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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew’s account of the trial of Jesus has a detail of special significance: “Then Judas. . . when he sow that he was condemned, repented himself. ..” This word “saw” must surely mean that Judas was present at the trial, and saw with his own eyes all that took place. It is true that a secondary meaning is possible: that he gathered or understood that Jesus was condemned. But even this would require that Judas had spent those hours in close proximity to the Council. The word “then” supports this conclusion.

Either way, this seems to be psychologically all wrong. The natural inclination of such a traitor would be to remove himself as far as possible from the scene of his evil work as soon as the money had been paid over. The explanation which best harmonizes with the other details of the trial is that the thirty pieces of silver were only a token payment. The rest of the bribe, the main part of it, was to be for Judas’s help in the role of chief witness for the prosecution. The reason why the Jewish leaders found their case against Jesus so inadequate, and liable to collapse altogether, is best explained by the traitor’s last-minute refusal to go through with this part of the deal.

If this hypothesis is correct—and it explains so much that is otherwise rather odd about the trial-then the interesting problem arises: What brought about this change in Judas? And to this the best answer available appears to be that the witness Jesus gave about himself at the trial (Mt. 26: 61,64) brought a sudden flood of understanding into the mind of Judas, so that all at once he realised that Jesus as the sanctuary of God wouldbe “destroyed” and “raised again”, that he would sit as God’s right hand, and that he would come again in judgment. Such a realisation suddenly illuminating his mind must have brought into the soul of this wretched man a misery past description.

The reaction described in the gospel would be inevitable: “He repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver.” It is idle to say, as has been so often said, that this was unrepentant remorse (if there be such a thing). Pharaoh, Saul and Ahab were genuinely sorry for their misdeeds (Ex.9 :27; 1 Sam.15 :24; 1 Kgs.21 :27); and the word used of Judas, though not the normal New Testament word for repentance, is certainly used with the same meaning (e.g. in Mt. 21: 29,32; 2 Cor. 7:8; Heb 7:21).

Repentance

Then where lay the vital difference between Judas and Peter, for the sin of the latter (Mt. 26; 69-74) was surely not appreciably worse than that of his fellow-disciple? The answer lies in their different estimate of Jesus. Peter knew his lord well enough to realise that, if only he were in his presence again, the sin would be forgiven. But Judas, believing more definitely than Peter did at that time that Jesus would rise again, could not bear the thought of meeting his Master again. “Mine iniquity is greater than can be forgiven” (Gen. 4: 13 RVm). Grievously underestimating the grace of Christ, as also did the unworthy servant in the parable (Mt. 25; 24), he went away and destroyed himself.

But first he made his confession: “I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.” It was a confession carrying with it the clear implication that the claims made by Jesus during his ministry and just now at his trial were true. He was the Messiah. And though slain he would rise again and ascend to heaven. And in due time he would come again “on the clouds of heaven.” Poor wretched creature, that this belated confession of faith did not also include faith enough to believe that even this great sin of his might be forgiven by so gracious a Lord!

Suicide

His desperation and misery found little comfort from the priests to whom he now returned: “What is that to us? See thou to that.” Even these hard selfish worldly men would scarcely have been so unconsoling to one who had been their close associate in evil, unless they had felt strong resentment against him. The hypothesis advanced earlier, that Judas was to have been chief witness for the prosecution but at the last minute let them down, harmonizes with this situation perfectly.

The rough words: “See thou to that,” may be just a callous shrugging off of the traitor’s desperation. But, literally translated, the tense is a future: “Thou shalt see to that,” with the possible meaning: “If any trouble arises with the Roman authorities over this, we shall make surethatthe blame is pinned on you/’Such would certainly be a natural reaction if indeed Judas had let them down. But to this frantic man with his new realisation of the truth about Christ, their words: “You shall answer for it,” would sound worse than a death sentence, for to whom would he have to answer but to a “Son of man, coming in the clouds of heaven.”

Judas’s utterly distraught frame of mind comes out clearly in the remarkable incident which ensued: “He cast the pieces of silver down in the temple.” Literally the passage reads: “in the sanctuary”. This detail seems to imply that the chief priests, intercepted in the temple area on their way to Pilate at the castle of Antoia, retreated to the porch of the sanctuary itself in an attempt to escape from the unwelcome attentions of this frantic man whom they despised. But he followed them even there, and threw the blood money after them. The picture of those unclean coins rolling across the floor of the holy place is a fascinating one, as also is that of august dignified rulers scrambling here and there to gather up the evidence of their own complicity.

Meantime Judas left them abruptly and rushed away (Mt. “he cleared out”-LXX usage: “he fled”), and hanged himself. The grim scene had been enacted a thousand years before in prototype (2 Sam. 17:23). And some years later Pilate also committed suicide (so saysEusebius).

Later on, the ghastly details about Judas were rehearsed by Peter (Acts 1 :18). But it is possible to read Peter’s story differently: “And becoming downcast (with remorse), he burst into the midst (of the chief priests), and poured forth (s.w. Jn. 2 :15) all his feelings.” Read in this way the two narratives match each other.

The field “purchased with the reward of iniquity” was the potter’s field which has been identified as a bed of clay at the south-east corner of the valley of Hinnom (note Jer. 19:1,2).Here at the end of thecity remote from Golgotha this poor wretch came to his untimely end, and presumably his grisly remains would ultimately be slung out into Gehenna.

Aceldama

Later on, when the excitement of that Passover had died down somewhat, the chief priests took counsel what should be done with the thirty pieces of silver. This money had probably been diverted from the temple treasury, for if it had come out of their own purses they would have had few scruples about pocketing it again. But now it would not be lawful to put this tarnished silver into the treasury. The conscience which they evinced was doubtless genuine, for human nature is capable of strange quirks. These men thought nothing of a gross distortion of justice in order to rid themselves of a troublesome adversary, yet over details such as this (and also their refusal to enter Pilate’s judgement hall on Passover Day, and also having a corpse on a cross on the ensuing sabbath John 18: 28 and 19: 31) they could hardly be too punctilious. Yet there was no sign of conscience when they called the money ‘the price of blood’. Amongst themselves they spoke without any dissimulation, but instead with a crude brutal frankness.

So, it was some time later, after the suicide of Judas, when the potter’s field again came into the real estate market at a give-away price, that they decided to buy it with the carefully hoarded thirty pieces of silver—a useful piece of land “to bury strangers in”.

This burying place, bought (in effect) by Jesus, thus provided a place where strangers-Gentiles!—might sleep and rise again in God’s Holy City. How different from the use to which Judas had put it! “Hath not the Potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” The Gentiles who died in Jerusalem would mostly be those believing in the God of Israel. In the course of the next forty years these must have included a big proportion of Gentile Christians. And they sleep in ground bought by the death of Jesus and which by rights belongs to him. It was only princes of the house of Judah who were buried inside the walls of Jerusalem (so 2 Chr. 24:16 seems to imply).

Nor were these things done in a corner, for by common consent that spot changed its name. It was no more “the potter’s field”, but instead, Aceldama, a title which means both “field of blood” (Judas’s suicide) and “the field of silence”. By those who later knew the place only as a cemetery the latter would be the accepted meaning. But disciples of Jesus would always translate that name as “the field of blood”, because purchased with blood money.

Zechariah or Jeremiah?

There is still one problem regarding the death of Judas to be considered. Matthew 27: 9 reads: “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom they priced away from the children of Israel; and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.”

But these words are not to be found in Jeremiah. Instead they occur in Zechariah 11:12, 13. Thus is created one of the best-known problems of the New Testament text. Widely varying explanations have been advanced:

1. That Matthew originally wrote “Zechariah” and that the ascription of this quotation to Jeremiah is a scribal error. This is a prime example of “if the facts don’t fit the theory, so much the worse for the facts;” for out of the mass of manuscripts only two or three (and they of little repute) read “Zechariah”.
2. Simple lapse of memory on Matthew’s part. This, of course, involves the deplorable assumption either that the Holy Spirit had no part in the composition of the gospels, or — almost, if not quite as bad — that the Holy Spirit’s guidance of Matthew did not cover mere accuracy as to facts. It also involves another assumption, vetoed by all the rest of this gospel, that Matthew was, extraordinarily careless in the assembling of his material.
3. Another explanation puts emphasis on the word “spoken.” The suggestion is that Matthew knew that, although the passage about the thirty pieces of silver was included in a written prophecy of Zechariah, it was originally spoken by Jeremiah. The double difficulty here is the complete lack of supporting evidence and the fact that Zechariah 11: 12,13 appears to “belong” to the prophecy where it is found. Also, the same phrase comes in verse 35 with reference to a prophecy which was certainly written.
4. A different approach suggests that Matthew 27: 9,10 is really a combination of Zechariah 11 with allusion to Jeremiah’s purchase of a field for money (Jer.32 :7-10), and that Jeremiah’s name is appended to the quotation because the key word “field” comes in Jeremiah 32 and not in Zechariah 11. But it has to be noted that Jeremiah’s field was in Anathoth, and cost him seventeen shekels of silver, not thirty.
5. Discussing this problem, Sir Isaac Newton decided that Matthew knew what he was about and that therefore Zechariah 11 was written by Jeremiah. This conclusion is most likely to be the correct one. A fair amount of evidence exists for believing that Zechariah 9-14 is by a different author from ch.1-8, For instance, more than thirty similarities of language and idea can be traced between i§ Jeremiah’s prophecies and the second half of what is known today as “Zechariah”, Also, in Zechariah 9-14 there are passages which are extremely difficult to associate with the time of the return from Babylon, but which become much more intelligible when read against the background of the evil days in which Jeremiah lived. So perhaps there is something to be said for the correctness of Matthew’s record after all.

Notes: Mt. 27:3-10

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

Pilate bribed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pilate’s character

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pilate’s dramatic change

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

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

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

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

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

Evasion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improvised charges

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

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

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

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

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

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

King of the Jews?

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

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

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

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

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

The Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes: Mk. 15:1-5

Lk.23:1-12

Jn.18:28-38

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

Apart from this remarkable example of the Lord Jesus in prayer, almost nothing is known of his fellowship with the Father. But how this unique chapter in the gospels makes good all other omissions!

The phrase: “he lifted up his eyes to heaven,” reads most naturally if this prayer were spoken out of doors, whilst Jesus and his disciples were on their way to Gethsemane. Perhaps en route there they spent a short while in the temple court. But such a supposition has to be reconciled with: “Your house is left unto you desolate” (Mt. 23:38).

It seems highly probable that John 17 gives the actual words spoken by Jesus. The later quotation of verse 12 (in 18 :9) strongly supports this: “that the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake. Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.” The words are quoted verbatim.

The prayer falls into three sections. In the first the Lord prays briefly for himself and for fulfilment of God’s Purpose through himself. The rest of the prayer is for his disciples and then for those who are brought to faith in him through their labours. But essentially the prayer is on behalf of his apostles.

It is here that the outworking of the theme of John’s gospel comes to its climax: “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (1 :17). To read John 17without an awareness of its many points of contact with the work of Moses is to miss one of its main intentions. For convenience’ sake a list of these is tabulated here:

It is to be noted that appropriately, the allusions are mostly to the sublimest experiences of Moses—his vision of the glory of the Lord in Sinai, his ministering of the Law, and his intercession for the people in their sin.

There is marked contrast between the Lord lifting up his eyes to heaven in this prayer and the penitent publican in the parable who “would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven” as he sought forgiveness (Lk. 18 :13). It is a contrast not difficult to understand. But a short while later, in Gethsemane, when Jesus felt borne down by the burden of sin and its penalties now laid upon him, “he fell on his face and prayed” (Mt.26:39).

“Father, the hour is come.” It is the Lord’s characteristic way of referring to a time of outstanding action and vital development (Jn. 2:4; 4:21,23; 5:25,28; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23,37; 16:32; 19:27). The successful outcome of the Purpose of God now depended on the consecrated will of His only Son. So he prayed for help in the ordeal and victory in his tribulation.

The main point of his first petition comes out more clearly if it is rearranged: “Glorify thy Son, in order that, as thou hast given him authority over all flesh he might give to them whatsoever thou hast given him (that is, eternal life), even so may the Son glorify thee.” Far from pitying himself because of the burden of responsibility and suffering now laid upon him, Jesus was concerned mostly for a happy outcome to this divine work, that “for God’s pleasure” the New Creation might come into being (Rev.4:11).

It is difficult to believe that at this moment Jesus was not leaning once again (see Study 159) on the wonderful Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 49 : “Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified … Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength … a light to the Gentiles … my salvation unto the ends of the earth” (49 :3,5,6). There are passages in the rest of the New Testament which take up this theme with great power and inspiration (e.g. Eph.l :20,23; Ph.2 :7-11; Rev.5 :8-14).

Those with difficulties in personal prayer will note one thing here with re-assurance. Even though this fruitful result of the work and suffering of Christ was already foretold in prophecies which must be fulfilled, and had already been promised to Jesus personally—’I have glorified my Name and I will glorify it again” (Jn.12 :28)—Jesus prayed nevertheless for full achievement of the Father’s intention through himself. It is the old, old paradox of the infallibility of divine purpose and the frailty of human nature, even when that human nature is the Son of God. Inspired prophecy had also said: “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession” (Ps.2:8). So Jesus asked, and was to ask again, and was not refused.

“Authority over all flesh” is an unusual phrase. It emphasized a creation in desperate need of redemption. “All flesh”, as grass, had the glory of the lord revealed to it in Jesus. Yet through him eternal life was to come only to “those whom God had given him’—another mysterious paradox—or a different facet of the same. Some find satisfaction in evolving obscure explanations which are supposed to reconcile these seeming differences, at least to their own satisfaction. But it is probably more wholesome, and certainly more in tune with the life of faith to believe implicitly all these enunciations of variegated divine truth, whether they are seen to be reconciled or not.

Jesus defined the gift of eternal life. It is hardly the definition which would first come to the mind of a twentieth-century disciple whose sights are set on power over the nations, the rooting out of wickedness, and the enjoyment of comfort and ease in a springcleaned world. Instead: “that they might know thee the only true God, and him whom thou hast sent, even Jesus Christ.”

Here some try to insist, with over-scrupulosity, on the reading: “in order that they might know thee …” In that case, the main intent behind human redemption is that men be brought into fellowship with the Father and the Son. This is a not unworthy meaning of a sublime passage.

But in a number of places John’s gospel uses this Greek particle [hind] to indicate apposition rather than a purpose or consequence (e.g. 3 :16; 4:34; 13:1); so the meaning suggested by the common version is equally possible; and the word for “know” (= learn about, get to know, perceive) lends support to this. The idiom which speaks of “eternal life” as a part of present experience in Christ is not uncommon in this gospel (e.g. 3 :36; 5 :24; 6 :47,54; 10 :28; 1 Jn.5 :11,13). Learning to know the Father and the Son is the quintessence of life in Christ, a widening experience leading to a fulness of personal knowledge in the age to come. There is little justification for the rather woolly controversy which has now and then centred on this phrase: “eternal life”.

The expression: “the true God” somewhat remarkably makes contrast not with the false gods of men’s devising but with the limited and often typical revelation of Jehovah in Old Testament times. Through His Son men were able to know intimately, if they chose, an expression of God’s own personality and purpose. In the wondrous demonstration of this ineffable truth Jesus “glorified the Father on the earth.” In this sense he “finished the work given him to do.”

It has often been commented that verse 3 gives the first occurrence of the name “Jesus Christ”-apart from the heading of Matthew’s and Mark’s gospels. There is some doubt whether it was actually used by Jesus or whether, as the shape of the Greek sentence may suggest, it is a parenthesis inserted by John himself: “the only true God, and him whom thou didst send (even Jesus Christ).” Yet who would wish to say that this first use of the now familiar name is in any way out of place here? Because of its extended intercession for the disciples this is the Lord’s high-priestly prayer. The name Jesus Christ is an appropriate reminder that he was anointed not only to be King of Israel but also as “an high priest over the house of God” (Heb.10 :21).

It would be a mistake to conclude, because the Lord spoke of a “finished work”, that thenceforth there was nothing left for him to do. He had glorified the Father in countless gracious works (2 :11; 11 :4,40; 5 :36; 9 :4), he had taught with unflagging effort and earnestness the message of the kingdom and the responsibilities of its citizenship (7 :16,18; 4 :34). All this was now rounded off with the matchless appeal of the past few days. There still lay before him his self-denial and suffering, until at last he was to say, with head uplifted: “It is finished” (19 :30). His vital work as mediator still continues (16 :7,23; 14 :13,14; 15 :7,16). And even when he comes again there will be another great work to accomplish 1Cor.15:25,28.

It was surely for the benefit of his redeemed that the Lord now repeated his earlier petition (v.l): “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” Words such as these have been used as a sheet-anchor by Trinitarians and others who make the personal pre-existence of Jesus a dogma of high importance.

Once again, it is failure to recognize the idiom of the Bible, and especially of the Johannine writings, which has created the misconception. Jesus is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev.13 :8), he is “the root of David” (Rev.22 :16), he is the source of Abraham’s unquenchable joy (Jn.8 :58,56), because from the earliest days his great redeeming work was the very hinge and pivot of every development in the purpose of God. Long before the foundation of the Jewish kosmos, from the time of Abraham, when Sarah “received strength for the founding of seed” (Heb.ll :11), the intensifying teleology of creation converged on Christ. And to this minute nothing has meaning apart from him.

Notes: Jn. 17:1-5

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

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

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

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

The Old Testament Vine

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

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

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

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

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

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

“He taketh away”

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

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

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

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

“Cast forth”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Abide in my love”

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

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

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

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

Friends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes: Jn. 15:1-17