“It is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.” Peter’s reaction to his Master’s quotation of a sombre prophecy about a “scattering” of the disciples was precisely what might have been looked for: “Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.”

Had Peter attended to his Lord’s words more carefully, he might have answered differently. He would certainly have been better fortified for the ordeal of which his Lord spoke. But, instead, all that he could hear was: “All ye shall, be offended because of me,” and he reacted in characteristic fashion. Yet in the light of that night’s events he might as well have said: “Though others be caused to stumble, I will stumble most of all.” What a trial, as well as an encouragement, Peter was to his Lord!

The answer to this cocksureness was the most solemn of warnings: “Simon, Simon” (that repetition of his old name must surely remind him that his old nature was still with him: cp, Mk.14 :37; Jn.21 :16,17) “Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.” The Greek verb means Satan “demanded for his own benefit,” and has the further implication: “he demanded and he got.”

Which Satan?

But who was this Satan? The glib, orthodox answer only creates its own difficulty: Who did Satan ask? An explanation which deserves more consideration than it has had is that this Satan be equated with Job’s Satan—one of the Lord’s angels of evil who was given authority, up to a point, to test the genuineness of Job’s godliness (see “Job’s Satan,” by H.A.W.).

In that earlier instance of the mysterious ways of God, the patriarch came very near to a complete collapse of faith—after having at first shown a staunch loyalty. Later he was rescued from the depths of doubt by an overpowering revelation of the Glory of the Lord. And this was precisely what waste happen to Peter.

But there is another possible reading of the Lord’s warning, on very different lines. Elsewhere “Satan” is often some personal adversary of the people of God; for example, Peter himself (Mt.16 :23), Paul’s unnamed traducer in Corinth (2 Cor. 11 :14), the Roman adminstration in Pergamos (Rev.2 :13). So the same sort of explanation is likely here. (Compare similar suggestions in Study 184). The word “desired, demanded” might well require this. Probably, then, this Satan was the high priest pressing the Sanhedrin for authorisation not only to arrest Jesus but also, as a safety measure, to round up the entire band of apostles and sympathizers, so that all of them might be screened.

It could well be that the two ideas offered here blend together. They need not be mutually exclusive.

The great concern of Jesus in Gethsemane for the escape of the apostles (Jn.18 :8,9), and the very different concern of the high priest’s servants about Peter being “one of this man’s disciples” (18 :17) both support this second explanation.

And so also does Peter’s own application of very similar language to a very similar situation: “Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion,… seeketh whom he may devour” (1 Pet.5 :8), with evident reference to “The Christians to the lions” at the time of the Nero persecution. (The same chapter has several other allusions to the Last Supper and Gethsemane: “the sufferings of Christ… the glory that shall be revealed … the flock of God . . . filthy lucre . . . ensamples… the chief Shepherd … a crown of glory … be girded with humility … after ye have suffered a while, stablish, strengthen, settle you”).

Peter the stone

It was Caiaphas who had earlier asserted with domineering roughness and Machiavellian self-interest: “Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (Jn. 11:49,50). And now the time was ripe to “sift them all as wheat.” The words are marvellously like Amos 9:9, where “the house of Israel” is sifted “like as corn is sifted in a sieve.” The original passage reads like a prophecy of the scattering of Israel among the nations. It is yet another example of the unexpected application and interpretation of Old testament prophecy which is so common in the gospels, all of tnem reminders to the thoughtful that Holy Scripture is not to be interpreted as any other book. Francis Bacon wrote very wisely: “I do much condemn (hot interpretation of Scripture which is only after the manner as men use to interpret a profane book.” Not inappropriately, then, the words that follow (Amos 9:11,12) are applied in the book of Acts to the preaching of the gospels to the Gentiles (Acts 15:16,17).

“Yet shall not the least of grain (Heb: stone) fall to the ground” also had its counterpart in the words of Jesus: “I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not.” Thus Jesus interpreted the name Peter as meaning a very small stone, and not a mighty foundation rock as the Roman church would have it.

Peter’s conversion

But what prayer did Jesus refer to? Was it the sublime intercessory prayer of John 17?: “Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom Thou hast given me … I pray not (hot Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil”; or was it some other prayer not recorded? Probably the latter, for this was specially for Peter: “I have prayed for thee,” in pointed contrast to the plural “you” whom Satan had demanded to have.

Men like Peter with the greatest potentialities for good are liable also to fall into the greatest evils. So Jesus prayed for him “that his faith fail not.” From the Greek word used here comes the modern English word “eclipse” (s.w. Ps.31:10), Peter’s faith had been expressed in his great confession at Caesarea Philippi. Nevertheless, in spite of many warnings, after his repeated denials of allegiance to Jesus had already left him ill-prepared, the crucifixion was to jolt him yet more severely. It was only this prayer, and the personal appearance of Jesus to a wretched Peter after the resurrection, which saved him (1Cor.l5:5).

“When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (s.w. Ex.17 :12). And who better qualified to do so after such an experience? There are disciples who need more than one conversion. Peter had at least three: Jn.l :41; Lk.5 :10,11; Jn.21 :15 (and perhaps Gal.2 :11-14). That it could be so in his case is surely heartening to many another.

That Peter did strengthen his brethren has ample witness borne to it by the book of Acts (4:19-23 5 :29-32) and especially Peter’s two epistles (1 Pet. 1:3-5; 1 Pet. 2:24,25; 3:17; 4:12,10; 2 Pet. 1:15-19; 2:9; 3:1-18; also 1 Pet. 5:10 and 1 Pet.l :12 and 3 :17 employ the same Greek word “strengthen”, used by Jesus; consider also Ex.17 :12 s.,w. LXX).

Strength and weakness

Peter deemed his Lord’s warnings to be utterly needless. His protestations in reply were as vigorous as could be expected: “Lord, with thee I am ready to go both to prison and to death.” This order of the words brings out the proper emphasis. Peter knew that his strength lay in being with his Master. Separated from him, he was a very uncertain quantity. Attempting to walk on the waves of Galilee he had floundered helplessly when terrified by the sight of danger all around: but a minute later, with his Master at his side, he was calmly immune from all fear.

In Gethsemane, less than an hour after the present warning, though separated from Jesus by only a small distance, he slept along with the rest, and incurred the reproof: “Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour?

But when Jesus was arrested. Peter at his side was bursting with courage and resolution, and willing to risk all in a desperate attempt to defend his Lord against impossible odds.

Yet in the courtyard of the high priest’s palace, with Jesus out of sight, he could not muster enough bravery to confess himself a disciple of the Galilean prophet. But it needed only the appearance of Jesus and one look in the direction of Peter to restore the apostle to his right mind, so that in remorse and contrition he went out and wept bitterly.

Even after the resurrection, the temporary absence of the risen Jesus threw Peter on the only other resource he knew—his fishing—and he went back to that, only to be reminded by a remarkable miracle that his fishing days were over, except for the catching of men; and he got himself out of the boat to be at his Master’s side as quickly as was humanly possible.

The ancient and by no means incredible tradition of the early church has it that in the days of the persecution of the Christians by Nero, Peter suffered himself to be persuaded to flee from Rome that his life might be preserved for the benefit of the church, but a vision of his Lord as he left the city stopped him in his tracks and turned him back to face arrest and crucifixion. Whether it be true or not, the story is in character.

Just now, his over-emphatic assertion of unshakable loyalty was to his discredit in three different ways—he contradicted his Master, he set himself up as better than the rest, and he spoke out of a confident reliance on his own strength.

So it was for the good of his soul that he crashed worse than the worst of them. It is worth while to note also that Peter’s words carried an implicit recognition that his Master was going to die. So at least he had travelled a long way from: “Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee” (Mt.16 :22). However he still had a long way to go. The Lord’s rhetorical question was the best of all possible checks to his well-meant assertions of loyalty and strength: “Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake?” Will you, Peter, be the Saviour of me, Jesus? Are you the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for the Lamb of God? Jesus’ words were probably a deliberate riposte for Peter’s rough refusal at the last supper: “Thou shalt never wash my feet.”

Cockcrow

Then came the solemn warning spoken with weight and plainness of speech that Peter might know the peril he was in: “Never be offended? I’ tell thee, Peter, that this night before the cockcrow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice” (Lk.22 :34; Mk.14 :30).

Did Jesus introduce this allusion to the crowing of the cock to remind Peter that he was in danger of emulating its character in trying to scare away the darkness by impotent bluster? Or was Jesus particularising as to the time of Peter’s denials? Attempts have been made, though with meagre evidence, to equate the cock-crow with the Roman trumpet which sounded the four watches of the night. If this attractive suggestion is correct, the second “cock-crow” (Mk.14:30,72) after this warning would be either midnight or 3 a.m.

The fact that whilst all four gospels record this warning to Peter, only Mark mentions the double cock-crow is something of a problem. The order of the narrative in Luke and John differs from that in Matthew and Mark, so it may be that the warning was given twice to Peter, once to himself alone, and again openly in the hearing of the rest, the former of these including the fuller detail given by Mark. The matter cannot be resolved with certainty.

What a powerful understatement it was which Jesus used: “Thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me”! Contrast the extremity to which Peter was driven: “He began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.”

It is often overlooked—through sheer familiarity—that this prophecy by Jesus is one of the most remarkable in the whole volume of Scripture. It is not only one of the best-attested, occurring with minor variations in all four gospels, but it is also one of the most explicit as to time and circumstance. Further, the very fact that Peter was so explicitly warned of his imminent denial of Jesus would make it all the less likely of accomplishment.

The warning was given, of course, in an attempt to save Peter from himself. How glad Jesus would have been to be proved wrong. But it was impossible that he should be! All men with such confidence in their own powers as Peter had, need to be taught the same lesson in order that, like Peter, they might ultimately be all the better for it.

At the moment he could only protest “the more vehemently’—overflowingly (Gk.)—as though he would be heard for his much speaking.

This warning, together with his over-emphatic reaction (“Methinks he doth protest too much”) probably made the rest suspect that Peter was the traitor about whom Jesus had spoken in the upper room. And Peter himself no doubt guessed how their thoughts ran and made matters worse by his protestations. Yet, in fact, with what burning sincerity he spoke! But how markedly incongruous were his achievement and his intention!

The words which mystified him now were later to be his reassurance: “Whither I go thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me hereafter” (Jn.l3:36;cp.21:18).

Notes: Mk. l4:29-31

29.	Although. Gk.: if also, which seems to imply allusion to the Lord’s plain words of warning about a traitor among the twelve.
	Shall be offended. Future tense after ‘if’ expresses Peter’s confidence that there would be a wholesale apostasy among the disciples.
30.	I say unto thee. Very weighty. This phrase comes in all four records.
	This day, even this night. Passover night referred to as ‘this day’; cp. same idiom in Num.8 :17.
31.	Likewise also said they all. To keep face, they had to.

Leaving the city, Jesus led the disciples down into the Kidron valley. It is worthwhile for the student to pause and consider the Biblical significance of this.

After the apostasy of the golden calf, Moses “took your sin, the calf which ye had made, and burnt it with fire… and cast the dust thereof into the brook that descended from the mount” (Dt.9:21), that is, into the stream that flowed from the smitten rock-“and that Rock was Christ.” It was a drastic precedent which Hezekiah and Josiah the reformers were glad to follow 2 Chr.29 :16; 30 :14; 2 Kgs. 23 :6).

Kidron means “black, with a strong and obvious secondary meaning: “mourning”. Hence the mention of David leaving Jerusalem by the Kidron at the time of Absalom’s rebellion, for he went mourning for the tragedy, barefoot and with his head covered (2 Sam.15 :23,30).

And Shimei the plotter -was warned by Solomon that if ever he chose to cross the Kidron he would thus signal the mourning for his own death (1 Kgs.2 :37;cp.also Jer.31 :40).

John’s record describes the Kidron as a winter-torrent, perhaps with intention of recalling the Messianic associations of this word: “The floods of ungodly men made me afraid” (Ps.18 :4). But also: “He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head” (Ps. 110:7).

Gethsemane

Thus Jesus came “to a place called Gethsemane” on the lower slopes of the mount of Olives. Its identification with the familiar site visited by tourists goes back to the time of Constantine (early fourth century).

The struggle for man’s redemption, foretold in a garden (Gen.3 :15), was now to come to its crisis in a garden and to be finally resolved in another garden (Jn.19 :41). Both Matthew and Mark use here a word which means “a piece of land, a garden or farm’—a similar usage to that of the modern city-dweller who says: “I’ve got a place down in the country as well.” But in the only occurrence of this Greek word in the Septuagint version it signifies “a vineyard” (1 Chr.27 :27). But Luke’s word for “place” (topos; cp. Heb. maqom) also means “a holy place, a sanctuary” (as in Acts 7 :49, Gen.28 :16). Some wealthy secret sympathizer probably gave Jesus the use of the garden for his Jerusalem visits. Twenty-four hours later another rich man was to lend Jesus another garden.

The first part of the name “Gethsemane” certainly means “winepress”, but strangely enough the rest of the word is Hebrew for “oil”. This rather odd meaning: “Winepress of oil”, may be symbolically satisfying (see, for examples, Ps. 23:5), but it is certainly not without difficulty in the literal sense. “Winepress and oil farm” (Young’s Concordance) is hardly possible.

It may be that there is a connection with the Hebrew word for “appointed” (the same root as in ls.28 :25). If so, Gethsemane means “the appointed winepress,” perhaps given originally in the sense of the English phrase used with such pride in modern business: “By appointment to the king”, but in Jerusalem it would most likely mean “by appointment to the temple.” It has even been considered possible that from the ancient olive trees now in Gethsemane came the oil for the anointing of kings and priests. There is also another Jewish tradition that it was in this vicinity where the Red Heifer was sacrificed (Num.19:3). The symbolism^ these details is marvellously apt.

It is worthwhile to observe concerning Gethsemane that “Jesus oft-times resorted thither” (Jn.)-“as was his wont” (Lk.). Yet nowhere else is this garden even alluded to. It is an instructive instance of the fragmentary incomplete nature of the gospels. (See Study 110). Also, it gives a hint to the discerning that the life of Jesus had many Gethsemanes—as also there were many “wilderness temptations,” for did not the devil depart from him only “for a season” (Lk.4 :13)? Thus, out of many crises when Jesus had to crucify the flesh before it was crucified at Golgotha this Gethsemane is mentioned as the most crucial of all.

“His disciples followed him” (Lk.), but for them Gethsemane had a quite different meaning, as John’s record indicates: “into the which he entered, and his disciples.” The same distinction is made in Mt,17 :27; Jn.20:17.

Fellowship

In the garden Jesus left eight of the disciples in one place, exhorting them: “Pray that ye enter not into temptation.” Hejcnew that for them, as for him, Gethsemane was to provide a supreme test, a test to be met not in their own strength (as Peter was actually to attempt; Jn.18 :10), but with the help of God.

His instruction was: “Keep on praying”. It supplies the answer to temptations today, as well as then. But the counsel was soon disregarded—more through human weakness, no doubt, than through wilful neglect of their Master’s word.

As on certain earlier occasions (Mk.5:37 and 9:2 and 13:3) Jesus chose to have Peter, James and John with him. The men who had shared the glory of his transfiguration were needed now, to be with him in the lowest hour of his travail. It is a fact which emphasizes not only that some disciples are nearer to their Lord than others are, but also how truly Jesus shared the weakness of human nature in his need for fellowship, solace and support in the crisis of his life. Merely by being with him they could be a help. If only, in that hour, they had added understanding and sympathy, how much greater that moral support! The Bible has no better illustration of the truth that we are “members one of another.” The brother of Christ who chooses to face life without the fellowship of the rest of the family of God has not learned the first principles of Christian living.        

Depression

Before ever Jesus left them, it was evident, from the signs of strain in his face and from the tone with which he spoke that he was “sorrowful and very heavy.”(Mt.26:37).

New Testament usage of the first of these words indicates that he was hurt, troubled, upset, disturbed, worried, but the answer to the question: What about? is far from easy. The occurrence of the same word in 2 Samuel 19:2 how David “grieved” for Absalom might suggest that Jesus was oppressed by his loss of Judas (cp. Ps.35 :13,14).

But the problem is made more dificult by Mark’s word: “amazed”. The Greek word there means precisely that: “astonished” (Mk.9 :15; 16 :5,6; Acts 3 :11). But what caused this amazement? Almost the same word comes in David’s Messianic psalm: “the floods of ungodly men made me afraid” (2 Sam.22 :5 LXX; the parallel passage in Ps.18 :4LXX uses a different Greek word). Other Old Testament usage also suggests the idea of fear. But that Jesus was now over-wrought with physical fear of crucifixion may be confidently disallowed, even though at one time it was a common Jewish jibe against the Nazarene that his own disciples had described him as afraid to die. Then was it fear for his disciples in their reaction to impending events? Was it astonishment at their lack of concern or understanding regarding his own prospects, which was now creating such distress in his mind?

Jesus was not only “sorrowful”; he was also “very heavy.” Again the meaning of the Greek word is not clear. One possibility is “bewildered,” in the sense of not knowing what to do. This is perhaps supported by its use in one of the versions of Psalm 116 :11: “I said in my haste (RVm: alarm)”—a passage given Messianic application by Paul (2 Cor. 4 :13; Rom.3 :4). Another possible derivation is from a word meaning “satiety, loathing.” This would make it equivalent to the modern slang: “fed-up’—but again, what about? His own prospects, or those of his disciples? One could wish for a clearer light in the understanding of some of these intimate details.

“My soul”

The ensuing words of Jesus suggest the former answer to this enquiry: “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death” (Ps.42 :5LXX). His use of “soul” and not “spirit”, is significant here. The distinction is not made invariably, but there are many places in the New Testament where it is clearly implied that the word “soul” means the lower nature of a man, by contrast with the Spirit, the new nature born again in Christ (e.g. Lk.12 :19,22; 1 Cor.2 :14; 15 :45; 1 Th.5 :23; Heb.4 :12; 1 Pet.l :22; Jas.3:15; Jude 19; Rev. 18:14; Studies 129,169).

Thus, Jesus’ use of “soul” with reference to himself suggests the tension within him between the higher and lower natures. This was inevitable. As the Representative Man he must needs share, every day and on this day especially, the universal experience of having “a law in his members warring against the law of his mind.”

“Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? (Shall I say) Father, save me from this hour? But for this cause came I to this hour” (Jn.12 :27). Chronologically these words do not belong to Gethsemane, but they are doubtless to be read as the equivalent in John’s record of this Gethsemane experience.

It follows, then, that when Scripture speaks of Jesus “laying down his life (his soul)” for others, there is implied not only the forfeiting of life itself, but also the denying of all the lower inclinations and impulses of a Son of Adam.

Separation

Having separated the three disciples from the rest Jesus now proceeded to separate himself from them: “Tarry ye here, and watch with me.” But the separation cannot have been very considerable; “he went a little farther.” This procedure was not haphazard. The groups thus formed suggest an analogy with the sanctuary of the Lord:

Jesus	High Priest	Holy of Holies
The angel of the Lord	The Shekinah Glory	Cherubim
The three	Priests	Holy Place
The rest of the apostles	Levites	Sanctuary court
Judas and the crowd	Israel	The world

“Watch with me”

There are other details which may present Gethsemane as a new and better Sanctuary. “His sweat as it were great drops of blood” certainly suggests the offering of the blood of sacrifice. And “watch with me” may well be the Lord’s allusion to the priests “keeping the charge (or watch) of the tabernacle” (Num. 3 :28,32,38 etc; the Hebrew word has both meanings).

But on the other hand, the words “watch with me” may have been an instruction to the disciples to be like those outside the sanctuary who looked for the coming forth of the High Priest with the blessing of divine forgiveness and reconciliation.

Or again., since it was Passover—the Passover—it was not unlikely that Jesus had the Exodus commandment in mind: “It shall be a night of watching unto the Lord” (12 :42RVm). But this link only shifts the difficulty one stage further back. In what sense was Passover to be a “night of watching”? Probably the reference is to the prayers of Israel as, with loins girt, shoes on feet, and staff in hand, they awaited the divine intervention which was to mean deliverance for them all. The fact that such a manifestation of divine power had been promised did nothing to make prayer for it unnecessary (cp. Dan.9 :2,3). If such prayer was proper and needful in the prototype, how much more now that the great reality was to be their experience!

“A stone’s cast”

At this time of prayer “he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast.” There is meaning in both of these short phrases. One usageof the verb “withdrawn” is “to give a parting greeting” (s.w. Acts 21 :1). There is thus a hint of reluctance on the part of Jesus to leave the others—’he tore himself away from them”. Even these uncomprehending disciples had it in their power to hearten their leader. Once again the Lord’s essential humanity is emphasized in this unwillingness to leave them. Yet in the sanctuary of prayer there awaited him much greater resources of strength.

But why should Luke choose to describe this retreat to the place of prayer as at “about a stone’s cast”? This is too indeterminate to be of value as a measure of distance. Was it intended, then, to suggest the breaking of the tables of stone (Ex.32 :19)? or was it yet another allusion to the rejection of David at the time of Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sam.16 :6)? or is it meant to take the mind back to another occasion (1 Sam.17 :49) when the invincible Enemy of God’s people was vanquished at “a stone’s cast” by the Beloved of the Lord? (it has been plausibly suggested that Golgotha means “the skull of Goliath”!). The value of this kind of allusion (which could only come in an inspired Book!) is that it can cover such a wide variety of ideas in a mere phrase. Compare the diverse associations of the phrase: “innocent blood” (Study 218).

Intense prayer

There in the pale light of the Passover moon, at a distance from the Three, Jesus “kneeled down and prayed.” Mark’s record has: “he fell on the ground”, and Matthew: “he fell on his face.” Mark’s continuous tense here may imply that Jesus kept breaking off his prayer and resuming again. (Is Ps.143 :3 relevant?) Perhaps there are indicated here three different postures appropriate to the three occasions of prayer in Gethsemane. Jesus did not pray seated, for this is the attitude becoming in a king (2 Sam.7 :18; Ps.110 :1,4); in Gethsemane he was the humble representative of the humble.

This repeated falling down in prayer before the Father is reminiscent of other great representatives of the people of God. Moses’ intercessions on behalf of Israel make a moving story (Dt.9 :18,25, and note especially v.26,27,29). But the experience of Daniel provides an even more sustained likeness to the Son of God. The triple prayer in Gethsemane is matched by his prayer three times in a day (Dan.6 :10). Then follows the prolonged effort of the ruler to secure his acquittal (v.14), the sealing of the stone at the mouth of the den (v.17), the sending of the angel of the Lord to save him because “innocency was found in him” (v.22), the ultimate destruction of the enemies of the man of God (v.24) the recognition of the supremacy of God’s kingdom over all human dominion (v.26), and the working of great signs and wonders in heaven and earth (v.27). Did Daniel know, as David assuredly did, that his own experience enacted beforehand “the sufferings of the Christ, and the glory that should follow”?

Mark’s gospel is the only one which summarises the substance of the prayer of Jesus before giving his very words: “he prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.” Mark is also the only one to allude to this climactic ordeal of Jesus as “the hour’—a term which was used in a general sense by Jesus himself, as by all four evangelists, to describe the consummation of his sacrificial work and all the gamut of experiences, of body and spirit, which that involved (by all means consult John 7 :30; 8 :20; 12 :23,27; 17 :1; Lk.22:14,53; Mt.26:45).

But the hour of trial must be also, for Jesus, the hour of prayer. This is one of the few occasions when his use of Aramaic expressions is recorded: “Abba, Father.” In the intense prayer of John 17 there is a progression: “Father … O Father. . . holy Father. . . O righteous Father” (v.1,5,11,25). Perhaps the same was true in Gethsemane also.

“Let this cup pass from me”

The prayer became a loud cry (Heb.5 :7 implies this): “Father, all things are possible to thee … If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” To some there is real difficulty here. Of course it is not literally true that all things are possible with God. Even the Almighty cannot make two and two into five. The words must have their proper frame of reference. They were used concerning the birth of Jesus (Lk.1 :37), and also concerning the birth, similarly miraculous, of another seed of Abraham (Gen. 18 :14 LXX). They were used of the new birth of the wealthy and unwilling (Mt.19 :26)— another miracle. But now here in Gethsemane the birth of the entire New Creation was at stake, and the Father could only return answer: “No, this is something I cannot do.”

It may be taken as certain that such a prayer offered by such a Son to such a Father in such an hour of crisis would have been answered in the affirmative, if an affirmative answer had been at all possible. The fact that it was not makes inescapable the conclusion that even the Almighty could find no other way by which the redemption of the world might be brought about. Viewed in this light, Gethsemane becomes the more solemn and awe-inspiring. The Father was not able to save from death. “Even so must the Son of man be lifted up” (Jn.3 :14). But the Father was “able to save him out of death” (Heb.5 :7RVm).

Surely Jesus understood these things. Why, then, should he ever come to the point of offering such a petition? (contrast Jn.5 :30). His prayer: “All things are possible with God”, quoted from the angel’s words to Sarah concerning the birth of Isaac, suggests that it was the experience of that great prototype which was in his mind. If Isaac, seed of Abraham, could be saved from sacrificial death at the last moment, might not a similar deliverance be possible for Jesus, Seed of Abraham?

Helpful though this might be, the difficulty is not altogether removed, for the familiar words of Genesis 22: “God will provide Himself a Lamb … In the mount of the Lord he will be provided” (v.8,14), must have been equally well-known to him.

That Jesus should pray: “Let this cup pass from me” is surely a clear indication that his petition, whatever its precise intention, sprang out of human weakness—a natural revulsion from the prospect of shame and suffering. This extremely difficult question is considered separately in Study 212.

The reader of the gospels has deep cause for thankfulness that there was an immediate reaction from this assertion of self-will, a reaction which must have been normal with Jesus all his life: “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.” It is this which marks the difference between him and those for whom he died.

At the same time, the words emphasize his essential one-ness of nature with his brethren. His inclinations and propensities did not automatically identify themselves with the will of God. If it be not true that Jesus fully shared the fallen nature of his race, then Gethsemane was merely impressive play-acting.

Sleeping disciples

For an hour he was there on the ground before his Father. What twentieth-century disciple would spend this amount of time in this way? To how many would such a protracted exercise in prayer be congenial? Nor was it to his disciples then. When he came again to them, they were fast asleep. Why did they sleep? Was this time of prayer in Gethsemane an experience they had known on a number of former occasions, that their Master would be engrossed in prayer throughout the night whilst they slept? But even supposing this to be true, was not the present a more special occasion, when they knew Jesus to be weighed down with expectation of suffering and shame? And had he not expressly asked them to share his vigil?

Their repeated failure is explained in the gospels by: “Their eyes were very heavy.” But why this weariness? This was not the drowsy aftermath of a heavy meal, but the exhaustion of worn-out men. Yet there is no hint in the gospels of any activity in the preceding 48 hours to bring them to this condition. And if they were physically tired, how much more Jesus!

So their lapse was hardly excusable, especially when it was repeated. So Jesus rebuked them—as he so often did—with a question: “Is it thus with you? Could ye not (were ye not strong enough to) watch with me one hour?” The form of the expostulation shows how glad Jesus would have been to share the fellowship of the others in his prayers (as he also is today). It is a thing to marvel at and rejoice in that the Son of God could seek support and strength in the sympathetic understanding of men of much lower calibre than himself. But he was denied it: “I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none” (Ps.69:20).

According to Mark the reproach was repeated, addressed this time specifically to Peter: “Simon, sleepest thou? couldest thou not watch one hour?” What a contrast with Annas and Caiaphas who were awake and active against Jesus the whole night through! Jesus, aware of the special dangers and temptations which would beset Peter before the night was out, would fain have him on his guard. Instead, in Gethsemane Peter denied his Master three times by sleeping before ever he opened his mouth to deny him at the high-priest’s palace. Yet, only a short while before, he had declared: “With thee I am ready to go both to prison and to death” (Lk.22 :33RV). It was in pointed reminder of this that Jesus now said: “Could ye not watch with me one hour?

Flesh and Spirit         ‘^v

He also added the needful exhortation: “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation.” The normal meaning of the words would be: “Pray in order that you may be so fortified by your prayers as not to fall into temptation.” But there is no lack of parallels for the alternative: “Make it the subject of your prayer that you do not fall into temptation.”

That the latter is not only more appropriate and meaningful but certainly correct is established by the fact that this is the Lord’s third allusion in a very short time to his own pattern prayer, the others being “Abba, Father” and “Thy will be done” (v.42). Thus the Lord’s Prayer was also the Lord’s own prayer.

The Master’s dependence on prayer in this crisis of his life and his exhortation to the same are valuable reminders to help all disciples realise that no man can overcome temptation by simply making up his mind to it. It was in this self-dependent spirit that Peter went back into the courtyard after his first denial of his Lord, and he paid for his presumption. Even in the most regenerate of disciples the same tug of war between flesh and spirit, between self and the will of God, is an almost ceaseless experience.

In recognition of this hard fact the Lord in the same breath made grateful acknowledgment of the good intention of his disciples: “Your spirit is enthusiastic (s.w. 1 Chr.29 :5,6,9,17 LXX; cp. also Gal.5:17), but the flesh is weak” (Heb.5:2). There is encouragement in this to believe that even now Jesus makes similar extenuation in heaven concerning the pathetic standards of achievement by his present-day disciples.

But now was it only with reference to the disciples that he spoke those words? It would be strange indeed if the tension of his own struggle also was not covered by them. And so “he went away the second time, and prayed,” offering the same prayer and yet with variations full of significance: “O my Father, if this cup may not pass from me, except I drink it, Thy will be done.” The mode of expression represents a distinct change of attitude, crystallizing out in a settled acknowledgement of the supreme wisdom of the Father: “Thy will be done.” There is something wonderfully moving about this use at this time of the prayer which disciples were taught to pray, by their Teacher. Here in Gethsemane the margin between Master and disciple was at its narrowest.

Yet again, in spite of warning and exhortation the disciples slept. It may be taken as certain that they made a sincere attempt to watch and pray, as their Master bade them, but only a spirit eager to share the Holy of Holies with the Lord could have kept their minds alert that night. So “he came and found them asleep again.” The distinct hint of censure in these words is somewhat compensated for by the semi-apologetic explanation: “their eyes were heavy.” For this Mark has a very expressive word difficult of translation but carrying the definite implication that the disciples had not composed themselves for sleep, but had been overtaken by it involuntarily.

But if they were so exceedingly tired, what of Jesus who went without sleep all that night and through the harrowing day that followed? Never is temptation more strong or resistance to it less sure than when one is physically exhausted and weary to the limit through lack of sleep. Consideration of facts such as these— unrecorded but undoubtedly true—can add greatly to a reader’s appreciation of what the sufferings of Christ involved.

Yet the Eleven, and even the chosen Three, were heedless of this. Mark’s phrase: “Neither wist they what to answer him,” implies some unrecorded reproach at their too easy yielding to their weariness. And it is eloquent of their shamefacedness that, apparently, even Peter had no word to say on his own behalf.

On the Day of Atonement the high priest went into the Holy of Holies three times. Is there comparison to be made with Jesus?—’He left them again, and went away, and prayed a third time.”

“An angel strengthening him”

It is here that Luke’s record tells of the appearing of the angel and of the Lord’s sweat “as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” The two verses are put under suspicion, quite undeservedly, by a note in the margin of the Revised Version: “Many authorities omit verses 43,44,” For the reassurance of readers it is necessary to emphasize that the facts hardly warrant such a comment. The “many authorities” are actually a very small minority, and the explanation of the omission by these is a simple one. It is known that in many of the early church lectionaries it was customary on the day before Good Friday to have the reading about Gethsemane from Matthew 26, with Luke 22 :43,44 interpolated for the sake of completeness. Thus it would come about that some manuscripts, influenced by this lectionary practice, would have a corresponding omission after Luke 22 :42.

But even if the Revisers (and some other modern versions) were correct in their omission, the Messianic Scriptures would make it necessary to assume the truth of this tradition: “Unless the Lord had been my help, my soul had also dwelt in silence. When I said, My foot slippeth; thy mercy, O Lord, held me up” (Ps.94 :17,18). The help of the heavenly countenance became the health of Jesus’ countenance (Ps.42:5,11;43:5; a psalm applied by Jesus to himself; Mt.26 :38 quotes Ps.42 :5 LXX). In time of temptation, specially, men need fellowship. Since in this respect the disciples failed Jesus, God sent His angel.

There is also an unexpected aptness about some of the details of Daniel 10. It was in “the first month” (v.4): “I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine into my mouth” (v.3: compare the words of Jesus: “I will no more eat thereof until . . .); “my face toward the ground” (v.9); “the men that were with me saw not the vision” (v.7); “my comeliness was turned into corruption, and I retained no strength” (v.8); “O man greatly beloved … thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words” (v.11,12); “the vision is for many days” (v.14); “O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace unto thee, be strong, yea, be strong” (v.19): “a great Quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves” (v.7). That so many phrases should have such fitness concerning Gethsemane is, to put if mildly, remarkable.

Then what of verse 21?: “I will shew thee that which is noted in the Scripture of truth.” Here is a hint of what, apart from any direct mention, could almost be taken as certain, that Jesus who had so depended on “the Scripture of truth” through all the days of his flesh would there find strength to overcome in this hour of gravest need. “My soul melteth for heaviness: strengthen thou me according to thy word” (Ps.119 :28). Is anything more likely than that the angel strengthened Jesus by simply talking to him about some of the specially relevant Old Testament Scriptures concerning him?—such passages as ls.41 :8-14; 42 :l-7; 49 :l-9; 51 : 11-16. More on this in the next study.

Resemblances to the Transfiguration are also worth noting here: the prayer of Jesus, the closeness of the same three apostles, their sleep, Peter with nothing to say, the angel as the counterpart of the divine glory, and both incidents centred round “the decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.”

It has been plausibly suggested that the angel was Gabriel, the one who revealed the great Messianic prophecy of Daniel 9 and who also announced the birth of Messiah to Mary (Dan.9 :21; Lk.l :26). There is special fitness about this, for Gabriel means “the Strength, or Strong One, of God” — then who more suited to strengthen the Son of God in the hour of his need? Also, in three places certainly (Dan.8:15,16and9:21;Lk.l:26,30) and in two other places probably (Dan. 10 :12; Lk. l :13) Gabriel appears specially as the angel of answered prayer—therefore, surely in Gethsemane also, as the Father’s answer to the intense and unremitting prayer of His Son.

After the temptation at the beginning of his ministry, angels ministered unto Jesus (Mt.4:11), but now the angelic aid came when the temptation was most intense—a measure of the critical nature of this experience. He is described as being “in an agony’—apparently it is the word used in those days for the restless nervousness of an athlete before the contest. So “he prayed more earnestly”, literally “more stretched out,” not in time but in intensity: “strong crying and tears.”

Whoever witnessed this moving scene—if indeed anyone did—must have been stirred with deep emotions at this sight of a strong righteous man shrinking in tears from the path of glory which led to the grave. There is some satisfaction to be had, even in defeat, in an all-out contest of wit, skill or strength against an external adversary. But when the adversary is Self, both victory and defeat are bitter. The only way out is for “my will” to become wholly and truly “Thy will,” so that Self is dead. For the disciple this is an achievement never within sight. To the end of the days of his flesh he continues as a kingdom divided against itself, and therefore he cannot stand. For Jesus only could this merging of Self into the will of the Father become an unalloyed actuality—but at what a price!: “His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground,” and this on a bitterly cold night (Jn.18 :18).

“Great drops of blood”

It is important here to observe the words: “as it were”. All the detailed (and utterly unbecoming) discussions about the exuding of blood in times of extreme emotional stress are wide of the mark. The words are intended to be interpretative. Luke evidently regarded this perspiration running down the face of Jesus as though it were blood, the beginning of his sacrifice. It is the writer’s way of telling his reader that the crucifixion began in Gethsemane—and indeed earlier than that, for the literal translation of Luke 22 :20 is: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is being poured out for you’—even then, at the Last Supper.

This sweat “falling down to the ground” is reminiscent, perhaps by design, of the curse put on Adam who in another garden chose to put Self before God: “Cursed is the ground for thy sake … in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.” But this is not the only place. The ground brought forth thorns and thistles to Jesus—he was crowned with them. And “Thou hast brought me into the dust of death” (Ps.22 :15) is surely a deliberate echoing of: “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” Even the curse on the woman is suggested: “He shall see of the travail of his soul and shall be satisfied” (ls.53 :11? and compare Arts 2:24).        

Issue resolved.

There is no further sign to be seen in him of agony, wrestling or struggle. From now on he appears on the gospel page as a quiet calm serene figure. “The fight is o’er, the battle won.” No more wearing tension of a mind “in a strait betwixt two.” No more sweat or unwillingness to relaxinto the will of the Father. From now on “my will” as distinct from “Thy will” was a meaningless phrase.

Appropriately, then, Luke uses the word for “resurrection” to describe his “rising up from prayer’—appropriately, since, in a sense, not only did the sacrifice of Jesus take place in Gethsemane but so also did his resurrection. The one made the other inevitable.

Sleeping for sorrow?

His coming to the disciples provides a sharp contrast. Again they were sleeping—”sleeping for sorrow,” says Luke, and by that very phrase he supplies another problem, for it is not usual for sorrow to make men heavy with sleep. It would be more natural to read that sorrow had kept them awake. Literally, the words are: “sleeping from the sorrow,” and in this context they must surely mean: “heedless of his sorrow” (compare the earlier part of this verse: “he rose up from the prayer,” i.e. coming away from prayer; the shape of the phrase is exactly the same). “Sleeping for sorrow” is not a mistranslation. Rather, it is a case of choosing between two valid translations, the one suggested here being the more normal meaning (see also in verses 41,42,43).

The reproach implied in these words of Luke came also pointedly from the lips of Jesus. According to Mark 14 :41 AV he said: “Sleep on now, and take your rest.” But can he have meant this? The spirit of these words is so different from the earlier exhortations to watchfulness and prayer. Also, they appear to be immediately contradicted by: “Rise up, let us go.” Modern translators cope with the problem by reading the words as two reproachful rhetorical questions: “Still sleeping? still taking your rest?” This is possible, though it is hardly the obvious way of translating the Greek words. However its correctness seems to be vouched for by Luke: “Why sleep ye? (why, indeed!). Rise, and keep on praying that ye enter not into temptation (into such temptation as has beset me).”

“It is enough (Jesus continued), the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.” Again there is difficulty in the wording, for there seems to be very inadequate reason for translating: “it is enough”. Souter’s Lexicon comments: “There is hardly any other example in Greek of the meaning ‘it is sufficient.’ “Normally the phrase would mean: “He is receiving,” with reference to cash or some business transaction. It has been suggested therefore that the allusion is to Judas receiving the money from the chief priests or receiving the military force for the arrest of Jesus. There is, however, some evidence for use of this word with respect to a ship near to shore or to port (compare Mk.7 :6; Lk.7 :6;15 :20). This would make it equivalent to: “He is not far away.”

Thus with the approach of the traitor the hour was come, and it found Jesus no longer distraught and prayerful that the hour might pass from him, but now calm and assured. With composure he could now contemplate his betrayal “into the hands of sinners’—hands consecrated for the offering of sacrifice (Lev.8 :27) but which were now to be defiled with the blood of the only perfect sacrifice.

But these chief priests, and the soldiers with them, were of negligible importance to Jesus, compared with Judas, the apostle turned traitor In the eyes of Jesus a disciple lost was (and is) of far more consequence than scores of wilful enemies: “Rise, let us go; lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand’—and he moved forward to meet the one who chose to betray him with a kiss.

Notes: Mk. 14:32-42

33.	Amazed—at the disciples’ lack of understanding of his difficult situation?
34.	Sorrowful unto death surely implies no let-up in suffering from that hour until he died next day.
36.	Was this prayer heard by Mark? See Study 215.
	Abba, Father. This combination of Aramaic and Greek may express intensity of feeling or strong emphasis; cp. Rev.9:11; 12:9; 1:7; 19:1, 5.
	This cup. John’s gospel assumes this detail; 18:11.
40.	Heavy. Consider Is.24:20 (where one version uses the same word), and with it 53 :6.
41.	The third time, in prayer also (Mt.); cp. 2 Cor. 12 :8

Whilst Jesus was suffering all manner of indignity at the hands of the high priest’s retainers, another meeting of all the council was taking place at first light of dawn. In this way (See Study 219), they sought to legalise what had already been decided during the hours of darkness. In spite of the injunction of the rabbis: “Be tardy in judgement”, these evil men were in a hurry. This meeting was brief and clear-cut, but it included amongst other things a consultation as to the best tactics to be employed when bringing the case before Pilate. “While they took counsel together against me, they devised to take away my life” (Ps.31 :13).

Pilate bribed?

Little difficulty was anticipated here, for already a rogues’ agreement had been reached with the governor, and the smooth working of it ensured, as they thought, by judicious bribery. This much can be inferred from two passages of Scripture. In the course of the trial “Pilate’s wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him” (Mt. 27:19). Even allowing for the possibility that this might have been a special revelation from heaven, the inference is still to be made that Pilate’s wife had become somehow aware that early on this particular day the condemnation of the prophet of Nazareth had been pre-arranged. Yet evidently the message had been sent immediately she awoke and before she could become acquainted with the momentous events that were even then going forward.

This strange incident implies (so Morison infers in “Who Moved the Stone?”) that a deputation from the chief priests had waited on Pilate the night before with a view to securing his acquiescence in a prompt and speedy condemnation of Jesus early next day. In the usual way of things it would scarcely be possible to be confident of Pilate’s co-operation at about half an hour’s notice next morning. On the other hand, it would be perfectly normal (and undoubtedly desirable from the point of view of both Pilate and Caiaphas) to give as much advance notice as possible of this piece of legal business. Hence, almost certainly, after Jesus had been arrested-or maybe even whilst the soldiers were on their way to arrest him-emissaries from the chief priests went hastily through the night to Pilate, apologetically craving audience at such a late hour, explaining with emphasis the extreme urgency of the matter in hand, and unctuously soothing the uncertain temper of the governor with a substantial gift.

The detailed prophecy concerning Christ in Micah 7:3 is very forceful here: “Their hands are upon that which is evil to do it diligently; the prince (Herod) asketh (for a sign; Luke 23: 8), and the judge (Pilate) is ready for a reward; and the great man (Caiaphas), he uttereth the mischief of his soul: thus they weave it together” (RV). It needed the co-operation of these three worldlings to consummate the destruction of the Son of God.

A further hint will soon be available in John’s record that Pilate had already been given warning of what was afoot and had intimated his willingness to oblige.

As soon as the Sanhedrin had concluded its deliberations, Jesus was led away to Pilate. There went also “the whole multitude of them”-the entire Sanhedrin-to impress Pilate with the gravity of the case now being submitted to him. This simple fact is a measure of the unrelenting hatred these venerable elders bore the Man of Righteousness in their midst.

The governor’s praetorium or headquarters was almost certainly in the castle of Antonio, overlooking the temple area, where also the Roman garrison was quartered. This may be implied in Mark 15 :8 RV: “And the multitude went up and began to ask him . . .” The expression would hardly be appropriate if Pilate were, as some assert, at the palace of Herod.

Pilate’s character

This Pontius Pilate was not one of Rome’s aristocrats. His name probably connects with the pileus of Roman f reedmen (of whom Felix was one). However, a fortunate marriage to the daughter of Sejanus, Tiberius Caesar’s favourite, had made his career. Unfortunately Pilate never understood these intractable Jews whom he was called upon to govern. His administration was marred by a series of grievous blunders (or were they unhappy mischances?)

For example, Pilate thought it would surely please Caesar to have Roman eagles installed in Jerusalem — an open sign of Rome’s might and authority. A firm believer in the fait accompli, Pilate had them brought into the holy city under cover of darkness. The Jews could not have taken this insult against their city worse. They picketed the governor’s palace at Caesarea, blocking all access by simply lying down in crowds, until at last Pilate had to give way.

Again, one of the finest things the governor did was to build an aqueduct to bring water from the Pools of Solomon into Jerusalem. But the tactless fellow raided the temple treasury to pay for it. When riots broke out, he sent some of is troops disguised as worshippers into the temple court, and there they massacred innocent and guilty alike (Lk.13 :!?). Order was restored, but love for Rome was not.

On another occasion, doubtless seeking to honour Tiberius, he had gilt imperial shields hung in his palace at Jerusalem. The result of this faux pas was a strong and influential deputation to the emperor himself who promptly bade his governor remove the offending symbols. At length there was another bloody incident when Pilate had a crowd of troublesome Samaritans slaughtered. This led to his recall in A.D. 36. The next Caesar, Caligula, stripped him of his office, and later on he committed suicide, perhaps by order of the emperor.

Philo has left a description of Pilate as “inflexible, merciless, and obstinate”. He refers to “his corruptions, his acts of insolence, his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, his cruelty, and his freuent murder of people untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending gratuitous and most grievous inhumanity.” But indeed Pilate hardly shows in this light in the gospels. Philo, it is to be remembered, was a Jew, and therefore quite disinclined to say anything but evil about a Roman governor.

The various massacres which Pilate was undoubtedly reponsible for were the kind of incident that any Roman administrator might be responsible for. These things were typical of them.

The biggest problem regarding this man is that, from every angle, his character, as sketched in the gospels, seems to be completely at variance with the picture of him provided by both Jewish and pagan authors. There might be one point in common—the recognition by the Jews that if only they brought sufficient pressure to bear they could impose their will on him. Pilate certainly feared, and the Jews knew that he feared, an appeal to Rome regarding his administrative blunders.

Pilate’s dramatic change

Although it was not yet six o’clock when Jesus was brought before him, Pilate was ready to proceed with the case immediately. For the priests and scribes entrance to the precincts of Pilate’s headquarters would mean, according to their tradition, such serious defilement that they would be disqualified from eating the Passover that same evening (Pr. 30:12; Is. 66:3,4). So they stayed outside in the corner of the temple court adjoining Antonia. Whilst they waited —with what impatience can readily be guessed—a crowd gathered, possibly because they scented that something untoward was afoot, possibly and perhaps most probably because it was the time when they should receive from the procurator their valued Passover gift-one of their public favourites, set free as an act of grace.

Pilate’s first interview with Jesus is unrecorded and was probably brief, but it was sufficient to produce in the governor an immediate volte face which in its turn brought consternation and confusion amongst the enemies of the Lord.

Going out to them-one can picture him addressing them from the higher level of the praetorium courtyard – Pilate spoke impersonally as though he had had no previous acquaintance whatever with the strange case now under judgement: “What accusation bring ye against this man?”

The men to whom he spoke were evidently caught altogether unawares by this request. They had no reply ready, and could only assert with an insolence which was inadequate to cover their confusion: “If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.” One can almost hear the implied reproach: “Pilate, you are not playing fair! What about our agreement?”

Yet on the face of it Pilate’s question was perfectly reasonable, and their legal unpreparedness was utterly unreasonable in view of their errand. This part of the narrative only makes sense on the assumption already suggested, that Pilate had been not only forewarned, but also “squared”, so that he would assent to their wishes. Only too evidently, the priests expected that Pilate would rubber-stamp their condemnation of Jesus without demur. Yet instead the man insisted on making confident that, for once, they would find him helpful and obliging!

Evasion

The explanation of this changed attitude, as pointed out by Morison, is very simple: Pilate had seen Jesus and had talked with him. He had immediately recognized that here was a prisoner vastly different in character from the ordinary run of disturbers of the peace. And since there was no love lost between himself and the Jewsih leaders, he felt no compunction at all in going back on his “gentleman’s agreement”.

“Take ye him, and judge him according to your law”. Thus Pilate intimated his unwillingness to be entangled in a vicious prosecution of one so palpably innocent. ‘Crucifixion of this Jesus is out of question. You may condemn him on some lesser charge if you wish’. Already Pilate was wishing himself rid of the affair.

In reply the priests showed their equally strong determination to be satisfied with nothing less than the death of Jesus: “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (Jos. B.J. 2,8,1), thus grimly implying: ‘If it were, Jesus would have been dead long ago; but as it is, we must have your official sanction.’ According to the Talmud the power of life and death was taken from the Sanhedrin forty years before the temple was destroyed. Then was this the first case of its kind?

The stoning of Stephen, difficult to harmonize with these known facts, was very probably an example of lynch-law carried out in defiance of the government, perhaps at a time when a change over of governors was taking place. This is precisely what happened years later when James, the Lord’s brother was stoned. And then high-priest Ananias lost his office through it (Jos. Ant. 20,9,1).

Thus if Jesus was to die, he must die at the hands of the Romans and therefore by their normal method of execution-crucifixion. In this way, so John notes, was to be fulfilled the prophecy Jesus had made that the Son of man must be “lifted up” (the words were evidently a current colloquialism signifying crucifixion: John 12 :32-34 seems to require such an interpretation).

It might be noted in passing that in making this point John uses language concerning Jesus’ prophecy, (“that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled”) identical with that which he uses to allude to the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, thereby putting the two on the same level. Yet how many in these days would give Old Testament prophecy such an exalted status?

Improvised charges

The priests, desperate and goaded beyond measure by Pilate’s intransigence, hastily improvised accusations of a sort. These Luke summarises thus:

• he is perverting (i.e. turning away) the prophecy, thereby putting the two on the same level. Yet how many in these days would nation;
• he forbids to give tribute to Caesar;
• he proclaims himself Christ, a King.

The charge of blasphemy by which they had declared him worthy of death would be utterly useless before Pilate (cp. Acts 18 :14-17).

The first of the accusations can hardly have meant “turning the Jews away from Rome”, for that was the real meaning of the second charge. It could only mean “turning the people away from accepting our authority”, in which case—quite apart from its vagueness-it was laughable as a basis for prosecution. Even if true, what would Pilate care?

The second charge was a deliberate lie, for less than a week earlier these men had heard Jesus teach: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”. And Pilate, who doubtless had his secret agents, probably knew the truth regarding this.

The third accusation was true. It was the one on which they themselves had condemned Jesus; only now they gave it a strong political twist, to impress Pilate the more. But even as they said the words they must have had only uncertain hope that their charge would be upheld, for what was there of the political aspirant about this mild Galilean that Pilate should mete out the most savage of all sentences?

King of the Jews?

Pilate returned into the Praetorium io interrogate Jesus concerning the last of these matters, albeit with incredulity. “Art thou the King of the Jews?” he asked.

Jesus did not give immediate answer, but sought first to ascertain Pilate’s motive in asking. Was he really interested in Jesus as a man with o mission? Or was he merely concerned to deal with his prisoner as impersonally and speedily as possible, one more legal decision in a boring endless routine: “Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?”

Pilate must have been startled. There was so little of the prisoner-in-the-dock demeanour about this man. With an affectation of brusque indifference he held Jesus at arm’s length. He had no wish for this conversation to become uncomfortably personal. “Am I a Jew? (perhaps implying: ‘Why should I think you a King? You don’t look like one. Only a Jew could imagine that!’) Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me (Why should Jewish rulers want to co-operate ruthlessly with Rome against one of their own people?). What hast thou done?”

Jesus answered: “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight (contend by law?), that I should not be delivered to the Jews.” So Jesus knew of Pilate’s attempt to hand him back to the Jews! What impression would this leave on Pilate’s mind. “But now (he added) is my kingdom not from hence.”

The words have been much misunderstood, as implying an other-worldly kingdom, a purely spiritual realm. But actually Jesus was saying that his kingdom is not to rest on the wielding of human power such as Pilate’s. Hoskyns paraphrases neatly: “Ho does not say that this world is not the sphere of his authority, but that his authority is not of human origin.” But now (note the present tense: “is”) he claimed no kingdom of the kind that Rome might resent. Yet there was in the words a plain implication that at some future time developments of a different kind could be looked for.

The Truth

Pilate fastened on this immediately: ‘be you are a king then?” To which Jesus replied with an unequivocal affirmative: “Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.” How often these words also are misunderstood and misquoted! Jesus did not say that he was born and sent on his mission in order that he might be King, but in, order that he might testify to “The Truth”. He continued: “Everyone that is of the Truth heareth my voice”

It was immediately evident that Jesus was not speaking of truth in an abstract philosophical sense, but was using the phrase as a specialised, semi-technical term with reference some particular “Truth”, which found its expression and exposition in himself.

Without the Old Testament as a guide, these words of Jesus would be meaningless. There is a phrase repeatedly used (often along with “Mercy”) to allude to the Messianic Purpose declared to the Fathers of the nations in the Covenants of Promise. (See Notes)

Hence Jesus should be understood as saying: “My mission now is not to be king, but to testify to my future kingship. In me will be fulfilled all that was promised of old to Abraham, and David. And all who would share in the blessing of those promises must believe and obey my word.”

Thus Jesus “before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession (1Tim 6:13, cp Is. 55:4; Rev 1:5).

Pilate, accustomed to associate “kingdom” with “power” rather than “truth”, now recognized even more clearly that Jesus was speaking with reference to some particular “truth” outside his own knowledge. “What is truth?”, he asked. Sir Francis Bacon was altogether wrong in his reading of the gospel here. Far from “jesting”, Pilate was never more serious in his life. Nor is it true that “he would not stay for an answer”. The tense of the verb John’s narrative probably implies that he kept pressing his question. The subsequent course of the trial shows how anxious Pilate was.

From this moment onward, whatever his inner reaction, there was no mistaking the policy he was now bent on following. He went out again to the Jews, and Jesus was led before them all. “I find no fault (RV: crime) at all”. Not Guilty! Pilate was not definitely going back on his agreement with the rulers. Yet he surely knew that in doing so he was risking a riot – and at Passover too!

The priests immediately raised a great clamour of wild and baseless accusations. “They were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place (the temple).”

These words constitute a marvellous witness by the Lord’s enemies to the superhuman effort he had made within the past few months to bring his appeal to the ears of all, so that everyone in Israel might have opportunity to accept him as the Son of God. But the phrase “he stirreth up the people” (s.w. Mk.15 :11!) was as misleading as it well could be. For Christ’s last missionary journey had apparently failed; for the most part his appeal had fallen on deaf ears.

The many and varied accusations now being hurled against him bore witness to the nervous apprehension of these wicked men!: “Answerest thou nothing? “Pilate challenged him,” behold how many things they witness against thee.” This incitement to defend himself by exposing the weakness of the prosecution (and how easily and completely he could have done it!) showed only too clearly that the governor wason his side. “But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled” (s.w. Is.52 :15). As long as the governor’s mind was open to instruction and as long as he was prepared to follow his own limited understanding of right and wrong, Jesus was willing to talk with him. But before these men who had already proved their wilful blindness and obdurate hatred, Jesus used only the rebuke of silence, even as he had done when before the Sanhedrin.

The mention of Galilee by the priests opened up to the mind of Pilate the possibility of another solution to this vexatious problem. The civil-service mentality which is always ready to pass on responsibility to another department is no new phenomenon. “As soon as he knew that Jesus belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who also was at Jerusalem at that time.” The word “also” here in Luke’s narrative intimates neatly that neither Pilate nor Herod were in Jerusalem just then as a matter of choice. Pilate’s headquarters were normally in Caesarea. It was the restless, uncertain character of Jewish crowds at Feast times which made imperative his presence in Jerusalem at Passover. And Herod, of Edomite extraction, had no real sympathy with Jewish religious zeal. It was purely to ingratiate himself with Jewish public opinion that he took any notice at all of Passover.

Doubtless Pilate, as he sent Jesus to Herod, reasoned that, whatever the latter’s decision he himself would be the gainer. If Herod condemned Jesus to death or set him at liberty, the case was no longer his own responsibility. Even if, as actually turned out to be the case, Jesus was returned to him uncondemned, his own hands would be strengthened; there would be yet another cogent reason for setting Jesus free.

Herod too was gratified at this unexpected courtesy from Pilate, with whom he was invariably at loggerheads. Herod moreover was full of curiosity to know more about this Jesus of Nazareth, not only because of an earlier superstitious belief that this might be John the Baptist risen from the dead (Mk.6 :16), but also because of the wild rumours which were already rife in the city about an astonishing miracle wrought by this man even whilst under arrest the night before.

This new development also offered to the sensual, jaded king the possibility of some fresh diversion: “He hoped to see some sign done by him”. What sign?—the healing of his own vice-ridden body? But to this evil and adulterous man there was to be no sign given save the sign of the prophet Jonah (Mt.12 :39,40).

Meantime in an anteroom the chief priests, sent by Pilate as counsel for the prosecution, were gnawing their fingers with vexation and anxiety, fearing (because of Mk.6 :20) that they might lose their victim. When at length they were given access to the king (contrast Jn. 18:28), the very vehemence of their accusations must have made Herod suspect that this case was not just what they represented it to be. Besides, he was too shrewd a man to risk giving offence needlessly to any section of Jewish opinion. So he resolved not to become entangled in the affair at all.

Even so, there was no reason why he should not contrive a little entertainment from this unusual situation. So he and his courtiers proceeded to indulge in buffoonery of the crudest sort. They attempted all kinds of mockery against this silent man before them. But at length, wearying of it, Herod sent the prisoner back to Pilate. At the last moment, however, he consummated his clowning with a rare flash of inspiration. Unfastening the magnificent robe he was wearing, he flung it about the shoulders of Jesus and bade the guard return him thus to the governor.

The word “gorgeous” which Luke employs to describe the robe is one which is elsewhere used of the bright raiment of angels and of the fine linen,clean and white, of glorified saints. Maybe it was something like the “royal apparel” —a sequin-covered robe, according to Josephus —in which another Herod was arrayed on that fatal day some years later when he was acclaimed by the adulatory mob as “god and not man.” In any case there was a marvellously appropriate, though unconscious, prophecy about his action. It is not difficult to imagine the look, first of astonishment and then of grim humour, on Pilate’s face when he beheld his prisoner returned to him arrayed like a King of the Jews, in dazzling raiment proclaiming his innocence.

The maneuver of sending Jesus to Herod, whilst not as completely successful as he had hoped, was not unhelpful. “The rulers had taken counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed” (Acts 4 :26,27), and accordingly “that same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together.”

Notes: Mk. 15:1-5

1.	Took counsel. Gk, aorist probably implies nothing long drawn- out.
	Led away. It has been suggested that Jesus was now in a state of semi-collapse, and had to be carried. The Greek apenengkan (Mk.15 :1) could readily mean this. But Lk.23 :1 has “led, or brought”, the same Gk. word as in ls.53;7LXX.
3.	Many things. Implies that at their next opportunity they added other accusations.
4,5.	Answered nothing. The Gk. is very emphatic.

Lk.23:1-12

5.	They were the more fierce. Literally: “the more strong” or perhaps “overpowering” (and Pilate became the more weak).
7.	Sent (v. 11,15) implies “sent as to a superior;” e.g. Acts 25 :21.
10.	Vehemently accused him. Gk: literally, “well stretched-out”, i.e. full blast. The only other occurrences: Acts 18:28; Josh.6:8; Ecc.7:7.
11.	Mocked him. Esau getting his own back on Jacob! — Herod was an Edomite.
	The details of this incident (Lk.23 :8-12) must surely have come from an eyewitness (cp. Mk.6 :14-29; and see Lk.8:3).

Jn.18:28-38

35.	What hast thou done? And to this question the reader has to supply his own reply: Many a miracle of compassion!
36.	This world. Here again kosmos may be used with reference to the Jewish world; cp.7:4; 12 :19; 16:8,11; 18 :20.
37.	Thou sayest. For interpretation compare Mt.26:64 and Lk.22:70 with Mk. 14 :62.
	The Truth. Out of a tremendous number of passages which relate to this idea the following may be considered: Gen.24:27;32:10; Ex.34 :6; 2 Sam.2.-6; 15:20; Ps.31 :5; 40:10,11; 69:13; 89:14; 91:4; 132:11; Micah7:20.

The instruction of Jesus to his disciples to acquire a sword is one of the most perplexing in the whole range of the gospels. The words have been quoted as evidence that it is right and proper for the servants of Christ to fight. That such is not their meaning is easily demonstrable. From that point of view, the passage need be only small cause for anxiety. For:

1. Very shortly afterwards Jesus declared that “they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Mt.26:52); and “my kingdom is not of this world, else would my servants fight” (Jn.18 :36).
2. The whole demeanour and example of Jesus refutes any such understanding of the words.
3. The reply of the disciples: “Lord, here are two swords”, together with his comment: “It is enough,” should be sufficient to show that equipment for literal fighting was not intended, for what would be the use of two swords among eleven men?

But what precisely did Jesus mean? To show what he did not mean presents little difficulty, but the same can hardly be said about the positive interpretation. The words have been interpreted in at least five different ways.

	1.	The swords were intended as a defence against wild beasts which might be encountered in the course of the missionary travels of the disciples. There is a double difficulty here. Firstly, there seems to be little in the context to suggest that such an idea might be in the mind of Jesus. Secondly, the immediate reason given for buying a sword is: “For . . . this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors’—a reason which has no possible connection with wild beasts.
	2.	A second view is based on an ingenious re-translation of the passage: “Let him take his purse, and likewise his scrip (i.e. wallet for food, or—just possibly—a collecting bag); and he that hath no sword (to sell, that he might buy a wallet), let him sell his cloak and buy one (i.e. a wallet)”. But, again, all the difficulty of harmonizing with the context, as already mentioned, still has to be met. How would the disciples be accounted “transgressors” by such a policy? And there is also the further problem as to why Jesus should specify precisely the selling of a sword. Why not, for example, sell fishing gear or household furniture?
	3.	Whereas each of the two suggestions mentioned hitherto foundered on the unsuitability of the context, the next to be considered gains all its strength from the context.
		It is suggested that Jesus wished his disciples to be equipped with swords at that particular time only, precisely in order that in a few hour’s time (or less) when he was arrested in Gethsemane, they would be tempted to use their weapons in his defence, and so the prophecy would have literal fulfilment “He was numbered with the transgressors.” It is further pointed out that for this purpose two swords would be “enough”. But there are big objections to be urged. First, and sufficient in itself, is the moral difficulty: Would Jesus deliberately lead his disciples into temptation in this way? Second, with one exception (for which there was particular reason), Jesus did not go out of his way to ensure the fulfilment of various odd fragments of Old Testament prophecy. When prophecy was fulfilled in him, such fulfilment came about “naturally”, and not at all as a result of his own careful devising.
	4.	Another possibility is to take this saying as spoken entirely in an ironical vein, as who should say: ‘You went out before on your preaching mission with full faith and confidence in me who sent you. But now that faith is at its lowest, your present inclination is to rely on yourselves; you would rather depend on your own strength and resources. Well, go ahead and try it. You will achieve -nothing except to gain a name as malefactors, and make me a transgressor, by reputation, along with you.’ The incipient effort to defend Jesus from arrest, and later Peter’s wrong-headed reliance on his own ability to look after himself at the high-priest’s palace, certainly chime in well with this point of view, as also does the somewhat sardonic: “It is enough” in reply to their “Lord, here are two swords.” The fact that some of them were already equipped for fighting showed that Jesus’ assessment of their frame of mind was an accurate one.
	5.	There remains now the suggestion that almost the entire passage is to be taken in a figurative sense, that Jesus was not intending to be taken literally. Consider, first, the following examples in which “the sword” is obviously a metaphor for the Word of God:
		a.	“He hath made my mouth like a sharp sword” (ls.49:2).
		b.	“Out of his mouth went a sharp, two-edged sword” (Rev. 1 :16).
		c.	“I will come . . .and fight against them with the spirit of my mouth” (Rev.2 :16).
		d.	“The sword of the spirit, which is the word of God”(Eph.6:17).

Further, the garment or cloak is in several places mentioned as a hindrance to direct energetic action:

1. “The witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of…Saul” (Ads 7:58).
2. Bartimaeus, “casting away his garment, rose (RV: sprang up), and came to Jesus” (Mk.lO:50).
3. Peter “stretched out his hand (the words imply that it was hindered by a cloak), and drew his sword” (Mt.26:51).

Taking the words of Jesus in this figurative sense, then, he is to be understood as sayinq: ‘Hitherto you have led a comparatively sheltered existence as my disciples. But now that I am to be rejected and crucified and my name execrated by all, your experience will be vastly different. Instead you will be reckoned as transgressors, and punished as such, for the servant is not greater than his lord. So, prepare for a strenuous time of difficulty and hardship; rid yourselves of all spiritual hindrances, and perfect your mastery of the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, for there will be much contending for the faith.’

That Jesus may have meant his words in some such figurative sense seems to be supported by the context.

a.	When his words were taken in a baldly literal sense: “Lord, here are two swords”, the rather curt reply was: “It is enough”, as who should say: ‘Enough of this matter; I see that you do not understand me.’ For such an interpretation of the phrase, reference might be made to the parallel experience of Moses and Elijah: “But the Lord was wroth with me for your sakes, and would not hear me (i.e. his plea that he might enter the land) and the Lord said unto me, “Let it suffice thee (the Greek version here is almost identical with Lk.22 :38); speak no more unto me of this matter” (Dt.3 :26). “It is enough; now, O Lord, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers” (1 Kgs.l9:4).
	It is possible that Jesus was at this time almost reduced to despair by the spiritual obtuseness of his disciples.
	The closeness of the parallel with Elijah is not without point. For Elijah slept and rose, and on the third day began his forty days journey in miraculous strength to the mount of God. In like fashion Jesus rose the third day in divine power and on the fortieth day found himself in the very presence of God.
b.	“For the things concerning me have an end.” The phrase is usually taken to mean: ‘all prophecy concerning me must be fulfilled.’ This might well be the meaning. But another very different view is possible. “And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end”, i.e. comes to nought, is destroyed (Mk.3 :26).
	If similar significance be given to these other words of Jesus, they mean: ‘All I have striven for is in ruins, for even you, my chosen disciples, seem hardly at all to understand and appreciate my teaching.’
	Such a view is possible, but cannot be pressed.
	The chief difficulty which this fifth (figurative) interpretation encounters is that the opening words of Jesus are certainly as literal as they could well be: “When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes lacked ye anything?”
	Yet this objection is not fatal, for there is no lack of passages of scripture where the literal switches suddenly to the figurative, and vice versa; e.g. “And there shall be signs in the sun and in the moon and in the stars (figurative); upon the earth distress of nations with perplexity (literal); the sea and the waves roaring (figurative); men’s heart’s failing them for fear” (literal) (Lk.21 :25,26).
	It would seem, then, that there is fair Biblical evidence for the view that the counsel of Jesus to “buy a sword” was a hyperbolic way of exhorting to spiritual fitness and preparedness, rather like the nautical metaphor: “Clear the decks for action.”

The most important of all questions concerning Jesus in Gethsemane still remains to be considered. Why should he even come to the point of ever wishing to avoid the tribulation of the cross? Doing the will of his Father had been his meat and drink all his days (Jn.4 :34). In all things he sought not his own will but the will of the Father which sent him (Jn.5 :30). Then why now the reluctance to “finish his work”? Over the centuries scores of martyrs have endured horrible gruesome treatment because of their faith, and have not shrunk from the ordeal. Then why does their Master appear to be so different? It is a problem that calls for answer.

That physical fear was the cause may be immediately discounted. The man who could face calmly a storm at sea such as terrified experienced sailors, the man who never flinched before violent lunatics, the man who was unperturbed by a mob intent on lynching him— such a man was not likely to quail in cowardice at the prospect of crucifixion, horrible though he knew it must be.

It is to the Messianic Scriptures, more subjective than the gospels in their poignant detail of his agony, that one must turn for answer to this question. They suggest several distinct lines of approach to a problem of unequalled importance and concern to all who associate Gethsemane with their own salvation.

Without God

It is possible, for example, to appreciate that Jesus would view the prospect of crucifixion with a revulsion amounting almost to fear because death would mean deprivation of God. This is indicated by Psalm 6, which Jesus appropriated for himself on three separate occasions (v.8=Mt.7 :23; 25:41; v.3=Jn.12 :27): “Return, O Lord, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies’ sake. For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?”

Hezekiah, another outstanding Old Testament type of Jesus, used the same plea that he might be saved from death: “For the grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day” (ls.38 :18,19).

Here, then, is a wholly adequate reason why Jesus feared to die. For him, even more than for David or Hezekiah, death meant utter separation from God, a deprivation of every opportunity of praise and communion, and instead a horror of great darkness.

An open shame

Next, scrutiny of Psalm 69 yields further light on this difficult investigation. Again, the validity of the Messianic application can hardly be questioned (v.9=Jn.2:17; Rom.15:3; v.25=Acts 1 :20; v.4 = Jn.!5 :25; v.21=Mt.27 :34; Jn.19 :29; the fitness of many other details will be immediately evident):

“Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord God of hosts, be ashamed for my sake; let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. Because for thy sake I have borne ‘reproach; shame hath covered my face.. .When I wept, and chastened my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonour: mine adversaries are all before thee. Reproach hath broken my heart, and I am full of heaviness” (v.6,7,10,19,20).

This prayer for succour sprang from a sense of the shame inseparable from the afflictions described. Of all forms of death devised by perverted human ingenuity, crucifixion is outstanding for its shamefulness. Socrates drank hemlock with dignity. King Charles 1 was kingly even as he laid his head on the block. Many an aristo was able to meet Madame Guillotine with customary imperturbability and elegance. But the long lingering humiliation of crucifixion has no parallel. And it was this which Jesus was called upon to endure in full measure. Well might his sensitive spirit recoil from it. “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting” (Is.50:6).

The Epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes the degradation of Christ in similar terms: “He endured the cross, despising the shame” (Heb.12 :2). To crucify the Son of God afresh is to “put him to an open shame” (6:6).

Time and again the Psalms of Messiah couple this aspect of his sufferings with the apparent triumph of wrong over right and the spiteful jubilation of vindictive enemies against slandered innocence:

“Judge me, O Lord my God, according to thy righteousness; and let them not rejoice over me. Let them not say in their hearts, Ah, so would we have it: let them not say, We have swallowed him up”(Ps.35:24,25).

“Consider and hear me, O Lord my God: lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death; lest mine enemy say, I have prevailed against him; and those that trouble me rejoice when I am moved” (Ps.13:3,4).

“O Lord my God, if I have done this; if there be iniquity in my hands; If I have rewarded evil unto him that was at peace with me; (yea, I have delivered him that without cause is mine enemy); let the enemy persecute my soul, and take it; yea, let him tread down my life upon the earth, and lay mine honour in the dust” (Ps.7:3-5).

The burden of sin

There are yet other aspects of the Lord’s cup of suffering which call for reconsideration.

Psalm 69, quoted earlier concerning Jesus, has also these words: “O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee” (v.5). This is no isolated passage. Other Messianic prophecies raise the same problem.

“For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me” (Ps.40 :12; note that v.6-8 = Heb.10 :5-9).

“I said, Lord, be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee” (Ps.41 :4; here v.9=Jn.13:18).

“My strength faileth because of mine iniquity” (Ps.31 :10; here v.5 = Lk.23 :46).

“I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him” (Mic.7 :9; andv.6=Lk.12:53).

The problem posed by such Scriptures is considerable. Solution of the difficulty has been attempted in three different ways:

1. These Scriptures are not true prophecies of Messiah at all. Bits of them are appropriated in the New Testament where the sentiments expressed happen to suit the present purpose or circumstance—as a modern writer might adorn his work with a quote from Gray’s “Elegy”. This approach abandons the authority (and therefore the inspiration) of the New Testament as an interpreter of the Old Testament.
2. Another shift is to accept the Psalm as a prophecy of Christ with the solitary exception of the difficult verse. This device is just as unsatisfactory. It makes the interpretation of Holy Scripture entirely subjective, dependent on the whim of the individual student.
3. It is possible to read these passages as expressions of the imputed guilt of Christ by virtue of his close identification with the race of sinners whom he came to save. Many other Scriptures involve the same or a similar principle: Dan.9 :3-25; Neh.1 :6,7; Ps. 106:6;Josh.7:land22:20,18;lChr.l5:13 and 21 :13; Ezra 9 :6; 2 Sam.21 :1; Lev.4 :3 and 26 :40; Rom.3 :22 and 5 :12; Mt. 23 :35,36; ls.59 :8,9; Acts 9 :4 etc., etc.

The third of these interpretations offers least difficulty.

The suggestion has been advanced—and who can doubt it?—that when Scripture says: “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,” it is enunciating an absolute truth that, in some mysterious way which can at best be only dimly realised, the sins of those who benefit from the sacrifice of Christ did in a very real sense add to the burden he had to bear. It is possible that in the inscrutable purpose of an almighty timeless God even the sins committed now from day to day—and the sins of next week—add retrospectively to the great burden of guilt which the Son of God bore as he “bowed beneath the sins of men … in sad Gethsemane.”

Dereliction?

Psalm 31 quoted earlier, has much to say about the psychology of Jesus in the time of his adversity, and thus suggests another line of investigation. The last words of Jesus on the cross come from this psalm: “Into thy hand I commend my spirit;” and the words that follow are marvellously apt as the first utterance of the Risen Christ: “Thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth.”

Three times this psalm alludes to the shame of the cross (v.1,11,17). But another element in the suffering of Christ also comes into prominence: “I said in my haste (RVm: my alarm), I am cut off from before thine eyes” (v.22). This finds an immediate parallel in the familiar words of Psalm 22 :1, recited by Jesus when on the cross: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”?

The inference seems to follow that on the cross Jesus experienced an abandonment by his Father so complete and awful as to wring from him this agonized cry of helpless misery. And it has been further inferred that it was the prospect of this dereliction from which Jesus shrank; hence his prayer: “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.”

Nevertheless, whatever this “forsaking” was, which Psalms 22 and 31 envisage as the Messiah’s expectation, // did not happen*. Psalm 22 :24 is explicit on this point: “For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.” Another Messianic Psalm says the same thing: “In my distress I called upon the Lord, and cried unto my God; and he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears” (Ps.18 :6). The heavenly answer actually came even whilst Jesus hung on the cross; see Study 228. And if it was true of the first Jesus-Joshua that “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Josh.l :5, quoted with emphatic negatives in Heb.13 :5), it must have been at least equally true of the second.

The apparent contradiction is resolved by due emphasis on the word: “I said in my haste (or, my alarm),”

It would seem, then, that this forsaking of the Messiah, leaving him in utter desolation, was an experience which did not actually happen but which nevertheless seemed real enough at the time, being a consequence of the natural infirmity of the human mind, which Jesus himself undoubtedly shared, yet without sin.

Other psalms express this idea very clearly: “Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency . . . When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me; until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end . . Thus my heart was grieved, and I was pricked in my reins” (Ps.73 :13,16,17,21).

“Unless the Lord had been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence. When I said, my foot slippeth; thy mercy, O Lord, held me up. In the multitude of my thoughts (RVm: doubts) within me, thy comforts delight my soul” (Ps.94 :17-19).

This sense of being bereft of all help and guidance, this feeling of despair and futility, is one which all believers experience in some degree. It would be strange indeed if the Son of God, born to save frail human nature by sharing in its burden, were to be exempt from this most characteristic trial of human nature.

The connection between this kind of temporary spiritual blackout and low physical condition is familiar enough. So it would be surprising if Jesus did not experience something akin to this. Gethsemane came at the end of a week of incessant appeal, argument, rebuke, and instruction, a week which was itself the culmination of a sustained campaign of preaching in many parts of the country such as no other man could possibly have undertaken. It is only because Jesus was physically worn out that it was possible for him to reach a point when he could pray: “Let this cup pass from me.” Did not the other great temptation also come when he must have been near the point of physical exhaustion, after fasting in the wilderness for forty days? So it was only thus that there would come to him, whose meat and drink it was to do the will of the Father, a time when “Thy will” and “my will” could be mentioned in the same sentence.

“Fearfulness and trembling are come upon me, and horror hath overwhelmed me. And I said, Oh that I had wings like a dove! for then would I fly away, and be at rest. Lo, then would I wander far off, and remain in the wilderness. I would hasten my escape from the windy storm and tempest” (Ps.55:5-8).

There is a suggestion here of utter weariness, of inability to continue the struggle any longer, and of desperate longing for rest and relaxation. Every long-distance runner has known the tremendous temptation to ease up from the intolerable strain on lungs and limbs and muscles. Or, again, those who have borne the exhaustion and discomfort, the utter weakness and weariness, of a long and severe illness know how this can wear away one’s spiritual stamina. It is difficult to imagine that Jesus, who shared so many of the infirmities of human nature, did not know this same exhaustion of body and spirit which in many instances has been the irresistible prelude to the complete collapse of morale.

Psalm 55 goes on to suggest that the last straw, the crowning humiliation and disappointment, was that he should be betrayed by “his own familiar friend, in whom he trusted”:

“For it was not an enemy that reproached me: then I could have borne it; neither was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me; then I would have hid myself from him: but it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance. We took sweet counsel together, and walked unto the house of God in company” 12-14).

Failure?

This special discouragement has close association with another aspect of the Lord’s reluctance to tread the hard road from Gethsemane to Golgotha.

It would appear that Jesus was utterly depressed by the almost complete lack of response to his appeal to the Jewish nation. The large crowds had dwindled away. Their enthusiasm was for miracles rather than the message. Even the one recent demonstration, at the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, had sprung from an expectation of immediate inauguration of a new Kingdom of Israel, and not from repentance, not out of an understanding that Jesus was the Son of God, not from appreciation that he was riding into Jerusalem to die and not to reign. Many had “gone back and walked no more with him.” And even those dose to him added discouragement by their lack of insight and understanding. At this moment, even as he prayed for wisdom and strength of purpose, they disregarded his appeal, and slept and slept again. Then why should he die, and die so miserably? What good purpose would be served by his enduring such shame and torture as crucifixion must inevitably involve?

Such a point of view is suggested by two remarkable Scriptures, both of which were surely much in the mind of Jesus at this time.

The Messianic content of Isaiah 49 does not need to be demonstrated or expounded in detail. In addition to direct quotation (v.2 = Rev. 1 :16; v.6 = Acts 13 :47; v.8 = 2 Cor.6 :2; v.10 = Rev. 7 :16), its phraseology constantly re-appears in different parts of the New Testament with reference to Jesus. Verse 4 pictures the Servant of Jehovah in a mood of deep despondency: “I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain.” But immediately there comes reassurance from the Almighty Himself: “And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again unto him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength. Yea, he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles that thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of the earth” (v.4-6).

Here is a more than adequate reason for the “heaviness” of Jesus in Gethsemane. In spite of all his efforts, Israel showed no sign of being gathered by the Shepherd of Israel. His appeal made no impression on hearts of stone. Then to what purpose his suffering and death? Was not both discouragement and despair evinced by his words: “It is enough” (Lk.22 :38)? How like Elijah when he was oppressed with a sense of complete failure! (1 Kgs.19:4).

The answer from God was an angel from heaven strengthening him with the assurance that his work and travail, far from being futile, were to achieve not only the spiritual restoration of Israel, but also the regeneration of Gentiles, near and far.

“I will give thee for a light of the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of the earth . . . In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee, and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people to establish the earth (or, restore the Land), to cause to inherit the desolate heritages . . .” (v.6,8). Perhaps this explains the “Abba, Father” in the prayer Jesus offered. Paul has “Jew-Gentile context in his use of the same double address (Rom.8 :15; Gal.4 :6).

Doubtless it was by Scriptures such as this that the angel imparted strength to a faltering Servant of Jehovah. But to be a “covenant of the people” must require a sacrificial death, even though ultimately he was to be “glorious in the eyes of the Lord,” as well as before His glorified people. And this was to be accomplished in “an acceptable time’—the Hebrew word has frequent association with sacrifice, and also special connection with Passover and the Day of Atonement. Only thus could the Scripture be fulfilled and the gracious Purpose furthered.

Again, Psalm 116 has the same theme. It is a psalm of “the Servant of Jehovah,” one who was “the son of thine handmaid” (v.16) and who had testified faithfully on God’s behalf: “I believed, and therefore have I spoken” (v.10; and note the application of these words in 2 Cor.4 :13-true of Jesus, and his gospel; see v.10,11). But the testimony had met only discouragement: “I was greatly afflicted: I said in my haste “All men are liars” (v.10,11). That word “haste” (RVm: alarm) expresses apprehension (Ps.31 :22;48 :5; 104 :7; Dt.20 :3; 2 Sam.4 :4; 1 Sam.23 :26).So here once again the rejection of Messiah’s message and claims appears to be adequate reason for thrusting aside the cup of suffering. But it was not to be avoided. He was a sacrifice bound with cords to the horns of the altar (Ps.118 :27): “The cords of death (LXX: pangs of death; cp. Acts 2 :24 RV) compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow. Then called I upon the name of the Lord, O Lord, I beseech thee, deliver my soul” (v.3,4).

Nevertheless, in spite of all hardship and discouragement, “I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord. I will pay my vows unto the Lord now in the presence of all his people. Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints,” (Ps. 116:12-15) and of this Holy One especially.

So, probably, it was by such reinforcement of spirit that “the Son of man was made strong” by God for Himself.

But without such Scripture and without an angel from heaven, what might not have happened?

The recurrence of the phrase: “I said in my haste (or, alarm)”, already noted in Ps.31 :22 (and compare Ps.77 :10; “I said, This is my infirmity”) indicates that the feeling of utter failure, like the momentary sense of desolation and dereliction on the cross, was psychological—real enough in his mind, yet not true in fact. Whilst Psalm 22 :24 is emphatic that Jesus was never forsaken by his Father, it is conceivable that there would be a time when the impression of being forsaken was vivid enough to him. Similarly it would be possible for the mind of Jesus to be temporarily overwhelmed by a shattering sense of futility and defeat even at the very time when angels in heaven were marvelling at the wonder of his complete self-consecration.

Many a weary patient has despaired of restoration to health after the actual crisis has been safely passed. Soldiers have often despaired of victory at the very time when, unperceived by themselves, the hostile forces in another part of the field were already reeling back. Many a cross-country runner has plodded wearily and unhopefully on, miserably unaware that the stamina of his opponent was on the point of cracking under the long drawn-out strain.

It is surely neither irreverent nor inaccurate so to think of the conflict of Jesus as the sweat gathered on his brow in Gethsemane.

Summary

Why was Jesus Brought to his knees with the prayer: “Let this cup pass from me”?

If a bald summary be attempted, the various aspects of his tribulation in the garden include— so the Old Testament Scriptures suggest — the following:

a.	a natural human revulsion from suffering and death.
b.	the utter deprivation of fellowship with his Father, which would inevitably ensue with the oblivion of death.
c.	the shame of crucifixion.
d.	the burden of guilt when “the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
e.	the “forsaking” by his Father which, though not a fact, was psychologically real enough.
f.	complete exhaustion of physical strength and spiritual stamina

And especially:

g.	a sense of failure in his mission; a feeling that, since his message was already rejected, there was little to be achieved by his death as a sacrifice for sins.

It is idle to stress any one of these to the exclusion of the rest. That they all had their part can hardly be doubted. Let each in turn provoke a sense of wonder and deep thankfulness.

After its first few sentences, all the rest of this prayer of Jesus centred on his disciples, so it may be taken as fairly certain that even the earlier petitions on his own behalf were really with them in mind, for it was only through himself that eternal life and the glory of the Father could come to them. He had been unremitting in his efforts to educate them in this truth: “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.” That expression: “Thou gavest them me” comes six times in this prayer! (v.6twice,9,11,12,24).

The Name

The allusions to Moses come through clearly here (see Study 205). The “name” of the Lord declared to Moses (Ex.34 :6,7) was declared by him to the people, just as the glory of the Lord also was visible in him in a truly awe-inspiring fashion (34 :29-35). And as the men of Levi, unexpectedly loyal to their leader and reacting sharply from the sin of the golden calf, were assigned a perpetual loyalty to the sanctuary of the Lord (Dt.33 :8-10), so also now the disciples given to Jesus as his necessary helpers, had hung on in their loyalty to him against all, discouragements.

Jesus had both “manifested” the Name of God (v.6) and “declared” Him (v.26). The former word nearly always implies theophany, the latter means “made known” through his teaching. The “Name” he manifested was, of course, much more than the divine Covenant Name or other cognomen. As with Moses in the mount, the Name of the Lord now declared by Jesus was His character and attributes and purpose. “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth (the fulfilment of His promises), keeping mercy for thousands (very probably means “for a thousand generations”; Ex.20 :6RVm), forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Ex.34 :6,7). It may be doubted whether at this time the apostles appreciated that their Jesus was to be the vehicle of such surpassing grace, but in due time the Spirit of truth illuminated their understanding very remarkably.

“They have known^”

Given to Jesus by the Father, they “kept” his word and became the staunch custodians of his teaching. Here again is yet another aspect of the inescapable paradox woven into so much of the teaching of John’s gospel. Given by the Father-this is election-but keeping their Master’s word is only by personal decision and act of will.

“Now they have come to know that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.” Throughout the past three years there had been plenty of occasions when their confidence in him had faltered, times enough when devotion had been clouded by mystification; yet they had held on, unable to define clearly the grounds of their conviction about him, but unwilling to let go.

It seems not unlikely that the past tenses used by the Lord in his prayer concerning his disciples were so used by anticipation of the greater consolidation of faith which came to them later on. The very words spoken by the Father to His Son (Dt.18 :16,18) were now spoken to them by Jesus, “and they received them’—at this time only in a limited sense; the “receiving” of the inner meaning of their Lord’s instruction would be theirs in due course. “They have known surely that I came forth from thee, and they believed that thou didst send me.” It may be doubted whether at this moment the apostles had grasped as a literal fact that Jesus was the Son of God, born of a virgin (8 :42). And the sense in which he was “sent” would naturally be interpreted by them in the light of his word about themselves: “As thou hast sent me unto the world, even so have I also sent them into the world” (v.18). But the full realisation of the person and work of Jesus would necessarily come to them after the resurrection, after Pentecost.

There is a marvellous exclusiveness about this petition of Jesus for his own: “I pray for them: I pray not for the world” (cp. Mt.10:32). Once again it was the Jewish world which he reprobated. He had come unto his own, and his own received him not (astonishing understatement!). And as long as Israel gave him only a stubborn rejection, “pray not for this people” was the mandate God laid upon him (Jer.11:14;cp. 1Jn.5:19).

So all his concern was centred on these humble inadequate men given him by his Father—’for they are thine: and all mine are thine, and thine are mine.” Once again the paradox shouts for resolution: if this be so emphatically true, why the need for this most intense insistent prayer? But the Book supplies no answer. To the unbeliever this is foolishness, to the man of God it is faith, and thus the Son of God is glorified in him.

How well Jesus knew the frailty of these to whom he was to commit so much. There might well be grounds for concern how they would fare without him: “I am no more in the world, but these are in the world (that hostile Jewish world of entrenched privilege, religious distortion, and consolidated prejudice). Holy Father (the one who prays thus is a High Priest entering into a Holy of Holies),… Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me.”

The unique mode of address used by Jesus here is a measure of the intensification of his emotion and earnestness. In such an environment as the disciples would find themselves, how could they hope to keep their heads above water without having “everlasting arms” to support them and without a wisdom far beyond their own?

The exact equivalent of this prayer (v. 11) is to be found in an impressive Messianic psalm: “Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord God of hosts, be ashamed for my sake; let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel” (69 :6). And another psalm which includes a moving passage about Judas (55:12-14)ends on this note: “Cast upon the Lord that which he has given thee, and he shall sustain thee” (55 :22). In his protracted intercession for those given him by the Father, Jesus expressed the spirit of this psalm perfectly.

The son of perdition

His own concern and vigilance for the twelve had been unremitting: “While I was with them, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept (NEB: kept them safe), and none of them perished, but the son of perdition.” The implications here are very striking. If the twelve were “given” to Jesus by the Father, it must mean that there was direct divine guidance in their selection, a guidance imparted in the course of a whole night spent in prayer about them (Lk.6:12).

Judas was one of those “given” by the Father, yet he became “a son of loss.” Then what did John mean by his earlier declaration that “Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him” (6:64)? Perhaps this should betaken to mean that Jesus knew (from the Old Testament) that the traitor must be one of the inner circle of his disciples.

The added phrase: “that the scripture might be fulfilled,” lends support to this. “Let his days be few, and let another take his office” (Ps.109 :8; and cp. Ps.55 :12-14; 41 :9; 35:12-14).

In this specific example of Judas the earlier paradox reasserts itself. “Given to Jesus by the Father” would seem to imply the inevitability of salvation, Nevertheless Judas perished. Indeed, Jesus spoke of him as already perished (the RV reading is correct), although still competent for the evil work of betrayal. Here once again is the Johannine idiom (learnt from Jesus?). “He that loveth not his Brother abideth in death” (1 Jn. 3:14).

The ground for this prayer on behalf of the disciples was now repeated: “And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world (he surely meant ‘concerning the world—the next few verses seem to demand this meaning), that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.” This repetition of the word “fulfilled” suggests allusion to another Scripture to be fulfilled, probably to Psalm 16 :11: “Thou wilt shew me the path of life; in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand (“I come to thee”) there are pleasures for evermore” (but see also Zeph. 3:17;ls.29:19;51:ll;66:5). Here immediately after a clear prophecy of his resurrection, is a dear prophecy of his ascension. It is to be recalled, also, that just before this prayer Jesus had been making his promise to send the Spirit of truth from the Father (16:7; 15:26; 14:26).

Concern for the disciples

The benefit of the disciples as the spring and source of this prayer had already been copiously emphasized in his earlier words to them. It is worthwhile to bring the passages together, in order to get the full effect of the Lord’s concern for his weak unsure followers:

“Now I tell you before it come, that when it (the betrayal) is come to pass ye may believe that I am he” (13:19).

“And now I have told you before it (the ascension) come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe” (14:29).

“These things (the warning of persecution, and the comfort of the Holy Spirit) have I spoken unto you that ye should not be offended” (16:1).

“But these things (the hostility of the rulers) have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you” (16:4).

“These things (about the new commandment) have I spoken unto you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be fulfilled” (15:11).

“These things (his and their relationship to the Father) have I spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace” (16:33).

For all the hardship which hung over him, Jesus could hardly have shown greater solicitude for his followers and less for himself than by the long and intense sequence of petitions which he offered for them: “I have given them thy word; and the world hated them (cause and effect? 15 :18,19), because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (why this immediate repetition?). The world referred to was, once again, the Mosaic system and the unspiritual men associated with it; and the evil he sought their deliverance from was the danger of their being sucked back into compliance with an entrenched self-interest which his sacrifice must bring to an end.

Sent into “the world”

This part of the prayer has a close affinity with the assurance spoken to Peter a short while before: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan (the Jewish adversary—the “world”) hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Lk.22 :31,32).

If they were true followers, they could expect their own experience to match his own. “As thou didst send me into the world, even so have I sent them into the world” (v.18). This can hardly have reference to the earlier, rather brief, mission they had carried out some months before. It must be about the great work of preaching which they were to undertake after his ascension. But it is not easy to see why a past tense should be used here (cp. 4 :38), unless indeed this prayer was actually offered just before the ascension.

He prayed that their self-denying consecration to an evangelizing mission might match his own: “For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth . . . Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (v. 19,17).

This “truth”, as in so many places in the Old Testament, alluded to the mighty promises of God which centred in himself. Indeed, the key phrase here was a quotation of king David’s thankful response to the great Messianic promise made to him through Nathan: “Thy words are truth, and thou hast promised this goodness unto thy servant” (2 Sam.7 :28). In the days to come it would be a firm conviction of the immutability of that promise and of its sure fulfilment in Christ which would keep these frail men constant and courageous in their ministry—this, and heaven’s response to their Master’s prayer.

Thus they were launched on their mission— “sent into the world’—even as their Master had himself been “sent into the world” from the time of his baptism by John.

Notes: Jn. 17:6-19

12.	Those that thou gavest me I have kept; an allusion to Ex.23? cp. 1 Pet. 1:2,5.
	Perdition; s.w. Mt. 26:8. Judas was the only one of the twelve who reckoned his discipleship a loss.
13.	I speak in the world. Alternative meaning: ‘through the apostles and their witness.’
17.	Thy truth: the Promises: e.g. Gen.24:27; 32:10; Ex.34 :6; Ps.31 :5; 40:10,11; 89:14; 132 :11; Mic. 7:20.
	Sanctify them through… thy word; cp. Ex.19:14; Eph. 5:26.

The Lord’s intercession now widened in scope to include the whole family of believers: “Neither pray I for these alone (the apostles), but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.” There is plain implication here of a preaching mission for which, at present, his disciples were very ill-equipped. But he had already repeatedly assured them that all their inadequacy would be made good by the Spirit of truth. The present participle here (translated “shall believe,” in the AV) is somewhat unexpected: “those who are believing.” But at the time he spoke, his apostles were not active missionaries. Yet the next few verses have ever been read with reference to the whole community of believers, “that they may be one, even as we are.”

This is not the only example here of the unexpected in tenses—have finished (v.4), have kept (v.6), have known surely (v.8), I am glorified (v.10), I come (v.ll), perished (v.12), I come, I speak (v.13), hated (v.U), I sent (v.18), thou gavest, I have given (v.22), I am, hast given (v.24), have tribulation, have overcome {16 :33).

“^:*V The phenomenon, traceable also elsewhere in the Lord’s discourses in John, has been glossed over by students of this gospel. Has any coherent explanation of it ever been forthcoming?

That they may be one”

The existence of this verbal idiosyncracy has never hindered any devout reader of this prayer from a clear appreciation of the profound far-reaching character of its petition: “that they all may be one; as thou art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us.” This is the second of four times (v.11,21,22,23). The repetition is a measure of the high importance set by Jesus on the unity of true believers.

He had set the ideal before the disciples in the sharing of the Bread and the Wine—an ideal which an anxious apostle was one day to strive desperately to impart to partisan Corinthians: “seeing that there is one loaf, we—the many-are one body” (see RVm of 1 Cor.10 :17). “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ (1 Cor. 12:12). Yet there have been times enough when it would seem that the Lord prayed for his own in vain. Would it have been any better had that prayer been offered forty times instead of four?

The ideal became reality in the earliest days of the church: “The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul” (Acts 4 :32). But even then it did not last. Soon there was “a murmuring of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews” (6 :1). And it was not long before “certain men . . . taught the brethren, except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (15 :1).

Nor has the Truth in Christ fared any better in the twentieth century. Depressed and discouraged, many a disciple has often wondered to what purpose the words were ever said—or read! : “that they may be one, even as we are one.” So there were prayers of Jesus (Mt.26 :39 and Ps. 35 :13 are others) which even divine omnipotence could not and cannot respond to!

What a powerful contrast there is here with the familiar words spoken in Eden: “Behold, the man is become as one of us—to know good and evil” (3 :22). That was a one-ness of the wrong sort—equality of a kind, without fellowship, a human will asserting its independence of its Maker. For his disciples Jesus sought a mending of this discord: “I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one.” Several other phrases in this prayer seem to echo Genesis: “the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (v.5); “they have kept thy word” (v.6); “keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me” (v.11); “that thou shouldest keep them from the evil (one)” (v.15); “the glory which thou hast given me … before the foundation of the world” (v.24).

“Perfected into one” is a phrase which makes amends for all present disappointments, for it implies ultimate achievement of what, in this day of small things (and small people) seems to be hopelessly out of reach.

Somewhat unexpectedly, Jesus no less than four (five?) times made this supplication with the word ”one” in a neuter form—to match the word “spirit” (implied?) The oneness of his prayer is that so succinctly expressed by Paul: “One body, one Spirit . . . one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph.4 :4-6). However small the present signs of realisation, aspiration and striving towards this ideal of one-ness in Christ must never be let go. An easy-going compliance with anything less is an open confession that “the body, without the spirit, is dead.”

Consecration and Glory

The means of achievement indicated by Jesus is easily missed by the modern reader because of the idiom involved. The Hebrew phrase for the consecration of a priest (literally: to fill the hand; Ex.29 :29,33,35, and many other places) is translated in the LXX by the word “perfected” (as in Heb.7 :28 etc). So, very probably, Jesus now envisaged the consecration of his disciples as “a spiritual house, a holy priesthood” (1 Pet.2 :5)—hence: “for their sakes I sanctify myself that they also might be sanctified through the truth” (v.19).

To this he added: “that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me before the foundation of the world.” This is surely not the only allusion in this prayer to the manifestation of the Shekinah Glory of God to Moses and to the Seventy in mount Sinai before the inauguration of the tabernacle and its system of worship—the “foundation of the (Mosaic) world” (Ex.24 :18,10; 33 :22; 34 :29). The same prototype perhaps helps to add meaning to the expression: “that they also be with me where I am.” But in the immediate reference to Jesus and his disciples, “where I am” more probably has reference to condition or status rather than location, as also in Revelation: “They are before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple” (7:15).

The appeal of the Son to the throne in heaven on behalf of his own now moved to a perfervid climax: “O righteous Father, the world (of Israel, the covenant nation) hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared to them thy name.” This is not the same as “manifesting” the name of the Father to them (v.6). That referred to the exhibition of the Father’s character and purpose in His Son. This looks back to all the instruction he had imparted to the disciples, especially at the Last Supper and since. And it was said by one who had “known” the Father. What do dogmatic Trinitarians make of the idea of a Son “coequal” with the Fathers who had to “get to know” Him, “learn” about Him?—for that is what the Greek word implies (and so also in 10:15; Mt.11 :27).

“I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it.” The marvellous shock of Christ’s resurrection had the effect of prising open the minds of the apostles to the reception of a vast world of spiritual truth which they drank in thirstily during the exciting experience of the forty days (Lk.24 :45; Acts 1 :3). Two thousand years before, Jehovah had said: “Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do? . . . For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord . . . that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him” (Gen. 18 ;17,19). Then how much more must the same be true regarding the Seed of Abraham: “The only begotton Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (Jn. 1 :18).And all this, “that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.” Here, in few words, is the awe-inspiring and hopelessly illogical paradox of redemption—that a righteous Father should bestow on sinners the love which He has for His only-begotten Son. It makes no sense. And yet the explanation is simple: “I in them.” That is both Why and How.

Notes: Jn. 17:20-26

22.	The glory . . . I have given them. Here John places on record the promise of his own glory; Rev.22 :14.
24.	My glory which thou hast given me. The repeated use of ‘given’ in this chapter and elsewhere suggests a Hebraism— O.T. nathan is often used in the sense of ‘appoint’. Note on ‘glory’: Mt. 16:27; ls.48 :1 1,12.
	For thou lovest me— should be taken as a parenthesis. Read thus, there is here no hint of the Lord’s personal pre-existence.
	The foundation of the world. Cp. Heb. 11 :11 s.w. “for the founding of seed.”

Jesus had spoken to the disciples about the New Covenant as a Love Feast, using for it the word agape which also describes the highest of the virtues-the love which he had shown in a thousand ways during his ministry and which he was to exemplify supremely in his sacrifice. In the next part of his discourse his thought moved rapidly and frequently from one meaning of agape to the other, and there was constant close relation of these ideas to a comparable meal of fellowship with which the Old Covenant had been inaugurated at Sinai (Ex.24 :11).

“If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments.” At Sinai, the people heard the words of the Book of the Covenant and declared: “All that the Lord hath spoken will we do, and be obedient” (Ex.24 :7). With a repetition which could never be over-emphatic, the book of Deuteronomy sought to establish in the mind of every Israelite that the love of God and faithful observance of His commandments are inseparable (5 :10; 7 :9; 11 :1,22; 13 :3,4; 19:9; 30:16).

Now with an authority which would be blasphemous if he were not the Son of God, Jesus laid a like duty on his disciples. His words state very simply a principle of the highest value to all who belong to him. The secret of Christian obedience is the love of Christ. When a man really loves his Lord, obedience (or, the next best thing, earnest repentance after failure) is a relatively easy matter. With the love of Christ as the source and spring of his whole way of life, there is no longer any need for strongminded resolutions to forsake evil. Instead, intense wrestling of the soul gives place to a relaxed confidence in a beloved Lord who now readily commands allegiance. If a man really loves Christ, he does keep his commandments. So learning to love him becomes the highest duty. Directed to anyone but Jesus this is invariably difficult, for to know well any of one’s fellows is to know well the mass of faults and weaknesses which belong to him. But the more a man can learn about Christ the more he must come to love him-this peerless, altogether lovely Son of God. So here is the best of all reasons for ceaseless devoted study of the gospels.

The converse of this fundamental proposition is also true, alas! If a man does not follow a way of life ordered by the principles of Christ’s teaching, by that fact he declares how little he loves his Lord, no matter how pious his pretensions.

There can be little doubt that Jesus spoke this simple truth with primary reference to the “new commandment” which he had just given to his disciples, that they observe the Love Feast, the Agape. And experience has ever shown the truth of his words. No man who loves his Lord will neglect attendance at the Lord’s Table.

Israel and the New Israel

Still drawing out the parallel with the Old Covenant, Jesus now spoke his first promise of the Holy Spirit. At Sinai there had been a corresponding promise: “Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee unto the place which I have prepared. (“I go to prepare a place for you”). Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak (“keep my commandments”) then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries” (Ex. 23:20-22). In another respect also God’s Holy Spirit was made a Helper to His people -when He “took of the spirit that was upon Moses, and gave it to the seventy elders”, so that “when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, but they did so no more” (Num. 11:25RV), “Thou gavest also thy good spirit to instruct them,” commemorated Nehemiah and his Levites (Neh. 9:20). And in Isaiah’s reminiscence of these experiences “the angel of his presence” and “his holy Spirit” are either closely associated or are actually equated (63:9-11).

The expression “another Comforter” clearly implies that the Holy Spirit was not the only Helper from God. The explanation is in 1 John2:l: “If any man sin, we have an Advocate (same word) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” And in a somewhat enigmatic passage in Romans 8 Paul sets the Holy Spirit’s guidance and intercession alongside that of Christ himself (v.26,27).

The Comforter

There is a lot of argument amongst the commentators and language experts as to the precise meaning intended by the word Jesus used. By fairly general agreement “Comforter” is not really the right idea. “Advocate”, in the legal sense—that is, counsel for the defence-has classical support but seems to belong to another world from these passages in John’s gospel. Probably the rather general word: “Helper” comes as near as any to what was intended.

It is easy enough to understand many of the allusions to the Holy Spirit here and in the later Paraclete passages (14:26; 15:26; 16:13) as having reference to the remarkable powers with which members of the early church were endowed after Pentecost, but here the phrase: “that he may abide with you for ever” presents double difficulty. The Holy Spirit appears to be spoken of as a separate person (cp.v.26; 15:26; 16 :13; the orthodox dogma of the personality of the Holy Spirit has no other Biblical support apart from the pronouns in these places). Also, the abiding character of the Spirit’s indwelling contrasts strangely with Paul’s prophecy that the Spirit’s gifts would be withdrawn (1 Cor. 13:8).

He—the Spirit

One explanation of the first difficulty would be that the pronoun “He” refers to the Father who sends the Spirit in response to the plea of His Son. But this runs into difficulties in verse 17 and also in 16 :13. More probably the masculine pronoun has to be used because the antecendent Greek word for “Comforter” is itself masculine. In this case either “he” or “it” would be a valid translation into English. Or, once again, there is allusion to the angel who cared for natural Israel in their wilderness journey.

“Forever”

The duration of Holy Spirit endowment presents a much more tricky question. In this sequence of “Comforter” promises in John’s gospel, certain details seem to require restriction to the leaders of the first century ecclesia (e.g. 14:26: “he shall bring all things to your remembrance”); Paul was confident that the Spirit’s gifts were only temporary; indeed those gifts could be transmitted to others by none but the Twelve (Ms 8 :14-19), so the second generation was bound to see their gradual disappearance; and all the available historical evidence from early Christian writers supports this conclusion.

Nevertheless here Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would “abide with you for ever” (v.16). There are three ways of coping with this problem.

One is to take the phrase very literally: “unto the age,” as though meaning to the end of the Mosiac dispensation when the temple was destroyed in A.D.70. This is an uneasy solution since, with hardly an exception in the New Testament, “for ever” means just that, and not forty years.

Much more fitting is the suggestion which emphasizes the happy opinion in the early church that the Holy Spirit gifts were to be enjoyed as a foretaste of yet greater blessing: “the powers of the world to come” (Heb.6 :5), “the earnest of our inheritance” (Eph.4 :30). From this point of view, “abide with you for ever” could mean “abide with you now, and ultimately for ever in my kingdom.”

The third alternative regards the charismatic powers of the Spirit as an interim phase of ecclesial development which has not necessarily meant complete inactivity of the Holy Spirit since the first century ended. Otherwise there are, it is pointed out, a big number of familiar New Testament texts which have either to be written off as no longer valid or else have to be given a somewhat indirect meaning with reference to the inspiration of Holy Scripture as the believer’s only resource and guide in modern times. The subject is large and complex and, alas, often nebulous in its modern treatment.

There are evident weaknesses about all of these interpretations. Then, what of this?:

A different approach

The New Testament has plenty of clear indications of a first century expectation of an early return of the Lord. These are all inspired Scriptures, and therefore were correct when they were spoken or written. So also here.

In this discourse by Jesus there is the same expectation that the kingdom would be manifest within a human lifetime. In that case the Lord’s promise that the Comforter will “abide with you for ever” was literally true when spoken. There would never be a time after Pentecost when the Holy Spirit (as experienced in the first century) was not with and in the believers. (The same explanation helps with Acts 2 :39; 1 Cor.13 :10; Lk.11:13).

But these inspired expectations were not fulfilled. For explanation why, see “Revelation” (H.A.W),p.259ff.

Help needed

Jesus foresaw the tremendous tensions which the preaching of the gospel would set up, especially in Jewry, after his ascension. So he promised the Holy Spirit as a guide in times of difficulty, as a mainstay of truth against the contentions of error: “The world (the Jewish world) cannot receive him, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him.” That word “seeth” had reference, doubtless, to the remarkable works of the Holy Spirit in Jesus himself and in the early church. The unbelieving nation saw the miracles, but was blind to the truth which they so graciously and powerfully proclaimed. In this sense, but not in this sense only, the Holy Spirit was to continue the Lord’s own witness. More especially, its guidance would empower frail untutored men to add their inspired witness concerning all aspects of truth which the life of the eccclesia or the preaching of the gospel might need. Remarkably enough, in the earliest days its direction was specially needed to testify against Jewish unbelief in Jesus as the Son of God, but before the apostle John passed off the scene its witness was needed also to confound the opposite “spirit of error” which taught, with increasing success, that “Jesus Christ is not come in the flesh” (1 Jn.4:1-6).

“Ye know him,” Jesus continued, “for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” The tenses here are difficult. Perhaps Jesus meant: ‘By contrast with my adversaries you are readily recognizing the Holy Spirit in my words and actions as I continue to abide with you; the same divine power shall be in you.’

Orphans

In Israel the Firstborn received a double portion of the inheritance in order that, if any younger brother found himself in hard straits— an “orphan’—the Firstborn’s duty of helping such with food and drink could be fulfilled.

It was to this that Jesus now referred: “I will not leave you orphans (13 :33): I come to you.” For them absence need not mean deprivation. “Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more: but ye see me.” Clearly this “no more” was not to be taken absolutely. The world will assuredly see Jesus again. The Jewish world, which he had specially in mind, will one day “look on me they pierced, and shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son, a Firstborn” (Zech.12:10).

The Agape

It was a different vision of their Lord (from that of Zech. 12 :10) which he promised to them, his disciples: “But ye behold me: because I live, ye shall live also.” His expansion of this thought (v.21,23) shows that he spoke of their spiritual contemplation of him in the Agape, which was to celebrate not only his death, but also his living power. “Ye shall live also,” having already “passed from death unto life.” (1 Jn. 3:14 -another allusion to the Agape. How could they think of themselves as orphans, bereft of food and comfort, when he had bequeathed to them such a token of continuing blessing?

“In that day (the day of their meeting together to remember their Lord) ye shall know that I am in the Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” What more eloquent means of reassurance concerning these profound Shekinah truths than the simple remembrance of Christ in Bread and Wine as he had just appointed? “He that hath my commandments (13 :34), and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me (the Agape): and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” In all this there was implied comparison and contrast with the experience of the elders of Israel who, through the sacrifice offered by Moses, were given the privilege of beholding the Glory of the Lord and of eating peace-offerings in His Presence (Ex.24 :1-11). But high honour though this was, they could only worship “afar off.” How different the close fellowship with both Father and Son made possible for these humble disciples who were now being taught to appreciate their high status in the heavenly family!

In doing so, Jesus carefully chose a different word to describe this “manifesting” of himself to them from that so frequently employed to describe an open and unmistakable personal appearance (as in 7 :4; 17:6; 21 :1,14).

Judas, probably the youngest of the apostles, fastened on this implied difference. Like the rest, and especially the other Judas (note the parenthesis in this verse), he was eager to see his Master openly proclaimed to the nation as the Messiah of Israel. What other kind ol “manifestation” could Jesus mean? He feared that his leader might be abandoning his Messianic intentions altogether.

Jesus explained carefully the more immediate relevance of his words regarding the Breaking of Bread: “If any man love me (the Agape), he will keep my word (“do this in remembrance of me”): and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him (at the Love Feast), and make our abode with him (in the new spiritual temple, where there are many abiding places; v.2; Ex.25 :8). He that loveth me not (by neglecting the Breaking of Bread) keepeth not my words (and my Father will not love him, and we will not come and make our abode with him; v.23); and this word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me (compare God’s word to Moses: “I will be with thy mouth, and will teach what thou shalt say;” Ex.4 :12). “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethen, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him;” (Dt. 18 :18).

Passages such as this are more than sufficient to allay misgivings regarding the notorious “omissions” in John’s gospel. Many a devout reader has been more than a little puzzled, and even distressed, that so many of the highly important features of the Lord’s ministry, detailed by the synoptic writers, should apparently go unmentioned in the fourth gospel. Yet it may be said with fair confidence that most of the supposed omissions are actually included by John, but in his own characteristic fashion. In this particular place the blessing and power of the Breaking of Bread is beautifully expounded for the reader through the Lord’s own commentary, and with a fullness which the other gospels do not attempt.

Notes: Jn. 14:15-24

15.	Love me. . .my commandments. Linked together iii 13 :34; 15 :10,12; 1 Jn.2 :7,8; 3 :23,24; 5 :2,3. In all these places, the Agape. (AV, RV reading equally valid).
17.	The Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive. These ideas occur together in 1 Cor.2 :10.14.
	The outstanding passages for study besides Jn. 14,15,16 are:
	Lk. 11:13; Jn. 3:5-8; Rom.5:5; 8:1-27; 14:12; 15:13, 16, 30; 1 Cor. 2:11-16; 3:16; 6:11; 12:3, 13; 2 Cor. l:22; 3:3, 13, 14; Gal.5 :5, 16-18, 22, 25; Eph. l:19-21; 2:18,22; 3:16-20; 4:4,30; 5:18; 6 :18; Phil. 2:1; 3:3; Col. l:8,9; 1 Sam.10:10; 16:14; 19:9; 1 Kg. 18:46; Jud. 14:6; Ex. 31:3; 36:1. Also: Ps.119:12-18, 26, 27, 32-38; 51:6; 141:3,4; 143:10; Acts 16:14; Jas. l :5; 1 Thess. 3:12; Jude 24; Heb.13:21; 2 Thess. l :11; 3:3,5; Lk. 24:31,45; 1 Kgs.8:58; 17:9; Mt. 16:17; ls. 10:5,6.
21.	To him. Necessarily personal.
22.	Not Iscariot. This might well imply that the traitor Judas also was dissatisfied at having no manifestation to the world. Otherwise, in view of 13:20 this insertion is hardly necessary.
	Not unto the world. A dramatic change, apparently, from 12:15.
23.	My words, with allusion to Ex.24 :3.
	We will come unto him. According to the Didache 10 :10, “Maranatha” (our Lord has come) was pronounced between the meal of fellowship (the Agape) and the sacramental Bread and Wine.
	Our abode, with allusion to the Tabernacle; Ex.25 :8 etc.
19.	No more. Examples of limited usage of this expression: Jn.14 :30RV; 21 :6;;Mk.l5 :5 RV; Acts 20 :25; 2 Sam. 2:28 LXX 2 Kgs.6 :23,24; 1 Sam. 7 :13. The first of these is specially disastrous for JW interpretation.

In that solemn moment when he had given the disciples wine to drink in his name, Jesus had spoken words the remembering of which needed no aid from the promised Paraclete; every syllable was etched in their memory for life: “This is my blood of the New Covenant… I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Whilst they were still in the upper room, or perhaps as they were making their way to Gethsemane, the Lord took their minds once again to that vivid symbolism and its further implications: “I am the True Vine, and my Father is the husbandman.” But there was no Israelite who was not fully aware that his nation, the chosen of heaven, was God’s vine. All knew, and took pride in, the splendid word-picture in Psalm 80-Israel as God’s vine, brought out of Egypt, and planted and nurtured in a land of good soil and sunny hillsides (v.8-11).

The Old Testament Vine

The figure was expanded by Isaiah as he sang the Song of the Beloved and his vineyard (5 :1-7). Fruitful soil, every protection, devoted and patient attention-yet all it produced was “wild grapes”. Alas, there was nothing else for it-if the vine must go wild, then let it, give it some “excuse” for its perverse unfruitfulness, let the fence go to pieces, give this vineyard over to the trampling of wild beasts, steer the blessing of heaven’s rain clouds to some more deserving country, bake the soil hard under a sky of brass, and give the entire place over to briars and thorns. This is the fate of “the men of Judah, God’s pleasant plant.” And the men of Judah read their Scripture, understood its plain message, shook their heads about the waywardness of their fathers—and blithely went about their own special brand of apostasy.

Jeremiah took up the threnody: “I planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed; how then art thou turned info the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?” (2 :21).

There is no such plaintive expostulation in Ezekiel’s variation on this theme. He is all biting satire and burning censure: This vine of Israel-what good is it to anyone? No one would dream of making it into furniture. It is useless even for such a simple purpose as making tools of any sort, or a peg to hang up a water jar, useless as a staff to aid one’s walking, almost useless as fuel, it burns so badly. Good for one thing only, to produce wine to make glad the heart of man. Yet Israel gave no pleasure to its Owner. So, away with it!

Jesus had condensed these withering prophetic reprobations into his own parable of the labourers in the vineyard—the husbandmen punished, and the vineyard let out to others.

Now, a new Vine, a new Covenant, a new Israel, receiving all the sedulous care and attention which had formerly been lavished on “the vine out of Egypt.” “My Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away.” The allusion to Judas going out into the night seems obvious enough. But such a conclusion is not certain. The Greek word certainly means “take away;” but in many places it also carries the idea of “lift up, take up.” So there is no sure ground here for the drastic action of excommunication which some would take with those of fainting faith or waning zeal. In any case, even if the words mean excision this is for the husbandman to apply his skill to-“and my Father is the husbandman.”

All branches, fruitful or otherwise, receive His assiduous attention: “Every branch that beareth fruit he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.” No need to say “in me” this time, for this is obvious.

“He taketh away”

Since “bear fruit” seems to refer to converts, “lift up” rather than “takeaway” is probably the correct reading (Mt.12 :12).

Mistakenly, the word “purgeth” has often been taken to signify pruning. The word means “cleanseth” (cp. Heb.10 :2-same word). Here it alludes to the common practice of scrubbing the vine stems with soap and water in order to rid them of a damaging fungus. Thus Jeremiah with reference to the “strange vine” of Israel: “Though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me” (2:22).

Jesus had already applied this process to his disciples, and would continue to do so: “Now ye are clean (13 :10) because of the word which I have spoken unto you.” He was surely alluding to an instruction in the Law of Moses that newly-planted “trees for food” were to be reckoned as “uncircumcised” and the fruit not to be eaten during the first three years. “But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy to praise the Lord withal” (Lev.19 :23,24). Their three years of discipleship were now more than expired. Soon there would be fruit in plenty-“holy to praise the Lord withal”-but only through the vigorous life of Christ in them: “Abide ye in me, and I (will abide) in you (cp.v.7; contrast 5 :38). As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.” Failure to learn this lesson has meant tragedy for many. “Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me” (Mt. 11:5). In times of spiritual stress, the very worst thing a man can do is to loosen his connection with the ecclesia which makes him a branch of the True Vine. Yet, not infrequently, this is the first reaction to a bad situation.

Jesus did not say: “I am the stem,” but: “I am the vine”, the entire living organic unit, of which his disciples are the branches. “He that abideth in me, so that I also abide in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for apart from me ye can do nothing.” That final word can hardly receive too much emphasis. Salt which loses its saltness is “fit for nothing” (Mt.5 :13).” A man can receive nothing, except it be given him of the Father” (Jn.3 :27). Paul’s description of unregenerate or back-sliding human nature is very blunt: “without strength . . . ungodly . .. sinners . . . enemies;” but the obverse of the picture is given by a five-fold “much more”: “justified … reconciled … the grace of God… abundance of grace, the gift of righteousness.. grace abounding unto eternal life” (Rom.5 :6-10,15,17,20,21)-all these are assured when a man is truly a part of the True Vine.

“Cast forth”

Jesus developed the contrast yet further. “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as the (fruitless) branch, and is caused to wither (the verb is Gk. passive).

Here is a truth which is not to be ignored. If a man would have spiritual health, he must remain as an integral part of the Christ Vine. So he must make his own personal decision accordingly.

Alas, it is every bit as important for the ecclesia to recognize this truth also. What tragedies there have been because of coo! severance made of individuals almost desperately eager for continued fellowship, yet this has been disallowed. How many hitherto fruitful branches have been “made to wither” by drastic unsought cutting off! Preservation of unity with the main stock is always to be sought at almost any cost, for nothing is more important, more fundamental. “There is one Body.”

The outcome of severance, Jesus went on, is that “(men) gather them, and cast them into the fire,, and they are burned.” The text has no subject for the verb “gather”. AV has supplied the general term “men”, and there is some support for this in the Isaiah parable (27:11). Alternatively, one may read an even less definite: “they gather them” with possible reference to angels in the Day of Judgment.

The context—”he is cast forth” from the Vine-suggests the former of these ideas (as AV). In which case Jesus is warning against being over-ready to exclude from fellowship because of the greatly intensified danger that “men”, worldly men, will gather those cut off and ensure their destruction with worldliness. How often, and how readily, this happens! And what a responsibility then on those who do the casting forth!

On the other hand, faithful abiding in Christ brings matchless privileges: “Ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.” Of course, the words are not to be taken without any qualification, as though the Lord were presenting his disciple with a blank cheque on the Bank of Heaven, somewhat after the fashion of Grimm’s fairy offering the young hero fulfilment of three wishes.

The same apparently absolute promise comes in five other places, yet in each instance the context provides an implied qualifying clause of some kind: “ye shall ask what ye will” for the benefit of others under your spiritual care or guidance, usually those to whom the gospel is being preached (14 :12-14-see Study 198 and 15 :16; in 1 Jn.3 :22 and 5 :14 it is the forgiveness of sins, as the context makes clear).

So also here: “Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit (v.16: that ye should go forth and bring forth fruit); so shall ye become my disciples.” If this is the Lord’s definition of a disciple, then here is a touchstone for testing the quality of one’s faith. The man who truly has Christ as Lord will not be restrained from talking about him. There will be an irrepressible urge to share out the love of Christ, “that they might be trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord (the True Vine), that he might be glorified” (ls.61 :3)-glorified in his Servant the New Israel (49:3).

“Abide in my love”

And since the essential bond of the Covenant between preacher and learner, between Master and disciple, is necessarily the Breaking of Bread, just instituted, Jesus went on to re-affirm (vv.9-14) the supreme value of this memorial rite, the Love Feast: “As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments* ye shall abide in

my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love” (cp. Dt.9:7). What man, except Jesus, could say such a thing as this without complete loss of character? But in his mouth the words are unselfconsciously and obviously true, this matchless, faultless Son of God!

“These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be fulfilled.” In the New Testament by far the most common use of this word “joy” is to describe the joy of fellowship, which is essentially the highest joy of human experience. And since “fulfilled’ nearly always suggests the fulfilment of a promise or prophecy, it seems likely that Jesus was alluding to his words at the supper table: “I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

He continued to commend the Love Feast unto them, as the focus of all their worship, devotion and fellowship: “This is my commandment, that ye love one another, just as (Gk. kathos] I have loved you. This past tense is altogether out of place until the “Love Feast” context is recognized. Then it presents no difficulty. And the next verse could hardly be more appropriate: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” He meant, of course, his own impending self- sacrifice on behalf of his disciples, as his next words plainly imply: “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.” Taken absolutely, and without any qualifications, this definition excludes every man who ever lived, and Christ died in vain. But when read with specific reference to the Agape, which is and must always be the hall-mark of the follower of Christ, there is no difficulty.

Friends

Eating of the Passover, or of the sacrifices of the Lord, was forbidden to strangers, but could include those who were “servants bought for money” (Ex.12 :44,45; Lev.22 :10). The language seems to imply that a slave could be compelled to be circumcised and thus formally qualified for partaking of the feast. But not so with this new Passover. No special qualification of birth or race or social positon, but only the more real bond of a genuine love for Christ, decides a man’s right to share in this high blessing: “Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant (slave) knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends.” At this new Passover no one is under any legal compulsion or constraint. He may come or go, as he pleases-and as Judas did. Instead there is a greater, more effectual, constraint-that of being a friend of the One who provides the meal and the deliverance which it symbolizes.

“Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?” God had said regarding His impending judgement of iniquitous Sodom. So the Friend of God (Jas.2 :23) was admitted to the counsels of heaven. But now, regarding imputed righteousness (not long-tolerated wickedness) and the sharing of a greater deliverance, friends of Jesus have at least equal privileges: “I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known to you.” To some extent this was a declaration of intention, for only a few minutes later the Lord was constrained to add: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but we cannot bear them now.” These omissions were made good, no doubt, during the next Forty Days or by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as the Twelve grew to the responsibilities of early church leadership.

It is difficult to be sure whether the ensuing words carry on the allusion to Abraham, or go back to the True Vine. Perhaps both. “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and appointed you, that ye should go forth (as childless Abraham was called out of Ur?) and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit may abide; that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name (as Abraham sought the fulfilment of his hopes in the birth of a seed), he may give it you.”

Essentially, these words have to do with the propagation of the good news concerning Christ. This was to be apostles’ great task. The influence of their message on the lives of men needing succour from sin was to mean a luscious fruitfulness on the Vine of God. But they could never hope to achieve much of this in their own strength: “Whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he will give it you.” Without the wisdom and power of the Spirit of truth, their word — and his—must fall to the ground.

Especially must they remember that the source and spring of all their activity and progress was in Christ. Only “in his name” could they seek the direction and blessing needed on all their endeavours. “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” This principle of divine action is fundamental. It is hard to believe, harder still to understand, nigh impossible. Yet it must never be forgotten, lest a man think there is any virtue in his “decision” (forsooth!) to belong to Christ. “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you”—the words epitomize divine grace and human helplesssness. “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 Jn.4 :10).

The life of faith, and therefore of fruitfulness, in Christ depends on an adequate recognition of this amazing, unreasonable, and utterly incomprehensible principle (Mt. 25:34; Jn. 6:37, 39, 44, 65; 17:6; 12:39, 40; Acts 13:48; 18:10, 27; 16:14; 2:23, 39; 4:24-28; 1 Pet. l:2,20; Rom. 8:28-30; 9:10,11; Rev. 13:8; 1 Cor. l:26-28; 4:7; 3:5-7; Eph. l:4, 5, 9, 11 ;2 Th. 2:13).

Notes: Jn. 15:1-17

1.	The true vine. Here is one of the best examples of alethinos meaning true in contrast with symbol or type; cp. l:9; 6:32; Heb. 8:2; 9:24.
	My Father is the husbandman. No Nicean co-equality here;cp.v.lO. How did the Father tend the Vine (Christ)? How does He? He gives Bread and Wine.
2.	Taketh away. Since “bear fruit” seems to refer to converts, “lift up” rather than “take away” seems to be the correct reading (Mt.13 :12). In the Greek text “take away, purge, clean” present an obvious play on words: airo, kathairo, katharos. So Jesus talked to his disciples in Greek, not Aramaic.
5.	Vine... branches. Cp. the figure of the Body of Christ; 1 Cor. 12:12; Eph.4 :12-16; Col. l :24.
6.	Abide not in me. Note 6 :53; Mt. 11:6, and the example of Thomas in forsaking the fellowship of the apostles (Jn.20:26).
	(Men) gather them, for similar impersonal verbs, with probable reference to angels, see Lk.12 :20 mg; 6 :38; and with specific mention of angels: Mt.13 :41,49; 22 :13; 24 :31. In that case, for “burned” see Mt.3 :10; Heb.6:8;Ez.l5:4-7.
10.	In my love, that is, in love for me. Cp. Gk. genitive in 5 :42; 1 Jn.2 :5,15; 3 :17.
15.	Called you friends. On this verse see also Acts 20:37, and especially Ex.33:11 (true of Moses and Joshua-Jesus).

On the way to Gethsemane, or perhaps after they had arrived there, Jesus made the last of several attempts to cushion the faith of his disciples to the tremendous jolt which was inevitable in the next few hours.

“All ye shall be offended (caused to stumble) because of me this night.”

Earlier in his ministry he had pronounced a dreadful curse on the man who would cause one of these “little ones” to stumble: “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Mt.18 :6,7). Yet now Jesus himself was to be the occasion of it. But really their own inadequate understanding of God’s purpose in him was the root cause, and Judas’s traitorous work the means.

The imperative of Old Testament prophecy

And all this was to be according to the prophets: “For it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.” All through his ministry Jesus had shown himself strongly aware of the fact that his work and experiences were bound to conform to what was already written concerning him in the Old Testament, but towards the end this emphasis intensified; and the same theme, properly appreciated by his biographers in later days, was continued with fulness of detail in their records of his death and resurrection.

Many a Scripture which is enigmatic and mysterious to the modern reader must have been luminous and crystal-clear to the discerning mind of the Son of God, thus providing for him both encouragement and acute discouragement as he learned the things that God had in store for the One who loved Him.

Here was a Scripture which specifically included his disciples also. It was written for them as well as for him. In quoting, Jesus deliberately changed the wording from “smite thou” (Hebrew), or “Smite ye” (Greek LXX),to “I will smite,” thus emphasizing the divine purpose in it all (compare Is.53 :6,10), “to do what thy counsel determined before to be done” (Acts 4:28).

Exact fulfilment

The details of Zechariah 13:7-9 need to be taken in conjunction with the earlier prophecy of chapter 11, in which the shepherd of God’s flock is made to cease from his work, the price of his labours being a mere thirty pieces of silver. Thus the bond of the covenant between God and His nation is broken, and the people are thenceforward committed to the authority of shepherds who are blind, worthless, or tyrannical.

Here, in chapter 13, the Shepherd who is God’s “fellow” and who is nevertheless smitten by the power of organized government (“Awake, O sword;” cp. Rom.13 :4) is plainly Jesus.

Yet no sword was used against Jesus, even though men came “with swords and staves to take him” (Mt.26:55; and note Ps.22 :20).

“Awake, O sword” is rhetorical apostrophe addressed to the wielder of the sword; compare: “Lift up your heads, O ye gates” (Ps.24:7) addressed to the gatekeepers of Zion.

It is perhaps possible to go a step further and see the wielder of the sword not as some human authority but as an angel (Num.22 :23; Josh.5 :13) under whose unseen direction Roman and Jewish powers alike were.

The Hebrew text uses an unusual word for “the man that is my fellow.” All the other eleven occurrences of it come in Leviticus with reference to offences against or by one’s fellow man. Here it is used of God’s “fellow” who never committed any offence against any.

Is it possible to infer from the sequence of phrases: “Smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered,” that when Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane he was actually smitten (by Malchus, the high priest’s servant?) before the disciples “all forsook him and fled”?

Rather remarkably, another prophecy uses the same terminology: “All my bones are scattered abroad” (Ps.22 :14)—as though emphasizing the figure of the Lord’s Body and its members.

The “little ones” in the prophecy are Christ’s disciples. God turned His hand upon them for good at a time when the minority of the nation (“the third part”) was to be refined and cherished as the true people of Jehovah and the majority were to be “cut off and die’—a judgment that came in A.D.70, and will yet happen again. It is interesting to note the number of times Jesus appropriated this phrase “the little ones” from Zech 13 :7-Mt.18 :4,5,6,10,U; Lk.12 :32; Jn.13 :33.

Pusey (“Minor Prophets”) seems to imply that some of the leading Jewish rabbis (e.g. Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel) were apparently driven by Christian polemics to consider seriously the appropriateness of the details of this prophecy to Jesus of Nazareth.

The immediate fulfilment required that “the sheep of the flock be scattered abroad “(cp. Jn.16 :32), and within the hour it came to pass: “All the disciples forsook him, and fled,” and this—Matthew is careful to underline—’that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled” (26:56).

Reassurance: “After I am risen”

Yet it was to help them, and not to discourage, that Jesus spoke these words, for he continued: “But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.”

Here, one would think, is the plainest of all plain assertions of ultimate triumph. Yet nothing is more clear from the resurrection narratives that the utter unexpectedness of it all: “And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. . . Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished which were early at the sepulchre . . . And certain of them which were with us found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not” (Lk.24:11,22).

So these words of Jesus would only become meaningful on the third day. And thus also it will be, doubtless, at the Second Coming, with many a prophecy now shrouded in mystery or neglect. This would be specially true of the phrase “I will go before you (as a shepherd) into Galilee.” Angels “looked down with sad and wondering eyes,” heard these words marvelling, and later repeated them with gladness in the echoing emptiness of the tomb (Mt.28 :7). There is here not only a continuation of the figure of Shepherd and sheep (cp.Jn. 10 :4; Mk.10 :32; Heb.13 :20), but also an implicit instruction that they stay in Jerusalem until after his resurrection.

In later days this mention of Galilee would be greatly treasured because of its symbolic value, as implying the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles. Jerusalem and its temple were to be disowned.

But at the time the words were spoken, they must have been meaningless to these bewildered men.