. Based on the definite article, many have thought that this would have been the most prominent of the three annual festivals — the Passover (followed by the seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread). A ninth-century manuscript does, in fact, read ázymos, identifying the occasion as being the Festival of Unleavened Bread. A fourteenth-century manuscript, however, refers to it as “the Festival of Tabernacles” (he skenopegía). The measure of uncertainty about which festival was involved also makes it difficult to establish the time of the year in which the narrated events occurred. (5:1)
While in Jerusalem, Jesus, on a Sabbath day, passed by the pool of Bethzatha (Bethesda or Bethsaida [according to other manuscript readings]), which was situated near the Sheep Gate, the northeastern entrance into the temple area. (The Greek text does not include the word “gate.” Based on the context, translators have included the term to indicate that the reference is to the Sheep Gate.) In the five porticoes that had been constructed for the pool, many afflicted persons were lying, including the blind, the lame, and the crippled. Among them was a man who had suffered from his ailment for 38 years. Aware of this man’s pitiable state for many years, Jesus said to him, “Do you want to get well?” The man explained that he had no one to put him into the pool when the water would get stirred up. While he would then try to make it into the pool, someone else would precede him. Jesus told him, “Rise, pick up your mat, and walk.” Immediately cured from his affliction, the man got up, took hold of his mat, and started to walk. (5:2-9)
According to the oldest extant manuscripts, the words of verse 4 are omitted, providing no explanation as to why the waters in the pool were stirred up. (5:7) Later manuscripts, however, say that an angel stirred up the waters and that the first person then stepping into the pool would be cured of whatever ailment he may have had.
Seeing the cured man carrying his mat, fellow Jews told him that it was unlawful for him to do this on the Sabbath. He replied that the man who had made him well had told him to pick up his mat and walk. Instead of rejoicing about the marvelous cure, the objectors continued to focus on what they perceived to be a violation of the law, saying, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Pick up [your mat] and walk’?” The cured man could not answer this question, for Jesus had not identified himself and, because of the crowd there, had walked away. (5:10-13)
Later, Jesus found the cured man in the temple complex. Whether he chose to look for the man or just happened to meet him again is not disclosed in the biblical account. Jesus did use the opportunity to admonish him not to sin any more and thus to avoid having something even worse than the 38 years of suffering befall him. This could suggest that the man had in earlier years lived a sinful life that brought on his affliction. Now that he was again well he should have been concerned about not repeating past wrongs and sinning with full knowledge of the serious consequences. (5:14)
The biblical record does not state why the cured man felt impelled to reveal Jesus’ identity to the Jews who had accused him of breaking the law by carrying his mat on the Sabbath. It seems most unlikely that he thought that this would bring trouble to his benefactor. As he appears to have made a point of the fact that Jesus had restored him to sound health, the man may have felt that this would cause them to draw a positive conclusion about his healer and cease making an issue about his carrying the mat on the Sabbath. (5:15)
Those who regarded what had taken place in connection with the cured man as a violation of the law, however, made Jesus the object of their hostility. Establishing his right to do good deeds on the Sabbath, Jesus said to his opponents, “My Father has been working until now, and I continue working.” The Jews would have believed that God completed his creative activity but continued to work, extending his blessing and expressing his judgment. Based on their holy writings, they would have known that God’s works included healing and making alive. (Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6; 2 Kings 5:7) In imitation of his Father, Jesus continued to work, doing good deeds on the Sabbath. (5:16, 17)
Recognizing that he was referring to God as his Father in an intimate way, those hearing Jesus’ words became enraged, intent on killing him. In their minds, he had violated the Sabbath and called God his own Father in a very personal manner that was foreign to them, prompting them to conclude that he was blasphemously making himself “equal to” or like God. (5:18)
Jesus’ reply starts with the words, “Amen, amen, I say to you.” Here, as in verses 24 and 25, the introductory words constitute a solemn declaration and strong assurance regarding the truthfulness of the statements that follow. Jesus revealed that the hostile ones were wrong in their thinking that he was making himself equal to God, for he never acted independently of his Father. He solemnly affirmed the certainty of his words with “amen, amen” and stressed that he did not act on his own authority respecting a single deed but only did what he saw his Father doing. Whatever the Father did, the Son did likewise. Calling attention to the close relationship with his Father, Jesus continued: “The Father loves the Son and shows him everything he himself does, and works greater than these he will show him, so that you may marvel. For just as the Father raises the dead and restores life, so also the Son restores life to whomever he wishes. For the Father judges no one but has granted all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Amen, amen, I say to you, that whoever hears my word and believes the one who sent me has eternal life, and is not condemned but has passed from death to life.” (5:19-24)
As the intimate and dearly beloved of his Father, the unique Son possessed complete knowledge of his Father’s activity. In this context, the deeds of the Father specifically relate to humankind. The Father would do works even more astonishing than one like the restoration of good health to the man who had been afflicted for 38 years. The more impressive works would amaze those beholding them. As Jesus’ words revealed, those astonishing works involved more than temporary cures from affliction. The Father would make it possible for his Son to raise the dead and give them life. (5:19-21)
As the one to whom the Father had granted judgment authority, the Son would be in position to judge those whom he restored to life. Being the possessor of life-giving power like his Father and judge by his Father’s appointment, Jesus would be deserving of honor. All, in fact, should honor him as they would rightly honor the Father. A refusal to honor the Son would signify a refusal to honor the Father, as the Father had sent him. (5:22, 23)
In his capacity as judge, the Son would not express condemnatory judgment against those who believe in him, acknowledging him as God’s beloved Son and living a life that gives evidence of their belief or faith. Those who “hear” his word, accepting it in faith and acting on it, and who believe the Father and that he had sent his Son come into possession of eternal life. It is a life of an enduring approved relationship with the Father and his Son. Possessors of this eternal life, a newness of life as divinely approved persons, do not face condemnatory judgment. From a state of being dead in sins and therefore without a divinely approved standing, they have entered into the realm of life. (5:24)
In past generations, this opportunity had not been opened up, as Jesus continued, “Amen, amen, I say to you that the hour is coming and is now, when the dead will hear the voice of God’s Son and those hearing [it] will live.” Those who heard or paid attention to Jesus’ words and embraced them in faith ceased to be dead in trespasses and sins and began to enjoy a newness of life. With the arrival of God’s Son on earth, the “hour” or time for this marvelous development had arrived. (5:25)
The Father, who had “life in himself” or life-giving power, also granted the Son to have the same life-giving power. Jesus explained that he had been granted authority to render judgment because of being the “Son of Man.” By speaking of himself as the “Son of Man,” he identified himself with the one like a “son of man” (mentioned in Daniel 7:13, 14) to whom the Most High would grant kingship. (5:26, 27)
Jesus’ statement, “Do not be amazed at this,” could apply either to his words about being the “Son of Man” with divinely granted authority to judge or to his next comment about his restoring life to the dead and thereupon judging them. He continued speaking about himself in the third person, “The hour is coming when all in the tombs will hear his voice and come out.” Those who revealed themselves to be doers of good during their lifetime would then experience the “resurrection of life,” from then onward enjoying life eternally as persons having an approved relationship with the Father and his Son. Practicers of vile deeds, those who had set themselves in opposition to God’s ways, would face a “resurrection of judgment,” a condemnatory judgment commensurate with the life they had lived. (5:28, 29)
These words of Jesus parallel Daniel 12:2 (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]), “Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence.” Similarly, the apostle Paul wrote about judgment, (2 Corinthians 5:10 (NAB), “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.” (5:28, 29)
Christ’s judgment would conform to the highest standard of justice. He continued, “I can do nothing of myself; as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, for I seek [to do] not my own will but the will of the one who sent me.” In judging, Jesus would not handle matters as if he were a law to himself. His Father is the source of the ultimate standard of justice, and it is to him that Jesus would always listen, assuring absolute impartiality. At all times, he would seek to do his Father’s will, never deviating therefrom to do his own will and failing to uphold what the demands of flawless justice require. (5:30)
Jesus acknowledged that, if he merely testified respecting himself, his testimony could not be accepted as true, for it would be lacking the needed confirmation from at least one other witness. (Compare Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; 1 Timothy 5:19.) There was, however, another witness who bore testimony concerning him, and Jesus knew the testimony of this other witness to be true. The dependable witness was not a man. (5:31, 32)
Prominent Jews from Jerusalem had sent a delegation of priests and Levites to John to question him about his activity. On that occasion, John provided testimony that focused on the Messiah, the one for whom he was preparing the way. (1:19-27) Jesus, though, was not “accepting” the testimony from any man as if he depended upon it. He had testimony from a much higher source than man, making testimony from a human source unessential for confirmation of his identity. Jesus did not, however, reject John’s testimony. With the objective of leading his listeners to salvation or liberation from enslavement to sin, he called attention to John’s truthful witness. (5:33, 34)
Jesus wanted his listeners to reflect on John’s words and to act on them, leading to their acceptance of him as the promised Messiah. John proved to be a shining lamp, providing enlightenment about what was essential for being ready for Messiah’s appearance. For a short time (an “hour”), the people rejoiced in the light from this lamp, with many coming to John, listening to what he proclaimed, and being baptized by him in acknowledgment of their sinful state. Eventually, however, increasing numbers looked upon him negatively, slanderously referring to him as being demon possessed. (5:35; see Matthew 3:1-6; 11:16-18)
The miraculous works his Father had empowered Jesus to do served as testimony far greater than what John could give. These works undeniably established that he had come from God. (3:2; 9:24-38.) As Jesus said, “The works that I am doing testify about me that the Father has sent me.” By means of the works he had given Jesus to do, his Father testified that he was his beloved Son. (5:36; compare Hebrews 2:2-4.)
When telling those to whom he was then speaking that they had never heard God’s voice nor seen his form, Jesus did not refer to their not having such an experience in the literal sense. The holy writings, which they claimed to believe, contained God’s words and presented a clear vision respecting him. (Compare Exodus 20:18-22; 24:9-11; Judges 13:21-23; Job 38:1; 42:5; Isaiah 6:1-5; Ezekiel 1:26-28.) Their response to Jesus, the unique Son of God who flawlessly reflected the image of his Father, proved that they had not heard God’s voice as conveyed through the holy writings nor did they see God in the way he had revealed himself in these writings. God’s revelatory word did not abide in them. It was no part of their inner self, and so they lacked the essential light for recognizing the Son. This was the reason for their refusal to believe him as the one whom the Father had sent. (5:37, 38)
They did search the scriptures, thinking that through them they would have eternal life or a life as God’s favored people. Despite their searching, though, they failed to see the vital truth respecting the activity of the coming Messiah and allowed themselves to be blinded by what they wanted him to be. (Compare Deuteronomy 18:18, 19; Isaiah 53:1-12.) The kind of life they were seeking could only be obtained by coming to Christ, acknowledging him as God’s unique Son who could liberate them from enslavement to sin. But, as Jesus said, “You do not wish to come to me so that you might have life.” (5:39, 40)
Jesus felt no need to have men bestow glory or honor upon him, seeking to please them in efforts to gain their favor or approval. He was fully aware that those to whom he spoke did not have the love of God in themselves. Their refusal to love him showed that they did not love the Father who had sent him. He had come in his Father’s name, faithfully representing him in word and deed. Yet those who heard Jesus’ words refused to accept him. If, on the other hand, someone came to them in his own name, acting and speaking on his own authority, they would accept him, evidently because they would be of kindred spirit and would be hearing what they wanted to hear. (5:41-43)
They had the wrong view of glory, wanting the praises of men, which required an appeal to those aims and desires that pandered to the flawed human condition. They did not seek the glory or praise that had its source in the only God, not wanting to submit themselves fully to his will and ways. (5:44)
Although Jesus reproved their unbelief, he could say that they had another one who accused them for their faithlessness. That one was Moses, the very one in whom they had set their hope. If they had truly believed Moses and the Messianic prophecies recorded in the sacred writings they attributed to him, they would have believed Jesus. How, though, could they believe Jesus’ words if they did not really believe the writings of Moses, writings which they claimed to believe as being of God? (5:45-47)
Jesus departed to the east side of the Sea of Galilee (also known as the Sea of Tiberias). Based on the accounts of Matthew and Mark, this departure by boat with his apostles occurred after he likely had made prior arrangements to first meet them in Capernaum after they had completed the mission on which he had sent them. (6:1)
Capernaum would have been the logical place for Jesus and the apostles to meet. Peter and Andrew had their home there, and most of the other apostles appear to have lived in the general vicinity. The availability of a boat also points to Capernaum as the probable location. An indication that Jesus and his apostles left from there by boat is their coming to the plain of Gennesaret (south of Capernaum) upon their return to the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. (Matthew 14:34; Mark 6:53)
The time for the return of the apostles from their mission was also appropriate. With the Passover being near, Jesus and his apostles needed to make the journey to Jerusalem. Like Peter, most, if not all, of the other apostles would have been married and likely had children. Families customarily made the trip together, and there is no reason to conclude that the apostles would not have done so. (Compare Mark 1:29, 30; Luke 2:41, 42; John 2:12, 13; 7:3, 8-10; 1 Corinthians 9:5)
Upon their return from the mission on which Jesus had sent the apostles, they related to him what they had done and taught. Possibly at this time, they first heard about the death of John. This would have greatly saddened them and appears to have been part of the reason for Jesus’ recommendation to depart for an isolated area to get some rest. Once it had become known that they had returned to the area, Jesus and his apostles had little privacy. They were unable even to eat a meal without interruption, because of the many people who were coming and going. (Matthew 14:12, 13; Mark 6:30, 31)
The number of people probably was greater than at other times, as the Passover was near. (6:4) Many families in Galilee would have started to travel to the major routes leading to Jerusalem and been staying in towns and villages along the way. This would have contributed to increased talk about Jesus activity, and more people would have witnessed his curing of the sick. (6:2)
Jesus’ departure with his apostles did not go unnoticed. Those who saw them leave by boat quickly spread the news. A large crowd of men, women, and children from different towns then hurried to the other side of the Sea of Galilee to meet them. The walking distance may have been less than 5 miles (c. 8 kilometers), as the isolated area was near Bethsaida. (Matthew 14:13; Mark 6:32, 33; Luke 9:10) A distance of a little over 3 miles (c. 5 kilometers) separates what are believed to have been the locations of ancient Capernaum and Bethsaida. From the shore, the people would have been able to see the progress of the boat in the northern part of the Sea of Galilee. (6:1, 2)
When Jesus and his apostles went ashore on the other side of the Sea of Galilee, a large crowd was already waiting for them. Although their presence interfered with his plan for the apostles to get some rest in an isolated area, Jesus was moved with compassion for the people. He considered them to be like helpless sheep without the concern and guidance of a caring shepherd. He then began to teach them about the kingdom of God and healed the sick among them. (Matthew 14:14; Mark 6:34; Luke 9:11)
The biblical accounts do not contain specifics about what Jesus taught on this occasion and whether he spoke to the multitude or taught groups of people as they came to him and raised questions. According to John 6:3, Jesus and his disciples ascended a mountainside and there seated themselves in a grassy area. (6:10) Just as he and his disciples found a suitable location, the thousands who had come to the area would have done likewise. Men would have started talking with other men, and women with other women. Children would have engaged in play. Likely, at various times, groups of people would have approached Jesus and then left as others came. His teaching must have prompted many conversations.
Although considerable time passed, the crowd continued to remain in the isolated location. This prompted the disciples to suggest that Jesus dismiss the people so that they could buy food for themselves in the nearby villages. (Matthew 14:15; Mark 6:35, 36; Luke 9:12)
Perhaps at this point, Jesus saw a large crowd coming to where he and his disciples had seated themselves. Knowing what he purposed to do, he tested Philip with the question, “Where are we going to buy bread for them to eat?” The question directed to Philip seems to have served to test his faith in Jesus’ ability to provide for the people. Although perceiving that the available resources were insufficient, Philip did not appear to make the connection that Jesus would be able to provide enough for everyone, just as centuries earlier the prophet Elisha had fed 100 men to satisfaction with a limited amount of bread. (2 Kings 4:42-44) Being from Bethsaida (probably the closest town), Philip would have known where bread could be purchased. (1:44) His response reveals that he knew about how much money the disciples had in their common fund and thought that the amount would be insufficient. He replied that 200 denarii (a denarius being a day’s wage) would not buy enough bread to provide even a small amount for everyone. Commenting on how little food he knew to be available, Peter’s brother Andrew remarked, “Here is a boy with five barley loaves and two fishes. But what do these [amount to] among so many?” In response to Jesus’ telling them to provide food for the multitude, the apostles questioned whether they should leave to purchase what they could for 200 denarii. (6:5-9; also see Matthew 14:16; Mark 6:37; Luke 9:13.)
In verse 9, the Greek term for “boy” is paidárion. Being a diminutive form of pais, paidárion (“boy”) is often translated “little boy.” This, however, is not necessarily the significance of the designation. In the Septuagint, the term is applied to 17-year-old Joseph (Genesis 37:30) and to his younger brother Benjamin when he was already a young man. (Genesis 43:8)
Andrew’s knowledge about the youth may be an indication that he was the son of one of the disciples. With their focus being on Jesus, the biblical accounts reveal very little about the apostles and their families. That family members accompanied them on various occasions is likely. Their not being mentioned does not preclude this possibility, especially since only Matthew’s account mentions women and children in connection with this incident. If the youth was the son of one of the apostles, he may have been entrusted with their food supply. The fish probably were dried and salted. According to Matthew 14:17 and Luke 9:13, the apostles referred to the five loaves and the two fishes as being all they had to give to the people, with no mention being made of the youth. This would seem to lend support to the conclusion that the youngster was a son of one of the apostles. Moreover, John’s account portrays him as already being with Jesus and the apostles when the crowd approached. (6:5, 9)
The abundant grass in the location made it convenient for the people to recline in order to eat. Jesus told the apostles to have the people do so in groups of a hundred and of fifty. He then took the five loaves and the two fishes, which had been brought to him, looked up to heaven, and said a blessing. After breaking the loaves, Jesus gave the bread to the disciples for distribution to the people. He did the same with the two fishes. The miraculous provision of bread and fish was sufficient for about 5,000 men, besides women and children. To prevent any waste, Jesus instructed the apostles to gather the leftovers in baskets. They filled twelve baskets, which seems to indicate that each of the apostles had taken a travel basket along. The Greek term for one of these baskets is kóphinos and appears to have been the designation for a basket smaller than the sphyrís. (6:10-13; see also Matthew 14:17-21; Mark 6:38-44; Luke 9:14-17.)
When the people saw the signs Jesus performed, especially the providing of food for the multitude, they concluded that he must surely be the prophet who was destined to come into the world. This prompted them to want to forcibly make Jesus their king. Becoming aware of their intent, he took steps to be alone, recognizing that their objective was contrary to his Father’s purpose and did not reflect genuine faith in him as the promised Messiah. When evening came, the disciples headed to the Sea of Galilee and boarded the boat and headed for Capernaum. According to the other gospel accounts, Jesus directed his disciples to board the boat, then dismissed the crowd, and headed up the mountainside. In Matthew 14:22 and Mark 6:45, Jesus’ directing his disciples to board the boat is expressed with a form of the Greek word anankázo, meaning “force,” “compel,” or “strongly urge.” This suggests that there may have been reluctance on their part to leave. Jesus may have insisted on their leaving because of knowing how easily they could have been drawn into supporting the aim to make him king. (6:14-17)
Mark 6:45 includes Jesus instructions for “his disciples to go on ahead to the other side, toward Bethsaida.” This may be understood to mean that the disciples were to go north toward Bethsaida and then navigate along the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee to the western shore. Alone on the height, he had the needed privacy to pray to his Father. (6:14, 15; see also Matthew 14:22, 23; Mark 6:45, 46.)
According to John 6:17, Jesus had not yet come to the disciples even though it had already become dark. This could mean that he had prearranged to meet them before they would start crossing the Sea of Galilee for Capernaum. Perhaps the reference in Mark 6:45 to Bethsaida provides a possible clue about the place where Jesus planned to rejoin them. If this was the case, the disciples would have waited for a long time. When, however, it appeared that he was not coming, they decided to head for Capernaum according to the instructions he had given them.
Late at night Jesus finished praying and looked down on the Sea of Galilee. A considerable distance from the shore, he saw the boat in which the disciples were. With a strong, unfavorable wind creating a rough sea, the boat made little progress. (Matthew 14:23, 24; Mark 6:46-48) Jesus descended from the mountainside and began to walk on the water. (6:18, 19)
During the fourth night watch (between three and six in the morning), the boat was about 3 or 3.5 miles (about 5 or nearly 6 kilometers; literally, about 25 or 30 stadia, with a stadium being about 607 feet [c. 185 meters]) from the shore, and the disciples were struggling to row it against the wind. Fright seized them when they saw someone walking on the water in their direction and about to pass them by. Thinking that they were beholding a phantom, they cried out in fear. Then they heard Jesus’ reassuring words, “[It is] I. Fear not.” (6:19, 20; see also Matthew 14:25-27 and Mark 6:48-50.)
Mark 6:52 indicates that the disciples had not comprehended the significance of the miracle involving the loaves. Their “heart” or mental perception remained dull. It appears that the apostles saw each miracle as a separate event and did not draw conclusions about other areas in which Jesus would be able to manifest divine power. Although they had witnessed the miraculous feeding of thousands with just five loaves and two fishes, it did not occur to them that the sea could not prevent Jesus from joining them. Therefore, for them to see Jesus walking on water should not have been something completely unimaginable. (6:19)
After Jesus entered the boat, the storm ended. Amazed and deeply moved by what they had witnessed, the disciples fell to their knees, prostrated themselves before Jesus, and said, “Truly you are the Son of God.” From then onward, they no longer struggled with the oars while making little progress. (Matthew 14:24, 32-34; Mark 6:48, 51) In no time (literally, “immediately”), they reached the western shore. Because of viewing the term “immediately” in a very literal sense, numerous commentators have concluded that this was yet another miracle. It is more likely, however, that the term describes the progress of the trip in relation to the situation before Jesus joined the apostles. (6:21)
The people who had stayed for the night on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee looked for Jesus in the morning. Although there was a small boat at the location, the people knew that the disciples had left in a larger boat and that Jesus had not left with them. Unable to find Jesus or any of his disciples, they decided to head back to Capernaum. To make the trip, the people boarded some boats that had come from Tiberias (a city on the western shore of the sea). Upon later finding Jesus, they asked, “Rabbi, when did you arrive here?” (6:22-25)
He did not answer their question but pointed to the real reason for their effort to find him. Introducing his words with the repetition of a solemn “amen” (“truly”), Jesus said, “You are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.” His words revealed that the miracle did not engender genuine faith in them. Their earlier attempt to make him king was based on a carnal view and not spiritual perception. Therefore, Jesus urged them to work for the food that endures for eternal life, ceasing to make their prime concern the food that perishes upon being consumed and that cannot sustain life indefinitely. Speaking of himself as the “Son of Man,” he revealed that he could give them the essential food for eternal life (the real life of a permanent relationship with him and his Father). There should have been no question about Jesus’ ability to do so, for his Father had “sealed” him. The miracles the Father had empowered him to perform by means of his spirit, like an authenticating seal, undeniably established his identity as the unique Son of God. (John 6:26, 27)
In response to the people’s question about what they needed to do to carry out the “works of God,” Jesus told them to believe or have faith in the one whom God had sent. Although they had personally benefited from the miraculous provision of food, they were not satisfied with this sign, which should have led them to put faith in Jesus. They did not see in him the Messiah they wanted, for he had not cooperated with them in their attempt to forcibly make him their king. This appears to have been a factor in their seeking a heavenly sign that would have been more in line with their messianic expectations. The people challenged Jesus. “What sign are you performing, so that we might see [it] and believe you? What are you doing? In the wilderness, our ancestors ate the manna, as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” (6:28-31)
“Amen, amen” (“Truly, truly”), Jesus replied, “Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.” The “bread of God,” as Jesus explained, “comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” The people, however, did not understand that Jesus himself was the bread that had come down from heaven and that through him members of the world of mankind would be granted life (the eternal life of an enduring relationship with his Father and with him). Concluding that the bread to which he had referred was comparable to manna, they replied, “Lord, always give us this bread.” (6:32-34)
Possibly at this point or either earlier or later, Jesus finished speaking to the people. He later resumed his discussion about “bread” while in the synagogue at Capernaum. (6:59)
Knowing that the people had not identified him as being the “bread of God,” Jesus expressed the point in a more direct manner, saying, “I am the bread of life. The one who comes to me will never hunger, and the one who believes in me will never thirst.” Whereas food and drink are needed to sustain physical life, the real life or the eternal life depends upon coming to Jesus and putting faith in him as the Son of God. From him and him alone does the spiritual life derive the essential sustenance, never leaving the believer in a hungry or thirsty state. (6:35)
Those who heard Jesus words had seen him and witnessed deeds revealing extraordinary divine power. Yet, as he said, they did not believe. The visible evidence did not move them to put faith or unqualified trust in him. They were not among those whom the Father had given to his Son. (6:36, 37)
What distinguished those who had been given to Jesus was their coming to him in faith. They recognized him as God’s Son and their Lord, and he acknowledged them as belonging to him. To his Father, they were precious and beloved, for he had given them to his Son. Jesus likewise valued and loved them and so would never reject them or drive them away. He would treat them in harmony with his Father’s will, for he had come from heaven to do, not his own will, but the will of his Father, who had sent him. (6:37, 38)
God’s will respecting those whom he had given to his Son was that none of them would be lost but would enjoy a permanent relationship with him. This would necessitate their being raised from the dead “on the last day.” All of them would be persons who put faith in the Son. As Jesus said, “For this is the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life.” This life is more than never-ending existence. The expression “eternal life” primarily relates to its quality or nature rather than to its duration. According to John 17:3, eternal life is “knowing” the true God and the one whom he sent. This “knowing” means having a relationship with the heavenly Father and his Son. It is a family relationship, with those having faith in Jesus being recognized by the heavenly Father as his approved children. Once that relationship comes into being, children of God have “eternal life,” but its full enjoyment is yet future. Death does not sever the permanent family relationship and, therefore, does not mean the loss of the real life that came into the possession of believers. For all children of God who have died, resurrection is a certainty and will mean their continuing to enjoy the real life in the glorified state of their sinless resurrection bodies. The heavenly Father is eternal, and the life of all with whom he has a relationship is therefore also eternal. (6:39, 40)
Jesus referred to the resurrection as taking place on the “last day.” This is the climactic point in history, which the Scriptures associate with Jesus’ return in glory to render judgment upon the world of mankind. At that time, according to 1 Thessalonians 4:16, the dead in Christ will rise, to start enjoying the real life in the sinless state. It is likely that Jesus’ hearers associated the resurrection on the “last day” with the promise to Daniel (12:12, Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]), “You shall rest, and arise to your destiny at the end of the days.” (6:40)
Jesus’ words left no question in the minds of the hearers about the identity of the “bread from heaven,” and they objected. As far as they were concerned, he had no basis for claiming that he was the bread that had come down from heaven. They knew him to be the son of Joseph, and they knew his mother. In their view, he was the natural son of Joseph and Mary and so could not possibly be the “bread from heaven.” Becoming aware of their faultfinding talk among themselves, Jesus told them to quit murmuring and then added, “No one is able to come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him, and I will raise him on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And all will be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned [from him] comes to me.” (John 6:41-45)
Through the life and activity of Jesus, the Father revealed himself. All who longed to have his favor were drawn to the Father’s self-disclosure and came to Jesus, recognizing him as the one whom the Father had sent. In the writings of the Hebrew prophets the proof could be found that the Father would draw individuals through his teaching. In Isaiah 54:13, it is written, “And all your sons [will be] taught by God.” (LXX, but “YHWH” in the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah and the Masoretic Text) The prophetic word and the miracles the Father had empowered his Son to perform served as teaching, revealing Jesus’ true identity as being more than a member of the family of Joseph and Mary. Therefore, all who heard this teaching with understanding and learned it, making it their own, came to Jesus. (6:44, 45)
Calling attention to the fact that the Father’s teaching had been made available through him, Jesus added that he alone, as the one from God, had seen the Father. “Amen, amen” (“Truly, truly”), Jesus continued in a solemn manner, “I say to you, Whoever believes has eternal life.” The response in faith resulted in an approved relationship with the Father and his Son, and the enduring nature of this relationship constitutes eternal life. Therefore, Jesus could speak of this life as coming into the possession of believers, although they would not enjoy it to the full until being granted their glorified sinless state. Emphasizing that eternal life could only be attained through him, Jesus repeated, “I am the bread of life.” Although it came from a heavenly source, the manna did not indefinitely sustain the life of the Israelites in the wilderness. As Jesus said, “They died.” The individual eating of the bread that had come down from heaven in the person of the Son, however, would not die. By putting faith in the Son and all that his life and ministry embraced, believers would become sharers in Christ and come to have eternal life. The relationship inherent in this life would not end at death but would continue upon the believer’s being resurrected in glory. Because death does not bring an end to eternal life, all who through faith share in Christ (the way persons can share a meal) do not die. (John 6:45-50)
Again Jesus made the unmistakable identification, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven.” He then expanded on this vital truth. “If anyone eats from this bread, he will live eternally, and my flesh is the bread that I will give for the life of the world.” Jesus thereby indicated that he would die sacrificially for the world of mankind and that all who would accept his sacrifice for them would be granted eternal life. (6:51)
Jesus’ words gave rise to controversy among his Jewish hearers. They objected, “How can he give us his flesh to eat?” He then replied in terms that were even more graphic. “Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you, If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves. The one who consumes my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever consumes my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father has sent me, I also live because of the Father, and whoever consumes me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like [the manna your] ancestors ate and died. The one who consumes this bread will live eternally.” (6:52-58; the bracketed words are found in numerous later manuscripts but are missing in the oldest extant manuscripts.)
Eternal life is only attainable by partaking of the benefits made possible through Jesus’ sacrificial death (the surrender of his flesh and the pouring out of his blood). Apart from Jesus’ flesh and blood, individuals may exist but they do not have the real life as divinely approved persons. The eternal life that believers come to possess through their faith in the Son guarantees their resurrection. Jesus’ flesh and blood are true food and drink in that they have a direct bearing on eternal life, just as food and drink do on one’s physical life. (6:58)
In the quotation of Jesus’ words, the Greek term for “consume” is trógo and appears in ancient writings as a term used when speaking of animals as biting or chewing their food. Perhaps the thought conveyed is that of the kind of eating characteristic of hungry animals and, therefore, could suggest the eager response to Jesus as the one who surrendered his flesh for the life of the world. (6:54-58)
To abide in Jesus would signify to be at one with him, and Jesus would be united to the individual in continued fellowship. The Father lives and is the possessor of life-giving power. Therefore, Jesus described himself as living because of his Father, to whom he was united in an eternal relationship. Likewise, the one who would share in communion with Jesus through faith (as one would participate in fellowship when partaking of a meal) would live on account of him. Unlike the manna that could not keep the ancestors of the Israelites alive indefinitely, all who become sharers in Christ, “the bread that came down from heaven,” will live eternally. (6:56-58)
Even among those who had followed Jesus as his “disciples” or learners, many found this “word” or teaching “hard,” troublesome, or intolerable. They responded, “Who can listen to it?” The teaching proved to be unacceptable and offensive to them. (6:60)
Sensing that these disciples were murmuring about his teaching, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What, then, if you were to behold the Son of Man ascending to where he had been formerly?” Jesus’ question about the ascension served to show that they had no valid reason for being offended. If they were to see him ascending to the location he had been previously, this would prove that he had indeed come down from heaven. (6:61, 62)
Clarifying that he had not been speaking in literal terms, Jesus continued, “The spirit is what makes alive; the flesh is of no use at all. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” In the case of the fleshly organism, the “spirit” gives life to the body of flesh, animating it. Without the life force, the flesh is useless. Jesus’ words were of a spiritual nature. Responding to them in faith by accepting him as the “bread of life” would have led to coming into possession of the real life. His words had animating and life-giving power. (6:63)
Fully aware of the lack of faith among certain ones who had followed him, Jesus said, “Among you are some who do not believe.” The account then continues with an explanatory comment. From the “beginning,” Jesus knew those who did not believe and the one who would betray him. This indicates that Jesus discerned from the start when outward expressions did not reflect genuine faith in him. Real faith is an inward response to the Father — to his drawing of individuals through his self-disclosure. This is why Jesus said, “No one is able to come to me unless the Father has granted it to him.” (6:64, 65)
At this point, many who had followed Jesus stopped doing so and returned to their former routine of life. This prompted Jesus to ask the twelve apostles, “Do you also want to go away?” Peter replied, “Lord, to whom are we to go? You have the words of eternal life. And we have believed and known that you are the Holy One of God.” Even among the apostles, however, not all shared this unqualified trust in and attachment to God’s beloved Son. Although he had chosen the twelve, Jesus identified one of them as a “devil” or “slanderer.” This was Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, who would later betray him. (6:66-71)
The later betrayal of Judas did not come as a surprise to Jesus. As God’s unique Son, he knew what none of the disciples could have known. The other apostles had no idea that Judas would betray their Lord, but Jesus discerned from the outset when Judas’ devotion to him was not what it should have been. Therefore, on this occasion, Jesus referred to him as a “devil” or “slanderer.” The other apostles, however, did not know whom he meant. (6:71)
In Judea, Jesus’ life was seriously endangered. For this reason, he centered his activity mainly in Galilee. (7:1)
His brothers, James, Joseph (Joses), Judas and Simon (Mark 6:3), did not appear to have been aware of the threat to his life. They did not have faith in him as the Messiah or Christ, the Son of God. In their estimation, he was a worker of miracles who wanted to be more extensively known but had avoided the very region where he would have received greater public attention. Therefore, with the approach of the Festival of Tabernacles in the month of Tishri or Ethanim (mid-September to mid-October), they recommended that he go to Judea and there let his disciples see the work that he was doing. As far as they were concerned, no man acts in secret if his aim is to be widely known. Their advice to Jesus was, “Show yourself to the world.” (7:2-5)
Rejecting their recommendation, he pointed out that it was not yet his time to act but that, for them, the time was always opportune. This was because the “world” or the unbelieving populace did not hate them, implying that his brothers had not done or said anything that would incur hostility. He, however, had become the object of the world’s hatred, for he had presented the testimony that exposed the works of the unbelieving people as bad. (7:6, 7)
Jesus then told his brothers to be on their way to the festival without him. His time for going had not yet arrived. After his brothers had left, Jesus remained in Galilee for a time and then, with some of his close disciples, headed for Jerusalem. He chose to do so at a time when most of the people had already left Galilee to attend the festival, which would have made it possible to avoid having the news about his departure spread. Thus he left Galilee in secret, not openly. (7:8-10)
In Jerusalem, many who knew about Jesus tried to find him and wondered where he was. Among their trusted acquaintances, they engaged in considerable subdued talk about him. Some said that he was a good man, whereas others disagreed, maintaining that he deceived the multitude. Out of fear of fellow Jews, no one spoke concerning him openly. People must have been aware that the Pharisees generally and the prominent members of the nation were hostile toward Jesus. They doubtless feared incurring the displeasure of influential countrymen and being ostracized in the community for suspected sympathizing with Jesus and his teaching. (7:11-13)
In the middle of the festival, Jesus made his public appearance and began to teach in the temple precincts. His teaching astonished those who heard him, and they began to wonder how it could be that he spoke authoritatively as a lettered man when he was not among the recognized learned ones of the nation. In response, Jesus gave all the credit to his Father, saying that his teaching was not his own but that of the one who had sent him. Anyone who desired to do God’s will would recognize whether he was the source of Jesus’ teaching or whether Jesus was expressing his own thoughts. Any man who spoke of his own would be desirous of glorifying or bringing honor to himself. Then, referring to himself, Jesus indicated that the one who sought to glorify or honor the one who sent him is “true” (completely trustworthy and truthful) and free of any evil. There would be nothing deceitful or underhanded in him. His motivation would be pure. (7:14-18)
Those who heard Jesus’ teaching should have responded to him in faith, especially since they claimed to believe in Moses. From Moses they had received the law; yet, as Jesus pointed out, they did not heed it. According to the words of the law they considered to have been received from Moses, the Jews who heard Jesus knew that they were to listen to the prophet like Moses. (Deuteronomy 18:15) The miracles Jesus performed as the representative of his Father confirmed that he was a prophet “like” Moses and, in fact, the prophet greater than Moses and the foretold Messiah or Christ. Those who wanted to kill Jesus, instead of heeding his words, proved undeniably that they did not do what the law said. Those in the crowd who were unaware of the earlier attempt to kill Jesus for violating the Sabbath and for blasphemy regarded his comments as preposterous and accused him of having a demon. “Who is trying to kill you?” they asked incredulously. (7:19, 20)
In response, Jesus called attention to the one work he had done on the Sabbath, which had been the curing of a man who had been afflicted for 38 years and was lying on a mat at the pool near the Sheep Gate. (5:2-9) That work had prompted amazement among those who came to know about it. (7:21)
The Son of God then referred to the law to show that no one should have objected to what he did on the Sabbath. Moses had given the command about circumcision (Leviticus 12:3), which command had actually come from an earlier time. It had been given to the “fathers” or ancestors of the Israelites, specifically to their forefather Abraham. (Genesis 17:11-14) If the eighth day falls on a Sabbath, a baby boy is circumcised to avoid breaking the law of Moses. Why, then, asked Jesus, should the people be infuriated at him for having made a man’s body completely whole on the Sabbath? He called upon them to desist from judging according to mere appearances but to judge rightly. (7:22-24)
Certain inhabitants of Jerusalem among the multitude who heard Jesus’ words recalled that he was indeed the one whom fellow countrymen wanted to kill. It puzzled them that he spoke openly and that no one said anything, causing them to wonder whether the rulers had come to know that he was indeed the Messiah. Believing that they knew from where Jesus was (from Galilee, if not also from Nazareth), they, however, dismissed the possibility of his being the Messiah. They reasoned that no one would know from where the Messiah had come. (7:25-27)
Refuting their claim about knowing him and from where he came, Jesus cried out that he had not come of his own and that the one who sent him is true and was unknown to them. Thus he identified himself as the one whom his Father had sent. When speaking of him as “true,” Jesus probably meant “trustworthy” or “dependable.” He thereby appears to have implied that the people should have believed in him, for he did the works of his Father and conveyed his teaching. If they had known his Father, they would have recognized him, for as the Son he reflected his Father flawlessly in word and deed. Unlike the unbelieving Jews, he knew his Father and could truthfully say, “I am from him, and he sent me.” (7:28, 29)
Those who opposed Jesus wanted to seize him, doubtless to take him to the ruling authorities. No one, however, laid a hand on him, for “his hour” had not yet come. It was not then the time for him to finish his earthly life. (7:30)
Despite the prevailing unbelief, many among those who listened to his teaching believed in him. They reasoned that when the Christ or the Messiah came he would not perform more signs than Jesus had. (7:31)
The unbelieving Pharisees heard the subdued talk about him and appear to have found it very disturbing. Therefore, they and the chief priests decided to send temple guards to arrest him. (7:32)
Knowing what lay ahead for him, Jesus told the multitude that he would be with them for only a short while and then would return to the one who had sent him. Though they would look for him, they would not find him, for they would be unable to go where he would be. Not understanding that Jesus would return to his Father, the people were puzzled about the meaning of his words. Some thought that he might leave the land of Israel and go to the “Dispersion of the Greeks” (Jews living among the Gentiles) and teach the Greeks (or non-Jews). (7:33-36)
The festival of tabernacles ended the agricultural year and was marked by great rejoicing. The law required only the males to be present for the observance, but they often attended with their whole family. For seven days, they were to dwell in temporary shelters or booths made from palm fronds and leafy branches from various trees. These shelters were to remind them of the tents in which the Israelites lived during their journeying in the wilderness after they left Egypt. (Leviticus 23:34-43; Deuteronomy 16:13-15; Nehemiah 8:14, 15)
The law outlined the specific sacrifices to be offered on each day of the festival. Other ceremonial features came to be added later in connection with the temple services. One of these involved the pouring out of water brought from the Pool of Siloam. Ancient rabbinical views are divided as to whether the water was poured out only on the first seven days or also on the eighth day. According to ancient rabbinical sources, two silver bowls were positioned above the altar. Wine would be poured into the one to the east, and water into the one to the west. These bowls were perforated with holes through which the liquids could flow into a channel that led to the base of the altar. (Tosefta, Sukkah, 3:14, 15) The act of pouring out accompanied “the offering up of the limbs of the daily whole-offering.” (Tosefta, Sukkah 3:16, Jacob Neusner’s translation)
Ancient Jewish sources associate the water with Ezekiel 47:2-10 and Zechariah 13:1 and 14:8. (Tosefta, Sukkah, 3:3[4]-10) In Ezekiel, the reference is to life-giving water flowing from the temple and continuing to deepen until it formed a river. (Compare Joel 3:18[4:18].) Zechariah’s prophecy (14:8) speaks of living water flowing from Jerusalem, with half of it going to the “former sea” (the “eastern sea” or the Dead Sea) and the other half going to the “hinder sea” (the “western sea” or the Mediterranean Sea). Zechariah 13:1 pointed forward to the time when a fountain would be opened for the house of David and the people of Jerusalem, a fountain that would serve for cleansing from sin.
On the last day of the festival, Jesus revealed that the foretold life-giving water was available through him. As he stood, he cried out for all thirsty ones to come to him and drink. Paraphrasing the words of the prophets, he added regarding anyone who believed in him, “Rivers of living water will flow from his inmost part.” (John 7:37, 38)
No specific passage in the Scriptures matches the quotation in John 7:38, but the thought can be gleaned from the prophetic writings. A linkage of water and spirit (7:39) is found in Isaiah 44:3. There God’s pouring out of water on the ground (in the form of rain) parallels the pouring out of his spirit on his people. Then, in Isaiah 58:11, those who would repent and change their ways are promised to become like a watered garden and an unfailing spring of water.
The account explains Jesus’ words as applying to those who would receive God’s spirit because of believing in him. As Jesus had not yet been glorified or in possession of the splendor he formerly had when with his Father in heaven, there was as yet “no spirit.” Whereas God’s spirit did powerfully operate through the Son of God and also when the apostles performed miracles in his name, none of the disciples enjoyed the fullness of the spirit’s operation. With holy spirit operating fully within them, they would be abundantly blessed spiritually, empowered to conduct themselves in harmony with God’s will, enlightened to grasp Jesus’ teaching, strengthened and sustained in times of trial and distress, and filled with courage to make expressions about their faith. Moreover, they would be able to impart to others everything that was essential for coming into possession of eternal life. Thus it proved to be that streams of living water flowed out from them, and those who responded in faith came to enjoy the real life, ceasing to be dead in sin. (7:38, 39)
Based on what they had heard, the people came to different conclusions about Jesus. Some regarded him to be “the prophet,” probably meaning the prophet like Moses but distinct from the Messiah. (Deuteronomy 18:15) Others believed him to be the Messiah or Christ. Not knowing that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem, certain ones reasoned that he could not be the Messiah, for he had come from Galilee, which did not agree with the scripture that foretold his being of the “seed [offspring] of David” and David’s village Bethlehem. As a result, the multitude proved to be divided in their view of him. (7:40-43)
It appears that knowledge about Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem may only have existed among the few who were familiar with his early history, likely only members of the family and close acquaintances. The majority knew him as being from Galilee, where he had lived nearly all of his life. (7:41, 42)
“Some,” likely meaning the temple guards whom the unbelieving Pharisees and chief priests had sent to arrest Jesus, wanted to seize him. No one, however, laid a hand on Jesus. (7:44)
When the temple guards returned empty-handed, the unbelieving Pharisees demanded why they had failed to bring Jesus in. “Never has a man thus spoken,” they replied. The indignant Pharisees chided them for having been deceived and added that none of the rulers or Pharisees believed in him. The only ones who did were those of the ignorant multitude, persons who did not know the law and whom they pronounced as accursed. (7:45-49)
Nicodemus, a Pharisee who had much earlier spoken to Jesus, tried to appeal to his fellow Pharisees on the basis of their sense of justice. He reminded them that the law did not condemn a man until he is first heard and known for what he is doing. Nicodemus was then ridiculed, “Are you also from Galilee? Search and see that no prophet is to be raised up from Galilee.” The prominent unbelieving members of the nation failed to recognize the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah (9:1, 2) that referred to a great light to be seen in the territory of Galilee and disregarded the very law they were obligated to uphold. (7:50-52)
The text of John 7:53 through 8:2 provides an introduction for the account about the woman. This introduction relates that each one went to his home and that Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, returning to the temple precincts early in the morning of the next day and seating himself to teach the people.
Later, the scribes and Pharisees brought the woman and asked Jesus about his view of the law that set forth stoning as the penalty for her sin, their aim being to trap him so as to have something to use to accuse him. He ignored them, bent down, and began writing on the ground with his finger. When, however, they continued questioning him, he straightened up and said that the one without sin should cast the first stone and then bent down again and resumed writing on the ground. Thereafter the accusers began to depart, leaving the woman by herself. When Jesus asked whether anyone had condemned her, she replied, “No one.” After telling her that he also did not do so, he admonished her not to continue sinning. (8:3-11)
That Jesus would be writing on the ground seems unusual and, therefore, raises a question about whether the account preserves a historical event. If it does pertain to an actual happening, a possible explanation could be that Jesus, by his action, chose to indicate that he was not going to involve himself in the matter. According to the law, both the man and the woman were guilty and yet the scribes and Pharisees made no mention of the adulterer, which would suggest that their seeming concern about the law was insincere. (8:6-8)
Although the question about the historicity of the account may need to be left open because of its existence in many later manuscripts, the narrative does not seem to fit with the rest of the eighth chapter of John. After Jesus’ admonition directed to the woman in verse 11, the next verse tells of his addressing the multitude and starts with the words, “Again, therefore, Jesus spoke to them.” These introductory words suggest a continuation of his teaching at the Festival of Tabernacles. Moreover, what he said thereafter harmonizes with that conclusion. Accordingly, it appears preferable to regard John 7:53 through 8:11 as an insertion that interrupts the logical flow of the narrative about what Jesus said at the Festival of Tabernacles.
Another later custom associated with the Festival of Tabernacles involved illumination for most of the nights. According to ancient Jewish sources, four large golden lampstands occupied the Court of the Women. Each of these lampstands had a ladder and four golden bowls that held the oil. Four youths of priestly descent would ascend the ladders, each carrying a jar holding a large quantity of oil. They would pour the oil into the bowls and light them. The worn drawers and girdles of priests served as wicks. Light from the illuminated courtyard could be seen at a great distance. With torches in their hands, men known for godliness and good works danced before the lampstands. They would raise their voices in song and praise. Many Levites played harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets and other instruments as they stood on the fifteen steps leading down from the Court of the Israelites to the Court of the Women. (Mishnah, Sukkah 5.2-4)
When Jesus identified himself as the “light of the world,” those who heard him may well have thought about the impressive illumination during the Festival of Tabernacles. His statement also answered the objection that no prophet would arise from Galilee, as his words alluded to the prophecy of Isaiah (9:1, 2) that referred to a “great light” to be seen there. (8:12)
As the “light of the world,” Jesus provided spiritual illumination and dependable guidance. No one who followed him would walk in darkness or be unable to discern the right course of action. Instead, the individual would have the “light of life.” This could be the light needed for the enjoyment of the real life that is distinguished by an enduring relationship with the heavenly Father and his Son. Another possibility is that this would be the essential light for living a divinely approved life. (8:12)
The Pharisees objected, contending that Jesus’ testimony rested solely on his own word and, therefore, could not be “true,” being unacceptable on the basis of the law that required at least two witnesses for verification. He countered with a statement revealing the superior nature of his testimony. Even if he did testify about himself, his witness proved to be true or deserving of full acceptance, for he knew from where he had come and where he was going. His testimony was not like that of humans generally, for he had come from the realm above and would return to this heavenly realm. The Pharisees did not know from where Jesus had come and where he was going, for they refused to believe his words. They judged “according to the flesh” or by human standards. He, however, did not judge or condemn anyone in this manner. If he did judge, his judgment would be “true,” right, or just, for he would not be acting alone or exclusively on his own authority. The one who had sent him, the Father, would be with him. (8:13-16)
According to the law, “the testimony of two men is true.” Jesus testified about himself through his words and works, and the one who had sent him, the Father, testified, enabling his Son to perform miracles of a nature and on a scale that no one else did. (8:17, 18)
In response to Jesus’ words about his Father, the Pharisees asked, “Where is your father?” “You know neither me nor my Father,” Jesus answered. “If you knew me, you would also know my Father.” By his words and deeds, Jesus flawlessly reflected his Father. In him, therefore, the Pharisees should have recognized the image of the Father and acknowledged him as his Son. Their failure to recognize the Son revealed that they did not know his Father. (8:19)
This interchange took place in the treasury of the temple precincts. According to ancient Jewish sources, this was located in the Court of the Women, where 13 trumpet-shaped chests lined the surrounding wall. Into these chests, the people deposited their monetary offerings and contributions. Six of these receptacles were designated for freewill offerings. Each of the other seven served for a distinct purpose — new shekels, old shekels, bird offerings, young birds for burnt offerings, wood, frankincense, and gold for the propitiatory. (Mishnah, Sheqalim 2:1; 6:1, 5; Tosefta, Sheqalim 3:1) During the time Jesus taught in the treasury, no one laid hold of him or arrested him. His “hour” had not yet come. It was not then the time for him to finish his earthly course. (8:20)
Previously, Jesus had said to the people that he was going away. He again repeated this point, telling them that they would seek him (probably meaning that they would continue to look in vain for the coming of the Messiah), would die in their sins, and would be unable to come to the place where he was going. Completely misunderstanding that Jesus would be returning to his Father in heaven, certain ones wondered whether he might kill himself, as they could not come to the place where he would be going. He then made it clear that he had come from a different realm, saying that they were from “below,” whereas he was from “above.” They were from the world of sinful mankind, but he was no part of that world. If, as Jesus said, they did not “believe that I am,” they would “die in [their] sins.” To refuse to acknowledge his true identity as the one who had come from above (God’s unique Son) would signify to reject the provision of forgiveness of sins through him. With their record of sin remaining unforgiven, they would die in their sins. Obstinately refusing to acknowledge Jesus as the one he had revealed himself to be, the unbelieving Jews asked him challengingly, “Who are you?” (8:21-25)
The Greek text conveying Jesus’ reply is obscure, and this accounts for the variations in the renderings of modern translations. Preserving the basic meaning of arché (“beginning”), a number of translations read, “I am exactly who I told you at the beginning.” (CEV) “What I told you from the beginning.” (NAB) “I am what I have told you from the beginning.” (NCV) “I am what I have told you I was from the beginning.” (Phillips) Other translations do not render the word arché as “beginning” and translate the statement as a question. “Why do I speak to you at all?” (NRSV) “Why, in the first place, am I speaking to you?” “Why should I speak to you at all?” (NJB, footnote) There is a strong possibility that arché (“beginning”) could be understood to denote that which is fundamental, essential, or basic. Jesus’ reply may be rendered, “Basically, what I am also [kaí, meaning, and, even, and also] telling you,” indicating that all along his words revealed his true identity. (8:25)
When Jesus’ words are translated “that I am even speaking to you at all,” they are commonly construed as a question, “[Why is it] that I am even speaking to you at all?” To preserve the meaning “beginning” for arché requires adding the preposition “from” or “at” and changing the present tense Greek word for “I speak” or “I say” (laló) to the past tense (“whatever [or what] I said to you from the beginning”). Taking the words tén archén as being used adverbially and meaning “essentially,” “fundamentally,” or “basically” does not require supplying additional words or changing the verb from the present tense to the past tense. Therefore, the preferable sense appears to be, “Basically, what I am also telling you.” In the left margin of an early papyrus manuscript (P66, probably from the second century), the words eipon hymin (“I told you”) appear and are meant for insertion before tén archén. By supplying “from,” the text (with the insertion) would read, “I told you [from] the beginning what I am also saying to you.” (8:25)
Jesus had much to say about the unbelieving people and to express judgment respecting them. Both his words and his judgment would relate to their failure to put faith in him despite the abundant evidence, including his many miracles. They had ample proof that the Father had sent him. This should have given them sound reason for faith, for the Father is “true,” ultimately trustworthy. In the world or among the people, Jesus spoke what he had heard from his Father, the one who had sent him. Therefore, the Son of God should have been believed. Although Jesus had spoken about coming from “above” and his words about the one who had sent him clearly did not pertain to an earthly father, the unbelieving people did not recognize that he was talking about his heavenly Father. (8:26, 27)
Once, however, they had “raised the Son of Man up high,” they would come to know who he truly is (“that I am”), doing nothing of his own accord but speaking what his Father had taught him. The “raising up high” refers to his being lifted up on the implement on which he would die. His agonizing death through crucifixion led to his glorification, for he was raised from the dead and returned to heaven as the exalted Son of God. When the people would again see him as the one whom they had lifted up or in whose death they shared by rejecting him, they would see him as the one entrusted with all authority in heaven and on earth. Their former unbelief would merit adverse judgment, and they would come to know who Jesus truly is and that he, while in their midst, had spoken the truth that his Father had taught him. At all times, the Father who had sent him proved to be with him, never leaving him. This was because he always pleased his Father. (8:28, 29)
Although many persisted in their unbelief, others began to believe in Jesus. To the believing Jews, he said, “If you remain in my word [continuing to act on his message in faith], you truly are my disciples. And you will know the truth, and the truth will free you.” This truth relates to him — his identity as the Son of God. Through him alone, full knowledge about the Father is disclosed and forgiveness of sin is made possible, liberating all who put faith in him from the sin that stood as a record of debt against them. (8:30-32)
Whereas Jesus’ words were directed to those who believed, the others who did not put faith in him also heard his words. These unbelievers seem to have been the ones who strongly objected and later tried to stone him. They proudly maintained that they were the “seed” or offspring of Abraham and never had been slaves to anyone. They then asked, “How can you say, ‘You will become free’?” Although they were then living under Roman authority, their reply focused on their status as free children on the basis of their descent from Abraham. They were not born in slavery. (8:33)
In response, Jesus repeated “amen” (truly) when solemnly calling attention to their being enslaved to sin, saying that “everyone who engages in sin is a slave of sin.” Alluding to the dismissal of the slave woman Hagar and her son Ishmael from the household of Abraham, Jesus reminded them that a slave does not remain permanently in the household but a son does. A son, however, could set a slave free. Therefore, Jesus, as the Son of God, could liberate individuals from enslavement to sin, making them completely free. While Jesus acknowledged that those who had objected to his words were of the “seed” of Abraham or his descendants, he implied that their attitude did not reflect that. They were seeking to kill him, as his “word” or the message he proclaimed encountered obstinate resistance, finding no room among them. (8:34-37)
Whereas Jesus spoke what he had seen while he had been with his Father, they did what they had heard from their father. In this way, the Son of God revealed that their desire to kill him proved that they had a different father, an evil father with a murderous disposition. There are, however, manuscript readings that do not qualify the second mention of “father” with the adjective “your.” This is the reason for the following renderings: “You should do what you have heard from the Father.” (NRSV) “Then do what you have heard from the Father.” (NAB) Contextually, these renderings, however, do not fit the subsequent objection, “Our father is Abraham.” (8:38)
Again, they claimed to have Abraham as their father. Jesus, though, indicated that this would mean that they should have been doing the works of Abraham, which would have included manifesting the kind of faith Abraham did. This, however, was not the case. Instead of putting faith in Jesus, they tried to kill him, the very one who had told them the truth he had heard from God. “Abraham did not do this.” They did the works of their father. Insisting that they were not illegitimate children, they maintained that their only Father was God. (8:39-41)
Countering their claim, Jesus said that they would love him if God were their Father, for he had come from God. He had not come on his own accord but had been sent by him. “Why,” asked Jesus, “do you not comprehend what I am saying?” He then answered the rhetorical question, “Because you cannot [stand to] listen to my word.” They did not want to accept what Jesus said. (8:42, 43)
He then outspokenly declared the devil to be their father. It was the devil’s desires that they wished to carry out. He was a murderer (by implication the one responsible for the death of the first humans) from the “beginning” or from the time he commenced his life as the devil or slanderer. He did not “stand” in the truth, not proving himself to be its upholder, for truth is not in him. As a malicious slanderer, he is a depository of lies and so there is no “truth in him.” By reason of who he is, he speaks the lie. The falsehood has its source in him, for he is a liar and the father or originator of it (probably alluding to the first lie on record, the one conveyed to Eve). (8:44)
Jesus, though, told the people the truth, but they refused to accept it. Addressing their unbelief, he asked who among them could level a charge of sin against him and why they did not believe him when he told them the truth. Explaining the reason for their unbelief, Jesus said, “Everyone who is from God [belonging to him] listens to the words of God. Therefore, you do not listen, for you are not from God [not belonging to him].” (8:45-47)
Angered, they accused Jesus of being a Samaritan (not a recognized member of God’s chosen people) and having a demon. “I do not have a demon,” said Jesus. “I honor my Father, but you dishonor me.” As he was the Son, their dishonoring him indicated that they also dishonored the Father who had sent him. Jesus did not seek glory for himself, diligently striving to win the plaudits of others. He looked to his Father to bestow glory on him, manifesting his approval. The Father also did judging. Unlike the baseless judgment of the unbelieving Jews that slandered him as being a demonized Samaritan, Jesus’ reference to his Father as judging implied that his judgment was right or just. The Son of God followed this up with the startling statement (preceded by a repeated “amen” [truly]) that those who observed his word or heeded his teaching would never “see” or experience death. The unbelieving Jews did not understand that he spoke about coming into possession of the real life as persons forgiven of sin and, therefore, liberated from the condemnation of death. Believers would not die as condemned sinners. (8:48-51)
Refusing to recognize that Jesus had come from the realm above, the unbelieving Jews replied that they were certain he had a demon, saying, “Abraham died; also the prophets. And you say, ‘Whoever observes my word will never taste death.’ Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? Also the prophets died. Who do you make yourself [out to be]?” (8:52, 53)
Jesus acknowledged that glorifying himself or making claims on his own authority would not mean anything. The Father, however, had glorified him, the very one whom the unbelieving Jews professed to be their God. The miracles Jesus performed proved that his Father had empowered him, thus glorifying him as his beloved Son. (8:54)
The murderous hatred of the unbelieving Jews proved that they did not know God, that they had no relationship with him. Otherwise, they would have recognized his Son and loved him. Therefore, about his Father, Jesus could say to them, “You do not know him, but I know him [his relationship being that of an intimate, the beloved Son of his Father].” If Jesus had said that he did not know the Father, he would have been a liar, as they had demonstrated themselves to be liars. They claimed to know God, but their slanderous words and hateful actions directed against the Son proved that this was not the case. (8:55)
Jesus, though, knew his Father and observed his word, always acting in harmony with his Father’s will. Abraham, the “father” or ancestor of the Jews, rejoiced to see, or eagerly anticipated with joy, the time Jesus called “my day.” In faith, Abraham saw it and was glad. His thus seeing it was based on the promise that through his “seed” (or offspring) all the families of the earth would be blessed. (8:55, 56)
Knowing that Jesus could not possibly be even 50 years old, the unbelieving Jews challenging said, “And you have seen Abraham?” “I am [from] before Abraham existed” (literally, “Before Abraham came to be, I am”), Jesus replied, preceding his words with the solemn “amen, amen” (truly, truly). Thus he confirmed that he, the one whom the people then saw, was the very same person prior to Abraham’s birth. (8:57, 58)
For many centuries, the expression “I am” (egó eimi [in 8:58]) repeatedly has been linked to Exodus 3:14, where the same words appear in the Septuagint. The Exodus passage relates to the time God revealed his unique name (YHWH) to Moses. The words egó eimi, however, do not constitute the complete thought in the Septuagint, but the Almighty is quoted as saying, egó eimi ho ón (“I am the One Who Is” or “I am the Being”). Then, what Moses is to say to the Israelites is not a repetition of egó eimi but of ho ón (ho ón apéstalkén me prós hymás; “the One Who Is has sent me to you”).
Like “I am” or “it is I,” the Greek egó eimi often is the expression individuals used to identify themselves. At the time confusion existed about his identity, the former blind man who had received sight through Jesus is quoted as telling others, egó eimi (“I am,” meaning that he was indeed the same person as the man who had previously been blind). (9:9) Similarly, when the disciples were frightened upon seeing what they imagined to be a phantom or a ghost walking on the Sea of Galilee, Jesus is represented as identifying himself with the words, egó eimi; mé phobeísthe (“I am [It is I]; fear not”). (Mark 6:50)
In keeping with common use, John 8:58 may be understood to mean that Jesus identified himself as being the very same person (the unique Son of God) before Abraham’s birth as he then was among the existing generation. Therefore, an appropriate rendering that preserves the meaning of “I am” for egó eimi would be, “I am [from] before Abraham existed.” This would harmonize with Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday and today, and into the ages [to come].” Other places in John 8, where “I am” appears, also point to the true identity of Jesus.
Furious that Jesus claimed to predate Abraham and, by implication, to be from the infinite past, the unbelieving Jews picked up stones to hurl at him. He, however, went into hiding and left the temple precincts. (8:59)
Upon seeing a man blind from birth, the disciples asked Jesus whether the reason for his condition was his own sin or that of his parents. Their question reflected the common (but erroneous) view about the afflicted and suggests that it interfered with their looking upon him with compassion, wanting him to have sight. It appears that they had not grasped the lesson contained in the book of Job that the illnesses or other afflictions individuals may experience are not a valid reason for concluding that they are guilty of serious sin. Correcting their wrong view, Jesus indicated that the man’s blindness was not to be attributed to his sin or that of his parents, adding that it was that the “works of God” would be revealed in him. The condition in which the man found himself provided the occasion for a marvelous work of God to be seen. This would be the work of granting him sight, which work could not have been accomplished through human power or ability. (9:1-3)
Indicating that it was then the time for carrying out this work of God, Jesus continued, “We must [I must, according to many extant manuscripts] work the works of him who sent me [sent us, according to the earliest extant manuscripts (P66 and P75)] as long as it is day. The night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the world’s light.” The night that lay ahead was the period of darkness that would see Jesus being arrested, abused, and killed, causing the disciples to scatter out of fear. Before the arrival of that dark day, opportunities continued to exist for doing God’s work. As the light of the world or among the people, Jesus brought enlightenment, opening the eyes of the blind both in a literal and a spiritual sense. (9:4, 5)
He then proceeded to do the work of his Father. After spitting on the ground, Jesus took the moistened soil, placed the clay he had made on the man’s eyes, and instructed him to wash in the Pool of Siloam. The account provides the meaning of the name “Siloam” (“Sent forth”), suggesting that the miracle had been accomplished through the one who had been sent forth. (9:6, 7)
When neighbors or acquaintances and others who were aware of the former blind man’s begging saw him, they thought that he might be the same person. Certain ones, however, concluded that he was just a man who resembled him in appearance. The former blind man is quoted as identifying himself with the words, “I am” (egó eimi) or “It is I.” In response to the question about how he came to have sight, he told them what Jesus had done and how his having washed in the Pool of Siloam as Jesus had instructed him led to his being able to see. Instead of rejoicing with the man about his enjoyment of sight, the questioners reflected a negative attitude toward his benefactor, not even mentioning his name when asking, “Where is he?” “I do not know,” the former blind man answered. (9:8-12)
The man’s blindness had been cured on the Sabbath. Therefore, the questioners led him to the Pharisees, with the apparent intent of determining whether a wrong had been committed. When the Pharisees questioned him how he had gained his sight, the man explained that Jesus had made clay and put it on his eyes and that, upon washing it off, he could see. Certain ones of the Pharisees concluded that Jesus could not be from God, for he did not observe the Sabbath. Others, however, found it hard to accept how a sinner could effect such a miracle, resulting in a division among them. (9:13-16)
They asked the man about his view of the one who had opened his eyes. He replied, “He is a prophet.” Not wanting to accept the evidence, the unbelieving Jews summoned the man’s parents, asking them whether he was their son who was blind at birth and how it happened that he could see. They acknowledged him to be their son who was born blind but disclaimed any knowledge about how he had been cured and who had brought it about. The parents added that their son was of age and would be able to answer for himself. Out of fear that they could otherwise be treated as outcasts, they limited their comments to the condition of their son at birth. Among the Jews generally, it had become known that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Christ would be expelled from the synagogue. (9:17-23)
For a second time, the Pharisees summoned the man. “Give glory to God,” they demanded. “We know that this man is a sinner.” The expression “Give glory to God” constituted a solemn charge for him to tell the truth. Although the Pharisees had asserted that they knew Jesus to be a sinner, the man courageously declared that this is something he did not know. What he did know was that he had been blind, but (as he said) “I can now see.” (9:24, 25)
Again the Pharisees asked him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” Boldly, the man replied, “I told you already, and you did not hear [responsively]. Why do you want to hear [everything] again? Do you also want to become his disciples?” (9:26, 27)
Irritated, they responded abusively to him, saying, “You are a disciple of that one [disparagingly refusing to call Jesus by name], but we are Moses’ disciples. We know that God spoke to Moses, but we do not know from where this one is.” (9:28, 29)
Not allowing himself to be intimidated, the man replied courageously, “This is something amazing, You do not know from where he is, and he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but he listens to one who is godly and does his will. From the [past] age[s], never has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind. If he were not from God, he would not be able to do anything.” (9:30-33)
Unable to give an answer to the man’s sound reasoning and greatly provoked, they reviled him, saying, “You were fully born in sins, and you are teaching us?” Their angry reply indicated that they considered his having been blind at birth as a reason to despise him as a sinner who had no right to express himself in the manner he did. The Pharisees then expelled him, declaring him to be an outcast. (9:34)
Upon hearing that they had expelled him, Jesus looked for the man and found him, providing him with the spiritual help and comfort that he needed. He asked him whether he believed in the Son of Man (Son of God, according to many later manuscripts). Although the man had declared his faith in Jesus as a prophet who had come from God, he did not then know him as the Son of Man or the Son of God, the promised Messiah. Therefore, he asked, “Who is he, Lord, that I might believe in him?” “You have seen him,” said Jesus, “and he who is speaking with you is that one.” “I believe, Lord,” replied the man and prostrated himself, thereby acknowledging Jesus as God’s Son and his Lord. (9:35-38)
Jesus had come into the world of mankind for judgment, that the blind would see and that the sighted might become blind. This judgment, based on how individuals responded to Jesus, revealed whether they wanted to do God’s will. Those who did see were persons who imagined themselves to be sighted and to whom others looked for guidance. The blind, though including the physically blind, primarily were persons who longed for a clearer vision of God and a closer relationship with him. These formerly blind ones put faith in Jesus and gained clear spiritual vision, whereas those who thought of themselves as sighted rejected him, resulting in even greater spiritual blindness in their case. (9:39)
Jesus’ words prompted certain Pharisees who had been listening to ask incredulously, “We, too, are not blind, [are we]?” “If you were blind [unable to perceive],” said Jesus, “you would have no sin. Now, however, you say, ‘We see,’ [so] your sin remains.” Had they sensed a lack within themselves respecting their relationship to God, they could have come to see their error, ceasing to be unbelievers. Their previous unbelief would have been due to ignorance and could have been forgiven. (Compare 1 Timothy 1:12, 13.) When, however, they insisted that they did see, they could not be freed from their sin, for they had deliberately chosen to continue in unbelief. (9:40, 41)
The opening verse of chapter 10 does not introduce a change in location. Accordingly, it must have been in the presence of his disciples, the former blind man, the unbelieving Pharisees, and others that Jesus illustrated his personal concern for his followers.
He likened himself to a caring shepherd and his fellow Jews as sheep in an enclosure. “Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you,” he solemnly declared. “He who does not enter the sheepfold through the door but climbs in another way is a thief and a robber. He, however, who enters through the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him, the doorkeeper opens. And the sheep listen to his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought all of his own out [of the enclosure], he goes in front of them, and the sheep follow him, for they recognize his voice. A stranger, however, they will not follow but will flee from him, for they do not recognize the voice of strangers.” (10:1-5)
The unbelieving Pharisees and other religious leaders in the Jewish community had seized a position in relation to their fellow Jews (the “sheep”) that was not divinely approved. The manner in which certain Pharisees had treated the cured blind man was comparable to the actions of a thief and a robber. When expelling him, they deprived him of any acceptable standing in the Jewish community. Like a robber who has no regard for his victim when resorting to violence to seize what he wants, the religious leaders abused the former blind man with hateful words and stole his reputation from him. (10:1)
It was common for several shepherds to shelter their flocks for the night in an enclosure, where a doorkeeper would guard the sheep. In the morning, the shepherds would arrive, calling each one of their own sheep by name. The sheep would then follow their shepherd as he led them out to pasture. A stranger could not get them to follow him, but they would run away from him, especially upon hearing their own shepherd calling. The sheep did not recognize anyone else’s voice. (10:2-5)
Whereas all the Jews professed to be God’s people, not all recognized the voice of Jesus as being that of their divinely appointed shepherd. Only those who listened to him proved to be his sheep, and they followed him, letting his example and teaching guide their course. Those with genuine faith in him paid no attention to the voice of others who presumed to speak for God. (10:4, 5)
John 10:6 indicates that Jesus’ words in the form of a likeness, comparison, or parable were primarily directed to the unbelieving Pharisees, with the reference to “them” applying to the group of Pharisees mentioned in John 9:40. They, however, did not understand what he had said to them.
After a solemn introductory “Amen, amen, I say to you,” Jesus next compared himself to the “door of the sheep.” Whether this is an allusion to a different enclosure out in the field where the flock is pastured cannot be determined. In the case of such an enclosure, the shepherd would lie down in the opening at night and, like a door or gate, keep intruders out. (10:7)
The ones to whom Jesus referred as thieves and robbers would have been those who falsely claimed to represent God. These men could have included false prophets and false messiahs, who deceived many and led them to their ruin. The genuine sheep, as Jesus added, did not listen to them. (10:8)
The Son of God is the “door,” making it possible for those with faith in him to come into a relationship with him and his Father and to continue to have access to him. The “sheep” who enter this door by believing in Jesus would be “saved” or delivered from sin. Liberated from sin, they would enjoy true freedom, their condition being comparable to that of sheep which are not confined but can enter and exit through a gate. Like sheep whom a shepherd leads to pasture and water, Jesus would provide spiritual abundance for believers and look out for their welfare. (10:9)
The thief, whose actions the abusive religious leaders had imitated, would come only to “steal and slaughter and destroy.” Ruin would come to anyone who blindly followed the unbelieving Pharisees. This was the very opposite respecting Jesus’ coming. He came so that believers might have life and have it to the full, enjoying the real life of an enduring relationship with him and his Father. (10:10)
Jesus identified himself as the good shepherd, the shepherd who demonstrates his ultimate concern for the welfare of the sheep by sacrificing his “soul” or life for them. In view of the fact that the former blind man had been declared an outcast, he must have been greatly strengthened and uplifted upon hearing that Jesus deeply cared for him, even being willing to give up his life for him. Jesus is not like a hireling who is primarily concerned about receiving his pay for services. A hireling does not own the sheep and does not have the kind of personal interest in their welfare that a shepherd has. When the hireling sees the wolf coming, he looks to his own welfare first and runs away, abandoning the sheep and leaving them for the wolf to seize and scatter. He does not care about what happens to the sheep, because he, as a hireling who works only for pay, has no personal attachment to or genuine interest in them. (10:11-13)
The unbelieving Pharisees and other religious leaders proved themselves to be like hirelings, being primarily concerned about their position and maintaining it. They despised the common people, looking down upon them as persons ignorant of the law and burdening them with many regulations that had no basis in the law. (Compare Matthew 23:4; John 7:49; 11:45-48; 12:10, 11.)
In his role as a good shepherd, Jesus knows his sheep, and they know him. The relationship is an intimate one, being like the one Jesus enjoys with his Father. His Father knows him as his beloved Son, and he knows his Father like no one else does, because he is the unique Son. For the “sheep” that are dear to him, Jesus said that he would lay down his “soul” or life. (10:14, 15)
At the time Jesus spoke about giving up his life, all of the “sheep” who recognized him as their shepherd were believing Jews. They, however, were not to be his only sheep. He had other sheep who were not in the same enclosure or not members of the “house of Israel.” (Compare Matthew 15:24.) These future sheep he would also lead. They would listen to or respond to his voice and, with the Jewish believers, come to be one flock, following him as their one shepherd. (10:16)
Jesus enjoyed his Father’s love because he delighted to do his will and that included sacrificing his “soul” or life for the sheep. Although he would give up his life, he would receive it again. The surrender of his life would not come about based on any human determination to have him killed, but he would lay it down of his own accord. His Father had granted him the power or right to lay down his life and to receive it again. Jesus referred to this “power” as having been given him on the basis of his Father’s commandment or authoritative decree. Therefore, his resurrection was certain. (10:17, 18)
Jesus’ words resulted in a division among those who heard them. Many concluded that he was a demonized madman, and they could not understand why anyone would listen to him. Others, however, did not believe Jesus’ words to be the expressions of a demonized man. They found it impossible to conclude that a demon could open the eyes of the blind. (10:19-21)
John 10:22 starts a new narrative about another confrontation Jesus faced, which occurred at the Festival of Dedication (Hanukkah), about three months after the Festival of Tabernacles. During the intervening period, Jesus’ activity appears to have continued in and near Jerusalem and in other areas of Judea.
The Festival of Dedication took place in the month of Chislev (mid-November to mid-December).This festival commemorated the cleansing of the temple from the defilement for which Antiochus Epiphanes (a Hellenistic king of the Seleucid Empire in the second century BCE) was responsible. As it was wintertime, Jesus may have chosen to walk in the sheltered location of the colonnade of Solomon. There he was surrounded by a significant number of Jews who demanded of him that he openly tell them if he was indeed the Christ. (10:22-24)
He had already performed many miracles that clearly indentified him as the Christ. Therefore, he could say, “I told you [by my works], and you do not believe. The works I am doing in the name of my Father [as representing his Father], these testify about me.” Jesus then disclosed the reason for their unbelief in him as the promised Messiah or Christ. They were not his sheep, for they refused to follow him as their shepherd. Jesus᾿ sheep, however, did recognize him as their shepherd. They “heard” or listened to his voice. He recognized them as his own, and they followed him. (10:25-27)
To his sheep, Jesus is the giver of “eternal life.” This is an enduring life as persons inseparably attached to him and with an approved standing with his Father. As a loving shepherd, Jesus would care for his sheep, guarding them so that no one would grab them out of his hand. Apparently Jesus referred to these sheep as having been given to him by the Father and as being greater than everything, for they were indeed very precious. According to another manuscript reading, the Father is the one who is greater than all. Like the Son, the Father had deep concern for the sheep and would not permit anyone to rip them out of his hand. Both the Father and the Son were united in their concern and care for the sheep, and this appears to be the reason that Jesus added, “I and the Father are one.” (10:28-30)
The manner in which Jesus described his intimate relationship with the Father angered the unbelieving Jews. They picked up stones to hurl at him in order to kill him. Jesus spoke up, calling attention to the many good works he had done and which had the Father as their source. He then asked, “For which of these works are you stoning me?” Their response was that they were not stoning him for a good work but for blasphemy. They contended that Jesus was a mere man and yet he had made himself out to be God. (10:31-33)
Jesus countered their contention when calling to their attention that the law (apparently referring to the whole of the holy writings) contained the words, “You are gods.” He pointed out that this was directed to corrupt judges who would die or who merited death. (Psalm 82:6, 7) There was no way that these words (“you are gods”) could be set aside. Jesus, though, had not claimed to be God or a god. His Father had set him apart as holy and sent him into the world of mankind. Therefore, Jesus asked those who were hostile to him why they maintained that he blasphemed when he said, “I am the Son of God.” They would have a reason for unbelief if he did not do the works of his Father or the good works that he had been empowered to perform. If, however, he did the works of his Father and they still did not believe him as the Son, they should believe the works, the miraculous works that brought welcome relief to afflicted people. Jesus then revealed that belief in the works would result in their coming to know or recognize that the Father was “in” him and that he was “in” the Father. An inseparable unity existed between the Father and the Son. (10:34-38)
The hostile Jews again tried to seize Jesus, apparently with a view to killing him. He, however, escaped and headed eastward across the Jordan to the location where John the Baptist had originally done baptizing. Jesus remained there for an undisclosed time. (10:39, 40)
Upon coming to know Jesus᾿ whereabouts, many came to him. They acknowledged that John the Baptist had not performed a single “sign” or miracle but that everything he said about Jesus proved to be true. Many of those who came to Jesus became believers in him, recognizing him to be the promised Messiah and the Son of God. (10:40-42)
Martha, her sister Mary, and their brother Lazarus lived in Bethany, a village about two miles (c. 3 kilometers [15 stadia (11:18)]) from Jerusalem. Lazarus became seriously ill, and his sisters apparently looked to Jesus either for comfort or to restore their brother to good health. They sent him the following message about Lazarus, “The one whom you love is sick.” (11:1-3)
Verse 1 contains the first mention of Martha, Mary and Lazarus. A number of other women were also called Mary. Therefore, in verse 2, the sister of Lazarus is uniquely differentiated from the others by a notable deed that had not as yet taken place. She was the one who anointed Jesus with perfumed ointment and wiped his feet with her hair. (11:1, 2)
To the messenger or messengers, Jesus then indicated that the sickness would not have death as its final outcome but would serve to bring glory or praise to God. Moreover, through this illness, he, the Son of God, would be glorified. This would be because his greatness would be revealed in an astonishingly impressive way. By his words (which would have been related to Martha and Mary), Jesus desired to provide hope to them. (Compare 11:40, where Jesus reminded Martha about having told her about seeing the glory of God.) (11:4)
He did not leave for Bethany immediately but stayed two days longer where he was. Indicating that this delay did not reflect unfavorably on his compassion, the account says that Jesus loved Martha, her sister, and Lazarus. (11:5, 6)
When he then told his disciples about his decision to go with them to Judea, they were shocked, reminding him that the unbelieving Jews there had intended to stone him. In disbelief, the disciples asked, “Are you going there again?” (11:7, 8)
Jesus assured them that they had nothing to fear. “Are there not twelve hours of day?” By walking in the day, one would not stumble, for one would see the “light of the world” or the sun. If, though, a person walked in the night, he would stumble. Light enters the eyes, and this may be why, when all is darkness and no light can enter the eyes, Jesus is quoted as saying, “The light is not in him.” In daylight, one would be able to see obstacles and avoid them, but darkness conceals, creating a far greater likelihood for tripping over an object in one’s path. (11:9, 10)
As far as Jesus’ activity was concerned, the night had not yet come when he would be arrested and killed. It continued to be daylight for carrying out his commission, which included bringing comfort to those in distress. Moreover, while with his disciples, he served as a light to them. When he would be taken away from them in death, darkness would set in for them, causing them to succumb to fear and to scatter. (11:9, 10)
Jesus then told the disciples that their friend Lazarus had fallen asleep and that he would be going to awaken him. They understood this to mean that Lazarus was getting his rest and would get well. To correct their misunderstanding, Jesus said, “Lazarus died,” thereby also revealing to them his being in possession of miraculous knowledge. (11:11-14)
For the sake of his disciples, Jesus rejoiced that he had not been in Bethany, for what was about to take place would lead them to “believe” or would strengthen their faith in him as God’s Son. Although Lazarus had died, Jesus said, “Let us go to him.” (11:15)
One of the apostles, Thomas, also called Didymus (meaning “Twin,” probably because he had a twin brother or sister), spoke up, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” Lazarus was already dead, and so Thomas would not have meant dying with Lazarus. It appears that Jesus’ reassurance had not convinced him that returning to Judea would not be risky. Thomas seems to have concluded that the unbelieving Jews would kill Jesus and that the apostles should nevertheless go with him to Judea and share his fate. By the time they arrived at Bethany, Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. The family seems to have been well known in Jerusalem, for Bethany was only about two miles [c. 3 kilometers] away. Many Jews had come to see Martha and Mary, seeking to comfort them over the loss of their brother. (11:16-19)
As soon as she learned that Jesus was on his way, Martha, typical of a woman of action, left to meet him. Mary, however, stayed in the house, remaining seated as a mourner in the presence of those who had come to comfort her and her sister. (11:20)
Martha’s first words to Jesus reflected her faith in him. “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever you ask of God, God will give you.” Her words indicate that she believed Jesus could and would have restored her brother to soundness of health. Still, she had not given up hope, for she confidently acknowledged that God would grant all of Jesus’ requests. (11:21, 22)
In response to Jesus’ assurance, “Your brother will rise,” Martha expressed her belief in the resurrection, “I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.” Her reply suggests that she was familiar with the assurance given to Daniel (12:13, NRSV), “You, go your way, and rest; you shall rise for your reward at the end of the days.” Martha was confident that the promise of a resurrection “at the end of the days” or “on the last day” also applied to her brother. (11:23, 24)
Jesus then indicated that Martha would not have to wait until the “last day” for Lazarus to rise. “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he dies, will live. And everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” When referring to himself as being “the resurrection and the life,” Jesus revealed that he had the authority to raise the dead and to impart life. This assured a resurrection for believers who died. All living believers enjoy an enduring relationship with him and his Father. Death does not end that relationship, for it is eternal. Therefore, believers continue in possession of the real life or the eternal life and, in that sense, would never die. (11:25, 26)
At the time, Martha seemingly did not fully understand Jesus’ words, for her response focused on why she believed what he had told her. “Yes, Lord, I have believed that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.” Martha believed him because she recognized him to be the promised Messiah, God’s Son. She returned to her home, called Mary, and “secretly” or privately told her, “The teacher has come and is asking for you.” Martha’s intent for speaking to her sister away from others may have been to give her the opportunity to have a private conversation with Jesus. Mary then rushed off. Jesus had not as yet entered Bethany, remaining at the location where Martha had met him. When those who had come to comfort Mary saw her get up and quickly leave the house, they followed her, thinking that she was heading for the tomb to weep. (11:27-31)
Mary fell to her knees at Jesus’ feet and expressed herself just as Martha had, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” It is likely that the two sisters had often said this to one another, prompting the same spontaneous expression from them when meeting him. Seeing Mary and those who accompanied her weeping, Jesus was deeply moved emotionally. The “weeping” of Mary and those who were with her would have been an audible weeping or wailing. The Greek word klaío, meaning “weep,” “mourn,” or “wail,” lays stress on the sound associated with the weeping. In describing Jesus’ reaction, the Greek text has a form of embrimáomai, which can mean “to be indignant,” “to rebuke,” or “to charge sternly.” In this context, the term may indicate that the grief brought about by the death of Lazarus caused Jesus to be “indignant in spirit” or to experience an intense internal upheaval. It disturbed him greatly, and he also came to be troubled and distressed. Jesus then asked, “Where have you laid him?” The mourners replied, “Lord, come and see.” The grief Jesus witnessed affected him deeply, and he began to weep. In Greek, the term dakrýo designates the weeping of Jesus. The noun form of this verb is dákryon, meaning “tear.” So it would seem that Jesus’ sympathetic sorrow proved to be a silent shedding of tears. Observing this, many regarded his tears as an evidence of his great affection for Lazarus. The expressions of others suggested a measure of unbelief, “Was not this one who opened the eyes of the blind man able to keep this one from dying?” (11:32-37)
Upon arriving at the burial site, Jesus again felt indignant (embrimáomai) within himself, was deeply moved, or experienced an inner upheaval. Both the weeping and the expressions of unbelief must have contributed to this internal emotional stirring. The body of Lazarus had been placed in a cave, and the opening had been closed with a large stone. (11:38)
When Jesus asked for the stone to be taken away, Martha protested, “Lord, he already stinks, for it is four [days].” Her reaction was an emotional response based on knowledge about the stench resulting from decomposition. This instantaneous emotional reaction did not take into consideration that Jesus had identified himself as “the resurrection and the life.” He reminded her of his promise, “Did I not tell you that, if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” (11:39, 40)
Certain ones then did remove the stone. Jesus focused his eyes heavenward and thanked his Father for having heard him. Continuing to pray, he said, “I, however, knew that you always hear me, but because of the crowd standing around I spoke, that they may believe that you sent me.” In response to Jesus’ loud cry for him to come out, Lazarus did so. His hands and feet were still wrapped with bands, and a cloth covered his face. Jesus asked that the restraining bands be removed, making it possible for Lazarus to walk. (11:41-44)
Many of those who witnessed this miracle became believers. Some, though, did not put faith in Jesus. They reported what had happened to the unbelieving Pharisees. (11:45, 46)
This news prompted the chief priests and Pharisees to arrange for the members of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high court, to meet to determine what they should do about Jesus. Because of the many signs he had performed, they feared a popular uprising. Many would put faith in him as the promised Messiah, leading to a conflict with Rome. As they expressed it, “The Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.” Convinced that war with Rome would mean loss of their place, meaning their land, their holy city Jerusalem, or their temple, and the destruction of the nation, they felt that they needed to act. They must also have recognized that their position as prominent members of the nation was at stake. What seems to have troubled them was their lack of the needed evidence to justify having Jesus executed. (11:47, 48)
Caiaphas, who was then the high priest, had no qualms respecting this. He basically told the members of the Sanhedrin that they did not need any evidence of guilt, saying, “You do not know anything nor do you understand that it is better for you [us, according to other manuscripts] that one man die for the people and not for the whole nation to be destroyed.” As far as he was concerned, Jesus endangered the continued existence of the nation and needed to be killed. Saving the whole nation was sufficient reason for executing one man. (11:49, 50)
According to Josephus (Antiquities, XVIII, ii, 2), Valerius Gratus, whom the Roman emperor Tiberius had appointed as procurator of Judea, replaced Simon with Joseph Caiaphas as high priest. Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas (Ananus, according to Josephus), whom Valerius Gratus had deprived of the high priesthood about three years earlier but who continued to wield great influence in the affairs of the nation. (18:13; Antiquities, XVIII, ii, 2) The reference to Caiaphas as being “high priest that year” does not mean that he was annually appointed to the office. It may be understood to signify that he served as high priest at that time or in the significant year when Jesus was put to death. (11:49)
Whereas Caiaphas spoke as one guided by political considerations, the words were framed in a manner that expressed a prophecy appropriate for one occupying the position of high priest. The account includes the editorial comment that Caiaphas did not speak of his own and adds, “Being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that he might gather into one the scattered children of God.” Jesus did die for people everywhere, making it possible for all those who believed in him to become God’s children and form one united whole or one family even though they were widely dispersed in different regions. (11:51, 52)
In keeping with the words of the high priest, the Sanhedrin determined to have Jesus killed. Possibly word about this development reached Jesus through Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea. (Compare Luke 23:50, 51; John 7:45, 50, 51.) As a result, Jesus could no longer walk openly among the people. He left Bethany and the area around Jerusalem and headed for a less populated region. For a time, he and his disciples stayed in Ephraim. This town is commonly thought to have been located about 12 miles (c. 19 kilometers) northeast of Jerusalem, but the identification is uncertain. (11:53, 54)
According to the law, ceremonial defilement could result from touching a dead body, being present when someone dies, entering the home where there is a dead person, walking over a grave, or experiencing certain bodily afflictions or conditions. (Leviticus 14:1-20; 15:1-33; Numbers 19:11-18) To observe the Passover, one had to be ceremonially clean. (Numbers 9:6-14) Therefore, many Jews went to Jerusalem before the Passover in order to fulfill the legal requirements for purification from ceremonial defilement. (11:55)
In the temple precincts, these early arrivals began looking for Jesus and talking about him with one another. Among them were those who wondered whether he would even come to the Passover festival. The chief priests and the influential Pharisees in Jerusalem had given the order that anyone knowing Jesus’ whereabouts should inform them, as they wanted to arrest him. (11:56, 57)
Six days before the Passover, Jesus and the apostles arrived in Bethany. This village, situated about two miles (c. 3 kilometers) from Jerusalem, was the home of Lazarus (whom he had raised from the dead), Martha, and Mary. (12:1)
Sometime during their stay, Jesus and his disciples were guests in the home of “Simon the leper.” Simon doubtless was a believer whom Jesus had cured of his leprosy, but the designation “Simon the leper” served to distinguish him from the other disciples with the same name. Lazarus was among those partaking of the meal, and his sister Martha served the guests. Their sister Mary had brought with her an alabaster container of costly ointment, one pound (Roman pound [c. 11.5 ounces; c. 327 grams]) of genuine nard. While Jesus and the other guests were reclining at the table to eat, Mary approached Jesus and began pouring the perfumed ointment on his head. After applying it to his feet, she wiped them with her hair. The entire house became permeated with the aroma of the fragrant ointment. (12:2, 3; see also Matthew 26:6, 7; Mark 14:3.)
There is uncertainty about when Jesus and the apostles were guests in the home of Simon the leper. The mention of Jesus’ anointing with costly ointment, the objections raised regarding it, and his response provide the basis for concluding that Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, and John 12:2-8 relate to the same event. The account in John 12:2-8 (though unique in identifying Mary as the woman and Judas as the one who raised the objection) does not refer to the house of Simon the leper nor specifically say when in relation to the six days after his arrival in Bethany Jesus and the apostles were guests in the home. In Matthew 26 and Mark 14, the incident is narrated after the mention of “two days” until the Passover. (Matthew 26:2; Mark 14:1)
Judas, who would later betray Jesus, appears to have been first to object to what Mary had done, raising the question as to why the ointment had not been sold for 300 denarii and the proceeds given to the poor. In indignation, other disciples then similarly expressed themselves. They could not understand why the nard had been wasted instead of sold and the money given to the poor. (12:4, 5; see also Matthew 26:8, 9; Mark 14:4, 5.)
Mary’s act was an expression of deep love and appreciation for Jesus and what he had done for her and her sister and brother. No words, acts, or gifts could have fully expressed the depth of gratitude Mary must have felt in having her brother brought back to life. The costly ointment, with a value of about a year’s wages (300 denarii, with a denarius being the daily pay for a common laborer), likely was the most precious item that Mary possessed. Whether she had obtained it to anoint Jesus with it or initially bought it for another purpose is not revealed in the account. Jesus’ words indicate that Mary’s use of the ointment was an expression of the full limit of what she was able to do for him in view of his imminent death and burial. (12:3, 5, 7)
It is generally believed that the source of the nard or spikenard is Nardostachys jatamansi, a plant that grows in the Himalayas. If the nard did come from distant India, this would explain why the ointment had a very high value. (12:3)
In his Natural History, first-century Roman scholar Pliny the Elder wrote concerning nard: “Of the leaf, which is that of the nard, it is only right to speak somewhat more at length, as it holds the principal place among our unguents. The nard is a shrub with a heavy, thick root, but short, black, brittle, and yet unctuous as well; it has a musty smell, too, very much like that of the cyperus, with a sharp, acrid taste, the leaves being small, and growing in tufts. The heads of the nard spread out into ears; hence it is that nard is so famous for its two-fold production, the spike or ear, and the leaf. There is another kind, again, that grows on the banks of the Ganges, but is altogether condemned, as being good for nothing; it bears the name of ozænitis, and emits a fetid odour. Nard is adulterated with a sort of plant called pseudo-nard, which is found growing everywhere, and is known by its thick, broad leaf, and its sickly colour, which inclines to white. It is sophisticated, also, by being mixed with the root of the genuine nard, which adds very considerably to its weight. Gum is also used for the same purpose, antimony, and cyperus; or, at least, the outer coat of the cyperus. Its genuineness is tested by its lightness, the redness of its colour, its sweet smell, and the taste more particularly, which parches the mouth, and leaves a pleasant flavour behind it; the price of spikenard is one hundred denarii per pound.” (English translation edited by John Bostock and H. T. Riley)
While others doubtless were sincere in their expressions about giving the proceeds from the sale of the nard to the poor, Judas had ulterior motives. He had been entrusted with the bag or box for keeping the common fund and had been stealing from it. (12:6)
Jesus came to Mary’s defense, telling those who objected to leave her alone and not to make trouble for her. He went on to say that she had done a good deed, one that had been undertaken prior to his burial. While there would always be the poor whom they would be able to assist, the disciples would not always have Jesus personally with them. (12:7, 8; see also Matthew 26:10-12; Mark 14:6-8.)
When the news spread that Jesus was in Bethany, many came to see, not only him but also Lazarus whom he had resurrected. Quite a number became believers because of what had happened to Lazarus. Therefore, in an effort to prevent more Jews from believing in Jesus, the chief priests determined to kill Lazarus. (12:9-11)
According to John 12:12-15, the “next day” Jesus, seated on a donkey’s colt, headed for Jerusalem. This could be the day after Mary used the costly ointment. In Matthew and Mark, however, the narrative about the entry into Jerusalem precedes the account concerning the meal in Simon’s home. (Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11)
In view of the mention of “six days” (12:1) and then the “next day” in John 12:12, it would appear that a chronological sequence is being followed, which would mean that the words in Matthew 26:6-13 and Mark 14:3-9 are not in chronological order. On the other hand, there is a possibility that the “next day” refers only to the day after the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus (12:10, 11) and that the incident involving the meal is not in chronological sequence. In that case, the meal in Simon’s home should be regarded as having taken place after Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem.
As Jesus headed for Jerusalem, an increasing number of people began to accompany him. Many placed their outer garments on the road ahead of him, and others laid down leafy branches they had cut from nearby trees. (Matthew 21:8; Mark 11:8; Luke 19:36) When word reached Jerusalem that Jesus was coming, a large crowd, with palm branches in their hands, went out to meet him. One of the reasons for doing so was their having heard about his having resurrected Lazarus. (12:12, 13, 17, 18)
When Jesus reached the location where the road began to descend over the western slope of the Mount of Olives, his disciples and many others joyfully shouted, “Hosanna,” and acknowledged Jesus as one who came in God’s name (or as representing the Most High) and as being the king of Israel. Among the expressions the extant accounts represent as coming from the lips of those who walked ahead of him and those who followed were, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” “Blessed [be] the one coming in the Lord’s name,” “Blessed [be] the coming kingdom of our father David,” “Blessed [be] the king coming in the Lord’s name,” “Hosanna in the [highest] heights,” and “In heaven peace, and glory in the [highest] heights.” (12:13; see also Matthew 21:9; Mark 11:9, 10; Luke 19:37, 38.)
“Hosanna” means “help, I pray,” “save, I pray,” or “save, please.” If regarded as an exclamation of praise, the words “hosanna in the [highest] heights” may denote “praise be to the Most High.” Luke 19:38, when introducing the expressions of the disciples, does refer to their joyfully praising God concerning all the works of power they had seen. Another possibility is that the words “hosanna in the [highest] heights” serve as an appeal for the angelic hosts to share in joyfully crying out, “Hosanna!” In that case, “hosanna” (linked, as it is, to Jesus) could convey a meaning comparable to “God save the Son of David.” (12:13)
When Jesus rode on a young donkey to Jerusalem, this fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9, “Fear not, daughter of Zion. Look! Your king is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt.” At the time, the disciples did not understand that this prophecy was then being fulfilled. After Jesus was “glorified,” or after his death and resurrection as the one who had conquered the world and had been granted all authority in heaven and on earth, they recalled what had been written in the Scriptures and what had been done when Jesus rode to Jerusalem. (12:14-16)
Upon seeing Jesus ride into Jerusalem, the inhabitants of the city were stirred up, and they asked, “Who is this?” “The prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee,” came back the reply from the crowd that had accompanied him. (Matthew 21:10, 11) Among them were persons who had been present when Jesus resurrected Lazarus, and they added their testimony about what they had witnessed. News about the resurrection of Lazarus prompted many others to meet Jesus. Observing the multitude around Jesus, the unbelieving Pharisees were greatly disturbed. They apparently recognized that they had failed in their efforts to stop fellow Jews from following Jesus. Their efforts had been of no use, and they were at a loss about what they could do. Numerous modern translations are more specific than is the Greek text when quoting what the Pharisees said to one another. “You see? You’ve accomplished nothing. Look ― the world has gone after Him!” (HCSB) “You see, we are not succeeding at all! Look, the whole world is following him.” (TEV) “There’s nothing we can do. Look, everyone has gone after him.” (NLT) “There is nothing that can be done! Everyone in the world is following Jesus.” (CEV) (12:17-19)
Among those who had come to the festival to worship were some Greeks. Their not being referred to as proselytes may indicate that they were not such but had come to believe in the one true God. Either on this or another day, these God-fearing non-Jews approached Philip, the apostle from Bethsaida in Galilee, and expressed their desire to see Jesus. Possibly they chose to speak to Philip because of his Greek name, meaning “fond of horses.” It appears that Philip was unsure about what he should do and so first spoke to Andrew about the desire of the Greeks. Then both of them went to Jesus and informed him about this. (12:20-22)
Against the backdrop of the desire of the Greeks to see him, Jesus foretold that there would be even greater response to him after his death and subsequent glorification, which would have included his resurrection and ascension to heaven as the one to whom all authority in heaven and on earth had been entrusted. He then said that the “hour” or time had come for the “Son of Man to be glorified.” Illustrating that his death would result in an increase in disciples, he referred to a grain of wheat as dying (or ceasing to exist as just one grain) and thereafter bearing much fruit. If it did not fall on the ground (being sown), it would remain just a single grain. Indicating that he was conveying an important truth, Jesus prefaced his statement with a repetition of a solemn “amen” (truly). (12:23, 24)
Suggesting that the resulting increase after his death would be through the activity of his disciples, Jesus called attention to the need for courage. Intense opposition to their activity could even lead to their death. Therefore, the one who loved his “soul” (life), failing to remain loyal to Jesus out of fear, would lose it. The unfaithful one would forfeit his relationship with the Son of God and his Father and thus lose out on the real or eternal life. On the other hand, the person who “hates his soul in this world” or does not make the preservation of his present life more important than loyalty to Christ would be safeguarding it “for eternal life.” Even though the faithful individual may be put to death, he would retain his eternal relationship with the Son of God and his Father. For the loyal disciple, life in the age to come would be certain. (12:25)
Those who would serve the Lord Jesus Christ would follow him, heeding his teaching and imitating his example. With reference to the blessing awaiting the faithful servant, Jesus said, “My servant will also be there where I am. If anyone serves me, [my] Father will honor him.” As Jesus returned to the realm above, his faithful disciples would come to be there with him and be honored by the Father as his approved children. (12:26)
Seemingly, as Jesus considered what lay ahead for his disciples, he began to think about the suffering and excruciating death he would shortly face. Within himself he sensed a disturbing upheaval, prompting him to say, “My soul is troubled,” and causing him to wonder just what expression he should make. Greatly distressed in spirit, he prayed, “Father, save me from this hour.” If the possibility of being delivered from a dreadful end had been an option, Jesus would have wanted to be rescued. (Compare Luke 22:42 regarding Jesus’ prayer shortly before his arrest.) The Nestle-Aland Greek text (twenty-seventh edition), however, punctuates Jesus’ expression about being saved “from this hour” as a question and not as a prayerful request that ends with a period. Numerous modern translations likewise render the words as a question that has “no” as the answer or as the implied answer. “And what should I say — ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour.” (NRSV) “Now my heart is troubled — and what shall I say? Shall I say, ‘Father, do not let this hour come upon me’? But that is why I came — so that I might go through this hour of suffering.” (TEV) “Now I am deeply troubled, and I don’t know what to say. But I must not ask my Father to keep me from this time of suffering. In fact, I came into the world to suffer.” (CEV) (12:27)
Jesus recognized that submission to his Father’s will mattered most, motivating him to say, “But therefore I have come to this hour.” The culminating purpose for his coming to the earth had been to make possible the rescue of the world of mankind from sin and death through his own sacrificial death. As the obedient Son who delighted to do his Father’s will, Jesus turned his attention away from himself and prayed, “Father, glorify your name.” It was his Father’s will for him to lay down his life, and Jesus’ prayer was that doing it would glorify his Father’s name (or his Father, the bearer of the name). The glorification consisted of the ultimate revelation of his Father’s love and compassion for humankind. (12:27, 28; see also John 3:16; Romans 5:8-11; 1 John 4:9, 10.)
In response to his prayer, a voice resounded from heaven, “And I have glorified [my name] and will glorify [my name] again.” Through the miracles and works of power he enabled his Son to perform, the Father had glorified himself, with many expressing praise to him for the marvelous deeds that brought relief to the afflicted. Then, through his Son’s death and subsequent resurrection, he would once again glorify his name or bring glory to himself. In increasing numbers, believers would thank and praise him. (12:28)
A crowd of people heard the voice from heaven, but they appear not to have understood the words. Some concluded that it had thundered, whereas others thought that an angel had spoken to Jesus. He, however, told them that the voice had resounded for them or their benefit and not for him. (12:29, 30)
Through his death in faithfulness, Jesus would triumph over the powers of darkness, ending the tyranny of the ruler of the world who would be unable to restrain anyone from transferring to the realm where God rules through his Son. Therefore, Jesus spoke of the judging or condemning of the world (exposing the world of mankind to be alienated from his Father) and the ejection of Satan, the ruler of this world. (12:31)
The effect of Jesus’ being “lifted up” from the earth would be his drawing “all” to him, indicating that people from everywhere would respond to him in faith and accept his having died for them. The expression “lifted up” indicated that he would be lifted up on the implement on which he would be crucified. Understanding Jesus as having referred to his experiencing the kind of death associated with being “lifted up,” certain ones in the crowd expressed the view that the “law” or their holy writings indicated that the Christ would remain forever. So they asked Jesus why he said the Son of Man would be lifted up and who this one is. (12:32-34)
No specific part of the Hebrew Scriptures says that the Messiah would remain forever. Possibly based on what they had heard about the coming Messiah, they came to this conclusion. Psalm 89:36(37) did point to the permanence of rule in the line of David, and Daniel 7:13, 14 portrays someone “like a son of man” being granted eternal dominion, and it may be that such passages provided a basis for the belief that the Messiah or Christ would remain forever. (12:34)
The Son of God did not answer their question directly. His words, however, should have made it possible for them to recognize that he was the promised Messiah, the one through whom true enlightenment was available. It would only be a little while longer that the “light” (he as the one through whom the light was available) would be among them. Jesus admonished the people to “walk” while they had the light, conforming their ways to what the light revealed, and avoiding the hazards of walking in darkness or without the dependable guidance he provided. Persons who walked in darkness would not know where they were going, placing themselves in danger. At this point, the Son of God clarified that faith in him was essential. “While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” (12:35, 36)
All who put faith in Jesus came into possession of true light, for acting in harmony with his example and teaching made it possible for them to have his Father’s approval and to conduct themselves aright. As persons fully enlightened and conducting themselves accordingly, they would be able to testify concerning God’s Son, imparting light or enlightenment to others. Thus, through their conduct and testimony, they would prove to be “sons of light.” (12:36)
At this point, Jesus left and concealed himself from the unbelieving people. This suggests that he recognized that his life was in danger, but it was then not the time for him to give up his life. (12:36)
Although Jesus had performed many “signs” or miracles, the people did not believe in him. In their case, the words of prophet Isaiah were fulfilled, for they manifested the same unresponsiveness to Jesus as did their forefathers to Isaiah and the message he proclaimed. “Lord [LXX, but not in the extant Hebrew text], who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord [YHWH, Hebrew text] been revealed?” (Isaiah 53:1, LXX; John 12:36-38)
The implied answer is that the message (or the word of which the Most High was the source and, therefore, of what Isaiah and Jesus had heard from him) was not believed. Although God had revealed his “arm” or his activity and power, the contemporaries of Isaiah and of Jesus generally remained blind to it. The reason for their unbelief is set forth in Isaiah 6:10, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart [mind], that they may not see with their eyes and perceive with the heart [mind], and they change [literally, turn], and I would heal them.” (12:39, 40)
The words in John 12:40 are not an exact quotation from the extant Septuagint text of Isaiah 6:10 nor from the extant Hebrew text. The Septuagint reading represents the unresponsiveness of the people as being their choice (“they have shut their eyes”). In the Masoretic Text and also the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, the words are a directive to Isaiah (“shut their eyes”). In the Scriptures, whatever takes place by God’s permission is commonly attributed to him. Therefore, the way in which Isaiah 6:10 is quoted in John 12:40 and applied preserves the basic meaning.
According to John 12:41, “Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke about it.” The prophet did have a vision of the glory of God after which he said, “My eyes have seen the King, YHWH of hosts.” (Isaiah 6:1-5) Being the perfect reflection of the Father or his very image, the Son possessed the glory that Isaiah saw in vision. (John 1:14; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3) Isaiah also spoke prophetically concerning him. (Isaiah 9:6, 7; 53:1-12) Accordingly, the words of Isaiah could be represented as spoken by one who saw Christ’s glory and whose experience with unbelief to the message from the Most High found its exact parallel or fulfillment in the case of Jesus. The Father did not prevent the people from choosing to remain blind and refusing to believe and change. Consequently, he is represented as blinding their eyes and hardening their heart. (12:40, 41)
Nevertheless, not all of the people remained unresponsive. Even among the prominent ones (“rulers”) of the nation, there were those who believed. But, at the time, because of the unbelieving Pharisees, they did not openly acknowledge him as the Christ, not wanting to be cast out of the synagogue. They were more concerned about maintaining their honorable standing in the Jewish community (“the glory of men”) than about glorifying God by honoring his Son. Thus they revealed themselves to be persons who loved “the glory of men more than the glory of God.” The expression “glory of God” could (as commonly rendered) mean the glory he bestows on those who put faith in his Son, accepting them as his beloved children. Possibly the rulers included Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who later chose the right course, identifying themselves as disciples. (12:42, 43)
It appears that before Jesus went into hiding he raised his voice, telling the people of the need to put faith in him. Anyone who believed in him would also believe in the one who had sent him. Likewise, whoever saw him, recognizing him as the unique Son of God, would see the one who had sent him, for Jesus perfectly reflected his Father. No one who believed in him would remain in darkness, for Jesus had come as “light into the world,” making it possible for individuals to have his Father’s approval and to have the essential guidance for conducting themselves aright as his children. (12:36, 44-46)
Jesus did not come to judge or condemn those who heard his words but did not heed them. His mission was to save the world of mankind, not to condemn it, opening up the opportunity for all to change their ways, become his disciples and his Father’s beloved children, and be liberated from sin and thus saved from condemnation. There would, however, be a basis for judgment or condemnation in case of individuals who disregarded Jesus and refused to accept what he said. “On the last day” or at the time of judgment, the “word” he had spoken would serve as judge, condemning those who deliberately rejected it. This would be because the Father was the source of Jesus’ teaching. The Son did not speak of his own but spoke only what his Father had commanded him to speak. Regarding his Father’s commandment, Jesus said, “I know that his commandment is eternal life.” Obedience to that “commandment,” which included putting faith in the Son, would result in having an approved relationship with him and his Father, and that enduring relationship constitutes the real or eternal life. (12:47-50; 17:3)
Because of what he knew about his Father’s commandment, Jesus did not in any way depart from it in his teaching. He expressed only what his Father had told him. (12:50)
With the approach of the Festival of Unleavened Bread preceded by the observance of Passover, Jesus knew that his “hour” or time had come to leave the world in which he had lived and to return to his Father. He was fully aware that it was the time for him willingly to surrender his life, not resisting or seeking to avoid being executed like a criminal seditionist. By laying down his life, he would express his great love for his disciples and for the world of mankind, as his sacrificial death would provide the basis for forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with his Father. (13:1)
Jesus’ death would also serve to reveal his Father’s boundless love for mankind. By not sparing his dearly beloved Son from sacrificing his life, the Father reached out to the human family in a manner that should have left no doubt about his love. He thereby extended to all the opportunity to respond in faith or trust in him, appreciatively accepting his arrangement to be forgiven of their sins and to become his dear children.
As for his disciples, Jesus had always loved them and he “loved them to the end.” This could mean that his love continued to the very end or that he loved them to the limit, completely or utterly. The ultimate expression of his love proved to be the surrender of his life for them. (13:1)
In the evening, Jesus and the apostles arrived at the house in Jerusalem where they would be partaking of the Passover meal. The reference in Mark 14:17 to the “twelve” may indicate that, after having completed the preparations, Peter and John returned and that thereafter Jesus and all twelve apostles departed. Another possibility is that “twelve” functions as a collective designation for the apostles, meaning that Jesus arrived with the company of apostles numbering ten at the time. This included Judas Iscariot (the son of Simon) who had already, in his “heart” or deep inner self, yielded to the devil in the determination to betray him. (13:2)
Ancient Jewish sources provide background for understanding developments in connection with the Passover meal. The eating did not begin until after dark and all had reclined at the table. Four cups of wine were to be available. (Mishnah Pesahim, 10:1) The meal itself was to end by midnight. (Tosefta, Pesahim, 5:13) The head of the household or the one officiating pronounced a blessing over the first cup of wine. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 10:2; Tosefta, Pesahim, 10:2, 3) In conjunction with the second cup of wine (if the celebrants were part of a household), the son would ask his father about the significance of the event. If the boy was too young to ask questions, the father would teach him as much as he could comprehend. The head of the household would then begin a recitation of the Hallel, either all of Psalm 113 or both Psalm 113 and 114. The mixing of the third cup of wine was followed by a blessing for the food. When it came time for the fourth cup, the Hallel was completed. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 10:4, 6, 7) After the meal, the entire night would be spent in consideration of the laws of the Passover. (Tosefta, Pesahim, 10:11, 12)
Probably early during the course of the meal and likely before the introduction of the third cup of wine, Jesus, fully aware that his Father had given all things into his hands and that he had come from him and would be returning to him, undertook the task of a lowly servant. Not one of the apostles had thought to serve his fellow apostles by washing their feet, which would have become dusty during the course of their walk. (13:3)
Jesus, however, stood up, laid his outer garment down, girded himself with a towel, poured water into a basin, and commenced washing the feet of the disciples. To Peter it seemed inconceivable that his Lord, the Son of God, would wash the feet of a disciple, prompting him to say by way of objection, “Lord, are you washing my feet?” Jesus told Peter that, though he did not then comprehend this action, he would later come to understand it. Still, Peter protested, “You will never wash my feet.” He simply could not understand that Jesus, whose greatness he recognized, would perform the task of a lowly servant; it did not seem right to him. “If I do not wash [your feet],” said Jesus to Peter, “you have no share with me.” Immediately Peter stopped objecting. Highly valuing his relationship with Jesus and not wanting to jeopardize it in any way, he declared himself ready to submit to more extensive washing. “Lord, not my feet only,” Peter said, “but also the hands and the head.” (13:4-9)
Jesus pointed out that one who had bathed only needed to have his feet washed. Whereas the hands and the head were not in contact with the ground as one walked about, the sandals did not keep the feet clean. Therefore, as Jesus said, the bathed person who had his feet washed would be completely clean. Making an application to more than physical cleanness, he continued, “And you [apostles] are clean, but not all.” Jesus said this because he knew the one who would betray him and, therefore, the one who was not morally clean. He had treated Judas just like the other apostles, washing his feet and in no way acting in an unloving or resentful manner toward him. Nothing in Jesus’ words and actions gave a hint to the other apostles as to who the betrayer could possibly be. (13:10, 11)
Viewed from a moral standpoint, Jesus’ washing the feet of his disciples seemingly revealed the necessity of completely relying on him for cleansing from sin. Whereas believers have been forgiven of their sins on the basis of their faith in Christ and his sacrificial death for them, they still commit sins. Accordingly, they continue to need Jesus’ washing or cleansing from the transgressions committed in their daily walk. (1 John 1:8-2:2)
Jesus’ washing the feet of the apostles served as a vital object lesson for them about the way in which they should conduct themselves as unassuming servants. After having finished washing the feet of all twelve men, Jesus put on his robe and then reclined at the table. His question (“Do you know what I have done for you?”) served to draw to their attention the important lesson they should learn from his example. They rightly called him “Teacher” and “Lord,” for he indeed was such. Since he as their Teacher and Lord had washed their feet, they should have been willing to perform lowly tasks for others in imitation of his example. With a repetition of a solemn “amen” (truly), Jesus continued, “I say to you, a slave is not greater than his lord [master] nor is the one being sent greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, happy are you if you do them.” (13:12-17)
It would have been contrary to the sense of propriety for underlings to refuse to render the kind of service a master or one with authority to commission was willing to perform and to consider the service as beneath their dignity. With a proper understanding of their position as fellow servants, the disciples would be happy to act in that capacity. They would find joy in serving others in ways that could be considered as lowly. (13:16, 17)
Jesus’ words about experiencing happiness from doing what he had taught were not directed to everyone. He fully knew the ones whom he had chosen, not being blinded by any outward appearances. Among them was one whose actions were portrayed in the treachery described in Psalm 41:9(10), “The one who ate my bread has lifted up his heel against me.” The expression “lifting up of the heel” evidently signifies base treachery, the figure apparently being of a raised foot that is ready to kick. (13:18)
The quotation in John 13:18 from verse 9(10) of Psalm 41(40) conveys the basic thought of the Septuagint rendering (“the one eating my bread has magnified [his] treachery against me”), but the words are not identical. In the Septuagint, the Greek word for “treachery” is pternismós, a term incorporating the word ptérna, meaning “heel.” The related verb pternízo basically denotes “to bite someone’s heel,” to go behind someone’s back, to deceive, or to outwit. The quotation in John 13:18, however, says “heel” (ptérna), contains a different Greek word for “eat,” and uses a term for “lifted up,” not “magnified.”
Jesus explained why he had revealed that he would become the object of base treachery, saying, “When it happens, you may believe that I am [the one]. Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you, Whoever receives anyone I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” The fulfillment of Jesus’ prophetic words would provide additional confirmation that he was indeed the Son of God. This would serve to strengthen the faith of the loyal apostles, for this development would be part of the cumulative evidence for their belief in him. All who would accept those whom Jesus had sent would recognize them as trustworthy witnesses about him. Therefore, the acceptance of those sent would constitute acceptance of Jesus as the sender, the one to whom the testimony of the messengers would have led all who embraced it. Acceptance of Jesus also signified acceptance of his Father, as he was his Father’s representative. (13:19, 20)
After Jesus referred to the words of the psalmist, he became greatly disturbed in spirit, or inwardly, and solemnly declared, “Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you, One of you will betray me.” In great perplexity, the apostles looked at one another, with none of Jesus’ loyal apostles having any idea about who the future betrayer could possibly be. Among themselves they discussed regarding whom Jesus might have been speaking. His words distressed them. Not being able to imagine that they would make themselves guilty of betrayal, they asked, “Not I, [is it]?” (13:21, 22; see also Matthew 26:21, 22; Mark 14:18, 19; Luke 22:21-23.)
Peter must have wanted to ask Jesus personally who the betrayer would be, but he appears not to have been close enough to do so without being overheard. He then got the attention of the disciple whom Jesus particularly loved (John), requesting him to raise the question. John seems to have been reclining on Jesus’ right side, with his head being in close proximity to Jesus’ breast. This would have made it possible for him to lean back to speak to Jesus (doubtless in a subdued manner or whisper) without any of the other apostles being aware of it. (13:23-25)
In response to the question about who the betrayer would be, Jesus said, “It is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and [to whom] I shall give it.” He then took the morsel, dipped it, and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. It would appear that Judas was within easy reach of Jesus, probably reclining on his immediate left. Thus, to the very end, Jesus treated him with kindness and even favored him with being in his close proximity. The account says that, as soon as Judas took the morsel, “Satan entered into him.” This suggests that, despite the love Jesus had shown him, Judas completely yielded to the satanic inclination that made him a traitor. Jesus then told him, “Quickly do what you are doing.” The other apostles did not know why Jesus said this to Judas. (13:26-28)
As Judas had been entrusted with the common fund, some among the apostles thought that he was being instructed to buy something needed for the festival or to give something to the poor. Immediately after he accepted the morsel, Judas left. The account adds, “And it was night.” This reference to “night” seems to have had more than a literal significance. It proved to be a night of darkness, for Jesus was betrayed and arrested. If judged from outward appearances, the powers of darkness had seemingly triumphed. (13:29, 30)
It would not have been unusual for someone to leave during the Passover meal or for several private conversations to be carried on among those eating. The meal itself was not a hurried affair. According to the Mishnah (Pesahim, 10:8), some might even fall asleep. If not all of the group fell asleep, they could resume eating upon waking up. One rabbinical view was that if all merely drowsed and did not fall into deep sleep, they could eat again. The Tosefta (Pesahim, 10:8) refers to those who had no one to recite the Hallel for them. They would then go to the synagogue for the reading of the first part, return home to eat and drink, and then return to the synagogue to complete the Hallel. If the distance was too great for them to return to the synagogue, the entire Hallel was completed the first time. This interruption of the meal with the Hallel may provide a basis for concluding that Judas left before the introduction of the third cup of wine. (13:30)
After Judas had left, Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man when speaking of his glorification and that of his Father “in him.” In the Greek text, the verb for “glorified” is in the aorist tense, which is commonly used to denote something that happened in the past. By willingly submitting to his Father’s purpose for him and what this would ultimately accomplish, Jesus was glorified as the unique and beloved Son of God. “In him,” or by means of everything Jesus had done and would do as one fully submissive to his Father’s will for him, the Father was glorified or honored. Jesus’ willing surrender of his life would climax an earthly ministry devoted to glorifying his Father. At the same time, his Father had glorified him through the works he had empowered him to perform. Seemingly, because his ultimate glorification (his resurrection and ascension to heaven) was an imminent reality that would complete the glorification process, Jesus introduced his reference to the past glorification with the word “now” (nyn), “Now the Son of Man has been [or, was] glorified, and God has been [or, was] glorified in him.” (13:31)
Numerous Greek manuscripts represent Jesus as saying, “If God has been glorified in him [the Son of Man], also God will glorify him in himself, and he will immediately glorify him.” The omission in many other manuscripts of the introductory phrase (“If God has been glorified in him”) does not materially affect the meaning of the words that follow. The action of God’s Son in glorifying his Father, especially in the surrender of his life in full submission to his will, would lead to his Father’s glorifying him and doing so immediately. On the third day after Jesus’ death, his Father did glorify him, raising him from the dead and granting him unparalleled authority in heaven and on earth. When Jesus returned to his Father, he did so as the exalted Son who had the right to be universally acknowledged as Lord. (13:32; also see Philippians 2:9-11.)
Affectionately referring to his disciples as “children,” Jesus told them that he would be with them only a little while longer. “You will seek me,” he continued. As he had said on an earlier occasion to the unbelieving Jews (7:33, 34), he now told his disciples, “Where I am going you cannot come.” In the case of the disciples, their “seeking” would be indicative of a strong inner desire to be with Jesus. (Compare 2 Corinthians 5:1-6; Philippians 1:23.) He, however, would be absent from them, and they, in their earthly state of existence, would not be able to join him. (13:33)
While Jesus had been with his disciples, he had shown them the kind of love that surpassed everything they had formerly experienced. Now when he was about to make the superlative expression of his love by surrendering his life for them, he gave them a new commandment, one that required their loving one another as he had loved them. All observers would be able to recognize them as his disciples by the love they had for one another. What made this commandment new is that it went beyond the law’s requirement of loving one’s neighbor as oneself. In imitation of God’s Son, the new commandment called for a love that put the interests and well-being of others ahead of one’s own. This love was a self-sacrificing love that found its fulfillment in selfless giving and serving. (13:34, 35)
In response to Jesus’ words that the disciples would not be able to come to the place where he would be heading, Peter asked, “Lord, where are you going?” “Where I am going,” Jesus replied, “you cannot follow me now, but you will follow later.” Jesus would surrender his life, be resurrected, and return to his Father. Later, Peter would also die and, upon being raised from the dead, would again be with Jesus. (13:36)
As one who deeply loved God’s Son, Peter felt that he was prepared to go anywhere with him regardless of what the circumstances might be. Even if it were to mean imprisonment or death for him, he would not hesitate to go. (Luke 22:33) Firmly convinced about his loyalty to Jesus, Peter said, “Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will give up my soul [life] for you.” (13:37)
“Will you give up your soul for me?” Jesus replied. Then, with a solemn introductory “amen, amen” (truly, truly), he declared that Peter would disown him three times that night before a cock crowed, probably just before dawn. (13:38)
Concerning his leaving them (if not also his words about their abandoning him and Peter’s denial), Jesus said to the apostles, “Do not let your hearts be troubled.” Within themselves, they were not to give way to feelings of alarm and uneasiness. Instead, Jesus admonished them to believe in God and also in him. Their faith would then enable them to come through the difficult time that lay ahead. (14:1)
Jesus’ leaving them would not be an event they were to dread. There was ample room for them in his Father’s house, with its “many dwelling places.” If that had not been the case, Jesus would have told the disciples. His departure and return to the Father meant that he would be preparing a place for them. This assured them that he would come again and take them to be with him. Where he had his home, they also would be. Jesus then added, “You know the way [to the place] where I am going.” His earlier comments should have helped them to discern that “the way” involved faith in God and in him. (14:2-4)
Thomas may not have been alone in failing to make this connection. Thinking that Jesus had spoken about a literal way or path, he raised the question, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” (14:5)
In his response, Jesus made it clear that he was not referring to a literal road or path. “I am the way,” said Jesus, “and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known [know, P66 (second century) and other manuscripts] me, you would have known [will know, P66 and other manuscripts] my Father also. From now [on] you know him and have seen [him].” (14:6, 7)
Jesus is “the way,” for through him alone can one come to the Father. The Son’s example and teaching provide the dependable guidance. As the unique Son of God, the one who has fully revealed the Father in a manner that he alone could, Jesus is “the truth” or the embodiment of the truth. He is “the life,” for through him and faith in him one comes into possession of the real life, the life that is distinguished by an enduring relationship with his Father. (14:6)
If P66, the earliest extant manuscript, preserves the original reading, then Jesus said that, by knowing him, the disciples would come to know his Father. This would suggest that, in the future, they would come to know the Father fully. The meaning conveyed in many other manuscripts appears to be that the disciples had not yet come to know Jesus from the standpoint of coming to know the Father fully through him. In that case, Jesus’ words would have constituted a reproof. The phrase, “from now [on] you know,” then appears to suggest that, based on what he had revealed to them, the disciples did know the Father. They also had seen him. Jesus could say this, for he, the unique Son, was the express image of his Father. On the other hand, if P66 contains the original text, Jesus’ words could be understood to mean that their knowing the Father would not come about at some future time but was possible from then on. Based on what Jesus had revealed in his own person, the disciples did know the Father and had seen him. (14:7)
Seemingly, Philip understood Jesus’ reference to seeing in a literal sense. This prompted him to say, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” Philip felt that, if Jesus would let the disciples actually see the Father just once, they would be completely satisfied. (14:8)
Jesus appears to have directed his reply to Philip in a way that included all of the apostles. This is suggested by the plural “you,” seemingly indicating that Philip may not have been the only one wanting to be shown the Father in a perceivable manner. “Have I been with you [plural],” Jesus said, “[for] so much time, and [still], Philip, you do not know me? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak to you [plural] I am not speaking [as originating] from myself, but the Father who remains in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and [that] the Father [is] in me. But if not, believe for the reason of the works themselves.” (14:9-11)
Philip was among Jesus’ first disciples and so, along with the other early disciples, had been with him from the start of his ministry. Therefore, Jesus could refer to Philip and the other apostles as having been with him for considerable time. Nevertheless, Philip still had not fully recognized in Jesus the complete reflection of his Father. Philip’s request to be shown the Father revealed that he had not as yet understood that, in the face of the Son, he had seen the Father. (Compare 2 Corinthians 4:6.) Jesus perfectly reflected everything about him. As Hebrews 1:3 indicates, the Son is the exact imprint of his Father’s very being. Therefore, when seeing Jesus, being closely associated with him, and witnessing the works his Father had empowered him to perform, the disciples were being given an all-encompassing and clear vision of the Father. Accordingly, they had seen the Father in the Son. On account of what Philip had experienced during a course of many months, Jesus rightly asked him, “How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (14:9-11)
In every way, the Son enjoyed a oneness with his Father. Because of being completely at one with him, Jesus could say that he was “in” the Father, and the Father was “in” him. Jesus did not speak of his own but expressed what his Father had committed to him to speak. So, through Jesus, the disciples heard the words of his Father. Although his Father was in heaven, this had no bearing on the intimate relationship he enjoyed with him. In all that Jesus said and did, the Father remained “in” him, was with him, or resided in him. Therefore, the marvelous deeds that Jesus performed (healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, soundness of body to the lame and the crippled, and raising the dead) were his Father’s works. (14:10, 11)
When Jesus told his disciples, “I am in the Father and the Father [is] in me,” he could rightly say to them, “Believe me.” They had ample evidence for believing him. Yet, if they did not believe him, not accepting his word, they could not deny the fact that they had witnessed marvelous deeds. As Jesus said, “Believe for the reason of the works themselves.” (14:11)
For the disciples, their belief, faith, or trust in Jesus would result in their doing works they could not then have imagined. After his solemn introductory words (“Amen, amen” [Truly, truly], I say to you”), Jesus continued, “He who believes in me will do the works I am doing, and greater [works] than these he will do, for I am going to the Father.” Upon returning to his Father, Jesus would no longer be physically present and bringing relief to the afflicted as he had while with the disciples. They would then be doing the very deeds that he had done. Collectively, their activity would be more extensive, reach far beyond the areas where Jesus had ministered to the people, and continue for much more time. Therefore, he could say that he who believes in him would do greater works. (14:12)
His being away from the disciples did not mean that his care and concern for them would diminish. Moreover, they could look to him for aid and guidance. “Whatever you ask in my name,” Jesus said, “I will do this, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you [plural] ask [me, found in numerous manuscripts] anything in my name, I will do it.” (14:13, 14)
After Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the disciples commonly directed their prayers to the Father, doing so in Jesus’ name or as persons who recognized him as their Lord. Colossians 3:17 specifically refers to “thanking God the Father through him [the Lord Jesus].” (14:14)
At certain times, the disciples directly appealed to Jesus. The apostle Paul mentioned having three times pleaded with the Lord to remove his “thorn in the flesh.” Paul did not say how he received the Lord’s answer, “Sufficient is my grace [unmerited favor] for you, because my power is made complete in weakness.” He humbly accepted it as Christ’s answer, telling the Corinthians that he would prefer to take pride “in [his] weaknesses, that the power of the Christ might dwell with [him].” (2 Corinthians 12:7-9)
This illustrates that Jesus’ words about doing what his disciples requested does depend upon its being in harmony with the divine will or prerogative. In Paul’s case, the power of Christ proved to be more fully manifest through his continuing to bear his “thorn,” with the grace or favor extended to him being sufficient for him to endure it. From a personal standpoint, Paul would benefit from seeing Christ’s interests advanced despite his “thorn” and those who responded in faith would be able to see that the advancement of Christ’s cause did not depend on human strength.
Jesus’ unique oneness with his Father is of such a nature that his will and that of his Father are identical. Accordingly, appeals that are made in Jesus’ name, or in recognition of him as Lord, will be answered. His words to the disciples indicate that he would act in keeping with their petitions and that his doing so would serve to glorify the Father. The Father would be honored “in the Son,” for the Son’s response would perfectly reflect the Father’s will. (14:13, 14)
The disciples would manifest their love for Jesus by observing his commandments, following his example and adhering to his teaching. The implication is that they should do so even after his departure. (14:15)
While with them, Jesus had proved to be their “paraclete” (parákletos), helper, comforter, advocate, supporter, or intercessor. Although he would be going away, he would not leave them with-out needed aid. He assured them that he would request his Father to give them another paraclete to be with them permanently (literally, “into the age”; forever). (14:16)
Jesus referred to the paraclete as the “spirit of the truth.” When functioning in the capacity of teaching or guiding the disciples or of recalling to their minds Jesus’ teaching, the spirit’s aid would be solidly based on truth and could always be trusted. Regardless of the circumstances, the disciples could rely on the spirit for spiritual strength and for help in their loyally upholding and advancing the interests of God’s Son. Based on the context, the paraclete may primarily be regarded as a helper. (14:17)
In a state of alienation from and at enmity with the Father, the world of mankind cannot receive the spirit. Not wanting a relationship with the Father and his Son, those of the world in their state of alienation can neither know nor see the spirit’s function in a personal way. With their minds focused solely on what pleases the senses, they are unresponsive and unreceptive to the spirit. (14:17)
Regarding the spirit, Jesus said to his disciples, “You know it, for it remains with you and is [will be, according to other manuscripts] in you.” In the life and activity of Jesus, the disciples had repeatedly seen the operation of God’s spirit. Empowered by the spirit, they, too, had performed miraculous works. From personal experience, they knew or had acquaintance with the spirit. As they followed through on the commission Jesus had given them to proclaim the glad tidings and to cure the sick and infirm, the spirit had not left them and was at work “in” and through them. At the same time, however, their acquaintance with the spirit was never independent of Jesus’ personal presence with them. The future reception of the spirit would result in a continuing possession thereof while the Son of God would not be personally among them. (14:17; see the Notes section.)
He promised not to leave them as orphans or in a helpless and needy state, adding, “I am coming to you.” After his resurrection, Jesus did reveal himself alive to his disciples. The context, though, suggests that this particular coming to his disciples relates more to his turning his attention to them through the provision of another paraclete and, by means of this helper, making his home with them. (14:18)
His death, resurrection, and return to his Father being imminent, Jesus could say that the world would shortly no longer see him. The disciples, though, would see him, for, as he told them, “I live and you will live.” As one raised from the dead, Jesus did live, and the disciples were infused with new life upon seeing him and his giving them many proofs that he was indeed alive. (Acts 1:3) Moreover, with the pouring out of God’s spirit upon them on the day of Pentecost, the disciples truly could be spoken of as living. With boldness they began to witness concerning the Son of God. Jesus’ words spoken just before his last post-resurrection appearance were fulfilled, “You will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and all of Judea, and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (14:19; Acts 1:8)
Jesus’ request to his Father for the disciples to be given another paraclete was answered on the day of Pentecost. Particularly in connection with that day Jesus’ words to them applied, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you [are] in me, and I in you.” Jesus received the holy spirit from the Father and then, through Jesus, the disciples received the spirit. (Acts 2:33) This provided undeniable evidence that he was indeed “in” or at one with his Father. As for the disciples, the reception of the spirit from Jesus established that they were “in” or at one with him and that he was “in” or at one with them. (14:20)
For one to “have” Christ’s commandments would mean to have received or accepted them. Acceptance and observance of these commandments would demonstrate love for him. The one who thus loved Jesus would be loved by his Father, and Jesus would love the individual and would reveal himself to him. In view of Jesus’ return to his Father, this revealing of himself would be through the spirit. (John 14:21)
Judas (not Iscariot, but the son of James), also called Thaddaeus, asked how it would be that Jesus would be revealing himself to the disciples but not to the world. His answer indicated that this disclosure depended on a relationship that the world did not have. “If anyone loves me,” said Jesus, “he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling place with him. He who does not love me does not keep my words, and the word that you [plural] are hearing is not mine, but [is that] of the Father who sent me.” (14:22-24)
Only those who love Jesus, loyally adhering to his word or teaching, would have the clear vision of him that would follow the reception of the spirit. The Father would love the person who loved his Son. By means of the spirit, both the Father and the Son would make their home with the individual who faithfully followed the Son’s teaching. That word or teaching did not originate with Jesus but had been received by him from his Father. Therefore, the individual who did not observe Jesus’ words also disregarded his Father who had sent him, and demonstrated himself to be a person having no love for Jesus. Being unreceptive to the spirit by reason of a state of alienation and enmity, such a person could not come to have a clear vision of the Son nor of the Father. Therefore, just as Jesus had said, the world would not see him. (14:23, 24)
Regarding the teaching he had then imparted to them, Jesus said, “These things I have told you while remaining with you.” This kind of personal teaching would end after his going away to his Father. From then onward, the paraclete, the holy spirit, to be sent by his Father in his name (or on the basis of his request as God’s unique Son), would teach them everything they would need and recall to their minds everything he had said to them. (14:25, 26; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
Jesus’ mention about his departure troubled the disciples. Reassuringly, he told them, “Peace I leave you.” His going away from them was not to occasion disquietude or alarm. Spiritually, the disciples would not experience any lack, and they would have the dependable help and guidance of the paraclete. Continuing, Jesus said, “My peace I give you.” (14:27)
This peace was his gift. As recipients thereof, the disciples would enjoy an inner sense of well-being and calm from knowing that he deeply loved them. Jesus’ giving was not like that of the world. His giving was an expression of genuine concern and love. Those who are part of the world alienated from the Father often do their giving with impure motives, endeavoring to secure future gain or favors for themselves. (14:27; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
In view of his gift of peace, Jesus admonished the disciples not to allow their hearts to be troubled nor to become fearful. He thereby implied that his leaving them should not occasion inner alarm, apprehension, uncertainty, or confusion. (14:27)
Jesus reminded the disciples of what he had said to them, “I am going away, and I am coming to you.” Although the disciples did see Jesus on numerous occasions after his resurrection, his appearances primarily served to show them that he was alive. Often he appeared for just a short time and then vanished. Therefore, the coming to which Jesus referred appears to be the coming by means of the paraclete. This appears to be indicated by the words that follow, which words focus on his again being with his Father and not personally with them. “If you loved me,” Jesus said, “you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I [am].” (14:28)
The love of the disciples for Jesus should rightly have moved them to rejoice with him, for he would again be with his Father. As the Son sent by and given the words of the Father to speak, Jesus could say about him, “The Father is greater than I [am].” Upon returning to his Father, Jesus would be the exalted Son to whom his Father had given all authority in heaven and on earth. He would then enjoy the closest relationship possible with his Father, the possessor of unsurpassed greatness. For Jesus’ disciples, his friends, this should have occasioned rejoicing. (14:28)
By telling them about what would soon be taking place, Jesus provided the disciples with an additional evidence for faith. Whereas they believed in him as the promised Messiah, the Son of God, his death and resurrection would so overwhelmingly confirm his identity that it would be as if the disciples believed anew, with the strongest conviction possible. (14:29)
Only a short time remained for Jesus to be with his disciples. Therefore, he told them that he would not be speaking much more to them. The ruler of the world, Satan, was coming, suggesting that Jesus knew that he would shortly face intense assault from the powers of darkness. Confidently, Jesus expressed himself regarding this impending threat, saying that the ruler of the world had “nothing” in him. Satan had no power over Jesus, for there would be nothing he could get hold of in an effort to sway him from carrying out his Father’s will. (14:30)
With apparent reference to the surrender of his life in loyal submission to his Father, Jesus spoke of this as the way in which he would show the world that he loved him. For Jesus, his Father’s will constituted his Father’s command. As the loving and obedient Son, he would act on the commandment, which included sacrificing his life. (14:31)
The words, “Rise, let us go from here,” do not necessarily indicate an immediate departure from the location where the Passover meal had been eaten. Thereafter Jesus is represented as continuing to speak. Not until a while later did he actually leave with the disciples and head for the Mount of Olives. (18:1) Therefore, Jesus’ words about going may have been his way of saying that the time had come for him to surrender his life and of expressing his determination to set out on the course his Father had willed for him. (14:31)
Notes:
The holy writings or sacred scriptures with which Jesus’ disciples were familiar included numerous references to the spirit (Hebrew, rúach; Greek, pneúma), God’s spirit, or holy spirit. Like the corresponding Greek word pneúma, the Hebrew term rúach can also mean “wind.” Whereas pneúma is neuter gender, rúach is feminine gender. In the holy writings, the spirit is often mentioned in contexts identifying it as a divine agent or the power emanating from God. (Judges 3:10; 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Samuel 11:6; Ezekiel 3:14; 8:3; 11:1; 37:14) For the disciples to have come to a changed understanding about the spirit would have required explicit teaching from God’s Son. In expressing his promise about the paraclete or the spirit of the truth, Jesus’ use of some masculine pronouns would have been far too subtle for the disciples to have come to understand the nature of the spirit differently.
The Hebrew, Syriac, and Aramaic forms of the word “paraclete” came into use through Greek influence and, like the Greek, are masculine gender. According to the idiom of the language in which Jesus spoke to his disciples, he would have used feminine pronouns when referring to the spirit and masculine pronouns when speaking of the paraclete. Therefore, what has been regarded as a fluctuation of masculine and neuter pronouns in the Greek text of John 14 is best understood as being of a grammatical nature. Where the apparent or intended antecedent is pneúma, the corresponding pronouns are neuter. If, on the other hand, the apparent or intended antecedent is parákletos, the corresponding pronouns are masculine.
In John 14:26, the paraclete (parákletos) is identified as “the holy spirit.” The phrase that follows, in keeping with the neuter gender of “spirit” (pneúma), starts with the neuter pronoun hó (“which [hó] the Father will send in my name”). Then, in agreement with the masculine parákletos, the masculine pronoun ekeínos (“that one” or “he”) begins the concluding part of the sentence (“that one will teach you everything and recall to you everything I said to you”).
The reference to the giving that is not like that of the world does not have a designated object in the Greek text of John 14:27 (“not like the world am I giving to you”). A number of translations have added “it,” making “peace” the antecedent, and other translations have added the word “peace” as the object of the giving. “I am leaving you with a gift — peace of mind and heart. And the peace I give isn’t like the peace the world gives.” (NLT) “I give you peace, the kind of peace that only I can give. It isn’t like the peace that this world can give.” (CEV) “Peace I leave with you. My peace I give to you. I do not give peace to you as the world gives.” (NLB) According to this meaning, the peace the world gives could be understood to be the kind of seeming well-being and security that is based on attaining positions or possessions and would be temporary.
The world, however, cannot give real peace, the enduring well-being, security, and tranquility that comes from having a relationship with the Son of God and his Father. Some translations render the verse in a way that conveys the inability of the world to give peace. “Peace is my parting gift to you, my own peace, such as the world cannot give.” (REB) “Peace I bequeath to you, my own peace I give you, a peace which the world cannot give, this is my gift to you.” (NJB)
Without an object for “give,” this verb could be understood in a generic sense, indicating that Christ’s giving differs from that of the world. This may be the preferable meaning of John 14:27, considering that it requires no additions to the actual reading of the Greek text. “I do not give as the world gives to you.” (HCSB)
Illustrating the need for his disciples to be inseparably united to him, Jesus referred to himself as the true vine, his Father as the vine grower, and his disciples as the branches in the vine. His Father would remove all unproductive branches and prune (literally, “clean”) fruit-bearing branches so that they might yield more fruit. In verse 2, the Greek term used for the removal of unproductive branches is aíro, literally meaning “to raise” or “to lift up” but here signifying “to remove” or “to take away.” The Greek word for “clean” or “prune” is kathaíro. The use of the two Greek terms suggests a play on words (aíro — kathaíro). (15:1, 2)
The word, message, or teaching Jesus imparted to his disciples had already “pruned” or “cleaned” them. They had accepted his word, acting on it by imitating his example and testifying to their faith in him. By their conduct, which reflected favorably on him, and their witness about him, the disciples proved themselves to be productive branches that had been made fruitful through the cleansing power of his word. (15:3)
As Jesus remained “in” his disciples, being attached to them, he admonished them to remain “in” him, continuing to be at one with him. Only by remaining part of the vine do branches bear fruit. Likewise, the disciples would only be able to bear good fruit as persons attached to Jesus or at one with him. (15:4)
After identifying himself as the vine and his disciples as the branches, Jesus again stressed that the one who remained “in” him (attached like a branch to the vine) and he “in” the individual (attached like the vine to a branch) would bear much fruit. Therefore, apart from him, the disciples could not produce anything, that is, anything which his Father, the vine grower, would consider acceptable fruit. (15:5)
The person who failed to remain “in” Jesus or to be attached to him would prove to be like an unproductive branch that is thrown away and the leaves of which wither. Useless branches would be gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. This indicates that a severe judgment awaits those who forsake Jesus and, in disposition, word, and deed, cease to bear fruit, no longer conducting themselves as persons who recognize him as their Lord. (15:6)
If the disciples remained “in” or attached to him, and his word or teaching remained in them (being like a deposit in their inmost selves and motivating their thoughts, words, and deeds), whatever they might wish to request would be granted. In view of their being at one with Jesus and their having made his teaching their own, their asking would have been in harmony with God’s will, and this would have assured their receiving a favorable response to their petitions. (15:7)
Ultimately, when Jesus’ disciples bore much fruit in word and deed, and proved themselves to be his faithful disciples by advancing his interests, his Father would be glorified or honored. (15:8)
Just as the Father loved him, the Son loved the disciples. His appeal to them was, “Remain in my love.” For them to continue in his love would require that they keep his commandments, adhering to his teaching in their life as his disciples. Jesus had set the example for them. He had kept his Father’s commandments and thus had remained in his love. (15:9, 10)
The reason Jesus spoke about their remaining in his love by keeping his commandments was so that he might find joy in them. On seeing their faithfulness in bearing much fruit and proving themselves to be his disciples, he would rejoice. Their responsiveness to his word would occasion joy. At the same time, their joy would be made complete. They would experience the inner contentment from knowing that they were pleasing to him as their Lord and, therefore, also to his Father. Upon attaining their reward, the disciples would attain the ultimate fullness of joy. (15:11)
Jesus’ principal command for them was, “Love one another as I have loved you.” This called for a self-sacrificing and selfless love, a love that expressed itself in finding delight in serving others. Jesus’ love for them surpassed anything they had ever experienced. As he told them, “No one has greater love than this, that someone give up his soul [life] for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you [to do].” By acting on his command to love one another, they would prove themselves to be his friends, loving as he loved. (15:12-14)
Although Jesus was their Lord, he did not treat them in a manner that resembled a master-slave relationship. As he said, “I am not still calling you slaves, for a slave does not know what his master is doing. But I have called you friends, for I have made known to you everything I have heard from my Father.” In a master-slave relationship, the master primarily issued commands to the slave. He did not treat him as a confidential friend to whom he would have entrusted precious intimate thoughts. The slave primarily obeyed his master out of a sense of duty and fear. Jesus, however, disclosed the teaching of his Father, teaching that he had received as his Father’s dearly beloved and unique Son. Being acknowledged friends of Jesus, the disciples would be motivated to heed his commands because they loved him. (15:15)
The disciples had not chosen Jesus, granting him the authority to be their Lord and Teacher. He had chosen them to be his disciples and his apostles. His purpose for choosing them was that they might go and bear fruit and that this fruit would remain. They would be going out among the people, and their fruit in the form of words and deeds would move others to accept their testimony about Jesus and put their faith in him. Accordingly, these believers would prove to be the enduring or remaining produce of the apostles’ faithful service. The labors of the apostles yielded fruit that has remained to the present time, for throughout the centuries many have put faith in their testimony and have acted on it. When fulfilling the purpose for their being chosen, the disciples would also have an approved relationship with his Father. So, as Jesus indicated, their fruit bearing would assure that the requests they directed to the Father in Jesus’ name (in recognition of who the Son truly is) would be granted. In carrying out their commission, the disciples would need the courage to speak with boldness, the strength to endure hostility, and the wisdom to express themselves appropriately and effectively. They could be confident that their petitions respecting the accomplishment of their assigned service would be answered. (15:16)
Indicative of the prime importance of love, Jesus is quoted as again saying, “These things I am commanding you, that you love one another.” (15:17)
In the world of mankind alienated from the Father, they would not find the love they were to enjoy among themselves. They would be hated. If or when this happened, they should be able to understand it, for they knew that the world hated Jesus before expressing its hatred against them. If they were part of the world, living as persons without faith in the Son and, therefore, also without faith in the Father, the unbelievers of the world would love them as their own. Although living in the world of mankind, the disciples were not from that world. Their thoughts, words, and deeds were focused on proving themselves to be Jesus’ disciples. He had chosen them out of the world, no longer to be a part of it in its unbelief and its ways that did not honor his Father. As persons who had ceased to be part of the world, the disciples were objects of its hatred. (15:18, 19)
In relation to their encountering the world’s hatred, Jesus wanted them to remember what he had told them previously, “A slave is not greater than his master.” (Compare Matthew 10:24, Luke 6:40, and John 13:16.) Therefore, they should expect the same kind of response and treatment as Jesus had experienced. As he said, “If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word [accepting his teaching and observing it], they will also keep yours.” (15:20)
Whatever hostility or mistreatment the disciples were to experience would be on account of Jesus’ name or because of their being identified as belonging to him as his disciples. The hateful reaction and treatment would result because those who persisted in unbelief did not “know” the Father who had sent his Son. They did not recognize the Father in the Son, revealing that they had no relationship with him. (15:21)
If Jesus had not come and labored among them and spoken to them, “they,” according to his words, “would have no sin.” But he did labor and teach among them, leaving them without any excuse for their sin — their persistence in unbelief and hatred of him. His example in love, compassionately bringing relief to the sick and afflicted, and his teaching gave them no basis for their hateful response. The clear evidence of God’s spirit working through the Son in the accomplishment of good served to condemn their unbelief and hostility. Without this overwhelming evidence, they would have been acting out of ignorance and so would not have had the sin of deliberate unbelief charged against them. (15:22, 24)
When hating Jesus, the unbelievers also hated the Father who deeply loved his Son. No one else had done the works that Jesus did among them. If he had not done these marvelous works that resulted in relief for many suffering fellow Jews, the unbelievers would not have had sin. They could not have taken a hostile stand despite evidence of good deeds, for they would not have witnessed these works. Having, however, seen Jesus and the works he did, they nevertheless hated him and his Father (the very one whose works Jesus was performing and whose teaching he was conveying). This fulfilled the “word” of the “law” (in this case seemingly meaning words in the holy writings that had the authority or validity of law), “They hated me without cause.” These words of Psalm 69:4 (68:5, LXX) found their full meaning in the hatred Jesus experienced. (15:23-25)
With the aid of the paraclete, the spirit of the truth, the apostles would be able to discharge their commission to testify concerning Jesus. He would send the paraclete from the Father, the one from whom this helper or “the spirit of the truth” proceeded. Upon arriving, the paraclete or helper would testify about Jesus. This testimony would have included opening up to the minds of the apostles how the words of the holy writings and everything Jesus had said to them beforehand had been fulfilled in him. With the spirit operating within them, the apostles would then be in a position to testify concerning Jesus, for they had been with him from the time he began his ministry among the people. The spirit would recall to their minds the things he had said, and they would be able to convey his teaching to others. (15:26, 27)
The designation “paraclete” (parákletos) at the start of John 15:26, as in John chapter 14, is best understood to mean “helper.” In agreement with its masculine gender, the apparent or intended antecedent parákletos is followed by pronouns in the masculine gender. This is so even though the parenthetical expression that includes the neuter noun pneúma with its corresponding neuter pronoun hó (“the spirit [pneúma] of the truth, which [hó] proceeds from the Father”) separates parákletos and the accompanying phrase (“whom [hón, the masculine pronoun] I will send you from the Father”) from the conclusion of the sentence. Without the parenthetical words about the spirit, the sentence would read, “When the helper arrives, whom I will send you from the Father, that one [or he; the masculine pronoun ekeínos] will testify about me.”
Initially, Jesus did not tell his disciples about the hatred that would be directed against them because of being his disciples. He did not want to stumble them, frightening them to the point that their fragile faith could have given out. (16:1)
With the passage of time, their faith had grown and become stronger. Moreover, in view of his imminent departure, Jesus recognized that it was essential for them to know what they would be experiencing. They would be expelled from the synagogues. The hour or time would come when unbelievers would imagine that they were serving God by killing the disciples. Unbelieving fellow Jews would come to view them as apostates, as persons who were followers of a false Messiah and who posed a threat to the traditional Jewish ways. As the book of Acts reveals, murderous hatred flared up because of regarding the disciples as speaking against Moses, the temple, and the law. (Acts 6:13, 14; 21:27-31) Based on the penalty the law set forth for apostasy, they would have regarded themselves as doing God’s will by killing the disciples. (16:2; see Deuteronomy 13:6-10.)
The hateful action of unbelievers would stem from their knowing neither the Father nor Jesus. Their traditional views blinded them so that they could not perceive the things of God. Unable to see in Jesus the perfect reflection of his Father, they could not recognize him as the Son of God and so could not possibly know the Father whom they had never seen. (16:3)
The “hour” or time was bound to come when the disciples would face persecution and even death. Having been prepared in advance for this, they would then recall what Jesus had told them. While he was with them, the hatred was primarily directed at him, and he came to their defense when others raised an issue about them. (Compare Matthew 12:1-8; 15:1-9.) Therefore, it was not vital for them to know at the start just what might happen to them because of being his disciples. As Jesus said, “I did not tell you these things from the beginning, for I was with you.” (16:4)
The situation would soon be different. Jesus would be going back to the one who had sent him, his Father. Earlier, Peter had asked, “Lord, where are you going?” (13:36) Thomas, in response to Jesus’ telling the apostles that they knew the way to the place where he was going, said, “Lord, we do not know where you are going.” (14:5) In neither case, however, were the words focused on what this would mean for Jesus. Peter’s question related to why he would not be able to follow, and the words of Thomas indicated that the disciples did not know the way to the place where Jesus was going. With apparent reference in relation to himself, Jesus said, “Not one of you asks me, Where are you going? But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart.” Within themselves, they were pained upon hearing that Jesus would no longer be with them. Overwhelmed by their sadness, they did not reflect on what it would mean for him to return to his Father. Therefore, they did not make any inquiry about where Jesus would be going or concerning anything else that specifically related to him in connection with this departure. (16:5, 6)
In view of their sadness, Jesus reassured them, “I am telling you the truth, It is better for you that I am going away; for if I do not go away, the paraclete will not come to you.” Upon going away, Jesus would send them the paraclete. As a man on earth, he dealt with the limitations human existence imposed. His activity was confined to a comparatively small geographic area, and he could only be with them in one specific location at a time. The paraclete, however, would be with them at all times and in every location where they would be spreading the message about the Son of God. Accordingly, from the standpoint of what would be accomplished, it was really in the best interests of the apostles for him to depart and for them to benefit from the paraclete or from another helper. (16:7)
As to what would be accomplished through the powerful working of the paraclete, Jesus said, “That one [ekeínos, masculine gender to agree with the masculine gender of paraclete (parákletos)] will reprove the world about sin and about righteousness and about judgment.” Jesus then explained the way in which the paraclete would reprove the world, exposing the wrong of those who persisted in unbelief. As in John chapters 14 and 15, so also in chapter 16, masculine pronouns are used when the apparent or intended antecedent is “paraclete” (parákletos). The Greek word for “spirit” (pneúma) is neuter gender, and this explains why both masculine and neuter pronouns appear in the narration that includes Jesus’ words about the paraclete, the “spirit of the truth.” (14:16, 17; 15:26; 16:8)
They were guilty of sin, rejecting the clear evidence that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. This evidence included his miraculous works (healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and soundness of body to the crippled and the lame, and raising the dead). With God’s spirit operating through them, the apostles would perform like miraculous works, further confirming the sin of the world’s refusal to believe in Jesus to be inexcusable. (16:9)
Unbelievers misrepresented the Son of God, slandering him as being a man in league with the demons, a lawbreaker, and a deceiver. (Compare Matthew 12:24; 27:63; Luke 23:2.) His return to his Father and, therefore, his disciples’ no longer seeing him proved that he was righteous in every way. At the same time, this revealed that a right standing with his Father could only be obtained through faith in him and the forgiveness made possible through his sacrificial death. The imparting of the spirit to the disciples established that he had returned to his Father and received the spirit from him. Empowered by the spirit, the disciples boldly testified that Jesus had been raised from the dead and exalted to the right hand of God and that, through him alone, forgiveness of sins was possible. (Acts 2:33, 36, 38; 3:14-21; 5:29-32; 13:27-39) Thus their testimony, backed by miracles, proved to be the spirit’s witness about righteousness. (16:10)
Through his death in faithfulness to his Father, Jesus defeated the powers of darkness. This, too, would be a feature of the spirit’s testimony. It would be a witness about judgment, for the ruler of the world had been condemned and exposed as unable to turn Jesus away from doing his Father’s will. No longer could Satan hold people in slavery by means of the fear of death. (Hebrews 2:14, 15) The visible manifestation of the spirit’s operation through the disciples bore witness to the reality of Jesus’ resurrection, exaltation, and triumph over the power of the enemy, proving that Satan had been judged. This also confirmed that Jesus would be the judge of all, both the upright and the unjust. (Acts 17:31) All who defiantly persisted in unbelief would, like Satan, be condemned. (16:11; compare Matthew 25:41.)
Jesus wanted to tell the apostles much more, but he knew that they were then not prepared to “bear” it. This suggests that they would have been troubled or overwhelmed, unable to comprehend his words. (16:12)
With the arrival of the paraclete, the spirit of the truth, they would come to understand, being guided into all the truth. Everything that would be conveyed to them would be completely trustworthy and would meet their needs. The paraclete would not be functioning independently (speaking “of his own”) but would be reliably making known what had been heard from Jesus and ultimately from the Father and would declare or reveal things to come. In the context of Jesus’ words, the “things coming” appear to relate to what lay ahead for him, and the spirit would enable the apostles to see how the Scriptures and his words were fulfilled. (Compare John 2:22.) Through the spirit, the Son would be glorified or honored, for the spirit would be announcing or revealing what had been received from him. (16:13, 14)
As the unique Son, Jesus shared everything with his Father. “Everything the Father has,” Jesus said, “is mine.” Therefore, although the Father is the ultimate source of the spirit, Jesus could say that the paraclete received from what is his and then would make announcement to the apostles. (16:15)
Again indicating why the apostles would need another paraclete or helper, Jesus reminded them about a change to come. In a little while, they would no longer see him, and then in a little while they would see him. (16:16)
This puzzled the disciples, and some of them talked among themselves as to what he meant about not being seen and then being seen, and regarding the words “because I am going to the Father.” They found it impossible to comprehend what he meant respecting “a little while” and concluded that they did not know what he was talking about. (16:17, 18)
Discerning that the disciples wanted to ask him about what he had said, Jesus illustrated the developments that lay ahead. After expressing his solemn introductory words, “Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you,” Jesus told the apostles that they would weep and mourn, but the world of unbelievers would rejoice. Whereas they were pained, their pain or sadness would be changed to joy. When the hour or time has come, a woman, during the birthing process, experiences pain. After the birth of the baby, however, she does not remember the distress but is happy that a boy has been brought into the world. (16:19-21)
Applying the illustration about the woman, Jesus said that while the disciples were then experiencing pain or sadness (with apparent reference to his departure), they would see him again. Their “heart” or they, in their inmost selves, would rejoice upon seeing him, and no one would be able to take their joy away. After his resurrection, the disciples did see Jesus again, and this filled them with boundless joy. Having been given the evidence that he was alive, their joy continued, with no one able to rob them of it by wrecking their faith in him and his word. Moreover, as their resurrected Lord, with all power in heaven and on earth having been granted to him, he would be able to respond to their appeals even after his return to his Father. (16:22)
“In that day,” seemingly referring to the time when he would again be with his Father, Jesus said that the disciples would not ask him anything. This may mean that all things would become clear to them, as they would have another helper, the spirit. The “asking,” however, could apply either to asking questions or to making requests. If requests, petitions, or appeals are meant, this would indicate that it would not be necessary to direct these to Jesus in order to receive a favorable hearing, for the Father would respond to all requests made in the name of his Son. This significance is explicit in the New Century Version, “In that day you will not ask me for anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you anything you ask for in my name.” Moreover, Jesus would continue to be concerned about them. Up to this particular point, they had not made any appeals in his name or in recognition of his being their Lord. Jesus now, with a solemn assurance (“Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you”) told the disciples to ask in his name or on the basis of his authority, and they would receive the things for which they made their requests. This would result in their joy being made complete. All such requests would of necessity harmonize with the divine will and be directed to the Father in recognition of the Son. (16:23, 24)
Jesus had used figures of speech when talking to the disciples, but he told them that the “hour” or time would be coming when he would no longer do so. He would use clear or plain speech when telling them about the Father. (16:25)
“In that day” or at that future time, the disciples would make their appeals in Jesus’ name or in full recognition of his authority. This, however, did not mean that Jesus would have to ask his Father to respond to the prayers of his disciples. As Jesus said, “I am not saying that I shall ask the Father about you.” This would not be required, for the Father himself loved the disciples because they loved his Son and believed that he had come from him. (16:26, 27)
When coming into the world of mankind, Jesus came from the Father. His departure meant that he would be leaving the world and returning to him. In view of Jesus’ clear statement that he would be going back to his Father, the disciples appear to have understood his words. This prompted them to acknowledge that he had spoken to them plainly and not in figures of speech. (16:28, 29)
Jesus had known that the disciples wanted to ask him about what he had meant when telling them that, in a little while, they would not see him and then, in a little while, they would see him again. He answered the question they had wanted to ask. His having done so appears to be the reason they said, “Now we know that you know everything, and you do not need to have anyone question you. On this account, we believe that you came from God.” The disciples realized that, even without a question being asked directly, Jesus would be able to anticipate it and provide the answer. They saw in what he had done for them clear evidence that he had come from God. (16:30)
Jesus, though, also knew the great test that lay ahead for the disciples and so raised the question, “Do you now believe?” While they had expressed their belief or faith in him, the “hour” or time would be coming and had, in fact, come when each of them would be scattered to his own place (not remaining together for mutual strengthening) and would leave him alone. Jesus, however, would not be alone, for his Father would still be with him. (16:31, 32)
The Son of God had prepared his disciples in advance for what would take place. “In” him or by being united to him, they would have peace, an inner calm and sense of well-being from knowing that they were loved by him and his Father and were objects of their concern and care. In the world of unbelievers, they would experience distress, persecution and intense hostility. Still, they could be courageous, for Jesus, their Lord, proved himself greater than the world. The world of mankind that was in a state of alienation from his Father had no power over him. Despite all the assaults directed against him, Jesus had not yielded. In loyal submission to his Father’s will, he would be surrendering his life. Thus, ultimately through his death, he would defeat the world and be triumphant as the unconquered one. With complete confidence, therefore, Jesus could say, “I have conquered the world.” (16:33)
After having finished speaking to the apostles, Jesus raised his eyes heavenward and began to pray. Only a shift in his visual focus ended his speaking to the apostles and started his praying, indicative of how natural it was for Jesus to address his Father and of the intimate relationship existing between them. His mentioning the hour that had come referred to the imminent completion of his ministry on earth and the sacrificial surrender of his life in submission to his Father’s will. (17:1)
Jesus’ petition, “Glorify your Son, that the Son [your Son, according to numerous manuscripts] may glorify you,” constituted a request to be honored subsequent to the humiliation of a shameful execution. This glorification would have included everything that revealed him to be the Son of God. Awesome signs accompanied his death. After his resurrection from the dead on the third day, he returned to his Father. Thus honored in keeping with his petition, Jesus glorified his Father through what he had accomplished in carrying out the commission entrusted to him. (17:1)
The Father had granted his Son authority over all flesh or the entire human family. This authority was bound up with his sacrificial death, which provided the basis for liberating humans from sin and the consequences from sin, namely, death. Through his death, Jesus would purchase or redeem the human race. By his Father’s giving him those whom he redeemed, Jesus would be able to give them eternal life. (17:2)
He referred to eternal life as being a life distinguished by an enduring relationship with him and his Father. It is a knowing of the Father as the only true God and Jesus Christ as the one whom he had sent. This “knowing” is an intimate relationship of oneness with the Father and his Son. A life that harmonizes with Jesus’ example and teaching and so also with his Father’s will confirms the existence of this relationship. Recognizing that Jesus had been sent by the Father would require acknowledging the reason for his being sent, putting faith in him, and accepting the atoning benefits of his sacrificial death. Being a relationship that does not end, the life that is distinguished by a relationship with the Father and his Son is eternal and will be enjoyed in the complete sense in the sinless state. In that state, the most intimate knowing of the Father and the Son will be possible. (17:3)
Jesus could speak of his having glorified or honored his Father, for he had completed the work he had been given to do. The surrender of his life being at hand, he could rightly refer to the full accomplishment of the work. Upon faithfully carrying out everything that his coming to the earth required, Jesus made it possible for humans to become reconciled to his Father. Moreover, through his words and deeds, Jesus flawlessly revealed him. (17:4)
He prayed that his Father would glorify him, granting him the “glory,” splendor, honor, or dignity he had before coming to the earth and which he had alongside him before the world existed. The glory he previously had was one of being in the very form of his Father, a magnificence that transcended that of all the angels or the other sons of God. (17:5; see Philippians 2:6.)
When acknowledging his Father as the one who had given him the apostles out of the world of mankind, Jesus spoke of having made known his Father’s name (the person of the Father, the one whom the name represented). As his Father’s unique Son, he revealed him in a manner that no one else could have done. Jesus spoke his Father’s words and did his Father’s works. In his activity and interactions, he flawlessly reflected his Father’s zeal for what is right, fair, or just, and manifested his Father’s mighty and beneficent power, concern and care, compassion, and love. Again referring to the apostles as belonging to and having been given to him by his Father, Jesus added, “They have kept your word.” He imparted the “word” or teaching that he had received from his Father to the apostles, and they responded to it in faith. They recognized Jesus as their Lord and heeded his word, which in the ultimate sense was his Father’s word. (17:6)
The name of God expresses everything he is. Therefore, in making known the name, Jesus revealed his Father’s personality and attributes — his matchless and beneficent power (as, for example, when Jesus raised the dead), compassion and love (exemplified in Jesus’ response to the afflicted and to repentant sinners), and justice (through Jesus’ exposure of harshness, oppressiveness, and mistreatment). To his apostles and other disciples, Jesus disclosed how they could become his Father’s children and thus revealed him as the loving Father with whom they could have an intimate family relationship as persons forgiven of their sins. In what the Father had made possible through him, Jesus revealed the Father in a way that far transcended what had been set forth in the existing holy writings with which the apostles were familiar. After Jesus’ resurrection and ascension to heaven, the paraclete or the holy spirit aided the apostles to understand everything he had said and done. In this way, he (as expressed in his prayer) continued to make known his Father’s name, and the apostles came to have a fuller understanding of the Father, their relationship to him, and his boundless love in sending his Son to the earth. (John 17:6, 26)
The apostles came to know that everything that had been given to Jesus had been received from his Father. This was so because of what Jesus had taught them and his identifying his Father as the source of his teaching. (Compare John 7:16-18.) They accepted Jesus’ words, observing them as having come from his Father. Through the words or teaching Jesus imparted to them, the apostles recognized that he had come from his Father and came to believe that his Father had sent him. (17:7, 8)
At this time, Jesus did not pray regarding the world that persisted in unbelief but for the apostles, whom the Father had given him and to whom they belonged. Indicating that his Father had the same care and concern he did, Jesus acknowledged, “Everything of mine is yours, and yours [is] mine; and I have been glorified in them.” Although the apostles belonged to Jesus, they also belonged to his Father, and so would be objects of his Father’s love and concern. By believing in Jesus, they had glorified or honored him as God’s beloved Son. In view of his imminent departure, he deeply cared about them and prayed for them. (17:9, 10)
Though Jesus would no longer be in the world and would be returning to his Father, the disciples would continue to live in the world, facing the pressures and trials associated with a world in a state of alienation from and at enmity with the Father. Therefore, Jesus made his appeal, “Holy Father, look after them in your name which you have given me, that they be one as we are [one].” (17:11)
Being pure in the absolute sense, the Father is holy, and his name identifies him as the God of love, one who deeply cares for his own. The name represents or stands for him. Therefore, if the reference to giving his name to his Son preserves the original reading of the Greek text, this could relate to the Father’s intimate relationship with him, a relationship of oneness stemming from the Father’s having given himself to his Son. It would then be the inseparable oneness Jesus enjoyed with his Father that he desired the apostles to share. (17:11)
For John 17:11, manuscript readings vary. There are ancient Latin, Syriac and Coptic manuscripts that do not include the words, “which you have given me, that they be one as we are [one].” Certain other manuscripts read, “whom [referring to the apostles] you have given me.” This would mean that Jesus prayed that his Father safeguard the apostles in his own name or in keeping with everything his name represented, the God who he is.
While he had been with the apostles, Jesus looked out for them. He did so in his Father’s name. This could mean that he did so on the basis of the authority that his Father had granted him. In relation to Jesus’s watchful care for the apostles in God’s “name,” ancient manuscript readings introduce the phrase “you have given me” with either “which” (applying to God’s name) or “whom” (referring to the apostles). Jesus’ watchful care meant that all except the “son of destruction” had been safeguarded. To fulfill the scripture that a close associate would betray Jesus (Psalm 41:9[10]; John 13:18), Judas Iscariot alone was lost. By choosing a course that led to his ruin, Judas proved himself to be a “son of destruction.” (17:12)
Although he would be returning to his Father, Jesus wanted the apostles to share in his joy. So, while he was still in the world, he expressed himself in prayer as he did. The things he had said centered on his having revealed the Father to them and their relationship to him and to his Father. Jesus’ prayerful words would also have assured the apostles of his Father’s watching over them. Their knowing that they belonged to the Father and were recipients of his loving care would have contributed to their ceasing to be troubled about Jesus’ no longer being with them. This would have enabled them to share in his joy to the full. They could then rejoice in the victory he attained through his death, a triumph that brought liberation from sin to those who put faith in him and spelled defeat for the powers of darkness. Moreover, his again being with his Father as the one to whom all authority in heaven and on earth had been granted would fill them with joy. (17:13)
Jesus had given the word of his Father to the apostles, imparting to them the Father’s teaching. That teaching revealed Jesus to be the unique Son of God. In his own person, Jesus revealed the Father to the fullest extent possible. The apostles had embraced the “word” or teaching in faith, ceasing to be part of the world of unbelievers who were alienated from and at enmity with the Father. Therefore, the world hated the apostles, for, like Jesus their Lord, they were no part of it. (17:14)
As objects of the world’s hatred, the apostles needed divine aid. Jesus did not pray for them to be taken out of the world and thereby to escape the trials and pressures from a world in opposition to him. Instead, he appealed to his Father to watch over them on account of the evil one. Though no part of the world, just as Jesus was no a part thereof, they would be advancing his interests in the world of mankind. As a result, they would be subject to the attacks of the evil one or the devil. (17:15, 16)
In view of their commission, Jesus prayed that his Father would sanctify the apostles “in the truth.” For them to be sanctified meant that they would be set apart for a holy or sacred service. The expression “in the truth” could be understood to mean in the sphere of the truth, suggestive of a life set apart for the advancement of this truth and a life that harmonized therewith. Jesus referred to his Father’s word as being truth and earlier that night spoke of himself as the truth. (14:6) So the truth is the teaching which Jesus had received from his Father and which he then imparted to his disciples by his words and deeds. As the perfect reflection of his Father, the Son was the embodiment of the truth about him. For the furtherance of this truth, the revelation of the Father in the Son, the apostles would be set apart to serve. (17:17)
The Father had sent Jesus to minister in the world of mankind. Jesus likewise sent his disciples to labor in the world. He had sanctified himself or set himself apart for them. In submission to his Father’s will, he faithfully imparted his Father’s teaching and was about to surrender his life. Accordingly, as one set apart to do his Father’s will, Jesus acted for the benefit of the disciples. They received his teaching and, on the basis of his sacrificial death and their faith in him, came to be the Father’s sons and Christ’s brothers. So, by what Jesus did in sanctifying himself for them, they were sanctified “in [the] truth” or set apart to serve in advancing the truth (the truth from the Father and revealed through the Son) (17:18, 19)
Jesus did not limit his prayerful request to the apostles, but included all who would come to believe in him on the basis of the “word” or message they would proclaim. The objective for all those putting their faith in him would be that they would form a united whole, enjoying the same oneness that Jesus had with his Father. With all believers being at one with Jesus and his Father, testimony would be given to the world that the Father had sent the Son. Thus the basis would be provided for the world of mankind or for the people to believe in Jesus as the one whom God had sent. (17:20, 21)
The glory the Father had given him, Jesus gave to the apostles. This glory, splendor, or dignity appears to relate specifically to Jesus’ being the Son of God. In John 1:14, this glory is described as that of a father’s only or unique son, and Jesus granted those who believed in him the authority or right to be God’s children. (1:12) This bestowal of sonship is an honor or dignity of unparalleled greatness. In coming to be part of the family of the Father’s beloved children, a marvelous unity comes into being. Jesus expressed this objective regarding the apostles to his Father, “that they be one as we are one; I in [at one with them] them and you in [at one with] me, that they may be fully one.” This perfect oneness or unity would provide the basis for the world of mankind to know that the Father had sent the Son and loved the disciples (those who had been granted the honor of being his children on the basis of their faith in his Son) just as he loved him. (17:22, 23)
It appears that particularly regarding “what” the Father had given him as the unique Son (provided the oldest extant manuscripts preserve the original reading of the text), Jesus wanted the apostles to be where he was. This would make it possible for them to see the glory or the greatness of the dignity that his Father had given him as the exalted Son with all authority in heaven and on earth. Many later manuscripts, however, indicate the reference to be, not to what or to the glory that had been given to Jesus, but to the apostles (“whom you [the Father has] have given me”). They were the ones whom Jesus wanted to be where he was so that there they could see the fullness of his glory. The glory that he would have upon his return to his Father would be an evidence of his Father’s love. This love existed “before the founding of the world” or from the very start and continued throughout the ages. (17:24)
The world had not come to know the Father, the one who is righteous, just, or impartial in all his dealings. Humans who were part of the unbelieving world were in a state of alienation from and at enmity with him. They had no relationship with the Father and so could not possibly know him. Jesus, however, knew his Father as his beloved Son, and the apostles came to know that the Father had sent him. (17:25)
During the time he was with the apostles, Jesus made known his Father’s name (that is, the person of the Father, the bearer of the name) to them. As the perfect reflection of his Father, Jesus revealed him through his words and actions. His prayer expressed the resolve to continue making his Father’s name known or revealing him to the apostles. After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and opened up their minds to a fuller understanding respecting himself and so also regarding his Father. (Compare Luke 24:26, 27, 32.) Upon returning to him, Jesus continued to reveal his Father by means of the paraclete, “the spirit of the truth.” His making him known was for the purpose that the apostles might have within them the love with which his Father loved him. Through Jesus’ love for them, they would come to experience his Father’s love and, therefore, the love with which he loved his Son. This would also serve to have Jesus “in them” or inseparably attached to them in love. With the Father’s love dwelling in them, the apostles would respond in love for him and for his Son. (17:26)
According to ancient Jewish sources, the Passover meal could only be eaten until midnight. (Tosefta, Pesahim 5:13) So it may have been around midnight that Jesus and the apostles sang the concluding portion of the Hallel (possibly Psalms 115 through 118) and then headed for the Mount of Olives. Leaving Jerusalem, they descended to the Kidron valley, crossed it, and then ascended the western slope of the Mount of Olives. (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26) Although knowing that he would be betrayed, Jesus did not alter his customary routine. (Luke 22:39) Arriving at a place called Gethsemane, he and the apostles entered a garden. (18:1; Matthew 26:36)
The betrayer Judas knew the place where Jesus would be, for he had often been there with the disciples. Initially, though, Judas and those planning to seize Jesus may have stopped at the house where he had been with the other apostles. Included in the group were Roman soldiers, Levite temple guards, and slaves. Besides a contingent of Roman soldiers (probably drawn from among those stationed at the Tower of Antonia and who were responsible for watching for any disturbance or uprising in the temple area and bringing it under control), there were subordinates or deputies of the chief priests and Pharisees, Levite temple guards, and slaves. They were equipped with torches, lamps, swords, and clubs. (18:2, 3; see also Luke 22:50, 52.)
While Jesus was speaking to the apostles, Judas and the armed men arrived. As it would have been hard for anyone without being personally acquainted with Jesus to recognize him in the dark, Judas had given the armed men an advance signal. “The one whom I kiss is he; seize him [and lead him away securely (Mark 14:44)].” (Matthew 26:47, 48; Mark 14:43, 44; Luke 22:47)
Approaching Jesus, Judas greeted him, addressing him as “rabbi,” and then kissed him. The preserved record does not indicate whether Judas responded to Jesus’ asking him why he had come and whether he was betraying the Son of Man with a kiss. (Matthew 26:49, 50; Mark 14:45; Luke 22:48) At this point, Judas appears to have withdrawn, taking a position with the crowd. (18:5)
Jesus was fully aware of what would happen to him. His response to the crowd demonstrated that he, voluntarily and in submission to his Father’s will, chose to enter upon a course of suffering that would terminate in a painful death. Courageously, he walked toward the crowd, asking, “Whom do you seek?” When they said, “Jesus the Nazarene,” he identified himself, “I am,” that is, I am he. Their reference to him as “the Nazarene” may well have been a slur, for they considered him as no more than a man from Nazareth in Galilee, a city without any distinction. (18:4, 5)
Jesus’ fearlessness appears to have caught the armed men by surprise. Startled, those in front may suddenly have backed up, causing those behind them to lose their footing and fall. No man among them came toward Jesus. So he again asked them, “Whom do you seek?” They again responded, “Jesus the Nazarene.” (18:6, 7)
“I told you,” he said to them, “I am.” Having left no doubt about his identity as the one whom they wanted to seize, Jesus, like a caring shepherd who looks out for the sheep, spoke up to protect his disciples. “If, then, you are seeking me, let these go.” Earlier, in prayer, he had said that he had watched over those whom his Father had given him and that none except the “son of destruction” (Judas) had been “destroyed” or lost. (17:12) Jesus continued to conduct himself in keeping with his prayer, thereby fulfilling his words, “I have not lost one of those whom you have given me.” (18:8, 9)
Becoming aware of what was about to happen to Jesus, the apostles closest to him asked, “Shall we strike with the sword?” With zeal for his Lord, Peter did not wait for an answer, reached for his sword, and struck one of the men. This one, the high priest’s slave Malchus, appears to have succeeded in quickly averting a fatal blow but still lost his right ear, which Jesus healed. Jesus stopped Peter from continuing to use the sword, telling him, “Put your sword into the sheath. Should I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” (18:10, 11; see also Matthew 26:51, 52; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:49-51.)
It may be that the Roman chiliarch (a commander with 1,000 soldiers under him) gave the order to seize Jesus. Roman soldiers and members of the temple guard then took hold of him and bound him. (18:12)
The crowd that had seized Jesus headed for the residence of the high priest, where Annas would first question Jesus. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Quirinius, the governor of Syria, had appointed Annas (Ananus) as high priest. (Antiquities, XVIII, ii, 1) He served in this capacity until the “procurator of Judea,” Valerius Gratus, removed him from office in 15 CE. Although no longer in the position of high priest, Annas continued to wield considerable power and influence. Five of his sons and one son-in-law (Caiaphas, the high priest at the time of Jesus’ arrest and who had earlier declared that it would be advantageous for one man to die for the people [11:49, 50]) became high priests. (Antiquities, XVIII, ii, 2; XX, ix, 1) While Caiaphas was then the official high priest, Annas appears to have had rooms in the same residence. This may be deduced from the fact that Peter’s denial occurred in the courtyard of the high priest, and there is no indication that anyone entered more than one courtyard during the course of the night. (18:13-18, 24, 25)
At the time Jesus was led away, the apostles had scattered. Later, Peter decided to follow the armed crowd, but maintained a safe distance. (Matthew 26:57, 58; Mark 14:53, 54; Luke 22:54) Another disciple also followed when Peter was on his way to the premises of the high priest. The female servant stationed at the gate there recognized this disciple, for the high priest knew him. She opened the gate, allowing him to follow “Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest.” Peter, however, was not permitted to enter but remained standing at the gate. (18:15, 16)
Many have assumed that John was the disciple whom the high priest knew. This does not seem very likely. After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Peter and John were brought before Annas, Caiaphas, and the other members of the Sanhedrin for questioning. At that time, both of them were perceived to be unlearned and ordinary men, and the members of the high court recognized that they had been associated with Jesus. (Acts 4:5-7, 13) So it seems improbable that an ordinary fisherman from Galilee had the kind of access to the high priest that would have made his word carry sufficient weight for the female servant to allow Peter to enter the courtyard. (18:16)
The recorded details are too limited to draw any definitive conclusions about this other disciple and how it happened that he and Peter were together after Jesus had been taken through the courtyard. One possibility is that the other disciple, as a member of the Sanhedrin, had been summoned by the high priest and, while on his way, had met Peter. Two members of the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus and Joseph from Arimathea, were secret disciples, and there may have been others. (Matthew 27:57; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50, 51; John 12:42; 19:38, 39) Members of the Sanhedrin were influential men whose request the female servant would not have hesitated to honor.
Peter had not been with the crowd that brought Jesus in but arrived later. Therefore, the female gatekeeper appears to have thought that Peter could only be one of his followers. So she asked him, “Are you not also one of the disciples of this man?” “I am not,” he replied. Peter’s first denial is mentioned as occurring before Annas questioned Jesus, and the other two denials are represented as taking place later. The accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke appear to be complementary and provide different details. Based on all the recorded narrations, it seems that the female servant at the gate was not satisfied with Peter’s initial response and began to talk to others. Altogether, he was confronted by various ones at three different times, and on each of these occasions he responded with denials. At the time of his first denial, Peter may not have thought that he had denied his Lord, but may have felt that the woman did not really know what she was talking about and that his response would end any further discussion. By his answer, however, he had committed himself to a lie and had failed to put an end to the suspicion about him. (18:17)
Slaves and subordinates (probably temple guards) who participated in the arrest of Jesus had started a charcoal fire in the courtyard, for it was cold that night. Peter joined those who were warming themselves around the fire. (18:18)
Meanwhile Annas questioned Jesus regarding his disciples and his teaching. In his response, Jesus pointed out that he had always spoken openly to the “world” (or the people), doing so in the temple precincts and in the synagogues, where the Jews assembled. After saying that he had not expressed anything in secret, Jesus continued, “Why are you questioning me? Question those who heard what I spoke to them. See! They know what I said.” One of the subordinates (probably a temple guard) then approached Jesus and slapped him, saying, “Is that how you answer the chief priest?” “If I responded wrongly,” Jesus said, “testify about the wrong. But if appropriately, why do you strike me?” After the interrogation, Annas sent Jesus bound to his son-in-law, Caiaphas the high priest. The account in the Gospel of John, however, does not include any details about the questioning of Caiaphas. (18:19-24)
After the first denial, Peter withdrew to the forecourt (an area closer to the gate) or to the gatehouse. (Matthew 26:71, 72) It appears that Peter later returned to the courtyard, stood there to warm himself, and was again confronted with the question, “Are you not also one of his disciples?” He denied it. A relative of the high priest’s slave whose ear Peter had cut off, spoke up, “Did I not see you in the garden with him [Jesus]?” After this third denial, a rooster crowed. (18:25-27)
When the Sanhedrin had determined that Jesus was deserving of death, the chief priests, other members of the court, and subordinates (probably Levite temple guards) led Jesus as a bound criminal to Pilate. A partially preserved inscription found at Caesarea in 1961 refers to Pilate as “prefect of Judea.” The first-century Roman historian Tacitus (Annals, XV, 44), however, referred to Pilate as procurator. This may be because “procurator” was the title by which later Roman governors of Judea were known. Roman officials started their work day early in the morning. Emperor Vespasian (69 to 79 CE), for example, began his day before dawn. So it would not have been unusual for Jesus to have been brought to Pilate at an early hour. (18:28; 19:6; see also Matthew 27:2; Mark 15:1; Luke 23:1)
At the time, Pilate was in the praetorium, where he had his official residence while in Jerusalem. The praetorium may have been the palace Herod the Great had built. This palace was situated in the northwest corner of the section of Jerusalem south of the temple. According to Josephus, Gessius Florus (War, II, xiv, 8), who served as governor or procurator at a later time, did use the palace when he was in Jerusalem. (18:28)
The chief priests and other Jews did not enter the praetorium because they were concerned about contracting ceremonial defilement, which would have prevented them from eating the Passover. The nature of the defilement is not revealed in the account. It could not have been a defilement that would have ended at sundown after the legal requirements for purification had been followed. Ironically, although they had been willing to override legal requirements in order to condemn Jesus to death, they scrupled about external purity. (18:28)
The night on which Jesus observed the Passover with his disciples was followed by the Sabbath at sundown of the next day. There is a possibility that, in years when this was the case, the Sadducees, unlike the Pharisees, reckoned Nisan 14 as Nisan 13. This could explain why those who brought Jesus to Pilate (or at least a significant number among them) had not as yet eaten the Passover meal. A definitive conclusion, however, is not possible on the basis of the available information in ancient sources. (18:28)
Probably in response to a message conveyed to him, Pilate came out to speak to the Jews, asking them what charge they were making against Jesus. They implied that there was no reason for Pilate to inquire about an accusation, for they would not be turning over to him a man other than a criminal. When Pilate told them to judge Jesus according to their own law, they responded that it was illegal for them to execute anyone. By seeking to have Pilate issue the death sentence, they served to fulfill Jesus’ words regarding the kind of death he would die, that is, as one elevated and crucified in an upright position. (18:29-32; compare Jesus’ earlier words [3:14, 15; 12:32, 33].)
It appears that, at this point, they set forth charges that were designed to incite Pilate, as the representative of Rome, to take action. They claimed that Jesus had inflamed the nation, forbidden the payment of taxes to Caesar, and proclaimed himself to be the Messianic king or ruler. In this way, they portrayed him as a dangerous seditionist who posed a serious threat to Roman authority. (Luke 23:2)
Pilate then had Jesus come into the praetorium for questioning, likely having Roman soldiers leading him. He asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” (18:33)
Jesus countered with the question, “Are you saying this of your own accord, or have others told you about me?” Pilate’s response suggests that he had no firsthand knowledge. He was not a Jew, and it was members of the Jewish nation and the chief priests who had delivered Jesus into his hands. Pilate asked, “What did you do?” (18:34, 35)
In his reply, Jesus revealed that he posed no threat to the authority of the Romans, explaining that his kingdom was “not of this world.” It was not a rule that originated with or depended upon any human authority. If this had been the case, Jesus continued, “My subordinates would have fought.” Their reason for engaging in armed conflict would have been to prevent his falling into the hands of the Jews who opposed him. “But,” as Jesus added, “my kingdom is not from here,” indicating that it had no link to any human action or source. Pilate asked, “Are you a king?” Jesus’ reply, “You are saying that I am a king,” may imply that Pilate’s question acknowledged the possibility that he was a king. The fact that Jesus did not deny it could have served as an affirmative answer to the question. (18:36, 37)
Nevertheless, Jesus made it clear that his purpose was not to establish an earthly kingdom. He had been born and come into the world “to testify to the truth,” and persons who were “of the truth,” taking their stand for it, would listen to him. Pilate would not have understood what he meant. Jesus had made known the truth about his Father and how to become a part of the realm where he would be ruling by his Father’s appointment. As the intimate of his Father, Jesus was the embodiment of the truth and in a position to reveal his Father in a manner than no one else could. (18:37)
The context does not indicate how Pilate’s question (“What is truth?”) is to be understood. Perhaps he intended it as a dismissive response, reflecting no further interest and no desire to be identified as a person who listened to the truth Jesus could have made known to him. (18:38)
Pilate went out to the Jews who were waiting for his decision regarding Jesus and told them that he had found nothing against him. The chief priests and Jewish elders objected, insisting that the teaching Jesus had begun in Galilee and carried on in Jerusalem had stirred up the people throughout Judea. Despite their continuing to level many charges against him, he remained silent. Pilate asked Jesus whether he did not hear the accusations being made against him. The fact that he said nothing in response filled Pilate with wonderment. After Jesus’ accusers mentioned Galilee, Pilate confirmed that Jesus was a Galilean and under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas. At the time, Herod was in Jerusalem for the Passover. Probably in an effort to avoid having to render the judgment Jesus’ accusers were seeking, Pilate sent him to Herod. (18:38; see also Matthew 27:12-14; Mark 15:3-5; Luke 23:4-7)
At the time Jesus appeared before Pilate and later before Herod Antipas, a notorious seditionist and bandit named Barabbas was being held in confinement and apparently was to be executed. Barabbas was guilty of murder. (Matthew 27:15, 16; Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19) Probably believing that if they had a choice between the release of Barabbas and Jesus, Pilate apparently thought that the Jews would ask for Jesus to be released. Based on a custom that had developed at the time of the Passover, Pilate presented this choice to those who had meanwhile arrived to petition for the release of a prisoner. (Matthew 27:15; Mark 15:6-8) The chief priests succeeded in inciting the petitioners against Jesus and to request the release of Barabbas. (Matthew 27:17, 20, 21; Mark 15:6-11; Luke 23:18) In the case of the petitioners, they may well have been inclined toward wanting an end to Roman rule. If so, their sympathies would have been with Barabbas who had acted violently in keeping with his fanatical opposition to Roman authority. (18:39, 40; see the Notes section for more information about Pilate and why he yielded to the Jews who were hostile to Jesus.)
Notes
It was in the year 26 CE that Pilate assumed his official duties as governor of Judea. It was in the same year that Tiberius transferred his residence to the island of Capri. Until his execution in 31 CE, Sejanus, the prefect of the Praetorian Guard, functioned as de facto ruler. The ancient historian Dio Cassius (Book LVIII, v, 1; translated by Earnest Cary) wrote regarding him, “Sejanus was so great a person by reason both of his excessive haughtiness and of his vast power, that, to put it briefly, he himself seemed to be the emperor and Tiberius a kind of island potentate.” Therefore, although an appointee of Tiberius, Pilate may have owed his elevation to Sejanus.
If so, the execution of Sejanus would have made Pilate’s position more vulnerable whenever any accusation might be made against him. Without any support from Sejanus, Pilate’s situation would have been precarious. While Sejanus exercised power, anyone close to him could practically be assured of the emperor’s friendship. (Tacitus, Annals, VI, 8)
Tiberius acted on very little evidence when seeking to have the death penalty imposed for laesa majestas (injured majesty). An excerpt attributed to Dio Cassius (though the exact source is not positively known) reads, “Tiberius put to death a man of consular rank, accusing him of having carried in his bosom a coin bearing the emperor’s likeness when he retired to a latrine.” The only thing Tiberius said to him was, “With my coin in your bosom you turned aside into foul and noisome places and relieved your bowels.” (This extract is found at the end of Book LVIII of Dio’s Roman History, translated by Earnest Cary.)
Pilate must have known how seriously Tiberius took any report suggesting that his majesty had been slighted. Therefore, for word to reach Tiberius that he was no “friend of Caesar” would have put him in a precarious situation.
Although the Scriptures refer to a crowd as crying out for Jesus to be crucified, the number of men involved would have been a small minority of those who were then in Jerusalem. The only ones the chief priests needed to persuade to call for the release of Barabbas were men who had come to petition Pilate for the release of a Jewish prisoner. As men with this kind of personal interest in the cause of imprisoned Jews whom the Romans regarded as criminals, they would have been more readily inclined to believe the chief priests that Jesus posed a threat to the nation and would in no way further its welfare.
Although he knew that Jesus was not guilty of the false charges that had been made against him, Pilate handed Jesus over to Roman soldiers to be flogged. (Matthew 27:24-26; Mark 15:15; Luke 23:24, 25) This flogging was an extreme form of torture. The whip consisted of a handle with several leather cords to which pieces of bone or metal were attached. A severe flogging could result in death, as the bone or metal ripped into the flesh and caused serious bleeding. (19:1)
The Roman soldiers, when making sport of Jesus, placed a crown of twisted thorns on his head and probably used a worn-out item of dress that mockingly resembled a purple garment as would be worn by royalty or high officials. They themselves wore red cloaks. An old, faded one could have served their purpose. This would fit the words of Matthew 27:28, where the reference is to a scarlet or red cloak. The Greek term for “cloak” chlamýs can, in fact, designate the kind of cloaks Roman soldiers wore. The soldiers also had him hold a reed in his right hand as if he had a royal scepter. With another reed, they may have taken turns hitting him over the head, likely causing the thorns to penetrate his forehead. Besides slapping him in the face and spitting at it, the soldiers kneeled before him, addressing him as “king of the Jews.” (19:2, 3; see also Matthew 27:27-30 and Mark 15:16-19.)
It appears that the Jews who wanted Jesus executed chose to remain outside the praetorium until they were certain that he would not be released. After the soldiers had ended the flogging and mockery, Pilate again came out of the praetorium to address the Jews, telling them that he would bring Jesus out to them so that they would know that he found no guilt in him. It seems likely that soldiers then brought Jesus outside. He still wore the reddish garment and the crown of thorns. Pilate then said, “See! The man.” (19:4, 5)
The context does not reveal how these words should be understood. In view of the abuse to which Jesus had been submitted, his appearance must have been such as would have evoked sympathy in persons who had retained their humanity. So the expression “the man” could have meant the pitiable fellow or a mere man who posed no threat. There is also a possibility that Pilate was impressed by the control Jesus had exercised in not responding to false charges and by the dignity which he had maintained while being abused and mocked. If these aspects prompted Pilate’s words, the expression “the man” would signify a man in the noblest sense. (19:5)
Unmoved by any feelings of sympathy, the chief priests and subordinates (probably temple guards) shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!” Having found no guilt in Jesus, Pilate responded, “Take him and crucify him yourselves.” In their reply, those who wanted Jesus crucified now revealed that their previous accusations were false. They now said that, according to their law, he should be put to death because he claimed to be the Son of God. (19:6, 7)
On hearing the words “Son of God,” Pilate gave way to superstitious fear. A contributory factor may have been his wife’s dream. While he was sitting on the judgment seat deliberating, she had sent a message to him, telling him to have nothing to do with the innocent man. This was on account of having suffered much in a dream because of him. (19:8; see Matthew 27:19.)
After entering the praetorium with Jesus, Pilate asked him, “From where are you?” When he did not answer, Pilate continued, “Are you not speaking to me? Do you not know that I have the power to release you and the power to crucify you?” “You would have no power over me,” said Jesus, “unless it had been given to you from above. Therefore, the one who delivered me over to you has greater sin.” (19:9-11)
If it had not been his Father’s will for Jesus to surrender his life, Pilate would have been powerless to do anything to him. What was about to take place would occur according to God’s will, and so, by divine permission, Pilate would be exercising the power to hand Jesus over to be crucified. This would not free him from guilt, for he would be acting unjustly toward one whom he knew to be completely innocent of any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, Pilate’s sin would not be as great as that of the one who had been responsible for handing Jesus over to him. The context does not identify this one. Jesus may have meant the betrayer Judas, the high priest Caiaphas, or the chief priests and other members of the Sanhedrin as a corporate body. (19:11)
After the interchange with Jesus, Pilate still wanted to release him and again addressed the Jews who were waiting outside the praetorium. They then forced him into a position where he had to consider the preservation of his own office and even his own life. “If you release him, you are not a friend of Caesar. Everyone who makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.” Thus they insisted that releasing Jesus would be an act of disloyalty to Caesar (Tiberius) — an offense meriting severe punishment. Tiberius acted on very little evidence when seeking to have the death penalty imposed for laesa majestas (injured majesty). An excerpt attributed to Dio Cassius (though the exact source is not positively known) reads, “Tiberius put to death a man of consular rank, accusing him of having carried in his bosom a coin bearing the emperor’s likeness when he retired to a latrine.” The only thing Tiberius said to him was, “With my coin in your bosom you turned aside into foul and noisome places and relieved your bowels.” (This extract is found at the end of Book LVIII of Dio’s Roman History, translated by Earnest Cary.) Pilate must have known how seriously Tiberius took any report suggesting that his majesty had been slighted. Therefore, for word to reach Tiberius that he was no “friend of Caesar” would have put him in a precarious situation. (19:12)
Pilate brought Jesus outside. He sat down on the judgment seat located at the place known as the “Stone Pavement” or, “in Hebrew, Gabbatha.” It was about the sixth hour. Possibly based on the reckoning the chief priests used in that particular year, it was the day designated for the preparation of the Passover (Nisan 14). In response to Pilate’s words (“See! Your king!”), the Jews who were there shouted, “Away! Away! Crucify him!” “Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate called out. “We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests replied. It was then that Pilate turned Jesus over to the Roman soldiers to be crucified. They clothed Jesus with his own garments and led him away. (19:13-16; see also Matthew 27:31 and Mark 15:20.)
In John 19:14, the word hos (about) qualifies the “sixth hour,” identifying it as an approximate time before noon. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 1:4) The context does not make it possible to determine just how long before noon Pilate said to the Jews outside the praetorium, “See! Your king.” Based on specifics included in the other accounts (including the mention of a darkness lasting from the sixth hour until the ninth hour after Jesus had been crucified), the late morning hour could have been between an hour or two before noon. (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44)
In conjunction with the “preparation of the Passover,” all leaven was burned at the start of the sixth hour. This may be why the sixth hour is mentioned in John 19:14, with a possible implied link to Jesus as the sinless king who would die for the people as the “Lamb of God.”
After having been sentenced, Jesus was led away to the location where Roman soldiers would crucify him. Initially, he carried the beam (staurós). Eventually, however, his strength seems to have given out totally. Likely the extreme abuse and torture to which he had been submitted, coupled with much blood loss, had left him in a very weak state. At the time he could no longer carry the beam, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus) happened to be coming from the direction of a field outside the city. Seemingly, upon noticing him, the Roman soldiers impressed him into service, forcing him to carry the beam behind Jesus. (19:16, 17; see also Matthew 27:31, 32; Mark 15:20, 21; Luke 23:26 and the Notes section for additional comments.)
After the Roman soldiers stripped Jesus of his clothing, they nailed him to the beam and, as he had foretold, lifted him up. Two bandits were also crucified, one on his right and the other one on his left. According to many manuscript readings of Mark 15:28 (but not the oldest extant ones), this development fulfilled the words of scripture (Isaiah 53:12), “And with [among the, LXX] lawless ones he was counted.” (19:18; see also Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:33 and the Notes section regarding crucifixion.)
The charge against Jesus (identifying his crime as being that of “King of the Jews”) had been posted above his head. (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38) Pilate had written it in three languages (Latin [the official language of Rome], Greek [the commonly used language in the Greco-Roman world], and Hebrew [the language of the native Jews]). The writing was large enough to be readable from a distance. Many Jews did read the words, for the location was near Jerusalem. After Pilate had written the charge, the chief priests objected, saying, “Do not write ‘the King of the Jews,’ but that “he said, I am King of the Jews.” Pilate, though, had made a legal decision, which he refused to alter. “What I have written,” he said, “I have written.” (19:19-22)
In the accounts, the wording of the charge varies (“This is Jesus, the King of the Jews” [Matthew 27:37], “The King of the Jews” [Mark 15:26], “The King of the Jews this one [is] [Luke 23:38], and “Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews” [John 19:19]). If the words in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are regarded as abbreviated versions that convey the substance of the charge, the fullest text may be the one found in John 19:19. Another possibility is that the inscription was not identical in the three languages, and so the writers could have chosen a form of one of the three versions. At any rate, all the accounts are in agreement in identifying Jesus as “the King of the Jews.”
After the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they divided his robe (himátion, an outer garment) into four parts, with each soldier taking a part. This reveals that four soldiers were in charge of the crucifixion. They did not want to divide the tunic (chitón, a garment worn next to the skin), for it was a seamless garment, having been woven in one piece. For this reason, they decided to cast lots to determine which of them would get it. Their action corresponded to the words of Psalm 22:18(19) (21:19, LXX), “They divided my garments among themselves, and for my clothes they cast lots.” Because this was indeed what the soldiers did, the words of the psalmist were fulfilled, finding their fullest significance in what happened in the case of God’s Son. Thereafter the soldiers seated themselves and kept watch. (19:23, 24; see also Matthew 27:35, 36; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34.)
Not all who were standing at the site of Golgotha participated the hateful mockery. They looked on with intense grief. The disciple whom Jesus deeply loved, the apostle John, was there and so was Mary. Her pain would have been indescribable. As Simeon had foretold years earlier, her experience proved to be comparable to being pierced with a sword. (Luke 2:35) Other women with Mary included Mary Magdalene, Mary the wife of Clopas (the mother of James the less [or younger] and Joses [Joseph]), and Salome (the mother of James and John, the wife of Zebedee, and the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary). Additionally, present were many other women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee and had attended to his needs. (19:25; see also Matthew 27:55, 56; Mark 15:40, 41; Luke 23:49.)
With her nephew John at her side, Mary approached close enough to Jesus to be able to hear him speak. When he saw his mother and John, the disciple whom he loved and implicitly trusted, he lovingly arranged to have him care for her. Directing his words to Mary, Jesus said, “Woman, see! Your son.” His words to John were, “See! Your mother.” From that “hour” or time onward, John assumed the role of a son to Mary and apparently had her live where he did. It appears that John then led Mary away from the scene of Jesus’ intense suffering. This is suggested by the absence of many details found in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Moreover, Mary, the mother of Jesus, is not mentioned among the named women who had followed Jesus from Galilee. These women were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the less (the younger) and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome (the mother of Zebedee’s sons). This could be understood to indicate that John, though himself later returning, had kindly conducted Mary away from the scene so that she would not be pained to an extent that would have been difficult for her to bear. (19:26, 27; see also Matthew 27:55, 56; Mark 15:40, 41; Luke 23:48, 49.)
Seemingly, when John returned by himself, he heard Jesus cry out, “I thirst.” Knowing that everything had been accomplished, Jesus said what he did to fulfill “the scripture.” His words, “I thirst,” led to the fulfillment of Psalm 69:21(22), “For my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” (Psalm 68:22, LXX) (19:28)
One of those nearby ran to a vessel filled with vinegar (sour wine). After filling a sponge with the vinegar, he placed it on a reed, intending to provide Jesus with a little relief by offering him a drink. (Matthew 27:48, 49; Mark 15:36) Whereas Matthew 27:48 and Mark 15:36 indicate that the sponge was put on a reed, John’s account says it was placed on “hyssop.” There is a measure of uncertainty about the precise plant to which the Greek term hýssopos refers. Possibly, in this case, it designates a plant that would have grown to sufficient height to supply a firm reed. (19:29)
Probably a Roman soldier gave Jesus a drink. It does not appear likely that a mere bystander would have undertaken to do so, for the vessel containing vinegar would have been at the location for the soldiers who carried out the crucifixions and who thereafter remained on guard duty. Possibly the one who extended the small gesture of kindness was the centurion who, based on the developments associated with Jesus’ death, later acknowledged that he must have been a righteous man, God’s Son. (Matthew 27:54; Mark 15:39; Luke 23:47)
Besides saying “it is finished” after receiving the vinegar, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” These words paralleled those of the psalmist (Psalm 31:5[6]; 30:6, LXX) and indicated that Jesus was entrusting his life breath to his Father, looking to him to restore him to life. Jesus then bowed his head, and yielded up his life breath. (19:30; see also Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46.)
Not wanting to have the men remain crucified until after the start of the Sabbath at sundown, the prominent Jews requested Pilate to hasten their death. They asked him to direct that their legs be broken and that their dead bodies to be taken away. The account in John refers to that particular Sabbath as being “great,” possibly because the Sabbath, according to the reckoning that year, coincided with the first day of the Festival of Unfermented Bread (Nisan 15). (19:31)
When the soldiers received the order to break the legs of the crucified men, Jesus was already dead. They only broke the legs of the two malefactors, but not those of Jesus. One of the soldiers did pierce his side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out. (19:32-34)
John was there to witness these developments. The account includes his solemn declaration, “He who saw [this] has testified, and his testimony is true. And he knows (or there is one who knows [God]) that he is telling the truth, so that you, too, may believe.” The basis for believing is the fulfillment of the scriptures regarding him. “Not a bone of his will be broken.” (Psalm 34:20[21]) “They will look at whom they pierced.” (Zechariah 12:10) The extant Hebrew text of Zechariah 12:10 reads, “They shall look to me whom they have pierced.” If this represents the original text, it could mean that the Almighty regards the piercing of the one for whom there should be mourning as having been done to him. (19:35-37)
According to Matthew 27:57 and Mark 15:42, it was “evening” (opsía) when Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus. This would have been late in the afternoon, for it was still the day before the Sabbath, which began at sundown. (Mark 15:42) Joseph, a wealthy member of the Sanhedrin, had kept his belief in Jesus secret. Although a good and just man who looked forward to the kingdom of God, Joseph appears to have been fearful about openly identifying himself as a believer. He did not, however, give his consent to the Sanhedrin’s decision to condemn Jesus. Fully aware of the grave injustice that had been committed, Joseph overcame his fear and boldly went to Pilate to ask for Jesus’ body. (19:38; see also Matthew 27:58; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50-52 the Notes section for comments regarding Arimathea.)
It appears that Joseph had discussed his plan with another member of the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus (likewise a secret disciple). Both men, doubtless with the aid of servants, removed the body and prepared it for burial. Nicodemus had arranged to bring a mixture of myrrh and aloes (possibly the fragrant substance derived from the aloe tree [Aquilaria agallocha]), weighing about a hundred pounds (Roman pounds, with a pound weighing 11.5 ounces [327 grams]). According to customary Jewish practice at that time, Jesus’ body was wrapped in linen bandages along with the fragrant mixture. In Joseph’s own new rock-cut tomb in a garden near Golgotha, the men placed the body and then rolled a large stone over the tomb entrance. (Matthew 27:59, 60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53) An expanded reading of Luke 23:53 in fifth-century Codex Bezae indicates that it would have been difficult for 20 men to roll the stone. The time for preparing Jesus’ body for burial had been very limited, for it was the “day of Preparation” (Luke 23:54) when activities needed to be completed before the Sabbath began at sundown and work restrictions would begin to apply. (19:39-42)
Notes:
The biblical accounts do not include the hideous details about the crucifixion. They do not even provide a limited description of the implement on which Jesus died nor of the manner in which he was nailed to it. The writers’ reticence is more in keeping with their main purpose, setting forth the reason for Jesus’ suffering and death.
In itself, the Greek word staurós, commonly translated “cross,” can refer to a stake or pole, and the staurós which Jesus and later Simon carried was a beam. A long stake with a transverse beam would have been too heavy for one man to carry or drag. The Latin term crux, from which the English word “cross” is derived, can designate a tree or a wooden implement on which victims were either hanged or impaled.
In the allegorical Epistle of Barnabas (thought to date from the early second century and so from a time when the Romans continued to practice crucifixion), the staurós is linked to the letter tau (T). Moreover, very limited archaeological evidence does indicate that the Romans did make use of upright poles with a transverse beam.
Ancient abbreviated forms of the noun staurós and the verb stauróo (a number of preserved occurrences in P66 [second century] and P75 [though not consistently used in this late second-century or early third-century manuscript]) combine the letters tau (T) and rho (R) in a manner that is visually suggestive of a cross. This tau-rho ligature also appears in pre-Christian and non-Christian texts as an abbreviation for a number of terms, including the word trópos (meaning “way,” “manner,” or “habit”). Possibly Christian copyists adopted this ligature when abbreviating staurós because of associating the implement on which Jesus died with the letter tau (T). The existence of other abbreviated forms for the noun staurós and the verb stauróo in ancient biblical manuscripts which do not use the tau-rho ligature would seem to support the conjecture that early copyists chose this ligature for its visual effect.
The Greek word rendered “crucify” (stauróo) can denote hanging, binding, or nailing a victim on or to a stake, a tree, or an implement with a transverse beam. Doubtless the availability of wood and the number of individuals who were executed determined the shape of the implement used for crucifixion. In a Latin work attributed to Vulcatius Gallicanus, Emperor Avidius Cassius had criminals tied from the top to the bottom of a 180-foot (c. 55-meter) high wooden stake. The manner in which these persons were attached to this stake is referred to as crucifixion (in crucem sustulit, according to the Latin text). Roman soldiers do not appear to have followed any specific method when carrying out crucifixions. According to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus (War, V, xi, 1), the soldiers, out of wrath and hatred for the Jews, nailed those they caught, one in one way, and another in another way.
It is commonly believed that upright stakes were already at Golgotha or that the beams that had been carried to the site were attached to three adjacent trees (or possibly even the same tree) there. The minority view (expressed, for example, in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words) is that Jesus was nailed in an upright position to the pole that Simon had carried and that it was not used as a transverse beam.
If correctly identified, Arimathea lay near the northern border of Judea, about 16 miles (c. 26 kilometers east of Joppa and over 20 miles (over 32 kilometers) northwest of Jerusalem. Although originally from Arimathea, Joseph, as a member of the Sanhedrin, must have had a residence in Jerusalem, as suggested by his owning an unused tomb just outside the city. (Matthew 27:60)
Early in the morning of the first day of the week (the day after the Sabbath), Mary Magdalene, the other Mary (the wife of Clopas and the mother of James the less [or the younger] and Joses [Joseph]), and Salome (the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John), with the spices they had prepared before the Sabbath, headed for the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body. While on the way, they talked among themselves about who would assist them to roll the stone away from the tomb entrance. Wanting to be at the location as early as possible, the women had left where they were staying while it was still dark. It seems likely that the women from Galilee would have spent the night at various places in Jerusalem, and so a number of them may well have arrived at the tomb later than the others did. (John 20:1; see also Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1-3; Luke 24:1.)
John 20:1 does not mention that other women accompanied Mary Magdalene. This is understandable, for the account specifically focuses on her testimony regarding Christ’s resurrection.
When the women approached the tomb, they saw that the stone had already been rolled away. Possibly, at this point, Mary Magdalene ran back to Jerusalem to let Peter and John (the disciple whom Jesus loved) know what she had seen. The empty tomb suggested to her that the Lord had been taken away. Including herself with the other women, she said, “We do not know where they have laid him.” Thereafter Peter and John ran as quickly as they could to the tomb. (20:1-3; see also Mark 16:4 and Luke 24:2.)
After the women had left the tomb, Peter and John came running toward it. Probably because of being the younger man and able to move faster, John arrived first, bent down to look into the tomb, and saw the linen with which Jesus’ body had been wrapped. Upon reaching the tomb, Peter immediately entered and saw the linen wrappings. He noticed that the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head was rolled up and lying by itself. John, who had reached the tomb first, entered afterward. Based on his seeing the empty tomb, the wrappings, and the rolled-up cloth, “he believed.” This suggests that what he saw in the tomb convinced him that no one could have taken the body away and left the wrappings and the cloth behind, indicating that Jesus had been raised from the dead. (20:3-8)
In view of John’s believing, the words of John 20:9 appear to be a comment about the disciples as a group. They had not as yet come to understand the scripture, which revealed that Jesus had to rise from the dead. According to John 20:10, they individually went to their respective places.
After Peter and John were no longer at the tomb, Mary Magdalene returned, stood outside the tomb, and began to weep. While tears were flowing from her eyes, she bent down to look into the tomb. Inside were two angels, one was sitting where Jesus’ head had been and the other one where his feet had lain. Asked why she was weeping, Mary replied, “They have removed my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” (20:11-13)
Possibly becoming aware that someone was behind her, she turned around and saw Jesus but did not recognize him. He asked her why she was weeping and for whom she was looking. Thinking he was the gardener, she wanted him, if he had taken the body, to tell her where he had placed it. In her distraught state, she added, “I will take him away.” It is inconceivable that she would have been strong enough to carry the body, revealing that her words were prompted by intense emotion. (20:14, 15)
Seemingly, Mary could not tear herself away from the place where the body had been. Probably, because Jesus did not immediately reply, she again looked in the direction of the tomb. Upon then hearing Jesus call her “Mary,” doubtless in the familiar tone she had often heard, she recognized him, turned around, and said, Rabboni, meaning “Teacher.” (John 20:16)
The account does not say whether Mary then took hold of Jesus but relates his words to her, “Do not touch [or cling to] me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’” (John 20:17)
Many have understood the present tense of the Greek verbs to mean that Jesus was then about to ascend to his Father and did not want Mary to delay him from doing so. Mary’s action would then be comparable to what Jacob did when trying to secure a blessing for himself by trying to hold on to the angel who wanted to ascend. (Genesis 32:26) If the present tense is meant to be taken literally, this would mean that the post-resurrection appearances were like those of angels and that the ascension from the Mount of Olives revealed that the disciples should not expect to see him again until his return in glory. (Acts 1:9-11)
If, on the other hand, the present tense simply refers to the future ascension from the Mount of Olives that was certain to take place, Jesus’ words to Mary may mean that the time for close personal association had ended. His having been raised from the dead did not mean a return to the kind of interaction with him that had existed previously.
Mary Magdalene headed back to Jerusalem and then told the disciples there that she had seen the Lord and what he had said to her. According to Luke 24:10, the apostles heard about the resurrection of Jesus from Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women. In view of the more detailed account in John chapter 20 about Mary Magdalene, the words in Luke 24:10 appear to be a summary statement, with no distinction being made about when the various reports about the resurrection reached the apostles. Although the women told them what they had seen and heard, the apostles did not believe them. Whether the apostles dismissed the women’s testimony as empty talk because of a prejudicial view about the reliability of the word of women is not revealed in the account. (Luke 24:11) That such prejudice appears to have existed among Jewish men is evident from the words of the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, “Let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex.” (Antiquities, IV, viii, 15) (20:18)
It was late on that day, that first day of the week when, much earlier, Jesus rose from the dead. Being fearful on account of the unbelieving Jews, the disciples had chosen to be assembled behind locked doors. Suddenly they saw Jesus standing in their midst. His first words to them were, “Peace [be] to you.” Jesus’ death had plunged them into a state of fear and uncertainty, robbing them of peace, an inner sense of calmness and well-being. Despite his reassuring words, the disciples were frightened. The manner in which he had suddenly appeared in their midst caused them to imagine that they were seeing a spirit, a phantom, an apparition, or a ghost. They reacted as on an earlier occasion when they saw Jesus walking toward them on water while they were in a boat. (Mark 6:49) 20:19; see also Mark 6:49 and Luke 24:36, 37.)
In response to their reaction, Jesus asked why they were troubled and why doubts had arisen in their hearts. He made it clear to them that he was indeed in their midst. They were not seeing an impalpable apparition. “See my hands and my feet,” he continued. “I am he. Touch me, and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me have.” (Luke 24:38-40) According to John 20:20, he showed them his hands and his side.
On this occasion, Jesus again expressed his desire for his disciples to have peace. Just as the Father had sent him, he was then sending them forth, the implied purpose being for them to make known the good news about him and his resurrection. Possibly to assure the disciples that they would be certain soon to receive the holy spirit to assist them in carrying out their commission, he blew upon them and said, “Receive holy spirit.” (20:21, 22)
As the disciples would be carrying out their commission as persons whom Jesus had sent forth, the community of believers would grow and certain ones in their midst would fail to conduct themselves according to his example and teaching. This would require the disciples to render judgments about such erring associates. Regarding those who committed serious sins, Jesus said to the disciples, “If you forgive [their] sins, they are forgiven them. If you retain [their sins, not forgiving them], they are retained [against them].” In the case of individuals who unrepentantly persisted in a life of sin, the retaining of their sins would signify their no longer being part of the community of believers. (20:23; compare 1 Corinthians 5:1-7; 6:9, 10.)
Thomas (called Didymus or the “Twin”) was not with the other apostles when Jesus appeared to them. Later, they told him, “We have seen the Lord.” Thomas, though, did not believe them, saying, “Unless I see the impression of the nails in his hands and place my finger in the impression of the nails and put my hand in his side, I will not believe.” (20:24, 25; in the Greek text two words for “not” appear, indicating that Thomas would positively not believe unless he had concrete evidence.)
After “eight days” (counting the day on which the apostles saw Jesus as one of the eight), or a week later, Thomas and the others were together behind locked doors. Jesus, as on the previous occasion, appeared in their midst, saying to them, “Peace [be] to you.” Turning his attention to Thomas, he said, “Place your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and put it in my side, and cease being unbelieving but become believing.” Upon hearing an echo of the words he had used in his response to the other disciples when they told him that they had seen Jesus, Thomas was overcome with emotion. He exclaimed, “My Lord and my God!” (20:26-28)
The words of Thomas (“My Lord and my God” [John 20:28]) somewhat parallel how Manoah expressed himself when he and his wife saw the angel who had appeared to them ascend in a flame. Overwhelmed by the emotional impact, Manoah said to his wife, “We will certainly die, for we have seen God.” (Judges 13:20-22)
Whether Thomas actually felt Jesus’ hands and his side is not revealed in the account. The words directed to him appear to have been enough to convince him. Jesus continued, “Do you believe because you have seen me? Fortunate are those who have not seen and [nevertheless] believe.” (John 20:29)
For the many millions who have put their faith in Jesus throughout the centuries, the kind of proof that Thomas wanted has not been granted. Yet, they believed and their lives were enriched. As Jesus said, all such believers are “fortunate,” “blessed,” or “happy,” enjoying the enviable state of well-being that comes from knowing the Son of God and his Father and being sharers in all the blessings associated therewith.
The editorial comments found in John 20:30, 31 could also have been written regarding the three other accounts. Jesus performed many more signs or miracles that the disciples witnessed but which were not mentioned. The narrations included sufficient essentials to provide a solid foundation for believing that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, you may have life in his name.”
The name represents the person. In the case of Jesus, his name represents him as the Christ and the unique Son of God, with all the power or authority that his Father has granted him. The real life of an enduring relationship with the Son of God and his Father can only be attained through unqualified trust or faith in the Son and loyal life. attachment to him. Therefore, it is “in his name” that believers come into possession of this life, the eternal life.
When back at his home in Galilee, Peter remarked to some of the other apostles about his intent to go fishing. They decided to go with him, pursuing their customary occupation on the Sea of Galilee (also known as the Sea of Tiberias). With Peter, six others got into the boat. They were Thomas (Didymus [the “Twin”]), Nathanael from Cana, the sons of Zebedee (James and John), and two others. Likely Peter’s brother Andrew was one of the two unnamed apostles, and the other one may have been Nathanael’s close companion Philip. (Compare John 1:43-45.) During the entire night spent in fishing, they caught nothing. (21:1-3)
Early in the morning, Jesus appeared on the shore, but the apostles did not recognize him. He called out to them, “Boys [literally, children], do you have anything to eat?” “No,” came back the reply. Jesus directed them to cast their net on the right side of the boat to make a catch. When they did so, the net filled with so many fish that they were unable to haul it up. At that, John (the disciple for whom Jesus had great affection) said to Peter, “It is the Lord.” Hearing this, Peter, who had been naked (probably to be prepared to jump from the boat if it became necessary to attend to a net in the water), put on his garment, plunged into the lake, and swam a distance of about 200 cubits or approximately 300 feet (c. 90 meters). The other disciples followed in the boat, dragging the net filled with fish. (21:4-8)
Jesus had made preparations for them to eat. Already fish and bread were lying on a charcoal fire, and Jesus asked for some fish from the catch to be brought to him. Peter boarded the boat and hauled the net to the shore. Although it contained 153 large fish, the net did not tear. When the food was ready to eat, Jesus invited the disciples to have breakfast and handed them bread and fish. (21:9-13)
They could not bring themselves to ask him, “Who are you?” This was because they recognized him to be Jesus. It would seem, therefore, that the recognition was not based on his physical features but on the revelation of his miraculous knowledge. Just as the clothing he wore would not have been identical to the garments the Roman soldiers then possessed, his resurrection body was different. Like the angels, he could appear and then vanish from sight. All the recorded instances of his post-resurrection appearances proved to be comparatively brief. Their main purpose, during the course of 40 days, served to convince the disciples that he was indeed alive. If he could have been readily recognized at all times, his presenting them with “many proofs” would not have been necessary. (Acts 1:3) People do not need “many proofs” to recognize a close friend who may have been away for a short time but whom they, on the basis of unsubstantiated reports, had presumed to be dead. (21:12)
Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance at the Sea of Galilee was the third of the ones where most of the apostles saw him. The first time all the apostles, with the exception of Thomas, were present. On the second occasion, all the apostles saw him. (20:24, 26; 21:14)
After the apostles had finished eating breakfast, Jesus directed his words to Peter, saying, “Simon [son of] John [Jonah, according to the reading of other manuscripts], do you love [agapáo] me more than these?” Confident that Jesus knew the answer, Peter responded, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love [philéo] you.” (21:15)
In the question that Jesus is represented as asking, the Greek pronoun for “these” can be either masculine (referring to the other disciples) or neuter (everything related to fish and fishing). A number of translations render the question with explicit application to the disciples. “Do you love me more than these others?” (Phillips, REB) “Do you love me more than the others do?” (CEV) This would appear to be the preferable understanding. It would be more in line with Peter’s eagerness in getting to the shore as quickly as possible and his previous affirmation during the observance of the Passover that he would not be stumbled even though all the others might be and that he would be willing to die with Jesus. (Mark 14:29-31)
Indicating how Peter could express his love for him, Jesus said, “Feed my lambs [arníon].” As an apostle, one whom Jesus had personally instructed, Peter was in position to care for the spiritual interests of fellow disciples. These disciples were the sheep who belonged to Jesus and for whom he had surrendered his life. (21:15)
Again Jesus asked him, “Simon [son of] John [Jonah, according to other manuscripts], do you love [agapáo] me?” As he had expressed himself the first time, Peter reaffirmed his love, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love [philéo] you.” Jesus then repeated the admonition, “Tend my sheep [próbaton or probátion (little sheep) in other manuscripts].” (21:16)
When Jesus, for a third time, asked Peter, “Simon [son] of John [Jonah, according to other manuscripts], do you love [philéo] me?” he felt hurt. Hearing the question for the third time may have led to his recalling with sadness that he had disowned Jesus three times. Nevertheless, Peter did not waver in expressing his love for him. “Lord, you know all things. You know that I love [philéo] you.” Jesus then repeated, “Feed my sheep [próbaton or probátion (little sheep) in other manuscripts].” This assignment to serve as a caring shepherd for the sheep reflected Jesus’ confidence in Peter and may well have served to lift from him any lingering burdening effect his previous three denials may have had. (21:17)
Jesus is twice represented as using a form of the Greek term agapáo (love) and once philéo (love). Peter, in his response, is represented as saying philéo. Of the two terms, agapáo is often broader in scope, with philéo being a love that is frequently more closely associated with close friendship and affection. As in the case of the English word “love,” the context determines the nature of the kind of love or affection the verbs agapáo and philéo may be understood to convey. It appears preferable not to attempt to draw too sharp a distinction between the two terms, seeking instead to ascertain the significance from the context. Moreover, Jesus would not have communicated with his disciples in the Greek language. (21:15-17)
At this point, Jesus looked to the end of Peter’s faithful service. In his younger years, Peter had been a man of action. Girding himself to undertake his activity and walking where he chose to go. Upon getting old, he would stretch out his hands and someone else would gird him and take him to a place where he would not want to go. Jesus thus indicated that Peter, in his declining years, would be forcibly taken to the place of execution. Dying as a martyr on account of remaining faithful to God, he would “glorify” or bring honor to him. According to Eusebius (c. 263 to c. 339 CE), Peter was crucified during the reign of Nero. (21:18, 19)
Jesus concluded his words to Peter with the admonition, “Follow me.” It appears that the interchange between Jesus and Peter took place a short distance from where the other disciples were and while the two of them were walking. Seemingly, Peter became aware that another disciple was following them, and he turned around. It was John, the disciple whom Jesus loved and who had asked him during the Passover meal concerning who the betrayer would be. Seeing John, Peter asked Jesus, “Lord, but what about him?” Jesus directed his attention away from John. If it were to be Jesus’ will for John to be alive at his return, this should have no bearing on Peter’s course. As Jesus said to him, “What [is] that to you? You, follow me.” (21:19-22)
Whereas Jesus loved all of the apostles, his relationship to John appears to have been remarkably close. Therefore, the expression the “disciple whom Jesus loved” is an appropriate identifier. The close relationship seems to have come into existence because of John’s exceptional attentiveness and responsiveness to Jesus’ teaching. An outstanding example of John’s attentiveness and responsiveness was his believing that Jesus had been raised from the dead when he saw the empty tomb and the linen wrappings inside. (13:1; 20:8; 21:20)
Jesus’ words about John gave rise to the view among the brothers or in the community of believers that he would not die but would still be living when Jesus returned. This misunderstanding is corrected in the account by reiterating what Jesus actually said. He did not say to Peter that John would not die. Jesus expressed the thought about John conditionally, “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, what [is] that to you?” (21:23)
John 21:24 reveals the source of the entire account. It is one of the apostles, the one about whom Peter asked. The internal evidence identifies this one as John (one of Zebedee’s sons [21:2]), the “disciple who testifies about these things and who wrote these things.” The change to the second person plural in the next sentence of verse 24 may be an indication that he did not write this particular affirmation, “We know that his testimony is true.”
The editorial comments found in John 21:25 could also have been written regarding the three other accounts. Jesus did much more that the disciples witnessed but which were not mentioned. The narrations included sufficient essentials to provide a solid foundation for believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and to have a sure basis for faith in him and the forgiveness of sins his sacrificial death made possible. Using hyperbole to stress the large amount of information that could have been committed to writing, John concluded, “There are also many other things Jesus did, which, if ever they were recorded, I imagine the world could not contain the scrolls [that would be] written.” (21:25)
Although the preserved records are comparatively brief, millions, throughout the centuries, have come to believe that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. On the basis of the written accounts about his exemplary life, deeds, and teaching, they have come to live rich and rewarding lives. Although later believers, unlike the apostles and many other first-century disciples, have never seen Jesus, they love him. Through him, they have come to know his Father, resulting in their enjoyment of the real life, a life of an enduring relationship with both the Father and the Son. Accordingly, because of their faith, they have come to have life “in [Christ’s] name” or on the basis of who he is, the only one through whom a relationship with his Father is possible.
At the same time, just as the personal presence of Jesus in the first century created division among the Jewish people, with some responding to him in faith and others becoming violently opposed, the preserved records about him have had the same effect. There are those who try to discredit them with the same passion as those who fanatically cried out for Jesus to be crucified. Others have a distorted view of God’s Son and, based on what they have been taught, do not allow themselves to be led to the Father through him. They are much like the Jews in the first century who failed to recognize him for who he was, the one who could fully reveal his Father to them. They did not think of Jesus as God’s unique Son but concluded that he was Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets raised from the dead, or possibly even John the Baptist restored to life. Few were those who, like Peter, declared, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:13-16) Today, too, many tend to express themselves more in line with derived views about Jesus acquired from their particular religious environment, and not with a personal conviction that reflects the language of the preserved accounts regarding him.