The Promise of the Paraclete

By S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. [1]

An Exposition of John 14:12–21

Introduction

In evangelical circles there is a suspicion on the part of many that there is no longer a strong desire in many hearts to “follow on to know the Lord,” to use the prophet Hosea’s expression (cf. Hos. 6:3). The general tenor of spiritual life concerns itself with such topics as the family, problems of physical relationships, the questions surrounding divorce and remarriage, and similar things. These are serious questions in our modern society, but they are secondary and peripheral to the center of the faith, the great doctrines of the Word of God. The secondaries seem attractive and entertaining, while the primaries seem heavy and foreboding; and that is rather sad.

In one of Andrew Murray’s books, he writes:

In olden times believers met God, knew Him, walked with Him, and had the clear and full consciousness that they had dealings with the God of heaven, and had, too, through faith, the assurance that they and their lives were well-pleasing to Him. [2]

Our evangelical churches would be much stronger if they had the same longings and desires.

One of the topics that is proving troublesome for the church today is that of the Holy Spirit. In fact, one gets the impression at times that the condition of many in the church is quite similar to the disciples of John the Baptist that Paul encountered in Ephesus. The apostle sensed that something was missing in their lives and in their testimonies. He asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they replied, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit” (or, “whether the Holy Spirit has been given”; NASB, Acts 19:2). Here were men who had been disciples of John, but they were lacking something. Here were men who had been baptized in water, and yet they were missing something. Here were men who had repented, the essence of John’s message, and they still lacked the vitality of the Christian life, given only through the permanently indwelling Holy Spirit. The apostle went on to acquaint them with the progress of the divine program, explaining no doubt both the cross and Pentecost. He then laid hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues that they had not previously been taught. They had entered into the fullness of the Spirit and had become part of the ongoing spread of the gospel message (cf. Acts 19:1–7). The lethargy of the church today suggests that a similar revival is an imperative necessity.

It was said of John Fletcher of Madeley that, after lecturing to his students on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, he would conclude with words similar to these, “Now, let those among us who wish to know these great truths in their experience follow me into the room where we may spend some time in prayer to that end.” That would help us, too.

In the Upper Room Discourse the theme of our Lord’s departure from the apostles, interrupted by several questions, now resumes. Several remarkable promises are given by our Lord to His apostles and through them to the church. One of the chief ones is the promise of the Holy Spirit, the divine person who is the executive of the Godhead in the present age. He performs various ministries, some related to the world and some related to the church. For example, with reference to the body of believers in the church He regenerates, He baptizes into the one body as the agent of the Lord, He indwells all believers permanently in the present age, He seals believers, He gives spiritual gifts, and He fills among His many ministries. We shall look in this study at His indwelling ministry primarily.

The Promise of Greater Works

Jesus has spoken of the oneness of the Father and the Son to Philip (cf. John 14:9). In seeing the Son one sees the Father, Jesus has said. His words (cf. v. 10) and His works confirm the oneness (cf. v. 11).

In verse twelve Jesus continues, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” The remark does not refer to an entirely different subject. A further evidence of the fact that He is the revelation of the Father, that they are one, is the work to be done by the disciples through Him.

But what are the “greater works” that believers shall perform? Are they specifically greater physical works, that is, miraculous works? Our Lord did many of them, and the apostles performed them, too (cf. Acts 3:1–11; 5:1–11; 9:31–35; 9:36–43; 13:4–13, etc.). On the other hand, our Lord’s works were composed of spiritual healings as well (cf. Matt. 11:5; Luke 7:22, etc.). In this lies the explanation of the “greater.” The “greater works” are works that are greater in quantity, but not in quality. When our Lord left the earth, He had a little flock of about 500 disciples. What is that to compare to the thousands who came to faith through the preaching of Peter on the Day of Pentecost (cf. Acts 2:41)? And that is not to mention the enlarged conversions traceable to the reformation brought about through the ministries of Luther, Calvin, and others.

The reason for this remarkable increase in the number of the divine works is given in the clause that begins with the word, “because.” “And greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” After all is said and done, it is to be traced back to Him (cf. vv. 13–14). The power performing the greater works is power that flows from the ascended Lord through the Spirit. Just as Joshua in his war with Amalek prevailed when Moses’ hands on the mountain were held up by Aaron and Hur, so the servants of the Lord on earth prevail, just because their Greater Moses continues His intercession for them without interruption, for He lives in the power of an indestructible life and needs no Aaron or Hur to hold up his hands.

Swete puts it correctly, “It is not we who do greater things than Christ in the days of his flesh.” [3] The real victor is the one on the hill—always!

The Promise of Answered Prayer

It is the opinion of some students that verses thirteen and fourteen, with their great prayer promises, suggest the way that the mighty works are performed (cf. Acts 4:31). Of course, mighty works are often performed by means of prayer, but it is not certain that that is what our Lord had in mind in saying, “And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (v. 13). The statement may be simply one parallel with verses twelve and fourteen. If that is so, then we are to understand the works to be the product of His promise and power, and not of our prayer and pleading. Further definition and explanation of the preceding context is the force of verse thirteen, then.

But what does it mean to ask “in my name”? Some take it to mean prayer in the merits of Christ, but that is not easily squared with verse twenty-six. Westcott takes it to mean, “as being one with me even as I am revealed to you.” [4] In other words, it means to ask out of our union with Him, brought to its full consummation through the cross and the coming of the Spirit. That, of course, is grounded ultimately in the merits of Christ, and so the resulting meaning is similar.

The expression certainly does not mean that we are just to repeat the phrase by rote at the end of every prayer. This makes the truth simply a ritual and the phrase simply a “magical” one.

The final clause of verse thirteen, “that the Father may be glorified in the Son,” a purpose clause, suggests a true rule for guidance in prayer. True prayer is to be made out of our union with Christ, our representative mediatorial Head, with a view to the ultimate glory of the Father in the Son’s answering of the prayer.

Jesus follows the thirteenth verse with the conditional statement, “If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.” In most modern editions of the Greek text the statement reads, “If ye shall ask Me anything in my name, I will do it.” [5] I take the latter reading as genuine, although the text is not completely clear with our present textual knowledge. Thus, prayer may be directed to the Son as well as to the Father. Other texts confirm that prayer directed to the Son is acceptable (cf. Acts 7:59; 9:14; 22:16; 2 Cor. 12:8; 2 Tim. 2:22), but the ordinary pattern of the New Testament teaching is to direct prayer to the Father in the name of the Son in the power of the Spirit. It is safest to stick to that procedure.

But let us not forget the force of the statements. They are compelling invitations to prayer. The promises are magnificent, and it is a shame that we take such little advantage of them. One of the older saints used to say, “The one concern of the devil is to keep Christians from praying. He fears nothing from prayerless studies, prayerless work, and prayerless religion. He laughs at our toil, mocks at our wisdom, but trembles when we pray.”

The Promise of the Paraclete

The Condition of His Coming (John 14:15).

If you love me, keep my commandments.

The opening clause of verse fifteen, “If ye love me,” at least controls the grammar of the next two verses, [6] and perhaps the entire section from verse 15b–20. The consequences of the love of Christ, then, include both obedience (cf. v. 15b) and the obtaining of the Spirit by Christ. Love (and this is not to be equated with sentiment and emotion) produces obedience. Instead of the Authorized Version’s imperative, “keep,” other manuscripts and texts have the future, “you shall keep.” That further emphasizes the necessary fruit of genuine love of Christ.

One notices that Jesus speaks of “my commandments,” and many feel that the mere mention in the present age of “commandments” is “legalistic.” The commandments, incidentally, are probably the parts of His teaching that include exhortations and expressions of His desires for His children. But the commandments are not “legalistic,” for they are accompanied by the gracious power to perform them, that is, the power of the Holy Spirit.

One day many years ago I came home in the evening and asked my little girl, Gracie, to put my shoes in the closet and to get my slippers. She very dutifully did it without saying a word or murmuring in the least. At night I commented on the fact to my wife. She said, “Oh, she always does things for those she loves. Sammy (Sammy is her older brother) just uses her for a slave.” In a moment Jesus will say, “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (v. 23).

The Content of the Promised Blessing (John 14:16-20).

In verses thirteen and fourteen He offered them the unlimited power of prayer. Once before He had offered them the power of the Holy Spirit, if they would only ask for Him (cf. Luke 11:13). So far as we know, there was no response to the offer. Now He announces that He is going to ask not only for the power of the Spirit, but also for His permanent indwelling presence throughout the age to come and forever.

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him. But ye know him, for he dwelleth with you and shall be in you (14:16–17).

There are a number of things to note in the first two verses of the section. In the first place, one should take note of the two different verbs Jesus has been using for asking or praying. In verses thirteen and fourteen He has used the verb αἰτέω (aiteō), the common verb which often suggests the relation of a suppliant to a superior. It is never used of the prayers of the Son to the Father. In verse sixteen Jesus uses the verb ἐρωτάω (erōtaō), a word that suggests, Swete says, “free intercourse and exchange of thought, as between those who meet face-to-face” [7] (cf. 16:5, 19, 23, 26). It often has the simple sense of asking a question. In this case the use of the second verb by our Lord points to the free intercourse He enjoyed with the Father.

“Another Comforter” is the object of His request. The term “Comforter,” found in the Authorized Version, is derived from the Wycliffe Bible, and it had the connotation of strengthener then. It was found in that version in Philippians 4:13 as the rendering of the verb ἐνδυναμόω (endunamoō), “to strengthen,” “I can do all things through Christ who ‘comforteth’ me.” The Greek word παράκλητος (paraklētos) referred to a legal assistant, or an advocate, although in John 16:8–11 the thought is that of a prosecutor, or at least more in line with that. The New Testament verb, παρακαλέω (parakaleō), from which the noun is derived refers to prophetic teaching (cf. Acts 2:40; 1 Cor. 14:3), to consolation, and to encouragement. By calling the Spirit by this name Christ emphasized that the main burden of His παράκλησις (paraklēsis) is that men should accept the Messianic salvation brought into being by Christ’s work. [8]

The Holy Spirit, then, is the advocate who pleads the cause of Christ in believers’ hearts. We now have two advocates, since our Lord is also an advocate (cf. 1 John 2:1). One pleads the cause of the Lord with us, and the other pleads our case with the Father. The use of the Greek word ἄλλος (allos, AV. “another”) with “Comforter” is appropriate, because contrary to another Greek word, ἕτερος (heteros), a synonym, meaning “another of a different kind,” this word means “another of the same kind” as a rule. The two Advocates are not identical, but they both possess the divine being and attributes.

The Holy Spirit’s purpose in coming includes permanent indwelling (AV, “that he may abide with you forever”). The temporal phrase in the Greek, rendered by the adverb “forever” in the Authorized Version, provides a strong argument for the eternal security of the believer. If one does not hold the view that God may be frustrated in His purposes, then the text is an ironclad proof of security. I take it that way. The text does not read, “that He may abide with you for six months, or until we sin,” etc. Such Arminian constructions cannot survive sound exegesis or theology.

While the text is a strong argument for eternal security, it is also a strong incentive to personal holiness, for we cannot go anywhere, do anything, or say anything, but that the Holy Spirit is with us.

In the seventeenth verse the Spirit is called “the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him. But ye know him, for he dwelleth with you and shall be in you” (cf. 16:13). It is the Spirit who witnesses to truth and only teaches the truth, and the product of the Spirit’s inspiration is the Word of God. Arthur John Gossip has written:

Many get irritated with religious people on the ground that they are disloyal to truth and will not face facts; that they live in an unreal world of dreams; believe in what they want to believe, and not at all in things as they actually are. But on their side religious people have real difficulty in crediting that these others do not see what is so self-evident to them. They cannot understand how anybody can honestly deny what are the obvious facts of their own daily experience, things staring at them, solid, palpable, undeniable. Once on a day a Christian man talking to Thomas Huxley stressed this: observing that while he in no way wished to impugn the other’s sincerity, might it not be that mentally the great scientist was color-blind, as some folk see no trace of green where normal eyes cannot help seeing it. Huxley, admitting that it was quite possible, added that if it were so, he himself, of course, could not know or recognize it. He was a man whose honesty in all things claims respect. But it is difficult not to become incensed by some flippant spirits who have never given any serious consideration to these matters and yet blandly and loftily dismiss as silly, childish fairy stories which they have outgrown, what we have tested and proved true. [9]

Later Gossip adds the comment, “After all, there is point and a barb in Joseph Parker’s merry gibe that when a man plumes himself on his agnosticism, he is only confessing in Greek that he is an ignoramus, as the Latin renders it.” [10]

The statement that the world cannot receive the Holy Spirit only serves to accent the teaching of the Bible on the inability of man in his unsaved state to do anything to please God (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:7–8), a fact that makes it absolutely essential that regeneration precede faith (cf. 1 John 5:1), as Calvinists teach (cf. John 3:3, 7). Arminians teach that a man can believe before he is born, while he is still in his state of spiritual death, (cf. Eph. 2:1). Such cannot truly claim to hold to the doctrine of depravity taught in the Scriptures, although it is true that many inconsistent teachers seek to hold the impossible doctrine.

The final clause of verse seventeen contains a textual problem that affects the sense in a material way. The Authorized Version reads, “and shall be in you,” reading the future tense ἔσται (estai), as genuine. There is some significant manuscript support for the present tense ἐστίν (estin), “and is in you.” The delicate nature of the problem is seen in the fact that some edited editions of the Greek text have one tense in one edition and the other tense in another. [11] The future is to be preferred, in my opinion, and the text then becomes evidence that the indwelling of the Spirit is a future event, beginning with His coming according to the redemptive program on the Day of Pentecost. There was no indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a permanent way in Old Covenant times (cf. 7:37–39; Gal. 4:1–7, etc.).

In verse eighteen we have the “language of a dying father,” [12] concerned for the welfare of his children. “I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you.” The word rendered “comfortless” in the Authorized Version, ὀρφανός (orphanos), means “orphans,” and Westcott is right in saying, “The very word which describes their sorrow confirms their sonship.” [13]

The meaning of “I will come to you” has been debated, some referring it to the coming of Christ in the person of the Spirit, others to the second coming, but it seems best to refer it to the coming of the Lord to His own after the resurrection. The next verse seems to refer to the resurrection, and the parallel in 16:16–22 refers to the resurrection. It is then that their sorrow was turned into joy (cf. Luke 24:50–53).

In His ability to return to His disciples our Lord is distinguished from all false messiahs, from Mohammed and Buddha and even Harry Houdini. It is said that in compliance with the request of Mary Baker Eddy a direct telephone line from her tomb to the Mother Church of Christ Scientist in Boston was installed, but the telephone has never rung. The “hot line” is very cold!

Richard Le Gallienne wrote something for the “mockers.”

Loud mockers in the roaring street
Say Christ is crucified again:
Twice pierced his gospel-bearing feet,
Twice broken his great heart in vain.
I hear and to myself I smile,
For Christ talks with me all the while. [14]

In verse nineteen the Savior affirms the future resurrection of the disciples, after assuring them of the beholding Him in the future. “Yet a little while and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me. Because I live, ye shall live also.” The life of the Head, which is continuous, guarantees the life of the members.

He is the Living One in the Apocalypse, and it is not surprising that we are called living stones, for he who has the Son has life (cf. Rev. 1:17). He was the only One who has ever come back to this life in glorified form.

In the twentieth verse He points the apostles to the day when they shall realize a mutual indwelling of the Son, who is in turn in the Father. “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” The expression, “in that day,” refers to the resurrection and ultimately to Pentecost when they are baptized into the one body in the Spirit (cf. 20:17; Acts 2:1–13; 11:15–17).

The importance of the words, “ye in me, and I in you,” can hardly be overestimated. They are the germ of all that Paul means by his term “in Christ.” The union with the Mediator of the New Covenant, the Representative God-man, is referred to.

But what does this double indwelling mean? Listen to Arthur T. Pierson, who points out that it seems like a paradox:

For how can anything be at once in and out, contained and containing? His parable is the explanation. Botanically it is true, for the vine and branch grow into each other, their fibres interpenetrating and interlocking. Such language suggests an element, like air, fire, water, earth, of all which it is true that they are in what is in them, as the fire is in the iron when the iron is in the fire. 

The order here is fixed: for He must be in us that we may be in Him, as the iron must first be in the fire if the fire is to be in the iron, or the bird in the air if the air is to be in the bird. [15]

The two expressions, “ye in me” and “I in you,” touch crucial facts in the Christian life. The first points to our standing, while the second points to our state, and the standing is the step that sets us on the way to the state.

The first speaks of our justification, or that which is set out in Romans so well, and the other speaks of our sanctification, the details of which are spelled out in 1 Corinthians.

And, one might add, all the time we are also in the Father (cf. 10:28–29). What security all of this provides. It is nice to have your money in the bank, for it provides safety. It is still better to have it in the bank’s vault.

The Conclusion of the Promise (John 14:21).

He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him.

The theme of the necessity of obedience as an evidence of love is again asserted in verse twenty-one. Added to it is the fact that the one who loves will receive a double loving response, from the Son and the Father, and in addition a manifestation of the Son. From this text we learn several important things. First, it is not enough to have His commandments, we must keep them. We must not only possessHis commandments, we must practice them. We must not only conserve them, we must observe them. Here is the infallible test of love, for no weaker motive can endure the demand of obedience.

The love of John 3:16 is the eternal love of the Godhead, leading to divine election and to the perseverance of the saints. Here the Lord speaks of the love of paternal affection. It is followed by special spiritual illumination from the Son, who through the Spirit (who takes of the things of Christ to show them to us) unfolds Himself to us. What greater privilege could we have? May God enable us to experience it!

Conclusion

The revelation of this section is exceedingly glorious, including the promise of greater works (v. 12), of prayer power in a remarkable way (vv. 13–14), and the permanent indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit (vv. 15–21).

There are appropriate responses that are to be made to each of these things. Our Lord lays stress on trusting (v. 12), on asking (vv. 13–14), and on realizing, or knowing (v. 20). Let us learn to lean on Him, draw on Him, and to realize Him!

Notes

1. Lewis Johnson is a Bible teacher at Believer’s Chapel in Dallas, Texas. He is Professor Emeritus of New Testament Exegesis at Dallas Theological Seminary and also served as Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. This is the fifth in a series of expositions on The Upper Room Discourse.
2. Andrew Murray, The Spirit of Christ (London: Nisbet & Co., [1888]), 5.
3. Henry Barclay Swete, The Last Discourse and Prayer of our Lord: A Study of St John XIV-XVII (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1914), 32
4. B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964 [1881]), 204.
5. The “me” has strong external attestation, and the omission may be explained internally quite easily. Cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), 244.
6. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 2nd ed., (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 461.
7. Swete, The Last Discourse, 37.
8. Cf. Barrett, St. John, 461–63.
9. Arthur John Gossip, “The Gospel according to St. John: Exposition,” in The Interpreter's Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick, 12 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1952), 8:708–709.
10. Gossip, “St. John,” 8:709.
11. In the United Bible Societies edition of the Greek Testament in the first two editions the present is preferred, and a “D” rating is assigned the variant, indicating a very high degree of doubt in the minds of the committee over the reading. In the third edition the committee changed its mind, and it preferred the variant with the future tense. The “D” rating remained. The recent fourth edition which has in part different editors still has the future tense but assigns a “C” rating. The future has sufficient external attestation, and internally it is required by the context. The Nestle-Aland edition concurs.
12. Frederick Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, translated with a preface, introductory suggestions, and additional notes by Timothy Dwight, 2 vols., reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969 [1893]), 2: 281.
13. B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964 [1881]), 206.
14. For the complete poem, cf. James Marchant, ed., Anthology of Jesus (London: Cossell, 1926), 302–3.
15. A. T. Pierson, Knowing the Scriptures (Toronto: Evangelical Publishers, 1910), 145.