An Exposition of John 13:36–14:11
Introduction
Some of the greatest themes of the Word of God appear in this section of the Upper Room Discourse. For example, there is the theme of heaven in one of our Lord’s most familiar texts, “In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you” (John 14:2).
In the second place, there is the theme of the way of salvation. What text from John is more familiar than the following text, excluding John 3:16, where Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6)?
And, then, there is also an important text on the nature and attributes of God the Father. Philip asks the Lord Jesus, “Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us” (John 14:8). And Jesus’ reply is a magnificent revelation of the real nature of the Father, who is invisible to us men. He replied to Philip’s request in this way, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” (John 14:9).
Of these themes the most important is the second in that it brings us to the central question of a saving relationship to God, out of which one may then go on to a continuing growth in the knowledge of the nature and being of God, and of heaven, our ultimate destination. If we are wrong here, then we shall be wrong about God at every point.
Dr. H. A. Ironside has told an amusingly tragic story in illustration of the point.
I remember one day leaving Los Angeles by train to go to San Diego. Shortly after we passed Fullerton, my attention was directed to an altercation going on near me. I had observed a little old lady who got on at a station some miles back. My attention was drawn to her because of the great number of bundles she carried. In one hand she had a cage, evidently containing a parrot, some kind of package held by one finger, a grip, and a bag; but she got in and put them all down about her, and filled the entire space where she sat. She was nicely settled when the conductor came around, and said, “tickets, please.” She handed him her ticket, and he said, “Madam, this is not your train. Your ticket calls for San Bernardino, and you are on the train that goes to San Diego.”
“You needn’t tell me that,” she replied; “I asked a man before I got on, and he told me that this train was going to San Bernardino.”
“Well,” he said, “I am sorry, but you have been the victim of some wrong information, for this train is going to San Diego.”
“I don’t believe it,” she said; “I bought this ticket in good faith, and have taken the train they told me to take.”
“Pardon me,” he replied, “but I am the conductor on this train, and it is going to San Diego. If you want to go to San Bernardino, you will have to get off and take a train back.”
Finally as the train drew near to the next stop, she gathered up her parrot and her packages and bags, declaring that this was an outrage, and that she would report it to the company and have the conductor discharged for putting her off the train. She left, while the rest of the passengers smiled even though they felt sorry for her.
It is not true that if you take a train going north, you will land somewhere in the south. It is not true that if you are on the road leading to everlasting judgment, you will reach heaven. “The labour of the foolish wearieth every one of them, because he knoweth not how to go to the city” (Ecc. 10:15). [2]So much for the foolish notion that so many people have, that all the religions of the world, although fundamentally opposed to one another in many ways, are genuine ways to God. That may be the most gigantic and pernicious illusion that the world has ever embraced (cf. Prov. 14:12).
The following section of the Upper Room Discourse will make the point that there is only one way to God, according to Christianity, and that way is through the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. The section is built around three problems that the apostles find in the words of the Lord (cf. 13:36; 14:5, 8).
The Problem of Peter
The Request (John 13:36; cf. v. 33).
Our Lord’s words in verse thirty-three proved to be more than Peter could handle. Jesus had said, “Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you” (13:33). Our Lord’s words were too much for Peter’s curiosity. He has forgotten all about the new commandment of brotherly love in his desire to follow Christ at once to His mysterious destination. For Peter at this stage of maturity, knowledge and experience are far more important than obedient love. So he asks, “Lord, whither goest thou?” (13:36).
The Reply (John 13:36-14:4).
Peter is answered with a prohibition and a promise, “Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards” (13:36). The word, “afterwards,” may be a reference to Peter’s future martyrdom by way of a cross. It does not seem that Jesus is speaking of heaven, since different terms are used in that connection in a moment (cf. 14:2–3; 21:18–19; Luke 22:32b).
Peter’s confidence in himself is great, as his words in the next verse indicate. He replies to the Lord, “Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake” (13:37). Peter has not yet learned the great truth of the weakness of a believer, unless supported by the enabling power of God. To put it more plainly, Peter has not yet learned the truth of Romans 7:14–25. He does not yet know the truth that Paul refers to, when he writes, “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed, lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). Chrysostom writes, “What sayest thou, O Peter?” [3]
Jesus intimates that he shall be sifted as wheat. He is wheat and not chaff, but his self-confidence is chaff, and that must be blown away by the winds of adversity, scorn, and suffering. The experiences of life are often the means by which God strips us of our self-trust and reliance upon our talents, gifts, and skills instead of upon our sovereign God.
Jesus’ reply is revealing, and also startling, “Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice” (13:38). The story of the fulfillment of this prophecy is contained in chapter eighteen (cf. 18:15–28, 25–27), and it is revealing that the “future pope” cannot even confess the Lord before a little girl. O wretched men that we are without Him!
Our Lord’s words were troubling to Peter and to his companions, it seems, for our Lord goes on to add to His prophecy of the denial the admonition, “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me (14:1).
The statements of verses one through three in chapter fourteen should not be separated from chapter thirteen in thought. Peter’s question about where He was going is still in view (13:36). It is true that the Lord changes the number to the plural here [you singular to you plural], but His reply includes the whole group now. Chapter thirteen and verse thirty-three is, however, still being developed.
The Divine Prescription for Spiritual Heart Trouble
There are three notes in our Lord’s words. They combine to give the divine prescription for spiritual heart trouble.
(1) Faith.
The first is the note of faith, faith in God, for that is the divine cure for troubled hearts by our Lord’s prescription.
The opening word, “troubled” (14:1) indicates that Peter and his fellow apostles were greatly disturbed. In the light of the context it is probably correct to give the clause the sense of, “Stop letting your heart be troubled.” The disturbing events of chapter thirteen, Judas’ departure and Jesus’ announcement of His coming departure, have brought on this attitude of fear and disquietude. Sad perplexity is beginning to grip His own. Their love for Him is unchanged, but their faith has begun to tremble. [4]
Our Lord knows the need of strengthening in the midst of strain and stress, for He, too, on the human level has been exposed to the greatest stress, that of continuing steadfastly in the will of God as He moved to the cross. He was troubled at the graveside of Lazarus (cf. 11:33). He was troubled at the coming of the Greeks, for He knew that meant the cross, the pre-requisite for the change in the program of the extension of the gospel. Soon the gospel would go to the gentiles (cf. 12:27). And His spirit was troubled at the final announcement of the betrayal of Judas (cf. 13:21). The word, ταράσσω (tarassō, “troubled”), is a fitting word, for it was often used of the surging and heaving waters of a heavy sea, and it vividly represents the deeper agitations of the soul, which are painful to strong human natures and dangerous to the weak. [5]
The final two clauses of verse one, rendered in the Authorized Version by, “ye believe in God, believe also in me,” may be translated in a number of ways, since the verbs are ambiguous in the original language. The verbs may be imperatives or indicatives in form, [6] and the clauses may be taken as declarative or interrogative clauses. [7] I do not have the space to study the question in detail, so I must satisfy myself by simply stating my own viewpoint. It seems to me that both clauses should be taken as imperatival. They should be rendered, then, “believe in God, believe also in Me,” or simply, “believe in God, and believe in Me.” The preceding verb is an imperative, and that might suggest that the following ones are to be taken that way. Further, in view of the context, which concerns ones who are troubled and perplexed, the imperative with its hortatory character certainly seems more apropos. And, finally, there does not seem to be much point in reminding them that they do believe in God.
Here, then, is the initial note in the strengthening of the apostles, faith in God and faith in the Lord Jesus. And the present tenses of the verbs with their durative character underline that this faith is to be a progressively growing faith.
The stronger it grows the more comforting becomes the truth of the Word. Bishop Ryle is correct:
Never let us forget that there are degrees in faith, and that there is a wide difference between weak and strong believers. The weakest faith is enough to give a man a saving interest in Christ, and ought not to be despised; but it will not give a man such inward comfort as a strong faith. [8](2) The Father’s house.
The second note in our Lord’s prescription for relief from spiritual heart trouble follows in verse two. It is that of the Father’s house. Here is the answer to Peter’s question, “Lord, whither goest thou?” (13:36). The Lord’s response is, “In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you” (14:2). The “mansions” are not our type of mansions, much as we might wish them to be. The Greek word, μονή (monē)often referred to a wealthy Oriental’s large house with its living quarters for all the family. The word is the noun related to the verb meaning to abide (μένω, menō). Thus, “abiding places” is the primary force, and a great deal of the stress of the word must, therefore, lie upon its suggestion of communion with God as an abiding experience in the life to come. [9] The one great house in heaven contains room for all believers, and their hope is eternal communion with the Father through the Son and in the Spirit.
(3) The coming again of the Lord.
The third note of consolation is the future coming again of the Lord, the subject of the comment in verse three, “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also”(14:3). There will be no permanent withdrawal from the world. He is coming back. So He informs His apostles. In the meantime He is preparing a place for them and for us. That involves all that He is as the Forerunner (cf. Heb. 6:20), Mediator, and High Priest with our names upon His shoulders and breast. Heaven, thus, is a prepared place for a prepared people.
It is strange that the simple words, “I will come again,” have been given so many divergent interpretations. Some have referred them to a spiritual coming at every moment of trial, others to His resurrection, others to His coming to us at death (although we go to Him then), and still others to Pentecost when He is said to have come in the Spirit. The futuristic present tense (ἔρχομαι, erchomai), which conveys an added note of assurance and confidence in fulfillment, refers to His second advent. There is a note of imminency in the hope, but there is no sure indication that the words refer here to a pretribulational rapture of the church, as some have wrongly claimed. [10]
The final words, “that where I am, there ye may be also,” express the simplest idea of heaven. It is not to be with the apostles, although that will be thrilling. Nor with the angels, as exciting as that may be, too. For believers, as Mrs. Cousin’s hymn so fittingly puts it,
The bride eyes not her garment,
But her dear bridegroom’s face;
I will not gaze at glory,
But on my King of grace;
Not at the crown He giveth,
But on His pierced hand:
The Lamb is all the glory
Of Immanuel’s land. [11]
In the fourth verse the Lord concludes the answer to Peter by a statement that they know the way in addition to the where. “And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know” (14:4). The reference to the way is intended to draw further questioning from them, and it does.
The Problem of Thomas
The Request (John 14:5)
George Reith said that “Thomas was one of those men who always keep well within the limits of their knowledge.” [12] Others have said that “he liked the feel of solid facts beneath his feet.” [13] Barrett calls him “a loyal but dull disciple.” [14] He reminds me of lots of students I have known in my years of teaching, those who are excellent students and usually make high grades on exams, but who, before the grades are known, express pessimism about the results, saying, “I hope I passed,” although deep down they know they made an A.
Thomas reacts to the Lord’s remark concerning the way by saying, “Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?” (14:5). He has not yet really grasped where the Lord is going and so, of course, he does not know the way. The where is the Father, and the way is the Son. If Thomas had the information at all, and he should have had it, it was unused by him, and he was unconscious of it. One thing for which Thomas is to be commended is this: He was not afraid to admit he did not know, and to take his lack of knowledge to the Light!
The Reply (John 14:6-7).
In verse six we come to one of the classic statements of the entire New Testament. The Lord replies to Thomas, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (14:6). The importance of the verse lies in its authorship. It is from the Lord Jesus Christ. If the words were not spoken by Him, they would be without value. As Lenski says, “Take away Jesus, and the way, the truth, and the life are gone; no way, no truth, no life are left.” [15] There are very few times when we are thankful for doubt, but we can be here, for we owe this marvelous revelation to the doubt of Thomas.
Now let us look at the text and, first, at the description of the way. It is clear that the term “way” is the important one, for the other terms, “truth” and “life,” are explanatory of it. [16] Thomas’ question was a question concerning the way, and the last clause of the verse, “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me,” relate to the way. What we seem to have then is the figure of the way, which is then explained by the following terms. He is the way to the Father, in that He is the truth and the life that is life indeed.
If He is the way, then Thomas did know the way, for he knew Him. He did not, however, know Him as the way yet. “So one may be walking in a road,” Bernard comments, “pleased with the actual scene, without much knowledge of the destination to which it is intended to lead.” [17]
One should notice that Jesus does not say that He shows the way. He is the way. Nor does He say that He only knows the way. He is the way.
And then He adds that He is “the truth.” He does not say that He is “true,” for Solomon and often Socrates might be said to be that. Nor does He say, “I am truth,” for He is not all the truth, nor the only truth, although all truth is ultimately related to Him. He says that He is “the truth,” the article simply indicating that He is the paramount truth, that is, the truth in the realm of spiritual salvation. Men are to be saved only through Him.
Contemporary theologians have spoken of Jesus’ claims to be the exclusive Savior and evangelicals’ agreement with Him as one of the “uncomfortable ‘onlys’“ [18] in Christian self-consciousness. But it is the truth according to Jesus, and it is always safe to stand with Him.
Jesus says that He is “the life,” not “the living One,” although He is that (cf. Rev. 1:18). Nor does He say, “I am life,” for others live, too. But He says that He is “the life,” that is, the life whereby we may truly live (cf. 3:36; 1 John 5:12). To accept the truth, receive the life, is by Jesus’ reckoning to be on the way.
The destination of the way is a personal one, for He makes it clear that it is “the Father.”
The distinctiveness of the way marks the text. The definite articles, “the way, the truth, and the life,” make that clear. Further, the use of the pronoun “I,” which is usually emphatic, and the final phrase, “but by me,” give further stress to the exclusiveness of Jesus’ claims.
How foolish, then, it is for men to say, as they so often do in our culture and society, “We’re all going to the same place, although by different ways.” That is simply rebellion against the plain statements of Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 4:12; 1 Tim. 2:5; 1 Cor. 3:11; Matt. 7:13–14; Prov. 14:12, etc.). It does matter what a man believes.
The Problem Of Philip
The Request (John 14:8).
Jesus’ final comment in the preceding section, “If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him” (14:7), is too much for Philip’s anxiety, produced by an unenlightened faith, as someone has said. He really had a large view of the Lord’s power, but his faith is lacking a bit. It did take appreciation of the Lord’s power to believe that He could show Philip the Father, as he requested.
Philip was of Bethsaida, the fishing town that gave to the apostolate Andrew and Peter. His request may indicate that he was influenced by two Old Testament incidents, one being the incident in which Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu with the seventy elders of Israel saw the vision of God in the mount (cf. Exod. 24:9–10), and the other being the incident in which Moses saw the back parts of the Angel of Jehovah (cf. Exod. 33:13, 18; 34:5–6).
The Reply (John 14:9-11).
Our Lord’s reply follows, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” (14:9).
It was an unexpected and disappointing answer, no doubt. Swete puts it:
All those months in Galilee they had seen the God of Israel in the face of Jesus Christ; they had lived with the Father’s very image, and had not known it. God had passed by and proclaimed His name to them, not in a transient vision, as to Moses, but in the human form and speech and life of the Only begotten.” [19]To ask for more was to confess to “a hankering after a display of the Divine glory greater than that which for so long a time they had daily seen.” [20] It was an unwitting confession of ignorance of His nature and being. He is the true, the final theophany, and to see Him is to see enough, as our Lord had told the Jews earlier (cf. 8:19).
The following words conclude the answer, and they indicate that the basis of seeing the Father in the Son is their union, which is corroborated by His words and works (cf. vv. 10–11). His words are made the primary evidence of Christianity, while His works are evidential corroboration. He is not saying that He is a secretary, or a photograph, of the Father. In that case He would be nothing, and He and the Father would not be one. What we have here is the “cooperation of two Persons in one substance,” [21] which is true to what we know of the Trinity. Thus, Philip, all that you are looking for may be found in ME. Open your eyes and see,—and worship. And may we, too!
Notes
- 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 has taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. This is the fourth in a series of expositions on The Upper Room Discourse.
- H. A. Ironside, “The Way to the City,” in “Charge That to My Account” and Other Gospel Messages (Chicago: The Bible Institute Colportage Association, 1931), 18–19.
- St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and The Epistle to the Hebrews, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: First Series, ed. Philip Schaff, 14 vols. (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956 [1889]), 14:267.
- Thomas Dehany Bernard, The Central Teaching of Jesus Christ: A Study and Exposition of the Five Chapters of the Gospel according to St. John, XIII to XVII. Inclusive (New York: Macmillan, 1892), 124.
- Ibid., 125.
- The verb πιστεύετε (pisteuete)may be indicative (a statement) or imperative (a command).
- Since there was no punctuation in the original manuscripts, whether a sentence is a question or a statement is often (as in this case) a matter of interpretation.
- John Charles Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: St. John, 3 vols. (New York: Fleming H. Revell, [1873]), 3:56.
- Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 2nd ed., (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 456–57.
- Editor’s note: Some pretribulational writers would use John 14:3 to defend a pretribulational rapture; other pretribulationalists would not. Cf. the survey in John A. Sproul, In Defense of Pre-Tribulationalism (rev. ed., Winona Lake: BMH Books, 1980), 50–51.
- Anne Ross Cousin, “Immanuel’s Land,” in Hymns of Truth and Praise (Fort Dodge, Iowa: Gospel Perpetuating Fund, 1971), Hymn #85.
- George Reith, The Gospel according to St. John,: with Introduction and Notes, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1889), 2:91.
- Arthur John Gossip, “The Gospel according to St. John: Exposition,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick, et. al., 12 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1952), 7:700–701.
- Barrett, 458.
- R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1942), 981 [italics added].
- Cf. Barrett, 458.
- Bernard, 140.
- Paul F. Knitter, “Theocentric Christology,” Theology Today 15 (July, 1983): 132.
- Henry Barclay Swete, The Last Discourse and Prayer of our Lord: A Study of St John XIV-XVII (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1914), 22.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., 25.
No comments:
Post a Comment