The soul of Jesus was clouded with the prospect of impending persecution and suffering. This chiefly because of his disciples. The world hating him, would assuredly hate them also. So he was much concerned to fortify them against the evil to come: “These things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember (and understand; 2:17, 22; 12 :16) that I told you of them” (13 :29; 14 :29 also). Forewarned and with yet greater confidence in their Lord as a true prophet when his words were so exactly fulfilled, they would brace their souls against the onset of antagonism and stiffen their loyalty to his cause.

He could have spelled out these ominous predictions for them in the early days of their discipleship. But what purpose could it achieve when they had Jesus constantly with them? But now he was to be taken from them. Then their understanding of his person and work were marvellously limited: now, for all their many misunderstandings, they knew and loved him better.

In a little while he would be snatched away from them, but because he had been at pains to explain to them beforehand (15 :18-25) there was no need for bewildered blunders such as Peter’s: “Lord, why cannot I follow thee now?” (13 :37). Even so, there was puzzlement enough, as their later cross-questioning of him was to show (16 :17-19). And, inevitably, a bleak sense of impending bereavement clouded their present enjoyment of his fellowship.

Yet, paradoxically, it was for their own good that he be taken from them. “It is expedient for you that I go away,” firstly, because it was so fore-ordained in the Word of God: “Thou hast ascended up on high”—this first, and then: “thou hast led captivity captive, thou hast received gifts for men . . . that the Lord God might dwell among them” (Ps.68 :18). Jesus now reiterated this: “If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you.”

Then, too, they must learn the wholesome truth, however reluctant they might be to face it, that a man can only grow into mature discipleship away from Christ. For the basic Christian virtue is the faith which struggles and grows and flourishes without the present aid of theophany.

More than this, how could Jesus come to be the Lord of disciples everywhere if he were to be localised in one spot and restricted in his fellowship to one small group? Indeed, it was expedient that he go away.

The promised Comforter

But he left them a true promise (this is the idiomatic meaning behind his words: “I tell you the truth”)-the Holy Spirit would be their aid and guide and comfort in every spiritual need. To some extent the disciples would appreciate what he meant, for on an earlier occasion when he had sent them out preaching, away from his personal direction and support, they had found themselves mysteriously and wonderfully helped by the very powers which they had seen in him (Mt.10:1). And later, at a time of uncertain faith, when Jesus had gone into the mount of transfiguration, how unsure and helpless they had been without those powers, when they were faced by the double challenge of an epileptic boy and hostile argumentative Pharisees (Mk.9:16-18).

But in the days to come, renewed and encouraged by the Pentecostal gift, these men were to show themselves worthy witnesses of their Lord. “He (the Holy Spirit) will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and .of judgment;” As in the earlier part of this discourse, the “world” here is certainly the Jewish world.

But why should the Holy Spirit be referred to by a personal pronoun? This could be because the Holy Spirit is God in action-the Father’s power vindicating His Son through the inspired witness of his disciples. Or, the pronoun “he” could be regarded as necessary to agree with the earlier word “Comforter” (parakletos is a masculine noun), and so right through this passage (especially in v.13). Yet another suggestion, on very different lines, will be offered later in this study.

A Power of Conviction

Jesus went on to expound his teaching about the Holy Spirit. First, there must be reproof of Jewry regarding its sin in rejecting himself-“because they believe not on me.” In all men this is the great sin-lack of faith in Christ. It is a sin which invalidates every other .virtue a man may have, no matter how many or how fine. And this sin-the rejection of Jesus—was to write off as worthless all the Jewish dedication to good works and godliness. The sin was specially grievous because of the sustained witness of Jesus himself and of his unique works.

From the earliest days the Holy Spirit in Peter hammered away at this unpalatable truth: “Ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince of Life… Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out…” (Acts 3 :14,15,19). “They were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (2:37). The apostle’s preaching had brought conviction not only of their own sin, but also of Christ’s righteousness, and of his unique power to intercede with God: “because I go to my Father” (v.10; 1 Jn.2 :1). The Holy Spirit in Peter once again: “Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear” (Acts 2 :24,32,33). This speech of Peter’s was beautifully complementary to the words of Jesus in its allusion to the promise of the Holy Spirit and to the vindication of Jesus through his ascension to God’s throne (“Because I go to my Father,” Jesus said). It was a claim which would have been bitterly contested and rancorously denounced if there had been any shred of evidence to encourage such a rejection.

A third equally momentous conviction was to be brought home to the Jews—that through Jesus the entire Mosaic system was coming to an end: “the prince of this (Jewish) world is judged.” As Jesus put it in this brief trenchant phrase, the “prince” or “ruler” of Jewry was the high priest whose office and functions made him the pivot and fulcrum of everything to do with the Law of Moses. With the death of Christ all this revered system became nugatory. Jesus, “blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Col.2 :14). The apostles came to this intensely revolutionary idea very slowly and timidly.

Stephen and Paul were the most clear-sighted regarding it. Nor did they lack the courage to assert this truth: “And by him (Jesus) all that believe (both Jews and Gentiles) are justified from all things, from which ye (Jews) could not! be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13 :39), Without the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit’s wisdom how could these frail men have ever come to espouse, let alone advocate, such a radical doctrine?

Until their concept of Jesus had changed drastically, much that he would fain impart must remain unsaid: “Ye cannot bear them now.”

Always Jesus had adjusted the quality of his instruction to the capacity of the twelve to take in what he was saying: “he spake the word unto them, as they were able to hear it… when they were alone he expounded all things to his disciples” (Mk.4 :33,34). He fed them with milk, and not with meat, for hitherto they were not able to bear it (1 Cor.3:2).

Promise of the Apocalypse

However, during the Forty Days—and much later through the Apocalypse—he was to further their understanding very profoundly. In earlier discourse (Studies 172,199), Jesus had deliberately aimed to bring out the parallel (and the contrast) between himself and Moses. In that designed similitude the earlier counterpart of the first promise of the Spirit of truth was the Angel of God’s Presence guiding Israel in the wilderness. Now Jesus recurred to the same idea: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth (concerning me): for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” This last sentence is an explicit promise of the Book of Revelation—for what other showing of future things was given to the apostles?

The ensuing comment harmonizes admirably * with this: “All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” This is very close in idea to Revelation 1:1 “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.” The two passages have exactly the same ingredients: The Father, Jesus, the angel (called also the Spirit), the Lord’s apostles, things to come shewn—in John the word “shew” (anangello) is chosen to suggest an ange!l The words may even mean that when the Apocalypse was given an inspired understanding of it or commentary was also available to the early church through the guidance of the Spirit of truth. And when it is realised that Revelation, in the primary fulfilment of Seals and Trumpets at least, is very largely concerned with the overthrow of Jerusalem and its Mosaic system, the context in John is also seen to harmonize remarkably closely, for-as just indicated-verses 8-11 are only meaningful when read with reference to the old order in Jerusalem which the Truth in Christ was to supersede.

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.

With dramatic suddenness Jesus now switched the theme of his discourse from love to hatred. It was needful to prepare the minds of the disciples not only for the intense shock of seeing their Lord crucified but also for the campaign of hostility and violence to be let loose against themselves, simply because they belonged to Christ and were continuing his work: “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.” Here, as in so many places in John’s gospel, kosmos signifies the Jewish world, the Judaist establishment. “The world cannot hate you.” Jesus said to his own brothers, because they saw nothing wrong with Judaism and were happy in its philosophy of justification by works; “but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that its works of righteousness are evil” (.In.7 :7). This, basically, was why the Jewish religious system turned against Jesus—because he re-defined true righteousness as loyalty to and faith in himself, the Son of God, and because he had little room for religious observances which make a man feel pleased with himself.

Judaist persecution

So with a telling repetition of this word “world” which he so completely reprobated (six times in two verses!), he sought to fortify his apostles against inevitable bitterness and rancour. Share the religious outlook of your contemporaries, and they will give you their esteem without stint, he told them. But this is not for you. I have taught you differently. The new outlook and the new way of life which I have shown you inevitably separates. The world will see to that. It will hate you simply because you acknowledge me as Lord.

“Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord.” He had said it to them less than an hour before, sitting at the meal table, after washing their feet to show them how their discipleship should go into action. But he had also said the same thing to them on another occasion when preparing their minds for the hostility and persecution which was bound to come: “It is enough (and more than enough!) for the disciple that he become as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Bealzebub, how much more them of his household!” (Mt.10 :24,25). Perhaps it is because he wished to recall this earlier warning about persecution that Jesus said: “Remember”.

His words had that faint flavour of irony which they so often carried. “If they observed my teaching (and you know that they would have none of it!) they will observe yours also.”

There was nothing for it but that the disciples brace themselves for coming trouble. Persecution was inevitable: “All these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me.” And so it came to pass. The teaching and works of Jesus left that generation destitute of excuse:

“If I had not come and spoken unto them,

they had not had sin:

but now they have no cloke for their sin.

He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

If I had not done among them the works which none other man did,

they had not had sin.

but now (they have no cloke for their sin, for)

they have both seen and hated both me and my Father”.

Hated without a cause

This emphasis on the witness born by his miracles is specially characteristic of John’s gospel (3 :2; 5 :36; 7 :31; 9 :30-33; 10 :38; 14 :11). Their reception of his miracles should have been unhampered by any of the deep-rooted prejudice which now resisted his teaching. However they were impervious to every form of appeal made by him: “But (I spoke to them, and did these miracles) that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.”

There are four places in the Book of Psalms, to any of which Jesus might have been alluding (35 :19; 69 :4; 109 :3; 119 :161). Somewhat remarkably, the first three all have their roots in David’s bitter experience at the time of Absalom’s rebellion (see Study 187). Each of them makes mention also of the well-loved friend who turned traitor-Ahithophel, the prototype of Judas (35 :11-15; 69 :25-cp. Acts 1 :20; 109 :8). Two of these three psalms are specially appropriate to the earlier warning by Jesus: “If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you”-“They speak not peace, but they devise deceitful matters against them that are quiet in the land” (35 :20); “Let not them that wait on thee … be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel… they persecute him whom thou hast smitten, and they count up the torments of those whom thou hast wounded” (69:6,26).

In the testing experiences of persecution the gift of the Holy Spirit was to prove a wonderful aid and solace, the Comforter in very truth. The Lord’s words here (v.26), taken with Acts 9 :31, are most appropriate to the conversion of the one who most intensely hated and persecuted.

Wisdom and Power

Jesus had promised: “I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist” (Lk.21 :15) – “for it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you” (Mt.10:20). The repeated impressive examples of Peter, Stephen and Paul in the Book of Acts show how literally true these promises of heavenly help were.

These men of God were keenly aware of a power and wisdom, far surpassing their own, being super-added to their own eager personal witness: “the Spirit of truth . . . shall testify of me: and ye also shall bear witness.” So Peter was able to say: “We are his witnesses of these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit, which God hath given to them that obey him” (Acts 5 :32), “It seemed good unto the Holy Spirit and to us . . .”, said James at the council in Jerusalem, with an authority which no one dreamed of questioning (Acts 15 :28). In a somewhat more subtle fashion, when on trial before Festus Paul declared: “I am not mad .. . but speak forth the words of truth and soberness” (Acts 26 :25); the expression he employed there means: “to speak as a divine oracle.” So he was not only inspired, but knew it.

Fanaticism

The Lord’s warning of persecution and promise of divine guidance were both given to save from stumbling these his followers who, left to themselves, would assuredly be overwhelmed spiritually as well as physically by the intellectual cleverness and unscrupulous power of their ruthless adversaries, and by undisciplined mass opposition also. No less than six times he spoke of “these things” which were to come upon them (15 :21; 16 :1,3,4,4,6; and note also 15:11,17).

Excommunication would be applied as a matter of course. It was a terrible weapon, for in its extremest form it involved not only religious but social ostracism-no man might buy or sell save he who had the mark of the synagogue. The blind beggar, healed of his blindness, boldly stood up to the bullying of the Jewish rulers, and paid for it by being “cast out” (Jn.9 :22,34). And men like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were long held back from openly declaring their allegiance to Jesus by the same threat publicly held over the head or any who came out on the side of the Galilean (12:42).

But worse would follow: “Whosoever killetth you will think that he doeth God service”-and here Jesus used the technical term for offering sacrifice or singing psalms to God in His temple. It was a saying of the rabbis: “Everyone who sheds the blood of the impious is as if he offered sacrifice.” Thus they were to be accounted as sheep for the slaughter (Rom.8 :36)! Saul of Tarsus was one of these fanatical persecutors. Years later he looked back on that phase of his life: “I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they (others besides Stephen) were put to death. I gave my voice against them. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them I persecuted them even unto strange cities” (i.e. other places besides Damascus)” (Acts 26:9-11).

Jesus could hardly have put his warnings more plainly. Now was the time for the fainthearted among them to say: “No, Lord, this is more than I can face.” Instead, Peter “spake the more vehemently, If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise”—and “likewise also said they all” (Mk.14 :31), brave, loyal, weak, bewildered men that they were.

Notes: Jn. 15:18-27

21.	For my name’s sake. E.g. Acts 5 :41; 21 :13; 2 Cor.12 :10; Gal.6 :4; Phil.2 :17,18; 1 Pet.4 :14. And note the remarkable parallelism in ls.48:9: “for my name’s sake … for my praise.”
25.	The ellipsis here has to be filled in somehow. This reading is surely more to the point than the rather anaemic AV phrase.
	They hated me without a cause. How well Psalm 69 repays careful study I It is given a Messianic application by the New Testament in no less than seven places: v.4, 9a, 9b, 20, 21, 22, 25. But what about verse 5?

A long-established name for the memorial rite which is central to all true Christian faith and practice is “Breaking of Bread.” This has clear Biblical sanction, as in the following references.

“And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, and in the Breaking of Bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42). It may well be that the comma here should come after “teaching”, the other three phrases -fellowship, breaking of bread, prayers-being in apposition to “teaching” and all having reference to the sacrament.

Acts 2:46 goes on to mention “breaking bread from house to house.” This can hardly refer to ordinary meals, for Luke was writing of things which had special significance in the early church. This, then, is the first allusion to what became an early church practice of holding memorial services in private houses-“the church that is in their house” is a phrase which meets the New Testament reader several times over (Rom.16 :5; 1 Cor.16 :19; Col.4:15; Philemon 2).

Again, when Paul came to Troas near the end of his third journey, he evidently arrived just too late for the meeting of the brethren, for although he “hasted if it were possible for him to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost”, he nevertheless “tarried seven days” until “the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread.” That this was the Breaking of Bread is made clear by the renewed mention after the restoring of Eutychus: “When he therefore was come up again, and had broken the Bread, and eaten …” (Acts 20:6,7,11).

Since, then, this expression “Breaking of Bread” has the undoubted sanction of early church usage, it is unexceptionable. And yet one cannot help but wonder why this title was chosen in preference to others since it carried with it no suggestion of the drinking of wine as a symbol of the blood of Christ. (A hard-pressed Catholic looking for support for his church’s practice of “communion in one kind” might have a point here!).

The Lord’s Supper

“The Lord’s Supper” is an alternative title specially popular with Methodists. The New Testament sanction for this is not so strong as would appear on the surface: “When ye therefore assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:20RV). This is the only instance of its use, and here-as the context plainly shows (Study 192)-Paul had in mind the Agape or Love Feast, the actual meal of fellowship which in those days normally preceded the Breaking of Bread ceremony.

In any case this word “supper” is hardly appropriate to the small portion of Bread and sip of Wine taken by each participant. And in modern English “supper” normally denotes an evening meal, whereas current practice only rarely includes evening observance. So on three counts the term “Lord’s Supper” is hardly appropriate. It should be reserved exclusively for the meal which Jesus had with his disciples in the upper room.

The Emblems – Communion

Another term, common enough in some quarters, which could well be let go is “the Emblems”. Not that there is anything specially wrong with this – indeed, the dictionary definition is aptness itself: “symbols typical representation.” But it is strange that neither gospel nor epistle has any use for the word, either in Greek or English. Its popularity stems from the hymnbook.

“Communion” is in common use in the churches, but hardly at all in Christadelphian circles, although indeed an exchange of these practices would be more suitable, for who are fitted to celebrate a true fellowship with Christ and a reality of fellowship with one another more than Christadelphians-and communion is fellowship: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1Cor. 10:16). Perhaps it is the popularity of this term elsewhere which has begotten current mistrust of it.

Thanksgiving

And the same probably goes for another term with even more pronounced ecclesiastical associations-the name Eucharist. This word, never heard in the ecclesias, means The Thanksgiving. The way in which this word is neglected, except when one is called upon to “give thanks for the Bread (or Wine)”, is in sharp contrast with the emphasis in the records of the Last Supper.

That Jesus gave thanks for the Bread is stated by Luke and Paul (and perhaps by implication, by Matthew and Mark), and that he gave thanks for the Wine is mentioned in Matthew, Mark and Luke (and in Paul, by implication). There is also the same stress in John’s “version” when he anticipates the Last Supper with his closely parallel account of the Feeding of the Multitude and his Master’s “giving of thanks” (Jn.6:11,23).

In its scope this name Thanksgiving is the most comprehensive of any, for it associates the Bread and Wine with the gratitude of the believer to God for these spiritual blessings in Christ. It is equally meaningful for both the Bread and the Wine, and puts emphasis where emphasis needs to be put, on the fact that all is of God and His grace. Whoever sincerely takes the Bread and Wine is a recipient of what God gives him freely in Christ—a gracious forgiveness and a prospect of yet more abundant life-in return for all of which the communicant gives nothing and has nothing to give except his thanks. Could there possibly be a better word than Thanksgiving for the receiving of so rich and lavish and free a gift?

And yet there is no explicit example in the New Testament of the use of this title, unless 1 Corinthians 14:16 be so regarded: “Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?” This must surely have been written with reference to the ritual Thanksgiving, and not merely concerning grace before meat.

It is possible that there exist several less explicit references to the Breaking of Bread as the Thanksgiving. One example is Ephesians 5:14-21:

v.14	“Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that steepest and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” This is no quotation from Scripture, but is usually taken to be an excerpt from an early baptismal hymn.
v.18	“Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit”-a warning against abuse of the Love-Feast, of the kind which happened elsewhere (1 Cor. 11:21; Jude 12 RV).
v.19	“Speaking to one another (RV) in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs”-the hymns at their assemblies.
v.20	“Giving thanks always for all things. . .in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”-the Eucharist?
v.21	“Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ” (RV)-a reminiscence of the self-demeaning of Jesus when he washed the feet of his disciples at the Last Supper?

This is the kind of interpretation which cannot be fully established, but such a view has the distinct merit of binding together what would otherwise be a series of random disjointed exhortations without sequence, such as a logical mind like Paul’s was unlikely to indulge in.

Colossians 1 :12-14 is of the same character. No one detail requires reference to the Breaking of Bread, yet almost every phrase takes on a greater fulness of meaning and coherence is imparted to the whole, when it is so read: “Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: who hath delivered us from the power of darkness (the very phrase used by Jesus just after the Last Supper; Lk.22 :53), and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son (cp. “I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me”; Lk.22 :29): in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins” (cp. “the blood of the new covenant for the remission of sins”). Interpretations on these lines remain possibilities, but can never be certainties.

To sum up, then, it would seem that of the expressions available to the present-day believer, Breaking of Bread, Communion, and Thanksgiving (or Eucharist) are the terms most expressive of the character of the rite and least open to objection. All three have Biblical sanction and recommendation. Yet concerning this matter we have no commandment of the Lord, but only that we “do this in remembrance of him.”

Under the Law of Moses, the prescribed order of sacrifices was:

1. The sin-offering, in expiation of sin.
2. The whole burnt-offering-the re-consecration of the life of the forgiven sinner.
3. The meal-offering—the consecration of his daily works to the service of God.
4. The peace-offering-the sacrificial meal of fellowship.

The sacrifice of Jesus covers, of course, all these aspects of redemption, but the Last Supper has specially strong affinities with the idea of the peace offering, as the following summary of Leviticus 3 and 7:11-21 should demonstrate.

1. The essential idea is that of fellowship with God through the partaking of a meal in His presence—a meal provided by Him: e.g. 1 Chr. 29:21,22a (cp. Acts 2:42,46), ” Ex. 24:5,11; 1 Cor. 10:16,20,21; Col. 1:20-22.
2. The peace offering followed the burnt offering (Lev.3 :5). Fellowship at the Lord’s Table comes after the initial self-consecration in baptism.
3. The offerer was to put his hands on the head of the sacrifice, thus identifying himself with the slaying of it, and also expressing his dependence on it (the Hebrew word means “to lean, or to be supported”); ls.53 :6.
4. The sacrifice was slain by the offerer in person (Lev.3 :2), thus emphasizing yet further that the sacrifice was for himself (1 Tim.1 :15).
5. The blood of the sacrifice was put on the altar (Lev.3 :2j. In this way the sacrifice became God’s, fully devoted to His service (Jn.4:34).
6. the choicest portions were also burnt on the altar (Lev.3 :3-5). It was in the prime of his life that Jesus served God with the fulness of his powers.
7. The priest also received his special portions (Lev.7 :31,32). These, a heave-offering, expressed the ideal of willing perfect service (Ps.25:1; Ex.25 :2).
8. The rest of the sacrifice was given back to the offerer to be eaten by him before the Lord as a guest at His table; e.g. Dt.27 :7. Here especially, peace offering and Lord’s Supper fuse into one. (Mt. 26:26; Jn. 6:50-57,33; cp. Lev. 3:11 RVm: “bread”). In 1 Corinthians 10:16, the order of the peace-offering is pointedly followed: 1. The blood poured out. 2. The flesh eaten.
9. It was to be eaten with joy; Dt.12 :7,11,12,18 and 14 :23,26. and 27:7. (In the New Testament with hardly an exception, “joy” means joy in fellowship).
10. The highest form of peace offering was that which was a thanksgiving; Lev.7 :12,13,15. and in the early church one of the first names for the Lord’s Supper was Eucharist, thanksgiving (Lk.22 :17,19; 1 Cor.14 :17; Ps.ll6:12-19especiallyv.l7).
11. That which remained to the third day must be burned, that no corruption be associated with any offering of God (Lev.7 :17,18). Likewise there must be no denial of the resurrection of Jesus (Ps.l6:10).
12. Anyone partaking, being unclean, was reckoned unfit to be among the Lord’s people (Lev.7 :20). “Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils” (1 Cor. 10 :21). “Whosoever shall eat … or drink .. ‘• unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself . . .” (1 Cor. 11 :27,28; cp. 1 Pet.l ,”‘15,16).
13. The peace offering might be eaten with unleavened or with leavened bread, the former expressing the ideal of sinless service, and the latter emphasizing that the frailty of sin does not debar a man from fellowship with God.
14. In Isaiah 25 :6, “a feast of fat things” foretells a time when even that which is God’s portion (see item 6) shall be shared by the Lord’s redeemed, thus “partaking of the divine nature” (2 Pet.l :4). In this way the Lord’s Supper will be “fulfilled” in the kingdom of God” (Lk.22 :16).
15. The LXX expression for peace offering is “the offering of salvation”.

There is a strange paradox about the development of Christ’s discourse to the twelve in John 14. After repeated emphasis on their dose fellowship with both the Father and the Son (v. 18-23 especially), he was at pains to prepare their minds for separation. “These things have I spoken, being yet present with you.” The time when he would be taken away was drawing near, and there were many things he had tried to teach them which they would forget. And many which they remembered they would understand only imperfectly. The disciples themselves knew this well enough. So it was a great comfort to them to be assured that the gift of the Holy Spirit, “whom the Father will send in my name (to further my work), he shall teach you all things (Mt. 23:8), and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

This was a tremendous promise. The new commandment: “Do this in remembrance of me,” properly and dutifully observed, would involve their remembering all that the Lord had said and done among them-and not only the remembering but the understanding also. With so many blatant examples in their recent experience of downright lack of comprehension of Christ, how could they hope to keep him in memory as they ought? Luke’s gospel especially tells with unequivocal bluntness of their lack of insight: “They understood not this saying, and it was hid from them that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying” (9 :45). And again: “They understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken” (18:34).

Lack of Insight

But, by contrast, there are several examples of blindness giving place to sight: “When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered (and understood) that he had said this unto them” (Jn.2 :22). “And they remembered his words” (Lk.24:8), now making sense of them. “These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him” (Jn.12 :16). “What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter, Thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me afterwards” (Jn. 13:7,36). Peter could not follow physically then, because he was unable to “follow” Jesus in his spiritual grasp of what it all meant. “These things have I told you, that when the time shall come ye may remember” (Jn.16 :4). At the tomb of Jesus there was mystification in Peter’s mind because “as yet they knew not (i.e. they understood not) the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead” (Jn.20:9).

Within a few weeks what a change was to come over these men! The company of their risen Lord during the forty days, and the endowment of the spirit’s wisdom and power at Pentecost, transformed them into veritable geniuses of Bible exposition. Ignorant and unlearned men bequeathed to later generations matchless compressions of forceful reasoning and perceptive interpretation.

High priest’s blessing

Nor was the guiding and comforting Holy spirit to be the Lord’s only bequest to his faithful at the time of his going away: “Peace I leave with you, my Peace I give unto you.” This was more than a conventional farewell! Shalom!

Jesus had encouraged them to consider him as sacrifice and High Priest, consecrated and consecrating in God’s new spiritual House. After the offering of the daily sacrifice, and most especially after the great sin-offering on the Day of Atonement, it was normal for the priest to convey God’s blessing to the assembled worshippers: “The Lord lift up the light of his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace” (Num.6 :24-27). This was no formality, but the imparting of a very real blessing: “and I will bless them,” said the Lord to Moses. It meant the forgiveness of sins (See Study 194) and reconciliation (“Peace”) with their God.

Now, in reality and not in type, Jesus gave his high-priestly blessing to the disciples before the sacrifice was offered and before he went away into the divine Presence with the evidence of the sacrifice. “Not as the world-the Jewish world, and its high priest—giveth (Peace), give I unto you.” It was a further indication that his offering of himself was timeless in its quality and effects. True faith in Christ (like that of Abraham; Jn.8:56) need not wait for Golgotha in order to know the “Peace” of Christ.

Afraid-why?

Wherefore, “Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” Fear of what? That their Master was to be taken from them, seems to be the obvious answer. But it may be that his talk of a new temple, with a new sacrifice, new ordinances and a new high priest suddenly appalled them with the utterly revolutionary thought that they were now to turn their backs on the temple in Jerusalem and on the men who exercised authority there. If, indeed, this was not their greatest fear at this moment, it was to become so before very long.

“I said to you, I go away, and come again unto you,” Jesus reminded them. He had said this when speaking of the new “Father’s house” and of his own role in it (14 :2,3). Now he repeated that assurance: “If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I said, I go unto the Father.” The past tenses here might suggest that he was taking their minds back to the Breaking of Bread which they had scarcely understood? Had they done so, they would have found much greater joy of fellowship at that table, out of deeper appreciation of the redeeming truth it symbolized.

Going to the Father

Jesus, their Master, was the Son of God and for their sakes was about to go away to the Father’s presence, even as Moses had gone up into the mount to learn God’s will for His people. But Jesus was greater than Moses-everything in this latest discourse had proclaimed that fact-and the Father to whom he would approach on their behalf was greater than he, and was able and for the sake of His beloved Son was willing to pour out limitless blessings on those who honour the Son as they honour the Father.

“My Father is greater than I”

From the earliest days of apostasy that simple truth: “My Father is greater than I,” has been a thorn in the sides of Trinitarians. To this day the best they can do with it is to coin a strange dichotomy that sometimes the gospels speak of Jesus as God and sometimes as man. Thus Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln: “My Father is greater than I am, in the nature that goes to Him. But I am equal to Him in that Nature which is now and ever with Him”!! Very lucid! Would Jesus be at pains to say: ‘My Father is greater than my mortal nature’? Was he in the habit of speaking such platitudes?

The real purpose of this declaration by Jesus was to emphasize that even though the Father is so much greater than the Son, the latter has qualities which enable him to approach into and abide in the Father’s presence, in a way which was never possible for Moses, no matter how great his other privileges.

All these things Jesus sought to inculcate, so that the disciples would weather the coming storm and ultimately find all the more confidence in their Lord simply because he had foretold everything. “Who hath declared from the beginning, that we may know? and beforetime, that we may say, He is righteous?” (Is.41 :26). If such power vindicated Almighty God, what should they not similarly learn concerning Jesus?

The prince of this world

There was little more that he could tell them. The hour-glass was fast running out: “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.” In this context of temple, priesthood, and I ministered sacrifice, there is much to be said for the suggestion (Study 169) that “the prince of this world” is the high priest of the Jewish order, now about to use every villainous device he was capable of to rid the country of Jesus of Nazareth. But- “he hath nothing in me.”

The conclusion of this discourse is a strange unfinished sentence. The interpreter is compelled to assume an ellipsis or a parenthesis, probably the latter, thus: “But that the (Jewish) world may know that I love the Father, arise, let us to hence-and as the Father gave me commandment (to lay down my life) even so I do.” Alternatively, assuming an ellipsis: “But (the prince of this world comes) that the world may know that I love the Father …” Either way, one central truth shines out: The world learns his love of the Father. It is the only thing that the world does learn from Jesus!

Notes: Jn. 14:25-31

26.	A summary of the Lord’s promises concerning the Holy spirit:
	14:16-18. Comfort.
	14:26. Instruction.
	15:26; 16:7-11. Witness.
	16:13,14. Interpretation.
26, 27	The sequence of ideas: teaching, peace, no fear (v.26,27), is also to be found in Is. 54:13,14.
28.	I go unto the Father. An impressive case can be made out for reading a substantial part of these discourses (ch. 14-16) and especially the prayer of ch. 17 as having been spoken by the Lord just before his ascension. But in that case, why incorporated here?- because so much was also relevant to the Lord’s farewell before going to the cross?

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.

	1.	Melchizedek as a type of Christ (Genesis 14:18-20; Hebrews 7:1-11).
		a.	Melchizedek means “King of r Righteousness.” Jesus is the only one to whom this title rightly belongs. He was first the Righteous One, and then –
		b.	He was king of Jerusalem (Mt.5 :35); which means-
		c.	King of Peace, strictly, King of the Peace that Jehovah will provide (Gen.22 :8,14).
		d.	Without father, without mother.” Through a misunderstanding of these words various unsupported suggestions have been made about Melchizedek being Shem, Enoch, or an angel. The words “made like unto the Son of God” explain. “Shaveh” (Gen. 14:17) means “made like”. Here is the authority for Heb.7:3 and all that it implies. Thus the narrative in Genesis 14 is designed, both in what is said and in what is left unsaid, to present the priesthood of Melchizedek as like that of Christ. Here, a contrast is made with the Aaronic priesthood which depended entirely on ancestry of both father and mother (Lev.21 :14;Neh.7:64,65).
		e.	“Having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” Again the reference is to priesthood. Christ’s priestly work is efficacious for every generation of the human race from Adam onwards. Compare the force of Hebrews 9 :15: “for redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant”; and-Romans 3 :25: “the remission of sins that are past.”
		f.	Melchizedek was greater than Abraham. So also Christ (Jn.8:53-58).
		g.	He blessed Abraham in the name of the Lord. But the real blessing on Abraham comes through Christ (Gen.22 :18).
		h.	In the narrative he offered no animal sacrifice; note the explanation made under
		i.	He brought forth bread and wine (Mt. 26:26-29). Was this too obvious for mention in Hebrews 7?
		j.	Acknowledgment of him means also renunciation of worldly advantage (Gen. 14:22-24).
		k.	Another slaughter of the kings is to be followed by Bread and Wine and divine blessing at Jerusalem (Mt.26:29; ls.25 :6).
		l.	Not only the house of Abraham but also Abraham’s Gentile friends are brought to God’s priest-king at Jerusalem (Gen. 14:13,24; Gal. 3:8,9).

	2.	In 2 Samuel 6 David deliberately took upon himself the role of a Melchizedek priest-king (a conscious anticipation of the Messiah he looked for?). Note there:
		v.13:	he offered sacrifice.
		v.14:	he wore the priestly ephod.
		v.18:	he blessed the people in the name of the Lord.
		v.19:	he gave the people Bread and Wine (the word “dealt” here in the LXX is the same as “divide” in Luke 22:17). The word translated: “a flagon of wine” (v.19) is, literally: “a pressing”, and may refer to (a) figs or dates pressed together, or to (b) wine from the pressing of grapes. AV is correct here.
		7:18:	he sat for prayer in the presence of the Lord(cp.Ps.110:1).

	3.	The Table of Shewbread in the Holy Place of the Tabernacle carried not only the Bread but also the Wine of the drink offerings (Lev.24; Ex.25 :29RV; Num.28 :7). Exodus 30 ;9 appears to exclude the disposal of the wine in any other way than by the priests. This could also be inferred from the fact that the Shewbread was to be eaten by the priest (Lev.24 :9). Thus in the great prototype of the House of God there was special provision for the sustenance of God’s servants, and they were to eat and drink it “in a holy place” (RV).
	4.	Proverbs 9 :1-12 may have been originally an appeal to the people to assemble soberly to take heed to the reading of the Law at the Feast of Tabernacles. But it is couched in terms which run on beyond that. There is the building of a house (v.l), the offering of sacrifice, and preparation of Bread and Wine (v.2,5), the appeal to turn from folly to the way of understanding (v.6), emphasis on the fear of the Lord (v.10), and promise of length of days (v.11).
	5.	Isaiah 55 :1,2 is (in spite of its familiarity) a difficult passage, and this largely because it mentions three things to drink (water, wine, milk) and nothing to eat. A re-translation is possible: “Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, break (Bread), and eat; yea, come, buy Wine and marrow . . . without price.” Read thus, the offer is of water and Bread, which become the Wine and marrow of the Messianic feast in ch.25 :6. Note how the main principles of the gospel are expressed here with a brevity so effective as to leave the contemplative reader marvelling.
		a.	The appeal is to everyone, not to Jews only;
		b.	to everyone who knows his own need (“everyone that thirsteth”),
		c.	and who is willing to come,
		d.	although conscious of an inability to buy what is sought (“he that hath no money”);
		e.	the gift is free,
		f.	And yet a price has to be paid—”hearken diligently… incline your ear.”
		g.	“Hear, and your soul shall live” carries the strong implication that otherwise the soul will assuredly die.
		h.	Where is also clear condemnation of justification by one’s own works: “Wherefore do ye spend . . . your earnings (RVm) for that which satisfied not?”
		i.	All this is associated indissolubly, not with the old covenant made at Sinai, but with the new “everlasting covenant” made sure to David through its ratification in Jesus. “The sure mercies of David” is a verbal allusion back to the Promise in 2 Samuel 7: “My mercy shall not depart from him . . . Thine house and thy kingdom shall be established (same word as “sure”) for ever (the “everlasting covenant”) before thee.” It is noteworthy also that “I will make an everlasting covenant with you” (LXX) is used by Jesus at the Last Supper: “I appoint unto you a kingdom . . . .” (Lk.22 :29-same Gk. words). The Promise is called “the sure mercies” because the forgiveness of sins, as well as promise of a kingdom, is involved.

The disciples were much disturbed by the ominous words of their Master at the meal table. They may have felt something sinister about Judas’s departure; and the Lord’s mysterious half-understood references to his own body and blood, as he gave them bread and wine, impressed them with a sense of foreboding and tragedy. So he spoke to comfort them. Deliberately choosing language reminiscent of Moses and the covenant God made with Israel in the wilderness, he tried to teach them something of the great good that he would ultimately bring them.

“Let not your heart be troubled” (contrast 12:40). There was good reason that it should be. Had he not spoken very plainly of going away from them (13 :33). Well might they be disconsolate. But indeed there was cause enough that his heart be troubled. Two very moving psalms of Messiah, both of which spoke about the traitor, had these very words (Ps.55 :4,12-14; 109 :22,8). However his concern was entirely for the disciples, and not for himself. He knew that he now had only two or three hours, at most, with them. What could he best say to help them?

“Ye believe in God, believe also in me”—and go on believing in spite of discouragements, was the implication.

A new temple

He tried to explain to them the purpose behind the tragedy they were soon to witness, and he attempted it in religious terms that they would grasp: “In my Father’s house are many places of abode … I go to prepare a place for you.” Always, without any exception, the Father’s house was the sanctuary where He was worshipped. “Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise” (2 :16), Jesus had angrily declared as he cleared the temple court. And in the Old Testament “the House” was by far the most commonly-used expression when‘ referring to the temple. Also, in the Old Testament the word “place” (Hebrew: maqom) nearly always means a sanctuary, holy place, or altar.

Sacrifice

So, without doubt, the disciples knew that Jesus spoke of a temple. Probably it was only later on that they recognized that he meant a holy temple made up of men and women newborn in him.

The false and futile ideas which have passed for sober exposition of this passage need not appropriate space here. It is more important to enquire what Jesus meant by his going to prepare a place. Three considerations require that more emphasis be put on his going to a sacrificial death at Golgotha than on his ascension to a work of priestly intercession in heaven!

1. His words to Peter: Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shaft follow me afterwards” (13:36).
2. The Greek aorists are inappropriate to describe a long-continued intercessory work,
3. No holy place is valid without the offering of a sacrifice. All intercession is pointless without the shedding of blood.

Could they but see it, the Lord’s allusion to “abiding places” for them meant that he was now offering them a new status as priests in a new and better order which would supersede the Aaronic high priest and all his Levites. Already, when he had washed their feet before supper, this intensely revolutionary idea had been planted in their minds (see Study 185), to germinate there in the days to come.

Since the blood of an expiatory sacrifice must necessarily be presented in the divine presence, Jesus implied this also (see 14 :12,28; 16 :17): “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again, and will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” This would readily be understood as allusion to the high priest coming forth from the Holy of Holies to bless the people in the name of the Lord: “So Christ was once for all offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Heb.9:28).

His coming again

It is sometimes argued that the personal return of Christ from heaven finds no mention in John’s gospel, and this is used to reinforce the idea that when Jesus said here: “I come again,” his words require some symbolic or mystical interpretation. Neither premises nor conclusion are flawless. The resurrection passage in John 5:28 plainly requires and assumes the personal return of the Son of man. And, “If I will that he tarry till I come . . .” (21 :22) is just as clear (cp. also 1 Jn.2 :28; 3 :2). Here also, once the idiom of priest and sanctuary is recognized in the passage under review, the personal reappearance of Christ the High Priest at some future time is plainly implied. How else could he “receive the disciples unto himself”?

The phrase just mentioned is not infrequently quoted in support of the idea that at his return Christ will take his saints away to heaven, but this is completely vetoed by the next clause: “that where I am, there ye may be also.” Since Jesus is to sit on David’s throne (Lk.l :32,33), and is to send forth the law from Zion (Is.2 :3), his redeemed will necessarily be there with him.

The troubled minds of the disciples were perplexed about their Master’s allusions to going away: “Whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.” How many times in recent months had he sought to enlighten their unwilling minds about his impending sacrifice! (e.g. Lk.9 :22,44; 17 :25; 18 :32; 20 :14,15). But, with a stubborn repugnance to such an idea, they could hardly believe it to be true.

The Way, the Truth, the Life

Blunt hard-headed Thomas spoke for them all: “Lord, we know not whither thou goest and how can we know the way?”

The reply of Jesus told them that it was no physical journey, but a reconciliation and fellowship with God, about which he spoke: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Here, doubtless, is the origin of the early church’s affectionate name for the faith which it held. What today is commonly referred to as “The Truth” was called “The Way” in the first century (Acts 9 :2; 8 :31,36; 19 :9,23; 22 :4; 24 :22; Heb.9 :8; 10 :20; Gen.3 :24). Peter calls it: “The Way of the Truth (2 Pet.2 :2). It is possible that Jesus used this triad to continue the idea of sacrifice and mediation which he had already explained. The Way to the Father is always through sacrifice—the altar of the sanctuary. The life in Him must be lived according to Truth—compare the priests ministering in the Holy Place. And this fellowship culminates in eternal Life with the Father-the Holy of Holies. Or, the words are to be taken as a Hebraism for “the True and Living Way’—true in contrast with “type” (cp. “I am the true Vine”), the typical foreshadowing of redemption provided by the Low of Moses; and Living, with reference to the abiding efficacy of his saving work—he had power to lay down his life, and he had power to take it again—once again, contrast the ministering in the temple by mortal priests burning slain sacrifices on the altar.

He is the only acceptable means of approach to God: “no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” This is a universal truth. From the time of Adam no man has ever had fellowship with God except through the merits of Christ. In ancient times this could be, at best, only dimly foreseen and appreciated. Yet for all finding redemption under the Old Covenant this central truth must stand. A man must appreciate that his sins could be put away only through One whom God would provide for this unique work. Sacrifices and offerings could have no validity apart from a forward-looking faith of this kind. Today faith looks more easily to the death and eternal priesthood of Christ as the only possible atonement for the sins committed yesterday and next week.

“If ye had learned about me, ye would have learned about my Father also.” He did well to reproach them for being so impervious to the sublime truths he had sought to teach them. However, the experience of the next few days would open their eyes and impart an insight which at present was beyond them: “From henceforth ye know him, and have seen him” (that past tense emphasizing the certainty of this new understanding).

Philip, as literal-minded as any of them and one whose characteristic method of evangelism was “Come and see” (Jn.l :46; 12 :21), fastened on this promise of seeing the Father. His mind went—as Jesus intended that it should—to the experience of Israel’s leaders at Sinai, and he responded eagerly: “Lord, shew us the Father (as Moses did to his seventy), sufficeth us”—as who should say: “Like them we have seen the provision of manna—your feeding of the multitudes. Like them we have shared a meal of heavenly fellowship. Now grant us that heavenly vision which they saw and which Moses especially beheld.”

Moses and Jesus

It is worthwhile to recapitulate that Sinai experience. Overawed by the manifestation of heavenly majesty and power, “all the people trembled.” Bounds were set round the mountain so that none might draw near to the presence of the Almighty. The people made their solemn promise: “All words which the Lord hath said, will we do.” Fearing exceedingly, they demanded “Moses, speak thou with us and we will hear” (cp.v.10 here). Then came the ratifying of the covenant through the offering of sacrifice and the sprinkling of blood. Only when this was concluded could there be the gracious divine invitation: “Come up unto the Lord, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel… and they saw the God of Israel, and did eat and drink.” But only Moses and Joshua-Jesus were given the privilege of a yet more majestic vision of the Glory of the Lord (Ex.19:16,24; 24:1-18).

Much in the discourse of Jesus made allusion to this awe-inspiring occasion with its wonderful foreshadowing of the New Covenant and reconciliation, in himself. Evidently the apostles, for all their lack of spiritual perspicuity, had gropingly recognized this. They were trying hard to grasp what the reality in Christ, behind the type, might be.

“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father but by me’—the words now began to take on fuller meaning. Without a sacrifice and a Moses the leaders of Israel were shut out from fellowship with the God of their fathers. Could it be, the disciples now wondered, that for them their Jesus would be both sacrifice and Mediator, and would ensure for them a yet greater privilege? They had heard a voice from heaven speak to him with an impressive majesty comparable to Sinai (12 :28,29;Mt. 17:5).

“If I go away, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also.” The meaning of the words opened out as they recalled how first of all Moses had gone into the divine presence alone. It was only after God’s acceptance of himself that he was able to introduce the princes of the nation to a comparable experience. No need far their hearts to be troubled or fearful, as were the hearts of Israel hearing and seeing the Shekinah splendour on the mount (Ex.20 :18-21).

The Lord’s reply to Philip continued the allusion to Moses: “Have I been so long with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” When Moses returned from one of his forty-day vigils in the mount, his face shone with the reflected Glory of the Lord: “the skin of his face shone: and they were afraid to come nigh him” (Ex.34 :29-35). In a certain limited and physical sense, he who saw Moses that day saw the Father. But how much more, and in a much more fundamental sense, was this true of the disciples’ experience of Jesus! In him they saw God’s own character and personality as fully declared unto men as it possibly could be. Subject to human limitations, “in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily’—and now, in his glory, even more fully.

Then, Philip, “how sayest thou, Shew us the Father?” How, in what spirit, did he ask it?—as a believing loyal disciple or as wayward faithless Israel?

For further answer, Jesus took him back again to the experience of Moses. “Behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice,” wailed the reluctant prophet. The reply of the angel of the Lord was a pair of horrifying and breath-taking miracles—the serpent, the great enemy, taken and transformed into an instrument of redemption, and the sin-disease of leprosy deliberately shared by the servant of the Lord in order that it might be killed and cured in his own bosoml “If they will not believe thee neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, they will believe the voice of the latter sign.” And when at last the people were brought out of their bondage, the record once—and once only—says: “the people believed the Lord and his servant Moses” (Ex. 4:1-9; 14:31).

Philip, where do you stand now regarding the prophet like unto Moses “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you (like the words of Moses) I speak not of myself. . . believe me for the very works’ sake.” “Hereby,” said Moses when beset by Korah and his fellow rebels, “ye shall know that the Lord hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind” (Num.16 :28). If this was Christ’s allusion, their counterpart in his ministry was the astonishing miracles he had wrought or, just possibly, the amazing acts of authority in clearing his Father’s house of rebels and their abuses. But if the reference was to the more personal signs of serpent and leprosy, then the works of Jesus most to be believed were (and are) the wondrous overcoming of all sin by one born with sin’s nature.

“Greater works”

Either way, the emphasis was (and is) quite inescapably on faith—the word “believe” comes four times very close together: “He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also.” Jesus goes away to the Father, and the disciple takes up where he leaves off. The work of proclaiming good tidings of sin forgiven and of o promised kingdom falls to all who see the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. “And greater works than these shall he do’—the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles, a work denied to Jesus because of his higher responsibility to his own people, was to be taken in hand by the apostles and by all who succeeded them. A greater work as to its results, even though inferior in quality. The eloquence of Old Testament prophets informed Jesus of the far-reaching success of his missionaries even though his own appeal to Israel, unique and inimitable, was such a sickening failure.

But the ground of their success and encouragement lay in that short phrase: “because I go unto my Father.” From the heavenly throne he would send forth power to his preachers, so that their own weakness and deficiency would be more than made good by the wisdom and authority of the Holy Spirit.

More than this, access to God in prayer simply because they belonged to Christ would ever bring gracious response from heaven in every time of need in their work of preaching. The context requires this limitation of scope; cp. 15 :7,16. “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” The context limits the mandate to their task of witnessing to the name of Christ (and so also, very pointedly, in ch.15 :7-8,16). Only in this field was it true for them that “if ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.”

The words have been much misunderstood, not only in their scope but also in their operation. There is here no special requirement that every prayer must be introduced or concluded, or both, with mention of the name of Christ, as though it were a kind of talisman or magical incantation. Such a view misses the force of the common Biblical idiom. It means, rather, that the prayer of the disciple has power simply because he is in Christ. It is a man’s high status in Christ, rather than the words he frames, which imparts to what he says on his knees a special force and efficacy.

Notes: Jn. l4:1-14

1.	Your heart troubled, as Israel’s at Sinai; Ex.20 :18.
2.	My Father’s house. Compare Rev.3 :12; Is.66 :1,2; and contrast “your house”; Mt.23 :38.
	Prepare a place quotes Ex.23 :20 about the angel of the covenant. Now, instead of an angel, Jesus with a New Covenant. Instead of a lifetime’s inheritance in Canaan, an everlasting inheritance with their Lord.
3.	Come again. Present tense, as in Mt.17:11.
	Where I am; 12:26; 17:24.
6.	But by me. Heb.10:20; Eph.2 :18.
7.	Seen him. This word horao is very commonly (always?) used of a divine vision; e.g. Lk 1:22; 24:23; Jn. 1:18, 34; 5:37; 6:2; 8:38

“This is my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mt.26 :28).

The very familiarity of the words can be a hindrance to the understanding of them. Even if the Epistle to the Hebrews did not say so explicitly, there can be no manner of doubt that Jesus had in mind the supersession of the Old Covenant made at Sinai and the fulfilment of the prophecies by Jeremiah and Ezekiel of a new and living way. So a proper appreciation of the Sacrament involves a certain insight into these earlier Scriptures.

The sequence in Exodus is simple and forceful in its lessons:

a.	There was a fence about the mount. None must presume to approach Jehovah in His holiness (ch. 19 .-12,13,23,24).
b.	The Law of God was rehearsed in the ears of the people (ch.24:3).
c.	They expressed an emphatic resolution to obey (v. 3,7).
d.	Burnt offerings and peace offerings (and before these, sin offerings? Heb.9 .-19) were slain (v.5).
e.	The sacrificial blood was sprinkled on the altar (God’s side of the covenant) and on the people (their assent to it) and also (Heb. 9:19) on the Book of the Law (the essential link between the two parties),
f.	Thus the covenant was made. Contrast here the Covenant of Faith made with Abraham, when God only (and not Abraham) ratified the Promise (Gen.15:17).
g.	“Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel” (v.9). The fence about the mount was gone. After the sacrifice and covenant, fellowship with the God of Israel was now possible.
h.	“They saw God, and did eat and drink” (that is, the peace offering; v.11). The fullness, of the vision (v. 10) was greater than anything yet vouchsafed to them.
i.	But for Moses there was a yet more awe-inspiring experience, and in this he was accompanied by Joshua-Jesus, whilst Aaron was left behind.
j.	On this occasion, as in the Transfiguration of Jesus, “the cloud (the Shekinah Glory of the Lord) covered the mount.. . And God called out of the midst of the cloud . . . and Moses entered into the cloud” (v. 15,16,18).
k.	Moses was shown “the example and shadow of the heavenly things” (Heb.8 :5; Ex.25).
l.	When he re-joined the people, he came as the very embodiment of divine glory (Ex.34 :29).

In all this the anticipation of the principles of the New Covenant in Christ is easy to trace, but with differences.

The holiness of God and the sin of man still erect a barrier which is only to be removed by hearing the Word of God and believing it. Note that Israel promised obedience, but the word of Jesus is: “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom He hath sent” (Jn.6:29).

The sacrifice necessary for ratification of the Covenant is the blood of Christ: “Where a covenant is, there must also of necessity be the death of the covenant sacrifice. For a covenant is of force over the dead (the offering): otherwise it is of no strength at all while that covenant-offering still lives” (Heb.9 .-16,17).

But whereas Israel had the blood of the offering sprinkled upon them, in the New Covenant the New Israel symbolically partake of the blood: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. . . This is my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Drink ye all of it” (Jn.6 :53; Mt.26: 28,27). “I will put my la w in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts” (Jer.31 :33).

By virtue of this Covenant Sacrifice there is fellowship with the God of Israel, a fellowship to be more fully realised when Jesus eats and drinks with his redeemed in his kingdom (Lk. 22:16,18).

The Transfiguration of Jesus was the demonstration and guarantee that all this will be accomplished in him. Moses spoke to Jesus of “the Exodus (Lk.9 :31 Gk.) which he should accomplish at Jerusalem”-a plain declaration that Israel was still in Egypt, and did not know it. In due time Jesus will come again “in the glory of his Father” to constitute those he has redeemed out of bondage “a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” when “the glory of the lord fills the Tabernacle.”

The words of Jesus at the Last Supper- “this is the blood of the New Covenant”-also make a firm link with Jeremiah 31. There note specially:

a.	Verse 32: “Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers . . . which my covenant they brake” (symbolized at the outset by Moses’ breaking of the tables of stone). This New Covenant is to stand, whereas the sheer waywardness of Israel set aside the other.
b.	Verse 33: “I will put my law in their inward parts (into their minds; Heb.8 :10; and cp. Ps.51 :6), and write it in their hearts.” But this is precisely what was already prophesied concerning Christ (Ps.40 :8). So the New Covenant is to make men Christ-like. Hence the difference, already mentioned, between being sprinkled with the blood of the covenant and actually drinking it. Cp. Hebrews 9 :14: “How much more shall the blood of Christ . . . purge your conscience from dead works…”
c.	“Write it in their hearts.” Paul combines these words with Ezekiel 11 :19,20 in another pointed contrast with the Old Covenant (2 Cor.3 :3) which could not achieve this; Dt.5 :28,29and 29:4.
d.	In Hebrews 8 :11, where Jeremiah 31 :34 LXX is quoted, the Greek makes a delightful distinction between the verbs: “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour . . . saying, “Get to know, learn about, the Lord: for they shall all know me familarly, or by instinct, from the least of them unto the greatest of them.” And the order of words in the last phrase is perhaps intended to suggest that the first qualification for knowing God is humility: the least will learn first.
e.	“For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (contrast Ps.103 :14)-“the new covenant for remission of sins” (Mt.26 :28). There is sharp contrast here with the Old Covenant which offered material blessing when a man showed himself obedient. The New Covenant begins with free unmerited forgiveness.
f.	Under the law sin could only be forgiven when associated with the bringing of a sin-offering. Thus: “my blood of the new covenant for the remission of sins” was a clear declaration beforehand that Jesus would die such a death.

Also, the word “covenant” (Jer.31 :32) would set every pious Jewish reader reminding himself that there is no covenant without a covenant-sacrifice (Heb.9 :16), yet Jeremiah specified no such sacrifice. In the upper room Jesus showed how the omission is made good: “This is my blood of the new covenant…”